notice of meeting you are advised of the following meeting · 2015-08-11 · 6 december 2012 ....

6 DECEMBER 2012

NOTICE OF MEETING

You are advised of the following meeting:

TUESDAY 11 DECEMBER 2012.

Meeting of Council Meeting No. 23/12

Council Chambers, Level 6, Civic Centre, 1 Devlin Street, Ryde - 7.30pm

Continued over……

Council Meeting

AGENDA NO. 23/12 Meeting Date: Tuesday 11 December 2012 Location: Council Chambers, Level 6, Civic Centre, 1 Devlin Street, Ryde Time: 7.30pm

Council Meetings will be recorded on audio tape for minute-taking purposes as authorised by the Local Government Act 1993.

NOTICE OF BUSINESS

Item Page

MAYORAL MINUTES MM19/12 CLUB 6 SPONSHIP 2013 – The Mayor, Councillor Ivan Petch ................ 1 MM20/12 RYDE HUNTERS HILL SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA – The Mayor,

Councillor Ivan Petch .............................................................................. 14 COUNCIL REPORTS 1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Council Meeting held on 27

November 2012 ...................................................................................... 16 2 REPORT OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE MEETING 14/12 held on 4 December 2012 ..................... 17 3 REPORT OF THE WORKS AND COMMUNITY COMMITTEE

MEETING 15/12 held on 4 December 2012 ........................................... 21 4 2012/2013 CHRISTMAS NEW YEAR ARRANGEMENTS -

DELEGATIONS TO THE MAYOR AND GENERAL MANAGER ............ 25 5 COUNCIL WORKSHOPS AND INDUCTION SESSIONS ...................... 28 6 SUMMARY OF EXPENSES RELATING TO THE GENERAL

MANAGER AND SENIOR STAFF .......................................................... 36 7 2012 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION PROCESS ........................... 45 8 CODE OF MEETING PRACTICE ........................................................... 46 9 COMMUNITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ..................................................... 55 10 GLADESVILLE RSL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL ............................... 63 11 SUBMISSION TO POSITION PAPER - IMPROVING THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STANDARD INSTRUMENT LEP PROGRAM ............................................................................................. 91

12 DRAFT RYDE LEP 2011 - SUBMISSIONS AND RELATED MATTERS ............................................................................................ 100

13 BOARDING HOUSES POLICY - Draft Enforcement Policy and Draft Development Control Plan ........................................................... 130

14 NORTH RYDE URBAN ACTIVATION PRECINCT ............................... 142 15 ESTABLISHMENT OF A MOBILE PLAYGROUP SERVICE IN THE

CITY OF RYDE .................................................................................... 166 16 CHANGES TO FEES & CHARGES - TREES AND PLAQUES ............ 186 17 MEADOWBANK / GLADESVILLE TRAFFIC STUDY ........................... 191 18 ANNUAL TENDERS - Tender for Hire of Plant ..................................... 204

Council Meeting AGENDA NO. 23/12

Meeting Date: Tuesday 11 December 2012 Location: Council Chambers, Level 6, Civic Centre, 1 Devlin Street, Ryde Time: 7.30pm

Council Meetings will be recorded on audio tape for minute-taking purposes as authorised by the Local Government Act 1993.

NOTICE OF BUSINESS (continued) Item Page 19 REQUEST FOR TENDER - COR-RFT-20/12 - Construction

Services for the Installation of Sportsfield Lighting in Magdala Park, North Ryde. .......................................................................................... 208

20 REQUEST FOR TENDER - COR-RFT-04/12 - Implement Updated Handheld Technology to Assist Parking ............................................... 211

21 REQUEST FOR TENDER - COUNCIL TELEPHONY SERVICES ....... 215 22 MEADOWBANK NETBALL COURTS - DELEGATION TO AWARD

CONTRACT .......................................................................................... 220 23 CITY OF RYDE TENNIS COURTS ...................................................... 222 24 RYDE RIVER WALK - PUBLIC EXHIBITION OF DESIGN AND

STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................................. 228

NOTICES OF MOTION 1 EASTWOOD RYDE NETBALL ASSOCIATION - Councillor Roy

Maggio .................................................................................................. 233

Mayoral Minutes Page 1

MAYORAL MINUTES

MM19/12 CLUB 6 SPONSHIP 2013 – The Mayor, Councillor Ivan Petch

File Number: GRP/12/5/5/5 - BP12/1460 The Club 6 group of clubs has invited Council to partner in the sponsoring of the 2013 Max Potential leadership development program for young people in the Ryde area. The 22 week leadership coaching program pairs people from leadership positions in the local community with young people, usually drawn from Years 10 and 11 in local high schools and TAFEs. The students and their coaches explore principles of personal leadership which the students, guided by their coaches, then apply in a Community Service Project over the second half of the program. The program is facilitated by Future Achievement Australia (FAA) in association with ClubsNSW. Each year, between 15 and 20 such programs are conducted across NSW. Council participated in the program in 2012 and sponsored two coaching positions which were filled by two senior Council staff members (Angela Jones-Blayney and Tatjana Domazet). Both staff found the program worthwhile from a staff development point of view as well as in terms of community development. In October, I attended the final Showcase and saw the results of the Community Service Projects that the 11 participants completed. I was impressed with the way the program promotes teamwork between schools, Council and community clubs for the benefit of the community. The cost of sponsorship is $1,800 per coaching position. This pays for the training of the coaches, facilitation of the various workshops and administration of the program. RECOMMENDATION: That: (a) Council provide the opportunity for two City of Ryde Service Unit Mangers to

become coaches in the 2013 Max Potential Program. (b) Council endorse an additional allocation of funding of $3,600 from the existing

2012 – 2013 staff training budget to fund the coach participation fee. (c) The additional funding be included as part of the next quarterly review. ATTACHMENTS 1 Club 6 Max Potential – Invite for 2013 2 Club 6 Max Potential Final Report 2012 Report Prepared By: Councillor Ivan Petch The Mayor

Mayoral Minutes Page 2 MM 19/12 (continued) ATTACHMENT 1

Mayoral Minutes Page 14

MM20/12 RYDE HUNTERS HILL SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA – The Mayor, Councillor Ivan Petch

File Number: MYR/07/10/6 - BP12/1461 In February of this year, the Ryde Hunters Hill Symphony Orchestra conducted auditions to form a community symphony orchestra. The orchestra has been established due to the vision of the current Chair of the Orchestra Board, Rita Lepedjian. Mrs Lepedjian recognised that the local area, despite having many wonderful facilities including a university, TAFE’s, thriving business park etc, did not have a symphony orchestra. The current board and committee of the orchestra wish to enhance the cultural enjoyment of the local people and provide an orchestra of which the whole community can be proud. George Ellis has been appointed conductor and Kirsten Williams of the Sydney Symphony Orchestra, has been appointed concert master. The appointment of these highly regarded and accomplished musicians has allowed the orchestra to attract members of a very high calibre. The orchestra has given three concerts this year and has provided support at other events: most recently playing with Roger Woodward at a Rotary Fundraiser for ROMAC. This type of event gives the orchestra and the City of Ryde great exposure. The orchestra is a great contributor to the local area. It is providing an avenue for local musicians who have a passion for music and it is providing enjoyment for the audiences who attend performances. Council can be very proud of this wonderful new group and addition to the City’s cultural makeup. Along with Councillor Li and Councillor Pendleton, I attended the orchestra’s most recent concert and can testify to the dedication and ability of the players. I know many other Councillors have also attended previous concerts. I would like to see Council officially support the orchestra in its future work and provide the necessary support to enable it to continue to build its reputation in both the local area and beyond. RECOMMENDATION: That Council: (a) Congratulate the RHHSO Board for its efforts with the development of the

Orchestra and that Council officially support the Orchestra through its endorsement and permitting use of Council’s logo.

(b) Contribute to the operating costs of the RHHSO by payment of its Public

Liability Insurance with the cost to be incorporated in the December quarterly review.

Mayoral Minutes Page 15 MM20/12 (continued)

(c) Support the permanent use of the Coxs Road Community Hall as the

orchestra’s rehearsal venue and that the fee for use of this facility be waived. (d) In principal agree to provide logistical and administrative support to the

orchestra and further that the General Manager meet with the Chair of the Board to determine the scope of services requested. A further report to then be provided to Council nominating the budget and resourcing implications for inclusion in the budget. The scope is expected to include the advertising of upcoming concerts and events, provision of space in the Mayoral Column, Cityview and on Council’s website to encourage community sponsorship and assistance with seeking the orchestra to apply for appropriate grant funding.

(e) Establish a performing arts committee to assist with looking at future

requirements and provision of facilities for all performing arts in the local area. ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report. Report Prepared By: Councillor Ivan Petch The Mayor

Council Reports Page 16

Agenda of the Council Meeting No. 23/12, dated Tuesday 11 December 2012.

1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Council Meeting held on 27 November 2012

Report prepared by: Meeting Support Coordinator File No.: GRP/12/5/5/5 - BP12/1298

REPORT SUMMARY In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, a motion or discussion with respect to such minutes shall not be in order except with regard to their accuracy as a true record of the proceedings. RECOMMENDATION: That the Minutes of the Council Meeting 22/12, held on 27 November 2012 be confirmed. ATTACHMENTS 1 Minutes - Ordinary Council Meeting - 27 November 2012 - CIRCULATED

UNDER SEPARATE COVER



2 REPORT OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING 14/12 held on 4 December 2012


REPORT SUMMARY Attached are the Minutes of the Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 14/12 held on 4 December 2012. The Minutes will be listed for confirmation at the next Planning and Environment Committee Meeting. All Items (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) were dealt with by the Committee within its delegated powers. As a result, no Committee recommendations are submitted to Council for determination in accordance with the delegations set out in the Code of Meeting Practice relating to Charters, functions and powers of Committees. That Council note that all items of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting 14/12 held on 4 December 2012 were dealt with by the Committee within its delegated powers. ATTACHMENTS 1 Minutes - Planning and Environment Committee - 4 December 2012

Council Reports Page 18 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 1


Planning and Environment Committee

MINUTES OF MEETING NO. 14/12

Meeting Date: Tuesday 4 December 2012 Location: Committee Room 2, Level 5, Civic Centre, 1 Devlin Street, Ryde Time: 4.00pm Councillors Present: Councillors Simon (Chairperson), Chung, Maggio, Pendleton and Yedelian OAM. Councillor Maggio arrived at 5.22pm and did not attend inspections. He was not present for consideration of Item 1. Apologies: Nil. Leave of Absence: Councillor Salvestro-Martin. Staff Present: Group Manager – Environment & Planning, Manager Assessment, Manager Environmental Health & Building, Manager – Governance, Team Leader – Major Development Team, Team Leader – Assessment, Team Leader – Fast Track Team, Assessment Officer, Executive Officer – Development and Councillor Support Coordinator. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST There were no disclosures of interest. 1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Meeting held on 20 November 2012 Note: Councillor Maggio arrived at 5.22pm and was not present for consideration of this Item. RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillors Chung and Yedelian OAM) That the Minutes of the Planning and Environment Committee 13/12, held on Tuesday 20 November 2012, be confirmed subject to an amendment being made to the note in Item 4 – 66A Pellisier Road, Putney LDA2012/0106 to now read as follows: Note: Mr Don Bailey (objector on behalf of 14 residents of 66, 68, 70, 72 and 74 Pellisier Road and 4a and 8 McGowan Road), and Mr Peter Hall (applicant’s architect) addressed the Committee in relation to this Item. Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous Note: This is now a resolution of Council in accordance with the Committee’s delegated powers.



2 5 - 11 MERITON STREET, GLADESVILLE. LOT 1 DP 305000, LOT 1

DP650824, LOTS 1 and 2 DP591345. Local Development Application for demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed use commercial and residential development. LDA2012/0331.

Report: The Committee inspected the property at 5-11 Meriton Street, Gladesville. Note: Aleks Jelicic (applicant) addressed the Committee in relation to this Item and gave a brief presentation. Note: A document from Mr Jelicic dated 4 December 2012 was tabled in relation to this Item and a copy is ON FILE. RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillor Maggio and Chung) (a) That Local Development Application No. 2012/0331 at 5-11 Meriton Street,

Gladesville being LOT 1 DP 305000, LOT 1 DP650824, LOTS 1 and 2 DP591345 be approved subject to the ATTACHED conditions (Attachment 1).

(b) That the persons who made submissions be advised of Council's decision. Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous Note: This is now a resolution of Council in accordance with the Committee’s delegated powers. 3 87 ELLIOTT AVENUE, EAST RYDE. LOT 387 DP3157. Local Development

Application for demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a new 2 storey dwelling. LDA2012/368.

Report: The Committee inspected the property at 87 Elliott Avenue, East Ryde. RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillors Maggio and Pendleton) (a) That Local Development Application No. 2012/368 at 87 Elliott Avenue, East

Ryde, being LOT 387 DP3157 be approved subject to the conditions in Attachment 2.

(b) That the persons who made submissions be advised of Council's decision. Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous Note: This is now a resolution of Council in accordance with the Committee’s delegated powers.



4 30 CLANWILLIAM STREET, EASTWOOD. LOT 5 DP 6247. Local

Development Application for a subdivision of one (1) lot into two (2), construction of new two/three storey dwelling and inground pool. LDA2012/0065.

Report: The Committee inspected the property at 30 Clanwilliam Street, Eastwood. RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillors Maggio and Yedelian OAM) (a) That Local Development Application No. LDA2012/0065 at No. 30 Clanwilliam

Street Eastwood Lot 5 DP 6247 be approved subject to the ATTACHED conditions (Attachment 1).

(b) That the persons who made submissions be advised of Council's decision. Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous Note: This is now a resolution of Council in accordance with the Committee’s delegated powers. 5 30 CLANWILLIAM STREET, EASTWOOD. LOT 5 DP 6247. Local

Development Application for a new two/three storey dwelling and inground swimming pool. LDA2012/0066.

Report: The Committee inspected the property at 30 Clanwilliam Street, Eastwood. RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillors Chung and Yedelian OAM) (a) That Local Development Application No. 2012/0066 at No. 30 Clanwilliam

Street Eastwood Lot 5 DP 6247 be approved as a Deferred Commencement Consent subject to the ATTACHED conditions (Attachment 1).

(b) That the persons who made submissions be advised of Council's decision. Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous Note: This is now a resolution of Council in accordance with the Committee’s delegated powers.

The meeting closed at 5.35pm

CONFIRMED THIS 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013.

Chairperson



3 REPORT OF THE WORKS AND COMMUNITY COMMITTEE MEETING 15/12 held on 4 December 2012


REPORT SUMMARY Attached are the Minutes of the Works and Community Committee Meeting 15/12 held on 4 December 2012. The Minutes will be listed for confirmation at the next Works and Community Committee Meeting. Items 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 were dealt with by the Committee within its delegated powers. The following Committee recommendation for Item 3 is submitted to Council for determination in accordance with the delegations set out in Council’s Code of Meeting Practice relating to Charters, functions and powers of Committees: 3 DELANGE ROAD - Provision of Bus Shelter Note: Mr Kelvin Olive and Mr Roderick Miller addressed the Committee in relation to this Item. Note: A letter from Roderick and Cassandra Miller dated 24 November 2012 was tabled in relation to this Item and a copy is ON FILE. Note: The notes used by Mr Olive in his presentation to the Committee were tabled in relation to this Item and a copy is ON FILE. RECOMMENDATION: (Moved by Councillors Pickering and Laxale) That Council take no further action as a shelter already exists 80 metres distant that is not in front of a private residents. Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous Note: This matter will be dealt with at the Council Meeting to be held on 11 DECEMBER 2012 as substantive changes were made to the published recommendation.

ATTACHMENTS 1 Minutes - Works and Community Committee - 4 December 2012



Works and Community Committee

MINUTES OF MEETING NO. 15/12

Meeting Date: Tuesday 4 December 2012 Location: Committee Room 1, Level 5, Civic Centre, 1 Devlin Street, Ryde Time: 4.32pm Councillors Present: Councillors Perram (Chairperson), Etmekdjian, Laxale, Li and Pickering. Apologies: Nil. Staff Present: Group Manager – Community Life, Acting Group Manager - Public Works, Centre Manager – Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre, Service Unit Manager – Open Space, Section Manager – Open Space Planning and Assets and Executive Assistant to the Mayor and Councillors. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST Councillor Pickering declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 4 – MORRISON BAY PARK – Lighting of Pathway, for the reason that he has a client who may be later involved with this matter. 1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Meeting held on 20 November 2012 RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillors Pickering and Laxale) That the Minutes of the Works and Community Committee 14/12, held on Tuesday 20 November 2012, be confirmed. Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous Note: This is now a resolution of Council in accordance with the Committee’s delegated powers. 2 RALC SURF ATTRACTION PROJECT UPDATE

Report: The Committee undertook an inspection at the Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre. RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillors Laxale and Li) (a) That Council note the Concept Plan August 2011 for the Surf Attraction project

at the Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre, with the reduction in scope of the function room to a function area.



(b) That Council note the increase of the project contingency to 20%, given the

unique nature of the project and that this is absorbed within the agreed project budget as confirmed by the quantity surveyors opinion of probable cost.

Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous Note: This is now a resolution of Council in accordance with the Committee’s delegated powers. 3 DELANGE ROAD - Provision of Bus Shelter Note: Mr Kelvin Olive and Mr Roderick Miller addressed the Committee in relation to this Item. Note: A letter from Roderick and Cassandra Miller dated 24 November 2012 was tabled in relation to this Item and a copy is ON FILE. Note: The notes used by Mr Olive in his presentation to the Committee were tabled in relation to this Item and a copy is ON FILE. RECOMMENDATION: (Moved by Councillors Pickering and Laxale) That Council take no further action as a shelter already exists 80 metres distant that is not in front of a private residents. Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous Note: This matter will be dealt with at the Council Meeting to be held on 11 DECEMBER 2012 as substantive changes were made to the published recommendation. 4 MORRISON BAY PARK - Lighting of Pathway

Note: Councillor Pickering declared a non-pecuniary interest in this Item for the reason that he has a client who may be later involved with this matter. RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillors Laxale and Pickering That Council consider the feasibility study and design of pathway lighting in Morrison Bay Park, along with all other projects for 2013/2014, at the Workshops to be held in March 2013. Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous Note: This is now a resolution of Council in accordance with the Committee’s delegated powers.



5 WATER BOTTLE REFILL STATIONS - UPDATE RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillors Li and Laxale) (a) That Council approve installation of one water refill station at Anderson Park for

a trial period of three months. (b) That a report be submitted to Council on the outcomes of the trial with

consideration of wider installation of water refill station across the City’s open spaces.

Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous Note: This is now a resolution of Council in accordance with the Committee’s delegated powers. 6 DRAFT URBAN FOREST AND STREET TREE MASTERPLAN RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillors Laxale and Pickering) (a) That the draft Urban Forest Plan and draft Street Tree Masterplan be placed on

public exhibition for a minimum of 60 days. (b) That a report be submitted to Council on the results of the exhibition period. Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous Note: This is now a resolution of Council in accordance with the Committee’s delegated powers.

The meeting closed at 5.50pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013.

Chairperson



4 2012/2013 CHRISTMAS NEW YEAR ARRANGEMENTS - DELEGATIONS TO THE MAYOR AND GENERAL MANAGER


REPORT SUMMARY This report seeks Council’s endorsement to delegate any functions of Council in accordance with Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993 to the Mayor and General Manger during the Christmas / New Year period from 12 December 2012 to 5 February 2013. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That during the period 12 December 2012 to 5 February 2013, the Mayor and

General Manager be delegated any functions of the Council that may lawfully be delegated under Section 377 of the Local Government Act provided the functions are exercised in compliance with the relevant Council policy and where no such policy exists with all due caution.

(b) That all decisions made by the Mayor and General Manager under this

resolution, be communicated to all Councillors as soon as reasonably possible. ATTACHMENTS 1 Local Government Act 1993 - Section 377: General Power of the Council to

delegate

Report Prepared By: Amanda Janvrin Meeting Support Coordinator Report Approved By: Shane Sullivan Manager - Governance Roy Newsome Group Manager - Corporate Services

Council Reports Page 26 ITEM 4 (continued)


Report In accordance with the Meeting Schedule endorsed by Council, the final Council meeting for the year is Tuesday, 11 December 2012. The first Committee meetings in 2013 will be held on Tuesday, 5 February 2013. If considered necessary at any time an extraordinary meeting can be called during this period. As in previous years, it is necessary to grant the Mayor and General Manager the normal delegation of authority for the period of the Christmas / New Year break in between Council meetings. This power is delegated pursuant to Section 377 of the Local Government Act (ATTACHED). Critical Dates As 11 December 2012 is the final Council Meeting scheduled for 2012, it is appropriate that Council makes this determination to allow any functions of the Council that may lawfully be delegated under Section 377 of the Local Government Act to be undertaken by the Mayor and General Manager. Financial Impact Adoption of the option(s) outlined in this report will have no financial impact. Policy Implications There are no policy implications through the adoption of the recommendation.



LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 - SECTION 377 General power of the council to delegate 377 General power of the council to delegate (1) A council may, by resolution, delegate to the general manager or any other

person or body (not including another employee of the council) any of the functions of the council, other than the following: (a) the appointment of a general manager, (b) the making of a rate, (c) a determination under section 549 as to the levying of a rate, (d) the making of a charge, (e) the fixing of a fee, (f) the borrowing of money, (g) the voting of money for expenditure on its works, services or operations, (h) the compulsory acquisition, purchase, sale, exchange or surrender of any

land or other property (but not including the sale of items of plant or equipment),

(i) the acceptance of tenders which are required under this Act to be invited by the council,

(j) the adoption of an operational plan under section 405, (k) the adoption of a financial statement included in an annual financial report, (l) a decision to classify or reclassify public land under Division 1 of Part 2 of

Chapter 6, (m)the fixing of an amount or rate for the carrying out by the council of work on

private land, (n) the decision to carry out work on private land for an amount that is less than

the amount or rate fixed by the council for the carrying out of any such work,

(o) the review of a determination made by the council, and not by a delegate of the council, of an application for approval or an application that may be reviewed under section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ,

(p) the power of the council to authorise the use of reasonable force for the purpose of gaining entry to premises under section 194,

(q) a decision under section 356 to contribute money or otherwise grant financial assistance to persons,

(r) a decision under section 234 to grant leave of absence to the holder of a civic office,

(s) the making of an application, or the giving of a notice, to the Governor or Minister,

(t) this power of delegation, (u) any function under this or any other Act that is expressly required to be

exercised by resolution of the council.

(2) A council may, by resolution, sub-delegate to the general manager or any other person or body (not including another employee of the council) any function delegated to the council by the Director-General except as provided by the instrument of delegation to the council.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/epaaa1979389/





5 COUNCIL WORKSHOPS AND INDUCTION SESSIONS

Report prepared by: Manager - Governance File No.: CLR/07/8/19/4 - BP12/1286

REPORT SUMMARY This report sets out the planned schedule of workshops and induction sessions planned for Council for 2013. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement of the schedule for Workshops, Induction Sessions and site visits. It also seeks confirmation of Council’s previous resolution that should more than three Councillors indicate their inability to attend a Workshop, Induction Session or site visit that it will not be held or rescheduled. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Council endorse the Workshop schedule as set out in this report. (b) That Council endorse the conduct of a weekend Workshop to be held in

February 2013, in the City of Ryde and confirm the dates from the following options:

(i) 2 and 3 February 2013; or (ii) 9 and 10 February 2013; or

(iii) 2 and 9 February 2013

(c) That Council resolve dates for the conduct of site visits as set out in this report. (d) That Council confirm that should more than three Councillors indicate their

inability to attend a Workshop, Induction Session or site visit that it will not be held or rescheduled.

ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report. Report Prepared By: Shane Sullivan Manager - Governance Report Approved By: Roy Newsome Group Manager - Corporate Services



Discussion At it’s meeting held 23 October 2012, Council considered the schedule for Induction Sessions, Workshops and Site Visits and resolved as follows:

(a) That Council endorse the Workshop, Induction and site visit schedule as set out in this report, subject to the half day site visits and the weekend of 1 and 2 December 2012 being deferred to 2013, in addition to the following amendments:-

The inclusion of a workshop regarding Local Government Reforms to

be held at 9.30pm on 6 November 2012; The inclusion of a workshop regarding the Code of Meeting Practice to

be held at 7.30pm on 20 November 2012; and The workshop regarding Macquarie Park Amendment 1 being moved

to 8.30pm on 20 November 2012. (b) That Council confirm that should more than three Councillors indicate their

inability to attend a Workshop, Induction Session or site visit that it will not be held or rescheduled.

(c) That a full program of workshops for 2013 be provided to Council for

endorsement. It is noted that the Workshops set out in part (a) above were scheduled and conducted. The purpose of this report is to provide a full program of workshops for 2013 for Council’s endorsement. Weekend Workshop As Councillors would be aware, a Councillor Induction weekend had been proposed for 22 and 23 September 2012. This was not held and it was recommended that the Councillor Induction Weekend be conducted on 1 and 2 December 2012 at a venue within the Ryde Local Government Area. It is no longer recommended that this weekend be held. A further Councillor Weekend Workshop is recommended for 1 and 2 February 2013, for Councillors to consider both the review of the current Community Strategic Plan and the Resourcing Strategy. The Resourcing Strategy covers the Workforce Plan, Asset Management Plan and the Long Term Financial Plan as required under the Integrated Planning and Reporting legislation. A key outcome from those discussions will be confirmation of the Community Strategic Plan, review process and timetable in addition to Councillors providing direction and confirming priority areas



for the next four year term. It is also recommended that this weekend workshop be conducted at a venue within the Ryde Local Government Area. Weekend Workshop Options The following three options are presented for Council’s consideration:

(i) 2 and 3 February 2013; (ii) 9 and 10 February 2013; or (iii) 2 and 9 February 2013 (separate Saturdays)

Alternatively, Council may select an alternate date, however it is recommended that this Workshop be conducted prior to the Four Year Delivery Plan Workshops and in particular, prior to the workshop in Council’s base budget, scheduled for Tuesday, 26 February 2013. Workshops Council resolved that a full program of Workshops for 2013 be provided to Council for endorsement. As Councillors would be aware, it is not always possible to anticipate the need for Workshops. Consequently, it is proposed that Workshops will be held as follows as required and/or resolved by Council:

- Tuesdays of Committee nights: 7.30pm to 9.30pm - Tuesdays of Council nights: 5.30pm to 6.30pm

It is noted that Council may resolve to conduct a General Purposes Committee meeting on the Tuesday night of a Committee meetings (first and third Tuesday of each month) which will impact on the ability to conduct Workshops. Some Workshops have been scheduled for 2013 already in accordance with the needs of the organisation or resolution of Council. A listing is provided below which incorporates details of scheduled Council and Committee Meetings: Date Meeting Type Time Title 2/3 Feb 2013 Workshop Weekend Resource Strategy

05-Feb-13 Planning and Environment Committee

4.00pm Committee Meeting

05-Feb-13 Works and Community Committee


05-Feb-13 Workshop 7.30-8.30pm Denistone East Bowling Club Confirmation of Assessment Criteria (EOI)

05-Feb-13 Workshop 8.30pm - 9.30pm

Ryde Bowling Club

12-Feb-13 Workshop 5.30-6.30pm 2013-17 Four Year Delivery Plan (1) – Rates Structure / Fees and Charges

12-Feb-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm Council Meeting



Date Meeting Type Time Title 19-Feb-13 Planning and

Environment Committee 4.00pm Committee Meeting

19-Feb-13 Works and Community Committee


19-Feb-13 Briefing 7.30pm December Quarterly Review Presentation

19-Feb-13 Workshop 8.30pm Visiting Overseas Delegations and Sister City Relationships (Resolution of Council)

26-Feb-13 Workshop 5.30-6.30pm 2013-17 Four Year Delivery Plan (2) – Base Budget

26-Feb-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm Council Meeting 05-Mar-13 Planning and


05-Mar-13 Works and Community Committee


05-Mar-13 Workshop 7.30-8.30pm Macquarie Park Amendment 1 05-Mar-13 Workshop 8.30pm -

9.30pm Trafalgar Place

12-Mar-13 Workshop 5.30-6.30pm 2013-17 Four Year Delivery Plan (3) – Projects (1)

12-Mar-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm Council Meeting 19-Mar-13 Planning and


19-Mar-13 Works and Community Committee


19-Mar-13 Briefing 7.30-9.00pm Council's Commercial Properties: Findings of Highest and Best Use Study

26-Mar-13 Workshop 5.30-6.30pm 2013-17 Four Year Delivery Plan (4) – Projects (2)

26-Mar-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm Council Meeting 02-Apr-13 Planning and


02-Apr-13 Works and Community Committee


02-Apr-13 Workshop 7.30-8.30pm Integrated Open Space Plan 02-Apr-13 Workshop 8.30-9.30pm Eastwood Master Plan 09-Apr-13 Workshop 5.30-6.30pm Voluntary Planning Agreements 09-Apr-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm Council Meeting 16-Apr-13 Planning and


16-Apr-13 Works and Community Committee


23-Apr-13 Workshop 5.30-6.30pm Available 23-Apr-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm Council Meeting 30-Apr-13 No Meetings

07-May-13 Planning and Environment Committee


07-May-13 Works and Community Committee

4.30 pm Committee Meeting

07-May-13 Workshop 7.30-8.30pm Available 07-May-13 Workshop 8.30-9.30pm Available 14-May-13 Workshop 5.30-6.30pm Available



Date Meeting Type Time Title 14-May-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm Council Meeting 21-May-13 Planning and


21-May-13 Works and Community Committee


21-May-13 Workshop 7.30-8.30pm March Quarterly Review Presentation 21-May-13 Workshop 8.30-9.30pm Available 28-May-13 Workshop 5.30-6.30pm Available 28-May-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm Council Meeting 04-Jun-13 Planning and


04-Jun-13 Works and Community Committee


04-Jun-13 Workshop 7.30-8.30pm Draft Licensing Policy 04-Jun-13 Workshop 8.30-9.30pm Available 11-Jun-13 Workshop 5.30-6.30pm Available 11-Jun-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm Council Meeting 18-Jun-13 Planning and


18-Jun-13 Works and Community Committee


18-Jun-13 Workshop 7.30-8.30pm Available 18-Jun-13 Workshop 8.30-9.30pm Available 25-Jun-13 Workshop 5.30-6.30pm Available 25-Jun-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm Council Meeting 02-Jul-13 No Meetings - Mid-year

recess

09-Jul-13 No Meetings - Mid-year recess

16-Jul-13 Planning and Environment Committee


16-Jul-13 Works and Community Committee


16-Jul-13 Workshop 7.30-8.30pm Available 16-Jul-13 Workshop 8.30-9.30pm Available 23-Jul-13 Workshop 5.30-6.30pm Available 23-Jul-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm Council Meeting 30-Jul-13 No Meetings

06-Aug-13 Planning and Environment Committee


06-Aug-13 Works and Community Committee


06-Aug-13 Workshop 7.30-8.30pm Available 06-Aug-13 Workshop 8.30-9.30pm Available 13-Aug-13 Workshop 5.30-6.30pm Available 13-Aug-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm Council Meeting 20-Aug-13 Planning and


20-Aug-13 Works and Community Committee


20-Aug-13 Workshop 7.30-8.30pm June Quarterly Review Presentation



Date Meeting Type Time Title 20-Aug-13 Workshop 8.30-9.30pm Available 27-Aug-13 Workshop 5.30-6.30pm Available 27-Aug-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm Council Meeting 03-Sep-13 Planning and


03-Sep-13 Works and Community Committee


03-Sep-13 Workshop 7.30-8.30pm Available 03-Sep-13 Workshop 8.30-9.30pm Available 10-Sep-13 Workshop 5.30-6.30pm Available 10-Sep-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm Council Meeting 17-Sep-13 Planning and


17-Sep-13 Works and Community Committee


17-Sep-13 Workshop 7.30-8.30pm Available 17-Sep-13 Workshop 8.30-9.30pm Available 24-Sep-13 Workshop 5.30-6.30pm Available 24-Sep-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm Council Meeting 01-Oct-13 Planning and


01-Oct-13 Works and Community Committee


01-Oct-13 Workshop 7.30-8.30pm Available 01-Oct-13 Workshop 8.30-9.30pm Available 08-Oct-13 Workshop 5.30-6.30pm Available 08-Oct-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm Council Meeting 15-Oct-13 Planning and


15-Oct-13 Works and Community Committee


15-Oct-13 Workshop 7.30-8.30pm Available 15-Oct-13 Workshop 8.30-9.30pm Available 22-Oct-13 Workshop 5.30-6.30pm Available 22-Oct-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm Council Meeting 29-Oct-13 No Meetings 05-Nov-13 Planning and


05-Nov-13 Works and Community Committee


05-Nov-13 Workshop 7.30-8.30pm Available 05-Nov-13 Workshop 8.30-9.30pm Available 12-Nov-13 Workshop 5.30-6.30pm Available 12-Nov-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm Council Meeting 19-Nov-13 Planning and


19-Nov-13 Works and Community Committee


19-Nov-13 Workshop 7.30-8.30pm Available 19-Nov-13 Workshop 8.30-9.30pm Available



Date Meeting Type Time Title 26-Nov-13 Workshop 5.30-6.30pm Available 26-Nov-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm Council Meeting 03-Dec-13 Planning and


03-Dec-13 Works and Community Committee


03-Dec-13 Workshop 7.30-8.30pm Available 03-Dec-13 Workshop 8.30-9.30pm Available 10-Dec-13 Workshop 5.30-6.30pm Available 10-Dec-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm Council Meeting

Site Visits The following sites are proposed to be visited in 2013 in providing Councillors with an overview of key projects, current state of sample infrastructure and work sites. It is recommended that two (2) half day sessions for site visits be undertaken on Saturdays in March. Council’s confirmation of the dates for site visits is required to be confirmed:

Road and Kerb renewal – Lovell Road Pittwater Road Road Resurfacing Renewal – Khartoum Road Playground Upgrades – various locations TBA Bio-retention Basin at Stranger’s Creek Civic Centre 1A Pope Street – Community Life Building Ryde Library and West Ryde Library Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre (RALC) Operations Centre Addington House Memorial Park – sea wall Drainage – Rowe Street, Eastwood ELS Hall Park ( including the indoor sports facility), Ryde Park Christie Park Brush Farm House, Meadowbank Park, a regional park and part of the Ryde Riverwalk program, West Ryde Community Centre, Livvi’s Place as one of the playground upgrades Putney Park (playground upgrade) Glen Reserve or Irene Park (local park)

As proposed, Council’s confirmation of dates / times on two Saturdays in March is required to allow the site visits to be arranged.



Financial Implications Adoption of this schedule of Workshops, Induction Sessions and site visits will have some financial impact. Without the inclusion of staff resources to make the necessary arrangements, there are costs associated with the provision of transport, catering, venue and facilitators. As such it is important that there is sufficient time provided where Workshops, Induction Sessions and site visits are cancelled so as to ensure there is no wasted expenditure, staff resources or Councillor time.



6 SUMMARY OF EXPENSES RELATING TO THE GENERAL MANAGER AND SENIOR STAFF

Report prepared by: Councillor Support Coordinator File No.: CLR/07/8/42 - BP12/1422

REPORT SUMMARY Council adopted the Expenses Relating to the General Manager and Senior Staff Policy on 11 October 2011. Council resolved that a report be provided every six months summarising expenses claimed. This report provides a summary of expenses claimed by the General Manager and Senior Staff from May 2012 and October 2012. Reimbursements on expenses claimed during this period have been made in accordance with the provisions of the Policy. RECOMMENDATION: That Council note the summary of expenses claimed by the General Manager and Senior Staff for the period between May 2012 and October 2012. ATTACHMENTS 1 Expenses relating to the General Manager and Senior Staff - Policy and

Procedures

Report Prepared By: Carol Mikaelian Councillor Support Coordinator Report Approved By: Shane Sullivan Manager - Governance Roy Newsome Group Manager - Corporate Services



The Expenses Relating to the General Manager and Senior Staff Policy (ATTACHED) sets out the circumstance and process for reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the General Manager and Senior Staff. The Policy ensures there is consistency and transparency in the application of the process. The Policy aligns with the NSW Government Expenses Policy and the provisions of the Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities for the Mayor and Other Councillors Policy. Claims lodged by the General Manager are authorised by the Mayor and claims lodged by Senior Staff are authorised by the General Manager for reimbursement. At its meeting on 11 October 2011, Council endorsed the Policy with an additional requirement that expenses claimed under the Policy be reported to Council on a six monthly basis. Below is a summary outlining expenses claimed by the General Manager and Senior Staff from May 2012 to October 2012. Expenses claimed are categorised on the following basis:

1. Performance of Official Duties 2. Recognition of staff performance (e.g. departing staff) 3. Establishing partnerships of importance to Council 4. Professional development and associated costs 5. Employment Contract Provisions

Claimant Date of

Claim Amount Category Description

John Neish 23/05/12 $101.90 5 Telstra Home Phone

Danielle Dickson 08/06/12 $126.81 4 Computer Peripherals – Domayne at West Gosford

Danielle Dickson 08/06/12 $54.71 1 Census Seminar – Parking at Angel Place, Sydney

Roy Newsome 29/06/12 $51.00 1 Parking – Legal Briefing at Lander & Rogers Lawyers

Roy Newsome 29/06/12 $60.18 4 Parking – LGMA Conference

Dominic Johnson 31/07/12 $48.00 1 Parking – VPA meeting with Clayton Utz

Dominic Johnson 31/07/12 $16.70 1 Taxi fee – meeting regarding MQU at Corrs Chambers, Sydney;

Dominic Johnson 31/07/12 $69.00 1 Parking – Meeting with Architectus

Terry Dodds 31/07/12 $295.70 1 Airline Travel with QANTAS – to attend National General Assembly Conference in Canberra (17/06/12)

Terry Dodds 31/07/12 $189.92 1 Taxi Fare – To and From the airport - in Canberra



Claimant Date of Claim

Amount Category Description

Terry Dodds 31/07/12 $23.10 1 Food and beverage expenses for travel, National General Assembly Conference in Canberra

Dominic Johnson 31/07/12 $15.00 1 Taxi Fare – Macquarie Park Task Force Meeting

Dominic Johnson 31/07/12 $10.00 1 Parking – Lend Lease Meeting

Dominic Johnson 02/08/12 $35.00 2 Flowers – Staff work on LEP 2011 & DCP

Danielle Dickson 06/08/12 $33.10 1 Food and beverage expenses for Councillor and Staff Meeting

Danielle Dickson 06/08/12 $17.50 2 Thank you cake for Library Meeting

Dominic Johnson 16/08/12 $23.00 1 Taxi Fare – Green Paper Roadshow;

Dominic Johnson 16/08/12 $48.00 1 Parking – DoPI meeting with Sam Haddad Director General


Dominic Johnson 21/08/12 $17.00 1 Taxi Fare - Macquarie Parking Meeting at Architectus Office

Dominic Johnson 30/08/12 $48.00 1 Parking – Macquarie Corridor Working Group – DoPI;

Dominic Johnson 30/08/12 $16.00 1 Taxi Fare – Macquarie Park Task force Meeting – DFS

Terry Dodds 03/09/12 $151.80 1 Food and beverage expenses for travel for 6 people travel, Infrastructure Australia Conference in Canberra

Roy Newsome 04/09/12 $32.00 1 Parking – LGMA Conference

Roy Newsome 04/09/12 $50.40 4 Breakfast Briefing – Challenge of Customer Facing Analytics – North Sydney

Roy Newsome 04/09/12 $39.78 1 Parking – Ipads in the Boardroom Seminar – CSA

John Neish 07/09/12 $20.00 1 Taxi Fare – Farewell Peter Brown

John Neish 07/09/12 $32.00 1 Taxi Fare – LGMA Conference

John Neish 07/09/12 $15.00 5 Car Wash for Work Vehicle

Roy Newsome 08/10/12 $68.00 1 Parking – Industrial Relation Matter


Dominic Johnson 17/09/12 $20.60 1 Taxi Fare – Planning Assessment Committee – Stamford Sydney


Dominic Johnson 16/10/12 $22.20 1 Taxi Fare – North Ryde Station Precinct at the DoPI



Claimant Date of Claim

Amount Category Description

Dominic Johnson 16/10/12 $60.18 1 Parking – Macquarie Park Task Force Meeting

Dominic Johnson 16/10/12 $88.22 5 Fuel Charge for Council Car

Danielle Dickson 15/10/12 $79.99 1 Kitchen Utensils for Community Life for the new office

Terry Dodds 22/10/12 $112.00 1 Parking at the Airport - All-Energy Australia Conference

Terry Dodds 22/10/12 $50.30 1 Taxi fare in Melbourne – All Energy Australia Conference

Danielle Dickson 15/10/12 $59.48 1 Fuel Charge for Loan Car The sum of all claims processed from May 2012 to October 2012 is $2,509.27. The sum of all claims processed from November 2011 to April 2012 was $2,421.35. Financial Implications Adoption of the recommendation will have no financial impact as all reimbursements made were within the approved budget.



EXPENSES RELATING TO THE GENERAL MANAGER AND SENIOR STAFF

Purpose This Policy sets out the circumstances, procedures and controls relating to out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the General Manager and designated Senior staff. These out-of-pocket expenses often relate to a form of hospitality during the performance of their duties. It is acknowledged that in order to effectively undertake their roles that the General Manager and Senior Staff will be required to incur costs relating to entertainment and/or hospitality. It is unreasonable that they bear such costs as individuals. Where these costs are not minor and are incurred in the effective undertaking of their duties it is appropriate that it be reimbursed from Council funds. The aim of this Policy is to provide transparency, clarity and consistency around the payment of out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the General Manager and designated Senior Staff. Scope This Policy applies to the position of General Manager and those positions designated as Senior Staff within the Senior Staff Contract of Employment. It also applies to those staff who may from time to time be acting in these positions.

References This Policy relates to the provisions within the Senior Staff Contract of Employment with regard to reimbursement for expenses properly incurred on Council business and constitutes appropriate prior approval where the requirements of the attached guidelines are met. The provisions for the General Manager and Senior Staff with regard to conference attendance and associated incidental expenses are aligned to the corresponding provisions for Councillors under the Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities for the Mayor and other Councillors.

Owner: Service Unit: Governance Unit

Accountability: Governance framework (including registers) development Issue: Date

Trim Reference: D11/103602 Authority - COUNCIL



EXPENSES RELATING TO THE GENERAL MANAGER AND SENIOR STAFF - Guidelines

Guidelines In applying these guidelines, approving expenses where there is an actual or perceived personal benefit derived from expenditure is prohibited. The following guidelines set out the provisions under this policy. General

1. The General Manager and Senior Staff are expected to cover expenditure of a minor nature associated with work and normal representational responsibilities, such as an occasional round of drinks, confectionary etc.

2. The General Manager may approve certain out-of-pocket

expenses by Senior Staff which would form a charge against Council’s funds. Such expenses must be reasonable and directly related to:

- the performance of official duties, or - recognition of staff performance, or - establishing partnerships of importance to Council Where possible, prior approval must be obtained.

3. In the case of out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the General

Manager as per 2 above, approval must be obtained from the Mayor.

4. Examples of appropriate costs include costs incurred when representing Council and major hospitality duties, such as entertaining a group of visitors or representatives from government, business or community organisations or other partnerships of importance to Council.

5. For out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the General Manager or

Senior staff to be acceptable as a charge against Council funds, the following apply:

- The event to which the charge is related must have a direct

relationship to the officer’s duties. - Working meals are not to be regular occurrences and would

normally have moderate charges per head and involve participation of persons from outside Council or, occasionally, with Councillors and/or senior staff from across Council.



- The expenditure incurred should not provide a predominantly personal benefit to the staff member, members of their family or friends.

- Tips will not be permissible. - Expenditure on gifts or tokens is acceptable for departing

Senior Staff and appropriate condolences. (Gifts to visitors or guests of Council should be sourced from Council’s existing standard gifts.)

6. Senior staff will be provided with equipment to facilitate connection to Council’s network and systems. All expenses related to supporting this equipment will be at Council’s expense. Any additional requirements or costs incurred are to be met by the staff member.

7. It is acknowledged that on occasion the General Manager and Senior Staff may be required to attend functions or events where it is responsible practice for them to take a taxi. In such instances they may use Council provided vouchers or seek reimbursement for the fare/s.

8. Generally goods and services should be received before any

reimbursement is made. Payment should only be made in advance where it is unavoidable.

9. Reimbursement of costs and expenses must be made within

three months of the cost or expense being incurred. Conferences The following provisions are aligned to the entitlements to Councillors under the Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities for the Mayor and other Councillors Policy.

1. In recognition of the importance of a good work and family balance, spouses, partners or accompanying persons are welcome to join the General Manager or Senior Staff whilst attending events away from home. In such circumstances, Council will not require reimbursement of costs if no additional travel and accommodation expenses are incurred over and above what would have been expended by the individual. For example, if the person/s are able to be accommodated in the same room already provided as standard, it will be considered that no additional cost has been incurred by Council.

2. Council will also meet the reasonable cost of transportation and

accommodation associated with attendance at the seminar, conference or training course, including the cost of meals (and reasonable cost of drinks) when they are not otherwise included in the fees. Each staff member is entitled to seek reimbursement up to $100 per meal for the purpose of this provision up to a limit of 3 meals per day. Official receipts will be required for reimbursement



3. The General Manager and Senior Staff shall be entitled to seek

reimbursement for attendance at dinners and other non-Council functions where briefings relevant to the Council’s interest are provided by key members of the community, politicians, government departments and business. Each staff member is entitled to seek reimbursement up to $300 per annum for the purposes of this provision. Official receipts will be required for reimbursement under this clause.

4. Economy class air travel will be provided as standard for travel

within Australia although business class air travel will be allowed for longer haul travel to the Northern Territory and Western Australia. The cost of any upgrade shall be the responsibility of the individual. The General Manager and senior staff are not entitled to receive private benefits relating to travel bonuses such as frequent flyer schemes and other loyalty programs.

5. Where trains are used, first class train travel will be provided,

including sleeping berths where available.

6. Council shall also meet the cost of any transfers between the General Manager or Senior Staff’s residence and a transport interchange (ie: airport) and between the transport interchange and hotel or venue, such costs not to exceed the cost of taxi fares.

7. Council may provide the General Manager or Senior staff with taxi

vouchers for travel to a seminar, conference or training course. The officer must ensure that unused vouchers and the receipts of used vouchers are provided to Council within seven days of the event.

8. Any accommodation required by the General Manager or Senior

Staff will be provided by Council subject to availability, access to venue and cost. A reasonable standard of accommodation is considered to be 4 – 4.5 star although 5 star accommodation will be provided where no suitable alternative accommodation is available. The cost of any upgrade shall be the responsibility of the individual.

9. Council shall reimburse reasonable out of pocket or incidental

expenses associated with attending conferences, seminars or training courses incurred by the General Manager or Senior Staff.

10. Incidental expenses include, but are not limited to, in-house hotel

television, telephone or facsimile calls, internet charges, refreshments, laundry and dry cleaning, and newspapers.

11. The General Manager or Senior Staff are entitled to seek

reimbursement up to $20 per day for the purposes of this clause.



Recording and Reporting Claims for expenses in accordance with this policy must be made in writing and will require appropriate approval. Claims made under this policy will be reported to Council every six months in May and November. Context The standard Senior Staff Contract of Employment provides as follows: In addition to any duties or entitlements that may be set out in any relevant policies of Council as adopted by Council from time to time, the employee will:

12.1 keep such records of expenses, travel and motor vehicle use as required by the employer from time to time,

12.2 be reimbursed for expenses properly incurred on Council

business, subject to the employer’s prior approval to this expense being incurred,

12.3 only use any Council credit card for expenses incurred on

Council business, and 12.4 return any Council credit card on request from the employer.

This Policy would constitute a relevant policy as set out above.

Owner: Service Unit: Governance Unit

Accountability: Governance framework (including registers) development Issue: Date

Trim Reference: D11/103602 Authority - COUNCIL



7 2012 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION PROCESS

Report prepared by: Manager - Governance File No.: CLR/07/8/35 - BP12/1458

REPORT SUMMARY At its meeting held 13 November 2012, Council resolved that the General Manager seek feedback from Councillors for improvements to the Local Government Election process. It was also resolved that this feedback then be collated, presented to Council for consideration of those elements which are to be included in a formal submission to the State Electorate Commission. Councillors were invited to provide feedback through the Councillor Information Bulletin on 22 November 2012. Councillors were requested to provide this feedback by 29 November 2012. No feedback was received in relation to this matter. As a result, it is recommended that no further action be taken in relation to this matter.

RECOMMENDATION: That the report be received and noted. ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report. Report Prepared By: Shane Sullivan Manager - Governance Report Approved By: Roy Newsome Group Manager - Corporate Services



8 CODE OF MEETING PRACTICE

Report prepared by: Manager - Governance File No.: CLR/07/8/9/3 - BP12/1408

REPORT SUMMARY

This report presents a draft Code of Meeting Practice for Council’s consideration. The draft Code has been reviewed to reflect City of Ryde practices and to include the addition of a General Purposes Committee. The draft Code aligns with the Division of Local Government’s Meeting Practice Note. It is recommended that Council adopt the ATTACHED (Under Separate Cover) draft Code of Meeting Practice and that it be placed on public exhibition inviting submissions to be received. In addition, it is recommended that the draft be forwarded to the Division of Local Government for comment. As a result of the proposed changes to the Code of Meeting Practice the ATTACHED revised Council and Committee Meeting structure is provided for Council’s determination. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Council adopt the draft Code of Meeting Practice as attached to this report,

for public exhibition for a period of not less than 28 days. (b) That a copy of the draft Code of Meeting Practice be provided to the Division of

Local Government for comment. (c) That public submissions be invited on the draft Code of Meeting Practice from

19 December 2012 to 18 February 2013. (d) That a further report be provided to Council in March 2013 to consider adoption

of the draft Code of Meeting Practice. (e) That Council note the inclusion of the General Purpose Committee as detailed

in this report and in the draft Code of Meeting Practice. (f) That Council confirm the webcasting trial will be undertaken for both Council

meetings and the General Purpose Committee (when held) from February 2013. ATTACHMENTS 1 Code of Meeting Practice Revision – draft – CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE

COVER

2 Meeting Schedule including General Purpose Committee



Report Prepared By: Shane Sullivan Manager - Governance Report Approved By: Roy Newsome Group Manager - Corporate Services



Background At its Meeting held 23 October 2012, Council considered a draft Code of Meeting Practice and resolved as follows: That the report be noted and deferred for a workshop and specific inputs from Councillors. As a result, a Workshop was conducted on 20 November 2012 and input from Councillors was obtained. This input has been incorporated into the ATTACHED draft Code of Meeting Practice. Discussion The Code of Meeting Practice governs the manner in which Council and Committee Meetings are conducted and the sets out the structure of those meetings. The ATTACHED (Under Separate Cover) draft Code of Meeting Practice shows recommended additions in bold italics and any deletions in strikethrough. Proposed Changes to the Code of Meeting Practice Addition of General Purposes Committee It is recommended that a General Purposes Committee be included in the Committee Meeting structure and that the Committee be held at 7.30pm in Committee Rooms 2 and 3 on Level 5, Civic Centre. This Committee would address and consider items relating to the business of Council in which there is a public interest (as determined by the General Manager) and would be held as required by Council. The draft Terms of Reference provide that the General Purposes Committee would consider matters and make recommendations to Council for its determination. A Public Participation provision is included to allow a maximum of five minutes per person and fifteen minutes per group. Councillors would also be able to ask questions of the speakers. This aligns with the public participation provision of the Planning and Environment Committee and Works and Community Committee. Civic Precinct Committee The Civic Precinct Committee has been removed from the draft Code of Meeting Practice.



Webcasting The draft Code of Meeting Practice reflects Council’s recent resolution that Council Meetings be webcast for a trial period, with a further report back to Council following the trial. It is recommended that should Council resolve to introduce a General Purposes Committee that this meeting should also be webcast. The costs associated with this are outlined under Financial Implications. This is set out in Section 2.10.2 Completion of Business The Practice relating to the Order of Business has been expanded at Section 1.4 Practice point 6 to state:

It is noted that the resolution is required to be passed prior to 11pm, except where the meeting is in closed session in which case the resolution is required upon the conclusion of the closed session.

Questions with Notice The Practice relating to Questions with Notice Section 2.2.4 – Practice point 2 has been amended at point two to include a timeframe for the lodgement of questions. To reflect current City of Ryde Practice the deadline for the lodgement of questions with notice is set out as 10am on the day preceeding the meeting. The Practice also specifies that each Councillor may put a maximum of five questions to any meeting. Caretaker Period The draft Code of Meeting Practice has been updated at Section 2.5.3 to include the Local Government Amendment 2012 and subsequent Division of Local Government Circular relating to caretaker provisions. Matters of Urgency The draft Code of Meeting Practice has been amended at Section 5.8 to incorporate guidance received from the Division of Local Government regarding the Chairperson’s rulings regarding Matters of Urgency and Motions of Dissent. Rescission Motions On 27 March 2012, Council resolved to report details of Notices of Rescission lodged after Council Meetings in the Councillor Information Bulletin and the draft Code of Meeting Practice has been amended to reflect this.



Further, the Code of Meeting Practice has been amended with regard to the withdrawal of Rescission Motions. Planning and Environment Committee and Works and Community Committee The draft Code of Meeting Practice has been amended to clearly specify that the Planning and Environment and Works and Community Committees do not have the delegated authority to change a priority of works previously adopted by Council or to approve budgets or works where budget allocations are required. This has been included in the Terms of Reference. Public Address at Meetings There have been several instances of Council resolving to suspend Standing Orders to deviate from the Code of Meeting Practice. This relates specifically to the Practice for Public Address in Appendix D. Currently, the Code of Meeting Practice states that “to be fair to everyone, you can only speak once at a Meeting and you can’t speak on the same subject more than once in a 3 month period.” Staff have endeavoured to apply this requirement consistently, however, it can be difficult to ascertain the topic to be addressed based on the information provided. As a result, it is recommended that this requirement be removed from the Code of Meeting Practice. Public Address at Meetings - Items Listed on Agenda/not listed on Agenda Currently the Code of Meeting Practice allows 30 minutes at the start of Council Meetings for addresses on Items listed on the Agenda and 15 minutes at the end of the meeting for Items not listed on the Agenda. In practice, speakers who have registered to address Council on Items not listed on the Agenda have been allowed to speak at the start of the Meeting. As a result, the draft Code of Meeting Practice has been amended to reflect this practice. In addition, it is recommended that the provision of 30 minutes at the start of meetings and 15 minutes at the end of meetings be removed, as in practice the time allocated for speakers is dictated by the number of registered speakers and has, on occasion, been more than the allocation within the Code of Meeting Practice. This is reflected in Appendix D of the draft Code and the Order of Business in Section 1.4.



General Although there is no index provided with the ATTACHED draft Code of Meeting Practice this will be generated following adoption of the Code of Meeting Practice by Council. Exhibition of the draft Code of Meeting Practice In accordance with Section 362 of the Local Government Act, after considering all submissions received, Council may decide to amend the Code or adopt the draft Code as its Code of Meeting Practice. If Council resolves to amend the draft Code it may publicly exhibit the amended draft in accordance with the Act, or, if Council is of the opinion that the amendments are not substantial, it may adopt the amended draft Code without public exhibition as its Code of Meeting Practice. Following adoption of the Code of Meeting Practice, a copy will be forwarded to the Division of Local Government, the Code will be placed on Council’s website and copies will be available at meetings for reference. Critical Dates There are no critical dates or deadlines to be met. It is noted that Council is required to give public notice of the draft code. The public exhibition period must not be less than 28 days. As the proposed exhibition period will be over the Christmas break it is proposed to place the draft Code on public exhibition from 19 December 2012 and closing on Monday, 18 February 2013 (61 days). Council is also required to specify a period of not less than 42 days during which submissions may be made to Council. It is anticipated that a further report will be presented to Council at its meeting to be held 26 February 2013. Despite the public exhibition requirements, it is appropriate for Council to operate under the draft Code and adopt the ATTACHED revised Council and Committee Meeting structure. It should be noted that should Council resolve to amend its draft Code as placed on public exhibition, it may publicly exhibit the amended draft again. Alternatively, if Council is of the opinion that the amendments are not substantial, it may adopt the amended draft code without further public exhibition.



Financial Implications Should Council resolve to webcast General Purpose Committee Meetings it will result in a financial impact of approximately $8,000 and this can be completed within the funds allocated by Council to undertake webcasting of Council Meetings. It should also be noted that the addition of the General Purpose Committee will require additional staff time for the preparation of Agendas, set up and minuting of the meeting. There may also be additional catering costs for dinner prior to the meeting. The cost for catering, staff time and printing are estimated at approximately $2,800 per meeting.



Note: The General Purposes Committee may meet on Tuesdays, not otherwise designated for a Council Meeting, as required.

Date Meeting Type Time 23-Oct-12 COUNCIL 7.30pm 30-Oct-12 No Meetings 06-Nov-12 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00pm 06-Nov-12 Works and Community Committee 4.30pm 13-Nov-12 COUNCIL 7.30pm 20-Nov-12 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00pm 20-Nov-12 Works and Community Committee 4.30pm 27-Nov-12 COUNCIL 7.30pm 04-Dec-12 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00pm 04-Dec-12 Works and Community Committee 4.30pm 11-Dec-12 COUNCIL 7.30 pm 18-Dec-12

No Meetings

to 29-Jan-13

05-Feb-13 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00pm 05-Feb-13 Works and Community Committee 4.30pm 12-Feb-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm 19-Feb-13 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00pm 19-Feb-13 Works and Community Committee 4.30pm 26-Feb-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm 05-Mar-13 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00pm 05-Mar-13 Works and Community Committee 4.30pm 12-Mar-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm 19-Mar-13 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00pm 19-Mar-13 Works and Community Committee 4.30pm 26-Mar-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm 02-Apr-13 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00pm 02-Apr-13 Works and Community Committee 4.30pm 09-Apr-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm 16-Apr-13 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00pm 16-Apr-13 Works and Community Committee 4.30pm 23-Apr-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm 30-Apr-13 No Meetings

07-May-13 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00 pm 07-May-13 Works and Community Committee 4.30 pm 14-May-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm 21-May-13 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00pm 21-May-13 Works and Community Committee 4.30pm 28-May-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm 04-Jun-13 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00pm 04-Jun-13 Works and Community Committee 4.30pm 11-Jun-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm 18-Jun-13 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00pm



Date Meeting Type Time 18-Jun-13 Works and Community Committee 4.30pm 25-Jun-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm 02-Jul-13 No Meetings - Mid-year recess 09-Jul-13 No Meetings - Mid-year recess 16-Jul-13 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00pm 16-Jul-13 Works and Community Committee 4.30pm 23-Jul-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm 30-Jul-13 No Meetings

06-Aug-13 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00pm 06-Aug-13 Works and Community Committee 4.30pm 13-Aug-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm 20-Aug-13 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00pm 20-Aug-13 Works and Community Committee 4.30pm 27-Aug-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm 03-Sep-13 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00pm 03-Sep-13 Works and Community Committee 4.30pm 10-Sep-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm 17-Sep-13 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00pm 17-Sep-13 Works and Community Committee 4.30pm 24-Sep-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm 01-Oct-13 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00pm 01-Oct-13 Works and Community Committee 4.30pm 08-Oct-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm 15-Oct-13 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00pm 15-Oct-13 Works and Community Committee 4.30pm 22-Oct-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm 29-Oct-13 No Meetings 05-Nov-13 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00pm 05-Nov-13 Works and Community Committee 4.30pm 12-Nov-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm 19-Nov-13 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00pm 19-Nov-13 Works and Community Committee 4.30pm 26-Nov-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm 03-Dec-13 Planning and Environment Committee 4.00pm 03-Dec-13 Works and Community Committee 4.30pm 10-Dec-13 COUNCIL 7.30pm



9 COMMUNITY COUNCIL MEETINGS


REPORT SUMMARY At it’s meeting held 13 November 2012, Council considered a Notice of Motion regarding Community Council Meetings and resolved as follows:

That the General Manager:

1. Investigate and report on the costs associated with conducting 3 Community Council Meetings in 2013 at community facilities within each of the three wards.

2. Make recommendations for 3 dates and locations for Community Council

Meetings to be held in 2013. This report sets out costs associated with conducting three Community Council Meetings at community facilities within each of the three wards and outlines proposed dates and locations for the Community Council Meetings to take place in 2013. The purpose of this report is to provide options for Council’s consideration regarding the conduct of Community Council Meetings. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Council endorse conducting three Community Council Meetings in 2013

as follows:-

Tuesday, 28 May 2013 – to be held at Shepherds Bay Community Centre, 3A Bay Drive, Meadowbank

Tuesday, 25 June 2013 – to be held at West Ryde Community Hall, 3-5

Anthony Road, West Ryde Tuesday, 27 August 2013 – to be held at North Ryde School of Arts

Community Centre, 201 Cox’s Road, North Ryde (b) That Council determine the format for these meetings from either of the

following options: (i) Formal Community Council Meeting; or (ii) Formal Community Council Meeting – preceded by Public Forum; or



(iii) General Purposes Committee Community Meeting ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report. Report Prepared By: Amanda Janvrin Meeting Support Coordinator Report Approved By: Shane Sullivan Manager - Governance Roy Newsome Group Manager - Corporate Services



Discussion At it’s meeting held 13 November 2012, Council considered a Notice of Motion regarding Community Council Meetings and resolved as follows:

That the General Manager:

1. Investigate and report on the costs associated with conducting 3 Community Council Meetings in 2013 at community facilities within each of the three wards.

2. Make recommendations for 3 dates and locations for Community Council

Meetings to be held in 2013. The purpose of this report is to provide Council with proposed dates, locations and costs associated with conducting three Community Council Meetings in 2013. Options are presented to Council for consideration in determining the scope and scale of the conduct of Community Council Meetings. Community Facilities within each Ward The City of Ryde is broken up into three Wards being East Ward, Central Ward and West Ward (see below map). East Ward includes the areas of:

Chatswood West East Ryde North Ryde Gladesville Tennyson Point Putney Ryde

Central Ward includes the areas of:

Ryde Denistone East Meadowbank



West Ward includes the areas of:

Macquarie Park Marsfield Eastwood Denistone East Denistone Denistone West Melrose Park West Ryde



Upon reviewing community facilities located within each of the Wards, the following venues are identified as appropriate for holding a Community Council Meeting: East Ward North Ryde School of Arts Community Centre, 201 Cox’s Road, North Ryde. Central Ward

Shepherds Bay Community Centre, 3A Bay Drive, Meadowbank. West Ward West Ryde Community Hall, 3-5 Anthony Road, West Ryde. Proposed dates for conducting Community Council Meetings To coincide with the availability of the community venues, the following dates are proposed to conduct the Community Council Meetings in 2013: Tuesday, 28 May 2013 – to be held at Shepherds Bay Community Centre, 3A

Bay Drive, Meadowbank Tuesday, 25 June 2013 – to be held at West Ryde Community Hall, 3-5 Anthony

Road, West Ryde Tuesday, 27 August 2013 – to be held at North Ryde School of Arts Community

Centre, 201 Cox’s Road, North Ryde Scope and scale of Community Council Meetings The following options are presented to Council with regard to the scope and scale of the Community Council Meetings: (i) Formal Community Council Meeting

This option would be the conduct of a Council Meeting in accordance with standard current practices. It is noted that effort would be made to identify issues of interest related to each Ward to be included in the Agenda. One of the benefits of this format is that it would allow members of the public to be present at a Council Meeting at which matters would be considered and determined by Council.



(ii) Formal Community Council Meeting – preceded by Public Forum

Under this model there would be a public forum prior to the conduct of the Community Council Meeting. Members of the public would be asked to register to speak so that Councillors and staff would be aware of the issues to be raised. The public forum would be followed by a Council Meeting in accordance with standard current practices. Again, it is noted that effort would be made to identify issues of interest related to each Ward to be included in the Agenda. One of the benefits of this format is that it would allow members of the public to be present at a Council Meeting at which matters would be considered and determined by Council. It provides an increased opportunity for community participation and engagement, however, there may not be resolution or consideration of matters raised by members of the public.

(iii) General Purposes Committee Community Meeting

Council may wish to conduct a General Purposes Committee Community Meeting. Under this model there would be an opportunity for increased community participation around Agenda items which would, where possible, reflect areas of interest for the particular location. Councillors have previously considered this more informal meeting format at a Workshop and this format has been considered as part of the Code of Meeting Practice report included in this Agenda. One aspect of this model is that Council would not make determinations at this meeting as matters considered would need to be referred to the subsequent Council meeting for determination. This format could also be combined with a Public Forum where members of the public would be asked to register to speak so that Councillors and staff would be aware of the issues to be raised to ensure community issues can be properly addressed.

IT Limitations Conducting Council or Committee meetings offsite will impact on the ability of staff to access the Council IT network. It is not anticipated that this would result in significant restrictions to the service provided at the meeting and that alternative arrangements would be able to be made which ensure adequate access and minute taking capabilities.



Webcasting At this time, it is not proposed to webcast these Community Council or Committee meetings. However, staff will investigate opportunities for webcasting at offsite locations and it is anticipated, should this program go ahead that webcasting would be enabled in the future. The introduction of webcasting is likely to impact on the cost of the conduct of the meetings. Advertising It is proposed that the conduct of Community Council or Committee meetings would be advertised on the Council website, on MyPlace, in the Ryde CityView, the Council column and the Mayoral Column. Other opportunities to promote the meeting could also be considered including Council’s on-hold call messaging. Financial Implications There are various additional costs associated with conducting Community Committee or Council Meetings including engaging external service providers to set up audio visual equipment and additional staff time to set up at the venues. Audio and Voting equipment Should Council resolve to replicate the set up of a Council meeting with regards to all audio visual equipment (microphones, screens and voting etc), it will result in a financial impact of approximately $3,000 per meeting as external service providers will be engaged to set up and break down the equipment. Staff time It should also be noted that additional staff time will be required for setting up each of the venues for the meetings. The cost for the additional staff time is estimated at approximately $1,000 per meeting. Facility costs Set out below are the costs associated with hiring the community facilities in order to conduct the Community Council Meetings, however this cost can be waived in order to conduct Council business:

Shepherds Bay Community Centre, 3A Bay Drive, Meadowbank Hire fees: $64.50 per hour during the week



West Ryde Community Hall, 3-5 Anthony Road, West Ryde Hire fees: $64.50 per hour during the week

North Ryde School of Arts Community Centre, 201 Cox’s Road, North Ryde Hire fees: $85.50 per hour during the week

Security would be engaged at a cost of $600 per meeting. Total estimated cost As a result, it is estimated that the total cost for each meeting would be $4,600, broken down as follows:

Audio and Voting Equipment $3,000 Staff Time $1,000 Security $ 600 TOTAL $4,600



10 GLADESVILLE RSL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

Report prepared by: General Manager File No.: GMG/10/1/2 - BP12/1472

REPORT SUMMARY Council has been approached by Gladesville RSL (neighbouring property owner and operator to Council’s land in Coulter Street) to explore a potential joint development partnership. The proposal is to seek the redevelopment of the site so that Council’s existing carparking provision would either be retained or enhanced and in addition benefit returned to Council in either amenity, cash or both. On 22 November 2011 Council resolved as follows: (a) That Council accept the offer Gladesville RSL have provided as outlined in

the ATTACHED letter dated 19 September 2011 and enter into an initial six month Exclusivity Agreement with Gladesville RSL to jointly explore the highest and best uses of the combined site, which meets the objectives set out in the DCP for the benefit of the community and the Club’s members.

(b) On completion of the highest and best use study a full report be brought to

Council for its consideration. This report outlines the activities that have taken place throughout the exclusivity period that have formed the “Development Proposal” provided by the RSL and seeks Council direction as to its intentions to proceed or not. The report also provides high level considerations that are required to analyse such a proposal and seeks endorsement from Council to proceed with this analysis, commit funds to do so, engage relevant expertise, provide legal opinion in regards to relevant procurement policies, provide a high level budget, a key milestone program and funding requirements of future stages. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That Council informs the Gladesville RSL and Community Club Ltd. (RSL) that

it is willing to consider its Development Proposal (option 3) for the joint redevelopment of the Coulter Street carpark site and that :- a. the RSL (at its cost) and in conjunction with Council, completes the

appropriate Development Proposal, which outlines the concept master plan, preliminary “static” feasibility analysis, proposed overall development programme, conditions precedent, main commercial terms and development outcomes for each party.

b. The RSL (at its costs) undertakes preliminary stage 1 community consultation, to seek community opinions of the proposal which are considered in shaping the final Development Proposal to be considered by Council.



c. Upon receiving the RSL’s final Development Proposal, Council undertakes its own due diligence to determine whether or not this Development Proposal meets Council’s requirements and whether or not Council wishes to proceed further with the redevelopment of the carpark as a joint development with the RSL and Illawarra Retirement Trust (IRT).

d. That Council’s analysis considers the Council’s highest and best use study’s likely returns for the redevelopment of the site and fully considers that the tendering provisions of section 55 of the Local Government Act and PART 7 of the Local Government (General) Regulation have been satisfied by the proposal.

e. Following the conclusion of the due diligence of the RSL’s final Development Proposal, Council will consider whether its requirements have been satisfied and if it wishes to proceed, including any changes to the conditions precedent and/or main commercial terms outlined in the Development Proposal.

2. That Council allows a budget allocation of up to a maximum of $660k from the

Property Development Reserve over 5 stages (depending on the progress of the project) as detailed in this report, to be recouped (with interest) by end of FY 2016 (should the RSL’s Development Proposal proceed at each stage) from the property development reserve.

3. That Council tender for the provision of the services of a Property

Development Director (in accordance with Councils procurement process) to provide advice for this and any other property development matters that may require analysis to assist Council on property development issues. The Development Director to conduct the analysis on the RSL’s Development Proposal and negotiate process in accordance with the details outlined in this report.

4. That a further report be submitted to Council by May 2013, outlining

community consultation feedback of the proposal (first stage) and Council’s commercial position as negotiated with the RSL, as a comparison with Council’s own highest and best use study. That this report compare the potential value of the Coulter Street Carpark site as if it was sold outright with the requirement to construct 140 car parks in a stratum lot.

ATTACHMENTS 1 Letter from Gladesville RSL and Community Club Ltd 2 IRT Group Corporate Profile Report Prepared and Approved By: John Neish General Manager



Report Background Council has the potential to redevelop some of its operational assets so that it optimises its return from its operationally classified (as opposed to community classified) landholdings. The Council’s landholding at Coulter Street carpark provides such an opportunity. Council has the ability to do this by partnering with a development entity and providing land in exchange for development rights. In doing so, Council has the ability to benefit from development profit over and above the initial land value. Any uplift over and above land value will mean that Council must manage risks, whether it be development, market or financial. As a minimum, Council has the ability to maintain its initial land value and to be provided with a new larger car park in Coulter Street at no cost, whilst additionally benefiting from land value uplift (as yet not negotiated). To achieve this objective there are several risks to manage and Council must ensure that any development partner guarantees the commercial outcome and has the financial accreditation to do so. In 2011, Council was approached with two unsolicited bids for a joint development partnership for the Coulter Street carpark. One proposal was from a commercial retail entity (relating to Council’s landholdings only); and a second from the Gladesville RSL who have proposed an integrated redevelopment of both Council and their adjacent landholdings. On initial assessment, it was considered that the integrated proposal from the RSL had more potential and required further analysis from both a risk, community benefit and urban design perspective. The CEO of Gladesville RSL, accompanied by a Development Manager and consulting team, held a meeting with the General Manager, Development Director and the Group Manager of Environmental Assessment & Planning on 15 September 2011. The purpose of that meeting was to discuss potential options for the redevelopment of the RSL’s existing Club and Youth Centre and to explore Council’s appetite for redeveloping its neighbouring car park site. The RSL outlined their financial position and the need to form new income generating opportunities (letter dated 19 September 2011 ATTACHMENT 1). At that meeting, the planning framework controlling the RSL site and the Council car park was outlined by the Group Manager Environment and Planning and his staff. The RSL presented a brief summary of potential options for their asset and also a high level scheme involving the integration of the existing car park, a new RSL, a new Youth Centre and residential units, utilising the land owned by the RSL and Council.



The three sites analysed for their combined development potential are (see map below):-

RSL properties at 4-6 Linsley Street and 4 Western Crescent, Gladesville (existing Clubhouse and existing Club Youth Centre); and

Council properties consisting of 5-13 Coulter Street, Gladesville (the existing Council car park).

Following Council’s resolution in November 2011, Council entered into an exclusivity agreement with the RSL on 2 February 2012 and have held discussions in good faith since then. Since the initial exclusivity agreement period (six months), two extensions have been sought due to extensive master planning and feasibility studies taking longer than anticipated by the RSL. Both extensions were granted with the most recent being until 31 October 2012 (now lapsed). During the agreement period, both parties (the RSL and Council) acting reasonably and in good faith, agreed to work together exclusively to:

develop, and if possible agree, on a Development Proposal for the RSL’s and Council’s properties and;

negotiate and if possible agree, on the essential terms and conditions of a Draft Heads of Agreement.

Council ensured that the RSL carried out all associated investigation work for the proposal and covered all costs and professional fees. In order to implement the requirement of the exclusivity agreement, the Club appointed Philon Pty Ltd (“Philon”) as the project’s Development Manager, to prepare a draft Development Proposal on its behalf. In preparing the draft Development Proposal, Philon, with a team of consultants, was required to determine the “highest and best use” development opportunities available to meet the objectives set out in the exclusivity agreement. The methodology adopted by Philon to comply with the requirement of the exclusivity agreement in preparing the Development Proposal, was to:

obtain an independent “Opinion of Current Market Value” for the RSL’s and Council’s properties, including details of existing improvements and town planning guidelines;

prepare a “Preliminary Property Analysis” to determine the site constraints, current and future zonings, and market analyses of the various property sectors;



establish the “highest & best use” for the RSL’s and Council’s properties, that meets the objectives of the Exclusivity Agreement;

obtain an Expression of Interest from a “seniors living” operator for a potential seniors’ village;

engage the services of an architect, town planner, urban planner, cost planner; and research analyst to prepare a “concept master plan” reflecting town and urban planning constraints, construction budgets and market/demographic profiles;

prepare the “overall development programme” for the complete project;

undertake both a “preliminary static feasibility” and a sensitivity analysis;

determine the viability of providing a mixed-use solution combining revenues and forecast outcomes for the RSL and Council including a risk profile for each party; and

As a result the RSL has now prepared a draft Development Proposal for Council’s consideration which now requires detailed analysis. In entering the discussions, Council’s position was clearly stated:-

There is no obligation on Council to proceed The public car park provisions on the site should be maintained and preferably

increased by a minimum of 20% The returns to Council (both in assets and cash) should be demonstrated in an

‘open book’ approach and prove to be competitive with the Council’s ‘highest and best use study’ for the site

Council planning instruments for the site should be adhered to Council preferred a low risk approach

To ensure that Council’s optimum value and position was understood, the site was included in Council’s own ‘highest and best use’ study which was independently commissioned and is due for completion shortly with a report to Council in the new year. This will provide a benchmark against which the RSL’s proposal can be evaluated.



Report The Land Holdings The land holdings included in the Development Proposal are shown below:

Council’s Property:- 5-13 Coulter Street, Gladesville (existing Council car park) consists of Lots 15,16,17 DP 192508, Lot1 DP1821 and lot 18 DP563146. The land is classified as operational (which means that it can be developed) and is zoned B4 mixed use. Councils’ site is unique, it is part of the Gladesville Town Centre, located adjacent to a community facilities both owned by the Gladesville RSL (Youth Club, and RSL club). The site is within a targeted regeneration area by virtue of the Gladesville LEP, and it holds extensive development opportunity having both height and floor space provisions which promote development. The Gladesville LEP was adopted by Council following extensive community consultation at the time. The redevelopment of the site in partnership has the potential to raise capital for Council, provide a new community asset as well as provide a new and larger car park at no cost to Council. The Gladesville RSL Club Property:- 4-6 Linsley Street and 4 Western Crescent, Gladesville (existing Clubhouse and existing Club Youth Centre). The RSL’s properties are also zoned B4 mixed use development.

Club Property

Club Property

Council Property



The Parties Involved in the Development Proposal In determining the RSL’s Highest and Best Use Study, the following parties have been involved in negotiations with Council to date.

1. Gladesville RSL and Community Club Ltd The RSL is a community based organisation that provides a range of services including the operation of a youth club, sporting clubs and a range of community support networks. It has expressed its requirement to diversify its business plan. The RSL has provided the following summary of their position, future growth strategy and intent: “The Club’s Board of Directors and Management Team for some time have recognised that the increase in gaming taxes, the introduction of the non-smoking legislation in July 2007 and more recently the threat of the Federal Government’s mandatory pre-commitment legislation have placed significant constraints on the Club’s business and its aged facilities.

In early-August 2011, the Board of Directors and Management Team decided to embark on a strategic plan to meet the challenges being faced by the Club. The Board of Directors and Management Team believe that securing the Club’s future requires the “prudent use of member’s funds and property assets.”

The RSL has proposed the most appropriate option (their highest and best use study) for the site to be:-

a “vertical” seniors independent living village;

a new registered Club premises and associated facilities;

a new Youth Centre;

Civic space;

new larger Council car park with a possible 30 to 40% increase in publically available spaces

Retail space

Residential units The RSL’s objective is to provide new facilities for its club members through the redevelopment of its current sites amalgamated with the Council’s car park site. As the adjoining owner on two boundaries the club see a joint venture with Council being a viable option in realising their strategic plan. In addition the club have explored possibilities with the Illawarra Retirement Trust (IRT) as a potential third party developer for the site.



2. Illawarra Retirement Trust (IRT) – A summary of IRT’s business profile is

attached (ATTACHMENT 2) IRT Group is one of Australia’s largest community based seniors lifestyle and care providers which provide seniors lifestyle and care solutions for 8043 seniors throughout in Sydney, Illawarra, South Coast of NSW, and the ACT. They hold Community Housing Provider Status and provide affordable rental lifestyle community living through the National Rental Affordability Scheme. IRT also provide care and services to those who are homeless, or at risk of homelessness, through their Assistance with Care and Housing for the Aged program (ACHA). Additionally they encompass research, catering and education through:- � IRT Research Foundation � IRT College � IRT Catering IRT is the RSL’s preferred development partner. It is proposed that IRT will take all risk throughout the development process and in return both Council and the RSL will receive assets and capital in exchange for the ability to redevelop their land. IRT are proposing to provide seniors lifestyle accommodation. This is independent living with a concierge service which targets those in retirement who do not require supported nursing home accommodation. Should Council determine to proceed, both the organisation and the suggested development structure will be analysed in greater detail. Options and Considerations Now that the RSL has concluded its ‘highest and best use study’ and in keeping with Council’s original resolution, Council is now in a position to determine wether it wishes to proceed or not. The RSL has expended substantive costs on developing their own highest and best use study to date. Before committing to further significant expenses, the RSL requires a clear direction from the Council. Council has three options to consider. Option 1 Do not Proceed with the Coulter Street Carpark Redevelopment Council may elect to leave the existing car park site “as is” and not benefit from the value of its development potential and current zoning. Council has budgeted a minimum expenditure on the Coulter Street Carpark of $118,000 over the next 10 years for its resurfacing and maintenance. Should Council determine not to proceed, the RSL will be required to review their options to develop the youth club and RSL individually. The RSL have indicated that this is not their preferred option since it is unviable for them to do so.



As Council is aware, the redevelopment of Council’s underutilised assets provides an opportunity for Council to address its asset maintenance backlog. Should Council not proceed with this option, Council will forego the potential to realise a return from the site which is classified operational and zoned as a mixed use development. The full value of this return is yet to be negotiated. This option does not help to increase the value of Council’s asset base, does not keep faith with Council’s previous resolution to explore the redevelopment of the Coulter Street Carpark with the RSL, and does not improve community benefit. For these reasons, this option is not recommended. Option 2 Proceed with the Redevelopment of the Coulter Street Carpark which is in Council’s Ownership – (ie Not in Partnership with the RSL) This option would involve taking the redevelopment of the Coulter Street Carpark to the open market to seek a joint development partner. Option 2 focuses on the site that is owned entirely by Council and would not include the redevelopment of the RSL or the Youth Centre land. The successful bidder would be required to ensure that Council’s carparking provision would be replaced or enhanced in the joint development. Council would maintain its ownership in a stratum on the site. Council could also expect to receive a cash component as well as a carpark in exchange for development rights. Option 2 ensures that the property market is fully tested before entering into a partnership with the RSL. However, this option may not provide the best urban design for the site in that the Youth Club building would remain on its current site. In addition, this option may not provide the most community benefit to the local community if the RSL was not the selected as the preferred tenderer. This may occur if the proposal was based solely on commercial return and not on the community benefit that a successfully operating RSL, and retirement living complex could bring. Option 2 requires the following risks to be managed If Council elected to move to the next stage in keeping with option 2, a further report would be presented to Council summarising as a minimum:-

Commercial structure and guarantee’s Commercial analysis Legal (procurement ) and planning risks Budget and program parameters Risks and rewards Community Consultation



The community are likely to have concerns relating (but not limited to):-

Perceived overdevelopment despite the proposal complying with Councils LEP

Perceived sale of Council’s carpark by converting freehold to strata title Site construction disruption Loss of the car park facility for a short period during construction

These issues would have to be carefully managed by Council should option 2 be the preferred option. To carry out the management of Option 2, it will be necessary to engage development expertise. Such expertise must hold the experience to carry out the tasks at hand in the time frame available and protect Council’s exposure to unforeseen risk. Council does not hold this expertise in-house. Without applying such expertise Council would expose itself to a wide range of risks which may result in a commercial offer that is far less than could be achieved utilising experienced professionals. Should Council determine to proceed with Option two an EOI and tender process will be required to select an appropriate Development Director. Option 2 option is not recommended because:-

Should the RSL tender in a manner that includes their site, the tender would be non-conforming and the benefits of site integration would be lost.

Council will carry the main community engagement risks without the close community support enjoyed by the RSL

It is considered that Council may gain a higher return from a joint RSL/Council site since it has more achievable value than a smaller site which just consists of Councils land holdings. A combined site also offers far greater flexibility for a good urban design outcome.

The community would not benefit from the benefits proposed in option 3 Option 3 Proceed with the Redevelopment of the Coulter Street Carpark in Partnership with the Gladeville RSL to the next Phase of Feasibility Assessment. This option would require Council to enter into a detailed analysis of the draft Development Proposal submitted by the RSL and bring a further report to Council in May 2013. This proposal is subject to several considerations.



Legal Considerations Under the Local Government Act and dependent on the circumstances, the Council has the ability to enter into direct negotiations with a neighbouring landowner. However the compliance or lawful non compliance with the tendering provisions of the Local Government Act and Regulation will depend upon the type of proposal to be determined by the parties and the entity created. These issues will require further detailed analysis and clarification as part of the next stages of negotiations with the parties involved. Risk Profile of Option 3 1. Development Risk Council requested a ‘low risk’ approach to the RSL. This low risk approach provides Council with a safer return (but of a more moderate nature) in that it does not carry development risk itself but passes it onto the RSL. In response the RSL is proposing a “seniors living” model whereby it would partner with Illawarra Retirement Trust (IRT) as the provider. Based on a proposed mixed-use development incorporating a Seniors’ Independent Living Village, Philon met with proposed operator Illawarra Retirement Trust (“IRT”) on 11 January 2012 to obtain an Expression of Interest to participate as the seniors’ operator and equity participant (Development Partner). Following IRT undertaking its due diligence of the draft Development Proposal, and establishing the conditions precedent, IRT advised that it was prepared to convert its Expression of Interest into a “binding” Heads of Agreement. This would be subject to Council’s agreement to proceed to the next stage. IRT is a well established (40 years) “seniors’ living” provider and is registered as a Not-for-Profit organisation with a healthy financial status. Further detailed analysis will be undertaken to determine the appropriateness of this organisation and its financial capacity, in any proposed development transaction. However the RSL are the proposed contracting party in this proposal with IRT guaranteeing financial outcomes on behalf of the RSL. To manage this risk, Council’s interests will have to be carefully managed in the assessment of the development proposal from the RSL, before the final analysis of risk can be ascertained and reported to Council. This will require a high level of due diligence.



2. Community Engagement

The community are likely to have concerns relating (but not limited to):-

Perceived overdevelopment despite the proposal which complies with Councils LEP

Perceived sale of Council’s carpark by converting Councils land ownership from freehold to strata title

Site construction disruption Loss of the car park facility for a short period during construction Perceived seniors’ living as inappropriate for the area Operational concerns over the RSL (night time trade)

Following a meeting between the Mayor Councillor Petch and the RSL on 14 November 2012, it was agreed that (should the Council agree to proceed) the RSL should undertake high levels of community engagement to seek their support for this proposal. This risk requires careful management before the development proposal can be fully assessed. The RSL has already commissioned a specialist community consultant to assist in this process prior to any proposal being presented to Council for its approval. 3. Financial Prudence / Exclusivity (independent study) An exclusivity agreement with the RSL carries with it the risk that Council may not get the best financial return for its development rights. In order to be financially prudent and ensure probity, it is essential that Council concludes its own highest and best use study for Coulter Street car park site as a stand alone option. This will identify a fully developed land value and potential income stream. This study is currently being concluded and will act as a benchmark against which the RSL proposal can be measured once it is fully analysed, negotiated and reported to Council. 4. Other Risk Considerations If Council elects to move to the next stage of option 3, the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed partnership will be tested in detail and a further report presented to Council summarising as a minimum:-

Commercial structure and guarantee’s Commercial analysis Legal (procurement ) and planning risks Budget and program parameters Risks and rewards Community Consultation findings



The main advantages of a development partnership with the RSL include:-

Contribution of the RSL’s contiguous land holdings to optimise the development potential for Coulter Street car park, thereby realising the vision in Council’s Development Control Plan for that site

Integrating increased car parking (an increase of 35% is proposed) in the design so that additional car spaces are provided for the public

Continuous operation of the RSL whilst a new facility is constructed; The opportunity to modernise and improve facilities for the youth of the local

community; Achieving sustainability goals for both the RSL and Council Providing a financial return to Council Maximising the site’s development potential and capital return without Council

having to absorb unnecessary risk Improve Council’s operations by installing new technology to manage the car

park Remove the maintenance cost burden by striking a commercial agreement

that absorbs excessive maintenance cost on the carpark New improved traffic network around the site with potential school drop off New and improved public domain and streetscape New entertainment and retail facilities Council is able to lower its renewable negative asset burden through

redevelopment and capital injection to Council’s balance sheet Council has the opportunity to partner with a community organisation (RSL)

that is partnering with a not for profit organisation (IRT) therefore outcomes are somewhat aligned

The RSL carries standing in the community because of their strong commitment to community service.

5. Risk of Lack of Council Development Expertise to Protect Council’s Interests To carry out a detailed analysis of the Development Proposal including providing sufficient feedback to the RSL/ IRT and Philon on the commercial offer, it is necessary to engage development expertise. Such expertise must hold the experience to carry out the tasks at hand in the time frame available and protect Council’s exposure to both known and unforeseen risk. Council does not hold this expertise in-house. Without applying such expertise Council would expose itself to a wide range of risks which may result in a commercial offer that is far less than could be achieved utilising experienced professionals. Should Council determine to proceed with Option 3 an EOI and tender process will be required to select an appropriate Development Director.



Staging – Should the Recommendation For Option 3 be Adopted. To proceed with option 3 requires a detailed review the RSL’s Development Proposal and to undertake a comparison exercise with its own highest and best use study findings for the car park site. In doing so, Council must consider the following key areas and form a view as to the legitimacy of each proposal:

Development risk Existing land value and potential up side Equity participation Legal and partnering risk Partners’ financial stability Guaranteed returns Timing of asset delivery Timing of financial up side Council’s projected maintenance budget Short term loss of car park Community concerns Community facilities and benefits Revitalisation objectives of the area Operational and maintenance costs and savings Building, project management and development management allowances Revenue assumptions and projections Escalation assumptions and projections Market research and justification Proposed Joint Venture structure Proposed security requirements Planning issues and risks Procurement policy and Section 55 of the LGA Council’s budget outlay and cash flow Council’s minimum requirements (such as recouping all expenditure)

The next steps to be undertaken considering the points raised above are:

Council goes to tender for the services of a Development Director to mange the development of the Coulter Street carpark in partnership with the RSL’s proposal and to negotiate the best available outcome for Council (having regard to Council’s own highest and best use study for the site). That this contract be staged to allow the maximum flexibility in the way that this property and future property development options of Council can be assessed.

The RSL (at its cost) and in conjunction with Council, confirms the appropriate Development Proposal, which outlines the concept master plan, preliminary “static” feasibility analysis, proposed overall development programme, conditions precedent, main commercial terms and development outcomes for each party.



Council undertakes its own Due Diligence upon receiving this Development Proposal to determine whether or not this Development Proposal meets Council’s requirements and whether or not Council wishes to proceed;

Following the conclusion of the Due Diligence of the Development Proposal, Council will confirm whether its requirements have been satisfied and if it wishes to proceed, including any changes to the conditions precedent and/or main commercial terms outlined in the Development Proposal; and

Following agreement (in writing) by the RSL and Council to the Development Proposal, and any required amendments to the conditions precedent and/or main commercial terms, the Heads of Agreement will be prepared. Both parties will instruct their legal representatives to assist each party to expedite the preparation and execution of each document.

Council makes it clear to the RSL that community support will be required to pursue the Partnership and eventually redevelop the joint land holdings. It has been suggested that this may take place in two stages. Stage 1 would involve a community consultation period whereby the RSL would present the options for the joint sites to the community using a number of communication methods. The community would then be consulted and their opinions summarised in a report. This research will be presented to Council along with a further report summarising the commercial, legal and process tasks outlined previously. This will allow Council to make informed decisions as to the communities’ opinion of the proposal and any inclusions/changes that the community may express. If Stage 1 of the Community Consultation is successful and Council elect to enter into a Partnership arrangement then Stage 2 of the community consultation process would be undertaken in tandem with the Development Application process.

Indicative Proposed Program and Key Activities It is envisaged that the following program of activities will take place if Council elect to proceed to the next stage and beyond:

Council Workshop Presentation – 11 December 2012; Council Meeting to resolve next steps – 11 December 2012; Appoint a Development Director to review the development proposal – 11

December 2012 to 15 February 2013; Development Director to carry out full analysis of the Development Proposal

and prepare a report to Council including Community Consultation feedback – 15 February 2013 to 15 April 2013;

Councillors review the report and community feedback and resolve to proceed – 30 April 2013;

Subject to Council agreeing to proceed, prepare all legal documentation and lodge DA documentation – 31 October 2013;

Independent review of DA and JRPP determination – 1 July 2014; Complete documentation, obtain Construction Certificate, obtain project

finance, tender and award Building Contract 1 - February 2015;



Complete and handover Council Car Park and provide capital – 30

September 2016; Total Project complete including existing Club site – 31 December 2018.

Critical Dates The RSL has indicated that it would prefer the Council to indicate its intent to proceed by Q1 2013. To meet this time frame, Council must complete its stand alone highest and best use study for this site and also thoroughly analyse and comment upon and perhaps modify the Development Proposal suggested by the RSL. This would involve the input of experienced development expertise and potentially cost planning and legal experts. Consultation with Council Departments Consultation has taken place with the RSL and Council’s Planning Department. There have been a number of meetings held to understand the key site drivers. As the proposal covers three land holdings there will be a requirement to modify the current DCP to accommodate an amalgamated development approach. This may be carried out in line with the development submission and exhibition period. It is understood the changes required to the DCP are minimal. This process has been discussed with the RSL and they are fully aware of the planning risks involved. The meetings with Council’s Planners have resulted in a development envelope that complies with the current LEP. The proposed master plan design will be further detailed in the analysis of the Development Proposal. Consultation has also taken place with Council’s general Counsel and Chief Financial Officer. Policy Implications Once a full analysis of the Development Proposal is made, a detailed report outlining any policy issues will be provided to Council. Financial Considerations Council has the ability to benefit from new assets, community facilities and to receive cash to a level which is not yet negotiated. In doing so, Council must recruit sufficient expertise (outlined above). If Council does proceed with the Development Proposal and Partnership in accordance with Option 3, Council would be reimbursed for its expenses through the cash input provided in exchange for development rights. The estimated indicative expenditure (to be reimbursed if Council proceed to a Legally Binding Agreement) for each stage of the project is provided below:



Stage 1 Review - Dec 11 2012 to April 30 2013 Commercial development expertise $ 68,000 Legal expertise $ 30,000 Feasibility/Valuer $ 10,000 Total $108,000 Stage 2 DA and Binding Agreement - May 1 2013 to October 30 2013 Commercial development expertise $100,000 Legal expertise $200,000 Total $300,000 Stage 3 DA Assessment - November 1 2013 to July 1 2014 Commercial development expertise $40,000 Legal expertise $20,000 Total $60,000 Stage 4 CC and Tender Award - July 2 2014 to February 1 2015 Commercial development expertise $40,000 Legal expertise $40,000 Total $80,000 Stage 5 Delivery - February 2 2015 to 1 September 2015 Commercial development expertise $ 72,000 Legal expertise $ 40,000 Total $112,000 It is proposed to utilise Council’s property reserve to fund the required expenditure for the proposed Partnership. Council’s Chief Financial Officer has advised that the property development reserve is projected to have a balance of $16.17m as at 30 th June 2013. The total expenditure committed including applied interest would be repaid to the reserve in approximately 2016. This would be achieved through the receipt of cash from the Development Partnership in accordance with the final agreed commercial terms of the proposed Joint Venture Agreement. Therefore there will no negative impact to Councils financial position by proceeding with this project, however Council will be required to cash flow the expenditure required until cash payment is received (estimated to be in FY2016)



The cash component due to be paid to Council will remain subject to the final negotiations for the development proposal should Council determine to proceed to the next stage. Conclusion Option three is the preferred way forward so that the development proposal by the RSL can be fully analysed. This proposal is a unique opportunity for Council in that provides community facilities, revitalises this area, secures the long term viability of the RSL, provides a capital return to Council as well as a new car park (which would be 35% larger) at no cost to Council. This process however requires careful analyses, negotiation and risk management which is outside of Council’s core capabilities. To this end it is proposed that Council makes a commitment to develop this project further in stages, funded from Council’s property development reserve which was established for this purpose. Should the project proceed, the reserve and interest will be refunded to it from the return on development. Once the RSL’s Development Proposal has been assessed, Council can compare it against the stand alone highest and best use study allowing a systematic financial assessment to take place. This will be reported to council once completed. Community Consultation will also provide necessary feedback for Council to asses its position in 2013 when a further report is provided to Council.



11 SUBMISSION TO POSITION PAPER - IMPROVING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STANDARD INSTRUMENT LEP PROGRAM

Report prepared by: Strategic Planner File No.: COR2006/1087 - BP12/1378

REPORT SUMMARY

The Standard Instrument Local Environment Plan (SI LEP) program is being reviewed to increase Council involvement in the plan – making process and improve the delivery of the SI LEP program. Since the program commenced in 2006 out of 152 Councils only 66 (43%) have had their SI LEPs notified. The State Government has established the Local Planning Panel to engage with local councils and other key stakeholder groups and report to Government on how implementation of the program can be improved. The Local Planning Panel has completed a position paper that recommends key changes to the SI LEP program including:-

o Allowing more zones, definitions and local clauses o Allowing more flexibility when dealing with the Land Use Matrix, maps and

Schedule 1 o Removing group terms for land uses o Improving communication to councils on accepted changes to policy and

model clauses.

The final Position Paper, FAQ information sheet, list of Local Planning Panel’s recommendations was release on 31 October 2012 and made open for submissions until 30 November 2012. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure has granted Ryde an extension to this time until 12 December 2012. The report provides information on proposed changes and recommends that a submission to the Position Paper – Improving the implementation of the Standard Instrument LEP program be endorsed by Council and forwarded to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. A draft submission to the Position Paper on Improving the implementation of the Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan program is ATTACHED. The submission largely supports the proposed changes but reinforces Councils concerns around the use of certain mandatory land uses such as boarding houses and issues around bulky goods premises and land uses within industrial zones.



RECOMMENDATION: That Council submits the attached submission to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure on the Position Paper – Improving the implementation of the Standard Instrument Local Environmental program. ATTACHMENTS 1 Draft Submission - Position Paper - Improving the Implementation of the

Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan program

Report Prepared By: Susan Wotton Strategic Planner Report Approved By: Meryl Bishop Manager - Urban Planning Dominic Johnson Group Manager - Environment & Planning



Background The Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan (SI LEP) is a template of zoning and development controls used by councils across the State to prepare local environmental plans (LEPs). It came into place in 2006 and the State Governments objective at that time was that every local council would have a new LEP in the SI format within 5 years. To date only 44 % of Councils have achieved this. The need for increased flexibility at the local level in developing LEPs has been realised and as a result the Local Planning Panel comprising representatives from the Local Government sector and from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure was established to engage with councils and other key stakeholder groups and report back to Government on how implementation of the SI can be improved. Submissions to the recommendations of the Panel are now being sought. Discussion The areas and issues of the SI reviewed by the Panel includes: 1. Land Use Zoning

o Environmental Hazard zone – relevant to coastal areas and environmental hazards such as flooding, land slip, bushfire.

o An additional zone within each of the broad zones of Residential, Business , Industrial , Recreational (these zones should reduce the need for subzones in a council area)

Council comments It is considered that the introduction of an Environmental Hazard zone based on the presence of a Government policy relating to a specific natural hazard issue has merit and is supported by Council as is the provision of additional zones within each suite of zones. It is not considered however that the issue of subzones will be resolved by increasing the range of zones available and that clauses which place restriction on certain aspects of a land use in a zone e.g. percentage of floor space that can be used for a specific use, should be permitted and the mechanism to do this explored further.

o Restrictions created by the presence of mandated uses. – Panel supports

mandated uses in zones.

Council comments It is considered that mandating uses within commercial or industrial zones that align

with the objectives of those zones is appropriate. However in residential zones where amenity, density, dwelling type etc are of great community concern it is considered that the objectives of a zone should provide guidance to the nature of land uses permitted as determined by Council. Mandating land uses such a boarding houses is not appropriate and leads to unsatisfactory development outcomes.



o Greater flexibility to freely include or exclude non- mandated uses in certain

zones (at present the DoPI provides direction on what zones particular non- mandated land uses can be included)

Council supports the following Panel recommendations:-

-Councils should continue to have discretion whether to permit or prohibit ‘home occupation (sex services)’, places of public worship, hotel or motel accommodation, hardware and building supplies in a zone. -retail and business premises should not be mandated in the R4 High Density Residential zone.

With respect to the industrial zones it is considered that more specific and clear

direction from the Department as to how future and existing demand for large format retail uses and bulky goods premises in industrial zones is to be approached. Council does not support the use of retail premises within such zones however submission of numerous planning proposals for such uses may result in an undermining of the land use table and the objectives of the zone.

o Application of zones Council supports the Panels position that Councils should be given:- -flexibility with respect to the zoning of roads -discretion with respect to the zoning of places of public worship, heritage items,

infrastructure -discretion with the application of environmental protection zones and the extent of

business zoned land. 2. Definitions o Complexity of the current use of group terms Council supports the Panels assessment that the use of group terms causes confusion and possibly issues of future legal challenges. For example the group term commercial premises comprise all land uses under each of the subgroup terms retail, business and office premises and ultimately represents 26 separately defined land uses. Council supports the Panels option to list sub group terms subject to a clear connection being made between a land use and its subgroup term within the definition of the land use. The Panel suggests that a planning proposal be submitted by each Council to their LEP to replace existing group terms with sub group terms. It is considered that rather than Councils having to undertake a planning proposal the DoPI should carry out a state wide amendment process to make such changes to land uses tables within all notified LEPs. (It should be noted that such a state wide process was undertaken when the SI was amended in accordance with the SI (LEP) Amendment Order 2011.)



o Proposed changes to the dictionary

Council supports the Panels approach to the requested changes to the dictionary in particular the redefinition of ‘bulky goods premises’. The Panel recommends that the definition of ‘bulky goods premises be amended to its pre – 23 February 2011 definition (see below). Bulky goods premises means a building or place used primarily for the sale by retail, wholesale or auction (or for the hire or display of ) bulky goods being goods that are of such size or weight as to require: (i) a large area for handling, display or storage, or (ii) direct vehicular access to the site of the building or place by members of the

public for the purpose of loading or unloading such goods into or from their vehicles after purchases or hire,

but does not include a building or place used for the sale of foodstuffs or clothing unless their sale is ancillary to the sale or hire or display of bulky goods. The location of the premises will be controlled by the land use zone.

3. Principal development standards

Council supports the Panels recommendations resulting in:- o flexibility to include additional development standards in an LEP o opportunities to expand and include more development incentive clauses be

investigated o the removal of the prohibition on the use of subclauses o less direction from the Department on controls relating to miscellaneous uses.

4. Exempt and Complying Development – inclusion of SEPP land uses

Council supports the inclusion of land uses permitted under SEPPs being incorporated into the SI land use table subject to the Department being able to update all LEPs in a timely manner inline with changes in a SEPP. However the inclusion of exempt and complying development in the SI is not supported as it generally covers ancillary functions, is extensive in what it addresses and is constantly being reviewed.

5. Mapping & 6 Additional Permitted Uses Council supports proposed changes to mapping guidelines to make zones and other controls more legible and the use of additional definitions other than defined terms when including additional permitted uses in Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses.

7. Heritage

Council supports proposed changes to Clause 5.10 Heritage conservation to include the impact of development in the vicinity of a heritage item. However parameters defining ‘vicinity’ should be provided.



8. Flexibility and 9 Program Implementation

Council agrees with:- o the Panels support for flexibility to modify model local provisions o the recommendation that the Department work toward greater consistency in

providing advice . A draft submission to the Position Paper on Improving the implementation of the Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan program is ATTACHED. Financial Implications Adoption of the recommendation will have no financial impact.



Ryde City Council Draft Submission Position Paper – Improving the implementation of the Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan program 1. Land Use Zoning

o Environmental Hazard zone – relevant to coastal areas and environmental hazards such as flooding, land slip, bushfire.

o An additional zone within each of the broad zones of Residential, Business , Industrial , Recreational (these zones should reduce the need for subzones in a council area)

Council comments It is considered that the introduction of an Environmental Hazard zone based on the presence of a Government policy relating to a specific natural hazard issue has merit and is supported by Council as is the provision of additional zones within each suite of zones. It is not considered however that the issue of subzones will be resolved by increasing the range of zones available and that clauses which place restriction on certain aspects of a land use in a zone e.g. percentage of floor space that can be used for a specific use, should be permitted and the mechanism to do this explored further.

o Restrictions created by the presence of mandated uses. – Panel supports mandated

uses in zones.

Council comments It is considered that mandating uses within commercial or industrial zones that align with

the objectives of those zones is appropriate. However in residential zones where amenity, density, dwelling type etc are of great community concern it is considered that the objectives of a zone should provide guidance to the nature of land uses permitted as determined by Council. Mandating land uses such a boarding houses is not appropriate and leads to unsatisfactory development outcomes.

o Benefits and limitations of the land use matrix

Council supports choice being available to include either the land use matrix or a land use table within an LEP.

o Constraints resulting from the requirement to have open or closed zones.

Council comments It is considered that the use of ‘ open zones’ where the majority of land uses are listed as prohibited to ensure only very specific land use are permitted is unsatisfactory . It is considered Councils should have the flexibility to decide the most effective way to identify land uses that are permitted or prohibited within a land use table for any zone.



o Greater flexibility to freely include or exclude non- mandated uses in certain zones

Council supports the following Panel recommendations:- -Councils should continue to have discretion whether to permit or prohibit ‘home occupation (sex services)’, places of public worship, hotel or motel accommodation, hardware and building supplies in a zone. -retail and business premises should not be mandated in the R4 High Density Residential zone.

With respect to the industrial zones it is considered that more specific and clear direction

from the Department as to how future and existing demand for large format retail uses and bulky goods premises in industrial zones is to be approached. Council does not support the use of retail premises within such zones however submission of numerous planning proposals for such uses may result in an undermining of the land use table.

o Application of zones

Council supports the Panels position that Councils should be given:- -flexibility with respect to the zoning of roads -discretion with respect to the zoning of places of public worship, heritage items,

infrastructure -discretion with the application of environmental protection zones and the extent of

business zoned land.

2. Definitions o Group terms

Council supports the Panels assessment that the use of group terms causes confusion and possibly issues of future legal challenges and considers the use of sub group terms more appropriate subject to a clear connection being made between a land use and its subgroup term within the definition of the land use. The Panel suggests that a planning proposal be submitted by each Council to their LEP to replace existing group terms with sub group terms. It is considered that rather than Councils having to undertake a planning proposal the DoPI should carry out a state wide amendment process to make such changes to land uses tables within all notified LEPs. (It should be noted that such a state wide process was undertaken when the SI was amended in accordance with the SI (LEP) Amendment Order 2011).

o Proposed changes to the dictionary

Council supports the Panels approach to the requested changes to the dictionary in particular the redefinition of ‘bulky goods premises’.



3. Principal development standards Council supports the Panels following recommendations :- o Flexibility to include additional development standards in an LEP o opportunities to expand and include more development incentive clauses be

investigated o the removal of the prohibition on the use of subclauses o less direction from the Department on controls relating to miscellaneous uses.

4. Exempt and Complying Development Council supports the inclusion of land uses permitted under SEPPs being incorporated into the SI land use table subject to the Department being able to update all LEPs in a timely manner inline with changes in a SEPP. However the inclusion of exempt and complying development in the SI is not supported as it generally covers ancillary functions, is extensive in what it addresses and is constantly being reviewed.

5. Mapping & 6 Additional Permitted Uses Council supports proposed changes to mapping guidelines to make zones and other

controls more legible and the use of additional definitions other than defined terms when including additional permitted uses in Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses. 7. Heritage Council supports proposed changes to Clause 5.10 Heritage conservation to include the impact of development in the vicinity of a heritage item. However guideline defining ‘vicinity’ should be provided 8. Flexibility & 9 Program Implementation Council agrees with:-

o the Panels support for flexibility to modify model local provisions o the recommendation that the Department work toward greater consistency in

providing advice . Council also notes the Panels comments with respect to future action to be taken in the areas of transparency, consultation, feedback from State agencies, interaction with PC Office and social/economic impact analysis.

With respect to recommendations made relating to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure it should be noted that in the development of both Ryde LEP 2010 and draft Ryde LEP 2011 Council has at all times been provided with support, advise and assistance in a timely and efficient manner from the staff of the Sydney Region East Team. Recognition of the efforts of DoPI staff should be acknowledged.



12 DRAFT RYDE LEP 2011 - SUBMISSIONS AND RELATED MATTERS

Report prepared by: Strategic Planner File No.: LEP2008/22/007 - BP12/1434

REPORT SUMMARY Draft Ryde LEP 2011 represents the last stage of a three stage process in the development of a comprehensive LEP for the City of Ryde. The draft Plan will guide development in the City for the next 10 years through the revitalization of centres, residential choice and sustainable development. The draft Plan was exhibited for “Community Comment” between the 19 January 2011 and 29 May 2012 and was placed on formal exhibition between the 30 May and 13 July 2012. A total of 3275 submissions were received. At the Council meeting of the 24 July 2012 twenty four (24) speakers made representations with respect to the draft Plan. The speakers largely addressed issues contained within submissions. The principal issues raised in submissions and by speakers included;

- Requests for increased floor space and height provisions for certain sites within Centres and local business zones.

- Deleting Clause 4.1C (d) (b) which requires a minimum road frontage of 20m for dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing developments.

- Requests from State authorities that land zoned SP2 which is surplus to their needs be rezoned to an adjoining zoning.

- Concern over the viability of the IN2 zone and inclusion of additional land uses as “permitted with consent” in particular Bulky goods premises.

- Retention of all open space land, identification of riparian zones and biodiversity issues.

It is proposed to amend the draft LEP to address a number of the issues raised in submissions and other identified changes. All proposed amendments are listed in ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 1 – Amendments to DLEP 2011. This report provides information on the following areas of draft Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2011:

1. The development of DLEP 2011 2. Major changes proposed under DLEP 2011 3. Exhibition undertaken for DLEP 2011 4. Summary of submissions received. 5. Summary of verbal addresses made to Council and 6. Key issues associated with the DLEP



The report recommends that Council amends the draft Plan in accordance with Table 1 and that the plan be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DoPI) with a Section 68 report requesting that the Minister make the Plan. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Council amend Draft Ryde LEP 2011 in accordance with the changes

identified in Table 1 – Amendments to LEP 2011 attached to this report. (b) That Council forward to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure draft LEP

2011 as amended with a Section 68 report requesting that the Minister make the Plan.

ATTACHMENTS – ALL CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER 1 Table 1 Amendments to DLEP 2011 2 Table 2 Summary of DLEP 2011 Submissions 3 Table 3 Summary of requests for changes to FSR, height and zoning 4 Table 4 Details of requests for changes to FSR, height and zoning 5 Table 5 Submissions in Support/Against/Other comments 6 Table 6 Speakers to Council meeting 24 July 2012 7 Council report 24 July 2012 - Draft Ryde LEP 2011 - Submissions Report Prepared By: Susan Wotton Strategic Planner Report Approved By: Meryl Bishop Manager - Urban Planning Dominic Johnson Group Manager - Environment & Planning



History 1. Development of Draft LEP 2011 Council was advised by the Department of Planning (DoP) in April 2005 that it would be required to have a principal LEP in place within three years of the gazettal of the Standard LEP template and that such a principal LEP would be required to conform to that template.

The Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006 (SI) was gazetted by the State Government on the 31 March 2006 and prescribes the form and content of a principal local environmental plan. The SI is required to be used by all Councils in NSW. In April 2005 Council approached DoPI to undertake the development of a principal or comprehensive LEP for the City of Ryde in three stages: Stage 1 involved taking the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance that had been in place since 1979 and making a “like for like” transfer of the controls in the Ordinance and associated maps into the SI. This was known as LEP 2010 and was published on the legislative website on the 30 June 2010. Stage 2 involved the carrying out of a Local Planning Study - The Planning Study which was adopted by Council on 7 December 2010 was based on a series of studies including Housing, Centres and Corridors , Open Space, Heritage, West Ryde Master Plan and was undertaken during 2009 - 2010. Stage 3 involved the development of the comprehensive Plan (Draft LEP 2011) based on the recommendations of the Local Planning Study, previous resolutions of Council and a general review of LEP 2010. DLEP 2011 comprises a written document and a series of maps and applies to all of the City of Ryde with the exception of some land in North Ryde that is owned by the State Government e.g. Transport NSW and which Council was required by DoPI to defer from the LEP. The written document is based on the SI and contains compulsory clauses, some optional clauses as well as local clauses. In this regard DoPI has produced a number of Model Clauses which they require to be used when Council chooses to incorporate a local clause around a particular issue such as flooding, acid sulphate soil and foreshore building lines. The maps which accompany the written document identify the specific controls that applies to a site and include zoning, floor space ratio, height or identifying land which is covered by a written clause such as foreshore building lines, acid sulphate soil, flooding.



As required by Section 62 of the EP&A Act draft LEP 2011 was circulated to State Government agencies and departments for comment. Council on 14 December 2010, after consideration of the comments received, resolved that the Director General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DoPI) be requested under Section 65 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 to certify that the draft Plan, as amended, may be publicly exhibited. The draft LEP as submitted to DoPI was placed on the Council website for “Community Comment” on the 19 January 2011. A conditioned Section 65 Certificate was issued by the Director General of DoPI on the 5 September 2011.Council resolved in part on the 27 September 2011 to seek a reissuing of the Section 65 Certificate as a result of concerns over a number of s65 conditions and other issues including:-

Section 65 Conditions relating to open space, Rezoning of land at 158 – 194 Blaxland Road Ryde under DLEP 2011, Rezoning of SP2 land.

A letter requesting the amendments to the s65 Certificate was sent to the Director General of the DoPI on the 15 December 2011. In response an amended Section 65 Certificate dated 20 December 2011 was issued.

Council on the 14 February 2012 resolved in part that:

1. a further amended Section 65 Certificate be requested that did not rezone any current SP2 land to other purposes and that such zoning be reflected in the Draft LEP for public exhibition.

2. Council authorise that Draft Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2011 be placed on exhibition in accordance with the requirements for the exhibition of draft local environmental plans as specified by the Environmental Planning and Assessment act 1979.

Council forwarded to DoPI on 5 April 2012 draft LEP 2011 amended in accordance with the conditions of the Section 65 Certificate dated 20 December 2011, Council resolutions not addressed in the Section 65 Certificate and amended maps reflecting the reinstatement of the SP2 zones. Council on the 23 April 2012 received an unconditional s65 Certificate from the DoPI to exhibit draft Ryde LEP 2011. The draft Plan was formally exhibited between 30 May and 13 July 2012. Submissions received during “Community Comment” and the formal exhibition period are discussed later in this report as are the issues raised by speakers to the DLEP made at the Council meeting of the 24 July 2012.



Council on the 24 July 2012 resolved to defer DLEP 2011 until all verbal submissions made at that Council meeting had been addressed in a further report to the next Council, elected at the 2012 Local Government Election. 2. Major changes proposed under Draft LEP 2011. Changes between LEP 2010 and DLEP 2011 are a result of the following:-

o Local Planning Study 2010 o Council decisions and resolutions o DoPI requirements o Section 62 comments from Government agencies

Local Planning Study 2010 The Study which was adopted by Council in December 2010 recommended a number of inclusions in LEP 2011 with the aim of increasing development potential for centres, creating greater residential choice and establishing controls relating to sustainable living issues. Recommendations of the Study with respect to the draft LEP included:

- Allowing the strata subdivision of dual occupancies - Requiring a minimum site requirement for dual occupancy and multi dwelling

housing of 580m2 and 900m2 respectively and a road frontage of 20m. - Changes to zoning, floor space and height in and around transport corridors

and centres. This includes changes to Ryde Town Centre , West Ryde , Eastwood , Meadowbank and some small changes to Gladesville.

- Incorporating environmental sustainability clauses such as flooding , stormwater and greenstar rating

- Heritage listing a number of new properties

Council decisions and resolutions. A review of LEP 2010 controls and land use tables as well as outstanding resolutions of Council was undertaken and resulted in DLEP 2011 actioning:

• Old resolutions that could not be acted upon in LEP 2010 such as the rezoning of 55A Pellisier Rd from RE1 Public Recreation to R2 Low Density Residential

• Recent resolutions such as:- o the rezoning of Council’s Porters Creek site from RE1 Public

Recreation to IN2 Light Industrial o the identification of land parcels to be acquired by Council for the

purposes of open space on the Land Reservation Acquisition Map and the zoning of such land RE1 Public Recreation on the Land Zoning Map.

• Amending land use tables to be reflective of community expectations e.g. incorporating additional uses in the IN2 zone such as funeral homes, hardware and building supplies, landscaping material supplies.



DoPI requirements. Based on the pre s64 review of DLEP 2011 by DoPI’s legal and regional branches, changes to DoPI Practice Notes, numerous meetings with DoPI staff and conditions attached to the s65 Certificates issued by DoPI changes were required to DLEP 2011 that included;- • Using Model clauses without amendment e.g. Foreshore building line • Providing FSR controls for Centres • Deleting clauses which are more appropriate in a DCP. • Deleting clauses which create subzones. • Zoning DoPI land adjacent to Council’s Porters Creek site IN2 Light

Industrial

Section 62 comments from Government agencies. This included changes requested by the Roads and Maritime Service that the M2 boundary be amended and changes to the Land Reservation Acquisition Map with respect to land required for classified road etc. 3. Exhibition of Draft LEP 2011 Draft LEP 2011 as submitted to DoPI in December 2010 for a S65 Certificate was placed on “Community Comment” from the 19 January 2011 to the 29 May 2012. The “Community Comment” exhibition of the draft Plan included the following:-

1. Information on Council’s webpage including; a. DLEP 2011 written document and maps b. Background information on LEPs , DCPs , City of Ryde Planning Study

and DLEP 2011 c. Key documents e.g. Council reports , table of changes, land use matrix d. An invitation to make submissions

2. Hard copy of documents placed in all libraries 3. Information on 149 Certificates issued as to the zoning, heritage status etc of a

property under the draft Plan and where to view the draft plan.

The draft LEP was placed on formal exhibition from the 30 May to 13 July 2012 and included in part the following;

1. A public notice of the exhibition in each Ryde City View edition during the 6 week period. Specific aspects of the DLEP were identified in each edition.

2. Use of Council Kiosks or computers in each of Council’s libraries providing internet access to Ryde LEP 2010 and draft LEP 2011 for information and comparison purposes. Statutory information and background information was also provided. Similar computer access was also available to customers within the Civic Centre and Council’s Business and Advisory Centre.

3. Hard copies of both Ryde LEP 2010, draft LEP 2011 and key support and statutory information was on display within each library, the Civic Centre and Ryde Planning and Business Centre.

4. A3 Information posters were displayed within each library, the Civic Centre and Ryde Planning and Business Centre advising of the exhibition.



5. Brochures on the draft LEP and DCP were available at all areas where the

LEP was on exhibition. 6. Approximately 3 000 letters and brochures were sent out advising of the DLEP

to various groups including:- o All land owners where a change of FSR, height, zoning, heritage status,

parking requirements is to occur o Adjoining landowners where a change in zoning, height and floor space is to

occur in the following areas; - Ryde Town Centre - Meadowbank Urban Village - West Ryde Town Centre - Blenheim Road Shopping Centre - Gladesville Town Centre - Glen Street /Lakeside Road Eastwood

o Chamber of Commerce and Progress Associations o State and Federal Members of Parliament o State authorities o Adjoining Councils

(Council is to note that as advised in previous reports only the Body Corporate of a strata group was notified not the individual owners of strata units with respect to all letters). 7. Information sessions were provided to the following groups;

o Council Advisory Committees – Heritage , Economic Development and Climate Change and Sustainable Development

o Community Groups – Meadowbank and West Ryde Progress Association o Landowners in and adjacent to areas where significant changes were

proposed ie Ryde Town Centre, Meadowbank Urban Village, Eastwood Town Centre , Blenheim Road and West Ryde Town Centre.

o Internal Council business units – Environment, Assessment, Property, Community Life, Public Works.

8. Drop in information sessions were carried out at West Ryde, North Ryde and

Ryde libraries.

The consultation was in accordance with COR Engagement Matrix. 4 Summary of submissions received. A total of 3275 submissions have been received with respect to the exhibition of the draft LEP. The below table provides a breakdown of submissions received during

- the Community Comment, - the Formal Exhibition and late submissions reported to Council - Submissions received after 24 July 2012.



Summary of Submissions received Submissions received Community Exhibition

3012 (2949 pro forma 63 individual)

Formal Exhibition (including late submissions reported to Council 24/7/2012

254 (73 pro forma and 181 individual)

Submissions received between 25/7/2012 to now.

9

Total 3275 (3022 pro forma and 253 individual)

A summary of the content of the submissions received (in support, against, requests for changes) during “community comment” and the formal exhibition period is provided in ATTACHMENT 2. A summary of submissions that requested changes to floor space, height and zoning and Council’s response to such requests is provided in ATTACHMENT 3. Details of submissions that requested changes to floor space height etc and reasons for Council’s response is provided in ATTACHMENT 4. A summary of other issues addressed in submissions is provided in ATTACHMENT 5. (Note: As the Plan placed on community comment varied in a number of ways to the Plan placed on formal exhibition due to changes required by DoPI and Council resolutions the two exhibition periods are represented separately in all the above Attachments). All attachments are CIRCULATED under SEPARATE COVER. Issues raised in submissions A breakdown of submissions received during the two exhibition periods, examples of the principle issues raised and Councils response is provided below. (Note:- issues raised by speakers at the Council meeting of the 24 July 2012 are provided later in the report). West Ryde Town Centre – 8 submissions 2 submissions in support 0 submissions against 6 submissions request changes to controls to specific sites – see ATTACHMENT 4 – for details



Eastwood Town Centre – 31 submissions 26 submissions in support 4 submissions against 7 submissions (6 also in support) request changes to controls to specific sites – see ATTACHMENT 4 for details Issue

Support the draft plan however it should allow the whole of Glen Street to be the same zoning rather than split it. It is already a heavy commercial zone.

Response

The proposed zoning of the land in Glen Street/Lakeside Road/Shaftesbury Road corresponds largely to the zoning of land, existing land uses and built form which is located opposite i.e. those properties zoned B4 are opposite land zoned B4 which is developed as part of the Eastwood Shopping Centre whilst land zoned R4 is largely opposite land zoned RE1 Public or R2 Low Density Residential. It should be noted that the R4 zone does permit a number of retail uses such as neighbourhood shops and health consulting rooms (which are permitted under the Infrastructure SEPP). The proposed zoning of land is considered appropriate in view of adjacent land use activities.

No amendment to the DLEP required.

Gladesville Town Centre – 121 submissions 11 submissions in support 102 submissions against (73 pro former letters) 12 submissions (5 of which are also in support) request changes to controls to specific sites – see ATTACHMENT 4 for details 80 (79 which are also against) comments/objection re environment/open space/specific clauses Issue (Pro forma letters 73)

DLEP 2011 does not meet the community interest in Gladesville in particular increased height limits along Victoria Rd and surrounding residential streets e.g. Farm St and Gladesville & Victoria Rd precinct. New heights of 6 and 8 storeys along Victoria Rd and 4 storeys in Farm St will have adverse impact on local community due to noise, traffic, road safety, and loss of privacy, increased pressure on amenities and public transport and loss of sunlight. Maximum heights of 4 storeys along Victoria Rd and 2 storeys in surrounding residential streets e.g. Farm St is more appropriate.



Response

Changes to zoning, height and FSRs in the Gladesville Town Centre (GTC) have resulted from the gazettal of LEP (Gladesville TC & Victoria Road Corridor) in January 2011 and the Local Planning Study adopted by Council in December 2010. The LEP involved extensive community consultation with the Local Study involving more targeted consultation (land owners affected by proposed change). The purpose of the changes is to facilitate the revitalisation of the GTC as a vibrant, attractive and safe urban environment with a diverse mix of land uses.

The dominant maximum building height along Victoria Road is 5 storeys, with selected sites having a maximum height of 6 storeys. Such heights are an appropriate scale for a major road and will enable a suitable built form outcome. To address the relationship of the proposed development along Victoria Road to the existing built form, interface controls involving reduced maximum heights of 3 storeys have been introduced. The aim of such controls is to reduce the impact of the new development on existing low scale residential areas.


Meadowbank Urban Village – 18 submissions 8 submissions in support 0 submissions against 16 submissions request changes to controls for specific sites (7 of which are also in support) – see ATTACHMENT 4 for details 1 submission other matters Issue 21-24 Railway Rd Meadowbank. DLEP 2011 proposes an FSR of 2.3:1 and a height of 21.5m for 21-24 Railway Rd Meadowbank. The submission argues for an FSR of 4.5:1 and height of 8-9 storeys (27.5m – 33.5) based on existing development heights and FSRs and proposed Part 3A heights and FSRs in the area. Response When considering the Ryde Local Planning Study, Council directed that the LEP

building heights in Shepherd’s Bay should accommodate 6 storeys maximum. The council adopted Local Planning Study formed the basis of DLEP 2011. The DLEP FSRs were derived from the height envelopes and previous master plan studies.




Macquarie Park – 15 Submissions 0 submissions in support 1 submission against 10 submissions (7 of which are also in support)request changes to controls for specific sites – see ATTACHMENT 4 for details 4 submission other matters Issue Cottonwood and Lachlan Avenue – Council should consider rezoning the two areas from 6 storeys to 10 plus storeys similar to the corners next to the train station to encourage development. Response

A review of the planning controls in the Macquarie Park Corridor is currently being undertaken (Draft LEP 2010 (Amendment 1)).The submission will be addressed as part of this process.

No amendment to the DLEP 2011 required. Ryde Town Centre - 226 12 submissions in support (2 petitions) 211 submissions against (210 pro former letters) 2 submissions request changes to controls for specific sites – see ATTACHMENT 4 for details. 1 submission other matters (height of Ryde Civic Centre) Issue 1 Precinct 3 Ryde Town Centre The DLEP provides for an FSR of 1.8:1 and height of 18.5m (5 storeys) on 120-128 Blaxland Rd. FSR and height incentives will allow max development of 2.5:1 and 21.5m if a laneway is provided. Submission argues for increased development potential up to 4.8:1 and height of 30m (9 storeys) and states that additional FSR and height should be considered on this site to address issues relating to feasibility and to ensure that redevelopment occurs that is more in line with the scale of the surrounds. Response

The arguments for increased height and FSR are based in part on a misreading of the DDCP 2011. Arguments in relation to scale and feasibility however carry some weight. It is accepted that the base FSR is too low and proposed to raise this from 1.8:1 to 2:1 but keep the maximum FSR of 2.5:1 as was proposed by the DLEP 2011.

The height should also be amended. It is suggested that the base height of 18.5:1 be retained but that the height incentive is amended to be 6m allowing a maximum height of 24.5m (7 storeys). This may create taller building forms but will not add to the floor space capacity of the centre (and therefore the traffic generation).



To ensure equity the same height and FSR controls should be applied across the whole of Precinct 3 – Main Street (generally retail parts of Blaxland Rd of Church St and areas in Ryde Town Centre presently with an FSR of 1.8:1. The height incentives (if taken up) are in the central part of the Top Ryde and will not affect the low density residential areas surrounding the centre.

Recommended Action The following amendment by made to the DLEP 2011:

o Amend FSR map to 2:1 for the whole of Precinct 3 and land within the Ryde Town Centre with an FSR 1.8:1 under the Draft Plan.

o Amend the HOB map for the corresponding area mentioned above to a height of 18.5 m.

o Amend HOB Map to make area F as referred to in Clause 4.3(2A) to correspond with area described above.

o Amend FSR Map for Ryde Town Centre by combining area H and I into area H.

o Amend Clause (4.3)(2A)(f) to 6m for area F o Amend Clause (4.4)(2A)(h) to read as follows;

(h) 0.5:1 if the building is in area H and if the building is on a site having an area of at least 900sqm and provides laneway access and is mixed development. o Clause 2 (4.4)(2A) (i) to be deleted.

General – 2793 submissions (2739 pro forma letters) 5 submissions in support 2740 submissions against 28 submissions request changes to controls to specific sites – see ATTACHMENT 4 – for details 20 submission submissions other matters Issue (2739 Pro forma letters) A number of general matters were identified including;

Civic Centre should be retained as public land. Do not want high rise towers on civic centre site.

All Special Uses zonings should be retained All open space should be kept for parks, gardens, green links, bushland

restoration and playing fields. All of the Field of Mars Reserve and Wildlife Refuge should be zoned as E2

Environmental Conservation. Council must fully restore the Reserve and remove the RE1 zoning that allow playing fields and other such development in part of the Reserve



Response

For comment on the Ryde Civic Site refer to comments above re Ryde Town Centre.

Under DLEP 2011 all land zoned SP2 in LEP 2010 has been maintained in DLEP 2011 with the exception of SP2 land subject to a Council resolution that related to land at 390 Pittwater Rd and minor SP2 Classified Road changes requested by the RTA.

Areas where a change in zoning from RE1 to another zone has occurred under DLEP 2011 are;- -160 - 162 Wicks Road Macquarie Park (Porters Creek site) Council resolved on the 24 August 2010 to rezone the land IN2 Light Industrial - 55A Pellisier Road Ryde. Council resolved on the 16 November 2004 to zone the subject land to Residential ‘A’(R2). All other RE1 and E2 zoned land is to retain its zoning.

Council on the 5 May 2009 resolved in part to draft LEP 2010 the following with respect to the E2 zoning. (c) That Draft Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2008 be amended as follows: …….(iii) to apply E2 zoning to all land in the City of Ryde categorised as bushland under Section 36 of the Local Government Act, 1993.

Field of Mars Reserve and Wildlife Refuge has been predominately zoned E2 in accordance with the above resolution.

No amendment to the DLEP 2011 required.

Dual occupancy/Multi dwelling housing – 34 submissions 23 submissions in support 2 submissions against 13 submissions (4 also counted in support) other matters (Lot size and frontage) Issue The issues raised in relation to the provisions for dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing are outlined as;

The wording is confusing regarding whether existing approved dual occupancies can be strata subdivided – do they need a 20m frontage?

Strata subdivision of dual occupancy is supported The 20 m frontage is onerous and greater land area or width of block

does not equal good design The 20m frontage requirements should be reviewed – a more realistic

provision would be 16m frontage and 700sqm minimum land size. Response

Clause 4.1B of DLEP 2011 permits the subdivision of dual occupancy development or duplex buildings in the R2 zone subject to the land being a minimum 580sqm. This clause makes no reference to a minimum frontage. The minimum area of 580sqm has been in place as a control for the development of dual occupancy developments for many years and it is



intended to continue to support Clause 4.1C Minimum lot sizes for dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing of DLEP 2011. Previously approved dual occupancy or duplex developments would be capable of being subdivided subject to the land being the minimum area of 580sqm.

The Ryde Planning Study 2010 – Housing study states the following with respect to the requirement of a 20m frontage for dual occupancy developments. A slightly higher minimum lot size together with a 20 metre minimum frontage width would deliver better design outcomes, particularly with regard to compatibility with existing streetscapes, landscape and deep soil areas, as well as the placement of garages and other car parking structures. If an increased minimum lot size for duplex buildings was introduced, the number of sites available for duplex developments would significantly decrease.(P4 – 72). The 20m frontage should be retained.

No amendment to the DLEP 2011 required.

Ryde Council – 5 submissions 0 submissions in support 0 submissions against 3 submissions request changes to controls to specific sites 1 submission requests changes to aims/objectives of DLEP 1 comments/objection re environment/open space/specific clauses

Issue 1 A Public Works submission requests the rezoning of a number of other parcels of council land located throughout the City. The requests relate to matters such as rezoning SP2 land to residential/business and up zoning residential land to high density residential or a business zone. Response

It is considered that a planning proposal should be lodged to allow comprehensive consideration of the rezoning. Such a process would enable community consultation on the proposed rezonings.

No amendment to the DLEP 2011 required. Issue 2 A Public Works submission requests that the LEP allow for Council to provide outdoor advertisement/sponsorship signage on land that is owned by or under the care control and management of Council. At present the blanket prohibition of general advertising is considered to inflexible and providing such signage will allow Council to make a financial return that can support council facilities and services



Submission requests - Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses be amended to allow signage on Council land permissible with consent and - an amendment is sought to SEPP 64 which prohibits such signage from land zoned RE1 Public Recreation. Response All residential, business, industrial and recreation zones within DLEP 2011 allow

for either business identification signs or building identification signs, all other signage is prohibited i.e. third party or general advertising.

It is considered for the community to have an opportunity to consider an expansion of land uses on Council owned land to permit general advertising a planning proposal (pp) should be submitted. Prior to such a pp Council should request advice from DoPI with respect to any proposed exemption it may require to overcome constraints that exist though SEPP 64- Advertising and Signage.


Government Depts – 22 submissions 0 submissions in support 0 submissions against 15 submissions request changes to controls to specific sites(6 also in support) 3 submissions requests changes to aims/objectives of DLEP 5 submissions (1 also in request for change) make comments/objection re environment/open space/specific clauses

Issue Rural Fire Service Concerned with Home based childcare being permitted without consent in the land use table. This type of development is classed by RFS as Special Fire Protection Purpose and requires an assessment under section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997. Home based childcare should be permitted with consent only. Response

Home based child care centres are considered exempt development under the SEPP (Exempt and Complying) Codes except if the use is proposed to occur on bushfire prone land. Under DLEP 2011 the use is permitted without consent in all residential zones and a number of business zones. It is considered to satisfy the requirements of the RFS home based child care centres should be listed as permitted with consent in all zones.

Recommended Actions

1.Home based child care centres where “permitted without consent “in the land use table be made development “permitted with consent”.



The report of the 24 July 2012 to Council titled Draft LEP 2011 – Submissions (ATTACHMENT 7) is CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER. Discussion 1. Summary of verbal addresses made to Council A total of 24 speakers addressed Council on the 24 July 2012 with respect to DLEP 2011. ATTACHMENT 6 which provides a list of all speakers, the area they addressed and Council response is CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER. The below is a summary of some of the issues raised: No of Speakers

Issue Council response

2 Industrial zones Request bulky goods premises for IN2 zone

Bulky goods premises is defined as a building used for the sale , hire or display of bulky goods being of such size or weight to require a large handling display area and includes goods such as floor and window supplies , furniture , household electrical goods and swimming pools. The retail nature of bulky goods and its likely impact on reducing the land available for industrial uses is such that they should be considered on an individual basis through a Planning Proposal. DoPI on 20 June 2012 advised Council of the following;

“Our preference is to exclude bulky goods retail from industrial zones as an additional use across the zone because the inclusion of 'bulky goods' is now considered fundamentally to be a retail use that is likely to reduce the amount of industrial land The preference now is to either: 1. cluster permissibility of these uses in a suitable area (close to commercial is ideal but may not be achievable) and to give them a B5 zoning or 2. allow the use by a Schedule 1 amendment for the particular site based on suitability criteria (less



No of Speakers


preferable but less damaging to the whole zone) In either case the PP should assess the proposal against the Employment Lands Development Program Strategic Assessment checklist

It should be noted that under Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses a bulky goods premises is permitted at 461 Victoria Rd. This was based on a recommendation of the Ryde Local Planning Study that was adopted by Council on 7 December 2010 and was predicated on the significant size of the site and the fact that it has direct access to Victoria Road. Further discussion on this issue occurs under 6 Additional Issues of this report.

3 Gladesville Process not transparent Heights of additional 2 storey resulting in 6 /8 storeys not supported Building heights & residents on busy roads not acceptable. Traffic and amenity issues in Eltham St

Changes to zoning, height and FSRs in the Gladesville Town Centre (GTC) have resulted from the gazettal of LEP (Gladesville TC & VRC) on 14 January 2011 and the Local Planning Study adopted by Council in December 2010. The LEP involved extensive community consultation with the Local Study involving more targeted consultation (land owners affected by proposed change). The changes identified in the Local Study related to properties on the periphery of the GTC which had been excluded because of timing or technical issues from LEP (Gladesville TC & VRC). The purpose of the changes is to facilitate the revitalisation of the GTC as a vibrant, attractive and safe urban environment with a diverse mix of land uses. No changes are proposed to Eltham Street in the DLEP. Parking provision for future developments will be considered at DA stage

1 Peach Tree Rd Macquarie

Park Roads zoned RE1 – requests rezoning of roads to B4

DoPI Practice note PN10 – 001 requires all roads to be zoned in an LEP. Council on the 5 May 2009 in resolving to proceed with the gazettal of LEP 2010



No of Speakers


further resolved to amend the zoning of roads to RE1 for the length of the boundary where land zoned RE1 abutts a road.

3 Crowle Homes Meadowbank Reconsideration of the zoning of part of the site to maintain care accommodation

The land has been zoned B4 Mixed Use (or equivalent) since June 2002. The land is subject to a Part 3A Concept Plan which was approved by DoPI in November 2012.

4 Ryde Town Centre - Civic Centre Concerns of community not addressed in relation to heights and FSR in the RTC LEP should not be rushed through – consideration of Green Paper should be made.

Development of DLEP 2011 involved a 3 stage process which commenced in 2005. All stages involved community consultation – master planning and reviewing of controls The DLEP approach is for the focus of development to remain in Centres.

It should be noted that Ryde LEP 2010 (Amendment 2) which was gazetted on 2 March 2012 amended the Height of Buildings Map with respect to the Ryde Civic Precinct (Precinct 1) to a maximum height of 75m and reduced the nett usable floor area permitted in the Precinct from 100 000sqm to 60 000sqm (Schedule 6 Planning controls for Ryde Town Centre precincts). With respect to DLEP 2011 the following is to be noted:

1. DLEP 2011 does not amend the height controls presently available to the subject land under LEP 2010.

2. DoPI required that the floor space (FS) controls for Ryde Town Centre be provided as a floor space ratio (FSR) on the FSR Maps rather than a floor area defined by square metres. As a result the nett usable floor areas specified for Precincts 1 and 2 (Shopping Centre) in LEP 2010 (60 000sqm & 150 000sqm respectively) were converted to a gross floor area and then converted into a ratio on the FSR Maps. It should be noted that Precinct 1 is divided into 3 FSR areas



No of Speakers


which are:- - 150 – 156 Blaxland Rd (carpark

sites) – 2.2:1 - 1 Devlin Street – 4.37:1 and - 1 Devlin Street (area containing

access ramps) 0:1 (no development permitted)

This matter is discussed further under 6 Additional Matters of this report.

1 Dual Occupancy – strata subdivision In support of strata subdivision of dual occupancy developments

Noted.

1 DDCP 2011 – Linear separation Concerns about the removal of linear separation and the impact it will have

A recommendation of The Local Planning Study which was adopted by Council in December 2010 is the removal of existing linear separation requirements for dual occupancy and linear separation. The Housing Study (a component of the Local Planning Study ) identified the removal of the control as helping address the housing needs of future residents by delivering smaller dwelling types which offer opportunities for: – ageing households

- Lone persons households and - young families.

Within the City the following number of allotments have been identified as capable of :- Multi dwelling development - 815 Dual occupancy (attached) development - 2125

1 Pro forma letters Letters not given sufficient weight

A total 3022 Proforma letters covering a range of issues including - Civic Precinct proposal - Loss of open space - Heights and inappropriate

development in Gladesville were received throughout the “Community Comment” and “Formal Exhibition” process - No lesser weight was given to the submissions in their reporting/presentation to Council.



No of Speakers


1 Number of concerns around environment and procedures Proformas – important points raised Residents not aware of the change to medium density controls DLEP – 90% development 10% environment No comprehensive heritage study done Built form controls.

In response to comments made: - As above for proforma letters - Changes to strata subdivision and

linear separation controls were identified in 3 of the 4 DLEP public notices as well as highlighted on Council’s webpage and during information sessions.

- The DLEP incorporates new controls around flooding, sustainable development and stormwater. It also focuses on maintaining development within Centres.

- A comprehensive Heritage Study was undertaken in 1988 and a subsequent heritage review in 2000. Draft Heritage Study 2010 which was commenced in 2003 when members of the Heritage Advisory Committee sought heritage nominations from the Community groups they represent. Council on the 17 August 2010 resolved to include, delete and amend a number of heritage items in draft LEP 2011. Council also resolved that it would not pursue compulsory heritage listing of any property unless the land owner of the property applies for a heritage listing of the property.

- Built form controls are dealt with in detail in Draft DCP 2011 which has yet to be presented to Council.

6. Additional Issues Gladesville Changes to zoning, height and FSRs in the Gladesville Town Centre (GTC) have resulted from:

1. the gazettal of Ryde LEP 2010 (Gladesville Town Centre & Victoria Road Corridor) which occurred on 14 January 2011 The LEP involved extensive consultation with the community and has the aim of facilitating the



revitalisation of the GTC as a vibrant, attractive and safe urban environment with a diverse mix of land uses.

2. recommendations of the Local Planning Study adopted by Council in December 2010 (which involved more targeted consultation- land owners affected by proposed change).. The Local Study identified a number of properties located on the periphery of the Gladesville LEP area that had been excluded from that Gladesville LEP because of technical and timing issues and that were appropriate for inclusion in the Gladesville Town Centre including:-

a. 14 – 20 Oxford St – the subject properties and adjoining land facing Victoria Rd are owned by the Catholic Church, used for school and church purposes and currently zoned R2 and B4. It is considered appropriate planning practice to have one zoning apply to the properties.

b. 11- 15 Farm St – 3 sites abutting Primrose Hill. The land owners requested as part of the preparation of the LEP for Gladesville that the land be rezoned and have similar controls to the adjoining Primrose Hill site.

c. 1 Stansell St – isolated site containing a dwelling d. 2a and 2b Westminster Rd – industrial building rezoned to B6 to

reflect the current use.

The above properties are proposed in DLEP 2011 to have height, zoning and FSR changes. For all other properties in Gladesville there are no proposed changes to height or FSR to those already in place. Recommendation – the proposed amendments to land abutting the Gladesville Town Centre and Victoria Road Corridor proceed as exhibited under DLEP 2011. Land zoned SP2 Infrastructure Under LEP practice note PN10 – 001 Zoning for Infrastructure in LEPs existing “special use“ zones are required to be rezoned the same as the adjoining land if that “special use” is permitted in the adjoining zone. In response to the requirements of the DoPI the following SP2 zones in LEP 2010 were changed in DLEP 2011 (as submitted to DoPI for a S65 Certificate) to take on the zoning of the adjoining land:-

SP2 Schools SP2 Church SP2 Church and Cemetery SP2 Church and School SP2 Seminary SP2 Parking SP2 Historic building and parking SP2 Kindergarten SP2 Community Facility SP2 Community Purpose SP2 Baby Health Centre



The land was rezoned to predominately R2 Low Density Residential, R4 High Density Residential, B1 Business Neighbourhood and B4 Mixed Use.

At a Council Workshop on the 8 November 2011 a number of matters were presented including the future of Small’s Road Ryde School a portion of which (the site known as the oval site of 3B Smalls Road, Ryde) had been declared surplus to Government and that the State Property Authority is acting as the disposal authority for the surplus portion of the site. In accordance with the LEP practice note PN10 – 001 Zoning for Infrastructure in LEPs mentioned above the land had been rezoned under DLEP 2011 R2 Residential Low Density.

Council resolved on the 8 November 2011 to in part to make a submission to the DoPI and State Property Authority expressing Council’s concern about the possible sale of land associated with Small’s Road Ryde School and requesting that the Small’s Road Ryde School land be retained either as a school site or dedicated open space. Council made a further resolution on the 14 February 2012 to seek an amended Section 65 Certificate from the Department of Planning that reinstated all SP2 land as per LEP 2010. In response to this resolution an amended draft LEP 2011 was submitted to DoPI indicating the reinstatement of the SP2 zones. DoPI supported this request and a new S65 Certificate was issued on the 23 April 2012 to enable the formal exhibition of the draft plan. Recommendation – the SP2 lands are retained as per the exhibited DLEP. Ryde Civic Centre Ryde LEP 2010 (Amendment 2) which was gazetted on 2 March 2012 amended the Height of Buildings Map with respect to the Ryde Civic Precinct (Precinct 1) to a maximum height of 75m and reduced the nett usable floor area permitted in the Precinct from 100 000sqm to 60 000sqm (Schedule 6 Planning controls for Ryde Town Centre precincts) With respect to DLEP 2011 the following is to be noted:

1. DLEP 2011 does not amend the height controls presently available to the subject land under LEP 2010.

2. DoPI required that the floor space (FS) controls for Ryde Town Centre be provided as a floor space ratio (FSR) on the FSR Maps rather than a floor area defined by square metres. As a result the nett usable floor areas specified for Precincts 1 and 2 in LEP 2010 (60 000sqm & 150 000sqm respectively) were converted to a gross floor area and then converted into a ratio on the FSR Maps. It should be noted that Precinct 1 is divided into 3 FSR areas which are:-



- 150 – 156 Blaxland Rd (carpark sites) – 2.2:1 - 1 Devlin Street – 4.37:1 and - 1 Devlin Street (area containing access ramps) 0:1 (no development

permitted)

Council on 13 November 2012 as part of a Mayoral Minute 16/12, in relation to the Civic Centre Site, resolved:-

(a) Council staff immediately develop a project plan to expedite the rezoning

of theCivic Centre site back to RL91 with a density of 60,000sq metres and to be zoned SP2 community use through a planning proposal.

(b) Council staff prepare a list of priority maintenance required at the Civic

Centre –using the existing building condition reports. This priority list is to be based on Workplace Health and Safety issues. This list is to be considered in the context of the 4 Year Delivery Plan.

(c) Council staff prepare an outline of the communications program which will

be associated with items (a) and (b).

(d) Items (a) and (b) be developed using in-house expertise. Any involvement of consultants is to be subject to appropriate tendering processes for those services and only undertaken after consideration and direction from Council on the priority action areas.

(e) That a further report be provided back to Council to update Council on all

actions detailed in parts (a) to (d). Recommendation – The amendment to the height and zoning of Precinct 1 be dealt with as a planning proposal – No amendment to DLEP 2011. Bulky Goods Premises Bunnings – 461 Victoria Rd Gladesville

Under DLEP 2011 Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses a bulky goods premises is permitted with Council consent at 461 Victoria Rd. This was based on a submission to and a recommendation of the Ryde Local Planning Study that was adopted by Council on 7 December 2010. That recommendation was based on the size of the site, its direct access to Victoria Road and that it is identified as a significant site as strategic employment lands in the Inner North Subregional Strategy. Bunnings in March 2012 submitted a Planning Proposal for the property 461 Victoria Rd Gladesville to amend Schedule 1 of LEP 2010 to include additional land uses with consent – hardware and building supplies, garden centre and bulky goods premises and to amend LEP 2010 Height of Building Map to permit maximum RLs across the site. (Note under LEP 2010 no height controls exist on the site however under DLEP



2011 there is a maximum 10m height control that applies to all IN2 Light Industrial zoned land) The planning proposal was considered by Council on the 13 November 2012 where it was resolved in part to:- (b) That Council forward the planning proposal to 461-495 Victoria Road,

Gladesville to receive a gateway determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

(c) That, in the event of a gateway determination being issued pursuant to

Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed be placed on public exhibition and a further report be presented to Council following the completion of the consultation period advising of the outcomes and next steps.

(d) That Council support a site specific addition to the Ryde Development

Control Plan 2010 be prepared for 461-495 Victoria Road, Gladesville and public exhibited together with the planning proposal.

A number of submissions have been made requesting additional uses be permitted within the Gladesville IN2 Light Industrial zone. In particular bulky goods premises. Principles identified in submissions behind the widening of land uses in zone are;

- To ensure the promotion and co – ordination of the orderly and economic development of the land in accordance with EP& A Act

- To establish any use for which there maybe local community demand which is compatible and appropriately located in IN2 zone.

Under DLEP 2011 the IN2 zone permits with consent a number of new land uses such as funeral homes, hardware and building supplies, landscaping material supplies and storage premises. Under SEPP (Infrastructure) emergency service facilities are also permitted in the zone.

It was also considered in response to submissions received that Wholesale supplies and Recreation facility (indoor) should be added to uses permitted in the IN2 Light Industrial zone. Bulky goods premises is defined as a building used for the sale , hire or display of bulky goods being of such size or weight to require a large handling display area and includes goods such as floor and window supplies , furniture , household electrical goods and swimming pools. The Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Amendment Order 2011 reviewed the SI and resulted in an amendment to the only mandated objective for the B5 Business Development zone. The objective now reads:



“To enable a mix of business and warehouse uses and bulky goods premises that require a large floor area in location that are close to and that support the viability of centres” The land use table was also amended for the zone to include Bulky goods premises as a mandated land use in the B5 zone. DoPI on 20 June 2012 advised Council of the following with respect to bulky goods retail;

“Our preference is to exclude bulky goods retail from industrial zones as an additional use across the zone because the inclusion of 'bulky goods' is now considered fundamentally to be a retail use that is likely to reduce the amount of industrial land The preference now is to either: 1. cluster permissibility of these uses in a suitable area (close to commercial

is ideal but may not be achievable) and to give them a B5 zoning or 2. allow the use by a Schedule 1 amendment for the particular site based on

suitability criteria (less preferable but less damaging to the whole zone) In either case the PP should assess the proposal against the Employment Lands Development Program Strategic Assessment checklist

The retail nature of bulky goods and its likely impact on reducing the land available for industrial uses is such that they should be considered on an individual basis through a Planning Proposal. The owners of the industrial sites at 33- 37 College Street, 39 – 41 College Street, 43 – 51 College Street and 28 and 46- 48 Buffalo Rd Gladesville have made representation and submissions on the need to permit a range of additional land uses in the IN2 zone to address the leasing difficulties being faced by the landowners and to assist in ensuring the viability of the industrial area. To respond to their submissions a number of additional land uses have been added to the IN2 zone (permitted with consent). The uses include hardware and building supplies, wholesale supplies, landscape material supplies, emergency service and recreation facility (indoor). An additional land use requested by the landowners was the inclusion in the land use table the activity of Bulky goods premises. To address Council staff and the Departments concerns over the broad/unlimited introduction of the bulky goods land use in the IN2 zone, these landowners are proposing an approach that would limit the amount of floor space on site that could be used for bulky goods premises. The landowners have suggested amount of floor space for bulky goods be limited to 500sqm or 30% of floor space. A submission has also been received from the landowner at 455 – 459 Victoria Road (Awash Car wash site) requesting that bulky goods premises be permitted on this site. The rationale for this request is based on the planning proposal for the adjoining site at 461 Victoria Road that proposes bulky goods premises, access to the site is



off Victoria Road, the use will be complimentary to other activities in the precinct and a retail activity will encourage business and employment investment. The points raised in submissions are noted. It is considered that the proposal to introduce a bulky goods land use within the Gladesville industrial area requires comprehensive consideration in relation to the viability of the industrial area and the impact on the adjoining residential areas in relation to matters such as traffic movements. Recommendation – The following options are put forward for Council’s consideration:-

1. Introduce bulky goods premises as a use permitted with Council consent in the IN2 Light Industrial zone. (This option is unlikely to be supported by DoPI).

2. Invite the landowners of College Street (33 -37, 39 - 41& 43 – 51), Buffalo Rd (28 & 46 – 48) and 455 – 459 Victoria Road Gladesville to lodge a planning proposal for the introduction of a bulky goods premises on their sites.

3. Invite the landowners of College Street (33 -37, 39 - 41& 43 – 51), Buffalo Rd (28 & 46 – 48) and 455 – 459 Victoria Road Gladesville to lodge a planning proposal to permit a percentage of the site area of their properties to be used as a bulky goods premises.

Dual occupancy /multi dwelling housing The Local Planning Study adopted by Council in December 2010 recommended a number of changes to controls for dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing developments to increase residential choice within the city. These changes have been incorporated into DLEP 2011 and include:

- strata subdivision of dual occupancy (attached) developments being permitted in the R2 zone subject to the land being a minimum 580sqm (Clause 4.1B)

- minimum lot sizes for dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing being specified as 580sqm and 20 road frontage for dual occupancy and 900sqm and 20m road frontage for multi dwelling housing.(Clause 4.1C).

The minimum area of 580sqm has been in place as a control for the development of dual occupancy developments for many years and it is intended to continue to support Clause 4.1C Minimum lot sizes for dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing of DLEP 2011. Previously approved dual occupancy or duplex developments would be capable of being subdivided subject to the land being the minimum area of 580sqm. The Ryde Planning Study 2010 – Housing study states the following with respect to the requirement of a 20m frontage for dual occupancy developments.

A slightly higher minimum lot size together with a 20 metre minimum frontage width would deliver better design outcomes, particularly with regard to compatibility with existing streetscapes, landscape and deep soil areas, as well as the placement of garages and other car parking structures.



If an increased minimum lot size for duplex buildings was introduced, the number of sites available for duplex developments would significantly decrease (P4 – 72).

The requirement of a 20m frontage does mean that based on existing subdivision patterns certain areas of Ryde will capable of being developed more than others. A further recommendation of The Local Planning Study which was adopted by Council in December 2010 is the removal of existing linear separation requirements for dual occupancy and linear separation. The Housing Study (a component of the Local Planning Study) identified the removal of the control as helping address the housing needs of future residents by delivering smaller dwelling types which offer opportunities for:

- ageing households - lone persons households and - young families

The removal of linear separation for such development from the DCP means that areas such as Miriam Road (which have large lot subdivision patterns) could result in numerous DAs being submitted for such developments. It should be noted that Council in recognition of the streetscape and character of Miriam Rd have attempted on a number of occasions to introduce design and character area controls however due to a lack of community support they did not proceed. Under Draft Development Control 2011 all linear separation controls for dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing have been deleted. Recommendation – that the strata subdivision control for dual occupancies and the 20m lot frontage requirements for dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing is retained in DLEP 2011. 363 Victoria Rd Gladesville A drafting error has been identified with respect to the property 363 Victoria Rd Gladesville which is zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor under Ryde Local Environmental Plan (Gladesville Town Centre and Victoria Road Corridor) 2010 .This zoning was to be transferred across into Draft LEP 2011 however as a result of a mapping error the land has been zoned B4 Mixed Use. Under DLEP 2011 the B4 Mixed Use zone is a more restrictive land use zone than the B6 Enterprise Corridor zone in that it prohibits all the uses listed in the B6 zones plus additional land uses such as vehicle body repair workshop and vehicle repairs stations. However under draft LEP 2011 Clause 6.4 Ground floor development on land within Zone B6 Enterprise Corridor the ground floor of a development in a B6 zone must be used for business or employment activates so creating an active street frontage. It is considered that the controls within DCP 2011 – Part 4.6 Gladesville Town centre and Victoria Road



Corridor which identifies the property in Figure 4.6.05 Active Street Frontage Drawing is sufficient to achieve the desired outcomes for the site. It should be noted that submissions supporting a B4 zoning on the site have been received. Recommendation – retain the B4 zoning for the land as exhibited under DLEP 2011 100 – 104 Rowe Street Eastwood A report to Council dated 4 May 2010 titled Potential Property Acquisitions – S94 Funding prepared by Manager – Building and Property outlined a process to be adopted for future acquisitions of land for open space purposes. The subject property was one of 11 properties identified as being of a high priority in terms of future Council acquisition. Council on the 18 May 2010 resolved that all such properties be included in the Land Reservation Acquisition Map in the comprehensive Local Environmental Plan 2011 and marked as “Local Open Space. Council on the 21 June 2011 reviewed the properties proposed to be acquired and resolved that 8 of them be deleted from DLEP 2011 and there previous zonings reinstated. The resolution reinforced Council’s previous resolution to rezone the subject property for open space purposes.

A submission was received during the exhibition of DLEP 2011 from the owners of the property requesting that the zoning of the land be reinstated to B4 Mixed Use on the following grounds:

- the zoning is prejudicial as nearby properties have similar flood issues - recent developments have reduced flood risk to Rowe Street - Rezoning of land will not address flood risk in area

The Public Work Group advised at that time that in past discussion with the owners of the site the owner has refused storm water amplifications works through his property and that the site was still required. In a further review of the site by the Public Work Group the following has now been advised:-

We have gone through the submission and the flood data, based on this the property can be removed from the acquisition list. The property will remain high risk and any future development will need to address this i.e. provide an overland flow path through the property, and comply with all other requirements of a flood affected area (minimum floor heights, evacuation routes etc.) At this time Council would upgrade the underground pipes as well, however the property would still be flood affected. In view of the above it is considered that the subject property should be rezoned in accordance with its existing zoning of B4 Mixed Use under LEP 2010 and be removed from Ryde LEP 2011 Land Reservation Acquisition Map. This amendment has been incorporated in Table 1 – Amendments to DLEP 2011.



Recommendation – the land at 100 – 104 Rowe Street Eastwood be removed from the Land Reservation Acquisition Map and the zoning, height and floor space controls for the site under LEP 2010 be reinstated in DLEP 2011. Critical Dates The following deadlines are required to be met: Under State Governments timetabling for the development of a comprehensive LEP for all Council areas within NSW the Ryde LEP 2011 - a comprehensive plan for the City of Ryde was to be completed by March 2011. No formal extension to this period has been given by DoPI. The March deadline has not being met due to:- the delay in the gazettal of LEP 2010 (Stage 1 of the 3 Stage process towards a

comprehensive LEP for the City of Ryde) by the Minister for DoPI. the delay in receiving the S65 Certificate for draft LEP 2011 and the changes to the Standard Instrument by DoPI that occurred in February 2011. Financial Implications Should Council resolve to adopt Draft LEP 2011 upon the gazettal of the Plan Council policy is to place an advertisement in the local paper. The cost of such an ad would be $1,000 and this is within the current budget Urban Planning budget for 2011/2012. Policy Implications The recommendation is consistent with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Options 1. Proceed with the making of DLEP 2011. Reasons why Council should proceed with the making of the DLEP

Redevelopment and revitalisation opportunities of Centres and Small Centres realised.

Residential development and choice expanded through the strata subdivision of dual occupancy achieved.

Environmental benefits though flood, stormwater and sustainability controls being applied through an LEP

The carrying through of resolutions made by Council over recent years resulting in rationalisation of zoning and land use and reserving land for open space purposes.

The draft LEP reviews the land use table and floor space and height controls in LEP 2010 resulting in a planning instrument in line with the strategic direction set by Council rather than a transfer of controls from a planning instrument gazetted in 1979.



City of Ryde will be incompliance with the State Governments directions that

all Council in NSW have a comprehensive LEP in place. The draft LEP has been extensively exhibited with the Community being able

to make comment on the principles of the DLEP from 19 January 2011 to 13 July 2012. The issues raised in submissions resulting from the consultation process have been addressed.

The development of the draft LEP over the last 5 years has occurred in line with extensive studies in the areas of transport, environment and open space, housing, centres and corridors, small centres, employment and a series of Master Plans for areas such as Glen St Eastwood, West Ryde and Blenheim Rd shops. All master plans involved extensive consultation as did changes proposed under the Centres and Corridors Study. The community’s comments and expectations were included in all reports determined by Council.

Draft LEP 2011 represents the completion of the 3 stage process towards the development of a comprehensive LEP for the City of Ryde that will see the principal planning instrument for the City in line with State government policies, studies and requirements. Draft LEP 2011 is a plan that looks forward to the future development of the City for the next 10 years.

2. Do not to proceed with DLEP 2011 – This option would result in the proposed changes to centres, small centres, residential choice and sustainability not being available to the community and Council not being in line with State Government requirements

3. Amend DLEP 2011 and re – exhibit the draft Plan This would require Council to review specific elements of the draft Plan, approach DoPI with the requested amendments, and seek a new S65 Certificate to exhibit the Plan and then re exhibit the draft Plan. It should be noted that the process has already been underway for more than 5 years and it is considered that further significant delay in finalising the LEP has the potential to precipitate State Government involvement in Council’s plan making functions.



13 BOARDING HOUSES POLICY - Draft Enforcement Policy and Draft Development Control Plan

Report prepared by: Strategic Planner; Manager Environmental Health & Building Report dated: 8/02/2012 File No.: GRP/11/6/3/3 - BP12/91

REPORT SUMMARY

During October and November 2011, the Social Policy Committee of the NSW Parliamentary Legislative Assembly conducted an “Inquiry into International Student Accommodation in New South Wales”. The inquiry was held at a number of venues including Ryde Council and local residents and the Manager Environmental Health & Building addressed the inquiry. As a consequence of the inquiry, the NSW Parliament recently passed a new Boarding Houses Act 2012 proposed for commencement in 2013. The Act provides for:

The introduction of a registration system for NSW boarding houses (register to be administered by Department of Fair Trading)

Occupancy rights for residents (to ensure rights for occupants, including vulnerable people, and identify clear responsibilities for operators and residents)

Standards for boarding houses (including minimum living standards for residents)

Increased penalties for non-compliance with the regulations (current fines of up to $500 will increase to $11,000 for individual operators or $22,000 for corporations)

Increased powers of entry for both authorised and unauthorised boarding houses.

A draft Boarding House Policy has been prepared to support the new legislation it comprises:

Draft Enforcement Policy – Boarding Houses Draft Amending Development Control Plan (DCP) – Boarding Houses.

The draft policy supports the new legislation and was developed also out of the ‘Integrated Enforcement and Education - Illegal Boarding Houses Project’ endorsed by Council in May 2010. The Project addressed the emergence of illegal boarding houses, particularly in residential areas around Macquarie University where there is demand for affordable housing to meet the needs of the student population. The two draft documents comprising the Boarding Houses Policy and descriptions of their purpose, structure and content are included in this report. This report recommends adoption of the draft Boarding Houses Policy for public exhibition.


ITEM 13 (continued)


RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Council authorise public exhibition of the Draft Enforcement Policy -

Boarding Houses and the City of Ryde Draft Amending Development Control Plan - Boarding Houses to be carried out in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for a minimum period of 28 days.

(b) That Council authorise consultation on the Draft Enforcement Policy - Boarding

Houses and City of Ryde Draft Amending Development Control Plan - Boarding Houses for key stakeholders including local education providers, relevant student groups, landlords, housing providers, developers, designers, resident action groups, and landowners and residents up to 100 metres of the Macquarie University.

(c) That Council receive a further report on the outcomes of the exhibition of draft

Boarding Houses Policy comprising: 1. Draft Enforcement Policy: Boarding Houses 2. City of Ryde Draft Amending Development Control Plan - Boarding

Houses. ATTACHMENTS – ALL CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER 1 Draft Enforcement Policy: Boarding Houses 2 Draft Amending Development Control Plan (DCP) - Boarding Houses Report Prepared By: Melissa Burne Strategic Planner Scott Cox Manager Environmental Health & Building Report Approved By: Lexie Macdonald Team Leader - Strategic Planning Meryl Bishop Manager - Urban Planning Dominic Johnson Group Manager - Environment & Planning


ITEM 13 (continued)


Discussion History On 4 May 2010, Council considered a report about the emergence of unauthorised boarding houses within the City of Ryde (particularly in close proximity to Macquarie University). Council resolved to endorse a Boarding House - Integrated Enforcement and Education Program, involving two main areas of work, these being:

Student Housing – Supply and Demand; Enforcement and Governance.

On 19 April 2011, Council considered a report titled Integrated Enforcement and Education Program – Illegal Boarding Houses Project by Gail Le Bransky of GML Social Research and resolved, among other things:

“(b) That Council staff engage with all relevant local education providers, landlords, students and local resident groups when drafting affordable housing or similar housing policies.” …………….. “(f) That Council staff develop a boarding house policy that achieves three things:

1. Defines what a boarding house is in Ryde; 2. Identifies development controls for the assessment of boarding houses in keeping with relevant legislation; 3. Provides clarity for the enforcement process of illegal boarding houses.”

……………. (Source: Minutes of the Committee of the Whole No. 6/11, dated 19 April 2011 Item 2.)

On 3 May 2011, Council considered a CONFIDENTIAL report about the City of Ryde Boarding House – Enforcement and Education Project and outcomes of research prepared by Ethics and Integrity Research and resolved, among other things:

(e) That Council works with the Local Member to strengthen the ability to regulate illegal boarding houses and ensure legal boarding houses match the existing neighbourhood character.

……………….. (f) That Council staff develop a Ryde Boarding House Policy which:

1. Defines what a boarding house is in Ryde; and 2. Identifies development controls for the assessment of boarding houses

in keeping with relevant legislation; and 3. Mandates Plans of Management for boarding houses; and 4. Introduces mandatory inspection of approved boarding houses on a

fee-for-service basis; and 5. Provides clarity for the enforcement process of illegal boarding houses;

and 6. Ensures Council observes its duty of care to the tenants of illegal

boarding houses. ………………..


ITEM 13 (continued)


(Source: Minutes of the Committee of the Whole No. 7/11, dated 3 May 2011 Item 8.)

During October and November 2011, the Social Policy Committee of the NSW Parliamentary Legislative Assembly conducted an “Inquiry into International Student Accommodation in New South Wales (Parliamentary Inquiry). That Parliamentary Inquiry was held at a number of venues including Ryde Council. Local residents and the Manager Environmental Health addressed the Parliamentary Inquiry. Completion of the Boarding House Policy was placed on hold pending the outcomes of the Parliamentary Inquiry. The Parliamentary Inquiry resulted in fifteen recommendations which were forwarded to the NSW Government for response. The NSW Government responded to the recommendations in May 2012, supporting, in principle, the majority of the recommendations. Some of the key recommendations included:

The Affordable Housing Taskforce to review student accommodation The NSW Planning System Review to consider student accommodation Consideration be given to travel concessions for international students Compulsory registration of boarding houses Introduce occupancy agreements for boarding houses based on

occupancy principles Introduce a system of regular inspections Review the penalty provisions.

The NSW Government did not support increasing the powers of Council officers to investigate illegal boarding houses as it was felt sufficient powers exist in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The Boarding Houses Act 2012 was assented to 29 October 2012 for anticipated commencement in 2013. The Act has incorporated into the legislation a number of the fifteen recommendations mentioned above particularly compulsory registration for boarding houses with five or more lodgers and the introduction of occupancy agreements. The Act provides for:

The introduction of a registration system for NSW boarding houses (register to be administered by Department of Fair Trading)

Occupancy rights for residents (to ensure rights for occupants, including vulnerable people, and identify clear responsibilities for operators and residents)

Standards for boarding houses (including minimum living standards for residents)

Increased penalties for non-compliance with the regulations (current fines of up to $500 will increase to $11,000 for individual operators or $22,000 for corporations)

Increased powers of entry for both authorised and unauthorised boarding houses. Council officers will have power to enter, inspect, and


ITEM 13 (continued)


gather evidence. Officers may also be accompanied by medical practitioners to inspect the wellbeing of residents. Powers will also extend to removal of people at risk. Young residents (under the age of eighteen) can also be required to be removed by parent/guardian from unauthorised boarding houses upon request of the Department of Family and Community Services.

Council officers have prepared a draft Boarding House Policy in accordance with the Council resolutions of April and May 2011. The finalisation of the Draft Policy has been delayed pending the introduction of the Boarding Houses Act 2012. The Boarding House Policy has been prepared to support the new legislation to provide guidance for accommodation arrangements not covered by the Act and development controls not covered by the Affordable House SEPP. The Boarding House Policy applies to boarding houses permitted with consent in the R2 Low Density Residential zone but which are located in areas in the City of Ryde outside the “accessible area” defined under the SEPP, where boarding house development is permissible but where provisions of Part 2, Division 3 of the ARHSEPP would not apply. Draft Boarding Houses Policy The Draft Boarding Houses Policy is made up of two separate components:

DRAFT Enforcement Policy – Boarding Houses (Enforcement Policy) DRAFT Amending DCP - Boarding Houses (Boarding Houses DCP)

The two draft documents are outlined separately below. Draft Enforcement Policy - Boarding Houses The definition of boarding house is broad in particular as it captures any lodging arrangement. Boarding house is defined as required under the Standard Instrument – Principal Local Environmental Plan as follows:

“boarding house means a building that:

(a) is wholly or partly let in lodgings, and (b) provides lodgers with a principal place of residence for 3 months or more,

and (c) may have shared facilities, such as a communal living room, bathroom,

kitchen or laundry, and (d) has rooms, some or all of which may have private kitchen and bathroom

facilities, that accommodate one or more lodgers, but does not include backpackers’ accommodation, a group home, hotel or motel accommodation, seniors housing or a serviced apartment.”

Two issues arising from this broad definition have warranted the development of an Enforcement Policy:

Community feedback received from the Integrated Enforcement and Education Project included that residents, students and landlords were unclear what tenancy arrangements constituted a boarding house.


ITEM 13 (continued)


Council officers have been compelled by the broad definition of a

boarding house (capturing any lodging arrangement) to take action on living arrangements which did not have a material impact on the community but, by definition, constituted a boarding house.

The majority of complaints relating to illegal boarding houses were primarily related to student accommodation arrangements. Approximately 55% of illegal boarding houses investigated were found to be valid complaints. In the absence of a legislated framework for the regulation and registration of boarding houses, the draft Enforcement Policy has been prepared to explain the enforcement approach adopted by the City of Ryde in relation to student accommodation, unauthorised boarding houses and share housing accommodation. Combined with the Boarding Houses DCP, the Enforcement Policy will provide the community with certainty regarding the expectations and standards for boarding houses. It is anticipated that the City of Ryde Boarding House Policy will complement the Boarding Houses Act, once commenced. The objectives of the draft Enforcement Policy: Boarding Houses, will be to:

Provide clarity in the expectations of Council with respect to shared living arrangements and boarding house developments

Provide certainty to residents, landlords and tenants regarding the enforcement of illegal boarding houses

Provide a practical guide to the community on the types of accommodation that is considered appropriate

Allow for alternative accommodation arrangements that may fall within the definition of a boarding house but for practical reasons are not boarding houses such as small scale lodgings where no unauthorised increases in the number of bedrooms have occurred.

Confirm that the City of Ryde has a minimal tolerance to illegal building works and illegal boarding houses but supportive of appropriate shared housing arrangements

Provide consistency in the enforcement of unauthorised boarding house matters, and to ensure transparency, procedural fairness and natural justice

Encourage the supply of appropriate and affordable student housing Provide relevant information to landlords and property owners so they

may comply with laws that aim to protect public health and safety Provide tenants and students taking up rental accommodation with

relevant information regarding tenancy agreements Promote tenant/resident safety by way of fire safety measures Protect streetscape amenity of existing streets for the residents of Ryde.


ITEM 13 (continued)


Structure and Content of the Draft Enforcement Policy: Boarding Houses This draft is comprised of two key components:

Policy Guidelines

Policy The Policy outlines the scope and purpose for the policy. Guidelines The Guidelines outline the specific requirements and standards for the enforcement of illegal boarding houses as well as applying an exemption in certain circumstances, particularly when the owner lives on site and only rents out no more than three rooms. Draft Enforcement Policy - Boarding Houses: Guidelines and Procedures is divided into 10 sections, the intention and key features of which are explained below: 1 Introduction: This section describes the enforcement approach adopted in relation to illegal boarding houses and share house accommodation. 2 Purpose: The purpose of the policy is to inform all stakeholders including international students, landlords and residents and provide clarity on what constitutes a boarding house and how illegal boarding houses will be investigated. 3 What is a boarding house This section clarifies the definition of a boarding house and the criteria for operating a legal boarding house within the City of Ryde. 4 What is an illegal boarding house This section will assist Council staff and the community to identify illegal boarding houses. A number of scenarios are identified either in isolation or in combination and provide the basis for staff to commence enforcement action if appropriate. 5 What is share house accommodation This section introduces the concept of a share house arrangement which will be exempt from being deemed an illegal boarding house. The exemption will apply to dwellings with a maximum number of four bedrooms where there are only four tenants and five bedrooms in the case where the owner lives on site. In addition, a number of characteristics about the internal configuration of the dwelling and maintenance of the property are identified and must be evident for the share house to be considered exempt. 6 Issues associated with illegal boarding houses This section identifies potential amenity and safety issues associated with illegal boarding houses. 7 Investigating suspected illegal boarding houses This section identifies the process Council staff use when investigating a suspected illegal boarding house and the enforcement action that will be taken if necessary.


ITEM 13 (continued)


A moratorium is proposed for the first three months following the adoption of this policy to allow owners and operators of illegal boarding houses the opportunity to legalise their operation through the lodgement of a development application. 8 Seeking development consent to operate a boarding house This section identifies the land use zones where boarding houses are permissible with development consent. The policy encourages potential applicants to use Council’s Pre-lodgement Service in order for them to be aware of all required accompanying documentation. Potential applicants are also made aware of the following Council resolution of 9 November 2010:

“That Council refuse to consider DA’s for boarding houses that are operating illegally until they are fined and the premises restored to an unmodified state”.

9 Annual audits of approved boarding houses Council staff will conduct annual audits of approved boarding houses. A fee in accordance with the City of Ryde’s “Fees and Charges” will be applicable for the inspections. 10 Review of the policy The policy will be reviewed within three years of adoption. A copy of the draft Enforcement Policy is CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER to this report. Development Controls for Boarding Houses The Draft Amending Development Control Plan – Boarding Houses (draft DCP) has been prepared to amend DCP 2010 by including a new part in the Development Types section applicable to boarding house development in all land use zones in the City of Ryde where boarding houses are permissible. The part is to be called: Part 3.6 Boarding Houses. Planning Framework The draft DCP has been prepared in the context of relevant environmental planning instruments. There are two main Environmental Planning Instruments which include assessment criteria for boarding house developments. These are:

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARHSEPP), and

Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2010 (Ryde LEP 2010) and Ryde LEP 2010 (Gladesville Town Centre and Victoria Road Corridor), referred to in this report as Council’s LEPs.

Where boarding house development is associated with residential flat building design, the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65) are also relevant. The draft DCP has been designed to be used in conjunction with Ryde LEP 2010, the ARHSEPP and SEPP 65.


ITEM 13 (continued)


Boarding Houses are mandated as land use permitted with consent under the Standard Instrument LEP template in the following land use zones applicable in the City of Ryde:

R1 General Residential R2 Low Density Residential R3 Medium Density Residential R4 High Density Residential B1 Neighbourhood Centre B2 Local Centre B4 Mixed Use

The ARHSEPP applies specific provisions to boarding house development in the above zones, except in the R2 zone where development is outside the ‘accessible area’ as defined under the ARSEPP. In the City of Ryde boarding houses are also permissible with consent in the B6 Enterprise Corridor under Ryde Local Environmental Plan (Gladesville Town Centre and Victoria Road Corridor) 2010. The draft Boarding Houses DCP has been designed to apply controls to all boarding house development consistent with the ARHSEPP, including development on land zoned R2 Low Density Residential which is outside the accessible area, and on land zoned B6 Enterprise Zone. Structure and Content of the Draft DCP – Boarding Houses The draft DCP prepared for exhibition describes how City of Ryde DCP 2010 is proposed to be amended in order to incorporate controls specific to boarding houses. The amendments required include:

The new part being (draft) Part 3.6 Boarding Houses Minor amendments to Part 9.3 Car Parking to ensure consistency within

DCP 2010 and with the ARHSEPP. These minor amendments include the term “bedroom/s” is to be replaced with “boarding room/s”, and a note is to be included to refer applicants to the ARHSEPP.

Draft Part 3.6 Boarding Houses is divided into 5 sections, the intention and key features of which are explained below: 1 Introduction: This section describes where the plan applies and the relationship of the boarding house DCP with other planning controls including the ARHSEPP and Building Code of Australia (BCA). 2 Location and Character: Clause 30A of the ARHSEPP states that: “A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.” The Land and Environment Court has subsequently applied tests to the assessment of local area character.


ITEM 13 (continued)


Local area character varies according to a number of factors including:

Existing built form, height, landscaping, setbacks, architectural form and streetscape

Expectations of development in each of the land use zones under the Ryde LEPs and DCP.

This section includes development controls that guide assessment of local area character for the land use zones where boarding houses are permissible. Applicants will be required to prepare a Local Area Character Statement for submission with the development application, and guidelines are included to assist applicants in this regard. Controls are also included in this section to ensure consistency in approach for assessing boarding houses in the R2 Low Density Residential zone whether or not the location is in an “accessible area” under the test articulated in Part 2 of the ARHSEPP. 3 Other Design Requirements The Ryde Integrated Enforcement and Education Project highlighted a need to set minimum standards for living arrangements for occupants and to address privacy and amenity considerations for neighbours. The BCA and ARHSEPP specify minimum standards in relation to internal design. This section of the DCP provides more detail to ensure design configuration addresses privacy and amenity considerations. Controls include minimum requirements for bedrooms, communal living and kitchen areas, drying facilities. 4 Retention of Low Rental Affordable Accommodation This section is applicable to existing boarding house/low rental housing development in the City of Ryde and requires that a social impact assessment may need to be submitted. The need for a social impact assessment will depend on the scale of change proposed to the existing affordable housing. 5 Management This section responds to Council’s resolution to mandate Plans of Management for boarding houses. A Plan of Management is required to be submitted with a DA, and a model template is provided in the DCP Schedule. The model template is based on a Plan of Management for the operation of a boarding house in the City of Ryde which was the subject of an appeal to the Land and Environment Court. A copy of the draft DCP is CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER to this report. Consultation Consultation in the Preparation of the Draft Boarding Houses Policy The two components of the draft Boarding Houses Policy described (draft DCP and draft Enforcement Policy) were prepared in consultation with relevant Council staff, and based on research including the following:


ITEM 13 (continued)


The planning framework described including the ARHSEPP, as

amended The findings and recommendations of the studies carried out as part of

Council’s Integrated Enforcement and Education Project A review of a number of development applications and Land and

Environment Court findings relating to boarding house and affordable housing development

A review of Land and Environment Court Planning Principles relating to local area character assessment

A review of a number of DCPs by other Councils affected by similar demands for student housing

A review of the nature and type of complaints relating to unauthorised boarding houses.

Internal Council business units consulted in the preparation of draft DCP and draft Enforcement Policy included:- Environmental Health and Building Assessment Urban Planning Traffic Waste Internal Workshops held:- Not Applicable The draft DCP and draft Enforcement Policy are yet to be exhibited publicly. A consultation strategy is included below. Proposed Consultation In the event of Council adopting the draft DCP and draft Enforcement Policy for public exhibition formal consultation will be carried out as required under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and also as informed by Council’s resolution of 19 April, 2011:

(b) That Council staff engage with all relevant local education providers, landlords, students and local resident groups when drafting affordable housing or similar housing policies.

In this regard, consultation will include the following:

Exhibition notice placed in Ryde City View, and public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days with exhibition material placed in libraries, Customer Service Centre, Ryde Planning and Business Centre, and made available on Council’s website

Letters to landowners and residents of properties up to 100m distance from Macquarie University advising of the exhibition of the Draft Policy


ITEM 13 (continued)


External public consultation including a key stakeholder workshop for:-

Local education providers (Macquarie University, Northern Sydney Institute of TAFE)

Students and representative groups (Auzzie Families, Oz Homestay) Landlords, LATA Housing providers Developers and designers Residents and landowners within 100 metres of the Macquarie University,

and local resident groups, including Marsfield Against Residential Suffocation

(MARS) City of Ryde Advisory Committees to be consulted will include:-

Community Harmony Reference Group Ryde Youth Council

As the draft Boarding Houses Policy affects a number of stakeholders including students, it is proposed to schedule exhibition for a period of approximately six weeks at a time which includes commencement of the University year to enable students/student groups the opportunity to consider the draft Policy. The exhibition of the draft plans would not commence until mid February. Feedback from the consultation and outcomes of the public exhibition of the draft DCP and draft Enforcement Policy will be presented to Council as soon as practicable after the exhibition period. Critical Dates and Requirements There are minimum requirements for the exhibition of draft DCPs and draft policies, including that:

public exhibition is for a period of no less than 28 days details of the exhibition are advised by notice in a locally circulated

newspaper. These requirements are reflected in the recommendations attached to this report. Financial Implications Adoption of the recommendation will have no financial impact.



14 NORTH RYDE URBAN ACTIVATION PRECINCT

Report prepared by: Place Manager File No.: ENV/08/3/8/14/6 - BP12/1391

REPORT SUMMARY On 7 November the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure Brad Hazzard MP advised Council that the North Ryde Station area had been identified as an Urban Activation Precinct (UAP) under the recently established ‘Urban Activation Precinct Program’. The Program has been established to facilitate the delivery of State Government employment and housing targets while supporting Councils deliver local infrastructure requirements. As part of this process, the Minister has invited two technical staff and two councillors from City of Ryde (CoR) to be part of the North Ryde Urban Activation Precinct Steering Committee. The Steering Committee will oversee the master plan and delivery of infrastructure for the redevelopment of the activated Precinct. The Steering Committee will also provide CoR direct input into the future planning of the North Ryde Precinct. Details of the governance arrangements, including the Steering Committee Terms of Reference are still to be finalised. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Council nominate two councillors to be represented on the North Ryde

Steering Committee. (b) That Council endorse the nomination of staff: Group Manager, Environment and

Planning and Group Manager, Public Works, with the Group Manager Community Life as the alternate, to be represented on the North Ryde Steering Committee.

ATTACHMENTS 1 North Ryde Urban Activation Precint 2 Land covered by the North Ryde Precinct



Report Prepared By: John Brown Place Manager Report Approved By: Meryl Bishop Manager - Urban Planning Dominic Johnson Group Manager - Environment & Planning



Background The NSW Government Urban Activation Precinct (UAP) Program was announced in June 2012. The program aims to assist the NSW Government deliver its housing and employment targets, while supporting Councils address increased demand for local infrastructure. UAPs are areas that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure considers have a wider social, economic or environmental significance or have redevelopment potential of a scale that is important to implementing the State’s planning objectives. The Precincts will be located in close proximity to existing and planned transport and services and the development of the precinct must be financially viable and consistent with market demand. The UAP Program provides the following opportunities for the City of Ryde: Coordinating planning and urban design outcomes at a high level; Supporting Transit Oriented Developments which deliver housing targets while

reducing car dependency; Fostering interagency partnerships through a whole of government approach; Gaining access to a $50 million funding program for infrastructure and public

domain improvements. Nominations for UAPs were invited from Councils, State agencies and the private sector. CoR nominated Herring Road as an appropriate site and gained endorsement from Council at its 14 August 2012 meeting. Recent discussions with representatives from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) indicate that Herring Road is being positively considered as a future UAP; to date, no decision has been confirmed. On 7 November 2012, The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure Brad Hazzard MP advised CoR that North Ryde (which was nominated by State Government agencies) had been declared a UAP. In addition, the Minister extended an invitation to CoR staff and Council representatives to be part of the North Ryde Steering Committee being established. (See Attachment 1) Purpose of the Steering Committee The Steering Committee will oversee the master plan and delivery of infrastructure for the redevelopment of the activated Precinct. The Steering Committee will also provide CoR direct input into the future planning of the North Ryde Precinct. The Steering Committee will consist of staff from the Department (senior executive level) and Council nominated councillors and technical staff.



The Steering Committee will provide strategic advice and complement the existing consultation which is occurring through the Agency Working Group (which includes state government agencies and Council) and the Community Reference Group. The Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Committee are yet to be defined. It is anticipated that following input from Committee members, the TOR will be finalised. Context The North Ryde precinct is approximately 14ha in government (TfNSW, RMS and OSL land) and private ownership (Goodman land). (See Attachment 2) The North Ryde Station Precinct Project will provide for an overall Gross Floor Area (GFA) of approximately 341,000m² of residential, commercial and retail development across the precinct as follows: 250,000 m2 residential GFA (allowing for approximately 2,500 residential

dwellings and potential for 125 student accommodation dwellings). 85,000 m2 commercial GFA (including potential for 125 serviced apartments). 6,000 m2 retail GFA (which could include a small supermarket). The North Ryde Station Precinct Project was to be on exhibition from 28 November 2012 until 15 February 2013 (Minister has recently announced that the exhibition period will be delayed – dates TBC). Supporting documentation will include a Rezoning Study and DCP for the precinct. CoR will have an opportunity to lodge a submission on the Project; it is anticipated that the draft submission will be reported to Council on 12 February 2013. Given community interest in the project, CoR’s participation on the Steering Committee is encouraged to enable Council to represent the views of the community. Financial Implications Adoption of the recommendations will have no direct financial impact. However, with $50m allocated to the Urban Activation Precinct Program, CoR may positively benefit from infrastructure funding allocated through the Program to support local infrastructure demands.



15 ESTABLISHMENT OF A MOBILE PLAYGROUP SERVICE IN THE CITY OF RYDE

Report prepared by: Manager - Community & Culture File No.: GRP/09/4/6 - BP12/1389

REPORT SUMMARY

This report presents the findings of an investigation into opportunities for the formation of a free mobile playgroup service in the City of Ryde. It responds to Council’s resolution of 23 October 2012. The report includes analysis of capital and operational costs, potential locations and implementation models for Council’s that could apply if Council is of a mind to commence operation of a mobile playgroup service. RECOMMENDATION: That Council note the report and take no further action to establish a mobile playgroup service in the City of Ryde at this time due to the associated significant unfunded capital and ongoing costs. ATTACHMENTS 1 List of Playgroups Reviewed 2 2 Maps depicting target age groups and suitable parks 3 Financial Implications for Option 2- Delivered in Partnership with a NFP

Organisation - CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER - CONFIDENTIAL

Report Prepared By: Baharak Sahebekhtiari Manager - Community & Culture Report Approved By: Danielle Dickson Group Manager - Community Life



Discussion At its meeting on 23 October Council resolved:

That Ryde Council undertake an investigation into opportunities for the formation of free mobile playgroup services in the Ryde area. The investigation will result in a report to Council and will include the following: 1. Sources of funding or partner for the provision of the service. 2. Options for how the service is to be provided including the parts of Ryde

where the service will best be utilised. 3. Any regulatory or legislative obligations that need to be met for the

provision of the service. The report to be presented to Council by no later than December 2012 with a target start date for the provision of the service of July 2013.

In preparing this report, seven established mobile playgroups were reviewed by staff. Of these, four are managed by local governments and three are managed by not-for-profit organisations (List ATTACHED). A review of the research into the general benefits of mobile playgroups was also conducted. What is a mobile playgroup? Playgroups are informal gatherings for parents and caregivers, usually attended by children under school age. They usually meet once a week for two hours during school terms. Playgroups provide opportunities for children's social, emotional, physical and intellectual development while also providing opportunities for parents and caregivers to develop social and support networks. A mobile service can take the playgroup to where the families live, it could be centre based or in a park. A mobile playgroup can increase people’s awareness of the service, as well as provide parents an opportunity to connect with others that they may not have otherwise met. It has the added benefit of creating a sense of belonging and social inclusion for families in their local area and parks. Playgroups can also be a valuable source of information about other available services for families. Mobile playgroups are generally facilitated by workers and are distinguished from parent led and organised playgroups that are centre-based.



Benefits of mobile playgroups: According to reports by Playgroups Australia, Playgroups Victoria and Families NSW playgroups provide a successful model for supporting families because: parents can develop social networks and learn positive parenting practices

children can benefit from the process of engaging in relationships and social

interactions not only with their families, but also other children around them. They provide children with the opportunity to grow and learn about themselves and others

children have the opportunity to develop life skills such as: interpersonal skills,

mastering new behaviours, offering and receiving assistance, and experimenting with alternative expressions of emotions and behaviours

Other Councils and organisations that operate this type of playgroup report

positive feedback from families and the community in general. In a recent study commissioned by Council into how the community feel about

Ryde; availability of great parks, safety and overall family friendliness were identified as key positive aspects. Provision of mobile playgroups in City of Ryde would provide the opportunity to build on strengths identified in this study, and enhance the sense of wellbeing amongst the community.

Strategic Context The Ryde 2021 Community Strategic Plan outlines the community’s aspirations for the City. Provision of a mobile playgroup service could advance three goals outlined within the Plan: City of Wellbeing Outcome Goal three; Residents feel secure and included in an environment where they can

connect socially and are supported by their neighbours Goal Two; all residents feel supported and cared for in their community through

the provision of ample services and facilities City of Harmony and Culture Outcome Goal One; Our residents are proud of their diverse community, celebrating their

similarities and differences



Council’s Business Approach Provision of a mobile playgroup would be a departure from the City of Ryde Council’s current business approach. As developed over time, City of Ryde’s business approach has been predominantly to support the community service sector to deliver direct services. There are a number of reasons why this has been the preferred model, including: Most service providers have as their reason for being the delivery of services, and

the organisation is primarily set up or structured for these purposes

Community members accessing one service can often be readily connected to other services provided within the same organisation

The community sector is more likely to attract state and federal funding for community service activities.

The City of Ryde supports and enhances the activities of the community service sector by providing: Research and analysis of community needs

Grant funding that supports a range of community services

Community referrals

Subsidised accommodation

Capacity building opportunities for community service organisations to develop and support governance structures, as well as assistance in advocacy and project development; and

An overall strategic direction for community aspirations in the City.

There are Councils that provide direct services to the community. For example Marrickville City Council is engaged in comprehensive delivery of direct community services as part of its core business. Specifically, for its family and children’s services the Council runs: Seven Preschool and Early Learning Centres;

Five out of school hour centres;

Three school holiday care programs;

Family day care services; and



The Magic Yellow Bus.

Marrickville Council has developed an organisational structure to support the provision of family and children’s services, complete with a departmental head and 134 staff positions. The advantage of this set up is that the sole focus is providing a specific service. This enables Marrickville Council to provide: A holistic or ‘one stop shop’ approach to children’s services;

A financial and human resource base that enables certainty around compliance and accreditation, and reduces the significant risks involved in the delivery of children’s services.

While the number of services for children administered by Marrickville Council is significant, that there is a single focus on children’s services makes it an easier proposition to manage, particularly in the areas of compliance and accreditation, and risk management. If Council was to adopt a direct service model of operations it would impact on the structure and resourcing of the organisation. Legislative Requirements There is no specific legislation that governs the operation and set up of playgroups. Playgroups are not subject to legislation in the same way as childcare services. This is because parents are participants in playgroup sessions and are responsible for the supervision of their own children. Hence there is no set requirement for staff to child ratios. However as with all services working in direct contact with children general child protection legislation applies particularly Working with Children Checks. If it was to proceed any mobile playgroup service would need to establish operational policies and procedures to promote safety, act within the guidelines of child protection and duty of care responsibilities, as well as ensure the safety of staff as required by the Work Health and Safety standards. Features of Successful Mobile Playgroups As part of the preparation of this report staff have undertaken a review of mobile playgroups offered by other organisations, as well as research into best practice. This review indicates the following features for a successful mobile playgroup service: Regular sessions in nominated locations/parks

Minimum of two staff at each session, with at least one of those holding appropriate qualifications



Programming based on the Early Years Learning Framework

Links and access to other relevant services for families

Designed to allow all families to participate and an inclusive culture

Open attendance and no obligation for minimum level of attendance

No limit on the number of families attending a session

Access to information and promotion of other available services/programs for families and children such as library services, sport and recreation, childcare, parenting and child development

Sessions in the morning

Locations in parks with easy access to amenities, shade and accessible to prams

Operating only in acceptable weather- services do not operate when wet or extremely hot

Session times:

6 out of 7 playgroups reviewed (ATTACHED) operate in two-hour sessions; this is also the case for most centre based playgroups.

The Magic Yellow Bus in Marrickville operates three-hour sessions with an average attendance of 160 people per session.

Target age groups:

5 out of 7 playgroups reviewed only operated during school terms targeting families with children aged 0-5 years old.

Marrickville Council operates its Magic Yellow Bus 48 weeks a year and provides age appropriate programming during school holidays for children aged 5-11 as well. Ashfield Council also operates during school holidays.

Providing a service over this timeframe is of benefit to families with younger and school aged children. This benefit may be attributable to the increased availability of the service, particularly during school holidays, as most services only operate during school terms. A mobile playgroup available during school holidays could provide consistent interaction for parents and children, and provide greater choice for parents during school holidays.



How could mobile playgroups work in Ryde? Ryde has a diverse population both from a cultural perspective, as well as a socio-economic perspective. Review of services in other areas where mobile playgroups currently operate showed that, mobile playgroups in parks provide a valuable service model that engages a diverse group of people who may not have otherwise accessed a centre-based service. The combination of being in open-space, facilitated by qualified staff and not requiring registration, creates a space that is accessible and inviting to a wide range of families from diverse backgrounds. The experiences of other areas have also shown that a mobile service is successful in engaging and connecting residents in medium/high density accommodation. In Ryde LGA, there are a number of medium/high density residential developments where residents have limited access to open space, may not know each other and may have limited support networks. A mobile playgroup service in these neighbourhoods could increasingly benefit families. Last year the Ryde Child and Family Interagency, (a network of local services), as part of its planning, identified mobile children services as an appropriate response to support families with young children, provide access to information and connect families to services they require. The Children’s Play Implementation Plan, which Council has endorsed for public exhibition, mentions provision of mobile play opportunities in two recommended actions reproduced below: Consider mobile play or pop-up play to enhance the play experience to every day

playgrounds, schools and parks (recommendation 9.3 page 57). Consider mobile play programs as a cost effective way to provide a diversity of

play experience to all (recommendation 11.8 page 61). A Potential Model for a Mobile Playgroup Service in Ryde LGA If Council resolved to commence this service, a mobile playgroup service could be developed based on the features outlined earlier, operating two-hourly sessions and be available during school holidays for the City of Ryde. Two options for delivery are considered in this report on pages 11 and 13. To ensure alignment with the Ryde 2021 Community Strategic Plan specifically the City of Wellbeing Outcome; a healthy community, with all supported throughout their life by services, facilities and people, it is proposed that if the service were to proceed, it be designed and programmed to meet with following objectives: To connect families with children together in their neighbourhoods and to improve

community cohesion and wellbeing at a local level



To provide opportunities for children’s social, emotional, physical and

psychological development To provide parenting support and information To be a point of introduction to a range of other services available for families

such as; library services, recreation services, parenting and child development services

Proposed Locations: To determine suitable locations that could support provision of a potential mobile playgroup service the following analysis was undertaken. Maps depicting the criteria used for analysis are (ATTACHED) for information. Criteria for selecting a suitable park: Based on the review of other services, minimum requirements for suitable parks include; availability of shade, access to amenities, access for prams and the capacity to accommodate the playgroup vehicle. In addition to the park criteria the following factors were considered:

Demographics: population of 0-4 year olds and then 5-11year olds Accessibility to parks on foot from residential areas Availability of existing centre-based playgroups Public transport ease of access Good distribution across the City area

Consideration has also been given to areas that are projected to experience additional residential density. Demographic Analysis- Table below highlights the suburbs within the City with the highest numbers of the target age groups and availability of centre based playgroups.

Meadowbank was analysed as it includes higher density accommodation however when compared to other areas, its current population of children under 5 is considerably lower.

Suburb Number of 0-4

Number of 5-11

Centre Based Playgroups

West Ryde 780 845 6 sessions per week Marsfield 701 643 4 sessions per week North Ryde - Chatswood West 663 930 4 sessions per week Eastwood 625 893 5 sessions per week Gladesville - Tennyson Point 620 780 0 Meadowbank 362 249 2 sessions per week



Parks The table below lists six suitable parks (locations) that could support operation of a mobile playgroup and that are in relative proximity to where the target age groups live. The parks (locations) are listed in the order of priority. Park Name Address Location Toilet Play

equip Shade Transport Comments

Darvall West Ryde Chatham Rd,

West Train/Bus park with good facilities located near high levels of 0-4 years

Blenheim North Ryde Epping Rd,

East Bus Park with good facilities located near high levels of 0-4 years

Ryde Ryde Blaxland Rd,

Central Top Ryder bus Bus (STA)

Central park, Accessible from various locations particularly from Gladesville by Top Ryder Bus.

Waterloo Marsfield Waterloo Rd,

West Bus/Train Delhi Rd Station

Park with good facilities located near high levels of 0-4 years

Jim Walsh Eastwood Graham Ave

West Bus Park with good facilities located near high levels of 0-4 years.

Meadowbank Meadowbank Constitution Rd

Central - Park with good facilities however not in an area with high levels of 0-4 years. And not suited for access by public transport or on foot from West Ryde

Gladesville has been identified as an area that would benefit from a mobile playgroup; however, there is no suitable park currently in the area. However Ryde Park is accessible from Gladesville via the Top Ryder bus service.



Operating Models: Two options are presented in this report for the delivery of a potential mobile playgroup service: Option 1 Operated and delivered directly by Council, Option 2 Delivered in partnership with a specialist child and family, not-for-profit

organisation. For both options, there would be a common start-up component as outlined below: Start-up requirements: To start a mobile playgroup service the following is required: Purchase of suitable and safe vehicle Modification of vehicle for storage of required resources, equipment and toys Purchase of resources, equipment and toys Development of operating policies and procedure Branding and promotion:

A significant advantage of a mobile service is its visibility within the community. Signage would need to attract attention, be inclusive, connect with Council’s brand and be associated with fun experiences for children.

Financial Implications start-up If this service was to proceed in the timeframe nominated in the previous Council resolution, these costs would need to be allocated in the draft 2013/14 Delivery Plan.

Capital/Start up Small Truck 50,000 Cab 30,000

Vehicle purchase 80,000 Internal modification 15,000

Total vehicle 95,000 Resources 15,000 Contingency 10% 11,000

Total Capital $121,000 Option 1 Operated and Delivered Directly by Council: Council could potentially set up and deliver the service directly. Whilst Council would be capable and able to do so, this would be a new experience for Council as City of Ryde does not currently provide children services and has historically provided support to the not-for-profit sector to provide direct services to the community. Provision of a direct child related service is resource intensive and requires significant management oversight. In the absence of an established structure, there would be an opportunity cost in the re-direction of existing resources to manage administration and risks associated with the service.



Option 1 would require: Addition of 2 part-time staff to the organisational structure Establishment of staffing back up (casual pool) Establishment of appropriate organisational structure within the Community and

Culture unit to support delivery of this service Development of appropriate networks to link the service with the child and family

sector operating in the City. Financial Implications of Option 1 Provision of a mobile playgroup would be a new service for Council that is currently unfunded. As part of the development of this report research into the costs, was undertaken by reference to other council services, council’s staffing and overhead costs and estimates of materials. The cost of the delivery of the service would depend on the frequency of the service. The tables below outline the direct financial impact of the service if operated over 5 sessions, 3 sessions or 2 sessions per week. The figures below do not include corporate or management costs associated with running the service which would be considered in the draft budget preparation for 2013/14 if supported by Council. If Council wishes to proceed with this service it would need to nominate the frequency of the service. This will affect the locations nominated and the costs.

5 Sessions per Week Annual Operating Budget Estimate Vehicle maintenance, Fuel, Replacement (internal cost) 4,500 Materials 1,000 Equipment 5,000 Telecommunications 400 Publications & Subscriptions 200 Printing & Distribution 1,000 Marketing Promotions 2,000 Casual Staff 6,073 Ordinary Salaries & Wages 88,776 Overtime 0 $108,949



3 Sessions per Week

Annual Operating Budget Estimate Vehicle maintenance, Fuel, Replacement (internal cost) 2,700 Materials 1,000 Equipment 5,000 Telecommunications 400 Publications & Subscriptions 200 Printing & Distribution 1,000 Marketing Promotions 2,000 Casual Staff 2,088 Ordinary Salaries & Wages 56,150 Overtime 0 $70,538

2 Sessions per Week

Annual Operating Budget Estimate Vehicle maintenance, Fuel, Replacement (internal cost) 1,800 Materials 1,000 Equipment 5,000 Telecommunications 400 Publications & Subscriptions 200 Printing & Distribution 1,000 Marketing Promotions 2,000 Casual Staff 1,708 Ordinary Salaries & Wages 40,976 Overtime 0 $54,084

Note: Given the nature of the proposed service the vehicle would travel short distances, hence reducing the rate of deterioration. It is expected that the vehicle would not need to be replaced for at least 10 years if operating 5 sessions per week. The replacement could be pushed beyond 10 years if it operated less than 5 sessions. Enabling Option 1: If Council were of a mind to commence operation of a mobile playgroup service it is considered that providing a 3-session per week service would be a prudent approach both from a financial, service planning and delivery perspectives.



Should Council wish to proceed with operating a direct service, the following would be required: 1. That Council endorse the proposed 3- sessions a week service and request the

General Manager to include an allowance of $121,000 of capital funding and $71,000 of operating costs to fund the commencement of the service in the draft 2013/14 Delivery Plan

2. That Council endorse the increase in Council’s establishment of two part time

staff to deliver this service which will be managed out of the Community and Culture unit within the Community Life Group

3. That Council confirm the nomination of the following locations for the delivery of

the service: a. Blenheim Park North Ryde b. Darvall Park West Ryde c. Ryde Park Ryde

4. That Council endorse October 2013 as the proposed timeframe for the

commencement of the service. Option 2 Delivered in Partnership with a Not-for-Profit Organisation: Council has the option of entering into a partnership arrangement with a locally based, child and family specialist organisation to potentially deliver a mobile playgroup service. This option explores a potential partnership arrangement with a not-for-profit organisation only. As the nature of the proposed service limits profit-making opportunities it is considered unlikely for a commercial partner to express interest. Currently there are at least three organisations operating in the City of Ryde that are funded to provide a variety of child and family services, such as; parenting classes, centre based playgroups, information and referral, casework and early intervention support. Provision of a mobile playgroup service could be a natural fit within any of these organisations. Option 2 has been identified as a viable choice for Council based on the following reasons: Establishment of the mobile playgroup service in partnership could be more

successful and efficient due to the existing experience and frameworks in development, risk management and quality assurance of child and family services

A service whose core business is based on child and family development may offer a policy and developmental framework informed by cumulative knowledge in better practice, experience and could leverage existing family support networks for the benefit of families



Option 2 may be more cost effective due to the partner organisation’s existing

complementary services that would enable it to take advantage of economies of scale and leverage existing staffing resources

The partnership model of delivery would enable Council to strengthen the not-for

profit sector, as well as direct its limited resources to other sector development activities.

Option 2 to would require an Expression of Interest (EOI) process seeking responses against the following criteria: Experience in provision of child & family services (specifically playgroups) Governance capacity of the organisation to deliver the service Capacity to develop, program and deliver the service as per Council’s objectives Cost effective service delivery Financial Implications for Option 2 The direct cost to Council is expected to be less for Option 2 due to a reduction in the operational costs. Information on analysis relating to the financial implications for Option 2 is ATTACHED UNDER SEPARATE COVER. This has been provided in confidential to cover the commerciality of this arrangement if Council was to proceed with this option. Enabling Option 2: If Council were of a mind to commence operation of a mobile playgroup service it is considered that providing a 3-session per week service would be a prudent approach both from a financial and service planning and delivery perspective. Should Council wish to proceed with operating a service under a partnership arrangement the following would be required: 1. That Council endorse the proposed 3- sessions a week service and request the

General Manager to include an allowance of $121,000 of capital funding and $71,000 of operating costs to fund the commencement of the service in the draft 2013/14 Delivery Plan, recognising this would be the maximum funding required.

2. That Council undertake an EOI process to seek interest from the Not- for- Profit

sector to partner Council in the delivery of this service utilising the criteria nominated in the body of the report.

3. That the outcome of this EOI be reported to Council at its conclusion and any subsequent changes to the projected costs of the service be adjusted in the budget at that time.

4. That Council confirm the nomination of the following locations:

a. Blenheim Park North Ryde b. Darvall Park West Ryde c. Ryde Park Ryde



5. That Council endorse October 2013 as the proposed timeframe for the

commencement of the service. Government Funding Opportunities: There may be opportunities to access government funding to offset costs of delivering the service if Council were to proceed. However given the shortage of time in preparing this report no formal discussion were held with relevant government departments. Should Council resolve to operate a mobile playgroup service, appropriate negotiations with government departments could be undertaken. Any government funding that Council may attract could be applied to both delivery models discussed in this report. Our preliminary research in this regard has identified that most playgroups are funded by the State government under its community and family portfolios. Most playgroups funded over the last few years in NSW target vulnerable families, are based on offer of specific developmental support and require registration and follow up for families. There are a number of historical funding arrangements that date back to earlier policies of the government which are offered on an annual basis. Other Councils currently running similar services that were reviewed as part of the preparation of this report, fund their mobile playgroup services from general revenue, with the exception of Marrickville, which receives funding from state government based on historical arrangements. Under similar historical arrangements, the City of Ryde received funding of $53,055 per annum from the State government towards the operation of its vacation care service. Should Council resolve to operate a mobile playgroup service, discussions could be commenced with the department that issued these funds, in order to retain this amount to offset the cost of delivering the service. Other Funding Opportunities: Should Council resolve to proceed with delivering a mobile playgroup service, other opportunities that could be explored to reduce Council’s costs include: Private sector sponsorship of the service Charging an annual registration fee: this would be an annual payment per family

to attend the playgroup. Playgroup NSW charges an annual membership fee of $39. A similar fee could apply to the Council’s service.



Timeframe for Commencement: Should Council resolve to deliver a mobile playgroup service it is anticipated that the service could commence in October 2013. Factors considered in setting the timeframe include: Recruitment of staff, or Development of an EOI process if Council wished to pursue Option 2 Development of policy and procedures or negotiation of service specifications with

a partner Purchase of appropriate vehicle, modification, branding Purchase of resources Promotion and community engagement. Naming and Branding: The branding of the vehicle and naming of the service would be key components of the operational success of a potential mobile playgroup service. A well-chosen name and logo would play a significant part in attracting families to the service, as well as engender a positive image and feeling in the community. It is proposed that the vehicle would be named as part of a community engagement process, which could involve a competition or voting. Should Council resolve to proceed with the Service an appropriate community engagement process will be designed and implemented.



Mobile Playgroups

List of other organisations providing mobile playgroups that were reviewed as part of the research into how mobile playgroups operate.

Organisation Running for how long?

Funding source? Staffing/Staff qualification and awards?

Operate during school holiday?

Target group?

Sessions

Council- Ashfield in partnership with The Infants Home Childcare Centre in Ashfield Park

More than 6 years

Ashfield Council funded the program

It cost 60% of Council children services budget which cover one staff salary and program develop development.

Run by childcare centre “The Infant Home”

Cert 3 in Children Services and volunteers to assist with the playgroup

Yes General 1 session per week

2 hours

Council- Penrith

Playvan

30 years Mainly funded by Council One Coordinator – teacher trained (22 hours)

One staff- Diploma Children Services (12 hours)

One staff – Cert 3 Children Services (12 hours)

Coordinator must be teacher trained and staff must have minimum Cert 3 in Children Services

No General 5 sessions per week

2 hours

Council- Burwood

Burwood’s Mobile PlayVan

5-6 years

Fully funded by Council. $5000 per year to buy new toys.

Gold coin donation from

2 staff

Minimum Cert 3 in Children Services


2 hours



Organisation Running for how long?

Funding source? Staffing/Staff qualification and awards?

Operate during school holiday?

Target group?

Sessions

parents and carers to buy play- dough and stationery.

14 hours per week for permanent part time team leader and 4 hours for casual assistant

Council Marrickville

Magic Yellow Bus

36 years 4 sessions funded by NSW Department of Family and Community Services

1 Session funded by Council

32 hours per week for permanent part time coordinator and 29 hours for part time assistant

Yes General 5 sessions per week

3 hours

NFP- Early Childhood Intervention Mobile Playgroup (Auburn)

7 years

Department of Family and Community Services Families NSW program

One trained with Cert 3 in Children Services and all qualified professionals such as social workers, speech therapists and counsellors

No Children with Special needs

3 sessions per week

2 hours

NFP- Gloucester Pre-School Incorporated

More than 5 years

Department of Family and Community Services Families NSW program

2 staff


No Supported playgroups

2 sessions per week

2 hours

Not for Profit (NFP)

Save the Children Inc

20 years Inner City Service is funded by NSW Department of Family and Community Services

Western Sydney Service is self-funded by Save the Children Inc

2 staff



2 hours



16 CHANGES TO FEES & CHARGES - TREES AND PLAQUES

Report prepared by: Section Manager - Natural Areas and Urban Forest File No.: GRP/12/5/5/5 - BP12/1399

REPORT SUMMARY This report recommends the public exhibition of the existing fees and charges for Trees and Memorial Plaque to correct the discrepancies identified in the approved Schedule of Fees and Charges 2012-13. The report does not propose to increase any fees but rather correct typographical errors in Trees section of the Schedule and significantly reduce a Memorial Plaque fee. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Council place on public exhibition the following fees and charges for the

period of not less than 56 days, due to Christmas holidays. (b) That a further report be presented to Council for consideration after the public

exhibition period addressing any submissions made. ATTACHMENTS 1 Amended Fees and Charges - Memorials 2 Amended Fees and Charges - Trees Report Prepared By: Nicola Booth Section Manager - Natural Areas and Urban Forest Report Approved By: Tatjana Domazet Service Unit Manager - Open Space Danielle Dickson Group Manager - Community Life



Background The wording and the amount for some of the fees for Trees and Plaques within the existing Schedule of Fees and Charge for 2012/13 requires changes to ensure correct fees are charged at all times. Discussion It has been noted that the existing Schedule of Fees and Charges has a series of typographical errors within the Trees and Plaques fee schedule, which has caused some confusion both internally and externally regarding the correct fees to be charged. In accordance with Section 405 of the Local Government Act and Clause 201 of the Local Government Regulations, the fee has to be advertised for 28 days. A further report addressing any submissions received in relation to the changes to the wording and the amount associated with these fees would be presented back to Council. Financial Implications Adoption of the recommendation will have no financial impact.



17 MEADOWBANK / GLADESVILLE TRAFFIC STUDY

Report prepared by: Section Manager - Traffic File No.: GRP/11/3/6/7 - BP12/1455

REPORT SUMMARY This report is to provide Council with an update regarding the development of Council’s Mesoscopic or equivalent traffic model covering an area bounded by Victoria Road (to the north), Meadowbank Railway Line (to the west), Parramatta River (to the south) and Meriton Street (to the east or city bound direction). The model will be an important assessment tool for developers to use as part of the development application process. As a litmus test for the model, the Royal Ryde Ryde Rehabilitation Redevelopment Project will be the first test case and will confirm or otherwise, if the series of roundabouts proposed for Morrison Road, between Princess Street and Charles Street are necessary. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Council approved expenditure of up to $250,000 (including the funding

provided by the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) of $100,000) and that the expenditure of this amount be approved.

(b) That the budget adjustment be included in the next Quarterly Review for

information. ATTACHMENTS 1 Minute - Meadowbank / Gladesville - Traffic Study (Brain Storming and Project

Scope Development)

2 Email from RMS dated 3 October 2012 confirming funding allocation 3 Ryde Traffic Committee Report - Morrison Road and Charles Street, Putney -

Proposed Roundabouts

Report Prepared By: Harry Muker Section Manager - Traffic Report Approved By: Austin Morris Manager - Infrastructure Integration Terry Dodds Group Manager - Public Works



Background On Friday, 15 June 2012 a meeting was convened at the Office of Victor Dominello, Member for Ryde which included in attendance the Member for Lane Cove, The Hon. Anthony Roberts MP. The discussion centred on developing an agreed method by which the traffic associated impacts of large developments in the Meadowbank/Gladesville area could be modelled that would give the community confidence in the output results. The agreed way forward was to convene a “brain storming” session at Council where key issues could be tabled and a framework established leading to the preferred modelling methodology for a given study area (refer to ATTACHMENT 1). The meeting was convened on Monday 18 June 2012 at Council’s Operations Centre involving representation from the Community (Minister’s Representative), Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) and Council. A draft project scope outline was prepared that was contingent on the RMS contributing to the study financially (refer to ATTACHMENT 2) that considered both the data collection process and the subsequent traffic model selection (likely to be a “Mesoscopic” traffic modelling as RMS was tending towards developing strategic transport models of this type. This point of view is further supported following the release of an eTender by the NSW Government in June 2012 titled “Registration of Interest – Mesoscopic Traffic Model of the Sydney Road Network). The term “Mesoscopic” in traffic/transport modelling is defined as “a model that allows intersection-generated congestion effects to be assessed unlike the network wide “strategic” models, but do not require the level of detail associated with “microsimulation” models. Mesoscopic modelling is the most cost-effective option where intersection effects need to be assessed but complex traffic weaving, lane choice and queue interaction are less evident. On the 26 July 2012 the Ryde Traffic Committee considered a report titled “Morrison Road and Charles Street – Proposed Roundabouts, Ryde Rehabilitation Centre” (refer to ATTACHMENT 3) which lies within the study area, focussed on the construction of three (3) roundabouts along Morrison Road that intersected with Payten Street, Douglas Street and Charles Street. Council at its meeting on the 28 August 2012 resolved to adopt the report recommendation as detailed below.

(a) That Council support the construction the roundabouts at the intersections of Charles Street and the site access road, and Morrison road and Douglas Street be supported, subject to confirmation from the mesoscopic model being undertaken by Council.

(b) That the proposed roundabout at Payten Street be reviewed in conjunction

with a larger ‘network’ based equilibrium model (mesoscopic model) for the area. The provision of this roundabout (or not) will be determined from the outcome of the mesoscopic modelling.



Discussion The development of an integrated approach to traffic modelling for a precinct will assist in making well developed “positive” decisions regarding traffic impacts in an area. It also enables Council to test a particular traffic management scheme proposed by a developer which is yet to be constructed. The development of a “Mesoscopic” traffic model for the Meadowbank / Gladesville catchment will enable Council to be further informed on key developments. As a first stage test of the model, the Royal Ryde Rehabilitation Redevelopment will be an example that will confirm or otherwise the need for all three (3) roundabouts which are currently proposed along Morrison Road at Payten Street, Douglas Street and Charles Street, Putney and whether further measures are required to reduce the impact of “rat-runs” in the area. It is expected that a series of discrete model scenarios will be developed in conjunction with members of the community and the results of the subsequent analysis will be tabled at a future Council meeting. However, to offset the initial upfront expenditure over time, Council would set-up a prescribed process that will encourage developers to use the model to develop their project proposals on a consistent modelling platform. To access the model the developer will be required to pay a fee and subsequent model updates will be funded from the payment of fees. Council expects the “Mesoscopic Model” or its “equivalent” to would have a service life in excess of eight (8) or so years, once operational. Financial Implications Council has not included this amount in its budget for 2012/13. As this project is being partially funded by RMS (up to $100K), Council is required to resolve to adjust expenditure and income in the budget. Should Council resolve to undertake this project it will result in a financial impact of $250K and requires additional funding of $150,000. Current approved

budget Estimated

cost Surplus/(Deficit)

Meadowbank / Gladesville Traffic Study

Nil $250,000 $(150,000)*

* - RMS contribution of $100K will off-set partially the anticipated project cost of $250,000.



The following funding options are available to Council: Working Capital arising from the September Quarterly Review or the Asset

Replacement Reserve. Another option is to acquire funds from another internal reserve. Over an eight (8)

year model service life period, Council expects to issue two (2) licenses per annum, generating approximately $25,000 per annum. Over an eight (8) year period it is expected that income would be approximately $200,000 and these proceeds would be used to repay the loan.



Present: Hon Anthony Roberts – Member for Lane Cove, Minister for Fair Trading (left at 8.30am)

Mr Chris Goudanas – Road and Maritime Services

Mr Christopher Zito – Road and Maritime Services

Ms Divna Cvetojevic – Road and Maritime Services

Ms Nancy Decuzzi – City of Ryde, Traffic Engineer

Mr Peter Crosby – Road and Maritime Services

Mr Rolf Clapham – Ministers Representative

Ms Sevda Huseyin – Road and Maritime Services (arrived at 7.50am)

Apologies: Mr Terry Dodds – City of Ryde, Group Manager – Public Works

Action/Who

1 Meeting Introduction

Why Unless we reduce the traffic on the rat-runs, concern on local roads will continue

Protect resident amenity and safety Former RTA/DMR may have exacerbated the problem

NOTED

What Managing traffic better in the locality – restrictions on traffic external – reduce infiltration

effective regulatory management

When See Part 2: Project Scope Outline Development How See Part 2: Project Scope Outline Development

2 Meeting Outline

1. Need to develop a study plan 2. Data collection 3. Clarify suitable scheme and inform and seek community input 4. Setup model and test scheme, this goes to Council for confirmation and

approval where Council has delegated authority to act as a roads authority ie Local/Regional (sub-arterial) roads

NOTED

Subject: Meadowbank / Gladesville – Traffic Study (Brain Storming and Project Scope Development Session)

Venue: City of Ryde Operations Centre

1 Constitution Road, Ryde

Date: Monday, 18 June 2012

Time: 7.30am – 9.30am

Chair: Mr Harry Muker – City of Ryde, Manager - Traffic and Governance

Meeting Support Ms Pamela Yip – City of Ryde, Administration Support Officer



Action/Who

2.1 Issues raised by The Hon Anthony Roberts MP and Mr Clapham

The nexus of the Minister’s statement was: Even though Bowden Street already has problems, increased traffic issues

in Bowden Street can not be used as a reason to not successfully reduce traffic volumes in the area bounded by the river, Church Street and Victoria Road.

RMS has created a habit and problem – we are fixing the problem of the rat race. Drivers have the perception of thinking that it is faster as there are no traffic signals on Morrison Road and this causes problems for Church and Meriton Streets

We need to look at how to reduce traffic Protection of Morrison Road and to stop people coming in Habits can’t be changed so we need to just stop it Signs don’t work as no one regulates them We need physical changes to stop people getting in There are two sources of traffic – from the city and from Ryde bridge If at any time RMS use the excuse that redistributing traffic onto other roads

for not agreeing to works that do reduce the traffic in the area that the Minister and his representative will walk away. The only satisfactory solution will be the installation of the traffic signals at the rehabilitation centre development on Victoria Road.

The nexus of Mr Clapham’s statement was: The community protests about traffic lights. The majority of cost is the

intersection, not the installation of the signals themselves.

NOTED

3 Part 1: Brain Storming Session

3.1 Study Area has been widened to capture a larger area of influence. The study area is bounded by Victoria Road to the north, Parramatta River to the south, the railway line to the west and Punt Street to the east. The area also includes part of Blaxland Road to the west of Devlin Street.

NOTED

3.2 It is established that a study of this size can take up to six (6) months to resolve. NOTED

3.3 Road and Maritime Services (RMS) advised that the withdrawal of the traffic signals on Victoria Road is not a cost saving exercise NOTED

3.4 RMS representative suggested reducing speed along Morrison Road to improve safety NOTED

3.5 RMS representatives advised that right regulate turns are easier to regulate but left turns are near impossible to regulate as physical impediments or similar are a necessity.

NOTED

3.6 RMS representatives advised that closing Morrison Road at Church Street will only limit a little traffic, we need to identify where the source is coming from NOTED

3.7 Council staff distributed a Project Brief template to the group and explained what are the key elements of the brief ie budget, scope, consultation NOTED

3.8 The group discussed potential budgetary requirements for the traffic study. Around $250K seemed to be the ‘ball park’ figure for the model and included some provision for data collection.

NOTED



Action/Who

3.9

It may take up to six (6) weeks to collect the data from start to finish. Council staff to set up scope, RFQ brief and maps for the traffic counts and find out what is technically possible. Council staff to circulate colour coded maps for traffic count sites. The need to use an external company for data collection is necessary as they will be neutral. RMS representative will provide data on State roads. Traffic survey will consist of the following, but not limited to: Origin Destination (OD) (7 day period 6am – 7pm) Travel time Intersection turn movements (Require Video survey: The contractor need

to demonstrate how they will cope with poor visibility for number plate survey and need to establish at which time the survey should be done)

G turns Tube surveys RMS representatives supported to split traffic survey tasks up in two companies as OD surveys will require most resources, as follows:

1. OD 2. tube, manual, travel time, etc

COUNCIL

3.10

Establish steering/technical group. Group to consist of RMS and Council, and where necessary, Minister’s Rep and other external stakeholders ie STA, DoPI and TfNSW. 1 meeting during traffic count period, and will require site visit. 1 meeting for review of data sets 1 meeting for Model completion and options testing.

ALL

3.11 All agreed that we need data to quantify the problem NOTED

3.12 Scoping of Modelling brief can start now and to be finished by end of September if practicable COUNCIL

3.13 Need to capture change in traffic patterns NOTED 3.14 RMS will deal with the audit process. Joint peer review will speed up process RMS 3.15 Need to incorporate existing land use NOTED

3.16 It is agreed that the review results will be reported to Mr Clapham and Minister Roberts NOTED

3.17 Consultation needs to occur with other community groups and Government agencies E.g. Shops, STA, DoPI, TNSW NOTED

3.18 Need to find out if there are any projects going on that will affect this study NOTED

3.19 Council staff to send out project brief in Word format on Friday 22 June 2012 and allow a week for input from others to be collated. COUNCIL

3.20 Project schedule is not definite – a Gantt chart will be available at a later date NOTED

3.21 RMS representative suggested that we should report (progress update) to the Ministers at critical stages from RMS and Council staff so they can provide input NOTED

4 Part 2: Project Scope Outline Development

4.1 Stage 1: Scoping of Traffic Counts Brief (traffic counts to include but not limited to: tube counts, origin destination (OD) surveys, intersection turn movements, travel time surveys, g-turn surveys. The use of video surveys is required.

COUNCIL, RMS

4.2 Stage 2: 6 August 2012- Commence collecting data (7 day period from 6.00am to 7.00pm).

COUNCIL, RMS

4.3 Stage 3: Late August- Data is finalised and sent to Council. Early September- Review of data sets to determine habits. COUNCIL



Action/Who

4.4 Stage 4: Mid September- Steering Committee formed to analyse data sets and clarify objectives and strategies to determine what model will be used to best capture the issues.

ALL

4.5 Stage 5: Late September- Scoping of Modelling Brief. RFQ sent to consultants to provide quotation.

STEERING COMMITTEE

4.6 Stage 6: Late December (*) – Likely Traffic Model completion date as discussed by all (includes options tested). * to be further refined at completion of Stage 4 review

STEERING COMMITTEE

5 Meeting Closed: 9.30am



From: GOUDANAS Chris [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 3 October 2012 12:00 PM To: Harry Muker Cc: LANGFORD Colin W; CROSBY Peter A; ZITO Christopher Subject: RE: Meadowbank / Gladesville – Traffic Study

Harry, I have spoken to Peter Crosby regarding potential funding towards this project and he indicated that RMS may be able to provide a funding contribution up to $100,000 (being the upper limit). Given this direction and following the tender assessment conducted last week could you please provide the cost estimate for the preferred tenderer for Phase 1 of the traffic study. Following receipt of this RMS will consider and nominate potential contribution towards phase 1. Keeping in mind that RMS is limited to the $100,000 for all phases of the project e.g. surveys, data analysis report, possible modelling if required. Regards, Chris



18 ANNUAL TENDERS - Tender for Hire of Plant

Report prepared by: Section Manager - Plant and Fleet File No.: GRP/11/3/6/7 - BP12/1395

REPORT SUMMARY This report is to advise the Council on the Tenders received for hiring of plant and to recommend acceptance of Tenders to be placed on preferred contractors list between 1 January and 31 December 2013. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That the tenders for hiring of plant until 31 December 2013 from the following

tenderers be accepted on an “as required “ basis for the indicated category of plant:

Tenderer Category of Plant

A & A Hire Services 2, 4, 5 A & C Plant Hire Pty Ltd 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Acclaimed Excavations Pty Ltd 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Active Tipper Hire Pty Ltd 2, 4, 5, 6 Allards Plant Hire Pty Ltd 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 Australian Grader Hire Pty Ltd 1 Barren Transport Pty Ltd 4, 5, 6 Coates Hire Operations Pty Ltd 8, 10 Complete Hire 8, 10 Conplant Pty Ltd 8 DXCore Pty Ltd 2, 4, 6 E & B Tipper Hire Pty Ltd 2, 4, 5, 6 G & R D Chong Pty Ltd 7 Haines Bros Earthmoving & Drainage 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 Kennards Hire Pty Ltd 10 Onsite Rental Group Operations Pty Ltd 10 Porter Plant 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 R & K Johnson Excavations 2 Raygal Pty Ltd 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 Sherrin Rentals Pty Ltd 8, 10 Supreme Earthmoving Pty Ltd 2, 4 Universal Mobile Tower Hire 9

(b) That the preferred contractors be advised that the work will be allocated to them

on an “as required” basis, following consideration at the time of the following factors: type of work, price, availability, previous workmanship, relevant expertise, previous service provided to the residents and previous compliance to safety requirements.



(c) That the non-complying tenderers be advised of the Council’s decision. ATTACHMENTS 1 Compliance Register - COR-RFT-17/12 - CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE

COVER - CONFIDENTIAL

2 Schedule of Hire Rates-COR-RFT-17/12 - CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER - CONFIDENTIAL

Report Prepared By: Paul Chandrakumar Section Manager - Plant and Fleet Report Approved By: George Dedes Manager - Business Infrastructure Terry Dodds Group Manager - Public Works



Discussion Council has recently called tenders (COR-RFT-17/12) for the provision of hire plant included in Council’s Construction and Maintenance Programs. The request for Tenders were released on 22 September 2012 and closed on 16 October 2012. Twenty four (25) tenders were received for ten (10) different categories of plant, including one (1) late tender. The tenders were assessed by a panel, consisting of three (3) Council Officers. Tenderers compliance was evaluated on the following selection criteria: Legal status of entity and conformity to documentation Hire rates and transport charges Correct insurance covers Tenderer’s experience and references Emissions specifications Tender prices were called for a total of thirteen (13) categories of plant as follows.

Category of Plant Description 1 Backhoes 2 Excavators 3 Water Carts 4 Skid Steer Loaders 5 Skid Steer Loader and Truck combination 6 Rigid trucks 4.5 – 22.5 tonne GVM 7 Wood chipper truck 8 Rollers – Smoot, Vibrating, Tandem & Single (dry hire) 9 Insulated EWP, 12 - 28m (Truck mounted)

10 Elevated Platforms (dry hire) The assessment panel has placed the Tenders into the following categories: Category A: Preferred Contractors Tenderer Category of Plant A & A Hire Services 2, 4, 5 A & C Plant Hire Pty Ltd 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Acclaimed Excavations Pty Ltd 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Active Tipper Hire Pty Ltd 2, 4, 5, 6 Allards Plant Hire Pty. Ltd. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 Australian Grader Hire Pty Ltd 1 Barren Transport Pty Ltd 4, 5, 6 Coates Hire Operations Pty Ltd 8, 10 Complete Hire 8, 10 Conplant Pty Ltd 8



DXCore Pty Ltd 2, 4, 6 E & B Tipper Hire Pty Ltd 2, 4, 5, 6 G & R D Chong Pty. Ltd. 7 Haines Bros Earthmoving & Drainage 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 Kennards Hire Pty Ltd 10 Onsite Rental Group Operations Pty. Ltd. 10 Porter Plant 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 R & K Johnson Excavations 2 Raygal Pty Ltd 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 Sherrin Rentals Pty Ltd 8, 10 Supreme Earthmoving Pty Ltd 2, 4 Universal Mobile Tower Hire. 9 Category B: Non complying Tender Dinamo Pty Ltd. Force Towers Sherrin Hire Pty Ltd Works awarded to Contractors under this contract are carried out on an “as required” basis, following consideration at the time of the following factors: Type of work Hire rates including transport Availability Previous workmanship Relevant expertise Previous service provided to residents Previous compliance to safety requirements. The Plant Hire Rates and Compliance Register have been forwarded to Councillors UNDER SEPARATE COVER – CONFIDENTIAL. Financial Implications Each engagement from the Contractor list will be funded from approval Capital Works Projects or Maintenance Programs. Total Council expenditure on external plant hire over 12 months is estimated at $1 million. Context New rates must be in place by 1 January 2013. Consultation with relevant external bodies Internal Council business units consulted included:- Operations unit, Public Works. Business Infrastructure, Public Works



19 REQUEST FOR TENDER - COR-RFT-20/12 - Construction Services for the Installation of Sportsfield Lighting in Magdala Park, North Ryde.

Report prepared by: Project Manager File No.: GRP/11/3/6/7 - BP12/1442

REPORT SUMMARY Request for Tender (COR-RFT-20/12) for “Construction Services for the Installation of Sportfield Lighting at Magdala Park, North Ryde”. Closing date Tuesday 20 November, 2012. Council has sought tender submissions from suitably qualified specialist contractors to install sportsfield lighting at Magdala Park, North Ryde. The scope for the proposed lighting is 200lux for matchplay on field no.1 and 50lux for training on field no.2. Night usage and lighting of the fields will be in accordance with the approved DA conditions. The Tender Evaluation Panel assessed all conforming tenders and recommended that the Council accept the tender from Smada Electrical Services Pty. Ltd. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Council accepts the tender from Smada Electrical Services Pty. Ltd. for

Construction Services for the Installation of Sportsfield Lighting at Magdala Park, North Ryde as recommended in the Tender Evaluation Report for the lump sum of $192,570 (GST excl).

(b) That Council advise all the respondents of Council’s decision. ATTACHMENTS 1 Magdala Park - Sportsfield Lighting - Assessment Report and Score Matrix -

CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER - CONFIDENTIAL

Report Prepared By: Jeff Kerr Project Manager Report Approved By: Peter Nguyen Service Unit Manger - Project Development Terry Dodds Group Manager - Public Works



Tender Details Council’s preferred method of tendering was adopted by advertising in the Sydney Morning Herald, sending documents to selected companies and loading onto Council’s eTender Portal TenderLink. The tenders were released on the 6 November, 2012 and closed on 20 November, 2012. At the time of closing, the following three companies submitted tenders. These companies are listed in alphabetical order:- Floodlighting Australia Pty Ltd Sportzlighting Pty Ltd Smada Electrical Services Pty Ltd Evaluation A tender evaluation committee comprising three (3) Council officers assessed all tenders against the following criteria:- Conforming tender. Tenderer’s Fixed Lump Sum Project programme Footing design and considerations Proven experience and resource capability. Insurances Work Health & Safety. Environmental consideration. Sustainability considerations Project program. The tender evaluation committee evaluated the tender submitted by Smada Electrical Services Pty Ltd as the best value submission when compared against the evaluation criteria. Smada Electrical Services has carried out recent similar works at Pidding Park and Meadowbank Netball Courts to the satisfaction of Council. The Tender Evaluation process has been reviewed under the guidance of the Manager – Tenders & Contracts. A Tender Evaluation report has been circulated to Councillors UNDER SEPARATE COVER – Confidential. Consultation Internal Council business units consulted include: Open Space Project Development.



External sporting groups consulted include: North Ryde Soccer Club Gladesville United Football Club North Ryde Baseball Club Financial Implications Funding is available through the Sports Field Floodlighting Expansion Program and Gladesville United FC have committed to contributing $60,000 to the project.



20 REQUEST FOR TENDER - COR-RFT-04/12 - Implement Updated Handheld Technology to Assist Parking

Report prepared by: Service Unit Manger - Project Development File No.: GRP/11/3/6/7 - BP12/1447

REPORT SUMMARY Request for Tender (COR-RFT-04/12) for the project “Implement Technology to Assist Transport - Parking Availability and Monitoring” closed on 3 April 2012. This report is to advise council on the outcomes of the request for tender COR-RFT-04/12 relating to the provision of hand held devices. Council is seeking to replace obsolete Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) and Printers currently used by Ranger and Parking Services. It is intended to provide new PDAs utilising the latest infringement processing capabilities. The procurement and maintenance contract will be for an initial three (3) years period with an option to extend for a further two by one (1) year options. The Tender Evaluation Panel assessed all conforming tenders and recommends that Council accept the tender from Reino International Pty Ltd (trading as Duncan Solutions). RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Council accepts the tender from Reino International Pty Ltd for the

provision of Hand Held Devices for the sum of $132,400 (excluding GST) which is for the initial first three (3) year period and $16,800 (excluding GST) is required for the next two by one (1) year options.

(The $132,400 is to supply and install software and provide maintenance and support services and to host the software for 20 handheld devices for a three year period. The $16,800 is for the next two by one year options to maintain, support and host software). (b) That Council delegate the General Manager the authority to enter into a contract

with Reino International Pty Ltd on the terms contained within the tender. (c) That Council advise all the respondents of Council’s decision. ATTACHMENTS 1 COR-RFT-4/12 - Tender Evaluation Report - Implement Technology to assist

Transport / Parking Availability and Monitoring - CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER - CONFIDENTIAL



Report Prepared By: Peter Nguyen Service Unit Manger - Project Development Report Approved By: Terry Dodds Group Manager - Public Works



Discussion Council is seeking to replace its obsolete Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) and Printers used by Ranger and Parking Services for the past seven years. It is intended to purchase twenty (20) PDA’s/Tablets and Printers which have the latest technology and infringement processing capabilities. Council requires a suitable supplier to provide fit for purpose Handheld Devices including training and maintenance for the period of the contract. Reino International Pty Ltd submission demonstrated that they could fulfill the City of Ryde record keeping requirements ensuring parking records are kept and archived properly regarding data security and privacy of council records. The tenderer (Reino International Pty Ltd) proposes to host the data, which will be independent of Council’s Information Systems infrastructure. Report The Request for Tender was advertised on 13 March 2012 in the Sydney Morning Herald and through Council’s on-line tendering portal – Tenderlink. Tender submissions were received from the following contractors (in alphabetical order): Car Parking Technologies Limited Database Consultants Australia Reino International Pty Ltd trading as Duncan Solutions Tenix Solution Pty Ltd The Request for Tender closed on Tuesday 3 April 2012 at 2pm.

Mandatory pre-tender meetings was attended by all four (4) tenderers which included presentations held on 20 and 22 March 2012. Evaluation A tender evaluation panel comprising of four Council Officers assessed all tenders against the following criteria:-

Conforming tender Project Price Proven experience and company capacity Project program Occupational Health & Safety Sustainability considerations Project program.



The tender evaluation panel evaluated the tender submitted by Reino International Pty Ltd as the best value submission when compared against the evaluation criteria. Reino International Pty Ltd has undertaken similar contracts over a number of years throughout Australia and internationally. Reference checks of past projects show demonstrated capabilities. The Tender Evaluation process has been received under the guidance of the Manager Tenders and Contracts. A Tender Evaluation Report is provided ON FILE – CONFIDENTIAL and circulated to Council UNDER SEPARATE COVER. Consultation Internal Council business units consulted included: Public Works Environment and Planning Corporate services

External Consultation: West Ryde Chamber of Commerce Eastwood Chamber of Commerce Ryde/ Macquarie Park Chamber of Commerce Financial Implications This tender is covered under the current Capital Works Program for 2012-2013. Should Council resolve to undertake this project it will result in a financial impact of $132,400 (excluding GST) for the initial first three (3) year period and this is within the current budget of $150,000 (excluding GST). Council has an option to extend this contract for a further two by one (1) year periods at a cost of $16,800 (excluding GST) per year.



21 REQUEST FOR TENDER - COUNCIL TELEPHONY SERVICES

Report prepared by: Chief Information Officer File No.: ITS/07/3/17 - BP12/1457

REPORT SUMMARY This report is to advise Council of the outcomes of the procurement process relating to the selective invitation for tender submissions for the provision of telephony services for the City of Ryde. It recommends that Optus Networks Pty Ltd be Council's preferred vendor and seeks endorsement from Council to delegate to the General Manager to enter into contract negotiations with this vendor. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Optus Networks Pty Ltd be accepted as Council's preferred vendor in

relation to the tender for the Provision of Telephony Services for the City of Ryde, subject to successful negotiations for the entering into a formal contract agreement as detailed in this report.

(b) That the General Manager be delegated authority to enter into negotiations with

Optus Networks Pty Ltd with a view to the execution of a formal contract agreement.

(c) That the General Manager be delegated the authority to amend the contract on

matters which are not material and which are in the best interests of Council. (d) That the General Manager be delegated the authority to sign the Contract

Agreement on behalf of Council. (e) The Council endorse the budget allocations as detailed in this report. (f) That all companies who lodged a tender submission for the Provision of

Telephony Services for the City of Ryde be advised of Council's decision. ATTACHMENTS 1 Tender Evaluation Report - CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER -

CONFIDENTIAL

Report Prepared By: Mei Ling Chu Chief Information Officer Report Approved By: Roy Newsome Group Manager - Corporate Services



Discussion Council’s existing telecommunications network, both hardware and software, have reached their maximum capacity; and this situation poses a high risk of failure that could potentially lead to significant impacts on Council's operations. The principal issues with the existing communications network are as follows; - The existing Council data network is running very slow for remote sites including most libraries. RALC and the Operations Centre have also encountered similar intermittent data network speed issues. - Most Council's mobile phones are so old that they are not even compatible to the current 3G networks and therefore not able to take advantage of the newly-released 4G networks. - The current Council data network does not support the required sophisticated network traffic prioritisation function in enabling proper bandwidth performance management and the soon-to-be introduced social media demand. - The pricing of the existing telecommunication contract is out of date. The up-to-date pricing for related services in the industry has dropped significantly over the last year. Council is not maximising its cost savings if it continues with its current contractual arrangement.

The upgrading of Council's Telephony Systems is a current project in the 2012/ 2013 Operational Plan and is integral for the City of Ryde in meeting its current and future business requirements. A Request for Tender (RFT) document was compiled and presented to the market in September 2012. Procurement Process The RFT invited responses from a single provider for the supply of design, equipment, implementation and ongoing service of a consolidated Telephony Services, including a voice and data network for the City of Ryde. This was a selective procurement process with potential vendors chosen from the Commonwealth and NSW Governments' telecommunications authorised carriers list and the Local Government Procurement Panel Agreement (LGP 407-2) vendor list. These listings provided a number of pre-qualified vendors along with their areas of expertise. A total of nine companies were selected from these listings as it’s believed that they likely would have the ability to meet all of Council's requirements. This process qualified as an exemption from tendering under the provisions of the Local Government Act and accompanying Local Government (General) regulations. This tender is being reported to Council due to the quantum, in terms of cost and operational impacts of this project to the City of Ryde operations.



The companies were;

1. AAPT 2. Applied Satellite Technology Limited 3. CountryTell Community Broadband 4. Macquarie Telecom 5. Optus Networks 6. Pacific Internet Pty Ltd 7. Soul Pattinson Telecommunications Pty Ltd 8. Telstra Corporation Ltd 9. Vertel

From the companies invited, four submissions were received being (in alphabetical order);

- Optus Networks Pty Ltd - Pacific Internet Pty Ltd - Soul Pattinson Telecommunications Pty Ltd - Telstra Corporation Ltd An evaluation panel consisting of the following members was established to assess the responses being; Chief Information Officer (Chair) Group Manager, Corporate Services Manager, Infrastructure Integration Council's Manager Audit and Risk also provided input and advice with the tender process and with the evaluation of submissions while an independent external telecommunication consultant, Mr Andrew Wass from EUC provided expert advice in relation to technical and industry knowledge. Minutes of all evaluation panel meetings are provided ON FILE. A detailed evaluation report including the Assessment Matrix is on FILE and CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER – CONFIDENTIAL. Pursuant to Section 10A (2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1993, these documents are listed as confidential as they contain commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed, prejudice the commercial position of the persons who supplied it. Furthermore, it is considered that discussion in open meeting would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest as it could affect Council's ability to secure the preferred vendor. The assessment was based on the following criteria as outlined in the Request for Tender document. 1. Business value derived from the proposed solution, primarily based on

functionality and useability.



2. Value for money based on tendered prices. 3. Vendor capability including previous similar experience for similar sized

organisations. 4. Proposed qualified and experienced personnel (including roles, responsibilities,

methodology). 5. Effective transition plans, (refer to the Transition Section enclosed). 6. Provider’s technology roadmap suitability for City of Ryde. As stated earlier in the report, this project is critical as Council's existing telephony networks have reached their maximum capacity and this situation poses a high business risk to Council's operations, together with inferior telecommunication links to all business sites, that is impacting on the level and quality of services provided. Following the assessment of further presentations by Telstra and Optus during the evaluation phase, the panel have recommended that Optus Networks Pty Ltd should be nominated as Council's preferred vendor to commence contact negotiations. The tender documents provide for negotiations with the preferred vendor to finalise a formal contract for the delivery and implementation of the project in accordance with the RFT document. The agreement will reflect the specifications as outlined in the RFT document but may include modifications to include the following: - Addenda issued by Council prior to the close of the tender - Additional/Optional services identified in the RFT submission - Clarifications sought by Council - Other minor changes if in the interest of Council It is recommended that Council delegate the authority to the General Manager to undertake the negotiations on behalf of Council and to finalise and sign the Contract Agreement. Consultation All of Council’s Service Units have been consulted in understanding their telecommunication requirements. Critical Dates The upgrade of the existing corporate data network is critical. Council is exposed to a high risk of communications failure especially for remote sites like most libraries. A projected timeline for a 'go live' date for the upgraded network is March 2013. Policy Implications There are no policy implications through the adoption of the recommendation.



Financial Impact Statement Council’s current expenditure for telecommunication services is $840k per annum. The acceptance of this tender is projected to realise a saving to Council, whilst noting that the level and quality of this service is substantially being upgraded with this tender, with all bandwidth links to Council’s facilities being doubled.



22 MEADOWBANK NETBALL COURTS - DELEGATION TO AWARD CONTRACT

Report prepared by: Section Manager - Sport and Recreation File No.: GRP/09/4/6 - BP12/1462

REPORT SUMMARY This report requests that Council delegate authority, during the Council’s recess period, to the Mayor and General Manager to award the contract for works at the Meadowbank Park Netball Complex. These works are part of Councils 2012/13 Sports field Upgrade and Renewal program. This request is made to ensure the work is completed prior to the commencement of the Netball season on 5 April 2013. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Council delegates the authority to the Mayor and General Manager to

award the contract during Council’s recess period, in accordance with the recommendations of Tender Evaluation Panel and within allocated budget, for the construction of two (2) hard-court netball courts at Meadowbank Park. The awarding of this contract will then be notified at Council’s first meeting in February.

(b) That Council accepts the offer from the Eastwood Ryde Netball Association to

contribute to the project and increase the project budget by $67,190 (GST exclusive), representing capital contribution by Eastwood Ryde Netball Association.

ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report. Report Prepared By: Simon James Section Manager - Sport and Recreation Report Approved By: Tatjana Domazet Service Unit Manager - Open Space Danielle Dickson Group Manager - Community Life



History As part of Council’s Sportsfield Upgrade and Renewal program for 2012/13, work is scheduled to re-orientate one netball court and add a further court at Meadowbank Park Netball Complex. This will allow the Association to bid to host State netball competitions in the future. The business case for this project was based on information provided to the Eastwood Ryde Netball Association (ERNA) by a specialist contractor. Discussion During the preparation of the Tender documentation, Council staff identified that the scope of works provided to ERNA did not provide for the best long term outcome and determined that other options should be explored. These options were presented to ERNA on 23 November 2012 and all parties agreed on a revised scope. Based on this revised scope, documentation has been prepared and the Tender advertised commencing 4 December 2012. Following the assessment process, a report is expected to be prepared by late December or early January at the latest. To enable project timelines to be met and the courts to be constructed by the beginning of the winter season, it is required for Council to delegate the authority to the Mayor and General Manager to enable the awarding of the Tender contract during the recess period. An updated quote was obtained from a company specialising in the construction of netball courts in late November 2012. The quote indicated that Council can still proceed with the project with the funds being sufficient through the Sportsfield Upgrade and Renewal Cluster this financial year. Financial Implications The Eastwood Ryde Netball Association has agreed to contribute $67,190 (GST exclusive) towards the project and as a result, Council will need to increase the project budget to incorporate this additional funding. There is no negative financial impact to Council for adopting the recommendations. Context The contribution of the ERNA is in line with the current Council policy to allow for sporting clubs and associations to contribute up to 40% towards the capital projects. Conclusion Providing delegation to the Mayor and General Manager will provide the best opportunity for these works to be completed and available for the 2013 Netball season. This delegation to occur for Council’s recess period, and allow for the awarding of the contract for works on the reorientation and addition of netball courts at the Meadowbank Park Netball Complex. As a recent quote for the works has been obtained from a specialist contractor it is expected the Tender prices received will fall within available funding. This will provide a benefit to the Netball community and allow for increased participation next season.



23 CITY OF RYDE TENNIS COURTS

Report prepared by: Section Manager - Sport and Recreation File No.: GRP/09/4/6 - BP12/1463

REPORT SUMMARY The management arrangements for three of the four City of Ryde owned tennis centres have expired or are about to expire. The facilities are currently being managed and operated by different community sporting groups and where the agreement term has expired, the arrangement is continuing on a month by month basis. This has provided Council with an opportunity to review its leases and licences for these community recreational facilities and ensure that a high quality and up to date tennis service is provided from Council facilities for the community. This report recommends that Council undertakes an Expression of Interest/Request for Proposal process for Abuklea and Olympic Park Tennis Centres and extend the existing arrangements for the small tennis centre at Kings Park. Council staff met with the representatives from all community groups and advised them that the matter will be reported to Council with a recommendation for Council to undertake an EOI/RFP process for the centre management and operations.

RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Council extend the licence agreement for Kings Park Tennis Centre to

Denistone East Community Tennis Courts Committee Inc for additional 5 years, under the same terms and conditions.

(b) That the General Manager be given delegated authority to execute all relevant

documents for Kings Park Tennis Centre licence agreement. (c) That Council advertise an Expression of Interest/Requests for Proposals,

seeking submissions from suitable organisations for the management and operation of Abuklea and Olympic Park Tennis centres.

(d) That Council advise the organisations currently managing the facilities of the

process and encouraged them to apply. (e) That a further report be submitted to Council following an Expression of

Interest/Requests for Proposals process. ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report.



Report Prepared By: Simon James Section Manager - Sport and Recreation Report Approved By: Tatjana Domazet Service Unit Manager - Open Space Danielle Dickson Group Manager - Community Life



Background Council currently leases or licences four Tennis centres to community organisations. The summary of the existing arrangements are discussed below. Kings Park Tennis Centre Kings Park Tennis Centre is located at Kings Park in Denistone East and consists of 2 synthetic grass tennis courts and an amenities block including toilet, clubroom and storeroom. Denistone East Community Tennis Courts Committee Inc (DECTCC) currently manages Kings Park Tennis Courts. Whilst DECTCC has been overseeing the management and operation of these tennis courts for many years, the courts are managed by a tennis professional who co-ordinates bookings and booking enquiries, hire courts, coaching services and undertake general cleaning and maintenance duties. The licence agreement between Council and DECTCC for Kings Park commenced on 1 January 2007 following an Expression of interest process and expires on 31 December 2012. Any holdover past 31 December 2012 will be on a month to month basis under the same terms and conditions of the original licence. The current agreement outlines that Council received a rent and the Committee is responsible for maintenance of all courts, fittings and equipment associated with the facility. The Committee has fulfilled their obligation under the licence agreement. Council has received a request from the Committee seeking to extend the term of the licence for another five years. Council staff met with the Committee to further discuss their request. As discussed later in this report, it is recommended that subject to negotiation on terms, the General Manager be authorised to extend this agreement for a further five years. Abuklea Tennis Centre Abuklea Tennis Centre is located in Kotara Park at Marsfield and consists of eight synthetic grass tennis courts with floodlighting, an amenities block containing clubroom, storeroom and a small shop area. A small children’s playground is situated next to the centre. Eastwood –Thornleigh District Tennis Association (ETDTA) currently manages the centre and they contract the Tennis Professional to co-ordinate booking enquiries, hire courts, provide coaching services and undertake general cleaning and maintenance duties. The lease agreement between Council and ETDTA commenced on 1 July 1991 for 20 years. The agreement has since expired and is currently on a month-by month arrangements under the same terms and conditions of the original agreement. The current agreement outlines that Council receives an annual rent and the Association is responsible for maintenance of all courts, fittings and equipment associated with the facility. The Association has fulfilled their obligation under the lease agreement.



The Association also manage and operate 2 other tennis centres at Pennant Hills and Epping. The Association is based at the Pennant Hills courts, with the centre having 16 synthetic courts. These courts are their main focuses with Kotara Park complex primarily being used for competitions, tournaments and any overflow from the other centres. Council has received a request from the Association to extend the existing leasing arrangements. As a result of this request, Council staff met with the Association’s representatives, including the Tennis professional, and were advised that the matter will be reported to Council with a recommendation for Council to undertake an EOI process for the centre management and operations. Olympic Park Tennis Centre Olympic Park Tennis Centre is located at Ryde, adjacent to the Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre and Next Generation and consists of eight synthetic grass tennis courts with floodlighting, a number of shelters, amenities block containing clubroom, storeroom and a small shop area. A small children’s playground is situated next to the centre. North Western Suburbs Tennis Association Inc. (NWSTA) currently manages and centre and they contract the Tennis Professional to co-ordinate booking enquiries, hire courts, provide coaching services and undertake general cleaning and maintenance duties. The licence agreement between Council and NWSTA commenced on 1 July 1991 for 20 years. The agreement has since expired and is currently on a month-by month arrangements under the same terms and conditions of the original agreement. The current agreement outlines that Council receives an annual rent and the Association is responsible for maintenance of all courts, fittings and equipment associated with the facility. The Association has fulfilled their obligation under the lease agreement. The Association also manage and operate two other tennis centres, Meadowbank Park and Birchgrove. The Association is based at the Birchgrove courts, with the centre having seven synthetic courts. Council has received a request from the Association to extend the existing leasing arrangements. As a result of this request, Council staff met with the Association’s representatives, including the Tennis professional, and were advised that the matter will be reported to Council with a recommendation for Council to undertake an EOI process for the centre management and operations. Report For a Tennis Centre to be commercially viable, a minimum of six floodlit courts are required with associated facilities.



Kings Park Tennis Centre Kings Park Tennis Centre is a small complex with only two courts and no floodlighting, thus any opportunity to make the centre commercially viable is very limited. The centre was a subject to an EOI process five years ago and given its size, the request to extend the existing licence for additional five years appears reasonable. Should Council wish to re-consider this request and subject it to an EOI process, it should be noted that the adjoining facility known as Denistone East Bowling Club is currently subject to an Expression of Interest process. Abuklea and Olympic Park Tennis Centres Council staff have reviewed the current arrangements for Abuklea and Olympic Park Tennis Centres. Both centres have 8 floodlit tennis courts with associated facilities and have been managed and operated by the same group for more than 20 years. Whilst this may provide benefit to the tennis community, a transparent and competitive process will ensure that the high quality and up to date tennis service is provided from Council facilities for the community. It is also considered opportunistic for the market to have both facilities out concurrently. As a result, it is recommended for Council to undertake an Expression of Interest (EOI)/Request for Proposal (RFP) process for the future management of these two centres, consistent with the Local Government Act 1993. After the completion of the EOI process for the management and operation of the tennis centres, the existing arrangements will be retired, dependent of the EOI results. Undertaking an EOI/RFP process for the two tennis centres, Abuklea and Olympic Park will allow Council to identify what market interests in managing and operating these community recreation facilities. Submissions received will be considered on a set criteria outlined in the RFP documentation. These will include the following:

Financial Capacity Rent/Commission Payment Quality and Management Policies and Procedures Staffing Customer Focus Service Provision Marketing and Promotions, and Capital Investment Capacity.

A pre-qualifying stage and weightings will be placed across the criteria as a percentage of importance. An Assessment Panel will be established to review all submissions.



The EOI/RFP documentation will be advertised via Council’s Tenderlink.com portal, in the Northern District Times and the TWT. It will also be advertised on Council’s ‘City View’ newsletter and Council’s website. This is anticipated to occur in the first half of 2013. The outcome of this process will be reported to Council for its consideration. Financial Impact There is no negative financial impact to Council for adopting the recommendations, if anything, it is anticipated that Council may be able to reach more favourable financial returns as a result of the new process. Policy Implications The process of EOI/RFP and any agreements will be in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993. Any future agreement must be expressly authorised in the relevant Plan of Management for the land tennis centres are located on. Other Options Council could elect to continue the current arrangements or enter into a new lease agreement with the existing organisations managing and operating the facilities without undertaking a competitive process. This may not provide the best outcome for the community as it will not allow Council to have a process which provides the opportunity to improve service provision and customer focus as well as offer better management options for these community recreation facilities.



24 RYDE RIVER WALK - PUBLIC EXHIBITION OF DESIGN AND STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Report prepared by: Project Manager; Service Unit Manager - Open Space; Service Unit Manger - Project Development

File No.: GRP/11/3/6/7 - BP12/1470

REPORT SUMMARY

The River Walk is a series of pedestrian and mixed use paths along the foreshore of the Parramatta River within the City of Ryde. This Walk provides an opportunity for the Community to engage with this foreshore’s history and environment. The Ryde River Walk project is a part of Sharing Sydney Harbour Access Program and the Sydney Metropolitan Recreation Trials framework. The project aims to establish a regional, mixed use recreation trial that provides for cycling and walking for a range of users. The next stage of the planned Ryde River Walk is the connection between Bill Mitchell Park to Glades Bay Park and formalising paths within Looking Glass Bay Park, including a link to Banjo Paterson Park. The design process has involved community consultation workshops, stakeholder consultation, archaeological investigations and an assessment of site conditions including geotechnical and soil contamination. The information gathered from this process has led to the key aims and principles behind the detailed design. The community consultation for this stage of the project began with community meetings held in the later part of 2011. With the level of feedback received, a further 2,000 local residents and local community representatives were invited to attend two (2) community workshops to discuss the proposed project in 2012. Taking into consideration all the community feedback received, as well as other background information a detailed design (UNDER SEPARATE COVER) has been prepared together with detailed Statements of Environmental Effects (UNDER SEPARATE COVER). RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Council place on Public Exhibition the detailed design and Statements of

Environmental Effects for a period of two (2) months. (b) That a further report be submitted to Council following the Public Exhibition

period.



ATTACHMENTS – ALL CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER 1 Landscape Detailed Design Package 2 SEE Looking Glass Bay November 2012 3 SEE Bill Mitchell to Glades Bay November 2012 4 A1 Plan - Ryde Riverwalk 1 5 A1 Plan - Ryde Riverwalk 2 6 A1 Plan - Ryde Riverwalk 3 7 A1 Plan - Ryde Riverwalk 4 8 A1 Plan - Ryde Riverwalk 5 9 A1 Plan - Ryde Riverwalk 6 10 A1 Plan - Ryde Riverwalk 7 11 A1 Plan - Ryde Riverwalk 8 Report Prepared By: Gordon Malesevic Project Manager Tatjana Domazet Service Unit Manager - Open Space Peter Nguyen Service Unit Manger - Project Development Report Approved By: Terry Dodds Group Manager - Public Works



Background The Ryde Riverwalk is a series of pedestrian and mixed use paths along the foreshore of the Parramatta River. The objectives of the project are reinforced by the State Government initiatives which aim to support increased access to recreation networks. These initiatives include: Sharing Sydney Harbour Access Plan (DIPNR 2003). Sydney Harbour Catchment Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Department of

Planning 2005). Sydney Metropolitan Recreational Trails Framework (DIPNR 2005, updated

2011). Walking Sydney Harbour (State and Local Government). Metro Strategy (Department of Planning 2005). Australian National Cycling Strategy 2005-2012 (Austroads 2005). Discussion Design process: The process for the design of this section of the Ryde River Walk included: The assembling of a Project Team comprised of environmental scientists,

archaeologists, landscape architects, civil and structural engineers, quantity surveyors and land surveyors;

A comprehensive community and stakeholder consultation process; The undertaking of archaeological investigations; The review of site environmental conditions; and The review of the site’s geotechnical and soil contaminants. Community Consultation: Community meetings were held in the later part of 2011. With the level of feedback received, a further 2,000 local residents and local community representatives were invited to attend community workshops to discuss the proposed project on the following dates in 2012: Community workshop 1 was held on 2 May 2012 and was attended by approx 40

people. Community workshop 2 was held on 30 May 2012 and was attended by approx

30 people. At the workshops the community expressed concerns about: Safety aspects of the proposed path and boardwalk over the water. Property boundary surveys and the impact the proposed path has on access to

water for local residents. Visual impacts the path may have on adjoining property owners. Impacts the path may have on local Aboriginal Heritage. Impacts the path may have on local European Heritage. Potential criminal activity along the path and impacts on adjoining properties.



Impacts of the potential increase in vehicular traffic and car parking in the

adjoining streets. That the boardwalk section may become a vessel mooring facility. The sediment toxicity of Glades Bay and the potential for the project to re-

suspend solids back into the water affecting local marine life. Taking into consideration all the community feedback received, along with the background research as part of the design process, a detailed design has been prepared in collaboration with ASPECT Pty Ltd together with detailed Statements of Environmental Effects prepared by NGHEnvironmental Pty Ltd. The proposed detailed design aims to: Provide an intimate scaled pathway that formalises an existing trail; Maximise the extent of accessible pathway where grades permit; Respect the neighbouring property interface through careful siting of the pathway

and boardwalk; Ensure the pathway is located to prevent impact on historical (both Aboriginal and

European) artefacts; Locate and design the pathway to minimise impact on vegetation (such as

locating the path away from threatened species); Provide a variety of experiences along the pathway with opportunities to rest, read

about the local history and absorb the views; Not increase or change to the existing dinghy storage area in Ross Street

Reserve; Enhance the natural environment through provision of additional tree and under-

storey planting. It is proposed that the detailed design and supporting documents be placed on public exhibition for a period of two (2) months and a report be submitted to Council following this process. Financial The funding sources for the project are listed below: Community Infrastructure Grant (Federal) $ 1,100,000 Sharing Sydney Harbour Access Program $ 52,167

Awarded January 2012 (State) Metropolitan Greenspace Program $ 200,000

Awarded February 2011 Bill Mitchell Reserve (State) Metropolitan Greenspace Program $ 12,500

Awarded February 2011 – Glades Bay (State) Sharing Sydney Harbour Access Program $ 83,875

Awarded February 2011 - Looking Glass Bay (State) City of Ryde match dollar-for-dollar

State Government Funding $ 348,542

Total funding $ 1,797,084



The adoption of the recommendation to go to the community with the detailed design and Statements of Environmental Effects ensures that we meet the funding partners’ expectations of a high level of community consultation.

Notices of Motion Page 233


NOTICES OF MOTION

1 EASTWOOD RYDE NETBALL ASSOCIATION - Councillor Roy Maggio

File Number: CLM/12/1/4/6 - BP12/1478

MOTION: That in recognition of her contribution to the Eastwood Ryde Netball Association and netball at all levels that the Courts situated at Meadowbank Park be named the Anne Doring Netball Courts. That Council install a plaque in the surrounding area to mark the great contribution of Ms Anne Doring with the naming ceremony and presentation to be held at the first game of the new netball season.

notice of meeting you are advised of the following meeting · 2015-08-11 · 6 december 2012 ....

Documents