4381 - Hunter`s Hill Council

Transcription

Hunter's Hill Council
Ordinary Meeting
No. 4381
22 June 2015 at 7.30 PM
ORDER OF BUSINESS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Acknowledgement of Country
Prayer
Attendance, Apologies,
Declarations of Interests
Confirmation of Minutes
Mayoral Minutes & Reports
Tabling of Petitions
Addresses from the Public
Notice of Motions
(including Rescission Motions)
Reports from Staff
Our Heritage & Built Environment
Our Community & Lifestyle
Our Environment
Moving Around
Our Council
Committees
Correspondence
Delegates Reports
General Business
Questions With or Without Notice
Council in Committee of the Whole
HUNTER'S HILL COUNCIL
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL
Meeting 4381 - 22 June 2015
INDEX
1 – CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
1
Confirmation of Minutes of Ordinary Meeting 4380 held 9 June 2015
2 - MAYORAL MINUTES & REPORTS
Nil
3 - NOTICES OF MOTION INCLUDING RESCISSION MOTIONS
Nil
4 - OUR HERITAGE & BUILT ENVIRONMENT
4.1
4.2
Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013 - Draft Replacement Chapter 4.4
(Gladesville Village Centre)
1
Report of Legal Matters
76
5 - OUR COMMUNITY & LIFESTYLE
5.1
License agreement Henley Cottage
83
6 - OUR ENVIRONMENT
Nil
7 - MOVING AROUND
Nil
8 - OUR COUNCIL
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
Summary Of Council Investments as at 31 May 2015
93
Waste Tender
96
Local Government Remuneration Tribunal - Annual Report and Determination Councillors Fees 2015/2016
111
Monthly Report on Outstanding Matters
134
9 - COMMITTEES
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
Minutes of the Hunters Hill Art Exhibition Advisory Committee Meeting held
Wednesday 3 June 2015
Minutes of the Moocooboola Festival Advisory Committee Meeting held
Wednesday 10 June 2015
Report on Councillor Wokshop and Briefings held 9 June 2015
Meeting of Mayors and General Managers of Councils of Northern Sydney
Minutes of the Hunters Hill Seniors Advisory Group Meeting held 1 June 2015
140
145
149
151
173
10 - CORRESPONDENCE
10.1 Correspondence
Item
177
Page 3
11 - DELEGATES REPORTS
11.1 Future of Local Government National Summit
184
12 - GENERAL BUSINESS
12.1 Meetings - Various Committees of Council
188
13 - QUESTIONS WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE
Nil
Item
Page 4
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
COMMENCEMENT
The meeting opened with Acknowledgement of Country and Prayer at 7.30 pm.
IN ATTENDANCE
The Mayor Councillor Richard Quinn, Deputy Mayor Councillor Meredith Sheil, Councillors Peter
Astridge, Mark Bennett, Gary Bird, Justine McLaughlin and Zac Miles.
ALSO PRESENT
The General Manager Barry Smith, the Group Manager Development and Regulatory Control
Steve Kourepis and the Group Manager Works and Services David Innes.
APOLOGIES
No apologies were received.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Quinn declared an interest in Item 3.1, the interest being a non-pecuniary interest in
relation to knowing one of the tenderers through a work association.
177/15
RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Miles, seconded Clr Bennett
That the Minutes of Ordinary Meeting No. 4379, 2015 be confirmed.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
178/15
RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheil, seconded Clr Bennett
That at 07:32 PM Standing Orders be suspended to vary the Order of Business to
allow item 3.1 to be discussed following Item 9.4.
RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS
179/15
That at 07:33 PM Standing Orders be resumed.
REPORTS FROM STAFF
OUR HERITAGE & BUILT ENVIRONMENT
4.1
6 ALEXANDRA STREET, HUNTERS HILL
PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF
Michael Philip Aston (Objector) addressed Council on this matter.
Brad Jamieson (Objector) addressed Council on this matter.
Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 4380 held on 9 June 2015.
This is page 1
180/15
RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr McLaughlin
That Mr Paul Connor (Architect) representing the Applicant be permitted to
address Council on this matter.
Clr Bennett foreshadowed a motion that the matter is again deferred for a
conciliation conference to be held and brought back to Council at the earliest
opportunity.
181/15
RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheil, seconded Clr Miles
That at 8.07 PM Standing Orders be suspended to Councillors to view plans.
182/15
RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Miles, seconded Clr McLaughlin
That at 8.10 PM Standing Orders be resumed.
183/15
RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Miles
A.
That the development application relating to the development being
granted a “Deferred commencement” consent No.DA2014/1158 be
approved pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act, 1979 in respect of No.6 Alexandra Street, Hunters Hill
for the carrying out alterations & additions to the dwelling plus a
detached rear garage and pool.
B.
The development consent as contained in Schedule 2 shall not operate
(or be issued) until such time as the matters contained in Schedule 1 are
finalised to the satisfaction of Council.
Schedule 1
1.
Measures being implemented to reduce the floor/floor and floor/ceiling
heights as recommended in that the upper floor level ceiling height be
lowered to 2550 mm and the lower floor ceiling height be lowered by 300
mm to 2700 mm i.e.: reducing the overall height of the dwelling by 450
mm in total ensuring the following RLs are maintained;
Ridge level 42.65
Upper floor ceiling level 41.55
Upper floor level 39.00
Ground floor ceiling level 38.7
Ground floor level 36.00
2.
A sample board of the actual swatches/samples of the colours and
finishes of the proposal is to be provided.
3.
The proposed garage structure being reduced in width to not more than
6 metres to minimise the effect of a wide structure being situated close
to the alignment of Cullens Lane streetscape
4.
The proposed garage structure being setback a minimum of 1.5 metres
from the eastern side boundary of the site to provide for effective
landscaping to be provided.
This is page 2
5.
The landscaping plan being amended to provide for the relocated and
reduced size garage and to reflect the conditions of Council’s Tree
Consultant. In order to remove the visual volume of the proposal in the
background of the extension the plans are to be amended.
(a)
C.
The Architectural Plans (prepared by Connor & Solomon, dwg
no DA 01 Rev A – DA 11 Rev A, dated December 2014, date
stamped 12 December 2014) and Landscape Plans (prepared
by Jason Packenham Landscape Architect, dwg no L-001 – L002, dated 21.03.2015, not date stamped) shall be amended to
show:

The paving in the area between the eastern
boundary fence and the swimming pool deleted and
replaced with a planted ground cover.

The existing Cullens Lane driveway crossover
retained insitu.

The concrete stepping stones between the garage
and Cullens Lane deleted.

The transplanted Magnolia relocated to the far
north-western corner of the site.

That the pear tree remain on the property and is to
be shown on the Architectural Plans and the
Landscape Plans.
That Development Application No.2014/1158 for the carrying out of
alterations & additions to the dwelling plus a detached rear garage
and at No.6 Alexandra Street, Hunters Hill, be approved, subject to
the following conditions:
Schedule 2
1.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Environment Planning & Assessment
Act 1979 this approval shall lapse and be void if the building work or use
to which it refers is not physically commenced within five (5) years after
the date of approval.
2.
The development consent No.2014/1158 relates to the plans prepared
by Connor & Solomon Architects numbered DA 01 to DA 09 Revision A
dated December 2014, as received by Council on 12 December 2014,
except where amended by conditions of development consent.
3.
The finished surface materials and colours being provided in accordance
with plan No.DA 10 prepared by Connor & Solomon Architects dated
December 2014 as received by Council on 12 December 2014.
4.
Pursuant to section 80A(1) of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979, and the Hunters Hill Section 94A Developer
Contributions Plan 2011, a contribution of $6,490.00 shall be paid to
council.
This is page 3
The amount to be paid is to be adjusted (if required) at the time of the
actual payment, in accordance with the provisions of Hunters Hill Section
94A Developer Contributions Plan 2011. The contribution must be paid to
Council:
(a)
in the case of Complying Development;

prior to the time notice is given to Council under s86 of
the Act of the applicant's intention to subdivide,
commence work or erect a building; prior to the
commencement of any work
5.
The provision of any pump for a rainwater tank, swimming pool and any
air-conditioning equipment to be installed on the outside of the building
being acoustically treated to ensure that noise does not exceed 5dBA
above ambient noise levels on the boundaries at any time.
6.
Any rainwater tank not being connected up to Sydney Water’s mains
supply for its topping up with water.
7.
Tree Management Controls
Trees covered under the provisions of Hunters Hill Council’s Tree
Management Controls shall be retained except where Council’s prior
written consent has been given.
8.
Tree Protection
(a)
Tree protection measures shall be in accordance with those
outlined in the supplied Arboricultural Assessment Report and
Tree Protection Specification (prepared by Jackson Nature
Works, dated 30 March 2015) and these Conditions of Consent.
(b)
Prior to the commencement of works of on-site (including any
demolition or site enabling works), Tree Protection Zone/s
(TPZ) shall be established around trees to be retained at the
following radial distances specified below.
Tree No or
Location
13
22
Front of site,
western side
Front of site,
western side
Adjacent
Cullens Lane
Species
Jacaranda mimosifolia
(Jacaranda)
(Jacaranda)
(Jacaranda)
Brachichiton acerifolius
(Illawarra Flame Tree)
Pyrus spp. (Pear)
TPZ (m)
4m
7m
12 x DBH
12 x DBH
12 x DBH
* Tree Protection Plan and
Pruning Specification
conditioned for Deferred
Commencement.
This is page 4
(c)
(d)
9.
The TPZ must:

be enclosed with 1.8m (minimum) high, fully supported
temporary weld mesh fencing panels.

be maintained for the duration of the development
works and shall not be realigned without prior
authorisation from the Project Arborist.

have signs identifying the TPZ which are visible from
within the development site.
The following works are excluded from within the TPZ, unless
otherwise stated:

Grade alteration, soil cultivation, disturbance or
compaction

Stockpiling, storage, disposal or mixing of materials

Refuelling and washing of machinery or vehicles

Pedestrian or vehicular access

Siting of offices, sheds or temporary services

Any action that has the potential to impact the tree’s
health and structural condition
Tree Removal
(a)
The following trees may be removed:
1.
Tree No or
Location
19
12
14
N/A
Species
Location
Schinus molle (Pepper
Tree)
Chamaecyparis obtuse
‘Crippsii’
Camellia sasanqua
(Camellia)
Rear of site (Cullens
Lane)
Rear eastern side
boudary
Rear eastern side
boundary
Rear of site,
adjacent existing
garage (Cullens
Lane)
Pyrus spp. (Pear)
(b)
Tree removal work shall be undertaken in accordance with the
Workcover Code of Practice for the Amenity Tree Industry
(1998).
( C)
Stump grinding/removal shall not be undertaken where stumps
are located within the Structural Root Zone (as defined by
Australian Standard 4970-2009 Protection of Trees on
Development Sites) of any tree to be retained.
This is page 5
(d)
10.
(b)
12.
13.
Tree removal work shall be undertaken without damaging
adjacent trees.
Tree Pruning
(a)
11.
The pruning of Tree 22 Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda)
shall be undertaken in accordance with those outlined in
Section [3] of the supplied Arboricultural Assessment Report
[prepared by (Jackson Nature Works), dated (30 March
2015)].
Pruning works for the Pyrus spp. (Pear) shall be limited to no
more than 15% of the crown volume.
(c)
Tree pruning shall be undertaken in accordance with AS
4373-2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees (2007) and the
Workcover Code of Practice for the Amenity Tree Industry
(1998).
(d)
Tree pruning shall be undertaken without damage to adjacent
trees.
Arboricultural Supervision
(a)
A Project Arborist shall be engaged prior to commencement
of work on-site and monitor compliance with the tree
protection measures as set out within the supplied
Arboricultural Assessment Report and Tree Protection
Specification (prepared by Jacksons Nature Works, dated 30
March 2015) and these Conditions of Consent.
(b)
All works within the TPZ of Tree 13, Tree 22 and the Pyrus spp.
(Pear) to be retained shall be supervised by the Project Arborist
(c)
A Compliance Certificate shall be prepared by the Project
Arborist for review by the Principal Certifying Authority showing
compliance with the supplied Arborist Report and these
Conditions of Consent prior to the release of the Occupation
Certificate.
Landscaping to Approved Plan
(a)
The landscaping shall be undertaken as per the Landscape
Plans, [prepared by (Jason Packenham Landscape Architects),
dated (21.03.2015)] and these Conditions of Consent.
(b)
The landscaping shall be completed prior to the issue of the
final Occupation Certificate.
Tree Supply
(a)
The tree planting shall be undertaken using healthy and
vigorous stock grown accordance with Australian Standard
AS2303-2015 Tree Stock for Landscape Use.
This is page 6
14.
15.
16.
17.
Tree Planting
(a)
The tree planting shall be completed prior to the issue of the
final Occupation Certificate.
(b)
The tree planting shall be undertaken by a qualified
Horticulturalist or Arborist (minimum AQF Level 2) and shall be
undertaken at the completion of the construction works.
(c)
New tree plantings will be covered by Council’s Tree
Management Controls, irrespective of size.
Compliance with Landscape Plan
(a)
A Landscape Architect/Horticulturalist (minimum AQF Level 5)
shall inspect the site following the completion of the landscape
works to determine that works have been completed in
accordance with the approved Landscape Plan and Conditions
of Consent.
(b)
Compliance Certification shall be prepared by the Landscape
Architect/Horticulturalist (minimum AQF Level 5) for review by
the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the
Occupational Certificate.
Landscape Maintenance
(a)
All new landscape plantings must be in a healthy condition for
an establishment period of 2 years. Maintenance includes
watering, weeding, pest and disease control and any other
operations required to maintain the plantings in a healthy
condition.
(b)
Any landscape planting which fails to establish within the 2 year
establishment period must be replaced with the same size and
species as outlined on the approved plans or Conditions of
Consent.
Tree management
Construction Methodology Rear Extension including terrace steps,
Garage and Swimming Pool
(a)
Footings for the rear extension, garage and terrace steps
shall be isolated pier or pier and beam construction within the
specified radius of the following trees:
Tree No or
Location
Adjacent to
proposed garage
22
Species
Pyrus spp. (Pear).
Jacaranda
mimosifolia
(Jacaranda)
TPZ (m)
12 x DBH
7m
This is page 7
18.
19.
(b)
The piers shall be located such that no roots of a diameter
greater than 40mm will be severed or damaged during the
construction period. Pier holes shall be sleeved to prevent
encapsulation in concrete. The beam(s) shall be placed above
existing grade.
(c)
Excavations for any pier and beam footings located within the
Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of Tree 22 and the Pyrus spp.
(Pear), must be supervised by a qualified Arborist (min AQF
Level 5).
(d)
The garage shall be constructed on an above grade slab.
(e)
Structural details of the pier or pier and beam construction shall
be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority. Prior to the
release of the final Occupation Certificate, the Principal
Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the footings within the
TPZ of Tree 22 and the Pyrus spp. (Pear) (as specified in (a)
above) comply with these Conditions of Consent.
(f)
No over-excavation towards Tree 13 Jacaranda mimosifolia
(Jacaranda) shall occur for construction of the swimming pool.
Tree Transplantation
(a)
The transplantation of Tree 21 Magnolia x soulangiana
(Saucer Magnolia) shall be undertaken in accordance with
the Tree Transplant Method Statement (prepared by
Jacksons Nature Works, dated 30 March 2015) and under
the supervision of the Project Arborist.
(b)
Tree transplantation shall be undertaken without damaging
adjacent trees.
Tree Protection Plan and Pruning Specification
(a)
A Tree Protection Plan and Pruning Specification shall be
prepared for the Pyrus spp. (Pear) by an Arborist (AQF Level
5). The Tree Protection Plan shall be submitted to Council as
a requirement of the Deferred Commencement. The report
shall address the construction of the garage. The report is to
be based on methods outlined within Australian Standard
4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites and
shall address:

Demolition of the existing slab and garage.

Removal and replacement of existing stone wall.

Removal of the existing driveway apron and
construction of new driveway at/above existing
grade to ensure the retention of all roots >40mm. All
works within the TPZ shall be supervised of the
Project Arborist (AQF Level 5).
This is page 8
20.
Landscape management
Alternative Species
(a)
The proposed Pyrostegia venusta (Orange Trumpet Creeper)
shall be replaced with one of the following:



Pandorea pandorana (Wonga-Wonga Vine)
Trachelospermum jasminoides (Star Jasmine)
Pandorea jasminoides (Bower Vine)
Additional Amenity Species
One (1) Pyrus calleryana ‘Aristocrat’ (Ornamental Pear) shall
be incorporated into the landscape works for the rear of the
site. The tree shall be supplied and installed as a 75L
specimen
(a)
Standard Conditions:
A4 to A9, B1, B7 ($1,300), C1 to C5, C19, C34, C35, C40, C44, S1, SP1 to SP10,
SP12, SP14, SP16 to SP19, W1.
RECORD OF VOTING
Yes
Clr Richard Quinn
Clr Peter Astridge
Clr Mark Bennett
Clr Gary Bird
Clr Zac Miles
4.2
Against
Clr Meredith Sheil
Clr Justine McLaughlin
EXHIBITION OF PLANNING PROPOSAL ADDRESSING HERITAGE
AMENDMENTS TO LEP 2012 (INCLUDING 10 COWELL STREET)
Prior to consideration of the following matter the Mayor advised the meeting that
Council’s Consultant presented to Councillors, for information only, options currently
being considered for future development and that these options included 10 Cowell
Street in some form or other. A strong recommendation was given to the applicant
that this information should be shared with the community.
Mr Phil Jenkyn (Objector) addressed the Council on this matter.
Mr Justin Parry-Okeden (Objector) addressed the Council on this matter.
Mr Ross Williams (Objector) addressed the Council on this matter.
Mr David Kettle (Supporter) addressed the Council on this matter and tabled a
presentation.
184/15
.
That Mr Kettle be allowed an extension of time to complete his presentation.
Clr Astridge foreshadowed a motion that the resolution below be amended so that
Part 2 is deleted and an additional section e reads as follows:
This is page 9
e.
185/15
In Schedule Five of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012 list as a
heritage item the original part of the timber cottage located at 10 Cowell
Street, Gladesville. This includes the front four-square rooms of the
timber cottage that are finished with Art Nouveau influenced pressed
metal wall and ceiling panelling. It also includes the verandah and
balustrade that wrap along the eastern and southern sides of the
cottage.
1.
That Council exercising the functions of the Minister of Planning under
section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
(delegated by instrument of delegation dated 14 October 2012) to
proceed with making the amendments to Hunters Hill Local
Environmental Plan 2012 as listed below:
a.
Correct the omission of three Heritage Items from Schedule 5 of
LEP 2012



2.
13 Alexander Street, Hunters Hill
7 Batemans Road, Gladesville
Pedestrian and Vehicular Tunnel under Victoria Road.
b.
Remove the listing 1b Toocooya Road as this duplicates the
heritage listing 24 Ferry Street, Hunters Hill.
c.
Correct the Lot and DP address for 5 Ferdinand Street, Hunters
Hill.
d.
Correct four minor heritage mapping errors (boundary line of
conservation area, 3 items listed but not shown on maps).
That the timber cottage located at 10 Cowell Street be added to
Schedule 5 of Hunters Hill LEP 2012.
RECORD OF VOTING
Yes
Clr Richard Quinn
Clr Meredith Sheil
Clr Mark Bennett
Clr Gary Bird
Clr Zac Miles
Against
Clr Peter Astridge
4.3
DELEGATED AUTHORITY REPORT
186/15
RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Miles, seconded Clr Bird
That the report be received and noted.
This is page 10
RECORD OF VOTING
Yes
Against
Clr Richard Quinn
Clr Meredith Sheil
Clr Peter Astridge
Clr Mark Bennett
Clr Gary Bird
Clr Zac Miles
4.4
REPORT OF LEGAL MATTERS
187/15
RECORD OF VOTING
Yes
Against
Clr Richard Quinn
Clr Meredith Sheil
Clr Peter Astridge
Clr Mark Bennett
Clr Gary Bird
Clr Zac Miles
OUR COMMUNITY & LIFESTYLE
5.1
AGED AND DISABILITY WORKER GRANT
188/15
1.
That Council accepts the extended funding being offered by the NSW
Family & Community Services Department for the employment of an
Aged and Disability Officer.
2.
That the General Manager be granted Delegated Authority to execute
the funding agreement.
RECORD OF VOTING
Yes
Against
Clr Richard Quinn
Clr Meredith Sheil
Clr Peter Astridge
Clr Mark Bennett
Clr Gary Bird
Clr Zac Miles
This is page 11
5.2
HUNTERS HILL SAILING CLUB : RENEWAL OF LICENCE
189/15
RESOLVED on the motion of Clr McLaughlin, seconded Clr Bennett
1.
That Council grant the Hunters Hill Sailing Club a 10 year licence on Lot
2 DP541186 for the use and occupation of the land for the purpose of
operation the Sailing Club.
2.
That the licence is to be for a 10 year period from September 2012 with
a 10 year option at its conclusion.
3.
That an annual fee is to be paid by the Sailing Club to Council according
to the formula set out in the licence.
4.
The Mayor and General Manager be authorised to execute the licence
agreement.
MOVING AROUND
7.1
ROAD RESURFACING PROGRAM
190/15
RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Miles, seconded Clr Astridge
That Council receive and note the report setting out the 2015/16 Road Resurfacing
Program.
OUR COUNCIL
8.1
CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION
8.2
REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE - COUNCILLOR RICHARD QUINN
191/15
RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Bennett, seconded Clr Miles
That Leave of Absence be granted to Councillor Richard Quinn for Ordinary Meeting
22 June 2015 and Ordinary Meeting 4382 to be held 13 July 2015 and that his
apology be recorded in the Minutes.
L.1
FIT FOR THE FUTURE
Mr Phil Jenkyn (Supporter) addressed the Council on this matter.
Mr Ross Williams (Supporter) addressed the Council on this matter.
Mr Russell Young addressed the Council on this matter.
192/15
RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheil, seconded Clr Miles
.
That an extension of time be granted to Mr Young to complete his presentation.
This is page 12
193/15
That Council:
1.
Notes the extensive analysis, research, evidence and community
consultation that has been undertaken as required by the Minister for Local
Government’s Fit for the Future program, in exploring all options and in
preparing Council’s response to the Fit for the Future program;
2.
Following Council’s extensive research and analysis, Council rejects the
proposed merger of Hunter’s Hill, Lane Cove, Willoughby, Mosman, North
Sydney and the eastern two thirds of the City of Ryde Councils, as
recommended by the Independent Review Panel, as it is not the superior
option for the reasons as detailed in this report;
3.
Endorses lodging the Draft Joint Submission (Attachment 9), in response to
the Fit for the Future program, with both Lane Cove and Ryde City Councils,
that details Council’s Template 2 submission (Council Improvement
Proposal) and the unique Joint Regional Authority proposal (Council’s
preferred option) and delegate to the General Manager, the authority to
complete and lodge Council’s submission, making any necessary
adjustments in finalising Council’s submission including strengthening in
Councils submission, the section addressing the social impacts of
amalgamation on Hunters Hill, with Final submission to be tabled at Council’s
next Ordinary Meeting 22 June 2015;
4.
Endorses including in the Joint Submission, as an incentive for the proposed
Joint Regional Authority (JRA), the option to pilot the JRA for a period of 12
months, with the Office of Local Government to be invited to provide a
representative as an observer on the JRA board;
5.
Demonstrates its commitment to being a member of the Joint Regional
Authority (JRA), and as a further incentive for Government, delegate to the
Mayor and the General Manager the authority to sign the Joint Regional
Authority - Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Council’s behalf
(Attachment 4);
6.
Endorses undertaking a future advocacy campaign with both Lane Cove and
Hunter’s Hill Councils, between July and November 2015, on an equal basis
in sharing costs to a maximum of $30,000 subject to a further report to
Council;
7.
Delegate to the Mayor and General Manager the authority to lodge a
submission and appear, if necessary, at the Parliamentary Inquiry;
8.
Places copies of Council’s submission in all Council Libraries, Customer
Service Centres and on Council’s website in addition to being forwarded to
the Minister for Local Government, the Chief Executive Officer of the Office
of Local Government all relevant State and Federal Members of Parliament,
all Unions and other key stakeholders as determined by the Mayor and
General Manager.
This is page 13
RECORD OF VOTING
Yes
Clr Richard Quinn
Clr Meredith Sheil
Clr Peter Astridge
Clr Mark Bennett
Clr Zac Miles
Against
Clr Gary Bird
COMMITTEES
9.1
MINUTES OF THE HUNTERS HILL ACCESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE HELD
THURSDAY 21 MAY 2015
194/15
RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Miles, seconded Clr Astridge
9.2
REPORT ON COUNCILLOR WORKSHOPS AND BRIEFINGS HELD 25 MAY 2015
195/15
9.3
REPORT ON GENERAL PURPOSE ON SITE INSPECTIONS HELD 25 MAY 2015
196/15
9.4
REPORT ON COUNCILLOR WORKSHOPS AND BRIEFINGS HELD 1 JUNE 2015
197/15
MOVED on the motion of Clr Bennett, seconded Clr Sheil
NOTICES OF MOTION INCLUDING RESCISSION MOTIONS
Clr Quinn left the meeting at 9:51 PM.
3.1
NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF COUNCIL DECISION
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 25 MAY 2015
ITEM 1.1 WASTE COLLECTION TENDER T-WS-15-1
198/15
RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Bird, seconded Clr Miles
Council’s resolution 176/15 is rescinded and that this matter is deferred and further
information be provided to Council regarding documented complaints data and
complaints handling procedures with the current contractor and provision of an
estimated DWM Fee for each of the various options.
Clr Quinn returned to the meeting at 9:55 PM.
This is page 14
GENERAL BUSINESS
12.1
MEETINGS - VARIOUS COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL
199/15
RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Miles, seconded Clr Bennett
QUESTIONS WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE
13.1
GSV DEVELOPMENT
QWN
12/15
Clr Justine McLaughlin asked the following question without notice:
Could Councillors please be provided with the date that Council officers last met with
Moch Pty Ltd and Consultants.
Could Councillors please be provided, as set out in a previous motion, as soon as
possible, a copy of the most recent meeting notes and any other notes from
meetings held between these parties in recent times that have not already been
provided to Councillors.
ANSWER:
Once the notes/minutes of the most recent meeting have been finalised by
Architectus, a copy will be provided to all Councillors.
All meeting notes from prior meetings have been supplied to Councillors as standard
practice.
TERMINATION
The meeting terminated at 10.00 pm.
I confirm that these Minutes are a true and accurate record of Ordinary Meeting No. 4380 held
on 9 June 2015.
.............................................
Councillor Richard Quinn
MAYOR
…………………………
Barry Smith
GENERAL MANAGER
This is page 15
ITEM NO
:
4.1
SUBJECT
:
CONSOLIDATED DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2013 DRAFT REPLACEMENT CHAPTER 4.4 (GLADESVILLE
VILLAGE CENTRE)
CSP OUTCOME
:
PROVISION AND MAINTENANCE OF HIGH QUALITY
PUBLIC SPACES
DELIVERY PLAN
STRATEGY
:
MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
REPORTING OFFICER
:
PHILIPPA HAYES
Ref:236544
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement to exhibit the Draft Chapter 4.4
Gladesville Village Centre (Attachment 1). It is intended this Draft Chapter will replace the
existing chapter 4.4 in Council’s Consolidated Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013.
Notice of exhibition will be given in the local newspaper, on Council’s webpage and two
information sessions will be provided for the public. Additionally 1450 notification letters will be
sent out to the residents of the Gladesville area who live on both sides of Victoria Road,
Gladesville. This will replicate the original mail-out that occurred to notify residents of the
commencement of the “Future Gladesville” project.
Background
In 2010 a new Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP) were
adopted for the Gladesville Village Centre. The Centre is an area of land zoned B4 Mixed Use
that adjoins the eastern side of Victoria Road and runs from Pittwater Road south past Hillcrest
Road. Both the LEP and DCP were exhibited and submissions were invited from the public.
The 2010 LEP introduced significant increases to the height and floor space controls in the
Gladesville Village Centre. The controls were increased for two reasons. The first was that
since 1999 the Gladesville area had been targeted as an area needing revitalization by both
The City of Ryde and Hunter’s Hill Council. The second reason was the State Government’s
strong push to see housing increased along arterial transport routes. This urban consolidation
policy was supported by housing targets prepared by the State Government for each
metropolitan council.
In 2013 and 2014 Council received its first development applications capitalising on the new
Gladesville height and floor space controls and the applications proved very controversial. The
community’s negative response to the applications highlighted a number of issues:

The community was largely unaware of the housing targets set by the State
Government and its increasing pressure for Council’s to achieve these targets.

Many in the Gladesville community while acknowledging the existing built
environment in Gladesville was poor, were uncertain about change and struggled to
define what they wanted to see in a changing Gladesville.
Item 4.1
Page 1

Council’s development objectives and controls did not present a clear vision of the
identity and built form desired for the Gladesville area.
In response to these issues the Councillors resolved on 7 April 2014 to commence a strategic
review of the Hunters Hill Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013 with stage one being a
review of the controls applying in the Gladesville Village Centre. To assist with this project
Council employed the consultant Place Partners.
The project was called “Future Gladesville” and the goals of the project were to:

Carry out community engagement to:

-
educate the community about the State Government’s ongoing commitment
to urban consolidation and housing targets
-
establish the community’s aspirations for the changing built environment of
Gladesville.
Use the community’s vision for a changing Gladesville to direct amendments to
Chapter 4.4 of the Consolidated DCP 2013 (Gladesville Village Centre) and develop
public domain controls and design guidelines.
Place Partners was not asked to undertake a master-planning exercise for the Gladesville
Village Centre as this had already been done (Master Plan Report – Revitalising Gladesville
Town Centre and Victoria Road 2005 Annand Alcock Urban Design) and developing more
prescriptive controls would not deliver “better development” as there was no notion of what
“better development” meant for Gladesville. Accordingly, Place Partners challenge was to work
with the community to establish their vision for a better Gladesville and translate this into
amended objectives and controls in the development control plan.
To engage with the community Council and Place Partners implemented the following program:
Date
Engagement Method
Informed
21.10.14
Project Commencement Letter - mail
1,450 – both sides of
Victoria Road (Ryde and
Hunters Hill LGAs)
27.10.14
Information Flyer with Survey Slips sent by mail
1,450 – both sides of
Victoria Road (Ryde and
Hunters Hill LGAs)
27.10.14
Information Flyers distributed by hand to
businesses along Victoria Road
109 businesses visited
Nov
2014
Advertisements about the project and encouraging
the community to complete the survey posted in
Northern District Times, The Weekly Times and
The Observer. Mayoral Column also included
information about the project.
29.10.14
–
23.11.14
Survey
Item 4.1
718- Total Response
-
Information Flyer Survey Slips
327 - Online response
-
Online Survey
-
Face to Face using the online Survey
format
44 - Face to Face (online
format)
Page 2
Date
Engagement Method
-
Fact to Face using the survey slips
Informed
75 – Face to Face survey
slips
272 – return survey slips
17.11.14
Young Families Focus Group
10 attendees
Held at Gladesville Public School (3:20 -4:45pm)
17.11.14
Youth Focus Group (15-25years)
12 attendees
19.11.14
Government Agency Workshop
22 attendees
10am – 12noon
19.11.14
Community Groups Workshop
17 attendees
19.11.14
General Community Workshop
31 attendees
Using the results of the community engagement Place Partners chose to re-write rather than
amend the existing Chapter 4.4. It is important to note that through this re-writing the numeric
controls taken from the existing Chapter 4.4 remained largely unaltered because as previously
discussed Place Partners were not engaged to carry out a master planning exercise.
The most significant differences between the existing Chapter 4.4 and the Draft Chapter 4.4 are
discussed in Part One of this report under the following headings:

Community Input – Desired Character (Identity) and Development Priorities

Level of Detail & Overall Presentation

Overall Document Structure – Control Focused Vs Urban Analysis

Public Domain Analysis and Design Guidelines

Transitions, Building Exteriors, Fine Grain Pedestrian Links

Treatment of Key Site
The Councillors have been briefed on the content of the Draft Chapter 4.4 on three occasions

7 February 2015

23 March 2015

20 April 2015
At the briefing of 23 March 2015 it was decided that an independent review of the draft
document would be beneficial to ensure the overall quality of the document. The draft
document was issued to all Councillors and an Independent Consultant for review on 14 April
2015. The results of the review were discussed at the briefing of 20 April, 2015. The review
results are discussed in Part Two of this report, with the draft Chapter’s conformity with the
provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) being examined
in Part Three.
Item 4.1
Page 3
REPORT - PART ONE:
Community Input – Desired Character and Development Priorities
Through their engagement work, Place Partners established the community’s three desired
character objectives for all development were Green, Engaging and Social (refer to Section 2.1,
P 9 of Draft Chapter 4.4 for more detail). The community also articulated their development
priorities in terms of public space and new buildings and Place Partners encapsulated these into
five development priorities (refer to Section 2.2).
The character objectives (section 2.1) and the development priorities (section 2.2) are enabled
by the first control in the Draft Chapter 4.4 which reads as follows:
The following control applies to all development in the Gladesville Village Centre.
a.
Development applications with a streetscape impact must provide
justification (including diagrams and visual aids where necessary) of how
the development proposal achieves Section 2.1 Character Objectives and
Section 2.2 Development Priorities. Relevant objectives in Section 3.1
Precincts should be referenced to support responses.
Requiring an applicant to include in their Development Application an assessment of how their
proposal responds to the community’s aspirations and development priorities for Gladesville
represents a very significant change to the content of Chapter 4.4.
This change is especially pertinent due to the detailed and concrete way Place Partners
describes character objectives and development priorities. For example Place Partners does
not simply say the community wants greenery and leave developers with the option of installing
a few tokenistic planter boxes. Instead Place Partners has provided the following description of
what “Green” means:
Green (refer page 9 of Draft Chapter 4.4)
Green is defined by the community as a significant increase in the amount of
vegetation in the Centre; vegetation that reflects community environmental values
and the garden style landscaping of the surrounding residential neighbourhoods.
Greenery should be used to soften buildings, street edges, provide shade for people
and a buffer to vehicular traffic.
Level of Detail & Overall Presentation
In the existing Chapter 4.4 there is a general lack of detail about what the built form should look
like especially at the street level. In total there are 23 pages that address objectives and
controls for all development including the key site. In contrast the Draft Chapter 4.4 is 49 pages
long and provides a substantial amount of detail about the urban structure and the desired form
for the built environment and public domain in the Gladesville Village Centre.
There is no contents page provided in the existing Chapter 4.4, the objectives and controls are
not numbered and the only graphics are diagrams applying to the key site. In comparison the
Draft Chapter 4.4 includes photos to support the objectives and controls, diagrams to help with
the interpretation of setback controls and levels and it has a contents page showing the five
chapter sections and all the subsections. Within each subsection the controls and objectives are
clearly identifiable.
Item 4.1
Page 4
Document Structure – Focus on Controls Vs Urban Fabric
The existing Chapter 4.4 is structured around the control headings of height, setbacks and
active frontages. While this results in a simple structure, the controls appear as the paramount
issue that developers must address. Matters such as aesthetics, materials, pedestrian interface
and landscaping are not included in the existing Chapter 4.4.
In contrast Place Partners has delivered a Draft Chapter 4.4 where the emphasis is on an
analysis of the urban structure of Gladesville and establishing for each level of the urban fabric
the desired look and feel. This exploration of the urban fabric is the main focus of the draft
Chapter 4.4 and while it results in a much longer document the benefit is a much clearer picture
of what is expected from development in the private and public domain.
In the Draft Chapter 4.4 the urban structure and its components such as gateways, special
places, transitional corners and the movement network are analysed and development
objectives provided. The Draft Chapter 4.4 includes the following sections:
3.0
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
Urban Structure
Precincts
Commercial Core
Key Site
South Gladesville Precinct
3.2
3.3
Gateways and Special Places
Movement Network, Street Hierarchy and Activity
4.0
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
Built Form
Street Specific Controls
Primary Streets
Secondary Streets
Green Streets
Fine Grain Pedestrian Links
For each of the street types identified in the Draft Chapter objectives and controls are provided
as a different feel and experience is desired for each. A result of this development of the
Shareway (consolidation of Rights of Way and a public path) which is proposed along the
western edge of the key site is addressed and relevant controls are incorporated into the Draft
Chapter 4.4. This is beneficial as this space has the potential to affect the way pedestrians
interact with the Key Site. If done well the Shareway could be an active and well patronized
eating/social area, which helps to maintain the commercial viability of business located along
Victoria Road which back onto the space.
Public Domain
The message from the residents who participated in the “Future Gladesville” engagement
program was that they wanted to see improvements to the public domain in Gladesville. They
wanted more greenery and pleasant places to sit, socialise and eat. Additionally they wanted
treatment of the public domain to act as a unifying force for Gladesville. The Centre is currently
divided east west by Victoria Road which also acts as the boundary of the two local Government
Areas: the City of Ryde to the west and Hunters Hill Council to the east.
In the current Chapter 4.4 treatment of the public domain is relatively superficial and there are
no design guidelines for pavement finishes, seating, bins or street planting. During the “Future
Gladesville” project Hunters Hill Council engaged with the City of Ryde to ensure a cohesive
approach to public domain development in Gladesville and it was agreed Hunters Hill would
reference the City of Ryde’s Public Domain Technical Manual (Gladesville).
Item 4.1
Page 5
In the Draft Chapter 4.4, the section addressing Public Domain is ten pages long and includes
the following subsections:
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.4.3
Publicly Accessible Open Space
Publicly Accessible Pedestrian Paths
Private Landscape Areas
Design Guidelines
Paving
Furniture
Street Trees and Landscaping
The design guidelines for paving and street furniture are identical to those used by City of Ryde
and the chosen landscaping is similar. The Public Domain component of the Draft Chapter 4.4
has the potential to deliver a much improved and more cohesive public domain for Gladesville.
Transitions, Building Exteriors, Fine Grain Pedestrian Links
A criticism of the existing Chapter 4.4 is that it did not have objectives supported by controls that
encouraged a sensitive transition to the predominantly one-two storey residential area
surrounding the Gladesville B4 Mixed Business zone. Additionally the existing Chapter 4.4 did
not address development expectations for building exteriors or pedestrian links. All of these
matters are now addressed in the proposed Chapter 4.4. (Refer to Draft Chapter 4.4 section 4.0)
Treatment of Key Site
Under the current Chapter 4.4, controls for the key site are accompanied by a series of
diagrams. The sectional diagrams are difficult to interpret and show building forms that have
been interpreted previously as being the arrangement of buildings Council would prefer on the
site. The plan drawings include land that is not part of the Key Site (shops to Victoria Road)
and options for service facilities that have been superseded (locating the delivery dock on
Cowell Street). For these reasons the diagrams have been deleted.
In the Draft Chapter 4.4, objectives and controls for buildings on the Key Site are found under
Section 3.1.2 Key Site and 4.2 Key Site Controls. Additionally, as Place Partners continually
emphasizes, the importance of streetscape and walkways to the way pedestrians experience a
development, the controls for Secondary Streets, Green Streets and Fine Grain Pedestrian
Links will apply to the edges of any Key Site Development. The objectives and controls for
these street types and linkages provide detail about the desired urban space, which is lacking in
the Key Site section of the current Chapter 4.4.
The boundaries of the Key Site defined by Cowell Street, the Shareway and part of Massey
Street are classified in the Draft Chapter 4.4 as Secondary Streets. Under Secondary Streets
the objectives are as follows (refer section 4.1.2 P 23 of Draft Chapter 4.4):Objectives for development facing onto Secondary Streets are to:
Item 4.1
A.
Extend the street based trading area and enhance connectivity between the
Key Site and primary streets.
B.
Widen pedestrian paths, increase street planting and provide open space
for outdoor dining and public seating.
Page 6
Another major factor influencing the way the public experiences Key Site development will be
the design and treatment of the publicly accessible open space on the site. Under the current
Chapter 4.4 it states that comprehensive redevelopment of the Key Site “shall provide a public
open space facing Cowell Street” and then the required numeric features of this space are
listed. For example the controls state that the space is required to a have a minimum area of
600sqm and a street frontage of 30m. There is no information about the look or feel of what is
trying to be achieved. In the Draft Chapter 4.4 the following control applies to the Key Site:
(Refer - Section 5.1 Publicly Accessible Open Space -Page 41).
For the Key Site, provide a series of high quality open spaces with the primary open
space providing a community and commercial heart for the Centre. The preferred
location for the primary open space is facing onto Cowell Street in the south-western
corner of the Key Site. The development application must be accompanied by a
detailed analysis addressing pedestrian links between the open spaces proposed,
ease of movement, landscaping, materials and colours. The primary open space
should:
k.
Be at least 600sqm and designed to maximize solar access and street
frontage.
l.
Have a finished surface not lower than RL46 at the western-most edge and
a surface grade not steeper than 1:40.
m.
Have level access from Cowell Street and be accessible
n.
Be integrated with visible activity on two sides with edge land uses that
support a safe and engaging night time and weekend economy.
o.
Have significant planting including large canopy trees and ground level
landscaping, and create a garden feel with substantial layered plantings.
p.
Have weather protected public seating and tables that are not associated
with a commercial use.
REPORT - PART TWO
Independent Review
During the second briefing provided to the Councillors about the Draft Chapter 4.4 it became
clear that Place Partners had largely re-written the existing Chapter 4.4 and were adding
substantially more detail into the document. At this point due to the length and detailed nature
of the document it was decided it would be beneficial to have a third party provide an
independent peer review assessment.
Three consultants were approached to submit a fee proposal and availability details with regard
to undertaking a review of the Draft Chapter 4.4 Gladesville Village Centre. One consultant was
going on leave and so declined to submit a proposal, the other two consultants submitted very
similar cost estimates however only one consultant (Architectus) was able to carry out the job in
the timeframe required.
Architectus was the consultancy previously employed by Council to assess the GSV
development application for the Gladesville Key Site which was withdrawn in early 2014. This
meant their consultants were well placed to undertaking a review of the Draft Chapter 4.4 as
they were well acquainted with the Gladesville area, the controls and objectives in the current
DCP (Chapter 4.4) and the challenges facing development of the area.
Item 4.1
Page 7
Architectus was provided with the Draft Chapter 4.4 and asked to respond to a number of
questions posed by Council. They provided a two page letter of response to Council’s questions
plus an additional ten page document that included a number of general comments and a table
with suggested edits. Council’s response to their general comments and suggested edits has
been included in their document and it is annexed to this report (Refer - Attachment No. 2.)
The following are the questions Council posed to Architectus and their response:
Council’s Questions
1.
Does the document read well – is it clear what the objectives for the built and public
environment are? Are these a synthesis of the views received during the community
consultation?
2.
Do you think the controls complement the objectives and that together they will work
to achieve the desired outcomes?
3.
Are there any glaring holes in the document that applicants may take advantage of,
or which make the document particularly vulnerable to challenge in court (i.e.
possible conflicting controls, unclear controls, photos that are
misleading/confusing)?
Architectus Response
Response to Question 1: Generally the document reads well. The Draft DCP is
considered to generally reflect the community aspirations for Gladesville within the
framework of the existing DCP, in light of the fact that the consultant was not
requested to undertake a master plan exercise. The document could however be
more concisely worded.
Response to Question 2: Generally the controls reflect the objectives and will work
together to achieve the outcomes. Recommendations have been made overleaf for
the testing of the setback controls by an architect to ensure these controls are
achievable for each site.
Response to Question 3: Recommendations have been made overleaf to improve
the wording and visual representation of the controls so they are not misleading.
While Architectus are not lawyers we are of the view from the perspective of
planners and urban designers, that the content of the Draft DCP would not make the
document particularly vulnerable in court.
In a meeting held for Architectus to present their review findings to the Councillors and staff,
they expressed overall support for the direction being taken with the Draft Chapter 4.4. As
indicated by their comments above Architectus did not identify any major flaws with the controls
in the document or its structure. Architectus expressed support for the way residents had been
engaged in the review process for Chapter 4.4 and their views articulated and expressed in the
draft document. Architectus advised in the review meeting that the comments and edits
provided in their attachment were not put forward as mandatory changes but rather as
suggestions for improvements, and were subject to the discretion of Council.
Item 4.1
Page 8
Their comment that the Draft Chapter 4.4 could be more concisely worded has been addressed
partially by editing but is largely a subjective comment. In the existing Chapter 4.4, analysis of
the urban structure is limited to precincts. However, Place Partners in their document has taken
the analysis of the urban structure of Gladesville to a more detailed level including an analysis
of street type and the movement network. Additionally, Place Partners has provided a far more
comprehensive analysis of the public domain and the look and feel desired for publicly
accessible areas in Gladesville.
The additional detail provided by Place Partners in their analysis of urban structure and public
domain and the descriptions of the desired look and feel for Gladesville adds to the length and
wordiness of the draft document but also provides a clearer message to anyone reading the
document about the principles that must guide all development in Gladesville.
Architectus’ comments that setback controls needed to be tested on a number of more
complicated sites to ensure they are achievable were considered by Council staff. The sites of
interest for setbacks testing are corner sites, sites sharing more than one boundary with
residential zoned land and very small sites. Council staff identified 10 sites in the Gladesville
Commercial area where it might be advantageous to test setbacks. However, when these sites
were discussed with other planning staff it was identified that four of the sites were already
being developed or had approval to develop. A further two of the subject sites had substantial
developments on them and were unlikely to be re-developed in the short to medium term.
Compliance with setback controls in a DCP are assessed on a merit basis and if adequate
grounds can be provided as to why a setback control cannot be met Council can agree to a
variation to the control. As the sites where setbacks controls may potentially cause issues,
appear very limited the decision was made to save the time and money setback testing would
cost the project. Factoring in Council’s reporting cycle it was likely the setback testing would
have delayed the project by at least a month. Accordingly the decision was made to proceed to
exhibition. During exhibition there will be time to investigate this matter further and also to
establish if any submissions identify issues with setback controls.
Overall Architectus’ response to the Draft Chapter 4.4 was positive, they commented that the
images in the document helped quickly establish the look and feel being sought for Gladesville
and that the images complemented the objectives and controls in the document. They saw no
reason the draft document would be particularly vulnerable in court and advised that on the
contrary planning objectives and controls which have been developed with community input
carry more weight when tested in court.
REPORT - PART THREE
Conformity with the EPA Act
Section 74C (2) of the EPA Act requires that only one DCP may apply to any land. Responding
to this requirement, the Hunters Hill Consolidated DCP 2013 was prepared as a single
document which contains many chapters. The current draft Chapter 4.4 which is intended to
replace the current Chapter 4.4 will not alter the present situation where only one DCP applies
to Gladesville.
Additionally the objectives and controls included in the Draft Chapter 4.4 do not result in any
inconsistencies with section 74BA of the EPA Act which limits scope and content of a DCP to
only three elements:
Item 4.1
Page 9
(a)
(b)
(c)
Give effect to aims of an LEP:

Aims (a), (b) and (c) of clause 1.2 in LEP 2012 relate to critical aspects of
environmental quality in the Hunters Hill Municipality: the character and
identity of established neighbourhoods, natural features and scenic
qualities, and heritage.

The proposed development controls relate to one or more of those
environmental qualities, and consequently would not be inconsistent with
section 74BA (a).
Facilitate development which is permitted by an LEP:

Permissibility of development under LEP 2012 is determined by a
combination of considerations in relation to land use, development
standards and detailed provisions.

In general, the proposed development controls provide detailed guidance in
relation to considerations which arise from the LEP, and therefore would
not be inconsistent with section 74BA(b).
Achieve objectives of land use zones under an LEP:

The objectives for business zones refer to pedestrian and business activity
together with an appropriate transition to surrounding residential localities.

The proposed development controls for the project area respond to those
zone objectives, and would not be inconsistent with section 74BA(c).
In summary:
(i)
The format of Draft Chapter 4.4 is consistent with the requirement that only one
DCP may apply to any land.
(ii)
The content of the proposed development controls are not inconsistent with
limitations imposed by sub-sections 74BA (a), (b) and (c), and as a consequence,
there is no statutory obstacle to the exhibition of the Draft Chapter 4.4.
CONCLUSION

The Draft Chapter 4.4 is consistent with statutory requirements that are specified by
section 74 of the EPA Act.

The document has been subject to an independent review and overall the response
to the document was positive and no major issues with the structure or controls in
the document were identified.

The nature of Gladesville is changing due to a height and floor space controls
incorporated into the publicly exhibited Gladesville 2010 Local Environmental Plan.
One of the main aims of the “Future Gladesville” project aim was to establish the
community’s aspirations for the look and feel they wanted in a changing Gladesville
and encapsulate this into a development control plan for the Gladesville Village
Centre.
The Draft Chapter 4.4 produced by Place Partners is not a silver bullet that will solve
the traffic and parking issues that come with higher density development however it
has delivered a set of objectives and controls that leave the reader in no doubt
Item 4.1
Page 10
about the look and feel desired for development in the Gladesville area. This is
significant as while traffic and parking are issues facing Gladesville so is poor
aesthetics, lack of identity, and lack of open space, greenery and public amenity.
It is recommended that Council proceed with the exhibition of the Draft Chapter 4.4 for the
statutory period of 28 days. Exhibition to commence after the completion of the school holidays
with the first day of exhibition being Wednesday 15 July 2015.
FINANCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
There is no direct environmental impact on Council arising from Council consideration of this
matter.
SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
There is no direct social impact on Council arising from Council consideration of this matter.
RISK ASSESSMENT
There are no direct or indirect risks impacting on Council arising from consideration of this
matter.
HUNTERS HILL 2030
The strategic objectives for Heritage and Built Environment include a requirement for Council’s
Planning documents to be reviewed on a regular basis. The Draft Chapter 4.4 represents the
first step in the strategic review of the Consolidated DCP 2013.
RECOMMENDATION
1.
That in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and
Regulation, the Draft Chapter 4.4 Gladesville Village Centre, attached to this report,
be endorsed and publicly exhibited for a period of 28 days.
2.
That after the exhibition period has closed a further Council report be prepared to
summarise the results of the exhibition and makes further recommendations in
relation to the adoption of the draft document.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
Item 4.1
Draft Chapter 4.4 (Gladesville Village Centre) - For Public Exhibition
Architectus Review Attachment - Including Council Comments
Page 11
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 12
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 13
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 14
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 15
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 16
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 17
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 18
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 19
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 20
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 21
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 22
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 23
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 24
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 25
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 26
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 27
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 28
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 29
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 30
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 31
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 32
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 33
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 34
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 35
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 36
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 37
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 38
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 39
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 40
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 41
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 42
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 43
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 44
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 45
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 46
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 47
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 48
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 49
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 50
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 51
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 52
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 53
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 54
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 55
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 56
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 57
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 58
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 59
Item 4.1
Attachment 1
Page 60
Item 4.1
Attachment 2
Page 61
Item 4.1
Attachment 2
Page 62
Item 4.1
Attachment 2
Page 63
Item 4.1
Attachment 2
Page 64
Item 4.1
Attachment 2
Page 65
Item 4.1
Attachment 2
Page 66
Item 4.1
Attachment 2
Page 67
Item 4.1
Attachment 2
Page 68
Item 4.1
Attachment 2
Page 69
Item 4.1
Attachment 2
Page 70
Item 4.1
Attachment 2
Page 71
Item 4.1
Attachment 2
Page 72
Item 4.1
Attachment 2
Page 73
Item 4.1
Attachment 2
Page 74
Item 4.1
Attachment 2
Page 75
ITEM NO
:
4.2
SUBJECT
:
REPORT OF LEGAL MATTERS
CSP THEME
:
THE HERITAGE, CHARACTER AND CONSERVATION OF
THE AREA IS RESPECTED, PRESERVED AND
ENHANCED
DELIVERY PLAN
STRATEGY
:
ASSESS ALL APPLICATIONS AGAINST THE NEW
LEP/DCP
REPORTING OFFICER
:
STEVE KOUREPIS
Ref: 236463
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to keep Council informed of legal matters currently being dealt with.
These matters are generally with the Land and Environment Court.
REPORT
APPEALS
Status report in relation to recent or pending appeals is attached.
matter.
RISK ASSESSMENT
There are no direct or indirect risks impacting on Council arising from consideration of this matter.
HUNTERS HILL 2030
This matter relates to ensuring that heritage and conservation of the area is respected, preserved
and enhanced including the preservation of the character, views to and from the Municipality, and
the preservation of the tree canopy.
Item 4.2
Page 76
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Item 4.2
Status Report - Pending Appeals
Page 77
Item 4.2
Attachment 1
Page 78
Item 4.2
Attachment 1
Page 79
Item 4.2
Attachment 1
Page 80
Item 4.2
Attachment 1
Page 81
Item 4.2
Attachment 1
Page 82
ITEM NO
:
5.1
SUBJECT
:
LICENSE AGREEMENT HENLEY COTTAGE
CSP OUTCOME
:
MAXIMISE SUSTAINABLE ACCESS AND USE OF HIGH
QUALITY SPORTING COMMUNITY AND RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES
DELIVERY PLAN
STRATEGY
:
IMPLEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMUNITY
FACILITIES STUDY
REPORTING OFFICER
:
MARGARET KELLY
Ref:236277
INTRODUCTION
Council entered into a lease agreement in 2013 with Brisull Industries Pty Limited for use of the
eastern half of Henley Cottage
REPORT
The 2013 lease agreement was for two years with a one option. Brisull Industries Pty Limited
has written to Council indicating their desire to take up the option for one year from 28 October
2015 until 27 October 2016. Under the terms of the current lease a 3% increase in the rent is
specified.
The total fee currently paid by Brisull Industries Pty Limited for use of the building is $16,640 per
annum. This will increase to $17,139 for the year of the option.
CONCLUSION
That Council grant a one year option to Brisull Industries Pty Limited for the use of the building
under the terms specified in the 2013 lease agreement.
The fees paid to Council by Brisull Industries Pty Limited for the year of the option, 2015/16, will
be $17,139.
matter.
RISK ASSESSMENT
matter.
Item 5.1
Page 83
HUNTERS HILL 2030
The provision of a portion of Henley Cottage to Brisull Industries assists Council to meet
outcome 4.1.5 of the HH 2030 Operational & Delivery Plan to facilitate multiuse and partnering
in use of facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
1.
That Council grant a one-year option to Brisull Industries Pty Limited under the
terms specified in the original lease agreement.
2.
That the Mayor and General Manager be granted Delegated Authority to execute
the Agreement and affix the Seal of Council.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Item 5.1
2013 lease agreement Brisull Industries Pty Ltd.
Page 84
Item 5.1
Attachment 1
Page 85
Item 5.1
Attachment 1
Page 86
Item 5.1
Attachment 1
Page 87
Item 5.1
Attachment 1
Page 88
Item 5.1
Attachment 1
Page 89
Item 5.1
Attachment 1
Page 90
Item 5.1
Attachment 1
Page 91
Item 5.1
Attachment 1
Page 92
OUR COUNCIL
ITEM NO
:
8.1
SUBJECT
:
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL INVESTMENTS AS AT 31 MAY
2015
CSP OUTCOME
:
COUNCIL IS 100% COMPLIANT WITH STATUTORY
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
DELIVERY PLAN
STRATEGY
:
ACCOUNTING MANAGEMENT AND POLICIES THAT
COMPLY WITH CURRENT LEGISLATION
REPORTING OFFICER
:
JOHN JAVILLONAR
Ref:236598
INTRODUCTION
A summary of its investments is required to be reported to Council at the end of the month.
REPORT
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL'S INVESTMENTS AS AT 31 May 2015 (330/06)
Institution
CBA
CBA
CBA
CBA
CBA
NAB
NAB
NAB
IMB
WESTPAC
CBA
CBA
Total
Reference
Term Deposit
Term Deposit
Term Deposit
Term Deposit
Term Deposit
Term Deposit
Term Deposit
Term Deposit
Term Deposit
Term Deposit
24 HR Call
General
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Principal
307,478.72
209,230.72
1,014,172.56
1,000,000.00
400,000.00
1,093,617.29
1,105,227.86
1,094,151.81
2,332,954.32
895,690.21
355,910.23
9,808,433.72
$
812,140.06
Lodged Term
27.5.15
61
12.5.15
62
20.3.15
90
13.3.15
90
29.5.15
60
9.3.15
92
18.5.15
91
9.3.15
92
28.4.15
90
31.5.15
93
31.5.15
Matures
27.7.15
13.7.15
18.6.15
11.6.15
28.7.15
9.6.15
17.8.15
9.6.15
27.7.15
1.9.15
Rate
2.35
2.26
2.62
2.65
2.25
3.10
2.90
3.44
2.85
2.78
1.75
Bank Account Balance
$ 10,620,573.78
Certification – Responsible Accounting Officer
The investments listed above have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act
1993, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s policy on investments.
Item 8.1
Page 93
OUR COUNCIL
The above Investments include the following estimated restrictions
Internal Restrictions
Actual as at 31 May 2015
Employee Leave Entitlements
Town Hall
Replacement of Plant
Office Equipment & Furniture
Elections
Public Places & Urban Design
Safety & Welfare Expenses OH&S Incentive
Other
Insurance Reserve
Total Internal Restrictions
$ 608,904.16
$ 249,130.00
$ 406,096.32
$ 180,951.60
$
61,474.60
$
5,688.00
$
21,799.69
$
20,000.00
$
58,659.78
$ 1,612,704.15
Deposits
$ 2,502,764.74
$ 4,115,468.89
External Restrictions
Loans
S94
Grants
Domestic Waste Management
Special Environmental Levy
Special Community Facilities
Special Roads
Other Infrastructure Special Rate
$
23,939.89
$ 1,081,771.23
$ 103,461.25
$ 359,177.74
$ 277,490.60
$ 1,059,422.63
$ 140,363.00
$ 296,167.40
Total External Restrictions
$ 3,341,793.73
Total Restrictions
$ 7,457,262.62
$
Total Investment as at:
30.6.14
31.7.14
31.8.14
30.9.14
31.10.14
30.11.14
31.12.14
31.1.15
28.2.15
31.3.15
30.4.15
31.5.15
Average Rate
Item 8.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
8,635,724
8,155,973
8,175,618
10,298,672
10,328,095
10,352,404
9,928,351
9,964,519
9,077,205
10,510,936
9,490,762
9,808,434
Portfolio
% Rate
90 Day BB
% Rate
3.44
3.40
3.37
3.27
3.25
3.25
3.24
3.24
3.21
3.00
2.91
2.81
3.20
2.69
2.64
2.63
2.66
2.72
2.75
2.75
2.70
2.37
2.27
2.24
2.15
2.55
Page 94
OUR COUNCIL
CONCLUSION
The investments listed above have been made in accordance with Local Government Act 1993,
the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s policy on investments.
matter.
RISK ASSESSMENT
matter.
HUNTERS HILL 2030
Council is compliant with statutory reporting requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
There are no attachments to this report.
Item 8.1
Page 95
OUR COUNCIL
ITEM NO
:
8.2
SUBJECT
:
WASTE TENDER
CSP OUTCOME
:
COUNCIL IS RECOGNISED AND RESPECTED AS AN
OPEN AND TRANSPARENT ORGANISATION
DELIVERY PLAN
STRATEGY
:
COUNCILLORS ARE WELL-INFORMED ABOUT
ISSUES/PROJECTS
REPORTING OFFICER
:
BARRY SMITH
Ref:236585
INTRODUCTION
At the Ordinary meeting held on 9 June 2015 Council resolved as follows:
001/15
RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Bird, seconded Clr Miles
Council’s resolution 176/15 is rescinded and that this matter is deferred and further
information be provided to Council regarding documented complaints data and
complaints handling procedures with the current contractor and provision of an
estimated DWM Fee for each of the various options.
REPORT
In considering the above and the current tender process investigations indicate that if Council
were to change contractors the new contractor would require a period of not less than three (3)
months to commence a collection service. As the current contract expires on 30 June 2015
some form of interim arrangement will need to be made to ensure that waste continues to be
collected irrespective of the tender determination.
The following legislation applies to the waste collection contract.
Sec. 55 What are the requirements for tendering?
(1)
A council must invite tenders before entering into any of the following contracts:
(f)
(2)
a contract for the provision of services to the council (other than a contract
for the provision of banking, borrowing or investment services).
Tenders are to be invited, and invitations to tender are to be made, by public notice
and in accordance with any provisions prescribed by the regulations.
As a tender has been called, but not yet determined and the current contractor is about to
complete an extension Council may resolve, with reasons, to continue the contract on a monthto-month basis under the following section of the Act.
(3)
This section does not apply to the following contracts:
(i)
Item 8.2
a contract where, because of extenuating circumstances, remoteness of
locality or the unavailability of competitive or reliable tenderers, a council
decides by resolution (which states the reasons for the decision) that a
satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders
Page 96
OUR COUNCIL
The extenuating circumstances being that the required tender has been called, but as yet is not
completed and it makes no sense to call another tender for a short term extension.
The General Manager and the Group Manager Corporate Governance have met with the
current contractor and he has indicated a willingness to continue to service the current waste
collection contract on a month-month basis until this matter is resolved.
This report will therefore recommend that the General Manager is granted delegated authority
to negotiate a short term extension of the current waste collection contract on a month-to-month
basis (same terms and conditions) for up to four (4) months.
Council request for additional information
Council has requested information In respect of documented complaints data and complaints
handling procedures. In response Councils Waste Officer has provided the following
information.
“Resident calls are all directed to 1300 136 460 which is the Customer Call Centre operated by
URM and appears on all newsletters, collection calendars, advertisements and the like in
relation to all waste & recycling services. This is a service required under the current contract,
the cost of providing it is built into the collection charges.
Council receives a monthly report from URM which details the complaints received by URM in
relation to the servicing of the bins only. A copy of the report is appended as Attachment 1. The
report does not detail any other issues which may arise such as accidents, vehicle damage,
property damage or behaviour which again is reported directly to URM.
Despite the promotion of the Customer Call Centre some residents still prefer to contact Council
to record complaints .These matters are then forwarded to URM by the Council Officer
requesting priority or an urgent response dependent upon the nature of the matter .Residents
will also contact Council when they consider the response from URM to their request or
complaint is inadequate and in more recent times residents have contacted Council complaining
that they cannot get through to URM and have been put on hold for excessive periods.
Monthly meetings with the Contractor are also held where issues arising from the previous
month are discussed and responses sought from the Contractor. Due to the calling of tenders
the last few scheduled meetings have not occurred.
Generally all complaints received by URM are dealt with and Council is not provided with
residents details
Council does not have the ability to survey these residents to gauge their satisfaction or
otherwise with the handling of their complaint by URM”.
The above information does not fully respond to Councils request and a review of the submitted
tender documentation of URM indicates that a number of complaints handling data collection
services are in use. These include a telephone and incident reporting system that is currently
utilized by other Councils.
Council could quite capably use the telephone incident reports to undertake random satisfaction
response surveys if it wishes to do so.
A review of the submitted tender documentation of URM indicates that an on-line clean-up
booking system and a leading edge bin and truck tracking and reporting system are available
and are being utilized by other Councils.
Item 8.2
Page 97
OUR COUNCIL
Domestic Waste Management (DWM) Fee
Council also requested a more detailed estimate of fees to be charged for the various tender
options.
As this is part of the tender ‘commercial-in-confidence’ information a separate comparative table
has been provided to Councillors on a confidential basis under separate cover.
The following matters have a significant impact on the calculation of these fees.
Tipping Fees
These costs are substantial (in excess of 40% of the total monthly spend). The above estimates
are based on current tipping fees which can be subject to significant variations. A regional
waste disposal tender is currently in its final stages and the objective is to gain certainty over
pricing on a five year basis.
On the knowledge currently available it would be to Councils advantage if it could defer this
matter until the regional project is completed.
Truck Types
In considering all pricing options provision of the waste collection service utilising used trucks
results in vastly more favourable financial results and lower impacts on the domestic waste
management fee.
This is particularly relevant to the on-call clean-up service where a new vehicle with an
estimated capital cost of more than $300,000 will possibly be utilized for less than 50% of the
time. The service could more than capably be provided by a used vehicle of say 3-5 years in
age with a capital cost of perhaps less than $150,000 given the relatively low number of
services provided.
Council would in effect be paying for the trucks idle time.
Councils Options
Initially a short-term extension of the existing contract is necessary to enable all processes
related to the tender to be completed.
Council may then consider any of the following:
1.
Accepting one of the tenders offered based on new vehicles as originally
recommended
2.
Not accept any tenders and call fresh tenders based on a revised tender
specification
3.
Not accept any of the tenders and seek to negotiate a contract on the basis of a
service provided by second-hand vehicles
4.
Not accept any of the tenders and consider entering a joint waste collection service
contract under the auspices of the newly agreed Joint Regional Authority (JRA)
model with Ryde and/or Lane Cove Councils.
If the Council were of a mind to pursue these options then the following tender regulation will
apply.
Item 8.2
Page 98
OUR COUNCIL
R178 Acceptance of tenders
(1)
either:
After considering the tenders submitted for a proposed contract, the council must
(a)
accept the tender that, having regard to all the circumstances, appears to it
to be the most advantageous, or
(b)
decline to accept any of the tenders.
(1A)
Without limiting subclause (1), in considering the tenders submitted for a proposed
contract for the performance of domestic or other waste management services, the
council must take into account whether or not existing workers (within the meaning
of clause 170) will be offered employment or engagement on terms and conditions
comparable to those applicable to the workers immediately before the tender was
submitted.
(2)
A council must ensure that every contract it enters into as a result of a tender
accepted by the council is with the successful tenderer and in accordance with the
tender (modified by any variation under clause 176). However, if the successful
tender was made by the council (as provided for in section 55 (2A) of the Act), the
council is not required to enter into any contract in order to carry out the
requirements of the proposed contract.
(3)
A council that decides not to accept any of the tenders for a proposed contract or
receives no tenders for the proposed contract must, by resolution, do one of the
following:
(4)
Item 8.2
(a)
postpone or cancel the proposal for the contract,
(b)
invite, in accordance with clause 167, 168 or 169, fresh tenders based on
the same or different details,
(c)
invite, in accordance with clause 168, fresh applications from persons
interested in tendering for the proposed contract,
(d)
invite, in accordance with clause 169, fresh applications from persons
interested in tendering for contracts of the same kind as the proposed
contract,
(e)
enter into negotiations with any person (whether or not the person was a
tenderer) with a view to entering into a contract in relation to the subject
matter of the tender,
(f)
carry out the requirements of the proposed contract itself.
If a council resolves to enter into negotiations as referred to in subclause (3) (e), the
resolution must state the following:
(a)
the council’s reasons for declining to invite fresh tenders or applications as
referred to in subclause (3) (b)-(d),
(b)
the council’s reasons for determining to enter into negotiations with the
person or persons referred to in subclause (3) (e).
Page 99
OUR COUNCIL
In considering the regulation the following comments are included for each option.
1.
Accepting one of the tenders offered based on new vehicles.
This is the basis of a decision in the original report.
2.
Not accept any tenders and call fresh tenders based on a revised tender
specification.
If Council were concerned that the original tender documentation/specification did
not properly reflect the service requirements then a new specification could be
prepared and fresh tenders called
3.
Not accept any of the tenders and seek to negotiate a contract on the basis of a
service provided by second-hand vehicles.
Should Council wish to reduce the overall impact of cost on the domestic waste
management fee to ratepayers, council could seek to negotiate with URM and JJ
Richards for the provision of the service using second-hand vehicles. This could
also be specified in the previous option.
4.
Not accept any of the tenders and consider entering a joint waste collection service
under the auspices of the newly agreed Joint Regional Authority (JRA) model.
Subsequent to the last ordinary meeting Council has agreed to enter into a JRA
agreement and one of the shared services suggested for consideration is waste
collection. Council may therefore wish to test this option.
Tender Negotiation
Council should also be aware that the ‘Tendering Guidelines’ produced by the OLG contain the
following advice.
If, after the tendering process none of the tenders are accepted, the council may, under clause
178 of the Regulation, decide by resolution to enter into direct negotiations with any person or
persons with the intention to enter a contract.
The resolution of council must state the reasons for declining to advertise and invite fresh
tenders.
Councils should not use such tender negotiations as an opportunity to trade-off one tenderer’s
prices against other tenderers’ prices in order to obtain lower prices.
Clause 178(3) of the Regulation gives a council six options where it either accepts none of the
submitted tenders or receives no tenders. The options are:






Item 8.2
Postpone or cancel the proposal for the contract.
Invite fresh tenders, either open or selective, based on the same or different details.
Invite fresh applications by public advertisement (clause 168) from persons
interested in tendering for the proposed contract.
Invite fresh applications from recognised contractors listed by council (clause 169)
interested in tendering for contracts of the same kind as the proposed contract.
Enter into direct negotiations with any person with a view to entering into a contract
in relation to the subject matter of the tender.
Carry out the requirements of the proposed contract itself.
Page 100
OUR COUNCIL
Where the council resolves to enter into direct negotiations the resolution must state the
council’s reason for declining to invite fresh tenders or applications and the reason for
determining to enter into negotiations.
When the decision to undertake direct negotiation with one supplier, buyer or proponent has
been made, councils should demonstrate commitment to a fair and accountable process by
ensuring the following:











Council officials conducting the negotiations have high level skills, training and
experience in commercial negotiations.
A team approach is taken to the negotiations, led by a suitably qualified experienced
senior person and consideration is given to including an independent observer or
probity auditor.
The negotiation process is adequately resourced.
Preparation of a negotiation plan and strategy includes aims, objectives, constraints
and agreed minimum bargaining positions.
Council officials conducting the negotiations do not have a conflict of interests.
A formal communication protocol is adopted and agreed by both parties, which
covers regular meetings, written exchanges, document exchanges, dealing with
urgent matters, ‘critical’ issues meetings, recording of meetings and the roles and
responsibilities of all team members.
Expert technical and legal advisers are involved at the appropriate times.
Council’s General Manager is informed of progress as appropriate
Appropriate confidentiality is maintained.
Following completion of the negotiations, an evaluation is conducted to assess
whether the aims of the negotiations were achieved.
Comprehensive documentation of the planning, process and results of the
negotiations is maintained.
As a general rule the guidelines suggest that direct negotiations should be avoided due to the
risks associated with the process and this would be the suggested course of action.
Debriefing of Tenderers
At the conclusion of the tender process, council may choose to debrief unsuccessful tenderers
on request. Debriefings should focus on assisting tenderers to improve future tenders and
explain how the tender performed against the evaluation criteria.
CONCLUSION
There are sufficient reasons as outlined in the report to suggest that additional information
and/or options may provide a better outcome in the long term for Council from both pricing and
service delivery perspectives.
The recommendations below are designed to terminate the current tender process and to
initiate the investigation of a shared services waste collection agreement that may create
economies of scale that will benefit the participating councils.
As this is part of the tender contains ‘commercial-in-confidence’ information a separate
assessment has been provided to Councillors on a confidential basis under separate cover.
matter.
Item 8.2
Page 101
OUR COUNCIL
RISK ASSESSMENT
The following extract is taken from Councils Risk Register.
Risk Description
Inherent
Residual
Cost of waste disposal
escalates to a point that it
becomes unaffordable
Waste contractor unable to
meet waste collection
obligations leading to
compromised public
health, damage to
Council’s reputation,
significant cost to Council
to rectify.
Extreme
High
High
High
Control Description
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Alternative disposal & reprocessing arrangements
Waste education program
Regional waste disposal tender
Develop a business continuity plan for waste
collection to cover major disruption to existing service
arrangements.
Consider doing through NSROC and requiring
contractor to develop & maintain their own BCP.
The recommendations in this report are designed to address two of the above control
descriptions (a) and (c).
HUNTERS HILL 2030
This matter addresses the following outcome in delivery program and operational plan strategy.
Decrease waste sent to landfill and increase resource recovery through recycling and
sustainable purchasing (2.3)
Ensure waste collection service meets community expectations (2.3.7)
RECOMMENDATION
1.
That the General Manager is granted delegated authority to negotiate a short term
extension of the current waste collection contract on a month-to-month basis (on the
same terms and conditions) for up to four (4) months.
2.
That Council not accepts any of the tenders and investigates entering a joint waste
collection service contract under the auspices of the newly agreed Joint Regional
Authority (JRA) model with Ryde and/or Lane Cove Councils.
3.
The reasons for Council not accepting any tenders include:
4.
(a)
The need to provide fairness in the tender process if the service can be provided
by used vehicles and this was not included in the tender specification.
(b)
The need to wait until the regional waste disposal tender has been completed.
(c)
The opportunity to enter into a shared service agreement with neighbouring
councils
Council writes to those companies that submitted tenders and advise them of the above
decision.
Item 8.2
Page 102
OUR COUNCIL
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Item 8.2
URM Monthly Report
Page 103
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.2
Attachment 1
Page 104
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.2
Attachment 1
Page 105
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.2
Attachment 1
Page 106
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.2
Attachment 1
Page 107
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.2
Attachment 1
Page 108
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.2
Attachment 1
Page 109
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.2
Attachment 1
Page 110
OUR COUNCIL
ITEM NO
:
8.3
SUBJECT
:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL ANNUAL REPORT AND DETERMINATION COUNCILLORS FEES 2015/2016
CSP OUTCOME
:
DELIVERY PLAN
STRATEGY
:
ISSUES/PROJECTS
REPORTING OFFICER
:
WENDY MCGUIRK
Ref:236547
INTRODUCTION
Under the Local Government Act, the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal determines the
categories of Councils (s.239) and the minimum and maximum fee range for Councillors and
Mayors in each of those categories.
Councillors vote annually on what fee within this range they will pay themselves.
REPORT
The following are extracts from the 2015 Report and Determination of the Tribunal, a full copy of
which is attached to this report (Attachment 1).
In reviewing the categories for 2015 the Tribunal considers the current reform initiatives,
in particular Fit for the Future, to be relevant to the provision of efficient and effective
local government.
On 4 March 2015, the Tribunal wrote to all mayors advising of the commencement of the 2015
Annual Review.
The Tribunal invited submissions from councils as to whether Fit for the Future councils should
be recognised in any future or alternative categorisation model. This proposal was consistent
with the Government’s response to the recommendations of the Independent Local Government
Review Panel. The Tribunal also wrote to the President of LGNSW in similar terms, and
subsequently met with the President and Chief Executive of LGNSW.
In response to this review the Tribunal received 15 submissions from individual councils and a
submission from LGNSW.
The LGNSW’s view is that a wholesale review of the categories is not practical until the
conclusion of the Fit for the Future proposal and approval period and therefore a detailed
analysis of the factors set out in Section 240 of the Act was not included in their submission.
LGNSW has requested that a new category of ‘Peri-Urban’ be created to contain those councils
that occupy a landscape on a major city fringe that is neither fully urban nor completely rural.
Councils that would fit into this new category include Wollondilly and Hawkesbury River
councils.
Item 8.3
Page 111
OUR COUNCIL
Given the statutory limitations in place LGNSW has also requested that councillor and mayoral
fees be increased by the full 2.5 percent for 2015/16. LGNSW continues to advocate that
councillors face an immense task juggling council workload, family responsibilities as well as
paid work and such a significant time involvement is not appropriately recompensed through the
current remuneration levels. The roles of councillor and mayor have expanded due to the
introduction of new forms of strategic and corporate planning and, more recently, additional
workloads are attributable to Fit for the Future and Joint Organisation pilots.
A number of Council’s made submissions seeking reclassification or seeking increases above
2.5 per cent.
The Tribunal has reviewed the existing categories and finds that no change is warranted at this
time. While LGNSW have put forward a proposal to create a new “peri urban” category, any
consideration of new categories is not considered appropriate at this time given the current
reform agenda. It is probable, should Fit for the Future initiatives proceed, that the structure of
local government in NSW will change over the next few years. Any future Tribunal will need to
consider categorisation based on the structure and composition of councils in NSW at that time.
The Tribunal has also considered those requests for re-categorisation from individual councils
as outlined in the submissions. The Tribunal finds that the current categorisation of individual
councils is appropriate at this time and no changes are warranted.
The Tribunal has not formed a view on any future categorisation framework at this point in time.
While the Independent Local Government Review Panel has proposed a number of alternative
models for the governance of communities in NSW, any proposed changes will not be known
until after the release of the Fit for the Future findings later in 2015.
Based on the existing Fit for the Future timeframes, the Tribunal may need to consider a revised
categorisation model, including the fees that apply to those categories, during the 2016 annual
review. Should the structure of any council areas in NSW change before then, the Minister for
Local Government may direct the Tribunal to make a special determination to alter the existing
determination to take account of any new arrangements.
The Tribunal is of the view that significant changes should prompt a revision of the criteria for
determining categories and fees. Any new categorisation model may need to have regard to a
broader or different set of criteria than those currently provided for in section 240 of the Local
Government Act.
The Tribunal notes the comments made in submissions in regard to the payment of fees for
deputy mayors. As noted by the former Tribunal the Local Government Act prevents the
Tribunal from determining any fees for deputy mayors. The Government may wish to consider
this matter in its review of the Local Government Act.
The Tribunal is required to have regard to the Government’s wages policy when determining the
increase to apply to the maximum and minimum fees that apply to the councillors and mayors.
The public sector wages policy currently provides for a cap on increases of 2.5 per cent.
The Tribunal has reviewed the key economic indicators, including the Consumer Price Index
and Wage Price Index, and finds that the full increase of 2.5 per cent available to it is warranted.
On that basis, having regard to the above, and after taking the views of the Assessors into
account, the Tribunal considers that an increase of 2.5 per cent in the maximum and minimum
fee for each category of councillor and mayoral office, including county councils, is appropriate
and so determines.
Item 8.3
Page 112
OUR COUNCIL
Determination No. 1 – Pursuant to Section 239 of Categories of Councils and County
Councils Effective from 1 July 2015.
Category – Metropolitan (21)
Ashfield
Auburn
Botany
Burwood
Camden
Canada Bay
Canterbury
Holroyd
Hunters Hill
Kogarah
Ku-ring-gai
Lane Cove
Leichhardt
Manly
Marrickville
Mosman
Pittwater
Rockdale
Strathfield
Waverley
Woollahra
Determination No. 2 – Pursuant to Section 241 of Fees for Councillors and Mayors Effective from 1 July 2015.
Principal City
Major City
Metropolitan
Major
Metropolitan
Centre
Metropolitan
Regional Rural
Rural
County Council
– Water
County Council
- Other
Councillor/Member
Annual Fee
Minimum
Maximum
$25,040
$36,720
$16,690
$27,550
Mayor/Chairperson
Additional Fee*
Minimum
Maximum
$153,200
$201,580
$35,470
$80,260
$16,690
$27,550
$35,470
$80,260
$12,520
$23,370
$26,600
$62,090
$8,330
$8,330
$8,330
$18,380
$18,380
$11,010
$17,740
$17,740
$8,860
$40,090
$40,090
$24,030
$1,660
$9,180
$3,550
$15,080
$1,660
$5,490
$3,550
$10,020
*This fee must be paid in addition to the fee paid to the Mayor/Chairperson as a
Councillor/Member (s.249(2)).
Extract from Local Government Act 1993
S248
Fixing and payment of annual fees for Councillors
(1)
A council must pay each Councillor an annual fee.
(2)
A council may fix the annual fee and, if it does so, it must fix the annual fee in
accordance with the appropriate determination of the Remuneration Tribunal.
(3)
The annual fee so fixed must be the same for each councillor.
(4)
A council that does not fix the annual fee must pay the appropriate minimum fee
determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.
S249
Fixing and payment of annual fees for the Mayor
(1)
A council must pay the Mayor an annual fee.
(2)
The annual fee must be paid in addition to the fee paid to the mayor as a councillor.
(3)
A council may fix the annual fee and, if it does so, it must fix the annual fee in
accordance with the appropriate determination of the Remuneration Tribunal.
(4)
A council that does not fix the annual fee must pay the appropriate minimum fee
determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.
Item 8.3
Page 113
OUR COUNCIL
(5)
A council may pay the Deputy Mayor (if there is one) a fee determined by the
council for such time as the deputy mayor acts in the office of the Mayor. The
amount of the fee so paid must be deducted from the mayor’s annual fee.
CONCLUSION
At Ordinary Meeting No. 4361 held on 23 June 2014 Council resolved as follows:
201/14
RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Miles seconded Clr Sheil that:
1.
Councillors fees for the 2014/15 year be set at $17,930.
2.
The Mayoral fee for the 2014/15 year be set at $39,110.
The Councillor Fee and the Mayoral Fee was the maximum fee payable.
If Council fixes the annual fees on the same basis as last year, the 2015/16 Councillors fee will
be $18,380 and the Mayoral fee $40,090.
Provision has been made in the 2015/16 budget for Councillors fees as prescribed
matter.
RISK ASSESSMENT
matter.
HUNTERS HILL 2030
Accounting management and policies comply with current legislation.
RECOMMENDATION
1.
That Councillors fees for the 2015/16 year be set at $18,380.
2.
That the Mayoral fee for the 2015/16 year be set at $40,090.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Item 8.3
Local Government Remuneration Tribunal - Annual Report and Determination
Page 114
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.3
Attachment 1
Page 115
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.3
Attachment 1
Page 116
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.3
Attachment 1
Page 117
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.3
Attachment 1
Page 118
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.3
Attachment 1
Page 119
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.3
Attachment 1
Page 120
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.3
Attachment 1
Page 121
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.3
Attachment 1
Page 122
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.3
Attachment 1
Page 123
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.3
Attachment 1
Page 124
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.3
Attachment 1
Page 125
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.3
Attachment 1
Page 126
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.3
Attachment 1
Page 127
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.3
Attachment 1
Page 128
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.3
Attachment 1
Page 129
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.3
Attachment 1
Page 130
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.3
Attachment 1
Page 131
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.3
Attachment 1
Page 132
OUR COUNCIL
Item 8.3
Attachment 1
Page 133
OUR COUNCIL
ITEM NO
:
8.4
SUBJECT
:
MONTHLY REPORT ON OUTSTANDING MATTERS
CSP THEME
:
DELIVERY PLAN
STRATEGY
:
ISSUES/PROJECTS
REPORTING OFFICER
:
WENDY MCGUIRK
Ref: 236583
REPORT
The following is a regular report, which lists all items considered by Council that require a further
report, or information to Council.
matter.
RISK ASSESSMENT
matter.
HUNTERS HILL 2030
This proposal addresses strategies identified under “Our Council’ and in particular 1.3.2
Councillors are well informed about issues/projects.
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Item 8.4
Outstanding Matters - June 2015
Page 134
OUR COUNCIL
NO.
4351
4372
ITEM
Social Media Policy
Public Art at Clarkes
Point
AGREED ACTION
401/13
2. Council activate its social media capabilities via
the Council website for a trial period of 6 months
commencing in February 2014.
3.
Council capture and record data during the trial
period to ensure the feasibility of the social media
components of its website.
4
A further report be brought forward to Council in
June 2014.
414/14
1. The sculpture remains in situ and Council consult
with Mr Kaplan, the community and the Sydney
Harbour Federation Trust about an alternate
location for the sculpture in the Municipality of
Hunters Hill that is not in Clarkes Point Reserve.
2.
OFFICER
Annie
Goodman
PROGRESS REPORT
Council’s Facebook page and Twitter page
are now live and data is being collected for
analysis.
A report on the first 6 months of operation will
be provide in August 2015
Barry Smith
Initial Discussions have been held with SHFT.
A suitable alternate location is still being
investigated.
The Harbour Sculpture group have requested
that the Sculpture stay on site until after the
completion of Harbour Sculpture Exhibition so
as not to disrupt the site.
Consultation and resolution of this matter is to be
concluded by 30 June 2015.
This is a reasonable request.
4374
Item 8.4
Report of Outcomes
from Councillor 2015
Planning Workshop
Attachment 1
48/15
2. That a further report be brought forward in April
2015 from Council’s Finance Department
outlining the budgetary impact for new Delivery
Plan strategies.
Debra
McFadyen
The Harbour Sculpture Exhibition is scheduled
to occur from 30 July until 9 August 2015.
Information will be provided as part of the
Report on the Long Term Financial Plan to be
submitted to Council in July 2015.
Page 135
OUR COUNCIL
NO.
4375
ITEM
6.1
Draft Significant Tree
Register and Minor
Associated
Amendment to
Consolidated
Development Control
Plan 2013
AGREED ACTION
66/15
1. That The Draft Hunters Hill Significant Tree
Register and Tree Profile Sheets be placed on
public exhibition. All property owners with trees
recommended for retention or removal from the
draft STR to be notified during this time.
2.
OFFICER
Philippa
Hayes
PROGRESS REPORT
Exhibition of Draft Hunters Hill Significant Tree
Register and Tree Profile Sheets commenced
on 6 May 2015 and will close on Wednesday
3 June 2015.
A report will be brought to Council in July
2015
That the amended clause 2.3.6(d) of the
Consolidated DCP is exhibited at the same time
as the draft STR.
3.
4375
4376
Item 8.4
9.3
Minutes of the
Hunters Hill Access
Advisory Committee
Meeting held on
Thursday 19 February
2015
5.1
The Priory Advertising Intent to
Enter a Lease
Agreement
Attachment 1
That all submissions and nominations for new
listings on the draft STR are reported to Council
at the conclusion of the exhibition period.
76/15
2. That a report is brought forward on actions
arising from the safety audit of vegetation on
street lighting.
86/15
1. That Council advertise its intention to enter into a
lease agreement with Tranter Vass Pty Ltd.
2. That the advertisement period be not less than 30
days.
3. That the advertisement contain the terms and
conditions of the lease.
4. That a further report be brought forward to
Meeting No. 4377 on Monday, 11 May 2015
outlining the findings with a further
recommendation.
Margaret
Kelly
Matter under investigation.
Annie
Goodman
Notice of Intention to Lease was published in
local paper (TWT) 1.04.15 and on Council
web site.
Exhibition period will conclude Friday 22 May
2015.
A report will be prepared for OM4382 13 July
2015
Page 136
OUR COUNCIL
NO.
4377
4377
ITEM
3.1
Buffalo Creek
Reserve Parking
3.3
Modification to the
Hunters Hill Village
Urban Design Plan
AGREED ACTION
110/15
That this matter is deferred for further information
and review
112/15
1. That Hunters Hill Council investigates costs to
extend paving from Gladesville Road South (75
Gladesville Road) to Joubert Street South (16
Gladesville Road) finishing at Howard Place. [as
shown in the attached map]
That Hunter’s Hill Council develop landscape
improvement plan for public land between
Joubert Street and Burns Bay Road - north and
south and the entry points to the Hunters Hill
Shopping Village - to better integrate the area
with the Hunters Hill Urban Design Plan and
landscape improvements throughout the rest of
Hunters Hill - (such as at Mary St round-about).
162/15
That this matter be deferred for a Councillor’s
Workshop prior to exhibition. Councillor’s to
submit any further comments in writing as soon
as possible and the Consultants are requested to
review and provide further advice on any
comments received.
OFFICER
David Innes
PROGRESS REPORT
A review will be conducted in October 2015
and a report will be brought to Council
David Innes
This matter is under investigation.
Jacqui
Vollmer
Councillors Workshop was held 1 June 2015.
Two Councillors have provided written
comments to date.
2.
4379
Item 8.4
6.1
Boronia Park – Plan
of Management
Attachment 1
The consultants will amend the Draft Plan of
Management and a further report to Council
will be provided to OM4383 to be held 27 July
2015.
Page 137
OUR COUNCIL
NO.
4379
ITEM
8.3
Draft Long Term
Financial Plan
AGREED ACTION
165/15
1. That Council places the draft Budget 2015/16 –
2024/25 and Draft Fees and Charges on public
exhibition for 28 days and seeks public comment
and submissions.
3.
4380
Item 8.4
L.1
Fit for the Future
Attachment 1
OFFICER
Debra
McFadyen
PROGRESS REPORT
Draft LT Financial Plan is on exhibition until 26
June 2015. A report will be brought to
OM4382 to be held 13 July 2015.
Barry Smith
Final Submission to be tabled OM4381 to be
held 22 June 2015
That the draft ‘Fees & Charges’ including Waste
Charges under sections 495, 496, and 501(1) are
adopted for public exhibition purposes
193/15
3. Endorses lodging the Draft Joint Submission
(Attachment 9), in response to the Fit for the
Future program, with both Lane Cove and Ryde
City Councils, that details Council’s Template 2
submission (Council Improvement Proposal) and
the unique Joint Regional Authority proposal
(Council’s preferred option) and delegate to the
General Manager, the authority to complete and
lodge Council’s submission, making any
necessary adjustments in finalising Council’s
submission including strengthening in Councils
submission, the section addressing the social
impacts of amalgamation on Hunters Hill, with
Final submission to be tabled at Council’s next
Ordinary Meeting 22 June 2015;
Page 138
OUR COUNCIL
NO.
4380
Item 8.4
ITEM
Notice Of Rescission
Of Council Decision
Committee Of The
Whole - 25 May 2015
Item 1.1 Waste
Collection Tender TWS-15-1
Attachment 1
AGREED ACTION
197/15
Council’s resolution 176/15 is rescinded and that
this matter is deferred and further information be
provided to Council regarding documented
complaints data and complaints handling
procedures with the current contractor and
provision of an estimated DWM Fee for each of
the various options.
OFFICER
David Innes
PROGRESS REPORT
A Report is to be provided for OM4381 to be
held 22 June 2015.
Page 139
COMMITTEES
ITEM NO
:
9.1
SUBJECT
:
MINUTES OF THE HUNTERS HILL ART EXHIBITION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD WEDNESDAY 3
JUNE 2015
CSP OUTCOME
:
IMPLEMENTATION OF A RANGE OF ARTS AND
CULTURAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVELY SUPPORT
LOCAL CULTURAL ORGANISATIONS AND EVENTS
DELIVERY PLAN
STRATEGY
:
INVOLVE THE COMMUNITY IN PLANNING AND
ORGANISING OF EVENTS
REPORTING OFFICER
:
ADRIAN BLACK
Ref:236416
REPORT
The meeting opened at 6.10pm.
PRESENT
Lynette Rochford
Lyn Teal
Yvonne Robinson
Sue Collins
Jill Trochei
Adrian Black
Jane Tamasauskas
APOLOGIES
Clr Mark Bennett
1.
Moved Lyn Teal, seconded Justine McLaughlin that the Minutes of the previous
meeting be accepted with an amendment to the Minutes that the words “and silent
auction” be added after “raffle” in item 4.5 Raffle Update/Discussion, viz. “It was
agreed by the Committee the 50% of the money raised by the raffle and silent
auction would be donated to the East African Mission Orphanage School in Nakuru,
Kenya for the orphanage library.”
2.
BUSINESS ARISING
Nil.
3.
Nil.
Item 9.1
Page 140
COMMITTEES
4.
GENERAL BUSINESS
4.1
Final Figures
YEAR
No. of
Entries
2015
894
#
ARTWORKS
SOLD
350
85
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
703
647
599
533
597
584
554
326
351
338
340
312
293
280
Opening Night
General
Admission
TOTALS
Raffle
Silent Auction
# Selected
Artworks
DOOR
TAKINGS
6030.65
7418.35
$11,486.55
Raffle/ Silent
Auction
2773.50
2895.00
$5,668.50
Value of
Artworks
Sold
Total
Commission
(30%)
$93,215.00 $27,964.50
GST
548.24
674.40
64
49
57
33
49
35
28
VALUE
OF SALES
AVERAGE
PRICE/ITEM
SOLD
$93,215
$1096.64
57,520
40,439
37,850
17,275
30,300
17,550
16,800
898.75
825.29
664.04
523.48
618.37
501.43
600.00
Totals
5482.41
6743.95
$1,044.24 $10,442.31
GST
Totals
252.15
263.17
2,521.35
2,631.83
$515.32
$5,153.18
GST on
commission
Commission
less GST
Amount
remitted to
Artists
$2,542.23
$25,422.27
$65,250.50
This year was very successful but Adrian felt attendance was down even though
more money was spent on advertising this year. We need to look at where this
money was spent. There were also Exhibitions happening in other areas around the
same time – Mosman, Ryde and Lane Cove.
Item 9.1
Page 141
COMMITTEES
4.2
Thank you
The Committee would like to thank Marina and Sandra officially. Also thank you
letters to go to sponsors, raffle and silent auction donors.
4.3
Discussion – Pros and Cons of 2015 Exhibition














4.4
Kids Choice was a great idea, however location of the boxes could be
better situated.
Standard of artwork was high.
Volunteers were good and they’re getting better and better each year. We
need a backup list of volunteers, and should have three shorter shifts, not
two on the longer days.
Good idea to have a charity for part of the raffle/silent auction proceeds to
go to. There was a positive response to this from attendees. Lynette
suggested that next year the charity should be to support campaign to stop
violence against women.
Stacking of paintings was an issue this year.
Opening night -not enough food even though Adrian ordered more this
year. People were waiting at the kitchen door as the food came out.
More Floor Plan master sheets needed for each venue and instructions
how to read the grid.
We need to rethink what we are going to do about Sculpture. Entries this
year in the Functional category were not the caliber we were looking for.
Do we want to combine both categories into one prize?
Art talks -unless Joanne does it, then it is not necessary.
There was some dissatisfaction with the Judges not selecting 350 artworks
as requested.
It was suggested that a minimum of two people should be on duty at
Vienna Cottage and the Church, and possibly even a third person needed
to escort a purchaser back to Council to complete the transaction, and a
docket book is needed at those two venues.
People’s Choice – Adrian suggested including name, email address and
phone number of person making the nomination to be eligible for a prize
also, to eliminate cheating.
Judging was too rushed this year. It was done during the week, instead of
on the weekend, because of Anzac Day. In future, process to be given to
potential judges before they agree to do it.
Lynette suggested Merryl-Lee Houghton as a prospective member for the
Committee.
Damaged Artwork
There were three damaged artworks this year. The ‘elephant’ artist to be offered
free entry next year, apology letter to the ‘dragon vase’ artist re damage by the
public. No delicate, breakable things to go to Vienna Cottage in future. Next year to
trial arranging artworks by size and weight, instead of alphabetically, to alleviate this
situation. We will need a list of what goes in which section.
4.5
Pop Ups
They did really well this year, with sales everywhere. Five were sold at McGraths –
Sue MacLeod-Beere was the artist there.
Item 9.1
Page 142
COMMITTEES
4.6
Volunteers
Adrian believes about 100 volunteers will be needed next year, and we need to ask
volunteers “are you a submitting artist” to make sure they are not ‘on’ when judging
happens.
Induction/Artwork Handling Video – Adrian wants to do a ‘John Cleese’ style training
video for next year. No wet artworks are to be accepted, although it already says it
in the ‘Conditions’ on the Entry Form.
Volunteer Coordinator. It was moved by Justine and seconded by Sue that we ask
Sandra to come back next year because she did such a good job with the
volunteers.
Interns. Two was a good number to have for the intern program.
4.7
What Next







5.
Bring ideas to the next meeting.
We need to do something a little different.
The Committee supported increasing the Exhibition by another week (so
that it runs for three weekends). Council approval for use of the Town Hall
to be sought.
We still have a problem with having enough active members on the
Committee.
Mini-internship – train up a select crew of volunteers who know that they
will be here for five days. Julie from Ryde might be interested in joining the
Committee, or perhaps be in this mini-internship.
Adrian has noted that we are getting regulars coming and purchasing every
year. It was suggested that we invite local seniors groups, e.g. Probus, to
increase numbers attending during the week.
It was suggested that we consider offering to artists who sell (not just
selected) to have a user account on Art website for on line gallery sales all
year round. They would pay a fee and we would receive a commission on
sales.
OTHER BUSINESS
Nil.
6.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Hunters Hill Art Exhibition Advisory Committee will be held
on Wednesday 7 October 2015.
It was noted that Yvonne will be away October and November, and Lynette will be
away 27 Sept. to 27 Oct. 2015.
The meeting closed at 8.00pm.
Item 9.1
Page 143
COMMITTEES
matter.
RISK ASSESSMENT
matter.
HUNTERS HILL 2030
A key outcome in the Community and Lifestyle section of Council’s current Community Strategic
Plan is:
1.1
Implementation of a range of arts and cultural programs, and actively support local
cultural organisations and events.
The Art Exhibition will assist Council to achieve this outcome.
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
Item 9.1
Page 144
COMMITTEES
ITEM NO
:
9.2
SUBJECT
:
MINUTES OF THE MOOCOOBOOLA FESTIVAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD WEDNESDAY
10 JUNE 2015
CSP OUTCOME
:
IMPLEMENTATION OF A RANGE OF ARTS AND
CULTURAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVELY SUPPORT
LOCAL CULTURAL ORGANISATIONS AND EVENTS
DELIVERY PLAN
STRATEGY
:
INVOLVE THE COMMUNITY IN PLANNING AND
ORGANISING OF EVENTS
REPORTING OFFICER
:
ADRIAN BLACK
Ref:236424
REPORT
The meeting opened at 6.10pm.
PRESENT
Jann Anschau
Sally Castel
Natalie Shymko
Adrian Black
Jane Tamasauskas
SES (Hunters Hill)
APOLOGIES
Louise Bertoni
1.
SES
Nil.
2.
BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES
Nil.
3.
Nil.
4.
GENERAL BUSINESS
4.1
Promotion
Adrian advised that he had a meeting with NDT last week, and they were increasing
their advertising charges. This means we need to think more about how we will
spend our advertising dollars. Usually we do a mailbox drop and advertise in
TWT/NDT. Last year we did 35,000 flyers by letterbox drop. We could reduce
newspaper and distribute flyers to all of Ryde - all agreed to put advertising money
into flyers.
Item 9.2
Page 145
COMMITTEES
We do advertise on local 2RRR, commercial radio advertising is very expensive.
2GB Graham Ross Garden Show is free. School Newsletters and Preschools/Day
Care Centres could be approached as well. Adrian suggested Facebook, Natalie
suggested a signature scan on the bottom of all staff emails and possibly
Instagram? Useful on the day perhaps. Adrian to look into a ‘handle’ for Instagram.
4.2
Activities
4.2.1
Car Show – Adrian to meet with Zac regarding this.
4.2.2
Kids Activity Sheet, Kids Games, Climbing Wall, Yellow Bus, Kids Show. Last year
we started with the Kids Activity Sheet, where after participating in a number of
activities and getting a stamp for each one, the children would come to the Council
tent and get a prize. This was extremely popular so we will do it again this year.
We gave out approximately 1,500-2,000 sheets last year. Adrian has a contact,
Nick Fury, who has a lot of activities for kids. Nick does ½ hour sessions, instead of
everything running straight after each other. There is also a group called the “Yellow
Bus”. They are more expensive to bring but potentially we could get a sponsor. It is
pitched at slightly younger children.
The normal Circus Playground that we have covers a broader age range.
Adrian also suggested an eight metre Rock Wall for climbing. What other sort of
family entertainment should we have that kids can relate to? Adrian will bring more
information on kids’ shows to the next meeting.
4.2.3
Roving MC. Does anyone know one? Adrian hasn’t been able to find one so far, in
addition to the stage MC.
4.2.4
Great Anzac Biscuit Bake Off. This idea came about because 2015 is the 100 year
anniversary of Anzac. Should there be a prize, or prizes, and if so what? A hamper
basket was suggested - perhaps we could contact Lisa from Loccantro? Adrian will
email Sally about the Anzac biscuits. Six biscuits needed per entry for judging, in a
disposable container. Judging at 12 noon (and judges not allowed to eat
beforehand), with drop off between 9.30 and 11.30am. Biscuits could be sold at
Council stall with donation to charity from the proceeds of sales.
4.2.5
Entertainment. Adrian put on Facebook “What do you want to see at Moocooboola
this year?”
Salsa Kingz (a six piece band – brass, bass guitar, etc.) was suggested and is very
popular.
Dick Smithers and the Doo Wops cover 50’s/60’s era (Peter Astridge had requested
something like this). They are relatively local – based in Balmain?
Peter Miller-Robinson/Tim Watts/Garnet Meekings Trio – they performed at Street
Feast last year.
Family trio “The Twine” (mum, dad and son) were on Australia’s Got Talent – we
could possibly consider them for next year.
Lane Cove Jazz Group. Two groups under their umbrella have approached us
(Stringybark Jazz and Burns Bay Big Band). They can’t both perform, so they have
to decide between themselves which one is going to perform.
Item 9.2
Page 146
COMMITTEES
We need a good mix for all. Teenagers love singing and dancing. A Youth Stage –
working with younger people – would need more lead in time. We could put the
Teenagers on Oval 3. Running out of time for this year, and Adrian would like
young people to run it, or at least have a say in it.
So far we have Peter Miller-Robinson Trio, Salsa Kingz, Dick Smithers and the Doo
Wops, Stringybark Jazz, so there will be a real mixture this year.
We will have the regular things like Grand Parade, Dog Show, Adventure Sheet,
Various Activities, Entertainment, and Dance Schools. We will try to get something
for the teenagers there if we can within the next few weeks. The more free things
we have to do the better, because it can be quite an expensive day.
MC on stage could be Salsa Kingz Front Man, Chris Guerrero. Jann said this
person needs to be someone who can draw people in – get people excited. Adrian
felt this person should be able to do that.
4.3
Sponsorship
There has been a little bit of interest from new people this year, dentists, gym for the
climbing wall, preschool. Adrian to seek clarification about approaching URM from
the General Manager. Hunters Hill Hotel may be interested.
5.
OTHER BUSINESS
Adrian will email out the artist’s painting for Moocooboola next week to all
Committee members.
6.
NEXT MEETING
Adrian advised that the meetings need to be fortnightly from this week.
The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, 24 June 2015 at 6.00pm.
The meeting closed at 7.45pm.
matter.
RISK ASSESSMENT
matter.
HUNTERS HILL 2030
A key outcome in the Community and Lifestyle section of Council’s current Community Strategic
Plan is:
Item 9.2
Page 147
COMMITTEES
1.1
Implementation of a range of arts and cultural programs and actively support local
cultural organisations and events.
The Moocooboola Festival Advisory Committee will assist Council to achieve this outcome.
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
Item 9.2
Page 148
COMMITTEES
ITEM NO
:
9.3
SUBJECT
:
REPORT ON COUNCILLOR WOKSHOP AND BRIEFINGS
HELD 9 JUNE 2015
CSP OUTCOME
:
DELIVERY PLAN
STRATEGY
:
ISSUES/PROJECTS
REPORTING OFFICER
:
WENDY MCGUIRK
Ref:236556
PRESENT
Clr Richard Quinn
Clr Meredith Sheil
Clr Peter Astridge
Clr Mark Bennett
Clr Gary Bird
Clr Zac Miles
Mayor
Deputy Mayor
Barry Smith
David Innes
Steve Kourepis
General Manager
Group Manager Works & Services
Group Manager Development and Regulatory Control
Michael Harrison
Camille Lattouf
Architectus
Architectus
APOLOGIES
BRIEFING
Information was presented to Councillors on:

Preliminary Briefing by Architectus on Pre- DA for proposed development Cowell
Street Gladesville.
matter.
Item 9.3
Page 149
COMMITTEES
RISK ASSESSMENT
matter.
HUNTERS HILL 2030
Councillors are well informed of issues and projects.
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
Item 9.3
Page 150
COMMITTEES
ITEM NO
:
9.4
SUBJECT
:
MEETING OF MAYORS AND GENERAL MANAGERS OF
COUNCILS OF NORTHERN SYDNEY
CSP OUTCOME
:
DELIVERY PLAN
STRATEGY
:
ISSUES/PROJECTS
REPORTING OFFICER
:
WENDY MCGUIRK
Ref:236646
The Minutes of the Meeting of Mayors and General Managers of Councils of Northern Sydney
held Thursday 4 June 2015 are attached (Attachment 1) for the information of Councillors.
matter.
RISK ASSESSMENT
matter.
HUNTERS HILL 2030
Councillors are well informed on issues and projects.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Minutes be received and noted.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Item 9.4
Minutes of Meeting of Mayors and General Managers of Councils of Northern
Sydney held Thursday 4 June 2015.
Page 151
COMMITTEES
Item 9.4
Attachment 1
Page 152
COMMITTEES
Item 9.4
Attachment 1
Page 153
COMMITTEES
Item 9.4
Attachment 1
Page 154
COMMITTEES
Item 9.4
Attachment 1
Page 155
COMMITTEES
Item 9.4
Attachment 1
Page 156
COMMITTEES
Item 9.4
Attachment 1
Page 157
COMMITTEES
Item 9.4
Attachment 1
Page 158
COMMITTEES
Item 9.4
Attachment 1
Page 159
COMMITTEES
Item 9.4
Attachment 1
Page 160
COMMITTEES
Item 9.4
Attachment 1
Page 161
COMMITTEES
Item 9.4
Attachment 1
Page 162
COMMITTEES
Item 9.4
Attachment 1
Page 163
COMMITTEES
Item 9.4
Attachment 1
Page 164
COMMITTEES
Item 9.4
Attachment 1
Page 165
COMMITTEES
Item 9.4
Attachment 1
Page 166
COMMITTEES
Item 9.4
Attachment 1
Page 167
COMMITTEES
Item 9.4
Attachment 1
Page 168
COMMITTEES
Item 9.4
Attachment 1
Page 169
COMMITTEES
Item 9.4
Attachment 1
Page 170
COMMITTEES
Item 9.4
Attachment 1
Page 171
COMMITTEES
Item 9.4
Attachment 1
Page 172
COMMITTEES
ITEM NO
:
9.5
SUBJECT
:
MINUTES OF THE HUNTERS HILL SENIORS ADVISORY
GROUP MEETING HELD 1 JUNE 2015
CSP THEME
:
THE NEEDS OF THE MOST DISADVANTAGED AND
VULNERABLE IN THE COMMUNITY ARE MET, EG FOR
THE YOUNG AND AGED
DELIVERY PLAN
STRATEGY
:
IMPROVED ACCESS TO AGED AND DISABILITY
SERVICES
REPORTING OFFICER
:
TANIA GAMBLE
Ref: 235220
REPORT
The meeting opened at 10.05am.
PRESENT
Margaret Treble
Ian Adair
Joan Lloyd
Nan Barbour
Jacque Always
Mollie Bainton
Tony Breinl
Betty Benjamin
Kathy Meyers
Tania Gamble
Richard Quinn
Learning for Leisure
Hunters Hill Historical Society
Hunters Hill Bowls
Hunters Hill Access Committee
Tai Chi
The Heritage
Cancer Council
Moocooboola Computer Club
Rotary Club of Hunters Hill
Hunters Hill Council
Mayor
APOLOGIES
Anna Buddo
Robyn Hogan
HHRCS
U3A
1.
THANK YOU TO BETTY
The Mayor thanked Betty for her 6 years as Chair of the “Seniors Advisory Group”.
2.
CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES
The minutes were accepted as a true and accurate record of the meeting held on 13
April 2015.
3.
BUSINESS ARISING
3.1
Hunters Hill Village Works

Item 9.5
Footpath works are nearing completion.
Page 173
COMMITTEES
3.2

The bus stop location is still awaiting a resolution. Transport NSW want to
retain existing bus stop location.

Works on a pedestrian crossing along Gladesville Road are set to
commence before the end of the year.

Public art is being considered for the area opposite Mapledoram’s Corner.
Local residents will be consulted regarding this, including a representative
from the Seniors Group. Seating and access will be considered as part of
this consultation.
Information Sessions

First Aid for Seniors- well attended session which included information on
how to use a defibrillator. A defibrillator is available at the Council
Chambers and one has been ordered for the Gladesville Road Community
Centre. Defibrillators are available in some clubs across the local area.
Further training sessions on the use of defibrillators suggested for later in
the year.

Travel information for seniors- A travel information session is being
organised for Monday 27 July at the Gladesville Road Community Centre.
The session will be presented by a local travel agent and a local GP.
Information flyers will be distributed shortly with group members asked to
advertise this session within their own networks and areas.

Your Brain Matters- Tania is discussing with Sally Castell and Alzheimer’s
Australia the possibility of holding a Your Brain Matters session (5 steps
anyone can take to improve their brain health). Ian noted that 1 September
is a Probus meeting. Tania to discuss a final date with Alzheimer’s Australia
and Sally and have promotional material available at next SAG meeting.

IPad classes- Margaret Treble has put an ad in the paper calling for
expressions of interest for people to attend iPad training at Learning for
Leisure. There has been strong interest and classes are planned to
commence in term 3 (mid July).
4.
GENERAL BUSINESS
4.1
Review of Playgrounds
Kathy and Tania reviewed Valentia St, Harry Shelly and Boronia Park North and
South playgrounds regarding the suitability for use by grandparents. Suggestions to
upgrade the areas to make them more “grandparent-friendly” have been forwarded
to Margaret Kelly. Boronia Park South will be the next park upgraded and comments
regarding surfacing and layout were also given to Margaret.
4.2
Hazards to be Reported
The Group was reminded to report footpath, access or other hazards to Council.
Tania will include a reminder about trimming foliage to improve access along
footpaths and how to report a hazard in upcoming Council newsletters and the TWT.
Item 9.5
Page 174
COMMITTEES
4.3
Public Meeting
Fit for the Future- State Government Proposed Voluntary Amalgamations- A public
meeting will be held on 3 June 2015 at the Hunters Hill Town Hall, 7pm to outline
how a Joint Regional Authority may operate.
5.
6.
7.
OTHER BUSINESS

Bus shelter at Woolwich Rd (opposite Gladstone Ave). Kathy asked if there
is any further information about a bus shelter in this location. Tania to follow
up with Margaret.

Council newsletters are not routinely being delivered to IRT. Tania to
arrange this. To also check Montefiore.

Transport NSW has again asked if we would like a presentation for seniors
on using the Opal Card. The Group felt this was not required as most
people are already using it in the area.
INFORMATION SHARE

RFID and credit card defenders are available for seniors who are
concerned about people skimming details from their credit cards or
passport. These are available from retailers such as Dick Smith, JB Hi-Fi,
Tandy, etc.

UNSW is currently conducting a research study into “liveable bathrooms”. If
you are 75 years of age or over you may be interested in participating in
this study. Contact Kate Tong: Ph: 0404531606 or E:
[email protected]
NEXT MEETING
Monday 3 August 2015 at 10.00am, The Heritage, 35 Gladesville Rd, Hunters Hill.
CONCLUSION
The meeting concluded at 11.05am.
matter.
RISK ASSESSMENT
matter.
Item 9.5
Page 175
COMMITTEES
HUNTERS HILL 2030
A key outcome of the Community and Lifestyle section of Council’s current Community Strategic
Plan is:
3.2
The needs of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in our community are met e.g.
for the young and the aged.
Suggestions provided by the Seniors Advisory Group will assist Council to achieve this
outcome.
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
Item 9.5
Page 176
CORRESPONDENCE
ITEM NO
:
10.1
SUBJECT
:
CORRESPONDENCE
CSP THEME
:
DELIVERY PLAN
STRATEGY
:
ISSUES/PROJECTS
REPORTING OFFICER
:
SHARON MURDOCH
Ref: 236647
INTRODUCTION
Council receives items of correspondence, requests for donations and representations from
business organisations. The following correspondence is for the information of Council.
REPORT
1.
LETTER FROM JAMES COLMAN, AUTHOR, dated 29 May 2015 seeking Council
support, by way of sponsorship of $4,000-$5,000, towards his book titled “The
House that Jack Built: Green bans, Australia’s heritage and Jack Mundey”.
The Mundey story involves well-known buildings, places, people and events – over
a time span of half a century. An entire chapter is devoted to Hunters Hill and the
Battle for Kelly’s Bush.
Mr Colman’s correspondence in full is attached, for information.
CONCLUSION
The correspondence is for the information of Council
matter.
RISK ASSESSMENT
matter.
HUNTERS HILL 2030
The report addresses strategies identified under “Our Council” and in particular 1.3.2
Councillors are well informed about issues and projects.
Item 10.1
Page 177
CORRESPONDENCE
RECOMMENDATION
1.
That Council consider support, by way of sponsorship of $4,000-$5000, towards Mr
Colman’s book titled “The House that Jack Built: Green bans, Australia’s heritage
and Jack Mundey.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Item 10.1
Letter from James Colman, Author, "The House that Jack Built: Green bans,
Australia's heritage and Jack Mundey
Page 178
CORRESPONDENCE
Item 10.1
Attachment 1
Page 179
CORRESPONDENCE
Item 10.1
Attachment 1
Page 180
CORRESPONDENCE
Item 10.1
Attachment 1
Page 181
CORRESPONDENCE
Item 10.1
Attachment 1
Page 182
CORRESPONDENCE
Item 10.1
Attachment 1
Page 183
DELEGATES REPORTS
ITEM NO
:
11.1
SUBJECT
:
FUTURE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT NATIONAL SUMMIT
CSP OUTCOME
:
DELIVERY PLAN
STRATEGY
:
ISSUES/PROJECTS
REPORTING OFFICER
:
CLR PETER ASTRIDGE
Ref:236321
INTRODUCTION
From 28 - 29 May 2015, I attended the 11th Future of Local Government National Summit,
conducted by the Municipal Association of Victoria. The conference was held in the auditorium
of Rydges Melbourne Hotel, Victoria and was well attended by about 150 representatives from
Victorian member councils and a majority of visitor councils from outside of Victoria.
REPORT
Welcome by the President of the Municipal Association of Victoria Councillor Bill McArthur who
spoke on the evolution and challenges facing Local Government.
Hot topics for discussion were about council amalgamations and other issues that are not going
to be easily resolved. Councils are being asked to merge and do more with less and embrace
technology, change and to be more accountable, collaborating, sharing and innovating.
Local Government is facing unprecedented challenges and the demand for LG services are
increasing with decreasing resources. The days of each Council doing its own thing are coming
to an end. There were over 17 speakers on varying topics over two full days so the report is
limited for discussion.
The first speaker was Richard Slaughter Director of Foresight International who discussed
major global changes sweeping the world and the effect on world systems and the likely impact
it will have on Local Government. Victoria has installed 250,000 LED light efficiencies in street
lighting and is rated number two in the world whereas other states in Australia have not
embraced this technology.
The second presentation was by Professor Percy Allan AM who is an advisor to Federal
Treasury and was Secretary to NSW Treasury, Chair to the NSW Treasury Corporation, Chair
adviser to Financial Viability of NSW, and who has been advisor to China, India, Indonesia,
Philippines and Thailand. He has also worked with the World Bank, Asian development bank
and was awarded the AM for services to the NSW Public Sector.
The Professor spoke about the vital function and core delivery activities that Councils and
Councillor’s perform for their communities. Based on population, Australian Councils are large
by population size but based on spending to GDP Australian Councils are the poorest in the
developed world.
The most efficient councils in the world are based on staying small to ensure local needs are
properly met while outsourcing services to a shared service centre or specialist providers to
obtain economies of scale and scope.
Item 11.1
Page 184
DELEGATES REPORTS
Amalgamation is an extreme form of shared services where every activity of a group of Councils
is centralised in a new administrative body reporting to a single new Council. There is no
compelling evidence that centralising all local Council activities in a single mega-Council
produces cost efficiencies. That’s because with scale, some Council activities obtain economies
while others develop diseconomies. Hence the most efficient and effective path for local
government is to share and outsource those activities that benefit from size (i.e. corporate
services and regional strategy) and keep Councils small or downsize them for activities best
done on a neighbourhood scale (i.e. local issues and place management).
In the long run, amalgamating Councils will not save money as wages and provisions would
have to be adjusted up in line with the larger stronger partner, and there are many other costly
factors that need to be locked in for the transition. Although amalgamations have occurred in all
states except WA, Professor Allen could not understand or give one reason why this
government was so keen to go ahead with amalgamating Councils into a monolithic behemoth
which won’t encourage flexibility and agility. Nor will it solve the key problems of local
government, namely; prolonged underfunding of essential infrastructure assets, dysfunctional
planning and development approvals processes. The information revolution demands speed not
size.
Stephen Mayne Councillor on the City of Melbourne spoke of involving communities in decision
making. 43 randomly selected Melbournians assisted with the methodology and recruitment
process and oversee the panel assemblies. Mix of business and community members (very few
had participated in Council’s work before).
The Panel were in charge of their learning and deliberation (call experts such as Bernard Salt,
planners, climate change etc.).
Tasked with developing recommendations to Council on its spending and revenue priorities for
the next 10 years the Panel made 11 recommendations to Council and Council agreed to give
thorough consideration to all recommendations.
Council is now incorporating recommendations into 10 year financial plan. Already influential:
rate rise, developer contributions, citywide, property portfolio, solar, car parking etc.
Kathy Jones Director of New Democracy Foundation spoke on sharing hard decisions with
your community. Trusted outcomes are achieved when a diverse and representative group of
citizens deliberate together.
Kelvin Spiller of Leadership Thinking Australia spoke regarding the high turnover of CEO’s with
little opportunity for knowledge or information sharing. He discussed the success factors in
Councils and case studies.
Professor Helen Sullivan Director Melbourne School of Government at Melbourne University.
All available resources (public, private, civic and personal) are co-ordinated to offer ‘helpful acts’
of various kinds (connections, ideas, interventions, products, resources, services) to promote
individual and community well-being.
David Hammond Chief Executive of Thames Coromandel Council. New Zealand has 2 tiers of
Government Central Government and Regional & Local Government (same tier; different
functions).
Local people making decisions over local issues and services that affect their lives means faster
decision-making;


Item 11.1
To stop the ‘one size fits all’ culture of central silos;
Cost savings through local innovation;
Page 185
DELEGATES REPORTS




Faster local economic development;
To grow local leadership;
Better community planning;
Bring empathy and ‘the local’ back into staff culture across all parts of council.
John Walker CEO Richmond Valley Council NSW. Spoke of challenges facing Local
Government and suggested preferred directions.










Have a simple but clear vision before you start and create a sense of urgency.
Respect the past, respect the history, and respect the people.
Stay strong on the journey but be flexible.
Understand your leadership role – don’t let others use you for their purposes.
Be sure of what you are doing and why – trust your instincts.
Leave something for the next term. You don’t have to do it all at once.
Radical or trailblazing change can be fun but dangerous.
Politics in local government is intrinsic in the process. In change management you
have to use it, but remember it can be good and bad.
Ex Council CEOs make very bad Councillors.
Roles and responsibilities of Mayors, Councillors and CEOs have to be clear (or
Chairs and CEOs) - make sure they are.
When survival is at stake – change may have to be radical.
CEOs need to be ruthless when times demand it and elected councils (on boards) must support
them.
Peter Kenyon. Founder of “Bank of Ideas”. He was highly involved in opposing the Perth
Council’s amalgamations planned by State Government. The plan has now been dismantled
and power returned to the people. The WA Government was trying to cut the number of
metropolitan councils from 30 to 16 as part of a policy more than six years in the making to
overhaul the sector.
The WA Local Government Association (WALGA) yesterday withdrew its support for the reforms
after a poll rejecting amalgamation plans, the Premier said he had "run up the white flag" on the
issue.
Why did it Fail?
•
Flawed process from the start
•
Hypocrisy and stupidity
•
Financial issues
•
Internal Liberal Party and Coalition dissention
•
Political realities
•
People power and rage.
•
No Business Plan or rationale outlining benefits and costs
•
Perception that it was driven by the development lobby and so called economic
arguments
•
Constant changing of the goal posts
•
Bullying attitudes- Councils having to submit proposals under duress
•
Poor consultation processes
•
Playing Councils off against each other
•
Ignoring international and national experiences and standards.
If big councils are such a good idea, why is it not happening in the rest of the world?
•
USA – average population 7,981 per Council
•
European Union-average population 5,693
•
Switzerland- average population 2,500
Item 11.1
Page 186
DELEGATES REPORTS
•
•
France – average population 1,500
Average existing population in Metro WA – more than 40,000
A pre-condition for a better future, Local Government needs to engage with and win trust and
respect from the whole community. Key leadership role of Local Government is to enable
democratic local decision-making and actions; and on behalf of community.
CONCLUSION
Councils are being asked to merge and do more with less, embrace technology, collaborate,
share and innovate, change and to be more accountable.
Local Government is facing these unprecedented challenges and the demand for Local
Government services are increasing with decreasing resources. The days of each Council doing
its own thing are coming to an end. The most efficient councils in the world are based on
staying small to ensure local needs are properly met while outsourcing services to a shared
service centre or specialist providers to obtain economies of scale and scope.
matter.
RISK ASSESSMENT
matter.
HUNTERS HILL 2030
This matter does not relate to HH 2036 Operational Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
Item 11.1
Page 187
GENERAL BUSINESS
ITEM NO
:
12.1
SUBJECT
:
MEETINGS - VARIOUS COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL
CSP THEME
:
DELIVERY PLAN
STRATEGY
:
ISSUES/PROJECTS
REPORTING OFFICER
:
SHARON MURDOCH
Ref: 236628
INTRODUCTION
Council has adopted a Committee and Working Party structure.
REPORT
The following meetings are updated for the information of Council.
PURPOSE
DATE
TIME
LOCATION
Moocooboola Festival Advisory Committee
24.06.15
Hunters Hill Village Mainstreet Committee
24.06.15
6.00pm
6.00pm
Chamber
44 Gladesville Road
Moocooboola Festival Advisory Committee
08.07.15
Conservation Advisory Panel (CAP)
15.07.15
6.00pm
5.30pm
Chamber
Chamber
Hunters Hill Le Vesinet Friendship Committee
15.07.15
7.00pm
Chamber
Hunters Hill Seniors Advisory Group
03.08.15
10.00am
35 Gladesville Road
Bushland Management Working Group
17.08.15
2.30pm
Chamber
Public Transport & Traffic Advisory Committee (PT&T)
18.08.15
6.00pm
Chamber
Conservation Advisory Panel (CAP)
19.08.15
5.30pm
Chamber
Hunters Hill Access Advisory Committee
20.08.15
12.30pm
Chamber
Gladesville Mainstreet Committee
20.08.15
6.00pm
Gladesville Library
Joint Library Service Advisory Committee
26.08.15
5.30pm
Gladesville Library
Environment Projects & Advisory Group (EPAAG)
02.09.15
6.00pm
Small Hall
Hunters Hill Art Exhibition Advisory Committee
07.10.15
6.00pm
Small Hall
Children’s Services Advisory Committee
22.10.15
12.30pm
Chamber
Finance & Strategic Planning Advisory Committee
TBA
5.30pm
Chamber
Hunters Hill Local Traffic Advisory Committee
TBA
9.30am
Chamber
Hunters Hill Property Advisory Committee
TBA
6.00pm
Museum
Precinct Forums
TBA
Priory Advisory Panel. (As required)
TBA
6.00pm
The Priory
(Third Wednesday of the Month)
(Third Wednesday of the Month)
Item 12.1
Page 188
GENERAL BUSINESS
PURPOSE
DATE
Public Art Committee
TBA
Schools Principals’ Liaison Committee.(Twice per year)
TBA
TIME
LOCATION
12.30pm
Small Hall
matter.
RISK ASSESSMENT
matter.
HUNTERS HILL 2030
This matter complies with the Council operational plan.
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Item 12.1
What's On
Page 189
GENERAL BUSINESS
Item 12.1
Attachment 1
Page 190

4381 - Hunter`s Hill Council

Transcription

Similar documents

Vol 26, No 3, November 1997

Minutes_CurriculumBS..

My Brother, My Sister: Shannon Boodram Rob Hill, Sr.

boa-packet-15apr9-boa15-02

From: Lee Sexsmith [mailto:hecubuspg@telus

family matters summer 2016 - Heritage Family Credit Union

fantastic fabric prices! quilting cottons

Braedale Hill - North Lanarkshire Council

Flyer

Wychitella Nature Conservation Reserve