Agenda of Ordinary Council - Thursday, 19 June 2025

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 June 2025

Lane Cove Sport and Recreation Centre - Request for Tender - Facility Operation and Management (excluding food, beverage, and events)

Item No: 2

Subject: Lane Cove Sport and Recreation Centre - Request for Tender - Facility Operation and Management (excluding food, beverage, and events)

Record No: SU10080 - 35763/25

Division: General Managers Unit

Author(s): David Stevens

Executive Summary

Council called for tenders in accordance with Council’s Tender and Quotation Procedure for the provision of Facility Operation and Management (the Services) at the Lane Cove Sport and Recreation Centre (LCSRC). The Open Request for Tender (RFT) to procure the Services was made via Vendor Panel on 4 February and closed on 1 April 2025 for which, Council received eight (8) conforming tender responses. The Services are to be provided under a five (5) year lease with Council’s option to renew for a period of five (5) years. A draft Agreement for Lease (AFL) and Lease were included in the Request for Tender documents. Council’s procurement process for the Services was overseen by Independent Probity Advisor, Noble Shore.

This report provides details on the tender process conducted and recommends Sydney Sports Management Group Pty Ltd (SSMG) as the preferred tenderer. In so doing, Council delegates authority to the General Manager to enter into negotiations with SSMG with a view to awarding a contract for the Services.

A Confidential Memorandum has been circulated separately to Councillors (available on the HUB) detailing the prices submitted by each tenderer, how each of the weighted criteria was assessed, a Tender Evaluation Report signed-off by the Tender Evaluation Panel (TEP), and a Probity Report prepared by Noble Shore.

Council staff have prepared a separate Request for Tender Report for the provision of Operation and Management for Food, Beverage, and Events at LCSRC that should be read in conjunction with this Report. Therein, is the inclusion of “Next Procurement Steps” due to both Tenders now reaching their natural conclusion.

Background

Council’s RFT for the Services, was formally titled “Tender for the Operation and Management of:

· Lane Cove Sport and Recreation Centre and/or

· Lane Cove Golf Course Management and Maintenance”

More definitively, and in recognition of prospective Facility Management Operator’s (FMO) not necessarily wishing, nor indeed having sufficient expertise to manage the golf component, single discipline (golf course) operator’s (GCO) were encouraged to tender a response. Council therefore invited bids on an “and / or” basis thereby providing the Tender Evaluation Panel (TEP) the opportunity of comparing on a like-for-like basis from both a facility, and business-line perspective. Put simply, the TEP was afforded considerable clarity with which to assess the tender responses in the best interests of community and Council. The FMO and GCO “spaces” as described in the RFT were:

· Area 1, being the facility excluding golf course operations;

· Area 2, being the golf course operations only.

The above Operator Spaces were clearly highlighted in the architectural drawings included in the RFT. Note, respondents were provided with the opportunity of “claiming” a subsidy for golf course maintenance such that Council would continue to manage this contract at Council’s cost. Alternatively, respondents could choose to contract-in golf course maintenance either with the incumbent, or indeed a contractor of their choosing (as approved by Council).

Discussion

A tender specification was prepared as part of, and in conjunction with an overarching RFT Package of documents including (but not limited to):

· Detailed budget template for FY26 (half year), FY27, FY28, and FY29;

· Architectural Drawings;

· Development Application Consent;

· Service Specifications;

· Compiled Draft AFL and Lease;

· Service Specifications including their connectedness (contractually) to the Draft Lease;

· Golf Course Maintenance Specifications;

· Historical golf course participation;

· Draft cleaning schedule;

· Key Performance Indicator Scorecard;

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

Criteria 1: Price

Weighting: 40%

Best value to Council.

Criteria 2: Capacity and Method(s) of Service Delivery

Weighting: 30%

· Demonstrated financial capacity;

· Past record and / or demonstrated ability to provide Operation, maintenance, and Management Services;

· The Respondent’s technical expertise, resourcing and financial management skills including associated systems for reporting and quality assurance;

· Proposed method(s) of service delivery including provision of Wheelchair Sports, People with a Disability, and Dance Groups;

· Activity programming including winter versus summer season(s);

· Demonstrated programming experience to establish community-first ethos balanced against commercial outcomes;

· Commencement Transition Plan;

· Innovation (value-added services).

Criteria 3: Experience and Partnership

Weighting: 20%

· the relevant experience of the Respondent and key personnel and the extent of skills/qualifications of the people who will be engaged to carry out the Service(s) obligations;

· Structure of the organisation;

· Contracts of a similar nature with other NSW Councils and / or the Private Sector;

· Demonstrated financial capability to provide the Facility Operation and Management (and / or Golf Operations where applicable) Services;

· Experience of Sub-Contractors;

· Relationship Management and partnership building with the community and Council;

· Referee responses.

Criteria 4: Workplace Health & Safety:

Weighting: Pass / Fail

· Work, Health and Safety record, policies, and procedures;

· Quality Assurance Programs and Work Method Statements;

· Insurances;

· Satisfaction of Modern Slavery Requirements.

Criteria 5: Sustainability & Environmental Factors

Weighting: 10%

· Plans for waste management, energy efficiency, and eco-friendly practices;

· Assessed based on completed applicable Returnable Schedules;

Evaluation

The TEP formally convened on five (5) occasions, in each instance the meeting(s) were overseen by Noble Shore (NS) in their capacity as Council’s independent Probity Advisor who has subsequently provided a written report certifying the process as conducted.

Due to the commercially sensitive nature of pricing (annual rent) received, Councillors have been briefed confidentially under memorandum that includes the weighted evaluation criteria and assessment thereof, a Tender Evaluation Report, and details of the reference checks (including financial capacity to perform the contract) undertaken for the preferred tenderer.

After assessing the eight (8) tender responses, the TEP determined a short list of four (4) each of whom submitted a response to manage Area’s 1 and 2, ie LCSRC in its entirety:

1. Belgravia Leisure Pty Ltd;

2. Bluefit Pty Ltd;

3. Clublinks Management Pty Ltd;

4. Sydney Sports Management Group Pty Ltd (SSMG).

The TEP’s non-price criteria scoring clearly illustrated that each of the four (4) respondents were not only suitably capable and experienced to deliver the services, but moreover aligned with Council’s vision as resolved at the December 2023 Meeting “that the core goal of the Centre is to operate as a service to the community”.

All respondents conveyed a depth of programming experience and provided a variety of nuanced facility activation solutions. As mentioned previously, in each instance the respondents aligned their vision(s) for the site with Council’s and indeed, said vision was clearly reflected in the programmed activities, coaching, and activation generally. All respondents are to be highly commended for the due diligence undertaken in this regard, the TEP felt certain that any one of the short-listed operators could have performed the Services with great effect, and to the community’s satisfaction, if appointed.

Council provided benchmark pricing for commercial, social, and community court (indoor and outdoor) hire, and the contract value for golf course maintenance to assist respondents in their financial forecasting. In addition, historical golf participation data, a User Needs Analysis, and Xypher Leisure’s “Lane Cove Sport and Recreation Precinct – Multi Sports Community Fund Business Case” were supplied such that respondents were in receipt of all relevant and available information to formulate their budget(s) for FY26 (half year), 27, 28 and 29.

The RFT’s budget template was comprehensive and detailed, it required respondents to complete Area 1 (FMO) and Area 2 (GCO) separately, whilst simultaneously seeking financial forecasts during, and beyond the twelve (12) month Defect Liability Period (DLP).

Assessment of Criteria 1 “Price” was given a 40% weighting and in financial terms, was the contract price made to Council in the form of annual rent (net of the Golf Course Maintenance Subsidy, if required). On this point, SSMG was the only respondent who did not require a golf course maintenance subsidy (equivalent $ value to the current contract).

Variances were apparent in forecast visitation across the short-listed respondents, as was the case for matters such as: asset and plant maintenance; cleaning; utility cost; wages and / or administrative costs; and program / coaching income. Council’s experience in managing and operating The Canopy has provided valuable insight(s) into the cost and complexity of asset maintenance and cleaning for large community sites. Consequently, the disparity in these two areas (particularly) amongst the respondents, was of concern to the TEP during its assessment of the budget template responses submitted. The TEP sought clarification via a Request for Information (RFI) from the short-listed tenderers for the matters described above and determined that SSMG had the most accurate financial forecast for the matters of asset management and cleaning.

The tender response received from SSMG includes a high degree of business continuity by including a partnership with K.M. Dive Golf to deliver the GCO services. Kasey Dive has been providing professional golf and coaching services at the Lane Cove Golf Course for nearly twenty (20) years and is highly regarded by members, social players, and indeed her golf coaching customers. Further, SSMG propose continuing the services of Green By Nature (GBN) to maintain the golf course and in so doing, contract with GBN directly.

Council’s TEP consisted of:

Steven Kludass (TEP Chair), Acting General Manager (scoring member)

Martin Terescenko, Director Open Space & Infrastructure (scoring member)

David Stevens, Manager Commercial Operations (scoring member)

Dr Neil Gibson, External Consultant (scoring member)

John Renshaw, Noble Shore (independent probity advisor and non-scoring member)

Conclusion

Having recorded the highest score across all the weighted criteria, the Tender Panel recommends that Sydney Sports Management Group Pty Ltd progress as the preferred tenderer for the Facility Operation and Management of the LCSRC.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. accept the Tender Evaluation Panel recommendation of Sydney Sports Management Group Pty Ltd for the provision of LCSRC Facility Operation and Management as the preferred tenderer, subject to positive referee checks and a positive Corporate Scorecard (financial) health check; and

2. delegate authority to the General Manager to finalise negotiations with a view to awarding a contract with Sydney Sports Management Group Pty Ltd.

Steven Kludass

Acting General Manager

General Managers Unit

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 June 2025

Lane Cove Sport and Recreation Centre - Request for Tender - Operation and Management of Food, Beverage, and Events

Item No: 3

Subject: Lane Cove Sport and Recreation Centre - Request for Tender - Operation and Management of Food, Beverage, and Events

Record No: SU9859 - 35764/25

Division: General Managers Unit

Author(s): David Stevens

Executive Summary

Council called for Tenders in accordance with Council’s Tender and Quotation Procedure for the provision of Operation and Management for Food, Beverage, and Events (the Services) at the Lane Cove Sport and Recreation Centre (LCSRC). The Selective Request for Tender to procure the Services was made via Vendor Panel on 14 April and closed on 15 May 2025 for which, Council received one (1) conforming and one (1) non-conforming tender response. The Services are to be provided under a ten (10) year lease with a further two (2) by five (5) year options, a draft Agreement for Lease (AFL) and Lease were included in the Request for Tender documents.

This report provides details on the selective tender process conducted and recommends that Council reject the tender responses received and enter negotiations and finalise terms to operate and manage food, beverage, and events (FB&E) with the preferred supplier for LCSRC Facility Operation and Management. Further, this Report outlines “Next Procurement Steps” due to both Tenders now reaching their natural conclusion.

A Confidential Memorandum has been circulated separately to Councilors detailing the commercial aspects of the one (1) conforming tender response, how each of the weighted criteria was assessed, a Tender Evaluation Report signed-off by the Tender Evaluation Panel (TEP), and the Probity Report prepared by Noble Shore.

Background

This Selective Request for Tender was the second stage of Council’s procurement strategy to contract for the Services and was overseen by independent Probity Advisor, Noble Shore. Stage one (1) was an Expression of Interest (EOI) released via direct electronic engagement on 4 February 2025 (on Council’s behalf) by Specialty Leasing Agents IB Property (IBP), and Precinct Retail (PR) to their extensive client database and, online via Commercialrealestate.com. IBP and PR assisted Council in its procurement activities for hospitality operators at The Canopy and were engaged via a separate Request for Quote process for the LCSRC project.

The EOI was open for six (6) weeks and during this time, IBP, PR and Council hosted several site visits from prospective FB&E Operators. Council received eight (8) formal expressions of interest that were evaluated by a panel of Council staff, IBP and PR who jointly determined the short-list of six (6) for the Selective Request for Tender stage.

Discussion

A tender specification was prepared detailing the Services to be provided that included: community-based programming and hire of multi-purpose rooms; integration and collaboration with LCSRC Operator / Manager; bistro / restaurant fit out; sample menu and pricing; and an Operational Management Plan (trading hours, WHS, noise management, security, event management protocols). The specification outlined that the tender submissions would be assessed based on the following weighted criteria:-

Criteria 1: Price

Weighting: 30%

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

Criteria 2: Financial Capacity and Capability

Weighting: 20%

· Demonstrated financial capacity and operational stability to execute the proposal;

· Technical expertise, resourcing, and financial management skills including associated systems for reporting and quality assurance;

· Demonstrated experience in managing hospitality fit outs on time and budget;

· Commencement Transition Plan;

· Draft Annual Business Plan;

· Demonstrated ability to align and adapt with evolving market trends.

Criteria 3: Customer Service and Experience

Weighting: 15%

· the relevant experience of the Respondent and key personnel and the extent of skills/qualifications of the people who will be engaged to carry out the Service(s) obligations;

· Proven track record in operating FB&E Venues of a similar scale;

· Demonstrated ability to attract and retain customers, strong market positioning, and experience in branding and marketing;

· Demonstrated commitment to Customer Service;

· Referee responses.

Criteria 4: Community and Vision

Weighting: 20%

· Community-first focus;

· Identify the target market;

· Articulate the marketing vision to retain and grow the target market;

· Vision for the FB&E Venue;

· Mood board and concept fit out design including front of house furniture and fittings;

· Sample menu to deliver an exceptional casual dining and event experience.

Criteria 4: Workplace Health & Safety:

Weighting: Pass / Fail

· Work, Health and Safety record, policies, and procedures;

· Quality Assurance Programs and Work Method Statements;

· Insurances;

· Satisfaction of Modern Slavery Requirements.

Criteria 5: Sustainability & Environmental Factors

Weighting: 15%

· Plans for waste management, energy efficiency, wastewater management, water reuse, and water efficient practices (noting gas is NOT permitted);

· Assessed based on completed applicable Returnable Schedules;

Council received two (2) tender responses, both of which were submitted by contractor’s bidding for the LCSRC Facility Operation and Management, however only one (1) response (Clublinks) was conforming which was assessed and evaluated by Council’s Tender Evaluation Panel (TEP):

Steven Kludass (TEP Chair), Acting General Manager (scoring member)

Stephanie Kelly, Director Community & Culture (scoring member)

David Stevens, Manager Commercial Operations (scoring member)

Steffan Ippolito, IB Property (scoring member)

Matthew Yovich, Precinct Retail (scoring member)

John Renshaw, Noble Shore (independent probity advisor and non-scoring member)

Clublinks are to be commended for their tender response, it displayed the requisite time and due diligence an experienced operator would ordinarily dedicate to such a process and was complete in every sense. Clublinks illustrated a clear understanding of the brief, particularly from a community asset perspective and brought a fresh approach to the food, beverage, and events space.

Four (4) hospitality firms included in the Selective Request for Tender declined to provide a response due to the absence of a fit out (capital) contribution from Council. The TEP determined that, in the presence of only one (1) conforming bid, there was insufficient competitive tension to accept the conforming tender, nor indeed proceed to negotiations and finalise the Lease in the best interests of Council and the community.

Notwithstanding receipt of only one (1) conforming tender response, it gave rise to the TEP’s consideration of a vertically integrated solution for LCSRC Facility Management under a single operator model, noting that the respondents were sufficiently qualified and capable in leisure facility management and, the associated food, beverage and events offering. The conforming tender response included a capital contribution to fit out of the bistro / restaurant and a performance fee. Each of the food, beverage and events responses were operationally and financially linked to their respective success for engagement to manage and operate LCSRC in its entirety, noting that the non-conforming tenderer did not offer any firm financial commitment (rent or otherwise) nor, did they complete the Returnable Schedules.

Next Procurement Steps

This Report will recommend that Council not accept tenders, nor indeed call for fresh tenders. Under section 178(3)(e) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 (Regulations) which provides that:

“A council that decides not to accept any of the tender submissions for a proposed contract or receives no tender submissions for the proposed contract must do one of the following:

(e) by resolution of the council, enter into negotiations with any person (whether or not the person was a tenderer) with a view to entering into a contract in relation to the subject matter of the tender”.

In doing so Council is required to note the operation of s178(4) of the Regulations which states that:

“(4) If a council resolves to enter into negotiations as referred to in subsection (3)(e), the resolution must state the following—

(a) the council’s reasons for declining to invite fresh tender submissions or applications

(b) the council’s reasons for determining to enter into negotiations with the person or persons referred to in subsection (3)(e).”

Noting the FB&E operator feedback regarding no financial contribution (by Council) to fit out, and the evaluation limitations encountered by the TEP by virtue of only one (1) conforming tender response received, Council proposes the establishment of a new procurement strategy to appoint a suitably qualified and capable FB&E operator. In so doing, coupled with awarding the LCSRC Facility Operation and Management Tender to the preferred supplier as “anchor tenant”, Council will be well placed to duly attract and engage with a credentialed FB&E operator.

Council’s execution of the new procurement stage will be in partnership with the successful LCSRC Facility Operator / Manager (FMO), and the already engaged Specialty Leasing Agents. The most discernible way to commence, will be to seek renewed interest from the four (4) non-respondents to Council’s Selective Request for Tender. That said, Council do not propose limiting its market-testing activities to only this narrow field.

Contractual outcome(s) such as whether the FB&E operator is contracted directly to Council, or indeed sub-contracted under the LCSRC FMO, will be explored in the proposed new procurement strategy. Further, such collaborative and direct engagement will identify alternative FB&E models in terms of scale, and / or future scalability opportunities that best serve Council and the community.

Conclusion

A Confidential Memorandum has been circulated separately to Councilors detailing the commercial aspects of the Clublinks tender response, how each of the weighted criteria was assessed, a Tender Evaluation Report signed-off by the TEP, and the Probity Report prepared by Noble Shore. Noting the TEP’s inability to test and benchmark the one (1) conforming tender received, the TEP recommends Council reject the tenders and the General Manager be given delegated authority to negotiate with the preferred tenderer from Council’s Request for Tender – Facility Operation and Management and finalise terms that (may) include management and operation of food, beverage, and events. Further, Council begins a new procurement strategy to identify and appoint a suitably qualified and capable FB&E operator at LCSRC in partnership with the preferred tenderer from Council’s Request for Tender – Facility Operation and Management, and Council’s Specialty Leasing Agents.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Decline to accept all tender submissions as there was no scope to test and benchmark during the evaluation process, nor indeed to finalise contractual terms.

2. Not call fresh tenders pursuant to section 178(3)(e) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 (Regulations), and “enter into negotiations with any person (whether or not the person was a tenderer) with a view to entering into a contract in relation to the subject matter of the tender”. Under s178(4) of the Regulations:

a) Decline to call fresh tenders because a field of suitably capable and experienced food, beverage, and events operators was identified in the Selective Tender. Further, in the presence of a preferred tenderer for the Facility Management and Operation Services as “anchor tenant”, the TEP is satisfied in Council’s ability to undergo further and rigorous market testing;

b) Delegate authority to the General Manager to enter negotiations with the preferred tenderer from Council’s Request for Tender – Facility Operation and Management due to their demonstrated financial capacity, proposed method(s) of service delivery, facility management experience and commitment to partnership;

3. Commence a new procurement strategy in partnership with the preferred tenderer from Council’s Request for Tender – Facility Operation and Management and Council’s Specialty Leasing Agents to appoint a suitably qualified and experienced food, beverage, and events operator;

4. In appointing the food, beverage, and events operator Council may contract directly, or assign sub-contracting rights to the preferred tenderer from Council’s Request for Tender – Facility Operation and Management; and

5. Receive a debrief on the outcomes of the new procurement strategy at a Councillor Workshop in August 2025.

Steven Kludass

Acting General Manager

General Managers Unit

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Meeting 19 June 2025

Community Consultation Results - Revised Draft Community Strategic Plan 2035

Item No: 5

Subject: Community Consultation Results - Revised Draft Community Strategic Plan 2035

Record No: SU10323 - 33018/25

Division: General Managers Unit

Author(s): Steven Kludass

Executive Summary

The Revised Draft Community Strategic Plan has been the subject of extensive community consultation since February 2025.

This report presents a summary of the feedback received from the second round of community consultation regarding the Revised Community Strategic Plan. Councillors will recall the first round of community consultation yielded responses from more than 850 local residents from the Lane Cove local government area. The Revised Draft Community Strategic Plan is submitted for Council’s consideration and adoption.

Background

The Community Strategic Plan (CSP) identifies the community’s vision, main priorities and aspirations for the future and must be reviewed by each incoming council by 30 June in the financial year they were elected. The CSP is a long-term plan (minimum horizon of 10 years) and was last adopted by Council in 2022.

During the first round of community consultation (10 February to 25 March 2025), Council sought feedback from the community in relation to the CSP to determine whether it is still relevant and reflects the aspirations and priorities of our community.

The community responded to a variety of consultation options provided by Council during the 6-week consultation period. The extent of community feedback is summarised as follows:

· A phone survey involving 400 randomly selected local residents of Lane Cove that mirror our demographic profile;

· The completion of 217 online surveys, mirroring the questions in the phone survey, by local residents of Lane Cove;

· Four (4) interactive community workshops with 37 local residents participating to share their local experiences and priorities for the future;

· Leveraged off special events held in February and March to promote the review of the CSP and receive feedback, with a guilded mirror used to capture more than 200 comments from local residents; and

· Free form submissions from five (5) local residents, sharing their local experiences and priorities for the future.

Results from the phone survey and online survey revealed the following as the most loved aspects of living in Lane Cove:

· Green areas and open spaces;

· Access to good services, facilities, shops and restaurants;

· Central and convenient location; and

· Good sense of community.

Results from the phone survey and online survey revealed the following as the main priority issues for Lane Cove over the next 10 years:

· More and improved public transport;

· Managing overdevelopment;

· Traffic control / congestion; and

· Housing affordability / availability.

With respect to the objectives contained in the adopted CSP, the community feel they are still very relevant with the majority of objectives scoring an agreement rating of 80% or higher.

The phone survey results also indicated a great level of support for the CSP Vision “Lane Cove as a connected, inclusive, sustainable community” with over 96% of respondents stating they were either very supportive, supportive or somewhat supportive of the Vision.

The online survey results were similar to the phone survey results with almost identical results in terms of agreement with the CSP Vision and priorities over the next 10 years.

Discussion

The second round of community consultation commenced 27 April 2025 and concluded on 6 June 2025 as part of the broader public exhibition of Council Draft Plans, including the Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan, Draft 2025/26 Budget and Draft 2025/26 Schedule of Fees and Charges.

A total of twenty two (22) comments were received in relation to the Community Strategic Plan, eleven (11) of which were received via the on-line survey, six (6) via free-form submissions and a further five (5) via direct feedback received during two ‘drop-in sessions’.

A summary of the matters raised in submissions, via on-line survey and feedback received from ‘drop-in sessions’, together with a response to each matter is provided below:

· Lack of purpose-built performance spaces in the local government area that accommodate a range of performances and audience sizes.

Response:

Several submissions highlighted a strong community desire for renewed emphasis on cultural programming in Lane Cove, particularly the need for a large-format performance space (300+ capacity) to support orchestras, large bands, touring productions, and theatre.

Respondents noted this priority was not adequately reflected in the new CSP, despite its alignment with previous commitments to provide venues and spaces that foster creativity.

While the new Pottery Lane Performance Space addresses part of this need, it does not meet the full demand. The feedback suggests that cultural goals may have been underrepresented in the revised plan. In response, it is proposed that the CSP include a clear strategic outcome supporting the delivery of a large-scale performance venue to better serve artists, performers, and the broader community. The following strategy has been added to the Revised Community Strategic Plan:

(New Strategy in CSP & DPOP) 4.2.3 - Deliver a suitably sized venue for large-scale performances.

· The need for our natural environment to feature more prevalently throughout the Community Strategic Plan, including in the vision and mission, guiding principles, the order of the themes and the need for additional strategies to be included to address the damage stormwater creates in our bushland, creeks and waterways.

Response:

Several submissions and in-person feedback (from the drop-in sessions) highlighted the concerns above.

The Revised Draft Community Strategic Plan now features ‘Our Natural Environment’ as the first theme in the document.

Furthermore, the following strategies and/or actions have been added to acknowledge the impact of stormwater on our local bushland and waterways:

(New Action in DPOP) 2.1.5.1 – Develop urban containment strategies designed to slow the rate of water flowing downstream into bushland areas, creeks and waterways.

(New Strategy in CSP & DPOP) 1.1.4 – Protect Council’s bushland, creeks and waterways from urban development, particularly the stormwater impacts associated with new development.

(Amended Strategy in CSP & DPOP) 1.3.6 – Implement interpretation, engagement and education programs to promote appreciation, protection and enhancement of bushland reserves as wildlife protection areas for a diverse range of residents.

Given the high level of support for the vision (96%), ‘Lane Cove as a connected, inclusive and sustainable community’, it is not recommended this be changed to specifically include the natural environment.

· A lack of active open space (sporting fields) in the local government area.

Response:

One (1) piece of feedback was received during the ‘drop-in session’ relating to a need to identify and acquire lands to accommodate the needs of sporting groups, particularly AFL. It is recommended the following strategy be included in the Community Strategic Plan to reflect this need:

(New Action in DPOP) 3.4.4.1 – Identify appropriate lands to accommodate more active playing field sports to meet local demand with a view to future acquisition.

· Several respondents acknowledged the work in developing the Revised Community Strategic Plan and offered no further suggested amendments.

A full copy of each of the submissions received has been separately provided to Councillors on the HUB.

Revised Community Strategic Plan

The feedback received in relation to the Community Strategic Plan has been used to refine the plan, including the proposed changes outlined above. The Revised Draft Community Strategic Plan ‘Liveable Lane Cove, 2035’ is attached at AT-1.

Conclusion

The Community Strategic Plan has been the subject of significant community consultation since February 2025. In total, more than 875 individuals and community groups participated during the two rounds of community consultation. It is extremely encouraging to find the level of interest and general support for the Plan from a large section of the community.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. note the submissions received and the draft council responses prepared in relation to the Revised Draft Community Strategic Plan, Liveable Lane Cove 2035;

2. write to each of the individuals and organisations who made comment on the Revised Draft Community Strategic Plan, thanking them for their input and providing responses to the issues raised in their submissions; and

3. adopt the Revised Draft Community Strategic Plan, Liveable Lane Cove 2035.

Steven Kludass

Acting General Manager

General Managers Unit

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Revised Draft CSP - June 2025

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 June 2025

Community Consultation Results - Draft 2025/26 Budget, Draft Fees and Charges, Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan, Draft Resourcing Strategy and Associated Resource Plans

Item No: 6

Subject: Community Consultation Results - Draft 2025/26 Budget, Draft Fees and Charges, Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan, Draft Resourcing Strategy and Associated Resource Plans

Record No: SU10128 - 33017/25

Division: Corporate and Strategy Division

Author(s): Don Johnston

Executive Summary

This report provides consideration of submissions received as a result of the public exhibition of Council’s Draft 2025/26 Budget, Draft Fees and Charges, Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan, Draft Resourcing Strategy and associated Resource Plans. Council approved the exhibition of the draft documents at its meeting of 24 April 2025 and the public exhibition period closed on 6 June 2025.

A total of twenty-eight (28) submissions were received (26 written, 2 online), noting that nineteen (19) of them were the same as Submission 1 outlined in the table below (which was received both online and in writing) and a further submission fully endorsing Submission 1. There were eight (8) different submissions received. A summary of matters raised in the submissions is listed in the report. Some refinements have been made to the suite of Draft Plans to reflect matters either raised in submissions or information that has come to light during the public exhibition period that necessitates minor changes to the Draft Plans.

Background

At its meeting dated 24 April 2025, Council resolved that:

1. Council adopt, for the purpose of public exhibition, the Draft 2025/26 Budget, Draft 2025/26 Delivery Program and Operational Plan (includes Draft 2025/26 Fees and Charges), and the Draft Resourcing Strategy and associated Resource Plans;

2. Council undertake community consultation from late April 2025 until early June 2025 as per the consultation outlined in the report; and

3. that during the public exhibition period, Council staff revisit the draft budget and explore alternate ways in which further savings could be made or additional funding sources identified to reduce the forecast deficit and report back to Council with findings prior to the adoption of the 2025/2026 Budget.

4. that for transparency, to itemise separately, and also in any future budgets, externally managed council revenue and revenue required to be so itemised for compliance purposes; and

5. noting that Council has previously responded to the LGNSW Cost Shifting Report, published November 2023 (https://lgnsw.org.au/Public/Public/Advocacy/Cost-shifting.aspx) and more recently in February 2025 in relation to the LGNSW 2023/24 Cost Shifting Survey, that letters be sent to relevant government bodies highlighting the financial challenges to local government caused by cost shifting, rate-pegging and cost increases, and, once again, highlight that the State Emergency Levy should be fully funded by State Govt.

Discussion

Community consultation on the Draft Plans was undertaken from 27 April 2025 to 6 June 2025 and included an online exhibition advertising the Draft Plans, together with the option to complete an on-line survey or submit a free form submission. The Draft Plans were promoted via social media and enewsletter.

Submissions

A total of twenty-eight (28) submissions (eight different submissions) were received from members of the community on the Draft Plans. Councillors have received a copy of all submissions which has been placed on the Councillor HUB.

A summary of the matters raised in the submissions, together with responses are provided in

the table below.

Submission

Matter raised

Comment

Submission 1

(Note: the same submission was received from 19 other submitters)

Raised matters related to the Long-Term Financial Plan and Strategic Asset Management Plan and suggested some improvements.

Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP):

The RBA CPI forecast rate used is incorrect. The document states “The RBA range for inflation for 2025/26 is forecast to be between 2% - 3%”.

The correct RBA forecast for 2025/26 is between 2.4-3.7% and 2026/27 is between 2.7-3.2%

LCC should now return to its practice prior to 2022, where it used the real RBA CPI forecast for the 1^st two years, and from year 3 onward the target band, if it makes sense. Or it should state that it is a “home brew” CPI rate. It should not state the RBA forecast incorrectly.

A lower CPI rate invalidates the plan as it gives a false positive impression of the LCC’s true financial position.

Revert to showing at least 1, preferably 2 previous years actual values, as all LTFPs prior to August 2022 had, for all 10 year forecast starting from page 21 – 26, so the planned forecast values can be easily associated with actual performance from previous years. You will then have actuals, budget, and then 10 forecasts. (refer to LCC LTFP of June 2021)

Re-introduce the performance measures that were in the LTFP of 2020, so that a true view of planned asset and capital expense performance can be assessed. Preferably all, but at least the first 3 which are critical and reported in Annual statements,

i. Infrastructure backlog ratio

ii. Asset Maintenance Ratio

iii. Capital Expenditure ratio

iv. Operations performance ratio over 3 years.

v. Own source Operating Revenue over 3 years.

vi. Building and renewal ratio over 3 years.

Strategic Asset Management Plan:

This plan is significantly better than previous plans.

The plan lacks historical information (actuals) so there is no reference point for comparing. Previous AMPs had various graphs showing actual movements of critical performance measure (ref: AMP page 12 of June 2024)

Appendix 1 could include actuals for 2 or 3 previous years.

It is accepted that the wording of the LTFP could be clearer and make reference to the RBA target range and not specify a particular year. That update will be made to the LTFP. In relation to its use to inform our inflationary indexation, it is considered reasonable. CPI forecasts tend to be quite short-term and not necessarily appropriate for a long-term Plan. Instead, the RBA in its latest Statement of Monetary Policy (May 2025) includes this comment:

Our assessment is that long-term inflation expectations remain anchored at the target.

Consequently, using the mid-point of the target range for an inflationary index is considered reasonable.

The RBA forecasts quoted in the submission are, for 2025/26, between 2.4-3.7% and for 2026/27 is between 2.7-3.2%. Council has applied a CPI increase of 3.5% in its draft 2025/26 Budget which is at the upper end of the forecast range. The 2.5% used in the LTFP for 2026/27 is not significantly outside the RBA’s forecast.

Also, the LTFP acknowledges that changes in inflation will impact both income and expenditure.

Long-term financial planning is not a precise science. It is not possible to accurately forecast economic factors over a ten-year horizon. There will be variations to whatever indexes are applied in the plan. The most appropriate thing to do is use a reliable source of information to inform the Plan which is what Council has done and periodically review the Plan to ensure its currency.

The LTFP is a forward-looking document. Actual and current year figures are readily available in Council’s annual financial statements and quarterly budget review statements.

The logic behind the KPIs used in the LTFP is to rely primarily on audited indicators. While the first three indicators appear with Council’s financial statements, they form part of the unaudited Report on infrastructure assets which is one of the Special Schedules appended to the financial statements. The only unaudited KPI used is the Building and infrastructure renewals ratio which is considered to be the headline asset management ratio.

This positive feedback is appreciated.

The SAMP is a forward-looking document. Actual and current year figures are readily available in Council’s annual financial statements and quarterly budget review statements.

See response above.

Submission 2

Raised a number of questions in relation to Long-Term Financial Plans (LTFP) and processes associated with the Sport & Recreation Facility (SRF)

Why did August 2022 (Scenarios 1 and 2) submitted to Councillors prior to their decision to proceed with the SRF not include depreciation for the SRF (and Wadanggarri Park)

On what basis could Council therefore represent to OLG that all Council’s key financial indicators would not be adversely impacted by the project

Why depreciation forecasts in June 2024 LTFP were less than both June 2023 LTFP and April 2025 LTFP

Why capitalisation of TCorp loan interest into the project cost base does not cease upon the project being completed.

It was clearly stated in the Revised Long-Term Financial Plan in August 2022 that the scenarios explore Council’s capacity to build an indoor Sport & Recreation Facility. Operating costs associated with the capital financing were included in this version of the LTFP – that is, the borrowing costs associated with a $10M 10-year loan at an indicative 5.0% interest. Post-construction operating income and expenses (including depreciation) were included in the subsequent LTFP (the 2023 LTFP), following a QS of the construction build costs and the development of an itemized depreciation schedule.

The basis for this statement, as noted above, was the impact on Council’s financial indicators of building the $75M facility. In the Office of Local Government’s response to the submission of Council’s Capital Expenditure Review in September 2022 (which concluded that Council had satisfactorily addressed the criteria required in the Guidelines) it was noted that:

OLG expects that Council will continue to update and amend its project documentation and reports in line with the Guidelines to include any operational or financial impacts that may arise during the project.

To this end, the next update of the LTFP in June 2023 included net operating income of $310K plus an additional $870K in depreciation commencing in the 2026/27 financial year.

Importantly, the Performance Indicators in the 2023 LTFP showed that there were no adverse impacts of building, operating, and depreciating the Facility which supports the 2022 statement.

The 2024/25 depreciation forecasts included in the June 2024 update of the LTFP were based on information provided by Council’s asset management service provider. These forecasts included some small reductions in depreciation across plant & equipment, roads, and other structures totalling $207K. The forecast depreciation for Wadanggari Park ($714K) and Sport & Recreation Facility (revised to commence in October 2025) were included in the depreciation forecasts.

The timing of these forecasts meant that the significant indexation of asset cost as at 30 June 2024 totalling some $34M across depreciable asset classes was not taken into account. This increase in asset value has been taken into consideration in the exhibited LTFP and contributes to the increased depreciation expense (and more than offset the small reductions in the earlier forecast). Wadanggari Park and the Sport & Recreation Facility depreciation has been refined following the capitalisation of the Park and revised timing of completion of the Facility.

The LTFP exhibited shows interest being expensed from 2026/27 onwards. The Plan acknowledges that the Facility will be completed during 2025/26 but for simplicity models interest expense commencing from 2026/27.

Submission 3

Makes a number of observations and asks several questions:

Assets renewal is $6.1m out of $70.2m total expenditure or merely 8.7%.

Business economy spending is $4.4m, only 6.3%. (pages 95-96)

What is the Council “Reserve Movement” for “Operational Expenditure” of $40,000,000 in 2025/26?

Why is Council drawing down on its reserves so heavily? What is this going to fund?

Property acquisition in 2025/26 is $28,000,000 for “open recreation space”, funded from s7.11/VPA income from development levies. What about roads, car parking, etc? This represents approx 56% of all capital works. (page 127)

Some of it might be better spent on fixing the reliability of the escalators in the Market Square carpark, to help in particular our senior citizens.

Council bemoans its future ability to fund infrastructure renewal/maintenance & is overseeing the 55%+ overspend build of a $81,000,000 sports/recreation centre (initially budgeted at a mere $52,000,000) & wants to spend $28,000,000 on green space acquisition

Seemingly, the cost of running the Council is obfuscated for 2025/26 by the injection of the $40,000,000 reserve drawdown, some circa $31,000,000 higher than other projected years. This just happens to zero out the usual $30,000,000+ of running cost. Running cost usually runs at about 40+% of total costs.

General rates are said to rise by 3.9%, as controlled by IPART, the independent pricing regulator. However, general domestic garbage waste charge is rising 13.7%, $637.65 from $560.90 p.a. (page 206). So, the overall total rate increase is effectively around 7%

Why is “climate resilience” advocated to move to “climate emergency”? What’s the justification for this & what is this? What are the ramifications of this change? (page 42)

LCC claims to be on the side of local business, page 189 shows annual charges per square metre of between $475 and $874 for sidewalk table areas.

Finally, the overall budget shows a $598K deficit, there would seem to be plenty of scope to claw this back. Council is also sowing the seeds for ‘special rate variation applications’ in the future to fund the needs apparently identified by the community consultations, such as ‘Liveable Lane Cove 2035’.

There has never been any caveats about what this Liveable Lane Cove 2035 wish list might cost we ratepayers. All this at a time of record intakes from s7.11 / VPA levies on developers, apparently to be spent on sports stadiums & green space land acquisitions. All rate payers must remember that Council is not responsible for major infrastructure such as water, sewerage, electricity & main roads. These are all the remit of the State Government. So what exactly are the development levies being spent on that add value & reduce/control costs of service delivery.

The discussion should be about informing the community as to what Council can afford to deliver, not putting a non-negotiable price on delivery of a wish list.

Council must learn to live within the community expectations of a fiscally responsible budget that delivers rates levies that mirror inflation & wage movement & nothing greater.

This is the extent to which Council can fund asset renewal and maintain a balanced budget.

See comment above.

This amount is Council transferring funds to Reserve, not drawing down on Reserves. The $40M is made up of:

Developer contributions	$32M
Plant replacement	$150K
Employee leave entitlements	$637K
Capital Works	$1M
Election	$150K
Aquatic Centre	$150K
Market Square	$250K
IT	$300K
Property acquisition	$1.9M
Sustainability Levy	$1.5M
Affordable housing	$331K
Financial Assistance Grant advance payment	$1.3M

Funds collected under VPAs must be spent on the purpose for which they were collected. The $28M budgeted for open space acquisition in St Leonards South cannot be allocated to other areas of expenditure.

This observation is not correct. The $40m is transferring funds to Reserve, not drawing them down to fund operational expenses.

It is true that the increase in total rates and annual charges exceeds the 3.9% rate peg. However, it is important to note that the increase in the domestic waste management charge includes funding for the roll out of a new Food Organics service.

This change responds to the adoption of a Notice of Motion by Council on 12 December 2024.

Council has not increased the charge for outdoor dining for several years, and on the occasions when Council does, it is benchmarked against CPI such that Council can keep pace with maintenance costs.

Council’s outdoor dining fees are tiered in nature reflecting the locational economic difference between the Plaza, the High Street, and indeed areas such as Riverview Shops and / or Greenwich Village. Further, Council fully maintains the outdoor dining structures at the Plaza which includes blinds, cleaning of roof and gutter, daily pressure spray of the Plaza, and bi-annual painting of the timber columns.

Further, Council in the last two years has upgraded the paving at Longueville and Burns Bay Roads, and in so doing has increased foot traffic, enhanced amenity, and in general terms supported local business. Included in the upgrade works was the deployment of car spaces to “streetside dining” that was first trialled under the NSW Government Alfresco initiative during COVID, noting that Council provided 100% rental relief to 100% of outdoor dining agreements at the commencement of COVID and in advance of the National Mandatory Code of Conduct (for lessors).

Finally, Lane Cove was the first Sydney Metro Council to introduce the Gift Card program in direct support of local small business.

This report contains a number of options available to Council to improve its operating result.

Submission 4

Regarding the provision for submissions to be considered for inclusion in the LCC 2025-2026 Draft Budget, we attach our submission to include the cost of removal of smothering plants in habitats of the waxcap fungi assemblage, “critically endangered of extinction” in Lane Cove Bushland Park (LCBP).

Given Council’s forecast budget deficit and several competing priorities for funding, Council is not in a position to provide funding for this purpose in 2025/26. Council will continue to pursue grant funding opportunities to fund these works.

Submission 5

There should be no increase to the entry fees for Carisbrook House.

It is proposed to maintain the 2024/25 fee structure for Carisbrook entrance fees. Officers recognise the important role it plays in supporting opportunities to experience our local history by local visitors and new audiences and agree that cost accessibility is a key factor in keeping the space vibrant and well-used.

Submission 6

(same submitter as Submission 1)

Adds further points in relation to the Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP)

These changes will be considered in the next update of the SAMP

Submission 7

(same submitter as Submission 1)

Suggesting changes in the Strategic Asset Management Plan

These changes will be considered in the next update of the SAMP

Submission 8

Fully endorsing Submission 1

See comments on Submission 1

Options to Improve Council’s Operating Result before Capital Contributions

Council staff explored options to improve Council’s operating result (before capital contributions) during the public exhibition period. The following options have not been quantified at this point in time, nor have they been included in the Draft 2025/26 Budget. Should Council have a desire to pursue any or all of these options, a more detailed analysis of the impact of introducing such options will be undertaken and can be included as a discrete matter for Council’s consideration during the course of the 2025/26 financial year.

Options broadly explored include:

· Pursuing advertising income opportunities at designated spaces

· Removal of rates and domestic waste subsidies that have historically benefited certain groups

· Additional revenue opportunities at the Golf Course

· Explore the potential of having food truck sites at designated spaces

· Explore the opportunity of having commercial leases in areas where community leases exist

· Commercial opportunities associated with a restaurant at Greenwich Sailing Club

· Allocate a portion of the sustainability levy towards asset renewal

· Introduce watercraft registration, and

· Explore opportunities to maximise the value of Council owned operational land (eg rationalisation, development potential etc)

Draft 2025/26 Schedule of Fees & Charges

Since adopting the draft fees and charges, the NSW State Government has announced increases in a number of statutory fees and charges, notably in relation to development application fees.

In addition to the options explored above, it is recommended that Council introduce new fees relating to the provision of copies of rates notices and statements of rates. To date, Council has been absorbing the cost of these services while neighbouring Councils generally pass them on in the form of a fee for service. While there is some variability to the fees, the fees recommended below mirror North Sydney Council’s 2024/25 fees.

Copy of rates / instalment notice	$25.00
Rates statement letter (1 rating year)	$25.00
Rates statement letter (each additional rating year)	$8.00

In the last twelve months Council received over 1,100 requests. Experience tells us that the introduction of a fee will see a substantial reduction in requests. Income will be monitored over the course of 2025/26 and adjustments made during quarterly budget reviews.

Further, as a result of changed operational arrangements for the Greenwich Senior Citizens Centre, Council needs to set its own hire charges. The charges recommended below are set at the same level as the Living and Learning Centre Meeting Room / Lounge.

Concession

$31 per hour

or $186 per day

General

$52 per hour

or $310 per day

Commercial

$124 per hour

or $744 per day

These new fees will need to be advertised for 28 days prior to adoption. A recommendation has been included to give effect to this.

Finally, in response to the submission from the Lane Cove Historical Society, Carisbrook entrance fees have been reduced back to the 2024/25 level, removing the proposed 50 cent increase in personal entrance fees and $1 increase in the family pass.

A full Schedule of the proposed 2025/26 Fees and Charges incorporating the changes above is located at the back of the Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan.

Draft Budget 2025/26

During the public consultation period a number of matters have arisen requiring updates to the exhibited draft budget.

	Operating Income before Capital ($’000)	Operating Expenditure ($’000)	Liability Repayments ($’000)	Reserves ($’000)	Operating Deficit ($’000)
Exhibited Operating Deficit	(69,621)	70,219			598
Greenwich Village Games	(85)	85			0
150 Epping strata levies		55	105	(160)	55
Kindy Cove	(87)	95		(8)	8
Updated Operating Deficit	(69,793)	70,454	105	(168)	661

Greenwich Village Games

At its 27 May meeting, Council resolved to support the 2025 Greenwich Village Games. It was noted in the report that historically Council has assisted the Committee through the booking of facilities and logistical support for the preparation and use of the Council maintained venues. Support is also provided though the payment of expenses incurred by the Committee based on a full cost recovery arrangement to be recovered from participant fees.

An estimate of expenses has been made based on the previous games and offset by income to be received from the Organising Committee to meet the full cost recovery arrangement.

150 Epping Road strata levies

The March quarterly budget review included recognition of $421K due in relation to strata levies for Council’s affordable housing apartments at 150 Epping Road. This amount is to be repaid over four years at $105K per year. This repayment, together with the 2025/26 levies, has been included in the budget and offset by a reduction in the transfer to the Affordable Housing Reserve.

Kindy Cove

In consultation with the Management Advisory Committee, fees have been increased by $4 per day to cover additional expenditure requirements (notably food and cleaning) with the net increase in expenditure being offset by a reduction in the transfer to the Kindy Cove Reserve.

These changes increase the forecast operating deficit from $598K to $661K but due to offsetting Reserves transfers there is no change to the overall Program Budget result which remains balanced.

The updated Draft 2025/26 Budget is attached at AT-1.

Draft 2025/26 – 2028/29 Delivery Program and Operational Plan

The Draft 2025/26 – 2028/29 Delivery Program and Operational Plan is attached at AT-2. It has been updated to reflect the changes to the 2025/26 Budget outlined above. Future years’ budgets have also been updated in line with these amendments together with updates made to the LTFP outlined below and updates to the schedule of fees and charges outlined above. It should also be noted that any changes to the Community Strategic Plan (where relatable) have been also factored into the Delivery Program and Operational Plan (eg new strategies and/or actions).

Draft Resourcing Strategy and Associated Resource Plans

The Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP) has been amended to incorporate the budget adjustments adopted by Council in the 2024/25 March Quarterly Budget Review to the extent that they impact on opening Reserve balances.

The Resourcing Strategy has been updated as necessary to reflect the changes to the LTFP, Asset Management Plan and Workforce Management Plan.

The Revised Draft Resourcing Strategy is attached as AT-3.

The Revised Draft Long Term Financial Plan is attached as AT-4.

The Revised Draft Strategic Asset Management Plan is attached as AT-5.

The Revised Draft Workforce Management Plan is attached as AT-6.

Cost Shifting and Emergency Service Levy

Council sent letters to the NSW Premier and relevant NSW Ministers on 28 May 2025 highlighting the financial challenges to local government caused by cost shifting, rate-pegging and cost increases, and, once again, highlighted that the Emergency Services Levy should be fully funded by the State Government. Council is awaiting a response.

Conclusion

The Draft Plans have been the subject of community consultation between 27 April and 6 June 2025. A total of twenty-eight (28) submissions (eight different submissions) have been received in relation to the 2025/26 Draft Budget, Draft Fees and Charges, Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan, Draft Resourcing Strategy and Associated Resource Plans. It is recommended that Council adopt the Draft Plans.

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1. Council receive and note the submissions received from the community, together with Council’s draft responses to the matters raised in the submissions as outlined in this report;

2. Council, where identifiable, write to each of the members of the community and organisations who provided input into the Draft Plans, thanking them for their input and providing responses to the issues raised in their submissions;

3. Council adopt the Draft 2025/26 Budget, Draft 2025/26 Delivery Program and Operational Plan (which includes the Draft 2025/26 Fees and Charges), and the Revised Draft Resourcing Strategy and associated Resource Plans contained within AT-1, AT-2, AT-3, AT-4, AT-5 and AT-6;

4. Council make and levy the following Rates and Annual Charges for 2025/26:

a) Rates

i. An Ordinary Residential Rate of 0.082444 cents in the dollar, on the Land Value of all Rateable Land categorised as Residential in accordance with s.516 of the Local Government Act, (with the exception of heritage properties which are rated on their heritage value), with a Minimum Rate of $1,073.24, to yield $25,660,093;

ii. An Ordinary Business Rate of 0.535278 cents in the dollar, on the Land Value of all Rateable Land categorised as Business in accordance with s.518 of the Local Government Act, with a Minimum Rate of $1,096.29 to yield $6,917,265; and

iii. Council being of the opinion that works related to the construction and maintenance of car parking facilities will be of benefit to the Lane Cove Village Commercial Area, (as defined by the meet’s and bounds description advertised in the North Shore Times on 13 June, 1979), that a Parking Special Rate of 0.194273 cents in the dollar be made for 2025/26 on the Land Value of all rateable land within that part, in accordance with S.538 of the Local Government Act 1993, with a Minimum Rate of $2.00, to yield $203,450.

b) Domestic Waste Management Charges

i. In accordance with S.496 of the Local Government Act 1993, that an annual charge of $637.65 per annum be made for the year 2025/26, for domestic waste management services rendered to all properties categorised residential or non-rateable residential, for each once weekly 80 litre MGB (or equivalent) service;

ii. In accordance with S.496 of the Local Government Act 1993, that an annual charge of $144.95 per annum be made for the year 2025/26, for Domestic Waste Management Services for residential vacant land and service availability;

c) Stormwater Management Service Charges:

In accordance with clauses 125A and 125AA of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 and Section 496A of the Local Government Act 1993, annual charges for the year 2024/25 for Stormwater Management Services be made and levied as follows:

- All parcels of vacant land - Nil $ charge

- All Residential Strata Units - $12.50 per unit

- All Residential Non-Strata Properties - $25.00 per property

- All Business Strata Units and Properties - $25.00 per unit or property

d) Interest on Overdue Rates and Charges:

In accordance with the provisions of S.566(3) of the Local Government Act 1993, Council hereby resolves that the interest rate to apply for the period 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026 to all outstanding rates and charges be calculated at the interest rate of 9.0%, noting that the maximum interest rate specified by the Office of Local Government is 10.5%.

5. Council adopt the draft fees below, exhibit them for 28 days and, subject to no adverse submissions being received, incorporate them into the 2025/26 Schedule of Fees & Charges:

Rates Notice copies
Copy of rates / instalment notice	$25.00
Rates statement letter (1 rating year)	$25.00
Rates statement letter (each additional rating year)	$8.00
Greenwich Senior Citizens Centre
Concession	$31 per hour or $186 per day
General	$52 per hour or $310 per day
Commercial	$124 per hour or $744 per day

Steven Kludass

Acting General Manager

General Managers Unit

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	AT-1 - REVISED Draft Program Budget - June 2025	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	AT-2 - REVISED Draft Delivery Program & Operational Plan - June 2025
AT‑3 View	AT-3 - REVISED Draft Resourcing Strategy - June 2025	Available Electronically
AT‑4 View	AT-4 - REVISED Draft Long Term Financial Plan - June 2025	Available Electronically
AT‑5 View	AT-5 - REVISED Draft Strategic Asset Management Plan - June 2025	Available Electronically
AT‑6 View	AT-6 - REVISED Draft Workforce Management Plan - June 2025	Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 June 2025

Community Consultation Results - Draft Social Inclusion Strategy

Item No: 7

Subject: Community Consultation Results - Draft Social Inclusion Strategy

Record No: SU10074 - 36733/25

Division: Community and Culture Division

Author(s): Susan Heyne

Executive Summary

This report provides feedback on the exhibition of the Draft Social Inclusion Strategy and recommends Lane Cove Council’s first Social Inclusion Strategy be formally adopted.

Background

Research shows that communities with high social cohesion experience lower crime rates, better health outcomes, and higher levels of happiness. Conversely, a lack of cohesion can lead to division, alienation, and unrest.

Council aims to ensure that all individuals regardless of their background have equal opportunities to participate in civic life, access resources and feel valued and respected. Prioritising inclusivity and actively engaging with diverse populations will lead to a stronger, more resilient community that values and celebrates its diversity. Council considers the assessment of how socially inclusive we are as fundamental to the provision of appropriate and well thought out services and infrastructure.

Council has developed a Social Inclusion Strategy to create a Roadmap that supports Council to respond to relevant challenges and guide its decision-making for a strong and inclusive Lane Cove. The Roadmap includes strategies that align with Community Strategic Plan (CSP) Priorities so that social inclusion can become part of Council’s daily work.

At the Ordinary Council meeting held 24 April 2025, it was resolved that Council:

1. adopt, for the purpose of public exhibition, the Draft Social Inclusion Strategy;

2. undertake a community consultation between late April and early June 2025 as per the consultation plan outlined in the report; and

3. following public exhibition, the Draft Social Inclusion Strategy, together with a report on any submissions received, be considered at the June Ordinary Council Meeting.

Following the 24 April 2025 Ordinary Council meeting, Council placed the Draft Social Inclusion Strategy on exhibition from 28 April to 6 June 2025

The draft strategy was promoted through Council’s website, social media platforms and e-newsletters. The draft strategy was also presented and discussed at the Inclusive Communities Advisory Committee. The Committee did not request any changes to the strategy and readily identified the important role they will play in supporting the roll out of the Strategy.

Discussion

Public Exhibition consultation

Following the exhibition period, a total of one (1) comment was received.

A copy of the full submissions has been circulated separately to Councillors.

A summary of matters raised in the submission, together with a response, is provided below:

· Feels that events being predominantly targeted towards children, or are held during regular business/working hours, creates social isolation for working adults.

Response:

The Social Inclusion Strategy theme ‘The community is connected and cohesive’ provides a focus for Council to consider how all members of the community can engage in local life. To ensure that this is reflected in the Strategy, the following amendment is proposed in the table below.

Social Inclusion Focus 1: The community is connected and cohesive
Draft Strategy placed on exhibition	Revised Strategy for adoption
Deliver and increase awareness of community events, programs and activities that strengthen and enrich meaningful connections.	Review, deliver and increase awareness of community events, programs and activities that strengthen and enrich meaningful connections for everyone.

Alignment with Community Strategic Plan Priorities

The Roadmap includes strategies that align with Council’s Community Strategic Plan so that social inclusion can become part of Council’s daily work.

Strategies in the Draft Social Inclusion Strategy were aligned with the Themes, Goals and Community Priorities in the current Community Strategic Plan (CSP), adopted in 2022. It is proposed that the strategies in the Draft Social Inclusion Strategy be amended to align with the updated Themes, Goals and Community Priorities in the CSP which has recently been exhibited to the community in 2025. These minor amendments are detailed in the table below.

Draft Strategy placed on exhibition

Revised Strategy for adoption

Social Inclusion Focus 1: The community is connected and cohesive

CSP Theme - OUR SOCIETY and OUR CULTURE

1. An inclusive, Interconnected and active community

Social Inclusion Focus 1: The community is connected and cohesive

CSP Theme - OUR SOCIETY and OUR CULTURE

1. An inclusive, interconnected, active and resilient community

Cultural identity (CSP 4.3):

Support events/activities celebrating Aboriginal Culture

Sense of belonging (CSP 4.2):

Support events/activities celebrating Aboriginal Culture

Creative expression (CSP 4.1):

Encourage opportunities for intergenerational engagement

Sense of belonging (CSP 4.2):

Encourage opportunities for intergenerational engagement

Creative expression (CSP 4.1):

Strengthen opportunities to celebrate diversity

Sense of belonging (CSP 4.2):

Strengthen opportunities to celebrate diversity

Social Inclusion Focus 3: Council is an effective leader, influencer and collaborator

CSP Theme – OUR COUNCIL

6. A leading Council that engages its community to deliver best value service.

Social Inclusion Focus 3: Council is an effective leader, influencer and collaborator

CSP Theme – OUR COUNCIL

6. A leading Council that engages its community to deliver effective, efficient and sustainable services.

Conclusion

Following consideration of the matters raised during the public exhibition period, it is recommended that Council adopt the Social Inclusion Strategy (as attached to this report (AT-1), publish it on Council’s website and work towards embedding these strategies across Lane Cove.

Lane Cove’s first Social Inclusion Strategy will support Council in fostering an inclusive and equitable environment that responds to the diverse needs of all community members.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. receive and note the details of the report; and

2. adopt the Social Inclusion Strategy.

Stephanie Kelly

Director - Community and Culture

Community and Culture Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Social Inclusion Strategy

48 Pages

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 June 2025

Community Consultation Results - Draft Gambling Harm Minimisation Policy

Item No: 8

Subject: Community Consultation Results - Draft Gambling Harm Minimisation Policy

Record No: SU6840 - 29747/25

Division: Community and Culture Division

Author(s): Stephanie Kelly

Executive Summary

This report provides consideration of the results following consultation in relation to Council’s Revised Draft Gambling Harm Minimisation Policy. Council approved the exhibition of the draft policy at its March meeting with consultation closing at the end of May.

Feedback indicates strong community support for the policy’s intent, along with constructive suggestions for strengthening Council’s leadership in this area. A submission from the Longueville Sporting Club and a number of its members expressed concern over the policy’s implications for club operations and questioned the evidence base for local harm. This report summarises the key themes in the feedback and recommends adoption of the policy.

Background

The Draft Gambling Harm Minimisation Policy was considered by Council at its meeting on 20 March 2025 where it was resolved that Council:

1. approve the commencement of community consultation related to the draft policy, and

2. receive and note the gambling harm minimisation activities detailed in the report.

Discussion

The public were invited to provide their feedback on the draft program via written submissions. It was promoted via Council’s website, social media and eNewsletters.

Council received a range of submissions in response to the Draft Gambling Harm Minimisation Policy. A total of five (5) submissions were received during the exhibition period, including both supportive and opposing views. The submissions reflect a mix of strong community support for the policy’s intent, alongside concerns from a local venue and community member regarding its potential impacts.

Supportive Submissions

A number of community members and advocacy organisations welcomed the policy as “ambitious and well-constructed.” Key suggestions included:

a) Avoiding gambling venues for Council meetings and events, to reinforce Council’s leadership role

b) Making submissions to the regulator on all poker machine license applications, to ensure community impacts are consistently raised

c) Expanding the policy principles to include a specific commitment to support individuals seeking to exclude themselves from gambling environments

d) A strong emphasis on the public health and social impacts of gambling, including concerns about exposure of young workers to smoky, enclosed Electronic Gaming Machines (EGM) environments operating late into the night

e) Strengthening the policy by explicitly prohibiting the hosting of Council events at venues with electronic gaming machines (EGMs). These submissions highlighted that many community members actively avoid such venues, including those who have formally self-excluded from gambling environments. Council was encouraged to lead by example in supporting these individuals by ensuring its events and activities remain inclusive and free from associations with gambling.

2. Opposition to the Proposed Policy

Community members and a local Sporting Club provided a detailed submission outlining its concerns relating to elements of the policy. The submission included the following key points:

a) Denial of local evidence of gambling harm: The Club reported no observed incidents of problem gambling or self-exclusion and questioned whether Council had obtained any local data demonstrating a problem within Lane Cove.

b) Financial dependence on EGM revenue: The Club highlighted that it operates 9 EGMs (despite being licensed for 10), with modest average per-visit losses. It argued that EGM profits ($130,000 per annum) are reinvested into the community, supporting local groups, employment, and facility improvements.

c) Regulatory compliance and control: The Club pointed to existing regulations, staff and director training, police compliance visits, and recent upgrades (e.g., ticket in/out systems) as sufficient to manage potential harm.

d) Lack of prior engagement by Council: The Club expressed concern that it was not consulted prior to the development of the draft policy and urged better collaboration under Principle 7.

To support Clubs through any transition away from reliance on EGM revenue, Council could consider a package of measures including temporary rent relief, access to community grants, and promotion through Council channels. Support could also involve helping the Club diversify revenue through increased programming, venue hire, and food and beverage offerings. Strengthening partnerships through joint events, in-kind support, or formal agreements recognising the Club’s community role may also assist, along with strategic planning support to ensure long-term sustainability.

It is not proposed to amend the policy at this stage, as the current provisions represent Council’s foundation position and were developed based on advice from the Office of Liquor and Gaming regarding harm minimisation. However, the considerations raised during the consultation will be further explored during the policy’s implementation. Council acknowledges that, in supporting organisations to transition away from reliance on venues with EGMs, there may be a short-term need to continue hosting some events and activities at these locations as part of practical transition arrangements.

Conclusion

The feedback received demonstrates a clear divide between community and public health advocates seeking a stronger policy response, and a local venue seeking to preserve its existing model of operation. While community organisations and members support strengthened Council leadership, those opposed has raised concerns about need and economic impact. These views reflect the complexity of balancing community harm minimisation with the role of clubs in providing social infrastructure.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Note the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Draft Gambling Harm Minimisation Policy.

2. Engage directly with licensed venues in the Local Government Area, including to explore collaborative harm minimisation and education initiatives under Principle 7.
engage directly with affected venues in the Local Government Area, to explore how best to support a transition away from Electronic Gaming Machines which could involve helping the Clubs diversify revenue through increased programming, venue hire, and food and beverage offerings.

3. Adopt the policy and communicate to relevant stakeholders.

Stephanie Kelly

Director - Community and Culture

Community and Culture Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Gambling Harm Minimisation Policy

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 June 2025

Proposed Notification Process for Removal of Trees and Significant Vegetation on Council Land

Item No: 10

Subject: Proposed Notification Process for Removal of Trees and Significant Vegetation on Council Land

Record No: SU6209 - 36424/25

Division: Open Space and Infrastructure Division

Author(s): Robert Sutton

Executive Summary

This report responds to an earlier Council resolution relating to the provision of information to the community when the removal and pruning of trees or significant vegetation is undertaken by or on behalf of Council on land owned or managed by Council.

Recommendations are provided to ensure that the community is advised of proposed removal of trees or significant vegetation including the reasons for proposed removal along with the details of any proposed replacement plantings that are carried out on all land owned or managed by Council (including Crown land).

Background

On 12 December 2024 Council resolved the following motion:

1. acknowledges that the preservation of our urban forest is important to our community and that it is important to keep the community informed as to decisions made by Council in respect of removal or significant pruning of trees or other significant vegetation from land owned or managed by Council (including Crown land), and

2. receives a report by June 2025 to outline recommendations for amendments to relevant Council strategies, plans, policies and procedures to provide information to the community, in a timely manner, as to-

(a) the proposed removal of trees or significant pruning and other significant vegetation on land owned or managed by Council (including Crown land),

(b) the reason for the removal or pruning, and

(c) the proposed replacement planting or, if no proposed replacement planting, the reason for this decision

(d) emergency response provisions and any relevant legislative requirements

and to include in the report a process to allow community members to obtain further information from Council on notified works.

Council has principally sought to address the need to keep the community informed of proposed tree removal/replanting by means of placing a standard notice on a street tree for a 28-day period prior to removal in accordance with Resolution 136/2018 resolved on 20 August 2018.

Discussion

With the new proposed procedure recommended in the resolution, it is understood that Council is now proposing to provide customised notification signs on all trees and significant vegetation on all public land where works are to be undertaken along with customised notification letters to be sent to residents of adjoining properties and other affected property owners.

Implications of Resolution

In 2023-24 Council removed 149 and pruned 816 trees and significant vegetation on Council land, and to date in 2024-25 Council has removed 225 and pruned 695 trees and significant vegetation on Council and. Currently Council’s Tree Officers have provided the standard 28-day notification sign installation for the removal of street trees.

If Council is now required to provide customised notification signs and customised notification letters for all tree works on Council land, additional administrative resourcing, stationery, notification and signage budget allocation will be required.

As a comparison, Council’s Planning and Sustainability administration team received 350 development applications (DA) in 2024. DA notification is undertaken in accordance with the Notification of Development Applications Policy which requires notification of occupiers of adjoining properties and other affected property owners. To undertake the notification and associated administration related tasks including some sign preparation, Planning and Sustainability have an administration team of 3 full time equivalent staff and a notification budget.

Given Council undertakes approximately 1,000 tree jobs per annum, for this new proposed process to be implemented, Council will need an equivalent of 3 or more additional full time Grade 10 administration staff with an administrative cost of around $100,000 per employee and an additional budget for stationery, notification and signage.

Proposed Notification Process

While we understand that the community is passionate about our trees and would like to know when significant works are being undertaken, it needs to be understood that the majority of tree works undertaken by Council involve general crown maintenance pruning. Furthermore, a large proportion of pruning works are as a result of the adjoining resident or neighbouring residents requesting the works in the first instance via a service request. These requests make up 75% of Council’s tree works.

Regarding pruning works in general, the vast majority result in minimal visual impact on the trees or significant vegetation as general crown maintenance typically involves minor crown raising, crown thinning, formative pruning and removal of dead wood. As such, it is recommended that in these instances, pruning works notification should be excluded from the notification process.

In relation to the removal of trees and significant vegetation from public land, it is recommended that Council expands the current 28-day notification process from street trees only to the removal of all trees and significant vegetation on public land.

To reduce the administrative burden of notifying these additional tree/significant vegetation removals, it proposed that a standard notification sign and letter be developed that contains a QR Code which will refer residents to a dedicated public tree/significant vegetation removal webpage. This webpage will provide the details of the location of the tree/significant vegetation removals, tree or significant vegetation species, the reason for the removal, the proposed replacement planting and if no proposed replacement planting is to be undertaken, the reason for this decision. Council has proposed an additional Tree Officer in the Draft 2025/26 budget and if that budget is adopted then this additional staff member can provide the resourcing required to facilitate this proposed notification process.

Emergency Provisions

Where emergency decisions on the grounds of public health and safety are made to undertake any works on trees or significant vegetation, verbal communication is undertaken with adjoining properties where practicable. In such circumstances, it has generally been Council’s practice to provide a letter post works to explain the reason for removal and where appropriate, provide the details of any replanting inclusive of the proposed species to be undertaken.

In this regard, it is recommended that this process be expanded by having standard emergency tree works signage available to be immediately installed within the proximity of the tree/vegetation to be removed and that the information relating to the emergency works be added to the dedicated tree/significant vegetation removal webpage.

Conclusion

Council will implement the revised notification process for removal of trees and significant vegetation on public land and develop a dedicated webpage for tree and significant vegetation removals as described in this report.

While resolution 136/2018 has been reflected in Clause 4.3 of Council’s Landscaping Street Trees and Tree Preservation Policy, it is recommended that the policy be amended to expand the practice to include significant vegetation and ensure that it is applied to removals on all land owned or managed by Council (including Crown land when such is under the control or care of Council).

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. receives and note the report,

2. endorses the recommendation to amend Clause 4.3 of Council’s Landscaping Street Trees and Tree Preservation Policy to include;

a) installation of a tree removal notice for the period of 28 days prior to removal on all public trees and significant vegetation located on all land owned or managed by Council (including Crown land when such is under the control or care of Council),

b) installation of emergency tree works signage within the proximity of a tree that is to be removed on the grounds of public health and safety.

3. notifies the community for all tree and significant vegetation removals on all land owned or managed by Council (including Crown land when such is under the control or care of Council) and develop a dedicated webpage for the removal of trees and significant vegetation on public land.

Martin Terescenko

Director - Open Space and Infrastructure

Open Space and Infrastructure Division

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

AT‑1 View	Draft Works Schedule	1 Page
AT‑2 View	Draft Contribution Rates	1 Page

Level of Participation	Inform	Inform	Consult
Form of Participation	Open	Targeted	Open
Target Audience	Lane Cove Community and community groups	Lessees and hirers of Council facilities	Lane Cove Community
Proposed Medium	Advertisement and eNewsletter	Direct mail to impacted groups	Public Exhibition, Website Exhibition
Indicative Timing	Timing of consultation is the of July/August	Timing of consultation July/August	Timing of consultation July/August

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: Have your Say
Indicative Timing	Six weeks from late June through to July.

AT‑1 View	Agenda of Traffic Committee - Tuesday, 20 May 2025
AT‑2 View	Minutes of Traffic Committee - Tuesday, 20 May 2025

AT‑1 View	Council Snapshot May 2025	39 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Resolution Tracker for 19 June 2025 Council meeting	30 Pages	Available Electronically