Agenda of Ordinary Council - Thursday, 21 September 2023

Ordinary Council 21 September 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

APOLOGIES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO COUNTRY

MINUTE OF SILENCE FOR RELECTION OR PRAYER

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

public forum

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

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1. ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 24 AUGUST 2023

Mayoral Minutes

2. Mayoral Minute - Striving for best practice and effective relationships between our Community, Councillors and Council Officers........................................................................................................................ 5

Orders Of The Day

3. Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor.......................................................... 11

Notices of Motion

4. Notice of Motion - Support for Early Childhood Education in the Local Government Sector................................................................................. 13

5. Notice of Motion - Operating Models for Early Childhood Education Facilities in Lane Cove.......................................................................................... 15

Officer Reports for Determination

6. Sustainability Review of Councils Development Control Plan Exhibition Outcomes.............................................................................................. 17

7. 5G Cell Towers Request for Information - Update................................ 26

8. Jean Mitchell Lucretia Baths Restoration............................................... 30

9. Opening of Wadanggari Park and St Leonards Library...................... 35

10. Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement for 524 - 542 Pacific Highway, St Leonards.................................................................................................................... 40

11. Investment Policy Review................................................................................... 43

12. Community Consultation Results on the Revised Works Schedule - Lane Cove Section 7.11 Contributions Plan............................................... 47

13. 2023 Australian Liveability Census................................................................ 49

14. 2023 Local Government NSW Conference Voting Delegates............. 51

15. New Independent Members of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee................................................................................................................... 52

16. Synthetic Turf Surfaces in Lane Cove LGA................................................ 54

17. Greenwich Baths Lease Arrangements....................................................... 60

18. Community Consultation Results on the Draft Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy and Strategy.................................................................... 63

19. Councillor Representation on Council Advisory Committees and Other External Organisations to September 2024................................ 65

20. Committee Member Appointments - Theatre Space Planning Reference Group & Dog Advisory Committee................................................................... 68

21. Community Consultation Results and Finalisation of the Review of Ward Boundaries.................................................................................................... 70

Officer Reports for Information

22. Council Snapshot August 2023......................................................................... 72

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

Confidential Items

23. Senior Staff Matters

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the matter will involve the discussion of personnel matters concerning a particular individual; it further being considered that discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to public interest by reason of the foregoing and as it discusses potential appointments to Senior Staff positions.

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2023

Mayoral Minute - Striving for best practice and effective relationships between our Community, Councillors and Council Officers

Subject: Mayoral Minute - Striving for best practice and effective relationships between our Community, Councillors and Council Officers

Record No: SU6840 - 54956/23

Division: Lane Cove Council

Author(s): Councillor Andrew Zbik

Executive summary

This Council has achieved many great things for our community during this short Council term. A brief but not complete summary is:

a. Striving to implement new sustainability initiatives to transition Council and our broader community to a net-zero carbon economy and society.

b. Improving the way in which Council consults and collaborates with our community.

c. Commencement of new initiatives such as the conversion of Council Chambers into a much needed performing arts space, a new toy library, men’s shed and library of things.

d. Completion of Wadanggari Park and St Leonards Library.

e. Commencement of the Lane Cove Sport & Recreation Centre after 15 years of planning and preparation.

f. Collaborative approach with residents to revise the Bob Campbell Oval Masterplan.

All of the above has been achieved whilst maintaining ongoing financial stability and long-term sustainability.

It is important that Council achieves outcomes for our community. It is also important that Council and Councillors progress achievements in a manner that follows correct processes and policies.

During this Council term, all Councillors have experienced pressure from a small group of residents and some community action groups to resolve via Council resolution the following:

1. Approve tender documents for a major Council project.

2. Approval of a major construction contract.

3. Appointment of individual companies without following Local Government Procurement Guidelines or formal recommendations from Council Officers.

4. Provide legal commentary on an already executed lease.

The role of a Councillor.

Councillors are not required under the Local Government Act to possess the skills, expertise or experience to execute operational matters delegated to the General Manager and Council Officers.

The role of a Councillor as defined by the Local Government Act and summarised in the Councillor Handbook is:

· to be an active and contributing member of the governing body

· to make considered and well-informed decisions as a member of the governing body

· to participate in the development of the Integrated Planning and Reporting framework

· to represent the collective interests of residents, ratepayers, and the local community

· to facilitate communication between the local community and the governing body

· to uphold and represent accurately the policies and decisions of the governing body

· to make all reasonable efforts to acquire and maintain the skills necessary to perform the role of a councillor.

The relationship between Councillors and Council Officers:

The below graphic provides an overview of the relationship between Councillors, the General Manager and Council Officers:

A blue and white sign with arrows

Description automatically generated

A blue sign with white text

Description automatically generated

Source: NSW Councillor Handbook

The challenges of being a Councillor.

Council’s follow the principle of a representative democracy. Councillors are elected to represent the collective interest of the whole community – not the specific interests of a member of the community. The Parliamentary Education Office states “Citizens choose representatives to make decision on their behalf.”

This means that there is no ‘one-on-one’ relationship between a constituent (or a small group of constituents) and a Councillor in decision-making, because a Councillor is essentially making decisions on behalf of the whole community.

Councillors face many competing pressures:

1. Managing residents’ expectations and dealing with the reality that in many instances, there will be members of the community in favour and members of the community against a matter. A Councillor’s role is to balance the information and views of members of the community to make a decision. This will not always please all residents.

2. Providing strategic direction and oversight of Council.

3. Working with Council Officers.

The pressure of managing the above competing obligations has at times placed stress on the relationships between Councillors and Council Officers.

To assist with achieving a cohesive and respectful relationship between Councillors and Council Officers, Council engaged Brave People Solutions from July 2022 to February 2023 to run a series of facilitated workshops at the cost of $28,000. Further, Council engaged LGNSW in July 2023 for a further round of interviews at the cost of $4,400.

The relationship between Mayor and the General Manager

Section 226(j) of the Local Government Act (NSW) confers a unique responsibility upon the Mayor:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 — SECT 226

Role of mayor

The role of the mayor is as follows—

…..

(j) to advise, consult with and provide strategic direction to the general manager in relation to the implementation of the strategic plans and policies of the council,

The NSW Councillor Handbook on page 21 states “The role of the mayor on a council is that of the ‘first among equals’. The mayor has the same role and responsibilities as councillors but has additional responsibilities that reflect their leadership role.”

Further the NSW Councillor Handbook on page 17 states:

A close-up of a text

Description automatically generated

Concerns

My concerns are as follows:

1. The expectation from some members of our community and some community groups are that Councillors are to have the in-depth knowledge, skills, experience and expertise that is actually entrusted upon Council Officers.

2. Some resolutions brought before this Council in response to community pressure, has unnecessarily brought risk upon Councillors personally as a result of not trusting the skills, expertise and experience of Council Officers.

3. Resolutions have been passed by this Council that are overly prescriptive and have hampered the good operation and implementation of Council’s plans. Resolutions need to be clearer in their strategic intent and oversight.

4. Criticism has been levelled towards the Mayor (Both present and past) for having a good working relationship with the General Manager and Executive staff. In the opinion of some, the ‘Mayor is a lacky of the General Manager”.

Objectives - A way forward

The objective of the Mayoral Minute is:

1. Set a timeline for Councillors and Council Officers to devise a ‘Councillor and Staff Interaction Policy’ based on the model policy issued by the Office of Local Government (Model Policy number 47330/23). This policy to consider:

1. Discuss matters such as ‘Councillor Requests’ in the context of finite resources, with a view to having a shared understanding of what is considered reasonable.

2. Reflect on the work we did together with Brave People Solutions, particularly the interactions and behaviours we defined as ‘above the line’ and consider those in the context of the Model Policy.

3. Have a shared understanding of the distinction between strategy and operations, and how this might be applied in the context of the Model Policy.

4. Understand the expectations of Councillors relating to the skills, expertise and experience required to perform civic duties alongside the skills, expertise and experience Council Officers are employed to provide.

2. Be transparent with our community about the challenges this Council has faced.

3. Protect all Councillors from being placed in a position where Council resolutions are placing risk upon Councillors personally for matters that should not be considered by Council.

4. Lead our community to understand the role of Councillors, Council Officers and Council as a body.

5. Build trust with our community through understanding the correct roles and interactions between community members, community organisations, Councillors, the Mayor, the General Manager, Council Officers and experts engaged by Council.

6. Striving for a healthy relationship between Councillors and Council Officers will which achieve better effectiveness and efficiency of Council delivering for our community.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Notes $32,400 has been spent on facilitated workshops between Councillors and Council Officers.

2. Notes guidance has been provided to Councillors by legal representatives of Local Government NSW on Monday 11th September advising:

a. Councillors should not seek to undertake activities or make decisions which are related to the operational activities of the Council as this is the domain of the General Manager and council staff.

b. Councillors may be held liable if the governing body makes a decision based on the councillor’s own research / advice / experience. To avoid this risk, Councillors can and need to request the General Manager to investigate / enquire into a matter and provide a report back to Council to consider.

c. Councillors have protection from liability under Section 731 of the Local Government Act (NSW) which provides that “A matter or thing done by a councillor does not, if the matter or thing was done in good faith, and for and on behalf of the council, subject a councillor to any action, liability, claim or demand.”

d. Councillors should mitigate risk in relation to comments or actions that give rise to psychosocial hazards for council staff in the workplace, which can include interfering / undermining / bullying.

e. While councillors are free, subject to their obligations under the council’s code of conduct, to advocate a position on matters that are before the council for a decision, once a decision has been made, they are required to uphold the policies and decisions of the council.

f. Councillors can be at risk if they do not fully consider the information provided to them. A Councillor can mitigate this risk by requesting more information or seeking more time to consider a matter.

g. Councillors create risk through publishing information that is too detailed, is at risk of waiving legal privilege, or leads the public to misinterpret it due to a lack of context.

h. Councillors cannot seek legal advice (or any advice) from a Council contractor (Refer to Clause 7.2 of the Code of Conduct).

i. Councillors should not direct Council Officers to appoint any company or entity without following recommendations by Council Officers in accordance with the Procurement Guidelines and the Local Government Regulation 2021.

3. Hold community workshops for local residents and local community groups to discuss the role of Councillors, Council Officers and the operation of Council.

4. Council conducts facilitated workshop for Councillors to develop:

a. Shared understanding with examples of the distinction between strategy and operations

b. Finding the balance between community opinion and advice from professional staff

c. What is good governance and how is it demonstrated?

b. Finding the balance between providing preventative advice and the conduct provisions contained with the Code of Conduct

5. Resolve to work towards creating and adopting a ‘Councillor and Staff Interaction Policy’ in this term of Council.

Councillor Andrew Zbik

Councillor

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Councillor Handbook 2021

98 Pages

Available Electronically

Subject: Sustainability Review of Councils Development Control Plan Exhibition Outcomes

Record No: SU6808 - 47514/23

Division: Environmental Services Division

Author(s): Terry Tredrea; Christopher Pelcz

Executive Summary

This report provides the results of the community consultation in relation to the proposed amendments to the Lane Cove Development Control Plan (DCP). These amendments incorporate into the DCP Sustainability initiatives related to climate change and emission reductions within the Lane Cove community.

A public exhibition of the proposal was held for 6 weeks from 3 July 2023 to 13 August 2023 in accordance with Councils Community Participation Plan.

A total of four (4) submissions were received in response to the Public Exhibition. The issues are listed and addressed in Table 1 in this report.

Further to the Council Resolution the Draft DCP amendments were referred to the Design Review Panel {DRP}. The issues raised by the DRP are listed and addressed in Table 2 in this report.

All the submissions have been reviewed, and several amendments have been made in response to the matters raised. These amendments include several housekeeping corrections to errors of punctuation, grammar and structure along with updates to references to legislation.

The final draft DCP is attached as AT-2 to AT-23.

The draft DCP including the proposed amendments has been developed to address environmental sustainability considerations such as emission reduction, urban heat & resilience, and protection of the Lane Cove local environment and is recommended for adoption.

Background

Council’s at its meeting of 22 June, 2023, resolved that Council:-

1. Place the Draft Development Control Plan and supporting documents on exhibition for a period of 6 weeks in accordance with the Consultation Plan.

2. Forward the draft amendments to Council’s Design Review Panel for consideration during public exhibition; and

3. Receive a further report following the exhibition period.

Discussion

A public exhibition of the draft DCP was held for 6 weeks from 3 July 2023 to 13 August 2023. A total of four (4) submissions were received.

Two of the submissions were via the online survey on the consultation webpage and two were formal written submissions.

Engagement with the online ‘Have Your Say’ exhibition was as follows:

· 105 visitors to the site.

· 45 of these visitors indicated they demonstrated evidence of reading the information.

· 3 of the visitors were engaged sufficiently to make a submission.

The submissions have been reviewed and considered as listed in Table 1.

On 25^th July, the Design Review Panel conducted a one-day workshop to review the proposed DCP. Subsequently, the DRP provided a comprehensive report including several suggested modifications and considerations (AT-1).

These suggested modifications and considerations are listed and addressed in Table 2.

(AT-1 – DCP Review – Design Review Panel Minutes).

The amendments proposed following the public exhibition period of the draft DCP are indicated in the revised Parts of the DCP (AT-2 to AT-23). These amendments include several housekeeping corrections to errors of punctuation, grammar, and structure along with updates to legislation references.

Many of the new sustainability provisions have been incorporated into the existing Parts of the DCP. It should be noted that a new Part titled Environmental Sustainability has been created to highlight many of the new initiatives.

For reference see the following.

PART S – ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

· All-electric buildings

· On Site Solar

· Refrigerants

· Natural Ventilation

· Glazing

· Urban Heat and Shade

· Sustainable Materials

· Design and Construction impacts

· Water Efficiency

· Stormwater Management.

As previously stated, the other sustainable initiatives have been incorporated in the following existing Parts of the DCP:

· PART B – GENERAL - Energy & Water Efficiency.

· PART H – BUSHLAND PROTECTION - Urban Biodiversity

· PART J – LANDSCAPING - Urban tree canopy

· PART O – STORMWATER MANAGEMENT - Water Resilience

· PART Q –WASTE MANAGEMENT & MINIMISATION – Waste Management Infrastructure

· PART R – TRAFFIC, TRANSPORT & PARKING - EV Infrastructure

Submissions

The matters raised by the submissions are listed and addressed in the following table.

Table 1: Matters raised by the 4 community submissions.

Matters raised by the community submissions	Response
PART B – GENERAL CONTROLS
Broaden the definition of “sustainability” beyond the environmental view.	Disagree. A balanced definition is included please to refer Clause 6.3 Energy and water efficiency for buildings. please
PART F – ACCESS & MOBILITY
Reference Lane Cove Local Housing Strategy identified changing visitability requirements for apartments.	Agreed. Replace visitability requirements with the Livable Housing Design Guidelines’ Silver level requirements for all apartments.
Specific standards quoted are prone to changing name.	Agreed. Reference relevant Australian Standards.
PART H – BUSHLAND PROTECTION
Development Provisions in Part J should reference H.5.1 Bushland Area.	Disagree. Section H.6 is relevant to bushland protection, whereas Section J.5.4 Development adjacent to Bushland is relevant to landscape development.
Definition of “bushland” – restricted to a development site containing Environmental Protection Layer.	Noted. Adjusted as suggested.
Assess development impacts on a). habitat, and b). on the area of tree canopy to be actually replaced.	Noted. Reference Parts H.6.3 (c) and H. 5 Urban Biodiversity, and Part J.3.6 on canopy cover.
Bushland protection supported through compliance with the 10m buffer zone, which itself requires a detailed definition.	Agreed.
10m buffer should include to side buffers, not just rear, depending on area of site.	Disagree. Smaller sites not practical or enforceable. Each development assessed on merit.
Assess light spill impacts, especially on bushland.	Agreed.
Remove reference to the 10m buffer as merely a “guide”.	Agreed.
New light-spill measures required, “consistent with Greenstar”, to mitigate impacts on local fauna	Noted. New light-spill measures consistent with National Light Pollution Guidelines for wildlife have greater weight than Greenstar.
Bushland rehabilitation and maintenance planning should be costed “in perpetuity”, regardless of change of ownership (H.8).	Disagree. Considered too onerous.
“Strong and effective” measures required for erosion and sediment control plans.	Agreed. In Council’s DA checklist for development, an erosion and sediment control plans are required at development assessment stage.
Figures 1 & 2 are too small to read.	Agreed. Size increased.
PART J – LANDSCAPING
Ensure no net canopy loss.	Disagreed, Can “achieve” where practical. See J.3.5.
Development adjacent to bushland in Part J is “inconsistent” with Part H.	Disagreed. Part J defers to Part H, which refers to bushland on and/or adjacent to development.
Previous DCP refers to “indigenous bushland areas”. Where is this listed “below”?	Refer to J.5.4 Development Adjacent to Bushland. Specific locations are not now listed, to allow for ease of adding or amending areas. See Council’s Flora Assessment and Vegetation Mapping Review For E2 Bushland Reserves by Applied Ecology Pty Ltd, June 2023.
Species selection should be related to soil.	Agreed. See Appendix 1 – Locally Indigenous Plant Lists.
Include mid-story-height species, not just tall trees.	Noted. Refer to Table 1.2 (Urban Tree Canopy requirements).
Differentiate between ‘replenishment planting’ and ‘replacement planting’, if any difference.	Agreed. Replace ‘replenishment’ with ‘replacement’
Avoid hybrids	Disagreed. Can’t mandate this because hybrids may be needed for greater survivability.
tree species selection and location should reference optimising growth to maturity.	Agreed. See Objective 2 in J.2.2 and J.3.6 (provision iv). Replacement trees must be able to reach the potential mature dimensions of the removed tree.
Need to protect planting medium until canopy grows to maturity: e.g. structural root cell, ground covers.	Noted. Refer to Provisions in J.3.6 and J.3.7.4 Tree Planting Requirements Along Roads.
Requires a statement of the value of trees.	Disagreed. The valuation of a tree is a technical matter outside the scope of a DCP.
Need to match landscaping requirements to specific development types (e.g. RFB, industrial, single dwellings, etc.).	Noted. See Tables 1.1 and 1.2.
Redefine “significant trees”, especially to include the Port Jackson Fig.	Disagreed. Council’s landscaping, Street Tree & Tree Preservation Policy contains a lengthy and detailed explanation of tree significance beyond the capacity or scope of the DCP’s Dictionary.
When referencing canopy cover provisions, the expression “encouraged to” lacks the authority of “should”.	Agreed. Reference J.3.6, use of “must”.
Urban Tree Canopy provision appears contradictory, where “no net canopy loss” is undermined by “the greater of the existing condition”.	Disagreed. Reference J.3.5 (provision a) which states, “…no net canopy loss, where practicable.”
Table 1.2 does not state a date for achieving canopy cover.	Disagreed. See 3.7.2 provision a) “…to reach the proposed canopy targets set in Table 1.3 within 5-10 years of implementation.”
“…landscaping in buffer areas in both residential and industrial/commercial areas should NOT include/permit us of synthetic turf. It should also be discouraged in any other part of the development where run-off goes to the bush.”	Noted. This is a matter of policy to be addressed by Council.
WSUD section should be consistent with Part O Stormwater management	Disagreed. See Section 3.4 Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)
PART O – STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
WSUD in stormwater management is supported in principle, but should be in detail, such as water re-use in communal open space and landscaped areas.	Agree. WSUD is addressed in its own Part J Section 3.4.
Sediment control measures are only required for land adjacent to bushland.	Disagreed. A much broader range of development requires sediment control. See Section O.11 Silt & sediment control.
Ensure sediment and erosion controls are more “stringent”.	Sediment and erosion control are supported by “guidelines” set out in the NSW Department of Housing manual ‘Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction Certificate’ (the Blue Book), with sufficient “stringency”.
Objectives should specify reducing potential flooding and preventing stream erosion.	Agreed. Reference Part S.4.2 Objectives.
Rainwater tanks should be compulsory.	The BASIX Certificate for new development addresses the requirements for rainwater tanks.
The rainwater requirement for residential development (3 storeys or less) should apply to all development. Permit a 50% reduction in tank size where justified.	Disagree. Need to differentiate between residential development (3 storeys or less) and all other residential, on the basis that taller buildings, with more residents, will require bigger tanks. Also disagree that residential and non-residential (eg industrial, retail, etc) have similar non-potable water needs.
Remove requirement for all other development to provide storage at 10% AEP for a 6-hour storm.	Agreed. – as above. Alternative formula provided.
The rainwater requirement for residential development (3 storeys or less) is” sized for “1,000L per 50m2 of roof area” A more conservative volume for small high density residential.	Agreed. This has been incorporated in Part O.6.4.
Proposed objectives for Water Resilience.	Agreed. Included in Part O.6.4.
Proposed objectives/controls for stormwater management	Disagree - covered by other parts of the DCP.
PART Q –WASTE MANAGEMENT & MINIMISATION
Aim to recycle materials at demolition and construction stages.	Agreed. Reference Part Q.3.(provision b)
PART R – TRAFFIC, TRANSPORT & PARKING
EV chargers should be mandatory in new development (incl. electric bicycles).	Agreed. Reference Part R.2.2. New development is to meet deemed-to-satisfy Provisions of the National Construction Code. E.g. 10% of bicycle parking provided with 10A General Power Outlets.
PART S – ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Prioritise trees over solar panels.	Agreed. Refer S.2.2(i).
Dictionary – some definitions missing or usurped by new controls	Noted.

Table 2: Other Matters raised by NSROC Design Review Panel.

Matters raised by NSROC Design Review Panel	Responses
PART C – RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Side setbacks for RFBs should aim for consistency with the “desired development pattern”	Agreed. Add to Objectives at C.3.5: “Provide consistency with the desired development pattern of the location.”
Apartment balconies cluttered by air-conditioner condenser units. Consider common placement of air-conditioner units to open-to-the-air plant room alcoves on each floor	Agreed. Add to Provision C.3.15 Natural Ventilation.
PART H – BUSHLAND PROTECTION
: use the term ‘locally indigenous’ in provision B. to be consistent with Parts H and J.	Agreed. Reference also Part J and Dictionary.
New light-spill measures required, “consistent with Greenstar”, to mitigate impacts on local fauna.	Noted. New light-spill measures consistent with National Light Pollution Guidelines for wildlife have greater weight than Greenstar.
Consider appropriate reference to Connecting with Country.	Agreed. Referenced in H.2.
Consider definitions of permissible uses within buffer zone, with diagrams. E.g., “stormwater management”; “vehicle routes”; “site construction material storage.”	Noted: The Buffer Zone Diagram is clear and easily understood.
PART J – LANDSCAPING
Canopy cover targets. How measured? Highly complex.	Noted. Reference Table 1.2
Passive design matters such as glazing, heat efficiency, green rooves, etc. should require a registered Landscape Architect or similar specialist	Agreed. Referenced to incorporate all passive design matters.
Species selection should be related to soil.	Agreed. See Appendix 1 – Locally Indigenous Plant Lists.
Differentiate between ‘replenishment planting’ and ‘replacement planting’, if any difference.	Agreed. Replace ‘replenishment’ with ‘replacement’
Prefer deep soil over impervious surfaces, including as vital to habitat corridors and networks of root communities and micro-organisms.	Agreed. Reference Part J.3.5.
Define “deep soil zone” as containing no structures.	Disagree. Conflicts with Dictionary definition, which permits pervious structures such as paved areas and driveways.
Aim to “provide areas for pedestrian shade from extreme heat risk”. Similarly, “to support the adoption of tree species best suited to projected climate change conditions”. Therefore, provide irrigation and water infrastructure that is designed to support all trees during heat events, extreme heat, and drought conditions, for extended periods.	Agreed. Reference Part J.3.5 and Part S.3.3.
PART O – STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Propose reuse of water for landscaped areas and communal open space.	Agreed. See Part O.6.4 on Water resilience
Possibly reference Greenstar water quality pollutants table)	Noted: A matter for future consideration.
PART R – TRAFFIC, TRANSPORT & PARKING
: “Statement of adequacy to be provided by an electrical engineer or other suitably qualified specialist for parts A and B.”	Agreed.
PART S – ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Mitigate urban heat islands, but also ensure measures that provide “sufficient shade for pedestrian routes”.	Agreed. Refer S.3.3.3: “To provide sufficient shading to accessible links and paths of travel”.
Apartments considered “cross ventilated”, are cross-through, cross-over and corner apartments. Single aspect apartments are generally only suitable where incorporating ventilated corridors or breezeways and where effective cross ventilation, visual and acoustic privacy can be demonstrated.	Agreed. Reference Part S.3.1
Total ban on gas in new developments. Also this applies to “any installations of energy-consuming equipment”.	Disagree. Refer to Part S.2.1(b) permitting exemption where evidence provided that it is required.
Sustainability requirements apply to “a proposed cost of works more than $250,000”. Why?	$250,000 is considered the lower limit of “major works”.
A. Incentivized take-up of on-site solar panels on roofs, walls, communal shade structures, etc. B. 40% of roof area. C. Suggests alternative sites for panels.	A. Disagree. B. Disagree. Support proposed.%. C. Not necessary. Nothing in controls prevents this occurring.
Recommends all-but a southerly alignment of solar panel.	Noted.
Suggests Provisions for urban heat and shade for low-density residential must comprise 100%, not 75% of the site area. Medium and high density accessible rooftops are simplified.	Disagreed. 75% more achievable.
Suggest fixed and permanent shelter from sun and rain between the boundary and building entrance for pedestrians of all non-low density residential developments. To be indicated on a sire plan.	Agreed. Reference Part S 3.3.(provision f)
Consider defining “public benefit”, “green roofs”, “locally indigenous” and “green wall”.	Not appropriate to a DCP.
Prefer “life cycle assessment” to “circular economy design statement”.	Agreed.
Glazing should consider a balance between reflectivity and thermal comfort of inhabitants (outer versus inner impacts), rather than a prescriptive %.	Agreed. Refer S.3.2 (provision d)
Under Glazing, add the following clarifying provision: ” Window-to-wall ratios should be generally limited to the lower of either a). 70% (ie. 70% solid wall/30% glazing) when measured externally, or b). 50% (ie). 50% solid wall/50% glazing) when measured on the internal facade	Agreed. Refer Part S.3.2 (provision a).
Under Natural ventilation mandating 25% of wall openings on top or protected balcony of winter gardens	Agreed.

In addition, other non-policy (housekeeping) matters addressed are:

· General spelling and grammar corrections.

· Updating of outdated legislation, government departments and standards.

· Renaming of the LEP’s new Business and Employment Zones.

· Deletion of certain Localities (in Parts C & D) that have already been built.

· Minor error corrections.

Conclusion

The exhibited draft DCP amendments aimed to obtain community and expert views with particular emphasis on environmental sustainability initiatives related to climate change and emission reductions within the Lane Cove community. These amendments also include housekeeping corrections to errors of punctuation, grammar, and structure along with updates to legislation references.

As a result, it is recommended that Council adopt the amended Lane Cove Development Control Plan as shown under Attachments AT-2 to AT-23 inclusive.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Adopt the Development Control Plan, as shown in AT-2 to AT-23 inclusive, and

2. Publish the Development Control Plan on its website as soon as practicable.

Mark Brisby

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Final Design Review Panel minutes	6 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Cover and Contents	5 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑3 View	Part A - Introduction	6 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑4 View	Part B - General Controls	25 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑5 View	Part C - Residential Development	41 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑6 View	Part C - Residential Localities	69 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑7 View	Part D - Commercial and Mixed Use Development	32 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑8 View	Part D - Commercial and Mixed Use Localities	50 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑9 View	Part E - Industrial Development	13 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑10 View	Part F - Access and Mobility	13 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑11 View	Part G - Acid Sulfate Soils	9 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑12 View	Part H - Bushland Protection	13 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑13 View	Part J - Landscaping and Tree Preservation	42 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑14 View	Part K - Motels	4 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑15 View	Part L - Public Art	7 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑16 View	Part M - Sex Services Premises	7 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑17 View	Part N - Signage and Advertising	45 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑18 View	Part O - Stormwater Management	66 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑19 View	Part P - Telecommunication Facilities	36 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑20 View	Part Q - Waste Management and Minimisation	28 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑21 View	Part R - Traffic, Transport and Parking	43 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑22 View	NEW Part S - Environmental Sustainability	13 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑23 View	Attachment - Dictionary	9 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑24 View	Report to Council 22 June 2023	4 Pages	Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2023

5G Cell Towers Request for Information - Update

Subject: 5G Cell Towers Request for Information - Update

Record No: SU6110 - 53454/23

Division: General Managers Unit

Author(s): Rachel Hensman; Steven Kludass

Executive Summary

In recent months, a number of residents of the Lane Cove area have attended Council’s public

forum to express their concerns regarding the potential safety risk posed by exposure to 5G cell

towers.

On 20 July 2023, Council resolved to write to the Federal Government to request funding for an investigation as well as to a number of agencies to request information regarding 5G technology.

On 9 August 2023, letters were sent as per the resolution of Council and this report provides an update to Councillors on the correspondence received to date. Copies of the correspondence received are attached to this report.

Background

Following discussion at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 20 July 2023, Council resolved to take the following action:

1. “Write to the Federal Government requesting funding for an investigation with an independent assessor to measure exposure to electromagnetic radiation in a number of sample sites in Lane Cove, including but not limited to; The Canopy, 79-83 Longueville Road, and 3 Rosenthal Ave overlooking the playground area in The Canopy. The investigation is to include the production of a report and include an evaluation of the health impacts on the human body of the levels of electromagnetic radiation identified in these areas;

2. Write to Ms Kylea Tink MP, Member for North Sydney, requesting her support to lobby the Commonwealth Government to undertake the investigation outlined in 1., to ensure community safety in relation to the rollout of 5G technology, such as restriction of cell towers in close proximity to schools and residences;

3. Seek Information from Randwick, Northern Beaches and Central Coast Councils by formally requesting they provide copies of any officer reports, community submissions, and related correspondence concerning their decision to not support the installation of cell towers. Additionally, seek clarification on the reasons behind their decision;

4. Contact Telstra, Optus, TPG and Vodafone to obtain:-

a. Comprehensive product information regarding the new 5G technologies, including the process for testing air quality and radiation once towers are installed;

b. Details of how tower placement is determined, what factors are considered, and how they consult with businesses and residents;

c. Details about the types of radiation emitted by the infrastructure, their levels, installation guidelines for contractors, the ability to adjust radiation emissions, methods for measuring emissions, ongoing monitoring practices, and infrastructure lifespan; and

d. A full inventory of existing infrastructure locations and planned locations, including the less obvious and concealed cell towers and antennas.”

5. Write to ARPANSA (Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency to confirm the types of radiation emitted by 5G technology, established emission levels at safe distances from humans, research sources relied upon to assert the safety of 5G technology (including authorship and publication dates), whether non-thermal impacts on human health are considered in the research, methods for measuring the safety levels of emissions from 5G infrastructure, associated costs of obtaining measurement equipment, and the responsible authority for industry regulation ensuring adherence to safety and health standards; and

6. Receive a report on the outcomes of Parts 1-5.

Discussion

On 9 August 2023, Council wrote to the following, as listed in the resolution of Council:

- The Hon Michelle Rowland MP, Federal Minister for Communication

- Ms Kylea Tink MP, Member for North Sydney

- Randwick Council

- Northern Beaches Council

- Central Coast Council

- Telstra

- Optus

- TPG

- Vodafone

- ARPANSA (Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency)

Provided below is a list of the responses received as at 13 September 2023. Copies of the correspondence received has been included as attachments to this report.

The Hon Michelle Rowland MP, Federal Minister for Communication

Letter received dated 7 September 2023 noting that the “Government works in partnership with the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) and the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to strictly regulate emissions from telecommunications to protect the health and safety of all members of the public, while allowing the community to access essential, modern telecommunications services.” The letter provides further detail on the work of ARPANSA and ACMA, including the results of EME emissions measured by ACMA at a site in Lane Cove in September 2021. The letter is attached as AT-1.

Randwick City Council

Email received on 28 August 2023 with a number of documents provided relating to previous Council resolutions regarding 5G technology. The documents provided by Randwick are included as AT-2, AT-3, AT-4, AT-5, AT-6, AT-7, AT-8 and AT-9.

Northern Beaches Council

Letter received dated 28 August 2023 referencing a recent development application to erect a telecommunications tower and also noting that Northern Beaches Council provides information on its website relating to telecommunications facilities. A copy of the letter is provided as AT-10.

AMTA (on behalf of Telstra, Optus & TPG)

Letter from the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA) dated 21 August 2023 providing a response on behalf of Telstra, Optus and TPG Telecom. The letter addresses each of the points outlined in part 4 of the Council resolution and is included as AT-11.

ARPANSA

Email received on 23 August 2023 from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) with a copy of correspondence previously provided to local governments (including Lane Cove Council) attached. ARPANSA’s response includes links to a number of factsheets and websites for further information. An information kit is included as an attachment and ARPANSA are also able to conduct online community sessions to answer questions. The email is included as AT-12 and the attachments referenced in the email are included as AT-13 and AT-14.

Conclusion

Correspondence has been sent as per the resolution of the 20 July 2023 Council Meeting and copies of the responses received as of 13 September 2023 have been included as attachments to this report.

The responses are provided for the information of the Council and the community.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes this report.

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Response from Minister for Communications - 7 September 2023	2 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	RCC - Notice of Motion - June 2018	1 Page	Available Electronically
AT‑3 View	RCC - Council Resolution For Action - June 2018	1 Page	Available Electronically
AT‑4 View	RCC - Council Resolution For Action - October 2018	1 Page	Available Electronically
AT‑5 View	RCC - Letter to Minister for Communications - November 2018	1 Page	Available Electronically
AT‑6 View	RCC - Mayoral Minute - December 2018	2 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑7 View	RCC - Council Resolution For Action - December 2018	1 Page	Available Electronically
AT‑8 View	RCC - Letter from ARPANSA - 3 February 2020	4 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑9 View	RCC - TPG small cell towers will not roll out - not dated	1 Page	Available Electronically
AT‑10 View	Response from Northern Beaches Council - 28 August 2023	1 Page	Available Electronically
AT‑11 View	Response from AMTA - 21 August 2023	3 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑12 View	Response from ARPANSA - 23 August 2023	2 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑13 View	ARPANSA Letter to Lane Cove Council - 3 February 2020	2 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑14 View	Australian Government- EME Stakeholder Kit - November 2022	10 Pages	Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2023

Jean Mitchell Lucretia Baths Restoration

Subject: Jean Mitchell Lucretia Baths Restoration

Record No: SU8705 - 52124/23

Division: Human Services Division

Author(s): Diana Marder

Executive Summary

Jean Mitchell Lucretia Baths are in a state of disrepair and Council has determined to investigate the restoration of the baths. Access to the Baths is currently limited due to safety concerns.

Extensive community consultation was carried out regarding the Bath’s future and the results of this consultation were considered at Council’s May meeting. At this meeting Council resolved to receive a report regarding the process and funding required to develop plans for the restoration of the baths and also to develop and implement a community engagement program to gauge community interest in involvement in the project.

This report discusses the fee proposals and suggested programs received from consultants for this next stage of the project. A recommendation of an appropriate consultant is also provided. This report also outlines suggested community consultation actions. Additionally, Council has sought a soil and water analysis of the site of the existing baths.

Potential future steps are also considered if the decision is made to progress the restoration project further.

Background

The Jean Mitchell - Lucretia Baths in Dunois Street Longueville in Dunois Street Longueville have been in existence since the 1920’s and were originally built by the residents of the area for use as a private baths. In 1992 the Baths Co-operative, who had managed the Baths made the decision to hand the Baths to Council. The Baths currently operate under a lease between Council and Transport for NSW (TfNSW).

Extensive community consultation was carried out regarding the future of this site from December 2022 to February 2023. 80% of respondents wanted a complete rebuild of the Baths. These community consultation outcomes were considered by Council at its meeting of 18 May 2023.

At that meeting it was resolved that Council:-

· 1. Receives and notes the results of the community consultation on the future of the Jean Mitchell Lucretia Baths (the Baths);

· 2. Acknowledges that the Baths are an item of heritage significance within the Lane Cove LGA;

· 3. Wishes to restore/rebuild the Baths, with the intent of limiting the scope to the existing structure(s), with consideration to point 4;

· 4. Receives a report at its September 2023 meeting on the process and funding required to develop plans for the restoration of the Baths to the level of detail required to secure approval of the restoration by Transport for NSW and other regulatory authorities and to form the basis of a Development Application for the works;

· 5. Concurrently to point 4, develop and implement a community engagement program to gauge interest in the community of:

· a. Providing volunteer support during the restoration and ongoing future management of the Baths, using a model similar to Council’s existing ‘bushcare’ or ‘bushfriends’ programs;

· b. Provide potential ‘sponsorship’ of the restoration of the Baths (for example, named plaques); and

· c. Suggestions into other ways that the community might contribute to the ongoing amenity of the Baths.

· 6. Until the Baths have been restored, maintains the safety warning signage and other measures deemed necessary to prevent unauthorised entry to the Baths; and

· 7. Review the plan and funding model at the 2024 Corporate Planning Weekend with the aim of inclusion of the Baths restoration in the 2024/2025 budget.

This report addresses points 4. and 5. above and provides the process and funding required to develop plans for required approvals, a suggested consultant to undertake this work and a preliminary community engagement plan. It also provides information regarding contamination testing for the vicinity of the site.

Discussion

If Council proceeds with this project the following steps would be required:-

1. Engagement of consultant to undertake application process to obtain statutory approvals

2. Lodgement of a Development Application

3. Tender for the construction of the structure

4. Community engagement program to gauge interest in volunteering, sponsorship and any community contribution

5. Statutory requirements (e.g. RMS) at the completion stage

6. Council to undertake foreshore works.

Statutory approvals

Council approached five consultancies for expressions of interest and fee proposals for the work required to progress the project through the statutory approvals phase and provide plans suitable for the tender process. Five fee proposals were received.

The fee proposal from Royal Haskoning DHV was considered to be the most comprehensive, thorough and realistic of those received. Royal Haskoning DHV is a consultancy that specialises in coastal and maritime studies, and the investigation, design and documentation of foreshore structures.

Previous projects carried out by this consultancy have included design access upgrades to Clontarf tidal pool, the upgrade of North Narrabeen Ocean Rock Pool, design upgrade for 40 Baskets pool, Fairy Bower ocean pool stormwater outlet replacement and Collaroy ocean pool structural repairs.

The fee proposal includes appropriate and relevant sub consultants. Representatives have met Council staff on site to discuss the proposal. The fee proposal is $137,850 ex GST.

The proposal is separated into 2 stages with each stage comprising the following tasks and cost.

Documentation and Plans for the TfNSW Permission to Lodge and DA – Stage 1

Works include; Survey plans, Basis of Design memorandum, Statement of Heritage Impact, Aquatic Habitat Survey report, Geotechnical report, Concept design drawings (up to 2), Concept Design report, Preliminary quantity survey and cost estimates, Statement of Environmental Effects, Permission to Lodge (a Development Application) application to TfNSW.

- The timeline for Stage 1 is 14 weeks. The cost of Stage 1 is $78,700 ex. GST, (DA fees are additional).

- Lodgement of a Development Application

There is no specified time frame for approval from TfNSW to lodge the Development Application. Once approval to lodge the DA is obtained, the DA would need to be assessed independently, and as Council is the applicant, the Local Planning Panel will determine the application.

The timeline for Development Application assessment and determination is 10 weeks.

Detailed Design and Issued for Tender Documentation - Stage 2

Works include; Geotechnical report, Detailed Design report, Detailed Design drawings (up to 20), Detailed Design specification notes, Issued for Tender drawings (up to 20), Issued for Tender specification notes, Schedule of quantities, Preconstruction cost estimate, Schedule of Rates and Lump Sum Items template, Method Statement Schedule template.

The cost of Stage 2 is $59,150 ex. GST.

Contamination Testing

As part of the due diligence process, Council engaged an environmental consultant to assess the quality of the water and soil in the vicinity of the site at a cost of approximately $12,000.

Council is still awaiting the results of the investigation. The results will be issued to Councillors separately prior to the Council Meeting, when they become available.

Community Consultation

A community engagement plan has been drafted which seeks to consult on:

· If there is interest in providing volunteer support to the restoration and future management of the baths;

· If there is interest in potential sponsorship of the restoration of the baths and any suggestions; and

· Suggestions into other ways that the community might contribute to the ongoing amenity of the Baths.

The volunteers for the support would be sought after the results of this engagement program.

The audience, aim and channels for this consultation are:

Who	Aim	Channel
Councillors	Advise Councillors of consultation being open and any relevant activities	Email updates
People engaged with the first consultation	Keep informed. Let them know we are seeking ideas for ongoing operation of the baths.	Email to all who came to first survey
All Lane Cove residents and potential baths users	Get them to give ideas through Have Your Say	· Haveyoursay.lanecove.nsw.gov.au · Enews · Social media · Site signage
Local media	Get people engaged with Have Your Say	Media release to local media with some historic images
Council staff	Updates so people know what is happening	Staff newsletter Briefings

Cost Estimate and Funding

At the May meeting it was estimated that rebuilding of the Baths would cost approximately $600,000. Post the meeting, Council staff contacted several other councils which have been working on foreshore projects and it became obvious that the upfront studies and approval costs in particular, were greater than initially expected. There is also the risk in this project that because the baths were originally built by volunteer labour, essentially the entire structure will need to be rebuilt. On this basis, given the rule of thumb that approvals and design represent between 10% and 15% of a project cost, this would place the total project cost in the vicinity of $1,000,000. By undertaking the stage one works Council will be in a better position to understand the cost and can determine ultimately whether to proceed with the project.

Council has not funded these works and therefore it is proposed that Council commit funding of $80,000 to allow the Stage 1 work to proceed, which will then allow a review of the plan and funding model to be available for the 2024 Corporate Planning weekend.

Conclusion

To progress this project further, Council will need to resolve to engage an appropriate consultant for the next stage, which is currently unfunded. Based on Council’s research there is significant cost risk in relation to such projects and therefore it is imperative that Council obtain better cost estimates through this process before committing to the project. In conjunction to this Council can carry out the engagement program as outlined in the report.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receive and note the Report;

2. Determine if it wishes to proceed with the next stage of the Project, which would include preparation of documentation for TfNSW Permission to lodge a DA at a cost of $78,700 ex GST, to be funded from the Capital Expenditure Reserve;

3. Receive a progress report at the 2024 Corporate Planning Weekend; and

4. Undertake a further community engagement process to gauge the community interest in further involvement with the Baths project.

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2023

Opening of Wadanggari Park and St Leonards Library

Subject: Opening of Wadanggari Park and St Leonards Library

Record No: SU7134 - 53461/23

Division: General Managers Unit

Author(s): Sebastian Stivala; Jane Gornall; Craig Wrightson

Executive Summary

This report outlines the details of the official opening of Wadanggari Park and St Leonards Library. The completion and opening of these two projects represents a significant milestone in delivering on Council’s vision for improving the liveability of St Leonards. The Park provides new open space in the middle of an urban environment by building a bridge over the rail corridor to accommodate the park, the first time that this has been done in Australia. The new library is also innovative in delivering a technology hub, that can support the community and business alike,

The opening of Wadanggari Park will take place on Friday 15 September 2023 at 12:00pm, followed by the opening of St Leonards Library at 1:00pm. The opening will be presided over by
Mr Stephen Bali, MP, Parliamentary Secretary for Planning and Public Spaces and the Mayor, Councillor Andrew Zbik. The opening will be followed on Saturday 16 September 2023 with a Community Day featuring entertainment and activities in the park throughout the day. It is recommended the report received and noted and Council acknowledge and thank the efforts of all staff involved in delivering these projects.

Background

Wadanggari Park

The concept of a public open space park constructed on a bridge over the rail corridor was first conceived by Council as part of the 2006 St Leonards Strategy, which was a joint strategy prepared by Lane Cove, North Sydney and Willoughby Councils. From Council’s research this is the first time that this has been done in Australia.

Council has been pursuing delivery of this project since 2011 when TfNSW first expressed interest in the proposal. Ultimately progress in gaining NSW Government support was slow, however Council ultimately obtained permission to construct the bridge to accommodate the park in late 2020 and construction began at the end of 2021.

This new public open space has significant social and economic benefits by activating the precinct, improving connectivity and access, improving commuter safety and convenience, and providing much needed public open space in this part of St Leonards that compliments the new St Leonards Library and surrounding developments.

The Park is a focal point linking; St Leonards Station, the Forum and the new Crow Nest Metro Light-Rail via the revitalised commercial retail precinct and beyond through Friedlander Place. The open green space has been developed by Arcadia Landscape Design and includes best practice landscape design and safety by providing full accessibility, improved lighting, occasional seating, a village green with deep soil planting and tree cover at the edges and a regional scale three storey adventure playground.

The structure spanning the rail corridor provides a platform for much needed public open space, covering an area of 4,750 sqm approx. including the section delivered by JQZ’s, Eighty Eight development, which also provides the new St Leonards Library, public toilets and a 300 space public basement car park.

The existing Pacific Hwy pedestrian underpass has also been upgraded as part of the project, with the addition of an elevator for direct access to the Pacific Hwy and the new Park. The width of the pedestrian pathway on the Pacific Hwy parallel to the new park has been increased significantly and now incorporates a series of bus shelters for commuters. Finally, the northern end of Canberra Ave has been converted into a designated share use area including a “Kiss and Ride” drop off zone, access ramps for pedestrians and cyclists and direct elevator access to the Plaza from the South.

To fund the park, since 2014, Council had entered into four Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPA’s). These voluntary planning agreements related to four pilot projects which Council approved to demonstrate best practice Transit Oriented Development supported by infrastructure and sought to revitalise the commercial area by delivering new commercial floor space and retail. The following outlines the contributions for the project, which were essential for the project to proceed:-

	Address	Contribution	Development	Developer
1	500 - 504 Pacific Highway	$21,150,000	Landmark	Newhope
2	472 - 494 Pacific Highway	$16,947,598	St Leonards Sq	Mirvac
3	75-79 Lithgow St and 84-90 Christie St	30% of Park	Eighty Eight by JQZ	JQZ
4	1 -13A Marshall Avenue	$7,967,700	Embassy Tower	Loftex
	Total	$46,065,298

In addition, Council was successful in obtaining grant funding of $4.75M under the NSW Government’s Public Spaces Legacy Program, the largest grant in Lane Cove’s history.

Council has access to the airspace over the rail corridor via a lease from the NSW Government for $1.00 per annum for a period of 67 years, expiring 30 May 2088, which aligns with the remaining lease period for the Forum development to the north. Council is permitted to use the space for the purposes of a public plaza and a public open space (excluding residential and commercial use which are not permitted). Council maintains responsibility for the park and all other infrastructure above the deck (outside the rail corridor), stormwater, utilities and the main bridge structure. Council is not responsible for any rail related infrastructure.

The total cost to date is $40.8M, against a total budget of $43.5M. With the project complete other than minor works in the rail corridor and final certification, the project will be delivered under budget. The project was managed in house by Council’s Director – Major Projects, Sebastian Stivala assisted by Simone Bordin, Projects Officer.

St Leonards Library

The new St Leonards library is situated in the Eighty Eight by JQZ Pty Ltd amongst the lower ground specialty retail.

The three local government areas of Lane Cove, North Sydney and Willoughby intersect in St Leonards and previously there was no library in the suburb, despite a suburb population of 7492, with an additional 4000 expected in the next five years in the adjacent St Leonards South precinct.

St Leonards Library has an area of 1100sqm and currently opens 35 hours per week. It offers a vibrant and exciting destination with a relaxed and welcoming atmosphere. As Lane Cove already has two libraries (in Lane Cove and Greenwich), and an extensive collection, St Leonards Library will focus on technology, with the library space incorporating:-

- Flexible meeting rooms with audio visual capabilities

- Film & Sound Studio

- Digital & physical exhibition spaces

- Technology resources including Hublets, 3D printer, laser cutter, etc.

- Collaboration spaces, acoustic nooks and quiet study spaces

- Children's Play & Learn space

The library was provided as part of a Voluntary Planning Agreement with JQZ, free of cost to Council. Council also received a $500,000 Library Infrastructure Grant from the Library Council of NSW for the fit-out.

The design development was managed inhouse by Council’s previous Manager Library Services, Jenny Bice and Executive Manager - Human Services, Jane Gornall, with the assistance of the library staff. The space was designed by PTW Architects and constructed by JQZ.

Discussion

The opening of Wadanggari Park will take place on Friday 15 September 2023 at 12:00pm, followed by the opening of St Leonards Library at 1:00pm. The Park opening will be presided over by Mr Stephen Bali, MP, Parliamentary Secretary for Planning and Public Spaces and the Mayor, Councillor Andrew Zbik. The Library will be opened by Mayor, Councillor Zbik. The NSW State Librarian Dr John Vallance will also be present.

The opening will be followed on Saturday 16 September 2023 with a community day running from 10.00am to 3.00pm. The activities will include facepainting; DJ music; hula hooping, large games for all, and other activities for both children and adults. There will also be a free coffee cart, a gelato stand and free water for the community to enjoy. This will be a great opportunity to see and enjoy these two great enhancements to the St Leonards area.

The Library will also open early at 9.30 am (rather than the normal 1.00pm) and will be demonstrating new technologies.

Conclusion

The completion and opening of these two projects represents a significant milestone in delivering on Council’s vision for improving the liveability of St Leonards. Council has been able to, through innovation and a long term commitment to the projects, demonstrate best practice development, by ensuring the delivery of community infrastructure that provides a higher level of amenity for the benefit of the existing community and provides greater capacity to accommodates the needs of the new population.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The report be received and noted; and

2. Council acknowledge and thank the efforts of all staff involved in delivering these projects.

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2023

Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement for 524 - 542 Pacific Highway, St Leonards

Subject: Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement for 524 - 542 Pacific Highway, St Leonards

Record No: SU5784 - 53530/23

Division: General Managers Unit

Author(s): David Stevens

Executive Summary

Council has received a letter of Public Benefit Offer (VPA) from the developer of 524 – 542 Pacific Highway, St Leonards (Telstra site) which is progressing through the planning system as a State Significant Development. The Department of Planning & Environment (DPE) have provided an in-principal endorsement of the Public Benefit Offer, stating it is “considered exceptional public value for the purposes of the 2036 Plan”. The Public Benefit Offer provides for a Monetary Contribution of $3.6M in addition to a s7.11 contribution of $6.2M, and ten (10) affordable housing units for a period of 15 years. Council is not the consent authority however DPE does not enter into VPA’s with proponents on behalf of councils, regardless of whether or not Council ultimately supports the development proposal, it needs to consider the VPA on its merits, in the event the State Significant Development Application is approved. It is recommended Council give notice of its intention to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement as outlined in the report with Home the developer of 524 – 542 Pacific Highway, St Leonards in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the report.

Background

In August 2020, the then NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) released its final St Leonards and Crows Nest 2036 Plan. The Plan’s vision was to “facilitate the urban renewal of St Leonards and Crows Nest for an expanding employment centre and growing residential community in the suburbs of St Leonards, Greenwich, Naremburn, Wollstonecraft, Crows Nest and Artarmon”. The St Leonards and Crows Nest Precinct has been planned to provide: capacity for additional commercial floor space; funding for open space and infrastructure upgrades; a variety of mixed-use sites for short and long term development; Crows Nest Metro Station over-station development; suitable provisions to allow for the transition of the St Leonards core to surrounding residential areas; and, collaboration between the three stakeholder Councils being North Sydney, Willoughby and Lane Cove.

The Housing Priority within the Plan, charged the three Councils with the following actions:

· Undertake investigations to identify an appropriate target for affordable housing in the area, consistent with each Council’s affordable rental housing target schemes;

· Explore build-to-rent opportunities within the precinct.

A planning proposal was originally lodged for the Telstra site in December 2016, but was postponed due to the incoming 2036 plan. Following the Plan’s release, an amended proposal was lodged in September 2019 and again in December 2019, the proposal contained 330 apartments. The applications were ultimately refused by the Sydney North Planning Panel in May 2020.

The revised, current planning proposal is a mixed-use development comprising:

· 272 Build-to-Rent apartments;

· Approximately 4,600m2 of non-BtR Gross Floor Area consisting of affordable housing for key workers, short-stay accommodation and retail;

· Associated communal residential amenities.

Discussion

In August 2022, Council and Home begun discussion and negotiation for a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) Public Benefit Offer on the basis the development would be assessed and determined by the Department of Planning via the State Significant Development Application process. The applicant is seeking to vary the planning controls for the site by utilising the provision in the St Leonards / Crows Nest 2036 plan, “There may be opportunities for specific sites to accommodate additional density and height where the public benefits proposed to be delivered as part of a development proposal is of exceptional value, beyond what could be secured under a standard practice approach that should be considered within the precinct.“

Council was initially unable to reach agreement on a suitable VPA. Council staff were pursuing the provision and dedication of Affordable / Key Worker Housing, the initial Home offer was to make a contribution of $1.1M towards the provision of affordable housing.

In May 2023, Home proposed a VPA that would provide 6 affordable apartments (4 x 1 bedroom and 2 x studio apartments) for a period of 20 years, which in Council staff’s view did not represent “exceptional value” to trigger the provision in the St Leonards and Crows Nest 2036 Plan. This position was supported to DPE.

In August 2023, Home submitted a revised final VPA offer AT-1, which includes:-

· A monetary contribution to Council of $3.6M towards the provision of local infrastructure;

· The provision of ten (10) affordable housing units (4 x 1 bedroom and 6 x studio apartments), for a term of 15 years. The apartments will be owned and managed by the developer as affordable / key worker housing for the “moderate income household” definition of “affordable housing” in State Environment Planning Policy (Housing) 2021;

· Payment of a s7.11 Contribution to the value of $6.2M prior to the first occupation certificate for the proposed development.

· The proposed VPA will be registered on title of the land.

DPE have reviewed the final VPA offer and have issued a letter included as AT-2, which confirms that the department is of the opinion that the offer represents “exceptional value” to trigger the provision in the St Leonards and Crows Nest 2036 Plan.

The only issue remaining, which is considered relatively minor, is that the Home offer does not outline when the $3.6M monetary contribution is to be paid and seeks to defer payment of the s7.11 contributions to the issue of an occupation certificate. Consistent with Council’s standard practice for s7.11 payments and the timing for payment of the State Government’s new Housing and Productivity Contribution, both payments must be paid before a construction certificate is issued.

Community Consultation

The requirements of the Environmental Planning Assessment Act and Council’s own consultation policy require voluntary planning agreements to be advertised for public comment prior to being entered into. The following consultation strategy is therefore proposed.

Statement of Intent

The consultation is designed to invite public submissions on the proposed VPA for the proposed development at 524 – 542 Pacific Highway, St Leonards. Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated as part of any determination as to whether or not, Council accept the benefits proposed in the VPA.

Method

Level of Participation	Inform	Consult
Form of Participation	Open	Targeted
Target Audience	Lane Cove Community and community groups	Properties in the vicinity. Local community associations.
Proposed Medium	Advertisement and eNewsletter. Public Exhibition, Website Exhibition and Online Survey	Notification Letters
Indicative Timing	At the appropriate time as determined under the State Significant Development Application process

Conclusion

The Home VPA is considered by DPE to meet the exceptional value provision in the St Leonards / Crows Nest 2036 Plan Vision to justify the change to the planning controls. The proposed Voluntary Planning Agreement will assist Council in achieving its goal to see the delivery of additional affordable housing and provide for further infrastructure in the Precinct.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. The report be received and noted;

2. Give notice of its intention to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement as outlined in the report with Home the developer of 524 – 542 Pacific Highway, St Leonards in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the report;

3. Undertake the consultation for the VPA at the appropriate time as determined under the State Significant Development Application process;

4. Delegate authority to the General Manager to agree minor variations to the VPA offer prior to giving notice of the intention to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement; and

5. Following the community consultation, a further report be submitted to Council for determination.

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Revised Home Letter of Public Benefit Offer 25.08.23	5 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Advice on HOME Public Benefit Offer from DPE	3 Pages	Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2023

Investment Policy Review

Subject: Investment Policy Review

Record No: SU3038 - 46654/23

Division: Corporate Services Division

Author(s): Sarah Seaman

Executive Summary

This report has been prepared in response to Council’s July resolution to review Council’s adopted Investment Policy to incorporate a transition towards non-fossil fuel aligned financial institutions and socially responsible investments, revised investment portfolio limits to facilitate the transition and put in place appropriate thresholds that balance social and economic returns. It is recommended Council ddetermine whether it wants to pursue the Revised Draft Investment Policy, noting that if it does wish to proceed it would be appropriate to endorse the document and have it publicly exhibited for a period of 6 weeks, providing an opportunity for community feedback on the matter.

Background

At the July 2023 Council Ordinary Meeting, Council resolved the following:-

“That Council:

1. Receive and note this report, together with the investment advice received from Council’s Investments Advisor, Prudential Investment Services Corp;

2. Determines to pursue an Investment Portfolio that preferences the placement of investments with non-fossil fuel aligned financial institutions and socially responsible investments. To facilitate this, Council staff will work on a revised Investment Policy incorporating matters including:

a. Ensuring Council does not incur break fees on investments during the transition to non-fossil fuel aligned financial institutions and socially responsible investments;

b. An ‘interest rate return yield tolerance’ provision that states Council will only invest in non fossil fuel aligned institutions or socially responsible investments where the interest rate offered is comparable (not more than 10 basis points (0.10%) differential) with another available investment product offering at the time;

c. Update the portfolio limits within our adopted Investment Policy as advised by Prudential Investment Services Corp (Prudential) which would allow Council to invest more funds with non-fossil fuel aligned institutions; and

3. The updated Investment Policy is to be brought back to the September Council Meeting for consideration by Council.”

Discussion

Prudential Investment Services Corp were engaged to review Council’s Investment Policy in light of the resolution passed by Council. A copy of the Revised Draft Investment Policy is attached as AT-1.

Primary Changes to the Investment Policy

The following is a summary of the primary changes to the Revised Draft Investment Policy.

1. The portfolio limits within the adopted Investment Policy have been revised to allow Council to invest more funds with non-fossil fuel aligned institutions such as Suncorp Bank and Bendigo/Adelaide Bank.

- In summary, Council’s investment advisor recommends the following changes be made to the adopted Investment Policy.

- Institution Rating	- Current Limit	- Revised Limit
- BBB+	- - 20%	- 35%
- BBB		- 15% sublimit within the overall 35%
- BBB-		- 0%

- It is noted that to have access to non-fossil fuel aligned institutions such as Suncorp Bank, there is a recommended increase in exposure to BBB institutions, with an overall limit of 35% up from 20%, which does present a fundamental change in Council’s credit risk profile. Put simply, Council would be exposing itself to an increasing number of institutions that do not have same capacity to meet its financial commitments as A, AA or AAA rated institutions. As all the institutions are APRA regulated, the default risk is considered relatively low, and these institutions are permissible under the Local Government Minister’s Investment Order.

2. A Non-Fossil Fuel / Socially Responsible Investment statement has been included in the Revised Draft Investment Policy. It reads as follows:

Socially Responsible and Non-Fossil Fuel Investments

When making investment decisions, Council will give preference to green investment options and to institutions that do not invest in or finance the fossil fuel industry.

Socially responsible and non-fossil fuel investment considerations will be part of Council’s overall risk management process to best meet its investment strategy objectives while ensuring compliance with prevailing legislation and this Investment Policy.

This Policy acknowledges the long-term strategy of Council to identify those investments that are socially responsible, benefit the community and progress society toward a more sustainable future.

Where possible, Council will invest in Socially Responsible/Green Investments or non-fossil fuel aligned institutions. However, it should be noted there may be constraints in the investment market that might make this difficult from time to time. For example, there may be occasions where there are no Socially Responsible Investments available and/or the non-fossil fuel institutions are not accepting new investments, or we have reached our policy limit with the individual non-fossil fuel lending institution.

3. Investment Return Yield Tolerance and Break Costs

- In order to balance social and economic returns, the following statement in relation to investment return yield tolerance and break costs has been added to the Revised Draft Investment Policy:-

Council will only invest in non-fossil fuel aligned institutions or socially responsible investments where the interest rate offered is comparable (not more than 10 basis points (0.10%) differential) with another available investment product offering at the time.

Council will only incur break fees if the net economic benefit of doing so outweighs the actual break cost.

In addition to the above primary changes, Prudential Investment Services Group have recommended several other minor administrative changes to ensure the Policy is contemporary and reflects the current investment environment.

Community Consultation

If Council wishes to pursue the changes to the investment policy the following consultation strategy is recommended.

Statement of Intent

The consultation is designed to inform the community of the proposed change to the Investment Policy. Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with the amendments to the Policy.

Method

Level of Participation	Inform	Consult
Form of Participation	Open	Open
Target Audience	Lane Cove Community	Lane Cove Community
Proposed Medium	Website and eNewsletter	Website Exhibition Written Submissions
Indicative Timing	September - October 2023	September - October 2023

Conclusion

This report summarises the proposed changes to the adopted Investment Policy. The proposed changes have been reviewed by Council’s investment advisor, Prudential Investment Services Corp, and are considered appropriate in the context of the resolution passed by Council on this matter in July 2023.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receive and note the Revised Draft Investment Policy, attached as AT-1; and

2. Determine whether it wants to pursue the Revised Draft Investment Policy, noting that if it does wish to proceed it would be appropriate to endorse the document and have it publicly exhibited for a period of 6 weeks, providing an opportunity for community feedback on the matter.

Steven Kludass

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Revised Investment Policy

9 Pages

Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2023

2023 Australian Liveability Census

Subject: 2023 Australian Liveability Census

Record No: SU8425 - 54503/23

Division: Human Services Division

Author(s): Susan Heyne

Executive Summary

Between April and June 2023 Council acted as a ‘Distribution Council’ in the 2023 Australian Liveability Census, which was undertaken by placescore.org. Council’s participation in the Census was supported by the Greater Cities Commission, which funded all Metropolitan Council’s participation. The objective of the Census is to capture community values regarding neighbourhood liveability. Lane Cove’s liveability score was 79 out of 100, up from 76 in the 2012 Census. This is well above the Australian national average score of 67 and one of the highest scores of any individual local government area. It is recommended the report be received and noted.

Background

Council has conducted a Wellbeing survey every 2 years since 2015. In 2021, Council decided to participate in the Australian Liveability Census as a ‘Distribution Organisation’ in place of the Wellbeing survey. Participation in the 2021 census was funded by the Commonwealth Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources at no cost to Council.

In 2023 Council was invited to participate in the Australian Liveability Census. The aim of the Liveability Census is to capture the liveability of Australia’s suburbs, local government areas, states, and the nation from the perspective of the community. Lane Cove residents were invited to participate in the online survey, which was promoted extensively through online social media, print advertising, the Mayor’s weekly update, digital notice boards in the Canopy and Plaza and letters sent to 2,000 addresses across the LGA.

Discussion

The Australian Liveability Census was conducted in 2023 with the Greater Cities Commission sponsoring the participation of all Sydney metropolitan councils in the survey.

The initial results of the 2023 Census have now been released and a total of 821 responses were received from Lane Cove residents. This is an increase of almost 30% from the 2021 survey. The confidence level of the results based on the sample size is 95%.

Council’s ratings in all categories have improved, some significantly. The Executive Summary Report (AT-1) provided to Council concludes that “Locally there are no attributes which are both highly valued and underperforming.”

Lane Cove received an overall Liveability Performance score of 79 out of 100 with 93% of residents reporting that they are satisfied with liveability in their local neighbourhood. This is an excellent result and an increase from our previous score in 2021 of 76. The average liveability score for NSW is 67, with the overall Australian average being 67. The Australian average for satisfaction with liveability in their local neighbourhood is 82%.

Lane Cove’s top 3 liveability strengths are:

1. Elements of natural environment

2. Access to neighbourhood amenities

3. General condition of public open space

Lane Cove also scored highly against the national average in:

- Things to do in the evening

- Sustainable urban design

- Cultural and/or artistic community

- Unusual or unique buildings and/or artistic public space design

- Evidence of recent public investment.

Other top performing attributes identified in 2023 included:

- Quality of public space

- Walking/jogging/bike paths that connect housing to communal amenity

- General Condition of public open space

- Protection of the natural environment

What is significant about these high performing attributes is that in 2021 they had been identified as areas that are important to people but were underperforming. In 2023 they are now considered to be some of the strongest contributors to liveability in Lane Cove. A summary sheet comparing the 2023 and 2021 scores has been included as AT-2.

Conclusion

The 2023 Australian Liveability Census provided an opportunity for Council to compare the Lane Cove Community’s perceptions of liveability, community values and attributes against neighbourhoods across Australia. It also allows us to measure the area’s performance from the previous survey two years ago. The results are extremely positive for Lane Cove and provide an external assessment and reference of the Community’s, and Council’s, efforts to create a “Liveable Lane Cove”, and to “Love Where You Live”.

RECOMMENDATION

That the report be received and noted.

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Liveability Census 2023 - Executive Summary Report	10 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Liveability Census 2023 - Summary Sheet	1 Page	Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2023

Synthetic Turf Surfaces in Lane Cove LGA

Subject: Synthetic Turf Surfaces in Lane Cove LGA

Record No: SU1228 - 49681/23

Division: Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s): Helen Haigh

Executive Summary

At the June 2023 Council meeting Council considered a Notice of Motion – Report on Chief Scientist and Engineer’s Independent Review into the Design, Use and Impacts of Synthetic Turf in Public Open Spaces. The Notice of Motion requested a report be submitted to the September Council meeting.

This report includes an inventory of the existing locations of synthetic turf on land managed by Council and proposes future management, replacement and disposal of synthetic turf in these locations in the light of the recommendations of the Chief Scientist and Engineer’s report which support the ongoing use of synthetic turf utilising best practice.

It is also noted that the Blackman Park synthetic sports fields are reaching their end of life and that Council will need to commence the design and tender process for the disposal and replacement of these fields. Due to the need for the increase capacity that a synthetic surface provides and the construction of the fields they will be replaced with a new best practice synthetic surface. It is recommended the report be received and noted and Council commence the process for the disposal and replacement of the two Blackman Park synthetic fields in the 2024/25 financial year.

Background

In November 2021 the Hon Rob Stokes MP requested the NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer to provide expert advice on the use of synthetic turf in public open spaces in NSW. A Final report with recommendations was released to the public in June 2023 by the NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer.

At the June 2023 Council meeting Council received a Notice of Motion in regard to the Chief Scientist and Engineer’s report and resolved to;

1. Notes the findings and recommendations of the Chief Scientist and Engineer’s Independent review into the design, use and impacts of synthetic turf in public open spaces;

2. Receives a report at its September 2023 meeting in relation to the following:- a. The locations of synthetic turf in public open spaces owned or managed by Council; and b. Proposed future management, replacement and disposal of synthetic turf in the light of the recommendations of the Chief Scientist and Engineer’s report, including the synthetic turf at Blackman Park;

3. Council refer the ‘Report on Chief Scientist and Engineer’s Independent Review into the Design, Use and Impacts of Synthetic Turf in Public Open Spaces’ to the Sports Advisory Committee and the Sustainability Advisory Committee for discussion and consideration.

Discussion

Recommendations of the Chief Scientist and Engineer’s Report

The final 530-page report has four recommendations as follows:

Recommendation Group 1: Planning and approvals

Given longer-term climate and heat projections, attention should be given to mitigating environmental risk in existing and planned synthetic turf installations, implementing best practice natural turf management, advancing materials research into new alternative materials. A set of requirements for approval and funding of synthetic turf fields is needed to assist with the management of identified environmental issues, and the identified data gaps that currently limit decision-making and innovation. Specific recommendations have been developed to allow NSW to reduce potential human health and environmental impact of synthetic turf through planning, design, and mitigation measures. These focus initially on managing pollutant ‘runoff’ and ‘walk-off’ risks and exploring the potential of best-practice design and maintenance of natural turf fields to meet increasing use requirements.

Recommendation Group 2: Sustainability and end of life

Given the use of synthetic turf in public and private settings is increasing across NSW, a staged plan across government and non-government settings and sectors is required to develop appropriate standards and end of life solutions. A starting point is understanding the volumes, composition and fate of products used. The process should draw on the considerable expertise in mapping systems and material demonstrated by the NSW Government net zero target and circularity policies. The responsibility for sustainability and end of life solutions is greater than a single NSW Government agency or land manager and requires industry engagement. Consideration of emerging science and new materials is required, as well as alternatives such as natural turf. The adoption of best practice guidelines and benchmarks for natural turf in open spaces will support the capacity of natural turf sporting fields to meet demands for use. Given the observed risk of deteriorating fields, synthetic turf installation should be subject to a set of requirements to ensure best practice use during the product lifespan and appropriate end of life planning and disposal to avoid stranded assets.

Recommendation Group 3: Data

The scale of public investment in sporting infrastructure requires a more systematic and data-driven approach to decision-making. There is a vast amount of existing information from different sources about the design, management, and performance of sporting fields, but these are not readily available or collated. A more accessible and reliable source of verified information is required. To enable informed investment decisions about surfaces installed in public open space, specific recommendations have been made to allow for the establishment of minimum open data standards for sporting fields, with the aim to broaden data capture to include other applications of synthetic turf across NSW. This could be integrated with other data sets to support forward planning and investments, test assumptions and, over time, ground-truth observations, support transparency and accelerate innovation.

Recommendation Group 4: Research program

This Review identified significant knowledge gaps in key areas of concern, which hinders effective decision-making. Data collection should be complemented by the research program to address key knowledge gaps in human health and environmental impacts. A key research priority recognised by several contributing experts to the Review is understanding the characteristics and composition, including the chemical composition, of materials used in synthetic turf and associated layers.

Locations of synthetic turf in public open spaces

Synthetic turf surfacing is used across open spaces predominately in areas for sports and play as a permeable high wearing surface in areas such as cricket wickets, practice cricket nets, tennis courts and sports fields. Table 1 lists the locations of synthetic surfaces in Lane Cove.

Different types of synthetic turf are currently used in the LGA depending on location and activity and use either short pile, medium pile or long pile synthetic turf with different infills such as sand or crumbed rubber. Exercise and play equipment generally use a short pile surface with a sand infill on a rubber underlay. Hard wearing sports such as cricket, generally use a short pile synthetic turf on a concrete base with sand infill. Tennis courts use a medium pile surface with a sand infill on a concrete base. Sports fields such as Blackman Park B1 and B2, use a long pile synthetic with a sand and rubber infill on a concrete substructure. The following table provides an inventory of synthetic turf surfaces in the LGA.

- Table 1 - Location of synthetic surfaces in public open spaces in Lane Cove LGA

Location	Where	Composition	Area
Blackman Park B1 and B2	Sports fields B1 and B2	Long pile with sand and crumb rubber on concrete substructure	17,380
Blackman Park B1 and B2	cricket wicket (summer)	Short pile with sand on concrete substructure	70
Blackman Park B3 and B4	cricket wicket (summer)	Short pile with sand on concrete substructure (covered with Long Pile during winter)	140
Blackman Park	cricket nets x4	Short pile with sand on concrete substructure	402
Blackman Park	under exercise equipment	Short pile with sand on rubber base	100
Bob Campbell Oval	cricket wicket (summer)	Short pile with sand on concrete substructure covered with (Long Pile during winter)	70
Cullen St Playground	under seat and rocker	Medium pile with sand on concrete substructure	20
Friedlander Place	in play area	Medium pile with sand on concrete substructure	140
Greenwich Public School - Wardrop Street	nature strip	Short pile with sand on compacted road base	200
Hughes Park	under exercise equipment	Short pile with sand on rubber base	143
Kingsford Smith Oval	cricket nets x4	Short pile with sand on concrete base	480
Lane Cove Plaza	under centre shade sail	Medium pile with sand on compacted road base	190
Lane Cove West (Blackman Park)	Tennis courts x3	Medium pile with sand on concrete base	1800
Lane Cove West (Hallam Ave)	Tennis courts x2	Medium pile with sand on concrete base	1000
Leemon Reserve	Tennis courts x2	Medium pile with sand on concrete base	1200
Longueville (Central Park)	Tennis courts x5	Medium pile with sand on concrete base	2750
Longueville (KSO)	Tennis courts x5	Medium pile with sand on concrete base	2750
Osborne Park	Tennis court x1	Medium pile with sand on concrete base	460
Pottery Green Oval	cricket wicket (summer)	Short pile with sand on concrete base (Long Pile during winter)	70
		Total	29365

Methods of Disposal

Council has only ever had to deal with small sections of synthetic turf replacement. This has typically been part of the construction contract and disposal has been carried out by the contractor. Until recently synthetic turf was unable to be recycled in Australia. A new facility has been constructed in northern Victoria by Tuff Group, which is reported to be ‘a world-class synthetic surfaces solution company’ have teamed up with Re4orm to focus solely on diverting synthetic turf from landfill. This facility has only recently been completed and will recycle larger synthetic surfaces (i.e., synthetic sports fields and tennis courts, etc.) with different infills. This facility is due to open in early 2024 and has started to accept and stockpile material in anticipation of the opening of the facility. Council has utilised the facility for the recycling of the tennis courts at the River Road Tennis Centre. The recycling facility will be aligned with Recommendation Group 2: Sustainability and end of life, as a start to developing “…appropriate standards and end of life solutions”.

Referring to Recommendation Group 2: Sustainability and end of life of the Chief Scientists and Engineers Report. Council is not proposing to replace current synthetic surfaces unless they are at end of life or part of a planned project upgrade. When a planned upgrade is proposed the first step will be to determine if the synthetic surface is still required. (i.e., Assessing how the area is used, frequency of use of area, if an alternative surfacing is available). The old surface will be recycled where possible and if a new synthetic surface is chosen, then replacement will be carried out following best practice with the most technically advanced synthetic surface available. This will be in line with Recommendation Group 1: Planning and approvals “…implementing best practice natural turf management, advancing materials research into new alternative materials”. Council staff will continue to attend industry and government forums to stay informed about the use and best practice management of synthetic surfaces in public spaces.

The recycling process is one that separates the infill materials such as sand and rubber (SBR) from the synthetic turf. Both go through a process where they are cleaned and bagged ready for re-use. The sand will generally be used in landscape synthetic turf whilst the SBR has many uses including playgrounds and road pavements. The grass fibre Polyethylene/Polypropylene will be shaved off the backing and go through several processes. The fibres will then be pelletised, with the pellets becoming available for a wide array of industry in their recycled format. The recycling of the backing component can be used in padding, upholstery and insulation type products.

Blackman Park

The synthetic sports fields at Blackman Park B1 and B2 were installed in 2014. Blackman Park is an old tip site and in order to provide a stable firm base for the synthetic sports fields, an 18,000m² concrete slab was constructed that is supported by 250 columns founded in sandstone bedrock. The columns are up to 28m long.

The synthetic surface consists of a long pile synthetic with a sand and crumb rubber infill. Over the winter season the synthetic fields typically have over 60 hours of use per week in comparison to the natural turf B3 and B4 fields which have around 35 hours per week of use. The life span for synthetic sports fields is estimated to be between 7 and 10 years. With the consistent regular maintenance that has been undertaken for the entire life of the Blackman Park synthetic fields our 9-year-old fields are reaching their end of life. The synthetic sports fields are tested regularly to ensure they meet the FIFA, AFL and Cricket Standards and they passed the safety requirements of the last test this year. However, they will not pass the next test cycle and will need to be replaced in the immediate future.

The Sporting Club Advisory Committee discussed the Chief Scientist and Engineer’s Report and the replacement of the synthetic fields at Blackman Park and have provided the following statement:

“The Sporting Club Advisory Committee wants the existing all weather synthetic fields at Blackman Park to be replaced with a new best practice all weather synthetic surface. Any delay to the replacement of this surface will be detrimental to and cause an unnecessary burden on the existing Sporting Clubs that use this facility.”

The Sporting Club Advisory Committee were very supportive of the synthetic field and the additional hours of capacity they provide. The sporting clubs rely on this additional capacity to accommodate their training and playing needs. Any reduction in capacity would make their programming unviable. The increase in population and more importantly the recent increase in demand for women’s sports is only going to create more demand for Council ‘s sports fields.

It is recommended that Council commence the design and tender process for the disposal and replacement of the Blackman Park synthetic sports fields with a new best practice surface. Based on previous research this will mean that the new surface will be a third generation (3G) synthetic surface with an organic infill or a fourth generation (4G) synthetic surface which will require no plastic or rubber infill.

The recycling of the existing surface is carried out through removing the surface including all infill materials in large intact sections. To do this the surface is cut and rolled up before being loaded into shipping containers for transportation to the recycling facility. Re4orm have the capacity to store large quantities synthetic surface until it can be processed.

The cost of recycling the synthetic turf at Blackman Park, including removal, transport and recycling would be in the vicinity $400k. The procurement of new synthetic surface will be in the vicinity of $2M. Council has included $2M in Council’s three-year budget for 24/25 to accommodate this project.

Referral of the Chief Scientist and Engineer’s Report to Advisory Committees

The ‘Report on Chief Scientist and Engineer’s Independent Review into the Design, Use and Impacts of Synthetic Turf in Public Open Spaces’ was referred to the Sustainability Advisory Committee at the July meeting and the Sporting Club Advisory Committee at the August meeting for their information. Their position in relation to Blackman Park is outlined above.

Conclusion

Council has noted the findings and recommendations of the Chief Scientist and Engineer’s Independent review into the design, use and impacts of synthetic turf in public open spaces. The findings provide guidance on best practice for the use and installation of synthetic fields, but to not restrict their use.

A table has been provided of the locations of synthetic turf in public open spaces owned or managed by Council and discussion provides comment on proposed future management, replacement and disposal of synthetic turf in line with the recommendations from the Chief Scientists report.

Blackman Park synthetic sports fields are reaching their end of life and Council needs to commence the design and tender process for the disposal and replacement of these fields. Due to the need for the increase capacity that a synthetic sports field provides and the construction of the fields they will be replaced with a new best practice synthetic surface.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. receive and note the report; and

2. commence the process for the disposal and replacement of the two Blackman Park synthetic fields to be undertaken in the 2024/25 financial year.

Martin Terescenko

Executive Manager - Open Space and Urban Services

Open Space and Urban Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2023

Greenwich Baths Lease Arrangements

Subject: Greenwich Baths Lease Arrangements

Record No: SU2168 - 53465/23

Division: General Managers Unit

Author(s): David Stevens

Executive Summary

This item has been called to Council by Councillor Southwood.

On 26 July 2023, Council issued a Request for Commercial Arrangements (RfCA) to operate and manage the Greenwich Baths at Albert Street, Greenwich under a lease by a suitably experienced and skilled operator (AT-1). The RfCA document was released via Tenderlink, commercialrealestate.com.au and Council’s website closing on 23 August 2023. One (1) submission was received from BlueFit Pty Ltd (BlueFit) which offered two operating model alternatives. It is recommended that Council that Council appoint Bluefit under “Option 1” described as “Limited Opening Periods with Supervision” for a period of 5 years.

Background

The Greenwich Baths (the Baths) have been managed and operated by a third party on behalf of Council under a lease agreement for more than 20 years. The current lease is now in holdover, consequently Council sought offers for commercial terms to operate the Baths by way of a lease with payment of an annual rental, paid to Council monthly in advance for a 5-year term commencing 1 October 2023.

The Baths is a community facility nestled on the tip of Greenwich Point, with spectacular harbour and Sydney CBD skyline views. The baths are surrounded by a shark-proof net and the site includes a kiosk, changing rooms with toilets and shower facilities, plus a four-bedroom caretaker’s cottage on a site totaling 4,531m2.

Council’s Community Land Plan of Management (Crown Reserves with Council as Manager – adopted 27 October 2022) expressly authorises “the issue of leases, licences and other estates over the land covered by the plan of management, in accordance with section 46(1)(b) of the Local Government Act.” The Baths site is Crown Reserve Number 60749 in Council’s plan of management.

The Baths are open during the following times (Summer Season):

September: 7am to 5pm (aligned to commencement of school holidays)

October: 7am to 6pm

November: 7am to 7pm

December: 7am to 8pm

January: 7am to 8pm

February: 7am to 7pm

March: 7am to 6pm

April: 7am to 5pm

Discussion

Council received one (1) submission from the incumbent operator (Bluefit) who have managed the Baths site since 2010. BlueFit’s submission included a template business plan to support their proposed management and operation of the site including: target visitation; staff structure; non-direct and direct service hours; marketing and promotion calendar; and, site specific “Improvement Projects”. BlueFit are uniquely positioned to deliver economies of scale basis their portfolio of recreation and leisure sites including the Lane Cove Aquatic and Leisure Centre which they have managed since 2007.

Due to the commercially sensitive information included in BlueFit’s submission, the Business Plan has been circulated separately to Councillors on a Confidential basis.

BlueFit’s response to Council’s RfCA was non-compliant on the basis it did not meet Council’s specification(s) pertaining to lifeguard and / or kiosk staffing during the “Summer Season”. Rather, Bluefit proposed the following two (2) operating models for the same base rent per annum of $10,000.

Option 1 – Limited Opening Periods with Supervision

· The Baths dates and times remain with BlueFit staff opening and closing the gate;

· Café is closed in season shoulders (see description below), with no lifeguard supervision during these times;

· Entry fees are charged when the café is staffed in the peak times and a lifeguard is on duty, a second staff member:;

· The Children’s Beach Safety Program continues;

· Cleaning / maintenance as per specification every morning and night.

Supervised Period Where Entry Fees (kiosk and lifeguard) Apply:

· Weekends from November to March inclusive;

· Weekdays in the summer school holiday period (excepting Christmas Day).

Option 2 – Open Unsupervised Access

“Transition the venue completely to an open publicly accessible Baths, similar to Northbridge Baths, Balmoral and many other harbour beaches.”

· Open / free entry with BlueFit staff opening and closing the gate;

· Unsupervised, no lifeguards on duty, noting the café staff member will be first aid trained;

· Kiosk open during summer weekends and school holidays as per Option 1;

· The Children’s Beach Safety Program continues;

· Cleaning / maintenance as per specification every morning and night.

Each of the Option’s as described above, reflect the difficulty in operating the Baths site such that community enjoyment, safety, and commercial aspirations can be met. Lifeguard supervision ratios place a financial impost on any prospective operator at the Baths to the extent that a break-even financial outcome is not possible as evidenced by historical trading performance.

Bluefit have indicated that during the period of operating the baths they have not been required to undertake a rescue from the water. There is no requirement to supervise the baths, (examples include Northbridge Baths, Balmoral and Lucretia) but if supervision is provided, it must comply with relevant standards.

BlueFit have completed an updated risk assessment regarding the above options, based on supervision requirements, two (2) qualified lifeguards are required onsite during all operating hours to comply with Royal Life’s Guidelines for Safe Pool Operation. The two qualified lifeguards must hold as a minimum: senior first aid certificate; advanced resuscitation certificate; bronze medallion and pool lifeguard certificate from the Royal Life Saving Society; and a valid Working with Children Check (paid employment). The risk assessment also identified the need for updated and clear signage plus new entry protocols to mitigate swimming safety risks, which will be installed. The existing pool entry has a ‘pool safe’ compliant pool gate.

Conclusion

As the incumbent, and on the basis BlueFit was the only respondent to Council’s RfCA, it is recommended that Council accept the “Option 1” operating model proposed. In doing so, Council can be confident that BlueFit will successfully, and to the community’s satisfaction, transition the Baths away from a full service offering to a model that will continue to meet user and community needs in a safe and compliant manner.

Finally, Council will simultaneously engage with TfNSW to renew the Head Lease and associated Deed of Sub-lease (to BlueFit) such that the termination date(s) of all documents coincide.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The report be received and noted;

2. Council enter into a lease with BlueFit for a term of years at the base rent offered in Option 1.

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Request for Commercial Arrangements - Operation and Management of Greenwich Baths

16 Pages

Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2023

Councillor Representation on Council Advisory Committees and Other External Organisations to September 2024

Subject: Councillor Representation on Council Advisory Committees and Other External Organisations to September 2024

Record No: SU868 - 49148/23

Division: Corporate Services Division

Author(s): Stephen Golding

Executive Summary

Council currently operates various Advisory Committees and participates in other External Organisations to provide a forum for discussion on broad local and regional issues among Council representatives, local agencies, and community members. The purpose of this report is to determine Councillor representation on these Committees for the period ending September 2024.

Discussion

Advisory Committees and external organisations provide an excellent opportunity for Councillors, members of the community and other stakeholders to come together to discuss and address matters relevant to the charter and terms of reference of each committee. Councillors represent Council on a number of Advisory Committees and External Organisations.

A list of these Committees and Councillor representation is summarised below: -

Age Friendly Advisory Committee

· Councillor Mort

· Councillor Southwood (Alternate)

Bushland Management Advisory Committee

· Councillor Bryla

· Councillor Roenfeldt (Alternate)

Carisbrook Advisory Committee

· Councillor Roenfeldt

· Councillor Bryla (Alternate)

Council Selection Committee

· All Councillors

Internal Audit Committee

· Councillor Bennison,

· Councillor Kennedy (Alternate)

Lane Cove Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee

· Councillor Mort

· Councillor Bryla (Alternate)

Lane Cove Bicycle Advisory Committee

· Councillor Zbik

· Councillor Roenfeldt (Alternate)

Lane Cove Recreation Precinct Advisory Committee

As the project is now in the construction phase, the Committee has fulfilled its functions:- “a) To provide input and advice on the planning, consultation and implementation of a multi purpose sports facility as part of a Recreation Precinct with minimal disruption to ongoing activities during the implementation phase; b) To provide input and feedback on Council documentation relating to the design and implementation of the Recreation Precinct.”

Lane Cove Festival Committee

· Councillor Kennedy

· Councillor Mort (Alternate)

Lane Cove Literary Awards Committee

· Councillor Southwood

· Councillor Roenfeldt

Lane Cove Public Art Advisory Committee

· Councillor Kennedy

· Councillor Southwood (Alternate)

Publications Editorial Committee

· Councillor Zbik, Councillor Bennison and Councillor Southwood

· Councillor Brooks-Horn (Alternate)

Sustainability Advisory Committee

· Councillor Flood, Councillor Kennedy and Councillor Bryla

Traffic Committee

· Councillor Bryla

· Councillor Southwood (Alternate)

Lane Cove Retirement Units Association

· Councillor Brooks-Horn and Councillor Mort

· Councillor Bennison (Alternate)

NSROC

· Councillor Zbik and Councillor Flood

· Councillor Bennison (Alternate) and Councillor Southwood (Alternate)

NSW Public Libraries Association

· Councillor Flood

· Councillor Brooks-Horn (Alternate)

Shorelink Committee

· Councillor Brooks-Horn

· Councillor Bryla (Alternate)

Bushfire Committee

· Councillor Roenfeldt

· Councillor Bennison (Alternate)

Community Dog Advisory Committee

· Councillor Bryla and Councillor Southwood

· Councillor Brooks-Horn (Alternate) and Councillor Flood (Alternate)

Sporting Club Advisory Committee

· Councillor Bennison

· Councillor Zbik (Alternate) and Councillor Brooks-Horn (Alternate)

Theatre Space Planning Reference Group

· Councillor Bryla

· Councillor Kennedy (Alternate)

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1. Council determine Councillor representation on Advisory Committees and External Organisations for the period ending September 2024;

2. Council authorise all Councillor representatives on Advisory Committees to arrange an alternate as required;

3. Advisory Committee Charters be amended where necessary to reflect Councillor Representation; and

4. Council dissolve the Lane Cove Recreation Precinct Advisory Committee.

Steven Kludass

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2023

Community Consultation Results and Finalisation of the Review of Ward Boundaries

Subject: Community Consultation Results and Finalisation of the Review of Ward Boundaries

Record No: SU821 - 50521/23

Division: Corporate Services Division

Author(s): Stephen Golding

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to outline the results of the community consultation on the proposed review of ward boundaries. Council is required under the Local Government Act to monitor and review Ward Boundaries to ensure the number of electors in the respective wards does not vary by greater than 10%.

Due to the growth and development which has occurred throughout Lane Cove in recent years, there is a significant variation in the number of electors in each of the Wards. This report summarises, the results of the public consultation that took place over a six (6) week period. Two (2) submissions were received in relation to the proposed boundaries.

As both submissions were in support of the proposal, this report recommends the revised new Ward Boundaries attached (AT-1) to this report be endorsed by Council.

Background

Under Section 211 of the Local Government Act 1993 (“The Act”), councils are required to review their wards and alter them if the number of electors in one ward in its area differs by more than 10% from the number of electors in any other ward in its area.

Due to the population growth that occurs throughout Lane Cove, there is a variation of greater than 10% in the number of electors in each of the three Wards.

As a result of this variation, a review was undertaken of the Ward Boundaries to ensure there is a no greater than 10% variation in the number of electors in the three (3) Wards, which would ultimately apply for the next Ordinary Election of Council, scheduled for Saturday 14 September 2024.

The NSW Office of Local Government, Council Circular 23-05, advised that Councils must review their Ward Boundaries and notify the NSW Electoral Commission (NSWEC) of any changes to Ward Boundaries and/or Names by 5 October 2023

Council considered a report on changes to the Ward boundaries at its July 2023 Ordinary Council meeting and resolved:-

1. The information be received and noted;

2. Council place on public exhibition the proposed new Ward Boundaries (Option 3), as depicted in AT-1, in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the report; and

3. Following the consultation period, the outcomes be reported back to the September Council meeting for determination of the new Ward Boundaries prior to the 5 October 2023 deadline.

Discussion

Information supplied by the NSWEC as at of April 2023 showed that enrolments in respect of the Lane Cove Council Wards have gradually increased as a result of the development activity in the area, with the number of electors in West Ward exceeding the number of electors in Central Ward by 10.8%. As a result of the proposed revised Ward Boundaries as illustrated at AT-1 to the report, the number of electors in each ward based on enrollments as of June 2023 are as follows (note: the variation has increased from 10.8% in April to 11.2% in June 2023):

Ward	Current Number of Electors as at June 2023	Variation	Proposed Number of Electors	Variation
Central	8,557	11.2%	9,185	Highest
East	8,720	9.1%	8,720	5.3%
West	9,513	Highest	8,885	3.4%
TOTAL	26,790		26,790

Following the 6 week consultation process undertaken in accordance with the adopted consultation strategy, Council received two (2) submissions, both were in favor of the proposed boundaries. A memo containing the submissions received has been placed on the HUB for Councillors to review.

Conclusion

The proposed changes to the Ward Boundaries follow a logical geographical layout (AT-2) . With ongoing development in the Local Government Area and the requirement to maintain the number of electors in one Ward over another within 10%, Council will need to continually monitor and review Ward Boundaries.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Council adopts the proposed Ward Boundary Adjustment as indicated in AT-2; and

2. Submit the revised Ward Boundary Adjustment to the NSW Electoral Commissioner and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Steven Kludass

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Draft - LCC Ward Boundaries Option 3 (2023)	1 Page	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	New proposed Lane Cove LGA Ward Boundaries	1 Page	Available Electronically

AT‑1 View	Draft Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy	7 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Draft Fraud and Corruption Prevention Strategy	17 Pages	Available Electronically

AT‑1 View	Council Snapshot August 2023	46 Pages
AT‑2 View	Council Resolution Tracker for 21 September 2023 Council Meeting	31 Pages	Available Electronically