agenda for ordinary meeting of council - 1 november 2011 · the ordinary meeting of council...

ORDINARY MEETING

AGENDA

MEETING DATE: 1 November 2011

INFORMATION ABOUT PROCEDURES FOR THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Open Question Time Open Question Time will be held for a period of 10 minutes commencing at 6.45 pm prior to the commencement of a Council meeting scheduled to commence at 7.00 pm. Open Question Time is available only to Mosman residents and ratepayers. Questions must be in writing and must not contain any preamble or comment. Residents or ratepayers wishing to ask a question will be invited to the lectern by the Mayor to read out the question. The resident or ratepayer will then read out the question to the Mayor then lodge the written question with the General Manager. Questions may be on any relevant matter unless it is on the Agenda for this meeting. Open Question Time is an opportunity for questions only, not speeches or discussion, and every endeavour to answer will be given immediately by the Mayor or referred to the General Manager. Any derogatory comments and/or personal attacks on Councillors or staff will result in the offender being instructed to leave the Chamber immediately and any such questions will be disregarded. Further, Open Question Time is not an opportunity for debate amongst the elected members. Questions asked and responses given will not be recorded in the Minutes as Open Question Time is not part of the meeting agenda. Ordinary Meeting The Ordinary Meeting of Council commences in accordance with the Agenda prepared for the Meeting. Committee of the Whole The General Manager will ask residents prior to the commencement of the Council meeting if they seek to address Council on a General Manager’s and Departmental Report listed on the agenda and will register their names. Council will resolve into Committee of the Whole to allow residents to address the Committee and for Councillor discussion and questioning in relation to the report listed on the agenda. Reports on which residents wish to address Council will be dealt with expeditiously as possible between 7.00pm and 9.00pm. Should there be too many matters to be heard or should residents have major matters that need lengthy discussion, the affected residents will be advised to come back to the meeting at a particular time. All remaining items will be dealt with following resolution of reports which residents have an interest in. Supper Adjournment At approximately 9.00pm there is usually a recess break for 15 minutes at which time the Mayor will invite those people in the gallery to join the Councillors for supper. Resume Ordinary Meeting The Ordinary Meeting resumes at the conclusion of the supper break. Emergency Evacuation In the event of an emergency, please remain seated and await the direction of staff in attendance at the meeting. If the building needs to be evacuated you will be directed to the nearest exit.

MOSMAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS SEATING 2011-2012 MAYORAL TERM

Middle Harbour Ward

Manager

Governance / Finance

Minutes

Secretary

General Manager

Mayor

Cr Anne Connon

DirectorEnvironment

and Planning

DirectorCorporate Services

Director Community

Development

Mosman Bay Ward

Cr Tom Sherlock

Cr Libby Moline Cr Simon Menzies

Cr Dom Lopez OAM

Cr Jim Reid

Balmoral Ward

Cr Denise Wilton Cr Warren Yates

Cr Belinda Halloran

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

2. WELCOME TO VISITORS

3. APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

4. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

5. DISCLOSURES OF NON-PECUNIARY INTEREST

6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Confirmation of the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 4 October 2011.

7. MAYORAL MINUTES 8. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT GM/28 Constitutional Recognition of Local Government.......................................................................... 2 GM/29 MOSPLAN Quarterly Review July - September 2011 .................................................................. 4 9. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORTS CD/23 Health Needs Analysis .................................................................................................................. 5 CD/24 Special Event Application - Bard on the Beach ............................................................................ 8 CD/25 Minutes Art Gallery Consultative Group meeting held 12 October 2011.................................... 10 10. CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORTS CS/60 Ward Boundaries and Councillor Numbers Review.................................................................... 11 CS/61 Council Reserves - Fees for use of............................................................................................. 16 CS/62 Councillor Costs over 3 Year Term............................................................................................. 21 CS/63 Financial Statements for Year Ended 30 June 2011 .................................................................. 22 CS/64 Financial Statement to 30 September 2011................................................................................ 23 CS/65 Investments................................................................................................................................. 24 11. ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORTS EP/123 Mosman Bicycle Strategy - Bicycle Route Treatment Guidelines............................................... 25 EP/124 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2011 - Draft ......................................... 30 EP/125 Mosman Men's Shed, Georges Heights - Tender Evaluation..................................................... 32 EP/126 Sporting Fields - Policy for Management and Use - Review of further submissions................. 34 EP/127 State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 ........................ 37 EP/128 11-17 Clifford Street - TPO Appeal Private Land........................................................................ 40 EP/129 SEPP 1 Variations....................................................................................................................... 42 12. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE Report from the Traffic Committee Meeting 19 October 2011 .................................................... 43 T/45 Beauty Point Public School - Pedestrian crossing...................................................................... 44 T/47 Muston Street - Speed and Volume Counts ............................................................................... 49 T/49 Spit Junction - Pedestrian Safety Update ................................................................................... 52 T/50 Street Parties and Road Closures .............................................................................................. 55 13. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 14. CORRESPONDENCE COR/14 Correspondence: Roads to Recovery......................................................................................... 60 15. NOTICES OF MOTION / RESCISSION MOTIONS NM/12 Notice of Motion: Personal Trainers Fee Policy ............................................................................ 61 NM/13 Notice of Motion: Council Elections - Complexity of Above the Line Voting and Waste Implications......................................................................................................................... 62

Report - Council Meeting - 1 November 2011

Page 1

7. MAYORAL MINUTES There are no Mayoral Minutes


Page 2

8. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT GM/28 Constitutional Recognition of Local Government

MOSPLAN REF: 01.01.11 REPORT BY: Director Corporate Development, Diane Lawrence SUMMARY Update on Campaign for Constitutional Recognition of Local Government. RECOMMENDATION The General Manager recommends: That: A. The Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government be advised of

Mosman Council’s support for recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution.

B. The Panel be advised specifically in terms of Council’s latest resolution of 5 April 2011

which declare support for constitutional recognition that will empower the Federal government to fund local government directly and also for the inclusion of local government in any new Preamble to the Constitution.

REPORT Council’s Community Strategic Plan, MOSPLAN, includes an objective to pursue constitutional recognition for local government. Council has resolved on a number of occasions to support recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution and has made previous representations on this issue. Most recently, at its meeting on 5 April 2011, Council resolved to declare its support for financial recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution so that the Federal Government has the power to fund local government directly and also for inclusion of local government in any new Preamble to the Constitution if one is proposed. Advice has recently been received of a Public Discussion Paper issued by the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government. The establishment of this panel was announced by the Federal government in June this year, following the Government’s earlier commitment to hold a referendum on this issue either during the current Parliament or at the next election. The Terms of Reference for the panel provide, in part, that: “The Expert Panel should report on and make recommendations regarding:

a. the level of support for constitutional recognition among stakeholders and in the general community; and

b. options for that recognition” The Panel is calling for submissions in relation to its Discussion Paper, which approaches constitutional recognition of local government from 4 perspectives: symbolic recognition, financial recognition, democratic recognition and recognition through federal cooperation. Council’s most recent resolution on this issue draws specifically on the elements of symbolic and financial recognition. It is appropriate that Council continue its advocacy on this matter and advise the Panel


Page 3

during the period of public consultation of its long-standing support for the constitutional recognition of local government, including its most recent resolution of 5 April 2011. The Expert Panel’s paper has previously been circulated to all Councillors and a copy provided on Council’s website for information and consideration by community members.


Page 4

GM/29 MOSPLAN Quarterly Review July - September 2011 MOSPLAN REF: 01.03.09 REPORT BY: Manager Organisation Development, Lisa Grgurinovich SUMMARY MOSPLAN Quarterly Review July – September 2011. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Organisation Development recommends: That the report be noted. REPORT At the end of each quarter a report is provided on progress against the Delivery Program and Operational Plan adopted as part of Council's Community Strategic Plan, MOSPLAN. The attached report records progress for the period July - September 2011, effectively representing a status report on the MOSPLAN adopted by Council in June 2011. The status of all Key Initiatives in the Operational Plan for 2011/12 have been reported on, not just exceptions. For recurrent programs and projects, only those with a specific status comment have been included. If Councillors wish to discuss the progress of matters with relevant officers outside the more formal meeting environment, this will allow them to do so, within the provisions of the Protocol for Interaction between Councillors and Staff. Recommendation endorsed by General Manager. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations MOSPLAN Quarterly Report July – September 2011


Page 5

9. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORTS CD/23 Health Needs Analysis MOSPLAN REF: 08.07 REPORT BY: Manager, Community Services, Nicola Atmore SUMMARY To advise Council of the status of the Health Needs’ Analysis report prior to seeking public comment. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Community Services recommends: That:

A. The report be received and noted.

B. The Draft Mosman Health Needs’ Analysis report be exhibited for public comment and the matter again be reported to Council in early 2012.

REPORT At Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on 30 November 2010, it was resolved that Council:

A. Conduct research and community engagement to conduct a comprehensive health service needs analysis for the community during 2011. Then use this information to lobby State Government for access to or provision of required services

B. Seek input from the GPs in the area on meeting with Councillors to discuss the matter and the best option to commence dialogue, eg dinner, workshop, community conversation, etc

C. Establish dialogue with North Sydney Council about lobbying for increased health service delivery from sites in Cremorne Junction.

In response to Council’s resolution, research including analysis of available demographic/health data, recent strategic health plans and consultation with GPs and other health professionals has been conducted by Council’s Social Planner. The resulting report ‘Draft Mosman Health Needs Analysis – October 2011’ is attached. In summary, the findings of the report demonstrate that on many measures Mosman residents enjoy a comparatively good standard of health and wellbeing. As a relatively higher socio-economic area of Sydney and NSW, with related higher levels of educational attainment and income, Mosman residents are more likely to be informed about health care, make lifestyle choices that impact on health care, and be better able to afford good nutrition and housing. Compared to the NSW average, positive local health results are indicated by a higher rate of expectant mothers making antenatal visits; lower rates of pre-term and underweight babies; longer life expectancy at birth; lower mortality rates for people under 70 years of age; a lower rate of smoking attributable deaths; and a lower rate of preventable hospitalisations. Notwithstanding this, there are some aspects of health where Mosman and the North Shore/Ryde health district (comprising the local government areas of Lane Cove, Mosman, North Sydney, Ryde and Willoughby) may be lagging behind the NSW average or where there is substantial room for improvement for Mosman, North Shore/Ryde and NSW as a whole.


Page 6

The major health issue or need emerging from demographic and health data is the ageing of the population, with Mosman residents aged 65 years and over projected to increase from 4,849 (17%) in 2011 to 6,492 (22%) in 2031. With a higher proportion of frail older people living at home with chronic and complex conditions, there will be a need for more intensive health, community services, and carer support. There will be also an increasing number of people living alone, particularly those 65 years and over, who may have health problems and be at risk of social isolation. Better coordination between health and community care services will be required to ensure effective care for frail older residents and their carers. Other health issues and needs emerging from analysis of the demographic and health data and consultation with local general practitioners include:

Falls prevention, with Mosman having the fourth highest rates per capita for falls related injury hospitalisations of people 65 years and over in the state (NSW Chief Health Officer’s Report, 2010).

Cardiovascular disease, with Mosman’s rate for deaths from cardiovascular disease lower than the NSW average but slightly higher than most other Northern Sydney local government areas except Hunters Hill, Warringah and Pittwater (NSW Chief Health Officer’s Report, 2010).

Adequate Physical Exercise, with only 58.9% of respondents to the NSW Population Health Survey in 2006 of persons 16 years and over who live in North Shore/Ryde reporting that they undertook adequate physical activity. (Northern Sydney and Central Coast Area Health Service, Health-e-Profile, 2009).

Overweight and Obesity, with 39.2% of respondents to the same NSW Population Health

Survey in North Shore/Ryde deemed to be overweight or obese (based on body mass index calculations).

Nutrition, with rates for recommended fruit and vegetable consumption (two serves of fruit

and five serves of vegetables per day), with 58.3% of respondents in North Shore/Ryde reported having an adequate daily fruit consumption and 8.9% of respondents in North Shore/Ryde reported consuming the recommended vegetable intake.

Smoking, while only 11.4% of respondents in North Shore/Ryde reported current tobacco

smoking (males at 17.1% and females at 6.1%) and this is below the NSW average, there is still the potential to lower this rate with sound health promotion strategies. Mosman has been and can continue to lead the way in promoting a smoke-free environment.

Psychological distress, 7.6% of respondents in North Shore/Ryde reported high or very

high psychological distress (5% for males and 10% for females) and while this is lower than the NSW average, it remains of concern.

Early childhood immunisation, with rates for Mosman ranging between 85-88% and below

that for Northern Sydney and NSW average, these results could be improved to reduce risk of spread of infectious diseases.

Youth health, with the need for young people to have access to a specialist Youth Health

Service in Northern Sydney, providing community-based and multidisciplinary physical and mental health services.

GPs and the GP Network were surveyed and participated in direct consultation as part of the process to prepare the analysis. They expressed an interest in being involved in further


Page 7

consultation and identified that their preferred method was by on-line survey. During the consultation process it became apparent that their knowledge of the services already provided by the Community Services Division was limited and they have requested written information kits to remedy this. These will be prepared and distributed. During September, the Mayor, Director, Community Development, Manager, Community Services and Social Planner were invited to the Royal North Shore Community Health Centre. They were shown much of the Centre and had the opportunity for discussions with key senior staff. The tour also included the new Chatswood Community Health Centre. The future of the Cremorne Community Mental Health Centre was discussed and dialogue will continue with NSW Health in relation to its future. There has also been a series of correspondence with North Sydney Council, with joint commitment toward ongoing advocacy for delivery of quality health services. In relation to broader community engagement, it was considered appropriate to prepare the attached analysis in the first instance, to assist in harnessing community feedback and views on local health issues and needs. It is proposed to release the current draft report for public comment, and then to report the matter again to Council in early 2012. Once completed, it is expected that the report will provide a valuable resource for future planning and advocacy for health related services, facilities and infrastructure. Recommendation endorsed by Director Community Development. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments Draft Mosman Health Needs Analysis – October 2011


Page 8

CD/24 Special Event Application - Bard on the Beach MOSPLAN REF: 10.09.01 REPORT BY: Events & Marketing Coordinator, Skye Paton SUMMARY To review the Special Event Application for Bard on the Beach (Shakespeare performances) at the Balmoral Rotunda between 13 January and 4 March 2012. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Events & Marketing Coordinator recommends: That:

A. Given the nature of the event, the provisions of Section 6.6 of the Special Event Management Policy be applied to the Special Event Application for ‘Bard on the Beach’ and that this be reviewed after the event in 2012.

B. The event be approved subject to the conditions and fees and charges as outlined in the report.

REPORT Council has received a Special Event Application from Collin Jennings to conduct 'Bard on the Beach' (Shakespeare performances) at Balmoral Rotunda between 13 January and 4 March 2012, 6pm to 11pm. The performances would be on Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings beginning at 8pm, and in a similar vein to 'Shakespeare By the Sea' which was performed at the Rotunda for the previous 25 years. The applicant was involved with the Shakespeare By the Sea production for 15 years. Two plays would be performed on alternate nights - 'Macbeth' and 'Twelfth Night'. As Shakespeare By the Sea had its own section (6.6) in the Special Event Management (SEM) Policy, consideration has been given as to whether this new event may continue to fall under this designation or whether it is to be treated separately. It is considered that, while ‘Bard on the Beach’ is a new event, it does effectively continue in the tradition of Shakespeare By the Sea and Section 6.6 of the policy might reasonably be applied. If not, the event would be classified as a Public Event as per the SEM Policy and be subject to the relevant Special Event pricing structure. The Special Event Management Working Group provided feedback on the event and contributed to the determination of the application and associated conditions. The conditions that would apply to this event as per the SEM Policy (and having regard to section 6.6 of that policy) are: A. The event being conducted in accordance with the details provided in the application, and with

all appropriate provisions of Council’s Special Event Management Policy. B. Compliance with Council's Sustainable Event Management Policy and the accompanying

Guide to Sustainable Event Management (Part B External Events - Organisations or Individuals).

C. Submission of a Risk Assessment and Management Plan, a Signed Indemnity Form, current Public Liability Certificate of Currency, by 9 December 2011.


Page 9

D. Receipt of a non-refundable fee of $690 prior to the commencement of the 2012 season, and payment of a $120 key security deposit fee for the Balmoral Rotunda key.

E. Revenue collection from spectators to be on a voluntary donation basis, and this is to be made clear in any promotional literature and during each performance.

F. A detailed financial statement to be provided to Council by 4 June 2012, which shows all costs and revenue including donations and sponsorship, and to be accompanied by a statutory declaration that it represents a true and accurate record. Council also requires a record of acknowledgement from the performers as to the receipt of their share of any profits made.

G. The support of Mosman Council to be acknowledged at each performance and in promotional literature.

H. Area to be left in a clean state. Any additional costs over and above Council’s normal cleaning contract are to be borne by the event organisers. The event organisers to be charged, at cost to Council, for the provision of additional rubbish/recycling services if these are required as a result of the conduct of the event.

I. The pegs used for the dressing tent are to be no longer than 5cm and the tent is to be located on the Western side of the Rotunda adjacent to the access door.

J. The use of the area under the Rotunda to store essential equipment and for access to power. Access to power boards is to be kept clear at all times.

K. Council will not be responsible for any personal injury, loss or damage to property in the course of storing equipment under the Rotunda.

L. All conditions of entry into Council’s “Pay & Display” car parks being complied with. Parking regulations will be enforced. All participants to be advised of the parking fees at Balmoral. No dispensation can be granted in the Balmoral pay parking scheme.

M. That the Rangers leave the Bather's Pavilion and Tramshed toilets open until as late as possible / towards the end of their shift (10pm) on performance nights.

N. No disturbances or inconvenience being caused to the general public and no paths are to be obstructed by the event.

O. All of Mosman Reserves, Beaches and Ovals are Smoke Free. All those involved with this event are to be advised of this policy.

P. Receipt of letter acknowledging these conditions from the event organiser by 9 December 2011.

Q. Receipt of fees and charges by 9 December 2011. Recommendation endorsed by Director Community Development.


Page 10

CD/25 Minutes Art Gallery Consultative Group meeting held 12 October 2011

MOSPLAN REF: 10.01.04 REPORT BY: Manager Cultural Services, John Cheeseman SUMMARY Minutes of the Art Gallery Consultative Group held on 12 October 2011. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Cultural Services recommends: That the Minutes of the Art Gallery Consultative Group meeting held on 12 October 2011 be received and the feedback and actions be noted. REPORT The Art Gallery Consultative Group meeting held on 12 October 2011 discussed such items as grants received and pending, Gallery capital works, online registration for exhibitions and forthcoming exhibitions and public programs. The Minutes are attached for Council's consideration. Recommendation endorsed by Director Community Development. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations Minutes of the Art Gallery Consultative Group meeting held 12 October 2011


Page 11

10. CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORTS CS/60 Ward Boundaries and Councillor Numbers Review MOSPLAN REF: 01.03.07 REPORT BY: Director Corporate Services, Max Glyde SUMMARY To determine Council ward boundaries and Councillor numbers effective from September 2012. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The General Manager recommends: That Council in accordance with Section 224A of the Local Government Act:

A. Make application to the Minister for Local Government to abolish all wards in Mosman.

B. Make application to the Minister for Local Government to reduce the number of Councillors to six (6) plus the popularly elected Mayor.

C. The General Manager submit the application enclosing a copy of the Council reports including a summary of all submissions received inclusive of the petition and Council’s comments in relation to those.

D. That all persons making a written submission be advised of Council’s decision. REPORT At its meeting on 2 August 2011 Council considered a report (CS/40) following the required consultation period regarding a proposal to change ward boundaries by reducing the number of wards from 3 to 2. This was a legal requirement as Council after the September 2012 Election would have 8 Councillors and a popularly elected Mayor. Legislation requires that each ward must have the same number of Councillors and a variance in number of electors of less than 10%. The report as well as advising of the outcome of the consultation also advised the Council of the adoption by the NSW Government of the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Act 2011. The three key changes under the Amending Act are that it allows Councils to:

1. Choose between having the Electoral Commissioner or the General Manager conducting Council elections and referenda.

2. Apply to reduce the number of Councillors without a constitutional referendum (Section 224A);

3. Apply to abolish wards without a constitutional referendum (Section 210B.) The Minister in his speech introducing the Bill stated the following:

The abolition of wards in any given local government area will lead to a lower quota, which is expected to encourage more people to stand for office and, therefore, enhance the democratic process. The second and third proposals therefore complement each other and are in line with the Government's commitment to provide a legislative framework that would enhance councils' ability to engage in structural reform. The proposed amendments will introduce the necessary flexibility and will enhance councils' ability to determine the best


Page 12

possible governance structure without impediments that currently exist in the Act. Finally, as with the proposal to reduce councillor numbers, the opportunity to abolish all wards without a constitutional referendum is for a limited time only and the process will be driven by the councils themselves and their communities. http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/0/5c8d22910649f686ca2578af0021bf34/$FILE/LOCAL%20GOVERNMENT%20AMENDMENT.pdf

Following consideration of the report Council resolved as follows:

That Council:

A. Defer its decision to reduce the number of wards from Three (3) to Two (2) subject to its determination in regards to B and C below.

B. Give public notice (minimum of 42 days) of its proposal to abolish all wards in Mosman through the adoption of the following Motion:-

That Council make application to the Minister for Local Government to abolish all wards.

C. Give public notice (minimum of 42 days) of its proposal to reduce the number of Councillors to six (6) plus the popularly elected Mayor through the adoption of the following Motion:-

That Council make application to the Minister for Local Government to reduce the number of Councillors to six (6) plus the popularly elected Mayor.

D. That public notice be undertaken as follows:

a. Placing advertisements in the Council column of the Mosman Daily.

b. Exhibiting the notice in the Civic Centre, Mosman Library and in the public notice boards in Mosman Square and Library Walk.

c. Posting on the Council’s website with responses being able to be received via the community consultation portal.

d. The proposal and the Yes / No Case be published in the next edition of the Mosman News for distribution in August 2011.

In view of the resolution the community consultation process inviting submissions commenced with the two proposals being placed on public exhibition on 3 August 2011 with notice being displayed within the Civic Centre and Mosman Library and on the notice boards in Mosman Square and Library Walk. The notice was also published on Council’s website on 3 August and in the Mosman Daily on 11 and 25 August and on 25 September. The August / September edition of the Mosman News had the proposal published on the front page with the Yes/No Case detailed on page 3. On 10 August 1,583 registered followers were sent a tweet advising “Mosman Elections 2012: change in the political governance of the area mosman.nsw.gov.au/news/2011/08/1… Have your say on wards and councillor numbers.” Further, on 16 August letterbox distribution of the Mosman News commenced to all Mosman properties with a digital version being published on Council’s website and emailed to 1,664 subscribers. All persons who had made a submission to the earlier proposal were written to and advised of Council’s decision and inviting them to make a new submission.

Following the close of submissions on 30 September 2011 (58 days excluding day placed on exhibition) the following information has been ascertained from a total of 69 submissions:

A. 31 persons indicated that they favoured abolishing wards.

B. 5 persons indicated that they favoured reducing Councillor numbers to 6 plus the Mayor.

C. 38 persons indicated that they were against abolishing wards.

D. 27 persons indicated that they were against reducing Councillor numbers.


Page 13

The submissions indicated in C & D above include a letter representing the Residents for Mosman Group and a webmail from a person who gave their residential address as Belrose.

In addition to the above submissions a petition was received signed by 74 persons of which 5 are included in the above submissions identified in C & D as being against the abolition of wards and the reduction in Councillor numbers. The petition stated the following:

We the undersigned as residents and ratepayers of Mosman strongly support the following:

1. We strongly support democratic, effective and accountable ward representation in Mosman. We believe that this means three or four wards.

2. We deplore the failure of the Council Administration to take timely action and consultation on the issue of ward representation over the last two and a half years with the result that we are being asked to choose between two and no wards for the period 2012 to 2016. We consider this deeply unsatisfactory.

3. Given this restricted choice we strongly prefer two wards with four councillors in each (plus Mayor) and oppose the proposed abolition of wards.

4. We strongly support the holding of a Referendum at the earliest possible opportunity and certainly no later than in conjunction with the election to allow Mosman residents and ratepayers the earliest opportunity to re-establish a three or four ward system.

A summary of each submission together with comment where relevant is attached. Where no Council comment has been made by the author of the report it is considered inappropriate because of political view, however if Council adopts the recommendation it may care to do so and amend other comments. A copy of all submissions is available to Councillors for viewing in the Councillor’s lounge. On 12 October 2011 the Minister for Local Government introduced a further Bill to the NSW Legislative Assembly regarding Council elections being the Local Government Amendment Bill 2011. One of the seven amendments proposed in the Bill is to change the voting system in contested elections requiring the proportional representation system of voting to be used when 2 or more councillors are to be elected. This presently only applies to when 3 or more Councillors are to be elected and was one reason why 2 Councillor wards were not promoted in previous reports to Council. The Minister the Hon. Donald Page endorsed this view in his speech to parliament when introducing the bill stating:

“The use of the optional preferential system in multi-vacancy elections in conjunction with group voting is generally viewed as being unfair. For example, where the number one candidate on a group ticket receives an absolute majority and is elected, following distribution of preferences the number two candidate on that group ticket is invariably elected at the expense of candidates who may have received a significant number of the first-preference votes. The proportional representation system is generally acknowledged as the fairest system for use in multi-vacancy electorates in that each section of the community receives representations according to its electoral strength. Using the proportional representation system, the majority rules, but substantial minorities are still represented in proportion to the number of votes cast for them. In addition, the proposal ensures consistency in systems for counting of votes across all council areas.” http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20111012022?open&refNavID=HA4_1

This amendment was similarly proposed in an Amendment Bill in 2008, however was not passed. The expected outcome of this 2011 Bill is not known at this stage or when this will be so. In accordance with the current legislation Council must notify the Minister by 28 November 2011 of its request for change and following approval if granted notify the Electoral Commissioner by 31 December.

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20111012022?open&refNavID=HA4_1�


Page 14

As stated by the Minister when introducing the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill 2011, Government is encouraging Councils to improve their governance structures and the abolition of wards and the reduction in Councillor numbers for a council the size of Mosman is seen as a positive response and is considered to be in the best interest of the Mosman community. The Minister restated this when introducing the Local Government Amendment Bill 2011 when he said on 13 October 2011:

“I am pleased to introduce the Local Government Amendment Bill 2011. The bill fulfils the Government's ongoing commitment to improve efficiency and effectiveness in local government. The Government and the local government sector both agree that there is a need to reshape the structure, governance and financing arrangements, functions and capacity of the local government sector. This agreement was unanimously endorsed recently, at the historic Destination 2036 conference attended by the leaders of all 152 local councils in the State. The proposals in this bill contribute to creating favourable conditions for councils to engage in structural reform to achieve a strong and sustainable local government sector now and in the future”

It has been recently reported by the Government that only 62 out of 152 Councils in NSW have wards. Mosman with 19,186 electors can be compared to other small metropolitan Councils such as Hunters Hill which has 6 Councillors plus a popularly elected Mayor for 9,400 electors over 2 wards which equates to 1,325 electors per councillor. To make a more relevant comparison would be to use the Division of Local Government’s own category for Mosman being a Category 2 metropolitan Council which shows an average for the 15 councils of 2,835 electors per Councillor. Mosman with 9 Councillors currently has the second lowest average of 2,130 behind Hunters Hill, however with 7 Councillors this will increase to 2,740 which is still below the average for the category. A Yes/No case prepared by Council’s administration, based on similar Constitutional Referendum Question’s Yes/No Cases, (as provided by the NSW Electoral Commission from 9 other Councils) was presented to the Mosman community and sufficiently outlines the cases for an informed decision. It is important to note that these are “cases” and as pointed out in many submissions there are arguments for and against the relevance of each case. It is up to the individual to form their own view. It is evident from the lack of submissions received from a possible 19,186 electors in Mosman that there is relatively low community interest in Council proposing to change its governance structure by reducing Councillors from 9 to 7 and abolishing wards. The receipt of 38 submissions against the proposal plus a petition containing 74 signatures does not show a groundswell against it. The placement of public notices in the three editions of the Mosman Daily, on notice boards in 4 separate locations, on Council’s website, tweets to 1583 followers, emails to 1664 subscribers to Council’s notices, a front page article in the Mosman News which was letter box dropped to all Mosman properties all failed to solicit significant responses. An editorial in the Mosman Daily on 18 August and numerous letters to the editor during the consultation process also highlighted the consultation process to the community. Both the NSW Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Finance and Services in their speeches to Parliament when addressing the Shellharbour election matter stated that the geographical size and population of Shellharbour City area is more suited to having no wards and 7 councillors including the Mayor. Shellharbour has a population of 66,900 and an area of 147 km2. Mosman in comparison has 8.7 km2 and a population of 28,770. This clearly shows the NSW Government’s view of structural reform and Governance structures and should encourage Council to abolish wards and reduce its numbers. The government is encouraging Councillors to focus on strategic management and away from operational matters. Mosman since reducing its numbers from 12 Councillors to 9 has been heading this way and this is evidenced by its new approach to development assessment with the incorporation of the Mosman


Page 15

Development Assessment Panel, which since implementation has not resulted in one appeal to the Land and Environment Court on any MDAP determination. This represents a significant saving in staff time and legal costs. Council has also taken a more strategic approach to its management planning process with the adoption of its Community Strategic Plan which incorporates its Ten Year long term objectives, its Four Year Delivery Program and its One Year Operational Plan all known as MOSPLAN. The reduction of the number of Councillors will enhance the Council’s ability to continue down this path of directing focus on strategic matters. Councillors not having to deal extensively with the determination of development applications has given time to focus on strategic matters, however when a matter of local significance requires individual attention they have time to appropriately address it. The amended Section 224A of the Local Government Act has enabled Council to make the decision to abolish wards and to reduce its numbers without subjecting its ratepayers to the added financial burden of conducting a constitutional referendum on the matter at the next election. The NSW Minister for Finance has stated recently that in 2005 dollars the saving for councils by using this legislation and not conducting a constitutional referendum in conjunction with an election would be in the range of $15,000 to $27,000 per council area. In addition to this saving a review over the last three years has identified that it costs on average approximately $21,400 per year per councillor inclusive of the Councillor allowance, provision of facilities and attendances at conferences, meals etc. This cost does not include cost of servicing and responding to councillors or the staff time in doing so. A review of the summary of submissions against the proposal to abolish wards and to reduce Councillor numbers to 6 plus the Mayor has not revealed any substantial reasons why Council should not make application to the Minister to approve the proposal. Should Council not wish to abolish wards or reduce Councillor numbers the alternate recommendation would be to reduce wards to 2 being North Ward and South Ward as per the proposal subject to determination at the 2 August meeting of Council and as per the map attached to Councillor’s business Papers. The North/South Ward proposal would result in each ward having 4 Councillors. The wording of the resolution would be as follows: That Council:

A. Take no action to reduce Councillor numbers and abolish all wards.

B. In accordance with Sections 210 and 210(A) of the Local Government Act and after giving due consideration to the submissions received amend its ward boundaries to make two wards being North Ward and South Ward as exhibited and attached to the agenda.

C. Advise the Chief Executive Local Government, Division of the Department of Premier and Cabinet; NSW Electoral Commissioner and the Australian Statistician of the ward boundary changes.

COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments Summary of Individual Submissions Summary of Submission Comments Map of Proposed Boundary Changes – North Ward/South Ward Option.


Page 16

CS/61 Council Reserves - Fees for use of MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.01 REPORT BY: Manager Governance, Anthony Fitzpatrick SUMMARY Report on options for fees for the commercial and not for profit use of Council’s public reserves following exhibition of proposal to amend Council’s Pricing Policy together with other issues relating to management of use and personal trainers. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Governance recommends: That A. The draft Policy for low, medium and high intensity seasonal commercial use licences for

Council’s public reserves (not otherwise provided for in the Pricing Policy) as circulated with the report be adopted and the Policy Register be amended accordingly.

B. The Pricing Policy be amended to provide for the following fee structure per quarter (GST-

incl) as exhibited in respect of low, medium and high intensity seasonal commercial use licences (not otherwise provided for in the Pricing Policy):

Low intensity use Medium intensity use High intensity use Commercial $400 $800 $1,200 Public $240 $480 $720 Community $120 $240 $360

C. Council determine the fee structure for licences for personal trainers. D. Council determine the fee structure for licences for persons who provide personal trainer

and like services without charge. E. The advices in relation to the need for a plan of management for personal trainer activities

be received. F. A register of licenced personal trainers be maintained on Council’s web site, subject to

consent of individual personal trainers being provided. G. A logo to validate that a personal trainer is licenced by Council be developed for use by

personal trainers provided the annual licence number issued by Council and/or the expiry date of the licence is also shown or incorporated, and that this matter be finalised administratively.

H. The advices in relation to a licencing system for all commercial foreshore users be

received. REPORT Council at its meeting on 6 September 2011 considered a report (CS/46) on options for fees for the commercial and not for profit use of Council’s public reserves. The report arose as a consequence


Page 17

of Council’s resolution of 7 June 2011 (CS/29) calling for a report on options available for compensating the community at large when organisations (both commercial and not for profit) alienate space and increase maintenance costs in public reserves, as a consequence of conducting their activities. Council resolved on 6 September 2011 that:

“A. The draft fees relating to low, medium and high intensity use licences for Council’s reserves not otherwise provided for in the Pricing Policy, as outlined in the report be placed on exhibition for 28 days.

B. That the following draft scale of fees relating to personal trainers be placed on

exhibition for 28 days.

Average number of nominated clients per week over all sessions

Annual fee (GST-incl)

Quarterly fee (GST-incl)

1 to 10 clients $500 $175 11 and greater clients $1,500 $425

C. A further report be submitted to Council, at the close of the exhibition period and receipt of submissions, concerning the proposed amendments to the Pricing Policy and adoption of a policy in relation to low, medium and high intensity seasonal commercial use licences.

D. A Plan of Management be drawn up to address risks, inappropriate use of public infrastructure and other issues regarding these activities.”

The proposed amendments to the Pricing Policy were placed on public exhibition closing 13 October 2011. Submissions were predominately made by way of the online submission facility made available on Council’s community consultation page of its web site. Low, medium and high intensity use licences submissions One (1) submission was received in relation to the proposed fees for low, medium and high intensity use licences for Council’s reserves not otherwise provided for in the Pricing Policy. The submission from Anne Tasker of Mosman follows:-

“I think high intensity should pay. But not low or medium. High intensity - lots of noise and people .. but low and medium is inoffensive and doesn't take up much space.”

Comment: Low and medium intensity uses as defined in the draft Policy are nonetheless

impactive and are a commercial use of public land. It is recommended that the draft Policy for low, medium and high intensity seasonal commercial use licences for Council’s public reserves (not otherwise provided for in the Pricing Policy) as attached to the business papers be adopted and the Policy Register be amended accordingly. It is further recommended that the Pricing Policy be amended to provide for the following fee structure per quarter (GST-incl) as exhibited in respect of low, medium and high intensity seasonal commercial use licences (not otherwise provided for in the Pricing Policy):

Low intensity use Medium intensity use High intensity use Commercial $400 $800 $1,200 Public $240 $480 $720 Community $120 $240 $360


Page 18

Personal trainer submissions A total of 154 submissions were received in relation to the proposed fee structure for personal trainers (139 objections; 8 in support; and 7 suggestions). A précis of the submissions received in relation to the proposed fee structure for personal trainers is attached to the business papers. The general sentiment of the submissions objecting to the proposed fee structure for personal trainers is that given Australian obesity rates, Council should be encouraging fitness and exercise by supporting personal trainers. The concurrent theme is that the proposed fee increases are not realistic and will work against encouraging people to exercise by putting personal trainers out of reach of people wishing to exercise or put personal trainers out of business. Comment: Under the proposal exhibited, personal trainers operating in Mosman with an

average of 10 clients or less over all sessions per week would pay $500 per annum for a licence – that is an increase of $430 per annum from the current fee or an increase of less than $9 per week over a 48 week working year. Personal trainers with an average of 11 clients or more over all sessions per week would pay $1,500 per annum for a licence – that is an increase of $1,430 per annum from the current fee or an increase of less than $30 per week over a 48 week working year.

Having regard to the level of fee increases proposed, the proposition that the financial viability of personal trainers will be removed because of the fee increases and as a consequence stop people from exercising has to be questioned. Personal trainers would have to either absorb the cost or pass on the cost to clients – it is difficult to reconcile the proposed fee increases with trainers being placed financially out of reach of people wishing to train or being put out of business.

There is no question of the valuable contribution personal trainers make towards ensuring the health and fitness of many residents, however the issue being considered here, as requested by Council, is whether commercial operators should pay an appropriate rate to contribute to the upkeep of the facilities they use.

This leads to the remaining general theme from submissions objecting to the fee proposal for personal trainers - that Council has an obligation to make public areas available for use by the public for exercise and that there should be no further fees to do so given that property owners already pay Council rates. Comment: Council has an economically responsible regime of user pays and it is the view that

personal trainers are no different to any other commercial operator who pays to use Council managed facilities to contribute towards the cost of asset maintenance and replacement.

The arguments put forward by submissions supporting the proposal are in general that commercial operators, particularly high impact users, using Council reserves should pay a more appropriate commercial rate. A number of submissions neither objected nor supported the fee proposals for personal trainers but offered comment and suggestions. These are summarised in the attachments and are self explanatory. It is recommended that Council determine the matter. Should Council determine to adopt the fees as exhibited, it is proposed to further amend the Pricing Policy for equity reasons to provided for a licence fee of $50 (GST-incl) per annum for persons who provide personal trainer and like services without charge. This fee is to cover the administration costs in ensuring the service provider has public liability insurance and is appropriately qualified and also in ensuring compliance with Council’s conditions. The appropriate resolution follows:-


Page 19

C. The Pricing Policy be amended to provide for the following fee structure with annual and quarterly fee options (GST-incl) as exhibited in respect of licences for personal trainers:

Average number of nominated clients per week over all sessions

Annual fee (GST-incl)

Quarterly fee (GST-incl)

1 to 10 clients $500 $17511 and greater clients $1,500 $425

D. The Pricing Policy be amended to provided for a licence fee of $50 (GST-incl) per annum

for persons who provide personal trainer and like services without charge. Plan of Management A Plan of Management to address risks, inappropriate use of public infrastructure and other issues regarding activities on Council’s public reserves is not considered necessary given that approvals for all uses are adequately conditioned in accordance with Council’s Policy on Personal Trainer Licencing adopted on 24 November 2004 and last amended on 4 July 2006. A copy of the Policy is attached to the business papers. The Policy addresses the concerns raised in debate in Council and in submissions received on this matter. Council Rangers will respond to contraventions of the conditions when observed or if a complaint is made. It is important to note that only one complaint about personal trainers has been received from residents since this matter was first reported to Council on 6 September 2011 and prior to that none had been received from residents since 2007. Notice of Motion 4 October 2011 Further to the above, Council at its meeting on 4 October 2011 considered a Notice of Motion lodged by Councillor Menzies concerning personal trainers and resolved that:

“Following the community consultation this idea be considered in the final policy changes: A. A directory of Personal Trainers, who are licensed by Mosman Council to train

groups in Mosman parks and reserves, be placed on Council's website to recognise who is paying Council fees for the use of parks and reserves.

B. Council develop a logo that Personal Trainers, who are licensed by Mosman

Council to train groups in Mosman parks and reserves, can use on their advertising material to differentiate themselves from those Personal Trainers who ignore the licensing system and train groups in Mosman parks and reserves without paying a fee to Council.

and further that a licensing system be investigated for all commercial foreshore users.”

The publication of a list of licensed personal trainers on Council’s web site is supported subject to trainers providing their consent to do so noting that ‘licensed’ also means paid up. The published list will also be accompanied by a statement that Council does not recommend or endorse any trainer or training methods and accepts no responsibility for the actions of trainers. It is recommended that this scheme be implemented. In relation to the development of a logo for use by licenced personal trainers, as personal trainers are presently issued with an annual approval and a photo ID licence with a licence number and expiry date, the use of a logo is supported provided the annual licence number issued by Council and/or the expiry date of the licence is also shown or incorporated. It is recommended that this scheme be developed and implemented administratively.


Page 20

A licensing system for all commercial foreshore users is not considered necessary as all applications for commercial use are assessed on their merits and approved in accordance with policy and delegations. Where a proposed commercial use is not covered by policy or delegations, the matter is reported to Council for direction as has recently been the case with proposed uses of Sirius Cove Reserve. The Policy for low, medium and high intensity seasonal commercial use licences for Council’s public reserves and associated fee structure is designed to cover all possible applications. All commercial and non-commercial use approvals are conditioned to ensure appropriate behaviour and amenity together with requirements for indemnification of Council. Commercial users of Council’s foreshore reserves such as kayak/stand up paddle board groups, dog classes, conduct of special and corporate events, marquee erection, commercial promotion and filming for instance need to make application. A strict list of conditions is imposed on any approval granted and rangers are notified of the approval for the commercial use and the conditions imposed in order to monitor and regulate if necessary. It is not clear what a licencing system would achieve over the current system of application, assessment, conditional approval, and regulation. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations Draft Policy for low, medium and high intensity seasonal commercial use licences for Council’s

public reserves (not otherwise provided for in the Pricing Policy). Precis of submissions received in relation to the proposed fee structure for personal trainers. Council’s Policy on Personal Trainer Licencing adopted 29 November 2004 and last amended

4 July 2006.


Page 21

CS/62 Councillor Costs over 3 Year Term MOSPLAN REF: 01.01.03 REPORT BY: Manager Finance, Mark McDonald SUMMARY To report on actual Councillor costs over the 3 years of this council term. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Finance recommends: That the advices be received. REPORT At the meeting on 4 October 2011, Council resolved the following in relation to Item NM/9 – Notice of Motion: Councillor costs over 3 year term: That staff prepare a report to the November meeting on the actual cost per year of all Mosman Councillors over the 3 years of this Council term. Council presents a Statement of Mayoral and Councillor Fees and Expenses in accordance with Section 428 (2) (f) of the Local Government Act, 1993 within its Annual Report. The following information has been extracted from the Annual Reports for 2008/2009, 2009/2010, 2010/2011 Annual Financial Accounts and the 2011/12 general ledger. Fin Year Mayoral

Allowance Councillor Allowance

Councillor Expenses

Mayoral Discretionary Fund

2008/2009 * $24,757 $102,060 $48,200 $3,162 2009/2010 $33,840 $139,500 $53,738 $3,917 2010/2011 $34,860 $143,730 $42,757 $6,908 2011/2012 ** $ 9,078 $ 37,422 $10,569 $1,130

* Annual Report information has been updated to reflect the Mayoral Allowance and Councillor Allowances for 9 months and Councillor Expenses to reflect 9 Councillors rather than the previous term which had 12.

** Represents 3 months to September 2011. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services


Page 22

CS/63 Financial Statements for Year Ended 30 June 2011 MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.01 REPORT BY: Manager Finance, Mark McDonald SUMMARY Tabling and presentation to the public of Council’s audited Financial Reports, together with the Auditor’s Reports for the year ended 30 June 2011 in accordance with Section 419 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1993. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Finance recommends: That the advices be received. REPORT The Financial Reports for the year ended 30 June 2011 were adopted by Council at the meeting held on 4 October 2011 (CS/49). The Audit Committee at its meeting on 29 September 2011 recommended their adoption by Council. Public notice that the audited Financial Reports, together with the Auditor’s Reports would be presented to the public at the meeting to be held on 1 November 2011 was given in the Mosman Daily and on Council’s website. Copies of the audited Financial Reports have been made available for inspection by members of the public at the Civic Centre, Library and on Council’s website. In accordance with Section 419 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1993, Council’s audited Financial Reports together with the Auditor’s Reports for the year ended 30 June 2011 will be tabled and presented to the public at the Council meeting. Councillors should note that a correction to an anomaly within Special Schedule 8 – Financial Projections has been made. The amended schedule which is not subject to audit and which does not impact on the 2011 result is attached to Councillors business papers. Any person may make submissions to the Council with respect to the audited Financial Reports or the Auditor’s Reports within (7) days after the date on which those reports are presented to the public. Any submissions must be referred to Council’s Auditor and Council may take such action as is considered appropriate with respect to any such submission. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services COUNCILLORS ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments

Amended Special Schedule No. 8 – Financial Projections


Page 23

CS/64 Financial Statement to 30 September 2011 MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.01 REPORT BY: Manager Finance, Mark McDonald SUMMARY Quarterly Financial Statement. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Finance recommends: That the Financial Statement for the quarter ended 30 September 2011 including the revised estimates and recommendations contained within the Manager Finance’s Report be adopted. REPORT The Financial Report for the quarter ended 30 September 2011 has been prepared in accordance with State Government requirements with the ultimate aim of providing consistent reporting across the industry. Attached to Councillors Agenda’s is the Manager Finance’s Report. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments Responsible Accounting Officer’s Statement Income and Expenses Budget Review Statement with Recommended Variations Capital Budget Review Statement with Recommended Variations Cash and Investments Budget Review Statement with Variations and associated commentary Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Budget Review Statement Summary of Contracts entered into during quarter and commentary Consultancy and Legal Expenses Statement


Page 24

CS/65 Investments MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.01 REPORT BY: Manager Finance, Mark McDonald SUMMARY Investment Schedule for the month of October 2011. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Finance recommends: That the Schedule of Investments be adopted. REPORT Schedule of all monies invested under Section 625 of the Local Government Act, 1993, for the month of October 2011 will be circulated with late correspondence. Council’s Manager Finance certifies that the investments have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act, 1993, Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation – Section 16 and Council’s Investment Policy. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments Investment Schedule for the month of October 2011 (to be circulated with Late

Correspondence)


Page 25

11. ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORTS EP/123 Mosman Bicycle Strategy - Bicycle Route Treatment Guidelines MOSPLAN REF: Program 11 REPORT BY: Project Engineer, Polly Makim SUMMARY Mosman Bicycle Route treatment guidelines. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets and Services recommends: That the report be noted and received. REPORT The majority of actions in the Mosman Bike Plan 2005-2010 have been completed. Preparation for a new bike plan is underway. Council has received RTA funding for a bike path audit and the Active Transport Working Group is assisting staff to develop a brief for the future bike plan. Part of the plan will involve route treatments. This report outlines the proposed treatments for roads suitable for bike paths in Mosman. The treatments are based on the NSW Bicycle Guidelines prepared by the RTA. The aim is to make cycling in Mosman safer and a more attractive transport option. The majority of the bicycle route network consists of roads that are 12.8 metres wide with parking on both sides and a single traffic lane in each direction. There are a small number of roads with limited parking on one side and restricted lane widths. In accordance with NSW Bicycle Guidelines, the treatment used on a given section of road will depend on the road geometry and the traffic volumes. Treatments will be generic but may require some site specific alterations. To distinguish treatments, the following terms will be used to classify vehicular traffic flow on roads for bike routes:

1. Insignificant Traffic: <50 vehicles per hour 2. Significant Traffic: 50-150 vehicles per hour 3. Moderate Traffic: 150-300 vehicles per hour 4. Heavy Traffic: >300 vehicles per hour

Each road based on its traffic flow and specific geometry will be given an appropriate treatment. The following treatment guidelines are proposed: Insignificant Traffic -Treatment A Treatment A is the installation of medium sized bike logos 3 metres from the kerb on the roadway at the beginning and end of the street. The maximum distance between logos will be 200 metres. Medium sized arrows in accordance with the RTA specifications are to be installed at each end


Page 26

indicating the direction of the cycle route. This type of treatment is seen in the NSW Bicycle Guidelines section 5.3 – Mixed Traffic Streets.

Significant Traffic - Treatment B Where parking is permitted, a parking boundary line will be installed 2 to 2.3 metres from the kerb. Medium sized bicycle logos as per RTA Specifications are to be installed 1 metre from the parking boundary line at the beginning and end of the street. Medium sized arrows are to be installed at each intersection indicating the direction of the cycle route. The parking boundary line will terminate to the kerb at intersections. It is proposed the line will continue across driveways but not bus stops. This type of treatment is seen in the NSW Bicycle Guidelines Section 5.3 – Mixed Traffic Streets.


Page 27

Moderate and Heavy Traffic - Treatment C Where parking is permitted and the road is relatively flat, less than 3%, a parking boundary line is to be installed 2.0 to 2.3 metres from the kerb and a bicycle shoulder lane is to be installed 3.4 to 3.9 metres from the kerb. This will allow for a cycle lane up to 1.4 metres wide. Small or medium sized bike logos in accordance with the RTA specifications will be installed on the roadway in the bicycle lane at the beginning and end of the street. The maximum distance between logos will be 75 metres. Small or medium sized arrows are installed at each intersection indicating the direction of the cycle route. This type of treatment is seen in the NSW Bicycle Guidelines Section 5.1.2 – Bicycle Shoulder Lanes. The parking boundary line will return to the kerb at intersections. It is proposed the line will continue across driveways but not bus stops.

Moderate and Heavy Traffic - Treatment D Where parking is permitted and the road has a considerable gradient, greater than 3%, a solid parking line is to be installed on the downhill side. On the uphill side a solid parking line and a broken shoulder line will be installed as seen in Treatment C. The same logo requirements apply as seen in Treatment C apart from a large or medium logo installed 3 metres from the kerb on the downhill side. This treatment has recently been installed in Bradley’s Head Road and has received positive feedback.


Page 28

Moderate and Heavy Traffic - Treatment C and D at T intersections A modification of Treatment C and D can be used at intersections. This requires the solid parking line to be broken when crossing an intersection. This is seen in the NSW Bicycle Guidelines figure 5.3.

Insignificant to Heavy Traffic – Treatment E In areas that cannot facilitate the installation of a bike lane and include a solid centre line, medium to large bike logos are to be installed. The maximum distance between logos is 75 metres and they are to be installed in the middle of the trafficable lane. This is seen in the NSW Bicycle Guidelines figure 5.13.


Page 29

Insignificant to Heavy – Treatment F Where there is only one trafficable lane, a medium to large bicycle logo is to be installed in the middle of the roadway. The maximum distance between logos is to be 75 metres.

Conclusion The above approach of line marking is supported by various Bicycle Groups as this provides a safer riding environment for cyclists. As mentioned these treatments are based on NSW Bike Guidelines prepared by the RTA. Each site will vary but it is considered important that guidelines be prepared and endorsed prior to the preparation of the next Mosman Bike Plan. Prior to the preparation of the Bike Plan, Council will liaise further with relevant stakeholders and the RTA will ensure that each proposed bicycle route receives the most suitable treatment. The Mosman Active Transport Working Group has assisted in the preparation of these guidelines and endorses its implementation.


Page 30

EP/124 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2011 -

Draft MOSPLAN REF: 03.03.03 REPORT BY: Manager Urban Planning, Linda Kelly SUMMARY A Draft section 94A Contributions Plan has been prepared for public exhibition. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Director Environment and Planning recommends: That

A. Draft Mosman Section 94A Contributions Plan 2011 be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days.

B. Following the exhibition period a report be prepared to Council on submissions received and any amendments proposed.

REPORT Mosman currently has two contribution plans:

1. Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2006 (applies to Spit Junction business area for car parking contributions and to areas that permit multiple dwellings for open space contributions), and

2. Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 (applies to all other areas) As reported to Council on 5 April 2011 the Section 94 Development Contributions Plan is for the period 2001 – 2011 and is therefore due to expire for open space while the car parking provided under the plan has now been fully subscribed. Council resolved at the meeting that:

A. Council note that the existing 2001-2011 Section 94 Contributions Plan is due to expire and that the carparking plan is now fully subscribed.

B. Council endorse the preparation of a new Contributions Plan under section 94A covering the matters identified in the report.

C. The draft section 94A report be reported to Council upon preparation and prior to referral to the Department of Planning.

In the April Council report it was anticipated that the gazettal of Draft Mosman LEP 2011 was then imminent. It now transpires that this was not the case as there are still unresolved issues between the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (the Department) and Council, and a gazettal date is still not known. Despite this it is timely for a draft Development Contributions Plan to be prepared. The draft Plan (attached to Councillors business papers) would replace the two current plans and would impose a levy to all development types in Mosman, in accordance with the rates below: All development types valued at $100,000 or less 0.0% All development types valued at $100,001 and up to $200,000 0.5% All development types valued in excess of $200,000 1.0%


Page 31

It is proposed to allocate funding to a broader range of projects than car parking and open space as in the current section 94 plan. Community development projects including the long day care centre at the Mosman Bowling Club site and the Art Gallery upgrade have been included in the draft plan as well as active transport projects (cycleways). Sport and leisure projects include the Drill Hall Common Sports Centre, playground upgrades (including Spit West and Rosherville Reserve among others), bushland regeneration and Mosman Swim Centre upgrade. Map 2, which forms part of the Appendices to the draft Plan, identifies the location of proposed works. The draft plan would apply to all land in Mosman with the exception of land at Taronga Zoo, Sydney Harbour National Park, defence land and land owned by the Harbour Trust. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 requires the draft Plan to be publicly exhibited for a period of 28 days. It is also a requirement notified in a Planning Circular (PS10-022 “Reforms to local development contributions) that before a draft contribution plan is publicly notified a council must seek approval from the Department to publicly exhibit the draft plan. This introduces an additional step in the process of preparing and finalising contribution plans. Recent advice from the Department is that the referral should take between one and two weeks. It is proposed to exhibit the draft plan commencing mid November. As reported in April this year it is possible that other contribution plans may be required to address future infrastructure particularly in relation to proposals arising from the Spit Junction Masterplan. The possible redevelopment of the Raglan Street west carpark would result in additional public carparking for which contributions in the Mosman Junction area could be required. In each of these cases the types of plans required and their relationship to the proposed new s.94A plan would be determined by Council at the time. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments Draft Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2011


Page 32

EP/125 Mosman Men's Shed, Georges Heights - Tender Evaluation MOSPLAN REF: 08.05 REPORT BY: Nazia Pokar, Project Engineer SUMMARY Evaluation of Tenders for the Construction of the Mosman Men’s Shed, Georges Heights. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets and Services recommends: That:

A. In accordance with the Local Government Act (General) Regulation 2005 Clause 178 subclause (1) (b), Council decline all tenders as all tenders were over the allocated budget;

B. In accordance with the Local Government Act (General) Regulation 2005 Clause 178 subclause (3) (e), Council enter into negotiations with ADR Group to further define the scope of works and achieve a more cost effective price;

C. In accordance with the Local Government Act (General) Regulation 2005 Clause 178 subclause (4) the following reasons be noted for not inviting tenders for a second time:

i. The Tender was downloaded by 55 companies and 7 companies attended the Pre-tender meeting. Tenders were received from eight companies. It is considered that an acceptable section of the market has responded to the Tender;

ii. Tender analysis indicates that there are areas that can be negotiated to make the work most cost effective, including a possible reduction in the scope of works to meet the allocated budget;

D. The General Manager be delegated Authority to conduct negotiations outlined in point (B) and award the Tender.

E. Should the negotiations outlined in (B) fail, the General Manager be delegated Authority to 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.

REPORT On 26 September 2011 Request for Tender for the Construction of the Mosman Men’s Shed was called and a pre–tender meeting was held on 7 October 2011. The closing date for submissions was 7 October 2011 and eight submissions were received via the Tender Box and on Tenderlink. The companies (in conjunction with sub-contractors) that submitted a tender were: (Listed in alphabetical order)

ADR Group Pty Limited Bilas Knight Pty Limited CM Constructions Pty Limited Growthbuilt Pty Limited Inten Constructions Pty Limited J+CG Constructions Pty Limited Murphy Constructions Pty Limited Rotric Constructions


Page 33

A probity risk assessment of the Tender process was conducted prior to tender and this concluded that it was not necessary to appoint a Probity Advisor provided:

A Probity Plan was prepared specific to the project; and Should any matters relating to probity arise they be dealt by the General Manager.

These requirements were met and have been addressed in the Probity Plan. A Tender Evaluation Committee was established containing selected Council staff and it observed the requirements for probity and confidentiality contained in the Tendering Manual. Each of the Tenders was checked against the essential criteria as stated in the Tender documentation and all were found to comply. Each Evaluation Committee member was required to undertake their own assessment of the non-price component of the Tenders based on the following criteria:

Criterion Weighting Price 60%

Timeframe and Methodology 20% Previous relevant/ Similar Experience

Qualifications and experience of the team 20%

Total 100% The project timeframes allocated by the Tenderers ranged from 6.5 – 14 weeks and cost estimates ranged from $191,240 to $308,039 excluding the provisional sums included in the Tender schedules and GST (with the median tender price being $231,647). Project methodologies were broadly similar with different emphases depending on the tenderer’s decision whether to work through the Christmas and the New Year break. Some proposals also placed different focus on different elements of the price schedules e.g. the cost of the pergola, preliminaries, carpentry and joinery were the components that were considered to vary. All contractor teams provided details of experience in similar or related projects which were of relevance to the current project. Based on the Evaluation Committee’s assessment against the weighted and non-weighted criteria it was concluded that the submission by ADR Group provided a well balanced submission meeting the primary requirements of this project. Although the evaluation committee recommended that negotiations be entered into relating to several aspects of the price schedule. The draft program of works envisages commencement in mid November and completion in 10 weeks subject to the contract being awarded in early to mid-November. Council has received funding for this project from local community groups, local businesses and there is an outstanding application of funding with the Department of NSW Sport and Recreation which is currently being assessed. In view of the significance of this project with regard to budget requirements and assessment by the Tender Evaluation Committee it is recommended that Council enter into negotiation with ADR Group. In the event that negotiations are not successful with ADR Group then Council enter into negotiations with any person (whether or not the person was a tenderer) with a view to entering into a contract in relation to the subject matter of the Tender.


Page 34

EP/126 Sporting Fields - Policy for Management and Use - Review of further submissions

MOSPLAN REF: 06.03 REPORT BY: Team Leader Open Space and Asset Management,

John Grady SUMMARY Outcome of the public consultation on review of the Draft Policy for Management and Use of Sporting Fields. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets and Services recommends: That

A. The Draft Policy for Management and Use of Sporting Fields attached to Councillors’ business papers be adopted;

B. Council’s Policy Register be updated accordingly;

C. All user groups be advised of Council’s decision; and

D. A meeting be held with Council staff and user groups to discuss implementation of the updated Policy and advise on submitting booking requests for the 2012 winter season.

REPORT On 6 September 2011 Council considered the report (EP/105) Sporting Fields – Management and Use – Draft Policy and resolved inter alia that:

B. The Draft Policy be amended by adding Section 9 Ongoing Review. This section will indicate that an annual report will be prepared for Council giving, in nominal maintenance dollar terms, the value of resources booked by each club that calendar year and the number of Mosman residents in that club, along with any recommendation for changes to Table 1 of the policy in the light of the updated per capita resource data.

C. The revised Draft Policy for Management and Use of Sporting Fields be exhibited on Council’s website and all user groups be notified that the revised document is available for review and comment and user representatives be invited to consult with Council staff prior to making further submissions.

D. Submissions from user groups be accepted by Council for a period of 21 days.

Section 9 Ongoing Review was added to the revised Draft Policy which is attached to Councillors’ Business Papers.

The Draft Policy and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) explaining the policy were published on Council’s website on 26 September 2011. Representatives of all user groups were notified on 26 September 2011 that the Draft Policy and FAQ’s were available for review. User groups were advised that submissions would be received until 17 October 2011 and they were welcome to meet with Council staff to discuss the Draft Policy prior to making submissions.


Page 35

Submissions were received from Mosman Little Athletics (Mosman LA) and Mosman Football Club (Mosman FC). Both submissions and supporting information are attached to Councillors’ Business Papers. In addition to the Mosman FC submission to Council, Mosman FC have also published information on their website regarding the policy. It is considered by staff that this information does not accurately portray the policy.

A summary of issues raised in the submissions and staff responses are also attached to the Business Papers. It is clear from the recent consultation that the major point of contention is the use of Allan Border Oval by Senior Soccer. In the Draft Policy, it is proposed to play senior men’s matches at a venue other than Allan Border Oval. The reason for this is to distribute the high level of use and wear across all ovals in both summer and winter seasons. This will make the provision of suitable quality surface for the variety of users of facilities achievable and sustainable while increasing the availability and use of playing fields.

In the 2011 winter season Allan Border Oval was used for senior football for 4hrs of 42hrs use per week (i.e. 1–5 pm Saturdays). (The industry accepted standard for oval use is 30hrs use per week) Whist 4 hours may be considered a relatively low amount of use by senior football; it has and will continue to create problems in regard to repairing damage to the wicket square in the short timeframe between summer and winter seasons. This is acknowledged in expert advice provided by Mosman FC which also refers generally to these difficulties and states there is a ‘major challenge with the wicket block becoming too hard/too soft and muddy, or damaged for cricket by AFL’. While this statement refers to AFL the issue with Allan Border Oval relates to senior football and creates the same problem. When considering the role played by Allan Border Oval for football, under the terms of the Draft Policy there would be:

1. No change to any opportunity to book the ground for junior competition; 2. Possible increased opportunity for some ladies competition; and 3. A restriction on senior men’s match bookings (currently 2 matches per week). That is, the

proposed change would affect about 2% of Mosman FC active members per week or about 0.6% of total winter users.

In considering the broad issue of managing Mosmans’ six sporting fields across the summer and winter seasons, Mosman is faced with the reality that:

- Because Mosman is a highly urbanised area, it has a limited number of sporting fields; - There is limited scope to increase the area of sporting fields; - Ovals in Mosman were very near capacity in 2005; - Mosman has amongst the lowest provision of sports fields per capita in Australia; - Mosman Football Club has doubled in player numbers over the past 10 years to become

‘one of the largest amateur sporting clubs in Australia’. This creates additional strain on limited resources;

- Other major clubs have also seen more modest increases or stable membership; - The Draft Policy will see more consolidated use of ovals resulting in more sustainable

management and increased availability to users; and - Considering the limited sporting fields in Mosman it is possible that all clubs and sporting

associations may reach a point where they need to look at how they manage membership numbers.

In preparing the Draft Policy and considering submissions Council staff have concluded that the revised use of grounds among the various sports and users provided increased benefits generally. It is considered that the overall increase in availability of suitable grounds would outweigh any disbenefit to Mosman FC on having to play two senior men’s matches per week at a venue other than Allan Border Oval.


Page 36

Conclusion Following the second consultation period of the Draft Policy all user groups have had a further opportunity to make submissions and comments. As noted when the Draft Policy was first reported to Council in April 2011, some user groups may be concerned that changes will not best serve their members. This has been the case with Mosman FC who have made submissions on how the policy should be structured to best meet its specific requirements.

It was also noted in the initial report that increasing demand for sporting facilities in highly urbanised areas is an issue that affects general users, local clubs, district sporting associations and sporting bodies and that Council is not in a position to manage this broad issue on its own. In this regard Council’s obligation is to sustainably manage its facilities to suitable standards with the resources available to it. The intent of the policy revision was to create a framework to manage ovals for all users across the summer and winter seasons. Some submissions from user groups proposed changes that were consistent and their suggestions worked towards the intent of the policy review and have been included in the revised Draft Policy. It is proposed that the Draft Policy for Management and Use of Sporting Fields be adopted by Council and users be advised that it will apply when considering booking requests for the 2012 winter season. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations Draft Policy Management and Use of Sporting Fields October 2011 Draft Policy Management and Use of Sporting Fields – Submission Review October 2011 Mosman Little Athletics Submission Draft Policy Management and Use of Sporting Fields

October 2011 Mosman Football Club Submission Draft Policy Management and Use of Sporting Fields

October 2011 Mosman Football Club – Keith McAuliffe – Turf Institute Correspondence Mosman Football Club – Press Release re Council Grounds Policy Mosman Football Club – Press Release re Summer 5 a side


Page 37

EP/127 State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011

MOSPLAN REF: 03.01.11 REPORT BY: Strategic Planner, Joe Vertel SUMMARY Advice on the commencement of a new State significant assessment system which includes changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulations and the commencement of State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Director Environment and Planning recommends: That the report be received and noted. REPORT On 22 June 2011, the NSW Parliament passed legislation to repeal the Part 3A ‘major projects’ system from the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act,1979 (EP&A Act) and replace it with a new system with less scope for Ministerial decision making. The new system commenced on 1 October 2011 and involves changes to the EP&A Act and Regulations and the commencement of a new State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011. An overview of the new system is provided below: State Significant Development State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 (SRD SEPP) declares certain types of development to be State Significant Development (SSD). This applies to 24 different classes of development listed in Schedule 1 and includes: Hospitals, medical centres and health research facilities with a capital investment value (CIV)

of more than $30 million; Educational establishments with a CIV of more than $30 million; and Port facilities and wharf or boating facilities with a CIV of more than $30 million. SSD also applies to development in 19 precincts identified as important for the State. These are listed in Schedule 2 and include: Taronga Zoo site where the development has a CIV of $10 million; Luna Park site where the development has a CIV of $10 million; and Sydney Olympic Park site where the development has a CIV of $10 million. State Significant Infrastructure The SRD SEPP declares certain classes of development to be State Significant Infrastructure (SSI). These are listed in Schedule 3 and include: Rail infrastructure projects; Water storage or water treatment facilities; and


Page 38

Pipelines. Specific projects which are declared SSI are identified in Schedules 4 and 5 and include: Pacific Highway upgrade North West rail link In addition to the above, the Minister still has the ability to ‘call in’ a specific project as SSD or SSI. Assessment pathway Once a proposal has been received by the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DoPI), consultation occurs with relevant public authorities including local councils to provide input into the preparation of the Director General’s requirements (DGR’s) for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The applicant must adequately address the DGRs in the EIS. Once the application and accompanying EIS is lodged, the DoPI will publicly exhibit the proposal for 30 days and advertise the exhibition in a local newspaper. Assessment of the application will be undertaken by the DoPI. Unlike the former Part 3A system, development standards in council local environmental plans (LEP’s) such as height and floor space ratio must be considered in determining SSD applications but not for SSI projects. Local council development control plans (DCP’s) do not apply to SSD or SSI projects. Development that is prohibited cannot be approved under the SSD system. However, the SSD system does allow for rezoning proposals to be concurrently assessed with the development application. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure is the consent authority for SSD and SSI applications; however, delegations have been established to allow the Planning and Assessment Commission (a NSW Government body made up of independent planning experts) or senior officers of the DoPI to determine applications on the Minister’s behalf. The Planning and Assessment Commission (PAC) will determine larger and more controversial applications, while senior officers of the DoPI will determine applications which have attracted fewer than 25 submissions by members of the public and where the local council has not objected to the proposal. The PAC will also determine all SSD applications where a reportable political donation has been made. Regional Development Revised classes of regional development (i.e. matters to be referred to the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) for determination) are now set out in Schedule 4A of the EP&A Act. The types of designated development that are regional development have been reduced. Only the following types of designated development are now regional development: Extractive industries; Marinas; and Waste management facilities Marinas are no longer a type of development considered as state significant development and the thresholds for extractive industries and waste management facilities have been increased. Several types of coastal development that were formerly regional development such as caravan parks, tourist and visitor accommodation and small subdivisions will now be determined by the relevant council.


Page 39

The most significant change to the regional development classes is that the CIV threshold for General development has been raised from $10 million to $20 million. This means that new DAs with a CIV of less than $20 million will now be determined by the relevant local council. However, developments which have a CIV of between $10 million to $20 million, which remained undetermined by Council after 120 days, may be referred by the applicant to the regional panel for determination. Implications for Mosman The implications for Mosman are that there would be fewer applications that would need to be referred to the regional panel for determination by virtue of the increased CIV threshold to $20 million. Projects that have been lodged with the DoPi under the previous Part 3A system (e.g. the Cache re-development at 710 Military and D’albora Marina) will continue to be assessed under that system pursuant to the savings provisions in the legislation.


Page 40

EP/128 11-17 Clifford Street - TPO Appeal Private Land MOSPLAN REF: 05.05.01 REPORT BY: Tree Management Officer, Stephen Wall SUMMARY Appeal against Tree Preservation Order Assessment on Private Land for 11-17 Clifford Street. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets and Services recommends: That:

A. Approval be granted to remove the six Chinese Tallow Wood trees at 11-17 Clifford.

B. The removed trees be replaced with six Blueberry Ash trees as outlined in the horticulturalist’s report supplied by the applicant.

REPORT Council received a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) appeal on 27 September 2011 on behalf of the Executive Committee of 11-17 Clifford Street requesting consent to remove six trees located at the front of the property. The trees are mature Chinese Tallow Woods (Sapium sebiferum) located in close proximity to the front of the building. Consent was given to remove two trees under the initial application, with the other six to be pruned to improve crown form. Council staff also advised that further information regarding the health and treatment works required to maintain the six trees should be supplied to Council if the owners still wish to remove the remaining trees. Attached to Councillors’ Business Papers is a copy of the appeal letter and the horticulturalist’s report outlining reasons why the trees should be removed and a landscape plan showing the proposed replacement species and their positions. The horticulturalist report (Prohort, 20 July 2011) stated that the trees are heavily infested with Pink Wax Scale (Ceroplastes rubens), the trees are in poor condition, lack vigour and that due to the stressed condition of the trees injection or drenching methods of treatment were not likely to succeed. The report recommended the existing trees be removed and be replaced with more suitable native species. After considering the condition and long term viability of the trees, it is recommended that consent be given for removal of the six Chinese Tallow Woods and their replacement by six Blueberry Ashes as per the landscape plan provided. The replacement species are better suited to the location and will increase the amenity and biodiversity value of the streetscape. Under Council’s current policy, consent from Council is required when an applicant seeks to remove more than three trees on private property.

Below is a photograph of the trees in their current condition.


Page 41

Recommendation endorsed by Director Environment and Planning. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations

Appeal against TPO assessment decision and Horticulturalist report


Page 42

EP/129 SEPP 1 Variations MOSPLAN REF: 04.02.02 REPORT BY: Manager Development Services, Angelo Falato SUMMARY Report in accordance with Department of Planning Circular PS08-014 - Reporting Variations to Development Standards. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Development Services recommends: That the report be received and the determinations endorsed. REPORT In accordance with the requirements of the Department of Planning Circular PS08-014 all applications determined where there has been a variation in development standards under SEPP No. 1 are listed in the attached table. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS SEPP 1 Variations: 1 September -30 September 2011


Page 43

12. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE

Report from the Traffic Committee Meeting 19 October 2011

The Traffic Committee met in the Council Chambers, Mosman Square on 19 October 2011 from 10:00am to 11.28am. PRESENT The Chairperson (Councillor P S Menzies) in the Chair, Ms Marilyn Mackenzie (representative of Jillian Skinner, MP), Ms Kaye Russell (RTA), Sgt Mick Sweeney (Harbourside LAC), Mr Wade Mitford (STA), together with the Manager Assets and Services, Senior Traffic Engineer, Road Safety Officer, and Senior Administration Officer. Councillors Wilton (until 10.54am), Reid (until 11.13am), Connon and Yates were in attendance. APOLOGIES No apologies were received from Councillors or Senior staff. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS No disclosures of pecuniary interests were raised by Councillors or Senior Staff. DISCLOSURES OF NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS No disclosures of non-pecuniary interests were raised by Councillors or Senior Staff. Items RESOLVED pursuant to authority delegated to the Committee: Item No Description T/44 Hale Road - Middle Harbour Public School Children's Crossing Upgrade T/46 Middle Head Road - 8 Hour Parking Trial T/48 Festival of Mosman 2011 - Temporary Road T/51 Wyong Road - 8P Parking Trial T/52 Keston Lane - Introduction of No Parking Restriction T/53 Stanton Road/Burran Avenue/Wyargine Street Intersection - No Stopping

restrictions T/54 Minutes from the Active Transport Working Group October 2011


Page 44

T/45 Beauty Point Public School - Pedestrian crossing

MOSPLAN REF: 11.04

REPORT BY: Senior Traffic Engineer, Sam Sathanesan Road Safety Officer, Rebecca Thomas

SUMMARY Pedestrian safety and parking problems associated with Beauty Point Public School. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets and Services recommends: That:

A. No further action be taken to relocate the existing pedestrian crossing on Medusa Street to Newton Lane;

B. A Shared Zone be installed in Newton Lane subject to RTA funding;

C. No further action be taken to install a drop-off/pick-up zone on the northern side of Medusa Street (outside the school); and

D. No further action be taken to install a roundabout at the intersection of Medusa Street and Pindari Avenue.

Ms S Clements (Beauty Point Public School Principal) and Mr H Portrate (P&C President - Beauty Point Public School) addressed the Committee on this item. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Motion Mackenzie/Menzies

That:

A. Detailed designs be undertaken for a relocated pedestrian crossing on Medusa Street 14m west of Newton Lane.

B. The designs detailed in A be reported to the next available Traffic Committee meeting.

C. A Shared Zone be installed in Newton Lane subject to RTA funding and approval.

D. The design of the shared zone be altered to limit the cost of implementation.

E. Detailed designs be undertaken for a drop-off/pick-up zone on the northern side of Medusa Street adjacent to Newton Lane.

F. No further action be taken to install a roundabout at the intersection of Medusa Street and Pindari Avenue.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BACKGROUND The provision and construction of the existing pedestrian crossing on Medusa Street has a long history. HISTORY


Page 45

1977 School upgraded from infants to full primary school. School approached Council to provide a children's crossing in Medusa Street in front of the school. Requests for crossing rejected due to small number of children crossing Medusa Street.

1979 School again requested pedestrian crossing in Medusa Street in front of school.

Warrants for a children's crossing justified. Following consultation with the school Principal, location of children's crossing determined and the Department of Main Roads was requested to install the crossing.

1982 School requests post and flags at crossing and request referred to Department of

Main Roads. 1984 Residents of Medusa Street form Action Group and requested the introduction of

traffic control measures and landscaping in Medusa Street. Residents suggested islands and tree planting at intervals along Medusa Street.

1986 Council decided to engage Traffic Consultants to prepare a Local Area Traffic

Management Scheme for Middle Harbour Ward. Following detailed consultation with affected parties the LATM scheme for Middle Harbour Ward was adopted and RTA requested to grant approval for stage 1.

1987 Approval granted for stage 1 which involved installation of traffic control devices in a number of streets. Two mid-block thresholds (raised brick paved areas) were prepared for Medusa Street and work commenced on the construction. One of the thresholds incorporated the Children's Crossing in front of the school and the other threshold is located about 12m west of Newton Lane, however it was decided to place the threshold about half way between Pursell Avenue and Spit Road and leave the school crossing unchanged with kerb projections.

1997 Requests by the school to remove threshold west of Newton Lane as children

crossed on the threshold believing it to be a safe crossing. Beauty Point Public School P&C expressed safety concern at threshold near Newton Lane and suggested it be converted to a pedestrian crossing. The School Principal advised that school did not have resources to supervise two crossings. Council decided to prepare a proposal to improve streetscape, pedestrian facilities and traffic facilities in Medusa Street and it was decided to consider the request to remove the threshold near Newton Lane at that time.

1999 Concept plan prepared for consideration by residents. Plan involved removal of two

thresholds and their replacement with planter beds in road shoulder with trees. The school crossing would have kerb blisters but would not be landscaped. Traffic Committee did not favour the concept plan and expressed concern with the removal of the thresholds.

2000 Concept plan favoured by residents and adopted by Council. Work commenced

about August/September 2000. Shortly after work commenced, representations were made by the school expressing its concern at the removal of the two thresholds as it would result in increased speed. School also expressed concern regarding the building of the planter beds as it is perceived to reduce visibility and reduce parking. Council continued with the approved plan.

2000 50km/h speed limit adopted for all local streets in Mosman. 2001 Council received a petition from parents and teachers of school concerning removal

of the thresholds and construction at the children’s crossing. Council received


Page 46

request for a raised threshold to be constructed at the children’s crossing. Funds are provided and the raised threshold was constructed in asphalt. Consideration is given by the Traffic Committee to changing the children’s crossing to a marked pedestrian crossing. The numerical warrants for a pedestrian crossing used predominantly by children were not met but a directive from the RTA in May 1998 required all existing raised thresholds serving both traffic calming and pedestrian crossing functions to be marked as a pedestrian crossing even if the warrants were not met. The Traffic Committee therefore approved the installation of a marked pedestrian crossing on Medusa Street in front of the school in its present location.

2005 Council engaged a consultant to conduct a safety audit around Beauty Point Public

School. As a result of the audit, recommendations were made by the consultant for stakeholders’ consideration and action. Those recommendations included a drop-off and pick-up area outside Beauty Point School on Medusa Street and a proposed roundabout at the intersection of Medusa Street and Pindari Avenue. Both were rejected by Council. Traffic Committee and the Police and STA advised that they were not in favour of the roundabout due to problems with buses and loss of parking. A number of submissions were received from the residents of Medusa Street and Pindari Avenue objecting to the proposals for the roundabout due to loss of parking.

2010 On 7 September 2010 Council resolved to conduct an independent survey to

ascertain parking needs of residents and the viability of a pedestrian crossing closer to Newton Lane.

2011 External traffic consultant was appointed to conduct a traffic study around Beauty

Point Public School. The report suggested four (4) potential options for treatments to improve the pedestrian safety of students travelling to and from Beauty Point Public School.

On 22 June 2011 the Local Traffic Committee considered the consultant's report (Item T/31) and resolved that, inter alia; "to endeavour to make safe access into Newton Lane and move the pedestrian crossing to a safer location the Traffic Committee, as a priority, hold an on-site meeting with all interested parties and undertake consultation with the school, local residents, STA and interested stakeholders. Following this, a further report be prepared for the Traffic Committee incorporating the findings”.

REPORT The members of the Local Traffic Committee, the chairman of the Active Transport Committee, representatives from the STA and the Beauty Point Public School Principal met on site on 17 August 2011. At the meeting the Principal advised that Newton Lane is now the main pedestrian access to and from the school. The members of the Committee and the Principal discussed a number of options that included relocation of the pedestrian crossing to Newton Lane, drop-off / pick-up area on Medusa Street, a roundabout at the Medusa Street /Pindari Avenue intersection and a Shared Zone in Newton Lane. Following the discussion, it was agreed that further report be prepared for consideration by the Local Traffic Committee.


Page 47

DISCUSSION Relocation of pedestrian crossing The school has relocated the main pedestrian access point from adjacent the existing marked crossing to Newton Lane. The school has now requested that the pedestrian crossing on Medusa Street be relocated closer to Newton Lane. The school has advised that the newly constructed access ramp within the school grounds at the previous main entry point is unsafe to use. In March 2011 a traffic consultant was commissioned by Council to undertake a traffic study of Beauty Point Public School. The study was undertaken based on the traffic surveys for volume and speed, crash history, site observations and feedback from the key stakeholders. The study report recommended that no changes be made to the existing pedestrian crossing, as the crossing was not technically warranted. The RTA provides numerical warrants for pedestrian crossings on public roads. Based on the current traffic volumes, Medusa Street does not meet any of the RTA's normal warrant criteria for a pedestrian crossing. Crossings used by children are warranted when in a one hour duration immediately before and after school hours P (pedestrian numbers) >30 and V (vehicle numbers) >200. A pedestrian crossing on Medusa Street is not warranted as the peak traffic volume recorded was less than 200 vehicles per hour. The Principal advised Council that the previous main pedestrian access point on Medusa Street is currently blocked. This is because the newly constructed access ramp was deemed to be unsafe. Council Officers have examined the site and if a new crossing was considered it could be located at the existing landscape treatment area (concrete build out with planting), approximately 14 metre west of Newton Lane. The location is shown on the attached sketch. It should be noted that the existing build outs were constructed in the 1980s and do not meet the current standards. The cost of removing the existing pedestrian crossing on Medusa Street and constructing a new one to facilitate the newly created entrance for the school is expected to be in the order of $70,000. Council has no budget for this work. The new crossing must be built to the current standards and include additional lighting. The preliminary investigation revealed that the installation of a pedestrian crossing at this location would also require the removal of at least four (4) on-street parking spaces on Medusa Street. It should be noted that the ‘No Stopping’ restrictions associated with the crossing will be introduced on Medusa Street in front of residential properties. Drop-off / Pick-up area If the pedestrian crossing on Medusa Street was relocated closer to the intersection with Newton Lane, as requested by the Beauty Point Public School, the ‘No Stopping’ area on the school side of Medusa Street associated with the existing crossing could be converted to a drop-off/pick-up zone. It should be noted that a drop-off/pick-up zone is usually signposted as ‘No Parking’ area which is limited to a maximum of two (2) minutes and requires the driver to stay within 3m of the vehicle. This appears impractical for the current observed behaviour of parents. The current practice is for parents to park their vehicle in Medusa Street/Pindari Avenue and walk with their children between the school grounds and the vehicle due to sufficient parking being available in surrounding streets. Therefore the provision of a drop-off/pick-up area on Medusa Street is not expected to be properly used by parents, especially if the main gate is in Newton Lane.


Page 48

Installing a drop-off/pick-up zone would also encourage other road safety issues such as increased incidences of u-turns and three point turns to avoid Spit Road, and increased traffic and cars queuing down Medusa Street. If the crossing is relocated to near Newton Lane this will also mean that there is the possibility that cars will queue into the ‘No Stopping’ zone and onto the crossing area, which will cause safety issues for pedestrians. Newton Lane- Installation of Shared Zone Newton Lane is a public road and provides rear access to a private garage. The speed limit is 50km/h. There are no footpaths in Newton Lane. Even though the speed environment is much slower than the posted speed limit, technically it is a road and is not suitable for use by school children. Should the school continue to encourage the use of Newton Lane as the main pedestrian access to and from the school, consideration should be given to alter the status of Newton Lane to Shared Zone. In Shared Zone drivers must give way to pedestrians. The approximate cost to introduce a Shared Zone is $20,000. This would result in red asphalt being laid in the lane. Roundabout at Medusa Street / Pindari Avenue intersection The Local Traffic Committee has previously considered a similar proposal in 2005. The proposal to install a roundabout at the intersection of Medusa Street and Pindari Avenue was rejected by both the Local Traffic Committee and Council. The Police and STA advised that they were not in favour of the roundabout due to problems with buses and loss of parking. Residents were also concerned about the loss of parking in Pindari Avenue and Medusa Street. The estimated cost to install a roundabout at this location is in the order of $120,000. CONCLUSION Based on traffic volume, speed, crash history and the existing behaviour of parents, changes to the existing pedestrian crossing cannot be justified. As the reason for relocation of the pedestrian crossing is to facilitate the school relocating its entrance, it is considered that Council should not be required to fund any modification should it occur and the Department of Education should be approached in the first instance. Should the relocation of the pedestrian crossing progress further, public consultation should be undertaken with all affected residents. It is considered the installation of a roundabout at the Medusa Street/Pindari Avenue intersection not be considered further and the installation of a Shared Zone in Newton Lane be forwarded to the RTA and the Department of Education for funding consideration. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no implications at this stage. MEMBERS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations

Existing pedestrian crossing on Medusa Street


Page 49

T/47 Muston Street - Speed and Volume Counts

MOSPLAN REF: 11.04

REPORT BY: Senior Traffic Engineer, Sam Sathanesan SUMMARY Consideration of the results of speed and volume counts in Muston Street. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets and Services recommends: That:

A. For a trial period of six (6) months, a dedicated area in Muston Street be allocated for police vehicles;

B. The Council Road Safety Officer be requested to work with the Police regarding increased police enforcement of the area; and

C. An evaluation report be submitted to the Local Traffic Committee at the end of the trial period.

Ms S Fitzpatrick (11 Muston Street) addressed the Committee on this item. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Motion Menzies/Russell

That:

A. The staff consider the installation of alternative traffic calming measures in Muston Street that are more cost effective, for a trial period of 6 months.

B. Council staff liaises with the resident at 11 Muston Street as a trial location for a traffic calming device.

C. Any devices installed are not to negatively impact the amenity of cyclists.

D. An evaluation report to be submitted to the Local Traffic Committee at the end of the trial period.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

REPORT

Police were requested to examine and report on the problem of vehicles speeding along Muston Street. The Police inspected Muston Street between Middle Head Road and Raglan Street to assess the roads suitability for speed enforcement.

However, given the road width and high parking occupancy, no suitable location in Muston Street could be utilised for devices such as Lidar and Radar.


Page 50

The inspecting officer was of the opinion that the speeding problem could be a perceived problem rather than a real problem due to the narrowness of the street and the high rate of kerbside parking.

In this regard, volume and speed of vehicles were measured for a seven day period in August 2011 using recording tubes placed on Muston Street. Speed and volume counts The survey tubes were placed at two locations. One location is between Middle Head Road and Raglan Street (Location Number 1) and the other location is between Raglan Street and Upper Almora Street (Location Number 2). The surveys recorded the speeds of all vehicles crossing the survey sites in each direction. Location Number 1 - Northbound traffic Average Daily Traffic (5-day average) - 1242 veh/day. Average Daily Traffic (7-day average) - 1162 veh/day. AM Peak hour volumes varied between 101 and 136 vehicles. PM Peak hour volumes varied between 154 and 179 vehicles. Mean Speed - 44 kmh. 85th percentile speed - 52 km/h. Number of vehicles exceeding the 50km/h speed limit varied between 179 and 292 per day. Number of vehicles exceeding 60km/h varied between 13 and 24 per day. Location Number 1 - Southbound traffic Average Daily Traffic (5-day average) - 1111 veh/day. Average Daily Traffic (7-day average) - 1060 veh/day. AM Peak hour volumes varied between 162 and 180 vehicles. PM Peak hour volumes varied between 102 and 137 vehicles. Mean Speed - 44 km/h. 85th percentile speed - 53 km/h. Number of vehicles exceeding the 50 km/h speed limit varied between 158 and 274 per day. Number of vehicles exceeding 60km/h varied between 16 and 33 per day. Location Number 2 - Northbound traffic Average Daily Traffic (5-day average) - 1348 veh/day. Average Daily Traffic (7-day average) - 1303 veh/day. AM Peak hour volumes varied between 92 and 105 vehicles. PM Peak hour volumes varied between 151 and 177 vehicles. Mean Speed - 45km/h. 85th percentile speed -54 km/h. Number of vehicles exceeding the 50 km/h speed limit varied between 255 and 380 per day. Number of vehicles exceeding 60km/h varied between 30 and 55 per day.


Page 51

Location Number 2 - Southbound traffic Average Daily Traffic (5-day average) - 1188 veh/day. Average Daily Traffic (7-day average) - 1165 veh/day. AM Peak hour volumes varied between 170 and 184. PM Peak hour volumes varied between 106 and 122. Mean Speed - 45km/h. 85th percentile speed - 54km/h. Number of vehicles exceeding the 50km/h peed limit varied between 205 and 354 per day. Number of vehicles exceeding 60 km/h varied between 18 and 44 per day. DISCUSSION The traffic survey results indicate that there is a moderate speeding problem in this section of Muston Street. One of the options to address this problem is to install traffic calming devices in Muston Street. However, this would be subject to resident consultation, possible objections from residents and Local Traffic Committee approval. In addition, this project would require substantial funding (approximately $100,000) which is not available at this stage. The most appropriate way to address this issue at this stage would be to request the Police to increase their enforcement activities in Muston Street as regular police presence, education campaigns and enforcement activities in residential streets have the affect of slowing vehicles. This would require the temporary removal of some parking spaces to facilitate the police when utilising radar and lidar. In an attempt to minimise the impact of any loss of on street parking the space could be converted back to parking when not being utilised by the NSW Police. This would simply involve alteration to sign posting. CONCLUSION

The Police be requested to increase their enforcement activities in Muston Street. For a trial period of six (6) months, a dedicated area in Muston Street should be allocated to

Police vehicles when they are undertaking speed checks. The timing and location of the area would be determined by Council staff and the NSW Police to reduce any impact to on street parking.

Further speed and volume counts be undertaken in six (6) months time and reported back to the Local Traffic Committee.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The cost of the erection of the proposed parking signs can be financed from the Traffic Facilities Fund.


Page 52

T/49 Spit Junction - Pedestrian Safety Update

MOSPLAN REF: 11.05

REPORT BY: Road Safety Officer, Rebecca Thomas SUMMARY Update on pedestrian safety at Spit Junction. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets and Services recommends: That any action regarding the Spit Junction Intersection be deferred until the PAMP study and Spit Junction Master Plan have been completed and the recommendations of the documents are considered. This item has been called by Councillor Reid. Councillor Reid addressed the Committee on this item. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Motion Mackenzie/Menzies That the Officer's Recommendation be adopted and further the Committee request Jillian Skinner MP to make representations to the Roads Minister, Duncan Gay MP

LOST

Motion

The Officer's Recommendation be adopted. LOST BACKGROUND At the Traffic Committee meeting of 21 April 2010 (Item T/21) it was resolved that:

A. The RTA be requested to investigate pedestrian safety issues at Spit Junction as part of the Spit Road/Military Road corridor traffic flow improvement; and

B. Council re-submit the application for Federal Government Black Spot Funding this year for the Spit Road/Military Road Intersection.

This report is to update the Committee on correspondence that has been received and actions taken on this intersection since April 2010. REPORT Since April 2010 the following actions have occurred:

August 2010: Council officers wrote to the RTA and have received a response which has been reported to Council;

November 2010: Council officers wrote to the Chief Executive of the RTA and the local MP; August 2010 and 2011: Investigations into applying for RTA Black Spot Funding; July 2011: Meeting with RTA staff on applying for Black Spot Funding for Spit Junction;


Page 53

January to June 2011: Road safety pedestrian project was conducted; May 2011: Installation of pedestrian fencing; and Current: Development of both a Pedestrian Access Mobility Plan (PAMP) and the Spit

Junction Master Plan. All the actions above are explained in detail in the pages below. RTA Correspondence In August 2010 Council requested the RTA to increase the number of lanterns, location of lanterns and lengthen the pedestrian phasing at the intersection due to safety concerns. A response from the RTA was reported to the Council meeting of 3 August 2010 (Item COR/13). The RTA had determined there was no need for extra lanterns, they advised they had adjusted the lanterns and completed some minor timing adjustments to the pedestrian phase of the lights and would monitor the situation. On 18 November 2010 the Road Safety Officer wrote to the Chief Executive of the RTA and Local MP requesting them to make Spit Junction a safety priority. A reply was received in February 2011 from the RTA's Chief Executive. The RTA stated that they had installed some new software on the traffic lights which should improve the current situation. A copy of this letter is attached in the Members’ Business Papers. It has been observed recently that the green time has lengthened slightly since receiving the letter, allowing pedestrians more time to cross safely. Black Spot Funding Council officers have investigated not only Spit Junction but other areas in Mosman to try to meet the criteria for the NSW Black Spot Funding. This funding targets road locations where serious crashes occur with the objective of reducing the occurrence and severity of crashes at known crash locations by installing cost effective treatments. To gain funding from this source, certain criteria and a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) needs to be met. This includes the number of crashes, severity of crashes, and the treatments that are to be applied must reduce the incidence of these crashes. Due to Spit Junction being an RTA-managed and also the intersection having traffic signals, in order to submit an application the RTA needs to approve and then submit a joint application with Council. In August 2010, and again in August 2011, Council officers wrote and also met with the RTA requesting that an application be submitted for this location. The response on both occasions from the RTA was that this location does not meet the necessary requirements and criteria for this type of funding. This was due to the number and severity of pedestrian accidents at the crossing in a 5-year period being nil in 2004-2009 and two in 2005-2010. This did not meet the necessary BCR that was needed to submit an application. In correspondence it was stated that the RTA would investigate other types of funding to address any issues. No further correspondence has been received in this regard. Meeting with RTA In a meeting with the RTA in July 2011 it was stated that this intersection is being reviewed as part of the RTA's Pinch Point Program and that some changes might be needed in the future to address Council’s concerns about pedestrians waiting on the centre island and short pedestrian phases. It was suggested by the RTA that in order to improve the overall safety and to get longer phases, one section (currently three sections) of the crossing would have to be removed. This would mean there would only be a single crossing across Military Road and a single crossing


Page 54

across Spit Road. This option has not been pursued and Council has had no future correspondence in this regard. Road Safety Pedestrian Project As part of the Road Safety Action Plan, a pedestrian safety project was completed that targeted pedestrians at Spit Junction. Its objective was to make people use the lights correctly and to also pay attention when crossing the road. It used holders which attached to the light posts with posters showing accidents within the area and included road safety messages. Evaluation of the project showed that there was a reduction of people crossing the road against the red signal from 11% to 9% when the posters were being displayed. Pedestrian Fencing In May 2011 the RTA installed pedestrian fencing along Military Road from Brady Street to Cowles Road in order to improve safety for pedestrians and to try and direct people to use the pedestrian facilities in the area. PAMP and Spit Junction Master Plan Currently planning and drafts for both the PAMP and Spit Junction Master Plan are underway. Both plans will investigate pedestrian desire lines and look at ways of improving the safety of pedestrians at this location and the surrounding area. It is anticipated that the PAMP study will be completed by the end of 2011 and the Spit Junction Master Plan in October 2012. MEMBERS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments RTA Correspondence February 2011


Page 55

T/50 Street Parties and Road Closures

MOSPLAN REF: 11.04

REPORT BY: Senior Traffic Engineer, Sam Sathanesan SUMMARY Consideration street parties in Mosman. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets and Services recommends: That:

A. The assessment time for Street Party Applications be reduced to two (2) months;

B. Council continue to assist event organisers of a street parties by preparing Traffic Control Plans (TCP);

C. A maximum of two (2) Traffic Control Plans be prepared in any month on a first come first served basis; and

D. Council continue to advertise road closures for a street party at no cost to the applicant. This item has been called by Councillor Yates. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Motion Sweeney/Mackenzie

That the Officer's Recommendation be adopted. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BACKGROUND A Question without Notice was asked by Councillor Yates regarding making the administrative overheads and costs of organizing a street party less burdensome. The purpose of this report is to outline some options that Council could take to achieve this. REPORT A Street Party is an event to be held on a local road (Council road). As such an Event Application must be submitted to Council for assessment and approval. This application must include a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) in accordance with the relevant RTA requirements. Council must ensure that the TCP and the application form are completed and forwarded to the members of the Local Traffic Committee for approval prior to giving consent for the event. These requirements were introduced by the RTA and Council for public safety reasons. If the application is approved there must be assurances that the TCP is implemented correctly and all safety precautions are carried out throughout the period of the road closure. In general if there is a road closure there must be appropriate warning signs as well as detour signs and barricades. These barricades must be approved pedestrian barriers such as Triton or water filled barricades and can not simply be garbage bins or A-frames. The road closure points must be manned by accredited traffic controllers at all times. Provision must also be made at the closure points to facilitate easy access for emergency vehicles.


Page 56

In the past to ensure that all this occurs, approvals for road closures for street parties have been given subject to a condition that the organisers of street parties use the assistance of professional traffic control companies to co-ordinate the road closure and traffic management issues. This is a cost is to be borne by the event organiser. Council does not charge a fee to hold a street party nor does it charge a fee to advertise the street closure in the Mosman Daily. This fee is absorbed by Council. Enquiries with Traffic Management Contractors have indicated the approximate costs for above components:

Preparation of a TCP by accredited Traffic Contractor - $1500 Hire of two accredited Traffic Controllers - $135 per hour for a two man crew Hire and transport of Barriers - $700 (minimum of 10 barriers required for a road closure)

DISCUSSION RTA and Police Requirements In addition to Council requirements, applications for road closures are assessed against statutory requirements specified by the RTA and Police. These can not be made less burdensome for event organisers. These include:

Correct submission of Form 1 under the Summary Offences Act. The Police will then respond to the applicant advising of any conditions imposed on the event. If these conditions are not complied with, the Police may terminate the event in accordance with the Traffic Act;

Submission of a Traffic Management Plan and use of appropriate barricades for road closures;

No alcohol to be sold, no underage drinking or any anti-social behaviour;

Timely notifications to all affected residents;

Emergency access for emergency service vehicles must be maintained at all times.

The organiser may need to consider private security if the party attracts substantial crowds; and

The event organiser must consider public liability issues.

In addition, the Police have advised Council that if anyone declares himself or herself to be the organiser of a street party and someone is injured or assaulted or property damaged as a result of the party, there is a strong possibility that a civil prosecution may be mounted against the declared organiser.

Council Requirements Currently Council requires the following to hold a street party. In order to make administrative overheads and cost of organising a street party less burdensome a few options have been discussed under each heading. Event Application


Page 57

Council requires the event organiser to lodge an Event Application. Currently applicants should submit an application three (3) months prior to the event. It is considered that this is a necessary requirement however the period of lodgement could be reduced to two (2) months prior to the event. Council has had problems in the past with applications being received with as little as one week notification. This is not acceptable or reasonable and applications without sufficient notice will be declined. Application fee Currently there are no fees or charges for street party applications. No change is proposed. Preparation of Traffic Control Plans for road closures As discussed the costs for the preparation of a TCP are in the order of $1500. This must be undertaken by a RTA approved Ticket Holder. In the past, if requested by the event organiser, Council Staff have assisted the applicant with the preparation of a TCP. The plan is prepared by Council's Senior Traffic Engineer who is a RTA approved Ticket Holder, and then is referred to the members of the Traffic Committee for approval. The preparation of a TCP by staff can be time consuming and additional time is required to obtain the Traffic Committees approval. Given this and the fact that street parties are generally held in November and December, it is suggested that only two TCP’s be prepared by Council staff free of charge in any month. This should be on a first come first served basis. Temporary road closure - Traffic controllers Road closure points must be controlled either by Police Officers or by accredited traffic controllers. It has been suggested that the organisers of street parties use the assistance of professional traffic control companies to co-ordinate the traffic management issues. As mentioned enquiries have been made with a number of accredited companies and the cost for this is $135 per hour for a two men (crew minimum four hours) and includes hire of standard signs. It is not considered appropriate that Council Rangers become involved in these activities as they have many other duties to perform on weekends and could not be expected to stay on-site for the duration of the party. The organisers themselves cannot undertake these tasks unless they are accredited. Another option is to get assistance from NSW Police. If police assistance is required with traffic control, the Local Area Commander of NSW Police will decide the level of police assistance required. A user-pay system may apply. The event organiser may apply to the Regional Commander for the user-pay charges to be waived. Temporary road closure - Traffic barriers Approved pedestrian barriers such as Triton or water filled barricades must be used as road closure barriers. The RTA and Police have advised Council that standard barrier boards (A-frames) are not suitable for closing roads for street parties. Hire charges are approximately $30 per barrier (2m long). For a small scale street party, a minimum of ten barriers are required per application. The total cost would be $700 (including transport costs).


Page 58

It should be noted that Council does not carry any barriers and hires them for its own road closures. These barriers are large and as such would require substantial space which is not available in Council's Depot. The option of Council purchasing Triton barriers has been investigated in the past. Triton barriers cost in the order of $1200 each. Ten barriers would cost $12,000 and Council would have to find a suitable location for storage. If the event organiser does not have the facility to transport these barriers or trained installers (barriers must be installed as per requirements) Council would be required to transport them to and from site and install them. This would mostly occur out of standard work hours. If this was the case and if Council was the owner and installer of the barriers it would assume liability if an accident occurred. This approach is not favoured on either a cost or liability basis. Advertising of temporary road closure Currently Council meets the cost of advertising the road closure in the Mosman Daily. This cost is in the order of $400. It is a requirement that the applicant letter box drop the area and to obtain the support of the affected residents in the area in the form of a signed petition. They also have to notify emergency services of the event and the road closure. In the past problems have arisen when an owner in the street has objected to the street party and road closure. In this circumstance special consideration is required. Council staff are not the mediators in this and this responsibility is the event organiser. If there is an objection, the event organiser should reconsider the street closure or limit the closure so it is not outside the objector’s property. Public Liability Insurance Street parities can be covered under the Council's Casual Hirer's Policy and requires notification to the insurer of the location and date of the event. Street parties in other Council areas A number of enquires have been made with Councils regarding street parties, these include North Sydney, Manly, Willoughby and Newcastle. All require the lodgment of a TCP and traffic controllers but lack detail regarding barrier requirements. Newcastle Council's "Our Street" street party program details are attached to the Members' Business Papers. CONCLUSION Given the strict RTA and Police requirements to maintain safety relating to road closures for street parties there is little Council can do to make administrative overheads and costs of organizing a street party less burdensome. It is suggested Council continue to assist event organisers facilitate street parties with the preparation of Traffic Control Plans (TCP) and undertaking advertising of road closures on behalf of applicants. Purchase of and installation of barriers is not supported as it is not cost efficient and Council will be exposed to potential liability issues should an accident occur. Organisers should be encouraged to use the assistance of professional traffic control companies to co-ordinate traffic management issues as this will meet the requirements of the RTA and Police and result in a safer and more manageable event. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS None.


Page 59

MEMBERS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations Newcastle Council's Street Parties information Kit. 13. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Questions Without Notice to be submitted by Councillors for consideration.


Page 60

14. CORRESPONDENCE

COR/14 Correspondence: Roads to Recovery

MOSPLAN REF: 11.02 RECOMMENDATION That the correspondence be received. CORRESPONDENCE A further reply has been received in response to the Mayor's correspondence with regard to continuation of the Roads to Recovery. The Hon Warren Truss, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, has written to the Mayor:


Page 61

15. NOTICES OF MOTION / RESCISSION MOTIONS NM/12 Notice of Motion: Personal Trainers Fee Policy SUBMITTED BY: Councillor Halloran MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.01 NOTICE OF MOTION The officer's report be accepted with the inclusion of the following policy relating specifically to personal trainers. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations Draft Policy Paper – Personal Trainer Licencing Policy prepared by Councillor Halloran dated

15 October 2011


Page 62

NM/13 Notice of Motion: Council Elections - Complexity of Above the Line Voting and Waste Implications

SUBMITTED BY: Councillor Reid MOSPLAN REF: 01.03 NOTICE OF MOTION That, having regard to the huge waste of paper for the many additional names required to be included on the ballot paper in order for candidates to appear above the line, and the cost and complexity of counting votes, which demands: 1) Votes be counted by a computer program at a central counting location, 2) Where, due to the distance from many areas and time constraints, 3) Scrutiny is virtually impossible, and 4) Further can take some weeks to declare a result; Council request the State Government to review the system and consider a return to the previous system of voting for local government elections, which was much more transparent, easier to count, scrutinise and reach an early result, generally at the end of counting on election day, and which was far less costly to the community and more conducive to a truly open and democratic process.

agenda for ordinary meeting of council - 1 november 2011 · the ordinary meeting of council...

Documents