Agenda of Ordinary Council - Thursday, 18 August 2022

Ordinary Council Meeting 18 August 2022

Final Report - Provision of a Sport and Recreation Facility

Subject: Final Report - Provision of a Sport and Recreation Facility

Record No: SU7396 - 44679/22

Division: General Managers Unit

Author(s): David Stevens; Craig Wrightson

Executive Summary

Council has passed various resolutions relating to the objective of meeting the demand for indoor sporting facilities in the Lane Cove area. In summary, to finalise the preferred location this report considers a shortlist of locations for the facility post the 19 May, 2022 Council report which considered all alternative locations, being:-

Option 1: Revised Facility with a new entrance at River Rd site with 5 Indoor / 4 Outdoor Courts

Option 2: Revised Facility with a new entrance at River Rd site with 4 Indoor / 4 Outdoor Courts

Option 3a: Acquire property in Lane Cove West Business Park and adapt to 4 Indoor Courts

Option 3b: At River Rd site, rebuild the existing outdoor courts, converting them to 4 multi-courts and construct a new Golf Club House.

Option 3c: Combine 3a. + 3b.

The report also includes the outcome of the review of the previous Development Application at the Golf Course,180 River Road site which includes revised entry arrangements, removal of the arrival plaza, and subsequent reduction in the outdoor court footprint, and further details of the Environmentally Sustainable Development options for the project. Finally, the report outlines the next steps if Council chooses to progress the project. It is recommended that Council determine whether or not to proceed with the project and the preferred option if the project is to proceed.

Background

The current Council has passed the following resolutions which are relevant to this report:-

Council at its meeting on 21 February 2022 resolved, that Council:-

“1. Receive and note the report;

2. Note that the Sydney North Planning Panel has refused Council’s request to defer the hearing of DA 64/2021 and that the hearing will proceed on 2nd March 2022;

3. Restates its resolution of 24 January 2022 that Council confirms its commitment to consider other options for the indoor sport and recreation facility, and acknowledges that an approved Development Application will not prevent Council from further consulting with the community and considering all possible options. In so doing:-

a. That Council organise an open community workshop on sport and recreation requirements in Lane Cove with attendance open to residents of other LGAs; and

b. That promotion of the workshop will be designed to ensure the widest possible range of attendees.

4. Schedule a working session with Councillors on the details behind the current Business case for the project (with clarification of the source AT-1 or the Xypher Report). And following the internal working session, that Council conducts a public forum, with the current Business Case presented, and a Question and Answer session;

5. If Council decides to proceed with the Detailed Design phase of the current design proposal, undertake the following actions:-

a. Engage the Sustainable Design Consultant to set Green Star or equivalent goals for the current building design;

b. Undertake a new Traffic Report which accounts for the increase in traffic to River Road with the three major proposed new developments in that precinct and in line with the Business Case modeling user numbers;

c. Arrange a review of the current scheme by the Lane Cove Design Review Panel, including the siting and review of the significant trees; and

d. Update the Building Cost Report and the Business case in preparation for re-release following the completion of points (a) to (c) above.

6. Not seek funding grants at this stage in the process.”

Council at its meeting on 21 March 2022 resolved, that Council:-

“1. Advises the Sydney North Planning Panel that it formally withdraws DA 64/2021 for the Lane Cove Sport and Recreation Facility;

2. Confirms that the two workshops from resolution 37/2022 will proceed as planned;

3. Reaffirms Council’s intent to consider all available options to meet the demand for indoor sporting facilities in the Lane Cove area; and

4. In relation to point three (3), receive an updated project timeline at the March Council meeting.”

Council at its meeting on 21 March 2022 resolved, that Council:-

“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”.

Council at its meeting on 19 May 2022 resolved, that Council:-

“1. The report be received and noted;

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

3. Moving forward with the development of the design, Council undertake a process to try and achieve the equivalent of the Green Building Council of Australia’s 6 star rating system and make that available to the public for review prior to submitting the DA”.

The 19 May 2022 report to Council identified a series of actions to meet the demand for indoor sporting facilities in the Lane Cove area, the following table from that report provides a summary.

Activity	Details	Timing
Conduct Councillor workshop	1. Possible alternative solutions /sites 2. Business Case	Conducted 14 March
Explore possible joint facility	Willoughby Council - Gore Hill facility	Initial meeting scheduled 24 March
Conduct community workshops	3. Possible alternative solutions /sites 4. Business Case	By end April 2022
Explore alternate location for the facility	Most suitable site within the Lane Cove Business Park identified, with feasibility study to be undertaken, including acquisition costs and adaptation QS estimate.	By end May 2022
Status Report to Council	· Outcome of community workshops. (Alternative options not under consideration would be added to the program for consideration by Council as part of the final outcome report)	16 May 2022
Review the Current Development Application	· Access to the site alternatives · Sustainability inclusions · Tree Impacts · Review Traffic Modelling · Golf course maintenance facility requirements · Update Cost Report	By end May 2022
Refer any future proposal to the Design Review Panel	Post design refer for review	By end July 2022
Outcome report to Council	· Recommended facility option – Current location, alternate location or joint facility · Financing model	15 August 2022

Discussion

Facility Location Option

Demand Business Case

Council’s 2008 Recreation Action Plan found that there are no public indoor sports courts in the Lane Cove LGA. Supporting regional studies at that time and in the interim also showed that there is a supply / demand imbalance in Sydney's North for sports such as basketball and netball.

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 Women’s sports. A copy of the summary presentation is included as AT-1 and the full report is available at AT-2.

Council in 2015 received a further report from Montemare Consulting analysing options for the scale of the building and associated costs. Council then placed further development of the concept on hold pending the outcome of the development at 266 Longueville Road which was identified as the primary revenue source for the project.

Council engaged Xypher Consulting in 2020 to prepare an updated business case AT-3 focusing on demand and social capital in addition to the business model AT-4.

Lane Cove, based on the 2011 census had a population of 31,510, the 2022 census recorded 39,438, a 25% increase. The NSW Department of Planning estimates the population will increase to 49,350 by 2041, in total increase of 56%. Since 2011 no additional multi-court facility capacity has been provided in Lane Cove or the lower North Shore.

Key points regarding demand include:-

· The Business Case demonstrates community need, community support, economic, health and social benefits on a sub-regional scale.

· 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

· Based on both the Gore Hill and the Council’s projects proceeding and the addition of a court at the North Sydney Indoor Sports Centre; the area would have up to 19 courts, leaving a gap of 4 courts in 2036.

Key Points regarding the business model:-

· The visitation forecast highlights the opportunity to reduce the sub-regional facility gap with visitation in Year 1 of 321,687 persons increasing to 366,175 persons in Year 10.

· The financial forecast supports the ongoing operations (excluding the cost of capital), with an operating surplus from Year 1 of $383,100 increasing to $776,900 in Year 10.

The original Business Case included as AT-3 and AT-4, provided for a capital cost of $47.73M and $20M of debt from T-Corp which will be updated to reflect current projections before lodging the Grant application if Council proceeds with the Project.

Consultation for a Multi-Sport Facility

Since 2013/14 Council has focused its attention on the provision of a sport and recreation facility on the curtilage of the Lane Cove Golf Course. This process included various levels of consultation, including in September 2020 a broad consultation on the provision of a multi-sport facility at the site. As part of this consultation, Council undertook an independent telephone survey conducted by Micromex who composed the questions and undertook the full survey process. A copy of the Micromex reports are included as AT-5 and AT-6.

The Key findings determined by Micromex from the independent telephone survey of 401 randomly selected, demographically representative, local residents (which provides a 95% confidence rating in the result), in relation to the Multi-Sport Facility were:-

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

2. 88% are at least somewhat supportive of the proposal to develop a sport and recreational precinct at 180 River Road Northwood (This was in response to the question “In established Council areas there are limited opportunities to obtain land upon which to build new facilities. With participation rates and community needs for these sorts of facilities increasing, Council has developed a plan to create a sport and recreation precinct at the Lane Cove Golf Course, 180 River Road Northwood. How supportive are you of the Council progressing with this Project as outlined?)

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

The Key findings determined by Micromex from Council’s online survey which received 1350 responses in relation to the Multi-Sport Facility, which included identical questions, were:-

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

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

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

A total of 240 submissions were received, 52% made comment on their support or otherwise for a Sport and Recreation Precinct (31% no and 21% yes). The remainder of submissions did not contain a specific indication of support/ no support.

Council also held two (2) community drop-in events at the Lane Cove Golf Club in August 2020. Between fifty (50) and one hundred (100) residents attended each of the Saturday workshops whereupon Council staff (including Mayor Palmer) presented concept designs for feedback (see above paragraph). The concept designs at this stage of the development process included the provision of mini golf and a driving range. These two elements were subsequently removed from the design and study process as a consequence of the community feedback received as highlighted in the above paragraph and the determination made by a Community Panel in June 2021.

Specific engagement was undertaken with: Lane Cove Golf Club, Basketball NSW, North Suburbs Basketball Association, Northern Suburbs Netball Association (and associated local clubs), Football NSW (Futsal), Sydney North Volleyball, Golf NSW, and Tennis NSW.

Consideration of Alternate Locations - Broad

Council considered a report AT-7 on alternate locations at its May 2022 Meeting, following a consultation period, which highlighted the following:-

	Support Golf Course	Support Willoughby JV	Support Blackman Park	Support Pottery Green	Support Lane Cove West Business Park	Other
Number	32	7	5	3	15	22

Included in that report was confirmation that Willoughby Council did not wish to engage in a Joint Venture. Willoughby’s 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.

Consideration of Alternate Locations – Short List

Post the May report the following options were shortlisted as most suitable and warranted further consideration.

Option 1: Revised Facility with new entrance at River Rd site with 5 Indoor / 4 Outdoor Courts

Option 2: Revised Facility with new entrance at River Rd site with 4 Indoor / 4 Outdoor Courts

Option 3a: Acquire property in Lane Cove West Business Park adapt to 4 Indoor Courts

Option 3b: At River Rd site, rebuild existing outdoor courts converting them to 4 multi-courts & construct new Golf Club House.

Option 3c: Combine 3a. + 3b.

The following table provides a summary comparison of the options:-

Considerations	Original DA 64/21 Withdrawn	Option 1: Revised Facility 5 Indoor / 4 Outdoor Courts	Option 2: Revised Facility 4 Indoor / 4 Outdoor Courts	Option 3a: Facility in Lane Cove West 4 Indoor Courts	Option 3b: Rebuild existing Outdoor Courts & New Golf Club House	Option 3c: 3a. + 3b.
*Sport Provision*
Number of Multi-purpose courts suitable for Basketball 1.	5	5	4	4	0	4
Number of Multi-purpose courts suitable for Netball 2.	9	9	8	4	4	8
Number of Multi-purpose courts suitable for Tennis	4	4	4	0	4	4
Other sports provided for	Futsal, Judo volleyball, fencing, pickelball	Futsal, Judo volleyball, fencing, pickelball	Futsal, Judo volleyball, fencing, pickelball	Futsal, Judo volleyball, fencing, pickelball	0	Futsal, Judo volleyball, fencing, pickelball
Number of Multi-purpose courts (total)	9	9	8	4	4	8
Mezzanine Viewing / Multi-purpose 3.	317	317	317	317	0	317
Total sports related space (1) excl amenities	8,113	8,113	7,302	4,770	3,158	7,928
Amenities
Toilets and Change Rooms 4.	393	393	393	368	25	393
Adult Change Room	36	36	36	36		36
Recreation Provision
Total Recreation excluding amenities 5.	2,180	2,180	2,180	1,216	352	1568
Total Recreation required to match Option 1 and 2 (excl. amenities) 6.				1216	964	2180
Provision of dance floor (m2)	40	40	40	0	40	40
Provision of Stage - total (m2)	111	111	111	91	7	98
Provision of Café (m2)	0	0	0	Yes	6	6
Provision of Bistro (m2) 7.	276	276	276	Yes	297	297
Provision of Bar (m2)	16	16	16	No	Yes	Yes
Provision of Bar / Lounge (m2)	108	108	108	No	75	75
Provision of multi-purpose rooms 8.	328	328	328	TBA	45	45
Provision of stage and retractable seating - seating capacity	Yes (500 pax)	Yes (500 pax)	Yes (500 pax)	Yes (TBA)	No	Yes (TBA)
Access
No of carparking spaces provided 9.	233	242	214	151	84 (123 required)	235
Traffic impacts on neighbouring streets 10.	No	No	No	No	No	No
Current public transport available	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Current active transport connections	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Ability to provide additional active transport connections 11.	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Provision of access to persons with mobility impairment	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
*Sustainability and Environment*
No of trees to be removed (built form)	84	79	76	0	5	5
No of trees to be removed for entry / exit 12.	71	14	14	0	14	14
Reduction of green space available for recreation (m2)	2810	1810	1030	0	0	0
Estimated loss and impact of powerful owls and grey gliding fox etc habitat trees 13.	0	0	0	0	0	0
List all sustainability features see separate report
*Finance and Business Case*
Construction Cost (inc acquisition where applicable)*	$48,000,000	$57,000,000	$51,695,777	$54,473,000	$9,750,000	$64,223,000
Asset Acquisition	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes
Other Project Costs (Contingency, Esc. to 1/7/23, Consultant Fees)	$6,302,816	$12,850,000	$11,654,223	$8,012,000	$585,000	$8,597,000
Traffic Management 14.*	$4,000,000	$2,000,000	$2,000,000	$0	$2,000,000	$2,000,000
Total Project Cost	$58.30M	$71.85M	$65.35	$62.48M	$12.33M	$74.82M
Total Project Cost if equal recreation space provided (larger clubhouse)					$4,590,000	$79.41M
Fixed operational costs 15.	$889,000	$889,000	$790,222	$395,111	$395,111	$790,222
Variable operational costs 15.	$623,000	$623,000	$553,777	$276,889	$276,889	$553,778
Effective 'cost per court' (m2)	$6,478,091	$7,983,333	$8,110,000	$15,621,250	$3,083,750	$9,352,500
Effective 'cost for recreation space' (m2)	$22,018	$26,147	$23,165	$44,797	$27,699	$40,959

Notes to Table:-

1. Basketball use indoor courts only

2. Netball can use outdoor and indoor courts

3. Can be accommodated in 'Warehouse Area at Lane Cove West

4. All Toilets and Change Room regardless of whuch use they serve

5. Existing Golf Club 222 entertaining area (restaurant / function) + 45 (conference room) + 75 (deck) + 10 (café)

6. Add additional to Golf Club rebuild to allow direct comparison of Recreation Space

7. Includes outdoor dining

8. Option 2 and 3 includes 3 x multi purpose rooms plus meeting room @ 58m2.

9. *Insufficient parking at site 3b for higher use Tennis vs Multi-courts to meet DA requirements. Require 53 (outdoor multi-sport courts) + 60 (golf) + 4 (staff inc 1 x admin) + 6 (café / restaurant) = 123.

10. No study conducted on any option, TTW do not expect impacts given Left and Right turn in and out at 180 River Rd site.

11. Lane Cove West is not close in proximity to Lane Cove village

12. Option 3b includes traffic signals due to increased usage

13. See appendix A response to SNPP September 2021 Attachment G pp4-5.

14. Traffic signals included basis intensification of site

15. This has been determined using a simplified method, i.e by dividing the operating costs for the 9 court option contained in the Business Case by the number of courts. No allowance for inefficiencies created where there are two sites.

In relation to the options the following additional points are noted in respect of Option 3:

· Northern Suburbs Netball Association (NSNA) have indicated they wish to relocate “Net-Set-Go” (junior development pathway group) from Sunday at Willoughby Leisure Centre (only times slot available) back to a Saturday, as they are currently losing players to other Sunday sports such as girls soccer. They have confirmed that 4 courts would not provide sufficient capacity and require 6 courts as an absolute minimum to meet current demand, i.e. does not cater for future growth. Based on this, the Lane Cove West Facility would not meet this requirement; and

· The current parking capacity at the Lane Cove Golf course site will not meet the demand associated with the change of the courts to multi-sport courts due to the significant increase in players utilising the courts at any one time. At this stage, costings have not included any provision for additional parking and this would be required to meet development application assessment requirements.

Regardless of which option is selected, a case for additional bus services to meet increased demand can be made to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) when demand can be demonstrated, or a contract weekend shuttle bus can be implemented.

Based on the limitations of option 3c, and its relative cost being the highest, it is not recommended.

Review of the Previous Development Application

The revision of the proposed design for the 180 River Road site considered included alternative access to the site arrangements, tree impacts, golf maintenance facility requirements, traffic modelling and environmental impacts of the revised design. Revised Plans are included at AT-8, which include revised entry arrangements, removal of the arrival plaza, and subsequent reduction in the outdoor court footprint.

Council engaged TTW to undertake a design analysis for signalisation of the existing entrance to the Lane Cove Golf Course, which is depicted in the following diagram. A presentation on the TTW findings is included in AT-9.

The design provides for a single-entry lane into the site with dual exit lanes out of the site, with the ability for vehicles up 2.6 metres to be able to enter and exit the site in an easterly and westerly direction onto River Rd. Two traffic lanes in each direction are retained on River Road, with turning movements part of mixed traffic lanes (i.e. no dedicated bay). Pedestrian crossings will be to the north and east sides of the entrance and a dedicated Shared User path is provided within the site along the top of the existing embankment, elevated to reduce impact. Due to the restricted turning radius, a full-size bus is unable to enter the site, the existing bus stop to the east of the current entrance on River Road would be utilised by full-size buses visiting the site.

The onsite lane configuration provides a drop off area for visitors prior to entering the car park (another is located within the car park) which can accommodate a ‘coaster’ size bus. The exit lanes provide capacity of up to 16 cars

Initial discussions with Transport for NSW, (TfNSW) have expressed indicative support for Traffic Signals at the locations based on the preliminary design. Obtaining TfNSW approval is a multi- stage approval process.

The study of the intersection arrangement also reviewed the overall background traffic from the proposed development, which included background escalation of traffic growth to 2032. It concluded that the intersection performance would be at service level A or B, the best, and second-best ratings for intersections, with performance still considered acceptable in most instances even at service level E. This work included new updated traffic counts which were consistent with those lodged under the previous Development Application and include growth from recent nearby developments including 4 Northwood Road and 266 Longueville Rd.

Environmental Reports

Noise

As part of preparation of the original Development Application Acoustic Logic undertook a Noise Impact Assessment (AT-10) to predict operational noise emissions at the nearest residential receivers (existing residences along Stevenson Street; existing residences across River Road from the proposed development; existing residences to the North along Cogan Place, Osborne Road, Osborne Place, and Richardson Street East) and assess the predicted noise levels against the relevant acoustic criteria.

In the updated design the following changes have a potential impact on noise emissions for the project in relation to the properties which border Stevenson Street:-

· Removal of the access driveway along Stevenson Street. Access to the site will now be from River Road.

· Removal of the arrival plaza. Similarly, drop off/pick up and bus movements will be along River Road.

· Alteration in the location of the external sports courts, moving them south and west closer to the existing tennis court location.

An initial model of noise emissions from the use of the sports courts has been undertaken using the same assumptions as presented in the previous development application, however utilising revised distances and elevations as indicated on the architectural drawings. A summary of the results from the model (refer AT-11) are detailed below:-

· Noise levels at all Receivers are within the ‘background plus 10 dB’ assessment criteria for the evening period (up to 10 pm).

· There is a marginal change in the predicted noise levels for the revised scheme, however less than 2dB to all residents along Stevenson Street. This is not significant acoustically, noting that a 2dB change in noise level is imperceptible.

· Noise from the external courts is expected to be highest at 6 Stevenson Street, however still within the noise limits adopted in the report.

· The remainder of Stevenson Street will receive noise consistent with existing noise levels from the tennis centre and within the noise limits adopted in the report.

In relation to the impact of noise impacts on wildlife, it is noted there are no NSW guidelines for assessing the impact of noise on wildlife. The Biodiversity Development Assessment Report and Addendum prepared for the previous Development Application “followed the Biodiversity Assessment Method (BAM) 2020 and described and assessed the indirect impacts of the proposal on threatened species, beyond the development footprint, including reduced viability of adjacent habitat due to noise primarily as a short term impact associated with construction. However, it does identify that noise is likely to be an impact associated with operation as required under the BAM, noise impacts are to be managed as outlined in Table 20 of the BDAR, refer AT-12. The Acoustic Report recommends a number of noise controls that would benefit wildlife (which will be included in the project). Potential additional noise controls suggested within BAM 2020 such as large sound barriers are not recommended due to movement issues they would create for native fauna.”

Riparian Land

For the original Development Application ,Ecological Consultants Australia (ECA) prepared a Riparian Constraints Assessment (AT-13) concluding that “the mapped 1^st order watercourse located within Lane Cove Golf Course does meet the definition of a river under the Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act). ECA concluded that there is no need for a Controlled Activity Approval prior to any proposed development taking place within 40m of the waterway. This has not changed for the revised proposal.

Flora and Fauna.

A Biological Development Assessment Report (BDAR) was prepared by ecological for the original Development Application. The report concluded that the proposed development complies with the objectives and provisions of Council’s DCP in respect of Development Adjacent to bushland because the development footprint avoids the land mapped as SEPP 19 Bushland in Part H of the Lane Cove DCP. Further, the building maintains a minimum 10m setback to bushland as required by the DCP.

The BDAR has documented the loss of vegetation and fauna habitat is required to be offset by the purchase and retirement of 3 biodiversity credits. The report concluded the development does not have any Serious and Irreversible Impacts (SAII) as defined under the Biodiversity Assessment Method 2020 (BAM) and the development would not result in a significant impact to Grey-headed Flying-fox or Powerful Owl. For Powerful Owls the site was inspected for suitable breeding habitat which included potential nest trees. One tree was found with a 50mm hollow (AT-14). This hollow is not large enough for Powerful Owls to nest in and the tree with the hollow is not proposed to be removed as part of the development. The assessment also looked at potential foraging habitat for Powerful Owls and it was determined that the development would result in the loss of occasional habitat suitable for Powerful Owl prey animals such as possums.

The BDAR concluded that the site was not a breeding habitat for Powerful Owls and the loss of foraging habitat could be mitigated within the ecosystem credits calculated to offset its loss.

For the Grey-headed Flying-Fox the assessment concluded that the site does not contain any breeding sites suitable for the species to utilise. The site does have suitable foraging habitat for Grey-Headed Flying-Foxes however, the loss of foraging habitat could also be mitigated within the ecosystem credits calculated to offset its loss.

Subsequent to preparation of these reports, developments at 266 Longueville Rd were and 4 Northwood Rd were approved. Ecological were re-engaged to address any cumulative effect from these recent developments due to their proximity to the revised project. The updated consultant's report is included as AT-15. In summary, it concludes there is no impact from the developments beyond what was initially addressed for the original development application.

Tree Impacts

The entrance road to the original proposal for the Sport and Recreation Precinct was being undertaken in conjunction with the installation of a roundabout at the Northwood Road/River Road/Stevenson Street intersection. Over the past 12 years, 19 accidents have been recorded at this intersection, 12 of which caused injury and the roundabout was the proposed solution to address the road safety issues at this intersection. Council’s original proposal to address safety at this intersection was to install traffic signals however, TfNSW was not supportive of this option. Council was then successful in obtaining a grant from TfNSW under their Safer Roads Program to develop a design for a roundabout. The initial estimate for the roundabout was in the vicinity of $2M. However, as the design progressed the land required for installing the roundabout increased, requiring the construction of large retaining structures and the removal of substantially more trees than was originally anticipated. This was necessary to achieve level access within the roundabout, sight lines and also increased swept paths throughout the intersection to accommodate larger vehicles. The more detailed design for the roundabout proposal would have required the removal approximately 71 trees, which included 6 significant trees (AA Rating), 44 healthy trees (A Rating) and 21 unviable trees (Z Rating).

With the abandonment of the roundabout proposal and the change in design of the Sport and Recreation Precinct, the access road off Stevenson Street is no longer necessary. Instead, an upgrade of the current golf course entrance on River Road is required as outlined earlier in the report. The upgraded entrance will require the installation of traffic signals and an increase in size of the current asphalt car park to accommodate entry/exit plaza to the development. The construction of the traffic signals and entry/exit plaza will require the removal of 14 trees which includes, 1 significant tree and 13 healthy trees. See table below.

New Entrance Tree Impacts
Botanical	Common	Tree AA	Tree A	Tree Z	Totals
Angophora costata	Red gum		3		3
Eucalyptus pilularis	Blackbutt		1		1
Casuarina glauca	She Oak		7		7
Eucalyptus saligna	Blue Gum	1			1
Syncarpia glomulifera	Turpentine		1		1
Jacaranda mimosifolia	Jacaranda		1		1
Totals		1	13	0	14

With the removal of the Stevenson Street entry, the revised proposal also removes the entry plaza of the original proposal. With the removal of the original entry plaza the footprint of the development is reduced by approximately 25m. This reduction brings the northern boundary of the structure down by 20m which will save an additional 5 trees adjacent to the first fairway of the golf course

In summary with the abandonment of the roundabout, removal of the Stevenson Street access, removal of the entry plaza and construction of the new traffic signals there is an overall net difference of trees required to be removed between the original proposal and the revised proposal of 62 trees saved where 5 are considered significant. See summary table below.

Summary of Changes to Tree Removal
Tree Value	Original Proposal	Revised Proposal	Net Difference Between Designs – i.e. additional Trees retained
Tree Value	Roundabout + 1st Fairway	New Entry
AA	6	1	5
A	44 + 5 = 49	13	36
Z	21	0	21
Totals	76	14	62

Later in the report an 8-court option with 4 indoor courts and 4 outdoor courts is investigated. In this proposal the building footprint would be reduced by a further 20m which would retain another 3 trees. These trees are located adjacent to the rear boundary of the ‘caretaker’s house’ and are all Rate Z, that is they are considered to be unviable.

Overall, the revised 9 court option built form would also requires the removal of 79 trees, none of which are rated AA, significant trees and the 79 includes 15 non-native and 3 recommended for removal. The 8-court option as outlined earlier would reduce the total trees to be removed for the building the facility to 76 trees, a saving of 3 trees, which were rates a Z not viable. Council has committed to replace all trees removed within the project at a ratio of two to one, which would see all trees being indigenous to the local area. Council referred the revised scheme to the Bushland Management Advisory Committee who provided the following comments:-

- “BMAC were supportive of revised option. Noting that there was a substantial net reduction in tree loss by:

- Deleting the roundabout at River Road/Northwood Road/Stevenson Street intersection

- Deleting the Stevenson Street entrance to the precinct

- Upgrading the existing River Road entrance with the provision of traffic signals

- Council should get the project Ecologist to provide advice on maintaining the wildlife corridor along the River Road frontage of golf course. Special mention was given to the new driveway entrance which looks to be wider than the existing entrance.

- Council should regenerate the bushland above the cliff face between the Sports Precinct site, River Road and Stevenson Street. “

Should Council progress development at the golf course site, the matters raised by the Committee can be accommodated within the proposal.

Contamination

A detailed site investigation (contamination) (Stage 1 DSI) site for the proposed new sporting facility and amenities was carried out. Stage 2 works are proposed to be completed post demolition, once the site is handed over for construction works. There is no expectation that the DSI Stage 2 would identify any issues that cannot be addressed or that contamination cannot be adequately removed or rehabilitated. The report concludes that the site can be made suitable for the proposed development subject to implementation of various requirements, none of which are considered significant. The specific details of contamination identified are included on Pages 32 and 33 of the report included as AT-16.

A Remediation Action Plan was also prepared which requires a Stage 2 DSI be undertaken post demolition and clearance at which point the potential risk associated with asbestos and other potential hazardous building materials in building demolition waste can most effectively be assessed. It concluded that the site can be rendered suitable for the proposed development subject to appropriate remediation, management, and validation in accordance with this RAP.

The reports were subsequently reviewed by Jason Clay, Accredited Site Auditor, who would oversee the remediation process, he concurred with recommendations of the Stage 1 DSI and the approach adopted in the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) that a holistic assessment of the contamination status of the site is required after the completion of Stage 2 DSI.

Sustainability

AJ+C Architects, when designing both the original and revised scheme engaged the international firm, Steensen Varming as the Environmentally Sustainable Development consultants. They advise: -

“The Lane Cove Sports & Recreational Centre (LCSRC) has been designed in accordance with passive first design principles. Key sustainable design priorities are based on building type and functional requirements

1. High levels of occupant comfort (daylight, glare control, acoustic and lAQ);

2. Reduced embodied and operational carbon

3. Resource efficiency (energy, water, waste, materials); and

4. The phase out of gas onsite.”

“To ensure a sustainable outcome, the following key strategies have been considered within the proposed design:

· An effective mixed mode strategy has been applied to the vast majority of spaces, including the two large multipurpose halls, through correctly sized,

· oriented and controlled openings. The role of ceiling fans to assist will be investigated further.

· A narrow, north / south orientated building ensures the correct balance between daylight, solar and glare control can be achieved. Extensive solar analysis has been performed to ensure the correct glazing percentages, positioning and the application of external shading and roof overhangs has been applied.

· Incorporates a high-performance building envelope, to ensure energy efficiency as well as occupant comfort (including thermal, visual, and acoustic comfort);

· Demonstrates good design through early-stage modelling and guidance, in general accordance with the best practice standards;

· Material selections are to be performed during the next stage of the design, but are to be considerate of embodied carbon, prefabrication, local supply chains, design for disassembly, dematerialisation etc.

· Light coloured materials will be specified in reducing the local heat island effect.

· The phase out of Gas on-site;

· Water collection and reuse is a priority.

· The performance of mechanical systems have been evaluated based on a mixed mode approach. We have strived to optimise the duration of natural ventilation and lessen the requirement for air-conditioning. In the Sydney climate, we would suggest that for 35-45% of the year, spaces would be passive conditioned. This is greatly assisted through minimising unwanted solar gain, night purge strategies and exposed thermal mass.

· The expansive roof can be used for both rainwater collection and PV electrical generation. The extent of PV would contribute to either building electrical reduction, carbon neutral in operation or as a net exporter of electricity to the grid (To be determined).

· Electric car charging and all electric systems would be tied into the extent of PV. Presently, both of these can be targeted.

· Construction and Demolition waste management spaces.”

Diagram, engineering drawing, schematic

Description automatically generated

In addition to the passive first principles, the base project costings include sustainability features designed to address ongoing operating impacts to the same standard as those included in The Canopy:-

• 230 solar panels (in addition skylights and glass louvers are provided to sports halls)

• Four ‘Tesla’ power wall batteries, each stores 13.5kw of power as well as 7kw of back-up power to help in the event of a black out.

• Regenerative lifts when braking while going down generate power to go back up. This feature recovers up to 30% of the total energy consumption of the lifts.

• LED Lights throughout, with movement sensors and adjustable light levels in the car park.

• Green wall to improve oxygen levels and air quality

• EV charging stations

• Rainwater Harvesting and onsite reuse

• Bicycle Parking and end of trip facilities

• Tree replacement at 2:1

Further to the 22 May 2002 resolution, viz:- “Moving forward with the development of the design, Council undertake a process to try and achieve the equivalent of the Green Building Council of Australia’s 6 star rating system and make that available to the public for review prior to submitting the DA.” AJ+C engaged Steensen and Varming to respond. A copy of the full report is included as AT-17. The following summary is contained in the report.

“ Based on the preliminary assessment conducted against the Green Star Buildings tool, it has been identified that a 4-star target is achievable for the proposed project, through intelligent design and with a moderate cost premium.

The ESD strategies that are being considered for achieving the 4-star rating, seem to better align with the proposed design as it stands, and thereby negates the need to chase the more expensive credits.

The requirements for achieving a higher Green Star rating of 5 or 6 star has also been reviewed and presented for information. It is important to note, that a 5 Star rating under the new Green Star Buildings tool, is considered equivalent to a 6 Star Rating under the old (ceased 2021) Green Star Design and As-built V1.3.

In demonstrating this stretch component, a higher rating of 6 stars is equivalent to twice the 5-star score. The below table summarises the minimum scores for achieving 4-, 5- and 6-star ratings.

Rating Minimum Score Comparison against 4 Star

4 Star 15 + (5 Buffer) NA

5 Star 35 + (5 Buffer) 4 Star + 20 points

6 Star 75 + (5 Buffer) 4 star + 60 points

Carbon emissions: One of the key criteria that requires a significant uplift, when compared across the options:

· 4 Star: At least 10% less than a reference building;

· 5 Star: 20% less than a reference building;

· 6 Star: 40% less than a reference building.

The reference building noted above implies a standard-practice building that is designed to achieve the minimum performance requirements of the National Construction Code (NCC) Section-J Energy Efficiency.

Transportation: The design is required to comply with, to be able to achieve a 6-star rating. The requirements include infrastructure to:

· Encourage walking;

· Utilise non-fossil-fuel powered travel;

· Plus provide on-site EV charging infrastructure.

Responsible Structure, construction, finishes and envelope: The vision of the new

tool is to drive the supply chain to deliver transparent, healthy, low-impact, and net

zero carbon products that are part of a circular economy. As noted previously, the

market is maturing to this requirement.

The Steensen Varming report provides a detailed breakdown of the actions required/components within each star rating and the following cost information utilisng a high level review by the Quantity Surveyor:-

Item	Sub-Category	Cost Ex GST
Certification	Equivalency	Approx $175,000
	Formal	4 Star: Approx $200,000 - $300,000 + GST 5 Star: Approx $250,000 - $350,000 + GST 6 Star: Approx $350,000 - $500,000 + GST
	Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) Fees	$39,850 -$44,850 + GST
Capital Costs		4 Star: Approx $3.2m + GST 5 Star: Approx $11.6m + GST 6 Star: Too difficult to estimate at this stage, without developing the design further. A building redesign is likely.

The Quantity Surveyor (Mitchell Brandtman) has identified post the Steensen and Varming Report that consultant fees to design for 4 and 5 star rating(s), regardless of whether the design fees are for Equivalency or Certification, will amount to $200,000 (4 star) and $500,000 (5 star). These design consultant fees are in addition to the costings provided in the Steensen and Varming Report and have been included in the total project costs later in the report.

Golf Course Facilities

The revised design results in the reduction in the area in 1st hole by 1000 square metres (a further 780 square metres if an 8 court facility is ultimately adopted) and now includes a preliminary design for the golf putting green (same size as existing) and three practice driving nets (one more than existing). These are located in close proximity to the 1st hole.

The actual golf course maintenance sheds located within the car park have been designed to provide level access between the car park and the surrounding grass area to the north of the building. This maintenance area has been sized based on the existing sheds and facilities available to the maintenance crews and has level access to the course and internally to the car park for deliveries and the like.

Consultation on the Revised Facility

In preparing the revised design Council also undertook further consultation with the following groups BMAC, S&RPA, “Save the Dance Floor” Group, Probus Club, and Pickleball.

The comments from BMAC are outlined earlier in the report.

Council also sought comments from the Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee, who provided the following comments:-

1. Support the reduction in tree removal from the revised access arrangements.

2. Supports the need and design for the traffic signal entrance arrangement.

3. Support from Golf Club representatives on the reduced impact of the First Hole, due to the reduction in the building length. One community member commenting “not across these functional aspects”

4. Accept the golf practice green, practice nets and maintenance shed capacity.

5. Support for the Bar / Lounge area being located overlooking the 9^th Green.

6. Alternate options to improve safety at the River Road / Northwood Road intersection should be explored. One committee member added “including pedestrian access from Northwood peninsula/Fleming St to south side River Road.

7. Request for suitable notice and understanding of arrangements during the construction period for access to the course

8. One committee member requested more time to consider with detailed plans and sections

9. One committee member expressed functional concern re: three social recreation rooms for live performance/ dancing/ celebrations

10. Request the golf club have access to a room for entering competition and handicap score(s).

11. Request the facility include a space for older golfers to store their buggies.

The Mayor and Council staff met with “Save the Dance Floor” who advocate for retention of a recreation performance space within the project. There are two separate performance spaces in Option 1 and Option 2. The interconnecting bar / lounge and three multi-purpose spaces (404m2) refer AT-18, and a 91m2 stage in the two multi-sport courts area that is equipped with retractable seating. Both of these areas are larger than the current space available within the Golf Clubhouse, being 297m2 comprising of 12x12m main auditorium of 144sqm, lower auditorium 78sqm and deck 75sqm.

In terms of other locations in Lane Cove for performing arts, Council has identified two locations for use during the construction period:-

1. The Longueville Sporting Club – in 2018/19 Council and the Club jointly funded regular music nights for approximately one year where a jazz band performed for locals. The Club can accommodate up to eighty (80) patrons including a dance floor and demountable stage (note, the prior performances were done at “ground level”). The Club have stated they remain willing and able to continue their support of local music, however the series of music nights mentioned above regularly did not attract crowds of more than 10-12 people.

2. The Alcott – located in Birdwood Avenue this venue has two (2) performance spaces that can accommodate up to 100 and 220 people respectively. The larger venue is upstairs and can be configured to meet a range of needs (seated and / or standing) that include a dance floor and stage. The Alcott can assist with marketing, advertising, ticket sales and flexible seating plan(s) to suit the client-specific needs.

Acquisition of 6 Stevenson Street

Council at its Meeting of 19 April 2021 resolved, in part that:-

“In relation to 6 Stevenson Street, include in the final business case the option for Council to acquire the property at market value, as it is the closest property to the development and therefore the most affected property by light and noise from the operation of the outdoor courts; noise from the access road to the carpark and noise from the operations of the carpark.”

Consultation has occurred with the owners of 6 Stevenson St and their response together with indicative valuation for acquisition of the property is included in a Confidential Memo circulated separately to Councillors.

It is not recommended that Council commit at this stage to voluntarily acquire the property. Council’s acoustic and lighting reports conclude the additional impact of the Centre’s operations compared to existing (existing impacts have been recorded for later comparison) will be minimal. It is therefore proposed Council wait until the facility is constructed and operational to allow the owners of 6 Stevenson St the opportunity to fully assess the actual impact versus the predicted impact. This can be achieved by Council giving a written undertaking to the owners to assess the impacts once the precinct is operational and based on this, consider acquisition by Council.

If Council was to proceed and acquire the property, at that stage the most logical use of the site would be to demolish the existing house and regenerate the land as bushland as this is the only property fronting Stevenson St. This option is consistent with the Bushland Management Advisory Committee’s advice to ensure a wildlife corridor is maintained as part of the Sport and Recreation Precinct. Council has committed to replacing trees on a two-to-one basis as part of the project and some plantings in the area along the cliff face would bolster the wildlife corridor beyond what is currently existing. If this option was preferred, Council could use s7.11 funds available for open space acquisition to fund the purchase, accordingly Council does not need to factor this cost into the current project cost. Other options could be to purchase and resell, this would be close to funding neutral. Ultimately Council would determine the best option at the time of considering acquisition.

Progression of Selected Option

The following outlines the total project cost inclusive of ESD:-

	Option 1 9 Court	Option 2 8 Court	Option 3c – Split site
Total with Base Sustainability	$71.85M	$65.35M	$74.82M
Total with 4 Star $3.2M	$ 75.43M	$68.93M	$78.02M*
Total with 5 Star $11.6M	$ 84.13M	$77.63M	$87.32M*

* Not based on actual estimate, included for like for like comparison purposes.

Available Funding

The following funding model is proposed for the project.

Source	Amount	Notes
General Funds	$33,500,000	Proceeds from 266 Longueville Road Long Term Lease Income
s7.11 funds available + due	$25,000,000	Incl $22M received and future commitments for projects currently in progress.
Multi-Sport Community Facility Fund	$5,000,000	Subject to successful application
T-Corp 10yr Loan	$10,000,000	Eligible for Interest Rate Subsidy
Sustainability Levy	$1,500,000	Current Balance of Reserve plus 6 yr, $200k pa. commitment
Total	$75,000,000

Council at its meeting of 18 October 2021, adopted a Notice of Motion which included in part:-

“2. Subject to receipt of the funds from Australian Unity, set aside $20mil of these funds in a reserve called, ‘Future Infrastructure Fund Reserve’ to be applied to projects as detailed below; and”

At the time this motion was passed, Council has approved a $20M loan as part of funding for the project. Given recent construction cost escalation and a reduction in Council’s proposed borrowing for the project (discussed later in the report) it will not be possible to proceed with a ‘Future Infrastructure Fund Reserve’ if the Sport and Recreation Facility proceeds.

Long Term Financial Plan

Council’s adopted Long Term Financial Plan includes Capital Expenditure of $52m, funded from $32m from 266 Longueville and $20m in Section 7.11 Funds (it is included in Scenario 2 which was adopted by Council on 23 June 2022).

Based on the increased interest rates, Council’s Long-Term Financial Plan cannot accommodate $20M of debt, given the increased interest payable is attributable to Council’s Profit and Loss statement, and Council will not meet all financial ratios. A $10M loan can be accommodated.

Due to the revision required to the plan it is proposed to reexhibit the proposed change for Community Consultation. Refer AT-19.

Loan

In regard to debt funding, Council at its meeting of 19 April 2021 authorised the General Manager to accept a loan with T-Corp of $20M for 10 years with a 50% discount on the interest rate for the life of the loan, provided by the NSW government’s low-cost loans initiative. The actual rate at the time was 1.9%, which would have equated to Council paying interest of just 0.85%, which equates to total interest of $814,000 for the proposed 20-year term of the loan. Council staff identified that this amount represented a 40% subsidy, the reduction was due to the total Grant Funds available not being able to cover a 50% subsidy to all applicants. T-Corp has advised that the loan approval has now lapsed as Council did not draw down the funds given the Council did not commit to proceed with the project. They advise Council will need to make a new loan application, however given Council’s financial position has not changed significantly since approving the previous application, T-Corp do not believe there will be any difficulty in Council obtaining the approval.

In relation to the NSW Government’s low-cost loans initiative, Council sought an extension of the subsidy which was not utilised as Council did not draw down the loan. Council has been advised that if it moves to reconfirm its commitment to the loan by September, it will still have access to it. However, the interest rate for the loan has increased since Council’s original application. The following table depicts, the original, current and projects cost of funds.

Local Cost Loan Initiative - $10m Loan (Fixed for 10 Years)
	2021	2022	2023
Fixed Interest Rate	1.90%	4.44%	5.00%
LCLI Interest Subsidy Value (Cap)	513,500	814,337	814,337
Effective LCLI Subsidy %	50%	33%	29%
LCC Interest Payable (10 years)	513,500	1,679,000	2,015,000
Local Cost Loan Initiative - $20m Loan (Fixed for 10 Years)
	2021	2022	2023
Fixed Interest Rate	1.90%	4.44%	5.00%
LCLI Interest Subsidy Value (Cap)	814,337	814,337	814,337
Effective LCLI Subsidy %	40%	16%	14%
LCC Interest Payable (10 years)	1,241,000	4,123,000	4,845,000

Council has been advised it can make an additional application for the remainder of the funding to achieve a maximum 50% subsidy, however as this is the final round of the subsidy program, Council will be reliant upon other councils that have subsidy approvals, not proceeding. It is therefore proposed to make a second application for an increased subsidy allocation to achieve a 50% subsidy.

Council’s source of funding to make the loan repayments will be revenue from its commercial property portfolio, which includes tenancies at The Canopy.

It should be noted that as Council has no other debt the debt servicing ratio would remain at less than the permitted 20% of operational revenue, the standard set by the Office of Local Government performance measurement ratios.

s7.11 Developer Contributions

Council’s s7.11 Developer Contributions Works Schedule provides for up to $25M (indexed from $20m 2013) to be utilised for the facility. Council currently has received funds of $22M, and there are several developments in progress that would allow Council to accumulate $25m prior to completion of the project.

Multi-Sport Community Facility Fund

The NSW Government has committed $200 million to the Multi-Sport Community Facility Fund, recognising the critical role local sports infrastructure plays in keeping communities healthy, active and connected. Council ultimately determined not to make an application for the first round of funding but a second round is now in progress with applications closing 1 pm, Friday 2 September 2022 with outcomes notified from November 2022 onwards. Under this second round, construction must commence by July 2023 with projects to be completed by 31 December 2025.

The fund provides up to $5M for multi-court facilities and Council has prepared a Business Case suitable for making an application under the grants, which demonstrates the projects meets all of the criteria. One issue which is a key risk is Council’s ability to meet the requirement to commence construction by July 2023. Given Council must make an application for Development Consent, document the design and undertake a procurement process, the timeframes to meet the Fund timetable are extremely tight. If Council proceeds to prepare a revised Development Application, a detailed project program will need to be developed which will potentially need to involve a two-stage process, with a separate demolition contractor and then a construction contractor. This process would be consistent with the requirements of the Remediation Action Plan, which requires further details site investigation stage 2 post demolition, to undertake further core hole sampling to identify if there is additional contamination in areas that are currently inaccessible. If Council proceeds to lodge a revised Development Application it will also be necessary to authorise the preparation of documentation necessary to prepare to procure the project in parallel with the lodgement of the Development Application in order to meet the timeline for the Multi-Sport Community Facility Fund.

Governance

Council is required to submit a Capital Expenditure Review proposal to the Office of Local Government for this project given its significant cost. The purpose of the review is to ensure Council’s evaluation of the project is consistent and rigorous, the merits of the project can be compared, and resources are allocated on an informed basis. The Capital Expenditure Review has prescribed information including: Risk Management; Probity; Financial Implications; Community Consultation; Project Management; and, many other areas. In approving the Capital Expenditure Review, the OLG does not endorse the project but plays a role in ensuring Council has the capacity and processes in place to undertake a project of this scale and capacity. The Capital Expenditure Review will be prepared and lodged with a view to being available prior to commencement of the procurement process for the project.

Indicative Timeline Option 1 and 2 only to meet Multi-Sport Community Facility Fund Timeframes

The time frames for the Multi-Sport Community Facility Fund are tight given Council is finalising the selected site. However, as Council previously prepared a Development Application submission for a sport and recreation facility (9 multi-sport courts) at the 180 River Rd site, the ability to submit a Development Application for Option 1 or 2 can be achieved within a condensed timeframe (see table below).

It is proposed as part of Council’s procurement strategy to obtain construction pricing for both Option 1, a five Indoor / four outdoor courts facility and Option 2, a four indoor / 4 outdoor court facility. This gives Council options if the current market results in further large construction cost escalation beyond what has been included in current estimates.

To accommodate this strategy, it is proposed to ultimately lodge a Development Application for Option 1, 9 multi-sport courts, as, if required, it is simpler, involves less risk and is cheaper to lodge a s4.55 Application to amend a Development Consent to reduce the number of courts post the procurement process than it is to increase the number of courts. Options 3A and 3B are a considerably larger body of work (process to finalisation of Development Application) on the basis that Council has done no previous design work nor investigations for these options including the amalgam, being Option 3C. As a result, Council could not seek to obtain funding under the Multi-Sport Community Facility Fund due to timing constraints.

The program below illustrates the projected timeline to construction such that Council meet the mandatory (Multi Sport Facility Fund) construction commencement date of July 2023.

Activity	Council Resolution Required	Start	Finish	Time - Months
Selection of preferred option and Community Consultation ‘Fine Tuning’ Concept Design	Yes	Aug-23	Sep-23	1
Approval for DA Lodgement	Yes	Oct-23	Oct-23	1
Development Application Assessment Period		Nov-22	Mar-23	4
Design documentation to 90% - The Canopy Delivery Model		Nov-22	Mar-23	4
Tender Specification and Draft Contract preparation		Feb-23	Mar-23	2
Status Report to Council – Proceed to Tender/RFQ	Yes	Mar-23	Mar-23	1
Tender/RFQ Period 1 - Demolition and Sediment Control		Mar-23	April-23	2
Tender/RFQ Award 1 - Demolition and Sediment Control		Apr-23	Apr-23	1
Tender Period 1 - Construction		Apr-23	May-23	2
Tender Evaluation, Tender Award 1 - Construction	Yes	Apr-23	Jun-23	2
Work Commencement - Demolition and Sediment Control		Jun-23	Jun-23	1
Detailed Site Investigation Stage 2 and Clearance		Jul-23	Jul-23	1
Work Commencement - Construction		Aug-23	Jan-25	18
Commissioning		Feb-25	Mar-25	1
Opening		Apr-25

Consultation for a Multi-Sport Facility (Options 1 and 2)

Statement of Intent

The consultation is designed to inform the community of the concept design for the selected site at the Lane Cove Golf Course site and provide the opportunity for community feedback to ‘fine tune’ the Development Application Plans. Council will consider the feedback in finalising the Development Application submission. The consultation will also include Council’s updated Long-Term Financial Plan for funding of the Project.

Method

Level of Participation	Inform	Consult
Form of Participation	Open	Targeted
Target Audience	Lane Cove Community	Adjacent Residents, Sporting groups, associations and State bodies, Key Message givers, Lane Cove Golf Club, Probus, ‘Save the Dance Floor’
Proposed Medium	eNewsletter, Website (Have Your Say and Hot Topics), Community Briefing, Survey	· Letter/Email with information pack to adjacent residents and previous submission authors (where contact details known), · Community Briefing/Workshop – Architect and Environmental Sustainability Consultant
Indicative Timing	6 weeks Late August /September	6 weeks Late August /September

Consultation for a Multi-Sport Facility – Next Steps (Option 3c)

Statement of Intent

The consultation is designed to inform the community and provide the opportunity for early input into develop concept plans for a Sport and Recreation Facility at Split locations.

Method

Level of Participation	Inform	Consult
Form of Participation	Open	Targeted
Target Audience	Lane Cove Community	Adjacent Residents, Sporting groups, associations and State bodies, Key Message givers, Lane Cove Golf Club, Probus, ‘Save the Dance Floor’
Proposed Medium	eNewsletter, Website (Have Your Say and Hot Topics), Community Briefing, Survey	· Letter/Email with information pack to adjacent residents and previous submission authors (where contact details known), · Community Workshop – Project Architect
Indicative Timing	6 weeks Late August /September	6 weeks Late August /September

Conclusion

If Council wishes to proceed with Option 1 or Option 2 the following resolution is recommended,

That Council:-

1. Adopt the concept design for the provision of a Sport and Recreation Facility at the 180 River Road, Northwood location;

2. Prepare a revised Development Application based on the updated concept design of a 9 Court Facility as prepared by Allen Jack and Cottier;

3. Prior to lodgment of a Development Application, Council:-

a. Undertake a further round of consultation in relation to the concept design to ‘fine tune’ the design as outlined in the report.; and

b. Receive a report on the results of the consultation to the October 2022 meeting to finalise the design and authorise submission of the Development Application.

4. Adopt the funding strategy outlined in the report for the project and the revised Long Term Financial Plan attached to the report for the purposes of exhibition and proceed with community consultation on the revised Long Term Financial Plan as outlined in the report;

5. Council determine a minimum Level of Sustainability / Greenstar Rating and aspirational level and the determined level be stated in the Development Application;

6. The future construction procurement strategy obtain pricing for both Option 1, a five Indoor / four outdoor courts facility and Option 2, a four indoor / 4 outdoor court facility, as amended;

7. Adopt the Business Case for the project, subject to it being updated to reflect the change in Project Costs and the reduction in Debt funding;

8. Council lodge an application under the NSW Government’s Multi-Sport Community Facility Fund for $5M funding towards the project;

9. Council lodge a Capital Expenditure Review with the Office of Local Government for the project; and

10. Delegate authority to the General Manager to enter into a fixed loan agreement for $10 million over 10 years with TCorp utlising the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment interest rate subsidy under the Low-Cost Loans Initiative.

In Council wishes to proceed with Option 3a, 3b or 3c the following resolution is recommended.

That Council:-

1. Delegate authority to the General Manager to undertake further due diligence and to negotiate to obtain affirm price in respect of the identified property in the Lane Cove West Business Park, and prior to acceptance report back to Council;

2. Commence a consultation with stakeholders at the Lane Cove Golf Course site for the development of a plan for the site to accommodate both multi courts and a new Golf Course Clubhouse concept and associated recreation space with additional parking;

3. Call Tenders for consultants for design of the facilities; and

4. Develop a funding strategy for Option 3c.

5. Determine a minimum Level of Sustainability / Greenstar Rating and aspirational level and the determined level be targeted in future design work.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council determine whether to proceed with the project and the preferred option if the project is to proceed.

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Recreation Precinct - Montemare - Lane Cove Council Presentation August 12 Final 2013	37 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Recreation Precinct - Montemare - Indoor Sports Centre Feasibility Study Final Report	119 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑3 View	Lane Cove Sports and Recreation Precinct - Business case - Final May 2021	36 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑4 View	Lane Cove Sports and Recreation Precinct - Business Model Final May 2021 - Appendices A	34 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑5 View	Micromex Report Presentation Telephone Survey Sport and Recreation Precinct August 2020	41 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑6 View	Micromex Report Presentation Online Survey Responses Sport and Recreation Precinct September 2020	40 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑7 View	REPORT Sport and Recreation Facility Locations and Business Case Update - May 2022 Ordinary Meeting	8 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑8 View	Draft Lane Cove Sports and Recreation Centre Revised Concept Design	9 Pages
AT‑9 View	Lane Cove Sport & Recreation Precinct Revised Scheme Traffic Analysis	20 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑10 View	Noise Impact Assessment - Lane Cove Sports & Recreation Centre Revised Scheme	66 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑11 View	Preliminary Acoustic Review of Revised Scheme - Lane Cove Sports & Recreation Precinct	2 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑12 View	Biodiversity Development Assessment Report - Proposed Sports and Recreation Facility - 180 River Road, Lane Cove - DA64/2021	92 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑13 View	Riparian Constraints Assessment Report - Proposed Sports and Recreation Facilities - 180 River Road, Lane Cove - DA64/2021	19 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑14 View	Eco Logical - Addendum to DA64/2021 Flaura and Fauna Impacts	6 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑15 View	Summary Ecology Cumulative Impacts Review - Lane Cove Sport and Recreation Precinct Revised Scheme	5 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑16 View	Sports and Recreation Facility DA64/2021 Stage 1 Detailed Site Investigation (Contamination)	666 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑17 View	Consultants ESD Advice Note - Lane Cove Sport and Recreation Precinct Revised Scheme	34 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑18 View	Sport and Recreation Facility - Dance Floor Areas Comparison Revised Scheme	1 Page
AT‑19 View	Revised Long Term Financial Plan 2022 - August 2022	38 Pages	Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 18 August 2022

Finalisation of the Sustainability Action Plan 2022-2025

Subject: Finalisation of the Sustainability Action Plan 2022-2025

Record No: SU8586 - 44033/22

Division: Environmental Services Division

Author(s): Fiona McCleary

Executive Summary

Council at its meeting of 23 June 2022, resolved to place on public exhibition the Draft Sustainability Action Plan 2022-2025 (SAP) for six (6) weeks and that a report be prepared for Council following this process.

The Draft SAP was placed on public exhibition from 27 June to 7 August 2022, five (5) survey responses and four (4) separate submissions were received. The responses were supportive of the SAP, although some respondents requested an increased emphasis on the natural environment and economic sustainability.

Having regard to the responses, amendments have been made to the Draft SAP to incorporate these suggestions where appropriate. The revised Draft SAP is attached and is recommended to be adopted by Council (AT-1).

Background

The Draft SAP has been developed in collaboration with key stakeholders in the community and Council staff. Council conducted a community-wide survey in late 2021/early 2022 to identify the community's sustainability values and to obtain insights on key issues, gaps, challenges, needs and opportunities regarding sustainability and the environment in Lane Cove.

The feedback was utilized to form the draft actions addressing the natural and built environment, community engagement, economic sustainability, energy, society, sustainable transport and water in the Draft Sustainability Action Plan 2022 – 2025.

Draft SAP Summary

The Draft SAP has three key themes; Livability, Community and Environment, which reflect Council’s quadruple bottom line approach ensuring all decisions consider a balance of economic, environmental, social and governance to enhance the quality of life in Lane Cove.

Each theme has 12 goals and each goal has up to 18 strategic actions, resulting in more than 100 strategic actions to create a more sustainable Lane Cove that is able to be resilient in the face of future challenges.

The DRAFT SAP actions will guide the implementation of priority projects to 2025 to drive environmental improvements, increase the wellbeing of our community, promote and protect the natural environment and ensure sustainable development into the future.

Public Exhibition

Council resolved at its Ordinary Meeting on 23 June 2022 that the Draft SAP be placed on public exhibition for six (6) weeks until the 7 August 2022, and that a further report be prepared for Council on the responses.

The public consultation period was promoted through the following channels:

· Online exhibition on Council's website

· Online exhibition via Council's social media platforms

· E-newsletters

· Notified Council Advisory Committees

· Targeted emails to local sporting associations, schools and residents’ associations

· Targeted email to businesses

· Local media e-news

Discussion

At the end of the exhibition period a total of nine (9) responses were received with all the responses supporting the adoption of the Draft SAP.

Comments raised in the survey and submissions are summarised in Table 1. Proposed amendments to the Draft SAP are listed below (shown attached as AT-1).

Table 1: SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS & PROPOSED CHANGES TO DRAFT SAP

Comments

No. of submissions

Proposed changes to Draft SAP

Economic sustainability – add a fourth theme of ‘Economy’ to the existing goals of Environment, Community and Livability.

No changes proposed.

Economic development and initiatives are actioned in the Livability theme. Reference is made to Goal 12- Vibrant & Viable Commercial Precincts.

Success Indicators - not all success indicators are SMART indicators.

No changes proposed.

SMART indicators are included where appropriate and progress of the actions will be reported through Councils Annual Report.

Add a success indicator about maintaining drainage channels (creeks) through bushland

No changes proposed.

Council does not have the resources to monitor and report on all draining channels.

Our Guiding Principles- create a stand-alone guiding principle for the Natural Environment.

No changes proposed.

Actions relating to the Natural Environment are included in Goal 3. The natural environment is not a stand-alone guiding principle.

- Re-define ‘drinking water grade’ to ‘drinking water end-use’ and ‘non-potable grade’ to ‘non drinking water end-use’

No changes proposed.

The current language used is believed to be clearer and as such better understood by the community.

- Confirm whether the water use

- target is based on drinking water only.

No changes proposed.

The target includes all categories of water i.e potable and non-potable water.

Replace Goal 3 with Goal 1 to prioritise the natural environment

No changes proposed.

The actions outlined in Goal 1: A Circular Economy appears first as the actions are pivotal to sustainability across the LGA, for e.g.:

1.1 Meet Lane Cove’s emissions and water targets by implementing the identified roadmap and pathways

Goal 3: Change wording from Enhance and Value Our Open Space, Waterways and Bushland to Value and Care for our Open Space, Waterways and Bushland

No changes proposed.

It is considered ’enhance’ is stronger than ‘value and care’.

Separate Goal 3 actions into two goals, one for waterways and bushland and the other for parks and sporting fields.

No changes proposed.

Separate goals are not required to ensure waterways and bushland are a priority.

Goal 3: Enhance and Value our Open Space, Waterways and Bushland ensuring development adjacent to open space, waterways and bushland is managed to reduce negative impacts and protects the natural environment.

No changes proposed.

This would change the Goal into an Action.

Action 3.2 addresses the impacts of managing stormwater and developments.

Action 3.5: Optimise usage of existing parks and sports fields through improved, sustainably designed facilities

Change supported and action updated.

Action 3.7: Undertake bush regeneration works to protect, restore and maintain natural areas

Change supported and action updated.

Action 3.14: Coordinate and promote opportunities for community members to participate in their community including through environmentally focused volunteer work

Change supported and action updated.

Action 3.16: Ensure only native plants are used when managing bushland transition areas.

Change supported and action update.

Action 3.18: Continue to contribute to the Bushfire Management Committee and carry out required actions in the Bushfire Risk Management Plan to plan and implement environmental burns.

No changes proposed.

Council to investigate the feasibility of environmental burns.

Action 4.2: Recognise and remediate areas of concern to protect creeks from erosion associated with increased intensity of rainfall

and storm flows

Change supported and action updated.

Ensure non-potable water is used to irrigate green spaces

No changes proposed.

Council has been maximising opportunities to install rain-water tanks to irrigate sports fields.

Community Gardens - change timeline from medium to short

Change supported and timeline updated.

Subsidise solar pv and electric vehicle charging infrastructure in apartments

No changes proposed.

Actions 1.8, 1.13 and 11.11 allow for these initiatives.

Business engagement breakfasts should include 50% sustainability focus

No changes proposed.

The SAP doesn’t define the focus of the business breakfasts however Council will investigate relevant keynote speakers who can present on sustainability issues.

Increase or maintain tree canopy

No changes proposed.

Action 4.3 is considered appropriate.

Action 9.6: Investigate walkable precincts and identify speed limits for livability in local streets

No changes proposed.

All local streets are 50km/h zones unless otherwise stated.

Action 9.7: Create parklets (using car spaces) to increase outdoor dining and social interaction and to improve livability and remove rat-runs

No changes proposed.

Councils Traffic Committee is investigating opportunities to add landscaping and cycle paths to local roads.

Action 12.1: Provide sustainable landscaping in streets (trees, shrubs and other indigenous vegetation where appropriate}.

Change supported and action updated.

Conclusion

This Draft Sustainability Action Plan provides Council with a robust framework in which to continue to purse excellence in sustainability. It was developed with extensive stakeholder engagement from within Council’s diverse range of functional areas, members of Council Advisory Committees, business community and community organisations.

The Draft SAP will raise sustainability performance and ensure best practice outcomes are achieved.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receive and note the report;

2. Adopt the Revised Sustainability Action Plan 2022-2025 (shown attached as AT-1); and

3. Conduct the next review of the Sustainability Action Plan in 2025 and report on progress annually through Council’s Annual Report.

Mark Brisby

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Sustainability Action Plan 2022-2025 - Final

44 Pages

Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 18 August 2022

DCP Amendment No 20 - Part Storeys - Post-Exhibition Report

Subject: DCP Amendment No 20 - Part Storeys - Post-Exhibition Report

Record No: SU8876 - 43983/22

Division: Environmental Services Division

Author(s): Terry Tredrea; Christopher Pelcz

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to outline the results of community consultation for a proposed amendment to the Lane Cove Development Control Plan (DCP) to clarify the definition of “Part storeys” in DCP Part C – Residential Localities - Locality 8 St Leonards South Precinct. (see AT-1).

Council resolved at its 23 June 2022 meeting to exhibit this proposed amendment and to receive a report back on the results of community consultation (AT-2 & AT-3).

A public exhibition was held from 7 July 2022 to 3 August 2022.

In line with the Resolution Council sought legal advice and referred the amendments to the Design Review Panel (AT-4 & AT-5), which is discussed within this report.

A total of Seventeen (17) submissions were received during the exhibition period. Nine (9) were in favour of the proposal, and Eight (8) were opposed. Two submissions raised no argument for their position. The comments can be summarised as follows:

For the Amendment:

1. Perceived Exceeding of Height (6)

2. Unclear definition of part storey (3)

3. Authority of DCP supported (1)

4. Protection of Deep soil objective (1)

Against the Amendment:

1. Prevailing authority of the LEP [height & FSR] (4)

2. No Negative Environmental Impacts of current part storeys control (3)

3. Negative impact on dwelling yield (4)

4. Procedural fairness/justice (3)

5. Against accepted practice within the planning system (3)

6. Orderly development Objective of EP&A Act (2)

7. Effect on Streetscape visual amenity of reduced number of part storeys (2)

8. Against principles of Transit-Orientated Development (1)

9. No Planning Grounds to justify (1)

Issues that were not relevant or not the subject of this draft DCP amendment:

1. Overdevelopment of St Leonard’s South in general (2)

2. Affordable housing (1)

3. Council procedures (1)

4. Technical points regarding mapping & Tables (1)

5. Averaging of Prescriptive measures (1)

6. Hierarchy of documents (DCP above LMP) (1)

Two (2) submissions offered no arguments, one favoring and one opposing the proposal.

The relevant issues are addressed within this Report.

Based on the submissions, the Design Review Panel comments and legal advice, it is recommended that Council adopt the amendments with revised wording deleting the proposed 1 Part Storey limitation.

Background

Lane Cove Council Development Control Plan 2010 (the DCP) contains site specific controls for Part C Residential Localities - Locality 8 St Leonard’s South Precinct. Included in the controls for building envelopes is the provision for Height of Buildings (in storeys). This describes the maximum height of the proposed buildings in storeys, unlike the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan which sets the building heights in metres.

The St Leonards South Master Plan of 2014, identified “steep south-facing slopes” as one of the five major constraints to development, and one of the Goals for the Objective of Streetscape Amenity was for “topography to be followed, tapering towards south”.

The draft Landscape Master Plan of 2017 assumed multiple part storeys in order to accommodate an 18 metre fall from west to east (Figure 1). The final St Leonards South DCP resulting from public exhibition in 2020 addressed the matter of part storeys:

Part storeys resulting from excavation of steep slopes or semi basement parking will not count as a storey.

Figure 1: Landscape Master Plan section of east-west pedestrian link showing multiple part storeys to accommodate topography.

Following a recent Councillor Workshop, Councillors sought clarity on the Part Storey control by amending the DCP to limit the part storeys to a maximum of one and to apply these provisions retrospectively.

Public Exhibition

The proposed amendment was on public exhibition from 7July 2022 to 3 August 2022, as per the planning regulations and the Lane Cove Community Participation Plan 2019, and included the following:-

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

· Lane Cove community groups, including the Greenwich Community Association;

· Notice of the proposal (via 1200 letters) distributed to:

o affected property owners and tenants;

o adjoining Local Government Areas (Willoughby and North Sydney);

o NSW Dept of Planning and Environment;

· On-line exhibition on Council’s website (Have Your Say); and

· Poster at the Lane Cove Civic Centre.

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

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

Discussion

The issues raised in the public submissions are discussed below.

A. For the amendments

1. Perceived Exceeding of Height

“There are obvious contradictions between the DCP and other height control planning documents/maps for St Leonards South (SLS).”

Some buildings were

“able to add 2 [or] 3 part storeys each. While many in the community objected to the heights and storeys set out in the DCP and LEP for SLS, once in place, the minimum the community should be able to expect is the controls are adhered to and hopefully these amendments will achieve this.”

For example, some buildings have used unusually high storey heights [above the usual 3.1m floor-to-floor]. Some have used mezzanines to hide storey height [a mezzanine is not a “storey”].

Comment:

It is agreed that the current DCP does not restrict the number of part storeys to one.

Thus, the maximum density as expressed by height and FSR is already set. Other potential impacts on the perception of bulk and scale of a building (such as those pertaining to parking, solar access, privacy and amenity), are mitigated by the DCP, the LEP and SEPP 65 (through the Apartment Design Guide).

2. Authority of DCP supported

“It is important [maximum storey numbers] apply to all developments before Council effective immediately. However, the community still has the right to know:

· How was the DCP drafted so incorrectly to allow this to happen in the first place?

· Who has taken responsibility or been made accountable for the gross exceedances which have already slipped through because of it?

Comment:

Figure 1 shows that it was always envisaged that multiple buildings with steep topography would require part storeys. It is important to note that the approved developments have not breached the LEP height and floor space ratios, the DCP number of storeys and comply with the requirements for part storeys.

It is possible to have a development which complies with both the LEP and DCP height controls but has more than one part storey. In circumstances where the part storeys are a product of slope and topography, there is no planning basis for limiting the number or footprint of those part storeys when they do not result in a breach of the LEP controls and would not have any adverse impacts.

3. Unclear definition of part storey

The resolution seeks clarity on the definition of a “Part storey”.

Comment:

Council’s legal advice has provided suggested wording – this is provided in the ‘Other matters’ section of this report.

4. Protection of Deep soil objective

The addition to the Built Form Objective (3) “to minimise subterranean carpark protrusions” is also supported as these protrusions reduce the area available for deep soil, necessary for planting large trees in urban streets. Such protrusions may also destroy the root zones of large existing trees.

Comment:

The DCP already has controls related to basement protrusions and edge treatments. The purpose of these controls is to maximise the amount of deep soil within the Green Spine.

On the issue of deep soil for trees, the Design Review Panel also notes that based on the exhibited amendments:

“Any reductions to courtyards and recesses at street level [as described as a potential consequence], may also affect the ability of a development to preserve existing mature tree planting and respond to other existing site specific conditions. These factors could similarly effect the north-south communal open spaces, resulting in more pronounced “canyon” effects to these spaces.”

B. Against the amendments

1. Procedural fairness/justice

It is submitted that one applicant [in fact several] had a number of discussions with Council regarding the storey control, and even amended their DA in response to previous comments from Council.

One applicant notes that “significant time and resources” have been invested in preparing and amending their DA., and it is “clearly unjust to introduce a retrospective control which may then be used as a basis for refusing the DA.”

Comment:

Council’s legal advice concludes that under Section 3.43(4) of the EP&A Act, “the statutory power to amend a development control plan does not carry with it any entitlement on the part of those who are adversely affected by the change to be compensated.”

2. Against accepted planning practice

Council previously resolved to amend the savings provisions to apply the part storey controls retrospectively. This amendment means that St Leonards South development applications (DAs) which are already before Council for assessment and determination will be subject to a new control which was not contemplated at the time that some DAs were submitted, in one instance 8 months previously. “This is contrary to why savings provisions are widely used in planning controls, and in effect, it undermines the integrity of the planning system, which is based on land owners having certainty as to planning controls”.

Comment:

Council’s legal advice concludes that a potential savings clause for this amendment could be:

1.6A. The provisions of this DCP as amended by Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009 (Amendment No. 20) apply to development applications made both before and after Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009 (Amendment No. 20) came into effect, despite any other provision of this DCP.”

In determining a development application for St Leonards South, Council must consider the provisions of the LCDCP as in force on 1 November 2020 when deciding whether the development exhibits design excellence under clause 7.6 of the LEP.

3. Orderly development Objective of EP&A Act

It is submitted that:

“One of the key objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) is to promote the orderly development of land (see cl1.3). Changing the savings provision so that landowners cannot rely upon current controls to develop the land and are instead subject to any amendment to a planning control made at any time, clearly undermines the objects of the EP&A Act.”

Comment:

See previous response.

4. No justifiable planning grounds

The submitter suggests that “the steep slopes are the very reason why the part storey control should not be limited to one part-storey”. In fact:

“…any development which includes multiple part-storeys yet satisfies the

maximum height and FSR standards would readily be able to satisfy the objectives of

both the LEP and DCP. There are no grounds in which additional part-storeys (or storeys) result in direct additional environmental impacts that are not currently addressed by other statutory planning instruments.”

Comment:

The Local Environmental Plan and Development Control “operate in conjunction” with each other. They do so in the manner in which any DCP operates to resolve the design detail of the more ‘broad-brush’ LEP control. The LEP sets up the broad envelope in which a building’s bulk and scale is permitted. Then the DCP offers guidance on the built form.

In the instance of part-storeys, the DCP gives effect to the aims and objectives of the LEP with respect to envisaged height and density (FSR and setbacks).

5. Prevailing authority of the LEP [height & FSR]

It is submitted that “unlike DCP controls which are not binding, the height and FSR controls in the LEP are binding.” Therefore,

“it is possible to have a development which complies with both the LEP and DCP controls but has more than one part storey. In circumstances where the part storeys are a product of slope and topography, we cannot see any planning basis for limiting the number or footprint of those part storeys when they do not result in a breach of the LEP controls and would not have any adverse impacts.”

Comment:

The existing part storeys provision within the DCP exists to provide opportunities and flexibility to allow for site specific architectural response associated with the site characteristics and topography constraints. Specifically, the existing part storey controls recognises sloping topography across the Precinct and allows for part storeys of basement or semi-basement resulting from excavation of steep slopes to not count as storeys. This is a common planning and design issue.

6. No Negative Environmental Impacts of current part storeys control

It is submitted that

“… the current limit on the number of storeys set by the DCP generally fall short of the maximum building height achievable on the sites within the St Leonards South precinct. Limiting the number of the storeys when there is a maximum height and FSR set under an environmental planning instrument is both arbitrary and unnecessary.”

“The number of storeys, much less part-storeys, that can be included within this maximum height bears no real influence on the environmental impacts of a development. Whilst additional part storeys may result in additional density on a site, this density is limited by the maximum height and FSR. And other potential impacts (such as those pertaining to parking, solar access, privacy, amenity, etc) are dealt with by other controls throughout the LEP, DCP and relevant State Environmental Planning Policies.”

Comment:

The maximum density as expressed by height and FSR is already set. And other potential impacts (such as those pertaining to parking, solar access, privacy and amenity) are mitigated by the DCP, the LEP and Apartment Design Guide.

As stated by the Design Review Panel:

“The Panelists observe that based on the multiple DRP reviews completed within the Precinct over the past 2 years, the existing provision (which places no limit on the number of part storeys), has contributed positively to the objectives of the DCP and ADG, in respect to achieving high-quality public domain, articulated built form, active street walls and housing diversity.”

7. Effect on Streetscape visual amenity of reduced number of part storeys

A Computer-generated graphic has been submitted showing the difference in streetscape activation between two and only one part storey (see Figures 2 & 3). On the east corner of Berry Road and the new road, for example, two part-floors are activated by residential frontage. Where only one part-floor is permitted, a blank, inhospitable ground floor remains.

A picture containing outdoor, road, tree, street

Description automatically generated

Figure 2: Impact of controls – Potential building along new road with two part storeys

Figure 3: Impact of controls – Potential building along new road with one part storey

Figure 6B Section explaining Figure 6A

Comment

Figures 2 & 3 provide examples of the current controls functioning to address the protrusions created by the excavation of basement parking. This provides supporting evidence that Council should not restrict the number of part storeys.

The Design Review Panel raises extreme concern with this aspect as they note that “the DCP amendment may have the effect of:

· Reducing the gross floor area (and resulting FSR) that can be achieved on some sites and/or;

· Cause developers and their design teams to seek alternative solutions to achieving the FSR permitted by the LEP, which may for example include the reduction of dwellings to street level and “filling” of space between buildings and within facade recesses; and

· Reducing the level of flexibility available to form high quality design solutions.”

“This may result in the introduction of blank street walls or louvred walls to car parking. Lower scale town-housing and apartments that conceal potentially unattractive car parking, have formed an important part of design proposals and DA’s within the Precinct. They contribute to higher quality street amenity for pedestrians in the form of street courtyards, recessed entrances, street gates and associated landscaping which reduce the apparent scale of the buildings at street level. Given the prevailing scale and character of 1 and 2 storey houses within the surrounding neighbourhoods, the use of townhouses and podiums within the Precinct contribute to a site’s integration with the context.”

“Any loss of ground level dwellings to streets and communal open spaces may reduce opportunities for social interaction between residents of the development and with the surrounding community.”

8. Anti-Transit Orientated Development

It is submitted that, “… such an amendment is contrary to the “TOD” development idea”

Comment:

The Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) principles that underpin the St Leonards South Master Plan include density principles such as:

· “Incorporate higher density residential uses in TOD precinct[s] to increase vitality and provide more convenient access to services and transport;

· Locate development around nodes or corridors where infrastructure capacity exists, or can be created;

· Prioritise locations with high levels of transit service frequency; and

· Ensure TOD occurs at a scale that is appropriate for the location.”

9. Negative impact on dwelling yield

It is submitted that:

“If further constraints are put, [then] the number of units will fall below the gazetted number….where is the council going to put these lost units? is it going to be put as medium density housing in the low-rise areas? Wouldn’t that be further away than the train, Metro and bus interchange?”

Comment:

Council’s housing targets and locations for additional residential development are addressed in the Local Housing Strategy. The Design Review Panel makes the following observation:

“The proposed DCP amendment may have the effect of reducing the GFA and FSR that can be achieved on a typical site. This may lead to a reduced capacity to meet Lane Cove Council’s overall housing targets. Developers may also argue that the infrastructure requirements contained on some Areas, such as childcare and community centres, should be removed as they were contingent upon the developers ability to meet the prescribed FSR and only necessary for such higher densities. However a more likely outcome will be that developers and design teams seek alternative solutions for maximising the permitted gross floor area. This may lead to negative impacts on building massing, amenity and landscape quality.”

Other matters

E-W pedestrian link setback control

Reference is made to previous Council resolutions in relation to the 6 metre setback to the east-west pedestrian link (i.e. ‘the blue line’). Council’s legal advice has provided recommended wording to strengthen this control.

Please note this cannot form part of the part storeys DCP amendment. Legal advice confirms that this separate amendment cannot be undertaken as an administrative matter nor can it be done as part of the part storey amendment.

Despite the above, the advice states that in order to make it clear that any building is to be setback a minimum of 6m from the edge of the 15m east-west pathway, the provisions relating to “Buildings Setback F” should be changed to read as follows;

“6m at level 1 to level 4 and 9m at level 5 and above” and the words “To pathway reservation as shown in Figure 5(b) for Areas 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16 and 17” should be added in the Notes/Location column.

Design Review Panel

After review of these draft amendments, Council’s Design Review Panel (AT-5) did not support the amendments in brief as follows;

· It could lead to a number of unintended consequences including “a reduction to the number of building storeys that can be achieved within development sites, thereby placing pressure on developers and design teams to achieve the permitted GFA and FSR in other ways.”

· This may result in a changed approach to building designs, including reductions to the use of townhouses and other desirable housing typologies, which contribute to high quality public domain and sustainable and energy efficient dwellings. Other impacts may include an increase to building sizes and loss of desirable building articulation, all of which are essential to creating a high-quality urban environment and to meeting the requirements of the ADG for high levels of solar access, cross ventilation and daylighting.”

· “… it is unlikely that this amendment would lead to reduced building heights given the controls within the LEP relate to height and not storey numbers”. In many cases the permitted FSR and density may be achieved anyway, however with a reduced level of design quality, which forms the principle terms of reference for this Panel.

In addressing the impacts in more detail, “a number of negative outcomes on built form and scale may result, including:

· More massive podiums with blank walls,

· Taller podium/street buildings, given the DCP control is in levels/storeys not metres,

· The filling of street courtyards and facade recesses with floor area in order to increase GFA. This would be contrary to the objectives of the ADG, which seek to maximise building articulation,

· The adjoining of adjacent buildings in the case of development sites that include multiple Areas. This could result in much longer buildings with negative impacts on building massing and scale and pedestrian amenity,

· The exposing of ground level and part basement parking to the street and

· The possible raising of ground levels adjacent to streets and communal open spaces with cut and fill, in order to raise the measurement datum of the first storey. This could have a similar effect of reducing ground level amenity.

Other outcomes “may include the introduction of 2 -level mezzanine style apartments to the upper levels, which may be argued as constituting only one storey as defined by the NCC. In this situation there may be no reduction to the building massing or overall yield and FSR achieved.”

In the opinion of the Design Review Panel, “the DRP does therefore not support the proposed amendment to the St Leonard South DCP.”

Legal Advice

The relevant advice recommends amending the current control to the following:

“A part storey will not count as a storey”.

In order to clarify the definition, it is recommended that the term part storey be expressed in the DCP Dictionary as follows:

“part storey means a storey where the floor level is partly more than 1 metre below ground level (existing) and where the space within the storey is predominantly used as non-habitable space (such as for car parking, vehicular access, plant rooms, mechanical services, loading areas, waste storage or the like) that is ancillary to the main purpose for which the building is used”.

However, the word ‘predominantly’ is open to interpretation. As such it is recommended to replace the word ‘predominantly’ with 50%. The new definition would then read:

“part storey means a storey where the floor level is partly more than 1 metre below ground level (existing) and where 50% of the space within the storey is used as non-habitable space (such as for car parking, vehicular access, plant rooms, mechanical services, loading areas, waste storage or the like) that is ancillary to the main purpose for which the building is used.”

In relation to the potential savings clause for this amendment, the legal advice recommends the following:

Nevertheless, under section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the EP&A Act, when determining a development application it is a requirement to consider the provisions of any development control plan that is in force as at the date of determination of the development application, subject to the operation of any savings provision that may be contained in that version of the development control plan.

Conclusion

After considering the public submissions, advice from the Design Review Panel, and legal advice it is recommended that the following:

a. Proceed with the amended definitions;

b. Not proceed to limit the maximum number of part storeys to one; and

c. Proceed with the suggested savings provisions.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. proceed with the proposed DCP Amendment No 20 in relation to Part Storeys with the following amendments:-

a. replace the existing control with “A part storey will not count as a storey”,

b. Add the following definition to the Dictionary section of the DCP –

c. Include a new Section A.1.6A as follows;

The provisions of this DCP as amended by Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009 (Amendment No. 20) apply to development applications made both before and after Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009 (Amendment No. 20) came into effect, despite any other provision of this DCP.”

2. Not proceed to limit the maximum number of part storeys allowed.

3. Prepare a draft Development Control Plan amendment to address the E-W pedestrian link setbacks as follows, the provisions relating to Building setback F should be changed as follows:-

a. to read “6m at level 1 to level 4 and 9m at level 5 and above”; and

b. to add “To pathway reservation as shown in Figure 5(b) for Areas 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16 and 17” to the Notes/Location column.

Mark Brisby

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Exhibited Amendment No. 20 to Lane Cove DCP	2 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Report to Council meeting, 23 June 2022	4 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑3 View	Minutes to Council meeting, 23 June 2022	1 Page	Available Electronically
AT‑4 View	Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulations - Section 15	1 Page	Available Electronically
AT‑5 View	NSROC Design Review Panel Advice - DCP Part Storey amendment	6 Pages	Available Electronically

Action	Date
Council resolves to refer the 2021/22 financial accounts to external audit (Council Meeting)	18 August
External audit is conducted by the Audit Office (via Grant Thornton)	5 September to 5 October
Draft 2021/22 Financial Statements presented to the Internal Audit Committee for its review	Early October
Externally audited 2021/22 financial statements are presented to Council for sign-off and released for public exhibition (Council Meeting)	20 October
Submit externally audited 2021/22 Financial Statements and Audit Reports to the Office of Local Government	On or before 31 October
Report to Council relating to the tabling of any public submissions received (Council Meeting) and External Auditors presentation to Council	24 November

AT‑1 View	Community Consultation Workshop Session Notes	7 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Community Engagement Policy	9 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑3 View	Community Consultation Matrix	1 Page	Available Electronically

AT‑1 View	Agenda - Traffic Commitee - July 2022	18 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Minutes - Traffic Committee - July 2022	11 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑3 View	Deferred Items - Traffic Committee - May 2022	7 Pages	Available Electronically