Agenda of Ordinary Council - Thursday, 19 May 2022

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 May 2022

Sport and Recreation Facility Locations and Buiness Case Update

Subject: Sport and Recreation Facility Locations and Business Case Update

Record No: SU7396 - 24068/22

Division: General Managers Unit

Author(s): David Stevens; Craig Wrightson

Executive Summary

This report outlines the results of the survey in relation to possible alternative locations for a sport and recreation facility and the community workshop in relation to the business case for a facility. At the March 2022 Ordinary Meeting, Council resolved to receive a status report at the May 2022 meeting to “include the outcomes of the community workshop on the business case and community survey on alternative locations”.

Council has undertaken extensive research into alternate locations including the Lane Cove West Business Park and Blackman Park to test their respective suitability for a Sport and Recreation facility. In addition, Council’s Mayor and General Manager have met with Willoughby Council to understand if there is any appetite to partner with Council in the joint delivery of a facility. The report outlines the outcome of these investigations together with consideration of options proposed by the community thorough the online survey.

Council also conducted a Community Workshop on 3 May to provide an opportunity for residents to understand the business case for a sport and recreation facility in Lane Cove, presented by Xypher Sport and Leisure (Xypher). The Workshop included presentations from Basketball NSW (BBNSW) and Northern Suburbs Netball Association (NSNA) which focused on the supply of multi-sport courts locally and the demand challenges faced by each sport.

It is recommended Council receive the report and not proceed with further investigation of any of the alternate locations at this time.

Background

Council at its meeting of 21 March 2022 resolved:-

“1. Endorse the proposed activities and indicative time frames for a facility to meet the demand for indoor sporting facilities in the Lane Cove area;

2. Replace the community workshop on possible alternate solutions with an online survey;

3. The status report to Council in May 2022 include the outcomes of the community workshop on the business case and community survey on alternative locations;

4. Remove the requirement to refer to the design review panel if it impacts on the overall timeframe;

5. Request the final report to come back to Council by 15 August 2022 or earlier if possible; and

6. Council affirms that is also pursuing additional capacity to meet the short-term training requirements of netball”.

This report responds to Part 2 and 3 of Council’s resolution, that is, alternate solutions/locations and business case workshop.

Discussion

Alternate Locations

Council conducted a survey from 13 April to 6 May 2022, which sought to determine if the community was satisfied with the options Council is currently pursuing for a Sport and Recreation Facility, being the Golf Course Curtilage, Joint Facility with Willoughby and a site within the Lane Cove West Business Park. If not satisfied, respondents were requested to provide suggestions on alternatives and the advantages of same.

A total of 189 surveys were completed, 111 (59 %) were satisfied with the options Council was evaluating. A total of 78 respondents (41%) were not satisfied, but the majority of these indicated their dissatisfaction related to one of the actual options, rather than proposing new solutions.

Summary of responses relating to location (suggestions for alternate sports not included).

	Support Golf Course Location	Against a Facility	Support a Facility	Support Willoughby JV	Support Blackman Park	Support Pottery Green	Other
Number	32	18	7	7	5	3	22

Golf Course Site

The full analysis of the site and its level of support is outlined in the report to the Council Meeting of 16 November 2020.

In summary, Council commenced the process for a different offering at the Golf Course site as early as May 2010, when Council considered a report that concluded that the current operating model of separate management of the components;- golf clubhouse, golf course, tennis centre and golf course maintenance was unsustainable and called for the identification of opportunities to provide “a more viable sporting/cultural type development than what currently exists.”

In 2013 Montemare Consulting completed an initial feasibility report which examined opportunities for introducing new sports and facilities into the Golf Course Precinct whilst maintaining a Golf Course. It examined gaps in overall recreation facility provision and highlighted the lack of indoor facilities and facilities which catered for traditional Women’s sports. Council also identified that it wanted the facility to be as flexible as possible to cater for the largest variety of sports possible and not be dominated by any individual sport.

The Lane Cove Golf Course site is the largest recreation area in the Local Government Area. Council has limited the proposed facility to the Golf Course Curtilage on the site, being the only Council owned site large enough to accommodate a facility of significant scale. As outlined in the Business Case, indoor facilities need to be on at least four-courts to be operationally efficient and supported by amenities.

There has been discussion put forward about the site not being serviced by public transport. This is potentially because there is currently low patronage of the existing bus services to the existing facilities, despite a bus stop being located adjacent to the entrance of the Golf Course. In summary, the 261 bus service connects the Lane Cove Village to the precinct and onto North Sydney (and return) every 25 minutes in peak hour and every hour otherwise from Monday to Saturday, with no Sunday service. As Council has experienced with the provision of bus services generally, as demand on routes increases, service levels will respond accordingly, which could include Sundays. This was evidenced when additional services were provided to the Lane Cove interchange and also along Mowbray Road to service the new developments in the area.

Alternatively, and/or in addition, Council could contract a bus service to provide a free shuttle to / from the facility during peak periods, which would cost circa $100,000 p.a.

As part of the review process of this site included in the March resolution, Council staff are currently exploring an alternate access arrangement with the RMS, which would see traffic signals provided at the existing entrance to the golf course on River Road. Such traffic signals would allow all movements onto and exiting from the site. Should the traffic signals ultimately be chosen as the preferred option, the round-about proposal at Northwood Road and new Stephenson Street alignment would not proceed, however alternative solutions to improve safety at the intersection will be investigated and implemented, noting the RMS will not permit traffic signals due to the site lines and topography.

Consideration of Alternate Locations

Willoughby Council Joint Venture (JV)

Council first discussed with Willoughby Council a JV at the Gore Hill Oval site pursuant to a Council resolution on 16 November 2020. Council in its February 2022 resolution again sought exploration of a JV with Willoughby. On both occasions Willoughby have indicated they do not wish to pursue a JV. The Mayor and CEO/General Manager of the respective councils met on 24 March 2022 following the most recent resolution. From the discussions, the basis for proceeding separately is that their analysis concludes that with both Lane Cove and their own centre, demand will still not be satisfied. This is consistent with Council’s business case demand analysis. The large accumulated demand arises from the fact that no additional capacity has been added to the Lower North Shore Region for more than 25 years, despite the area’s increase in population. Willoughby did consider three options in terms of the scale of the facility, from six courts up to a nine-court facility. In summary, Willoughby indicated that ultimately a nine-court facility is both cost prohibitive and spatially less favourable, as it would involve additional levels of underground parking at significant cost.

It should be noted Lane Cove Council is proposing to utilise $20M from s7.11 Developer Contributions to fund a facility. These can only be spent in the area where they were collected (Lane Cove Local Government Area) as the plan does not provide for a cross boundary joint facility, which means in any joint venture or acquisition / use of land outside of Lane Cove Local Government Area for a facility, the s7.11 funds would not be available to Council.

Lane Cove West Business Park

The report to the Council Meeting of 21 February 2022 outlined that Council had engaged Colliers Strategic Advisory (Property) to investigate 10 alternative sites for a Sport and Recreation facility in the Lane Cove West Business Park. At a high level, there were three sites that represented a potential opportunity for adaptation (re-purpose), the remainder would require demolition due to their built form configuration, which makes them unfeasible as they represent land value only.

Basis the above criteria, the most suitable available site was selected for conversion from industrial to a four-court indoor recreational facility. It sits approximately 1.2km from Epping Road via Sam Johnson Way and Orion Road, which are a mixture of dual and single lane roads. The site identification and relevant details financial information are contained in a Confidential Memo circulated separately to Councillors so as not to prejudice the commercial position of the property owner.

Council engaged Mitchell Brandtman Quantity Surveyors (MBQS) to provide a construction cost estimate to convert the identified site into a four indoor court facility with associated amenities. The MBQS scope of works was to deliver a fully compliant four-court indoor sport and recreation centre. The upgrades include making the site accessible, dry and wet fire upgrades, fire stair enlargement to accommodate increased occupant capacity, lighting, ventilation (excluding air conditioning as proposed for the SRP facility), adjustment to roof height to accommodate sport clearance levels, new roof and supporting structure (footings, columns), timber sprung flooring, new and enlarged amenities, and new lifts and stairways to connect the car park to the sports halls.

The total cost to acquire and develop the identified site for 4 indoor multi-sport courts, 150 car spaces, amenities and kiosk is $55m ex GST and excluding contingency.

As the Lane Cove West Business Park configuration does not provide for through traffic, it is not well serviced by public transport. It is serviced by two routes with limited services, one from Wynyard and the other from Chatswood. The bus services only operate on weekdays and there are no services during the middle of the day or weekends.

The Wynyard route goes to the Business Park via Epping Road and has regular weekday morning peak and afternoon peak services. There are no services during the middle of the day or on weekends. The morning peak services run between 6:20am and 9:15am and the afternoon services run between 4:00pm and 7:00pm.

The Chatswood route goes to the Business Park via Mowbray Road and Epping Road and from the Business Park via Epping Road, Centennial Avenue and Mowbray Road. This route only has 2 morning services and 2 afternoon services. Again, it has no services during the middle of the day or on weekends.

Increased demand could provide a case for increased services to the area, however as these routes service a limited precinct, expansion opportunities are likely to be limited.

Finally, the Lane Cove West Business Park due to its relative isolation is disconnected from the Lane Cove community generally, which is advantageous in terms of its operational impacts on any residences. The disadvantage of this however, is that there is minimal opportunity to encourage patrons to utilise the facility beyond their sporting event, i.e. socialise, utilise the café etc. The general activity outside of business hours in the area also translates to a lack of night time activity, which would provide passive surveillance / safety for patrons entering and exiting the facility.

Blackman Park

Blackman Park is Council’s largest outdoor recreation area after the Lane Cove Golf Course. It has four sporting fields, tennis courts, two halls and several passive recreation facilities/opportunities.

The park is not serviced by public transport and is accessed via a single lane in each direction residential street. It has a 238 space car park. Despite these limitations, it accommodates a large number of users per day as the following table demonstrates. Based on this, there is little opportunity for further intensification of use in the Park.

Date	Active sport	Passive / other	Total
Saturday 31/10/2020	887	1842	2729
Wednesday 4/11/2020	318	868	1186
Wednesday 21/4/2021	693	998	1691
Saturday 24/4/2021	828	2518	3346

Even if this could be overcome, attached as AT-1 is a spatial representation of a four-court facility at various locations within the Park. It demonstrates a four-court facility would not fit without impacting the existing grass areas and playgrounds as the depth of the courts and surrounding circulation space prevents the facility being located over the existing car park. Similarly, it cannot be co-located with the Council depot, as it would take up the whole existing depot and part of the road, making only a 3 court facility possible. Any facility on the depot site would require Council to acquire another site to replace the depot at significant cost.

Pottery Green / Aquatic Centre / Council Civic Centre

Locating a facility with the Lane Cove village would ensure it is centrally located. The area is well serviced by public transport and there is an extensive adjacent road network. However, there are already high levels of traffic congestion within the village and its surrounds and the access points to a facility in this location would rely on the left in left out turn in Little Street and/or place increased burden on Phoenix Street which is a single lane in each direction, residential street.

Attached as AT-2 is a spatial representation of a four-court facility at various locations within this precinct. It demonstrates a facility is unable to be provided on Pottery Green while maintaining the sports field.

If a facility is located within the car park at the rear of the Civic Centre, only a 3 court facility can be accommodated. It is anticipated that two levels of underground parking would also be required to replace the existing parking and provide suitable parking for the new facility, noting that the Little Street facility at peak times is entirely required for the Swimming Pool (in particular during swimming carnival season) and Saturdays to serve the village generally.

Other sites outside of the Lane Cove Local Government Area - Private

Acquisition of large tracts of land on the lower north shore is expensive, particularly when currently in private ownership and problematic in terms of consolidating significant areas. Broadly speaking such sites are zoned IN2 (Industrial) versus RE1 (Recreation) which is valued at a high rate per sqm metre based on highest and best use. The fact that there are no private indoor facilities in the region, demonstrates that the market will not deliver these facilities as they are not the highest and best use of the land economically. Further, as there are minimal undeveloped sites, the residual value of any structure is also included in the acquisition price regardless of its value for a sports facility. As evidenced by the exercise of costing the conversion of an existing structure in the Lane Cove West Business Park, even where adaptation can occur, the cost per court is significantly higher when a land acquisition cost is included in the costings.

As outlined earlier in the report, for any project outside of the Lane Cove Local Government area, the $20M in s7.11 funds Developer Contributions proposed to be utilised for the project would not be available to Council.

Other sites

City of Ryde Council have confirmed that, there is a possible re-location of 28 netball courts (plus a new 4 court indoor centre) from Meadowbank Park to the old Marsden High School site in Denistone some 13km by road from Lane Cove. The Development Application proponent at Marsden High School is the NSW Department of Education. Ryde Council have indicated they have no funding proposed until at least 2026 for new multi-court facilities.

The TAFE NSW, St Leonards campus was also suggested, a basic review of the site indicated there is no unused land suitable for a facility, in particular the existing car parks are relatively small. Given land is a scarce resource on the Lower North Shore, it is unlikely the NSW Government would consider proposals on their land including on school sites where there is generally strain on existing land.

Use of facilities at private schools was suggested as an alternative to constructing a facility, however, schools have their own needs/demand, which means they are typically only available at off peak times, if at all

The 266 Longueville Road site was suggested, however it is the subject of a 99 year lease and is no longer available for Council use. It has long been identified as part of the funding package for a sport and recreation facility.

Construction over main roads or the rail line like Council’s current over rail project at St Leonards was also suggested. The St Leonards concept was first conceived in 2006, and it took more than 10 years to secure the State Government’s approval. Based on this and the probable cost, circa $45M for the platform excluding a building and car park, this option is time and cost prohibitive.

The category of “other feedback” also included responses for the inclusion / consideration of other sports and / or complimentary uses: art and culture; expansion of passive uses on the golf course including bike tracks; indoor cricket; turf football field; golf driving range; mini golf, 6-hole golf course; and pickleball, which were out of scope for the survey. Council has previously considered some of the suggestions, and committed to the principle that a centre should utilise multi-court to cater for the widest range of sports possible.

Business Case Update

Further to Council’s March resolution a community workshop was held on 3 May 2022. Some 55 RSVP’s were received with 43 actual attendees. The Mayor chaired the evening whereupon Xypher, BBNSW and NSNA presented on the supply of multi-sport courts locally and how the current inventory does not meet local nor sub-regional demand. The business case, The Business Model and a copy of the presentations from the speakers is available as AT - 3,4,5, 6 and 7.

In summary, the business case illustrates the social and economic benefit derived from developing a Sport and Recreation facility to address the shortfall in multi-court facilities to meet community sport and leisure demand. The business case is not focused on a location per se, rather a narrative on the supply versus demand imbalance for multi-sport courts and the operating model for a 9 court facility to determine whether from an operational perspective it is viable or would require an ongoing subsidy.

Xypher explained the research and data gathering process that delivered the business case in support of Council providing a facility to close the supply and demand gap (needs analysis). The business case references prior due diligence undertaken by Council (Montemare Indoor Sports Complex Feasibility Study); Basketball NSW State Facilities Strategy; and, Willoughby Council’s Gore Hill Indoor Sports Centre Business Case.

Invitations to the Community Workshop included the option for attendees to ask questions in advance which were then answered as part of the Xypher presentation, and more informally during each of the three presentations. Key take-outs from the BBNSW and NSNA presentations included:

· Lane Cove is part of the largest membership clubs and / or associations for basketball and netball state-wide;

· Willoughby Outdoor Courts on a netball usage basis, have the heaviest demand per court in Metropolitan Sydney;

· Netball has become a three day weekend of competition sport versus historically Saturday only (including ALL games already being reduced by 15 minutes);

· 88% of Lane Cove netball members play in Willoughby; and

· 89% of Lane Cove basketball members play in North Sydney.

Attendee questions at the session included the need for an explanation of Xypher’s “Active Visitation Model” and how it related (or otherwise) to the Taylor Thomson Whitting (TTW) Traffic Impact Assessment included in Council’s Development Application. In simple terms, the TTW report measures a moment in time across three scenarios to ensure there is sufficient parking at the site to meet (for example) Saturday peak demand and / or fire egress safety and compliance with the Building Code of Australia (BCA). Xypher’s business case, for the purposes of visitation modelling is benchmarked against similar sport centres and industry data that includes seasonality and associated demand on an intra-week and inter-sport basis; sport season changeover; school holidays; public holidays; and, weekends.

An issue that was raised at the workshop in relation to the non-economic costs of such a facility in terms of tree loss and the like. Xypher indicated such ‘costs’ are included in a Benefit / Cost Ratio (BCR) that they would prepare for inclusion in any future Grant Funding application(s) that allows the Office of Sport to look at the relative benefit of a proposal compared to other projects of different scale and cost. To calculate the ratio an economist places a dollar value for “non economic costs and benefits”, including, but not limited to:

· Loss of residential amenity in the surrounding area;

· Loss of Green Space (including trees);

· Reduced long term need for physical and mental health services; and

· Increased liveability

Based on the feedback from the meeting participants, no specific modifications are required to be made to the business case. When Council ultimately considers whether to proceed with the proposal, updates cost estimates and a funding strategy will be provided as part of the Council report.

Conclusion

In relation to possible alternative locations, Council has now examined all suggestions from the community. To be successful, the site needs to be a minimum four court facility to achieve operational efficiency and have proximity / be accessible to the local community. The Golf Course Curtilage site provides this opportunity for scale, is well located and can deliver the social and economic outcomes. A case for transport services to meet increased demand can be made to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) when demand can be demonstrated to provide increased public transport options or a shuttle bus can be implemented.

The business case survives location, in other words it speaks directly to the social and economic needs of the local and sub-regional communities that a sport and recreation facility will serve. Specifically, there is a well-documented supply shortage to meet increasing demand for indoor and out multi-sports. The business case will provide the platform for future grant applications to help fund the delivery of a sport and recreation facility at 180 River Road.

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1. The report be received and noted;

2. Council not pursue further investigation of alternative locations for the provisions of a sport and recreation facility at this time; and

3. All respondents to the survey be advised of the outcome of Council’s consideration of the alternate options.

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Alternate Multi-Court Facility Location - Blackman Park	1 Page
AT‑2 View	Alternate Multi-Court Facility Location - Pottery Green / Civic Centre	1 Page
AT‑3 View	Lane Cove Sport and Recreation Precincy - Business Case		Available Electronically
AT‑4 View	Lane Cove Sport and Recreation Precint - Business Model - Appendices A		Available Electronically
AT‑5 View	LCSRP Business Case - Community Workshop Presentation 3 May 2022		Available Electronically
AT‑6 View	BBNSW Community Workshop Presentation 3 May 2022		Available Electronically
AT‑7 View	NSNA Community Workshop Presentation 3 May 2022		Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 May 2022

Planning Proposal No. 39 - 448-456 Pacific Highway, St Leonards

Subject: Planning Proposal No. 39 - 448-456 Pacific Highway, St Leonards

Record No: SU8727 - 21761/22

Division: Environmental Services Division

Author(s): Terry Tredrea; Christopher Pelcz

Executive Summary

On 25 March 2022, Council received Planning Proposal 39 from File Planning & Development Services Pty Ltd to amend the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (LCLEP2009) to rezone land located at 448-456 Pacific Highway, St Leonard’s (AT-1).

The Proposal was reported (AT-2) to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel (LCLPP) for advice on the 10 May 2022. In accordance with Section 9.1 of the EP & A Act, staff prepared an assessment report with recommendations in relation to the Planning Proposal including whether or not the proposal should be forwarded to the Minister for a Gateway Determination. The Panel was requested to review and consider relevant issues and amendments proposed by the proponent along with the views and concerns raised in the staff report.

The LCLPP advises that Planning Proposal No 39 is not supported and should not proceed to the Gateway Determination (AT-3).

Having regard to the advice of the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel, it is recommended that Planning Proposal No. 39 be rejected and not be forwarded to the Minister for a Gateway Determination.

Background

Site

The subject site comprises 1,661 sqm of land at 448-456 Pacific Highway, St Leonards (Figure 1), on the corner of Oxley Street, strategically located on the Pacific Highway diagonally opposite the planned Crows Nest Metro Station which forms part of the Sydney Metro City & Southwest Project and within 400 metres of the existing St Leonards Station.

Figure 1: Site location

Currently, the site comprises a car wash facility located on 448-452 Pacific Highway and a 4-storey commercial building at 456 Pacific Highway. At the corner of Pacific Highway and Oxley Street there is also an at grade car parking and car wash areas, shade sails and a single-storey building. Entry to the car wash is via Oxley Street and exit is to the Pacific Highway. The commercial building fronts Pacific Highway with a car parking entrance fronting the street, car parking at ground level and three levels of commercial floor space above. The site currently contains six commercial buildings ranging in height from two to four storeys, which are claimed to be “reaching the end of their economic lifespan, in poor repair and in some cases unusable”. The eight lots have been combined under a single landholding ownership.

Much of the land on the north and south side of the Pacific Highway has been redeveloped with larger mixed-use buildings and several underdeveloped properties are subject to development consent. Further north of the site is ‘The Forum’ which forms a town centre of St Leonards and acts as a commercial, retailing and transport hub.

The site is located in the corridor between the existing St Leonards Station and the planned Crows Nest Metro Station. This area is undergoing rapid urban renewal and change in response to major government infrastructure investment in the form of the Sydney Metro City & Southwest Project and the vision set out under the 2036 Plan.

Proposal

The Planning Proposal seeks to rezone the existing B3 Commercial Core site to a B4 Mixed Use zone. It further seeks an increase in floor space ratio and height to permit one of three development Options:

· Option A – a single 30-storey commercial podium/residential tower development; or

· Option B – a single 37-storey commercial podium/residential tower development; or

· Option C – a 44-storey commercial podium/residential tower development.

The additional planning controls (mentioned below) would be dependent on which option is adopted:

· Increase the FSR controls from 6:1 and 2:1 (current LEP control) to one of three options – 13.13:1, or 16.14:1, or 19.15:1;

· Require any building on the land shown on the Non-Residential Floor Space Ratio Map as having an FSR of 1.76:1; and

· Increase the Height of Building controls from 36m and 15m (current LEP control) to one of three options – 30 storeys (RL 190.9) or 37 storeys (RL 212.6), or 44 storeys (RL 234.3).

Overall, the proposed controls could potentially result in the following outcomes:

· A mixed use commercial/residential podium/tower of between 30 (see Figure 2) and 44 storeys, with a total GFA of between 21,800 sqm and 31,800 sqm (FSR of between 13.13:1 and 19.15:1), including ground floor retail as part of a 4-storey podium;

· Seven levels of basement car parking with provision of car spaces “to be determined at the D.A. stage” consistent with the Lane Cove DCP Part R. Access will be from Oxley Street, with “consideration … given to providing an exit from the site to Pacific Highway”, again at the D.A. stage;

· Public domain improvements including an activated through-site link along the southern boundary connecting to an on-site plaza (refer to Figure 3).

Figure 2: Pacific Highway / Oxley sections

Figure 3: Through-site connection options linking to Crows Nest Metro Station

The proposal is offering public benefits, which are associated with the separate development options:

Option A proposes:

· A 6m-wide through-site pedestrian link along the west boundary (of active retail);

· An on-site public plaza fronting Oxley Street,

· 5% affordable apartments (approx. 11-16), and

· “best practice sustainability outcomes”.

Option B proposes, in addition to A:

· Underground provision for tunnel connection to site boundary.

Option C proposes, in addition to A:

· Direct underground tunnel connection to Metro station.

In return for design excellence (facilitated through a design competition) in all options, the applicant also seeks a bonus 10% FSR.

Planning Agreement

Although a Planning Agreement is mentioned in the Proposal one was not submitted with the initial application – a subsequent letter of offer (AT-4) was received on 6 May 2022. In any event, Council’s adopted policy is that any Planning Agreement would be assessed separately by Council at a later stage to ensure that any Planning Proposal is considered on its own merit.

Submissions

No public submissions were received by Council, however North Sydney Council provided initial comments. Their comments are discussed in AT-2.

Discussion

Referral to Local Planning Panel

Planning Proposal 39 for 448-456 Pacific Highway, St Leonard’s was referred for advice to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel, under Section 9.1 of the EP&A Act 1979. The Panel was requested to review and consider issues and amendments proposed by the proponent along with the views and concerns raised in a staff report (AT-2).

The Report to the Lane Cove Planning Panel examines the detailed provisions of the proponent’s Planning Proposal against the strategic and site-specific merit test as well as other relevant matters. The discussion is contained within that report (see AT-2).

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

· Strategic Merit test (inconsistencies with the Regional Plan, North District Plan, Local Strategic Planning Statement, St Leonard’s/Crows Nest 2036 Plan, and Local Housing Strategy);

· Inconsistency with Section 3.33 (Explanation and Justification of Planning Proposals) of the NSW Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979;

· Site-specific merit test (matters such as commercial floor space, view impacts, traffic, shadowing); and

· Insufficient information on key matters, including:

o Explanation of how Oxley Street will be landscaped to become a ‘tree-lined street’;

o The proposed public plaza, through-site link and canopy cover requirements;

o Parking and traffic impacts;

o Impacts on district views from adjoining Local Government Areas; and

o Public amenity issues such as solar access, wind comfort and what is meant by ‘best practice sustainability outcomes.

At the meeting, Council staff provided a broad overview of Planning Proposal 39. The proponent addressed the Panel.

Following the meeting, the Panel deliberated and provided their considered advice in the form of recommendations and reasons for their decision.

Panel advice to Council

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

The Panel notes that the presentation by the proponent amended the Planning Proposal by indicating that the 10% bonus for design excellence was fundamental to the provision of the public benefit, including an extended pedestrian link, tunnel portal or tunnel access to the Metro Station. Depending on the option the public benefit was provided in part or in total.

Further, when asked to explain how the 10% bonus would be incorporated in the proposal, the applicant said that Option A would increase by a further 3 storeys in height, Option B would increase by 4 storeys and Option C would increase by 5 storeys, resulting in additional environmental impacts, particularly overshading with the residential areas to the south.

The Panel also notes that the quote from the 2036 plan used to justify the variation(s) (by the proponent) was not provided in full and is important to the Panel’s consideration as it provides the full context. The relevant complete paragraph is repeated below:

“There may be opportunities for specific sites to accommodate additional density and height where the public benefits proposed to be delivered as part of a development proposal is of exceptional value, beyond what could be secured under a standard practice approach that should be considered within the precinct. In these instances, the proposal would still need to be consistent with the vision, objectives and actions, including solar access controls, in this Plan”. (2036 Plan: 2020, page 36)

The Panel is of the view that the Planning Proposal is fundamentally flawed and lacks strategic merit.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the proponent’s planning proposal is not consistent with the Strategic and Site-specific merit tests. Insufficient information has been provided on the key matters raised above.

Having regard to the above, it is recommended that Planning Proposal No 39 not be supported and not proceed to the Gateway Determination.

RECOMMENDATION

That having considered the advice of the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel meeting of 10 May 2022, Council rejects Planning Proposal No. 39 in full and as such not be forwarded to the Minister for a Gateway Determination, as it:

A. Does not Pass the Strategic Merit Test

Reasons:

1) Is inconsistent with A Metropolis of Three Cities, which identifies the St Leonard’s Strategic Centre as a major employment asset of the Eastern Economic Corridor for “attracting investment, business activity and jobs in strategic centres across Greater Sydney, increasing access to a wide range of jobs, goods and services close to people’s homes and supporting the 30-minute city.” (p 119)

2) Is inconsistent with the North District Plan's priorities or actions for the St Leonard’s Commercial area, which identifies “the importance of the precinct as a key employment centre in Greater Sydney”. Particularly as a health and education (employment) "super precinct".

3) Because of its low non-residential floor space ratios (across all options) it will not achieve the high jobs target set for St Leonard’s area by both A Metropolis of Three Cities and North District Plan.

Under the 2036 Plan, this site would realise approximately 370 jobs, well above the 160 likely proposed, and an underachievement of the total employment potential of the strategic centre of St Leonard’s Crows Nest.

4) Is inconsistent with the following aspects of the St Leonard’s/Crows Nest 2036 Plan:-

a. Not addressing the vision of a ‘tree-lined’ Oxley Street;

b. Insufficient non-residential FSR is proposed (across all options) “to meet the North District Plan high jobs target” – a key action of the 2036 Plan;

c. Does not justify Height above 2036 Plan in Options B and C;

d. No justification for any additional floor space ratio/height for design excellence over and above what is stated in the 2036 Plan;

e. Does not “encourage the renewal of St Leonards through the delivery of new A-grade commercial floor space” (the 2036 Plan’s primary rationale and action for rezoning from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use);

f. An FSR at least 185% of that proposed in the 2036 Plan;

g. Does not clarify "best practice sustainability outcomes” as part of public benefits;

h. Proposes an imbalance of commercial and residential uses within St Leonards Core; and

i. Does not attempt to “limit the amount of car parking” expected of a TOD precinct.

5) Based on the above, the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with Section 9.1 Ministerial Direction 1.13 because it does not achieve (and undermines) the 2036 Plan’s vison, objectives and actions and the inconsistencies (with the 2036 Plan) are not of minor significance.

6) Is inconsistent with the following aspects of Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement:

a. Planning Priority 5: Plan for growth of housing that creates a diverse range of housing and encourages housing that is sustainable, liveable, accessible and affordable.

b. Principles for Location of Additional Housing.

c. Planning Priority 7: Council’s long-term approach to St Leonards Strategic Centre is to leverage off the Crows Nest Metro Station to deliver additional employment capacity, achieving a balance of commercial and residential development in the St Leonards Strategic Centre. In particular, “to manage the impact of residential development to not crowd out commercial activity”.

d. Planning Priority 11: The proposal does not address Council’s priority to practise sustainable measures relating to water and energy use.

7) Is inconsistent with Council’s adopted Local Housing Strategy which states that no further rezonings are needed to achieve housing capacity over the next 20 years.

B. Does not comply with Section 3.33 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

Reason:

This section of the Act deals with the preparation, explanation and justification of Planning Proposals – which requires Proposals to state whether they will give effect to both a Local Strategic Planning Statement and comply with the relevant directions under section 9.1.

Having considered the above, the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with Section 3.33 (2)(c) of the EP&A Act because the Planning Proposal will not “give effect to” Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement and does not comply with the relevant Section 9.1 Ministerial Direction (i.e. Direction 1.13).

C. Does not pass the Site-specific Merit Test

Reasons:

8) It does not propose sufficient commercial floor space consistent with recent development approvals and leasing activity in this location;

9) traffic generation has not been assessed in any sufficient detail so far, so no Base A rate is established from which to make the conclusion that: "such low traffic generations would not have noticeable effects on the operation of the surrounding road network";

10) Suggests an exit onto Pacific Highway, a busy State road;

11) Has yet to demonstrate acceptable view impacts on adjacent development; and

12) Option C does not entirely minimise overshadowing of adjoining residential areas.

D. Insufficient information has been provided

· Needs to show how Oxley Street will be landscaped to become a ‘tree-lined green street’ as described in the 2036 Plan;

· More detail is needed on the public plaza and through-site link proposal, including canopy cover requirements;

· Parking and traffic impacts have not been adequately addressed in the current Traffic study;

· Further assessment is needed to show that view impacts on adjacent development are acceptable (Note – some view sharing is expected from residential use in a central business district, where residential use is ancillary to the commercial function of the precinct); and

· Public amenity issues such as solar access and wind comfort are yet to be addressed.

E. The Council notify the applicant of its decision in writing as soon as practicable.

Mark Brisby

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Planning Proposal 39 - 448-456 Pacific Highway, St Leonards	68 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Local Planning Panel REPORT - 10 May 2022	28 Pages
AT‑3 View	Local Planning Panel ADVICE - Planning Proposal 39 - 448-456 Pacific Highway, St Leonards	5 Pages
AT‑4 View	VPA letter of offer - 6 May 2022	3 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑5 View	Appendix A - Urban Design Report	77 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑6 View	Appendix B - Traffic Study	17 Pages	Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 May 2022

Draft Community Dog Advisory Committee Charter

Subject: Draft Community Dog Advisory Committee Charter

Record No: SU8288 - 22973/22

Division: Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s): Helen Haigh

Executive Summary

At its October 2021 Council meeting Council resolved to establish a new advisory committee to advise on residents’ issues around dogs, the needs of dog owners, consider possible dog related events for the Lane Cove LGA, and what resources might be required to be provided by Council to ensure that both the interests of dog owners and the wider community are being looked after.

This report also seeks to determine the Councillor representation on this Committee for the current Council term and commence a process by which community representatives can express an interest in joining the Community Dog Advisory Committee.

Background

At the Council meeting of 18 October 2021 Council passed the following resolution.

“RESOLVED a motion was moved by Councillors Brooks-Horn and Bennison that Council:-

1. Convene a new advisory committee called the “Community Dog Advisory Committee” to advise on residents’ issues around dogs, the needs of dog owners, consider possible dog related events for the Lane Cove LGA, and what resources might be required to be provided by Council to ensure that both the interests of dog owners and the wider community are being looked after;

2. Write a constitution governing the activities of the committee, to be approved by council;

3. Committee’s responsibilities are to (examples):-

a. meet at least twice within 6 months of the committee being constituted to review and suggest changes to the Revised Draft Dog Strategy Plan 2021 prior to it being referred back to council for adoption or further review;

b. help council with the implementation and planning of any recommendations arising in the final Dog Strategy Plan which is ultimately accepted by council; and

c. help council with the implementation and planning of any dog related events proposed by the final Dog Strategy Plan, noting that “dog related events” can include, but are not limited to, any activity in which the community can be involved which allows dogs to be a part of it. Examples of this may include community dog obedience training; dog shows; dog events like Paws in the Park or Street Paws festivals.

4. Council advertise for community representatives in the local area; and

5. The possible advisory committee representatives include, but not be limited to, and be determined by the next Council term:-

a. Five community representatives, being:-

I. Three dog owners from within the Lane Cove LGA, one from each Council Ward;

II. One local dog owner from the pet industry with a relevant business background; and

III. One local dog owner from the veterinary profession.

b. A representative as designated by the Lane Cove State MP;

c. Two representatives from sporting clubs who play within the LGA (e.g. LCCC & St Michael’s Football Club);

d. Two sitting councillors”.

A workshop to inform the Draft Charter was facilitated by an external consultant and held in consultation with stakeholders including representatives from the community and Council staff on 29 March 2022.

The local community stakeholders were represented by residents of the 3 Council Wards, dog owners, a non-dog owner, a dog owner in the vet industry, a dog owner in the pet industry, a sporting club member who plays on grass fields, a member of the Lane Cove Dog Lovers Association and a person with an understanding bushland ecology.

The workshop began by providing a background on the Dog Strategy and resolution to form a Dog Advisory Committee followed by the responsibilities of the Committee. The consultant then facilitated the workshopping to develop the Charter with the group.

Discussion

A draft Charter for the Community Dog Advisory Committee was developed with the feedback from workshop and is attached as AT-1.

Upon Council adoption of the Charter, calls for expressions of interest for community representatives on the Community Dog Advisory Committee will commence in June 2022 and conclude in July 2022. Council’s selection committee will provide recommendations on community representative appointments for consideration at the August 2022 Council meeting.

Upon formation of the new committee they will be tasked with reviewing the Charter and providing feedback on whether any amendments should be considered by Council.

Conclusion

The Draft Charter is now ready for adoption and calls for expressions of interest for community representatives on the Community Dog Advisory Committee can now commence.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1. Adopt the Charter for the Dog Advisory Committee attached as AT-1;

2. Determine the two Councillor representatives on the Community Dog Advisory Committee;

3. Authorise the Councillor representatives on the Community Dog Advisory Committee to arrange an alternate as required; and

4. Call for expressions of interest for community representatives on the Community Dog Advisory Committee.

Martin Terescenko

Executive Manager - Open Space and Urban Services

Open Space and Urban Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Charter Community Dog Advisory Committee

7 Pages

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 May 2022

Subsequent Nominations for Community Representatives to Advisory Committees

Subject: Subsequent Nominations for Community Representatives to Advisory Committees

Record No: SU827 - 22873/22

Division: Corporate Services Division

Author(s): Emma McLennan

Executive Summary

Following the Nominations for Community Representatives to Advisory Committees report to the Ordinary Council Meeting of 19 April 2022, Council reopened nominations for Community Representatives to nominate for six (6) of Council’s eight (8) Advisory Committees which were undersubscribed.

This report outlines the recommendations of the Council Selection Committee and recommends that Council endorse the appointment of additional Community Representatives to a number of undersubscribed Advisory Committees.

Background

Council made an initial call for community members who are interested in becoming Community Representatives on a Council Advisory Committee to submit their expression of interest to Council by 27 March 2022. Council considered Community Representation on Council Advisory Committees at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 19 April 2022. Following this meeting, six (6) or the eight (8) advisory committees were undersubscribed. Council therefore resolved to reopen nominations for the vacant community representative positions of the six (6) Advisory Committees for a further two weeks until 4 May 2022.

The six (6) undersubscribed Advisory Committees were as follows:

· Age-Friendly Advisory Committee;

· Lane Cove Access and Inclusion Committee;

· Lane Cove Bicycle Advisory Committee;

· Lane Cove Festival Committee; and

· Lane Cove Public Art Advisory Committee; and

· Recreation Precinct Liaison Advisory Committee.

All additional nominations received were presented to the Council Selection Committee on 9 May 2022, for consideration. This report outlines the recommendations of the Council Selection Committee and recommends that Council endorse the recommendations for additional Community Representative appointments to Council’s Advisory Committees.

Overall, council received 60 expressions of interest from community members to join Council’s Advisory Committees, 51 of which were received in the first round of nominations and a further 9 received in the second round of nominations.

Discussion

The Council Selection Committee met on 9 May 2022 and considered all additional applications received during the second round nomination period.

Age Friendly Advisory Committee

The Age Friendly Committee Charter allows for up to twelve (12) Community Representatives. Eight (8) representatives were appointed to the committee following the first round of nominations.

As a result of the second round of nominations, a total of three (3) applications were received and considered for nomination. Following a review of each applicant’s skills, experience and interest, the Council Selection Committee recommends the following nominees be appointed to the Age Friendly Advisory Committee:

· Balu Moothedath;

· Greeta Rani; and

· Nicholas Carter.

Lane Cove Access and Inclusion Committee

The Access and Inclusion Committee Charter allows for up to eight (8) community representatives, in addition to five (5) representatives of access related service providers. A total of seven (7) representatives were appointed to the committee following the first round of nominations.

As a result of the second round of nominations, one (1) application was received and considered for nomination. Following a review of the applicant’s skills, experience and interest, the Council Selection Committee recommends the following nominee be appointed to the Age Friendly Advisory Committee:

· Anthony Nolan.

Lane Cove Bicycle Advisory Committee

This Lane Cove Bicycle Advisory Committee’s Charter allows for the appointment of up to seven (7) Community Representatives. Six (6) representatives were appointed to the committee following the first round of nominations.

As a result of the second round of nominations, a total of two (2) applications were received and considered for nomination. Following a review of each applicants skills, experience and interest, the Council Selection Committee recommends the following nominee be appointed to the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee:

· Don Murchinson

Lane Cove Festival Committee

The Lane Cove Festival Committee Charter allows for up to twelve (12) Community Representatives. Seven (7) representatives were appointed to the committee following the first round of nominations.

As a result of the second round of nominations, a total of two (2) applications were received and considered for nomination. Following a review of each applicant’s skills, experience and interest, the Council Selection Committee recommends the following nominees be appointed to the Lane Cove Festival Advisory Committee:

· Ruhi Payman; and

· Greeta Rani.

Lane Cove Public Art Advisory Committee

The Public Art Advisory Committee Charter allows for up to seven (7) Community Representatives. Three (3) nominees were appointed to the committee following the first round of nominations.

As a result of the second round of nominations, one (1) application was received and considered for nomination. Following a review of the applicants skills, experience and interest, the Council Selection Committee recommends the following nominee be appointed to the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee:

· Anthony Nolan

Lane Cove Recreation Precinct Advisory Committee

No further nominations were received for the Lane Cove Recreation Precinct Advisory Committee during the second round of nominations.

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1. Council endorse the following additional nominations for Council’s Advisory Committees:

a) Balu Moothedath, Greeta Rani and Nicholas Carter be appointed as community representatives to the Age Friendly Advisory Committee;

b) Anthony Nolan be appointed as a community representative to the Lane Cove Access and Inclusion Committee;

c) Don Murchinson be appointed as a community representative to the Lane Cove Bicycle Advisory Committee;

d) Ruhi Payman and Greeta Rani be appointed as community representatives to the Lane Cove Festival Committee; and

e) Anthony Nolan be appointed as a community representative to the Lane Cove Public Art Advisory Committee.

2. All nominees be advised of Council’s decision.

Steven Kludass

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 May 2022

Superannuation Contribution Payments for Councillors

Subject: Superannuation Contribution Payments for Councillors

Record No: SU834 - 13753/22

Division: Corporate Services Division

Author(s): Stephen Golding

Executive Summary

Under the Local Government Amendment Act 2021, Councils have the option to make superannuation contribution payments for councillors from 1 July 2022 (equivalent in amount to superannuation guarantee payments, payable with the annual fee payable to each Councillor).

The decision to make superannuation contribution payments must be made by resolution at an Open Council Meeting.

Background

In March 2020, the Office of Local Government (OLG) released the Councillor Superannuation Discussion Paper to seek the views of councils and local communities on whether councillors should receive superannuation payments. This was prompted by concerns raised by mayors and councillors that the ineligibility of councillors to receive superannuation payments is inequitable and is a deterrent to women and younger people standing as candidates at council elections.

This discussion paper was reported to Council at Ordinary Council Meeting of 20 April 2020, with the resolution, No. 65,: That Council advise the Office of Local Government that consideration of the issues be deferred until such time as the COVID-19 crisis and economic impacts abate”.

The NSW Government, after consultation, legislated through the Local Government Act Amendment Act 2021 to allow councils the option to make superannuation contribution payments for Councillors.

The Local Government Amendment Act 2021 was subsequently passed by the NSW Parliament on 13 May 2021, with provisions relating to superannuation included under section 254B of the Local Government Act 1993 and referenced in the OLG’s Circular dated 27 May 2021 - Circular 21-07 “Commencement of Local Government Amendment Act 2021”.

Discussion

The process by which Superannuation payments can be made for Councillors has been outlined by the OLG via Circular 22-04/15 March 2022 and is summarised as follows as follows: -

· To exercise the option of making superannuation contribution payments for Councillors, Councils must first resolve at an Open Council Meeting to make superannuation contribution payments for the Councillors;

· Where a council resolves to make superannuation contribution payments for its Councillors, the amount of the payment is to be the amount the Council would have been required to contribute under the Commonwealth Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 as superannuation if the councillors were employees of the council;

· As of 1 July 2022, the superannuation guarantee rate will be 10.5%. The rate will increase by half a percent each year until 1 July 2025 when it reaches a maximum of 12%;

· The superannuation contribution payment is to be paid at the same intervals as the annual fee is paid to Councillors;

· To receive a superannuation contribution payment, each Councillor must first nominate a superannuation account for the payment before the end of the month to which the payment relates. The superannuation account nominated by councillors must be an account for superannuation or retirement benefits from a scheme or fund to which the Commonwealth Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act applies;

· Councils must not make a superannuation contribution payment for a Councillor if the Councillor fails to nominate an eligible superannuation account for the payment before the end of the month to which the payment relates;

· Individual Councillors may opt out of receiving superannuation contribution payments or opt to receive reduced payments. Where this is the case, Councillors must do so in writing;

· Councils must not make superannuation contribution payments for Councillors during any period in which they are suspended from their civic office or their right to be paid any fee or other remuneration, or expense, is suspended under the Act; and

· Councillors are also not entitled to receive a superannuation contribution payment during any period in which they are not entitled.

Adequate funding has been allocated in the 2022/23 Draft Budget to accommodate superannuation payments for all Councillors if Council resolves to make the contribution.

Conclusion

The NSW Government has amended the Local Government Act to allow local Councils the option to make superannuation guarantee payments to Councillors. It is recommended that Council resolve to make such payments to its Councillors, commencing 1 July 2022, equivalent in amount to superannuation guarantee payments.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council commence superannuation contribution payments for Councillors from 1 July 2022 at the same rate required under the Commonwealth Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, pursuant to section 254B of the Local Government Act 1993.

Steven Kludass

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 May 2022

Village Public Art Program - Birdwood Lane - Commonwealth Bank Building Update

Subject: Village Public Art Program - Birdwood Lane - Commonwealth Bank Building Update

Record No: SU2509 - 24055/22

Division: Human Services Division

Author(s): Bianca Couchman

Executive Summary

In September 2020, Council received a report on proposed public art projects in Birdwood Lane as part of a Village Public Art program. This Report updates Council on the most recent completed work on the southern side of the rear of the Commonwealth Bank building in Birdwood Lane, following the completion of repair works and final artwork application. The Report also complies with the requirement of the Local Government Act 1993 – Section 67 regarding works carried out by Council on private land. It is recommended the report be received and noted.

Background

As per the February 2022 Report, the artwork on the rear of the Commonwealth Bank building was part of the Village Public Art program which aimed to ‘brighten up’ some of the blank walls facing Birdwood Lane. The artwork on the southern face at the rear of the Commonwealth Bank building is in addition to the artwork on the rear of the Lane Cove Newsagency, also part of the Village Public Art program, completed in August 2021.

Council had resolved that works through this program would be completed under Section 67 of the Local Government Act at no cost to the property owners. Section 67 then requires a Report back to Council in compliance with subsection 2(b) of that section – this requirement is detailed in this Report. The most recently completed work will be reported in Council’s Annual report.

There has also been interest expressed by two other building owners and lessees. Council will consider expanding the Village Public Art program when funding make this feasible.

Discussion

The information needed to comply with Section 67 is listed below:

Information required	Details

1. Person for whom the work was carried out	Elizabeth Bay Nominees Pty Limited
2. The Nature of the Work	Creation of a public artwork by artist Katherine Gailer including artwork conception and delivery. Final artwork is 18.5m in length and 5m in height. The wall was cleaned and primed prior to artwork application and sealed with a sacrificial graffiti proof coating. All necessary safety requirements were adhered to for delivery including the contracting of traffic control for the development of a Traffic Control Plan and traffic controllers during periods of artwork application.
3. The type and quantity of materials used	Wall preparation – Dulux Colourbond paint in Shale Grey Artwork – Dulux Weathershield and Taubmans Sunproof Exterior paints, various colours
4. The charge made for those materials	Wall preparation - $5,950 Artists Fees - $21,800 Graffiti proofing - $1043 Decal Printing - $130
5. The total number of hours taken by each person who carried out the work	Hours spent on site at Commonwealth Bank Wall preparation Supervisor - 8 hours Wall preparation Painter 1 - 10 hours Wall preparation Painter 2 - 10 hours Wall preparation Painter 3 - 8 hours Artist - 55 hours Artist Assistant 1 - 55 hours Graffiti proofer - 5.5 hours
6. The total amount charged for carrying out the work (including the charge made for the materials.	No charge was levied on the property owner for the public artwork. Council assisted in the organisation of repair works to the wall surface, which the property owner paid in accordance with contractual requirements.
7. The reason for carrying out the work	The work was carried out as part of a Village Public Art program to enhance the look of the Village and in particular the area adjacent to The Canopy

The Commonwealth Bank work has now been successfully completed and promoted to the community. Photographs of the completed work are attached.

Conclusion

The total cost of the project was $28,923 excluding GST. As per Council’s resolution of September 2020 there was no charge levied to the business owner for the public artwork. Positive feedback has been received for the Village Public Art program as a whole as well as for this specific artwork.

Further works are envisaged based on the program’s success with budget considerations being made for the 2022/23 financial year.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive and note the Report.

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Village Public Art Program Commonwealth Bank Complete

3 Pages

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 May 2022

Third Quarter Budget Review - 2021/22 Budget

Subject: Third Quarter Budget Review - 2021/22 Budget

Record No: SU8604 - 23567/22

Division: Corporate Services Division

Author(s): Sarah Seaman

Executive Summary

The 2021/22 Budget - Third Quarter Review involves a number of variations to both income and expenditure estimates as at 31 March 2022. Taking into consideration the variations from the Third Quarter Budget Review, the projected 2021/22 overall operating result has been revised to a surplus of $5.65M, with the operating result before grants and capital contributions forecast to be a deficit of $1.33M. The deficit is primarily due to the financial impacts arising from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the effect they continue to have on Council’s Budget. It is recommended that the Budget be varied in accordance with this report.

Background

Council is required to prepare a Budget Review Statement each quarter, in accordance with Clause 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005. The purpose of these reviews is to ensure that the impacts of financial variations are reflected in the forecast of Council’s global budgetary position to 30 June 2022, and the adopted Budget adjusted accordingly.

The financial impacts of COVID-19 continue to have an adverse impact on Council’s Budget. The financial impact for the third quarter is estimated to be $0.5M (this is in addition to the $1M reported in the First and Second Quarterly Budget Reviews) and is primarily attributed to reduced income derived from leases and parking. This brings the total estimated cost of COVID-19 to $1.5M for the 2021/22 financial year.

Discussion

A summary of Council’s revised Budget for 2021/22 and a summary of budget movements have been included in this report:

	Original Budget (000’s)	Sept & Dec Quarter Adjustments (000’s)	March Quarter Adjustments (000’s)	Revised Budget (000’s)
Expenditure - Operating	$53,045	$1,079	$188	$54,312
Income - Operating	$53,185	($4)	($200)	$52,981
Surplus/(Deficit) before Capital Grants & Contributions	$140	($1,083)	($388)	(1,331)
Income - Capital	$5,798	$1,138	$50	$6,986
Surplus/ (Deficit)	$5,938	$55	($338)	$5,655

Summary of Budget Movements

Operational Income:

- $200K Decrease in Operational Income which is made up of:

- $300K Increase – additional income received from the growth of Domestic Waste Management services.

- $500K Decrease – additional income loss from COVID-19.

Operational Expenses:

- $188K Increase in Operational Expenditure which is made up of:

- $125K Decrease – Organisation-wide Salary & Wages expenditure savings.

- $80K Decrease – Organisation-wide Materials & Services expenditure savings

- $30K Increase – additional expenditure associated with the preparation of a Review of Environmental Factors at Lovetts Reserve following the discovery of soil contamination

- $250K Increase – additional expenditure associated with remediation works at Lovetts Reserve

- $20K Increase – additional expenditure associated with Bushland Management

- $23K Increase – additional expenditure associated with the production of the St Leonards South Public Domain Guide

- $70K Increase – additional expenditure associated with landscape design reviews for Development Applications in St Leonards South

Capital Income

- $70K Increase in Capital Income which is made up of:

- $20K Increase – Solar Panels for Depot Roof (funded from the Sustainability Levy)

- $15K Increase – Grant funding received for Osborne Park Preschool Roof

- $15K Increase – Grant funding received for Greenwich Baths footpath and landscaping

- $20K Increase – Grant funding received for Greenwich Scout Hall Roof

Capital Expenditure

- $70K Increase Capital Expenditure which is made up of:

- $20K Increase – Solar Panels for Depot Roof (funded from the Sustainability Levy)

- $15K Increase – Osborne Park Preschool Roof

- $15K Increase – Greenwich Baths footpath and landscaping

- $20K Increase – Greenwich Scout Hall Roof

A copy of all proposed budget adjustments can be found in AT-1.

Conclusion

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

It is my opinion that the Quarterly Budget Review Statement for Lane Cove Council for the quarter ended 31 March 2022 indicates that Council's projected financial position will be satisfactory at year end 30 June 2022, having regard to the projected estimates of income and expenditure and the original budgeted income and expenditure.

RECOMMENDATION

That the 2021/22 Budget be revised in accordance with the adjustments identified in the Third Quarter 2021/22 Budget Review, as follows:

	Original Budget (000’s)	Sept & Dec Quarter Adjustments (000’s)	March Quarter Adjustments (000’s)	Revised Budget (000’s)
Expenditure - Operating	$53,045	$1,079	$188	$54,312
Income - Operating	$53,185	($4)	($200)	$52,981
Surplus/(Deficit) before Capital Grants & Contributions	$140	($1,083)	($388)	(1,331)
Income - Capital	$5,798	$1,138	$50	$6,986
Surplus/ (Deficit)	$5,938	$55	($338)	$5,655

Steven Kludass

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Budget Review for the Quarter ended 31 March 2022

11 Pages

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 May 2022

Blackman Park Lighting Upgrade Tender

Subject: Blackman Park Lighting Upgrade Tender

Record No: SU8726 - 24212/22

Division: Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s): Helen Haigh

Executive Summary

The current sports field lighting for fields B3 and B4 (turf fields) at Blackman Park do not meet Australian Standards. Due to the limited power available at Blackman Park, to undertake any upgrades to lighting the current lighting on the synthetic fields needs to be converted to LED.

Council was successful in obtaining $500,000 in grant funding through the Federal Government’s Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. Council has also included funding in its 2022/23 budget to cover the remainder of the project costs.

A lighting design for the project was developed and Council called for tenders in accordance with Council’s Tender and Quotation Procedure for the Blackman Park – Lighting Upgrade. The Request for Tenders to procure this work was made via Vendor Panel on 11 May 2022 and closed on 1 April 2022.

Council received six conforming submissions and Havencord Pty Ltd, trading as Floodlighting Australia, are the recommended tenderer.

Background

Current Blackman Park Lighting

Blackman Park synthetic fields, B1 and B2, were upgraded in 2014 with 6 new 25m poles using halide lights. At that time, halide lighting was best practice for sports field lighting as LED technology for sports field lighting was in its infancy. The available electrical power for Blackman Park is limited and the current lighting set up for fields B1 - B4 uses all this available power. There is currently no lighting of the dog park, cricket nets or 3x3 basketball court, which limits their utilisation.

Fields B3 and B4 have always had inadequate lighting, which does not meet Australian Standards for sports field lighting. Until now, Council has been unable to upgrade the lighting because of the lack of available electrical power. Due to LED lighting’s inherent low energy requirements, it is now possible to upgrade the lighting at Blackman Park for all 4 sports fields, the cricket nets, 3x3 basketball court and dog park if they are lit with LED lighting.

Funding

Council nominated the Blackman Park Lighting Upgrade infrastructure project as part of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program funded through the Federal Government Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications. Under the grant scheme, the project is to be agreed with the local Federal Member, and to this end Trent Zimmerman MP has supported the project, resulting in the $500,000 grant.

The successful tenderers price for the lighting upgrade is $560,000. Council has included funding in its 2022/23 budget to cover the remainder of the project costs.

Lighting Design

A brief was prepared for a request for quote for the lighting and electrical design and specification for Blackman Park. The project brief included provision for an upgrade to the existing sports field lighting, new lighting for the dog park, 3x3 basketball court, cricket nets and associated electrical works.

The lighting upgrade project involves upgrading the current lighting at Blackman Park to increase the hours of availability for sports. There are 4 main sports fields referred to as B1 through to B4; the fields accommodate AFL, cricket, soccer and rugby but are not limited exclusively to these sports. This project will replace the existing halide lamps with LED at B1 and B2 and install LED lighting with a 100lux rating for B3 and B4 grass fields.

The design has improved the lighting on B3 and B4 fields to meet Australian Standards, hence improving safety, and will extend hours of use for the community, therefore providing more access to sport and addressing the demand on the fields.

The dog park has no current provision for lighting and utilises the light spill from B4 when it has been hired. The design incorporates lighting provision for this facility.

The 3x3 basketball court is a relatively new facility and has been built to Olympic specifications. The design includes lighting for this facility to accommodate play and training.

The cricket nets are a well-used facility and they currently have no lighting. Council has been approached by the local cricket club to install lighting on this facility to practice into the evening. The design has addressed the Australian Standards for training use of the cricket nets.

The design called for tenders to minimise light spill towards residential boundaries and adjacent bushland and wetlands.

Approval Process for the Works

The approval process for infrastructure projects on Council property is governed by the State Environmental Planning Policy Infrastructure (SEPP). For the Blackman Park Lighting Upgrade, the SEPP states that the approval process for this project requires a Part 5 Assessment under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to be undertaken which in turn requires a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) for the project.

Discussion

Tender Process

A tender specification was prepared by Lighting and Electrical Engineer Gary Roberts and Associates Pty Ltd. Council advertised the tender through Vendor Panel and on Councils website. Tenders opened on 11 May 2022 and closed at 5pm on Friday, 1 April 2022 and Council received six conforming submissions. The request for tender called for suitably qualified and experienced contractors/suppliers for the construction and installation of lighting upgrade to sports fields B1-B4, new lighting for the dog park, 3x3 basketball court, cricket nets and associated electrical works.

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

Criteria 1: Price

Weighting: 25%

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

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

Criteria 2: Capability and Capacity

Weighting: 25%

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

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

Criteria 3: Experience

Weighting: 20%

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

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

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

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

Criteria 4: Availability and Starting Time / Program:

Weighting: 10%

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

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

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

Weighting: 15%

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

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

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

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

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

Weighting: 10%

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

Tender Evaluation

The six submissions were assessed and evaluated by the tender evaluation panel which consisted of Council’s Manager Facilities, Manager Civic Services, Landscape Architect and a Lighting and Electrical Engineer consultant from Gary Roberts and Associates Pty Ltd, who has previously assisted other Sydney Councils with public and sports field lighting upgrades.

Company	Price (25%)	Capacity & Capability (25%)	Experience (20%)	Availability and Starting Time / Program (5%)	Risk Management, Workplace Health and Safety and Environmental Factors (15%)	Product Technical Information and Details, Maintenance Services and Warranties provided. (10%)	Rank
Rees Electrical		Preferred	Preferred			Preferred	2
MBS Electrical							4
Metwest Engineering							5
Hix Group							6
EC Power				Equally preferred	Equally preferred		3
Harvencord	Preferred			Equally preferred	Equally preferred		Preferred

After applying a weighted scoring evaluation on all submissions, Havencord was the preferred contractor. It is recommended that Havencord be accepted for the Blackman Park Lighting Upgrade. Havencord’s submission satisfied all criteria of the Request for Tender and had demonstrated experience with positive reference checks.

A separate confidential memorandum has been circulated to the Councillors with the panel’s report including the prices submitted by each tenderer and reference checks undertaken of the recommended contractor.

Conclusion

Having recorded the highest score across the weighted criteria and having received positive reference checks about the quality and reliability of their work, the Tender Panel recommends that Havencord Pty Ltd, trading as Floodlighting Australia, be awarded the contract for the Blackman Park Lighting Upgrade.

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1. Council accept the quote from Havencord Pty Ltd T/A Flood Lighting Australia for $560,000; and

2. Authorise the General Manager to engage Havencord Pty Ltd T/A Flood Lighting Australia to undertake the Blackman Park Lighting Upgrade.

Martin Terescenko

Executive Manager - Open Space and Urban Services

Open Space and Urban Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.