agenda template council · resume ordinary meeting the ordinary meeting resumes at the conclusion...

MOSMAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING

AGENDA

MEETING DATE: 4 July 2005

INFORMATION ABOUT PROCEDURES FOR THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Open Question Time Council meetings are scheduled to commence at 6.00pm. However, Open Question Time is held for a maximum of 10 minutes if required, from 6.00pm prior to the commencement of the meeting. Questions from members of the gallery may be directed to the Mayor on any relevant matter unless it is on the Agenda for this meeting. Open Question Time is an opportunity for questions only, not speeches, and every endeavour to answer will be given immediately by the Mayor or referred to the General Manager. Ordinary Meeting The Ordinary Meeting of Council commences in accordance with the Agenda prepared for the Meeting. Committee of the Whole The General Manager will ask residents prior to the commencement of the Council meeting if they seek to address Council on a General Manager’s and Departmental Report listed on the agenda and will register their names. Council will resolve into Committee of the Whole to allow residents to address the Committee and for Councillor discussion and questioning in relation to the report listed on the agenda. Reports on which residents wish to address Council will be dealt with expeditiously as possible between 6.00pm and 8.00pm. Should there be too many matters to be heard or should residents have major matters that need lengthy discussion, the affected residents will be advised to come back to the meeting at a particular time. All remaining items will be dealt with following resolution of reports which residents have an interest in. The Committee of the Whole is delegated authority to resolve items by majority vote. Supper Adjournment At approximately 9.00pm there is usually a recess break for 15 minutes at which time the Mayor will invite those people in the gallery to join the Councillors for supper. Resume Ordinary Meeting The Ordinary Meeting resumes at the conclusion of the supper break.

MOSMAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS SEATING 2004-2007 MAYORAL TERM

Cr Patricia Harvey

East Ward

Manager

Governance

Minutes

Secretary

General Manager

Mayor

Cr Shirley Jenkins Director

Environment and

Planning

Manager Development

Services

Director Corporate Services

DirectorCommunity

Development

Balmoral Ward

Cr Denise Wilton

Cr David Strange

West Ward

Cr Lynette Elsegood

Cr Simon Menzies

Cr Anne Connon

Cr Martin Skipper

Cr Jim Reid

Middle Harbour Ward

Cr Andrew Brown

Cr Kate Traill

Cr Dom Lopez, OAM

AGENDA - ORDINARY MEETING 1. NATIONAL ANTHEM, PRAYER AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INDIGENOUS

PEOPLE 2. WELCOME TO VISITORS 3. APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

4. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 5. DISCLOSURES OF NON-PECUNIARY INTEREST 6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Confirmation of the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 20 June 2005.

7. MAYORAL MINUTES 8. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORTS GM/19 613-621 Military Road - Christian Science Church...................................................1

Council proposes to close this meeting to consider information and advice in relation to the calling of expressions of interest for the sale of the Christian Science Church, 613-621 Military Road. In accordance with Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993, the Council is able to close the meeting to the public to enable those aspects to be discussed. This section enables Council to close the meeting if the information is: (c) information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a

person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

In accordance with Clauses 39 and 77[7] of Council's Code of Meeting Practice, members of the public may make representations as to whether a part of the Meeting be closed. Members of the public may make representations to or at the Meeting before it is closed to the public as to whether that part of the meeting be closed. Written representations will be received up to 12 noon on Monday 4 July 2005.

GM/20 7 and 10 Kimbriki Road, Ingleside - Acquisition of Properties ..................................5 GM/21 General Manager......................................................................................................7 9. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORTS CD/15 Advisory Groups .......................................................................................................9 CD/16 Community Transport Program ..............................................................................15 CD/17 Mosman Festival: 2 - 11 September 2005..............................................................17 10. CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORTS CS/63 GST Compliance-DLG............................................................................................19 CS/64 2003/2004 Comparative Performance Information.................................................21 CS/65 2005/2006 Program Budget ...................................................................................23 CS/66 Investments ............................................................................................................25 CS/67 Legal Services Panel ..............................................................................................27 CS/68 Donations 2005/2006 .............................................................................................29 CS/69 Dinghy Racks - Balmoral and Pearl Bay.................................................................31 CS/70 Companion Animal Pound - Release of Impounded Dogs .....................................35 11. ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORTS EP/153 State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Development) 2005 .....37 EP/154 Environmental Planning & Assessment Amendment (Development

Contributions) Bill 2005.......................................................................................39

EP/155 Mosman Drill Hall Precinct - Sydney Harbour Federation Trust draft Management Plan...............................................................................................41

EP/156 MOSPLAN 2005-2008 Program 11 - Overview amendment ..............................45 EP/157 Local Environmental Plan Review 2005 .............................................................47 EP/158 Road Safety Action Plan 2005/2006...................................................................53 EP/159 RTA Funding Allocations 2005/06 ......................................................................55 EP/160 Clifton Gardens Playground................................................................................57 EP/161 41 Glover Street Appeal Against TPO Assessment ...........................................59 EP/162 Vista and Harbour Street Lighting.......................................................................61 EP/163 Environmental Management Plan.......................................................................63 EP/164 Environmental Planning & Assessment Amendment (Infrastructure and Other

Planning Reform) Bill 2005 .................................................................................65 EP/165 Energy Performance Contract ............................................................................69 EP/166 Exposure Draft of the NSW Food Regulation Partnership..................................73 EP/167 SHOROC Materials & Services Contract............................................................75 EP/168 Sirius Cove Road Access for Fire Appliances ....................................................79 12. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE T/38 Clifford Street - Review of Residential Parking Scheme (RPS)..............................83 T/40 Raglan Street - Pedestrian Crossing and Bus Zones.............................................85 T/45 88-92 Spit Road - Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP)........................87 13. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ............................................................................... 89 14. CORRESPONDENCE COR/15 Correspondence - Community Relations Commission .......................................91 COR/16 Correspondence - Matale Municipal Council ......................................................93 COR/17 Correspondence - Department of Local Government.........................................95 COR/18 Correspondence - NSW Attorney General .........................................................97 COR/19 Correspondence - Paid Parking at Balmoral ......................................................99 COR/20 Correspondence - Electoral Roll.......................................................................101 COR/21 Correspondence - Department of Local Government.......................................103 15. NOTICE OF MOTIONS/RECISSION MOTIONS Notice of Motion - Council Policy on Provision of information to Councillors Regarding

Council Meetings and Site Inspections of Properties...........................105 Notice of Motion - Changes to the Code of Meeting Practice ...........................................107 Notice of Motion - Aboriginal Heritage Officer...................................................................109 Notice of Motion - Community Information Meeting re Mosman Prep School DA

8.2004.395.1 ........................................................................................111 Notice of Motion - Cancer Council Community Partner ....................................................113 Notice of Motion - Mosman Square Community Arts Mural Project..................................115 ATTACHMENTS CD/15 Advisory Groups.................................................................................................... A1 CD/16 Community Transport Program........................................................................... A11 CS/63 GST Compliance-DLG ........................................................................................ A13 CS/64 2003/2004 Comparative Performance Information ............................................. A15 CS/67 Legal Services Panel .......................................................................................... A53 CS/69 Dinghy Racks - Balmoral and Pearl Bay ............................................................. A55 EP/153 State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Development) 2005...... A59 EP/157 Local Environmental Plan Review 2005.............................................................. A63 EP/158 Road Safety Action Plan 2005/2006 ................................................................... A67 EP/161 41 Glover Street Appeal Against TPO Assessment............................................ A85 EP/166 Exposure Draft of the NSW Food Regulation Partnership .................................. A95 Notice of Motion - Cancer Council Community Partner..................................................... A103

Reports to Ordinary Meeting of Council – 4 July 2005 Page 1

8. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORTS

GM/19 613-621 Military Road - Christian Science Church

MOSPLAN REF: 08.01 REPORT BY: Director Community Development, Kay Clarke SUMMARY The Christian Science Church building in Military Road is for sale through Expressions of Interest and subsequent invitations for tender. RECOMMENDATION The General Manager recommends: That the Council Meeting be closed to the press and the public for that part necessary to consider information and advice on the calling of expressions of interest for the sale of the Christian Science Church, 613 - 621 Military Road that would otherwise be privileged from production as such advice contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business as authorised by Clause 78(2)(c) of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice and Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993. REPORT The Christian Science Church is calling for expressions of interest for the sale of their property. On 4 April 2005 following presentations to all Advisory groups and two Community Conversations, Council adopted the wording for the Visions, Objectives, Strategies and Priorities for ”Future Mosman: 2088 in 2020”. Council resolved that they be incorporated into Council’s draft Management Plan 2005-2008. Following further community consultation and public exhibition they were adopted as part of MOSPLAN on 6 June 2005. The following is both a Statement of Means in MOSPLAN, Program 8, and a Priority Action in the “Our Community” section of “Future Mosman:2088 in 2020”.

Investigate the potential of using major well-located sites such as the Christian Science Church and the Belmont Road Bowling Club for future community or cultural services.

The sign on the Christian Science Church property says

Rare opportunity – 2 street frontages

1971 sq m of land

invest/develop* or occupy *subject to Council approval

Featured on www.propertylook.com.au/42777

Colliers International Commercial 9957 6611

http://www.proprtylook.com.au/42777


Expressions of Interest close 4.30pm 28 July

The wording on the web site says:

Rare Mosman Opportunity - 2 Street Frontages

Property type: Office Contract type :For sale by Expressions of interest Address: 615 Military Road, Mosman, New South Wales, Australia Description: Located in the heart of the Mosman Town Centre, 615 Military Road offers an extremely rare opportunity to own a heritage property in one of Sydney's most popular locations. Designed by Peddle Thorp & Walker, the property was originally built for the members of the Third Church of Christ, Scientist in Mosman in the 1930s and is now offered Vacant Possession. Features include:

• Approx 970sqm of building area comprising Church Auditorium, Hall, Offices and Retail

• Land Area of 1,971sqm, Zoned 5(a) Community Uses • Situated in a lush setting amongst beautifully manicured gardens and a

short distance to Balmoral Beach and Taronga Zoo • Exciting opportunities offered - invest, occupy or develop (stcc) • Truly unique - first time ever offered!

Sale type: Expressions of interest Due date: Thursday 28 July 2005 By: 4.30 pm Tenure: Vacant possession Total area: 970m² Site area:1971m² Additional Information:

Expressions of Interest close at 4.30pm, Thursday 28 July 2005. Registrations are to be lodged at the offices of Colliers International, Level 42 Northpoint, 100 Miller Street, NORTH SYDNEY NSW 2060. Following receipt of acceptable offers, the short listed parties will be invited to participate in a closed tender

To ensure consistency of information provided to interested members of the public, the Director Environment & Planning is preparing a fact sheet about the property. This will be circulated separately to all Councillors. In order to facilitate discussion on this matter, it is recommended that Council move into closed session and resolve to close the Meeting to consider information and advice on the subject. In accordance with Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993, the Council is able to close the meeting to the public to enable those aspects to be discussed. This section enables Council to close the meeting if the information is: (c) information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with

whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business. In accordance with Clauses 39 and 77[7] of Council's Code of Meeting Practice, members of the public may make representations as to whether a part of the Meeting be closed. Members of the public may make representations to or at the Meeting before it is closed to


the public as to whether that part of the meeting be closed. Written representations will be received up to 12 noon on Monday 4 July 2005.


GM/20 7 and 10 Kimbriki Road, Ingleside - Acquisition of Properties MOSPLAN REF: 06.02.02 REPORT BY: General Manager, Viv May SUMMARY Update on purchase of properties 7 and 10 Kimbriki Road, Ingleside. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The General Manager recommends: That: A. The purchase of Lot 7 in DP 243145, No. 7 Kimbriki Road, Ingleside, for $3.65M as

tenants in common with Manly, Warringah and Pittwater Councils be noted and the land be classified as operational land upon acquisition in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act.

B. It be noted that Council’s shared of the property 10 Kimbriki Road has been reduced to 3.96% and the land is classified as operational land in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act.

This item cannot be resolved by the Committee of the Whole. REPORT At the June meeting it was reported that negotiations by the SHOROC Councils (Manly, Mosman, Warringah and Pittwater) were continuing to acquire No. 7 Kimbriki Road to be held in fee simple. At the time it was indicated that Mosman’s share of the property would be 3.96% to be funded from domestic waste service charge reserves and that the acquisition of the property would complete the site remediation and buffer zone land holding reserve. It is advised that contracts to purchase the property for $3.65M will be exchanged on 7 July with ancillary purchasing costs such as legal fees, spotters’ fees, and valuation fees being in the order of $50K. While the contract provides for completion on 15 July 2005 it is expected that the necessary distribution to member councils will be completed by 30 June in order to bring the amounts to account in the current financial year. Warringah Council will own 55.912%; Manly 11.416%; Mosman 3.96% and Pittwater 28.712%, and the land is to be classified as operational under the Local Government Act. In April 2000 Warringah, Manly and Mosman Councils purchased No. 10 Kimbriki as the start of the buffer zone for the Kimbriki facility and in November 2002 Pittwater Council entered into negotiations to purchase an interest in the site following the decision to form the Kimbriki Environmental Partnership between the SHOROC Councils. Mosman’s interest in the site will reduce from 5.946% to 3.96%. The negotiations with Pittwater have been very protracted and Council’s proceeds from the purchase of $40,089.27 were received in April. All land owned by the SHOROC Councils at 8, 8A and 10 Kimbriki Road is held in fee simple in the same ownership as the recently purchased property and is classified as operational land under the Local Government Act.


GM/21 General Manager MOSPLAN REF: 02.05.04 REPORT BY: General Manager, Viv May SUMMARY Annual performance appraisal. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The General Manager recommends: That a Councillor be nominated to sit on the panel. REPORT The General Manager is employed by Council on a performance based Contract and the latest period of five years commenced on 1 September 2003. The existing Contract provides performance criteria and procedures which are to be read in conjunction with MOSPLAN. The Contract provides that a review shall occur at least once per year and as soon as practical after the review the Council shall send to the employee a statement of: • The Council’s conclusions about the employee’s performance • Any proposal by the Council to vary the performance criteria • Any directions or recommendations by the Council to the employee concerning

the employee’s future performance of duties. The Contract provides that the review process will be conducted by a panel comprising the following: • Mayor • Deputy Mayor • Councillor (Council’s nomination) • Councillor (General Manager’s nomination) I advise that my nomination is Councillor Strange as the immediate past Mayor.


9. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORTS

CD/15 Advisory Groups MOSPLAN REF: 01.04.03 REPORT BY: Director Community Development, Kay Clarke SUMMARY Update on Advisory Groups including outcomes of member survey. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Director Community Development recommends: That: A. The format of the Advisory Group meetings remain as is with staff being more succinct

in their presentations where appropriate and the Chairs being more encouraging of feedback from all members.

B. Following the election on 12 September of Chairs and Deputy Chairs for the following year, membership of the Advisory groups be refreshed through advertisements, flyers, posters, letters to community groups and invitations to existing members; and, that new members take up their role in the November Advisory Group meeting cycle.

C. Effective 2006 each of the six Advisory Groups meet three times per annum to avoid meetings being held so close together and to avoid school holidays and meetings being held in the same week as Council meetings where possible.

D. Agenda and Minutes be emailed to those members who prefer to receive them that way.

E. The Recreation Advisory Group meeting scheduled for 7 September be rescheduled for 24 August as it would otherwise fall within the Mosman Festival week.

REPORT In May 2004, Council resolved under its “User Friendly Reforms” to establish 6 Advisory Groups. Each of the groups has now met four times with the next set of meetings scheduled for August to early September.

Advisory Groups membership and attendances have been reviewed along with items discussed and feedback from the community, including outcomes of a member survey, from Councillors and staff.

Membership and Attendances Citizens Of the 129 residents who registered for one or more groups, 72 are attending regularly.

Art Library and Culture: Chair: Deputy Mayor, Cr Andrew Brown, Deputy Chair: Cr Anne Connon Citizen attendance is stable at an average of 18 (out of 32 members).

Business and Marketing: Chair: Cr Martin Skipper, Deputy Chair: Deputy Mayor, Cr Andrew Brown Citizen attendance is also stable at a lower average of 8 (out of 20 members).

Community Development: Chair: Cr Denise Wilton, Deputy Chair: Cr Simon Menzies


Citizen attendance averages of 21 (out of 48 members). (It did drop to 12 at the third meeting held in February when it clashed with the centenary luncheon for the Mosman Rotary Club).

Environment: Chair: Cr Lynette Elsegood Deputy Chair: Cr Anne Connon Citizen attendance dipped in October but bounced back in February, the average is 20 (out of 35 members).

Heritage and Architecture: Chair: Cr Denise Wilton, Deputy Chair: Cr Kate Traill Citizen attendance has dropped from 16 at the first meeting to 9 and 8 at the last two meetings (out of 27 members).

Recreation: Chair: Cr Lynette Elsegood, Deputy Chair: Cr Deputy Mayor, Cr Andrew Brown Citizen attendance averaged 21 at first two meetings, dropped to 8 at the third meeting, then up to 12 at the last meeting (out of 41 members). Several times the Ovals Users Groups has met very near to this meeting and even on the same night. This will be avoided in future. Councillors The Councillor attendance at each of the meetings has settled to one or two. Councillors who do attend meetings tend to only attend the ones where they are Chair or Deputy Chair.

The Mayor 14 meetings attended 0 apology. Cr Connon 12 meetings attended 1 apology (Dep Chair ALC). Cr Browne 9 meetings attended 3 apologies (Chair of ALC, Dep Chair B&M and Rec). Cr Skipper 6 meetings attended 9 apologies (Chair B&M). Cr Wilton 6 meetings attended 4 apologies (Chair CD and H&A). Cr Menzies 3 meetings attended 1 apology (Dep Chair CD). Cr Elsegood 4 meetings attended 4 apologies (Chair Env and Rec). Cr Traill 1 meeting attended 3 apologies (Dep Chair H&A). Cr Harvey 1 meeting attended 1 apology (Dep Chair Env). The remaining Councillors, Reid, Strange and Lopez have not attended or given apologies for any meetings. Staff Attendance (based on average attendances)

Art Library and Culture: 4-5 Business and Marketing: 3-4 Community Development: 8 Environment: 3-4 Heritage and Architecture: 5 Recreation: 4 Items Discussed Art Library and Culture: over the 4 meetings to date there has been a total of 34 agenda items including the Cultural Plan, Friendship Communities, cultural exchanges, Mosman Festival, Library matters, Gallery exhibitions, Council website and Future Mosman.

Business and Marketing: over the 4 meetings to date there has been a total of 27 agenda items including bus shelters, Mosman Is, Young Achievement Australia business program, Community Business Awards, Women in Business, signage, Business Enterprise Centre and Future Mosman.

Community Development: over the 4 meetings to date there has been a total of 40 agenda items including the Social Plan, demographics, community safety, care for carers, road safety, youth issues, Future Mosman and a standard item on access which commences at 11.30 and includes lunch. There have been guest speakers on access issues and the Police speak regularly.


Environment: over the 4 meetings to date there has been a total of 19 agenda items including Environmental Management Plan, Ecological Footprint, State of the Environment Report, tree management, bushland management, water conservation, undergrounding power lines, unmade roads management and Future Mosman.

Heritage and Architecture: over the 4 meetings to date there has been a total of 22 agenda items including Mosman Green, Good Design Awards, Heritage Assistance Fund, design initiatives, Aboriginal Heritage Study, post war housing study, protection of buildings over 50 years and Future Mosman. This group has had several guest speakers.

Recreation: over the 4 meetings to date there has been a total of 29 agenda items including Skate facility, BMX track, swim centre, sporting wall of fame, SHFT and Cross street, bike plan, directory of sporting clubs, playground brochure and Future Mosman. Feedback from the Community, Councillors and Staff A memo addressed to the Mayor was circulated to all Councillors in April 2005. It reported on attendances and advised that feedback from all members was requested in November last year with minimal response except from the staff who were generally supportive of the system. Most of the feedback had been verbal and was usually provided during and immediately following the meeting. The great majority of the feedback had been very complimentary. Residents commented that they found the subject matter quite remarkable for its breadth and depth and had been very receptive to the staff presentations and to the level of responsibility and accountability displayed by the staff in their presentations and their answers to questions. Many residents said that they have learnt a lot during the early meetings and some said they looked forward to making more of a contribution as they became more familiar with the subject matter. Residents had commented favourably on the chairmanship of the meetings and with one or two exceptions had felt that everyone has had a “fair go”. Negative comments had pertained to excessive use of paper in the distribution of the minutes. This had been addressed with all minutes being double sided. Experience at the full range of these meetings suggested that there was ample opportunity for feedback especially if encouraged by the Chair. Every agenda item presentation ended with a “Feedback” slide to facilitate conversation. The memo concluded that the Advisory groups were working well and the procedures adopted by Council were effective. The Councillor involvement at Advisory Groups was steady but small. The staff resources required were considerable and membership numbers need to be monitored over time. The Mayor convened a meeting of interested Councillors on 22 April. That meeting was attended by the Mayor herself and Councillors Brown, Connon, Menzies and Wilton, together with the Director Community Development who had drafted a proposed survey of advisory groups members. The Councillors agreed that the groups were working well and that feedback was good. They agreed that a whiteboard should be available to each Advisory Group to facilitate discussion – this being of particular importance for the access component of the CD Advisory Group. They amended the survey which included questions about the value of the groups; relevance of subject matter; opportunity to express opinions or ask questions; preferred method of receiving minutes including email as a way of reducing paper used; and, frequency of meetings. It was subsequently circulated to all resident members of the six advisory groups. Advisory Groups Member Survey The survey was held from April to June 2005 by which time three to four meetings of each of the Advisory Groups had been held. 71 citizen members responded – 53% of members. Details are attached to business papers. A synopsis follows.


68% (47) respondents had attended 1-3 meetings. A further 16% (12) had attended 4-6 meetings and 9%(7) had attended 7-9 meetings.

88% rated staff attitudes and knowledge as very satisfied (53%) or satisfied (35%)

89% rated quality of information presented as being very satisfactory (49%) or satisfactory (40%)

83% rated relevance of the information presented as very satisfactory (36%) or satisfactory (47%)

83% rated quality of the chairmanship as very satisfactory (43%) or satisfactory (40%)

71% rated opportunity to express opinions/ask questions as very satisfactory (38%) or satisfactory (33%)

85% rated frequency of meetings as very satisfactory (40%) or satisfactory (45%)

Levels of dissatisfaction were minimal with only 2-4 complaining about any of the above except for the opportunity to express opinions with 13 people dissatisfied and a further 3 saying that staff need to be more succinct in their presentation - this comment has already been passed on to the staff.

41% of respondents said that their expectations of the Advisory Groups were being met.

32% said more or less.

20% said expectations were not being met.

The positive comments in this section included “interesting and useful”, “open and friendly”, “ability to gain knowledge and give opinion”. The negative comments tended to relate to the difference between the previous committee system and the new system eg. “Councillors not present to hear our opinion”, “we are told what has happened and what is about to happen”. More or less comments included “structure works well – staff and Council supportive”, “not sure if everyone has the same expectations”, “Council seems to welcome input”, “would like more hands on involvement”, “feedback on ideas to the Group”. In response to the question about what members value most about the Advisory Groups, many used the word “opportunity”, eg “value opportunity to meet staff and hear their perspective”, “opportunity to keep up to date”, “opportunity to express opinions”, “opportunity to contribute to future direction of the community”., “opportunity to meet others, hear and exchange ideas”. Almost all the comments were very positive. In response to the question about what improvements/changes they would like there were many different ideas presented with no significant themes emerging although: 4 members would like tighter/shorter meetings 5 would like opportunity for more feedback by each person present 4 would like more formality like the previous committee system and more Councillors to be present 7 would like less formality like the special working groups eg Glen Innes and Mosman Festival 3 would like more opportunity to inform the agenda 75% said they would prefer to receive their paperwork by mail. 24% said by email (some said both).


The survey results suggest that the Advisory groups are well appreciated by the attendees. The staff need to be more succinct with their presentations and the Chairs need to encourage feedback/ideas from each person present. The numbers attending have declined and then stabilised for each group and membership does need to be refreshed for the 2006 calendar year. There have been few comments about meeting times and frequency from residents, however, some Councillors have commented on the groups being bunched together and there has been criticism of Advisory Groups meeting in the same week as Council meetings. This is the result of needing to fit meetings in between Council meetings, inspections etc and the need to avoid school holidays and the December-January period. This would be easier if there were three meetings per Advisory group per annum rather than the current four, ie. 18 Advisory Group meetings per annum. Attached to the business papers are the results of the survey of members and the Advisory Group Meeting Procedures adopted by Council in May 2004. These procedures are working well and no changes are proposed other than the formality of the Chair acknowledging the Mayor and other Councillors when present. Recommendation endorsed by General Manager. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments • Advisory Group Meeting Procedures • Advisory Group Member Survey Results


CD/16 Community Transport Program MOSPLAN REF: 08.05.07 REPORT BY: Community Development Manager, Nick de Brett SUMMARY Report on the availability of Council’s community transport buses for Council and community usage. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Manager recommends: That the report be received and the proposed policy be adopted and incorporated in Council’s Policy Register. REPORT Council’s community transport program includes two community buses, the 19 seater Toyota Coaster and 11 seater Mercedes Sprinter. They are used to transport frail older residents and younger people with disabilities and their carers to services and recreational activities organised both by Council’s Community Transport Service and by other organisations. Council purchased the Toyota coaster in 2003. The Mercedes Sprinter is an ex Olympic minibus granted to Council by the NSW Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care in 2001 as a result of successful Expression of Interest. Council receives recurrent funding through the HACC (Home and Community Care) program as a contribution towards the cost of the community transport program. The funding body requires that Council ensure that, within available resources, priority is directed at persons within the HACC target population most in need of and/or who would benefit most from the service. These would include, especially, frail older people, people with a disability, including people from a non-English speaking background, people with dementia and people who are financially disadvantaged. The number of clients using community transport has been rising significantly over the past three years. Both buses are operating each weekday with the Coaster also used for fortnightly Saturday outings and the Sprinter for the Saturday Youth Group monthly outings. This increased usage has increased pressure on the availability of both buses. This pressure is amplified by requests that are regularly received for bus hire by groups that are unrelated to the HACC community transport target group and Council’s Aged and Disability Services programming. These requests are usually for a period during weekends. They are also additional to the use made by other Council services which include Family Day Care transport to weekly playgroups, vacation care weekly outings, 2 youth camps per year, 4 staff orientation trips per year and 4 staff blood bank trips per year. The Lions Club also use both buses to transport passengers from parking areas to viewing points for the Sydney-Hobart Yacht Race on Boxing Day as a fundraiser. The following is the income and expenditure for the Community Transport program for 2005/2006:


Income HACC funding ......... $72,805 Bus fees .................. $23,704 Bus hiring .................. $2,900 Total........................ $99,409 Expenditure Salaries ................... $84,968 Operating costs ....... $40,460 Total...................... $125,428 Council covers the shortfall of $26,019 in its annual budget for 2005-2008 and this represents 21% of the total expenditure on the program. Council can therefore claim non HACC usage of the buses for 21% of the 2005/2006 financial year or 86 days per year. It is proposed such usage of Council’s buses be adopted as policy and that the extent of this use from year to year reflect the shortfall covered by Council’s budget as a percentage of the overall expenditure on the program. A copy of the proposed policy is attached. This policy notes that non HACC usage is only available outside the times of Council’s HACC and Aged and Disability Services program usage and then only for either other Council programs and activities or for hirings for community use. Council would receive first priority for non HACC bookings providing appropriate notice is given. Specifically, the Coaster would be available for 26 days per year and the Sprinter for 60 days per year. The lesser number of days for the Coaster will accommodate existing hiring arrangements. It will also keep at a low level the risk, which would otherwise emerge through greater use, of accidents that would remove it from service and interrupt Council’s transport of the HACC target group. The Sprinter would be available for other hirings. In the event of either bus being removed from service due to an accident or breakdown, a substitute bus would be hired to ensure the ongoing delivery of HACC community transport and Aged and Disability services with the cost covered by the Bus Plant allocation. This proposed policy aims to maximise use of the two community buses, the 19 seater Toyota Coaster and 11 seater Mercedes Sprinter through the year. It is designed to preserve the community buses for their primary role of transporting the HACC target group and for use in Aged and Disability Services activities, then secondly for transport for other Council activities and program needs and thirdly for hirings by community organisations for community benefit. Recommendation endorsed by Director Community Development. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments • Policy Council Community Transport Buses – Non HACC usage


CD/17 Mosman Festival: 2 - 11 September 2005 MOSPLAN REF: 10.08.06 REPORT BY: Director Community Development, Kay Clarke SUMMARY Update on the 2005 Mosman Festival. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Director Community Development recommends: That the advices be received. REPORT The Mosman Festival Organising Group has revised the festival program which will now run from the opening night on Friday 2 September to Sunday 11 September. This is a shorter program than earlier envisaged and will be full of fun and colour for the whole 10 days. The program is varied with activities for all age groups. The business community is taking an active role in the festival with a range of Mosman Is events planned throughout the 10 days. The Gallery will feature the Mr Squiggle exhibition by local artist Norman Hetherington and there will be an exhibition of photographs by Mosman residents displayed in local shops. The Arts and Crafts Markets on 3 September will include entertainment, face painting and the like. Father’s Day is Sunday 4 September and there will be a fun day at Balmoral incorporating, art in the park, speakers corner, sand sculpture competition, treasure hunt, music, bands, bagpipes and dancing, and the official opening of the skate facility by school captains and dads on skates. The second weekend will focus on sport activities on the Saturday with the second induction into the Mosman Sporting Wall of Fame and an open afternoon at the Swim Centre. On Sunday 4 September Pets Day Out will be held on the Village Green and there will be a display of Vintage Cars in Mosman Square. During the week there will also be a children’s dance party, teddy bears picnic, jazz concert, an opera recital in aid of Taldamunde Youth Refuge, pool competition between seniors and youth, healthy ageing day, special author evening, and a range of puppet making and other programs at the Art Gallery. Community support is high with the Mosman Orchestra, Mosman Lions and Mosman Rotary, local schools, Mosman Day and Evening College and the Celtic community all involved. Sponsorship is being sought in line with ICAC Sponsorship Guidelines - $1500 (Festival sponsor), $500 (event sponsor), $100 (Friend of the Festival). There are no exclusive rights to be granted. Council has granted approval to the 1 Commando Regiment to exercise their right of Freedom of Entry to Mosman on 8 October and that parade will now stand alone a month after the Festival on Saturday 8 October 2005. Recommendation endorsed by General Manager.


10. CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORTS

CS/63 GST Compliance-DLG MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.01 REPORT BY: Manager Finance, Mark McDonald SUMMARY Changes to councils compliance requirements for Goods and Services Tax from 2004/2005 OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Finance recommends: That: A. The advices be received B. To assist compliance with Section 114 of the Commonwealth Constitution, the Mayor,

Deputy Mayor, General Manager and Finance Manager be delegated authority to sign a Certificate on an annual basis on behalf of the Council certifying its compliance with all GST requirements.

This item cannot be resolved by the Committee of the Whole. REPORT The Department of Local Government has advised councils of changes to the requirements for GST compliance. Currently councils are required to have an independent GST review undertaken and a GST Audit Review Report prepared by an auditor and lodged with the department each year. A change to this approach for 2004/2005 and beyond, is for councils to supply a certificate of confirmation to the department in place of the GST Audit Review Report. It is no longer mandatory for councils to have their auditors undertake a review of their GST systems. The first certificate will be for the period 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005 and the due date will be 7 November 2005. For all following years, the certificates will be for the period 1 May to 30 April. The certificate will be due on 1 June each year. The reason for the change in the date of the certificates is to enable the department to provide more accurate and current information to NSW Treasury. Councils’ responsibilities extend to developing and maintaining internal controls, which should ensure compliance and reduce the risk of cash flow issues and under/over payment of GST. Recommendation endorsed by Acting Director Corporate Services.


COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments • Draft Goods and Services Tax Certificate


CS/64 2003/2004 Comparative Performance Information MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.01 REPORT BY: Manager Finance, Mark McDonald SUMMARY The Department of Local Government has released its 2003/2004 Comparative Performance Information Publication on NSW Local Government Councils OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Finance recommends: That the advices be received. REPORT The Department of Local Government has released the Comparative Information Publication on NSW Local Government Councils for 2003/2004. The document provides comparative data for a three year period 2001/2002 to 2003/2004. The Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Tony Kelly, MLC, states” the publication is designed to help both the community and councils assess the performance of their council across a broad range of activities”. He then informs readers that “it is important to remember that the key performance indicators used do not, on their own, give the full picture of a council’s performance. Although they show the differences between councils across a selection of specific activities, they do not explain why these differences have arisen. The figures are indicators only and conclusions should not be drawn without qualitative assessments being made”. The publication is broken down into the following activities: 1. Rating 2. Financial 3. Corporate 4. Library Services 5. Domestic Waste & Recycling Services 6. Water Supply Services 7. Sewerage Services 8. Planning & Development Services 9. Environmental Management & Health Services 10. Recreation & Leisure Services 11. Community Services Mosman is categorised as a 2(UDS) Council which is defined as being urban, metropolitan developed and small and sits in Category 2. The key performance indicators for Group 2 in each area of activity are attached to Councillors business papers showing each Council’s figures for the three years along with the group average. This information is self explanatory.


A full copy of the publication will be placed in the Councillors lounge. Councillors should direct any questions in relation to any specific activities to the appropriate Director. Recommendation endorsed by Acting Director Corporate Services COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments • Key Performance Indicator for Group 2 Councils for each activity


CS/65 2005/2006 Program Budget MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.01 REPORT BY: Manager Finance, Mark McDonald SUMMARY Voting the amounts of the various items of expenditure set out in the adopted 2005/2006 Program Budget OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Finance recommends: That the items of expenditure for 2005/2006, as set out in the Program Budget via MOSPLAN Program, be adopted by Council. This item cannot be resolved by the Committee of the Whole. REPORT Council adopted the 2005/2006 Program Budget as part of the Management Plan on 6 June 2005. It is now appropriate to formally vote all amounts of expenditure that were set out in the Program Budget. It is recommended that the following items of expenditure for 2005/2006, as set out in the Program Budget under MOSPLAN Programs, be adopted by Council. Council, Community and Communication $985,881 Resource and Asset Management $6,653,524 Strategic Town Planning $704,482 Built Environment $1,340,353 Environmental Management $1,275,476 Public Health $5,294,464 Community Safety $804,886 Community Development and Services $2,003,520 Library and Information $1,677,980 Parks, Sport, Recreation and Culture $2,927,759 Transport and Traffic $3,452,436 Economic and Regional Development $198,114 TOTAL PROGRAMS $27,318,875 Depreciation $3,300,000 Employees Entitlement – Accrual $700,000 Loan Repayments (P&I) $673,182 TOTAL OPERATING AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURE $31,992,057 Community Environmental Contract $2,891,841 Recommendation endorsed by Acting Director Corporate Services


CS/66 Investments MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.01 REPORT BY: Manager Finance, Mark McDonald SUMMARY Investments Schedule for the month of June 2005. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Finance recommends: That the schedule of investments be adopted. REPORT A schedule of all monies invested under Section 625 of the Local Government Act for the month of June 2005 will be circulated prior to the meeting. Council’s Manager Finance certifies that the investments have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act, 1993, Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1999 – Section 16 & Council’s Investment Policy. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments • Investment Schedule for the month of June 2005.


CS/67 Legal Services Panel MOSPLAN REF: 02.01.05 REPORT BY: Manager Governance, Anthony Fitzpatrick SUMMARY Report addressing the equitable distribution of work by the General Manager between the members of the Legal Services Panel appointed by Council on 6 June 2005. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Governance recommends: That the advices be received. REPORT Council at its meeting on 6 June 2005 considered the expressions of interest for the provision of legal services to Council effective 1 July 2005 and resolved that Michell Sillar and Pike Pike and Fenwick be appointed to a panel of two (2) legal firms for the servicing of its legal requirements for a period of four years commencing 1 July 2005, subject to the following: A. Council retain the right of review at any time should there be an alteration to the

Partners servicing the Council. B. Council retain the right of review at any time should there be any significant alteration

to the structure of the firm. C. The General Manager to have absolute discretion in the allocation of work to the legal

services panel. D. A further report be submitted to the 4 July 2005 meeting of Council addressing the

equitable distribution of work by the General Manager between the panel members. The probity auditor appointed to the expression of interest process indicated during the process that it could be expected that there would be numerous examples of documented policies from public organisations dealing with the equitable distribution of work between legal services panel members that Council could use as a guide in formulating its own guidelines. This has proven not to be the case and Council has been unable to find evidence of any documented policies or guidelines dealing with this issue from public organisations. The matter of the equitable distribution of work by the General Manager between the panel members has nonetheless been investigated and the views of both Michell Sillar and Pike Pike & Fenwick on the matter have been obtained. From further enquiries made it is evident that there appears to be no documentation on policies by councils on the distribution of work amongst panel members. In general, work appears to be distributed by one of the following 3 methods: • Panels which have a principal firm of solicitors who deal with the majority of the work and

a back up firm of solicitors who do the balance.


• Different categories of work are divided between or among the various firms on a Panel. • The system of allocating alternate cases. Clearly Pike Pike and Fenwick have an acquired knowledge of the history of Council’s planning controls and various properties in Mosman together with knowledge of leases and tenders. It would be in Council’s best interest to continue to harness that knowledge. It would also be imprudent of Council to adopt a rigid alternate system of allocating work between the two Panel members where each firm would be allocated every alternate case regardless of the merits or circumstances surrounding the case. A firm that has knowledge of an earlier matter or incident may not be allocated a case which that knowledge would be of great benefit. If that case is allocated to the other Panel member purely for the reason that it is their turn, this is not in Council’s interest. Likewise it would be inappropriate to say, allocate all Class 1 Land and Environment Court work to one firm and allocate overflow appeals and commercial work; conveyancing; non Class 1 Land and Environment Court work such as injunctions prosecutions and industrial relations work to the other firm. An equitable distribution of work should include an assessment of the merits of each case and access by Panel members to as many categories of work as possible. This is subjective yet necessary. Where possible and practicable every attempt is to be made to distribute the work evenly on an alternate basis. The absolute discretion in the allocation of work to Panel members shall remain with the General Manager. Guidelines on the equitable distribution of work by the General Manager between the Legal Services Panel members have been prepared on this basis and reviewed by the probity auditor. A copy is attached to the Business Papers. The General Manager has issued the instruction that these Guidelines are to be utilised when allocating work to members of the Legal Services Panel. The written report of the probity auditor has now been received making key probity observations and indicating there are no significant issues of a probity nature that would lead to the conclusion that the processes adopted and followed by the Council have not been conducted in a fair and equitable manner with due regard to probity. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments • Guidelines on the equitable distribution of work by the General Manager between the

Legal Services Panel members for 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2009.


CS/68 Donations 2005/2006 MOSPLAN REF: 01.01.10 REPORT BY: Manager Governance, Anthony Fitzpatrick SUMMARY Councillor allocation of donations for 2005/2006. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Governance recommends: That the $250 Councillor allocation for donations in 2005/2006 as detailed in the report be adopted. REPORT Council has provided an amount of $3,000 in its 2005/2006 budget for each Councillor to allocate $250 to local charities and organisations operating in the Mosman area for the benefit of Mosman residents. During the current financial year the following organisations have made requests for financial assistance: • University of Sydney – Refugee Language Program • Municipal Clerks Education Foundation • Bear Cottage, Manly • NSW Children’s Safety League • NSW Rating Professionals • The Salvation Army Red Shield Appeal • Sydney Children’s Hospital Foundation Councillors have nominated the following organisations to receive their $250 allocation in 2005/2006 and, where no new nomination has been received from a Councillor, the organisation nominated by that Councillor for the 2004/2005 financial year has been included: Cr Brown Youth Off The Streets

Royal North Shore Hospital – Children’s Section $125 $125

Cr Connon Taldumande Youth Services $250 Cr Elsegood Lady Martin Appeal for the Homeless

W.I.R.E.S. $125 $125

Cr Harvey Royal Far West Children’s Health Scheme Sydney Children's Hospital Foundation

$150 $100

Cr Jenkins Sydney Metropolitan Wildlife Service Taldumande Youth Services

$125 $125

Cr Lopez Breast Cancer Institute (NSW), Westmead Hospital $250 Cr Menzies Citizen Advocacy Northside $250 Cr Reid Royal North Shore Hospital – Children’s Section $250 Cr Skipper Royal North Shore Hospital – Children’s Section $250


Cr Strange Life Education Centre

Taldumande Youth Services $125 $125

Cr Traill Odyssey House $250 Cr Wilton Sisters of Charity - Sr Leonie Martin (for homeless people) $250

Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services


CS/69 Dinghy Racks - Balmoral and Pearl Bay MOSPLAN REF: 10.04.01 REPORT BY: Director Corporate Services, Max Glyde SUMMARY To respond to a Question Without Notice by Councillor Skipper re Dinghy Racks for South Balmoral and a submission by a resident for further racks at Pearl Bay. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Director Corporate Services recommends: That: A. The Director Corporate Services report back to Council following three months of

operation of the Balmoral Boatshed and after consulting with mooring holders in the area on the feasibility of constructing dinghy racks at the southern end of Balmoral adjacent to the stormwater pipe.

B. That NSW Maritime be requested to transfer the application for funding under the “Sharing Sydney Harbour Access Programme” for dinghy racks at Rosherville Reserve to the provision of 20 additional racks at the Rowing Club end of Pearl Bay. Should such funding be available the work be carried out with the shortfall in grant moneys being met by the income to be received by Council on behalf of the Parriwi Park Reserve Trust from the Dinghy Storage Licence Fees from the additional racks.

C. Further options for funding racks at Rosherville Reserve be investigated. REPORT At the Council meeting held on 2 May 2005 Councillor Skipper asked the following Question Without Notice:

Regarding Boat/Dinghy storage at Balmoral. Several residents/boat owners have approached me re racks at Balmoral South and expressed a willingness to pay for 'secure' organised storage. Boat owners have expressed that the far end, near the sailing club, is a suitable area. Can this matter be investigated, costed and a report be brought to Council?

This matter was last considered by Council at its meeting on 29 November 2004 at Item CS/82 as part of a report dealing with Rosherville Reserve, Sirius Cove and Balmoral Beach. The advices given in the report following the calling of submissions on the proposal for racks at Balmoral were as follows:

• Submissions received in favour of the racks generally indicated that the racks

would provide flexibility to boat owners to come and go as they wished as they indicated that the hours of operation of the Balmoral Boatshed tender service did not always suit all boat mooring holders.

• The storing of dinghies on the beach creates an obstruction to the cleaning operation of the beach and the hap hazard storage of dinghies on the reserve


creating an obstruction for the mowing of the reserve and they also kill the grass underneath.

• Dinghies on the beach are not a compatible and safe use of a beach which is a very popular area for swimming, sunbaking and for children playing in the sand.

• The construction of dinghy racks at Balmoral has historically not been favoured. • Should Council wish to pursue the construction of racks at Balmoral the most

suitable location would be at the southern end adjacent to the HMAS Penguin boundary.

Upon receipt of the above advice and correspondence from the tenants of Balmoral Boatshed informing of their tender service and dinghy use provisions the Council resolved that no further action be taken in relation to the provision of dinghy racks at Balmoral. This position is still supported until after the Boatshed is completed, currently estimated to be the end of August. Following this and after the Boatshed has been trading for approximately three months the situation should then be reviewed and the possible users be re-canvassed. Council does not want to be left with a structure for which there is no demand. If Council wishes to support the racks at this time it is considered that the most suitable location is on the northern side of the stormwater drain on the grassed area as shown in the following photograph. Without knowing the need and therefore the number of racks required it is difficult to cost this proposal. In order to minimise the space required it would be recommended that the racks be the vertical storage type as constructed at Quakers Hat Bay off Bay Street. Screening through the use of appropriate plantings could be considered if this was an issue. If Council is of the opinion that they are too impactive then the horizontal form as used at Pearl Bay should be constructed. Due to the sandy soil and for improved ease of maintenance both types should be installed on a concrete base. It is estimated that the cost to construct a bank of 12 racks would be in the order of $4,000 to $6,000 however it is not known at this time whether 12 is more than required or insufficient. If racks are to be constructed then it is also recommended that an additional rack be built at the expense of the Sydney Outrigger Canoe Club to hold its canoes as shown in the photograph and their occupation formalised by way of a licence agreement.

Possible location of dinghy rack at Balmoral South adjacent to HMAS Penguin

Council is also in receipt of an email from Mr Sean Clarke dated 3 May 2005 requesting further dinghy racks at Pearl Bay as there are insufficient to meet the demand. Mr Clarke’s email is attached to Councillors Business Papers.


There are currently 47 spaces at the Mosman Rowing Club end and 63 spaces at the Houseboat end with a waiting list for racks at Pearl Bay for 17 spaces. There is an area just south of the existing dinghy racks at the Rowing Club end where approximately a further 20 racks could be constructed. This area is identified in the following photograph:

Photo showing proposed location of new racks

If these racks are to be constructed it will be necessary to remove the four trees to the front of the photograph. These trees have been identified by Council’s Team Leader Open Space as Glochidion ferdinandi (Cheese tree) and Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet Pittosporum) and he has indicated that they do not hold any significance to the area and therefore their removal is not considered to be a concern. The construction of more racks at the Houseboat/Pearl Bay Avenue end is not as suitable as at the Rowing Club end due to the natural layout of this area. It would only be possible to add a further 4 racks at the Pearly Bay Avenue end as shown in the following photograph however this may reduce the access behind the racks to place dinghies. The racks at Pearl Bay are in bays of 4 and to construct 20 racks (5 bays) would be approximately $5,000. The licence fee per rack for the 2005/06 financial year is set at $95 for Mosman residents and $335 for non residents. TPI pensioners receive a 50% discount on the above rates and a person with a senior’s card receives a 15% discount.

Photo showing racks at Houseboat end


In respect of the proposal to construct racks at Rosherville Reserve the Manager Property & Assets has been advised verbally by the NSW Maritime that they do not support this location and therefore funding is unlikely under the “Sharing Sydney Harbour Access Programme” as they are phasing out the moorings here by not re-allocating moorings to new owners. In view of this Council would have to totally fund the racks at this location. The volunteer bushland regenerators in this area are keen to have racks installed at Rosherville as the current system is detrimental to their work. The craft that is currently stored is a mixture of dinghies, canoes and kayaks. It is felt that as the moorings are removed there still will be a demand for people to keep their canoes and dinghies at this location and if that is to be the case it is best that it is done in a controlled manner. In view of this it is recommended that the financing of the cost of these racks be further investigated. The NSW Maritime have indicated that they would support the transfer of this locations application to a more suitable sites and the location in Pearl Bay would be an acceptable alternative. Recommendation endorsed by General Manager. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations • Email from S Clarke • Letter from R Stuckey


CS/70 Companion Animal Pound - Release of Impounded Dogs MOSPLAN REF: 06.01 REPORT BY: Manager Ranger Services, Colin DeCosta SUMMARY To consider the actions taken by the Manager Ranger Services in releasing two dogs from Council’s pound without full payment of fees. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Ranger Services recommends: That the advices be received and Council endorse the actions of the General Manager in reducing the release fees of the two dogs in this instance. REPORT On Thursday 2 June 2005 at about 12.00pm Council’s Senior Ranger was contacted by a resident who had found two King Charles Cavalier Spaniels walking on the road at the intersection of Spit Road and Parriwi Road. The Senior Ranger attended and collected the dogs, which had been secured by the resident in their front yard to keep the dogs safe, and transported them to the Warringah Veterinary Hospital Cremorne. On arrival the dogs were immediately scanned for a microchip and the owners details obtained from the NSW Companion Animals Register. Council has been informed by the operators of the pound that the owner of the dogs was phoned on the number listed on the Companion Animal Register and spoke with a woman. It is not known whether that woman is the registered owner. The woman was advised of the release fees being $60 per day per dog and said she would arrange for the dogs to be collected and indicated that she was pleased that the dogs had been found. No one presented to collect the dogs on Thursday 2 June. On Friday 3 June the owner’s representative went to the pound to collect the dogs. He was advised that there was $120 in release fees owing. The owner’s representative did not speak and just turned around and walked out and left the dogs at the pound. The owner’s representative didn’t discuss the method of payment available and left the dogs which remained in the pound over the weekend and the following week until 10 June. Records supplied by the pound operators indicate that the owner was contacted by phone on nine occasions on 3 June, 4 June, 6 June and 10 June 2005 and advised that the dogs would be released on payment of the fees. This recollection of events is not consistent with the account given to the Manager Ranger Services by the owner’s representative and upon which he made his decision to release the dogs at a reduced fee. On Tuesday 7 June the owner’s representative contacted the Manager Ranger Services who advised him that he should pay the fees and therefore gain release for the dogs. The owner’s representative was resolute that he would not pay the $720 now owing for the release of the two dogs and would leave the dogs in the pound and buy new ones. He said he would contact the General Manager. The General Manager has confirmed that contact was made with him when he confirmed the Council’s policy. Two seizure notices were


drafted as required by Section 63 of the Companion Animals Act as there was concern that Council might be put in a position where the dogs would have to be re-homed. The notices were hand delivered that day to the premises identified as being the dog’s registered address. The Manager Ranger services contacted the owner’s representative again on Thursday 9 June and Friday 10 June in an endeavour to get the matter resolved; however, the owner’s representative remained resolute that the dogs would be left in the pound despite them being children’s pets. On Friday 10 June the General Manager authorised the Manager Ranger Services to negotiate with the owner and resolve the problem. Shortly after the Mosman Daily contacted the Manager Ranger Services who explained to the reporter that there was no intention on Council's behalf to destroy the dogs and in fact that he had been endeavouring to resolve the matter. He also advised her that Council through the Pound had not euthanised an impounded dog in the last two years as the few impounded dogs not collected are re-homed. The Manager Ranger Services indicated that Council’s primary concern was the welfare of the dogs and that the owner’s representative had advised Council that it could keep the dogs. The Manager Ranger Services again phoned the owner’s representative who explained clearly that he had presented with good intentions to release the dogs on the Friday and believed that he acted in good faith at that time and further that Council should accept cheques as a valid form of payment. The owner’s representative was then asked if the dogs were released would he pay the full release fees, over a three month period. He said he would not and the dogs would stay in the pound. The Manager Ranger Services assured the owner‘s representative that Council wanted to reunite the dogs with their family and it was not its wish to re-home them. He asked what he believed would be a reasonable settlement. The owner’s representative reiterated that he believed that he had acted in good faith attending the pound with a cheque for $240 on Friday 7 June and that he was willing to pay that amount. The Manager Ranger Services on the information presented to him by the owner’s representative formed the opinion that the owner’s representative’s intentions were reasonable and that he had attempted to gain release for the dogs. In an endeavour to resolve the matter the Manager Ranger Services acting on the General Manager’s instructions further offered to the owner’s representative to release the dogs upon payment of the $240.00 conditional that this payment was in cash and the dogs were collected that day. This offer was accepted and the dogs were collected later that day. The reason why Council does not accept cheques is that previously persons had sought release of impounded animals and articles with payment by cheque and the cheque has not been honoured. Payment by cash, credit card or bank cheque is accepted. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services.


11. ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORTS

EP/153 State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Development) 2005

MOSPLAN REF: 03.01 REPORT BY: Director Environment & Planning, John Carmichael SUMMARY Advice on the gazettal of a new State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Development). OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Director Environment & Planning recommends that the report be received and noted. REPORT On 25 May 2005 the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning gazetted the State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Development) 2005 (the SEPP). The SEPP is one outcome of a series of reviews which commenced in September 2004 into the planning system in the State and is part of the rationalisation of SEPPs which the Minister has foreshadowed since that time. The new SEPP consolidates into one instrument the consent provisions of numerous planning instruments including 16 SEPPs, 8 REPs and 60 Ministerial declarations. It clarifies what requires Ministerial approval and in some cases returns certain matters to councils. In addition, and in summary, the SEPP:

• specifies criteria for what is State significant development; • raises the benchmark for some projects to be declared State significant; • introduces new classes of State significant development; • requires the exhibition of all State significant development and consultation with local

councils; • identifies sites affected by the provisions of the SEPP; and • updates and repeals provisions of various planning instruments (including those

affecting Mosman). Attached to Councillors' Business Papers is a copy of the DIPNR Circular dealing with the SEPP and providing an overview of its provisions. Implications for Mosman In addition to the more generic changes affecting State significant development the SEPP applies in two particular respects to Mosman:

1. The Minister is no longer the consent authority for development of the former Defence Housing properties at Markham Close. The SEPP has inserted an additional clause within MLEP1998 relating to the properties and identifying the Sydney Harbour Trust's Plan of Management for the area as having precedence over any local DCP; and


2. Taronga Zoo developments will now not automatically be referred to the Minister.

From now on only development valued at more than $5million will be referred to the Minister with other matters determined under the provisions of MLEP1998.

The changes will mean that about 11 of the proposed 18 development sites at Markham Close are likely to come before Council in the next two years for redevelopment in accordance with the SHFT Plan of Management. The method by which this has been achieved is quite confusing and unsatisfactory as the SEPP amends MLEP1998 and in so doing zones the land Residential 2(a1) under Mosman LEP No.1. This confusion if magnified by the insertion of provisions of the SHFT Plan of Management which override some provisions of Council's RDCP which although it applies to all residential land in Mosman is not consistent with Mosman LEP No.1 in some respects. There was no consultation with Council on this matter and predictably the outcome is less than optimal. The DIPNR Circular identifies as a benefit of the new SEPP the opportunity for the State to work with local government to make the planning system effective and efficient. In this instance the effect of the lack of consultation has been quite the opposite to the stated objective. The provisions relating to the Zoo are of lesser consequence as most of the major projects there are valued in excess of $5million and Clauses 21 and 38B of MLEP1998 have the effect of permitting structures solely for the purposes of exhibition, conservation and care of animals without development consent unless they affect an identified heritage item within the Zoo. As with the application of the Part 3A amendments to the EP&A Act (see separate report) the outcome of these changes is still to be fully assessed. As noted in respect of Part 3A, there is wide discretion for Minister for dealing with matters of State significance and while there is benefit in rationalisation of existing controls and removal of duplication this should not be done at the expense of an understandable, accessible and transparent system. Recommendation endorsed by General Manager COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations • DIPNR Circular PS 05-002 State Significant Development


EP/154 Environmental Planning & Assessment Amendment (Development Contributions) Bill 2005

MOSPLAN REF: 03.02 REPORT BY: Director Environment & Planning, John Carmichael SUMMARY Amendments to Environmental Planning & Assessment Act in respect of s.94 contributions plans. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Director Environment & Planning recommends: A. That the report be received and noted. B. A further report be submitted to Council once the Regulations to accompany the Act

and any Development Contributions Manual amendments become available. REPORT The Environmental Planning & Assessment Amendment (Development Contributions) Bill 2005 has been passed by the NSW Parliament and received Royal Assent on 18 May 2005. The date on which the Act commences will be declared by proclamation. The Bill amends the EP&A Act 1979 to extend the means by which councils and other planning authorities will be able to obtain development contributions. The passing of the Bill follows a review of the existing contributions system by a Task Force and follows criticism from both Councils and the development industry that the present system is too inflexible. The Bill is relatively complex and covers a range of issues. In summary, the Bill proposes that councils and other planning authorities (the Minister, development corporations, etc.) will have additional options:

1. Voluntary Planning Agreements; 2. Flat Rate Levies; 3. Joint contributions plans prepared by a number of Councils; and 4. Borrowings can occur between s.94 fund accounts.

A Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) is probably most applicable to large-scale or staged developments that have a significant impact on public infrastructure. In this context it is unlikely that they will arise regularly in a developed area such as Mosman. Some relevant points are that:

• they can be entered into at a DA or rezoning stage but are wholly voluntary and it is not open to a Council to compel an applicant to enter into one;

• there does not have to be a direct nexus between the development and the object of any required expenditure (it must, however, be expended in a reasonable time);

• a VPA may wholly or partially exclude operation of a s.94 plan; • once made the VPA is legally binding and, if registered, will bind successors in title;


• a VPA is a relevant consideration for a consent authority when determining a

development application or rezoning land; and • Regulations yet to be released will provide for circumstances in which VPAs will be

made. The Act also proposes to permit fixed development consent levies instead of the standard s.94 contributions. These levies will be a percentage of the proposed development cost. Although the levy must be authorised by a contributions plan, there does not have to be a connection between the development and the object of the expenditure. Given Mosman's size this has not been the issue for us that is has in some larger fringe metropolitan council areas. It is not clear at this stage what Regulations will apply or what the maximum rate of the levy could be but from the Second Reading speech it appears likely to be a rate of 1%. The application of this levy will place added emphasis on having a robust system for assessing the real cost of development. The Act will allow for cross boundary levying to joint contributions plans prepared by two or more councils. Also the pooling of funds held in various s.94 plans by a council will now be possible. This is most applicable to large urban fringe councils with high levels of urban expansion and a variety of s.94 accounts. It will allow councils to make internal loans between s.94 plans to allow for staged implementation as funds become available rather than having them strictly quarantined as has been the case in the past. At this stage it will be necessary for the Regulations to accompany the Act to be finalised and it is understood that DIPNR will be amending the Developer Contributions Manual to provide details and information on the new arrangements. When these become available a further report will be submitted on them to Council. These amendments are timely as they will allow Council to review its s.94 plans in concert with the review of its other planning instruments. Recommendation endorsed by General Manager


EP/155 Mosman Drill Hall Precinct - Sydney Harbour Federation Trust draft Management Plan

MOSPLAN REF: 03.01.11 REPORT BY: Manager Planning & Transport, Linda Kelly SUMMARY Outline of draft Management Plan for Mosman Drill Hall Precinct prepared by Sydney Harbour Federation Trust; and issues that affect Mosman. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Planning & Transport recommends: A. That the report be received and noted. B. That a submission on the draft Management Plan for the Mosman Drill Hall Precinct

be prepared and submitted it to the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust outlining the issues identified in this report and showing Council’s general support for the proposal for sports training facilities.

REPORT Introduction The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust (the Trust) is publicly exhibiting a draft Management Plan for the Mosman Drill Hall Precinct. The Trust is inviting comments on the draft Management Plan until 18 July 2005. All Councillors have been provided with a copy of the draft Plan. This report outlines the implications of the draft Plan that would be addressed in Council’s submission to the Trust on the Draft Management Plan for the Mosman Drill Hall Precinct. Background The Trust manages seven harbour sites, including Middle Head. A Comprehensive Plan has been prepared and approved for these sites in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act 2001. A requirement of the Trust’s Comprehensive Plan for Middle Head Georges Heights Chowder Bay is that more detailed Management Plans are prepared for specific precincts, places or buildings. This draft Management Plan is the sixth to be prepared by the Trust for land in Mosman. Public Exhibition The draft Management Plan is on public exhibition between 17 June and 18 July 2005 at the Chowder Bay office of the Trust, the Trust’s website, Mosman Council offices and Library. A link was also established to the Trust’s website on Council’s website to increase public access to the draft Plans.


Relationship to other Plans The Management Plan is the middle level of a three tiered comprehensive planning system developed to guide the future of the Trust’s lands. The three tiers are:

1. Comprehensive Plan 2. Management Plans 3. Specific projects or actions

This Management Plan has to be interpreted in conjunction with the Trust’s Comprehensive Plan. All management plans for land within Mosman must be consistent with each other as well as any other plans for neighbouring lands. Under the Outcomes in the Trust’s Comprehensive Plan the Drill Hall site was identified for “potential sport facilities and bush regeneration”. Draft Management Plan for the Mosman Drill Hall Precinct The draft Plan applies to the parcel of land at the eastern end of Cross Street, shown as “Deferred Matter” on Mosman LEP 1998 zoning map and outlined in the draft Plan on page 6. The site has an elevated position with views across to the southern side of the harbour. It contains two buildings, the historically significant Mosman Drill Hall and a relatively recent demountable amenities block. The former Parade Ground is located in front of the Drill Hall and a central roadway follows the alignment of the former military road. The site is predominantly open grassed landscape interspersed with trees. The aims of the Management Plan are to:

Conserve and interpret the Commonwealth Heritage values of the Mosman Drill Hall precinct relating to its military occupation;

Maximise public access; Facilitate the adaptive re-use of the former Drill Hall for appropriate uses; Facilitate the relocation of existing netball courts from Rawson Park to the

Mosman Drill Hall precinct, and their replacement with a community sports training facility comprising an indoor sports building and/or outdoor hard-surfaced training courts; and

Integrate the precinct with adjoining lands as part of a unified Headland Park. The structure of the draft Management Plan is as follows:

Relationship with the Headland Park Design Framework Statutory and non-statutory planning context Site Description and surrounding lands Site Analysis Outcomes Implementation and Action Plans

The Outcomes envisaged by the draft Plan include 2 options for the site. Option 1 proposes a sports facility with three hard-surfaced outdoor courts and one indoor sports building. Option 2 proposes five hard-surfaced outdoor courts and no new building. These options for possible new sporting facilities are subject to Council funding for the facilities and the removal of the existing grass netball courts in Rawson Park. The other outcomes for the site in almost all respects are the same in both options:

Conserve and interpret the site’s heritage values through the conservation and adaptive reuse of the Drill Hall;

Find uses for the Drill Hall that helps its conservation and that are sympathetic to its simple, institutional form and the need to open up the site to the public;


Enhance public access to the site through the provision of new pathways and

parking; Connect the previously closed military base to the surrounding ridge-top

parklands, and adjacent urban areas, but without diminishing its sense of place as an institutional, campus like precinct;

Connect it as part of the sequence of civic centres along the plateau, formed by the former military bases; and

Repair the edges adjoining bushland by improving drainage, regenerating and expanding bushland areas.

The adaptive re-use of the Drill Hall is recommended in the Conservation Management Plan (CMP) prepared for the site. The Mosman Drill Hall precinct is on the Commonwealth Heritage List and listed in Mosman LEP 1998 as a heritage item. It is recognised as being of great heritage significance. Its significance is derived from its:

Role in the Harbour Defence system since 1871, when part of the Military Road connecting Bradleys Head and Middle Head was constructed on the northern edge of the site (and subsequently re-routed through the site).

Possession of one of the earliest Commonwealth Drill Halls erected in NSW to enable the military training of the Citizens’ Military Forces.

The CMP recommends the primary use of the Drill Hall should be a sporting or recreational facility that does not subdivide or detract from the existing interior space. The CMP identifies a range of uses and activities that would be suitable such as indoor practice courts; meeting hall; performing arts; exhibition space; and arts and crafts workshops and display. Implications of the draft Plan for Mosman Council has been in discussion with the Trust, and previously the Department of Defence, about the use of the Drill Hall site for additional sporting facilities. The options presented in the draft Plan are generally in accordance with the outcomes that Council was seeking to achieve. The issues raised in the draft Plan that have implications for Mosman are: 1. Meeting a recognised recreational need 2. Management of the site 3. Heritage 4. Transport and traffic 5. Residential amenity 6. Access to site and connectivity with other destinations/attractions

1. Meeting a need – Council’s Recreation Needs Assessment Study 2000 identified the main needs (gaps) in recreation provision in Mosman based on an analysis of supply compared to the demand identified. Among other things, gaps were identified for indoor recreation and sport to cater for key sports operating within the region, and also some of the local schools (not necessarily located within Mosman). Gaps in outdoor sport included the need for improved netball training courts, including all weather courts, lighting and access to amenities. The Study also identified the need to discuss with the Trust potential relocation of netball courts and provision of an improved netball facility. The resultant Recreation Strategy Action Plans 2001 which were based on the Study included the following relevant actions:

Establish hard surface netball courts Investigate the options for indoor and outdoor hockey.

The options contained in the draft Plan address these identified recreation needs and provide an opportunity for the creation of an improved “sporting precinct” catering for a wide range of sports training and recreation.


2. Management of Site – There are a number of issues relating to the management of

the site which will need addressing, such as: Selection of preferred option Extent of Council funding required Control over building design On-going maintenance Co-ordinated management of use of facilities on site (including use of Drill

Hall) and at Rawson Park A detailed Memorandum of Understanding would need to be prepared outlining arrangements by which the Trust and Council would ensure the objectives of the draft plan are met.

3. Heritage – The draft Plan ensures that a building that is historically significant to Mosman, and NSW, is retained and reused. Other significant features of the site including the Parade Ground and military road will also be retained.

4. Transport & Traffic – The Trust engaged consultants to carry out a traffic and

parking analysis. The analysis recommended that 23 spaces be provided on site as well as a drop off area to cater for demand generated by the use of the use of the site. In addition, an overflow area be provided to enable parking for an extra 22 spaces. The consultant’s analysis concluded that the intersection of Cross Street and Bradleys Head Road would be able to absorb the potential additional traffic flow. The consultant’s analysis was based on a number of assumptions (outlined in the draft Plan) and the Trust will need to ensure that management of the site results in these assumptions being reality, in particular, that the site is used as a training facility and for local schools and not for regional or competition use.

5. Residential amenity – As the only access to the site is from Cross Street, it is the

residents of that street that would experience any effects from the changed use of the site. As pointed out in the draft plan the proposed sport training facilities would not be used for competition purposes nor would there be any lighting of the outside courts, thus restricting hours of use. The indoor facility and Drill Hall, however, would be available for use during the evening. Design measures considered by the Trust including siting, orientation, and location of openings recognise the need to minimise any effects on nearby residents.

6. Site connectivity – Rawson Park is strategically located for important links in Council

cycling and walking networks. It is considered that to better link the site with the proposed route through Rawson Park, Option 1 should be amended to include a ramp rather than stairs.

Conclusion The draft Plan proposes outcomes for the site that would address a community need and result in a community benefit. Option 1 would provide the better outcome in terms of catering for recreation for a broader section of the community including disability sports. The improvement to the landscape at Rawson Park by the relocation of the existing grass netball courts and landscape rehabilitation of the area will contribute towards the Trust’s vision for its Headland Park as a resource for the nation. Recommendation endorsed by Director Environment & Planning


EP/156 MOSPLAN 2005-2008 Program 11 - Overview amendment MOSPLAN REF: 11 REPORT BY: Manager Planning and Transport, Linda Kelly SUMMARY Minor amendment to Overview for MOSPLAN Program 11. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Planning & Transport recommends: That the Overview to Program 11 MOSPLAN 2005 -2008 be amended as outlined in the report. REPORT MOSPLAN 2005-2008 was adopted by Council on 6 June 2005. Councillor Reid has identified a small omission in the text of the Overview to Program 11: Transport and Traffic. Paragraph 4 of Major Issues/Needs discusses the SHOROC Transport Policy, including the Policy’s vision, which is –

“The provision for the SHOROC region of a high standard, convenient, demand managed, public transport system, in conjunction with a well connected road network which incorporates an additional crossing of Middle Harbour, and which is not reliant on significant population increases in the SHOROC region.”

Paragraph 4 of the MOSPLAN Overview omits the words “demand managed” shown in italics in the above quote. This omission should be rectified by the insertion of these words into the adopted version of MOSPLAN. Recommendation endorsed by Director Environment & Planning


EP/157 Local Environmental Plan Review 2005 MOSPLAN REF: 03.02.02 REPORT BY: Manager Planning & Transport, Linda Kelly SUMMARY An outline of the work proposed to be undertaken to initiate the local environmental plan review and resources required. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Planning & Transport recommends: A. That the report be received and noted

B. That any development consents issued from the date of this decision be for a period

of 2 years in accordance with clause 95(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

REPORT 1. INTRODUCTION

Mosman Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998 was gazetted on 18 December 1998. Work on its preparation started in 1995 with many of the background planning documents used as a basis for its drafting dating earlier than that. It has therefore been over 10 years since the last comprehensive review of the LEP. A review of the LEP would be timely for a number of reasons. Broader strategic planning issues are currently being considered and implemented at a State government level. The preparation of the Metropolitan Strategy and other planning reforms such as new State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act for developer contributions and major development and infrastructure projects of state significance have implications at a local level. The Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) is preparing a standard LEP Template to achieve greater standardisation in LEPs. A draft for public comment was due to be released by DIPNR last month and is still awaited. Assuming that the Template is resolved, all NSW councils will need to prepare new LEPs to be consistent with the Template format and content. Regional strategic planning is underway in response to the State government’s call for regional strategies to guide the Metropolitan Strategy and for input to the LEP Template. On this final point it should be noted that following a meeting of ROC Presidents on 3 June 2005 with the Director General of Planning agreement has been reached that sub-regional planning in conjunction with the Metropolitan Strategy will broadly be handled on a ROC level. Some initial work has been done by a SHOROC officer group with a view to providing a strategy for the area and further work is progressing currently, based largely on a regional inventory. In preparation for this SHOROC has made applications for funding to assist this process the success of which may have implications for Council's own LEP Review program. This will become more apparent as work progresses and decisions made on grant funding.


If the ROC-based approach proceeds it will be necessary for a "sign-off" by each council for the Regional Strategy and, in turn, for the respective LEPs to facilitate the production of dwellings and jobs identified in the area. At this early stage it appears that Council will be able to accommodate the necessary requirements within its LEP approach. This year has seen the adoption of a strategic vision document for Mosman called Future Mosman, which will be the umbrella document to direct Council’s objectives and visions to 2020. This recognises Council thinking in broader strategic terms about the future of Mosman. In order to achieve the vision and objectives in Future Mosman, Councillors have identified the review of the LEP and DCPs as a strategy.

2. OBJECTIVES 2.1 Corporate Objectives

The LEP Review would meet a number of corporate objectives, both in Future Mosman and MOSPLAN. These objectives are: Future Mosman – Built Environment Vision Long term environmental improvements are achieved

Objectives

Consistent planning instruments

Consideration is given to environmental matters

The Mosman community reflects a balance of population across the age groups

MOSPLAN – Program 3.02 Mosman Local Environmental Plan Vision To have comprehensive environmental planning controls to create a

sustainable urban environment in which the needs and aspirations of the community are met.

To achieve long term environmental improvements

Objectives

To review comprehensively Mosman LEP 1998 to address the community’s needs and expectations and include stronger environmental controls.

To integrate state government policy into the LEP.

To engage the community in the planning review process.

To ensure consistency between planning instruments.

2.2 Project Objectives

The project itself would have the following objectives (as distinct from the objectives of the LEP itself) to: 1. draft an LEP that is consistent with the LEP Template 2. have an LEP that meets community expectations for the next 5-10 years 3. ensure the LEP is based on sound planning principles


4. provide the current community opportunities for input into the planning process 5. accord with ROC approach to SHROC region 6. satisfy the State governments priorities and objectives in the Metropolitan

Strategy

3. WORK PROGRAM The review of the LEP is dependant upon input from other areas of Council and information from existing Council documents and studies. It is also dependant on State government policy, both existing and anticipated. The LEP Review will trigger the need for the review of various other planning documents that need to be consistent with the LEP, such as DCPs. Most of these other reviews have been identified as being necessary under MOSPLAN. As outlined in the introduction there are a number of strategies at both state and regional level that will have implications for Mosman at a local planning level. The commitment to review the LEP has implications for other interrelated planning controls and policies. The extent of “flow on reviews” will be determined by the extent of the LEP Review and this won’t be determined until the process of review and consultation is underway and areas for change have been identified. The range of other documents that will guide the direction of the LEP is illustrated in the diagram attached to Councillors’ Business Papers.

3.1 Work committed as part of LEP Review and Future Mosman

High priority projects in the current work program would continue to be undertaken. Staff working on these projects would become available to contribute to the LEP Review upon completion of other work.

3.1.1 Future Mosman 1. LEP Review 2. Residential Development Control Plan Review 3. Business Centres Development Control Plan Review 3.1.2 Other commitments 1. Child care centres DCP (resolution of Council 21 March 2005) 2. S94 Plans Review (Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment

(Development Contributions) Bill 2005 – for details, refer to item of this Agenda) 3. Public Domain improvements Program Review (linked with changes to

Development Contributions regulations) 4. Exempt and Complying DCP Review (committed under MOSPLAN 2004 and

already underway)

3.2 Work Program for Program 3 – Strategic Planning MOSPLAN As discussed above in section 3.2, strategic planners within the Planning and Transport team will become available during the next twelve months to contribute to the LEP Review. There are currently three strategic planners in the team and one would be fully available as soon as the project starts with the other two available for some of the time. It is considered, however, that in order to ensure the project gathers and maintains momentum; an experienced strategic planner would be required to act as a co-ordinator for the project. It is intended to recruit externally for this position. Council has a budget of $149,000 for this project in 2005/06. This budget would be sufficient to employ an additional experienced planner and provide


funds for expert analysis such as heritage assessment on outstanding nominated properties, for example. In addition, Council has applied for a total of $85,000 under DIPNR’s Planning Reform Fund 2005. Funding has been applied for the following projects:

Residential Development Strategy Flora and Fauna Study Potential Growth in Employment Opportunities in Mosman

These three projects need to be undertaken with or without funding from DIPNR. Work currently committed to under Program 3 in MOSPLAN is outlined in the Table attached to Councillors’ Business Papers. This includes work that is already underway as well as work committed to commence 2005/06. The table gives indicative timeframes (some of which are identified in MOSPLAN) and priorities for projects.

3.3 Work Program for LEP Review It is expected that the timeframe for this review would be two years. As discussed in the Introduction some planning work is currently being undertaken at a regional level (SHOROC) in response to the state government’s planning reform program. The State’s expectations of planning outcomes at a local level vary with the passage of time. Current thinking is that residential projections as part of the Metropolitan Strategy will be carried out at a regional level, in which case there may not be a need for a review of local Residential Development Strategies. Stage 1 The following steps outline what would be expected to be required as a first stage in the LEP review process. Some of these tasks would be carried out at the same time. In addition, the outcomes of some tasks will have implications for the complexity and depth of further tasks, such as the outcome of initial Councillor Workshops setting the direction for the Review.

Review Residential Strategy Prepare a “State of the Suburb” report – using id. Software Prepare Consultation Strategy – consultation will be extensive and would

include Councillors, Advisory Groups, interdepartmental groups within Council (including Community Development), community and special interest groups, the Mosman community generally and stakeholders such as government departments and SHFT. This is not intended as an exhaustive list. Identify issues Review provisions of SEPPs, REPs etc Conduct series of Councillor Workshops – Councillor involvement and

commitment to the Review process will be integral to it success. It is proposed to conduct a series of Councillor workshops which are likely to be held on a monthly basis to ensure continuing input to the review process. Prepare draft Residential Development Strategy

Stage 2 This stage will include a comprehensive drafting of the LEP document in accordance with the yet to be released LEP Template, together with associated maps. The drafting of the LEP will be consistent with Council’s objective to promote e-business opportunities.

Draft LEP


Stage 3 Work on these two main DCPs may be able to be undertaken concurrently depending on resourcing and the extent of required changes following consultation and amendment to the LEP.

RDCP BCDCP

4 OTHER STATUTORY MATTERS Development Consents: Consents issued by Council for development applications are valid for 5 years. As it is unknown at this stage the extent of any changes to the planning controls affecting development in Mosman as a result of this review it is considered that development consents should be limited to 2 years. In this way development that is of a scale and type considered to be acceptable today but not by the end of this review is not still be constructed more than 5 years from now unless an extension has been sought and obtained. Notification under section 54 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act: Once Council has made a decision to prepare a draft LEP it is a requirement of the Act to notify the Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources of its decision within a reasonable period. It is considered that it would be more appropriate for this step to be taken after initial Councillor Workshops have identified the issues to be considered in the review. 5 CONCLUSION A consequence of Council commencing the LEP Review before being directed to do so by DIPNR is that there are a number of unknown factors and a number of unknown outcomes which will effect the review process. These include the outcomes of the Metropolitan Strategy, the format and content of the LEP Template and the consequences of the ROC involvement in the strategic planning process. Due this uncertainty, firm timeframes have not been developed at this stage. DIPNR’s planning strategy on what is, and isn’t, appropriate to include in LEPs has changed over the last few years. Mosman LEP 1998 contains a number of planning controls that under current planning practice would be contained within DCPs. The proposed LEP Template will influence what can be included in LEPs and will have to be moulded to suit Mosman’s particular requirements. Recommendation endorsed by Director Environment & Planning COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations • Diagram illustrating the range of documents guiding LEP direction • Table of work committed under Program 3 MOSPLAN 2005-2008


EP/158 Road Safety Action Plan Report to Council 2005-2006 MOSPLAN REF: 11.09.05 REPORT BY: Road Safety Officer, Rebecca Klemke SUMMARY Adoption of the Road Safety Action Plan for 2005-2006 OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager of Planning and Transport recommends that the Road Safety Action Plan for 2005-2006 be adopted. REPORT 2004/2005 marked the completion of the second year of the implementation of the Road Safety Strategic Plan 2003-2007 for Mosman Council. Each year an Action Plan is developed which reflects the aims, objectives and strategies developed within the Strategic Plan to ensure a systematic and comprehensive approach to reducing crashes, their severity and their associated costs to the community. It comprises a variety of educational campaigns that aim to raise awareness amongst the highest risk road user groups, as determined by statistical analysis and community consultation. The Road Safety Action Plan for 2005/06 outlines actions to be taken in relation to road safety and ensures that effective measures are undertaken by Council in the short and longer term. Copies attached to Councillors’ Business Papers. The implementation of the Road Safety Action Plan for 2004-2005 saw ongoing delivery of effective communication of road safety messages and built on working relationships with key community stakeholders within Mosman LGA and on a regional level. The Road Safety Action Plan for 2005-2006 builds upon the strategies initiated in 2004-2005 and is designed as a brief guide to the activities related to road safety to be implemented by the Road Safety Officer in Mosman LGA for 2005-2006. Recommendation endorsed by the Director of Environment and Planning. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations • Statistical Analysis for Road Safety Action Plan 2005-2006 • Road Safety Action Plan 2005-2006


EP/159 RTA Funding Allocations 2005/06 MOSPLAN REF: 11.01.08 REPORT BY: Manager Assets and Services, Scott Turner and Manager

Planning and Transport, Linda Kelly SUMMARY Advice from the RTA of funding allocations for Council under their various programs for the 2005/06 financial year. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets and Services and Manager Planning and Transport recommend that: A. Council accept the funding allocations offered by the RTA for the 2005/06 financial

year as outlined in the report. B. Options for Council to provide its share of funding for the Belmont Road, Cowles

Road and Cycleway projects be considered as part of the September 2005 quarterly budget review.

REPORT The RTA has advised of funding allocations for Council under their various programs for the 2005/06 financial year. Council’s allocations are as follows: RTA Project

Number Description RTA Allocation

and Funding Share

Comment

S/01417 Belmont Road Wombat Crossing

$13,000 (50/50) Conversion of existing crossing near corner of Myahgah Road

T/01681 Spit Road/Parriwi Road (southern end) Cycleway

$20,000 (50/50) To facilitate access around the corner of Parriwi Road (west side) and Spit Road to signalised pedestrian crossing just north of the intersection.

T/01680 Cowles Road Raised Pedestrian Crossing

$13,000 (50/50) Conversion of existing speed hump near Memory Park

S/00465 Road Safety Officer $22,000 (50/50) Annual allocation A/01465/01/O REPAIR Program Ourimbah

Road $147,500 (50/50) Council has already

accepted this funding and allocated its share.

096488 Block Grant Traffic Facilities $43,000 (100%) Annual allocation A/04884 Block Grant Roads $15,000 (100%) Annual allocation A/04886 Block Grant ex 3x3 $19,000 (100%) Annual allocation The Block Grant components are Council’s normal allocations under these programs, although the Traffic Facilities and Roads components have increased by $1,000 each this


year. Council has already accepted the REPAIR Program funding and has in fact commenced work with the section of Ourimbah Road between Spit Road and Rosebery Street being resurfaced in the week commencing 20 June 2005. The funding provided for the projects at Belmont Road and Cowles Road was not anticipated and therefore Council has not provided the necessary matching funding in the 2005/06 budget. Funding options will therefore need to be investigated and will be included in the September 2005 quarterly budget review. In regard to the Cycleway funding Council allocated $45,000 in the 2005/06 budget for implementation of the Mosman Bicycle Strategy. Further investigations are required to determine whether Council could provide its share of the funding from this allocation, or if additional funds will be required. As such the matter will also be considered as part of the September quarterly review. Council must formally accept the allocations to receive the funding and it is recommended that Council accept all of the funding offered. Recommendation endorsed by Director Environment and Planning


EP/160 Clifton Gardens Playground MOSPLAN REF: 10.02 REPORT BY: Landscape Architect, Ben Richards SUMMARY Response to question without notice from Councillor Brown regarding the location of the proposed playground at Clifton Gardens Reserve. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets and Services recommends that the report be received and noted. REPORT At the meeting on 6 June 2005 Councillor Brown asked the following Question Without Notice:

“Could Council be provided with a report into moving the proposed children’s playground at Clifton Gardens Reserve closer to the parking area? At present the playground is approx. 150m away. Council is to spend $250K on this new playground. I believe that it will not be used as expected by local families if they have to walk the presently proposed distance!”

A management framework for the Clifton Gardens Reserve, prepared by the landscape architecture firm Pittendrigh Shinkfield Bruce, was adopted, with amendments, by Council on 8 April 2003. The amendments included leaving the amenities block in its current position and adding two extra disabled car parking spaces. The management framework as presented to Council had the amenities block located adjacent to the carpark and provision for only one disabled carparking space. The management framework includes a Landscape Masterplan, which is a spatial organisation of the various activities commonly undertaken in the reserve. The playground is shown as part of the activities zone situated in the north eastern sector of the park. The other elements in the activity zone include the amenities block (in its current position) and the existing basketball hard court area. The management framework explains the decision to maintain the playground in this area under the following headings:

• Risk Management – the playground needs to be located in areas to minimise risk to users and this includes the carpark.

• Historical Reference – the proposed site of the playground reflects the arrangement of the original beach cabins. This along with the theme for the playground, Fairground, celebrates and acknowledges the historical importance of the reserve and its original use as a pleasure ground.

• Actions – allows for an appropriate distance between the playground and the proposed quiet zone located in the south west corner of the reserve and positions it near the toilets and basketball court, which allows parents and carers to easily supervise children of various ages.


The other advantages to this location are:

• the playground is oriented towards the harbour, which is where people will naturally gravitate to;

• it creates an obvious relationship with the picnic tables on the pavilion site and along the foreshore, areas where families will picnic and relax;

• it provides for a diversionary activity for families who need a break after using the walking track;

• it provides a spatial separation for those users wanting to enjoy the peace and quiet of the park and

• it leaves the grassed area to the north east of the reserve free for active recreational activities such as ball games.

It should be noted that Clifton Gardens is a destination park rather than a local neighbourhood park, which is why there is such a large provision for parking. These parks attract people because they provide a range of activities and large open spaces that can comfortably accommodate groups. Recreation areas of this nature cannot be provided in one area without adequate space, which of course means that some walking is required. It is considered that people would generally drive to Clifton Gardens as opposed to walk and this would more likely be to spend some time there. It is therefore considered that a walk of 150 metres is not excessive given that visits to the playground are more likely to be for a period of time rather than a quick trip to a small local park. For the families that do regard Clifton Gardens as their local park the proposed position of the playground is not significantly different from its current position. As it is the current playground attracts a lot of use. There are only two other areas in the reserve that could accommodate the playground. It could be positioned at the south west edge off the pavilion site or it could be built within the turfed area along the north east edge of the carpark. The disadvantage of positioning it near the pavilion site is that it will be very close to the designated quiet zone. This area was deemed appropriate for the quiet zone because it is sheltered from southerly and westerly winds and provides shade in summer. The disadvantage of putting the playground near the carpark is the safety issue of encouraging children to play near cars. The playground could be fenced to combat this issue, but that solution would neither be aesthetically or financially beneficial. Construction in this location would also encroach on the large expanse of flat grass that has been dedicated to active recreation and team ball games. If Council is of a mind to pursue relocating the playground, it would require an amendment to the current plan of management for Clifton Gardens Reserve. This would of course require the usual public consultation, consideration of submissions and finally adoption by Council and endorsement by the Department of Lands. Given the contents of the report it is not considered necessary to pursue the matter further.


EP/161 41 Glover Street Appeal Against TPO Assessment MOSPLAN REF: 05.05.01 REPORT BY: Team Leader Open Space, John Grady SUMMARY Further report on TPO appeal 41 Glover Street following Councillors’ inspection on 15 June 2005. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets and Services recommends: A. Council uphold the decision of the Tree Management Officer and refuse the application

to remove the mature Lilly Pilly from 41 Glover Street. B. The applicant be requested to plant and establish replacement trees elsewhere on the

property. C. After these replacement trees have established for 2 years the applicant reapply for the

removal of the tree which was the subject of the declined application. REPORT The owner of 41 Glover Street has appealed against the decision of the Tree Management Officer to refuse their application for removal of a mature Lilly Pilly from their property. This appeal was considered at the Council meeting on 06 June 2005. At that meeting Council resolved:

‘That the matter be deferred until the next available Council meeting and Councillors have the opportunity for a site inspection.’

Councillors inspected the tree on 15 June while undertaking development application inspections. Council has received further correspondence from the applicant. This is attached to Councillors' business papers. The items referred to in this correspondence were considered in the report which went to Council on 06 June 2005. The officer’s advice and recommendation in regard to the appeal remains the same as was reported to Council on 06 June 2005. Items noted in this report include:

• The applicant’s arborist’s report states the tree can be retained for a minimum of 5 years (short S.U.L.E).

• Plumbing reports provided by the applicant were unable to determine the cause of blocked pipes.

• The issues of bark inclusion in this instance do not warrant the tree’s removal. • Approval has already been given to maintain clearances from buildings and remove

deadwood. • Pavement is able to be repaired or replaced.

The previous report is also attached to Councillor’s business papers.


COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations • 41 Glover Street TPO Appeal report to Council Meeting of 6 June 2005 • Letter Re TPO Appeal 41 Glover Street from Patrick and Megan Brennan


EP/162 Vista and Harbour Street Lighting MOSPLAN REF: 11.03.04 REPORT BY: Manager Assets and Services, Scott Turner SUMMARY Report on issues with outstanding works for street lighting in Vista and Harbour Streets following builder for the site 70A Vista Street going into liquidation. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets and Services recommends that:

A. The report be received and noted. B. Council investigate the possibility of temporarily connecting the existing (non-

Energy Australia compliant) street lighting in Vista Street and Harbour Street as outlined in the report until the matter of a permanent solution to the lighting issue is found.

C. In the event that the option outlined in B above cannot be implemented, the General Manager be delegated authority to investigate and implement at Council’s cost the installation of some temporary lighting under the existing awning in Harbour Street.

This item cannot be resolved by the Committee of the Whole. REPORT Council issued deferred development consent number 8.2001.23.1 for construction of residential apartments and 25m swimming pool at 70A Vista Street on 27 June 2001. Subsequent to this were a number of section 96 modifications. Part of the conditions of consent required the applicant to underground the overhead power lines fronting the site and install the raised pedestrian threshold and crossing in Vista Street. The applicant was also required to arrange and pay for the necessary adjustments and/or improvements to the street lighting arising from these works. It is understood that the contract entered into by the applicant with the builder for the development, Consolidated Constructions, included a requirement that they meet all of the conditions of the development consent issued by Council. As such Consolidated Constructions were to arrange for the necessary design and installation of the street lighting. Consolidated Constructions also paid to Council the substantial bonds required by the development consent, including one for $80,000 which Council still holds pending the resolution of various matters. Consolidated Constructions went into receivership and subsequently liquidation in late 2003. Council has since been attempting to resolve a number of outstanding issues on, and adjacent to the site with the liquidator for the company and the applicant. One of these is the street lighting. Council approved in principle a design for the street lighting in Vista Street and Harbour Street on 6 November 2003. The conditions of development consent and the specific approval in principle of the street lighting required that the design be approved by Energy


Australia as the lighting would form part of the overall street lighting network in Mosman. Consolidated Constructions did not obtain the necessary approvals from Energy Australia and proceeded to install the street lighting via their sub-contractor, Dynamite Electrical. The design did not meet Energy Australia’s requirements and they have therefore refused to connect power to the lights. As such the street lighting affected by this has not been in operation since December 2003. Since Consolidated Constructions went into liquidation, the Manager Assets and Services has been in regular contact with the liquidator, Gary Anderson Chartered Accountants, in an attempt to have the defects rectified. It must be noted that the sub-contractor that did the work, Dynamite Electrical, is also in liquidation further complicating the matter. A quotation was sought from Energy Australia to rectify the defects. The only way to deal with the issues is to completely remove the poles that were installed and replace them. The quotation received from Energy Australia to undertake this work is $44,000. To date all attempts to have the liquidator for Consolidated Constructions undertake the works have failed. They have also refused to allow Council to utilise the security deposit to undertake the works itself by engaging Energy Australia on the basis of the quotation they supplied. Council has now been threatened with legal action if it does not release the bond being held. This is being dealt with in consultation with Council’s solicitors. Whilst this matter will be ongoing and there does not appear to be a simple solution, there is a more pressing concern in that these streets currently do not have street lighting. In particular Harbour Street is very dark at night whereas Vista Street has the benefit of other lighting in the area from nearby businesses and Myahgah Mews. Council has received many complaints from residents and businesses in the area, all relating to Harbour Street including:

• Vandalism to cars parked in the street. • Break-ins to cars in the street. • Safety of staff from businesses leaving work in Harbour Street after dark. • OHS issues for staff from the Swim Centre who must use Harbour Street to take

rubbish to their garbage room. One business has requested that Council pay for some temporary lighting to be installed until the matter is resolved. Whilst this would assist in lighting a localised area of the footpath under the awning in Harbour Street, it does not deal with the broader issue of the road in Harbour Street and does not assist in lighting of Vista Street. A more acceptable approach might be to come to some temporary arrangements to connect power to the street lighting that has been installed. Preliminary discussions with Energy Australia indicate that this may be possible, although there are some technical compliance issues to be sorted out. Once power is connected, Council would be responsible for the future maintenance and upkeep of the lights. This would be a temporary arrangement until the matter is sorted out. In the event that such an arrangement cannot be negotiated with Energy Australia, the request for temporary lighting to be provided under the awning in Harbour Street should be investigated further. As such a delegation to the General Manager is proposed. Recommendation endorsed by Director Environment and Planning.


EP/163 Environmental Management Plan MOSPLAN REF: 05.01 REPORT BY: Senior Environment Officer, Lyndall Pickering SUMMARY Council’s Environmental Management Plan is completed, and copies are available. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Environment and Services recommends that Council adopt the completed Environmental Management Plan document. REPORT Following Council’s resolution to adopt the Action Plan for Council’s Environmental Management Plan last month, the entire Environmental Management Plan document has now been completed. Changes to the document reflect the adopted Action Plan. Noting that Councillors have previously been issued with comprehensive draft documents, and in the interests of resource conservation, it is not proposed to distribute a hard copy document to each Councillor individually, unless requested. The document is available on Council’s website, at www.mosman.nsw.gov.au/environment. Councillors who receive their business papers electronically have been issued an updated copy on CD. A hard copy is also available in the Councillors lounge, and a copy is also on display in Council’s Environment and Planning reception area. Councillors who require their own hard copy are requested to contact the Manager Environment and Services.


EP/164 Environmental Planning & Assessment Amendment (Infrastructure and Other Planning Reform) Bill 2005

MOSPLAN REF: 03.01 REPORT BY: Director Environment & Planning, John Carmichael SUMMARY Update on passage of amendment of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act with particular reference to State and Regionally significant development and major infrastructure projects. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Director Environment & Planning recommends that the report be received and noted. REPORT Both houses of Parliament have passed the Environmental Planning & Assessment Amendment (Infrastructure and Other Planning Reform) Bill 2005 (the Bill). This is a significant change to the operation of the planning system in NSW as it provides for Ministerial approval of a wide range of infrastructure and other projects and changes the manner in which they will be considered. In his second reading speech, Minister Knowles stated:

" The wellbeing of our economy depends on business being able to work with certainty, a minimum of risk, low transaction costs, and appropriate levels of regulation. This bill demonstrates the Government's determination to take decisive action to achieve these objectives. By establishing greater certainty in the assessment of projects of State significance and major infrastructure projects, the bill further assists in the Government's desire to afford opportunities for the private sector to participate in the delivery of our infrastructure programs. There is no doubt that this bill dramatically improves the climate in which to do business in this State. The bill implements important elements of this Government's planning reform program—a program which is overhauling our planning system and cutting red tape at all levels, whilst continuing to improve the high standards of environmental assessment and community participation that have been the hallmark of planning legislation in this State for almost 30 years. The bill introduces new mechanisms which will ensure that the Government delivers quickly and efficiently on its infrastructure programs—projects for roads and transport, schools, hospital upgrades, and water and energy projects are obvious examples. The bill will introduce a number of important changes. A single assessment and approval system for major development and infrastructure projects will replace approval processes currently scattered throughout several pieces of legislation. The bill will also improve the co-ordination of major strategic projects as well as ensure that the State focuses properly only on those matters which are genuinely of State or regional significance. In that sense, this bill re-establishes the duality of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act by ensuring the appropriate level of assessment is applied to each matter considered under the Act and, in particular, by


ensuring that there is proper delineation between those matters which are properly dealt with by the State and those which are properly dealt with by local government. For matters of State significance or major projects, the new single assessment process will strengthen the rigour, transparency and independence of the process of assessment, providing higher levels of up-front certainty for the proponent, the community and other stakeholders. The bill will cut red tape. The bill will reduce time and reduce cost and complexity in the assessment of infrastructure projects, projects of State significance and critical infrastructure projects. Together with the new State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Development) 2005, ..., the provisions contained in the bill enable the Minister to determine strategic sites, projects or programs of State significance and resolve issues associated with them decisively, transparently and expeditiously. These reforms not only are vital to the delivery of major infrastructure projects and to the economy of New South Wales but also underpin the Government's ability to implement strategic initiatives such as the Metropolitan Strategy. As part of that implementation objective, the bill introduces further legislative changes to support the necessary planning reforms to streamline the statutory planning system by reducing the number of planning instruments and ensuring those that remain are more consistent in their form and content, especially as they relate to local environmental plans."

The Bill introduces a new Part 3A to the Act which includes new concepts:

• "critical infrastructure project" • "major infrastructure development" • (Part 3A) "project"

and at the same time deletes "state significant development" from the main act. (A separate report on the recent State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Development) has been prepared separately and can be found on the Business Paper.) A Part 3A project is "infrastructure and other development" that is declared by Ministerial Order or a SEPP. To do so the Minister must be satisfied the matter is of State or regional significance and having done so he becomes the consent authority. The Minister may declare a matter to be a "critical infrastructure project"if he is of the opinion that it is "essential for the State for economic, environmental or social reasons". The Minister may publish guidelines setting out the requirements for Part 3A projects but is not required to do so. When an application is made for approval the Director General of Planning must formulate the environmental assessment requirements and this may include the requirement for the proponent to submit an environmental assessment. This is an aspect of the legislation which has caused concern in some quarters, i.e. the assessment requirements appear highly discretionary and it is possible under the new regime that state significant development could, in theory, be approved without even a Statement of Environmental Effects. There still are requirement for the environmental assessment to be made public and submissions may be made by any person. A proponent may respond by amending the proposal in response to submissions but there is no requirement for re-notification/exhibition. The Minister is not explicitly required to take into consideration the provisions of any environmental planning instrument (EPI) when approving a project. The Minister may not approve a project which is wholly prohibited under an EPI unless it is a critical infrastructure project.


The Bill also allows for prior approval of a "concept plan" for a project. These are assessed in a similar fashion to a project but a project approval still needs to be obtained afterwards. A consequence of obtaining a concept plan approval is that objector rights are lost. There are appeal rights for proponents subject to some limitations. Objectors can appeal on the merits if the proposal would be designated development "but for" part 3A; however, they lose these rights if the project is a critical infrastructure project of if an inquiry has been held or if a concept plan has been approved. In addition s.75T excludes not only third party appeals but any administrative law appeals or enforcement proceedings in respect of critical infrastructure projects. Proceedings can only be brought by the Minister. Certain permits and licences are not required under other Acts for projects approved under Part 3A. These include such things as:

• permits to destroy aboriginal objects; • rivers and foreshore improvement permit; • other approvals cannot be refused if they are necessary for the project; • Orders under the Heritage Act may not be used to stop a Part 3A project.

Local Environmental Plans and Other EPIs A new section allows the Minister to prescribe the standard form and content of LEPs (i.e. the template) and to include mandatory provisions. The Minister can make an order for the staged repeal of existing EPIs. Councils must prepare draft EPIs to replace the instruments to be repealed and if they fail to do so, the Minister can make a plan for the LGA by order, and is not required to comply with any of the other procedures for making an EPI. He may even recoup the cost of preparation from the Council. Similar provisions have also been included in relation to the staged repeal of DCPs. The intention appears to be for Councils to have a single LEP and a single DCP. This would require clarification. Issues for Council The Bill seems to remove the requirement for minimum assessment of Part 3A projects - which could be expected to be significant in scale and potential environmental consequences and places the type and nature of assessment in the hands of the Minister of the day. When considered in conjunction with the removal of third party appeal rights there is potential for environmental harm with no review or redress. Commentators have suggested that the Bill has been introduces as a quick fix to allow the Government to overcome time and community concerns about some major infrastructure projects. The proposed desalination plant is often mentioned in this regard. Some may agree with the need to address issues such as transport, schools and hospitals in a timely fashion and to allow the Government to make difficult decisions without the delay and expense of costly appeals regarding process or details of assessment. On the other hand as has been noted above there is, in theory, nothing to stop a Minister declaring almost anything to be a Part 3A project thereby removing it from normal processes and scrutiny. The application of the new provisions in practice remains to be seen but it has already been claimed that the amendments have increased the legal complexity of the planning system, made the Act more inaccessible to the general public, and undermined the rigour and administrative accountability of the system generally. This is contrary to the stated aims of the planning reform program outlined in the Minister's speech. Recommendation endorsed by General Manager


EP/165 Energy Performance Contract MOSPLAN REF: 05.02.02 REPORT BY: Manager Environment and Services, Warren Burgess SUMMARY Status of the Energy Performance Contract project. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Director Environment and Planning recommends that: A. Council write to Energy Conservation Systems advising that funds have not been made

available in the 2005/06 budget to enter into an Energy Performance Contract; B. Such correspondence include a request for Council and Energy Conservation Systems

to await the details of the State Government’s Energy Savings program to evaluate the possibility of obtaining grant funding for the implementation of the Energy Performance Contract, and to make an application if and when appropriate;

C. Council and Energy Conservation Systems finalise the DFS Contract should the proposal not be acceptable to Energy Conservation Systems or if Council is not able to obtain grant funds, and payment of $14,900 be made to Energy Conservation Systems;

D. If the DFS contract is finalised then Council staff develop a plan (including funding options) to progressively improve the efficiency of heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems in Council facilities for completion in March 2006 as per the Environmental Management Plan – Action Plan; and

E. Pending the outcomes of points A to D above, a recommendation for amendment or removal of the Key Performance Indicators for MOSPLAN Sub-Program 5.02 be submitted to Council in conjunction with the September 2005 quarterly review, and the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives be advised of Council’s position accordingly.

REPORT In December 1998 Council joined the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) Program and committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Council’s and the community’s activities through implementation of the following five milestones: 1. Conduct an energy and emissions inventory and forecast for key sources of greenhouse

gas emissions for Council and the community. 2. Conduct an energy and emissions inventory and forecast for key sources of greenhouse

gas emissions for Council and the community. 3. Develop and adopt a Local Action Plan to achieve the reduction targets and goals. 4. Implement the Local Action Plan. 5. Monitor and report on the implementation of the Local Action Plan. Mosman Council successfully achieved all five milestones and has also participated in the subsequent CCP Plus campaign. In doing so, in July 2000 Council set a corporate and community emissions reduction target of 20% by 2010, relative to 1995 emissions. Additionally it received an Excellence in the Environment Award from the Local Government and Shires Associations in 2001 for the Action Plan developed under Milestone 3.


The consumption of energy in buildings is Council’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for approximately 50% of all emissions. In order to meet the corporate emissions reduction target the following actions were documented in the 2003/06 and 2004/05 adopted versions of MOSPLAN, respectively:

“Enter into an Energy Performance Contract with an energy services provider to reduce energy consumption in Council facilities.”; and “Implement energy conservation measures in Council facilities as identified under an Energy Performance Contract.”

The corporate emissions reduction target has also been documented in successive versions of MOSPLAN as a Key Performance Indicator (KPI), and reducing emissions from Council facilities is essential to make progress against this target. An Energy Performance Contract (EPC) is an innovative form of contract, developed to overcome barriers and improve results when implementing energy efficient projects and equipment/plant/maintenance upgrades in all types of facilities and buildings. Under the EPC the contractor evaluates the level of energy savings that can be achieved and then enters into a contract to implement the project and guarantee those savings over an agreed term. As guided by MOSPLAN, Council staff have been pursuing a strategy to enter into an EPC since 2003. In May 2004 Council engaged Energy Conservation Systems to undertake a Detailed Facility Study (DFS) in preparation for entering into an EPC, and this was completed in February 2005. The DFS report examined the conditions and performance of existing services at six sites facilities, namely; the Civic Centre, Library, Vista Street Car Park, Mosman Art Gallery and Community Centre, Allan Border Oval and Pavilion, and Middle Head Oval & Pavilion). Two options were also considered; Option One involved consideration of energy conservation measures for all facilities but excluded an air conditioning upgrade for the Library, and Option Two included an air conditioning upgrade for the Library - which has been proposed for a number of years and has been delayed pending a decision on an EPC. The DFS report provided recommendations for energy conservation measures, as well as costs and savings associated with the proposed upgrade works. A summary of costs and savings as presented in the DFS report is shown in the table below: Option A Option B EPC project cost $264,069 $477,712 Energy and maintenance bill savings per annum

$43,246 $48,825

Internal Rate of Return 17% 9% Greenhouse gas emission reduction per annum per annum

434 tonnes CO2 (25% less than current)

515 tonnes CO2 (30% less than current)

Energy savings 1,497,162 MJ 1,788,222 MJ In order to proceed to the next stage and enter into an EPC with Energy Conservation Systems Council needed to commit to a substantial initial capital investment. Whilst there was a clear long term environmental benefit and guaranteed cost recovery this investment was not included in the 2005/06 budget estimates and as a consequence Council can not proceed with the EPC as originally intended. However, the adopted budget does include an amount of $115,000 to fund an upgrade of the Library air conditioning. This is in addition to a sum of $109,607 in reserve, giving a total of $224,607 to fund an upgrade.


Energy Conservation Systems has been advised of Council’s budget decision. Council and Energy Conservation Systems could terminate the contract upon payment by Council of $14,900. Nevertheless, a representative of Energy Conservation Systems has advised the Manager Environment and Services of the Company’s willingness to continue exploring options to fund an EPC. One avenue that could be explored is obtaining grant funding to implement the EPC. In this regard a Bill was passed by the NSW Parliament on 5 May 2005, which will result in the Department of Energy Utilities and Services administering a $40 million annual fund over 5 years providing funding, primarily on a contestable basis, to support energy savings initiatives by large private sector users, government and the residential sector. At this stage no further information is available; however, if Energy Conservation Systems agrees to wait for the outcome of this initiative it may be prudent to delay the finalisation of the DFS Contract. Should Energy Conservation Systems not accept such a proposal, or it becomes obvious that such grant funds will not be available to Council, the logical course of action will be for Council staff to review the DFS and develop a plan to progressively improve the efficiency of heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems in Council facilities. As such this action has been included in the Environmental Management Plan – Action Plan adopted for inclusion into MOSPLAN on 6 June 2005 – to be completed by March 2006. Council’s Environmental Management Plan identified greenhouse gas emissions its highest priority environmental issue and Councillors should be aware of the lost opportunity for significant environmental improvement should the EPC or progressive improvement of the energy efficiency of Council facilities, not proceed. Should this in fact prove the case then the KPI for Program 5.02 in MOSPLAN will not be achieved and it will therefore need to be amended or removed from MOSPLAN come the September 2005 review. Additionally, Council should also inform the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives that it will not be able to keep its commitment to its CCP Milestone 2 target. It should be noted that based on Council’s commitment to the CCP program the emissions target for 2010 is 1948 tonnes of CO2; however, Council’s latest inventory undertaken for the 2003 calendar year showed emissions of 3131 tonnes of CO2. This is an increase of approximately 30% on the 1995 base year figure.


EP/166 Exposure Draft of the NSW Food Regulation Partnership MOSPLAN REF: 06.04.01 REPORT BY: Senior Environmental Health Officer, Kate Sale SUMMARY Exposure Draft of the NSW Food Regulation Partnership OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Environment & Services recommends that: A. The report be received and noted. B. A further report be submitted to Council detailing the implications for Mosman upon

finalisation of the Food Regulation Partnership. REPORT The exposure draft of a model for a food regulation partnership between NSW Local and State Governments has been released by the NSW Food Authority. The model reflects the findings of a major consultation conducted over the October to December 2004 period and contains 28 recommendations. A Council staff submission was provided to the NSW Food Authority on 15 June 2005 giving support to all 28 recommendations of the report and providing further comment to the proposal. A copy of the recommendations and of Council’s submission is attached to Councillors’ Business Papers. The partnership provides for a clear framework that formalises the responsibilities of Councils and the Food Authority and for the first time Council will have a mandated role set in the Act for the regulation of the food industry. The report also addresses issues such as conflicts of interest, financial support and the coordination of emergency response and complaint management. The proposed framework would result in Council maintaining responsibility for the majority of food businesses within Mosman, however high risk activities such as food manufacturers, nursing homes, child care centres, caterers and smallgoods producers may be regulated by the Food Authority. The Food Authority may also become involved in the regulation of businesses which have been identified as having a potential conflict of interest for Council. Recommendation 10 of the proposal would see the implementation of a reporting system for conflicts of interest whereby certain potential conflicts would be disclosed to the Food Authority and details provided on how these are to be managed. Circumstances in which a declaration would need to be made under the proposal would include food businesses where:

• Council is the landlord such as at Mosman Square, Boronia House and Balmoral. • Council is the operator such as Meals on Wheels, Childcare centres and the Youth

Centre • A Councillor and/or a member of their immediate family is the operator or a food

handler


• An Authorised Officer and/or a member of their immediate family is the operator or a

food handler • There has been a breakdown in relationship between the Council and the food

business Further funding for food enforcement activities is proposed to be provided under the proposal including fees for Notices (such as exists under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997). The fees for service and administration costs borne by Councils were examined and it was resolved to not prescribe fixed services and administration fees. The State Government will, however, publish the schedule of maximum fees which reflect full cost recovery of food regulation (which they will charge) and Councils will have discretion to set their own fees based on this assessment. The discrepancy between the amount that will be charged in Mosman for the 2005/2006 financial year and the state government cost recovery fee is approximately $355. Once the figures are officially published by NSW Food Authority a reassessment of the fees charged for the food program will be undertaken for the following financial year. A further report will be submitted detailing the full implications for Council upon finalisation of the Food Regulation Partnership. Recommendation endorsed by Director Environment & Planning COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments • Submission to the Draft Partnership Blueprint • Recommendations of the Draft NSW Food Regulation Partnership


EP/167 SHOROC Materials & Services Contract MOSPLAN REF: 11.02.02 REPORT BY: Senior Engineer, Keith Athureliya SUMMARY Details of Joint Tender for the supply of road construction materials and services for SHOROC Councils for the period 01 July2005 to 30 June 2007 OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets & Services recommends that: A. Council accept tenders from a preferred contractor for each of the categories of works

or services sought under the SHOROC Contract for Road Construction Materials and Services 2005/2007.

B. Where more than one tender was received for any category of work, Council accept a

second tender as an option to be utilised in the event that difficulties arise with the preferred contractor.

C. Any work that Council proposes to undertake under the contract be first offered to the

preferred contractor and in the event that the preferred contractor cannot undertake the work for any reason, including within the timeframe nominated by Council, the work be offered to the contractor nominated as the second option.

D. For the supply and placement of asphaltic concrete, Council accept the tender of

Boral Asphalt as the preferred contractor with the tender of Emoleum also being accepted as the second option.

E. For cold milling of asphalt and base course Council accept the tender of Works

Infrastructure Pty Ltd as the preferred contractor with the tender of Emoleum also being accepted as the second option.

F. For stabilisation of road pavements Council accept the tender of Stabilised

Pavements of Australia as the preferred contractor with the tender of Works Infrastructure Pty Ltd also being accepted as the second option.

G. For sprayed bituminous surfacing and pavement rejuvenation work Council accept

the tender of SAMI Pty Ltd. H. For crack sealing Council accept the tender of SAMI Pty Ltd as the preferred

contractor with the tender of Boral Asphalt also being accepted as the second option. This item cannot be resolved by the Committee of the Whole. REPORT Mosman Council on behalf of the other SHOROC Councils, Manly, Warringah and Pittwater called tenders for Road Construction Materials and Services for the two year period commencing in July 2005. The tenders called for six (6) products or services as follows:


1. Stabilisation of Road Pavements 2. Sprayed Bituminous Surfacing 3. Supply and Placement of Asphaltic Concrete 4. Cold Milling of Asphalt and Base Course 5. Crack sealing 6. Pavement Rejuvenation SHOROC received ten tenders, which were assessed against the selection criteria outlined in the tender documents. Only five (5) of the tenders received were declared valid against the selection criteria and these tenders were considered for the contracts. A copy of the tender assessments will be circulated separately to Councillors and attached to the minutes. In each category of product or services it is proposed to accept a tender and nominate a preferred contractor to undertake the work. Where more than one tender was received, a second tender will be accepted as an option in the event of any problems arising with the preferred contractor. STABILISATION OF ROAD PAVEMENTS Stabilised Pavements of Australia (SPA) and Works Infrastructure P/L tendered for this service. The tender from Stabilised Pavements of Australia was the lowest in all three types of stabilisation i.e. Cement, Lime and Bitumen – Foam stabilisation. It was recorded that SPA did not submit a financial statement with the tender. However it was then presented at the post tender meeting and considered acceptable by the SHOROC Councils. At the request of SPA, the financial statement was returned, however, if required by any of the Councils during the contract period, SPA is obliged to resubmit it upon request. Currently SPA is providing stabilisation services to SHOROC Councils and has been carrying out work to an acceptable standard during the last three years. It is considered that SPA is a good provider of this service. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the tender of Stabilised Pavements of Australia as the

preferred contractor with the tender from Infrastructure Services Pty Ltd also being accepted as a second option.

SPRAYED BITUMINOUS SURFACING Only SAMI Pty Ltd tendered for spray seal and pavement rejuvenation work. SAMI is the only provider for supply and installation of glass grid over an asphalt correction layer. There is an average 20% increase in the new tender compared with the existing SAMI Pty Limited rates. SAMI P/L has been carrying out all sprayed bituminous surfacing work to SHOROC Councils for the last three years and has performed satisfactorily. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the tender of SAMI Pty Ltd for sprayed bituminous

surfacing and pavement rejuvenation work. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE Seven (7) tenders were received for this service. The preferred tender for this service is Boral Asphalt. The second preferred tender is Emoleum. Some issues Concerns regarding tender which has been clarified at the post tender meeting and confirmed in writing are:


Boral Asphalt accepted Council’s right of extension of contract for further one year period, Boral Asphalt has clarified the standard equipment with regard to traffic controlling. Boral Asphalt has provided compliance with general and Special conditions of Contract Clause 3.8 RECOMMENDATION: Accept the tender of Boral Asphalt as the preferred contractor

to supply and lay asphaltic concrete with the tender from Emoleum also being accepted as a second option.

COLD MILLING OF ASPHALT AND BASE COURSE Four tenders were received for this service. The lowest is from Works Infrastructure and the second lowest is from Emoleum. Works Infrastructure is considered the preferred tender for this service, and Emoleum as a second option. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the tender of Works Infrastructure as the preferred

contractor for cold milling of Asphalt and base course with the tender of Emoleum also being accepted as a second option.

CRACK SEALING Four tenders were received for this item with SAMI Pty Ltd being the preferred tenderer. Boral Asphalt is the second preferred tenderer for this item. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the tender of SAMI Pty Ltd as the preferred contractor

for crack sealing with the tender of Boral Asphalt also being accepted as the second option.

COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments Tender Evaluation Assessment to be circulated separately


EP/168 Sirius Cove Road Access for Fire Appliances MOSPLAN REF: 07.06.07 REPORT BY: Manager Assets and Services, Scott Turner. SUMMARY Update on investigations into options for providing access in Sirius Cove Road beyond the existing overhead sewer main for new fire appliances. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets and Services recommends that: A. The report be received and noted. B. No further action be taken to alter the levels of Sirius Cove Road to provide the

requested access beyond the existing overhead sewer main for new fire appliances. C. Council write to the relevant state government departments advising of its decision. D. A letter be sent to local residents advising of Council’s decision, the attempts that

have been made to facilitate a solution to the problem and the responses from the state government departments.

REPORT Council previously considered this matter at the meeting on 7 June 2004 (Item EP/81) and resolved that: A. Subject to receipt of legal advice from Council's solicitors, the General Manager be

authorised to negotiate an agreement with the NSW Fire Brigade and Sydney Water as outlined in the report on sharing the cost to modify the road pavement in Sirius Cove Road and provide access for fire appliances under the existing overhead sewer main.

B. In the event that an agreement cannot be reached with the NSW Fire Brigade and

Sydney Water for the work to be undertaken without a cash contribution by Council, a further report be prepared for Council to consider funding options prior to finalising any agreement.

Since that item both Council staff and the Mayor have been exploring a number of options to facilitate the necessary works to provide the access for the new fire appliances. In summary whilst the various state government departments are sympathetic to the situation, they have not offered any funding towards the necessary works, other than Sydney Water offering to spend some of their routine maintenance budget on activities such as adjusting the levels of service pit covers. Formal legal advice has not been sought from Council’s solicitors at this stage although informal discussions indicate that Council may not have any legal obligation to undertake the works. It is interesting to note that none of the correspondence that Council has received


from various state government departments about this matter refers to any statutory obligation of Council to undertake the requested work. An application was made under the Natural Disaster Mitigation Program which is jointly funded by the State and Federal Government for funding towards the necessary works to provide access. Unfortunately the project was considered ineligible. It seems now that all avenues for funding assistance with the necessary work have been exhausted. The Minister for Emergency Services has previously indicated that in the view of the NSW Fire Brigade, adequate measures are currently in place to protect homes in the area in the event of a fire. This may change when the new fire appliances arrive and replace the current vehicles that can access beyond the overhead sewer main. In the absence of any legal obligation on Council to provide the requested access, it is proposed to take no further action at this time. A letter will be sent to the relevant state government departments advising of this. A letter will also be sent to residents outlining the efforts that have been made to resolve this issue and the responses from the various state government departments. The matter will undoubtedly re-surface when the new fire appliances are brought into service and could be re-visited, if necessary, at that time. It should be noted that Mosman Council paid $645,386 as its contribution to the NSW Fire Brigade in 2004/05. Recommendation endorsed by Director Environment and Planning


12. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE The Traffic Committee met in the Council Chamber, Mosman Square on Wednesday 8 June 2005 from 10.01am to 11.40am. PRESENT The Chairperson (Councillor L D Elsegood) in the Chair with Mrs Marilyn Cameron (representative of Jillian Skinner, MP), Mr Geoff Cox (RTA), Sgt Anthony Fenton (Harbourside Police), together with the Manager Planning and Transport, Contract Engineer and Traffic Engineer. Mr John Heapy (STA) was in attendance. Sgt David Olsen (Harbourside Police) attended as an observer. APOLOGIES An apology was received from Councillor Lopez. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS There were no disclosures of pecuniary interests from Councillors or Staff. DISCLOSURES OF NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS There were no disclosures of non-pecuniary interests from Councillors or Staff. Items RESOLVED pursuant to authority delegated to the Committee: Item No Description T/35 Safety Around Schools Audit Final Report T/36 Ida Street – Cul-de-sac Parking T/37 Cowles Road – Review of Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) T/39 Lower Boyle Street – Parking Restrictions T/41 Congewoi Lane – Parking Restrictions T/42 Glover Street – Review of Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) T/43 Mosman Bicycle Working Group T/44 Parriwi Road – Traffic Management


T/38 Clifford Street - Review of Residential Parking Scheme (RPS) MOSPLAN REF: 11.04.02 REPORT BY: Contract Engineer, Brian Leckey SUMMARY Further consideration of the Clifford Street RPS following the twelve (12) months review in October 2004. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Planning & Transport recommends that: A. A “3 Hour Parking, 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday” restriction be introduced on the

southern side of Clifford Street in conjunction with a Resident Parking Scheme, between Field Lane and a point opposite the eastern side boundary of No. 1A Clifford Street.

B. The remaining section of the southern side of Clifford Street between a point opposite

the eastern side boundary of No. 1A Clifford Street and Moruben Road remain unrestricted.

C. The parking problems at 12 Clifford Street be considered during the review of the

RPS. Can this Item be resolved by the Committee: Yes COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION Motion Fenton/Cox That: A. A “3 Hour Parking, 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday” restriction be introduced on the

southern side of Clifford Street in conjunction with a Resident Parking Scheme, between Field Lane and a point opposite the western boundary of the eastern vehicular entrance to No. 1 Clifford Street.

B. The remaining section of the southern side of Clifford Street between a point opposite

the western side boundary of the eastern vehicular entrance to No. 1 Clifford Street and Moruben Road remain unrestricted.

C. The parking problems at 12 Clifford Street be considered during the review of the

RPS. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY HISTORY Details of this matter were outlined on the Traffic Committee agenda for the meeting on 1 December 2004. It was recommended that the RPS in Clifford Street continue in its present form.


However, following an address to the Committee by Joanne David, 1A Clifford Street, Ray Davey and Margaret White, 1/12 Clifford Street, the Committee recommended: That: A. The proposal to extend the resident parking scheme on the southern side of Clifford

Street between Field lane and Moruben Road be advertised for public comment. B. The problems of parking at 12 Clifford Street be referred to the committee for further

investigation. REPORT Letters were sent to the residents of Clifford Street concerning the proposal to extend the RPS on the southern side of Clifford Street between Field lane and Moruben Road and the proposal was advertised in the Mosman Daily. Six submissions have been received, five in favour of extending the scheme and one against. A copy of the submission against extending the scheme is attached to the members’ business papers. Joanne David and two other residents in favour of extending the RPs live at No. 1A Clifford Street where there are more units than on-site carparking spaces. If the RPS is extended from Field Lane to the eastern side boundary of No. 1A Clifford Street, the residents of these units without on-site parking will be eligible to participate in the RPS. If parking remains unrestricted from the eastern side boundary of No. 1A Clifford Street to Moruben Road, approximately seven unrestricted kerbside parking spaces will be available opposite the objector’s property, No. 2 Clifford Street, and this will overcome his objection. It has not been possible, due to staff changes , to investigate the problems of parking at 12 Clifford Street. However, Council’s Policy on RPS is about to be reviewed and the parking problems at 12 Clifford Street will receive consideration during the review. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The cost of the necessary signposting will be met from Council’s allocation for traffic facilities. IMPLICATIONS FOR BICYCLE STRATEGY On Mosman Bicycle Network but no implications. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations • Letter of objection from Craig Balenzuela, 1/2 Clifford Street


T/40 Raglan Street - Pedestrian Crossing and Bus Zones MOSPLAN REF: 11.04.01 REPORT BY: Traffic Engineer, Sam Sathanesan SUMMARY Consideration of a proposal to extend the existing “No Stopping” restrictions and alteration to the bus zones in Raglan Street near The Esplanade. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Planning and Transport recommends: That the following be advertised for public comment: A. The existing “No Stopping” restriction on the northern side of Raglan Street, west of

The Esplanade, be increased in length by 13 metres in a westerly direction. B. The existing “No Stopping” restriction on the southern side of Raglan Street, west of

The Esplanade, be increased in length by 4 metres in a westerly direction. C. The bus zones on both sides of Raglan Street be altered as per Plan No TR/783. Can this Item be resolved by the Committee: Yes Mr John Heapy, State Transit Authority (STA) addressed the meeting. There was a general discussion on adopting Item A of the Recommendation and taking no further action with regard to Items B and C, but this was not supported. COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION Motion Cox/Cameron That the Officer's Recommendation be adopted. CARRIED For: Cameron, Fenton, Cox Against: Elsegood HISTORY This matter has no history. REPORT At the Council meeting on 7 February 2005 Councillor Reid asked the following Question Without Notice:

“Since Arbutus Street has been closed I have on some occasions gone via The Esplanade. On 3 separate occasions congestion has


occurred due to wider buses with their backs hanging out from the bus stop in Raglan Street. Clearly this area needs to be re-engineered.”

At present, there are two bus stops and a pedestrian crossing in Raglan Street at the intersection with The Esplanade. The bus zone on the northern side of Raglan Street is 23.0 metres in length and the bus zone on the southern side of Raglan Street is 14.5 metres in length. The kerbside spaces between the eastern end of the existing bus zones and the crossing are signposted as “No Stopping” and the corresponding lengths are 7.0 metres and 6.0 metres respectively. The Roads and Traffic Authority’s (RTA’s) Technical Direction 2002/12 requires a “No Stopping” restriction of 20 metres on the approach side of a pedestrian crossing and 10 metres of “No Stopping” restriction on the departure side of a pedestrian crossing. Therefore the “No Stopping” restrictions associated with this crossing should be 13.0 metres (north side) and 4.0 metres (south side) longer than those currently on site. It should be noted that there is requirement for Council to undertake an audit on all the pedestrian crossings in Mosman by the end of June 2005 to ensure that they comply with RTA’s current standards. In light of this requirement, it is considered appropriate to extend the “No Stopping” restrictions in accordance with the Authority’s Technical Direction. The extension of “No Stopping” restrictions would require alteration to the existing bus zones as shown on Plan No TR / 783. It is expected that the proposal to extend the “No Stopping” restrictions and alteration to the bus zones will improve safety at this location and will assist in overcoming the problem raised in the Question Without Notice by Councillor Reid. It is recommended that the proposal be advertised for public comment. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications at this stage. BICYCLE STRATEGY IMPLICATIONS There are no implications. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations

• Plan No TR/783


T/45 88-92 Spit Road - Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP)

MOSPLAN REF: 11.04.02 REPORT BY: Contract Engineer, Brian Leckey SUMMARY Consideration of the CTMP for the redevelopment of properties 88-92 Spit Road. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Planning & Transport recommends that: The CTMP for 88-92 Spit Road be amended to provide for all access to and from the site during demolition, excavation and construction of the new building to be from Spit Road. Can this Item be resolved by the Committee: Yes COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION Motion Fenton/Cox That the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) as submitted by the applicant be endorsed. CARRIED For: Cameron, Fenton, Cox Against: Elsegood HISTORY This matter has no history. REPORT In 2003 Council received a development application for properties 88-92 Spit Road for the demolition of three existing dwellings and the erection of a four-storey building containing 18 residential units and basement parking. Council’s Traffic Section gave consideration to the application in May 2003 and required as a condition of development consent the submission of a CTMP for approval by the Traffic Committee. Council refused the development application in December 2003 and the applicant lodged an appeal with the Land & Environment Court. At the hearing of the appeal, Council gave evidence that in consideration of the amenity of Dalton Road residents and particularly the fact that there was a retirement complex in Dalton Road adjoining the development, all demolition, excavation and construction traffic should enter the site from Spit Road.


The Court did not impose a condition that Spit Road be used for access and left the matter for consideration by the Traffic Committee. A CTMP has been submitted showing all access to and from the site from Dalton Road. A copy of the CTMP is attached to the members’ business papers. Also attached are Council’s comments on a draft CTMP submitted by Traffic Plans Management & Control earlier this year and a copy of the letter by Traffic Plans Management & Control referring to Council’s comments on the draft CTMP. The final CTMP is not in accordance with Council’s desire that access be from Spit Road. The CTMP also proposes the use of large trucks with dog trailers having a total length of 19 metres. No turning movement diagrams have been submitted to show how these vehicles will enter and leave the site. The distance between kerbs in Dalton Road is approximately 12 metres and this will require a number of turning movements by the large trucks within the public road area to either enter or leave the site. The traffic route proposed for these vehicles will be a section of Cowles Road where there is a 3 tonne load limit. This section of Cowles Road is also an important traffic artery during the morning peak period. The queue of cars waiting at the Cowles Road / Ourimbah Road traffic signals extends down Cowles Road to well north of Awaba Street and often to Bay Street. Manoeuvring large trucks from Dalton Road into Cowles Road during the morning peak period will create a further delay to Cowles Road peak hour traffic. If Dalton Road is to be used for access to and from the site, truck sizes should be limited to 11/12 tonnes and no truck movements in or out of Dalton Road should be permitted before 9.00 am Monday to Friday. There is no load limit on Spit Road and it is possible to prepare a CTMP providing for safe access to and from the site off Spit Road. This should be the preferred method in view of the load limit in Cowles Road, the inconvenience to peak hour traffic in Cowles Road and obvious inconvenience to the residents of Dalton Road and Cowles Road. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications. IMPLICATIONS FOR BICYCLE STRATEGY There are no implications. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations • Letter to Traffic Plans Management & Control re amended CTMP • Construction Traffic Management Plan


13. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Questions Without Notice to be submitted by Councillors for consideration.


14. CORRESPONDENCE

COR/15 Correspondence - Community Relations Commission MOSPLAN REF: 01.01.03 RECOMMENDATION That the correspondence be received. CORRESPONDENCE The Community Relations Commission has forwarded a copy of the Community Relations Report 2004 which provides an overview of achievements and developments in community relations in NSW and a comprehensive account of government activity in the area of multicultural policy in the State. The Report is available for perusal from the Director Community Development.


COR/16 Correspondence - Matale Municipal Council MOSPLAN REF: 01.01.03 RECOMMENDATION That the correspondence be received. CORRESPONDENCE Following the Lake Toba Summit the Mayor of Matale Municipal Council, Sri Lanka, wrote to the Mayor:


COR/17 Correspondence - Department of Local Government MOSPLAN REF: 01.03.02 RECOMMENDATION That the correspondence be received. CORRESPONDENCE The Director General, Department of Local Government, has issued the following circular:

CODES OF MEETING PRACTICE - COUNCILLORS INVITED TO SPEAK AFTER DECLARING A PECUNIARY INTEREST IN A MATTER The Department has become aware that a number of councils, either within their adopted codes of meeting practice or by convention, purport to grant to councillors the right to address council or committee meetings on matters in which the councillors have declared a pecuniary interest. Typically, this right is given to the councillor in the capacity as a member of the public, prior to leaving the meeting.

Section 451 of the Local Government Act 1993 states that a councillor must not be present at, or in sight of the meeting of the council at any time during which a matter in relation to which the councillor has a pecuniary interest is being considered by the council.

The department interprets this provision to prohibit a councillor from remaining at a meeting or within sight of a meeting when the matter is being discussed, even if the councillor purports to do so as a member of the public.

In the recent Pecuniary Interest and Disciplinary Tribunal decision of Clr Kemper (PIT No 4/2001), the Tribunal found that the term “matter” is not limited to discussion and consideration that takes place in the context of a formulated motion or resolution.

Therefore, a councillor who addresses a meeting on a “matter” in which the councillor has declared a pecuniary interest may still be in breach of section 451 of the Act despite the fact that council is not at the time considering a formal motion on the matter. Councils should review their codes of meeting practice and if necessary remove any provisions of this kind.


COR/18 Correspondence - NSW Attorney General MOSPLAN REF: 08.01.09 RECOMMENDATION That the correspondence be received. CORRESPONDENCE On 16 May 2005 the Mayor wrote to the NSW Attorney General in support of a submission from Centacare for funding for the North Sydney Domestic Violence Court Assistance Scheme. The Mayor has now received the following response:


COR/19 Correspondence - Paid Parking at Balmoral MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.01 RECOMMENDATION That the correspondence be received. CORRESPONDENCE B.K. Purdy writes to the Mayor:


COR/20 Correspondence - Electoral Roll MOSPLAN REF: 01.01.11 RECOMMENDATION That the correspondence be received. CORRESPONDENCE The Hon Tony Abbott has forwarded the following letter responding to a query from the General Manager regarding the current availability of the electoral roll.


COR/21 Correspondence - Department of Local Government MOSPLAN REF: 02.05.08 RECOMMENDATION That the correspondence be received. CORRESPONDENCE Following Circular has been received from the Department of Local Government:

PAYMENT OF GRATUITIES AND OTHER BONUSES TO EMPLOYEES ON TERMINATION In line with a council’s charter obligations to effectively account for and manage the assets for which it is responsible, councils must carefully consider the merits of paying gratuities or other bonuses to employees on termination of employment. Employment practices and pay arrangements in the public sector are, rightly and properly, the subject of higher levels of external scrutiny and accountability than operates in the general community. Council and other public sector employees are paid from income derived from rates and taxes. The payment of gratuities and other bonuses on termination can put at risk public confidence in councils as responsible custodians of public assets. This is particularly so where there is no legal obligation to make such payments. There is less risk where bonuses are paid under a properly documented and performance based salary bonus scheme. Councils should consider other more appropriate ways of recognising long and meritorious service than making such payments. Councils should ensure that they observe a high standard of transparency throughout the process. Councils must ensure senior staff remuneration is accurately reported in the council’s annual report, including any gratuity and/or bonus payments. Councils are also reminded of the need to ensure that they comply with applicable Australian Taxation Office reporting requirements. Section 354A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires councils to obtain Ministerial consent to non-exempted payments to the general manager or other senior staff member of the council in relation to termination of employment (including termination on the ground of redundancy). The Minister may refuse to approve a payment if the Minister is not satisfied the payment is appropriate. Councils are requested to review their existing human resources policies, procedures and employment agreements, in light of the issues raised in this circular.


15. NOTICE OF MOTIONS/RECISSION MOTIONS

Notice of Motion - Council Policy on Provision of information to Councillors Regarding Council Meetings and Site Inspections of Properties

SUBMITTED BY: Councillor Wilton MOSPLAN REF: 04.02.02 NOTICE OF MOTION A. That councillors receive copies of letters sent to Council, by residents or their

representatives, in the attachments to the Council agendas for Council meetings. These attachments can be on disc or hard copy according to the Councillor’s needs.

B. That Councillors and residents requests for the inclusion of a property in the Council

Planning Meeting Inspections will be decided by the majority of Councillors present on the day of inspections.

C. That these resolutions be written into Council policy.


Notice of Motion - Changes to the Code of Meeting Practice SUBMITTED BY: Councillor Wilton MOSPLAN REF: 01.01.02 NOTICE OF MOTION That the Code of Meeting Practice be amended in Section 38 Voting at Council Meetings to delete clause [6] [6] A Councillor must not vote on a matter where they have absented themselves during the whole or part of hearing of oral submissions by some parties to Council or Committee meetings and must not return to the Chamber until voting has concluded on the subject matter before the Chair.


Notice of Motion - Aboriginal Heritage Officer SUBMITTED BY: Councillor Wilton MOSPLAN REF: 04.02.06 NOTICE OF MOTION That Mosman Council appoint an Aboriginal Heritage Officer, such as in our neighbouring councils of Warringah, North Sydney, Lane Cove, Willoughby, Manly, Hunters Hill and Pittwater to implement the Mosman Aboriginal Heritage Study and in accord with MOSPLAN.


Notice of Motion - Community Information Meeting re Mosman Prep School DA 8.2004.395.1

SUBMITTED BY: Councillor Wilton MOSPLAN REF: 04.02.02 NOTICE OF MOTION That a community information meeting be publicised and held on an evening before this matter comes to council, with staff and residents of the following streets: Shadforth, Raglan and Canrobert, regarding the amended plans for DA 8.2004.395.1 Mosman PREP School, due to community concern about lack of information on the amended proposal and time constraints in which to respond.


Notice of Motion - Cancer Council Community Partner SUBMITTED BY: Councillor Brown MOSPLAN REF: 06.04.10 NOTICE OF MOTION Mosman Municipal Council acknowledges the high level of physical and emotional suffering, premature death and financial burden caused by cancer in this community. By becoming a Cancer Council Community Partner, we undertake to help lower the impact of this insidious disease in our community by:

• Learning about and adopting new policies that will help reduce the incidence of cancer in our area.

• Supporting Cancer Council advocacy campaigns that will benefit the people of our community.

• Using our communication channels, venues and networks to help deliver Cancer Council information and education.

• Allowing free use of Council venues and other resources for support group meetings, education programs and other activities that benefit cancer patients and their families in our area.

• Supporting Cancer Council efforts in our area to raise money for cancer research, prevention and support.

Further, Mosman Municipal Council nominates two appropriate staff members as the dedicated Relationship Managers for this community partnership Background Cancer directly affects one in three people in the community – and everyone else will see and feel the impact in physical and emotional suffering, premature death and financial burden. Australians have identified it as their number one health concern (Roy Morgan poll). While Local Government doesn’t have control over spending in hospitals or on Medicare, there are many ways to help reduce the impact of cancer on our community, and Councils are well placed to provide a real boost to the wellbeing of residents. The Cancer Council NSW has been working with Local Government across NSW on an informal basis for a long time through a range of activities, including Relay for Life, Smoke-free playgrounds and beaches, advice on sun-safety for workers, and the provision of free cancer information through local libraries. The Cancer Council NSW has approached Council to enter into a community partnership: a formal relationship between The Cancer Council NSW and Mosman Council. This involves Council affirming its commitment to reduce the impact of cancer in the local community by –

• Learning about and adopting new policies that will lead to a reduction in the incidence of cancer;

• Supporting Cancer Council advocacy campaigns that benefit the residents of Mosman Council:

• Using Council communication channels, venues, staff and networks to disseminate Cancer Council health promotion and patient support materials;

• Helping the Cancer Council to support patients and their families in your community by allowing use of Council venues for support group meetings and education programs; and


• Supporting Cancer Council efforts to raise money in the local area. When Council becomes a Community Partner, The Cancer Council NSW will provide materials, draft policies, and a suggested range of activities free of charge. Each year, new programs will be developed to help educate and support councils, their residents and their staff. In the coming year these will include the provision of cancer information and support centres in local libraries; advice on shade provision in childcare centres and playgrounds and skin cancer prevention materials for older residents. The Cancer Council NSW will also provide free health-related copy for use in Council columns in newspapers and in Council newsletters. Council will be required to nominate two senior staff as Relationship Managers with the Cancer Council. These people will receive all correspondence from The Cancer Council NSW regarding the Partnership, and will facilitate future contact with appropriate Council staff as needed. The Cancer Council NSW will provide information updates on a six-monthly basis to Council’s Relationship Managers. Council will then be able to decide which programs to participate in. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations • Statistics on Cancer across NSW and in the Mosman Local Government Area • Information on the Cancer Council NSW Community Partner Programs • Information on the Cancer Council NSW – Sydney Metropolitan Regional Office


Notice of Motion - Mosman Square Community Arts Mural Project SUBMITTED BY: Councillor Brown MOSPLAN REF: 06.03.06 NOTICE OF MOTION That the graffiti on the wall opposite the Seniors Centre be painted over and the wall improved through a creative community arts project especially for young people at a cost not to exceed $2000. Council would invite young artists of Mosman to create a temporary artwork and aerosol mural under the direction of an established and respected Aerosol artist. The theme of the mural would be ‘Mosman Vistas’ – the young people’s response to the natural beauty of Mosman landscapes. The wall would be painted heritage green and the aerosol mural would be painted in colours from heritage palette – biscuit, brick reds, cream etc. The recruitment of the young artists would be through the schools and the Gallery/Youth Centre’s contacts lists. The management of the project would be undertaken by the Gallery’s Exhibitions Officer and the Youth Development Centre Coordinator. The total cost of the project not to exceed $2,000. It is anticipated that the mural project could be completed before the Mosman Festival in September and would build community spirit with the following benefits: • Offering young people the chance to work with a professional aerosol artist and to

extend their skills in their preferred art form. • The creation of a special community arts project which can be widely appreciated by all

generations. • The beautification of the Mosman Square would be of benefit to the Seniors’ Centre

attendees, local businesses and the general Mosman community, Although new legislation permits Council to paint out graffiti where it is in the public domain, owner’s permission would be needed for a mural project to proceed and although the building is to be re-developed it is unlikely that that will occur before 2006 therefore it is likely that the art work would be in place for at least 6 months Budget • Cost of under painting the wall = whole wall :$1230.00, up to arm’s length - where graffiti

is - $650 • Aerosol artists fee =$1,000 (includes 2 workshops with students) • Aerosol paints = $320 Local Government Amendment (Graffiti) Bill 2003 Schedule 1 Amendments Under section 67A of the Local Government Act 1993, a council may, by agreement with the owner or occupier of any private land, carry out graffiti removal work on the land. Under section 67B of that Act, a council may also, without the agreement of the owner or occupier of any land, carry out at the council’s expense graffiti removal work to property on that land if the graffiti is visible from a public place and the graffiti removal work required can be carried out from a public place.

agenda template council · resume ordinary meeting the ordinary meeting resumes at the conclusion...

Documents