Ordinary Meeting of Council
TO BE HELD ON Tuesday, 9 December 2014 AT 7.00pm
Level 3 Council Chambers
Agenda
** ** ** ** ** **
BOOK 1
NOTE: For Full Details, See Council’s Website –
www.kmc.nsw.gov.au under the link to business papers
APOLOGIEs
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Confirmation of Reports to be Considered in Closed Meeting
NOTE:
That in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Local Government Act 1993, all officers’ reports be released to the press and public, with the exception of confidential attachments to the following General Business reports and the following Confidential Reports and their respective attachments:
GB.4 Conduct of the 2016 NSW Local Government Elections
Attachment A2: Confidential Pricing Schedule - NSW Electoral Commission
Attachment A3: Confidential Pricing Schedule - Australian Election Company
Attachment A4: Pricing Comparison between the NSW Electoral Commission and the Australian Election Company
GB.11 Tender No. RFT 22/2014 - Lindfield Community Hub - Tender for Consultants to prepare illustrative development options and master plan
Attachment A1: T22/2014 - Tender Evaluation Report
Attachment A2: T22/2014 - Tender Evaluation Plan
GB.14 Renewal of Sub-lease for HART - 451 Mona Vale Road St Ives
Attachment A2: Market Valuation Report for HART site by BEM Property Consultants
Attachment A3: Heads of Agreement for sublease of HART site
C.1 Tender 06/2014 - Provision of Legal Services - Panel
C.2 Acquisition of Land Gordon – Hardship Application
Address the Council
NOTE: Persons who address the Council should be aware that their address will be tape recorded.
Documents Circulated to Councillors
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs
Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 13
File: S02131
Meeting held 11 November 2014
Minute No 374
Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 16
File: S02131
Meeting held 25 November 2014
Minutes numbered 382 to 411
minutes from the Mayor
Petitions
Recommendations from Committee
RC.1 Minutes of Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee 56
File: CY00022/6
Meeting held 20 November 2014
Minutes numbered KTC10 to KTC12.
GENERAL BUSINESS
i. The Mayor to invite Councillors to nominate any item(s) on the Agenda that they wish to have a site inspection.
ii. The Mayor to invite Councillors to nominate any item(s) on the Agenda that they wish to adopt in accordance with the officer’s recommendation allowing for minor changes without debate.
GB.1 Code of Conduct - Complaint Statistics 61
File: S08447
To report statistics in relation to complaints as required by the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW for the twelve months to the end of September 2014.
Recommendation:
That the contents of this report be received and noted, and that the statistics contained in this report be provided to the Division of Local Government in accordance with clause 12.2 of the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW – March 2013.
GB.2 Internal Audit - Shared Service 66
File: CY00458/2
To consider joining the Internal Audit Shared Services program of North Shore Councils.
Recommendation:
That, subject to the endorsement of the Audit and Risk Committee, Council join the Internal Audit Shared Service of North Shore Councils and delegate to the General Manager the authority to negotiate and execute an agreement for same.
GB.3 Tulkiyan Heritage House - Feasibility Study 70
File: S08172/4
To provide Councillors with the feasibility study for Tulkiyan Heritage House titled In from the margins: embedding Tulkiyan into Ku-ring-gai’s cultural life, undertaken by Sue Boaden, Cultural Planner.
Recommendation:
That Council receive and note In from the margins: embedding Tulkiyan into Ku-ring-gai’s cultural life – a feasibility study for Tulkiyan, that Council investigate outsourced management options with appropriate cultural institutions, and that an independent market evaluation be obtained for the property.
GB.4 Conduct of the 2016 NSW Local Government Elections 222
File: S09749
For Council to determine who will be conducting the 2016 Local Government elections.
Recommendation:
That Ku-ring-gai Council (“the Council”) resolves:
Pursuant to s.296(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) (“the Act”) and that an election arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all elections of the Council and pursuant to s.296(2) and (3) of the Act, as applied and modified by s.18, and that a Council poll arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all Council polls of the Council and pursuant to s.296(2) and (3) of the Act, as applied and modified by s.18, and that a constitutional referendum arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all constitutional referenda of the Council.
GB.5 Christmas/New Year Recess Delegations 2014/2015 236
File: CY00259/6
To grant appropriate Delegations during the Christmas/New Year recess period for 2014/2015.
Recommendation:
The appropriate Delegations of Authority be granted to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and the General Manager for the Christmas/New Year recess period for 2014/2015.
GB.6 Australian Local Government Women's Association NSW 240
File: S03779/2
To advise Councillors of the Australian Local Government Women’s Association (NSW) Annual Conference to be held in Wollongong between 30 April and 2 May 2015.
Recommendation:
That any Councillors interested in attending the Australian Local Government Women’s Association (NSW) Annual Conference in Wollongong between 30 April and 2 May 2015 advise the General Manager by 12 noon Friday, 19 December 2014.
GB.7 Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy - 2014 to 2021 245
File: S10045
To advise Council of the Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy 2014-2021.
Recommendation:
That Council adopt in principle the Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy 2014–2021 and that the Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy be integrated into Council’s Delivery Program and Operational Plan for 2015/16.
GB.8 Draft Policy For Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping 326
File: S02294
To adopt the draft Policy for Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping to be carried out in public places for the purpose of law enforcement associated with illegal dumping.
Recommendation:
That Council adopt the draft Policy for Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping and that the draft policy be placed on public exhibition for 28 days to enable community comment and be reported back to Council at the end of the exhibition period.
GB.9 Networks NSW Public Street Lighting Tender Consultation 361
File: FY00555/3
To advise Council of the submission to Networks NSW by Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC’s) Street Lighting Improvement Program (SLI).
Recommendation:
To receive and note the report regarding Networks NSW Street Lighting Tender and to send a letter to Networks NSW in support for the SSROC Street Lighting Improvement Program submission of 11 November 2014.
GB.10 Draft Ku-ring-gai Principal Development Control Plan - Consideration of Submissions 367
File: S09005
To have Council consider amendments made to the draft Ku-ring-gai Principal Development Control Plan.
Recommendation:
That Council adopt the Ku-ring-gai Principal Development Control Plan.
GB.11 Tender No. RFT 22/2014 - Lindfield Community Hub - Tender for Consultants to prepare illustrative development options and master plan 403
File: S10306
To consider the tenders received for the Lindfield Community Hub Request for Tender (RFT) no.T22/2014 for provision of design and master planning consultancy services, and appoint a preferred tenderer to develop 4 illustrative development options for public exhibition then complete the final master plan.
Recommendation:
In accordance with Section 55 of the Local Government Act and Tender Regulations, it is recommended Council accept the tender submitted by tenderer ‘D’ as identified in the Confidential Attachment A1 - Tender Evaluation Report.
GB.12 Management Options for Ku-ring-gai Flying-Fox Reserve 409
File: CY00416/2
To outline the findings from further investigations into management options aimed at nudging or dispersing flying-foxes from properties adjacent to the Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve (KFFR) and to provide management recommendations for Council’s consideration and endorsement.
Recommendation:
That Council endorses and / or funds the following management options: (1) continuing to improve roost habitat in the KFFR core, away from residential properties; (2) private property tree removal; and (3) either selective roost tree removal / pruning within 10 metres of a dwelling wall, pool, deck or other living space in the most affected areas (Taylor and Waugoola Streets) or selective roost tree removal / pruning within 10 metres from the KFFR boundary in the most affected areas (Taylor and Waugoola Streets).
GB.13 Turramurra Community Hub - Preferred Design Option 457
File: S09969
To present to Council a preferred design option for the Turramurra Community Hub for public exhibition.
Recommendation:
That Council adopt Design Option 2CA for the purposes of public exhibition and seeking community comments.
GB.14 Renewal of Sub-lease for HART - 451 Mona Vale Road St Ives 473
File: S07254
To recommend to Council the grant of a five (5) year sub-lease to Honda Australia Motorcycle and Power Equipment Ltd for the continued occupation of the Honda Australia Roadcraft Training site (HART) at 451 Mona Vale Road St Ives.
Recommendation:
That a new five (5) year sub-lease be granted to Honda Australia Motorcycles and Power Equipment Pty Ltd on the terms and conditions contained in the report.
GB.15 Ku-ring-gai
Heritage Reference Committee - Minutes of Meeting held
8 September 2014 480
File: CY00413/2
Council to consider the minutes of the Heritage Reference Committee (HRC) meeting held on 8 September 2014.
Recommendation:
That Council receive and note the Heritage Reference Committee meeting minutes from 8 September 2014.
GB.16 Amendments to Lindfield Library Site Plan of Management - for Adoption 486
File: S06604/2
Post-public exhibition report to amend the Lindfield Library Site Plan of Management to expressly authorise the private residential leasing of the former Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units.
Recommendation:
That Council amend the Lindfield Library Site Plan of Management to expressly authorise the leasing of the former Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units for private residential purposes.
Extra Reports Circulated to Meeting
Motions of which due Notice has been given
NM.1 Fit for the Future Program 524
File: S09638
Notice of Rescission from Councillors Malicki, Berlioz and Pettett dated 27 November 2014
We move rescission of Part B of Minute 374 from Council’s meeting of 11 November 2014, namely:
“B. Notwithstanding A above, that Council proactively begin discussions with surrounding Councils about Merger proposals, engaging facilitators and other consultants as necessary to enable a report to be brought back to Council in February 2015 with possible configuration options before proceeding to the next step in the Merger proposal process and preparing a detailed business case for consultation with the community.”
NM.2 Pinch Points along the Pacific Highway in Ku-ring-gai 537
File: TM2/06
Notice of Motion from Councillor Fornari-Orsmond dated 1 December 2014
During my attendance at the recent Support Turramurra community meeting, many residents raised questions about traffic conditions in Ku-ring-gai, with particularly strong concerns expressed about the situation at Turramurra where the Pacific Highway crosses the North Shore railway line. Attached is an article from the North Shore Times about traffic issues on the Pacific Highway and photographs showing issues trucks trying to merge near Ray Street, Turramurra.
To date the Roads and Maritime Services has not undertaken any improvements on pinch points on the Pacific Highway in Ku-ring-gai apart from some minor improvements at the intersection with Livingstone Avenue, Pymble.
Council has written to the Local Member, Mr Barry O’Farrell MP, seeking feedback on what plans there are to widen the Pacific Highway Bridge over the North Shore railway line at Turramurra and Pymble. At this stage no response has been received. Traffic volumes on Pacific Highway between Wahroonga and Pymble will increase substantially over the next 20-30 years, so the situation is certain to deteriorate further.
As a result, I recommend that the Mayor write to The Premier, Mr Mike Baird MP, and the Local Member for Ku-ring-gai, Mr Barry O’Farrell MP, and the Minister for Transport requesting details from Transport for NSW and the Roads and Maritime Services on the current status of plans being developed to improve pinch points in Ku-ring-gai, particularly through Turramurra, Pymble and Wahroonga/Warrawee.
I therefore move:
“That the Mayor write to The Premier, Mr Mike Baird MP, and the Local Member for Ku-ring-gai, Mr Barry O’Farrell MP, and the Minister for Transport requesting details from Transport for NSW and the Roads and Maritime Services on the current status of plans being developed to improve pinch points in Ku-ring-gai, particularly through Turramurra, Pymble and Wahroonga/Warrawee.”
NM.3 Basketball Half Court at Regimental Park Killara 538
File: S02428
Notice of Motion from Councillor Szatow dated 27 November 2014
In July this year, Council received a letter from an 11 year old resident of an apartment block in Lorne Avenue Killara requesting that Council consider installing a basketball half court facility at Regimental Park Killara for use for his age group in particular, to “shoot baskets” after school.
The 10 – 15 year age group is well represented in the apartment blocks which have burgeoned in recent years in Killara between the railway line and the highway and they do not provide outdoor play space. The two playgrounds in walking distance in Selkirk Park and Greengate Park have play equipment designed to cater for the early childhood years.
The nearest public outdoor basketball facilities are at Allan Small Park in Saiala Road East Killara, Queen Elizabeth Reserve in Bradfield Road West Lindfield, and Roseville Park in Clanville Road Roseville. None of these facilities is within walking distance of Regimental Park.
Council’s 2004-2009 Development Contributions Plan listed Regimental Park for recreational improvements. This was part of the Southern Area embellishment works which has now been subsumed into to 2010 Contributions Plan – Parks & Sporting Facilities South.
I am advised that the supply and installation of a single basketball post, backboard and ring at on one end of one of the tennis courts at Regimental Park, along with half court line-marking, would cost in the range of $4000-$7000, depending on ground conditions and the size of the footing required.
I am further advised that this proposed new basketball half court facility at Regimental Park can be funded from Council’s Section 94 reserve, as the Contributions Plan lists Regimental Park for funding, being a park surrounded by significant new medium density residential development.
I move that:
“Council allocate up to $7000 from the Section 94 Reserve (2010 Contributions Plan – Parks and Sporting Facilities South) in the 2015 first quarter budget review for the immediate installation of a basketball half court at Regimental Park, Killara.”
NM.4 South Turramurra Neighbourhood Centre 539
File: S03009
Notice of Motion from Councillors Malicki and Pettett dated 1 December 2014
The Economic and Social Development Advisory Committee hosted a presentation from Bruce Perry on behalf of the Kissing Point Progress Association over a year ago. This presentation detailed a proposal to revitalise the South Turramurra Neighbourhood Shopping Centre on Kissing Point Road. It had been based on extensive consultation with local residents, with in excess of 600 survey responses on a range of issues backing up the presentation and its proposal, and there was a suggestion that the project could be funded from part of the sale of B2 Corridor Lands.
So far this matter has not been formally resolved by Council.
Councillors
will also be aware of the auction held in South Turramurra on Saturday,
19 November. As it is possible that the sale of the entire subdivision will
exceed the requirements to complete funding for the Ku-ring-gai Aquatic and
Recreation Centre, it would be appropriate to put any excess funds back into
the community where they were generated to help serve the needs of existing and
new residents. There is a precedent for using the funds in such a way in the Lindfield
Town Centre’s recent land sales, and local residents have supported the use of
the money from the land sale for the South Turramurra and Turramurra Town
Centre areas.
Therefore we move:
“1. That Council give formal consideration to ways to progress the revitalisation of the South Turramurra Neighbourhood Shopping centre, and that a report be brought back to a meeting early in 2015 outlining options for upgrading this centre.
2. That consideration be given to using excess funds, if any, from the B2 Lands Sale to finance the upgrade and revitalisation.”
NM.5 Ku-ring-gai Amateur Swimming Club use of Facilities 540
File: S10142
Notice of Motion from Councillor Malicki dated 1 December 2014
The Ku-ring-gai Fitness and Aquatic Centre has now reopened and is proving to be highly successful, with the Ku-ring-gai Amateur Swimming Club as its largest user group. The Swim Club bring 150 members and their families to the pool. This represents considerable income for the YMCA and should be a catalyst for good communication and co-operation.
Since the opening a number of issues have arisen in the conditions of usage for the Swim Club, and as owners of the complex Council should endeavor to ensure that these matters are resolved amicably as soon as possible.
Some are matters for Council's attention which should be resolved prior to Christmas if possible. Most issues are in the hands of the YMCA whose successful tender was in part based on a policy of working closely with the local community.
Therefore I move:
“That Council requests that the YMCA hold a meeting or meetings with Committee members from the KASC prior to the start of the 2015 Swim Season, mediated if necessary, in order to resolve several outstanding issues, including most significantly the banning of certain fund raising activities and the lanes available to the Club. If necessary it would be appropriate for the Memorandum of Understanding to be amended to show any changes to activities. Matters for consideration should include but not be limited to the following:
1. The Club has traditionally fundraised mainly through the weekly sale of sausage sandwiches for breakfast to its members. They have raised on average $300 per week which is essential to help cover the costs of trophies and other expenses. The YMCA are not allowing this activity, stating that it is contrary to their policy of not selling what they call “unhealthy” food even though the YMCA itself sells certain ice creams and some sweets.
2. There is still no water installed in the clubroom which necessitates Club Officials carrying jugs or urns of water to the clubroom, a potentially unsafe situation.
3. An elevated Judges stand which was in operation for the past 12 years has been stored off site and not returned to the Club. They would like permission to use this stand.
4. The Club has access to 6 lanes of the pool until 9 am when their lanes are reduced to 4, despite doubling of the water space available at the complex. Thus far only a handful of members of the public use the other two outdoor lanes, and both indoor pools are available for use. Use of further lanes would speed up the race schedules.
5. Related to 3 above general Club members are not allowed to enter the complex until right on 7 am (officials are allowed in a few minutes earlier) yet their use of the pool starts at 7am. In practice races commence 15 minutes later than 7 am so the Club’s effective use of pool time is reduced.
6. YMCA has a specific business model for offering coaching services. The Swim Club has had a coach for the past 19 years who is not permitted to lease lanes at Council's facility. While she has been offered (and rejected) a coaching position the YMCA has not offered any flexibility to how coaching services are operated to allow for the existing Club coach to use the facility and manage her own coaching business. The current status is that KASC coach will not be able to coach from the facility, creating strain and hardship on club members having to travel to other pools for coaching.“
BUSINESS WITHOUT NOTICE – SUBJECT TO CLAUSE 241 OF GENERAL REGULATIONS
Questions Without Notice
Inspections Committee – SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS
Confidential Business to be dealt with in Closed Meeting
C.1 Tender 06/2014 - Provision of Legal Services - Panel
File: S10212
In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in section 10A(2)(d)(i), of the Act, and should be dealt with in a part of the meeting closed to the public.
Section 10A(2)(d) of the Act permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:
(i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or
(ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of Council, or
(iii) reveal a trade secret.
This matter is classified confidential under section 10A(2)(d)(i) because it deals with tenders. Tender details, should they be revealed, may result in commercial disadvantage to parties involved in the tender process. Some information provided to Council by tenderers is provided on the basis that Council will treat it as commercial in confidence.
It is not in the public interest to reveal details of these tenders or the assessment process. Tenderers have provided sensitive information about their operations in the confidence that their details will not be made public by Council. The practice of publication of sensitive information provided by tenderers could result in the withholding of such information by tenderers and reduction in the provision of information relevant to Council’s decision.
Report by General Manager dated 30 November 2014
C.2 Acquisition of Land Gordon – Hardship Application
File: S08130/5
In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in sections 10A(2)(a) 10A(2)(b) & 10A(2)(c), of the Act, and should be dealt with in a part of the meeting closed to the public.
Section 10A(2)(a) of the Act permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than Councillors).
Section 10A(2)(b) of the Act permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the personal hardship of any resident or ratepayer.
Section 10A(2)(c) of the Act permits the meeting to be closed to the public in respect of information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.
The matter is classified confidential because it deals with the proposed acquisition and/or disposal of property.
It is not in the public interest to release this information as it would prejudice Council’s ability to acquire and/or dispose of the property on appropriate terms and conditions.
Report by Manager Integrated Planning, Property and Assets and Director Strategy and Environment dated 17 November 2014
John McKee
General Manager
** ** ** ** ** **
MINUTES OF Ordinary Meeting of Council
HELD ON Tuesday, 25 November 2014
|
Present: |
The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson (Chairperson) (Roseville Ward) Councillors E Malicki & J Pettett (Comenarra Ward) Councillors D Citer & C Szatow (Gordon Ward) Councillors C Berlioz & D Ossip (St Ives Ward) Councillor D Armstrong (Roseville Ward) Councillors C Fornari-Orsmond & D McDonald (Wahroonga Ward) |
|
|
|
|
Staff Present: |
General Manager (John McKee) Director Corporate (David Marshall) Director Development & Regulation (Michael Miocic) Director Operations (Greg Piconi) Director Strategy & Environment (Andrew Watson) Director Community (Janice Bevan) Manager Corporate Communications (Virginia Leafe) Manager Records & Governance (Matt Ryan) Minutes Secretary (Christie Spry) |
The Meeting commenced at 7.00pm
The Mayor offered the Prayer
The Mayor adverted to the necessity for Councillors and staff to declare a Pecuniary Interest/Conflict of Interest in any item on the Business Paper.
No Interest was declared.
Address the Council
The following members of the public addressed Council on items not on the Agenda:
M Inglis – Marian Street Theatre
Standing Orders were suspended
so that the speaker be allowed to speak due to the
item not being listed in the Business Paper or on Council’s website
after a Motion moved by
Councillors
Malicki and Armstrong
was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
B Gill – Avon Road Development Proposal
DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED TO COUNCILLORS
The Mayor adverted to the documents circulated in the Councillors’ papers and advised that the following matters would be dealt with at the appropriate time during the meeting:
|
Late Items: |
Minutes of Extraordinary Meeting of Council held 18 November 2014
Refer MM.1 – Fit for the Future
Refer PT.1 - Lindfield Oval Clubhouse - Strong Objections to the Proposed Increase in Operating Hours and Occasional Parties at the Clubhouse - (Fifty-four [54] Signatures) |
|
Memorandums: |
Refer GB.11 - Draft Roseville Park Landscape Master Plan for Public Exhibition - Memorandum to Councillors Only from Director Strategy and Environment dated 18 November 2014 with attached A3 copies of Attachments 1, 2 and 3 of the report. |
|
Late Confidential Items: |
Refer C.3 - Lord and Ayres v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Ku-ring-gai Council – Land and Environment Court – Report by Corporate Lawyer dated 14 November 2014 with confidential attachment
|
|
Confidential Late Agenda Information: |
Refer C.3 - Lord and Ayres v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Ku-ring-gai Council – Land and Environment Court – Memorandum from Corporate Lawyer dated 25 November 2014 concerning additional and recent legal advice. |
|
385 |
File: S09638 Vide: MM.1
|
|
|
At the last meeting of the North Shore Councils Alliance, participants were requested to obtain feedback on the following issues relating to “Fit For The Future”.
I have attended a number of meetings in recent weeks with the General Manager. Accordingly, I propose the following responses be provided to the North Shore Councils Alliance. The responses are only relevant to Part C of Council’s resolved position, passed on 11 November 2014 as follows:
“That the Mayor and General Manager attend all relevant meetings with surrounding Councils to discuss potential options under the Fit For The Future program, including those called by NSROC or the proposed Northern Metropolitan Council of Mayors”.
(It should be noted that no decisions have been made as to what decision making delegations such an entity would have at this point in time. This will be considered separately by Council at a point in the future).
I further note that all Councils within the Alliance were asked to submit their Fit For The Future financial criteria by 20 November. I confirm that Council staff have complied with this request.
|
|
|
That Council endorses the following responses to be tabled at the next meeting of the North Shore Councils Alliance:
1. Ku-ring-gai’s preferred strategic direction is to examine models that more closely align to the Government’s position. In relation to developing a Joint Organisation (JO) model which is currently being explored by the North Shore Councils Alliance, this would necessitate a model with agreed formal decision making authority that would bind all member Councils.
2. Council defers any consideration of the appropriate time to go public until such point as the Council endorses a Joint Organisation model underpinned by relevant structure and functioning.
For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson, Councillors Citer, McDonald, Szatow, Fornari-Orsmond and Ossip
Against the Resolution: Councillors Berlioz, Pettett, Malicki and Armstrong
|
PETITIONS
|
392 |
Environmental Levy Small Grants Scheme - Round 16
File: S04553/10 Vide: GB.9
|
|
|
To seek Council’s endorsement to fund round sixteen (16) of the Environmental Levy’s Community Small Grants Scheme.
|
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Fornari-Orsmond)
That Council supports the recommendation of the small grants assessment panel to fund fifteen (15) projects under round sixteen (16) of the Environmental Levy Community Small Grants Scheme, totalling $50,152.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
|
393 |
Draft Roseville Park Landscape Master Plan for Public Exhibition
File: S09990 Vide: GB.11
|
|
|
To seek Council's approval to place the draft Roseville Park Landscape Master Plan on public exhibition.
|
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Armstrong)
A. That Council place the Draft Roseville Park Landscape Master Plan on public exhibition for 10 weeks, which includes the minimum period of 28 days with a further 14 days for public comment plus a further 28 days due to the Christmas holiday period.
B. That Council publicly advertise the public exhibition to the wider community and inform all individuals, community groups, sporting clubs and stakeholders who participated in the consultation process of the public exhibition of the Draft Landscape Master Plan.
C. That a report be brought back to Council following the period of public exhibition to consider submissions received during the exhibition period and formally adopt the Roseville Park Landscape Master Plan.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
|
394 |
Overt Electronic Surveillance Policy
File: S02294 Vide: GB.12
|
|
|
To adopt the Policy for Overt Electronic Surveillance in Public Places to assist in acting as a deterrent against illegal dumping, littering, vandalism and graffiti.
|
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Szatow)
That Council adopt the Policy for Overt Electronic Surveillance in Public Places.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
A motion was moved to suspend Standing Orders to deal with
Item NM.2 – Robert Pymble Park first before other items with speakers
which was moved by Councillors Citer and Ossip
For the Motion: The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson, Councillors Citer, Ossip and Fornari-Orsmond
Against the Motion: Councillors McDonald, Berlioz, Pettett, Szatow, Malicki and Armstrong
No decision was taken in respect of the above matter as
the Motion when put to the vote was LOST
Standing Orders were suspended to deal with
Items NM.1 Robert Pymble Park followed by NM.2 Robert Pymble Park first
before items for which there are speakers
after a Motion moved by Councillors Ossip and Citer
For the Motion: The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson, Councillors Citer, McDonald, Szatow, Fornari-Orsmond and Ossip
Against the Motion: Councillors Berlioz, Pettett, Malicki and Armstrong
Motions of which due Notice has been given
|
395 |
File: S03150 Vide: NM.1
|
|
|
The following member of the public addressed Council:
A Macaulay
|
|
|
Notice of Motion from Councillor Berlioz dated 17 November 2014
In the last few months there has been an increase in crime and antisocial behaviour in Robert Pymble Park and adjacent shops. This includes graffiti, vandalism and alleged assaults. This spike of anti-social activity has induced fear in the local residents and shopkeepers.
The criminal activities are being dealt with by the Police and Council is taking immediate action to implement strategies based on crime prevention including graffiti removal and improved lighting.
Alcohol and drugs are fuelling this anti-social behaviour and violence. To address this, it is important to establish an Alcohol Prohibited Area to prohibit the consumption and possession of alcohol and/or other activities. This can only be done by resolution of Council. Under the Local Government Act 1993 Notices which include prohibiting the taking in or consumption of alcohol is supported by severe fixed penalty for offenders. Fines may be imposed by Police and Council rangers for persons acting contrary to a notice erected by a Council.
In preparing a proposal to establish an alcohol-prohibited zone a Council must consult with the relevant Police Local Area Commander. It is moved that Council:
“1. Resolve to establish Robert Pymble Park as an Alcohol Prohibited Area between 7pm and 6am pursuant to the Local Government Act 1993.
2. Council officers in conjunction with the Crime Prevention Officer at Hornsby as soon as practical carry out a Community Safety Audit of the park and the Audit be reported back to Council.
3. Provide a report to Council in February 2015 on this matter.
4. In preparing this strategy, Council consult with the relevant state and federal members of Parliament.
5. Installs better lighting in Robert Pymble Park, specifically around the tennis courts, pavilion, picnic table, and play area.
6. Investigate the possibility of installing CCTV in the Pymble Town Centre and Robert Pymble Park.
7. Locks the tennis shelter, toilets and tennis courts at night.
8. That an update is provided to Councillors as soon as possible.”
|
|
|
A Procedural Motion was moved by Councillor McDonald asking the Mayor to seek a vote on the matter as there had been 2 speakers For and 2 Against and was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Ossip/Fornari-Orsmond)
That the above Notice of Motion, as amended, be adopted.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The above Resolution was CARRIED as an Amendment to the Original Motion. The Original Motion was:
(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Armstrong)
1. Resolve to establish Robert Pymble Park as an Alcohol Prohibited Area between 7pm and 6am pursuant to the Local Government Act 1993.
2. Council officers in conjunction with the Crime Prevention Officer at Hornsby as soon as practical carry out a Community Safety Audit of the park and the Audit be reported back to Council.
3. Provide a report to Council in February 2015 on progress of 1 and 2.
|
|
396 |
File: S03150 Vide: NM.2
|
|
|
Notice of Motion from Councillor Ossip dated 17 November 2014
In recent times, it has become increasingly apparent that there are significant law and order issues in the Pymble town centre.
I have been contacted by a concerned group of residents and shop owners, parents and retirees, who live and work in the vicinity of the Pymble shopping strip and Robert Pymble Park who would like to see a serious Pymble community problem dealt with decisively.
Robert Pymble Park, Corner of Alma Avenue and Park Crescent, has become the haunt of a street gang. Most Friday and Saturday nights, the Police have to be called to quell the fracas that develops, often fuelled by drugs and alcohol.
The gang systematically vandalises the park facilities, graffitis all surfaces and litters the lawns and tennis courts with shards of broken glass. They also graffiti the Grandview Avenue shop fronts as they depart. Some of the graffiti has been obscene and, in recent times, gang members have allegedly defecated on private property.
Individual gang members have become increasingly brazen of late, threatening people who approach them. Of great concern, I have been informed that at least two neighbourhood school girls have been sexually assaulted walking through the park. One of these girls was hospitalised for 3 months as a consequence. The gang has also allegedly assaulted a 12 year old school boy. Female shop owners in Pymble have told me that they will no longer walk to their cars on Alma Avenue in the evening unless they are accompanied, due to harassment and concerns for their physical wellbeing.
The more I speak to residents in the area, the more I become aware of the anti-social behaviour which residents in this area have had to endure and the impact this is having on their day-to-day lives. Police routinely have to attend the park and deal with serious incidents.
Furthermore, public resources are being wasted in having to continually remove graffiti from public property and replace destroyed facilities. Every Saturday and Sunday morning, Council staff can be found cleaning the park and removing broken glass from the park and tennis courts.
The status quo is quite simply unacceptable and cannot be tolerated any longer. We need to act in a proactive manner to discourage these individuals from terrorising the local community and destroying public property. This is a law and order emergency which must be dealt with immediately.
I therefore move that Council:
“1. Prepares a comprehensive strategy to deal with anti-social behaviour in the Pymble Town Centre.
2. In preparing this strategy, Council consult with local law and enforcement authorities and the relevant state members of Parliament.
3. Installs better lighting in Robert Pymble Park, specifically around the tennis courts, pavilion, picnic table, and play area.
4. Investigate the possibility of installing CCTV in the Pymble Town Centre and Robert Pymble Park.
5. Designates the park as a no alcohol zone at night, and deploys signage to make this clear.
6. Locks the tennis shelter, toilets and tennis courts at night.
7. A preliminary report on this matter be brought back to the next ordinary meeting of Council.”
|
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Ossip/McDonald)
That the above Notice of Motion be withdrawn.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
|
397 |
Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013 - Deferred Draft Heritage Items
File: S10098 Vide: GB.7
|
|
|
The following member of the public addressed Council:
B Shields
|
|
|
To have Council consider additional heritage items for inclusion in the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013 (KLEP 2013).
|
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Berlioz)
A. That a Planning Proposal be prepared, in accordance with Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, to amend Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2014 to include the following properties on Schedule 5 and on the Heritage Map as a heritage items of local significance:
i. 51 Warrangi Street, Turramurra (Lot 1 DP580008); ii. 4 - 6 Neringah Avenue South, Wahroonga (Lot 55 and 56 DP2666); iii. 88 Fox Valley Road, Wahroonga (Lot 15 DP568694); iv. 12 Bobbin Head Road, Pymble (Lot 1 DP200728). v. 6 Caithness Street, Killara (Lot 6 DP14824).
B. That the Planning Proposal be submitted to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
C. That, In order to facilitate a more timely Gateway Determination, the NSW Heritage Office be consulted prior to submitting the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment. Should comments not be received within 21 days, the Planning Proposal is to be submitted regardless.
D. That Council request the plan-making delegation under Section 23 of the EP&A Act for this Planning Proposal.
E. That upon receipt of a Gateway Determination, the exhibition and consultation process is carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and with the Gateway Determination requirements.
F. That a report be brought back to Council at the conclusion of the exhibition period.
G. That Council take no further action on the heritage listing for the following properties:
i. 59 Warrangi Street, Turramurra (Lot 1 DP215730); ii. 6 Munderah Street, Wahroonga (Lot 2 DP552850); iii. 10 Munderah Street, Wahroonga (Lot 1 DP216542); iv. 66 Pentecost Avenue, Pymble (Lot B DP103589); v. 60 - 62 Pentecost Avenue, Pymble (Lot 1 and 2 Sec 2 DP13451); vi. 33 Grandview Street, Pymble (Lot 2 DP228015); vii. 8 Braeside Street, Wahroonga (Lot 2 DP521286); viii. 8-10 Neringah Avenue South, Wahroonga (Lot 54 DP2666 and Lot 2 DP 585805); and ix. 135 Springdale Road, East Killara.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
|
398 |
St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands Draft Plan of Management
File: S06604/2 Vide: GB.10
|
|
|
The following members of the public addressed Council:
C Kennedy Y Hyman C McKibbons A Fredericks
|
|
|
To place the Draft St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands Plan of Management on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993.
|
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Ossip)
A. That the Draft St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands Plan of
Management be placed on public exhibition for 10 weeks, which includes the
minimum period of
B. That the General Manager be authorised to make editorial changes to the Draft St Ives Showground and Precinct Lands Plan of Management (Attachment A1) to reflect the contents of this Council Report, as well as minor editorial and formatting amendments, prior to it being placed on public exhibition.
C. That a further report be presented to Council following the public consultation process, incorporating comments received during the public exhibition period.
D. That Council accepts grant funding of $67,500 and approves borrowing of $282,500 from the Crown Land Funding Programs, NSW Department of Trade and Investment as outlined in the Financial Considerations section of the report.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
|
399 |
Sale of Residual Land - Gordon
File: S08130/5 Vide: C.2
|
|
|
The following member of the public addressed Council:
C Young
|
|
|
Council resolved that the meeting be closed during the discussion of the matter [C.2 Sale of Residual Land - Gordon in accordance with section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993 on the basis that the item involves the receipt and discussion of information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business. This resolution was moved by Councillors Szatow and Fornari-Orsmond
For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson, Councillors Berlioz, Citer, McDonald, Pettett, Szatow, Fornari-Orsmond and Ossip
Against the Resolution: Councillors Malicki and Armstrong
On balance, the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of information about C.2 Sale of Residual Land - Gordon outweighs the public interest in maintaining openness and transparency in Council decision-making because the disclosure of this information would put the Council at a competitive disadvantage as it would prejudice Council’s ability to dispose of the property on appropriate terms and conditions, preventing it from achieving a 'best value for money' outcome for the community
|
|
|
In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in section 10A(2)(c), of the Act, and should be dealt with in a part of the meeting closed to the public.
Section 10A(2)(c) of the Act permits the meeting to be closed to the public in respect of information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.
The matter is classified confidential because it deals with the proposed acquisition and/or disposal of property.
It is not in the public interest to release this information as it would prejudice Council’s ability to acquire and/or dispose of the property on appropriate terms and conditions.
Report by Director Strategy and Environment and the Manager Integrated Planning, Property and Assets dated 14 November 2014
|
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Berlioz)
That Council proceed in the manner outlined in the report and divest a portion of residual land in Gordon.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
Council resolved to return to Open Council
after a Motion moved by Councillors Fornari-Orsmond and Ossip
was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The General Manager adverted to the consideration of the matters referred to in Minute number 399 and to the resolution contained in such Minutes.
|
400 |
Lord and Ayres v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Ku-ring-gai Council - Land and Environment Court
File: S02979 Vide: C.3
|
|
|
The following member of the public addressed Council:
P Cooper
|
|
|
Council resolved that the meeting be closed during the discussion of the matter C.2 Lord and Ayres v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Ku-ring-gai Council- Land and Environment Court in accordance with section 10A(2)(g)of the Local Government Act 1993 on the basis that the item involves the receipt and discussion of information that would, if disclosed, concert advice regarding litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege. The advice concerns legal matters that are substantial issues relating to a matter in which the Council is involved, and are clearly identified in the advice, and are fully disclosed in that advice. This resolution was moved by Councillors Fornari-Orsmond and Ossip and was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
On balance, the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of information about C.2 Lord and Ayres v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Ku-ring-gai Council- Land and Environment Court outweighs the public interest in maintaining openness and transparency in Council decision-making because the disclosure of this information would prejudice Council’s position in court proceedings thereby prejudicing Council's legal position.
|
|
|
In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in section 10A(2)(g), of the Act, and should be dealt with in a part of the meeting closed to the public.
Section 10A(2)(g) of the Act permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.
This matter is classified confidential under section 10A(2)(g) because it contains advice concerning a legal matter that:
(a) is a substantial issue relating to a matter in which the Council is involved (b) is clearly identified in the advice, and (c) is fully discussed in that advice.
It is not in the public interest to release details of the legal advice as it would prejudice Council’s position in court proceedings.
Report by Corporate Lawyer dated 14 November 2014
|
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Fornari-Orsmond/Ossip)
That the resolution of Council at its meeting on 11 November 2014 that:
A. That Council formally seek leave of the Court to submit amended contentions for the forthcoming Court hearing.
B. Contentions to be amended in the terms discussed.
be rescinded.
For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson, Councillors Citer, McDonald, Szatow, Fornari-Orsmond and Ossip
Against the Resolution: Councillors Berlioz, Pettett, Malicki and Armstrong
|
Council resolved to return to Open Council
after a Motion moved by Councillors Fornari-Orsmond and Pettett
was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The General Manager adverted to the consideration of the matters referred to in Minute number 400 and to the resolution contained in such Minutes.
|
401 |
2014 - 2015 Budget Review - 1st Quarter ended September 2014
File: S08023/6 Vide: GB.5
|
|
|
To inform Council of the results of the 1st quarter budget review of 2014/15 and seek approval to adjust the annual budget based on the actual financial performance and trend for the period 1 July 2014 to 30 September 2014.
|
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Fornari-Orsmond/McDonald)
That Council receive and note the September 2014 Quarterly Budget Review and adopt the recommended changes to the 2014/15 budget.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
|
402 |
Lindfield Community Hub - Probity Management Plan
File: S09780 Vide: GB.8
|
|
|
The purpose of this report is to provide a copy of the Lindfield Community Hub Probity Management Framework for Council’s information.
|
|
|
A Motion moved by Councillors Fornari-Orsmond and Berlioz that voting be in seriatum was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Armstrong)
A. That Council receives and notes the Lindfield Community Hub Probity Management Framework as attached to the report.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
B. That dot point 1 on page 375 be amended to remove the ‘s’ from groups.
For the Resolution: Councillor Berlioz
Against the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson, Councillors Citer, McDonald, Pettett, Szatow, Malicki, Fornari-Orsmond, Armstrong and Ossip
No decision was taken in respect of the above matter as the Motion when put to the vote was LOST
C. That dot point 3 on page 385 be amended to include reference to the term Councillors together with any other relevant section throughout the document as identified by staff.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
403 |
File: TM9/06 Vide: QN.1
|
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor David Ossip
At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 24 June 2014, I moved a Notice of Motion concerning a traffic management report for St Ives – I am just wondering whether it is possible to get an update as to the status of that report and also to note that in the resolutions tracking booklet which was provided to Councillors today, this Notice of Motion is not included?
Answer by Director Operations
I will answer the first question. I can’t answer the second question. In regards to the update of the report, the staff are still doing traffic counts and information and gathering that information for me. I don’t think it will come back in December but hopefully the first week in February 2015.
|
|
404 |
Pothole opposite Trentino Road and Eastern Road Wahroonga
File: 88/06143/01 Vide: QN.2
|
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor Duncan McDonald
Would Director Operations please have staff look at the developing pothole created by recent road works as it is developing braking accidents or potentially braking accidents?
Answer by Director Operations
Yes, I will refer that to the appropriate staff.
|
|
405 |
Traffic Matter - No Right Hand Turn in Peak Hours from Eastern Road into Burns Road Wahroonga going south
File: TM11/06 Vide: QN.3
|
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor Duncan McDonald
Would the Director please update the status of the Question Without Notice from 12 August 2014?
Answer by Director Operations
I have included that in the notes. We actually have written to the RMS and we have not received a response from the Traffic Management Centre in regards to that because they look after the signals.
|
|
406 |
Thank Residents of Rothwell Road Warrawee for Construction of a Staircase between Rothwell Road and Kissing Point Road
File: 88/06014/01 Vide: QN.4
|
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor Elaine Malicki
Can Council write to thank the residents of Rothwell Road Warrawee who built a staircase, largely at their own expense, between Rothwell Road and Kissing Point Road?
This was to benefit local residents by saving them a lengthy walk and thanks also to Mr Piconi for making this happen.
Answer by the General Manager
Happy to do that, Madam Mayor.
|
|
407 |
Dumping on Railway Land in Culworth Avenue
File: 88/05336/01 Vide: QN.5
|
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor Cheryl Szatow
Has there been any correspondence from Council to RailCorp regarding the burgeoning piles of mulch on this land?
Answer by Director Operations
I have referred that to the staff, who have referred it to RailCorp. The difficulty we find is always who to contact in RailCorp to get some action. I will follow it up with the staff again to see what we can do.
|
|
408 |
Petition – Marian Street Theatre for Young People
File: S10095 Vide: QN.6
|
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor David Citer
Two months ago, I handed in a petition containing more than 200 signatures regarding the Marian Street Theatre – could you indicate if an official report was provided by staff in response to this petition?
Answer by Director Community
I have been talking with Mr Castle about this. We have responded as per Council’s resolution and we did advise him what had happened with the petition. I think he probably misunderstood what would happen. It has been received and noted and we have followed the resolution with that but there was some misunderstanding leading up to that.
|
|
409 |
Carcoola Road St Ives - Update on Proposed Park
File: S05624 Vide: QN.7
|
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor David Ossip
Would it be possible for you to provide an update to Councillors on the proposed Park for Carcoola Road St Ives?
Answer by Director Strategy and Environment
It is my understanding that we are going out to extended consultation with a concept plan prior to Christmas so we would run it for 10 weeks over the holiday period. What we do, is we did consultation earlier in the year to pick up the key themes that people wanted in it, we reflect that in a plan, we put that out for further consultation then we bring it back to Council prior to detailed design, so you have a consultation before Christmas and a report back on the whole process in late February early March.
|
|
410 |
Park adjacent to Warrimoo Avenue Shops St Ives
File: S05691 Vide: QN.8
|
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor Christiane Berlioz
Is the redevelopment of the Park adjacent the Warrimoo shops on track? Could you give us what stage it is up to, please?
Answer by Director Strategy and Environment
It is a project scheduled for the current financial year. I don’t envisage starting it until towards the end of the financial year but, yes we will be on track for the end of the financial year, yes. This follows on from the last question, the priorities that we are working on at the moment would be Cameron Park, Koola Park, Carcoola then followed by Warrimoo and they are all scheduled to be done this year.
|
This resolution was moved by Councillors Ossip and Szatow and was
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
On balance, the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of information about
C.1 – Gordon Pedestrian Air-bridge – Lease Variation – Signage outweighs the public interest in maintaining openness and transparency in Council decision-making because the disclosure of the information would prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it and may in the future result in the withholding of such information by tenderers and a reduction in the provision of information relevant to Council’s decision
|
411 |
Gordon Pedestrian Air-bridge - Lease Variation - Signage
File: S07252/5 Vide: C.1
|
|
|
Councillor Berlioz departed
|
|
|
In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in section 10A(2)(d)(i), of the Act, and should be dealt with in a part of the meeting closed to the public.
Section 10A(2)(d) of the Act permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:
(i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of Council, or (iii) reveal a trade secret.
This matter is classified confidential under section 10A(2)(d)(i) because it deals with tenders. Tender details, should they be revealed, may result in commercial disadvantage to parties involved in the tender process. Some information provided to Council by tenderers is provided on the basis that Council will treat it as commercial in confidence.
It is not in the public interest to reveal details of these tenders or the assessment process. Tenderers have provided sensitive information about their operations in the confidence that their details will not be made public by Council. The practice of publication of sensitive information provided by tenderers could result in the withholding of such information by tenderers and reduction in the provision of information relevant to Council’s decision.
Report by Director Strategy and Environment and the Manager Integrated Planning, Property & Assets dated 25 July 2013
|
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Szatow/McDonald)
A. That Council resolves to vary the current lease with Perpetual Ltd (Charter Hall Retail Management Ltd) to provide for the placement of advertising signage on the Gordon Pedestrian Air-bridge.
B. That Council as landowner provides consent for the applicant to lodge a development application.
C. That the General Manager or his delegate is authorised to negotiate the commercial terms of the new lease as discussed within the report.
D. That the Mayor and General Manager are delegated authority to execute all documentation associated with the leasing and licensing of the Gordon Pedestrian Air-bridge.
E. That Council affix the Common Seal to all necessary documents.
For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson, Councillors Citer, McDonald, Pettett, Szatow, Fornari-Orsmond, Armstrong and Ossip
Against the Resolution: Councillor Malicki
|
Council resolved to return to Open Council
after a Motion moved by Councillors McDonald and Pettett
was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The General Manager adverted to the consideration of the matters referred to in Minute number 411 and to the resolution contained in such Minutes.
The Meeting closed at 10.02pm
The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 25 November 2014 (Pages 1 - 40) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on 9 December 2014.
__________________________ __________________________
General Manager Mayor / Chairperson
MINUTES OF Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee
HELD ON Thursday, 20 November 2014
|
Present: |
Ku-ring-gai Council (Councillor Christiane Berlioz, Chairperson) Director Operations (Mr Greg Piconi) Roads & Maritime Services (Ms Kathryn Hawkins) Representing Police Local Area Command Kuring-gai (Snr Const Narelle Tomich) Representing Member for Davidson (Mr Michael Lane) |
|
|
|
|
Staff Present: |
Traffic Team Leader (Mr Deva Thevaraja) Strategic Traffic Engineer (Mr Joseph Piccoli) |
|
|
|
|
Others Present: |
Representing Bike North (Ms Lyness Beavis) Resident – Mrs T Howes, Pentecost Avenue, St Ives (GB. 3) |
|
|
|
|
Apologies: |
Representing Police Local Area Command North Shore (A/Sgt Craig Tonks) Representing Member for Ku-ring-gai (Ms Mary O’Dea) Manager Traffic and Transport (Mr George Koolik) |
The Meeting commenced at 9.05am
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Christiane Berlioz declared non pecuniary interest for GB.3 – as resident addressing Committee is a relative.
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs
|
|
Minutes of Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee
File: CY00022/6
|
|
|
Meeting held 24 July 2014 Minutes numbered KTC5 to KTC9
|
|
|
The Committee Recommends:
That Minutes numbered KTC5 to KTC9 were received and confirmed as an accurate record of the proceedings of the meeting. |
GENERAL BUSINESS
|
KTC10 |
General Matter Items Under Delegated Authority
File: S02738 Vide: GB.1
|
|
|
Advice on matters considered under Delegated Authority.
|
|
|
The Committee’s Comments:
The Representative of Bike North questioned the process of Delegated Authority in approving Traffic Facilities. She advised that the 15 km/h speed limit for cyclists approved in TDA55/14 (Kissing Point Road, Turramurra) is not possible to achieve.
Director Operations advised that this speed limit is only an advisory warning and therefore the cyclists are expected to be aware of the existing traffic conditions.
|
|
|
That the information regarding traffic facilities approved during July and November 2014 be noted.
|
|
KTC11 |
File: CY00022/6 Vide: GB.2
|
|
|
To determine Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee meeting dates for 2015.
|
|
|
The Committee’s Comments:
The Representative of Local Area Command Kuring-gai informed the Committee that she will not be available for the meeting scheduled in April 2015 due to ANZAC Centenary celebrations.
The Committee acknowledged her request and suggested that the April 2015 meeting may be rescheduled/cancelled.
|
|
|
That the Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee meetings in 2015 be scheduled for the dates shown below:
19 February 19 March 21 May 18 June 23 July 20 August 17 September 22 October 19 November |
|
KTC12 |
Proposed Cycle Route - Turramurra 4
File: S02777/8 Vide: GB.3
|
|
|
To consider a concept plan for the implementation of ‘Turramurra 4’ cycle route.
|
|
|
The Committee’s Comments:
Mrs T Howes addressed the Committee. She stressed that cyclists need to be on the road and visible, rather than on a cycle lane where they are vulnerable to vehicles reversing out of driveways, and noted that cyclists on Pentecost Avenue currently use the vehicle travel lanes and that is where cyclists should be travelling. She considered that the proposal did not take into account cyclists safety particularly near Maddison Reserve and the intersection with Merrivale Road. Objection was also raised with restricting parking between Bobbin Head Road and Bannockburn Road.
Concerns were also expressed by Mrs Howes regarding traffic volumes and speeds on Pentecost Avenue, which results in difficulties for pedestrians trying to cross the road. Alternative parking on the side roads would not be an option, as the side roads are not kerbed/guttered and do not have any footpaths or street lighting. She also expressed concern in relation to due process, notification and timeframes for responses to the proposal, and that there was no detailed study to support the proposal.
The Strategic Traffic Engineer informed the Committee that following the feedback from the residents between Mona Vale Road and Maddison Reserve, it was recommended not to pursue changes to parking in Pentecost Avenue in this section, but to apply pavement logos in the vehicle travel lanes to increase awareness of cyclists on this route.
The Director Operations recommended that no changes to parking be made in the section of Pentecost Avenue between Bobbin Head Road and Bannockburn Road, and that pavement logos be applied in the vehicle travel lanes similar to the eastern section of Pentecost Avenue. There was no objection from the other Committee members.
The Strategic Traffic Engineer noted that the proposed intersection continuity of the section of Pentecost Avenue between Bannockburn Road and Maddison Reserve could still be undertaken as this treatment does not alter parking restrictions.
|
|
|
A. That the ‘Turramurra 4’ cycle route be approved.
B. That no alteration be made to parking arrangements in Pentecost Avenue, and that pavement logos be installed in the vehicle travel lanes between Mona Vale Road and Madison Reserve, and between Bobbin Head Road and Bannockburn Road.
C. That residents of Pentecost Avenue and those residents who made a submission be notified of Council’s decision.
|
general discussion
1. Clearway Restrictions on Mona Vale Road, St Ives
The Chairperson requested an update on the proposed clearway restrictions on Mona Vale Road, St Ives. The Director Operations advised that a meeting was held with the General Manager Network Management and the Senior Network & Safety Officer from the Roads and Maritime Services, although it was verbally agreed on the proposed clearway restrictions at different locations, Council is yet to receive written agreement following this meeting.
2. Rosedale Road, St Ives
The Chairperson raised a St Ives resident’s concern with traffic and parking in Rosedale Road, between Porters Lane and Shinfield Avenue. The Chairperson questioned whether Council could introduce parking restrictions on one side of Rosedale Road. The Director Operations advised that following a site inspection, parking on Rosedale Road is not related to the nearby development, however it appears the vehicles belong to the employees of St Ives shopping centre. He further advised that removing parking spaces on Rosedale Road would make it conducive to increased traffic speeds, however he will consider introducing short-term parking restrictions (2P) to discourage long-term parking.
3. Porters Lane/Memorial Avenue, St Ives
The Chairperson asked if a report on the overall Traffic Management Plan for the St Ives area could be considered and discussed. The Director Operations advised that the effect on the overall traffic by the developments in St Ives can only be assessed once these developments have been completed. However, it is proposed to present a report on St Ives traffic management to Council in 2015. The Chairperson asked if the traffic plan prepared for St Ives in 2008 could be revised when this matter is considered next year.
4. On-street parking at new developments
The Representative for the Member for Davidson raised concerns with inadequate visitor parking spaces associated with new developments and questioned if the Committee can recommend Council provide increased visitor on-street parking spaces. The Chairperson advised that the approved developments are complying with Council’s DCP and that the State Government is currently planning to reduce the number of car parking spaces in future developments near public transport terminals. The Director Operations advised that this is not a matter for Traffic Committee to recommend changes to DCPs to Council.
5. Media release on boat parking
The Representative for RMS informed the Committee that Transport for NSW will soon launch a media release on boat parking on public roads. She indicated that she is unsure if this media release includes trailer parking, but advised that she will seek clarification.
6. Bobbin Head Road, Pymble
The Representative for RMS tabled a Ministerial representation from residents at 4-8 Bobbin Head Road, regarding construction related vehicles parked adjacent to the development under construction at 2 Bobbin Head Road. She advised that this development has a Condition of Consent that its entire frontage in Bobbin Head Road shall be restricted with full-time ‘No Stopping’ restrictions and requested Council investigate the matter. Team Leader Traffic advised that this matter has been investigated and the area will be signposted shortly.
7. Culworth Avenue, Killara
The Strategic Traffic Engineer informed the Committee that Transport for NSW is considering access point configurations for the section of the Culworth Avenue car park it recently acquired. He noted that an option being considered by Transport for NSW is to provide access to the car park from Culworth Avenue, adjacent to (north of) the existing access point. As a result, it is anticipated that one or two unrestricted parking spaces would need to be removed on the western side of Culworth Avenue, north of the existing car park access point, to maintain adequate sight lines.
The Meeting closed at 10.10am
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 December 2014 |
GB.1 / 59 |
|
|
|
|
Item GB.1 |
S08447 |
|
|
19 November 2014 |
Code of Conduct - Complaint Statistics
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
|
purpose of report: |
To report statistics in relation to complaints as required by the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW for the twelve months to the end of September 2014. |
|
|
|
|
background: |
Under the Procedures, a report on a range of complaints statistics must be provided to Council and the Division of Local Government. |
|
|
|
|
comments: |
The relevant statistics are contained in this report. In summary, there were no complaints during the subject period, namely the twelve months to the end of September 2014. |
|
|
|
|
recommendation: |
That the contents of this report be received and noted, and that the statistics contained in this report be provided to the Division of Local Government in accordance with clause 12.2 of the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW – March 2013. |
Purpose of Report
To report statistics in relation to complaints as required by the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW for the twelve months to the end of September 2014.
Background
Under the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW – March 2013, a report on a range of complaints statistics must be provided to Council and the Division of Local Government.
Part 12 of the Procedures provides:
PART 12 REPORTING ON COMPLAINTS STATISTICS
12.1 The complaints coordinator must arrange for the following statistics to be reported to the council within 3 months of the end of September of each year:
a) the total number of code of conduct complaints made about councillors and the general manager under the code of conduct in the year to September,
b) the number of code of conduct complaints referred to a conduct reviewer,
c) the number of code of conduct complaints finalised by a conduct reviewer at the preliminary assessment stage and the outcome of those complaints,
d) the number of code of conduct complaints investigated by a conduct reviewer,
e) the number of code of conduct complaints investigated by a conduct review committee,
f) without identifying particular matters, the outcome of code of conduct complaints investigated by a conduct reviewer or conduct review committee under these procedures,
g) the number of matter reviewed by the Division and, without identifying particular matters, the outcome of the reviews, and
h) The total cost of dealing with code of conduct complaints made about councillors and the general manager in the year to September, including staff costs.
12.2 The council is to provide the Division with a report containing the statistics referred to in clause 12.1 within 3 months of the end of September of each year.
Comments
Following are the categories of statistics required by the Division to be reported, followed in each case by the relevant statistic within brackets in BOLD type.
Number of Complaints and Associated Costs
Model Code Procedures Reference: 12.1
1 a) The total number of code of conduct complaints made about councillors and the general manager under the code of conduct [NIL]
b) The number of code of conduct complaints referred to a conduct reviewer [NIL]
c) The number of code of conduct complaints investigated by a conduct reviewer [NIL]
d) The number of code of conduct complaints investigated by a conduct review committee [NIL]
e) The total cost of dealing with code of conduct complaints made about councillors and the general manager including staff costs [NIL]
Preliminary Assessment Statistics
Model Code Procedures Reference: 6.10
2 a) The number of code of conduct complaints finalised by a conduct reviewer at the preliminary assessment stage [NIL]
b) The number of those complaints finalised by each of the following recommendations:
· To take no action [NIL]
· To resolve the complaint by alternative and appropriate strategies [NIL]
· To refer the matter back to the general manager or the Mayor, for resolution by alternative and appropriate strategies [NIL]
· To refer the matter to another agency or body such as, but not limited to, the ICAC, the NSW Ombudsman, the Division or the Police [NIL]
· To investigate the matter [NIL]
· To recommend that the complaints coordinator convene a conduct review committee to investigate the matter [NIL]
Final Investigation Statistics
Model Code Procedures Reference: 8.35
3 a) The number of code of conduct complaints investigated by a conduct reviewer or conduct review committee [NIL]
b) The number of these complaints finalised by each of the following recommendations:
· That the council revise any of its policies or procedures [NIL]
· That the subject person undertake any training or other education relevant to the conduct giving rise to the breach [NIL]
· That the subject person be counselled for their conduct [NIL]
· That the subject person apologise to any person or organisation affected by the breach [NIL]
· That findings of inappropriate conduct be made public [NIL]
· In the case of a breach by the general manager, that action be taken under the general manager’s contract for the breach [NIL]
· In the case of a breach by a councillor, that the councillor be formally censured for the breach under section 440G of the Act [NIL]
· In the case of a breach by a councillor, that the council resolves that the councillor be formally censured for the breach under section 440G of the Act and that the council resolves that the matter be referred to the Division for further action [NIL]
Complaints Reviewed by the Division
Model Code Procedures Reference: Part 9
4 Number of matters reviewed by the Division
a) Outcome: Decision sustained [NIL]
b) Outcome: Decision overturned [NIL]
INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING
Leadership & Governance
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
L3.1.3. Council’s Governance framework is developed to ensure probity, transparency and the principles of sustainability are integrated and applied into our policies, plans, guidelines and decision-making processes. |
Compliance with the requirements of relevant Acts and Regulations. |
Comply with the requirements of the Local Government Act and Regulations. |
Governance Matters
The provision of this report and the provision of information to the Division of Local Government is a requirement of Clause 12.1 of the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW – March 2013.
Risk Management
Matters relating to the administration of Council’s Code of Conduct have potential to affect the reputation of Council.
Financial Considerations
There were no complaints about Councillors or the General Manager made under the Code of Conduct during the period accordingly, no relevant costs.
Social Considerations
Not relevant
Environmental Considerations
Not relevant
Community Consultation
Not relevant
Internal Consultation
Not relevant
Summary
Under the new Model Code of Conduct framework, a report on a range of complaints statistics must be provided to Council and the Division of Local Government.
The relevant statistics are contained in this report. In summary there were no complaints during the subject period, namely the twelve months to the end of September 2014.
|
A. That the contents of this report be received and noted; and
B. That the statistics contained in this report be provided to the Division of Local Government in accordance with clause 12.2 of the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW – March 2013.
|
|
Jamie Taylor Corporate Lawyer |
John McKee General Manager |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 December 2014 |
GB.2 / 64 |
|
|
|
|
Item GB.2 |
CY00458/2 |
|
|
1 December 2014 |
Internal Audit - Shared Service
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
|
purpose of report: |
To consider joining the Internal Audit Shared Services program of North Shore Councils. |
|
|
|
|
background: |
The provision of internal audit at Ku-ring-gai Council has been reviewed following the retirement of Council’s internal auditor. A shared services arrangement has been in place between various north shore councils since 2009. |
|
|
|
|
comments: |
Council has explored the opportunity of joining other north shore councils in a shared service for the provision of the Internal Audit function. Council would obtain considerable benefit from an internal audit program that is conducted across multiple councils, resulting in a sharing of outcomes and opportunities for improvement amongst the councils. |
|
|
|
|
recommendation: |
That, subject to the endorsement of the Audit and Risk Committee, Council join the Internal Audit Shared Service of North Shore Councils and delegate to the General Manager the authority to negotiate and execute an agreement for same. |
Purpose of Report
To consider joining the Internal Audit Shared Services program of north shore councils.
Background
Upon the retirement of Council’s Internal Auditor, the provision of internal audit at Ku-ring-gai Council has been reviewed.
A shared services arrangement has been in place between various north shore councils since 2009. The member councils are Hunters Hill, Lane Cove, Manly, Mosman, North Sydney and Willoughby.
Comments
The internal audit shared service is accommodated at Willoughby Council. Willoughby Council also acts as the “employer” of staff and the shared costs are invoiced to the other member councils.
The shared service members have indicated they would be willing to accept Ku-ring-gai Council as a new member. If Council joined the shared service, additional resources would be engaged to meet the additional workload. An annual contribution of approximately $100,000 pa would be required as a contribution to the shared service to provide adequate resources for Council’s internal audit. This would provide Council with the equivalent of four full audit days per week.
The shared service is headed up by Michael Quirk, an experienced internal auditor. As part of the service Mr Quirk would attend Council’s Audit and Risk Committee meetings.
A considerable benefit of being a part of the shared service is that the internal audit program is conducted across multiple councils, resulting in a sharing of outcomes and opportunities for improvement amongst the councils.
integrated planning and reporting
Leadership and Governance
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
L3.1 The organisation is recognised and distinguished by its ethical decision-making, efficient management, innovation and quality, customer service.
|
L3.1.2 Integrated Risk Management, compliance and internal control systems are in place to identify, assess, monitor and manage risks throughout the organisation. L3.1.3 Council’s Governance framework is developed to ensure probity, transparency and the principles of sustainability are integrated and applied into our policies, plans, guidelines and decision making processes. |
Continue the development of risk management plans and ensure risks are monitored, reported and followed up on.
Internal audit function is supported and operating effectively. |
Governance Matters
The Internal Audit function of Council provides assurance to Council and the Audit and Risk Committee about internal controls and governance.
The proposal to join the Shared Service will be presented to the next Audit and Risk Committee on Tuesday 16 December for their endorsement.
Risk Management
The Internal Audit function plays a key role in reviewing risk management practices and testing compliance.
Financial Considerations
Membership of the North Shore Councils Internal Audit shared service will cost approximately $100,000 pa. This will result in a reduction from the cost of the previous in-house arrangement.
Council is able to withdraw from the shared service after providing notice of one year.
Social Considerations
Not applicable.
Environmental Considerations
Not applicable.
Community Consultation
Not applicable.
Internal Consultation
All Council departments have been consulted.
Summary
Council has explored the opportunity of joining other north shore councils in a shared service for the provision of the Internal Audit function. Council would obtain considerable benefit from an internal audit program that is conducted across multiple councils, resulting in a sharing of outcomes and opportunities for improvement amongst the councils.
|
That, subject to the endorsement of the Audit and Risk Committee, Council join the Internal Audit Shared Service of North Shore Councils and delegate to the General Manager the authority to negotiate and execute an agreement for same
|
|
David Marshall Director Corporate |
John McKee General Manager |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 December 2014 |
GB.3 / 68 |
|
|
|
|
Item GB.3 |
S08172/4 |
|
|
29 October 2014 |
Tulkiyan Heritage House - Feasibility Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
|
purpose of report: |
To provide Councillors with the feasibility study for Tulkiyan Heritage House titled In from the margins: embedding Tulkiyan into Ku-ring-gai’s cultural life, undertaken by Sue Boaden, Cultural Planner. |
|
|
|
|
background: |
Tulkiyan Heritage House is situated at 707 Pacific Highway, Gordon. Council acquired Tulkiyan in 1985 as a gift from Miss Margaret Donaldson.
Tulkiyan, a State heritage listed property, was closed in 2012 due to public safety concerns and non-compliance matters. |
|
|
|
|
comments: |
Sue Boaden, Cultural Planner, in conjunction with Ian Stapleton, Director, Clive Lucas, Stapleton and Partners heritage architects, was engaged to undertake a feasibility study to provide Council with options for Tulkiyan’s future. |
|
|
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council receive and note In from the margins: embedding Tulkiyan into Ku-ring-gai’s cultural life – a feasibility study for Tulkiyan, that Council investigate outsourced management options with appropriate cultural institutions, and that an independent market evaluation be obtained for the property. |
Purpose of Report
To provide Councillors with the feasibility study for Tulkiyan Heritage House titled In from the margins: embedding Tulkiyan into Ku-ring-gai’s cultural life, undertaken by Sue Boaden, Cultural Planner.
Background
Tulkiyan Heritage House is situated at 707 Pacific Highway, Gordon. It was designed by B.J. Waterhouse architect, and was built in 1914 for the Donaldson family. The Donaldson family lived in the house until 1993, although the property was given to Ku-ring-gai Council under a Deed of Gift in 1985.
Tulkiyan is a State heritage listed property and has been operating as a house museum with the assistance of community volunteers since 2000. It was closed to the public in 2012 due to public safety concerns and non-compliance matters.
Sue Boaden, Cultural Planner was engaged to undertake a feasibility study to provide Council with options for the property's use and to provide recommendations for its future use, including the development of a sustainable management and business model for Tulkiyan. (Attachment A)
The study was prepared by Sue Boaden and Ian Stapleton, Director, Clive Lucas, Stapleton and Partners heritage architects. It took into account current legislative requirements related to heritage property protection, current museum practice, relevant trends in cultural tourism and learning.
The study was based on the following objectives:
· Review the current status of the property
· Interpret the Deed of Trust and provide Council with options that satisfy the Deed of Trust
· Understand the expectations of stakeholders and the community for the use of the property
· Recommend possible options for future uses of the property
· Consider Council's role in providing cultural and economic development opportunities for the community
· Review viable management opportunities
Comments
As the owner of Tulkiyan, Council is entrusted by the community to provide stewardship and a duty of care to ensure the property's efficient and effective management.
This is in keeping with its State significance heritage status and in the spirit of the 1985 Deed of Gift i.e. Council "to use the property which shall be in the best interests of the residents of Ku-ring-gai Municipality as a worthwhile community exercise"
The feasibility study provides the context and challenges for house museums in the 21st century -
general trends in the museum sector indicate that the following are key considerations when planning museum services in the 21st century:
· Museum practice has shifted from an emphasis on collections to a focus on audiences and where programming makes active links between objects and storytelling
· Competition for visitors is intense and audiences expect a memorable, vivid and learning experience where participation is encouraged
· Museum management must focus on sustainability and viability, audience development underpins capacity to balance income and expenditure.
The challenge for Council has been since 1993, to identify a sustainable management/business model that delivers, in the short to medium term, a demonstration of Council's commitment to the spirit of the gift, a return (economic, social, cultural and environmental) on Council's investment, whilst encouraging cultural vitality and innovation.
The Options for Tulkiyan
Based on an analysis of current trends and challenges in the museum/heritage property management sector, the feasibility study identified seven options (not including the do-nothing option) for consideration:
Option 1 - House Museum - Council owned and managed with qualified, specialist staff or specialist contract management/fee for service to deliver a quality program of interpretive displays.
Option 2 - House Museum and Cultural Centre - hybrid model - Collaborative/integrated management at arms-length from Council e.g. independent trust based on shared objectives with another institution whose representatives are on the governing body (e.g. university, private school, private benefactor, private trust) and supporting a range of small scale cultural events.
Option 3 - House Museum - Council owned, possible resident caretaker, community/volunteer operations e.g. S355 Committee Mix of paid and volunteer staff depending on level of earned income.
Option 4 - Heritage House - Council owned - residential lease (with or without contents). Long term lease as a private home. Contents could be stored off-site or alternative option to offer to another museum e.g. Sydney Living Museum or Powerhouse.
Option 5 - Heritage House - Council owned - commercial lease (with or without contents)
Long term lease related to compatible business e.g. commercial gallery, B&B, small business incubator. Contents could be stored off-site or alternative option to offer to another museum e.g.
Sydney Living Museums or Powerhouse.
Option 6 - Heritage House – Council owned - community cultural use. Lease to community groups as affordable office and meeting space. Restore tennis court for hire. Contents could be stored off-site or alternative option to offer to another museum e.g. Sydney Living Museum or Powerhouse.
Option 7 - Heritage House
- Council owned - sale and disposal. This option provides Council with the
opportunity to dispose of Tulkiyan and the proceeds of the sale be reinvested
into the
Ku-ring-gai community for new services or facilities. This would satisfy the
spirit of the1985 Deed of Gift which states that Tulkiyan be used:
“in the best interests of the residents of Ku-ring-gai Municipality as a worthwhile community exercise".
If Council were to dispose of Tulkiyan the contents could be stored off-site or an alternative option would be to offer them to another museum e.g. Sydney Living Museum or Powerhouse Museum.
Preferred options
Taking into account the need to identify a viable management option for Tulkiyan, and the understanding that Council does not currently have in-house expertise in museum management, a detailed analysis of all the options identified two models for further development. Both options however, anticipate that, in line with best practice in the museum sector, Council provides an annual subsidy to offset operational costs.
The consultants recommended the following two preferred options:
Option 1 House Museum - traditional model: core museum services under Council or professional management - Council would need to provide $1,275,934 over the next 4.5 years in capital and operational expenditure, (excluding possible grant funding). This figure also assumes a total of $144,756 in income, which includes ticket and merchandising sales for Tulkiyan visits over 3 years.
Option 2 House Museum and Cultural Centre - hybrid model: retain the property's role as a museum, managed by current best-practice in the house museum/cultural sector - to include small-scale cultural events programming - Council would need to provide $1,336,198 over the next 4.5 years in capital and operational expenditure, (excluding possible grant funding). This figure also assumes a total of $194,549 in income, which includes ticket and merchandising sales at Tulkiyan over 3 years.
The consultants identify factors such as building critical mass and economic and social impacts in recommending the two preferred options:
1. Building critical mass
Already having two other highly regarded house museums, Eryldene and Rose Seidler House in the local government area presents Ku-ring-gai Council with a unique opportunity. These facilities provide a critical mass of compatible, high quality cultural destinations which can be promoted in an integrated way to diverse markets including to the school education market, to universities (architecture, history and museum studies) and to cultural tourists.
2. Economic and social impacts
Tulkiyan is a community cultural resource presenting opportunities for the local community to build its social capital via networking and participation linked to volunteer programs. The property also has the potential to make an active contribution to local economic development through its professional approach to visitor experience which results in new jobs, new contracts with local service provider's e.g. catering, specialist property maintenance, promotion etc. and the purchase by museum visitors of ancillary services such as petrol, accommodation, cafes, retail.
integrated planning and reporting
Community, People and Culture
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
C1 - Community Wellbeing |
C1.1 An equitable and inclusive community that cares and provides for its members. |
Our community facilities are accessible and function as cultural hubs to attract a range of users |
|
C2 - Cultural Diversity and Creativity |
C2.1 A harmonious community that respects, appreciates, celebrates and learns from each other and values our evolving cultural identity. |
Ku-ring-gai's rich cultural diversity and creativity is celebrated through programs and events. |
|
C4 - Healthy Lifestyles |
C4.1 A community that embraces healthier lifestyle choices and practices. |
A range of cultural, recreational and leisure facilities and activities are available to encourage social interaction and stimulate everyday wellbeing.
|
|
P7 Enhancing community buildings and facilities
|
P7.1 Multipurpose community buildings and facilities are available to meet the community’s diverse and changing needs.
|
Standards are developed to improve the condition and functionality of existing and new assets. |
|
|
|
Usage of existing community buildings and facilities is optimised. |
|
P8 Improving the standard of our infrastructure |
P8.1 An improved standard of infrastructure that meets the community’s service level standards and Council’s Obligations as the custodian of our community assets. |
Our public infrastructure and assets are planned, managed and funded to meet community expectations, defined levels of service and address inter-generational equity.
|
|
|
|
Programs for infrastructure and asset maintenance management are delivered in accordance with the adopted Asset Management Strategy and Plans.
|
|
E3 Visitation opportunities
|
E3.1 Ku-ring-gai has a range of activities and experiences that attract visitors. |
Tourism business has been strengthened and expanded.
|
|
|
E3.1 Ku-ring-gai has a range of activities and experiences that attract visitors. |
Ku-ring-gai is marketed as a provider of a range of visitor activities and experiences. |
Governance Matters
Current zoning under Ku-ring-gai's LEP allows a range of uses including 'community facility' use
where the use is for 'physical, social, cultural or intellectual development or welfare of the community'. This includes use as a museum.
Risk Management
Tulkiyan was closed in 2012 because of public safety and non-compliance issues. Should Council determine to re-open Tulkiyan as a House Museum all BCA requirements and public safety concerns would be need to be rectified.
Financial Considerations
Indicative budgets
The study provides indicative capital works and ongoing maintenance and recurrent operational budgets:
Capital works and ongoing maintenance
The capital budget has been prepared based on opinions on the cost of capital works to bring Tulkiyan up to standard in line with its heritage significance.
Option 1 provides baseline indicative capital works costs whilst Option 2 provides for a flexible cultural facility with the capacity to host small scale cultural events and therefore to generate offset income. Capital improvement costs reflect the level of capital work proposed to bring the property up to acceptable standard.
Recurrent annual property maintenance costs have been generally based on Council's current, actual property maintenance expenditure.
Grant funding
Both Options 1 and 2 assume grant funding of $225,000 as capital income. The $225,000 consists of $150,000 under Museums and Galleries NSW - Building Improvement Program, and a possible $75,000 under the Heritage Office – Works/Projects/Signage program. There is no guarantee however, that this funding, if sought, would be successful.
Recurrent operational budgets
The indicative budget provides a 4 year snapshot of financial data including pre-planning and development phases and then 3 full years of operation.
The budget provides indicative income and expenditure including potential grant income as well as ticketing, merchandise and programming income.
The expenditure assumes a staffed operation and is based on growth from 1.0 FTE staff in Year 1 to 1.5 FTE staff in Year 3. The expenditure also assumes administration as well as programming costs as behoves a professionally managed museum with a diverse program of cultural activities.
The indicative estimates are very modest reflecting a part time, weekend operation that would provide a quality experience, and attract significant visitor numbers.
Budget summary Option 1: House Museum –traditional
|
Income
|
Pre-Plan 6 Months $ |
Dev
Year |
Ops Year 1
|
Ops Year 2
|
Ops Year 3
|
|
Capital |
|
225,000 |
20,000 |
|
|
|
Operational |
|
|
21,100 |
39,800 |
83,856 |
|
Total |
|
225,000 |
41,100 |
39,800 |
83,856 |
|
Expenditure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital |
51,297 |
688,703 |
600 |
600 |
4800 |
|
Operational |
22,394 |
142,900 |
147,866 |
182,232 |
188,298 |
|
Total |
73,691 |
831,603 |
148,466 |
182,832 |
193,098 |
|
Grand Total (Subsidy) |
(73,691) |
(606,603) |
(107,366) |
(134,032) |
(109,242) |
|
Grand Total (Without Grant Funding) |
|
(831,603) |
(127,366) |
|
|
In summary, for Option 1, Council would need to provide $1,275,934 over the next 4.5 years in capital and operational expenditure, (excluding possible grant funding). This figure also assumes a total of $144,756 in income, which includes ticket and merchandising sales at Tulkiyan over 3 years.
Budget Summary Option 2: House Museum - Hybrid
|
Income
|
Pre-Plan 6 Months $ |
Dev
Year |
Ops Year 1
|
Ops Year 2
|
Ops Year 3
|
|
Capital |
50,000 |
225,000 |
20,000 |
|
|
|
Operational |
|
|
27,575 |
45,895 |
121,079 |
|
Total |
50,000 |
225,000 |
47,575 |
45,895 |
121,079 |
|
Expenditure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital |
67,637 |
922,910 |
600 |
600 |
4800 |
|
Operational |
5500 |
109,500 |
120,200 |
143,700 |
153,900 |
|
Total |
73,137 |
1,032,410 |
120,700 |
144,300 |
158,700 |
|
Grand Total (Subsidy) |
(23,137) |
(807,810) |
(73,225) |
(99,405) |
(37,621) |
|
Grand Total (Without Grant Funding) |
(73,137) |
(1,032,810) |
(93,225) |
|
|
In summary, for Option 2, Council would need to provide $1,336,198 over the next 4.5 years in capital and operational expenditure, (excluding possible grant funding). This figure also assumes a total of $194,549 in income, which includes ticket and merchandising sales at Tulkiyan over 3 years.
There is currently $82,000 in the 2014/15 Projects Budget for Tulkiyan. Council has not however, included ongoing funding in the Long Term Financial Plan for either the traditional or hybrid options recommended by the consultant.
Social Considerations
The feasibility study considers that Tulkiyan has the potential to deliver a memorable 21st century museum experience to the Ku-ring-gai community and to a broader audience. According to the consultants the property is highly regarded as a heritage asset with the capacity to develop as a cultural resource that compliments and works closely with nearby house museums whilst also providing enjoyment and engagement in its own right.
The property has the potential to make an active contribution to local economic development through its professional approach to visitor experience which builds new jobs, through contracts with local service providers e.g. catering, specialist property maintenance, promotion etc, and the purchase by museum visitors of ancillary services such as petrol, accommodation, cafes, and retail products.
For Tulkiyan to provide the above benefits to the community however, Council will need to commit to significant funding over a 4 - 5 year period.
Environmental Considerations
There are no immediate environmental issues associated with the writing of this report. Should any further development occur on the property, it would be subject to a DA ensuring all environmental matters associated with Tulkiyan are considered.
Community Consultation
The feasibility study has been undertaken based on a commitment to in-depth analysis and research including consultation with key council staff and stakeholders. The consultants have reviewed relevant documents, interviewed representatives of relevant groups and institutions including members of the Friends of Tulkiyan, representatives from the Ku-ring-gai Historical Society and council’s senior management staff.
Internal Consultation
Staff from council’s Operations, Corporate, Strategy and Environment and Development and Regulation departments have been consulted throughout the development of the feasibility study and the writing of this report.
Summary
The feasibility study suggests that Tulkiyan is a widely recognised and significant heritage property that, if managed successfully, has potential to establish Ku-ring-gai as a unique cultural destination in Sydney. This would however, require a significant financial commitment from Council.
The study also identifies other possible options for Tulkiyan, one being the sale and disposal of the property, with the proceeds of the sale being reinvested into the Ku-ring-gai community for new services or facilities.
The challenge for Council is to determine whether Tulkiyan heritage house should be retained and managed by professionals with appropriate skills and expertise, at a significance cost to Council, or whether Council should dispose of the property and re-invest the proceeds to benefit the community.
Before making a decision on the future of Tulkiyan however, Councillors should be provided with relevant detailed financial and management information.
This report recommends therefore, that Council endorse staff to investigate outsourced management options with appropriate cultural institutions, and that staff also obtain an independent valuation for the property.
A report would then come back to Council in 2015 providing relevant detailed financial and management information to assist Council in the decision making process about the future of Tulkiyan heritage house.
|
A. That Council receive and note the feasibility study for Tulkiyan Heritage House titled In from the margins: embedding Tulkiyan into Ku-ring-gai’s cultural life – undertaken by Sue Boaden, Cultural Planner.
B. That Council staff investigate outsourced management options for Tulkiyan Heritage House with appropriate cultural institutions.
C. That in accordance with Council’s Acquisition and Divestment of Land Policy, Council staff obtain an independent market valuation report for the potential divestment of Tulkiyan Heritage House.
D. That a report come to Council in 2015 providing detailed financial information for the outsourcing of the management of Tulkiyan Heritage House, plus ongoing costs for maintenance of the property and the garden. This report will also contain the independent market valuation report for Tulkiyan Heritage House.
|
|
Janice Bevan Director Community |
|
|
A1View |
Tulkiyan Heritage House Feasibility Study - Attachment for Report |
|
2014/302708 |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 December 2014 |
GB.4 / 220 |
|
|
|
|
Item GB.4 |
S09749 |
|
|
6 November 2014 |
Conduct of the
2016 NSW Local Government Elections
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
|
purpose of report: |
For Council to determine who will be conducting the 2016 Local Government elections. |
|
|
|
|
background: |
All Councils in NSW must determine whether to appoint the NSW Electoral Commission to conduct the next Local Government elections in 2016. |
|
|
|
|
comments: |
Previous Local Government Elections, which have been conducted by the NSW Electoral Commission, were characterised by significant advanced planning and organisation by the Commission resulting in the efficient conduct of the elections. For the purpose of conducting the 2016 ordinary elections, Council is required to determine whether to appoint the NSW Electoral Commission to conduct the elections. |
|
|
|
|
recommendation: |
That Ku-ring-gai Council (“the Council”) resolves:
Pursuant to s.296(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) (“the Act”) and that an election arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all elections of the Council and pursuant to s.296(2) and (3) of the Act, as applied and modified by s.18, and that a Council poll arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all Council polls of the Council and pursuant to s.296(2) and (3) of the Act, as applied and modified by s.18, and that a constitutional referendum arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all constitutional referenda of the Council.
|
Purpose of Report
For Council to determine who will be conducting the 2016 Local Government elections.
Background
Under the Local Government Act 1993, council elections are held on the second Saturday in September every four (4) years. The next Local Government elections are anticipated to be held on Saturday, 10 September 2016.
All Councils in NSW must determine who will be conducting the next Local Government elections, in 2016, whether that be the General Manager, or alternatively, the NSW Electoral Commission on their behalf.
Until the late 1980’s, Town and Shire Clerks were previously responsible for conducting ordinary elections. However, in 1987, the Local Government (Elections) Amendment Act was introduced which transferred this responsibility to the State Electoral Office (now the NSW Electoral Commission). Town and Shire Clerks acted as the Returning Officers during the 1987 and 1991 elections but from 1995 onwards independent Returning Officers were appointed by the State Electoral Office.
During these years the State Electoral Office invoiced the councils for certain costs such as the salary of the Returning Officer, but other costs were absorbed by both parties. Councils often made premises available for the Returning Officer and provided resources such as equipment and staff to assist the Returning Officer with election-related tasks. The State Electoral Office tended to attach a cost only to actual goods supplied rather than to those costs associated with the full range of services it provided.
In 2005, the Council for the Cost and Quality of Government, which was set up to advise the Government on improving value for money and quality in public services, reviewed the operations of the NSW Electoral Commission. As a result of that review, the NSW Electoral Commission conducted the September 2008 ordinary elections on a full cost recovery basis for the first time. This resulted in a sudden increase in costs paid by councils to the NSW Electoral Commission.
However, as a result of lobbying by the Local Government and Shires Association of NSW (now Local Government NSW), the current NSW State Government, as part of a pre-election commitment, introduced legislation to give councils the choice of conducting their own elections or to continue to engage the NSW Electoral Commission to undertake this activity on the Council’s behalf.
In June 2011, the NSW Parliament passed the Local Government (Amendment) Elections Act 2011. This amendment resulted in a number of key changes to the Local Government Act 1993. However the key focus of the amendment was on the removal of the mandate of the NSW Electoral Commission to conduct the elections, and instead return the responsibility to councils. General Managers of NSW councils are now responsible for the conduct of elections unless council has resolved to have the NSW Electoral Commission to conduct the elections.
Councils now have complete autonomy to manage their elections in the way they feel is best suited to their individual council. This effectively gives councils a choice in how they wish to conduct Local Government elections. Councils can either choose to;
· conduct their own elections under the responsibility of the General Manager
· resolve to engage the NSW Electoral Commission to conduct the elections on their behalf.
The premise of this change was that the Association, advocating on behalf of all NSW Councils, held the belief that councils were being charged at a premium rate by the NSW Electoral Commission for conducting the election. The Association held the view that councils could achieve a cost saving by managing the elections themselves.
Following the commencement of the Local Government (Amendment) Elections Act 2011, section 296 of the Local Government Act 1993 previously required councils to make a resolution within twelve (12) months of an ordinary election as to who is to administer the next general election. This would therefore have required the Council to make a resolution to engage the NSW Electoral Commission, if that was the Council’s decision, before the 9 September 2013. After this date, should Council have failed to have resolved to engage the NSW Electoral Commission, there would have been no legislative basis by which the NSW Electoral Commission may have administered the Council’s elections until after the completion of the 2016 ordinary elections. Section 55(3) of the Act was also modified to allow such an appointment to occur without inviting tenders.
However, section 296 of the Act was further amended by the commencement of the Local Government Amendment (Conduct of Elections) Act 2013 which came into force on the 25 June 2013. A key component of the amendment was that Councils are now able to decide up to 18 months prior to an ordinary election on whether to enter into a contract with the NSW Electoral Commission to conduct all of their elections, referendums and polls and, if so, to enter into any such contract with the NSW Electoral Commission up to 15 months before an election.
The next Local Government Elections are scheduled to be held in September 2016.
As a result of the amendment to section 296 of the Act, Council is required to make a decision on the conduct of the elections, in particular whether it wishes to engage the NSW Electoral Commission to conduct the 2016 Local Government elections on its behalf, no later than by 10 March 2015. Any council who has not appropriately resolved to appoint the NSW Electoral Commission by this date will not be able to do so retrospectively and accordingly the council will be responsible for conducting its own election without any assistance from the NSW Electoral Commission.
As the engagement of the NSW Electoral Commission is on a contractual basis, councils are able to negotiate on commercial terms how their elections will be administered. Such a contract must be entered into up to fifteen (15) months prior to the election which will be 10 June 2015. The contract may be terminated by either party at any time following the ordinary election and will expire 18 months prior to the next ordinary election unless terminated earlier.
The NSW Electoral Commission have provided councils with the wording of a model resolution should the council ultimately choose to select the Commission to conduct the 2016 elections (see Attachment A1).
Councillors were previously informed of the amendment to the Act via a memorandum from the Manager Records and Governance dated 2 July 2013. Councillors were advised in that memorandum that the matter would be reported to Council in due course for a decision and therefore the primary purpose of this report is now to seek a formal council resolution on this matter.
Comments
The conduct of the 2012 ordinary elections for Ku-ring-gai Council was administered by the NSW Electoral Commission on Council’s behalf. At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on the 27 October 2011, Council unanimously resolved:
“That the Electoral Commissioner for the Electoral Commission of NSW be appointed to conduct the 2012 Local Government Elections”.
Key reasons for this decision identified in the report were based on the extensive expertise and experience held by the NSW Electoral Commission in conducting elections. In fact, for the 2012 elections, the NSW Electoral Commission administered the elections for one hundred and thirty-six (136) councils whereas only fourteen (14) councils decided to conduct their own elections while a further two (2) councils didn’t hold elections.
The NSW Electoral Commission operates as a ‘full-service provider’ which assumes full responsibility for the conduct of the elections rather than partial accountability. They do not offer a catalogue of services or supplies because of impartiality and accountability reasons. The NSW Electoral Commission operates on a cost-recovery basis and are therefore not a commercial election provider. They do not apply ‘margins’ and only charges a council what it costs to administer the election. If Council was to engage the NSW Electoral Commission to conduct its elections, any expenses incurred by the NSW Electoral Commission are to be met by the council.
The NSW Electoral Commission undertook a feedback consultation process to gauge the effectiveness of their conduct of the 2012 elections. Particular emphasis was placed on what improvements could be made to their election management service provision. They held discussions and meetings with all the councils who they conducted the elections for on their behalf as well as the majority of the councils who administered their own elections. Topics such as electoral rolls, advertising, pre-polling, ballot papers, polling places, count/declaration and final costings for conducting the election were typical of the things discussed. Key areas identified for improvement were;
· service provision estimates to provide them in time for councils to make informed decisions
· consider additional options such as flyers , posters, election articles, etc to increase public awareness of the elections
· ensure consistency in approach to advertising placement by Returning Officers
· consider more flexible options for Returning Officers office space requirements
· discuss numbers and venues with council of pre-poll and polling place venues
· discuss timing of candidate seminars including the provision of sufficient information relating to the Election Funding Authority’s requirements
· shared/regional Returning Officers.
The feedback and ideas were collated and a strategy was developed to address and implement those improvements for future elections.
The NSW Electoral Commission have been requested to provide council with an indicative preliminary estimate for the costs to conduct the 2016 elections on behalf of council (see Attachment A2). This pricing schedule has been based on an anticipated 84,098 electors as is projected as at September 2016.
If Council decides to contract the NSW Electoral Commission to conduct the 2016 elections on council’s behalf, the following actions are required to occur;
· the council needs to pass the appropriate resolution and send a copy of those resolutions to the NSW Electoral Commission (the resolution must be passed before 10 March 2015)
· enter into a contractual arrangement for the provision of election management services (contracts need to be signed by both parties before 10 June 2015)
However if Council decides not to use the services of the NSW Electoral Commission the following items would still be provided by the NSW Electoral Commission;
· enrolment advertising
· composite rolls
· copy of rolls to candidates
· other enrolment related matters including access to online roll facility prior to the provision of rolls
· provision of a list of registered General Postal Voters
· list of non-voters
· vote counting software specifications
· management of failure to vote and penalty notice processes.
The alternative to contracting the NSW Electoral Commission is for councils to conduct their own elections or to seek suitably qualified and experienced election management service providers to conduct the elections on council’s behalf. In this case the General Manager broadly assumes the same responsibilities as the NSW Electoral Commissions which require the election to be conducted in accordance with the Act and the Regulation. The Office of Local Government has advised councils that they should thoroughly consider all aspects involved in conducting their own elections, particularly as staff will need to gain detailed knowledge of current elections legislative requirements. Amongst other things, the General Manager would be responsible for;
· appointing a Returning Officer and substitute Returning Officer (these positions cannot be a current council staff member)
· appointing polling places
· determining the fees payable to the Returning Officer and other electoral officials
· confirming the roll of non-resident owners of rateable land and the roll of occupiers and rate-paying lessees
· preparing a list of electors who appear not to have voted at the election to forward to the NSW Electoral Commission
· management of the election costs
· preparation of a report to the Minister for Local Government on the conduct of the election.
In conducting its own elections, the Council is required to comply with various elections legislative requirements such as;
· Local Government Act 1993
· Local Government (General) Regulation 2005
· Director General’s Guidelines for Council Administered Elections
· Office of Local Government – The Election Process
· Office of Local Government – Guidelines for Council Administered Elections
Where a commercial election provider has been engaged they have a contractual obligation to ensure the successful conduct of the elections occurs and all aspects are addressed. However, despite this onus on the commercial election provider, the General Manager still retains overall responsibility for the administration of the elections in accordance with s.296(1) of the Act.
The Office of Local Government’s Guidelines for Council Administered Elections 2012 states;
“There are a number of private sector companies who provide election services for company board of directors, sporting clubs and associations and the like. Similarly some Electoral Commissions, such as the Australian Electoral Commission, may conduct fee for service elections.
While the Act permits the use of such commercial election providers the General Manager will still retain overall responsibility for the administration of the elections.
In considering the use of such providers it is important to clarify that they can deliver the elections for the council. For example, although the Australian Election Commission is not involved in local government elections, its overall election experience may lead a General Manager to believe a suitably qualified officer from the Australian Electoral Commission could be engaged as the Returning Officer for the council’s elections.
The General Manager would also need to be satisfied that if the provider claims to be able to obtain all the election material, or hire the necessary venues, or arrange the printing of the ballot papers, or conduct the count, that they can demonstrate their successful completion of these tasks in similar circumstances.
It is also a requirement that the method proposed to be used by the provider to conduct the count of the ballot papers (whether manual or the use of scanning equipment) can comply with the formality, scrutiny and record keeping provisions contained in the Act and Regulation.
If the services of a commercial election provider are to be used the contract must specify a ‘natural person’ as the Returning Officer, not simply name the particular company. It is also necessary to ensure that the person engaged as either the Returning Officer or substitute Returning Officer is indemnified by the council or has sufficient professional indemnity insurance in the event that an election is challenged or declared void due to any irregularity in the way it was run.
Councils are not restricted to relying on the services on one service provider to deliver all election-related items. For example, while a commercial election provider may be engaged to conduct the count, the council may decide to make its own arrangements in relation to the appointment of a Returning Officer, the purchase of cardboard material or the printing of the ballot papers.”
Section 55 of the Local Government Act 1993 was amended to exempt councils from tendering if they wish to enter into a contract for the NSW Electoral Commission to administer the council’s elections, referendums and polls. However this exemption does not apply to contracts or arrangements with any other service provider. Therefore if the council decides to utilise the services of a commercial election provider and the cost of administering the election is over $150,000, which for 2016 it is anticipated to be based on the pricing schedules provided, the council will be required to conduct a formal tendering process.
In the market place however there appears to be only one (1) viable alternative private sector option which is available to NSW councils – the Australian Election Company (AEC) which is based in Brisbane. The AEC conducts elections and ballots Australia-wide and has a background in Queensland Local Government elections, NRMA Board of Directors, Commonwealth Government Departments, Financial Institutions, Corporations, Clubs, Societies and Unions.
In the September 2012 NSW Local Government Elections, the AEC had their first involvement in the outsourced conduct of thirteen (13) NSW councils. Four (4) council elections were conducted on a ‘totally outsourced’ basis, another six (6) on a ‘partially outsourced’ basis and they provided support, materials and technical assistance only to a further three (3) councils.
The AEC offers a range of professional election management services. Some NSW Council elections were ‘totally outsourced’ to the AEC in that all materials and resources were provided solely by the AEC. In comparison some other councils were ‘partially outsourced’ with which the AEC provided some services, materials and technical assistance while other election services were either conducted in-house or undertaken by other parties.
The AEC have been requested to provide council with an indicative pricing schedule for the costs to conduct the 2016 elections on behalf of council (see Attachment A3). This pricing schedule has been based on an anticipated 84,098 electors as is projected as at September 2016.
Within the AEC indicative pricing schedule, council should note that there are two (2) options. The first is what is referred to as a ‘fully outsourced’ option which provides a straight comparison to the NSW Electoral Commission’s pricing schedule. In this option both election service providers undertake all aspects of conducting the election and provides for every cost element required to conduct the election. This option is identified as ‘Schedule 1’ in the AEC’s pricing schedule.
However the AEC indicative pricing schedule identifies a potential second option for councils – this is what is referred to as a ‘partially outsourced’ option. This option is identified as ‘Schedule 2’ in their pricing schedule. This schedule identifies designated election facilities/activities that a council may choose to assume the responsibility for from the election provider or to either conduct on an in-house basis or by selecting other third parties to do on their behalf. A broad example of the types of facilities and activities in this schedule can be described as;
· Polling places
· Pre-poll centres
· Returning Officers accommodation rental
· Phone system hire
· Hire of furniture, photocopiers, office equipment, etc
· Postage
· Election rolls
· Security.
The AEC advise that there may be potential for savings for councils by removing some items from the ‘fully outsourced’ option however there are also potentially significant extra costs if council were to choose AEC to conduct the elections such as the conduct of a formal market tender process and there is an expectation that there would be some diversion of existing staff resources from their current duties to election-based duties.
It should be noted that this ‘partially outsourced’ option is not one that the NSW Electoral Commission provides for and is exclusive to the AEC only.
integrated planning and reporting
Leadership and Governance
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
The organisation is recognised and distinguished by its ethical decision-making, efficient management, innovation and quality customer service.
|
Council's Governance framework is developed to ensure probity, transparency and the principles of sustainability are integrated and applied into our policies, plans, guidelines and decision-making processes.
|
Comply with the requirements of the Local Government Act and Regulations.
|
Governance Matters
NSW Local Government elections are held every four (4) years with the next election due in September 2016. In June 2011, the NSW Parliament passed the Local Government (Amendment) Elections act 2011. This has resulted in changes to the Local Government Act 1993 regarding the conduct of the ordinary elections.
For the purposes of the conduct of these elections, Council is required to determine whether to appoint the NSW Electoral Commissioner to conduct the election.
Section 296 of the Local Government Act 1993 states;
How elections are to be administered
296 How elections are to be administered
(1) Elections for the purposes of this Chapter are to be administered by the general manager of the council concerned, except as provided by this section.
Note : Section 18 provides that certain provisions of this Act (relating to the conduct of elections) apply to council polls and constitutional referendums, with such modifications as may be necessary, in the same way as they apply to elections.
(2) A council can enter into an arrangement (an "election arrangement" ) with the Electoral Commissioner, by contract or otherwise, for the Electoral Commissioner to administer elections of the council as provided by this section. If such an arrangement is entered into, the Electoral Commissioner is to administer elections of the council in accordance with the arrangement.
(3) An election arrangement for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all elections of a council can be entered into if:
(a) the council resolves at least 18 months before the next ordinary election of councillors that such an arrangement is to be entered into, and
(b) the arrangement is entered into no later than 15 months before the next ordinary election of councillors.
(4) An election arrangement for the Electoral Commissioner to administer a particular election of a council (other than an ordinary election of councillors) can be entered into at any time if the council has resolved that an election arrangement for the election is to be entered into.
(5) An election arrangement for the Electoral Commissioner to administer an ordinary election of councillors can be entered into less than 15 months before the election if:
(a) the council has resolved that an election arrangement for the election is to be entered into, and
(b) the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances that make it necessary or desirable for the election to be administered by the Electoral Commissioner.
(6) An election arrangement for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all elections of a council can be terminated by the council or the Electoral Commissioner at any time after the next ordinary election of councillors (by giving written notice of termination). If the arrangement is not terminated by either party after an ordinary election of councillors, the arrangement is automatically terminated 18 months before the next ordinary election of councillors.
(7) The Electoral Commissioner is to administer the first election for an area after its constitution. Expenses incurred by the Electoral Commissioner (including the remuneration of election officials) in connection with such an election are to be met by the council and are recoverable from the council as a debt owed to the Electoral Commissioner.
(8) This section does not apply to an election of the mayor or a deputy mayor by councillors.
Section 55(3) of the Act has also previously been modified to allow such an appointment to occur without the requirement of inviting tenders.
Risk Management
There are some significant risks to councils if they decide to conduct their own elections. The major risks are:
· Human Resources – being able to employ experienced and qualified election staff, including but not limited to an experienced Returning Officer and a substitute Returning Officer, clerical and administration staff, polling place and other staff
· Administration/Legal – being able to ensure that there is uniform interpretation of electoral-related legislation in line with the NSW Electoral Commission and other councils and maintaining uniformity with established electoral practices.
· Impartiality/Independence – there is an element of independence if the elections are conducted by an external third party. Elections must be conducted at arms-length from the Mayor and Councillors. Appointing the General Manager to conduct the election may be perceived to compromise that impartiality. Even with the appointment of a commercial election provider the General Manager will still retain overall responsibility for the administration of the elections with the exception being the NSW Electoral Commission who will have full responsibility.
There are also some moderate risks to councils if they decide to select a commercial election provider to conduct its elections in regards to whether they possess the required scale and capacity to conduct the elections on the council’s behalf in comparison to the NSW Electoral Commission.
Financial Considerations
Council has approximately $660,800 budgeted for the 2016/17 financial year to fund the conduct of the Local Government elections in September 2016. Council’s costs in relation to the conduct of the 2012 elections totalled $543,379.10. Given that the 2016/17 budget provides for a 22% increase on the previous election costs, it was anticipated that Council will have sufficient funding available for the conduct of the 2016 elections. Both ‘fully outsourced’ pricing schedule options that have been received from the NSW Electoral Commission and the Australian Election Company would be able to be covered within this existing budget allocation.
Social Considerations
There are no social considerations associated with the recommendations in this report.
Environmental Considerations
There are no environmental considerations associated with the recommendations in this report.
Community Consultation
None undertaken or required.
Internal Consultation
None undertaken or required.
Summary
All Councils in NSW must determine who will be conducting the next Local Government elections, in 2016, whether it be the General Manager, or alternatively, the NSW Electoral Commission on their behalf.
Councils now have complete autonomy to manage their elections in the way they feel is best suited to their individual council. This effectively gives councils a choice in how they wish to conduct Local Government elections. Councils can either choose to;
· conduct their own elections under the responsibility of the General Manager
· resolve to engage the NSW Electoral Commission to conduct the elections on their behalf.
The next Local Government Elections are scheduled to be held in September 2016.
As a result of the amendment to section 296 of the Act, Council is required to make a decision on the conduct of the elections, in particular whether it wishes to engage the NSW Electoral Commission to conduct the 2016 Local Government elections on its behalf, no later than the 10 March 2015. Any council who has not appropriately resolved to appoint the NSW Electoral Commission by this date will not be able to do so retrospectively and accordingly the council will be responsible for conducting its own election without any assistance from the NSW Electoral Commission.
If a council chooses to select the NSW Electoral Commission to conduct the elections, the council must enter into a contract to provide that service. Such a contract must be entered into up to fifteen (15) months prior to the election which will be 10 June 2015. The contract may be terminated by either party at any time following the ordinary election and will expire 18 months prior to the next ordinary election unless terminated earlier.
All Councils in NSW must now determine whether to appoint the NSW Electoral Commission to conduct the next Local Government elections in 2016.
Councils that choose to appoint their own General Manager to conduct their elections would likely to be doing so on the basis that they can do so at a reduced cost to the council. In a report from the Office of Local Government titled ‘Review of 2012 Council run Elections’ in June 2013 statistics indicate that the majority of the councils who chose to conduct their own elections were able to conduct those elections at a cost that was less than their estimated costs of engaging the NSW Electoral Commission to conduct the elections.
It was acknowledged in this report that the cost of the 2012 elections for the majority of these fourteen (14) councils came in under their projected costs that they had calculated if the NSW Electoral Commission had conducted the elections. This projected cost was based on a formula provided by the NSW Electoral Commission. The formula was then applied to the final cost of conducting the 2008 elections to provide a cost estimate for the conduct of the 2012 elections. Between the councils there was an estimated saving in the order of $1million. However it should be noted that two (2) of those councils actually incurred an increase in actual costs versus the estimated cost provided by the NSW Electoral Commission. The report also revealed that the three (3) councils that made the largest percentage of these savings conducted their election almost entirely in-house, including the count, and only relied on the AEC for the provision of some limited services.
A financial comparison between both pricing schedules including relevant comments, are provided in the confidential pricing comparison attachment to this report (see Attachment A4).
Notwithstanding the financial considerations, it is also considered critically important that any savings and efficiencies in the conduct of elections and referendums by councils do not come at the expense of the principles of openness, transparency and accountability.
It was reported in the Office from Local Government’s report that a number of the Councils who chose to conduct their own elections reported various incidents where the issue was directly attributed to the Returning Officer appointed. These issues appear attributable to human error – mostly on behalf of the election officials. It is noted that an experienced Returning Officer is essential to the successful conduct of the election. The following are a number of examples of the issues encountered by these councils;
· a Returning Officer accepting a nomination from a candidate but refused the deposit, telling the candidate they would accept the payment of the deposit later only to forget to collect it rendering the nomination invalid.
· Concerns raised of the conduct of the nominations and candidate draw which required the services of the Returning Officer to be terminated.
· A complaint that a candidate information sheet for one of the candidates had been witnessed by a person who was not authorised to do so leaving questions to the validity of the nomination.
· A council became aware part way through its count that it had miscalculated the ‘quota’. A quota is calculated by dividing the total number of formal votes by one more than the number of vacancies (disregarding the fractions) and then adding one. The error occurred when the figure was rounded up resulting in the quota being one more than it should have been. This required a re-count using the correct quota which caused delay and further costs.
One Council who utilised the services of the AEC noted in its election report to the Minister for Local Government;
“…Council staff were required to spend additional time on election matters than was originally anticipated due to the poor performance of the first Returning Officer provided by the Australian Election Company. The Company did not respond in a timely manner to correcting the issues raised with them and there was, initially, a reluctance to consider matters of concern raised with them. Also, it appeared that the contracted company was not fully conversant with NSW legislation and regulations relating to the conduct of local government elections. Council staff were required to spend additional time in ensuring full compliance, where possible”.
Another common issue stated in the Office of Local Government’s report is that though a number of councils who run their own elections had declared results within a comparable timeframe to those conducted by the NSW Electoral Commission, the last council run election was declared 16 days after the election which was one (1) week after the last NSWEC run election was declared. It would appear that those Councils who run their own election count were able to finalise the results faster but those Councils who chose the services of the AEC to conduct the count encountered more delays in the declaration of the polls in comparison to councils whose elections were administered by the NSW Electoral Commission.
These instances highlight the importance of utilising a reputable, well-organised and well-resourced election services provider that utilises staff whom have undergone extensive training and that have the necessary scale and capacity to undertake the elections. While ultimately these councils that administered their own elections in 2012 did so successfully it could be argued that these savings were offset by delays in declaration of polls and issues with elections staff that had the potential to significantly compromise the integrity of the election process.
The previous elections of Ku-ring-gai Council, which have been conducted by the NSW Electoral Commission, were characterised by significant advanced planning and organisation by the Commission resulting in the efficient conduct of the elections. It has been considered that overall the previous elections conducted by the NSW Electoral Commission have been thoroughly well organised and conducted efficiently.
In the 2012 elections, the NSW Electoral Commission’s Elector Enquiry Centre received 1,998 phone call enquiries and the NSW Electoral Commission’s Ku-ring-gai Council elections webpage received 10,055 individual visitors which shows evidence of a substantial amount of customer contact thereby requiring the services of a well-resourced election management service provider.
For the 2012 ordinary local government elections, the NSW Electoral Commission administered the elections for a total of one hundred and thirty-six (136) out of a total of one hundred and fifty-two (152) councils whereas only fourteen (14) councils decided to conduct their own elections while a further two (2) councils didn’t hold elections. It should be noted that out of those fourteen (14) only thirteen (13) councils selected the services of the AEC of which only four (4) of those selected a ‘fully outsourced’ service whereas other councils only chose the services or materials from the AEC that they required. These figures suggest that the NSW Electoral Commission are generally considered to be a reputable provider of election management services with significant experience in the conduct of NSW local government elections.
Council should also consider the issue of impartiality and independence. Elections should be conducted at arms-length from the Mayor and Councillors. There is an element of independence associated with the NSW Electoral Commission conducting the election. Appointing the General Manager to conduct the election may be perceived to compromise that impartiality. Even if Council was to appoint a commercial election management services provider such as the AEC, the General Manager would still retain overall responsibility for the administration of the elections whereas in the event that the NSW Electoral Commission were appointed, then they would assume full responsibility for the conduct of the elections.
There is much evidence that the NSW Electoral Commissioner is the best experienced, most qualified and well-resourced election management services provider to conduct Council’s elections.
The NSW Electoral Commission have provided councils with the wording of a model resolution should the council ultimately choose to select the Commission to conduct the 2016 elections. This model resolution forms the basis of the recommendations contained within this report.
|
That Ku-ring-gai Council (“the Council”) resolves:
A. Pursuant to s.296(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) (“the Act”) that an election arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all elections of the Council.
B. Pursuant to s.296(2) and (3) of the Act, as applied and modified by s.18, that a council poll arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all council polls of the Council.
C. Pursuant to s.296(2) and (3) of the Act, as applied and modified by s.18, that a constitutional referendum arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all constitutional referenda of the Council.
|
|
Matt Ryan Manager Records & Governance |
David Marshall Director Corporate |
|
A1View |
Model council resolution to select the NSW Electoral Commission to conduct the 2016 Local Government Elections |
|
2014/295441 |
|
|
|
Attachment for report - Confidential Pricing Schedule - NSW Electoral Commission |
|
Confidential |
|
|
|
Attachment to report - Confidential Pricing Schedule - Australian Election Company |
|
Confidential |
|
|
|
Pricing Comparison between the NSW Electoral Commission and the Australian Election Company |
|
Confidential |
|
APPENDIX No: 1 - Model council resolution to select the NSW Electoral Commission to conduct the 2016 Local Government Elections |
|
Item No: GB.4 |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 December 2014 |
GB.5 / 233 |
|
|
|
|
Item GB.5 |
CY00259/6 |
|
|
10 November 2014 |
Christmas/New Year
Recess Delegations 2014/2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
|
purpose of report: |
To grant appropriate Delegations during the Christmas/New Year recess period for 2014/2015. |
|
|
|
|
background: |
Council at its meeting of 11 November 2014 adopted a meeting cycle for 2015. Council’s last meeting of 2014 will be held on 9 December 2014 with the first meeting of 2015 being held on 3 February 2015. Thereby delegations are required to be granted during the Christmas/New Year recess period for 2014/2015. |
|
|
|
|
comments: |
The Christmas/New Year recess period is from the last Council meeting on 9 December 2014 until meetings resume on 3 February 2015. During this period, it is customary to grant Delegated Authority to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and the General Manager. |
|
|
|
|
recommendation: |
The appropriate Delegations of Authority be granted to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and the General Manager for the Christmas/New Year recess period for 2014/2015. |
Purpose of Report
To grant appropriate Delegations during the Christmas/New Year recess period for 2014/2015.
Background
Council at its meeting of 11 November 2014 adopted a meeting cycle for 2015. Council’s last meeting of 2014 will be held on 9 December 2014 with the first meeting of 2015 being held on 3 February 2015. Thereby delegations are requiring to be granted during the Christmas/New Year recess period for 2014/2015.
It is customary for Council to grant appropriate Delegations of Authority to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and to the General Manager during this recess period.
integrated planning and reporting
Leadership and Governance
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
The organisation is recognised and distinguished by its ethical decision-making, efficient management, innovation and quality customer service. |
Council's Governance framework is developed to ensure probity, transparency and the principles of sustainability are integrated and applied into our policies, plans, guidelines and decision-making processes. |
Ensure effective and efficient conduct of Council and committee meetings for the benefit of councillors and the community. |
Comments
The Christmas/New Year recess period is from the last Council meeting on 9 December 2014 until meetings resume on 3 February 2015. During this period, it is customary to grant Delegated Authority to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and the General Manager.
These Delegations of Authority will assist in the smooth functioning of the Council during the Christmas/New Year recess for 2014/2015.
Governance Matters
It is Council’s usual practice to grant delegated authority to exercise all powers, authorities, duties and functions of Council, except those set out in Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993, during the Christmas/New Year period. This year that period is from the 9 December 2014 to 3 February 2015.
Risk Management
There are no major risks associated with the recommendations in this report.
Financial Considerations
There are no financial considerations associated with this report.
Social Considerations
There are no social considerations associated with this report.
Environmental Considerations
There are no environmental considerations associated with this report.
Community Consultation
None undertaken or required.
Internal Consultation
None undertaken or required.
Summary
Council at its meeting of 11 November 2014 adopted a meeting cycle for 2015. Council’s last meeting of 2014 will be held on 9 December 2014 with the first meeting of 2015 being held on 3 February 2015. Thereby delegations are requiring to be granted during the Christmas/New Year recess period for 2014/2015
It is customary for Council to grant appropriate Delegations of Authority to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and to the General Manager during this recess period.
The Christmas/New Year recess period is from the last Council meeting on 9 December 2014 until meetings resume on 3 February 2015. During this period, it is customary to grant Delegated Authority to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and the General Manager.
These Delegations of Authority will assist in the smooth functioning of the Council during the Christmas/New Year recess for 2014/2015.
|
A. That the following Delegations of Authority be granted to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and the General Manager for the Christmas/New Year recess period for 2014/2015 as follows;
1. That the Mayor (Councillor Jennifer Anderson), the Deputy Mayor (Councillor Chantelle Fornari-Orsmond), and the General Manager (John McKee), be granted authority to exercise all powers, authorities, duties and functions of Council except those set out in Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993 during the period 10 December 2014 to 2 February 2015, subject to the following conditions:
a. Such powers, authorities and functions may only be exercised by unanimous agreement between the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and General Manager.
b. Any such power, authority, duty or function shall only be exercised by the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and General Manager jointly where they are of the opinion that the exercise of any such power, authority, duty or function could not be deferred until the meeting of Council on 3 February 2015.
B. That consultation, subject to their availability, be held with Ward Councillors on matters where they would normally be contacted, before delegation is exercised.
|
|
Matt Ryan Manager Records & Governance |
David Marshall Director Corporate |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 December 2014 |
GB.6 / 237 |
|
|
|
|
Item GB.6 |
S03779/2 |
|
|
27 November 2014 |
Australian Local Government
Women's Association NSW
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
|
purpose of report: |
To advise Councillors of the Australian Local Government Women’s Association (NSW) Annual Conference to be held in Wollongong between 30 April and 2 May 2015. |
|
|
|
|
background: |
The theme for the conference is “Leadership Adventure”. |
|
|
|
|
comments: |
The conference will provide a platform for Councillors and staff to discuss current and emerging issues facing women in local government. |
|
|
|
|
recommendation: |
That any Councillors interested in attending the Australian Local Government Women’s Association (NSW) Annual Conference in Wollongong between 30 April and 2 May 2015 advise the General Manager by 12 noon Friday, 19 December 2014. |
Purpose of Report
To advise Councillors of the Australian Local Government Women’s Association (NSW) Annual Conference to be held in Wollongong between 30 April and 2 May 2015.
BACKGROUND
The theme for the conference is “Leadership Adventure”. The program is attached (Attachment A1)
Comments
The annual ALGWA conference provides a platform for councillors and staff to gather to discuss current and emerging issues facing women in local government. The conference provides a supportive environment for Councillors and Staff while featuring informative speakers and interesting workshops.
integrated planning and reporting
Leadership and Governance
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
Council leads the community by advocating, influencing and participating in policy development to the benefit of the local area |
Council actively engages with stakeholders to inform the development of Council’s strategies and plans as appropriate |
Pursue opportunities to contribute to policy development affecting Ku-ring-gai at state and regional levels |
Governance Matters
The Policy on Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Councillors provides for Council to meet the reasonable costs of Councillors attending conferences authorised by resolution of Council.
Risk Management
There are no risk management considerations associated with this report.
Financial Considerations
The cost of attending the conference:
ALGWA Member Early Bird Registration (paid by 13 February 2015) – $865
Non-Member Early Bird Registration (paid by 13 February 2015) - $965
Member Full Registration: $965
Non-Member Full Registration: $1,065
Day Registration $550.00 per day
Travel and accommodation costs will be additional.
Attendance is provided for in the Councillor’s conference budget in accordance with the Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities Policy.
Council has an annual budget of $30,700 for Councillors’ attendance at conferences with $27,657.04 remaining in the 2014/2015 financial year.
Social Considerations
There are no social considerations associated with this report.
Environmental Considerations
There are no environmental considerations associated with this report.
Community Consultation
None undertaken or required.
Internal Consultation
None undertaken or required.
Summary
The annual Australian Local Government Women’s Association (NSW) Annual Conference will be held in Wollongong between 30 April and 2 May 2015. The theme for the conference is “Leadership Adventure.
The annual ALGWA conference provides a platform for councillors and staff to gather to discuss current and emerging issues facing women in local government. The conference provides a supportive environment for Councillors and Staff while featuring informative speakers and interesting workshops.
|
That any Councillors interested in attending the Australian Local Government Women’s Association (NSW) Annual Conference in Wollongong between 30 April and 2 May 2015 advise the General Manager by 12 noon Friday, 19 December 2014. |
|
Matt Ryan Manager Records & Governance |
David Marshall Director Corporate |
|
A1View |
ALGWA 2015 Program |
|
2014/302836 |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 December 2014 |
GB.7 / 242 |
|
|
|
|
Item GB.7 |
S10045 |
|
|
20 November 2014 |
Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy - 2014 to 2021
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
|
purpose of report: |
To advise Council of the Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy 2014-2021. |
|
|
|
|
background: |
As part of the State Government’s Waste Strategy and associated grant funding, Northern Sydney Regional Organisation for Councils (NSROC) has prepared a Regional Waste Strategy 2014-2021to identify regional co-operational and resource sharing for managing the region’s waste. The Northern Sydney Regional Waste 2014-2021 strategy is consistent with the focus areas identified by the State Government’s strategy. |
|
|
|
|
comments: |
The Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy 2014-2021has been prepared in consultation with member Councils, Council representatives as well as expert advice from consultants, SLR Consulting. Funding for the preparation of the Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy 2014-2021has been provided from an EPA grant under the Waste Less Recycle More funding program. The strategy is submitted for adoption in principle and for integration into Council’s formal planning documents for 2015/16. |
|
|
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council adopt in principle the Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy 2014–2021 and that the Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy be integrated into Council’s Delivery Program and Operational Plan for 2015/16. |
Purpose of Report
To advise Council of the Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy 2014-2021.
Background
As part of the State Government’s Waste Strategy and associated grant funding, Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (NSROC) has prepared a Regional Waste Strategy to identify regional co-operational and resource sharing for managing the region’s waste. The Regional Waste Strategy is consistent with the focus areas identified by the State Government’s Strategy.
Comments
The Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy 2014–2021has been prepared in consultation with member Councils, council representatives as well as expert advice from consultants, SLR Consulting. Funding for the preparation of the Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy 2014–2021has been provided from an EPA grant under the Waste Less Recycle More funding program. The strategy is submitted for adoption in principle and for integration into Council’s formal planning documents for 2015/16.
Focus areas have been identified in the Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy 2014–2021which are consistent with the State Government’s Strategy and associated grant funding and include the following;
Focus Area 1 - Managing problem waste such as chemicals, paints, e-waste, and gas bottles.
Focus Area 2 – Illegal Dumping which will includes regional training and resource sharing associated with compliance.
Focus Area 3 – Improved Waste Management in Multi Unit Dwellings
Focus Area 4 – Community Education Programs
Focus Area 5 – Joint Waste Management Contracts
For each Focus Area, a number of actions such as regional projects, contract services or establishment of assets has been identified to deliver on improvements to managing the region’s waste.
Attached to this report are the documents which form the Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy 2014–2021:
1. Summary report
2. Regional Waste Plan Overview
3. Directions report
4. Project Options assessment Report
integrated planning and reporting
Natural Environment
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective N5.1 |
Delivery Program Term Achievement N5.1.1. |
Operational Plan Task |
|
A community progressively reducing its consumption of resources and leading in recycling and reuse. |
Community is responsible and engaged in improved recycling and reduction in resource use.
|
Participation in regional waste disposal / processing procurement
|
Governance Matters
The purpose for the Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy 2014–2021is to support the State Government’s Waste Strategy for NSW and to allow for regional co-operational and resource sharing for waste generated in the NSROC region.
Risk Management
The Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy 2014–2021has been prepared in consultation with NSROC member Councils and has included expert advice from consultants SLR Consulting who have international experience is this process.
Financial Considerations
Majority funding associated with implementation of the Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy 2014–2021is from EPA grants under Waste Less Recycle More funding program which is scheduled for operation till 2016.
Social Considerations
Improved waste management outcomes are intended with the implementation of the Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy 2014–2021in the areas of increased waste recovery and reuse, cost efficiency in regional procurement and community engagement.
Environmental Considerations
Improved environmental outcomes are intended with the implementation of the regional strategy in the areas of better utilisation of resources and processing of residual waste which avoid landfill.
Community Consultation
The Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy 2014–2021is recommended for adoption in principle and will be integrated into Council’s integrated planning documents for 2015/16. These documents will be subject to exhibition in accordance with the normal practice for adoption of such documents.
Internal Consultation
No internal consultation is required for the Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy 2014–2021.
Summary
As part of the State Government’s Waste Strategy and associated grant funding, NSROC has prepared a Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy 2014–2021to identify regional co-operational and resource sharing for managing member Council’s waste. The Strategy is consistent with the focus areas identified by the State Government’s Waste Strategy.
The Strategy has been prepared in consultation with member Councils and NSROC has used the expert advice from consultants SLR Consulting who have international experience in preparing strategic waste management plans of this type.
Funding for the preparation has been provided from EPA grant under the Waste Less Recycle More funding program and is intended to offer improved outcomes for management of waste and in particular to improved management of the focus area waste streams identified in this report.
The documentation associated with this strategy is provided as attachments to this report.
The strategy is submitted for adoption in principle and for integration into Council’s integrated planning documents for 2015/16.
|
A. That Council adopt in principle the Northern Sydney Waste Strategy 2014–2021.
B. That the Northern Sydney Waste Strategy be integrated into Council’s Delivery Program and Operational Plan for 2015/16.
|
|
Colin Wright Manager Waste |
Greg Piconi Director Operations |
|
A1View |
Summary report |
|
2014/293169 |
|
|
|
A2View |
Regional Waste Plan overview |
|
2014/293170 |
|
|
A3View |
Directions Report |
|
2014/293171 |
|
|
A4View |
Project Options Assessment Report |
|
2014/293172 |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 December 2014 |
GB.8 / 323 |
|
|
|
|
Item GB.8 |
S02294 |
|
|
25 November 2014 |
Draft Policy For Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
|
purpose of report: |
To adopt the draft Policy for Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping to be carried out in public places for the purpose of law enforcement associated with illegal dumping. |
|
|
|
|
background: |
Incidents of illegal dumping have increased significantly incurring substantial costs to Council in collection and disposal costs as well as impacting negatively on the amenity and the environmental within the community. With assistance of funding from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and in accordance with the State’s Waste Strategy, Council can conduct covert electronic surveillance to assist with investigation and regulatory action associated with these incidents. |
|
|
|
|
comments: |
Council has obtained legal advice to ensure the policy complies with the Privacy and Personnel Information Protection Act (PPIP Act) , the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Amendment (CCTV) Regulation 2013 and the NSW Government Policy Statement and Guidelines for the Establishment and Implementation of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) in Public Places.
The draft policy, with associated Code of Practice and Standard Operating Procedure is attached to the report. |
|
|
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council adopt the draft Policy for Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping and that the draft policy be placed on public exhibition for 28 days to enable community comment and be reported back to Council at the end of the exhibition period.
|
Purpose of Report
To adopt the draft Policy for Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping to be carried out in public places for the purpose of law enforcement associated with illegal dumping.
Background
Incidents of illegal dumping have increased significantly incurring substantial costs to Council in collection and disposal costs as well as impacting negatively on the amenity and environment. A number of these incidents have been significant dumping involving multiple loads of materials such as wood chip and demolition materials and resulted in significant costs to Council.
With assistance of funding from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and in accordance with the State’s Waste Strategy, Council has the opportunity to conduct covert electronic surveillance to gather evidence for investigation and regulatory action of illegal dumping at locations where incidents have been regularly occurring.
Comments
The draft Policy (attached) relates to investigation associated with significant illegal dumping which requires covert surveillance for investigations and law enforcement.
Council is required to formalise a policy on how and where types of covert electronic surveillance can be employed and to identify the control provisions for storage of relevant information, who will be authorised to access information and for what purpose the information will be used.
To ensure Council is legally able to conduct this activity, the draft policy has been compiled to reflect directions from the Privacy and Personnel Information Protection Act (PPIP act) the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Amendment (CCTV) Regulation 2013 and the NSW Government Policy Statement and Guidelines for the Establishment and Implementation of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) in Public Places.
All covert investigations will be in accordance with the Code of Practice (attached) and comply to the Standard Operations Procedure (attached) for investigations under the direction of processing of personal information by public sector agencies in relation to their investigative functions.
Council is not required to comply with Sections 9,10,13,14,15,17, 18, 19(1) of the Privacy and Personnel Information Protection Act (PPIP Act) if the covert electronic surveillance is considered necessary for the proper exercise of Council’s investigative functions associated with law enforcement. This type of evidence is considered reasonable due to increased incidents of illegal dumping, the escalating costs to Council in removing the material and the adverse impact dumping causes to the amenity and environment.
The State Government has made amendments to the Protection of Environment Operations Act to increase the penalties for illegal dumping. This highlights the significance of this form of surveillance which assists in managing illegal dumping within the State and local government areas.
The draft policy does not contemplate or provide for the surveillance of Council employees. However, due to the possibility cameras may unintentionally capture images of staff, it is appropriate to note the draft policy will operate in conjunction with Council’s workplace Surveillance Policy.
The covert surveillance program is not for surveillance of employees but for investigative purposes in the prevention of illegal dumping. The Workplace Surveillance Policy provides how Council meets its obligations under Section 10 of the Workplace Surveillance Act, 2005 in relation to surveillance of employees. Council must give notice of surveillance of an employee. It must be in writing and in accordance with the information specified in the Act.
integrated planning and reporting
Places, Space and Infrastructure
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
Preserving the unique character of Ku-ring-gai
|
Ku-ring-gai unique visual character and identity is maintained
|
Strategies, places and processes are in place to protect and enhance Ku-ring-gai unique landscape character
|
Governance Matters
This activity crosses community awareness, amenity and regulation activities.
Risk Management
The draft policy and associated operational standards supported by a Code of Practice is to ensure Council conduct covert electronic surveillance in accordance with the legislation governing this type of activity. The policy is required to ensure council complies with the relevant legislation.
Financial Considerations
Funding for this activity is being provided by grant funding from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).
Social Considerations
The social benefits include enhancement to the visual amenity of areas known to be regular dumping locations, improved environmental outcomes and social benefits of greater awareness to issues concerning illegal dumping.
Environmental Considerations
Environmental benefits include reduction in dumping offences which impact on the Ku-ring-gai area’s visual character associated with public land such as parks, reserves and areas associated with commerce.
Community Consultation
The draft policy will be placed on public exhibition for community comment.
Internal Consultation
Staff from Development and Regulation, Council’s lawyer and Operation’s staff have been involved with the preparation of the draft policy.
Summary
Incidents of illegal dumping are significant offences which impact on the visual character of areas associated with public land such as parks, reserves and bushland. The removal and disposal from these incidents imposes significant cost to Council and staff resources.
Grant funding from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has being received to support a range of measures to educate the community and to employ tools to assist with deterrent and regulatory actions which will assist in the prevention of illegal dumping.
Covert electronic surveillance will greatly assist by providing supportive evidence for high level investigations and law enforcement.
To comply with the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act (PPIP Act) and the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Amendment (CCTV) Regulation 2013, Council is required to formalise a policy detailing the procedures in which this information managed.
All covert investigations will be in accordance with the Code of Practice for investigations under the direction for processing of personal information by public sector agencies in relation to their investigative and law enforcement functions.
Under the Code of Practice, Council is not required to comply with Sections 9,10,13,14,15,17, 18, 19(1) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act (PPIP Act) for release of information to the public if the covert surveillance is reasonably necessary for the proper exercise of Council’s investigative functions associated with law enforcement.
Illegal dumping is a breach of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act and within Council’s jurisdiction for managing this compliance issue.
|
A. That Council adopt the Policy for Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping.
B. That the draft policy be placed on public exhibition for 28 days to enable community comment and be reported back to Council at the end of the exhibition period. . |
|
Colin Wright Manager Waste |
Greg Piconi Director Operations |
|
A1View |
Draft Policy for Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping |
|
2014/176082 |
|
|
|
A2View |
Covert Electronic Surveillance - Code of Practice |
|
2014/152344 |
|
|
A3View |
Covert Electronic Surveillance - Standard Operating Procedure |
|
2014/152603 |
|
APPENDIX No: 1 - Draft Policy for Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping |
|
Item No: GB.8 |
Covert Electronic Surveillance in Public Places
Table of Contents
Controlled Document Information....................................................................................................... 3
Authorisation Details................................................................................................................................. 3
Related Document Information, Standards & References...................................................................... 3
Version History.......................................................................................................................................... 3
Policy........................................................................................................................................................... 4
Purpose and Objectives............................................................................................................................ 4
Scope........................................................................................................................................................ 4
Responsibilities.......................................................................................................................................... 4
Policy Statement....................................................................................................................................... 5
Definitions................................................................................................................................................. 7
|
APPENDIX No: 1 - Draft Policy for Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping |
|
Item No: GB.8 |
Controlled Document Information
Authorisation Details
|
This is a Controlled Document. Before using this document check it is the latest version by referring to Council’s Controlled Document Register. Unless otherwise indicated, printed or downloaded versions of this document are uncontrolled. |
||||
|
Controlled Document Number: |
(enter unique Controlled Document Number) |
TRIM Record No: |
2014/176082 |
|
|
Controlled Document Type: |
Policy |
|||
|
Controlled Document Name: |
Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping |
|||
|
Version Number: |
1.0 |
|||
|
Department: |
Operations |
|||
|
Distribution: |
Internal and External |
|||
|
Review Period: Max < 4 years |
3 years |
Next Review Date: |
December 2017 |
|
|
Document Status: |
Draft |
|||
|
Approval Type: |
Council |
|||
|
Version Start Date: |
December 2014 |
Version End Date: |
December 2017 |
|
Related Document Information, Standards & References
|
Related Legislation: |
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act. Privacy and Personal Information Protection Amendment (CCTV) Regulation 2013. NSW Government Policy Statement and Guidelines for the Establishment of Implementation of Closed Circuit Television in Public Places. |
|
|
Related Policies (Council & Internal) |
Overt Surveillance in Public Places: Code of Practice. Standard Operating Procedure |
Contains aims, objectives and basic standards under which the CCTV project will operate |
Version History
|
Version Number |
Version Start Date |
Version End Date |
Author |
Details and Comments |
|
1 |
December 2014 |
December 2017 |
Colin Wright |
First version |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Policy
Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of this Policy is to ensure Council can legally conduct electronic surveillance operations using remote cameras (CCTV) for covert investigative surveillance. The Policy will be used for illegal dumping prevention campaign and to identify the principles for using and storing the information obtained from the surveillance.
The objectives of this Policy are:
· To ensure Ku-ring-gai complies with the requirements of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act (PPIP Act) and the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Amendment (CCTV) Regulation 2013 for crime prevention and public place safety surveillance.
· To assist with identifying the persons or company responsible for illegal dumping.
· To provide evidence in any regulatory action Council may pursue against persons or a company for illegally dumping.
Scope
To inform the community, if and when, overt camera surveillance is being carried out in relation to any operation of the CCTV Project to act as a deterrent to individuals or companies from causing the illegal dumping.
Responsibilities
Ku-ring-gai Council is the owner of the CCTV Program. Ku-ring-gai Council staff are authorised for the operation, monitoring and retrieval of recorded footage and materials of the Surveillance Program. They will be solely responsible for allowing access to recorded material in accordance with the Code of Practice.
The NSW Police will not have access to the camera equipment.
Policy Statement
1. Policy
Council will provide covert Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) electronic surveillance to nominated locations in the Council LGA in accordance with the objectives and stated principles to assist in preventing or minimising illegal dumping as part of a range of measures to manage and prevent illegal dumping.
Covert electronic surveillance will operate to assist in lawful investigations as defined in the Code of Practice for Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping.
2. Principles
The following principles are to be adhered to in the implementation of the covert investigative surveillance program:
Covert Investigative Surveillance Program
1. The Covert Investigative Surveillance for Illegal Dumping Program will be operated fairly, within applicable law, and only for the purposes for which it is established or which are subsequently agreed in accordance with this Code of Practice.
2. The Covert Investigative Surveillance for Illegal Dumping Program will not limit the privacy and civil liberties of individual members of the public, including the rights to freedom of religious and political expression and assembly.
3. Ku-ring-gai Council has primary responsibility for compliance within the purposes and objectives of the Covert Investigative Surveillance for Illegal Dumping Program for the maintenance, management and security of the Program and the protection of the interests of the public in relation to the Covert Investigative Surveillance for Illegal Dumping Program.
4. Ku-ring-gai Council will be accountable to the public for the effective operation and management of the program. This will be done through regular evaluation and monitoring of the program.
5. For the purposes of proactive or reactive intelligence gathering, Council will operate under the Direction of Processing of Personal Information by Public Sector Agencies in relation to their Investigative Function or until that time a Privacy Code of Practice for Investigations has been established.
6. Information recorded will be accurate, relevant and not exceed that necessary to fulfil the purposes of the Covert Investigative Surveillance for Illegal Dumping Program.
7. The retention of, and access to, recorded material will be only for the purposes provided by this Code of Practice or applicable laws and in accordance with any requirements for the retention and disposal of personal information. Recorded materials will be retained for 28 days unless they are required for law enforcement purposes or other lawful requirements.
8. All contact between Ku-ring-gai Council and the NSW Police, in relation to the CCTV Program, will be conducted strictly in accordance with the Code of Practice. Everything reasonable within the power of Ku-ring-gai Council will be done to prevent unauthorised use or disclosure of the information.
3. Operations
Monitoring of cameras will be the responsibility of the Waste Section of the Operations Department and limited to the nominated responsible officers:
· Manager, Waste
· Manager, Regulatory Services,
· Waste Contracts and Projects Officer.
When an incident is identified to which a response or action is required, the responsible officer will record the incident in the secured record system by:
· Logging the incident with a detailed description;
· Record date, time and location of the incident;
· Attaching any images recorded of the offence;
· Record outcome of any investigation into the incident; and
· Subject to the evidence, refer the matter for legal proceedings.
Images will be retained for a minimum period of seven (7) years or such longer period as the General Manager may determine as necessary
4. Accountabilities
General Manager is accountable for:
· ensuring a budget is available to meet policy objectives; and
· ensuring compliance with policy standards.
Directors are accountable for:
· developing appropriate systems and processes, within their department, which meets the requirements of the legislation and this policy; and
· ensuring compliance with this policy and procedures.
Managers and supervisors are accountable for ensuring:
· familiarity with the legislation, this policy and procedures; and
· to inform their employees about the legislation, this policy and procedures.
All other employees, volunteers and contractors are accountable for:
· Familiarising themselves with this policy and procedures and seeking clarification on any aspect of the policy from their supervisor.
5. Associated Documents
· Privacy and Personal Information Protection Amendment (CCTV) Regulation 2013
· Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (PPIP Act)
· Direction on Processing of Personal Information by Public Sector Agencies in relation to their Investigative Functions, 23 December 2013
· NSW Government Policy Statement and Guidelines for the Establishment and Implementation of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) in Public Places
· Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 (NSW)
· Workplace Surveillance Policy 2007
· Local Government Act (1993)
· Draft Graffiti Policy (2014)
· Complaints Management Policy (2001)
· Privacy Management Plan (2013)
· Surveillance Devices Act 2007
Definitions
|
Term / Abbreviation |
Definition |
|
Public Place |
Defined from the Local Government Act 1993 and refers to public reserves, public bathing reserves, public baths or swimming pools, public roads, public bridges, public wharfs or public road-ferries with the additional of public transport and car parks. |
|
Closed Circuit TV (CCTV) |
Surveillance by means of camera monitors, recording visual images of activities, in a public place. |
|
Illegal Dumping |
Depositing of any waste other than litter, upon public or private land or waters where no consent has been obtained from the Council or the granting of an environment protection licence from the Environment Protection Authority. |
|
Littering |
Unlawfully depositing of waste materials in a public place. |
|
Vandalism |
Wilful destruction of public property including buildings, signage, and street furniture. |
|
Graffiti |
Application of paint or other material used to create images, writing, or changes to the colour of building surfaces or other public hard surface areas not authorised by the Council or any other jurisdiction. Graffiti also includes etchings. |
|
Lawful investigation |
An investigation carried out by an agency under specific legislative authority or where the power to conduct the investigation is necessarily implied or reasonable contemplated under an Act or other law. |
|
APPENDIX No: 2 - Covert Electronic Surveillance - Code of Practice |
|
Item No: GB.8 |
Ku-ring-gai Council
Covert Electronic Surveillance for
Illegal Dumping
Code of Practice
December 2014
Contents
1. OVERVIEW
2. INTRODUCTION
3. KEY PRINCIPLES
Principle 1
Principle 2
Principle 3
Principle 4
Principle 5
Principle 6
Principle 7
Principle 8
4. DEFINITIONS
5. OBJECTIVES
6. OWNERSHIP OF THE PROGRAM
7. PUBLIC INFORMATION
8. CONFIDENTIALITY AND ACCESS
9. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN
10. CAMERA LOCATION
11. MONITORING
12. EVALUATION
13. BREACHES OF THE CODE
1. OVERVIEW
The Code of Practice has been complied for Ku-ring-gai Council’s Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping Program.
This Code of Practice contains the aims, objectives and basic standards under which the Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping Program will be operated. The Code of Practice will be accompanied by a set of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS) for authorised Ku-ring-gai Council staff to manage the system. These guidelines and standards are required to ensure confidentially, correct procedure and privacy of all persons authorised to manage the program.
Authorised staff must be fully aware of the contents of this Code of Practice. The credibility of the program relies on complete understanding and full knowledge of correct policies and procedures.
These guidelines have been prepared by Ku-ring-gai Council utilising the NSW Government Policy Statement and Guidelines for the Establishment and Implementation of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) in Public Places, the Camera Surveillance Act and the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 No 133. A number of exemptions also apply under Part 4, Division 1 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 following a Direction on Processing of Personal Information by Public Sector Agencies in relation to their Investigative functions. It has been developed to ensure compliance with all relevant State and Federal legislation and policy guidelines pertaining to the use of surveillance cameras in public places. This includes but is not limited to:
· Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
· Local Government Act 1993
· Australian Standard 4806.1-2006 – Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Part 1: Management and Operation.
· Workplace Surveillance Act 2005
· The Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 No 133
· Surveillance Devices Act 2007
2. INTRODUCTION
In an effort to identify illegal dumping offences across the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area, Council will utilise surveillance cameras as one of multiple methods to reduce the upward trend in dumping. This is one of several initiatives been developed to reduce the incidences of illegal dumping.
3. KEY PRINCIPLES
Principle 1
The Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping Program will be operated fairly, within applicable law, and only for the purposes for which it is established or which are subsequently agreed in accordance with this Code of Practice.
Principle 2
The Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping Program will not limit the privacy and civil liberties of individual members of the public, including the rights to freedom of religious and political expression and assembly.
Principle 3
Ku-ring-gai Council has primary responsibility for compliance within the purposes and objectives of Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping Program for the maintenance, management and security of the Program and the protection of the interests of the public in relation to the Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping Program.
Principle 4
Ku-ring-gai Council will be accountable to the public for the effective operation and management of the Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping. This will be done through regular evaluation and monitoring of the program.
Principle 5
For the purposes of proactive or reactive intelligence gathering Council will operate under the Direction of Processing of Personal Information by Public Sector Agencies in relation to their investigative function or until time a Privacy Code of Practice for Investigations has been established.
Principle 6
Information recorded will be accurate, relevant and not exceed that necessary to fulfil the purposes of the Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping Program.
Principle 7
The retention of, and access to, recorded material will be only for the purposes provided by this Code of Practice or applicable laws and in accordance with any requirements for the retention and disposal of personal information. Recorded materials will be retained for 28 days unless they are required for law enforcement purposes or other lawful requirements.
Principle 8
All contact between Ku-ring-gai Council and the Police in relation to the Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping will be conducted strictly in accordance with the Code of Practice. Everything reasonable within the power of Ku-ring-gai Council will be done to prevent unauthorised use or disclosure of the information.
4. DEFINITIONS
|
CCTV |
Closed Circuit Television |
|
Audit |
A systematic, independent and documented verification process of objectively obtaining and evaluating audit evidence to determine if the Code of Practice |
|
Illegal Dumping |
Depositing of any waste other than litter, upon public or private land or waters where no consent has been obtained from the Council or the granting of an environment protection licence from the Environment Protection Authority. |
|
Lawful investigation |
Means an investigation carried out by an agency under specific legislative authority or where the power to conduct the investigation is necessarily implied or reasonable contemplated under an Act or other law such as The Protection of the Environment Operations Act. |
5. OBJECTIVES
· To assist with lawful investigation of person/s or company responsible for any incident of illegal dumping.
· To provide evidence in any regulatory action Council may pursue against persons or a company for illegal dumping.
6. OWNERSHIP OF THE PROGRAM
Ku-ring-gai Council is the owner of the Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping Program. Ku-ring-gai Council staff are authorised for the operation, monitoring and retrieval of recorded footage and materials of the Surveillance Program.
Procedures will be put in place to ensure that access to the surveillance monitoring equipment is restricted to authorised officers and that equipment is protected from authorised access.
Operators of camera equipment will act in accordance with the highest level of probity.
The circumstances in which Police or other authorised persons are able to access recorded materials and footage will be carefully controlled and outlined in the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).
7. PUBLIC INFORMATION
Public information will be limited to copies of the Ku-ring-gai Council Camera Surveillance Policy and Code of Practice and will be made available on request.
Enquiries regarding the CCTV Program and its operation can be made in writing to:
The General Manager
Ku-ring-gai Council
Locked Bag 1056
Pymble NSW 2073
Or by telephone on (02) 9424 0888 or email on kmc@kmc.nsw.gov.au.
8. CONFIDENTIALITY AND ACCESS
Under no circumstances is any technical information relating to the Covert Surveillance Program including the number of authorised staff, camera capability or police procedures is to be provided to any unauthorised person.
Access to and use of recorded material will be facilitated by Council and will only take place
· In compliance with the needs of the Police in connection with their law enforcement functions
· If necessary for the purposes of legal proceedings
· Other lawful requirement.
Recorded material will not be sold or used for commercial purposes.
Images from recorded material will not, under any circumstances, be used to publicise the existence of success of the CCTV program.
Appropriate security measures will be taken against unauthorised access, alteration, disclosure, accidental loss or destruction of recorded material.
All requests for surveillance footage are to be made in writing and will remain confidential. Only those requests for footage for a lawful purpose will be considered.
9. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN
The program involves four (4) cameras initially, which could be added to in the future, connected to workstations in the Operations Building by a wireless network. The system will record all images digitally from the cameras onto appropriate and secure recording equipment. The level of monitoring is considered as ‘passive’. Passive monitoring is defined as no deliberate monitoring by security personnel.
Technical details:
Red Eye Wireless Cameras
- 4 x Redeye Monochrome Wireless Cameras
Complete with wide angle monochrome camera, integrated 3G modem, 7.5Ah rechargeable battery with rapid charger, 4GB SD card and SD card reader.
- 4 x Remote Night-vision IR Spotlight
- 4 x Remote triggers in standard trigger housing
Mobile Remote Cameras
Details will be added as required.
10. CAMERA LOCATION
Cameras are installed in areas within the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area that have been identified as being subject to a high incidence of illegal dumping. These locations are determined on the basis of incidents identified by Council authorised officers. The number and location of cameras may vary from time to time and will be subject to approval from the General Manager and Director of Operations.
Cameras will operate on a 24 hour basis.
11. MONITORING
Monitoring of cameras will be the responsibility of the Waste Section of Operations and limited to the nominated responsible officers including Manager Waste, Manager, Regulatory Services and Waste Contracts and Projects Officer.
When an incident is identified to which a response or action is required, the responsible officer will record the incident in the secured record system by:
· Logging the incident with a detailed description;
· Record date, time and location of the incident;
· Attaching any images recorded of the offence;
· Record outcome of any investigation into the incident; and
· Subject to the evidence, refer the matter for enforcement and/or legal proceedings.
12. EVALUATION
Council is responsible for ensuring the Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping Program is subject to a regular evaluation to identify whether its purposes are relevant and whether objectives are being achieved.
Council will produce an evaluation as part of the Quarterly Update every three (3) months for the first 12 months and then annually. The annual report will be presented to the Director of Operations and General Manager.
13. BREACHES OF THE CODE
Ku-ring-gai Council will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the Code.
Council is required to investigate any alleged breach of the Code. If a breach is found to have occurred, Council will remedy that breach to the extent possible under the Code.
Complaints in relation to any aspect of the management or operation of the CCTV Program may be made in writing to Council in accordance with Council’s Complaints Management Policy and Privacy Management Plan.
The General Manager
Ku-ring-gai Council
Locked Bag 1056
Pymble NSW 2073
by telephone on (02) 9424 0888 or email to kmc@kmc.nsw.gov.au.
The Privacy and Personal Information Act 1998 authorises Information and Privacy Commission to receive and investigate complaints about alleged violations of privacy. Any member of the public is entitled to lodge a complaint with the Information and Privacy Commission.
Information and Privacy Commission can be contacted at
Information and Privacy Commission
GPO Box 7011
Sydney NSW 2001
Telephone: 1800 472 679
Fax: (02) 8114 3756
Email: ipcinfo@ipc.nsw.gov.au
|
APPENDIX No: 3 - Covert Electronic Surveillance - Standard Operating Procedure |
|
Item No: GB.8 |
Ku-ring-gai Council
Covert Electronic Surveillance
for Illegal dumping
Standard Operating Procedure
December 2014
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Mandatory Provisions and Exemptions
3. Monitoring Equipment
4. Camera Equipment
5. Access to recorded images
6. Confidentiality
7. Primary Duties
8. Response to identified incidents
9. Other Authorised Access
Standard Operating Procedures
Investigative Surveillance for Illegal Dumping
1. Introduction
The Standard Operating Procedure has been developed by Ku-ring-gai Council as a requirement of the Code of Practice. It adheres to the principles of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (PPIP) and the Direction on Processing of Personal Information by Public Sector Agencies in relation to their investigative functions.
2. Mandatory Provisions and Exemptions
Under the Code of Practice is it mandatory that:
· The collection of personal information is for lawful purposes directly related to a function or activity of the agency and is reasonably necessary for that purpose.
· The collection of information is not excessive, accurate, up-to-date and does not intrude to an unreasonable extent on the personal affairs of the individual.
· The information is disposed of securely, is protected against loss, unauthorised access, use, modification or disclosure and everything reasonable within the power of the agency is done to prevent unauthorised use or disclosure of the information.
The installation, use and maintenance of optical surveillance devices without consent the expressed or implied consent of the person having lawful possession or lawful control of the vehicle or object.
Under a direction given by the Privacy Commissioner, appointed under Part 4, Division 1 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) exemptions have been granted which applies to the collection, storage, use and disclosure of personal information for the purpose of the exercise by a relevant agency of its investigative functions.
In particular, Council need not comply with Sections 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 or 19(1) of the PPIP Act where non-compliance is reasonably necessary for the proper exercise of any of the agency’s investigative functions or its conduct of any lawful investigations.
3. Monitoring Equipment
The monitoring equipment used will be desk top computers and smart phones located with the Waste Contracts and Projects Officer. Ku-ring-gai Council has chosen not to have a control room.
The monitoring equipment will be positioned so the public are not able to view it.
The monitoring equipment will only be used for the objectives detailed in Section 5 of the Code of Practice
The monitoring equipment will only be used by those authorised whose details appear on the Register of Authorised Persons.
Each authorised person is to be aware of and agree to abide the Code of Practice and Standard Operating Procedure.
Each authorised person will be issued with a username and password that must be used to log onto the screen.
4. Camera Equipment
The camera equipment will be operated by Ku-ring-gai Council. The police will not have access to the camera equipment.
The camera equipment will be located at the selected project area.
Recordings will be made to either a web-based platform or an SD Card located within a camera. Recordings may be transferred to a storage device when the images are required for further investigation of an incident, for evidence in court or for other lawful reason.
5. Access to recorded images
Ku-ring-gai Council will be solely responsible for allowing access to recorded material in accordance with the Code.
When images are recorded to a storage device then an entry into the Register of Access is to be made by Council.
6. Confidentiality
Any Council staff or contractors involved in any of the processes described in these Standard Operating Procedures will be required to sign a confidentiality document stating they will not disclose to person or organisation, unless otherwise lawfully directed to do so, any information about any image which was observed generated by the CCTV Cameras. A copy of the confidentiality agreement is attached.
7. Primary Duties
The prime duties and responsibilities of authorised staff are, but not limited to:
· Operation and maintenance of the surveillance equipment and software;
· Retrieval of footage and other recorded materials of the surveillance system;
· Respond to requests from Police relating to incidents and recorded material/footage;
· Adherence to policies, rules of conduct and procedures;
· Undertaking basic maintenance and housekeeping;
· Reporting technical problems effecting the equipment to the Manager, Waste.
8. Response to identified incidents
Whenever a response is deemed appropriate to an identified incident, the authorised Council person must record the following in the Incident Log:
· Type of incident including description
· Date and time of incident
· Person/s making response.
· Notify the Police as to the circumstances of any criminal event.
· Ensure footage is secured, saved and marked appropriately in the event it is required for legal purposes.
9. Other Authorised Access
Parties who should be able to show adequate grounds for disclosure for the purposes of providing evidence in criminal proceedings, providing evidence in civil proceedings, the prevention and reduction of crime and disorder, the investigation and detection of crime and antisocial behaviour are:
· Police
· Statutory authorities with powers to prosecute
· Solicitors
· Other agencies, according to purpose and legal status
Appendix
CCTV Program
Investigative Surveillance for Illegal Dumping
Standard Operating Procedure
December 2014
Confidentiality Agreement
Operation of CCTV Cameras
I _______________________________________ an employee of
(full name printed)
________________________________________________________
(print name of Organisation)
1. Will not disclose, unless lawfully directed or as a bona fide part of my employment, any matter or information which comes to my knowledge in relation to or emanating from the operation of the CCTV cameras owned by Ku-ring-gai Council.
2. Acknowledge that this agreement is not limited to my current period of employment or to any time limit period.
3. Understand that failure to observe this confidentiality may result in legal action being taken against me and/or employment disciplinary action.
___________________________________ __________________________
(signed) (date)
___________________________________
(full name printed)
___________________________________ ___________________________
(witness) (date)
___________________________________
(full name printed)
|
APPENDIX No: 3 - Covert Electronic Surveillance - Standard Operating Procedure |
|
Item No: GB.8 |
Register of Authorised Persons
|
Name of Authorised Person |
Title |
Date authorised |
Authorised by |
Date Authorisation removed |
Removed by |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Register of Access to CCTV Footage
|
Type of Application (Police, GIPPA, PIPPA) |
Date and Scope of Application |
Details of person/organisation |
Period, date and time of recorded images requested |
Date and Time requested actioned |
Person who copied images |
Date images provided to applicant |
Trim reference |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hierarchy of Management Responsibilities
|
APPENDIX No: 3 - Covert Electronic Surveillance - Standard Operating Procedure |
|
Item No: GB.8 |
LETTER OF AUTHORITY – Surveillance Devices Act 2007
I/We ___________________________________________________________________,
Of _____________________________________________________________________,
Give my / our consent, permission and authority to Ku-ring-gai Council to install, use, maintain and retrieve an optical surveillance device within or upon the premises / vehicle /object which I own / occupy and known as:
_______________________________________________________________________
(insert address or description of vehicle / object) where the surveillance device is to be installed, used, maintained or retrieved)
Trading or known as: ______________________________________________________
I/We declare that I/we are the owner(s) / occupier(s) of the premises / vehicle described above and give this consent in accordance with Section 8 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007.
Signature(s): _____________________________________________________________
Title / Position: ___________________________________________________________
Date: _______/________/________
Surveillance Devices Act 2007 No 64
Accessed 25 March 2014
|
|
8 Installation, use and maintenance of optical surveillance devices without consent
(1) A person must not knowingly install, use or maintain an optical surveillance device on or within premises or a vehicle or on any other object, to record visually or observe the carrying on of an activity if the installation, use or maintenance of the device involves:
(a) entry onto or into the premises or vehicle without the express or implied consent of the owner or occupier of the premises or vehicle, or
(b) interference with the vehicle or other object without the express or implied consent of the person having lawful possession or lawful control of the vehicle or object.
Maximum penalty: 500 penalty units (in the case of a corporation) or 100 penalty units or 5 years imprisonment, or both (in any other case).
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following:
(a) the installation, use or maintenance of an optical surveillance device in accordance with a warrant, emergency authorisation, corresponding warrant or corresponding emergency authorisation,
(b) the installation, use or maintenance of an optical surveillance device in accordance with a law of the Commonwealth,
(c) the use of an optical surveillance device and any enhancement equipment in relation to the device solely for the purpose of the location and retrieval of the device or equipment,
(d) the installation, use or maintenance of an optical surveillance device by a law enforcement officer in the execution of a search warrant or crime scene warrant (including the use of an optical surveillance device to record any activity in connection with the execution of the warrant)
Note. See also section 255 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998.
(e) the use of an optical surveillance device, being a device integrated into a Taser issued to a member of the NSW Police Force, to record the operation of the Taser and the circumstances surrounding its operation.
Surveillance Report
This document or any other information contained in this document is not to be released without the approval of the Director, Operations, Ku-ring-gai Council.
|
Job No: |
|
|
Operation: |
|
|
Subject: |
|
|
Day and Date: |
|
|
Mission: |
|
|
Reporting Officer |
|
I certify each page of the attached surveillance report, consisting of _____ pages, represents an accurate record of my observations
|
Officer Identity |
Signature |
Date |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Job no:
Operation:
Subject:
Day and Date:
|
Time |
Officers initials |
Observations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature of Reporting Officer |
Date |
Signature of Manager, Waste |
Date |
|
|
|
|
|
Ku-ring-gai Council
Camera Surveillance Program
Surveillance Camera Deployment
This document or any other information contained in this document is not to be released without the approval of the Director, Operations, Ku-ring-gai Council.
|
Job No: |
|
|
Operation name: |
|
|
Subject/Target: |
|
|
Date received: |
|
|
Addresss / location: |
|
|
Address description: |
|
|
GPS / map reference |
|
|
Date surveyed: |
|
|
Approval – Director Operations: |
|
|
Camera type/make |
|
|
Camera model: |
|
|
Camera serial number: |
|
|
Date deployed: |
|
|
By whom: |
|
|
Date retrieved: |
|
|
By whom: |
|
|
Date retrieved: |
|
|
By whom: |
|
|
Stolen: |
Y/N – Event number: |
|
Evidentiary value: |
Y/N |
|
Evidence retained: |
Y/N reason |
|
Trim file Number: |
|
|
Notes: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 December 2014 |
GB.9 / 357 |
|
|
|
|
Item GB.9 |
FY00555/3 |
|
|
26 November 2014 |
Networks NSW Public Street Lighting Tender Consultation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
|
purpose of report: |
To advise Council of the submission to Networks NSW by Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC’s) Street Lighting Improvement Program (SLI). |
|
|
|
|
background: |
The Street Lighting Improvement Program is an initiative of Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils involving all 35 Councils including Ku-ring-gai. Networks NSW is a joint venture of Ausgrid, Endeavour Energy and Essential Energy. |
|
|
|
|
comments: |
The SSROC SLI Program view is that Networks NSW tender specification will not deliver the best environmental, lighting or total cost outcomes for NSW councils. |
|
|
|
|
recommendation: |
To receive and note the report regarding Networks NSW Street Lighting Tender and to send a letter to Networks NSW in support for the SSROC Street Lighting Improvement Program submission of 11 November 2014. |
Purpose of Report
To advise Council of the submission to Networks NSW by Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC’s) Street Lighting Improvement Program (SLI).
Background
The Street Lighting Improvement Program is an initiative of the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC). It involves all 16 Councils in southern Sydney as well as 19 others in Ausgrid’s region that are also responsible for the provision of street lighting in to their communities. The Street Lighting Improvement Program (SLI) encompasses about 40% of all the street lighting in NSW and aims to achieve cost-effective, energy efficient and good quality street lighting.
Networks NSW is a joint venture of Ausgrid, Endeavour Energy and Essential Energy. One of the benefits of the joint venture is to achieve cost savings through joint purchasing. It has released draft street lighting tender specifications for comment.
The SSROC SLI Program reviewed the draft tender specification. There is concern at the lack of emphasis on LED technology, which is now widely accepted as the lowest total cost of ownership lighting option. Of particular concern is the overall delay in adoption of LED lighting for main roads indicated by Networks NSW in its draft tender.
SSROC perceives a major flaw in the tendering strategy, since the utilities do not appear to be adopting LEDs at the same rate and supply contracts are to be divided among (5) five suppliers. The proposal to continue purchasing traditional non-LED luminaires for five (5) more years is a serious weakness. This is not the best practice and will result in higher costs for council.
SSROC wrote to all 35 General Managers in the SLI Program (Attachment A) suggesting councils may want to take the additional step of writing directly to the CEO of Networks NSW expressing their concerns about the tender and supporting the position taken by SSROC.
Comments
The SSROC Street Lighting Improvement Program has recently reviewed the Networks NSW draft tender specifications for street lighting, and has identified some serious concerns;
· Lack of focus on LED technology.
LED street lighting has become the dominant lighting technology in recent years because of its proven reliability, energy efficiency, optical control, and now widely accepted as the lowest total cost of ownership lighting option.
· Expected delay in adopting LED luminaries.
Networks NSW have indicated to councils they will not be installing LEDs on main roads as a standard item until at least 2016 and will continue purchasing legacy luminaire types for up to five (5) years.
· Apparent lack of aligned purchasing.
The stated objective of the Networks NSW tendering strategy is to deliver cost savings through consolidation and alignment of specifications across the three Network NSW Businesses. The draft tender specification suggest a lack of alignment and splitting of supply contracts across many suppliers and looks likely to erode potential cost savings through joint purchasing.
· Reduction in potential safety gains resulting from deploying high quality white light on main roads.
The technology is well proven, being in widespread use around the world. The white light provided by LED luminaries have improved night time visibility compared to the low colour-rendering light produced by high-pressure sodium.
· Cost to council.
LEDs could save broadly 30%-70% of the energy compared to current road lighting (depending on what they are replacing), with much lower failure rates and at a lower overall cost.
integrated planning and reporting
Places, Spaces & Infrastructure
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
An improved standard of infrastructure that meets the community’s service level standards and Council’s obligations as the custodian of our community assets |
Our public infrastructure and assets are planned, managed and funded to meet the community expectations, defined levels of service and address inter-generational equity.
|
P8.1.1
|
Governance Matters
The SSROC SLI Program view is Networks NSW tender specification is badly out of step with international best practice and will not deliver the best environmental, lighting or total cost outcomes for NSW councils. For Council, an improved standard of infrastructure in respect to public street lighting will be problematic to achieve.
SSROC are asking all councils participating in the SSROC SLI Program to send a letter to Networks NSW in support of the position taken by the SSROC SLI Program.
Risk Management
There is a no financial or reputation risk to Council in sending the letter of support.
Financial Considerations
There are no financial considerations. SSROC are only asking all councils participating in the SSROC SLI Program to send a letter to Networks NSW in support of the position taken by them.
Social Considerations
Ku-ring-gai is one of 35 other council’s involved in the SSROC SLI program initiative and the recommendation to send a letter of support will have negligible effect on the Ku-ring-gai community in terms of social considerations.
Environmental Considerations
The recommendation to send a letter of support will have no material environmental effect on the Ku-ring-gai residents or LGA.
Community Consultation
Consultation was undertaken through Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC), and involves all 16 Councils in southern Sydney as well as 19 others in Ausgrid’s region that are also responsible for the provision of street lighting.
Internal Consultation
Operations Department has carriage of responsibility for street lighting has consulted internally only, as the matter concerns a letter of support for the position taken by an external representative group being the SSROC SLI program
Summary
The Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils Street Lighting Improvement Program reviewed the draft tender specification by Networks NSW and is concerned with the lack of emphasis on LED technology and delay in adoption of LED lighting for main roads.
The SSROC SLI Program views Networks NSW tender specification is badly out of step with international best practice and will not deliver the best environmental, lighting or total cost outcomes for NSW councils. The proposal to continue purchasing traditional non-LED luminaries for up to five (5) more years will result in higher total costs for council.
Council recommends the request by SSROC asking all councils participating in the SSROC SLI Program to send a letter to CEO of Networks NSW expressing their concerns about the tender and supporting the position taken by SSROC.
|
To support Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils Street Lighting Improvement Program’s submission dated 11 November 2014 by sending a letter to Networks NSW expressing concerns about the tender specification.
|
|
Ian Taylor Manager Engineering Operations |
Greg Piconi Director Operations |
|
A1View |
Networks NSW Street Lighting Tender - request for support letter |
|
2014/301674 |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 December 2014 |
GB.10 / 363 |
|
|
|
|
Item GB.10 |
S09005 |
|
|
3 September 2014 |
Draft Ku-ring-gai Principal Development Control Plan - Consideration of Submissions
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
|
purpose of report: |
To have Council consider amendments made to the draft Ku-ring-gai Principal Development Control Plan. |
|
|
|
|
background: |
The draft Ku-ring-gai Principal Development Control Plan was placed on exhibition from 25 July 2014 to 22 August 2014. A total of 8 submissions from the community were received. Further comment from various sections of Council were also received. |
|
|
|
|
comments: |
The submissions made in response to the exhibition have been reviewed and appropriate amendments to the DCP are recommended in this report. Further amendments, the result of internal checks, consultation and new guidelines from State Government also form part of this report. Given the imminent gazettal of the draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2014 (KLEP), an adopted Ku-ring-gai Principal Development Control Plan would ensure development controls are in place to support the KLEP when it comes into force. |
|
|
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council adopt the Ku-ring-gai Principal Development Control Plan. |
Purpose of Report
To have Council consider amendments made to the draft Ku-ring-gai Principal Development Control Plan.
Background
The draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2014 (KLEP) is currently with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. Its gazettal is imminent. The key function of the draft Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (DCP ) is to provide detailed guidelines to facilitate the achievement of the objectives within the KLEP 2014. The draft DCP will establish a framework for future development in all areas outside the local centres under the KLEP 2014 once it is gazetted.
At its meeting of 15 July 2014, Council resolved the following:
A. That Council endorse the draft Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan included in Attachment 1 for the purpose of public exhibition.
B. That the draft Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the EP and A Act 1979 and Regulations for 28 days.
C. That the Ku-ring-gai Biodiversity and Riparian Lands Study 2014 be placed on public exhibition with the draft Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan.
D. That a report be brought back to Council outlining recommendations resulting from the exhibition.
E. That one hardcopy set comprising the three exhibition documents and also the draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environment Plan (LEP) 2013 be available in each Ku-ring-gai Library during the public exhibition.
The draft DCP was exhibited in accordance with the above resolutions. The exhibition was held from 25 July 2014 to 22 August 2014. Comments received during that period are presented in this Report and form the basis of the proposed amendments to the DCP.
Comments
Given the imminent gazettal of the draft KLEP 2014, an adopted DCP would ensure development controls are in place to support the KLEP 2014 and deliver development in keeping with the character of the Ku-ring-gai local government area.
The DCP applies to all areas outside the local centres and is consistent in content and approach with the adopted Local Centres DCP. The adoption of the DCP will enable a uniform approach to areas both inside and outside the Local Centres and at the interface between the two.
The amendments to the draft DCP put forward in this Report have resulted from:
· consideration of all 8 public submissions made in response to the exhibition of the DCP;
· consultation with Council’s Development & Regulation, Operations, and Community departments; and
· alignment with recent State Government Guidelines in reference to Child Care Centres.
This Report presents the issues raised during the exhibition of the DCP and gives explanation on the recommended revisions. Detailed wording of proposed amended controls and objectives are noted in the Table of Amendments to the Draft DCP (Attachment A1). The review of the 8 public submissions is tabulated and may be seen in the Summary of Public Submissions (Attachment A2). The Final Draft DCP including all amendments may be viewed at Attachment A3.
The issues raised, and subsequent amendments, fall into the following parts of the draft DCP (see Attachment A1 for detailed wording of amended clauses).
1. Part 1B – Dictionary
Key Issues:
· Grammatical corrections;
· new definitions;
· relocation of definitions;
· removal of definition.
Discussion
One submission requested the correction to the grammar in the definition of Significant Tree. This is supported as it clarifies the items listed in that definition.
Concern was raised by Council staff that the DCP lacks objectives and controls regarding active street frontages despite applying to areas that have both retail and commercial frontages to streets. In response to this, the same definition of active street frontage as in the Local Centres DCP has been included to clarify the meaning of the term, and to support associated controls and objectives discussed at Section 8 of this Report.
In a recent Court case the meaning of the term part thereof was raised and found to be ambiguous in its reference to the provision of adaptable housing in that development. There has also been dispute with applicants where the term refers to parking provision. To clarify the term, a new definition is proposed. The wording of the definition has been sourced from Council’s existing DCP 43.
A number of definitions were separately listed in the Child Care Centre part of the exhibited DCP. This is inconsistent with the remainder of the DCP where all definitions are located within the general Definitions section. It is, therefore, proposed to relocate the childcare definitions so that they sit with all other DCP definitions.
A submission requested amendment to the definition of first flush. Upon review, this term is not utilised in any part of the DCP and hence has been removed from the section.
Recommendation
That the following amendments be made:
· Correction of grammar - significant tree.
· New definitions - active street frontage; part thereof.
· Relocation of definitions - back-up facility; dual-use facility; family day care; mobile care service; multi-use facility; Out of School Hours (OOSH) Care; staff/parent accessible area; unencumbered indoor play space; unencumbered outdoor play space.
· Removal of definition - first flush.
All wording of new and amended clauses may be viewed in the Table of Amendments to the Draft DCP (Attachment A1).
2. Part 4 - Dwelling Houses
Key Issues
One submission stated that the Dwelling Houses section:
· creates an expensive and onerous process of compliance and compromise for homeowners wanting to build/modify homes, and requests a performance based approach;
· does not support development by homeowners with complex, prescriptive controls that stifle innovation and add significant cost; and
· encourages more people to build to Exempt and Complying standards.
A separate submission making comment on the controls regarding facades of dwellings:
· points out an error in the Building Facades regarding maximum length for an unrelieved wall and the absence of controls regarding wall height; and
· questions the conflict between requiring an integrated design, so that the new and retained structures are seen as one whole building, and the concept of clearly distinguishing an old architectural style from a contemporary style.
Council’s heritage officer requested that:
· the control regarding attic rooms be relocated to the Dwelling House section; and
· reference be made to Heritage Items with regards to colour and types of tennis court finishes.
Discussion
The Ku-ring-gai local government area has a distinct residential character of leafy streetscapes and houses in a garden setting. The DCP seeks to protect and enhance this character by stating minimum standards. These minimum standards ensure that the local character unique to Ku-ring-gai is retained well into the future and consistently across the whole Council area. Without the DCP baseline local controls, there would be no method of meaningfully protecting the local character as many developments would not consider the streetscape or neighbourhood character. They would concentrate predominantly on outcomes for their own individual site and not invest in the importance of the contribution of their development to the local character. Further to this, a performance basis would not enable consistency of approach across the entire local government area.
The DCP does enable applicants to propose alternate solutions to the stated controls provided they demonstrate achievement of the DCP aims and objectives for that particular design element. This allows innovation to be supported by Council whilst ensuring minimal standards are met. This is explained in the DCP Part 1 – Introduction.
Given the topography of Ku-ring-gai, many applications are unable to achieve the Exempt and Complying requirements. The DCP seeks to ensure that development that is not straightforward enough to meet the Exempt and Complying criteria is safe and of a high quality.
The submission has correctly identified an error regarding unrelieved walls. The Control should limit the length of an unrelieved wall to 8m for walls greater than 4m in height, and to 12m for all other walls. Accordingly, it is proposed that this Control be amended.
DCP controls do not specify building height as this is now determined by the definitions and standards in the draft KLEP 2014 Written Instrument and Maps. In general the draft KLEP 2014 Building Height Map indicates a maximum 9.5m height from the existing ground level for R2 Lower Density Residential zoning within which single dwellings occur. At certain R2 locations, due to special circumstances of the sites, the Map indicates a 9m maximum height. Since the DCP cannot replicate the draft KLEP standards, no revision will be made.
The overall intention for the facades of alterations and additions is that they assist in ensuring the new and old building appears as an integrated structure and as a single dwelling. It is not expected that new development should replicate the existing development, only that the new and old development incorporate enough architectural elements that integrate and bind their fabric into each other. It is proposed that the wording of the control be amended to clarify the requirement, and an additional objective be included to support the control.
Recommendation:
That the following amendments be made:
· clarification on the maximum wall length for unrelieved for walls;
· clarification on the requirement for new and existing development to read as a single dwelling;
· relocation of the control regarding attics;
· inclusion of wording on Heritage Items with regards to tennis court finishes.
All wording of new and amended clauses may be viewed in the Table of Amendments to the Draft DCP (Attachment A1).
3. Part 10 - Child Care Centres
Key Issues
· alignment of controls and objectives to support new State guidelines.
· improve the interface between Childcare Centres located in a low density residential context.
Discussion
On 26 August 2014, the Department of Education released “Guidelines for the Planning and Development of Child Care Facilities”. The guideline identified planning and developmental practices to achieve better outcomes and improve accessibility to child care centres.
Following the release of the guideline, a review of the DCP Child Care Centre section was undertaken to ensure all controls and objectives were in line with the new guideline. As part of the review, consultation was held with internal staff from Development and Regulation, and Children Services teams.
Development and Regulation staff highlighted the increasing numbers of child care centre applications within low density areas and the issues around integrating the centres so that they do not detract from the residential character of the locality and create issues with neighbours. As a result, a number of controls and objectives are proposed to ensure childcare centres address the streetscapes in low density areas and preserve amenity to neighbouring dwellings.
The DCP has been amended to remove some controls and add others to be in alignment with the guideline, and to address the growing numbers and issues of disparity of childcare centres located within low density residential areas. The controls seek to achieve car parking and landscaping in Child Care Centres that integrate the development into the low density neighbourhood whilst preserving the potential of the facility itself.
The introduction of the minimum landscaped area for Child Care Centres in low density residential areas provides the necessary buffer to adjoining residential properties and ensures the existing local streetscape is maintained. The minimum requirement of the landscaped area has been based on analysis of Child Care Centre applications and their achievable standards. The encouragement of underground car parking for new centres seeks to avoid excessive hard surfaces, particularly in the front setback, and promote a better design outcome and perception of Child Care Centres.
Home-based Child Care Centres are considered exempt development, however home-based child care in bushfire prone land is excluded and requires approval by a development application. Council’s Childrens Services team recommended the inclusion of controls to cover home-based child care centres in bushfire prone land, to protect the safety of all users in the facility and to minimise risk in the event of a bushfire.
In addition, modifications have been made to the format and layout of this section within the DCP in order to be consistent with other parts of the DCP.
Recommendation:
That the following amendments be made:
· Relocation of all definitions to the Definitions Section of the DCP.
· Amended controls, objectives and notes to align the section with the State guideline and to support better outcomes within the development and within the neighbouring low density context.
All wording of new and amended clauses may be viewed in the Table of Amendments to the Draft DCP (Attachment A1).
4. Part 13 – Tree and Vegetation Preservation
Key Issues
Three submissions raised the following concerns regarding controls on tree works:
· the 3m tree removal control does not allow removal of a tree even though it is within 3m and hazardous to a dwelling on a neighbouring property, and requests exemption for removal of hazardous and dangerous trees regardless of property boundary;
· falling branches from trees on neighbouring properties are dangerous and cause damage to roofs, and requests that controls allow trees within 3m of a house to be cut and pruned;
· questions the differing consent requirements between the EP&A Regulation 2000 (Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979) and Council’s TPO (now incorporated into the DCP), pointing out the legal disparity between the two, and suggests that where pruning can be carried out without entry onto the tree owner’s land, their consent ought not to be required.
Discussion
It is acknowledged that in some cases a tree may be more that 3m from a dwelling on the same property, but may be within 3m from a dwelling on a neighbouring property, or have branches overhanging a neighbouring property. Since the intent of the current DCP control is to enable ease of tree removal within 3m of a dwelling house, and any branches overhanging a roof, given the potential danger and damage they may cause to that dwelling and its occupants, it is proposed that tree removal within 3m of any dwelling house be enabled regardless of the property upon which the tree is located. However, a qualification would accompany that control to ensure consent is obtained from the owner of the property upon which the tree is located, prior to any tree works commencing.
The submission argues that Council’s current TPO section (incorporated into the draft DCP) is not aligned with clause 49(1) of the EPA Regulation 2000 concerning the need to obtain owner’s consent prior to any development application being made on a parcel of land. In fact the draft DCP is in alignment with that clause. Further to this, Ku-ring-gai Council’s policy has been to require the consent of the owner of the tree. This is a conservative position that recognises the structural and other harm that can be caused to trees by indiscriminate pruning and ensures that pruning occurs with the knowledge and consent of owners, thereby increasing the likelihood that the pruning occurs in an appropriate and balanced fashion. In cases of dispute, the processes of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 provide an appropriate resolution mechanism if negotiation between property owners is unsuccessful
Recommendation
That the following amendments be made:
· Make exempt the removal of any tree within 3m of an existing dwelling whether on the same or neighbouring property, and clarification be made regarding the requirement for owner’s consent prior to the removal of the tree or any works to trees.
All wording of new and amended clauses may be viewed in the Table of Amendments to the Draft DCP (Attachment A1).
5. Part 14B - Screen Australia Site
Key Issues:
A submission was received from the owner of the site stated the following:
· Concern regarding the 24m setback requirement to part of the western boundary of the site and requesting a reduction to 20m.
Discussion
The setback at the western boundary was proposed as a means to provide deep soil landscaping area on the site and encourage the retention of mature vegetation at that location. It also sought to provide screening between the two adjacent residential flat developments. The submission requests a 4m reduction in the setback from 24m to 20m for the R1 zoned lands. Whist it is agreed that the Residential Flat Design Code allows reduced setback provision, the intent of this 24m setback is to preserve existing mature trees and retain the landscape setting typical of Ku-ring-gai at this prominent location. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that a reduced 20m setback will equally maintain both the separation and landscape buffer to the neighbouring development, and will preserve the integrity of the existing mature vegetation at that location.
Whilst the reduction of the setback is feasible, it is of concern that it will result in the loss of deep soil landscaping area on a high density site, especially as it is at a prominent visual location at the high point of the local topography. To ensure there is the continued potential to house substantial vegetation and large trees on this site, it is proposed to include a minimum deep soil area for the R1 lands.
The minimum deep soil area will support Ku-ring-gai’s landscape character of buildings within a garden setting and mature canopy. It will facilitate the provision of garden areas across the R1 site that can support the growth of substantial trees and vegetation.
Calculations on the building footprint and potential of the R1 site indicate that a 55% deep soil requirement would be a reasonable provision on the R1 land. A 55% deep soil area would enable the site to achieve its building potential as well as ensure the building footprint (including provision of the through road and other hard landscaping such as driveways, paths etc) makes provision for the desired landscape character requirements.
Recommendation
That the following amendments be made:
· That the clause and Figure be amended from a 24m setback to adjoining development, to 20m.
· That a new control be inserted with requirements for deep soil landscaping.
All wording of new and amended clauses may be viewed in the Table of Amendments to the Draft DCP (Attachment A1).
6. Part 18 – Riparian Lands and Part 19 – Biodiversity
Key Issues
A submission by STEP raised the following issues:
· inclusion of references to climate change adaptation;
· errors in the Riparian Lands and the Biodiversity sections;
· clarification and expansion to biodiversity and riparian lands objectives, controls and definitions; and
· creating an alternative bio-corridor for terrestrial animals.
Discussion
It is acknowledged that climate change is occurring and in response, the DCP will be updated at regular intervals to factor in those changes. The objectives within Riparian Lands are recommended to include reference to climate change.
The request to amend the control regarding planting within the CRZ to include migration and adaptation of species with climate change is not supported as within any population some individuals will be better suited to environmental change whilst others will not. Those favouring changes in environmental conditions will pass on reproductive material ensuring succession of that particular plant population. It should be noted that ecological succession is observed in most plant communities over time.
The submission has outlined various amendments to the definitions such as first flush; locally native species; bushland; significant trees; neighbouring land. Upon review it is noted that the term first flush is not used anywhere in the DCP and as such should be deleted from the dictionary.
Applying the suggested narrower definition to bushland would mean that to meet the definition a full structured vegetation comprising of “trees, sub-canopy, shrub and groundcovers” would need to be present. The current definition of bushland is broader and captures vegetation which may only comprise of remnant trees without understory; therefore no change is recommended.
The suggested amendment to the definition of significant trees is acknowledged for inclusion in the draft DCP.
The definition of neighbouring land requires assessment on an individual basis therefore it is necessary to ensure the officer leading the assessment determines the extent of land on a consistent basis.
The retention of 92 Babbage Road and former public pathway as an alternative bio-corridor for terrestrial animals is considered beyond the scope of the DCP as it would result in changes to biodiversity mapping within the KLEP.
Recommendation:
That the following amendments be made:
· Include reference to adaptations to climate change within objectives.
· Correction of referencing errors and diagrammatic error from 10m to 20m dimension for Core Riparian Land.
· Deletion of term first flush from definitions.
All wording of new and amended clauses may be viewed in the Table of Amendments to the Draft DCP (Attachment A1).
7. Part 20 – Heritage
Key Issues:
One submission was received raising the following concerns:
· the DCP was to encompass the Local Centres DCP, however the setback requirement has been removed;
· the loss of numerical standards separating new development from a Heritage Item, requesting inclusion of minimum setbacks, similar to the Local Centres DCP, as they provide some reduction in impact on adjacent heritage items; and
· the loss of protection to Heritage items through a merit based approach which could see developers justify a poor outcome for adjacent heritage items and devalue their appeal to future purchasers of heritage properties and does not give any surety for adjacent residents or expectation of compliance from developers.
Comment from the Development and Regulation team raised concern regarding:
· connection between the DCP and the Inventory Sheets for Heritage Items and HCAs, and their possible location within the DCP document itself; and
· lack of clarity and difficulty in accessibility by the public to the Contributory Items mapping.
Discussion
The draft DCP is based on the Local Centres DCP and retains the majority of that content. The proposed changes to the Heritage section of the draft DCP are the result of further studies, consultations, and feedback from people using the Local Centres DCP on a regular basis, and from recent Court cases regarding development to and in the vicinity of Heritage Items.
The draft DCP proposed a merit based approach to the setbacks as a means of achieving improved outcomes than those currently being delivered through the setback controls for multi-storey developments adjacent to Heritage Items or HCAs. The intention of the original numerical setback controls was to preserve amenity, and to deliver facades to the HI/HCA boundary that are stepped back above the 8m (2 storey) height. The stepping back is important in creating an interface and transition between larger, less modulated buildings, and the more intricate detailing, modulation and form of Heritage Items and buildings that form part of the HCA character. At present, the numerical controls relating to setbacks of development adjacent to HI/HCAs does not deliver the desired stepping of built form.
It is acknowledged that the removal of the minimum numerical setbacks may create situations that could be argued and therefore compromise the HI/HCA. Consequently, it is proposed to include numerical minimum setback controls for multi-storey development adjacent to HI/HCAs similar to those stipulated in the Local Centres DCP. Further, to ensure the breakdown of building bulk on the sites adjacent to heritage properties, it is proposed to include a new control with a requirement for stepped facades to those HI/HCA boundaries for any part of the building above 8m high.
At present, the DCP makes reference to the Inventory Sheets within the Heritage Part 20 in a number of locations. The references state that the DCP controls are to be read in conjunction with the Heritage Inventory Sheets, and that these Sheets will be taken into consideration in the assessment of development applications. Whilst including the Inventory Sheets as part of the DCP is not practical, the links between the DCP and the Inventory Sheets could be strengthened by including a reference to their location via Council’s website, and by inserting a hyperlink to the Inventory Sheets on the electronic copy of the final adopted DCP.
Inclusion of the Inventory Sheets into the DCP is not practical as each time a revision to the Inventory Sheet information is made, a full DCP amendment, including reports to Council and a 28 day public exhibition process would be required. It is more effective to manage the heritage information and data, ensuring it is up-to-date, if it sits outside the DCP. It is intended that the HCA Inventory Sheets be updated to include contributory item mapping and be easily accessed on Council’s website. At present the mapping is accessed through separate consultant studies on Council’s website which have HCA boundaries that in some instances do not correlate with Council’s proposed HCAs. In a recent Court appeal this issue was raised and created confusion on the rationale for the HCA listing.
Recommendation:
That the following amendments be made:
· Include control to state minimum setbacks to a Heritage Item or building within an HCA.
· Include control to state the requirement for a stepped building to the boundary of a Heritage Item or building within an HCA.
· Include objective to support the controls.
· Clarify wording in DCP citing the HI and the HCA Inventory Sheets and their location on the KMC website.
· That further work be undertaken to update the HCA Inventory Sheets to include contributory item mapping.
All wording of new and amended clauses may be viewed in the Table of Amendments to the Draft DCP (Attachment A1).
8. References to Active Street Frontages within Part 7;- Residential Flat Buildings; Part 8 – Mixed Use Development; Part 14A – Pymble Business Park
Key Issues:
Comment from council staff raised the issue of:
· the absence of a consistent approach to active street frontages within commercial and retail areas outside the local centres.
Discussion
Active street frontages are an important feature in any commercial or retail area regardless of their location. Therefore it is proposed to include objectives and controls that are similar to those within the Local Centres DCP within the three sections of the DCP that include commercial and retail development: Residential Flat Buildings, Mixed Use Development, Pymble Business Park.
Promoting active frontages will enable a level of physical and visual interaction between the public domain and the buildings adjacent to it. Active street frontages benefit public areas by improving safety through surveillance, improve physical and visual access to buildings, encourage vibrant streetscapes and better wayfinding through recognition and familiarity. Importantly active street frontages support community interaction.
Recommendation:
That the following amendments be made:
· Inclusion of definition, objectives and controls supporting Active Street Frontages within sections that refer to retail and commercial development: Residential Flat Buildings, Mixed Use Development, Pymble Business Park.
All wording of new and amended clauses may be viewed in the Table of Amendments to the Draft DCP (Attachment A1).
9. Overall DCP Document
In response to minor errors being located across the DCP by Council staff, general corrections have been made to spelling, numbering, grammar, layout, graphics and cross referencing to ensure consistency across the entire body of the DCP. These revisions do not in any way alter the content or meaning of the DCP and only improve the navigation and legibility of the document.
General Comment
It is proposed that the primary access to the DCP will be through Council’s website. This electronic version will include hyperlinks to facilitate navigation and access to related sections of the DCP.
With regards to changes in legislation, this DCP supports the draft KLEP 2014. It has incorporated changes to align it with the State guidelines on childcare centres. In a similar fashion, when amendments are made to SEPP 65 and the Residential Flat Design Code, amendments to the Residential Flat Building section of the DCP will be required. This may be done through a future amendment to the DCP.
integrated planning and reporting
C6 - Housing Choice and Affordability
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
C6.1 Housing diversity, adaptability and affordability is increased to support the needs of a changing community. |
Plans encourage enhanced adaptability to allow for ageing in place, accessibility and sustainable housing. |
Incorporate principles of adaptability in Council’s planning policies. |
N2 - Natural Areas
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
N2.1 Our bushland is rich with native flora and fauna. |
Ecological protection and understanding is integrated within land use planning. |
Incorporate ecological provisions into the Principal DCP. |
N3 - Natural Waterways
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
N3.1 Our natural waterways and riparian areas are enhanced and protected. |
Ecological protection of our waterways is integrated within land use planning. |
Ensure appropriate riparian provisions are incorporated into the Principal DCP. |
P1 - Preserving the unique visual character of Ku-ring-gai
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
P1.1 Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual character and identity is maintained. |
Strategies plans and processes are in place to protect and enhance Ku-ring-gai’s unique landscape character
|
Identify gaps in existing strategies and plans.
Review landscape and dwelling-house provisions for the principal DCP. |
P2 - Managing Urban Change
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
P2.1 A robust planning framework is in place to deliver quality design outcomes and maintain the identity and character of Ku-ring-gai. |
Land use strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively manage the impact of new development. |
Complete Principal LEP and supporting DCP. |
P3 - Quality Urban Design and Development
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
P3.1 The built environment delivers attractive, interactive and sustainable living and working environments. |
A high standard of design quality and building environmental performance is achieved in new development. |
Monitor design quality standards in councils LEP and DCPs. |
P5 Heritage that is Protected and Responsibly Managed
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
P5.1 Ku-ring-gai’s heritage is protected, promoted and responsibly managed. |
Strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively protect and preserve Ku-ring-gai’s heritage assets. |
Identify gaps in existing strategies and plans.
Develop heritage provisions for the principal DCP. |
Governance Matters
The process for the preparation and implementation of Development Controls is governed by the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and associated Regulations. While the purpose of a DCP is to provide more detailed provision with respect to development permitted by a LEP, the EP&A Act requires that a DCP cannot be inconsistent with any provisions of the LEP.
The State Government has recently amended the EP&A Act to increase the flexibility and reduce the weight of DCPs. The main changes include:
· shifting the main purpose of a DCP to the facilitation of LEP aims, land use objectives and permissible development;
· a clear statement that such provisions are not statutory;
· a requirement for flexibility in applying the provisions and allowing reasonable alternative solutions that achieve the objectives of those provisions;
· not requiring a DA to meet requirements more onerous than those in the DCP; and
· considering the provisions only in relation to the specific DA (rather than precedents).
While it is likely the weight of DCP provisions will ultimately be determined by the Land and Environment Court, Section 79C of the EP&A Act will continue to require the consent authority to consider the provisions of a DCP in assessing a development application. DCPs will continue to have a significant role in guiding development.
The draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environment Plan (LEP) 2013 was adopted by Council on 26 November 2013 and is currently with the Department of Planning and Environment. The making of the KLEP is imminent. The DCP has been prepared to be consistent with the form and content of the final Draft KLEP adopted by Council’s and as submitted to the Department. Once the final KLEP is made, the DCP will need to be reviewed to ensure that remains consistent with any drafting amendments contained in the final LEP instrument.
Clause 21(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 requires Council to give public notice of its decision to adopt a DCP in a local newspaper within 28 days after the decision is made. The DCP will come into effect on the date that public notice of its approval is given in a local newspaper, or on a later date specified in the notice. In the case of this DCP, the commencement date should be specified as the date the KLEP 2014 come into effect.
Risk Management
By not having in place a DCP and therefore relying only on the higher order standards of the LEP, this may have unintended outcomes for development within these precincts. Council risks damage to its reputation if it does not have up-to-date and consistent development controls in place to guide development in an effective and timely manner. The DCP also contains detailed controls to guide development in managing risks such as bushfire, flooding and land contamination
Financial Considerations
The cost of preparing and exhibition of the draft DCP as outlined in this report is covered by Council’s Strategy and Environment Department – Urban Planning budget.
Social Considerations
The DCP provides a range of provisions in relation to social considerations. These include, but are not limited to, heritage protection, social impact assessment, residential amenity, access for people of different ages and mobility, pedestrian amenity and safety.
Environmental Considerations
The DCP provides a range of provisions in relation to environmental considerations. These include, but are not limited to urban design, sustainability and biodiversity requirements.
Community Consultation
The consultation program for draft DCP included:
· an advertisement in the local press giving notice of the exhibition and availability of exhibition materials;
· an exhibition period of 28 days in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 from 25 July 2014 to Friday 22 August 2014;
· notice on Council’s website and at Council libraries;
· placement of the draft DCP exhibition materials on Council’s website and at Council Chambers and Council libraries; and
· copies of the exhibition material on CD available free of charge to assist the community in making a submission.
Internal Consultation
Other sections of Council including Development and Regulation, Community, Operations and Legal were consulted during the preparation of the final draft of the DCP. A number of amendments proposed have been the result of that consultation. A copy of the Draft DCP (heritage provisions) was provided to Council’s Heritage Reference Committee.
Councillors were provided a copy of the final draft DCP on CD with hard copies in the Councillors room.
Summary
This Report states that all amendments to the draft DCP have resulted from consideration of submissions to the exhibition, and comment from other sections of Council requesting clarification of controls and improvements to the navigation and usability of the document. In addition, amendments have also been made to align the DCP with new State Government guidelines. The proposed amendments constitute changes to 8 sections of the DCP and do not substantially alter the content from that exhibited.
The DCP applies to all areas outside the local centres and is consistent in content and approach with the adopted Local Centres DCP. The adoption of the DCP will enable a uniform approach to areas both inside and outside the Local Centres and at the interface between the two.
Given the imminent gazettal of the draft KLEP 2014, an adopted DCP would ensure development controls are in place to support the KLEP 2014 and deliver development in keeping with the character of the Ku-ring-gai local government area.
|
A. That Council adopt the Ku-ring-gai Principal Development Control Plan.
B. That the DCP is to come into effect on the day that the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2014 comes into effect.
C. That once the final the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2014 is made, any amends required to the DCP to ensure consistency with the final LEP instrument be reported to Council.
D. That the Director of Strategy and Environment be given delegation to approve the amendment of minor inconsistencies and errors in the DCP following its adoption.
E. That the adopted DCP be forwarded to the Department of Infrastructure and Planning in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.
|
|
Rathna Rana Senior Urban Planner |
Craige Wyse Team Leader Urban Planning |
|
Antony Fabbro Manager Urban & Heritage Planning |
Andrew Watson Director Strategy & Environment |
|
A1View |
Table of Amendments to the Draft DCP |
|
2014/298233 |
|
|
|
A2View |
Summary of Public Submissions |
|
2014/298237 |
|
|
A3View |
Final Draft DCP |
Excluded |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 December 2014 |
GB.11 / 398 |
|
|
|
|
Item GB.11 |
S10306 |
|
|
30 September 2014 |
Tender No. RFT 22/2014 -
Lindfield Community Hub - Tender for Consultants to prepare illustrative
development options and master plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
|
purpose of report: |
To consider the tenders received for the Lindfield Community Hub Request for Tender (RFT) no.T22/2014 for provision of design and master planning consultancy services, and appoint a preferred tenderer to develop 4 illustrative development options for public exhibition then complete the final master plan. |
|
|
|
|
background: |
In October 2014, an open tender was undertaken to seek suitably qualified and experienced architects, urban designers and landscape architects to assist with the Lindfield Community Hub master plan. Tender documents were released through Tenderlink on 7 October 2014 with a closing date of 28 October 2014. |
|
|
|
|
comments: |
The process of selecting a preferred tenderer to engage for master planning services to develop illustrative development options and a developed site master plan for public exhibition was achieved through an open tender process. Seventeen (17) submissions were received. The submissions were assessed against criteria established in accordance with the Tender Evaluation Plan. A full evaluation of the tender submissions has been undertaken by a Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC). |
|
|
|
|
recommendation: |
In accordance with Section 55 of the Local Government Act and Tender Regulations, it is recommended Council accept the tender submitted by tenderer ‘D’ as identified in the Confidential Attachment A1 - Tender Evaluation Report. |
Purpose of Report
To consider the tenders received for the Lindfield Community Hub Request for Tender (RFT) no.T22/2014 for provision of design and master planning consultancy services, and appoint a preferred tenderer to develop 4 illustrative development options for public exhibition then complete the final master plan.
Background
Council, as part of the Delivery Program 2013-2017 and Operational Plan 2013-2014, seeks to revitalise the Lindfield local centre to improve the vitality and liveability. The key objective of the project is to create a vibrant community hub for Lindfield incorporating a new branch library and community centre, town centre park, commuter and community parking with other uses such as retail and residential spaces. Council envisages this to be a rare opportunity to create a precinct which will be a valuable asset to the residents of Lindfield and the wider community to gather in a quality environment.
Council adopted the preliminary project funding, program and scope of works as described in OMC – 9 September 2014 Lindfield Community Hub – Woodford Lane – Report on Progress as the basis for moving forward with the project.
An open tender process invited tenders from Registered Architects, Urban Designers and Landscape Architects to provide design consultancy services for the Lindfield Community Hub.
Comments
Seventeen (17) tenders were received and recorded in accordance with Council’s tendering policy. Tenders were received from the following companies:
· Baker Kavanagh Architects
· BVN Architecture Pty Ltd
· Design Inc. Ltd
· GHD Pty Ltd
· Hames Sharley (NSW) Pty Ltd
· HBO+EMTB
· JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd
· Lacoste & Stevenson Pty Ltd
· MBMO ARCHITECTS PTY LIMITED
· NSW PW
· Olsson & Associates Architects Pty Ltd
· PTW Architects
· Rothe Lowman Property Pty Ltd
· SJB Urban NSW Pty Limited
· Tanner Kibble Denton Architects Pty Ltd
· The Trustee for LFA Pacific Unit Trust T/as LFA (Pacific) Pty Ltd
· Urbis
It should be noted the order above does not correspond to the order of the list of tenderers named from ‘A’ to ‘Q’ in the confidential attachments.
In considering the seventeen (17) tender submissions, the evaluation took into account:
· appreciation of the task;
· project team capacity & resources;
· past performance & relevant experience; and
· value for money.
Confidential Attachments A1 & A2 respectively, to this report include:
· Tender Evaluation Report; and
· Tender Evaluation Plan.
The submissions have been assessed and a preferred tenderer selected. Tenders were called using Tenderlink in accordance with the tender requirements of the Local Government Act and Regulations.
From the seventeen (17) submissions received and the available information taken into account during the evaluation and scoring of each element of the assessment, Tenderer ‘D’ was identified as providing the best value to Council.
integrated planning and reporting
Places, Spaces and Infrastructure - P4 Revitalisation of our centres
Community, People and Culture - C4 Healthy lifestyles
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
A range of well planned, clean and safe neighbourhoods and public spaces designed with a strong sense of identity and place. |
P4.1.1 Plans to revitalise local centres are being progressively implemented and achieve quality design outcomes in collaboration with key agencies, landholders and the community.
P4.1.4 An improvement plan for Lindfield centre is being progressively implemented in collaboration with owners, businesses and state agencies. |
Implement a place management approach for the local centre improvements to coordinate works and achieve quality outcomes.
Engage with relevant stakeholders to establish timing, extent and partnership opportunities.
Undertake due diligence and undertake project scope.
Identify and engage with the key stakeholders. |
|
A healthy, safe, and diverse community that respects our history, and celebrates our differences in a vibrant culture of learning. |
C4.1.2 New and enhanced open space and recreational facilities have been delivered to increase community use and enjoyment.
|
Undertake acquisitions for new parks.
Undertake assessment and identify locations for new parks
Complete the design for identified parks and include design principles which facilitate passive recreation activities.
Construct parks at identified locations and include design principles which facilitate passive recreation activities |
Governance Matters
Tender documents were prepared and released through Tenderlink on 7 October 2014, closing on 28 October 2014. At close of tender, seventeen (17) tenders were received. All submissions were recorded in accordance with Council’s tendering policy.
The Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) comprised three staff from Strategy & Environment and Development & Regulation. The process was overseen by a Probity Adviser from the Corporate Department. The TEC assessed all the tenders received in accordance with the assessment criteria and for conformity with Schedules and the requirements of the RFT, as defined by the Tender Evaluation Plan (TEP) – Confidential Attachment A2.
The attachments are considered to be confidential in accordance with Section 10A (2)(d)(iii) of The Local Government Act 1993 as they are considered to contain Commercial-in-Confidence information.
Risk Management
Three (3) key areas of risk were identified in relation to the proposed work:
- that consultation material and proposed options do not meet community expectations for the precinct;
- that additional delays in the project jeopardise the funding for the commuter parking from Transport for NSW; and
- that the community feel that they were uninformed of the real consequences of the final adopted master plan and the project loses community support.
The risks are being mitigated through the tender process by ensuring the selected consultant team is of high quality and demonstrates a clear understanding of the project and the risks to the project. In addition the tender includes an assessment of the consultant’s previous experience to ensure it is of a similar nature, scale and complexity as Lindfield. Further, referees for the preferred tenderer have been contacted to ensure that the tenderer is able to deliver quality work of a similar nature to the satisfaction of previous clients.
Financial Considerations
At the OMC 9 September 2014 Council allocated funds of $250,000 to the project for the year 2014-2015. The project account currently has a budget of $328,400 to June 2015.
Social Considerations
The provision of additional community infrastructure providing both outdoor and indoor community spaces will continue to support this process and help Ku-ring-gai continue to be a vibrant and popular place to live for all ages.
Environmental Considerations
There are no environmental considerations arising from this report. The master plan process will ensure all relevant environmental issues are taken into consideration.
Community Consultation
Council will need to be seen to have a high standard of consultation with the community; in conjunction with a well-executed communications strategy demonstrating Council’s pursuit of the best community outcomes.
Consultation work undertaken to date by Council includes:
· workshops and interviews associated with the Lindfield Community Facilities Strategy;
· workshops and meetings with key stakeholders – TFNSW and RMS;
· attendance and presentation at a Support Lindfield Forum April 2014;
· a new website for ‘Activate Lindfield’; and
· telephone calls and emails addressing enquiries.
A consultation process is planned as part of the next stage of the process and has been established within the tender brief. The draft illustrative master plan options and the developed master plan will both be placed on public exhibition with workshops and information sessions to be run by Council and the consultants. In addition an online forum will be provided throughout the process to ensure that comment is able to be gained at all stages throughout the process.
Internal Consultation
Extensive internal consultation has occurred as part of the Lindfield Community Facilities Study including staff from Operations, Community, Strategy and Environment, Corporate and Development and Regulation.
Summary
Tender documents were prepared and released through Tenderlink on 7 October 2014, closing on 28 October 2014.
The TEC, including Probity Adviser, was formed consisting of representatives from Development and Regulation, Strategy & Environment Department and Corporate Department.
At close of tender, seventeen (17) tenders were received. All submissions were recorded in accordance with Council’s tendering policy and assessed against an agreed Tender Evaluation Plan.
Following evaluation in accordance with the TEP, it is recommended Tenderer ‘D’ be appointed on the basis of providing the best value to Council.
|
A. That Council accept the tender submission from Tenderer ‘D’ to carry out the Lindfield Community Hub illustrative development options and full site master plan.
B. That the Mayor and General Manager be delegated authority to execute all tender documents on Council’s behalf in relation to the contract.
C. That the Seal of Council be affixed to all necessary documents.
D. That all tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in accordance with Clause 178 of the Local Government Tendering Regulations.
|
|
Noa Tranter Property Projects Officer |
Bill Royal Team Leader Urban Design |
|
Andrew Watson Director Strategy & Environment |
|
|
T22/2014 - Tender Evaluation Report |
|
Confidential |
||
|
|
T22/2014 - Tender Evaluation Plan |
|
Confidential |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 December 2014 |
GB.12 / 405 |
|
|
|
|
Item GB.12 |
CY00416/2 |
|
|
5 November 2014 |
Management Options for
Ku-ring-gai Flying-Fox Reserve
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
|
purpose of report: |
To outline the findings from further investigations into management options aimed at nudging or dispersing flying-foxes from properties adjacent to the Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve (KFFR) and to provide management recommendations for Council’s consideration and endorsement. |
|
|
|
|
background: |
Management actions in the 2013 Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve Management Plan aimed at reducing the impacts of the flying-foxes on residents adjacent to the KFFR have had little success to date. |
|
|
|
|
comments: |
Due to the ongoing and detrimental lifestyle, health and wellbeing impacts on residents living adjacent to the KFFR, a number of management options aimed at nudging or dispersing flying-foxes from the KFFR were re-assessed based on their economic, social and environmental costs / benefits. Based on Council’s investigations, the current research, the experiences of other councils and the likely success factors, in the case of the KFFR, the physical, legislative, environmental and financial constraints, as well as the potential unintended social consequences deem any management actions to nudge or disperse the camp location, beyond further strategic tree removal to alleviate the most direct impacts of the flying-foxes, not appropriate or feasible. |
|
|
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council endorses and / or funds the following management options: (1) continuing to improve roost habitat in the KFFR core, away from residential properties; (2) private property tree removal; and (3) either selective roost tree removal / pruning within 10 metres of a dwelling wall, pool, deck or other living space in the most affected areas (Taylor and Waugoola Streets) or selective roost tree removal / pruning within 10 metres from the KFFR boundary in the most affected areas (Taylor and Waugoola Streets). |
Purpose of Report
To outline the findings from further investigations into management options aimed at nudging or dispersing flying-foxes from properties adjacent to the Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve (KFFR) and to provide management recommendations for Council’s consideration and endorsement.
Background
The Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve, adjacent to Stoney Creek in Gordon, covers approximately 15.3 hectares. This urban bushland reserve includes a variety of wildlife habitats and contains an important maternity colony of the Grey-headed Flying-fox, listed as vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. The Reserve also contains Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (STIF), an Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, and other vulnerable species such as the Powerful Owl.
The Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve has been subject to a Conservation Agreement, entered into between Council and the NSW Government, since February 1991, to ensure the continuing protection and preservation of native flora and fauna, in particular the Grey-headed Flying-fox colony and all elements of its habitat, within the Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve (KFFR). The Conservation Agreement requires Council to manage the KFFR in accordance with an adopted management plan.
Historically the flying-fox colony has moved periodically around the KFFR. At times when the flying-fox colony inhabits the deeper areas of the Reserve the impacts to residents have been negligible. However, since 2009 the flying-fox colony has inhabited an area very close to properties adjacent to the KFFR, in Taylor and Waugoola Streets. This has led to persistent disturbance to residents over a number of years, caused by the noise, smell and droppings, especially around the breeding period (March - April) where numbers are in the tens of thousands. Intolerable noise levels are experienced by residents for large periods of the day and night, resulting in severe impacts to the quality of life for residents over this prolonged period.
In response to the ongoing lifestyle, health and wellbeing impacts on residents, the 2013 Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve Management Plan (endorsed in August 2013), attempts to strike a balance between management actions to conserve the threatened species and ecological communities within the Reserve and management actions to reduce the impacts of the flying-foxes on residents, particularly those adjacent to the KFFR. This must occur within a prescribed management framework, largely determined by State and Federal legislation, for example, the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and the Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999. This is further complicated by the conditions of the Conservation Agreement.
Management actions in the 2013 Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve Management Plan, aimed at reducing the impacts of the flying-foxes on residents and their properties (especially those adjacent to the KFFR) are as follows:
• investigate and secure an alternative location for the flying-fox release cage (away from residential housing), as part of the KFFR rehabilitation and release program;
• collaborate with relevant agencies, organisations, councils and flying-fox experts on best practice flying-fox management for implementation within the KFFR;
• prepare and submit licence and referral applications to initiate strategic tree removal and vegetation modification works in the KFFR close to residential housing on Taylor Street and Waugoola Street;
• conduct approved strategic tree removal and vegetation modification works in the KFFR close to residential housing on Taylor Street and Waugoola Street;
• formalise community engagement processes to ensure that local community groups and residents are consulted and updated on management activities within the KFFR;
• elevate community engagement efforts during periods of greatest community concern, for example, when flying-foxes numbers are at their highest during the breeding season;
• review and determine the feasibility of potential flying-fox management options on an annual basis, for implementation within the KFFR before the breeding season commences, including, but not limited to:
o Providing information and / or securing funding for sound insulation in dwellings adjacent to the KFFR;
o Strategic tree removal and vegetation modification works at the boundary between the KFFR and private property where there is a risk to life or property or where there is significant noise disturbance to residents over prolonged periods (that is, over a number of breeding seasons);
o Effective, humane and legal methods to nudge the flying-fox camp away from the Reserve edges (where flying-foxes are less than 50m from habitable dwellings and causing significant noise disturbance to residents over prolonged periods);
• implement feasible Flying-fox management options within the KFFR on an annual basis, before the breeding season commences;
• investigate ways to incorporate flying-fox information or guidelines into 149 certificates; and
• engage with proponents of any activities which may impact the KFFR (such as planned dispersals).
To date, Council has:
· re-located the flying-fox release cage to Governor Phillip Reserve (as part of the KFFR rehabilitation and release program);
· conducted strategic tree removal and treatment works in the KFFR close to residential housing on Taylor Street and Waugoola Street (between December 2013 and March 2014, based on a successful section 91 licence application to the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage [OEH]);
· formalised community engagement processes and elevated community engagement efforts during periods of greatest community concern; and
· continued to consult with relevant agencies, organisations, councils and flying-fox experts on management options for the Reserve.
Unfortunately, the activities conducted to date have had little success in alleviating the impacts on residents adjacent to the Reserve.
On 15 October 2014, a meeting was held with the NSW Minister for the Environment, the Hon Rob Stokes MP and Jonathan O-Dea MP, Mayor Jennifer Anderson, Penny Colyer (Ku-ring-gai Council), David Trewin (OEH), and residents Mr Clive van Horen and Mr Jurgen Joester, to discuss the management issues / constraints within the KFFR and the ongoing impacts on residents living adjacent to the KFFR. The Council representatives sought the NSW Government’s support for future management of the Reserve. It was agreed at this meeting that Council would re-open its investigations into the appropriateness of the creation of (vegetative) buffers and camp dispersal at the Reserve, consistent with the management action in the 2013 Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve Management Plan to: ‘Review and determine the feasibility of potential Flying-fox management options on an annual basis, for implementation within the KFFR before the breeding season commences’.
The NSW OEH also recently released the Flying-Fox Camp Management Policy 2014: consultation draft (Attachment A1), which focuses on minimising impacts on people who are in close proximity to camps. The policy articulates a strong policy shift in support of the creation of buffer zones (to nudge populations) and camp dispersal (through vegetation clearing, noise, smoke and light) to minimise the health impacts of flying-fox camps on people. The policy does however recognise that:
(i) each flying-fox camp is unique in its location, characteristics and community, and therefore requires a site-specific response to management;
(ii) management options should seek to balance community concerns with environmental outcomes and neighbourhood amenity; and
(iii) that there may be undesirable impacts arising from the dispersal of a camp.
The draft policy outlines the requirement to submit a Camp Management Plan (in accordance with the template provided) which identifies any camp management actions that are intended to be undertaken over a five-year period, namely those categorised as routine camp management actions (Level 1 actions), creation of buffers (Level 2 actions), and camp disturbance or dispersal (Level 3 actions), which will facilitate licencing of the camp management actions for that five year period (a section 91 licence application form is submitted with a Camp Management Plan). Further consultation with OEH regional staff will be required when the trigger for Level 3 camp management actions is reached, at which time it is likely that the land manager will require a variation to their existing licence or a new licence.
The draft policy notes, however, that a land manager may apply for a section 91 licence to disturb or disperse a Flying-fox camp before a Camp Management Plan has been completed if there is an immediate and significant issue. This is considered the case at the KFFR.
This report outlines the findings from further investigations into management options aimed at nudging or dispersing flying-foxes from properties adjacent to the Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve (KFFR) and provides management recommendations for Council’s consideration and endorsement.
Comments
A range of management options aimed at nudging or dispersing flying-foxes from properties adjacent to the Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve (KFFR) are summarised in Attachment A2. These management options were assessed based on their economic, social and environmental costs / benefits, and in their ability to, as stated in the Flying-Fox Camp Management Policy 2014: consultation draft, be “legally defensible in balancing community concerns and neighbourhood amenity with environmental outcomes”. Information was provided by Plateau Tree Services (financial considerations), staff from the NSW OEH (legal / management requirements), flying-fox researchers (financial / social / environmental considerations), and other councils / agencies who have attempted nudging and / or dispersal attempts (financial / social / environmental considerations) to aid in this assessment.
Further commentary on this assessment is provided below:
Limitations of tree removal and pruning / buffer zones beyond 10 metres
At the meeting held on 15 October 2015, Council committed to investigating the creation of vegetation buffer zones within the KFFR, with 10 metres being considered an indicative distance to reduce the most direct impacts of the flying-foxes on residents living adjacent to the KFFR in Taylor and Waugoola Streets. As outlined in Attachment A2, it is considered that the removal / pruning of only roost trees within this 10 metre zone will have the same effect as a vegetation buffer (the trees marked for removal / pruning (management option 3a and 3b) are shown in Attachment A3).
As selective tree removal and the creation of a 10 meter buffer zone are not considered to lead to any substantial noise reductions, the creation of 25 metre and 50 metre buffer zones were also investigated (noting that Minister Stokes gave verbal feedback in the meeting on 15 October that a 50 metre buffer zone in the case of the KFFR was too excessive).
This investigation revealed a number of constraints with removing any trees or vegetation beyond 10 metres, and these are summarised below:
Riparian zones
· The creek through KFFR is categorised as a Category 1 Riparian Land, which includes a 40m setback from the top of each bank which, together with the waterway (as defined in the KLEP), forms the core riparian zone (CRZ).
· Council’s DCP states that channel and bank stability within the CRZ is to be protected by avoiding the removal of natural stream structure, vegetation and woody debris, except where debris creates a flood hazard.
· Contravenes Riparian Policy 2004, riparian provisions in Draft KLEP 2013, DCP 47 and Draft DCP 2014, Water Management Act 2000 and Water Management Regulation 2011.
· Activity will require concurrence with Department of Primary Industries - Office of Water.
Slopes greater than 18 degrees
· Lands mapped greater than 18 degrees are susceptible to erosion and any tree or vegetation removal will require a geotechnical report due to possible land destabilisation from vegetation removal.
· Due to poor access the use of a crane to lift canopy debris out of the KFFR tree / vegetation removal is not feasible in most areas.
· Clearing in areas with poor access will require use of an all-terrain track machine. The Reserve is categorised as Category 1 Bush Fire Prone Land and therefore the removal of the canopy is necessary to reduce available fuel and fire hazard potential. Trunk and larger limbs may be left on site. The scale of disturbance is considerable due to machine traction and felling activity. Destabilisation of land will require intensive resources for restoration given the erosion prone soil landscape class and slope. Future slope destabilisation likely.
· Contravenes Draft DCP 2014 and Draft KLEP 2013.
· Activity will require concurrence with Soil Conservation Act 1938.
Greenweb
· Mapped as Category 1 – Core Biodiversity Land
· Contravenes Draft DCP 2014 and KLEP (no net loss clause) and Tree Preservation Order.
· Activity will require concurrence with Conservation Agreement, Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Attachments A4, A5 and A6 provide a visual depiction of the constraints described above.
Research on other dispersal attempts
To further understand the use of dispersals as a management tool, the outcomes of 17 recent flying-fox dispersal attempts were systematically reviewed by Billie Roberts (PhD candidate, School of Environment, Griffith University) and Dr Peggy Eby (behavioural ecologist and leading Australian flying-fox researcher) in June 2013, and a set of common outcomes were identified which should guide their use in Australia (Attachment A7). This review identified that:
· in all 17 cases, dispersed flying-foxes did not abandon the local area;
· in 16 of the 17 cases, dispersals did not reduce the number of flying-foxes in a local area;
· dispersed flying-foxes did not move far (in approximately 63% of cases the flying-foxes only. moved < 600 metres from the original site, contingent on the distribution of available vegetation. In 85% of cases, new camps were established nearby);
· in all cases, it was not possible to predict where replacement camps would form;
· conflict was often not resolved. In 71% of cases conflict was still being reported either at the original site or within the local area years after the initial dispersal actions;
· repeat dispersal actions were generally required (in all cases except extensive vegetation removal); and
· the financial costs of all dispersal attempts were high, ranging from tens of thousands to millions of dollars, for active dispersals (for example, using noise, smoke etc).
It was found that the exceptions to these patterns ,that is, when dispersal attempts were successful, occurred when there were abundant financial and human resources (RBG Sydney and Melbourne) and / or specific landscape characteristics [for example, isolation from neighbours (Bachelor, NT) or habitat link to ‘acceptable’ locations (RBG Melbourne)].
In contrast, Attachment A8 shows the pockets of land surrounding the KFFR in the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area (LGA) containing suitable flying-fox habitat, that is, Sydney Sandstone Gully Forest. Nudging / dispersal actions have the potential to cause a scattering of the flying-fox camp in Gordon to any number of these other undesirable locations, with the potential to impact up to 4,800 residences in the LGA.
Other council attempts to nudge and / or disperse flying-fox camps
Council staff have consulted closely with a number of other councils that have attempted to nudge and / or disperse flying-fox camps. A summary of these investigations are provided below.
Sunshine Coast
· Council endorsed the dispersal of 2 flying-fox camps (at Coolum and Maroochydore) – at Coolum through noise and light dispersal techniques and at Maroochydore through vegetation removal. Council sought Federal government approval for this activity (under the EPBC Act 1999).
· Council has categorised residents who are affected as ‘primary affected’ (less than 100 m from bats), ‘secondary affected’ (between 100m and 300m from the bats) and ‘not affected’ (more than 300 m from the bats).
· At the Coolum site, the reserve is 38 metres wide at its narrowest, and there are residents on both sides. At this site there are 82 primary affected residents and 433 secondary affected residents. The dispersal activities conducted in May 2014 led to a dramatic drop in numbers at the Coolum site, however the flying-foxes re-located to an alternative camp 1.2km down the road, where the numbers jumped from 2,500 – 30,000. Due to the food source for the flying-fox ceasing in the region during this period (trees stopped flowering) all the bats left the area in June, including the 30,000 from the alternative camp, and there was only a total of 5,000 in the 19 camps in the region. Hence, the impact on the residents living close to the alternative camp (with suddenly increasing numbers) was not realised. In early July the flying-foxes were returning to the Coolum camp. Hence, the dispersal efforts had an effect of deterring the bats for a 6-8 week period.
· These dispersal efforts cost Council $90,000, excluding staff time dedicated to the operation.
· The flying-foxes at Maroochydore relocated to a mangrove island approximately 2km away from this site after the vegetation removal, but as per the Coolum site, the flying-foxes also disappeared from the region in June due to the food source ceasing in the region. Hence, the true impact of the dispersal has not been realised. At present the flying-foxes haven’t returned to the Maroochydore site, however Council are monitoring the site (and surrounding sites) with an expectation that they could return.
Key outcomes: Dramatic drop in numbers at the Coolum site, however the flying-foxes re-located to an alternative camp 1.2km down the road, where the numbers jumped from 2,500 – 30,000; dispersal efforts had an effect of deterring the flying-foxes from the Coolum site for a 6-8 week period; any impacts on residents living adjacent to the alternative camp were not realised as the flying-foxes left the area shortly after the dispersal efforts due to a lack of food source in the region; at present the flying-foxes haven’t returned to the Maroochydore site.
Key differences (to KFFR): No Conservation Agreement on land; flying-foxes are not protected under Queensland legislation; 515 primary or secondary affected residents.
Albury City
· Camp established in Albury Botanic Gardens in September 2013, consisting of Grey-headed Flying-foxes and Little-red Flying-foxes.
· Camp grew to 1,500 animals and extended its roosting range into the Children’s Garden, destroying habitat within the Botanic Gardens.
· Section 91 licence application approved (Federal approval also required under EPBC Act 1999) to disperse flying-foxes.
· The dispersal program began in May 2014 to relocate the flying-foxes to their original camp on the Murray River, involving noise between 5:30am and 6:30am for 7 days.
· By mid-June 2014, the Botanic Gardens was declared ‘bat free’.
· In July a second dispersal effort was required to further nudge the flying-foxes towards their original camp (following the first dispersal the flying-foxes had established themselves in an alternative camp close to their original camp).
· Melbourne Royal Botanic Gardens provided training on best practice noise dispersal techniques.
· An Advisory Committee was established to oversee the dispersal program.
· Albury City Council purchased the equipment necessary for the dispersal program.
· The dispersal involved 1-2 full time staff for six months leading up to the dispersal (approvals, consultation and planning stages) and 6 staff on the ground every day during the dispersal period.
· Costs (including staff time for the approvals, consultation and planning stages) was approximately $93,000.
Key outcomes: Successful dispersal of flying-foxes to appropriate alternative camp location.
Key differences to the KFFR: Flying-fox numbers dramatically lower, noise dispersal program in non-residential area; alternative camp locations in natural areas isolated from urban settlements, no Conservation Agreement on land.
Pittwater
· A 0.6 hectare reserve containing Coastal Littoral Rainforest (Endangered Ecological Community) and four threatened species and 3,500 flying-foxes (Cannes Reserve).
· Due to the impacts of the flying-foxes on residents adjacent to the Reserve, Council aimed to relocate a portion of the flying-fox camp.
· Stage one: Council undertook minor habitat modification; including the removal of selected non-indigenous trees between 2010-2014.
· Stage two: Council replacing canopy-trees with low vegetation within a 7 metre buffer around the reserve, involving (a) the removal of all non-indigenous trees, (b) the removal of any trees hanging over properties; and (c) the removal of 16 cabbage palms.
· Efforts to date have been unsuccessful (considering dispersal next year).
Key outcomes: Relocation efforts through the creation of a 7 metre vegetation buffer zone have been unsuccessful to date.
Key differences to the KFFR: Flying-fox numbers dramatically lower, no Conservation Agreement on land.
Sutherland Shire
· Council’s Kareela Flying-fox Camp Plan of Management outlines a number of stage one, (targeted response for people directly impacted) stage two (increasing the buffer) stage three (dispersal – last resort) management actions to reduce the impact of the flying-foxes on the adjoining residents and schools.
· The camp is located within a 2.2 ha bushland reserve and comprises between 500 and 12,000 flying-foxes, depending on the time of year and seasonal food availability.
· The stage two management actions were approved by OEH, with the conditions of consent being that the stage one actions were completed. Costing for the enlargement of vegetation buffers has been $125,000 (including fixing the drainage lines etc), with an additional $125,000 being requested from Council over the next couple of quarters to progress the stage one management actions.
· Vegetation cleared was primarily weed and dead trees (only 1 alive native tree) and represented 10-12% of the flying-fox habitat.
· Population has remained unchanged within the Reserve (works completed Jul / Aug 14)
· At one boundary edge there was a 10/12 m buffer already (increased it by 8 m), on the other boundary it was a 2m buffer extended to 20m.
· Disabled school adjacent to the camp (elevating health concerns).
· Unintended outcome is cleared area of vegetation is now acting as a fly out path for the flying-foxes, causing major problems for one of the residents (faecal drop as they fly out)
Key outcomes: Early success signs of flying-foxes being nudged within the Reserve.
Key differences to the KFFR: No Conservation Agreement on land; flying-fox numbers lower.
When considering the research and consultation to date, key factors in determining the likely success of any nudging / dispersal attempts can be identified as follows:
· whether the conflict is likely to be resolved in the broader community and not just around the original site, that is, the problem is not transferred from one undesirable location to another, or several, other undesirable locations;
· whether the financial and human resources required are proportionate to the scale of impact being experienced within the community;
· the likelihood and scale of any unintended (but detrimental) social and environmental impacts;
· the specific landscape characteristics, that is, are alternative camp locations isolated from urban settlements and is there a habitat link to ‘acceptable’ locations?;
· the welfare outcomes for the flying-foxes; and
· the availability of food sources – flying-foxes are unlikely to leave a local area when a camp is dispersed as long as food remains available.
The ongoing and detrimental lifestyle, health and wellbeing impacts on residents living adjacent to the KFFR, in Taylor and Waugoola Streets are acknowledged and Council staff are very sympathetic to the affected residents who are desperate for further action to be taken. However, in light of Council’s investigations, the current research, the experiences of other councils and the likely success factors (presented above), in the case of the KFFR, the physical, legislative, environmental and financial constraints, as well as the potential unintended social consequences deem any management actions to nudge or disperse the camp location, beyond further strategic tree removal to alleviate the most direct impacts of the flying-foxes, not appropriate or feasible.
Therefore, it is recommended that Council endorses and / or funds the following management options (as summarised in Attachment A2):
· Management option 1: Continuing to improve roost habitat in KFFR core, away from residential properties
· Management option 2: Private property tree removal
· Management option 3a: Selective roost tree removal / pruning within 10 metres of a dwelling wall, pool, deck or other living space in most affected areas (Taylor and Waugoola Streets) or 3b: Selective roost tree removal / pruning within 10 metres from the KFFR boundary in most affected areas (Taylor and Waugoola Streets).
integrated planning and reporting
Natural environment
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
Our bushland is rich with native flora and fauna
|
Strategies and plans are relevant and implemented to improve the conservation and recovery of flora and fauna. |
Implement priority actions from the Biodiversity Strategy.
|
Governance Matters
Council has entered into a Conservation Agreement for the Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve pursuant to the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, for the purpose of protecting and preserving the native flora and fauna on the subject land. Contained in the Conservation Agreement is a requirement for Council to manage the subject land in accordance with an adopted management plan. Council must also manage the Reserve in accordance with other relevant legislation, such as the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Risk Management
In determining the viability of management actions aimed at nudging or dispersing flying-foxes from properties adjacent to the KFFR Council has considered the likelihood and scale of the unintended (but detrimental) social and environmental impacts (or risks) that are likely to result from the management action.
Financial Considerations
The management actions aimed at nudging or dispersing flying-foxes from properties adjacent to the KFFR are largely unfunded and unresourced. The estimated costs of these management actions range from tens of thousands to millions of dollars. The recommended management actions that are currently unfunded will cost Council approximately $70,000 to $180,000 (excluding staff resource costs). These costs are not budgeted in 2014/2015.
Social Considerations
In determining the viability of management actions aimed at nudging or dispersing flying-foxes from properties adjacent to the KFFR Council has considered whether the conflict is likely to be resolved in the broader community and not just around the original site, that is, the likelihood of the problem being transferred from one undesirable location to another, or several, other undesirable locations; and whether the financial and human resources required are proportionate to the scale of impact being experienced within the community.
Environmental Considerations
In determining the viability of management actions aimed at nudging or dispersing flying-foxes from properties adjacent to the KFFR Council has considered the specific landscape characteristics of the Local Government Area, that is, whether alternative camp locations are isolated from urban settlements and if there are habitat links to ‘acceptable’ locations; the welfare outcomes for the flying-foxes; and the potential environmental impacts of tree and vegetation removal within the KFFR, for example, soil erosion, land destabilisation and increased weed encroachment.
Community Consultation
In determining the viability of management actions aimed at nudging or dispersing flying-foxes from properties adjacent to the KFFR consultation has been undertaken with Sutherland Shire, Pittwater, Albury and Sunshine Coast Council staff, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) staff; Ku-ring-gai Bat Conservation Society (KBCS) members, a local Flying-fox researcher/PhD student (Tim Pearson); the NSW Minister for the Environment, the Hon Rob Stokes MP; Jonathan O-Dea MP; and residents Mr Clive van Horen and Mr Jurgen Joester.
Internal Consultation
In determining the viability of management actions aimed at nudging or dispersing flying-foxes from properties adjacent to the KFFR consultation has been undertaken with staff from Council’s Strategy and Environment and Operations departments.
Summary
The Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve has been subject to a Conservation Agreement, entered into between Council and the NSW Government, since February 1991, to ensure the continuing protection and preservation of native flora and fauna, in particular the Grey-headed Flying-fox colony and all elements of its habitat, within the Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve (KFFR). The Conservation Agreement requires Council to manage the KFFR in accordance with an adopted management plan.
The 2013 Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve Management Plan (endorsed in August 2013), attempts to strike a balance between management actions to conserve the threatened species and ecological communities within the Reserve and management actions to reduce the impacts of the flying-foxes on residents, particularly those adjacent to the KFFR. Unfortunately, the activities conducted to date have had little success in alleviating the impacts on residents adjacent to the Reserve.
The NSW OEH also recently released the Flying-Fox Camp Management Policy 2014: consultation draft (Attachment A1), which focuses on minimising impacts on people who are in close proximity to camps. The policy articulates a strong policy shift in support of the creation of buffer zones (to nudge populations) and camp dispersal (through vegetation clearing, noise, smoke and light) to minimise the health impacts of flying-fox camps on people. The policy does however recognise that:
(i) each flying-fox camp is unique in its location, characteristics and community, and therefore requires a site-specific response to management;
(ii) management options should seek to balance community concerns with environmental outcomes and neighbourhood amenity; and
(iii) there may be undesirable impacts arising from the dispersal of a camp.
Due to the ongoing and detrimental lifestyle, health and wellbeing impacts on residents living adjacent to the KFFR, a range of management options aimed at nudging or dispersing flying-foxes from properties adjacent to the KFFR have been re-assessed based on their economic, social and environmental costs / benefits, and in their ability to, as stated in the Flying-Fox Camp Management Policy 2014: consultation draft, be “legally defensible in balancing community concerns and neighbourhood amenity with environmental outcomes”. Information was provided by Plateau Tree Services (financial considerations), staff from the NSW OEH (legal / management requirements), flying-fox researchers (financial / social / environmental considerations), and other councils / agencies that have attempted nudging and / or dispersal attempts (financial / social / environmental considerations) to aid in this assessment.
However, in light of Council’s investigations, the current research, the experiences of other councils and the likely success factors (presented above), in the case of the KFFR, the physical, legislative, environmental and financial constraints, as well as the potential unintended social consequences deem any management actions to nudge or disperse the camp location, beyond further strategic tree removal to alleviate the most direct impacts of the flying-foxes, not appropriate or feasible.
Therefore, it is recommended that Council endorses and / or funds the following management options (as summarised in Attachment A2):
· Management option 1: Continuing to improve roost habitat in the KFFR core, away from residential properties;
· Management option 2: Private property tree removal; and
· Management option 3a: Selective roost tree removal / pruning within 10 metres of a dwelling wall, pool, deck or other living space in most affected areas (Taylor and Waugoola Streets) or 3b: Selective roost tree removal / pruning within 10 metres from the KFFR boundary in most affected areas (Taylor and Waugoola Streets)
|
That Council considers and / or endorses as appropriate the following management options aimed at nudging flying-foxes from properties adjacent to the Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve (KFFR) in the second quarter budget review:
1. Continuing to improve roost habitat in the KFFR core, away from residential properties;
2. Private property tree removal; and
3. Either selective roost tree removal / pruning within 10 metres of a dwelling wall, pool, deck or other living space in the most affected areas (Taylor and Waugoola Streets) or selective roost tree removal / pruning within 10 metres from the KFFR boundary in the most affected areas (Taylor and Waugoola Streets).
|
|
Marnie Kikken Manager Environment & Sustainability |
Andrew Watson Director Strategy & Environment |
|
A1View |
Flying-fox Camp Management Policy 2014 |
|
2014/299605 |
|
|
|
A2View |
KFFR Management Options December 2014 |
|
2014/299604 |
|
|
A3View |
Trees marked for removal at KFFR December 2014 |
|
2014/300822 |
|
|
A4View |
10m buffer zone constraints KFFR December 2014 |
|
2014/299788 |
|
|
A5View |
25m buffer zone constraints KFFR December 2014 |
|
2014/299793 |
|
|
A6View |
50m buffer zone constraints KFFR December 2014 |
|
2014/299795 |
|
|
A7View |
Review of past flying-fox dispersal actions between 1990 and 2013 |
|
2014/300152 |
|
|
A8View |
Potential flying-fox habitat in Ku-ring-gai LGA |
|
2014/300169 |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 December 2014 |
GB.13 / 452 |
|
|
|
|
Item GB.13 |
S09969 |
|
|
25 November 2014 |
Turramurra Community Hub -
Preferred Design Option
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
|
purpose of report: |
To present to Council a preferred design option for the Turramurra Community Hub for public exhibition. |
|
|
|
|
background: |
Council resolved at Ordinary Meeting of Council on 12 November 2013 to commence the preparation of a master plan for the Turramurra Community Hub.
A report was brought to Council at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 28 October 2014 with an assessment of four design options and a recommendation for a preferred option for public exhibition. At that meeting Council resolved “That the matter be deferred until Council is briefed on the Turramurra Community Facilities Study by Elton Consulting as soon as practical.”
A briefing was subsequently held for Councillors on the Turramurra Community Facilities Study on 1 December 2014. |
|
|
|
|
comments: |
In relation to this project there has been four information sessions held for Councillors:
· A briefing was held on 8 October 2014; · two site inspections were held on 22 and 28 October 2014; and · a briefing was held on the Turramurra Community Facilities Study on 1 December 2014.
Following these sessions a revised option has been prepared which takes into account Councillor feedback during these sessions. Design Option 2CA (with Councillor Amendments) is a modification of Option 2, as reported to Council on 28 October 2014. |
|
|
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council adopt Design Option 2CA for the purposes of public exhibition and seeking community comments. |
Purpose of Report
To present to Council a preferred design option for the Turramurra Community Hub for public exhibition.
Background
The preparation of a master plan started in July 2013 when Council considered a report on the future of its landholdings within the Ray Street Precinct, Turramurra in light of a supermarket redevelopment proposed by Coles Group Property Developments Ltd. At the time the matter was deferred for a Councillor briefing and a meeting with representatives from Coles.
At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 12 November 2013 Council was asked to consider an updated report on the future of its landholdings within the Ray Street Precinct, Turramurra.
At that meeting Council resolved unanimously the following:
A. “That a Planning Proposal be prepared, in accordance with section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, to reclassify No.5 Ray Street (lot 2 DP 221290) and no.12 William Street (Lot 1 DP 519532) from Community land to Operational land via an amendment to Ku-ring-gai Local Centres LEP (2012). In addition the planning proposal remove RE1 zone from the precinct and replace it with a B2 Local centre zone.
B. That Council undertake a public hearing under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 for the proposed reclassification to reclassify No.5 Ray Street (Lot 2 DP 221290) and no.12 William Street (Lot 1 DP 519532) Community land to Operational land.
C. That Council formally seek to discharge all interests for to reclassify No.5 Ray Street (Lot 2 DP 221290) and no.12 William Street (Lot 1 DP 519532)
D. That the Planning Proposal be submitted to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
E. That upon receipt of a Gateway Determination, the exhibition and consultation process is carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and with the Gateway Determination requirements.
F. That a report be brought back to Council at the end of the exhibition and public hearing processes.
G. That Council prepares a master plan for a potential Turramurra Community Hub based on the current controls in the Local Centres LEP 2012 (and taking into account Council’s resolution with regard recommendation B above) which are a B2 – Local Centres zone, maximum building height of 5 storeys (17.5 metres) and floor space ratio of 1.8:1.
H. Council allocate funds of $150,000 to the project for the year 2013-2014 from the section 94 reserve.
I. That Council maintains an equivalent area in its master planning for a civic square/urban park within the Ray Street/William Street precinct. The new space is to have minimum dimensions of 40 x 50 metres; an open north aspect and not to be overshadowed by new buildings; active frontages to at least two sides; and a location that is visible and easily accessible from the rail station.
J. A report is brought back to Council reporting on the results of the background studies and options assessment and recommending a preferred master plan option, timing and next steps.
K. That a meeting be held between all Councillors and representatives of Coles at the earliest opportunity”.
At the Ordinary Meeting of 26 November 2013 Council considered a report on the way forward regarding planning for community facilities in Turramurra. On this matter, Council resolved in part:
“That Council prepares a community facilities strategy for Turramurra to determine the following:
- What community facilities does Council need to provide?
- How much space does Council need to provide?
- Where are these facilities best located?
- What is the likely cost of the new facilities?”
A report was submitted to Council at Ordinary Meeting of Council of 28 October 2014 outlining four design options for the Turramurra Community Hub as well as the findings of the draft community facilities study and preliminary feasibility study; at that meeting Council resolved:
“That the matter be deferred until Council is briefed on the Turramurra Community Facilities Study by Elton Consulting as soon as practical”.
Councillors were briefed by consultants at a briefing session on Monday 1 December 2014 on the contents of the draft Turramurra Community Facilities Study as well as the Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy.
Comments
In relation to this project four information sessions have been held for Councillors:
· A briefing was held on 8 October 2014 at which consultants presented a draft site analysis, design principles, preliminary design options and financial assessment. Councillors’ comments were taken into consideration and four draft design options were subsequently prepared. This meeting also included an outline of the draft findings of the community facilities study.
· The draft design options were presented to Councillors at two site inspections held on 22 and 28 October 2014; at the final site inspection chalk markings were provided around the site to assist Councillors in understanding the design options.
· Consultants briefed Councillors on Monday 1 December 2014 on the draft Turramurra Community Facilities Study as well as the Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy (LGA wide).
Following these sessions a revised option has been prepared that takes into account Councillor feedback during these sessions. Design Option 2CA is a modification of Option 2 (as reported on 28 October 2014) with Councillor Amendments (CA).
Planning Context
Turramurra Local Centre faces significant challenges to it becoming a vibrant, liveable and integrated centre. The centre is divided into three sections by the intersection of the Pacific Highway and rail corridor; this combined with retail and planning structure based around the Pacific Highway prior to the congestion issues it now has. This has led to retail and public open spaces facing the highway with dead, inactive spaces behind in what is now the preferred location for community activity. The Ray Street precinct is the most difficult of the three sections of the centre being an island between the two major corridors.
A fundamental requirement of any precinct plan is that it addresses these issues by:
- creating connection and relationship between all three retail cores of the centre; and
- facilitating a relocation of retail and pedestrian activity focus away from the Pacific Highway and into the centre of the site.
The consultants undertaking the master plan have taken into account the context of the site and have developed design principles that seek to link the site with the area to the east around Gilroy Road and Turramurra Avenue.
Figure 01 – A master planning site analysis diagram prepared by the consultant team
Figure 02 – Site opportunity and site design principle diagram prepared by the consultant team
Site Description
Figure 03– Site Boundary and Land Tenure – Ray Street Precinct
The site is bounded by Ray Street, the north shore rail corridor, Forbes Lane and the Pacific Highway; the area is a triangular parcel of land comprising a small freestanding supermarket, a Council library and Turramurra Village Park. The remainder of the area is occupied by public car parking and traversed by Forbes Lane (one way), Higgs Lanes and William Street road reserves (currently used for car parking). For the purposes of this report the site will be termed the ‘Ray Street Precinct’ (Figure 03).
The master plan includes both Council and privately owned land to ensure a precinct wide approach to deliver the best outcome to the community; the plan assumes that all land owners within the site become participants in the greater site redevelopment.
Site planning objectives
The preparation of the Local Centres LEP considered planning for the whole of Turramurra centre by identifying three distinct precincts each with a different character and function with potential for enhanced linkages between the precincts.
Figure 04 – Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP – Turramurra Urban Precincts Plan
Objectives and planned future character statements for the Ray Street Precinct as set out in the Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP, 2013 are listed out below:
Objectives
· To create distinct retail precincts that provides a range of services, facilities and experiences.
· To create a ‘civic heart’ for Turramurra.
· To provide enhanced shopping precincts anchored by modern supermarkets.
· To encourage residential apartments in mixed use buildings to support viability of the retail uses.
· To provide opportunities for new speciality retail, cafes and restaurants to be located away from the highway.
Planned Future Character
Precinct T1 – Pacific Highway and Ray Street Retail Area:
i. In the future this precinct will become a community focal point, centred on a large new town square. A new Turramurra branch library will also be provided fronting the proposed public space.
ii. This area will also become a major shopping destination with a new larger supermarket and associated specialty shops.
iii. Forbes Lane will be widened (through development setbacks) to create a new two-way street with on-street parking and “kiss-and-ride” area for the train station.
iv. Shop-top housing will be provided on the retail podium providing further support for the retail and community uses. Council’s parking will be relocated to new basement parking upon redevelopment.
v. Shops along the Pacific Highway will be encouraged to have an active street frontage to Forbes Lane to create a quieter shopping precinct away from the Pacific Highway which will also activate the laneway.
Turramurra Community Hub master plan
A consultant team was engaged in August 2014 to prepare a master plan. The team consists of architects, landscape architects and land economists.
Since being engaged, the master planning team have undertaken the following tasks:
· A review of background information and Council policies;
· site analysis and assessment;
· development of design principles;
· preparation of design options 1-4;
· councillor and staff briefings;
· preliminary financial analysis of design options; and
· preparation of revised option 2CA.
Design Principles
The consultant team has established strong master planning principles utilising an approach that was established through careful analysis of the site; the principles are:
1. create a pedestrian spine along Forbes Lane through to Rohini Street and connecting to the Turramurra Community Service Centre on Gilroy Lane;
2. incentivise the activation of the rear of the shops along the Pacific Highway building on what is already working in Turramurra;
3. create a green corridor adjoining the railway corridor (with potential to utilise rail land at a later stage should Transport for NSW [TFNSW] approve);
4. provide a pedestrian and cycle access way from the Pacific Highway north along the edge of the rail corridor linking to the cycle way on the east of the rail line;
5. create a large, level and accessible town square that is centrally located;
6. minimise the overshadowing of the proposed town square;
7. maximise the amount of retail and commercial floor space that is located below the level of the town square by utilising the natural topography of the site;
8. maintain and enhance the residential character and rhythm of Ray Street; and
9. co-locate the proposed library and community centre in a location adjoining the proposed town square.
Preferred design option
As discussed above a revised option has been prepared that takes into account Councillor feedback during four briefing sessions with Councillors. Design Option 2CA with Councillor Amendments (CA) is a modification of Option 2, as reported to Council on 28 October 2014. Key features of Design Option 2CA are:
· complies with Council resolution of 12 November 2013;
· proposes a mixed use development providing residential, retail and community floor space;
· limits building height to 5 storeys (17.5 metres) across the whole site;
· provides a town square located centrally;
· proposes 2-3 storey community building located on Turramurra Village Park;
· proposes an 18 metre wide linear park alongside the rail corridor; and
· proposes that Turramurra Village Park is relocated to a more central location away from the highway.
Figure 06 - Design Option 2CA
Details of Design Option 2CA are as follows:
|
Element |
Total Area |
Location |
Notes |
|
Town Square |
Minimum size 2,000sqm |
Centred around 4-8 William Street |
Broad, level area created by building podium which would be at same level as Forbes Lane and Ray Street |
|
Linear Park* |
2,000sqm |
Along the eastern edge of the rail corridor |
18m wide linear multi-function parkland. Provides an access way from the town square through to the northern edge of Ray Street. |
|
Turramurra Village Park |
832sqm |
Centrally relocated away from the Pacific Highway |
Incorporates area of parkland the same as Turramurra Village Park |
|
Rooftop Public Garden |
450sqm |
On top of proposed community building |
Publicly accessible green roof/garden lookout with views to the surrounding area |
|
Community Space |
2,950sqm |
Located below town square in semi-basement; or fronting Forbes Lane and town square; or Turramurra Village Park, next to Pacific Highway |
Council owned strata within mixed building or new Council owned community building |
|
Residential |
approx. 190 units |
Fronting Ray Street |
Buildings fronting Ray Street oriented east –west to optimise solar access and minimise overshadowing of open space and town square |
|
Retail** |
7,200sqm |
Supermarket located below ground level in semi-basement and ground level retail fronting town square |
Includes full-line supermarket plus specialty retail. Total amount to be confirmed by retail demand study. |
|
Car parking - public |
No. spaces - 286 |
Located in basement below retail/community |
Including replacement of 171 existing Council owned spaces + DCP requirements for commercial uses |
|
Car parking - private residential |
No. spaces as required by Council’s DCP |
Located in basement below public parking |
In addition to public parking |
*This area does not include the land of known as ‘the railway gardens’
** Council can choose whether to fund additional community space and reduce retail space. This will result in variations to parking numbers and the financial return shown; these have not been quantified at this stage.
Assessment of preferred option
An assessment table comparing existing conditions and the revised option 2CA is as follows:
|
|
Existing |
Option 2CA |
Change +/- |
|
Town Square |
0sqm |
Minimum of 2,000sqm |
+2,000sqm |
|
Parkland |
832sqm |
2,832sqm |
+2,000sqm |
|
Community Space |
700sqm (existing library) |
2,950sqm * |
+2,250sqm |
|
Residential units |
0 |
190 |
+190 |
|
Retail area |
2,485sqm including existing Coles supermarket |
Max. 7,000sqm** |
+4,515 |
|
Public car parking |
224 |
286 (not including residential parking) |
+62 spaces |
|
Financial return to Council |
nil |
Refer attachment A2 |
Refer attachment A2 |
*Council can choose whether to fund additional community space and reduce retail space.
**Total amount to be confirmed by retail demand study.
This report recommends that Design Option 2CA is endorsed by Council for exhibition as it has potential to achieve a strong balance between positive planning and environmental outcomes; deliver quality community infrastructure; as well as provide an acceptable financial return to Council.
Options for a road bridge
Design Option 2CA includes an option for a road bridge connecting Ray Street with Rohini Street. Council staff have commenced discussions with representatives from Transport for NSW (TFNSW) to seek feedback on aspects of the design that potentially impact on the station and rail corridor.
As a next step it is proposed to assess the community’s support for the road bridge proposal as part of the master plan exhibition and prepare a cost estimate.
Based on advice from TFNSW the option for a road tunnel under the station will not be pursued further due to prohibitive costs.
Draft Turramurra Community Facilities Study
Consultants were engaged in May 2014 to undertake the Turramurra Community Facilities Study. Preliminary findings were presented to Councillors at a briefing by staff on the evening of 8 October 2014. A second briefing was given for Councillors by the consultants on 1 December 2014. The draft report is available in Attachment A1 for information and it is intended to report the draft report to full Council for adoption in 2015.
integrated planning and reporting
Themes:
· Places, Spaces and Infrastructure
· Community, People and Culture
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
A range of well planned, clean and safe neighbourhoods and public spaces designed with a strong sense of identity and place. |
P1.1.1 Opportunities are provided to our community to contribute to plans for enhancing the local area and visual amenity of our centres.
|
Develop concept plans informed by community engagement.
Engage with key stakeholders and the community in the revitalisation of our neighbourhood centres and local areas. |
|
|
P4.1.1 Plans to revitalise local centres are being progressively implemented and achieve quality design outcomes in collaboration with key agencies, landholders and the community. |
Implement a place management approach for the local centre improvements to coordinate works and achieve quality outcomes. |
|
A healthy, safe, and diverse community that respects our history, and celebrates our differences in a vibrant culture of learning. |
C4.1.2 New and enhanced open space and recreational facilities have been delivered to increase community use and enjoyment.
|
Undertake acquisitions for new parks.
Undertake assessment and identify locations for new parks
Complete the design for identified parks and include design principles which facilitate passive recreation activities.
Construct parks at identified locations and include design principles which facilitate passive recreation activities |
Governance Matters
Council’s charter under the Local Government Act 1993 is clear. A number of elements of the charter which could be taken as applying to the management of the subject land are highlighted below:
· to provide directly or on behalf of other levels of government, after due consultation, adequate, equitable and appropriate services and facilities for the community and to ensure that those services and facilities are managed efficiently and effectively;
· to exercise community leadership;
· to promote and to provide and plan for the needs of children;
· to have regard to the long term and cumulative effects of its decisions;
· to bear in mind that it is the custodian and trustee of public assets and to effectively plan for, account for and manage the assets for which it is responsible; and
· to engage in long-term strategic planning on behalf of the local community.
Council has the opportunity to pro-actively work with the development sector to create a unique precinct for Turramurra local centre. To do this Council needs to review how it can best utilise its assets within this precinct, and potentially consider the divestment of some assets to fund the acquisition of other assets which are more relevant to the changing requirements of the community. In the case of the subject precinct, this may involve selling land currently utilised as car parking to gain new facilities such as a new library, new community centre and town square.
A review of Council assets, reclassification and the sale of some assets to fund the acquisition of other assets which are more relevant to the changing requirements of the community, is entirely consistent with Council’s charter.
Risk Management
Coles Group Property Developments Ltd. submitted a Development Application in April 2013 for a new supermarket at 1 Ray Street, Turramurra. The proposed development (whilst permissible) is not consistent with the strategic objectives and planned future character of this precinct, as set out in the Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP 2013. If the Coles DA is approved and developed it could effectively sterilise development of adjoining sites and prevent Council’s vision from being realised for at least the life of the supermarket, which could be in the order of 20-30 years.
The first risk is the integrity and due protection of the value of the public assets held and administered by the Council, or the public interest generally. Such a risk may be reputational as well as financial.
The second risk would be the possible inability of the Council to discharge its Charter obligations to provide adequate, equitable and appropriate services and facilities for the community. Such a risk may be reputational as well as financial.
The third risk for this project is in relation to Council’s reputation. The project has become reasonably well-known within the local community as a result of Council’s ‘Activate Turramurra’ events and activities. Community consultation to date has been generally positive and supportive of the process and there is now an expectation that Council will continue to the next stage of the project which will involve exhibition of a draft master plan. If Council is seen not to be progressing revitalisation of the local centre in line with the Community Strategic Plan, then there would be a risk of loss of reputation as a result.
The fourth risk is the opportunity costs to Council, of not making a decision. No action by Council would indicate an acceptance that if the Coles DA is approved and built that this will represent an appropriate outcome for the precinct for 20 plus years. The potential financial risks of this approach are:
· loss of potential development contribution funds;
· potential loss in value of the Council’s assets;
· a potential loss in actual or prospective revenue (through future sale or leasing of land);
· ongoing maintenance of ageing assets including library repairs and refurbishments; and
· unresolved funding shortfall to deliver Turramurra community facilities in Council’s Long Term Financial Plan.
Council has been pro-active in its decision making to date resolving to commence reclassification and master planning; the next step is to place a draft master plan on public exhibition. This approach can effectively mitigate the risks noted above.
Financial Considerations
There are adequate funds available to complete the master plan stage of the project.
The Design Option considered in this report will result in a positive financial outcome for Council (Attachment A2). To achieve this Council needs to be pro-active and engage with the development sector to deliver a community hub for Turramurra. The first step is to prepare a master plan that clearly shows the outcomes Council seeks from the potential development of the land.
The second step is reclassification; Council has resolved to reclassify the site from Community Land to Operational Land which will facilitate potential future redevelopment of the site and sale or leasing of Council land. The proceeds from land sales could be used in number of ways, but not limited to:
Turramurra specific:
· providing additional community facilities on the site in the form of a youth centre / indoor sports facility or other as identified by Council;
· renovating and extending the Turramurra Community Service Centre on Gilroy Road;
LGA wide:
· funding Council’s co-contribution for projects identified in the Development Contributions Plan 2010.
Other potential financial benefits could include:
· activation and reinvigoration of a declining commercial centre;
· increased value of Council’s assets;
· development contribution funds from site redevelopment;
· increased value of Council’s assets; and
· gain in actual or prospective revenue (through future sale or leasing of land).
Social Considerations
Council’s Community Strategic Plan 2030, recognises the community’s vision for Ku-ring-gai as a place with infrastructure and facilities that accommodate the needs of the community. The plan further emphasises the desire for an adopted program for the implementation of new facilities, identified funding sources and a program to maintain Council’s assets at a sustainable standard.
Currently the precinct is utilised for car parking by shoppers, commuters and local business owners, beyond this function the site provides very little social benefit to the community and is very much an under-utilised asset for Council. The site has the potential to provide new community buildings and open space which will provide a high level of social benefit to the community. If Council were to actively participate in redevelopment within this precinct it would present new opportunities to bring forward the delivery of public infrastructure or facilities by many years.
Environmental Considerations
The Ray Street precinct is a predominantly hard paved car park with some significant trees located on the edges of the site. There are no heritage items or areas of biodiversity significance. Redevelopment will not have any significant adverse environmental impacts.
Overall, if the development were to be undertaken in a co-ordinated manner with site amalgamation as discussed, there is potential for a range of environmental improvements on the site particularly resulting from the increased amount of open space on the site.
In terms of traffic impacts the overall floor space (GFA) proposed in option 2CA is well below that tested as part of the Turramurra Town Centre Traffic and Car Parking Study undertaken in 2006. While some further modelling will be required at a later stage of the project at this stage the traffic impacts are anticipated to be manageable within the recommendations of that study. This matter was discussed in some detail in a report to the Ordinary Meeting of Council - 12 November 2013, GB.6.
Community Consultation
Council staff from the Community and Strategy and Environment departments conducted a Family Fun Day consultation event in the Ray Street car park. This involved cordoning off a space within the car park and laying artificial turf and creating a “pop up” Village Park. The day was a success with large numbers of the community visiting the event. At the event staff collected over 180 surveys from members of the community to get their input into the precinct.
An open conversation page has been created on Council’s website allowing further conversation around the feedback from the survey. This page will be used to gain feedback and facilitate discussion throughout the master plan process.
It is proposed that Design Option 2CA, if adopted by Council, will be developed by consultants into a draft master plan with illustrative material and placed on public exhibition along with the Turramurra Community Facilities Study for comment. The exhibition period would incorporate 2 workshops, a web-based forum and surveys. After the completion of the exhibition period a report would be bought to Council with a summary of the community feedback and a further refinement of the master plan incorporating the results of the consultation for adoption by Council.
Council’s resolutions with regard to preparation of a Planning Proposal to reclassify 5 Ray Street and 12 William Street (OMC 13 November 2013) from Community land to Operational land have not been acted on to date. This process will be commenced once Council has adopted a preferred master plan. The master plan will then be exhibited as part of the reclassification process. This will ensure the community is fully aware of Council’s intentions when considering whether they support, or do not support, reclassification of the subject properties.
A meeting was held between all Councillors, senior staff and representatives of Coles Group Property Developments Ltd on 28 January 2014. The consultant team and senior staff presented preliminary draft material to the General Manager and Directors (GMD) on 19 September 2014. A further meeting with Coles Group Property Developments Ltd is recommended if Council approves Option 2CA.
Internal Consultation
Consultation has occurred internally within the Strategy and Environment Department as required, including with the Manager Environment & Sustainability.
The Manager Library and Cultural Services, Manager Community Development and staff from Community & Recreation Services have been consulted during the preparation of the draft Turramurra Community Facilities Study.
In relation to this project there has been four information sessions held for Councillors:
· A briefing was held on 8 October 2014;
· two site inspections were held on 22 and 28 October 2014; and
· a briefing was held on the Turramurra Community Facilities Study on 1 December 2014.
Summary
In response to the resolution of Council at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 12 November 2013 to prepare a master plan for the Ray Street precinct in Turramurra, Council staff have engaged a consultant team comprising architects, landscape architects and land economists.
The consultant team has prepared four design options for the site after careful site analysis, examining the background information including Council’s community consultation and preliminary findings from Elton Consulting’s Turramurra Community Facilities Study and presentations to GMD and a Councillor briefing. The options were reported to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 28 October 2014. At that meeting Council resolved to defer the master plan until Councillors were given a briefing on the results of the Turramurra Community Facilities Study.
Consultants and staff subsequently briefed Councillors on 1 December 2014 on the draft Turramurra Community Facilities Study as well as the Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy (LGA wide).
A revised option has been prepared which takes into account Councillor feedback over the past 2 months. Design Option 2CA is a modification of Option 2 (as reported to Council on 28 October 2014) with Councillor Amendments (CA).
The option provides a range of community benefits including:
· 4,800sqm of public open space;
· almost 3,000sqm of floor space for community facilities such as a new library;
· an expanded retail offer including a new supermarket and speciality shops;
· restaurants and cafes offering outdoor dining adjoining the town square;
· additional public parking;
· an improved environment with high levels of safety and amenity;
· activation and reinvigoration of a declining commercial centre; and
· generation of local employment and investment.
The report recommends that Design Option 2CA is endorsed by Council for exhibition as it has the potential to achieve a strong balance between positive planning and environmental outcomes; deliver quality community infrastructure; as well as provide an acceptable financial return to Council.
If adopted by Council, Design Option 2CA, will be placed on public exhibition along with the site analysis, and design options. In addition the Turramurra Community Facilities Study will be provided for public comment. After the completion of the exhibition period a report would be bought to Council with a summary of the community feedback and any further refinements of the master plan incorporating the results of the consultation for adoption by Council.
|
A. That Council adopt Design Option 2CA as the preferred option for the purposes of public exhibition and that the consultants are instructed to prepare a draft master plan on that basis including exhibition material (detailed plans, sections and perspective views).
B. That the draft master plan be placed on exhibition for a month in the first half of 2015.
C. That following completion of the exhibition a report be brought back to Council with:
i. a summary of submissions and community feedback from the exhibition; and ii. recommendation for a final master plan; and iii. recommended next steps.
D. That staff and consultants meet with private property owners within the master plan site boundary to present the draft master plan as resolved by Council.
E. That a decision in relation to the location of a new library and community centre be delayed pending community input and comment on the draft Turramurra Community Facilities Study recommendations.
|
|
Noa Tranter Property Projects Officer |
Bill Royal Team Leader Urban Design |
|
Antony Fabbro Manager Urban & Heritage Planning |
Andrew Watson Director Strategy & Environment |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 December 2014 |
GB.14 / 467 |
|
|
|
|
Item GB.14 |
S07254 |
|
|
21 November 2014 |
Renewal of Sub-lease for HART -
451 Mona Vale Road St Ives
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
|
purpose of report: |
To recommend to Council the grant of a five (5) year sub-lease to Honda Australia Motorcycle and Power Equipment Ltd for the continued occupation of the Honda Australia Roadcraft Training site (HART) at 451 Mona Vale Road St Ives. |
|
|
|
|
background: |
The land situated at 451 Mona Vale Road, St Ives is Crown Land leased to Council from the Crown Lands Division of the Department of Trade and Investment (formerly Department of Lands) for a term of fifteen (15) years expiring on 10 July 2019. |
|
|
|
|
comments: |
The initial five (5) year term expired on 18 August 2013, and Honda Australia Motorcycles and Power Equipment Pty Ltd failed to exercise the five (5) year option within the timeframe set out in the sub-lease. Honda Australia Motorcycles and Power Equipment Pty Ltd has confirmed its desire to continue its operations at HART. Due to the technicality surrounding the invalid exercise of the option, a new sub-lease will need to be granted for continued occupation of the site. |
|
|
|
|
recommendation: |
That a new five (5) year sub-lease be granted to Honda Australia Motorcycles and Power Equipment Pty Ltd on the terms and conditions contained in the report. |
Purpose of Report
To recommend to Council the grant of a five (5) year sub-lease to Honda Australia Motorcycle and Power Equipment Ltd for the continued occupation of the Honda Australia Roadcraft Training site (HART) at 451 Mona Vale Road St Ives.
Background
The land at 451 Mona Vale Road, St Ives is owned by the Crown and leased to Council until 10 July 2019. Honda Australia Pty Ltd has sub-leased the site since 1998, with the current sub-lease Honda Australia Motorcycle and Power Equipment Ltd (Honda MPE) in occupancy since 2008.
The site is used for the operation of a road safety and training facility known as Honda Australia Roadcraft Training (HART).
On 12 August 2008, Council resolved:
A. That a further five year term with a five year option to the sub-lease of lots 2844 and 2845 DP 822242 Mona Vale Road St Ives be granted to Honda Australia Motorcycles and Power Equipment Pty Ltd for the operation of a road safety and training facility effective 19 August 2008, and subject to:
i. a new sub-lease reflecting commercial terms and conditions
ii. the new rental be negotiated within the determined range
iii. Ministerial approval of the terms and conditions of the new sub-lease.
B. That the Mayor and General Manager be authorised to sign the sub-lease documentation.
C. That the Common Seal of Council be affixed to all necessary documents associated with the sub-lease renewal.
D. That Council be advised of the outcome of negotiations via formal memo.
The sub-lease was finalised by Council’s solicitors after approval was obtained from the then Department of Lands.
Comments
Honda MPE operates HART, a dedicated driver training facility. The facility is one of only three dedicated road safety and training facilities in Australia, the others being in Brisbane and Perth.
HART’s operations include contracts to Government, corporations and not-for-profit agencies for motorcycle rider training, learner and provisional car training and a new initiative the Safer Driver Program. The facility is used for both commercial and community based driver training programs. According to HART, the current mainstay of its business operation is the RYDA program, a defensive driver training course which has been attended by over 50,000 high school students over the past 10 years. Income generated from HART’s activities, supported by funding from major corporations and foundations, is used to offset the cost of providing community based programs.
The sub-lease agreement between Council and Honda MPE incorporates the Honda Road Safety Education Centre St Ives Operating Charter (Charter). The Charter includes terms and conditions that warrant the sub-lessee to provide for community based use and access to the premises.
Honda MPE has provided Council staff with an update on the community based programs that have been conducted at the facility. These include:
· Northern Beaches Cycling Academy;
· Peloton Sports cycling;
· Community and Road Education Scheme (CARES);
· Father Chris Riley – Driver Training programs for disadvantaged youth;
· Provision of the facility for use by two scout clubs for their Cub Billycart Derby days;
· Junior Go-Duathlon Series;
· UNSW Solar Racing Team;
· Formula SAE Australasia;
· North Shore and Northern Beaches Cycling Academy ; and
· Accommodating the Australian and Olympic Luge team for trials.
The initial five (5) year sub-lease expired on 18 August 2013 and Honda MPE wrote to Council on 16 August 2013 (Attachment A1) seeking to exercise its option for a further term of five (5) years. However, Honda MPE did not formally exercise the option strictly in accordance with the terms of the sub-lease which required notification of its intent no later than 19 February 2013. Council’s solicitors have subsequently advised that the option for the further five (5) year term cannot be legally exercised and Council will need to approve a new sub-lease to enable Honda MPE to continue its operations at the site.
Honda MPE has proven to be a satisfactory sub-lessee and Council staff do not consider the technical oversight, in relation to the invalid exercise of the option, should preclude Honda MPE of the opportunity of a further five (5) year sub-lease term. Council staff, therefore, support the grant of a new five year (5) sub-lease.
integrated planning and reporting
Theme – Leadership and Governance – L2 Financial capacity and sustainability
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
Council rigorously manages its financial resources and assets to maximise delivery of services |
Council maintains and improves its long term financial position and performance |
Ensure the commercial property portfolio provides market returns
|
Governance Matters
The land at 451 Mona Vale Road, St Ives is owned by the Crown and leased to Council until 10 July 2019. Council, as Sub-Lessor, sub-leases the site to Honda MPE with the consent of the Crown Lands Division of the Department of Trade and Investment/ Minister for Lands.
Council resolved on 12 August 2008 to grant a new lease for a five (5) year term with a five (5) year option for the operation of a road safety and training facility to take effect from 19 August 2008. Honda MPE’s desire to remain in occupation for a further five (5) year term following the expiry of the initial term on 18 August 2013, generally accords with Council’s resolution.
However, ongoing occupation for the subsequent five (5) year term cannot be approved pursuant to the option as Honda MPE did not validly exercise the option. Due to the technicality surrounding the invalid exercise of the option any extension of tenure would need to be authorised by Council through the grant of a new sub-lease.
In essence, Council would be granting no further rights to Honda MPE than would otherwise have been available to the sub-lessee had the option been validly exercised.
Ministerial approval was previously obtained to enter into the 5 year term plus 5 year option period in 2008. The Crown Lands Division of the Department of Trade and Investment will be approached for a fresh approval from the Minister for Lands given the invalid exercise of the option.
Risk Management
Council’s solicitor will prepare the new sub-lease agreement. The opportunity will be taken to contemporise the commercial terms and conditions that will apply to the sub-lease including insurance and indemnities provisions, work health safety requirements and other clauses that will serve to better protect Council’s interests in a legally enforceable sub-lease.
Council staff have also been in discussion with representatives of Honda MPE in regard to improving evacuation procedures for visitors on extreme and catastrophic fire danger periods and hazard reduction programs to minimise risk to people and property.
Financial Considerations
Due to the confidential nature of the proposed commercial leasing negotiations of property the financial information is provided as confidential attachments.
It is not in the public interest to release this information as it would prejudice Council’s ability to conduct negotiations with the tenant on the appropriate commercial terms and conditions.
BEM Property Consultants Pty Ltd (BEM) were engaged to undertake a market rent review of the sub-lease rental which will apply from 19 August 2013. The valuation has taken into account the operation of the facility includes a component of community use. A copy of the BEM’s valuation report is attached (Confidential Attachment A2).
Also enclosed is a copy of the proposed Heads of Agreement between the parties detailing the commercial terms (Confidential Attachment A3).
Honda MPE has proven to be a capable tenant and continues to meet both the commercial and community requirements of their sub-lease.
Social Considerations
The sub-lease contractually obligates Honda MPE to make provision for appropriate community utilisation of the site through an Operating Charter. The Charter provides that the Honda MPE will, during the term of its occupancy, make the premises available at all reasonable times to such community, government or local government or charitable organisations as maybe be specified by Council (as Sub-Lessor) from time to time which are consistent with the Charter.
For over 14 years HART has been supporting the CARES road safety education program which has seen over 100,000 children go through the program. Local Command police have recently presented HART with a Certificate of Appreciation for its support of the program.
Honda MPE has also made the use of the facility available, free of charge, to a number of community groups such as the Scouts Association, Father Chris Riley‘s Youth Off the Streets and various cycling and sports clubs as well as educational institutions.
Honda MPE successfully combines commercial and community use of the site and provides a valuable community service through the provision of road safety and driver training.
Environmental Considerations
There are no major environmental impacts associated with the operation of the site. The sub-lease will impose appropriate covenants on Honda MPE to safeguard the environment.
Community Consultation
There is no community consultation requirements associated with the granting of a new sub-lease.
Internal Consultation
Staff within the Strategy and Environment Department have provided input into this report.
Summary
In 2008, Council resolved to enter into a new sub-lease for a further five year term with a five year option to Honda Australia Motorcycles and Power Equipment Pty Ltd.
Honda MPE did not validly exercise the option contained in the sub-lease which would have extended its tenure on the site for a further term of five (5) years from 19 August 2013. Honda MPE is desirous of taking a further sub-lease of the premises for five (5) years.
Council staff previously liaised with the then Department of Lands (now Crown Lands Division of the Department of Trade and Investment) in 2008 and received in principle agreement that Honda MPE’s sub-lease tenure could extend to 2018 inclusive of the option. The Crown Lands Division of the Department of Trade and Investment will be approached for a fresh approval from the Minister for Lands given the circumstances surrounding the invalid exercise of the option.
The new sub-lease will be drafted so it is consistent with the head-lease. It will also incorporate contemporary commercial terms and conditions, along with a new market rental amount determined by BEM Property Consultants.
Importantly, all negotiations will ensure that the sub-lease documentation embodies the sub-lessee’s commitment to the development of ongoing community based programs.
|
A. That a further five year term of the sub-lease of lots 2844 and 2845 DP 822242 Mona Vale Road St Ives be granted to Honda Australia Motorcycles and Power Equipment Pty Ltd for the operation of a road safety and training facility effective 19 August 2013, and subject to:
i. the market rental contained in the valuation report prepared by BEM Property Consultants; ii. the new sub-lease reflecting contemporary commercial terms and conditions; and iii. approval being obtained from the Crown Lands Division of the Department of Trade and Investment and the Minister for Lands.
B. That the Mayor and General Manager be authorised to sign the sub-lease and any other associated documentation.
C. That the Common Seal of Council be affixed to all necessary documents associated with the sub-lease renewal.
D. That Council be advised of the outcome of negotiations via formal memo. |
|
Vince Rago Property Program Co-ordinator |
Deborah Silva Manager Integrated Planning, Property & Assets |
|
Andrew Watson Director Strategy & Environment |
|
|
A1View |
A1 Request by Honda MPE to renew HART sub-lease |
|
2014/297628 |
|
|
|
A2 Market Valuation Report for HART site by BEM Property Consultants |
|
Confidential |
|
|
|
A3 Heads of Agreement for sublease of HART site |
|
Confidential |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 December 2014 |
GB.15 / 474 |
|
|
|
|
Item GB.15 |
CY00413/2 |
|
|
26 November 2014 |
Ku-ring-gai Heritage Reference Committee - Minutes of Meeting held 8 September 2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
|
purpose of report: |
Council to consider the minutes of the Heritage Reference Committee (HRC) meeting held on 8 September 2014. |
|
|
|
|
background: |
The minutes were taken at the meeting held on 8 September 2014, then confirmed and accepted at the Heritage Reference Committee (HRC) meeting held on 10 November 2014. |
|
|
|
|
comments: |
A number of issues regarding heritage items and policies were discussed at the Heritage Reference Committee’s meeting on 8 September 2014. |
|
|
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council receive and note the Heritage Reference Committee meeting minutes from 8 September 2014. |
Purpose of Report
Council to consider the minutes of the Heritage Reference Committee (HRC) meeting held on 8 September 2014.
Background
The Ku-ring-gai Heritage Reference Committee was re-formed in August 2014 in accordance with Council’s requirements.
Comments
A range of heritage issues were discussed at the Heritage Reference Committee meeting of 8 September 2014 (Attachment A1) and two items were held over for further consideration as outlined below:
· 111 Pentecost Ave, Turramurra –Staff presented to the committee newly sourced information on the house (currently listed heritage item in KPSO & DKLEP 2013) and its architect, Basil Beirman. The owner has requested Council to delist the property. The committee was asked to consider the building in the light of this information, other examples of Beirman’s work and his reputation as a post-war architect and to provide feedback.
· Draft KLEP 2013 – deferred draft items – for comment and review – staff presented to the committee information on the deferred draft items KLEP 2013 currently being assessed for discussion and review.
integrated planning and reporting
Heritage conservation
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
Strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively protect and preserve Ku-ring-gai’s heritage assets. |
Implement, monitor and review Ku-ring-gai’s heritage planning provisions.
|
Identify gaps in existing strategies and plans.
|
Governance Matters
Consisting of five members, the Heritage Reference Committee includes Councillors and heritage practitioners.
The Committee provides advice on heritage matters and assists with the promotion, understanding and appreciation of heritage. While not a decision-making body, the Committee nevertheless plays an important function in shaping Ku-ring-gai's future. This Committee is also an important link in Council's communication strategy with the community.
Risk Management
In providing advice and recommendations to Council on the management of strategic heritage issues in Ku-ring-gai, this Committee assists in the future management of Ku-ring-gai’s cultural heritage.
Financial Considerations
The costs of running the Heritage Reference Committee are covered by the Strategy and Environment Department budget.
Social Considerations
The aims of the Heritage Reference Committee are to provide advice to Council on heritage matters and to provide assistance to Council in promoting an understanding and appreciation of heritage, including matters of social heritage significance.
Environmental Considerations
A role of the Heritage Reference Committee is to support
Council in identifying and managing
Ku-ring-gai’s Cultural Heritage.
Community Consultation
The Heritage Reference Committee meets on a monthly basis and notification of meetings is provided on Council’s website.
Internal Consultation
Heritage Reference Committee includes Councillors and heritage practitioners and is facilitated by Council staff. Where relevant, consultation with other Departments may occur.
Summary
The Heritage Reference Committee held its meeting on 8 September 2014. The Committee reviewed and discussed the following key items:
· Draft Ku-ring-gai DCP 2014;
· 111 Pentecost Ave, Turramurra;
· 3M Building, 950 Pacific Highway, Pymble; and
· Lindfield Station Signal Box.
|
That Council receive and note the Heritage Reference Committee meeting minutes of 8 September 2014.
|
|
Antony Fabbro Manager Urban & Heritage Planning |
Andrew Watson Director Strategy & Environment |
|
A1View |
Heritage Reference Committee Minutes 8 September 2014 |
|
2014/285280 |
|
APPENDIX No: 1 - Heritage Reference Committee Minutes 8 September 2014 |
|
Item No: GB.15 |
MINUTES OF Heritage Reference Committee
HELD ON Monday, 8 September 2014
|
Present: |
The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson (Chairperson) (Roseville Ward) Councillor C Szatow (Deputy Chairperson)(Gordon Ward) Mr Robert Moore – National Trust Ms Jennifer Harvey – Ku-ring-gai Historical Society |
|
|
|
|
Staff Present: |
Manager Urban & Heritage Planning (Antony Fabbro) Heritage Specialist Planner (Robin Hedditch) |
|
|
|
|
Others Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
Apologies: |
Mr Hector Abrahams – Australian Institute of Architects
|
The Meeting commenced at 5.30pm
WELCOME BY MAYOR
The Mayor welcomed members to the new committee.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No interest was declared.
Confirmation of Minutes 11 August 2014 and matters arising
The minutes were confirmed with no matters arising.
GENERAL BUSINESS
Lindfield Station Signal Box
Staff provided the committee with an update on the whereabouts of the dismantled signal box. A message had been left with the NSW Office of Rail Heritage with no response to date.
The committee extended its discussion to the Gordon signal box. The committee requested that contact be made with State Rail and Transport NSW to offer to work together to provide the public with better viewing opportunities and more information and interpretation of the historic rail infrastructure at Gordon Station, in particular the signal box and early indicators.
Code of Conduct Training
Code of Conduct Training was deferred due to the unavailability of the relevant council staff and will be organised for the next meeting.
Feedback on Draft Ku-ring-gai DCP 2014 – provided separately
The committee requested more time to consider the DCP in relation to heritage. Jennifer Harvey requested a copy of the Heritage section of the draft DCP be provided to the Ku-ring-gai Historical Society.
950 Pacific Highway, Pymble - 3M Building – draft item currently on public exhibition
The public exhibition was noted. This led to a discussion of what the committee believed to be the significance of the building. This led to a broader discussion of post-war and modern architecture and key examples in Ku-ring-gai. The committee observed a growing interest and knowledge of post-war architecture, recent exhibitions by Sydney Living Museums, the key practitioners who are still alive and the need to provide more information and education.
The committee suggested in the future that Council initiate and fund a series of local talks possibly in conjunction with other similar events.
111 Pentecost Ave, Turramurra
Robin Hedditch presented to the committee newly sourced information on the house (listed heritage item) and its architect, Basil Beirman. The owner has requested Council to delist the property.
The committee was asked to consider the building in the light of this information, other examples of Beirman’s work and his reputation as a post-war architect and to provide feedback.
Draft KLEP 2013 – deferred draft items – for comment and review
Robin Hedditch presented to the committee images of a number of deferred draft items currently being assessed for discussion.
Next meeting
13 October 2014
The Meeting closed at 7.30pm
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 December 2014 |
GB.16 / 480 |
|
|
|
|
Item GB.16 |
S06604/2 |
|
|
30 November 2014 |
Amendments to Lindfield Library Site
Plan of Management - For Adoption
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
|
purpose of report: |
Post-public exhibition report to amend the Lindfield Library Site Plan of Management to expressly authorise the private residential leasing of the former Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units. |
|
|
|
|
background: |
At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 7 October 2014 it was resolved to place the Lindfield Library Site Plan of Management on public exhibition. The Lindfield Library Site Plan of Management was last adopted by Council on 3 September 2002 .The Plan of Management includes the Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units, which comprise 14 units in a two storey brick building. The units were constructed by the Ku-ring-gai Old People’s Welfare Association Ltd (KOPWA) in 1963. In early March 2014 KOPWA voluntarily gave Council notice of its intention to vacate the site. The site was vacated and handed back to Council in late March 2014. |
|
|
|
|
comments: |
The 42-day public exhibition period ended for the Lindfield Library Site Plan of Management commenced on 17 October and ended on 28 November 2014. No submissions were received. Currently the Lindfield Library Site Plan of Management expressly authorises the leasing of the Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units to KOPWA Ltd. As KOPWA has now vacated the Site, should Council wish to lease the units for private residential purposes Council is required to amend the Plan of Management to expressly authorise this leasing purpose. |
|
|
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council amend the Lindfield Library Site Plan of Management to expressly authorise the leasing of the former Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units for private residential purposes. |
Purpose of Report
Post-public exhibition report to amend the Lindfield Library Site Plan of Management to expressly authorise the private residential leasing of the former Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units.
Background
The Lindfield Library Site Plan of Management was last adopted by Council on 3 September 2002 and includes the following facilities:
· Lindfield Branch Library;
· former Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units;
· Lindfield Seniors’ Centre;
· Lindfield Seniors’ Resource Centre;
· Lindfield Community Centre tennis courts and sun shelter;
· toilet facilities;
· car park;
· landscaped areas; and
· historic well.
Following adoption of the Plan in 2002, the Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service (KYDS) also commenced operations in a facility attached to the rear of Lindfield Library in 2005.
Council is the owner of Lots 1, 2 and 3 DP 212617. Lot 3 DP 212617 contains the 14 Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units and Lot 2 DP 212617 contains the Lindfield Seniors Centre. Both Lots 1 and 2 DP 212617 are located at 259–261 Pacific Highway, Lindfield - Lot 2 fronting the Pacific Highway, and Lot 3 at the rear of Lot 2. The land classified as Community Land.
The larger site at 259–271 Pacific Highway Lindfield comprises the Lindfield Library, Lindfield Seniors’ Centre, 14 self-contained units and the Lindfield Seniors’ Resource Centre.
Council acquired the site by resumption from the Coleman family in 1948. The site contains a well which was used by the previous owners, which is protected under the NSW Heritage Act 1977.
The Lindfield Library was developed in 1954, the Seniors’ Centre constructed in 1962, followed by the 14 Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units in 1963. The Seniors’ Resource Centre was converted from the Lindfield Baby Health Centre in 1991. From its opening in 1962 until 1997, the Seniors’ Centre was managed by KOPWA Ltd. In 1997 the Ku-ring-gai Seniors Centre’s Committee was established and was responsible for the management and operation of the Seniors’ Centre and the Seniors’ Resource Centre until the early 2000’s, when the committee ceased to exist.
Since 1962, KOPWA Ltd has been in continuous occupation of Lot 3, on which they constructed the 14 Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units in 1963, and paid a peppercorn rent. Legal access to Lot 3 has been provided by a twenty foot wide Right of Carriageway (ROC) over the adjacent Lot 1.
This ROC expired on the expiry of the lease over Lot 3. Council has constructed an asphalt driveway on Lot 1 and established eight, two hour, time limited car parking spaces over the south-eastern section of the ROC. The 14 Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units have been maintained by KOPWA Ltd, however many were left in a poor condition upon handover to Council in March 2014.
Clause (h) of the KOPWA lease which expired on 30 April 2012 transferred the ownership of the building containing the 14 Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units to Council on the expiry of the lease. The building is currently 51 years old and is likely to be reaching the end of its economic life.
The Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units comprises of 14 units in a two storey brick building with reinforced concrete floors and a tiled roof. The units were constructed by the Ku-ring-gai Old People’s Welfare Association Ltd (KOPWA) in 1963 and have a gross floor area of 340 sq. metres.
At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 7 October 2014 (Minute No.319) Council resolved:
(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Pettett)
A. That Council amend section 2.7 of the draft Lindfield Library Site Plan of Management to expressly authorise the leasing of the former Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units for private residential purposes.
B. That the draft Lindfield Library Site Plan of Management be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days plus a further 14 days for submissions in accordance with the NSW Local Government Act 1993.
C. That the draft Lindfield Library Site Plan of Management be brought back to Council following public exhibition to consider any public submissions received and adopt the Plan.
Council has subsequently resolved to reclassify the subject land, among other things.
Comments
Currently the Lindfield Library Site Plan of Management expressly authorises the leasing of the Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units to KOPWA Ltd. KOPWA has now vacated the site and informed Council that it will not be renewing its lease. If Council wishes to lease the units for private residential purposes Council is required to amend the Plan of Management to expressly authorise this type of leasing, in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.
The 42-day public exhibition period for the Lindfield Library Site Plan of Management commenced on 17 October and ended on 28 November 2014. No submissions were received. It is recommended that Council amend section 2.7 of the draft Plan of Management (refer Attachment A1) to expressly authorise the leasing of the former Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units for private residential purposes.
Section 3.16 Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service (KYDS) has also been added to the draft plan of management, as KYDS commenced operations after the plan of management was first adopted.
The draft plan has also undergone minor editorial changes, none of which have materially changed the meaning or intention of any sections of the current 2002 plan of management.
Following the adoption of the plan of management by Council, a further report may be brought to an Ordinary Meeting of Council outlining the physical improvements and cost estimates that are necessary to bring the units up to a minimum acceptable condition for residential leasing. This report would also include the process for marketing and leasing the units.
integrated planning and reporting
Community Strategic Plan - Theme 3 Places, Spaces and Infrastructure - P7 Enhancing community buildings and facilities.
Community Strategic Plan - Theme 1 Community, People and Culture – C6 Housing Choice and Availability.
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
P7.1 Multipurpose community buildings and facilities are available to meet the community’s diverse and changing needs. |
P7.1.2 Usage of existing community buildings and facilities is optimised.
|
Community leases are reviewed and implemented in line with leasing policy.
|
|
C6.1 Housing diversity, adaptability and affordability is increased to support the needs of a changing community. |
C6.1.1 Council’s planning approach to the provision of housing across Ku-ring-gai addresses the supply, choice and affordability needs of the community.
C6.1.2 Diversity and supply of new housing has been investigated to provide safe and responsive housing that addresses the changing population.
C6.1.3 Plans encourage enhanced adaptability to allow for ageing in place, accessibility and sustainable housing. |
Undertake review of Council properties with the ability to provide alternative housing choices. |
Governance Matters
Under the Local Government Act 1993, Section 40 Adoption of Plans of Management:
(1) After considering all submissions received by it concerning the draft plan of management, the council may decide to amend the draft plan or to adopt it without amendment as the plan of management for the community land concerned.
Under the Local Government Act 1993, Section 46 Leases, licences and other estates in respect of community land-generally:
(1) A lease, licence or other estate in respect of community land:
(b) may be granted, in accordance with an express authorisation in the plan of management and such provisions of the plan of management as apply to the granting of the lease, licence or other estate:
(i) for a purpose prescribed by subsection (4), or for a purpose prescribed by any of sections 36E to 36N as a core objective of the categorisation of the land concerned, or
(ii) for a purpose prescribed by the regulations, if the plan of management applies to several areas of community land, or
(iii) for a short-term, casual purpose prescribed by the regulations, or
(iv) for a residential purpose in relation to housing owned by the council, or
A council must not grant a lease or licence for a period (including any period for which the lease or licence could be renewed by the exercise of an option) exceeding 30 years.
Risk Management
The on-going vacancy of the former Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units in the short term presents a risk to Council in terms of vandalism and potential squatter occupation. Any other risk management issues will be identified and addressed in the lease agreement for each dwelling.
Financial Considerations
The amendment of the Plan to permit private leasing of the residential dwellings on the site.
Social Considerations
Due to their age, condition and small size, leasing of the 14 units at the Lindfield Library site to private tenants is likely to provide a significantly more affordable housing option for a small number of residents compared to other more expensive residential leasing options currently available in the Ku-ring-gai rental market and Lindfield in particular.
Environmental Considerations
As the residential units have been used for residential purposes for many years by KOPWA until its recent closure, it is not considered that private leasing to individual tenants will lead to any significant or additional environmental impacts.
Community Consultation
As required under Section 38 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council publicly exhibited the draft Plan of Management for a period of 28 days plus a further 14 days to receive submissions. The public exhibition included public notification of the exhibition period in the North Shore Times and on Council’s website. The draft Plan of Management was made available for viewing on Council’s website and at Council’s Administration Centre and libraries.
Internal Consultation
Council officers in the Community Department and Strategy and Environment Departments have been consulted in the preparation of this report.
Summary
The Lindfield Library Site Plan of Management was last adopted by Council on 3 September 2002. The Plan of Management includes the Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units, which comprise 14 units in a two storey brick building and have a gross floor area of 340 square metres.
The units were constructed by the Ku-ring-gai Old People’s Welfare Association Ltd (KOPWA) in 1963. In early March 2014 KOPWA voluntarily gave Council notice of their intention to vacate the site and it was handed back to Council in late March 2014.
Currently the Lindfield Library Site Plan of Management expressly authorises the leasing of the Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units to KOPWA Ltd. KOPWA has now vacated the site and informed Council that they will not be renewing their lease. Should Council wish to lease the units for private residential purposes, Council is required to amend the Plan of Management to expressly authorise this purpose and place the draft Plan on public exhibition for public comment.
Council placed the draft amendments to the Lindfield Library Site Plan of Management on public exhibition for a period of 28 days plus a further 14 days for submissions in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993. As no submissions were received, it is recommended that Council adopt the amended Plan of Management to expressly authorise the leasing of the former Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units for private residential purposes.
|
That Council adopts the draft Lindfield Library Site Plan of Management at Attachment A1.
|
|
Roger Faulkner Team Leader Sport & Recreation Planning |
Ian Dreghorn Manager Strategic Projects |
|
Andrew Watson Director Strategy & Environment |
|
|
A1View |
Lindfield Library Site Draft Plan of Management for Adoption |
|
2014/300935 |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 December 2014 |
NM.1 / 518 |
|
|
|
|
Item NM.1 |
S09638 |
|
|
27 November 2014 |
Notice of Rescission
Fit for the Future Program
Notice of Rescission from Councillors Malicki, Berlioz and Pettett dated 27 November 2014
We move rescission of Part B of Minute 374 from Council’s meeting of 11 November 2014, namely:
“B. Notwithstanding A above, that Council proactively begin discussions with surrounding Councils about Merger proposals, engaging facilitators and other consultants as necessary to enable a report to be brought back to Council in February 2015 with possible configuration options before proceeding to the next step in the Merger proposal process and preparing a detailed business case for consultation with the community.”
|
That the above Notice of Rescission as printed be adopted.
|
|
Councillor Elaine Malicki Councillor for Comenarra Ward |
Councillor Christiane Berlioz Councillor for St Ives Ward |
|
Councillor Jeff Pettett Councillor for Comenarra Ward |
|
|
A1View |
Notice of Rescission - Attachment 1 |
|
2014/298629 |
|
|
|
A2View |
Notice of Rescission - Attachment 2 |
|
2014/298631 |
|
|
A3View |
Notice of Rescission - Attachment 3 |
|
2014/298632 |
|
|
A4View |
Notice of Rescission - Attachment 4 |
|
2014/298633 |
|
|
A5View |
Notice of Rescission - Attachment 5 |
|
2014/298635 |
|
|
A6View |
Notice of Rescission - Attachment 6 |
|
2014/298636 |
|
|
A7View |
Notice of Rescission - Attachment 7 |
|
2014/298637 |
|
|
A8View |
Notice of Rescission - Attachment 8 |
|
2014/298627 |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 December 2014 |
NM.2 / 531 |
|
|
|
|
Item NM.2 |
TM2/06 |
|
|
1 December 2014 |
Notice of Motion
Pinch Points along the Pacific Highway in Ku-ring-gai
Notice of Motion from Councillor Fornari-Orsmond dated 1 December 2014
During my attendance at the recent Support Turramurra community meeting, many residents raised questions about traffic conditions in Ku-ring-gai, with particularly strong concerns expressed about the situation at Turramurra where the Pacific Highway crosses the North Shore railway line. Attached is an article from the North Shore Times about traffic issues on the Pacific Highway and photographs showing issues trucks trying to merge near Ray Street, Turramurra.
To date the Roads and Maritime Services has not undertaken any improvements on pinch points on the Pacific Highway in Ku-ring-gai apart from some minor improvements at the intersection with Livingstone Avenue, Pymble.
Council has written to the Local Member, Mr Barry O’Farrell MP, seeking feedback on what plans there are to widen the Pacific Highway Bridge over the North Shore railway line at Turramurra and Pymble. At this stage no response has been received. Traffic volumes on Pacific Highway between Wahroonga and Pymble will increase substantially over the next 20-30 years, so the situation is certain to deteriorate further.
As a result, I recommend that the Mayor write to The Premier, Mr Mike Baird MP, and the Local Member for Ku-ring-gai, Mr Barry O’Farrell MP, and the Minister for Transport requesting details from Transport for NSW and the Roads and Maritime Services on the current status of plans being developed to improve pinch points in Ku-ring-gai, particularly through Turramurra, Pymble and Wahroonga/Warrawee.
I therefore move:
“That the Mayor write to The Premier, Mr Mike Baird MP, and the Local Member for Ku-ring-gai, Mr Barry O’Farrell MP, and the Minister for Transport requesting details from Transport for NSW and the Roads and Maritime Services on the current status of plans being developed to improve pinch points in Ku-ring-gai, particularly through Turramurra, Pymble and Wahroonga/Warrawee.”
|
That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.
|
|
Councillor Chantelle Fornari-Orsmond Councillor for Wahroonga Ward |
|
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 December 2014 |
NM.3 / 533 |
|
|
|
|
Item NM.3 |
S02428 |
|
|
27 November 2014 |
Notice of Motion
Basketball Half Court at Regimental Park Killara
Notice of Motion from Councillor Szatow dated 27 November 2014
In July this year, Council received a letter from an 11 year old resident of an apartment block in Lorne Avenue Killara requesting that Council consider installing a basketball half court facility at Regimental Park Killara for use for his age group in particular, to “shoot baskets” after school.
The 10 – 15 year age group is well represented in the apartment blocks which have burgeoned in recent years in Killara between the railway line and the highway and they do not provide outdoor play space. The two playgrounds in walking distance in Selkirk Park and Greengate Park have play equipment designed to cater for the early childhood years.
The nearest public outdoor basketball facilities are at Allan Small Park in Saiala Road East Killara, Queen Elizabeth Reserve in Bradfield Road West Lindfield, and Roseville Park in Clanville Road Roseville. None of these facilities is within walking distance of Regimental Park.
Council’s 2004-2009 Development Contributions Plan listed Regimental Park for recreational improvements. This was part of the Southern Area embellishment works which has now been subsumed into to 2010 Contributions Plan – Parks & Sporting Facilities South.
I am advised that the supply and installation of a single basketball post, backboard and ring at on one end of one of the tennis courts at Regimental Park, along with half court line-marking, would cost in the range of $4000-$7000, depending on ground conditions and the size of the footing required.
I am further advised that this proposed new basketball half court facility at Regimental Park can be funded from Council’s Section 94 reserve, as the Contributions Plan lists Regimental Park for funding, being a park surrounded by significant new medium density residential development.
I move that:
“Council allocate up to $7000 from the Section 94 Reserve (2010 Contributions Plan – Parks and Sporting Facilities South) in the 2015 first quarter budget review for the immediate installation of a basketball half court at Regimental Park, Killara.”
|
That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.
|
|
Councillor Cheryl Szatow Councillor for Gordon Ward |
|
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 December 2014 |
NM.4 / 534 |
|
|
|
|
Item NM.4 |
S03009 |
|
|
1 December 2014 |
Notice of Motion
South Turramurra Neighbourhood Centre
Notice of Motion from Councillors Malicki and Pettett dated 1 December 2014
The Economic and Social Development Advisory Committee hosted a presentation from Bruce Perry on behalf of the Kissing Point Progress Association over a year ago. This presentation detailed a proposal to revitalise the South Turramurra Neighbourhood Shopping Centre on Kissing Point Road. It had been based on extensive consultation with local residents, with in excess of 600 survey responses on a range of issues backing up the presentation and its proposal, and there was a suggestion that the project could be funded from part of the sale of B2 Corridor Lands.
So far this matter has not been formally resolved by Council.
Councillors will also be
aware of the auction held in South Turramurra on Saturday,
19 November. As it is possible that the sale of the entire subdivision will
exceed the requirements to complete funding for the Ku-ring-gai Aquatic and
Recreation Centre, it would be appropriate to put any excess funds back into
the community where they were generated to help serve the needs of existing and
new residents. There is a precedent for using the funds in such a way in the Lindfield
Town Centre’s recent land sales, and local residents have supported the use of
the money from the land sale for the South Turramurra and Turramurra Town
Centre areas.
Therefore we move:
“1. That Council give formal consideration to ways to progress the revitalisation of the South Turramurra Neighbourhood Shopping centre, and that a report be brought back to a meeting early in 2015 outlining options for upgrading this centre.
2. That consideration be given to using excess funds, if any, from the B2 Lands Sale to finance the upgrade and revitalisation.”
|
That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.
|
|
Councillor Elaine Malicki Councillor for Comenarra Ward |
Councillor Jeff Pettett Councillor for Comenarra Ward |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 December 2014 |
NM.5 / 535 |
|
|
|
|
Item NM.5 |
S10142 |
|
|
1 December 2014 |
Notice of Motion
Ku-ring-gai Amateur Swimming Club use of Facilities
Notice of Motion from Councillor Malicki dated 1 December 2014
The Ku-ring-gai Fitness and Aquatic Centre has now reopened and is proving to be highly successful, with the Ku-ring-gai Amateur Swimming Club as its largest user group. The Swim Club bring 150 members and their families to the pool. This represents considerable income for the YMCA and should be a catalyst for good communication and co-operation.
Since the opening a number of issues have arisen in the conditions of usage for the Swim Club, and as owners of the complex Council should endeavor to ensure that these matters are resolved amicably as soon as possible.
Some are matters for Council's attention which should be resolved prior to Christmas if possible. Most issues are in the hands of the YMCA whose successful tender was in part based on a policy of working closely with the local community.
Therefore I move:
“That Council requests that the YMCA hold a meeting or meetings with Committee members from the KASC prior to the start of the 2015 Swim Season, mediated if necessary, in order to resolve several outstanding issues, including most significantly the banning of certain fund raising activities and the lanes available to the Club. If necessary it would be appropriate for the Memorandum of Understanding to be amended to show any changes to activities. Matters for consideration should include but not be limited to the following:
1. The Club has traditionally fundraised mainly through the weekly sale of sausage sandwiches for breakfast to its members. They have raised on average $300 per week which is essential to help cover the costs of trophies and other expenses. The YMCA are not allowing this activity, stating that it is contrary to their policy of not selling what they call “unhealthy” food even though the YMCA itself sells certain ice creams and some sweets.
2. There is still no water installed in the clubroom which necessitates Club Officials carrying jugs or urns of water to the clubroom, a potentially unsafe situation.
3. An elevated Judges stand which was in operation for the past 12 years has been stored off site and not returned to the Club. They would like permission to use this stand.
4. The Club has access to 6 lanes of the pool until 9 am when their lanes are reduced to 4, despite doubling of the water space available at the complex. Thus far only a handful of members of the public use the other two outdoor lanes, and both indoor pools are available for use. Use of further lanes would speed up the race schedules.
5. Related to 3 above general Club members are not allowed to enter the complex until right on 7 am (officials are allowed in a few minutes earlier) yet their use of the pool starts at 7am. In practice races commence 15 minutes later than 7 am so the Club’s effective use of pool time is reduced.
6. YMCA has a specific business model for offering coaching services. The Swim Club has had a coach for the past 19 years who is not permitted to lease lanes at Council's facility. While she has been offered (and rejected) a coaching position the YMCA has not offered any flexibility to how coaching services are operated to allow for the existing Club coach to use the facility and manage her own coaching business. The current status is that KASC coach will not be able to coach from the facility, creating strain and hardship on club members having to travel to other pools for coaching.“
|
That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.
|
|
Councillor Elaine Malicki Councillor for Comenarra Ward |
|
