Agenda of Ordinary Council - Thursday, 23 April 2026

Ordinary Council Meeting 23 April 2026

Notice of Motion - Development of a Synthetic Turf in Public Spaces Policy

Item No: 11.4

Subject: Notice of Motion - Development of a Synthetic Turf in Public Spaces Policy

Record No: SU1228 - 27536/26

Division: Lane Cove Council

Author(s): Councillor Helena Greenwell; Councillor Rochelle Flood; Councillor Merri Southwood

Purpose

To request that staff develop a policy on the installation, use, and end of life recycling of synthetic turf within the municipality, with a focus on ensuring synthetic turf is used as a last resort.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. note that research conducted by Dr Sebastian Pfautsch, Associate Professor in Urban Management and Planning at Western Sydney University suggests that the ground temperatures on synthetic playing fields are often double those on fields with natural turf and that the ‘Synthetic Turf in Public Spaces’ assessment (2022) prepared by the Office of Sport Chief Scientist and Engineer, found that when daytime temperatures rise above 27 degrees, synthetic fields can inflict serious skin burns on users.

2. note that there is consensus on environmental risks and public health risks associated with synthetic turf including:

a) loss of biodiversity

b) chemical run-off contaminated by PFAS and PFOA

c) risk of bacterial infections

d) lack of permeability

e) increased risk of non-contact related injury.

3. note that there is broad consensus on the environmental risks associated with synthetic turf surfaces exposed to waterways, particularly during flooding events and periods of heavy rain. The recent AUSMAP microplastics report found that 16% of the microplastic contamination in the Lane Cove River was from synthetic fibres including turf fibres, well above the average in the report.

4. note that modern natural turf fields such as Middle Head Oval in Mosman have demonstrated increased usage and capacity through well maintained, best practice natural turf fields that balance sporting needs with environmental and health concerns.

5. note that Council staff have taken every effort to adopt the best options available for existing synthetic turf surfaces.

6. develop a draft Synthetic Turf in Public Spaces Policy which sets out the following policy position:

a) synthetic turf must not be used to replace natural turf on Sports Fields or in other public spaces unless there is no viable alternative to the use of synthetic turf,

b) all decisions to install synthetic turf (including the replacement of existing synthetic surfaces with a synthetic surface) must be referred to the elected Council for determination,

c) where there is no alternate option available and the installation of synthetic turf in a capital works project is proposed, the project must be developed and assessed against International best practice standards for the use of synthetic surfaces and in accordance with the NSW Governments guidelines and recommendations for Councils regarding synthetic turf (Division 5.1 Assessments – Addendum for Synthetic Sports Fields May 2025)

d) where synthetic turf is to be used the community will be consulted on the proposed measures that are being incorporated into the project to minimise environmental and public health risk prior to the approval of the project and subsequent commencement

e) where synthetic turf is removed, best endeavours are to be made to ensure that the material is disposed of in an ethical and sustainable manner.

f) receive the draft policy for review and endorsement to commence public consultation.

7. prepare guidance material for the community on environmentally sustainable landscape alternatives to synthetic turf available for private property, including native planting, permeable surfaces, and biodiverse gardens, and staff investigate whether development controls can be incorporated into the Lane Cove Development Control Plan to prevent the use of synthetic turf in new private developments.

8. undertake a review of the Council owned or managed locations within the Local Government Area where synthetic turf is used in public spaces and commit to prioritising replacement of synthetic turf with natural grass or environmentally sustainable alternatives subject to budget being available for the replacement.

Background

The original upgrade proposal for Bob Campbell Oval recommended the replacement of the natural grass surface with synthetic grass to provide the maximum playing capacity for sports groups. This proposal prompted community concern, including the potential for increased surface temperatures, the environmental impacts associated with synthetic materials, and the long-term costs of replacement and disposal.

The community response around BCO clearly demonstrated that the use of artificial turf is a matter of strong public interest and that there is value in Council providing clearer policy guidance on where and how synthetic surfaces should be considered. In October 2022, the NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer published the ‘Independent Review into the design, use and impacts of synthetic turf in public open spaces’. This report highlighted concerns with the use of synthetic turf and encouraged local authorities to appropriately consider potential impacts of synthetic turf use and to develop policies accordingly.

More broadly, many councils in Australia are reviewing the role of artificial turf within their local government areas, particularly in relation to public land such as parks, sports fields and nature strips. While synthetic turf can provide benefits in certain circumstances, primarily in increasing playing capacity for sports fields, it also raises a number of environmental considerations, including changing habitat for native wildlife, urban heat, microplastic pollution and end-of-life disposal challenges. It also prevents areas from being used as passive recreation areas for other activities such as such as picnicking, informal play, dog walking, community gatherings and general relaxation.

Given the strong community interest in supporting environmentally friendly measures and the increase in use of artificial turf in residential and commercial landscaping, it is timely for Council to consider whether a clear policy position should be developed to guide its future use within the Lane Cove local government area.

Discussion.

As residential density grows in Lane Cove due to the implementation of the Low to Mid-rise Housing Policy and the approaching completion of many of the St Leonards South developments, the demand placed on our open space will only continue to rise. At the same time, participation in organised sport and recreational activities is increasing, placing further pressure on existing sporting infrastructure.

While synthetic turf is often promoted as a solution to increasing demand for sports fields, its installation is a significant and irreversible shift in how public open space is used and experienced by the broader community. Natural grass fields are multi-functional spaces that can support organised sport while also being used for informal recreation such as casual play, dog walking, picnicking and community gatherings. Artificial turf fields are generally designed for structured sporting use and are less suitable for passive recreation, which can reduce accessibility for the wider community.

In addition, the environmental impacts of artificial turf are magnified when installed at the scale of a full sporting field. Large synthetic surfaces contribute to increased heat retention, reduce permeable ground cover, and introduce substantial volumes of plastic materials into the landscape. Given the limited amount of public open space within the Lane Cove LGA, and the significant health and environmental concerns associated with synthetic turf, we should develop a policy that prioritises best practice natural turf and avoids the use of synthetic turf wherever possible.

Lane Cove is at the forefront of sustainable practices, and ensuring we avoid/minimise the use of synthetic turf is in keeping with our community’s support for sustainable practices. There is broad consensus among experts on the environmental and health risks associated with synthetic turf, from the impact of microplastics to the loss of biodiversity, the creation of urban heat islands, and the risk of chemical run-off. These are each addressed in detail below.

Microplastics

Microplastics are tiny plastic particles that result from the breakdown of larger plastic materials, such as the fibres in synthetic turf. Once released into the environment through weathering or runoff, these particles can persist in soil and water and take between 100 and 1,000 years to break down.

Artificial turf sheds fibres over time through weathering, UV exposure and physical wear. The fibres enter stormwater systems and ultimately waterways, contributing to microplastic pollution. Because nature strips and verges sit immediately next to kerbs and gutters, the impact on the environment is exacerbated.

Infill is usually spread over the turf to help the grass blades stand up and keep the turf flat. In backyards, infill is often made from silica sand, which has sharp edges that can contribute to the grass blades breaking off. While newer synthetic turf varieties have replaced rubber infill with cork or other inorganic substances, microplastic pollution still occurs as the synthetic turf blades become damaged and worn down, either by use or through exposure to the elements. Ultimately, these synthetic fibres end up in our waterways, as revealed by the AUSMAP report released earlier this year, which showed that 16% of the microplastic contamination in The Lane Cove River was from synthetic fibres (including synthetic turf fibres) and film.

Microplastic pollution causes significant harm to native wildlife, and questions remain about the potential human health impacts. Reducing microplastic pollution at the source is the most effective way of minimising harm.

Urban heat island impacts

Artificial turf can reach significantly higher surface temperatures than natural grass during warm weather. Studies have recorded temperatures substantially above surrounding surfaces during summer conditions, contributing to urban heat island effects and reducing thermal comfort in residential areas.

According to research conducted by Western Sydney University, artificial turf surfaces can reach temperatures of over 80 °C in direct sunlight on a typical summer day, even when the air temperature is only around 28 °C. In comparison, natural grass under the same conditions generally reaches just above 30 °C. Another report from the NSW Department of Planning, Housing, and Infrastructure last year noted that during very hot summer days in Western Sydney, synthetic surfaces reached average surface temperatures of 70-75 degrees, compared with 37 degrees for irrigated natural grass. The graph below is from Sweltering Cities and it reveals the temperature of synthetic turf surfaces compared to natural irrigated turf.

A graph showing the temperature of a comfort

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Synthetic turf also radiates heat, impacting the health of those using the immediate environment and increasing the temperature of the surrounding area if installed in residential settings. Given the ongoing impacts of climate change, ensuring that public and private spaces remain as cool as possible remains a high priority and aligns with the goals of our urban forest strategy and our priorities around climate resilience and adaptation.

The belief that artificial turf will significantly expand the usable hours of a field fails to consider the potential for extreme surface heat and community safety. As average summer temperatures continue to increase each year, the use of artificial turf during the summer will become more and more limited.

A recent SMH article interviewed a cricketer who plays on Blackman Oval. He is quoted as saying that while he appreciates the even surface, it “comes with a big downside, even during normal summer heat.” He went on to say “whenever we are going to play on an astroturf field, and we see it’s going to be 30-plus degrees, there’s a bit of a groan from the whole team about ‘oh no, this is going to be a really tough day’”. He also said that “There’s been quite a few times we’ve had multiple teammates just at the end of the game with a bit of blood or a bit of burning, which is a bit rare from a game of cricket.”(The Age, January 2026, https://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/on-a-hot-day-astroturf-can-reach-up-to-75-degrees-that-s-only-the-start-of-its-problems-20251216-p5no75.html) This demonstrates that artificial turf is not really an “all-weather” solution. It’s one that will become increasingly dangerous as temperatures continue to rise.

Biodiversity and urban greening

Unlike natural vegetation, synthetic surfaces provide no ecological value. Artificial turf does not support soil health – it kills nutrients in the soil and ultimately creates ‘green deserts’ that destroy habitats, seal soil, and eliminate food sources for insects, birds and soil organisms. Overtime it can result in a loss of urban wildlife and remove opportunities for biodiversity within the landscape.

Artificial turf typically has a lifespan of approximately 8–15 years. At end-of-life, most synthetic turf products are difficult to recycle due to the combination of plastics, backing materials and infill. As a result, the majority of removed artificial turf is disposed of in landfill.

In the context of Lane Cove, future artificial turf installations may undermine the Council’s urban forest strategy objectives, which aim to increase vegetation cover, support biodiversity, and reduce urban heat in residential and public areas. Natural grass and landscaped vegetation along nature strips, parks, and open spaces contribute to the cooling of streets, improved air quality, and habitat for native wildlife, all of which are key priorities in Lane Cove’s Environmental Strategy. Replacing these areas with synthetic surfaces would reduce opportunities for urban wildlife, soil health, and green connectivity, while also limiting the ability of public and private spaces to contribute to the overall liveability and environmental resilience of the municipality.

PFAS

PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a class of about 15,000 chemicals often used to make products resist water, stain and heat. The compounds are linked to cancer, liver problems, thyroid issues, birth defects, kidney disease, decreased immunity and other serious health problems.

All artificial turf is made with what public health advocates say are dangerous levels of PFAS. Artificial turf is made with several layers, including plastic grass blades, plastic backing that holds the blades in place and infill that weighs down the turf to help blades stand upright. Industry has said the grass blades and backing cannot be made without PFAS.

When the highly mobile chemicals break off from plastic grass blades, they can be absorbed through the skin, inhaled, ingested or get in open wounds. A study in the US found that players had much higher levels of these forever chemicals on their skin after playing on synthetic fields. (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, 2023 https://peer.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/3_6_2024-Dermal-absorption-PFAS-AT.pdf)

One of the co-authors of the study said “in 2024, the last thing we should be doing is putting down acres of a plastic fossil fuel product … with chemicals that are going to get all over athletes’ skin, and into soil and water,” “It just boggles my mind that people are still considering using this stuff” (The Guardian, March 2024 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/15/athletes-higher-pfas-levels-artificial-turf) .

We also know that these fibres and the chemicals used to hold them together run off into nearby water sources and have the potential to impact the health of the broader community. The federal parliamentary inquiry into PFAS in November last year indicated a single synthetic field could release 800 to 3200 kilograms of PFAS-contaminated particulate into the environment. The inquiry recommended that Australian governments should ban PFAS in artificial ground coverings.

Councils reducing and banning synthetic turf

Increasingly, councils are moving to ban or significantly reduce their reliance on synthetic fields. Dr Safiullah, a senior lecturer at RMIT has urged councils to ban the use of synthetic fields where possible – citing concerns with heat island effects and loss of biodiversity. This applies to both playing fields and public spaces, as well as lawns in new developments.

Adelaide City Council has banned synthetic grass on verges. The City of Marion and Tea Tree Gully have also taken action to curb the use of synthetic turf. Just this year, Queanbeyan-Palerang has put forward a proposal to ban artificial turf in new developments. Similar restrictions have been placed on new developments in parts of the Gold Coast. There’s a clear precedent to support councils taking stronger action to address the negative impact of synthetic turf.

Councillor Helena Greenwell

Councillor

Councillor Rochelle Flood

Councillor

Councillor Merri Southwood

Councillor

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting 23 April 2026

Post Exhibition - Draft Planning Agreement for 2-4 Pacific Highway, St Leonards

Item No: 12.1

Subject: Post Exhibition - Draft Planning Agreement for 2-4 Pacific Highway, St Leonards

Record No: SU6258 - 26199/26

Division: Office of the General Manager

Author(s): David Stevens

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to present to Council the outcome of the public exhibition of a draft Planning Agreement for 2-4 Pacific Highway, St Leonards and to seek endorsement of the draft Planning Agreement and delegate authority to the General Manager to execute the agreement.

Executive Summary

· At the meeting of 18 September 2025 Council considered an Offer to Enter into a Planning Agreement submitted to Council by the proponent for 2-4 Pacific Highway, St Leonards and resolved to place the draft Planning Agreement on public exhibition.

· The Planning Agreement comprises a monetary contribution for local works or projects at Council’s discretion and, a share of advertising time on the sign, at no charge to Council.

· Council staff have determined that the annually indexed monetary contribution shall be deployed to the maintenance of Wadanggari Park, St Leonards for a term of 10 years.

· A development application (24/2026) for the removal of existing backlit signs and the installation of a new western facing digital sign has been submitted to Council and recently exhibited. The DA is yet to be determined.

· The draft Planning Agreement, including Explanatory Note, and Offer to Enter into a Planning Agreement was placed on public exhibition between 11 March 2026 and 10 April 2026.

· No submissions have been received.

· This Report recommends that Council delegate authority to the General Manager to execute all necessary documentation required to finalise the Planning Agreement for 2-4 Pacific Highway, St Leonards.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. enter into the Planning Agreement for 2-4 Pacific Highway, St Leonards.

2. delegate authority to the General Manager to execute all necessary documentation to give effect to this resolution.

Background

Council received a Letter of Public Benefit Offer from the Proponent of 2-4 Pacific Highway, St Leonards to enter into a Planning Agreement (PA) for the site.

State Environmental Planning Policy Industry and Employment (SEPP) (Chapter 3 Advertising and Signage) provides Council with the assessment criteria to consider for signage, in conjunction with Council’s own DCP controls.

Clause 3.1 of the SEPP titled “Aims, objectives” section (3) “to ensure that public benefits may be derived from advertising in and adjacent to transport corridors” is a cornerstone of the Proponents offer, and indeed Council’s assessment thereof.

A Planning Agreement is a legal arrangement between a Developer/Landowner and Council to facilitate the delivery of a public benefit. Public benefits may include the dedication of land at no cost to Council, the payment of a monetary contribution and/or the provision of infrastructure works.

At its meeting of 18 September 2025, Council considered the Offer and resolved to exhibit the draft Planning Agreement.

Resolution 201/25

That:

1. Council place the draft Planning Agreement for 2-4 Pacific Highway, St Leonards and supporting documentation on public exhibition; and

2. receive a Report on the outcomes of the public exhibition for the draft Planning Agreement.

The draft Planning Agreement was placed on public exhibition for 28 days closing on 10 April 2026. No submissions have been received.

Discussion

The Proponent has offered the following public benefit contributions:

1. A 5% share of advertising time at no charge to Council that may only be used for community messages that are directly affiliated with Council; and

2. A fixed (recurring) monetary contribution of $10,000 per annum indexed at CPI to be expended by Council on local community works or projects at Council’s discretion.

Council staff have determined that the annually indexed monetary contribution shall be deployed to the maintenance of Wadanggari Park, St Leonards for a term of 10 years. Under Section 3.19 (2) (a) of the SEPP, consent granted ceases to be in force “on the expiration of 10 years after the date on which the consent becomes effective”. The Proponent’s financial performance under the PA is secured by a $10,000 Bank Guarantee for the 10-year term.

The Monetary Contribution offered by the Proponent will augment Council’s funding for maintenance and repairs at the award-winning Wadanggari Park site. Further, such external and recurring revenue stream(s) afford Council the opportunity to re-deploy working capital to other projects and works in the LGA.

The proposed share of advertising time at no charge provides Council an opportunity to elevate community messaging from a prominently visible site and in so doing, raise awareness and activation to capture an audience that extends beyond the LGA for prominent Council events.

Exhibited Planning Agreement

The proposed Planning Agreement aligns with the provision of infrastructure works, in this instance operating expenditure to effect maintenance and repairs via a recurring monetary (indexed) contribution.

The proposed Planning Agreement was prepared by Council’s in-house lawyer and reviewed by Council and the proponent including the negotiation of terms. Whilst the exhibited Planning Agreement does not differ from the Planning Agreement recommended for Council endorsement, the Public Benefit(s) as described under “DISCUSSION” represent a negotiated outcome between the Parties, namely Council identifying its operational expenditure needs at Wadanggari Park.

The Final Letter of Public Benefit Offer (AT-1) is the culmination of negotiations with the Proponent.

The proposed Planning Agreement shall not apply if consent is not granted for the DA.

Community Consultation

Council publicly exhibited the draft Planning Agreement (concurrently with the associated Development Application) on its website for 28 days under “Have Your Say”. The community consultation closed on 10 April 2026. No submissions were received.

The following evidentiary statistics are offered from the public exhibition phase:

· 77 visits to “Have Your Say”.

· One (1) person downloaded the associated Development Application.

· Zero (0) persons downloaded the Letter of Public Benefit Offer.

Financial Considerations

The proposed monetary contribution provides flexibility to Council for the re-deployment of financial resources to other unfunded and / or partially funded projects and services in the Lane Cove Local Government Area (LGA). Simultaneously, it relieves pressure on Council from an ongoing operational expenditure perspective regarding the cost of maintenance and repairs at Wadanggari Park.

Governance and Risk Considerations

Council’s Finance and Assets Teams shall complete the necessary actions to ensure the monetary contribution and associated works are appropriately reported, provisioned, and scheduled during the term.

Environmental Considerations

The subject of this report has no environmental implications for Council.

Social Considerations

The recommendations in this report will have positive social outcomes for the community through regular and pro-active maintenance of Wadanggari Park thereby ensuring a safe environment for families and visitors.

Timing

The associated DA has not yet been determined but that does not prevent Council from considering the Planning Agreement.

Link to Strategy

This report relates to the Community Strategic Plan Outcome/s and Goal/s:

2. Our Built Environment - A well designed, liveable and connected area

2.3 Assets, Infrastructure & Public Domain

2.3.3 Investigate opportunities to improve the public domain to enhance public lifestyle

Louise Kerr

General Manager

Office of the General Manager

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Letter of Public Benefit Offer: 2-4 Pacific Highway	1 Page	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Final DRAFT VPA 2-4 Pacific Highway - LED Billboard Upgrade	45 Pages	Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 23 April 2026

Public Exhibition - Draft 2026/27 Budget, 2026/27 Fees and Charges, 2026/27 Delivery Program and Draft Operational Plan, Resourcing Strategy and associated Resource Plans

Item No: 13.1

Subject: Public Exhibition - Draft 2026/27 Budget, 2026/27 Fees and Charges, 2026/27 Delivery Program and Draft Operational Plan, Resourcing Strategy and associated Resource Plans

Record No: SU10923 - 21845/26

Division: Corporate Services and Strategy Division

Author(s): Don Johnston

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement to publicly exhibit the draft Delivery Program 2026-2030, Operational Plan 2026/27 (including draft Budget and Fees and Charges), and a revised Resourcing Strategy, which includes the Long -Term Financial Plan 2026-2036.

Executive Summary

· Section 404 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Act) requires Council to have an Operational Plan each financial year outlining the planned activities and services to be delivered. The Delivery Program and Operational Plan are combined into one document.

· The draft Delivery Program 2026-2030 and Operational Plan 2026/27 turn Council’s vision of Lane Cove as a connected, inclusive, sustainable community as set out in our Community Strategic Plan - Liveable Lane Cove 2025 into action.

· The draft Delivery and Operational Plan propose a draft budget for 2026/27 which forecasts a small operating deficit before capital grants and contributions of $165k. However, the draft program budget (including capital works and transfers to/from Reserves) has been balanced for the 2026/27 financial year.

· The draft budget proposes operating expenditure of $74M and a capital works program of $15M which includes significant projects such as the Lane Cove Aquatic Centre Electrification Program and various major culture infrastructure projects including extended studio space and a rooftop outdoor room at Gallery Lane Cove. More than $10m of the proposed capital works are asset renewal related.

· While the draft 2026/27 program budget is balanced and Council has the financial capacity to maintain services and meet community commitments, some financial performance benchmarks are again not likely to be achieved, meaning that Council will need to carefully manage its financial position to ensure a financially sustainable position into the future. The Long Term Financial Plan explores alternative scenarios to strengthen our position into the future.

· The draft Delivery Program 2026-2030 and Operational Plan 2026/27 (including a draft Budget and Fees and Charges), revised Resourcing Strategy, including the draft Long Term Financial Plan 2026/27-2035/36 have been prepared for public consultation.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council exhibit the draft Delivery Program 2026-2030 and draft Operational Plan 2026/27 (includes draft 2026/27 Fees and Charges), and the draft Resourcing Strategy and associated Resource Plans for a period of 6 weeks and a report on the outcomes of the public exhibition be reported to Council at the June 2026 Ordinary Meeting.

Background

In October 2009, the NSW Government enacted the Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Amendment Act 2009, which set a new framework to integrate the various statutory planning and reporting processes as required by the Local Government Act 1993.

Following the ordinary local government election in September 2024, Council in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and Integrated Planning and Reporting Guidelines reviewed Council’s Integrated Planning & Reporting Framework and adopted a revised Community Strategic Plan – Liveable Lane Cove 2035; 4 Year Delivery Program; 1 year Operational Plan; and Resourcing Strategy (including a 10 year Long-Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Management Strategy). These documents were endorsed at the 19 June 2025 Council meeting.

Section 405 of the Local Government Act requires the annual operational plan to be adopted by 30 June each. Lane Cove Council also takes the opportunity to roll forward the Delivery Program a year to show a 4-year program and reviews of the Resourcing Strategy (including the Long-Term Financial Plan) to ensure financial planning for the annual Operational Plan and Budget are sound.

The Delivery Plan acts as the link between the long-term community strategic plan and the annual operational plan, and it identifies the actions we will take that support the community strategic plan outcomes. The Operational Plan is an annual plan with more details about the specific projects, programs and activities to be delivered in the year ahead and is aligned to out delivery program.

Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework

Discussion

Budget Summary

The draft 2026/27 budget projects total operating expenditure of $74M and a capital works program of $15M. The proposed capital works program includes $10.5M in asset renewal.

The budget forecasts an Operating Deficit before capital grants and contributions of $165k.

Most financial and asset management ratios are expected to meet industry benchmarks, except for Operating Performance Ratio and Building and Infrastructire Renewal ratios.

Salary and Wages related expenditure totals $27.79m, which includes an estimated Local Government (State) Award increase of 4.0% and other employee related expenses such as Employee Leave Entitlements and Superannuation.

The list of programs and projects to be delivered in 2026/27 are discussed further in the report.

Draft Revenue Policy

Rating Structure 2026/27

The NSW Government, through the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) caps the total general income that may be raised from levying rates on property. IPART has determined that general income from rates in 2026/27 may increase by a maximum of 4.7%. This is the basis of the draft 2026/27 budget.

It is proposed to levy two (2) Ordinary Rates in 2026/27 in accordance with S.492 and S.497(a) of the Local Government Act.

a. An Ordinary Residential Rate of 0.077674 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 $1,123.68 to yield $26,968,171.

b. An Ordinary Business Rate of 0.478237 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 $1,147.81 to yield $7,248,632.

Car Parking Special Rate

It is proposed to levy a Car Parking Special Rate on Business premises in the Lane Cove Village Commercial Area of 0.184626 cents in dollar with a minimum rate of $2 per assessment, to yield $210,313. This revenue will continue to offset the maintenance of car parking now available within the Village.

Domestic Waste Management Charge 2026/27

The Domestic Waste Management (DMW) Service is provided to all residential properties. Council must make and levy an annual charge for the service and income must not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the services (section 496 and 504). The draft 2026/27 Budget provides for the levying of a Domestic Waste Management Charge (under S.496 of the Act) of $637.65 for each 80 litre MGB and recycling service on all rateable and non-rateable residential properties. The DWM is expected to raise $11.1M in revenue.

Charges for DWM services rendered to residential units above business premises, or extra DWM services rendered to other premises, are set out in the Schedule of Fees and Charges for 2026/27.

Stormwater Management Services Charge 2026/27

The Stormwater Management Services Charge is levied to all eligible residential and business ratepayers to find a program of stormwater improvement projects and is forecast to raise $386,500. It is proposed to levy a stormwater levy of $25 per single residential dwelling, $12,50 for each residential strata lot, flat or unit, $25 per 350m2 for properties classified as business and $5 for each business strata lot.

Sustainability Levy

Council continues to support sustainability initiatives utilising funds from the Sustainability Levy. A total amount of $844k has been allocated towards operating projects/programs and $342k has been allocated towards capital projects. The full list of sustainability projects included in the draft 2026/27 Budget can be found in AT-1.

Pricing methodology and Fees and Charges 2026/27

Fees and Charges relate mainly to the recovery of service delivery costs through the charging of fees to users. A full schedule of the user fees and charges proposed for the year is included in the Draft Revenue Policy. The proposed fees have been set in accordance with Council’s pricing policy, which requires consideration of a number of factors including community service obligations, the cost of service provision, whether the goods or services are provided on a commercial basis, and the capacity of the user to pay.

Draft Delivery Program 2026/27- 2029/30 including the 2026/27 Operational Plan

The Delivery Program and Operational Plan (AT-2) continue to respond to community priorities identified in the Community Strategic Plan - Liveable Lane Cove 2035. The Delivery Program and Operational Plan describe Council’s commitment to the community during the Council term and, like the Community Strategic Plan, is presented in the form of the six Strategic Themes.

Within each of the six Strategic Themes, community priorities are identified and include strategies, recurrent actions and new initiatives. Also included in the Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan is a budget allocated for each of the six strategic themes and Council’s Revenue Policy.

The Operational Plan 2026/27 supports the continued delivery of high-quality services and key operational projects to ensure better community outcomes. It also includes a capital works program of $15.5 M including:

· Lane Cove Aquatic Centre - Electrification Programme, facility enhancements and upgrades to structure and plant

· Gallery Lane Cove – extended studio space, rooftop outdoor room and other associated cultural and creative projects

· Burns Bay Reserve - Playground

· Lucretia Baths demolition and rewilding

· Ronald Avenue Greenwich - Stair Replacement

· Christie Street - Path & Drainage

· Centennial Avenue - Pedestrian Refuge

· Lane Cove Plaza - Blinds

· Mindarie Street / Kullah Parade raised intersection and pedestrian crossing treatment

· Pedestrian Crossings - Elizabeth Parade & Wardrop Street

· Enhanced Dog Infrastructure for Blackman Park

· Lane Cove Library - Airconditioning / Lighting

· Canopy - Resurfacing of grass & Refurbishment of Playground

· River Road cycleway (stage 2) design

· Mowbray Road Safety Improvements

· Market Square car park cameras

A range of New Initiatives (non-capital) are also identified in the draft Operational Plan 2026/27, including:

· New Climate Emergency Plan

· Increase Council’s capacity to improve environmental compliance

· Rehabilitate 14 Gay Street

· Implement new abandoned watercraft program

· Implement the new Sydney Plan

· Develop new Disability Inclusion Access Plan

· Introduce a 24-hour library service program

· Implement new library management system

· Develop a new Cultural Plan for Lane Cove

· Undertake two service reviews: Regulatory Services and Property/Commercial Operations

· Upgrade Council’s core enterprise software solution

· Introduce Direct Debit payment option for customers

· Develop a new Customer Experience Strategy

· Implement outcomes from Community Engagement Strategy and Digital Engagement reviews

· Develop an Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme

The draft 2026/27 Operational Plan also includes Council’s Revenue Policy (including estimated residential and business rates) and a proposed Schedule of Fees and Charges for 2026/27.

Service Review Program

We are committed to improving the quality of services to the community. This will be the first year where we commence a program of reviews and implement improvements actions across several services and functions as part of the Lane Cove Service Review Framework.

Proposed service reviews for 2026/27 include property/commercial operations and regulatory services. It is expected that there may be some other priority areas that will emerge over the year.

Resourcing the Plan

To support the community’s objectives expressed in the community strategic plan a long-term resourcing strategy is required as part of the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework.

The Resourcing Strategy (AT-3) ensures that Council has adequate resources to achieve the planned outcomes for which it is responsible, while maintaining the long-term financial sustainability of the organisation.

The resourcing strategy has 3 components:

1. Long Term Financial Plan (AT-4)

2. Strategic Asset Management Plan (AT-5)

3. Workforce Management Plan (AT-6)

The Strategic Asset Management Plan and Workforce Management Plan were both adopted by Council in June 2025. Only minor administrative changes have been made to both documents, primarily to reflect updated data or reference information.

Council’s Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) is a 10-year plan that identifies current and future financial capacity to act on the aspirations of the community strategic plan, including providing high quality services, facilities and infrastructure to the community.

The LTFP is reviewed and updated each year as a rolling 10-year projection of Council’s income and expenditure, assets and liabilities and cashflows to reflect prevailing economic conditions and/or new priorities. The attached LTFP (AT-4) contains financial modelling for 3 scenarios.

The 3 scenarios considered in the draft LTFP are:

Scenario 1 – models the continuation of existing services and service levels and includes identified operational priorities. The operational priorities, which improve Council’s current service offering include:

• additional staff resources in areas such as compliance and regulatory, legal services and governance;

• additional asset maintenance and fire safety requirements; and

• new initiatives such as an improved after hours call service and improvements to small watercraft management.

This scenario is not sustainable into the future.

Scenario 2 – builds on Scenario 1 by including some internal strategic interventions and models the impact of an ongoing $0.5 million net improvement in Council’s “bottom line” in both 2027/28 and 2028/29, a total of $1 million over two years. This is achieved by income producing and expenditure savings opportunities.

This scenario is not sustainable into the future due to insufficient funding available to meet infrastructure renewal requirements.

Some of the opportunities that staff will be exploring in 202627 include:

· Investigate advertising opportunities across the LGA local government area to broaden revenue streams

· Facilitate a pilot program for food trucks or comparable temporary vendors to activate public spaces with economic opportunities

· Review service contracts to identify where shifting delivery back in‑house could achieve cost efficiencies and improved outcomes

· Investigate trial reductions in free parking periods in Council car parks

· Lease underutilised storage areas and parking spaces within Council‑owned car parks to maximise asset use and broaden revenue streams

· Replace Justice of the Peace Service at Civic Centre with volunteer service at Lane Cove Library

· Develop a Property Opportunities Plan to maximise value of operational land and assets

Scenario 3 – builds on Scenario 2 and demonstrates the importance of an integrated planning approach. It models the investment of a further $7.4 million ($7 million indexed to today’s dollars) in infrastructure asset renewal identified in Council’s Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP). This investment would increase asset health from 64% to 71% and reduce portfolio PVP (poor, very poor) from 7% to 2%. This is the ‘Improvement’ scenario in the adopted SAMP. This scenario assumes that the additional investment from 2028/29 onwards.

This scenario would ensure financial sustainability into the future.

Community Consultation

It is a statutory requirement that the draft Budget 2026/27, draft Delivery Program and the Operational Plan 2026/27 and Fees and Charges 2026/27 be placed on public exhibition for a period of not less than 28 days. Following this, Council must consider any public comments submitted before the Plans can be adopted.

It is proposed to exhibit these documents for 6 weeks from late April 2026. A report will be prepared for Council’s consideration at the June 2026 Ordinary Council Meeting advising of the results of the community consultation and recommendations for final adoption. Until the Delivery Program and Operational Plan (including Budget) is adopted, Council is unable to levy rates and charges for the financial year for which the plan is prepared.

Consultation Statement of Intent

The consultation is designed to provide the community with the opportunity to comment on the proposed actions and initiatives over the next year. Council will consider feedback in determining to adopt the final plans and budget.

The methods of consultation proposed are outlined below.

Methods

Level of Participation	Inform	Consult
Form of Participation	Open	Open
Target Audience	Whole Community	Whole Community
Proposed Medium	Website Exhibition eNewsletter	Written Submissions & Survey
Indicative Timing	6 weeks from late April 2026	6 weeks from late April 2026

Financial Considerations

The draft 2026/27 Operational Plan and Budget have been prepared in a fiscally responsible manner. Council does, however, acknowledge the increasing difficulty in balancing the budget in the future and will need to continue exploring new income producing and/or expenditure saving opportunities to not only balance the budget but significantly increase its ability to provide additional funds for the renewal of Council’s assets.

Governance and Risk Considerations

In developing the draft 2026/27 Operational Plan and Budget, Council has taken a risk-based approach to the capital works projects it proposes to deliver during 2026/27. Another important consideration was Council’s capacity to deliver the works within the next 12 months.

Environmental Considerations

In developing the draft 2026/27 Operational Plan and Budget, consideration was given to the environmental benefits that would accrue from the investment of funds in a range of sustainability projects, programs and other related initiatives.

Social Considerations

The draft 2026/27 Operational Plan and Budget contain significant funding for a range of social projects and programs that will have a positive impact on the social wellbeing of our community.

Timing

In order to meet legislative requirements around the adoption of the 2026/27 Operational Plan and Budget, it is important to commence the public exhibition process in April each year to ensure the necessary documents can be considered by the public and ultimately adopted by Council by 30 June each year.

Link to Strategy

This report relates to the Community Strategic Plan Outcome/s and Goal/s:

6 Our Council - A Leading Council that Engages its Community to Deliver Effective, Efficient and Sustainable Services

6.1 Governance

6.1.2 To provide assistance to Councillors and support the organisation to operate within its legal framework

Steven Kludass

Director - Corporate Services and Strategy

Corporate Services and Strategy Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	DRAFT 2026-27 Budget Summary	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	DRAFT Delivery Program & 2026-27 Operational Plan	Available Electronically
AT‑3 View	DRAFT Resourcing Strategy	Available Electronically
AT‑4 View	DRAFT Long term Financial Plan	Available Electronically
AT‑5 View	DRAFT Strategic Asset Management Plan	Available Electronically
AT‑6 View	DRAFT Workforce Management Plan	Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 23 April 2026

Public Exhibition - Draft Restricted Cash (Reserves) Policy

Item No: 13.2

Subject: Public Exhibition - Draft Restricted Cash (Reserves) Policy

Record No: SU241 - 23916/26

Division: Corporate Services and Strategy Division

Author(s): Don Johnston

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement to publicly exhibit the draft Restricted Cash (Reserves) Policy.

Executive Summary

· The annual statutory financial statements of Council include a summary of the funds held in the external and internal financial reserves. These reserves have been established over time.

· To date there has been no Council Policy that applies to the establishment and management of all Council financial reserves, which sets out the agreed direction and controls as well as a target balance to be held in each reserve.

· Both externally and internally restricted financial reserves are established and managed to meet a range of objectives. Externally restricted financial reserves are established to meet legislative requirements, primarily unspent developer contribution funds and unspent grants received by Council. These unspent funds are set aside as externally restricted assets in financial reserve as they can only be expended for that purpose.

· Internally restricted financial reserves are established at the discretion of Council and are used to meet a variety of circumstances, generally focused on a specific activity or service of Council. These unspent funds are set aside as internally restricted assets in the internal financial reserves.

· A draft Restricted Cash (Reserves) Policy has been prepared to document the future management and utilisation of Reserves to ensure that Council meets best practice governance and audit controls.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. adopt the draft Restricted Cash (Reserves) Policy for the purpose of public exhibition.

2. receive a further report on the Policy following public exhibition.

Discussion

Council’s long-term financial plan incorporates the establishment and management of financial reserves to ensure long-term financial sustainability and capacity to provide infrastructure and services into the future.

In the preparation of Council’s annual statutory financial statements, funds are set aside in the external and internal reserves. Both externally and internally restricted financial reserves have been established and managed over time to meet a range of objectives.

Externally restricted financial reserves are established to meet legislative requirements, primarily unspent developer contribution funds and unspent grants received by Council. These unspent funds are set aside as externally restricted assets in financial reserve as they can only be expended for that purpose.

Internally restricted financial reserves are established at the discretion of Council and are used to meet a variety of circumstances, generally focused on a specific activity or service of Council. These unspent funds are set aside as internally restricted assets in the internal financial reserves

However, to date there has been no Council policy that applies to the establishment and management of all Council financial reserves.

Current forecasts indicate that Council will hold approximately $17.3m in three (3) externally restricted Reserves (developer contributions, domestic waste management and unexpended grants) and approximately $23.3m in eighteen (18) internally restricted Reserves by 30 June 2026.

These Reserves are shown in the table below:

Reserve	Forecast balance 30 June 2026 ($’000)
Externally Restricted:
Developer Contributions	13,371
Domestic Waste Management	3,151
Unexpended Grants	781
Sub Total	*17,303*

Internally Restricted:
Plant Replacement	628
Employee Leave Entitlements	3,746
Capital Works	5,253
Kindy Cove	171
Library	5
Election	356
Aquatic Centre	640
Market Square	1,417
Office equipment (IT)	413
Property Acquisition	2,792
Bushland Remediation	78
Sustainability Levy	162
Affordable Housing	2,440
Deposits and Bonds	1,424
Public Liability Insurance	410
The Canopy	2,557
Financial Assistance Grants (Advance Payments)	792
Carry Over Works	12
Sub Total	*23,296*

The Reserves are currently managed through the preparation of annual budgets, budget reviews and the adoption of annual financial statements based on intended use.

The draft Policy seeks to formalise Council’s current practice in relation to the establishment and management of Reserves and to set out the purpose for the reserve, source of funding, funding level targets (where applicable) and responsibility for each Reserve.

This approach is consistent with Council’s external auditor’s good governance advice around the need to have a Council adopted Policy governing the use of Reserves.

Community Consultation

Statement of Intent

The consultation is designed to elicit any feedback members of our community may have on the matter and report that feedback back to Council for its consideration.

Method

Level of Participation	Consult
Form of Participation	Open
Target Audience	Lane Cove Community
Proposed Medium	Website Exhibition, inviting written submissions and survey responses (as part of the Draft 2026/27 Budget & Operational Plan exhibition)

Financial Considerations

Implementation of the Policy will not have any financial impacts for Council and will establish a framework for the establishment and use of Council’s Financial Reserves.

Governance and Risk Considerations

The development of the draft Policy will strengthen governance in relation to the establishment and management of Council’s Financial Reserves.

Environmental Considerations

The subject of this report has no environmental implications for Council.

Social Considerations

The subject of this report has no social implications for the Council.

Timing

It is proposed that the draft Restricted Cash (Reserves) Policy be placed on public exhibition for a period of six (6) weeks to coincide with the exhibition of the draft Budget and Operational Plan. A further report will be presented to Council following the exhibition period providing comments on any submissions received.

Link to Strategy

This report relates to the Community Strategic Plan Outcome/s and Goal/s:

6 Our Council - A Leading Council that Engages its Community to Deliver Effective, Efficient and Sustainable Services

6.2 Best Value

6.2.1 Ensure long term financial sustainability through effective short and long term financial management

Steven Kludass

Director - Corporate Services and Strategy

Corporate Services and Strategy Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Restricted Cash (Reserves) Policy

Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 23 April 2026

Council Policies Review

Item No: 13.3

Subject: Council Policies Review

Record No: SU241 - 24546/26

Division: Corporate Services and Strategy Division

Author(s): Stephen Golding

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to seek the re-adoption of three (3) current policies: Financial Hardship Policy, Investment Policy and Sister City Policy in accordance with Council’s ‘Council Policy Framework’

Executive Summary

· Council’s Policy Framework outlines the strategic principles for corporate documents including Council Policies and provides a commitment to Council policies being reviewed once per Council term, or more frequently if required due to material changes to Council’s operating environment such as legislative amendment, Council resolution or a variation to Councils strategic direction.

· Council is progressively reviewing all its corporate documents covered by the Framework.

· Reviews of the Financial Hardship Policy, Investment Policy and Sister City Policy have been completed, and minor administrative amendments have been made to each of the policies.

· While Council encourages involvement by the community in developing and reviewing its policies, the public exhibition of the three (3) policies is not considered necessary as the changes to the existing policies are administrative only and the likely benefits of exhibition would not outweigh the likely costs and impact on resources and associated delays.

· It is recommended that Council adopt the three (3) reviewed Policies.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the Financial Hardship Policy, Investment Policy and Sister Cities Policy.

Background

Council adopted a Policy Framework at the 19 September 2025 Council meeting. The Framework provides the strategic principles for all Council policies and sets out the governance arrangements for the establishment and review of Council policies and other internal facing documents.

All existing Council policies and other relevant internal corporate documents are progressively being reviewed in accordance with the settings of the Framework which provides that Council policies be reviewed once per Council term, or more frequently if required due to material changes to Council’s operating environment such as legislative amendment, Council resolution or a variation to Councils strategic direction.

The purpose of the review is to ensure that all policies are contemporary, compliant with current legislation and/or guidelines issued by State and Federal agencies, are consistent with Council’s policy and reflect industry standards.

Discussion

Council is progressively reviewing all its Council policies over the remainder of the Council term. This report is the first of a series of reports which will be presented to Council throughout the remainder of the Council term.

Reviews of policies can result in a number of outcomes - revocation, amendment or re-adoption if existing policy is fit for purpose.

Reviews of three (3) policies have been completed and are presented to Council for consideration. The policies the subject of review are: Financial Hardship Policy; Investment Policy and Sister City Policy/

Only minor administrative amendments are proposed to each of the three (3) policies (found in the attachments). The existing policies can be accessed via the hyperlink in the Policy headings below.

Financial Hardship Policy

The purpose of this Policy is to fulfill the statutory requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 with respect to the recovery of outstanding Rates, Annual Charges and Interest and the provision of assistance to those ratepayers who are experiencing genuine financial hardship in meeting the obligation to pay their Rates and Annual Charges.

Minor administrative changes have been made to the Policy to clarify that it applies to all forms of monies owed to Council, inclusive of rates and charges. Clarification has also been included to acknowledge that whilst it is preferred that debts be cleared before the end of a financial year, arrangements can be made for repayment over a period of twelve months under delegation that may span two (2) financial years.

There are tracked administrative amendments only to this policy. (AT-1)

Investment Policy

The purpose of this Policy is to provide a framework for the investment of Council’s funds with a view to minimising the risk of loss of capital or interest and to ensure that Council’s liquidity requirements are satisfied.

Administrative changes have been made to the Policy to:

· align ‘Authorised Investments’ directly with the Ministerial Order rather than re-wording;

· align ‘Prohibited Investments’ with the Office of Local Government Investment Policy Guidelines;

· re-word the ‘Risk Management Guidelines’ in plain English and align with the Office of Local Government Investment Policy Guidelines; and

· update ‘Related Legislation’

There are tracked administrative amendments only to this policy. (AT-2)

Sister Cities Policy

The purpose of this Policy is to ensure that any Sister City relationships that Council may enter into are relevant and effective in delivering demonstrable economic, cultural and/or social benefits for Lane Cove; and to clearly delineate the type and level of resourcing by Council of Sister City relationships.

Administrative changes have been made to reflect updated policies and legislative requirements, for example the requirement for Council to provide notice of a proposed international Sister City Relationship to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. While Lane Cove currently has no international sister city arrangement in place, this policy sets out the appropriate steps for Council when considering any prospective sister city relationships.

There are tracked administrative amendments only to this policy. (AT-3)

Community Consultation

While Council encourages involvement by the community in developing and reviewing its policies, the public exhibition of the three (3) policies is not considered necessary as the changes to the existing policies are administrative only and the likely benefits of exhibition would not outweigh the likely costs and impact on resources and associated delays.

Financial Considerations

The recommendations of this report do not result in any change to the existing Council budget.

Governance and Risk Considerations

Policy reviews are in accordance with Council’s ‘Council Policy Framework’.

Environmental Considerations

The subject of this report has no environmental implications for Council.

Social Considerations

The recommendations in this report will have positive social outcomes for the community through assisting those who are experiencing genuine financial hardship in meeting the obligation to pay their Rates and Annual Charges.

Timing

Council policies are reviewed during the term of Council.

Link to Strategy

This report relates to the Community Strategic Plan Outcome/s and Goal/s:

6 Our Council - A Leading Council that Engages its Community to Deliver Effective, Efficient and Sustainable Services

6.1 Governance

6.1.2 To provide assistance to Councillors and support the organisation to operate within its legal framework

Steven Kludass

Director - Corporate Services and Strategy

Corporate Services and Strategy Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Draft Policy-CS-04 Financial Hardship	5 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Draft Policy-CS-04 Financial Hardship	10 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑3 View	Draft Policy GMU-04 Sister Cities Policy	5 Pages	Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 23 April 2026

2026-2027 Community Assistance Grants Program - Funding Recommendations

Item No: 14.1

Subject: 2026-2027 Community Assistance Grants Program - Funding Recommendations

Record No: SU10985 - 25568/26

Division: Community and Culture Division

Author(s): Susan Heyne

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to seek approval to allocate funding under Councils 2026/27 Community Grants Program.

Executive Summary

· Under Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council may grant financial assistance to community organisations.

· Council’s draft 2026-2027 budget includes funding under the Community Grants Program. The program comprises 2 grant streams ‘Community Assistance Grants’ and ‘Cultural Venue Hire Subsidy Grants’ as well as recurring commitments.

· The funding priorities align with the Community Strategic Plan – Liveable Lane Cove 2035 and funding of $591,000 has been allocated to the program in the 2026/27 financial year.

· Applications for Community Assistance Grants and Cultural Venue Hire Subsidy Grants were open for 11 weeks from 15 December 2025 to 2 March 2026.

· A total of 26 applications were received from 20 organisations for Community Assistance Grants and Cultural Venue Hire Subsidy Grants. Recurring commitments remain unchanged.

· This report recommends that 15 recipients receive grant funding, with a total of $581,526 being made available.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. pursuant to Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993 approve the allocation of $581,526 (excluding GST) under the 2026–2027 Community Grants Program as outlined in Attachment 1(AT-1) comprising of:

a) Community Assistance Grants and Cultural Venue Hire Subsidy Grants for 2026–2027, funding 15 recipients to a total value of $520,922.

b) recurring commitments for 2026-2027 of $60,604.

2. approve the inclusion of the late application from Lane Cove Historical Society.

3. approve the extension of the contract with The Sydney Library of Things (Trading as the Lane Cove Toy Library) until 30 June 2027.

4. host the Community Assistance Grants Program Presentation Ceremony in August 2026.

5. extends its appreciation to all applicants for the time and effort invested in supporting. initiatives that benefit the Lane Cove community.

Background

Community organisations play a critical role in providing vital community and recreational activities and keeping the community healthy and connected. Council’s approach to working with local community organisations is to work in partnership so that the local community can receive high quality services and participate in volunteering and community orientated activities improving their connectedness and ability to participate.

Applications for funding are reviewed and assessed using the eligibility and assessment criteria listed in the Financial Assistance to Community Groups Policy (AT-2), the Community Assistance Grants 2026-2027 Guidelines and Information for Applicants (AT-3) and the Cultural Performance Venue Hire Subsidy 2026-2027 Guidelines and Information for Applicants (AT-4).

In past years grant recommendations have been presented to Councillors (as a selection committee) prior to formal reporting to Council for approval.

This year, grant recommendations were initially presented to the Councillor Selection Committee in accordance with the current grant guidelines and established practice. However, following consideration of the updated Model Code of Meeting Practice and associated guidance issued in February 2026 by the NSW Office of Local Government, the Committee determined that this approach is no longer appropriate under the revised governance framework.

The updated Code reinforces that Councillors are to make decisions in formal Council or committee meetings, in full view of the community, except where matters are confidential. The intent of these reforms, introduced as part of broader changes by the NSW Government, is to strengthen transparency, accountability and public confidence in local government decision-making. In this context, it was considered that determining grant allocations outside of a formal meeting setting may not align with the revised requirements or the intent of the reforms. Accordingly, the Selection Committee did not review or determine the recommendations and instead requested that Council staff present recommendations to Councillors in a report presented to the April 2026 Council meeting for consideration.

Council staff conducted eligibility checks on all applications prior to proceeding with assessment. The Grant applications were reviewed and assessed by 2 senior staff members and their recommendations have been presented in this report.

To ensure ongoing compliance and clarity, revised grant guidelines will be prepared and presented to Council along with the reviewed Financial Assistance to Community Groups Policy. These will formalise an updated assessment and decision-making process that is consistent with the new legislative and governance framework and they will ensure that all funding decisions are made transparently through formal Council processes.

A total of 26 applications were received from 20 individual organisations. Twenty-one applications were received for the Community Assistance Grant stream. This includes 3 applications from organisations with a current Community Assistance Grant contract and one application that was submitted past the closing date.

Five applications were received for the Cultural Venue Hire Subsidy Grant steam. All applicants for the Cultural Venue Hire Subsidy Grant also applied for a Community Assistance Grant. One contracted applicant also submitted a separate Community Assistance Grant.

Community Grants Presentation

Each year Council invites all funded groups to a presentation ceremony on the first Wednesday in August. This provides the opportunity for Council to showcase its Grants Program and for local groups to receive recognition for the work they do in a wider forum. It also offers community groups the opportunity to network and connect with other local organisations. It is suggested that the practice be continued, and the ceremony take place on Wednesday 5 August 2026. The presentation evening is funded out of the Community Assistance Grants budget.

Discussion

In 2021 Council resolved to require applicants to provide a co-contribution, either as funding or an in-kind contribution. Organisations who are unable to provide a co-contribution are required to provide an explanation as to why the organisation is unable to contribute to the program. The guidelines and application form for the 2026-2027 funding round clearly indicate Council’s expectations regarding co-contributions.

To ensure a range of services and programs are supported by the grants program, Council limited the maximum amount of funding available to groups to $10,000, unless prior approval by Council has been granted. The average amount of funding requested in 2026-2027 is $7,425. Organisations with service agreements are exempted from this funding limit.

Applicants are required to show how their application meets the needs of Lane Cove local government area by referring to Council’s strategies and plans. The application form also includes questions regarding inclusion to ensure people living with disability and people from cultural and linguistically diverse backgrounds are considered and included in the projects. Copies of the applications are included in the separately circulated information to Councillors.

Funding recommendations for the 2026/27 Grant Program have been made with a focus on several areas including:

· Funding to support Council-initiated services that respond to identified community needs, including the Centrehouse, Toy Library and Sydney Community Services.

· support to projects that can be successfully completed within the 2026-2027 financial year

Community Assistance Grant

Twenty-one (21) applications were received, including contracted services.

Grant applications fall into the following categories:

· arts and cultural programs

· services for youth, children, and families

· community services for seniors and people with disability

· community development and social inclusion

· sporting programs

It is recommended that $581,317 be made available for the Community Assistance Grant in 2026/27 as shown in the table below:

Community Assistance Grants recommended for funding

Applicant	Requested funding	Recommended funding	Overview
Centrehouse – Trading as Gallery Lane Cove + Creative Studios	$75,204	$78,379	Contracted service supporting Creative Studios in delivering art workshops and classes for adults and children. Request did not include specified annual increase. Contract ends 30/6/2027
Centrehouse – Trading as Gallery Lane Cove + Creative Studios	$10,000	$10,000	Pilot program developing online-store to support local artists and artisans to exhibit and sell artwork. Partnering with Lane Cove Library to create a satellite display to promote items from the online shop. Supports artist and Gallery income.
Empowering Parents In Crisis (EPIC)	$10,000	$10,000	Providing parents with skills and resources to support young people in crisis through online support and a podcast series as a permanent support resource
Hughes Park Community Garden Inc.	$4,538	$4,538	Continuous improvement of garden with view to growing and sharing produce and knowledge across the Lane Cove Community.
Lane Cove Community Bands*	$2,842	$2,842	New equipment and instrument repairs supporting performance of concerts including free concerts for the Lane Cove community
Lane Cove District Music Club Inc*	$1,500	$1,500	Supporting the performance of one concert in the series. High quality performances provided locally
Lane Cove Historical Society**	$4,378	$4,378	Late submission. Application completed. Final step of submission omitted in error. Funding to expand museum activities and improve displays at Carisbrook Historic House.
Lane Cove Swim Club	$7,630	$6,630	Funding equipment to support the swim club and improve swimming skills for all members. Funding has been adjusted to exclude merchandise costs, consistent with Council’s sustainability approach

Lane Cove Youth Orchestra*	$8,000	$8,000	Funding to support professional music tutors, enhancing rehearsal quality, developing student skills, and strengthening pathways for young musicians in the community.
Sydney Community Services	$339,687	$339,687	Contracted service provides home support for older people and people with disabilities including home nursing, personal care, wellness activities, volunteer support. Contract ends 30/6/2027
St Vincent de Paul Society	$5,000	$5,000	Vouchers for food and essentials for Lane Cove residents in-crisis. Vouchers for use in local businesses to support Lane Cove Community.
StreetWork Australia Limited	$10,000	$5,000	Mentoring and case management for young people at-risk across Northern Sydney and including Lane Cove. Funding has been partially allocated, reflecting the limited-service reach within the LGA
Taldumande Youth Services	$10,000	$5,000	Food to support at-risk young people and families in crisis including homeless people across Northern Sydney and including Lane Cove. Funding has been partially allocated, reflecting the limited-service reach within the LGA
The Sydney Library of Things - T/A Lane Cove Toy Library	$21,398	$21,398	Contracted service supporting the purchase and maintenance of toys, operational expenses and agreed contractual obligations. Contract ends 30/6/2026 and a one-year extension is recommended.
Wheelchair Sports NSW ACT	$7,500	$7,500	Establish funding to support Lane Cove Cockatoos Wheelchair Basketball Club training weekly at Galuwa Recreation Centre.
Women & Children First	$8,465	$8,465	Revitalising outdoor space to support children with trauma-related challenges, emerging mental health concerns and neurodivergence.
Total funding recommended	$569,942	$518,317

*Denotes applicant also applying for a Cultural Venue Hire Subsidy Grant.

** Late submission of application.

Community Assistance Grants not recommended for funding

Applicant	Total Funding Requested from Council	Reason
Lane Cove Junior AFL Club Incorporated	$10,000	Installation of a shed at Blackman Park (lower oval) requires further consideration by Council. No plans or approvals have been provided to date.
Lane Cove Public School Parents & Citizens Committee	$10,000	Funding for race day equipment hire. Funds raised support additional teachers and learning support staff in a public school. It is inappropriate for Council to support activities that fall within State Government statutory responsibilities, as this would constitute cost shifting. This includes providing funding for events where proceeds are directed toward these activities.
North Shore Rowing Club	$8,300	Funding request for maintenance on a Council owned building. Council already provides funding for the Facilities portfolio through its established budget process, where projects are assessed and prioritised based on need. Grant funding would bypass this assessment framework.
PURE Korean Traditional Art Music Performance and Academy Australia	$3,000	Not local. No ongoing connection to Lane Cove. Possibility of engaging organisation to perform in the future as part of a cultural festival or event.
Second Act Arts	$12,500	Western Australia based organisation with no links to Lane Cove.
Total	$43,800

Cultural Venue Hire Subsidy Grant

Five (5) applications were received to assist with the cost of hiring a venue to hold a performance with an audience capacity larger than any Council venue can provide.

It is recommended that $2,605 be made available for the Cultural Venue Hire Subsidy Grant in 2026/27 as shown in the below table:

Cultural Venue Hire Subsidy Grants recommended for funding

Applicant	Recommended amount	Purpose
Lane Cove Community Bands	$403	50% hire cost of Bowie Hall, Brigidine College, St Ives for annual Young Soloist Competition
Lane Cove District Music	$250	Contribution (under 50%) towards hire cost of Longueville Uniting Church as Lane Cove Mowbray Anglican Church Hall is being demolished.
Lane Cove Youth Orchestra	$1,952	50% hire cost of Sydney Conservatorium of Music for Lane Cove Festival Concert
Total funding recommended	$2,605

Cultural Venue Hire Subsidy Grants not recommended for funding

Applicant

Recommended amount

Purpose

PURE Korean Traditional Art Music Performance and Academy Australia

Ineligible – this program supports the hire of facilities not available within the LGA and does not provide additional subsidy for Council-owned venues.

Applied to use Lane Cove Library

Second Act Arts Inc

Ineligible – this program supports the hire of facilities not available within the LGA and does not provide additional subsidy for Council-owned venues.

Applied to use Pottery Lane Performance Space

Recurring Commitments for 2026-2027

It is recommended that $60,604 be made available for recurring commitments in 2026/27 as shown in the below table.

Most of the recipients have benefitted from longstanding commitments relating to Council’s contributions to rate payments, or the waiving of payments and other costs.

Applicant/ Program	Recommended amount	Purpose
ANZAC Day Ceremony	$2,000	Wreaths and Ceremony
Lane Cove Art Award	$18,000	Acquisitive Art Prize and presentation event
Birrahlee Kindergarten	$5,275	Waste Services & Stormwater Charge 100% subsidy
Lane Cove Bowling and Recreation Club	$8,420	Rates and Annual Charges – 50% subsidy
Longueville Sporting Club (The Diddy)	$4,945	Rates and Annual Charges – 50% Subsidy
Pottery Gardens Aged Homes	$21,964	Waste Services – 100% Subsidy
TOTAL	$60,604

Sydney Community Services and Centrehouse

In the 2024/2025 round of financial assistance a 3-year Service Agreement was made with both Sydney Community Services and Centrehouse (trading as Gallery Lane Cove + Creative Studios). These 3-year agreements provide funding security for the organisations whilst also allowing for flexibility if circumstances change for the organisations.

These 3-year agreements end on 30 June 2027.

The Lane Cove Toy Library

At the Council meeting held 29 September 2022, it was resolved that Council enter into a funding and licence agreement with The Sydney Library of Things to operate a Toy Library, and to provide funding to cover initial establishment costs.

A 2-year service agreement was made with The Sydney Library of Things to operate The Lane Cove Toy Library. This agreement ends on 30 June 2026. It is recommended that this contract be extended for a period of 12 months to 30 June 2027 in line with the Centrehouse and Sydney Community Services contracts.

CONSULTATION

The 2026/27 Community Grants Program was open for applications from 15 December 2025 to 2 March 2026.

A total of 26 applications were received from 20 organisations for Community Assistance Grants and Cultural Venue Hire Subsidy Grants.

Financial Considerations

$591,000 has been allocated in the draft 2026-2027 budget under the Community Grants Program. It is recommended that $581,886 be allocated to the recommended projects. Costs associated with the Presentation Ceremony are also taken from this budget at an amount of $5,000.

Governance and Risk Considerations

The Community Grants Program is governed by Council’s Financial Assistance to Community Groups Policy (AT-2), the Community Assistance Grants 2026-2027 Guidelines and Information for Applicants (AT-3) and the Cultural Performance Venue Hire Subsidy 2026-2027 Guidelines and Information for Applicants (AT-4).

Environmental Considerations

The subject of this report has no environmental implications for Council.

Social Considerations

The recommendations in this report will have positive social outcomes for the community through supporting the delivery of a broad range of services, events and programs through local groups and organisations that have the skills and experience to deliver specialist programs.

Timing

Funding and subsidies provided by the Community Grants Program dependent on Council accepting the budgeted amount in the draft 2026-2027 budget.

Community Grants are distributed at the beginning of the financial year. Applicants are notified of the outcome of their application by June.

Link to Strategy

This report relates to the Community Strategic Plan Outcome/s and Goal/s:

3 Our Society - An Inclusive, interconnected, active and resilient community

3.1 Community Connections

3.1.2 Focus community funding on projects that encourage diverse community interaction and social cohesion

Stephanie Kelly

Director - Community and Culture

Community and Culture Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Summary of the Community Grants Program 2026-2027	1 Page	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Policy HS-01Financial Assistance to Community Groups Policy	4 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑3 View	Community Assistance Grants 2026-2027 - Guidelines and Information for Applicants	5 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑4 View	Cultural Performance Venue Hire Subsidy 2026-2027 - Guidelines and Information for Applicants	5 Pages	Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 23 April 2026

Planning Proposal 48 - 1 Austin Crescent Lane Cove (Heritage de-listing)

Item No: 15.1

Subject: Planning Proposal 48 - 1 Austin Crescent Lane Cove (Heritage de-listing)

Record No: SU11063 - 19575/26

Division: Planning and Sustainability Division

Author(s): Golrokh Heydarian; Christopher Pelcz

Purpose

A Planning Proposal (AT-1) for 1 Austin Crescent, Lane Cove has been submitted for consideration. The Planning Proposal seeks to remove the property at 1 Austin Crescent, Lane Cove from Schedule 5 of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (LEP).

Executive Summary

· The Planning Proposal (PP) was prepared by Urbanism Pty Ltd and includes a Heritage Assessment prepared by Three+One Heritage, which concludes that the property no longer demonstrates historic significance at either the local or state level.

· Council engaged an independent heritage consultant in November 2025 to review the Planning Proposal for 3 Austin Crescent (the property adjacent to 1 Austin Crescent), following a previous proposal submitted to Council seeking to remove the property from the LEP heritage listing. Overall, the advisor is of the opinion (AT-3) that the “proposal to remove the heritage listing from No.3 Austin Crescent is supported, and it is recommended that the item, and the adjacent house at No.1 Austen Crescent, be removed from Schedule 5”.

· Subsequent to the lodgement of Planning Proposal 48, it was reported (AT-5) to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel (LPP), for advice on 10 March 2026.

· The LPP advice was that Planning Proposal 48 (AT-6) be supported as it satisfies both the strategic and site-specific merit tests.

· The Panel also recommended that while the measure and criteria for listing or de-listing heritage items should be on heritage criteria alone, the Planning Proposal (like all Planning Proposals) should include information about the planning implications of delisting upon future development, including development potential that would arise from the ‘Low and Mid Rise Housing’ development criteria within Part 6 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. endorse the amended planning proposal for 1 Austin Street, Lane Cove at Attachment AT6 to this Report (planning proposal) for forwarding to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination under section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

2. publicly exhibit the Planning Proposal in accordance with any Gateway Determination.

3. advise submitters to the informal consultation of the Planning Proposal of Council’s decision.

SITE

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Austin Crescent, in an angle formed by the junction between Austin Crescent and Austin Street. The lot is roughly triangular in shape with a splayed edge south, and a vaguely curved edge along its southeastern boundary following the curvature of Austin Street. Development on the site is generally oriented west to east. The site slopes upward from Austin Crescent, rising to the east on Austin Street. The site contains one two-storey residential dwelling.

The site is a listed heritage item (I151) located adjacent to ‘House’, 3 Austin Crescent, Lane Cove (item no. I152), and in close proximity to “Lane Cove Public School”, 145–153 Longueville Road (item no. I178). This is shown in Figure 1 below.

A map of a neighborhood

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 1: Heritage Map - Existing

The site is not located within or in proximity to a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA).

The property adjoins neighbouring residential development along its northern boundary, with the property’s western boundary (principal) fronting Austin Crescent, with eastern/southern boundaries (secondary) fronting Austin Street – shown in Figure 2. The street view is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2: Aerial image of the local area, with subject site outlined in blue (Source: NSW Spatial Explorer, 2026).

Figure 3: View of local streetscape looking northeast along Austin Crescent with the subject site indicated with red arrow (Source: Three + One Heritage, January 2026)

The subject dwelling is a two-storey, late Interwar era dwelling, originally of a simple, austere style but now with a heavily modified appearance. It is slightly elevated above ground level and of brick construction with a modern cement render applied. The original medium-pitched hipped roof form remains partially visible and is clad with tiles, however it has been substantially impacted by a later first-floor addition.

The two heritage items (1 and 3 Austin Crescent) in their original state are shown in Figure 4.

HISTORY

According to the applicant’s study (AT-2), the subject dwelling was constructed circa 1941, with aerial imagery confirming that Nos. 1, 3, and 5 Austin Crescent were already completed by February 1942 (see Figure 5). At the time of construction, the three houses shared a similar architectural style, each being a full brick, single storey, detached Inter-War Californian Bungalow.

It is noted that both the subject site at No. 1 Austin Crescent and the adjoining dwelling at No. 3 Austin Crescent were listed as local heritage items under LCLEP 2009. No. 3 Austin Crescent has recently been the subject of a Council decision to remove the heritage listing and the Department of Planning Housing and Infrastructure has issued a Gateway Determination for the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to commence.

No. 5 Austin Crescent is not heritage listed. Notwithstanding their former heritage status, both No. 1 and No. 3 Austin Crescent have undergone substantial alterations in recent years and no longer retain a high level of architectural integrity or consistency with their original built form. By contrast, No. 5 Austin Crescent, although not heritage listed, has experienced minimal modification and remains the most intact and representative example of the original Inter-War Californian Bungalow style within the immediate streetscape.

No.5 Austin Crescent

No.3 Austin Crescent

No.1 Austin Crescent

Figure 4: From left to right: no. 5, no. 3, and no.1 Austin Crescent in 1987, Lane Cove Council. (Source: NSW State Heritage Inventory)

A collage of different images of houses

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Aerial view of a neighborhood

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 5: Historical aerial imagery of no. 1, 3, and 5 Austin Crescent from 1930-2025 (Source: 1943-2005, NSW Historical Imagery Viewer; 2025, NSW Spatial Explorer)

According to the applicant’s argument (in AT-2), the site at 5 Austin Crescent, is not listed as a heritage item. However, the dwelling was constructed in the same period as the neighbouring dwellings of 1 and 3 Austin Crescent (between 1930-1942). The dwelling presents as an example of development in the late Interwar period with a face brick finish, simple tile clads hipped roof, and minimal decorative detailing.

No.3 Austin Crescent

No.1 Austin Crescent

Figure 6: No. 1 Austin Crescent in October 2024. (Source: Google Street View)

A house with a fence and trees

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 7: No. 1 Austin Crescent in Feb 2013 (Source: Google Street View)

Dwelling Exterior

The first-floor addition comprises weatherboard-clad walls and a cross-hipped gable roof with tile roofing. It incorporates a centrally located balcony to the western elevation fronting Austin Crescent, with a timber balustrade and gabled awning roof, integrating the former ground floor portico at the entrance. Gable elements to the north and south elevations incorporate windows. The western façade openings have been modified, including replacement of former timber sash windows with triple casement windows incorporating multi-pane coloured glass detailing to the lower panes. The original chimney has been removed, though the chimney flue remains evident to the southern elevation. The side elevations are highly modified, with windows largely replaced (potentially excluding kitchen sash windows to the northern elevation). A timber-framed carport/garage structure is located along the northern boundary and projects forward of the dwelling.

The rear includes a later extension with a hipped roof, cement-rendered walls, and contemporary aluminium-framed windows and doors. The rear yard is generous in size and contains established plantings.

The exterior has been modified with the following:

A house with a fence and bushes

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

· Modern, cement-rendered brick finish to principal façade

· Projecting porch entryway with rendered masonry piers

· Tile-clad hipped roof of medium pitch with later cross-gabled first floor addition

· First floor addition with street facing balcony and gabled awning structure

Figure 8: Street-facing façade of 1 Austin Crescent, Lane Cove (Source: Three + One Heritage, 16.01.26)

A house with a patio and trees

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

· Cement-rendered external walls

· Tile-clad hipped roof of medium pitch

· Aluminium framed openings to rear extension, timber framed to principal building form

· Rear deck area with timber shade structure

· Crazy paver tile finish to rear courtyard and artificial grass finish to elevated rear yard

· Later stone wall and koi pond feature adjacent deck area

Figure 9: Rear eastern elevation of 1 Austin Crescent, Lane Cove (Source: Three + One Heritage, 16.01.26)

A white wall with a white fence and a white fence

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

· Modern, cement-rendered

· Timber framed awning and sash windows

· Paved side pathway

Figure 10: Northern façade of 1 Austin Crescent, Lane Cove (Source: Three + One Heritage, 16.01.26)

A house with electrical boxes and wires

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

· Modern, cement-rendered brick finish

· AC unit enclosure

· Services box and battery

· Timber framed casement windows

· Rendered chimney flue

Figure 11: Southern façade of 1 Austin Crescent, Lane Cove (Source: Three + One Heritage, 16.01.26)

A backyard with a slide and trees

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

· Crazy paver finish to rear courtyard

· Elevated artificial grass area with timber retaining walls

· Soft landscaping around northern and southeastern boundary walls

· Rock feature wall with koi pond adjacent timber deck area

Figure 12: Rear yard of 1 Austin Crescent, Lane Cove (Source: Three + One Heritage, 16.01.26)

Dwelling Interior

Inside the dwelling the ground floor contains three bedrooms, two bathrooms, a kitchen, laundry and dining room that gives way to a larger open plan living area at the rear of the property. This rear portion, is a later addition and whilst externally has been designed in a similar manner to the original building, internally is entirely contemporary in appearance.

The bedroom floors, central hallway, and dining room retain timber floors, whilst the kitchen, bathroom, and laundry areas feature non-original tiles throughout. The ground floor areas feature an array of different cornice and skirting types. The main bedroom contains an original but highly modified rendered brick fireplace.

The first floor of the dwelling contains the master bedroom, an ensuite bathroom, and two storage spaces. The first floor is entirely contemporary with carpeted floors, plasterboard walls, and tiled finish to the ensuite bathroom.

The interior has been modified with the following:

		· Street-facing non-original casement windows with later louvred shutters · Rendered brick fireplace (modified) and flue · Simple decorative plaster cornice mouldings · Simple skirting
Figure 13: Office (Source: Three + One Heritage, 16.01.26)
		· Timber flooring · Simple skirting and architraves · Non-original front door arrangement with top and side lights · Highly decorative non-original cornices
Figure 14: Front hallway / foyer area (Source: Three + One Heritage, 16.01.26)
		· Non-original tile wall and floor finishes · Modern fixtures · Leadlight horizontally oriented awning window · Non-original ceiling and cornices
Figure 15: Main bathroom (Source: Three + One Heritage, 16.01.26)
		· Painted render walls · Timber floors · Simple skirting and architraves · Decorative non-original skylight
Figure 16: Dining room with access to kitchen (left), and rear living room (central) (Source: Three + One Heritage, 16.01.26)
		· Timber flooring · Street facing non-original triple casement window · Plaster cornice mouldings · Simple skirting and architraves · Built-in wardrobe
Figure 17: Bed 2 (Source: Three + One Heritage, 16.01.26)
		· Timber flooring · Simple skirting and architraves · Non-original double casement window · Plaster cornice mouldings · Built-in wardrobe
Figure 18: Bed 3 (Source: Three + One Heritage, 16.01.26)
	· Tile flooring · Painted render walls · Modern kitchen fixtures · Double timber framed sash windows
Figure 19: Kitchen (Source: Three + One Heritage, 16.01.26)
	· Contemporary rear extension
Figure 20: Contemporary rear extension (Source: Three + One Heritage, 16.01.26)
	· Tile flooring · Painted render and tiled walls · Modern laundry and bathroom fixtures · Timber framed awning window and single-leaf door · Plaster cornices
Figure 21: Laundry and toilet (Source: Three + One Heritage, 16.01.26)
	· Contemporary first floor addition · Master bedroom and ensuite
Figure 22: Contemporary first floor addition (Source: Three + One Heritage, 16.01.26)

Discussion

Strategic Merits

This section will review and outline the strategic planning documents relevant to this Planning Proposal in order to provide an overall response at the end of the section.

Greater Sydney Region Plan

In relation to this Planning Proposal, the relevant objective and strategy is as follows:

· Objective 13: Environmental heritage is identified, conserved and enhanced.

· Objective 39: A collaborative approach to city planning.

North District Plan

In relation to this Planning Proposal, the relevant priority and action from the Plan are as follows:

· Planning Priority N2: Working through collaboration

o Objective 5: Benefits of growth realised by collaboration of governments, community and business.

· Planning Priority N6: Creating and renewing great places and local centres, and respecting the district’s heritage

o Objective 12: Great places that bring people together.

o Objective 13: Environmental heritage is identified, conserved and enhanced.

Local Strategic Planning Statement

In relation to this Planning Proposal, the relevant priority is as follows:

· Planning Priority 6: Create and renew public spaces and facilities to improve our community’s quality of life.

The above policy contains a section dedicated to “Embracing Heritage”, noting:

“A variety of local heritage items and heritage streetscapes form part of the character of centres throughout the North District and Lane Cove.”

Therein, it further states:

“Heritage identification, management and interpretation are required so that heritage places and stories can be experienced by current and future generations.”

The term “interpretation” is considered to be directly applicable to this Planning Proposal. In this context, the interpretation of heritage items relates not only to their understanding and presentation but also to the process of their designation.

Accordingly, a Heritage Statement has been prepared for the subject property and is enclosed with this proposal. This report provides an assessment of the property and offers an interpretation of its heritage value.

The cumulative effects of additions and alterations to the subject property over the past few decades have rendered its original heritage value to be considerably diminished.

Local Housing Strategy

Section 6 of the strategy relates to Housing Priorities within the LGA. Therein, section 6.2.7 refers specifically to “Preserving and enhancing character and heritage”. This strategy recognises that character and heritage should be evolving, interpretive concepts that support innovation and contemporary community needs. Specifically, the strategy states that:

“Incorporating character and heritage can be interpretive, rather than strict repetition, encouraging new housing to build upon existing values and adapt new trends into building design and structure.”

In this context, retaining the heritage listing of 1 Austin Crescent, despite its lack of remaining heritage significance, risks constraining thoughtful and innovative development that could better reflect current and future housing needs. The proposed removal of the listing allows for the opportunity to create a new built form that is respectful of local character, while embracing the strategy’s call for adaptation to “the trends of the day.”

Moreover, the Strategy also recommends “routine heritage reviews are undertaken”, where deemed necessary. We consider this especially relevant in this instance, with this planning proposal intended to begin the process of requesting Council to reconsider the subject local heritage item.

The intent of the Strategy is to maintain and strengthen Lane Cove’s valued character—not to impose heritage listings that no longer serve their original purpose. As the Strategy makes clear:

“Future character and heritage controls [should] seek to preserve and enhance character while also encouraging innovation and adaptation of the trends of the day.”

The removal of the subject property from Part 1 of Schedule 5 of the LCLEP 2009 will facilitate future innovation and adaption of the site. It is considered that that a local heritage designation on the subject property is unduly restrictive in the context of the above guidance, particularly given that the site is no longer an exemplar of an Interwar Californian Bungalow.

Site-Specific Merits

The criteria for assessing heritage significance consider seven (7) matters as follows:

· Criterion A – Historical Significance;

· Criterion B – Historical Associations;

· Criterion C – Aesthetic Values;

· Criterion D – Cultural Associations;

· Criterion E – Cultural or Natural Research Value;

· Criterion F – Rarity;

· Criterion G – Representativeness;

The applicant has already provided an assessment against each of the seven criteria in AT-2. These will be reviewed with additional comments where relevant.

Criterion A

The applicant provides the following in terms of criterion A:

“The subject dwelling, constructed c.1941, is associated with the pattern of residential subdivision and generally modest housing development in Lane Cove during the late Interwar and early Postwar period. Its original construction reflects the economic austerity of the era, evidenced by its modest scale, restrained detailing, and readily available materials. However, the dwelling has undergone a number of substantial external alterations, including a first-floor addition and replacement of front façade openings, as well as changes to original materials and detailing, which have highly modified its form and presentation and diminished its ability to effectively demonstrate this historical phase in a legible or representative way. Due to the extent of these modifications, the dwelling is not considered to retain sufficient integrity to meet Criterion (A) – Historic Significance at a local level.

This item is not considered to be of Historic Significance at a State or Local level.”

In response, Council can confirm these comments through the development applications it has received for the various external alteration, including changes to its original materials and detailing. As it is mentioned in the PP when this property was originally listed, it was considered a good and intact example of modest brick housing typical of this era, reflecting the materiality and restrained decorative detailing associated with the period. However, the dwelling has undergone substantial changes, including a first-floor addition, replacement of original front façade openings, external rendering, and a rear extension, which have reduced the integrity of its original form and presentation and diminished its ability to clearly demonstrate these representative characteristics.

Criterion B

The applicant provides the following in terms of criterion B:

“The subject dwelling is not known to be associated with any person or group of note.

This item is not considered to be of Associative Significance at a State or Local level.”

In response, Council can confirm the above comment.

Criterion C

The applicant provides the following in terms of criterion C:

“The subject dwelling presents as a highly modified example of a late Interwar dwelling evidenced by its overall form, opening patterns, and simple austere design utilising materials common in the period. The building is not considered to demonstrate any particular aesthetic, creative, or technical achievement, and is more an example of a building approach common at the time of construction. Recent modifications to the building have heavily impacted its ability to demonstrate this aspect of the building as a type, particularly the first-floor addition and changes to the front façade openings, as well as the rendering of the exterior which has obscured its original brick materiality and detailing.

This item is not considered to be of Aesthetic Significance at a State or Local level.”

In response, Council can confirm the building is now not considered to demonstrate any particular aesthetic, creative, or technical achievement, and is more an example of a building approach common at the time of construction. Recent modifications to the building have heavily impacted its ability to demonstrate this aspect of the building as a type, particularly the first-floor addition and changes to the front façade openings, as well as the rendering of the exterior, which has obscured its original brick materiality and detailing.

Criterion D

The applicant provides the following in terms of criterion D:

“The subject dwelling has not been identified as having strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in the Lane Cove area for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.

This item is not considered to be of Social Significance at a State or Local level.”

In response, Council can confirm the subject dwelling has not been identified as having strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in the Lane Cove area for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.

Criterion E

The applicant provides the following in terms of criterion E:

“The subject site provides limited potential for further research.

This item is not considered to be of Technical / Research Significance at a State or Local level.”

In response, Council can confirm the subject site now provides limited potential for further research.

Criterion F

The applicant provides the following in terms of criterion F:

“Most of the development of Lane Cove occurred during the Interwar and Post-WWII eras, with many intact examples from these periods still evident throughout the streetscapes of the suburb and the wider LGA. The subject dwelling, while constructed during this broader period of growth, is not considered rare or uncommon within this context. It does not demonstrate any defunct customs, rare design features, or construction techniques that are at risk of being lost.

This item is not considered to meet the threshold for Rarity at the State or Local level.”

In response, council can confirm this dwelling type is not considered rare in nature, with similar building types present throughout the Land Cove LGA. It does not demonstrate any defunct customs, rare design features, or construction techniques that are at risk of being lost.

Criterion G

The applicant provides the following in terms of criterion G:

“The subject dwelling was originally a good example of the austere late Interwar housing style, representative of the type of modest residential development that characterised much of Lane Cove’s growth during this period. However, subsequent alterations including a first-floor addition and replacement of original front façade windows, along with the application of modern cement render to the exterior, have compromised the dwelling’s integrity and reduced its ability to clearly demonstrate the characteristic features of its type. Internally, while some elements of simple Interwar/Postwar decorative detailing remain, changes to configuration and finishes have further diminished its representative value.

This item is not considered to be Representative at the State or Local level.”

According to the document provided by the applicant, the subject dwelling was originally a good example of the austere late Interwar housing style, representative of the type of modest residential development that characterised much of Lane Cove’s growth during this period. However, subsequent alterations, including a first-floor addition and replacement of original front façade windows, along with the application of modern cement render to the exterior, have compromised the dwelling’s integrity and reduced its ability to clearly demonstrate the characteristic features of its type. Internally, while some elements of simple Interwar/Postwar decorative detailing remain, changes to configuration and finishes have further diminished its representative value.

In response, council can confirm the subject dwelling no longer retains this characteristic feature and is therefore no longer representative of the late interwar housing style.

Independent Heritage Advice

The Planning Proposal for No. 1 Austin Crescent has not been independently referred for heritage consultant advice. However, as part of the previous Planning Proposal received for No. 3 Austin Crescent, an independent heritage assessment (AT-3) was undertaken. That assessment concluded that both No. 1 and No. 3 Austin Crescent are no longer intact and do not present as simple, austere post–World War II suburban dwellings.

As a result, the current proposal has effectively already been assessed by an independent heritage consultancy. The consultant was of the opinion that the proposed de-listing of No. 1 Austin Crescent was adequately justified for the following reasons:

In response to the heritage assessment by the applicant, the consultant comments are:

“The Heritage Assessment is comprehensive and provides detailed historic information, information about the changes to the dwelling and its pair, a comprehensive comparative analysis and assessment against the NSW Standard Criteria for the assessment of heritage significance”.

The consultant is of the opinion that the proposed delisting of 3 & 1 Austin Crescent has been adequately justified for the following reasons:

“The house (No.3 Austin Crescent) was listed in 1987 as part of a pair of intact, simple, austere cottages that reflected suburban development in the post- WWII period, with simple brick detailing. At some time between 2013 and 2025, the house was rendered and painted, and the front garden area paved with concrete for carparking. Due to these changes, the house is no longer intact and does not present as a simple, austere, post -WWII suburban dwelling.

Furthermore, its pair at No.1 Austin Crescent has undergone substantial changes that have completely altered the presentation of the dwelling, including the addition of a second storey, new concrete roof tiles, and, like No. 3 Austin Crescent, the original face brickwork has been rendered and painted. As a result, the houses no longer read as a pair, and neither house is considered to be intact. Accordingly, the significance of the houses as a pair of intact, simple, austere cottages from the post-war era has been lost”.

Overall, the advisor is of the opinion that the “proposal to remove the heritage listing from No.3 Austin Crescent is supported, and it is recommended that the item, and the adjacent house at No.1 Austen Crescent, be removed from Schedule 5”.

Based on the comments above and considering the cumulative impacts of development that have occurred on site, there appears to be sufficient justification for de-listing of this heritage item, and the potential impacts of the proposed de-listing have been adequately addressed.

LOCAL PLANNING PANEL ADVICE

This matter was reported to the Local Planning Panel at its meeting on 10 March 2026.

After considering the matter, the Local Planning Panel provides the following advice (AT-6) to Council in relation to the Proposal:

The Panel’s recommendation to the Lane Cove Council is that the Planning Proposal for the property known as No. 1 Austin Crescent, Lane Cove, proceed to Gateway. The Panel concurs with the Officer’s Report that the delisting of the property as a local heritage item is warranted as the significant alterations and second floor additions, together with cement rendering, have transformed the dwelling so that it is not heritage significant.

It is noted the property at No. 3 Austin Crescent was also recommended for delisting because of its radical transformation with a second floor addition and cement rendering. At the time of listing No’s 1 and 3, the dwellings were seen as a representative pair of modest inter war dwellings. As such individually, and as a pair, their heritage value no longer exists.

Accordingly, pursuant to Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel recommends Council support the planning proposal, as it satisfies both the strategic and site-specific merit tests for delisting the property.

While the measure and criteria for listing or de-listing heritage items should be on heritage criteria alone, the Planning Proposal (like all Planning Proposals) should include information about the planning implications of delisting upon future development, including development potential that would arise from the ‘Low and Mid Rise Housing’ development criteria within Part 6 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021.

Community Consultation

Statement of Intent

The consultation is designed to elicit any feedback members of our community may have on the matter and report that feedback back to Council for its consideration.

Method

Level of Participation	Inform	Consult
Form of Participation	Open	Open
Target Audience	Lane Cove Community and community groups	Lane Cove Community
Proposed Medium	eNewsletter	Public Exhibition and Website Exhibition

Submissions from the informal exhibition period were reported and responded to in the report (AT-5).

RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION

This Proposal was (informally) publicly exhibited from Monday 16 February to Monday 2 March 2026. Two submissions were received.

Comment	Response
It is mentioned that it is a wonderful property, and it’d be a shame to lose it to development.	Noted.
Clarification regarding the proposed delisting of both no 1 and no 3 and, the purpose of de-listing request, and who has applied for the delisting.	The purpose of the delisting is to delist the property from the heritage items. The Planning Proposal was submitted by the owners.

FURTHER AMENDMENTS

In addition to the Local Planning Panel’s advice, Council has recently received the Gateway Determination for 3 Austin Crescent, Lane Cove (submitted following the February 2026 Council meeting).

In the Determination, they have requested that the applicant amend their Planning Proposal to address:

· The draft Sydney Plan; and

· Council’s Community Strategic Plan.

Having regard to this, it is recommended that the applicant amend their Planning Proposal to address those two studies, in addition to the Local Planning Panel’s advice.

ConClusion

According to the heritage assessment provided by the applicant and independent heritage consultant’s review, the property at No.1 Austin Crescent and its adjoining pair at no. 3 have been significantly modified due to substantial alterations undertaken over time.

Both dwellings have lost the intact, austere post-war character for which they were originally listed, and no longer read as a pair of heritage significance.

Council considers the applicant’s heritage assessment to be thorough and supports the proposal to remove No. 1 Austin Crescent from the heritage schedule.

The Lane Cove Local Planning Panel, at its meeting on 10 March 2026, advised of its support for the Planning Proposal with amendments, noting that it satisfies both the strategic and site-specific merit tests.

It is recommended that the applicant amend the Planning Proposal to address the impacts (if any) on the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, particularly the Low and Mid-Rise Chapter.

Financial Considerations

The recommendations of this report pose no financial impact on Council.

Governance and Risk Considerations

Not applicable.

Environmental Considerations

The subject of this report has no environmental implications for Council.

Social Considerations

The recommendations in this report will have a positive social outcomes for the community as the subject dwelling has not been identified as having strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in the Lane Cove area for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.

Timing

A public exhibition period will be required if the Planning Proposal is given a Gateway Determination. The timeframe for future consultation will be set out on the Gateway Determination.

Link to Strategy

This report relates to the Community Strategic Plan Outcome/s and Goal/s:

2. Our Built Environment - A well designed, liveable and connected area

2.2 Housing

2.2.1 Ensure planning controls require a diverse range of housing types and encourage housing that is adaptable, accessible and affordable

Mark Brisby

Director - Planning and Sustainability

Planning and Sustainability Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Planning Proposal - 1 Austin Crescent	72 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Heritage Assessment - 1 Austin Crescent Lane Cove	49 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑3 View	Independent Heritage Review	5 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑4 View	Assessing heritage significance - NSW Heritage Criteria	55 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑5 View	Local Planning Panel - REPORT	24 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑6 View	Local Planning Panel - ADVICE	4 Pages	Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 23 April 2026

Planning Proposal 46 - 94 Northwood Road, Northwood (Heritage de-listing)

Item No: 15.2

Subject: Planning Proposal 46 - 94 Northwood Road, Northwood (Heritage de-listing)

Record No: SU10845 - 19676/26

Division: Planning and Sustainability Division

Author(s): Christopher Pelcz; Golrokh Heydarian

Previous ORDT38/12 - Proposed Northwood Heritage Conservation Area - Ordinary Council - 21 May 2012 6:30pm

Items:

Purpose

A Planning Proposal for 94 Northwood Road, Northwood has been submitted for consideration. The Planning Proposal seeking to remove the property at 94 Northwood Road, Northwood from Schedule 5 of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (LEP). The heritage item is listed individually, but it is also part of a larger group of heritage listed properties at 88, 90, 94 & 96 Northwood Road.

Executive Summary

· The Planning Proposal to remove the property from Schedule 5 of the LEP was originally included in the LEP Review in July 2025, however the Local Planning Panel did not support the removal of the heritage listing as the assessment did not adequately address the impact that de-listing would have on the heritage significance of the group of properties located between 88 and 96 Northwood Road.

· Following the Panel’s advice the Proposal was returned to the applicant for revision in order to address the Panel’s comments.

· A revised Planning Proposal was submitted to another Local Planning Panel meeting in November 2025, accompanied by an independent heritage review. The LPP recommended a further independent review.

· The separate review was received and reported back to the LPP in March 2026.

· The LPP did not support the de-listing and recommended that Council consider whether a Heritage Conservation Area for Northwood is appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. receive and note the advice from the Local Planning Panel in relation to the Planning Proposal.

2. not support the Planning Proposal as it lacks both strategic and site specific merit.

3. not commence studies at this time to establish a Northwood Heritage Conservation Area.

Background

Previous Council Resolutions

At the time of the comprehensive Local Environmental Plan (LEP) phase (2006–2009), Council undertook extensive studies, including heritage studies recommending that the peninsulas of Greenwich and potentially Northwood be considered as Heritage Conservation Areas.

At its meeting of 4 December 2006, Council resolved that “No further action be taken in relation to the proposed Northwood Conservation Area”. The Greenwich Heritage Conservation Area was included in the eventual LEP.

The matter of heritage conservation zones was again considered between 2011–2012 and at the 21 May 2012 Council meeting, a report to consider part of the Northwood peninsula as a proposed heritage conservation area was tabled. It was resolved that it did “not wish to commence the process of classification of Northwood as a Conservation Area at this time”.

No further work was done in relation to this matter.

Previous Advice

The original Planning Proposal was considered as part of the LEP review by the Local Planning Panel on 9 July 2025 (AT-1). The Panel resolved (AT-2) to support the LEP Review with one exception:

“not support the delisting of heritage item 94 Northwood Road, Northwood, because the heritage report in support of delisting does not, in the Panels view, adequately address the heritage significance of this item as being part of a group listing with other nearby listed heritage properties”.

This matter was reported (AT-3) to Council on 24 July 2025, where it was resolved (AT-4) to remove 94 Northwood Road from the Review and allow the applicant to amend their documents in response to the Panel’s comments.

In response, the applicant revised both their Planning Proposal (AT-5) and Heritage Study (AT-6) and the revisions were re-submitted to the Local Planning Panel, along with the NSW Heritage listing criteria (AT-7) and Council’s Independent Heritage Advice (AT-8).

The matter was reported to the Local Planning Panel (AT-9) on 25 November 2025, where the Panel resolved (AT-10):

1. Prior to a final decision regarding progress of the Planning Proposal, Council should engage a further independent heritage review of the Proposal that seeks to delist 94 Northwood Road, Northwood. The review appended to the Report to the Panel, in the form of a memorandum, was prepared by a well regarded heritage consultant Lisa Trueman, who provides heritage consulting advice for the Council. However, Ms Truman was an expert on the Local Planning Panel which previously advised Council that the proposed delisting should not proceed. So, it could be reasonably perceived that her recent review for Council represents an apprehension of bias and conflict of duties, in undertaking a review of a matter for which she had prior involvement and knowledge as a member of a previous panel’s deliberations.

2. From a review of the Applicant’s heritage assessment, the Panel noted that primary weight was given to the percentage of remaining original fabric in supporting delisting. It is common for heritage items to be adapted over time, and for various elements of heritage items to have differing levels of significance. From site observations, previous additions to the dwelling appear to be sympathetic and the dwelling positively contributes to a relatively cohesive group of dwellings between numbers 88 - 98 Northwood Road. If Council ultimately decides to delist the property as a heritage item, consideration should be given to other potential mechanisms to recognise the significance of the group, such as a conservation area designation for the specific group or part of a wider area prior to such delisting.

Based on the Panel’s advice, Council undertook another Heritage Assessment (AT-11) and presented a supplementary report (AT-12) for final advice. The outcome is detailed in the Discussion section of this report.

SITE

The site is a listed heritage item (I298) located on the eastern side of Northwood Road, between Cliff Road and Point Road, Northwood. The site runs through to Eva Street; its frontage is 18.22m wide.

The property is identified as part of a group in the state heritage inventory, with 88, 90, 94 and 96 Northwood Road. All four listings are for a house and garden.

The listings are for two different types of single storey dwellings, No. 88 is a Federation bungalow, while 94 and 96 are Californian bungalows – with remnant planting. The listing for 90 Northwood simply states that it is a bungalow.

DEVELOPMENT HISTORY

The applicant’s revised heritage study (AT-6) and Council’s own research reveal the following historical timeline for the site is relevant.

According to the applicant’s revised study (AT-6), the subject site appears to have been constructed prior to 1928. However, Figure 1 (see below) is aerial image that shows that the small dwelling and tennis court were constructed together in 1929.

A map of a neighborhood

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 1: 1929 aerial image of subject site showing a house and tennis court

The house and surrounding areas appear to have barely changed at all from the period of 1929 till 1943 – this is confirmed by Figure 2 which shows the subject site still with the same house and tennis court.

Aerial view of a neighborhood

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 2: 1943 aerial image of subject site showing a house and tennis court

According to AT-6, the timeline of alterations are as follows:

· First alteration – 1971 – Tennis court was removed and replaced with a garage (and possibly driveway) facing the rear lane (of Eva Street), also the Canary Island Palm did not appear in the front garden until this time.

· Second alteration – May 1983 – the rear brick fence (facing Eva Street) was approved in BA165/82.

· Third alteration – January 1983 – a new sunroom with a bay window of timber shingles was approved under BA 527/82.

· Fourth alteration – April 1985 – other rear extensions (including new deck) approved in DA162/85.

· Fifth alteration – February 1990 – a carport was approved in DA72/89.

· Sixth alteration – February 1995 – alterations were approved (BA95/9) to the front of the house, including the addition of the front bay to the master bedroom and the front veranda was rebuilt with modern limestone flags.

All of these changes are shown in Figure 3 – which is a 2025 aerial image of the site.

Aerial view of a neighborhood with many houses

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 3: 2025 aerial image of subject site showing renovations

As part of the 1995 application, a large conifer tree was removed from the front of the house to allow for an additional room to be added onto the front house. The front veranda also appears to have been rebuilt to accommodate this.

While the renovations appeared to be sympathetic, none of the additions contain any original materials. There is also evidence to suggest that a previous carport/garage existed on the site in a different location (shown in Figure 3). This structure was demolished with the carport being moved to its current location.

Based on a review of Council files, a number of other applications were received to prune and remove a number of different trees from the property – most of these were due to death of the tree or damage caused by borers.

By way of comparison, the other heritage properties at 88, 90 and 96 Northwood Road do not appear to have had such extensive renovations.

Discussion

Strategic Merits

This section will review and outline the strategic planning documents relevant to this Planning Proposal in order to provide an overall response at the end of the section.

Section 9.1 Ministerial Directions

In addition to the above, one of the Section 9.1 Ministerial Directions is relevant to this Planning Proposal.

Direction 3.2 Heritage Conservation applies because the Planning Proposal is seeking to remove 94 Northwood Road, Northwood as a heritage item. The applicants revised heritage study (AT-6) attempts to demonstrate that the property and its surrounds have been altered significantly and retain no further heritage value, either individually or part of a group.

Greater Sydney Region Plan

In relation to this Planning Proposal, the relevant objective and strategy is as follows:

· Objective 13 – Environmental heritage is identified, conserved and enhanced; and

· Strategy 13.1 – Identify, conserve and enhance environmental heritage by…managing and monitoring the cumulative impact of development on the heritage values and character of places.

North District Plan

In relation to this Planning Proposal, the relevant priority and action from the Plan is as follows:

· Planning Priority N6 – Creating and renewing great places and local centres, and respecting the District’s heritage; and

· Action 21.c – Identify, conserve and enhance environmental heritage by…managing and monitoring the cumulative impact of development on the heritage values and character of places.

The following quote is also relevant to the Planning Proposal and taken from both the Region and District Plan:

“Sympathetic built form controls and adaptive reuse of heritage are important ways to manage the conservation of heritage significance. Respectfully combining history and heritage with modern design achieves an urban environment that demonstrates shared values and contributes to a sense of place and identity” (page 77 of Region Plan and page 50 of District Plan).

Local Strategic Planning Statement

In relation to this Planning Proposal, the relevant priority is as follows:

· Planning Priority 6 – Create and renew public spaces and facilities to improve our community’s quality of life.

While there is no direct action on heritage per se, this priority includes a section on embracing heritage. It is taken directly from both the Region and District Plan as stated above.

Local Housing Strategy

While the Planning Proposal does not specifically relate to housing, the strategy does include an action relating to heritage as follows:

· Ensure future character and heritage controls seek to preserve and enhance character while also encouraging innovation and adaptation of the trends of the day.

The following quote is also relevant to this Planning Proposal:

“Routine heritage reviews may also be undertaken, particularly in areas where existing dwellings are anticipated to be demolished to make way for new larger dwellings. These reviews should ensure that the overall character is reflected in new development, without stifling innovation (page 91 of LHS)”.

Response

Based on all the documents mentioned above, it’s clear that the cumulative impacts of development need to be considered for this proposed de-listing.

Based on Council and the applicant’s research, it’s clear that the house and garden remained largely un-altered from 1929-1943. Figures 1 & 2 confirm this and highlight that almost no real garden or trees were present in the front of the house (facing Northwood Road) or the rear of the property (facing Eva Street) at this time. Possibly in 1971, the Canary Island Palm tree appears to have been added to the garden at the front of the house. The trees in the rear portion appear to have been added after this point as well.

However, both the house and garden have been altered since the 1980s as stated in the History section of this report. It is also worth mentioning that the heritage study Council used to justify its heritage items was undertaken and completed in 1987, with the works on this property completed largely after this period.

Notwithstanding this, further works were undertaken which changed the entire front section (facing Northwood Road) of the house. As part of the rear extensions, a new laundry, family room, bathroom, bedroom and deck were added. Aside from the Canary Island Palm being planted in the 1970s, a number of other trees in the garden of the property have either been trimmed or removed to make way for these new developments.

In terms of the group listing, the house and gardens at 88-96 Northwood Road were identified in the Lane Cove Heritage Study as:

“Group of single-storey bungalows set well back from the road. The houses of various dates form a homogenous group in scale and character … Nos 96 & 94: single-storey California bungalow style homes with features typical of the style. Remnant planting.”

The group of houses were noted as being significant as a:

“Group of single-storey well-built houses of similar scale and character set on large suburban blocks with remnant planting, on the road leading from the ferry. Indicative of the scale and quality and character of suburban development occurring in Northwood at this time.”

In terms of the individual nature of the items:

· 88 Northwood Road – is described as a relatively intact Federation brick bungalow (with garden) which still does not appear to have changed that much from that description.

· 90 Northwood Road – still presents (fronting Northwood Road) as a single storey bungalow with decorative timber to front façade, enclosed veranda and remnant planting.

· 96 Northwood Road – still presents (fronting Northwood Road) as a single storey Californian bungalow with typical features and remnant planting consistent with its listing.

While these properties have also undergone different renovations at some point, they have largely been consistent with their relative listings and appear to have maintained their heritage integrity.

Therefore, preserving this property as a heritage item appears to be consistent with the relevant objectives of the Regional Plan, priorities and actions of the District Plan, and the priority of Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement – particularly when the cumulative impact of development on these items is considered. Council’s Local Housing Strategy also encourages reviews of our heritage items and controls with a focus on maintaining the overall character while being reflected in new development.

The next section will examine the site-specific merits of the listing and give consideration to the heritage listing criteria (AT-7).

Site-Specific Merits

To assist with the site-specific merits of de-listing a heritage item, the NSW Heritage Office has provided guidance on how to assess heritage significance (AT-7) against a set of criteria. This criterion also gives guidance as to what constitutes inclusion and/or exclusion of a heritage item at either a local or state level.

Criteria

The criteria for assessing heritage significance considers seven (7) matters as follows:

· Criterion A – Historical Importance;

· Criterion B – Historical Associations;

· Criterion C – Aesthetic Values;

· Criterion D – Cultural Associations;

· Criterion E – Cultural or Natural Research Value;

· Criterion F – Rarity;

· Criterion G – Representativeness;

The applicant has already provided an assessment against each of the seven criteria in AT-6. These will be reviewed with additional comments where relevant.

Criterion A and B

The applicant provides the following in terms of criterion A and B:

“The site contains the roof and supporting structure of an early twentieth-century bungalow in a suburban garden setting. The house and its allotment are among many subdivided from Northwood House in the decades after 1900. While the allotment boundaries are intact to the 1904 subdivision, this is not an aspect of significance that would satisfy the heritage criterion.

The house is highly altered and so it does not demonstrate inter-war ways of living”.

“The site history suggests that the house has no known connections with historically important people or events”.

In response, Council can confirm these comments through the various applications for renovations that have occurred to the property and grounds. The garden has also varied over the years with different plantings (including the addition of the Canary Island Palm tree) and removal of dead trees. There is also no credible evidence to suggest any type of historical associations.

Criterion C

The applicant provides the following in terms of criterion C:

“The house is highly altered and only retains its original roof and plain brickwork in three walls. The house has no original doors, windows or verandah flooring. The interior has one original door frame, but no other original joinery. The house has no original decorative plasterwork, and no original fittings or fixtures. The house is so lacking in integrity that it only demonstrates an early Inter-War Bungalow roof. The garden is a post-war work and is not distinctive”.

In response, Council reviewed the building applications previously received for this site and the rear portion of the property has been extended and the garage/carport moved to different locations on the site twice. The original tennis court was also removed between 1970-1980.

Criterion D and E

The applicant provides the following in terms of criterion D and E:

“The house and its site are not associated with a particular community”.

“As a highly altered house and garden among many suburban sites that were released for housing around the same time in Northwood, the site does not contain building or landscape fabric likely to be research interest, and the site is not distinctive from other inter-war detached housing sites”.

In response, no particular communities are associated with this site and given the presence of some of the original features that would have some research value.

Criterion F

The applicant provides the following in terms of criterion F:

“The house is highly altered the remains of the original house suggest that it was more likely to have been a typical 1920s bungalow, and not rare”.

A review of the building plans shows that the house and garden did not appear to be unique nor is it the only example of the type. The property next to 94 Northwood Road is also a heritage listed Californian bungalow, in addition the other two heritage properties near the site are also different types of bungalows. However, this is not considered a major reason for de-listing.

Criterion G

The applicant provides the following in terms of criterion G:

“The house retains its roof, its pediment of timber shingles, and some plain brickwork in three walls. The house is so altered that it does not represent an early twentieth-century bungalow”.

A review of Council’s plans demonstrates that some features are still present. The original garden was also quite sparse to begin with and other trees and plantings were added between 1970-1980. After this period, a number were trimmed or removed entirely.

Independent Heritage Advice

Council provided all material supplied with this proposal to its independent heritage consultant in October 2025 for review. In response to the heritage assessment and proposal, they provide the following comments (see AT-8):

“A review of that document has identified the following deficiencies

· Does not follow the appropriate guidelines, being ‘Assessing Heritage Significance - Guidelines for assessing places and objects against the Heritage Council of NSW criteria’, NSW Department of Planning and Environment, 2023 (attached)

· Does not provide a proper assessment of the significance of the item, based on the Heritage Council criteria and following the steps detailed in the above guidelines.

· Does not assess the impacts of the de-listing of the item on the significance or integrity of the group

· Does not consider the significance of the garden, which forms part of the listing

· Over-states the amount of change to the house and the impacts of the changes on the significance of the item and its group.

· Does not provide a comparative analysis of the house against other items of the same type and significance”.

In response to the comments about the house and garden being substantially altered, the consultant comments are:

“The basis for the proposal is that the house has been ‘highly altered’. This is not concurred with. The original and significant form and early twentieth century features of the house, as viewed from Northwood Road, remain substantially intact and the house is readily identifiable as a single-storey Inter-war California bungalow. The changes to the windows and front verandah do not detract from the ability to view the house as part of a ‘Group of single-storey well-built houses of similar scale and character set on large suburban blocks with remnant planting, on the road leading from the ferry. Indicative of the scale and quality and character of suburban development occurring in Northwood at this time.” The internal changes and changes to the rear do not detract from the identified significance of the house as part of a group”.

“The de-listing of this house would undermine the significance of the group of houses and their gardens from 88 – 98 Northwood Road, to which this property provides a strong contribution. The level of change that has occurred to the house is consistent across the group and aligns with what would be reasonably anticipated by the relevant LEP and DCP heritage controls”.

Overall, the advisor is of the opinion that the “proposal to remove the heritage listed House and Garden at 94 Northwood Road, Northwood, from Schedule 5 of the LLEP, has not been adequately justified. The documentation provided is inadequate to support a de-listing and is based on evidence that is not supported”.

In addition, the recommendation is that the house and garden at 94 Northwood Road, Northwood be retained.

However, the Heritage advice provided in February 2026 (AT-11) was of the opinion that:

“Following assessment of 94 Northwood Road using the established heritage significance assessment criteria, it has been found that, due to substantial alterations and additions, continuation of listing in Schedule 5 of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 is not supported.

Removal from Schedule 5 could potentially affect the collective streetscape value of the houses and gardens of 88, 90, 94 and 96 Northwood Road. However, the provisions of the LEP regarding development in the vicinity of a heritage item, the objectives of the R2 zone and provisions of Lane Cove DCP can be applied to guide any future proposal for change”.

LOCAL PLANNING PANEL ADVICE

This matter was reported to the Local Planning Panel at its meeting on 10 March 2026.

Submissions from the informal exhibition period were reported and responded to in the report (AT-12).

The Local Planning Panel reconvened and considered the matter on 10 March 2026 (AT-12). After considering the new Heritage advice, it resolved (AT-13):

The Panel’s recommendation to the Lane Cove Council is that the Planning Proposal to delist the property known as No.94 Northwood Road, Northwood not proceed to Gateway.

The Panel has not been persuaded that the subject property should be removed as a local heritage item from the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009. The Panel at its meeting in November 2025 requested a second independent heritage report and notes the second independent consultant’s recommendation that the property should be delisted.

However, this has not persuaded the Panel that delisting is appropriate, and the Panel has the benefit of the description for the original listing of 1987 by Moore, Pike, Tropman and Associates and subsequent heritage reviews, including the Godden, Mackay, Logan 2006/7 heritage review

The Panel notes that the most recent heritage review was also undertaken by a well-regarded expert. However, like the previous review leading to the Panel’s prior deferral, there is potential for a perception of apprehended bias, as the second consultant was involved in a Land and Environment Court case for No. 88 Northwood Road, when the heritage significance and listing of that item as part of a group including the subject property, was a central contention.

It is noteworthy that the judgement for No. 88 Northwood Road (G K Morgan Investments P/L v Lane Cove Council [2005]) stated at paragraphs 24 and 25:

“24. A heritage item includes a building, work, relic, tree or place of heritage significance described in Schedule 3 and shown on the heritage map. Schedule 3 includes Nos 88, 90, 94 and 96 Northwood Road grouped together with the common reference: B122 (“the group”). This arrangement is reflected on the heritage map.

25. It seems to me that the intention of the LEP is to protect these four properties as a group. It is plain that each property has its own heritage significance but considered together they have an overall significance greater than the individual significance of each of them. The Council’s Heritage Study relevant extracts of which are contained in Miss Burke’s report by referring to the four properties together and describing the individual houses and their setting separately, in my view supports this approach.”

On balance, the Panel has considered the original listing and its purpose as well as the two heritage consultant reviews and considers that delisting the property is not appropriate. The significance of the listing as part of a cluster in this part of Northwood Road cannot be underestimated. While, like many heritage items, there have been alterations and additions to the original fabric of the dwelling, it must be recognised that this in itself would not warrant delisting. The dwelling has the benefit of its extensive setback and garden setting in the streetscape, consistent with the other heritage items in this cluster.

The Panel concludes the planning proposal lacks both strategic and site specific merit.

The Applicant was advised at the meeting that a development application may be submitted at any time for the property irrespective of a heritage listing.

By way of comment, the Panel further recommends to Council that if the delisting of the heritage item proceeds, then this should only occur if Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 is amended to introduce a Heritage Conservation Area for the consistent group of dwellings in this block of Northwood at the same time.

Overall, based on the comments above, there does not appear to sufficient justification for de-listing of this heritage item, and the impacts of the proposed de-listing have not been considered or adequately addressed.

Further, based on the Panel’s advice, Council may want to consider revising the Northwood Heritage Conservation Area. However, this would require a revised study which would require additional funds and is not recommended at this time.

CONCLUSION

While this is only one heritage item at 94 Northwood Road, a strategic and site-specific approach must be utilised before a de-listing can occur.

In terms of its strategic merits, the planning framework is directly aligned to say that heritage must be identified, preserved and conserved and that any development of these sites must be sympathetic and respectful. Further, overall character and managing the cumulative impacts of development must be considered.

In this case, while the property has changed from its original listing it does not detract from the ability to view the house (individually and as part of a group) as a heritage item. In addition, the internal changes and changes to the rear do not detract from the identified significance. Given this, de-listing of this property as a heritage item is difficult to justify on strategic grounds.

On its site-specific merits, the based on the review conducted by the applicant and through Council’s independent heritage consultant the applicant overstates the amount of change to the house and the impacts of these changes on the significance of the item and the group. Notwithstanding this, in terms of the criterion there is little to no evidence to warrant de-listing.

The other houses and gardens in the group properties appear to still be largely consistent with their original listings – this can be seen in Figures 1, 2 and 3 of this report.

On balance as the proposed de-listing has not been justified and is not considered reasonable it is therefore recommended for refusal. Council may wish to consider re-introducing the Northwood Heritage Conservation Area, based on the Panel’s advice, however this is not recommended by staff at this point in time, given other work program priorities.

Financial Considerations

The recommendations of this report pose no financial impact on Council. However, if the Northwood Heritage Conservation Area is pursued then this would require additional funding.

Governance and Risk Considerations

There are no governance or risk considerations as part of this Planning Proposal.

Environmental Considerations

The subject of this report has no environmental implications for Council.

Social Considerations

The recommendations in this report maintain social outcomes for the community

Timing

There are no timing implications as part of this Planning Proposal.

Link to Strategy

This report relates to the Community Strategic Plan Outcome/s and Goal/s:

2. Our Built Environment - A well designed, liveable and connected area

2.2 Housing

2.2.2 Plan for the growth of housing and transport services that create sustainable and liveable communities

Mark Brisby

Director - Planning and Sustainability

Planning and Sustainability Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Previous Local Planning Panel - Report - 9 July 2025	89 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Previous Local Planning Panel - Advice - 9 July 2025	6 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑3 View	Previous Council Report - 24 July 2025	5 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑4 View	Previous Council Resolution - 24 July 2025	1 Page	Available Electronically
AT‑5 View	Planning Proposal 46 - 94 Northwood Road - September 2025	16 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑6 View	Revised Heritage Assessment - 94 Northwood Road - August 2025	35 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑7 View	Assessing heritage significance - NSW Heritage criteria	55 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑8 View	Independent Heritage Assessment - October 2025	58 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑9 View	Previous Local Planning Panel - Report - 25 November 2025	44 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑10 View	Previous Local Planning Panel - Advice - 25 November 2025	16 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑11 View	Independent Heritage Assessment - February 2026	9 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑12 View	Local Planning Panel - Report - 10 March 2026	24 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑13 View	Local Planning Panel - Advice - 10 March 2026	4 Pages	Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 23 April 2026

Adoption - Draft Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Policy

Item No: 15.3

Subject: Adoption - Draft Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Policy

Record No: SU11082 - 23369/26

Division: Planning and Sustainability Division

Author(s): Bernadette Riad

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s adoption of the draft Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Policy.

Executive Summary

· The draft Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Policy (the Policy) guides the establishment of publicly accessible electric vehicle charging infrastructure (EVCI) to encourage electric vehicle adoption in Lane Cove whilst maintaining local amenity and services.

· The draft Policy outlines the key site selection and design criteria guidelines that will ensure installations meet safety, accessibility, environmental, and community requirements.

· The draft Policy has been developed with the intention of supporting the delivery of EVCI on public land so that it integrates effectively with the local context and provides guidance to providers of EVCI on the selection of locations and associated requirements.

· The draft Policy was exhibited from 26 February 2026 to 30 March 2026. A total of 43 ‘feedback surveys’ were completed, with largely positive feedback received.

· 11 responses expressed concerns with the draft Policy, and some minor adjustments to the Policy have been made to address feedback received. The amendments include:

o reference for technology to be compatible with a wide range of makes and models

o more specific wording around consideration for areas with high density housing

o reference to the need for adherence to fire safety standards

o the avoidance of ‘Rear to Kerb’ or ‘Nose to Kerb’ spaces where possible

o consideration of the type and capacity of charger

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the amended Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Policy.

Background

In 2023, the NSW Government amended the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (SEPP) to set out the circumstances where Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure (EVCI) would be permissible with or without consent.

The Draft EVCI Policy for Lane Cove has been developed with consideration of this SEPP to help support the uptake of EV’s within the Lane Cove LGA and broader region through the provision of well-placed local charging infrastructure which considers the local context.

It sets out how Lane Cove Council will manage the installation, operation, and use of EVCI on Council land and road reserves so that it is fair, safe, and accessible, and provides guidance to the providers of EVCI on the selection of locations and associated requirements.

The Draft Policy was presented to Council at the Ordinary meeting of February 2026, where it was resolved that the draft policy be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days and that the outcomes of the public exhibition be reported back to Council.

Public exhibition of the Draft Policy took place from 26 February 2026 to 30 March 2026 via Council’s ‘Have Your Say’ web page, and was promoted through Council newsletters, social media, and posters.

Discussion

As noted in the report presented to Council at the Ordinary meeting in February 2026, the transport sector is the second largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions from the Lane Cove LGA, making up approximately 29% of community emissions. Electric vehicles (EV) and other electric transport modes provide a pathway to decarbonise the transport sector and assist Council in reaching our emission reduction targets.

While most EV charging will be done at home, approximately 1 in 3 drivers across NSW do not have access to off-street parking to charge an EV. With more than 60% of Lane Cove residents living in a multi-unit dwelling, the provision of public charging infrastructure is critical to supporting the transition to EVs. Ensuring that the placement of public EVCI is well placed and considers the local context is of benefit to all.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DRAFT POLICY

The development of the draft Policy has incorporated learnings from earlier work conducted by Stantec on behalf of the Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (NSROC) on Policies and Controls to Facilitate EV Charging infrastructure, as well as learnings from Council’s who have adopted or are developing similar policies, including; North Sydney, Northern Beaches, Ryde, City of Sydney, Waverley, Randwick, Woolahra, and Inner West.

Following the exhibition of the Draft Policy in March 2026, several minor adjustments were made. These are detailed further in the Community Consultation section below.

Community Consultation

Statement of Intent

The consultation was designed to elicit any feedback members of our community may have on the matter and report that feedback back to Council for its consideration.

Method

Level of Participation	Consult
Form of Participation	Open
Target Audience	Lane Cove Community
Proposed Medium	Public Exhibition and Website Exhibition

Feedback Received

Of the 43 surveys completed, 11 expressed concerns with the Policy specifically. A summary of these concerns and notes on proposed adjustments to the Draft Policy or reasoning for Councils position on the matter raised has been provided in the table below.

Concerns Raised	Comments
Accessibility / Equity
It seems an excellent policy, but I would hope it specifies that.no further fast chargers will be permitted on public land unless they are open to ALL brands of EVs.	While this has been the intention to date, the Policy has been adjusted to specifically reference the need for technology to be compatible with a wide range of makes and models. All EV chargers deployed by or in consultation with Council are universal and can be used by all makes and models.
Offer the same incentives to residents who drive petrol driven vehicles.	The Policy addresses the growing take up of EVs through supporting the appropriate deployment of EV charging infrastructure. It does not specifically provide incentives to the drivers of these vehicles.
Siting / Locations
The Lane Cove LGA includes clusters of high density housing, where the new EVCI would have the highest impact. However, due to the very limited or non-existent public land in the immediate vicinity (i.e. walking distance) of high-density housing, the residents of these areas will be effectively excluded from this project and will have to rely on charging their EVs away from their home locations, at chargers that are generally private such as at work or shopping centre car parks. With the current push by the NSW Government to force through even more high-density developments in the Lane Cove LGA.. it is difficult to see how the stated objective to "Ensure a fair and equitable distribution of EVCI that supports community needs" will be met.	The Policy has been amended to include reference to areas with high density housing.
What specific solutions does the draft EVCI Policy include for high-density precincts such as Hughes Park in Burns Bay Road?	The Policy does not deal with specific locations but outlines the approach to be taken by Council in supporting the roll out of EVCI across the LGA.
Unsure of where they would be specifically.	The Policy does not deal with specific locations but outlines the approach to be taken by Council in supporting the roll out of EVCI across the LGA.
Need to be in dedicated stations like petrol. Shouldn't take up parking spots.	While Council recognises the role of dedicated ‘charging stations’ such as those offered by existing petrol stations, the availability of land for new developments of this type is limited and would not serve the transition to EVs more broadly. Installing EVCI on public land and road reserves enables greater distribution of chargers. To balance the need for EVCI with parking for non-EV drivers, the Policy requires consideration of the following when selecting sites for public EVCI - The availability of parking within in an area or precinct (i.e. quantity, duration of stay and occupancy). - The location of existing EV charging facilities
Fire
Where these outlets are positioned in the case of a fire. I note with great concern that 2 outlets installed in Lane Cove Council premises are in underground car parks. The one in the Canopy is of major concern as it is 2 floors underground in a confined space. When 'not if' one of these electric vehicles catches fire they are extremely hard to extinguish, with lethal fumes. They should be in open above ground areas only.	Data published by Fire and Rescue NSW^{^[1]} note the analysis of fire data from NSW, Europe, and Asia revealed that EV fire rates range between 3 and 25 fires pre 100,000 registrations, while fire rates for fuel-based vehicles ranged between 15.8 and 58.2 fires per 100,000 registrations in 2021-2023. Recognising the risk of fire from any vehicle type. The Policy has been amended to reference adherence to fire safety standards published through the National Construction Code (NCC) and Fire and Rescue NSW.
Shouldn't be underground where fire would be catastrophic.
Parking
The public power pole chargers are a great initiative but need to be signposted as EV only parking. There are often ICE vehicles parked in front of the chargers.	Requirements regarding public consultation around changes to parking restrictions, and the need for line marking and signage is addressed in the Policy under ‘Engagement and Consultation’ and ‘Visual Identity’ The majority of kerbside EVCI in Lane Cove have dedicated spots with “EV only while charging” along with time restrictions (ie 2P) which align with the existing time restrictions in that area. In some instances, CPOs have opted to trial non-dedicated spaces to understand utilisation rates with non-dedicated parking.
Include increased enforcement of non-EVs parked in EV charging bays	Parking is actively patrolled and enforced by Council’s Rangers as part of their core business.
Make bays 24 hour EV charging only.	Parking restrictions are assessed on a case-by-case basis, with any changes to restrictions requiring community consultation and approval by Councils Local Transport Forum. To date, timing restrictions set against “EV only while charging” parking has been set to align with the existing time restrictions of the particular area (ie 2P).
Allow vehicles to park in both directions if the location of their charging port and length of charging cable dictates as such (e.g. on street charger at Oxley St, St Leonards)	The NSW Road Rules (2014) requires vehicles to park in the direction of traffic. Where ‘Rear to Kerb’ or ‘Nose to Kerb’ parking requirements have been set and signposted, such requirements have been set to ensure safety. The Draft Policy has been amended to show consideration for avoiding ‘Rear to Kerb’ or ‘Nose to Kerb’ spaces where possible.
Types of EVCI
Should include a policy for residents without off-street parking to run cables from their houses to the kerb immediately in front of their property. This could be done by allowing, for example, a channel to run the cable through under the footpath at the resident's expense and ensuring they carry public liability insurance for trip and fall risk. See www.kerbocharge.com/ for example.	Council has taken the position of prohibiting ‘private EVCI’ on public land to minimise risk to Council infrastructure and community safety, and to prevent neighbour disputes over parking on public roads.
Council should consider also slow overnight charging options which would have less demand on the grid and can use cheaper overnight rates	The kerbside chargers currently installed across the LGA are 22kW chargers which are lower demand that DC fast chargers and offer 40-130km of charge per hour (depending on the vehicle)^{^[2]}. Reference to consideration of the type and capacity of charger has been added to the draft Policy under ‘Technology’.
Ownership / Operational Models
I don’t think opening bidding to companies for mass installations is the ideal method. If you want a dedicated fast charging installation, absolutely petition Tesla. But regular slow chargers should just be installed by the Council in quantities and locations they see fit. You don’t need involvement from suppliers, just an electrician, and, if you’re worried about stability, an engineer? Making companies foot all the costs just makes it a for profit endeavour.	While the draft Policy does not prevent Council from installing EVCI on public land or specify that EVCI will only be delivered by private operators, Council’s current position is to support industry in leading the rollout of EVCI on public land rather than taking on new assets and maintenance.
Ratepayers should not be subsidising what should be a commercial arrangement	The draft Policy states that Council will support and facilitate industry to install, maintain and operate EVCI, and that Council will bear no cost or responsibility for the provision of, or upgrade to, electrical supply infrastructure to service an EV charging site proposed by a third party.

Financial Considerations

The recommendations of this report do not pose a financial cost to Council.

Fees for the installation of EVCI on Council Land will be presented to Council for their consideration with the Fees and Charges for 2026/27.

Governance and Risk Considerations

The Draft Policy has been developed in accordance with Council’s Policy Framework and has been publicly exhibited to ensure transparency and procedural compliance.

The Draft Policy presents minimal governance or operational risk and aligns with Council’s goal to reduce emissions and support the transition to sustainable technologies.

Environmental Considerations

The Draft Policy supports Council’s adopted Sustainability Action Plan and will result in a beneficial environmental outcome by supporting the transition to low emission transport through electric vehicles.

Social Considerations

The Draft Policy will provide positive social outcomes for the community by ensuring the placement of EVCI has minimal impact on amenity or high demand parking and supporting the transition to EVs which will result in reduced traffic noise and air pollution.

Timing

It is proposed that the Policy be adopted to come into effect immediately and reviewed every Council term in line with Council’s Policy Framework, or earlier if required due to material changes to Council’s operating environment such as legislative amendment, Council resolution or a variation to Council strategic direction.

Link to Strategy

This report relates to the Community Strategic Plan Outcome/s and Goal/s:

2. Our Built Environment - A well designed, liveable and connected area

2.1 Sustainable Development

2.1.3 Focus infrastructure planning and management on supporting sustainable ‘local living’ to meet the 2036 Energy Emissions and Water Use Reduction Targets and improve resilience to climate change

Mark Brisby

Director - Planning and Sustainability

Planning and Sustainability Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Revised Draft Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Policy

Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 23 April 2026

Adoption - Sustainability Action Plan 2026 - 2030 and Outcomes Report for the Sustainability Action Plan 2022 - 2025

Item No: 15.4

Subject: Adoption - Sustainability Action Plan 2026 - 2030 and Outcomes Report for the Sustainability Action Plan 2022 - 2025

Record No: SU10235 - 24632/26

Division: Planning and Sustainability Division

Author(s): Anastasia Baldwin; Bernadette Riad

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to seek adoption of the Sustainability Action Plan 2026 – 2030 and Outcomes Report for the Sustainability Action Plan 2022 – 2025.

Executive Summary

· Council adopted the first Sustainability Action Plan (SAP) in 2005 and received approval from IPART in 2007 to introduce a Sustainability Levy to support the implementation of this Plan. The Sustainability Levy remains in place and has continued to support the implementation of projects to deliver against the goals and actions in Councils subsequent Sustainability Plans.

· To mark the end of the 2022-2025 SAP, an Outcomes Report was prepared to report back on the activities delivered under the 2022-2025 SAP, and a new SAP has been developed to guide the delivery of initiatives and the allocation of Sustainability Levy Funding through 2026 to 2030.

· The Outcomes Report for the Sustainability Action Plan 2022–2025 (AT-1) and Draft Sustainability Action Plan for 2026-2030 were reported to Council at the February 2026 Council meeting and were exhibited for 30 days from 27 February 2026 to 29 March 2026.

· Four submissions were received during this period, with three (3) from the online survey, and one written submission received from the Bushland Advisory Committee (BMAC) (AT-2).

· After consideration of these submissions, a number of minor amendments were made to the Sustainability Action Plan 2026–2030 (AT-3). The amendments include:

o reference to the Plan of Management for Bushland in Lane Cove (pg12)

o reference to the Parks and Open Spaces team against indicator d) (pg17)

o inclusion of an indicator to report on the number of endemic plants produced by Councils Nursery (pg17)

o inclusion of an indicator to report on the number of stormwater outlets that are improved such that stormwater damage to bushland is reduced or prevented (pg17)

o adjustment of the wording of action 1.05 to specifically reference stormwater runoff into bushland and to prevent rather than minimise erosion (pg18)

o inclusion of wording under Goal 4 that ‘this goal links to actions contained in goal 1, with the celebration of the natural environment playing a key role in the delivery of both goals’ (pg24)

o adjustment to the wording of action 4.08 to specify ‘in appropriate locations’ (pg25)

· The amended Sustainability Action Plan 2026-2030 and Outcomes Report for the 2022-2025 Sustainability Action Plan are recommended for adoption.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. adopt the amended Sustainability Action Plan 2026–2030.

2. adopt the Outcomes Report for the 2022–2025 Sustainability Action Plan.

Background

Council adopted its first Sustainability Action Plan (SAP) in 2005. Following this, an application was made to IPART to introduce a Sustainability Levy to support the delivery of actions within the Sustainability Action Plan. The Levy was approved in 2007 and has continued to support the implementation of projects to deliver against the SAP goals and actions.

With the support of the SAP and the Sustainability Levy, Council has made significant progress in incorporating sustainability into our programs and activities and responding to the challenges presented to our environment and our communities.

Our most recent SAP covered the period between 2022 and 2025 and saw the implementation of over 395 activities and programs. As part of the closure of this Plan, Council undertook a review of the actions implemented, and our progress towards achieving our adopted goals. The results of this review are outlined in the 2022-2025 Sustainability Action Plan Outcomes Report (AT-1), which was presented to Council at the Ordinary meeting of February 2026 along with the Draft Sustainability Action Plan 2026-2030.

At the February meeting, Council resolved to:

· Place the Draft Sustainability Action Plan 2022-2025 Outcomes Report and Draft Sustainability Action Plan 2026-2030 on public exhibition for a period of 28 days and report the outcome of the public exhibition to Council.

· Add a section to the Draft Sustainability Action Plan 2026-2030, prior to public exhibition, outlining a breakdown of the spending of the Sustainability Levy to ensure transparency to the community. This section should present a percentage breakdown of the Sustainability Levy spending between 2022-2025, aligned with Goals 1-12 of the previous plan.

The breakdown of Levy spending against each of the goals of the 2022-2025 SAP was added to page 11 of the Draft Sustainability Action Plan 2026-2030, with both documents exhibited from 27 February 2026 to 29 March 2026.

Discussion

The Draft Sustainability Action Plan 2026-2030 (AT-3) has been developed to build on the achievements and learnings of our previous plans and provides the framework from which Council will continue to lead by example and support our community in taking collective action towards sustainability.

It reflects Council’s quadruple bottom line approach ensuring all decisions consider a balance of economic, environmental, social and governance to enhance the quality of life in Lane Cove.

Specifically, the Plan aims to:

· Maximise the integration of sustainability across Council’s operations

· Identify directions for initiatives to improve sustainability outcomes for Council and our community

· Guide the direction of sustainability levy funding to deliver best practice sustainability outcomes.

The Plan includes our adopted emissions and water use targets of:

· 80% reduction in emissions (FY16/17 baseline) by 2036

· Net Zero Emissions for Council by 2028

· Net Zero Emissions for the Lane Cove Local Government Area by 2040

· No net increase in water use (FY16/17 baseline)

It also introduces the following waste related targets in line with the NSW Waste and Sustainable Materials (WASM) Strategy:

· 80% diversion of waste from landfill by 2030 (FY15/16 baseline)

· 10% reduction in waste generation per person by 2030 (FY 15/16 baseline)

The Plan retains our three (3) key themes: Liveability, Community and Environment, with each theme supported by three goals. These goals describe the desired outcomes and are supported by actions, which identify the priority activities Council will undertake to work towards that goal. The actions focus on areas of high importance and high impact, and where Council can meaningfully engage the community.

Progress will be tracked through indicators, which provide a clear and transparent way to measure outcomes over time.

Environment	Community	Liveability
Goal 1: Healthy waterways, bushland and wildlife	Goal 4: An engaged community	Goal 7: A community with access to quality affordable facilities, services and housing
Goal 2: A circular community	Goal 5: A healthy, safe and resilient community	Goal 8: Green, comfortable and vibrant urban spaces
Goal 3: A community powered by renewable energy	Goal 6: A diverse, connected, and inclusive community	Goal 9: A thriving local economy

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DRAFT PLAN

The development of the draft SAP has involved a multi-stage approach. The first stage involved a detailed review of our progress towards achieving our emissions and water use targets, as well as our broader sustainability goals. This included a review of the actions implemented under the 2022-2025 SAP to understand what had been achieved, what actions were no longer relevant, and what needed further attention.

The next phase involved a strategic review of broader sustainability frameworks and best practice at the local, state, federal and global levels. As part of this process, Council reviewed a range of comparable work by other councils, the NSW government, and international organisations.

Alongside this strategic review, Council engaged with a range of internal and external stakeholders to inform the development of this SAP.

Our consultative approach provided community and staff with an opportunity to identify sustainability priorities for the next four years and provide insights into key issues, needs, and opportunities for sustainability in Lane Cove. This feedback has directly informed us about the actions and strategies incorporated into this SAP.

Community Consultation

Statement of Intent

The consultation was designed to elicit any feedback members of our community may have on the matter and report that feedback back to Council for its consideration.

Method

Level of Participation	Consult
Form of Participation	Open
Target Audience	Lane Cove Community
Proposed Medium	Public Exhibition and Website Exhibition (27 February 2026 to 29 March 2026)

Feedback Received

4 submissions were received during public exhibition, three (3) from the online survey (see below), and 1 via direct email from the Bushland Management Advisory Committee (BMAC) (AT-2).

The three (3) online submissions expressed general alignment with the plan with no major concerns raised. BMAC also expressed alignment with the plan but suggested 6 amendments be made to the Plan. All 6 of these suggestions were addressed in the updated SAP as outlined below.

· Adding reference to the Plan of Management for Bushland in Lane Cove in the section on Policy Alingment (pg 12)

· Adding reference to the Parks and Open Spaces team against indicator d) (pg 17)

· The inclusion of an indicator to report on the number of endemic plants produced by Councils Nursery (pg 17)

· The addition of an indicator to report on the number of stormwater outlets that are improved such that stormwater damage to bushland is reduced or prevented (pg 17)

· Adjustment of the wording of action 1.05 to specifically reference stormwater runoff into bushland and to ‘prevent’ rather than minimise erosion (pg18)

· The inclusion of wording under Goal 4 that ‘this goal links to actions contained in goal 1, with the celebration of the natural environment playing a key role in the delivery of both goals (pg 24)

· The adjustment to the wording of action 4.08 to specify ‘in appropriate locations’ (pg 25)

A summary of the online submissions is presented below, noting that any survey questions that did not receive responses have been excluded.

	Participant 1	Participant 2	Participant 3
Have you read the Draft Sustainability Action Plan 2026 - 2030	Yes	Yes	Yes
Which Goals do you think are a priority for Lane Cove?	Goal 7: A community with access to quality affordable facilities, services and housing	Goal 1: Healthy Waterways, Bushland and Wildlife, Goal 3: A community powered by renewable energy, Goal 7: A community with access to quality affordable facilities, services and housing	Goal 1: Healthy Waterways, Bushland and Wildlife, Goal 2: A Circular Community, Goal 3: A community powered by renewable energy, Goal 7: A community with access to quality affordable facilities, services and housing
Are there any specific actions you think are a priority for Lane Cove? Please provide an action ID number.	Bike Plan - Goal 7, indicator B		1.01 1.02 1.03 1.09 1.11 2.01 2.04 2.05 2.12 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 4.08 5.06 5.09 7.01 7.02 7.05 7.06 7.07 7.08
Do you have any thoughts or feedback on the Draft Sustainability Action Plan 2036 - 2030? If yes, please provide details.	The priority should be to encourage walking cycling and public transport in the area. Less focus on purchasing electric vehicles.	No	I think the plan has many strengths, but much of the plan is actually not about sustainability at all. Many of council's other responsibilities have been rolled into this plan, which threatens to dilute the money spent on sustainability. Council should focus on the goals I have outlined above that actually tangibly will make a more sustainable and environmentally friendly Lane Cove and focus on other issues in the course of its other duties.
Please select your age group	25 - 34	35 - 44	15 - 24
What is your relationship to Lane Cove? (select all that apply)	Live	Live, Participate in recreational activity	Live, Work, Participate in recreational activity

Financial Considerations

Implementation of the plan will be funded through a combination of internal budgets (including the Sustainability Levy), external grants, and state and federal partnerships. Each department will be responsible for seeking and applying for funding to deliver on their actions, where needed.

Governance and Risk Considerations

The Plan has been developed in accordance with Council’s policies and procedures and has been publicly exhibited to ensure transparency and alignment with community values.

Environmental Considerations

The proposed actions in this report will result in a beneficial environmental outcome through the enhancement of local environments and ecosystems, the reduction of resource use, the lowering of emissions, the increase in resource recovery, and the transition to a more circular community.

Social Considerations

The recommendations in this report will have positive social outcomes for the community through improved opportunities for engagement, support to build a healthy, safe and resilient community, improved social cohesion, access to quality affordable services, improved local amenity, and a thriving local economy.

Timing

It is proposed that the Sustainability Action Plan will come into effect on 1 July 2026. The Sustainability Action Plan will undergo continual review, with a new plan to be developed in 2030 and adopted by 2031 to ensure Council continues to operate under a current and relevant Sustainability Action Plan.

Link to Strategy

This report relates to the Community Strategic Plan Outcome/s and Goal/s:

6 Our Council - A Leading Council that Engages its Community to Deliver Effective, Efficient and Sustainable Services

6.2 Best Value

6.2.4 Ongoing integration of sustainability and climate change initiatives into Council’s business and operations.

Mark Brisby

Director - Planning and Sustainability

Planning and Sustainability Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	FINAL 2022 - 2025 Sustainability Action Plan - Outcomes Report	48 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Letter BMAC - Submission SAP 2026-2030 - 29 March 2026	4 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑3 View	FINAL Sustainability Action Plan 2026 - 2030	40 Pages	Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 23 April 2026

Feasibility of Community E-Shuttle for Lane Cove

Item No: 16.1

Subject: Feasibility of Community E-Shuttle for Lane Cove

Record No: SU1697 - 14162/26

Division: Open Space and Infrastructure Division

Author(s): Sashika Perera

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to respond to a Notice of Motion - Community E-Shuttle for Lane Cove and to inform Council of the outcome of investigations into the feasibility, cost and logistics of introducing a community E-shuttle bus service within the Lane Cove LGA.

Executive Summary

· A review of the feasibility of introducing a community e-shuttle service in Lane Cove has been completed. An analysis of existing public transport found generally good bus coverage during peak hours, but two key service gaps were identified:

o Greenwich and Riverview → Lane Cove Village outside peak times

o Lane Cove West Business Park → Chatswood during peak

· Based on these gaps, 2 potential routes were identified for further investigation. The investigations explored the costs associated with the provision of the service by either a private operator or council operated service, as well as funding and partnership opportunities.

· A privately operated service is expected to cost approximately $280,800 per year for both routes (includes driver + operations). A Council operated service would cost approximately $517,310 in the first year (includes EV bus purchase) and $167,310 annually thereafter, excluding operational/fuel costs).

· Council approached 16 local businesses for sponsorship opportunities, but none were able to contribute. Council contacted 6 aged care facilities, who all were supportive of the initiative in principle, but none could provide funding or operational support.

· Of 4 community bus companies contacted only one had capacity to operate a 5 day a week service.

· Collaboration with Willoughby Council is not possible as they advised that they discontinued their shuttle services in 2022 and advise that they did not plan to reinstate the service.

· Given the high costs associated with the establishment and operations of a community e-shuttle grant opportunities were also explored, however no suitable grant programs are currently available.

· Benchmarking with other councils showed that many have cancelled shuttle services due to low patronage and high operating costs.

· Given these considerations, including the high cost of establishing and operating the shuttle service, this report does not recommend that Council proceed with the establishment of a community shuttle bus service in the Lane Cove LGA now.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. does not proceed further with a community shuttle bus service due to:

· financial estimates have indicated high ongoing operational costs,

· lack of partnership and sponsorship opportunities from local businesses,

· investigations have shown that similar services in other LGAs have been cancelled due to lack of demand, high operational costs and not being a core local government service,

· bus services are a State Government responsibility,

2. continue to lobby the NSW Government for additional services where deficiencies in the public bus network have been identified.

Background

The July 2024 Council meeting resolved (158/2024)

1. That Council conduct preliminary investigations into the feasibility, cost, and logistics of introducing a community e-shuttle, or regular shuttle bus service within the Lane Cove LGA. This study should consider:

○ Potential routes covering key residential, commercial, recreational areas, and transport hubs.

○ Scheduling that aligns with peak usage times and maximizes accessibility.

○ Estimated costs and potential funding sources, including grants and partnerships, sponsorship from local shops, optional small donations from bus users etc.

○ Opportunities for collaboration with other LGAs (e.g. Willoughby)

○ Feasibility of running this as a free service or by donation to keep costs for users minimal and

2. Entering into partnerships with aged care providers to utilise their bus assets to deliver a service to the community in addition to their residents.

This report addresses the above points and undertakes a brief assessment of similar services in other Local Government Areas (LGA)s.

Discussion

Potential routes covering key residential, commercial, recreational areas, and transport hubs and scheduling that aligns with peak usage times and maximises accessibility.

Attachment AT-1 Assessment of Bus Routes in Lane Cove LGA shows the bus services operating in the Lane Cove LGA and outlines peak and non-peak operating frequency for each bus service. A qualitative assessment of the bus coverage for each precinct is outlined below.

Burns Bay Road

• Burns Bay Road has good coverage during peak and non-peak hours with route 530 operating 20-30 minutes all day. It connects Burns Bay Road to Lane Cove Village and Chatswood

• This is also supplemented by route 251 commencing from Cope Street and connecting to Lane Cove Village and CBD during peak hours only

• Route 536 also operates along Burns Bay Road during peak hours only connecting to Lane Cove Village and Chatswood

• No additional connections are proposed at this stage

Riverview

• Riverview is well serviced during the AM peak hours with routes 253 and 254 operating 15-30 minutes during the AM peak hours. It connects to Lane Cove and CBD

• During non-peak hours, route 254 operates every 2-3 hours

• As such, Riverview could be better connected to Lane Cove outside of peak hours.

Longueville and Northwood Peninsulas

• Longueville and Northwood Peninsulas are well serviced during peak and non-peak hours by route 261

• Route 261 connects Longueville and Northwood Peninsulas to Lane Cove every 30-60 minutes during weekdays

• Route 261 connects Longueville and Northwood peninsulas to Victoria Cross metro every 20-30 minutes during weekdays

• No additional connections are proposed at this stage.

Greenwich

• Route 265 services Greenwich however, it does not service the Greenwich Peninsula outside of school holidays

• During the school term there are 3 services in the AM peak and 2 services in the PM peak that service the peninsula

• Route 265 services Osbourne Park/Gore Hill areas with services every 30-60 minutes from 6am-6pm. As such the Osborne Park/Gore Hill areas are well serviced

• However, connections from Greenwich peninsula to Lane Cove Village could be improved.

• Route 267 connects Greenwich peninsular to Crows Nest and Chatswood and with services every 30-60 minutes all day. As such, Greenwich peninsular is well connected to Crows Nest and Chatswood.

Lane Cove West

• Lane Cove West is serviced by 285 and 258

• Route 285 connects the business park to the City and is well serviced during the morning and afternoon peak hours

• Route 258 connects the business park to Chatswood and only 2 services in the AM and PM peak hours.

• The connection from Lane Cove West Business Park to Chatswood could be improved during AM and PM peak hours.

Mowbray Road

• Mowbray Road is serviced by routes 292, 533 and 258

• Routes 292 connects Mowbray Road to the CBD via the interchange. It operates every 10-30 minutes all day.

• Route 533 connects Mowbray Road to Chatswood. It operates every 10-30 minutes all day

• Route 258 connects Mowbray Road to Chatswood as well. It has two services in the AM and PM peak hours

• Mowbray Road is well serviced and has good connections to Lane Cove, CBD and Chatswood

Lane Cove Interchange to City and Crows Nest

• Routes 286, 287, 288, 290, 291 and 622 all service the Lane Cove Interchange and connects to CBD, Crows Nest or Victoria Cross

• Route 288 is the predominate service connecting Lane Cove to CBD with services running every 5-20 minutes all day

• Route 291 is the predominate service connecting Lane Cove to Crows Nest with services running every 15-45 Minutes all day

• Other routes operate only in the AM peak and connects to Crows Nest or Victoria Cross

• Route 290 operates as a night service only connecting to Crows Nest and CBD

• The Lane Cove interchange is well serviced by Routes 288 connecting to the CBD and 291 connecting to Crows Nest.

Lane Cove Interchange to Macquarie Park

• Routes 288,290,291 and 292 service the Lane Cove Interchange and connects to Macquarie Park

• Routes 288 operates every 10-20 minutes all day while 291 and 292 operate every 30-60 minutes all day

• Route 290 is a night service

• The Lane Cove interchange is well connected to Macquarie Park.

Based on the above assessment, it is evident that most of the LGA is well serviced, however, two areas were identified as having deficient connections to the Lane Cove LGA and Chatswood:

o Greenwich and Riverview → Lane Cove Village outside peak times

o Lane Cove West Business Park → Chatswood during peak

Based on these gaps, 2 potential routes were identified for further investigation.

Route 1: Greenwich to Riverview via Lane Cove Village between 10am – 2pm weekdays

Route 2: Lane Cove Business Park to Chatswood between 6-9am and 4-6pm Weekdays

The 2 proposed routes for the shuttle bus are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Potential Bus Route for Community Shuttle Bus

Estimated costs and potential funding sources, including grants and partnerships, sponsorship from local shops, optional small donations from bus users etc.

2.1 Costs estimates for privately operated bus service

Council contacted 4 bus companies to gauge their interest, available resources and for cost estimates for hiring a bus for the above two routes for the required times. Their responses are outlined below:

Company

Comment

Company 1

Not able to offer the requested service due to the lack of resources to commit to a 5-day service. May be available up to 1 day/week.

Company 2

Company 2 indicated that they have the bus assets to run a community bus with driver.

Cost estimates are:

Route 1: $440/day

Route 2: $640/day (AM and PM Peak)

This includes a driver and operating costs.

Company 3

The requirement to be able to stop in public bus stops prohibits Company 3 from moving forward with providing a quote for shuttle services.

Company 3 provides community transport, and not all of their vehicles are appropriately registered with TV number plates to enable them to stop in public bus stops.

Also, there are no e-buses in their fleet.

Company 4

Not able to offer the service requested due to the lack of drivers.

Utilising the rates provided by Company 2, if Council was to pursue the option of hiring a privately operated bus company to run a shuttle bus service, the costs of the service would be approximately $280,800/annum for both routes including driver and operating costs.

2.2 Costs estimates for Council operated bus service

Council has investigated the cost of purchasing a 22-seater bus. The indicative costs are $135,000 for a diesel bus and $350,000 for a EV bus.

Bus driver rates of pay in Sydney are in the vicinity of $55/hour. Council would also need to include an additional 30% for oncosts. For 9 hours of bus service for both routes, it is estimated that this would cost $167,310 for employee costs.

The total cost of running a bus service in-house is approximately $517,310 in the first year (assuming the purchase of an EV bus) and $167,310 for subsequent years.

Expenses such as fuel, maintenance, insurance, and administrative overheads are significant and ongoing and have not been included in the calculations of the total cost above. Without the ability to charge passengers directly, the service will likely have significant adverse impact on operational budgets.

2.3 Potential funding sources

Company 2 indicated advertising may be a potential funding source. The cost includes approximately $10,000/year for back of bus advertising and $5,000/year/side for advertising material on the side of the bus.

These indicative costs have not been included in the total costs above.

2.4 Grants

Council’s Community Services division have stated that there are currently no grants for community shuttle buses that Lane Cove Council would be eligible to apply for funding.

2.5 Partnerships, sponsorship from local shops

Council connected with 16 retail, professional services, and hospitality businesses in Lane Cove Village including major supermarkets. Each of these retailers expressed support for the community bus concept.

However, none of them were able to provide sponsorship / funding. Some of the larger retailers stated that such decisions are made at the regional and / or state level and their preference is national branding and sales.

The small business owners’ response varied from “indifferent” to supportive of the concept, however none have the financial capacity to sponsor / fund the proposed community bus. Specific feedback from 3 business owners as follows:

· If Council decides on 1 bus route it should be for the connection to Crows Nest Metro

· Council should consider transport for children after school directly to Blackman Park for sport(s) training as a higher priority

· This is a great initiative but questioned just how many residents will take up the service

3. Opportunities for collaboration with other LGAs (e.g. Willoughby)

Lane Cove approached Willoughby Council with the proposal to collaborate on providing a shuttle bus service for Route 2.

As Route 2 proposes a connection from Lane Cove West to Chatswood, this route can be diverted via Mowbray Road to also service Willoughby LGA if supportive of the proposal.

Willoughby City Council previously operated 2 community shuttle services, the Loop Bus service and the Artarmon Loop service, which provided connections between Chatswood and surrounding centres, and between St Leonards Station and the Artarmon Industrial Area.

Following a comprehensive review of service performance, Willoughby Council resolved to discontinue these services in 2022 due to persistently low patronage and the significant operational costs associated with maintaining the services. As this decision was made relatively recently and followed careful consideration of service performance and financial sustainability, Willoughby Council is not currently considering the reintroduction of a council operated shuttle bus service as part of its transport service delivery.

A full response from Willoughby Council is included in AT-2.

4. Feasibility of running this as a free service or by donation to keep costs for users minimal

A community shuttle bus service that is operated by Council must be accredited with the Bus Operated Accreditation Scheme (BOAS) as a public passenger service and will be considered a Regular Passenger Service under the Passenger Transport Act 2014.

A Regular Passenger Service operator must hold a service contract with Transport for NSW or be the sub-contractor to TfNSW to charge a fare. As any proposed Council bus service would not be contracted or a sub-contracted service with Transport for NSW, Council is not allowed to charge a fare.

As such, the community bus service must run as a free service or be limited to voluntary donations by patrons.

Council has reviewed Northern Beaches Council’s Hop, Skip and Jump service and it showed that they had budgeted for an annual income of $12,000 from voluntary donations by patrons across their five services.

At a high level, it could be extrapolated that an estimated annual income from donations would be in the vicinity of $3,000. This is noting that the Northern Beaches service operates 11.5 hours/day during weekdays and the proposed routes for Lane Cove operates for 9 hours/day on weekdays.

These indicative income estimate have not been included in the calculation of the total cost.

5. Entering into partnerships with aged care providers to utilise their bus assets to deliver a service to the community in addition to their residents.

Council reached out to six aged care facilities along Route 1 to determine if they have the bus assets to partner with Council to deliver a community shuttle bus service. Their comments are outlined below:

Age Care Facility	Comment
Age Care Facility 1	Council met with age care facility 1 to discuss the request for partnership for a community shuttle bus. Company 1 own a bus that is shared with other aged care facilities that they operate in the area. While supportive of the concept, they indicated the need for further discussion with senior management. After a meeting that Council staff had with the age care facility, no further updates were received.
Age Care Facility 2	Stated that they have a bus which they share with other facilities they operate in the area. As such, most of the time the bus will be servicing their residents and will not be available on a regular basis for a community-based service.
Age Care Facility 3	Age care facility 3 indicated that they have a bus, however, no dedicated bus driver as the bus is operated by staff that have other responsibilities within the facility
Age Care Facility 4	Age care facility 4 does not have a bus available
Age Care Facility 5	Age care facility 5 has one bus that is shared between other facilities across Sydney. However, currently do not have a dedicated driver and current resourcing levels do not align with Council’s proposal.
Age Care Facility 6	Age care facility 6 is a palliative care facility and their bus is used as an ambulatory service to transport patients to and from Royal North Shore hospital

6. Assessment of Similar Services in other LGAs

To assess the feasibility of operating an e-shuttle bus, Council investigated 4 community bus services in other LGAs as well as the previous community bus operated in Lane Cove. These include:

1. Canada Bay Council – Bay Rider

2. City of Ryde Council – Shop Ryder

3. Strathfield Council – Strathfield Connector

4. Northern Beaches Council – Hop Skip and Jump

5. Lane Cove Council – Village Xpress

This section provides a brief overview of the operating conditions for five community shuttle services.

6.1 Canada Bay Council – Bay Rider

• Service Operated by Drummoyne Community Centre Inc.

• Service is a pre-booked door to door service

• Operates Wednesdays and Thursdays

• One 8-seater minibus is used to operate the service

• Service has one part time driver and admin staff to manage bookings

• Service used for passengers and deliveries

• July to December 2024

• 44 passengers used the service and made 24 trips per week (1.2k/yr)

• deliveries – 3.7/week (200/yr)

• Council contributes $40k/yr towards service

• DCC has received some additional funding and is looking to expand the service

• Service costs approximately $33/boarding

6.2 City of Ryde Council – Shop Ryder

A map of a city

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

• City of Ryde Council service, operated by a contractor

• Fixed route bi-directional service

• Operated 4 days a week (Wednesdays to Saturdays) 8:00am to 2:00pm

• Service operated hourly in each direction totaling 10 services per day

• Two 24-seater minibuses used

• Services picked up an average of 24 passengers per loop (51.6k/yr)

• Service costs approximately $200k/yr or $3.88/boarding

• Service cancelled in December 2025 due to high operational costs and legislative constraints.

6.3 Strathfield Council – Connector Service

A map of a city

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

· Strathfield Council operated service

• Originally 2 fixed routes

• Operated 7 days a week 7:00am to 7:00pm

• Council had 23 casual bus drivers on the books

• Morning shift and afternoon shift

• 28 shifts per week to staff

• Service operated two buses for each route

• Five 24-seater minibuses required to run service

• Most popular route averaged 11 passengers per hour

• Other route averaged 8 passengers per hour

• Passenger total of 69.6k/yr

• Passenger donation approximately $2k/yr

• Service cost approximately $1.3M/yr or $19.78/boarding

• Service was cancelled in April 2025 due to not being a core service of local government and high operating costs.

6.4 Northern Beaches Council – Hop Skip & Jump

• Northern Beaches Council operated service

• Originally 5 fixed routes

• Operates 7 days a week 7:00am to 6:30pm

• Council employs 11 casual bus drivers

• Service operates half hourly and hourly

• Four 22-seater minibuses required

• Maintenance costs were high

• Replacement costs for 4 buses is $1M

• Services pick up an average of 174k boardings per year

• Passenger donation approximately $12k/yr

• Costs approximately $820k/yr or $4.71/boarding

• 4 routes canceled in June 2025 due to decreasing passenger numbers and increasing costs

• Last route to be reviewed in future

6.5 Lane Cove Council – Village Xpress

• Council service, operated by a contractor

• 2 fixed routes

• Operated weekdays 11:00am to 2:30pm

• Route A operated from Banksia Close to Village at 20min intervals (9/day)

• Route B operated from Mars Road via Mowbray Road to Village at 50min intervals (3/day)

• Two 24-seater minibuses required

• Route A picked up an average of 39 boardings per day (10k/yr)

• Route B picked up an average of 4 boardings per day (1k/yr)

• Cost approximately $80k/yr or $7.27/boarding

• Council could not get sponsorship

• Service ran from 2002 to 2009

While a Council run shuttle bus certainly provides a sustainable mode of community transport, the consideration of operational costs, patronage numbers and logistics is vital to the viability of this project. Capturing the ‘lessons learnt’ from community shuttle buses in other LGAs, the key factors that contributed to the cancellation of these services are low patronage and significant operational and maintenance costs associated with fleet. Bus services are provided by the NSW Government, and some Councils deem this not to be core service when trying to operate in a financially sustainable and responsible manner.

Operational costs aside, a community bus service may not be the most attractive transport option for the majority of Lane Cove Residents given the high parking availability in the Lane Cove Village. This may impact on patronage numbers making the cost per boarding significant. Council also risks the proposed bus routes being redundant if TfNSW introduces additional bus services in the LGA.

Community Consultation

Not applicable at this stage

Financial Considerations

A privately operated shuttle bus has an ongoing cost of $280,800/annum for both routes including driver and operating costs.

If Council wishes to pursue the option of running the shuttle bus service in house, the total cost of running a bus service is approximately $517,310 in the first year (assuming the purchase of an EV bus) and $167,310 for subsequent years (not including operational and fuel costs).

The costs for the establishment and operation of a community shuttle bus service have not been included in the proposed 2026/27 draft budget. Should Council wish to pursue a shuttle bus service; to maintain the proposed 2026/27 financial position, Council would need to remove services from the draft 2026/27 budget or adopt an increased deficit.

Governance and Risk Considerations

A shuttle bus service operated by Council must comply with the following:

· Passenger Transport Act 2014

· Passenger Transport Regulation 2017

· Local Government Act 1993

· Bus Operator Accreditation Scheme (BOAS)

Environmental Considerations

Whilst there would be some environmental benefits with the introduction of a community shuttle bus, the financial impacts outweigh the environmental benefits.

Social Considerations

Whilst there would be some social benefits to some members of the community with the introduction of a community shuttle bus, the financial impacts outweigh the social benefits.

Timing

Not applicable

Link to Strategy

This report relates to the Community Strategic Plan Outcome/s and Goal/s:

2. Our Built Environment - A well designed, liveable and connected area

2.4 Transport & Mobility

2.4.3 Encourage and lobby for a connected, accessible, reliable, safe, sustainable and integrated transport system that will meet future needs

Martin Terescenko

Director - Open Space and Infrastructure

Open Space and Infrastructure Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Assessment of Bus Routes in Lane Cove LGA	7 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Willoughby Council Response to Community Bus	2 Pages	Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 23 April 2026

Public Exhibition - Draft Small Watercraft Storage Policy

Item No: 16.2

Subject: Public Exhibition - Draft Small Watercraft Storage Policy

Record No: SU445 - 24797/26

Division: Open Space and Infrastructure Division

Author(s): Harrison Lillis

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement to the public exhibition of the draft Small Watercraft Storage Policy.

Executive Summary

· There has been a sustained growth in the ownership and improper storage of small watercraft in waterfront locations within the Lane Cove local government area in recent years, resulting in environmental and recreational impacts.

· Council does not have an adopted Policy position on this issue, however at the December 2025 Council meeting council resolved to develop a LGA wide Watercraft Management Strategy.

· A draft Small Watercraft Storage Policy has been prepared that aims to formalise and manage small watercraft storage at foreshore locations in the LGA. The Policy has been guided by policies of neighbouring councils, with the draft Policy prescribing designated storage areas and types for registered boat owners, including the introduction of a fee regime to ensure adequate ongoing management of facilities and minimise abandoned and improperly stored watercraft, especially in environmentally sensitive areas.

· Areas within the LGA have been identified and mapped as suitable for storage immediately; some areas are identified for future storage opportunities and others noted as unsuitable (refer to attachment AT-2).

· Given that Council does not currently charge a registration fees for small watercraft on public land a fee structure for registration is proposed and aligns with fee structures of neighbouring Councils.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Draft Small Watercraft Storage Policy and draft Schedule of Fees and Charges for the storage of small watercraft be placed on public exhibition with the outcomes of the public exhibition reported to Council.

Background

Throughout 2025, Council consulted the local community and users of Griffith Park / Dunois Reserve in Longueville seeking feedback on the management of the public foreshore, particularly regarding storage of private small watercraft on public land.

Council proposed a series of formal storage options, including dinghy racks, to better accommodate the quantity of boats currently stored in ad-hoc clusters along the foreshore. The boats along Dunois Reserve are untidy, make access to the water difficult, are damaging mangrove systems and spread along the foreshore area zoned as Environmental Conservation (C2).

There was general support for the installation of racks, however a significant majority of respondents (89.6%) believe that the racks will not wholly address the clutter of watercraft along the foreshore, and that there will be an ongoing issue with improper boat storage.

Additionally, 93% of respondents believe that it is necessary that Council develop an LGA wide watercraft strategy to enforce the proper storage of watercraft, like other nearby Councils.

At the December 2025 Council Meeting, Council subsequently resolved (302/25) to develop this strategy as below:

302

1. adopt the proposed concept design (Attachment – AT-3);

2. move to commence development of an LGA wide strategy regarding watercraft management; and

3. implement the construction of the Dunois Reserve Watercraft Storage design alongside the development of the Council Watercraft Management Strategy.

This report responds to item 2 of Resolution 302/25 regarding an LGA wide approach to watercraft management on public land.

Discussion

Council currently permits owners of small watercraft to store registered vessels on public land. The registration process is at no cost to the boat owner and there are no formal requirements regarding how boats are to be stored.

The limited waterfront space within the LGA and increased demand of people seeking to store watercraft has created both environmental and recreational issues. The capacity of the foreshore in places has been surpassed which leads to both improper storage in sensitive bushland areas, and limits access for others seeking to enjoy the foreshore.

Council has developed the following strategy to better manage the storage of small private watercraft on public foreshore:

1. Where possible, formalise and consolidate storage options in areas of high demand.

2. Prohibit any storage on environmentally sensitive areas or areas zoned as environmental conservation (C2).

3. Introduce a fee structure for the storage of private watercraft on public land.

This strategy has been formalised as a Draft Small Watercraft Storage Policy for public exhibition (AT-1). This policy seeks to establish the standards by which Council can regulate and control the storage of dinghies and small watercraft on foreshore and public land within the Lane Cove LGA.

The policy includes a structured system of permits and enforcement protocols to manage high demand for foreshore space, protect the natural environment, and ensure equitable access to the waterfront. It is accompanied by a publicly accessible Lane Cove Watercraft Storage Zone Map (AT-2) that defines designated storage zones and facilities that serve to inform the community of what is allowed on the foreshore.

Fees and Charges

Council has developed the comparison chart below of neighbouring Council fee structures for watercraft storage and registration.

Small Watercraft Neighbouring Council Annual Fees and Charges (25/26)
LGA		Locker	Rack	Informal	Concession
Hunters Hill	Resident	$510	$179	$179	$147
Hunters Hill	Non Resident	$510	$510	$510	$410
North Sydney		$824 - $1484	$352	$155	15% Discount
North Sydney	Note: North Sydney specifies charges depending on Location, not type. No resident discount.
Northern Beaches	Resident	Harbour Location	$377	-	-
	Non Resident	Harbour Location	$626	-	-
	Resident	Non harbour location	$258	-	-
	Non Resident	Non harbour location	$392	-	-
Ryde	Resident	-	$269	-	$134
Ryde	Non Resident	-	$537	-	$269
Mosman	Resident	-	$102.73 / $254.55	$102.73	-
	Non Resident	-	$346.36 / $854.55	$345.45	-
	Note: Mosman rates for racks changes depending on location

Each neighbouring Council differs somewhat in how they apply registration and storage fees, however, most offer a discount for residents and a sliding scale depending on the location/facility provided.

Council currently manages Lockers in two locations and provides some dinghy racks at Burns Bay Reserve and Greenwich Baths. Council does not currently charge for the use of dinghy racks or for informal tie up locations along public foreshore land.

	Council Fees and Charges – Existing (25/26)
	Lockers - Woodford Bay			Lockers - Yacht Bay	Registration - Racks / Informal / Tie Up
	Boat	Kayak	Dinghy	Watercraft	NO CHARGE
Resident	$720	$720	$540	$720
Non Resident	$720	$720	$540	$720

Council proposes the below fee structure in line with the new policy to assist in maintaining existing infrastructure, help with future upgrades and reduce abandoned boats left along the foreshores.

Council Fees and Charges – Proposed (26/27)
	Boat and Kayak Locker (Large)	Dinghy Locker (Small)	Rack	Tie Up	Concession	Storage Fee	Impound Fee
Resident	$755	$565	$200	$150	15% Discount	$53.5 / day	$161 / article
Non Resident	$1,130	$850	$600	$450	15% Discount	$53.5 / day	$161 / article

Community Consultation

Statement of Intent

The consultation is designed to elicit any feedback members of our community may have on the matter and report that feedback back to Council for its consideration.

Method

Level of Participation	Consult
Form of Participation	Open
Target Audience	Lane Cove Community
Proposed Medium	Website Exhibition, inviting written submissions and survey responses (as part of the Draft 2026/27 Budget & Operational Plan exhibition)

Financial Considerations

Some funding ($40k) to support the cost of disposal of impounded dinghies collected from the foreshore has been requested for the next financial year, however additional funds may be required in future where new storage facilities are identified as necessary, or to cover future disposal costs. The proposed fees for storage and registration provides an additional income stream to offset costs and assist with ongoing maintenance of storage facilities.

Governance and Risk Considerations

Council will own and manage the any future storage facilities, in the same way that Council currently operates boat lockers. The risks associated with new facilities are anticipated to be the same.

Environmental Considerations

The proposed actions in this report will result in a beneficial environmental outcome by prohibiting the ad-hoc storage of vessels along foreshore land zoned as Environmental Conservation (C2). Additionally, it will identify where recreational foreshore areas are at capacity for small watercraft storage to mitigate future instances of abandoned property on public land.

Social Considerations

The recommendations in this report will have positive social outcomes for the community through better organising recreational areas of the LGA waterfront to allow for more diversity of community activity. Additionally, the policy and its enforcement will allow for a greater variety of community users to access the foreshore on a day-to-day basis.

Timing

The policy and proposed fee structure is intended to commence by the 26/27 financial year.

Link to Strategy

This report relates to the Community Strategic Plan Outcome/s and Goal/s:

2. Our Built Environment - A well designed, liveable and connected area

3 Our Society - An Inclusive, interconnected, active and resilient community

2.3 Assets, Infrastructure & Public Domain

3.3 Community Services & Facilities

2.3.3 Investigate opportunities to improve the public domain to enhance public lifestyle

3.3.1 Provide, maintain and upgrade community buildings and facilities to meet changing community needs and ensure versatility

2.3.2 Develop best practice asset registers and management and investment plans for infrastructure and assets

2.3.4 Investigate opportunities to create more open space

Martin Terescenko

Director - Open Space and Infrastructure

Open Space and Infrastructure Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	DRAFT_Policy XX-XX Small Watercraft Storage	5 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	LCC_Watercraft Storage Map	1 Page	Available Electronically

Ordinary Council Meeting 23 April 2026

Local Transport Forum - March 2026

Item No: 16.3

Subject: Local Transport Forum - March 2026

Record No: SU1326 - 25309/26

Division: Open Space and Infrastructure Division

Author(s): Hasir Suhaib

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement of recommendations from the Lane Cove Local Transport Forum held on 17 March 2026 and the out-of-cycle report circulated to Forum members on 2 April 2026.

Executive Summary

· The Lane Cove Local Transport Forum considers upcoming transport and parking proposals and assesses the impact of proposals on local, regional and state roads and provides evidence-based information on which decisions regarding transport and parking proposals can be made.

· The Lane Cove Local Transport Forum met in March 2026 and provided recommendations for Council’s consideration.

· The attached Agendas (AT-1) provides a background for proposals, results of community consultation and a recommendation.

· The Minutes (AT-2) provide a summary of the discussion from Forum members and a final recommendation.

· An additional out-of-cycle Local Transport Forum report was circulated to Forum members on 2 April 2026. This report related to the Traffic Management Plan (TMP) from St Ignatius' College to manage traffic associated with school events held at the College. See (AT-3) for Agenda and (AT-4) for Minutes.

· This report recommends the adoption of the Minutes of the Local Transport Forum meeting held on 17 March 2026 and the Minutes of the out-of-cycle report.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. adopt the recommendations of the Lane Cove Local Transport Forum held on Tuesday 17 March 2026.

2. adopt the recommendations of the Lane Cove Local Transport Forum Out of Cycle report circulated on Thursday 2 April 2026.

Background

The Lane Cove Local Transport Forum is a requirement of Transport for NSW and is primarily a technical review forum which provides advice to Council on matters referred to it by Council.

These matters must relate to prescribed traffic control devices and traffic control facilities for which Council has delegated authority.

The Forum has no decision-making powers but provides recommendations for Council to consider, noting that Council is not bound by its advice.

Local Transport Forum meetings can be held physically, digitally or via correspondence. As physical meetings are held bi-monthly, traffic and parking changes that require urgent referral to the Local Transport Forum can be done via an electronic meeting format.

This involves:

· Circulating a report for each proposal by email to all members of the Local Transport Forum,

· Each report includes details of consultation, investigations and assessments undertaken with a preliminary recommendation for consideration by members,

· Responses from members are requested within 7 days,

· Council will then amend the recommendations if required and circulate minutes collating all feedback from members of the Local Transport Forum,

· This report including minutes will then be referred to the subsequent Council meeting for consideration after which the Council adopted recommendation is implemented,

· All residents that provided a submission on each item as part of the consultation process will be notified of the Local Transport Forums recommendation and the date of the Council meeting it will be reported to, should they wish to register to speak at the public forum,

· All residents that provided a submission on each item as part of the consultation process will also be notified of the adopted final Council resolution,

· Out of Cycle Reports are circulated electronically, face to face meetings are not required and will not be held.

This process is a common and necessary practice to ensure minimal delays with implementing time sensitive traffic and parking changes.

Discussion

The Lane Cove Local Transport Forum was held on Tuesday 17 March 2026. The Agenda is included as AT-1.

The Local Transport Forum recommendations are outlined in the Minutes of the meeting (AT-2), which address:

1. Traffic committee meeting confirmation of minutes – Tuesday 17 February 2026

2. St Vincent’s Road (south end) from Gore Street to Bob Campbell oval, Greenwich - proposed shared user path

3. Dorritt Street from Little Street to Phoenix Street, Lane Cove - Proposed alteration of the existing speed cushions to speed humps

4. Chisholm street (south end) at Greenwich Road, Greenwich - Proposed installation of 'No Stopping' zone

5. Longueville road (west side) at Zeta Road, Lane Cove - Alter the part of the existing 37 meter 'No Parking' 8.00 - 9.30 am, 2.30 -4.00 pm to 17.0 meter '10 min parking' 8.00 - 9.30 am, 2.30 - 4.00 pm

6. Merinda Street (west side) from Mindarie Street to Cul de sac, Lane Cove North - Alter the existing 'No Parking' zone, 9.00am - 5.30pm, Mon – Fri and 8.00am - 12.00 pm, Saturday.

7. Alpha Road (north side), from Beta Road to Gamma Road, Lane Cove - Proposed 'No Parking' zone.

An additional out-of-cycle report was circulated to Forum members on 2 April 2026. The Agenda includes AT-3 and the Minutes as AT-4 which address:

1. Traffic Management Plan – St Ignatius’ College Riverview

Community Consultation

Community consultation is undertaken for each proposal and is outlined in the Agenda included in AT-1.

Financial Considerations

The Agenda included in AT-1 outlines the financial considerations for each proposal.

Governance and Risk Considerations

Reporting of the recommendations of the Local Transport Forum to Council for endorsement by council is a statutory requirement.

Environmental Considerations

The subject of this report has no environmental implications for Council with the exception of Bob Campbell Oval which has already been reported in the previous Council Meeting.

Social Considerations

The subject of this report has no social impactions for Council.

Timing

The items discussed in the Agenda and Minutes are proposed to be implemented this financial year.

Link to Strategy

This report relates to the Community Strategic Plan Outcome/s and Goal/s:

2. Our Built Environment - A well designed, liveable and connected area

2.6 Traffic

2.4 Transport & Mobility

2.6.1 Facilitate improvements to car, bicycle and pedestrian safety

2.6.2 Ensure application of appropriate traffic management measures to ensure the safety and amenity of local streets and improve traffic flow

2.6.4 Provide shared user paths and other related infrastructure as an alternative to driving

2.4.2 Implement infrastructure upgrades for people to incorporate more walking and cycling into their daily lives

Martin Terescenko

Director - Open Space and Infrastructure

Open Space and Infrastructure Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Agenda of Local Transport Forum - Tuesday, 17 March 2026	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Minutes of Local Transport Forum - Tuesday, 17 March 2026	Available Electronically
AT‑3 View	Agenda of Local Transport Forum - Out of Cycle Report - Circulated on 2 April 2026	Available Electronically
AT‑4 View	Minutes - Local Transport Forum - Out of Cycle Report - Agenda Circulated on 2 April 2026	Available Electronically

AT‑1 View	Council Snapshot March 2026	42 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Council Resolution Tracker for 23 April 2026 Council Meeting	43 Pages	Available Electronically