Georges River letterhead design_HEADER

Council MEETING

 

Notice of Meeting

 

Monday, 4 July 2016

 

Thursday, 30 June 2016

 

Mr John Rayner

 

A Council Meeting will be held on Monday, 4 July 2016 at Hurstville Civic Centre, Council Chambers, MacMahon Street, Hurstville commencing at 6.00pm for the business available on Council’s website www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au

 

 

 

 

Ms G Connolly

General Manager

 

 

BUSINESS

 

1.         Acknowledgement of Traditional Custodians

2.         Apologies

3.         Disclosures of Interest

4.         Administrator Minutes

5.         Minutes of previous meeting

6.         Reports from Officers

7.         Confidential items

 

 

 

 


Council Meeting

Summary of Items

Monday, 4 July 2016

 

Previous Minutes

MINUTES: Council Meeting - 6 June 2016

 

Council Reports

CCL023-16       Planning Proposal - PP2016/0001 - 87 and 89 The Avenue Hurstville - Danebank School

(Report by Independent Assessment, Consultant Planner)........................................ 3

CCL024-16       Submissions Received to Public Exhibition of Draft Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1

(Report by Strategic Planner, Mr K Sanderson)........................................................ 63

CCL025-16       Summary of Development Application determination times and new Class 1 Appeals filed

(Report by Manager – Development Assessment, Ms T Christy)......................... 109

CCL026-16       Expansion of the Voluntary Pensioner Rebate Scheme

(Report by Chief Financial Officer, Mr T Caltabiano).............................................. 111

CCL027-16       Georges River Council Audit and Risk Management Committee

(Report by Acting Manager Corporate Governance, Mr A Gearon)..................... 114

CCL028-16       Georges River Investment Policy

(Report by Chief Financial Officer, Mr T Caltabiano).............................................. 131

CCL029-16       Investment Report as at 31 May 2016

(Report by Financial Accountant and Risk Management, Ms R Matienga).......... 149

CCL030-16       Advice on Court Proceedings - June 2016

(Report by General Counsel, Ms J Ware)................................................................ 156

CCL031-16       Council Seal

(Report by Manager Governance, Ms C Bush)....................................................... 163

CCL032-16       Power of Attorney

(Report by Manager Governance, Ms C Bush)....................................................... 164

CCL033-16       Pecuniary Interests Disclosures Returns and Register

(Report by Manager Governance, Ms C Bush)....................................................... 167

CCL034-16       Establishment of a Regional (Georges River) Chamber of Commerce

(Report by Hurstville Place Manager, Mr C Edmondson)...................................... 169

 

 

CCL035-16       Annual Major Events Schedule for Georges River Council

(Report by Acting Director Community and Culture, Ms A Murphy)...................... 171

CCL036-16       Georges River Council Traffic Committee - 7 June 2016

(Report by Acting Director Assets and Infrastructure, Mr L O’Connor)................. 174  

Confidential (Closed Council Meeting)

CON005-16       Proposed Road Closure and Sale of Part Boronia Parade Lugarno

(Report by Property Portfolio Manager, Mr B Morabito)

CON006-16       Proposed Lease of Kyle Bay on Georges (Formerly Club Blakehurst) Building

(Report by Buildings and Facilities Officer, Ms M  Malivindi)

CON007-16       Tender for the Hurstville Library Courtyard Modication and Archive Storage Facility

(Report by Manager Engineering Services, Mrs M Whitehurst)

CON008-16       Tender - T2/2016 Drainage Culvert Construction and Ancillary Works - Harris & Nelson Streets, Sans Souci, NSW

(Report by Manager Parks and Waterways, Mr G Moody)

CON009-16       Tender T3/2016 - New Toilet Facility, Oatley Bay Boat Ramp, Hurstville Grove, NSW

(Report by Manager Parks and Waterways, Mr G Moody)

CON010-16       SSROC Provision of Agricultural Products Tender

(Report by Coordinator Procurement, Ms M Getsios)

CON011-16       Insurance Matter - 6 Kingsway, Kingsgrove

(Report by General Counsel, Ms J Ware)  

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016                                                                      Page 3

 

6.      Council Reports

Item:                   CCL023-16        Planning Proposal - PP2016/0001 - 87 and 89 The Avenue Hurstville - Danebank School 

Author:              Independent Assessment, Consultant Planner and Manager Strategic Planning, Ms C Gregory

 

Recommendation

a)      THAT Council support the forwarding of the Planning Proposal (PP2016/0001) to the Department of Planning and Environment to request a Gateway Approval to rezone land within the Danebank School Campus (No. 87 and No. 89 The Avenue, Hurstville) to SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishments) and remove the minimum lot size, maximum building height and maximum floor space ratio controls consistent with SP2 Infrastructure zoned land.

 

 

Executive Summary

Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation has submitted a request that Council prepare a Planning Proposal to change the zoning of two (2) lots within the Danebank School campus (known as No. 87 and No. 89 The Avenue) from R2 Low Density Residential to SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment) under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“LEP 2012”).  No.87 and No.89 The Avenue are listed as items of environmental heritage under Schedule 5 of  Hurstville LEP 2012.

 

This report recommends that Council support the Planning Proposal (PP2016/0001) request for the following amendments to the Hurstville LEP 2012 in relation to No. 87 and No. 89 The Avenue, and consistent with the majority of the Danebank School campus:

 

·    rezone from R2 Low Density Residential to SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishments);

·    remove the minimum lot size of 450m2 and identify no minimum lot size;

·    remove the maximum building height of 9m and identify no maximum building height; and

·    remove the maximum floor space ratio of 0.6:1 and identify no maximum floor space ratio.

 

There is no change proposed to the heritage listing of the two (2) sites under the Hurstville LEP 2012 Schedule 5 of Environmental Heritage.

 

Council resolved at its meeting on 2 March 2016 to support a change in zoning and the removal of building height, floor space ratio maximums and minimum subdivision lot size for two (2) other lots within the Danebank School campus (No. 80 Park Road and No. 83 The Avenue); this has been supported by the Department of Planning and Environment and a Gateway Determination has been issued. The Planning Proposal will shortly be placed on community consultation.

 

No development applications are currently being considered on the Subject Site.

 

An independent planning consultant has been contracted to review the Planning Proposal and commence the assessment, including the preparation of this report.

 

 

 

IHAP Recommendation

The Georges River Council IHAP considered the Planning Proposal (PP2016/0001) at its meeting of 21 June 2016 and recommended:

 

The Georges River Council IHAP recommends that the Planning Proposal (PP2016/0001) to rezone land within the Danebank School Campus (No. 87 and No. 89 The Avenue, Hurstville) to SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishments) and remove the minimum lot size, maximum building height and maximum floor space ratio controls consistent with SP2 Infrastructure zoned land be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

 

Background

1.      The request to prepare a Planning Proposal (PP2016/0001) for two (2) lots within the Danebank School was submitted by the Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation on 8 March 2016. The Planning Proposal requests that two (2) lots (No. 87 and No. 89 The Avenue) currently zoned R2 Low Density Residential be rezoned to SP2 Infrastructure and that the maximum building height, maximum FSR and minimum lot size development standards not apply.

 

2.      The majority of land within the Danebank School campus is zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishments); the remaining lots are zoned R2 Low Density Residential (consistent with the surrounding residential area). Council recently supported a change in zoning and removal of the maximum building height, maximum FSR and minimum lot size development standards for two (2) other lots within the Danebank School campus (No. 80 Park Road and No. 83 The Avenue); this has been supported by the Department of Planning and Environment (Gateway Determination) and will shortly be on community consultation.

 

3.      The zoning of the Danebank School site in the Hurstville LEP 2012 (SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishments)) was a direct transfer from the previous Hurstville LEP 1994 zoning (Zone 5(a) (General Special Uses (School)). Those sites within the Danebank School campus zoned 2 (Residential Zone) under the Hurstville LEP 1994 were transferred to the equivalent R2 Low Density Residential Zone. It is noted that the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 allows for development for the purposes of “educational establishments” with consent in “prescribed zones”. The R2 Low Density Residential is a “prescribed zone” under Part 3 Division 3 Educational Establishments of the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007.

 

SITE DESCRIPTION

 

Subject Site

4.      The Subject Site includes two (2) lots with a combined area of approximately 1,302m2 which are known as No. 87 and No. 89 The Avenue, Hurstville and comprise:

·          Lot 97 in DP 1595 (No. 87 The Avenue) is a rectangular shaped lot which measures approximately 820m2 and has a frontage of approximately 17.5m to The Avenue and a depth of 47m; and

·          Lot 96 in DP 663361 (No. 89 The Avenue) is a rectangular shaped lot which measures approximately 482m2 and has a frontage of approximately 15.5m to The Avenue and a depth of 31m.

 

5.         No. 87 The Avenue also includes approximately 2m wide parcel of land (Lot 1 DP166769), adjacent to No. 99 The Avenue, which is not part of the Planning Proposal. This lot is currently zoned SP2 Infrastructure and has no maximum building height, maximum FSR or minimum lot size consistent with the majority of the Danebank School site.

 

The Subject Site is shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Site (bounded in red) and Surrounding Land (Source: Georges River Council)

6.      The existing buildings on the Subject Site are described below:

·     No. 87 The Avenue “Oikos” is a detached single storey face brick Federation cottage constructed in 1910-11. The Statement of Significance on the NSW Heritage website states:

The house formerly known as “Oikos” is of local significance for its historic, aesthetic and representative values as a Federation style cottage reflecting the development of the area following subdivision of the Hurstville Park Estate in 1885. It has aesthetic values and contribution to the streetscape character of The Avenue due to its distinctive Federation style cottage and architectural detailing including an asymmetrical facade and form, featuring a half hipped slate roof and gabled roofs facing the street at each side with terracotta ridges, finials and apex decoration, shingles to gable ends and tall brick chimneys with terracotta pots. A verandah supported by timber piers and a brick base flanks the front façade on the side”; and

 

·     No. 89 The Avenue “Sylvan” is a detached single storey dwelling with a tiled hipped roof constructed in 1936. The Statement of Significance on the NSW Heritage website states:

Sylvan at 89 The Avenue, Hurstville is of local significance for its ability in demonstrating evidence of rapid development and second phase of subdivision in the area. ‘Sylvan is a representative of the Inter-War period development in the area and together with the other historic buildings along The Avenue demonstrates the phases of development in Hurstville dating back from the Victorian and Federation periods to the Inter-War period. It contributes to the streetscape quality of The Avenue”.

 

Site History

7.      The Planning Proposal request provides a brief history of the Danebank School site, noting that the “Danebank School was established in 1933 and has accommodated further growth through progressive, staged expansion of the school campus since that time”. Details of recent development consents (since 1993) are listed and include construction of school library, staff rooms, class rooms, swimming pool complex and gymnasium, school hall and increase in staff and student numbers. The master plan for the staged redevelopment of the Danebank School was also provided and shows the Danebank School’s proposed staging plan (refer Appendix 1).

 

Surrounding Land

8.      The Subject Site is on the eastern boundary of the Danebank School campus as shown in Figure 1 above. The school contains both two (2) and three (3) storey buildings, with an internal open space area within the central spine of the school campus. As noted in the Planning Proposal request “the Junior and Senior School buildings are the dominant land use within the Park Road and The Avenue streetscape with 2-3 storey administration and classroom buildings extending along Park Road, with a Design and Technology building called “The Terraces”, a Drama and Performing Arts Centre and Gymnasium, ancillary school buildings and school bus parking area fronting The Avenue. The Danebank College Aquatic Centre, comprising an indoor swimming pool, multi-purpose sports court and carpark under also fronts The Avenue”.

 

9.      The Site sits within the Danebank School Campus, with school uses located immediately to the north, west and south.

 

10.    A summary of the land surrounding the boundaries of the Danebank School campus is provided below:

·     North - single and two (2) storey dwelling houses;

·     South - residential land use with No. 81 The Avenue and No. 78 Park Road including single and two (2) storey dwellings. Further south are single detached dwellings, with a number of multi storey residential flat buildings further south towards Queens Road;

·     East (across The Avenue) - predominantly single dwelling houses of one (1) and two (2) storeys.

 

Current Planning Controls

11.    The Hurstville LEP 2012 applies to the Subject Site and the following provisions are relevant to the Planning Proposal:

 

Land Zoning: the Subject Site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential.

 

 

 

Minimum Lot Size: the Subject Site has a minimum subdivision lot size of 450m2. There is no minimum lot size specified for the Danebank School campus land zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment).

 

 

Height of Buildings: the Subject Site has a maximum building height of 9m. There is no maximum building height specified for the Danebank School campus land zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment).

 

 

Floor Space Ratio: the Subject Site has a maximum floor space ratio of 0.6:1. There is no maximum floor space ratio specified for the Danebank School campus land zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment).

 

Heritage: the two (2) lots within the Subject Site are identified as items of environmental heritage in Schedule 5 of the Hurstville LEP 2012:

·    Item 51 – “Oikos” Federation House, No. 87 The Avenue (Lot 97 DP1595 and Lot 1 DP166769); and

·    Item 52 – “Sylvan”, No. 89 The Avenue (Lot 96 DP663361).

 

Item 51 also includes Lot 1 DP166769 which is a small parcel of land adjacent to No. 87 The Avenue which is zoned SP2 and does not form part of the Planning Proposal.  A number of heritage items are also located in close proximity as shown in the Heritage Map extract below.

 

 

 

APPLICANT’S PLANNING PROPOSAL REQUEST

12.       The Planning Proposal request submitted by Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation on 8 March 2016 was supported by the following documents:

·        Planning Proposal, Regularisation of Zoning of School-owned land to SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment), March 2016 (refer Appendix 1);

·        Planning Proposal, Completed Form and Checklist, 3 March 2016; and

·        Letter of Owners Consent, Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation, 3 March 2016.

 

13.       The Planning Proposal requests the following amendments to the Hurstville LEP 2012 in relation to No. 87 and No. 89 The Avenue, Hurstville:

·     Amend the Land Zoning Map to rezone the Subject Site from R2 Low Density Residential to SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishments);

·     Amend the Minimum Lot Size Map to remove the minimum lot size of 450m2 and identify no minimum lot size for the Subject Site, consistent with the SP2 Infrastructure zoned land;

·     Amend the Height of Buildings Map to remove the maximum building height of 9m and identify no maximum building height for the Subject Site, consistent with the SP2 Infrastructure zoned land; and

·     Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to remove the maximum floor space ratio of 0.6:1 and identify no maximum floor space ratio for the Subject Site, consistent with the SP2 Infrastructure zoned land.

 

14.       An assessment of the Applicant’s Planning Proposal request concluded that sufficient information has been provided. The Planning Proposal is supported and it is recommended that it progress to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

 

THE PLANNING PROPOSAL

15.       The Planning Proposal has been assessed under the relevant sections of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulation 2000 and the following advisory documents prepared by the Department of Planning and Environment:

·        “A guide to preparing planning proposals” (October 2012); and

·        “A guide to preparing local environmental plans” (April 2013).

 

16.       The assessment includes a review of the strategic planning framework and a site-specific assessment as listed below:

·   Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012;

·   State Environmental Planning Policies;

·   Ministerial Section 117 Directions;

·   Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts; and

·   Services and Infrastructure.

 

17.       Section 55 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 outlines that a planning proposal must explain the intended effect and the justification for making the proposed instrument and must include the following components:

·     A statement of the objectives and intended outcomes of the proposed instrument (Part 1);

·     An explanation of the provisions that are to be included in the proposed instrument (Part 2);

·     The justification for those objectives, outcomes and the process for their implementation (including whether the proposed instrument will comply with relevant directions under section 117) (Part 3);

·     Maps, where relevant, to identify the intent of the planning proposal and the area to which it applies (Part 4); and

·     Details of community consultation that is to be undertaken before consideration is given to the making of the proposed instrument (Part 5).

 

Parts 1 – 5 below address the information requirements for Planning Proposals.

 

Part 1 – Objectives and Intended Outcomes

18.    The objective of the Planning Proposal is to rezone two (2) lots within the Danebank School campus from R2 Low Density Residential to SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment) and remove the principal development standards (minimum lot size, maximum building height and maximum floor space ratio), consistent with the zoning and planning controls for the majority of the Danebank School campus and which reflects the use of the land as an “educational establishment”.

 

19.    The intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal are to:

·     Provide a uniform SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment) zoning for the majority of the Danebank School campus;

·     Ensure that the land use zone reflects the existing use of the land as an “educational establishment”;

·     Create certainty in relation to the retention of community (educational) assets that will support the social, community and educational needs of the community;

·     Allow for development of educational establishment buildings consistent with their use and the existing scale of development within the Danebank School Campus; and

·     Ensure that sufficient zoned land for educational establishments is provided within the Georges River LGA and is available for existing and future residents.

 

Part 2 – Explanation of Provisions

20.    The proposed intended outcome (refer Part 1) will be achieved by amending the Hurstville LEP 2012 as follows:

·        Amending the Land Zoning Map (Sheet LNZ_008) on the Subject Site in accordance with the proposed zoning map shown in Appendix 2 to change the zoning of the site from R2 Low Density Residential Zone to SP2 Educational Establishments; and

·        Amending the Lot Size Map (Sheet LSZ_008)) to remove the minimum lot size applicable to the Subject Site in accordance with the proposed Lot Size Map shown in Appendix 2;

·        Amending the Height of Buildings Map (Sheet HOB_008) to remove the maximum building height applicable to the Subject Site in accordance with the proposed Height of Buildings Map shown in Appendix 2; and

·        Amending the Floor Space Ratio Map (Sheet FSR_008) to remove the maximum floor space ratio applicable to the Subject Site in accordance with the proposed Floor Space Ratio Map shown in Appendix 2.

 

21.       It is noted that under the current SP2 Infrastructure zoning for the Danebank School campus no maximum floor space ratio, maximum building height or minimum lot size restrictions apply; generally consistent with SP2 Infrastructure zoned land in the Georges River LGA.

 

Part 3 – Justification

22.       Section A – Need for the planning proposal

Is the planning proposal a result of any strategic study or report?

 

No. There are no specific strategic studies or reports relating to the Planning Proposal. The Planning Proposal applies a land use zone consistent with the majority of the land within the Danebank School campus which is zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment).

 

The Planning Proposal request is the result of a decision by the Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation and Danebank School.

 

Is the planning proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way?

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 allows for development for the purposes of educational establishments with consent in “prescribed zones”. The R2 Low Density Residential (which the Subject site is currently zoned) is a “prescribed zone” under Part 3 Division 3 Educational Establishments of the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007. The Planning Proposal removes the maximum building height and maximum FSR development standards which will allow the educational establishment to better utilise the existing land area and provide for improved educational facilities.

 

The Planning Proposal is the best means of achieving the objectives and intended outcomes by introducing a SP2 land use zoning on the subject site, consistent with the majority of the land within the Danebank School campus, and removing the development standards which relate to the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

23.       Section B – Relationship to strategic planning framework

Is the planning proposal consistent with the objectives and actions of the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy (including A Plan for Growing Sydney and exhibited draft South Subregional Strategy)?

 

The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with relevant strategies including A Plan for Growing Sydney which sets the strategic direction for Sydney towards 2031 and the draft South Subregional Strategy. The proposed changes to the two (2) lots within the Danebank School campus will have no impact on the objectives and actions of the Plan and draft Strategy and will assist in providing better educational infrastructure for the locality by facilitating consolidation of zoning controls applicable to an existing educational establishment and allowing for better and more efficient use of the existing site area.

 

Is the planning proposal consistent with a council’s local strategy or other local strategic plan?

 

24.       The Hurstville LEP 2012 reflects Council’s strategic direction for the Georges River LGA; the Planning Proposal satisfies the following LEP objectives:

·     to encourage and co-ordinate the orderly and economic use and development of land that is compatible with local amenity,

·     to ensure development is carried out in such a way as to promote the efficient and equitable provision of public services, infrastructure and community facilities,

·     to concentrate intensive land uses and trip-generating activities in locations most accessible to transport and centres,

 

25.       The Planning Proposal will provide for a consistent SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishments) zoning of the Danebank School campus.

 

26.       As detailed in the Planning Proposal request, the zoning change is consistent with the Hurstville Community Strategic Plan 2025 Social and Cultural Development and Economic Prosperity Pillars, in that it will:

·     Provide economic prosperity to the LGA and provide quality school facilities for the well-being and benefit of current and future residents; and

·     Ensure sufficient educational establishments are provided for the existing and future residents.

 

Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable State Environmental Planning Policies?

 

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs)

27.       The full assessment of the Planning Proposal against all the State Environmental Planning Policies (“SEPPs”) is provided in Appendix 3 and within the Applicant’s submission (Appendix 1).

 

28.       The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 provisions. The SEPP will apply to all future development on the SP2 Infrastructure zoned land for the purpose of “educational establishment”.

 

Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions (s.117 Directions)?

 

Ministerial Direction (Section 117 Directions)

29.       A checklist of the Planning Proposal’s consistency with the full set of Section 117 Ministerial Directions is included in Appendix 3.  The Directions that are relevant to the Planning Proposal are considered in the Table below.

 

Section 117 Directions

Comment

2.3 Heritage Conservation

The Hurstville LEP 2012 contains Standard Instrument LEP provisions to facilitate the heritage conservation. No change to the heritage listing of No.87 and No.89 The Avenue, Hurstville is proposed.

3.1 Residential Zones

The Planning Proposal will result in a very minor reduction in R2 Low Density Residential zoned land. The current and future use of the Subject Site is for an educational establishment.

3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport

Consistent. The Subject Site is strategically positioned in terms of proximity to the Hurstville City Centre and the Hurstville Railway Station and Bus Interchange. The Planning Proposal does not hinder the application of this Direction.

6.1 Approval and Referral Requirements

The Planning Proposal does not include provisions that require concurrence, consultation or referral of development applications to the Minister or public authority or identify development as designated development.

6.2 Reserving Land for Public Purposes

Consistent. The Planning Proposal does not hinder the application of this Direction. No lands are proposed to be reserved for Public Purposes through the Planning Proposal.

7.1 Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney

The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with the NSW Government’s A Plan for Growing Sydney (December 2014).

 

30.       Section C – Environmental, social and economic impact

Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely affected as a result of the proposal?

 

No. There is no likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, population or ecological communities, or their habitat will be adversely affected. The site is within the existing Danebank School campus and, as noted above, contains existing school buildings and areas of open space (landscaping and open lawn areas).

 

Are there any other likely environmental effects as a result of the planning proposal and how are they proposed to be managed?

 

It is not envisaged that there will be any adverse environmental effects resulting from the proposed change in zoning of the Subject Site. No physical works are proposed and, as noted above, “educational establishments” are currently permitted (with consent) through the provisions of the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007. The use of the land as an educational establishment will remain. The Planning Proposal request notes that “over time, the land will be upgraded and redeveloped in response to the changing needs of the School’s students and modern teaching practice”.

 

As considered above, no change is proposed to the existing heritage listing of No. 87 and No. 89 The Avenue, Hurstville.

 

Has the planning proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects?

 

Yes, the social and economic effects have been adequately addressed. There will be no adverse social and economic effects as a consequence of the Planning Proposal. Any future school facilities would be to the benefit of both the Hurstville and wider community and provide services for the growing Hurstville student population. In addition, the Danebank School provides employment opportunities and economic benefits for the local and wider community. The removal of the R2 Low Density Residential zoning on the two (2) lots will not have an impact on housing supply in the Georges River LGA. It is noted that these two residential lots are currently owned and used by Danebank School for educational and administrative purposes.

 

31.       Section D – State and Commonwealth interests

Is there adequate public infrastructure for the planning proposal?

 

The Planning Proposal zoning change to SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishments) will not impact on the current use of the land as an educational establishment and will not increase demand on essential public infrastructure. The Subject Site is within the established Danebank School campus which is well serviced by public infrastructure, including:

·     Road access, being within close proximity to Queens Road, a major road on the boundary of the Hurstville City Centre; and

·     The location of the Danebank School, within walking distance to the Hurstville Train Station and Bus Interchange.

 

What are the views of State and Commonwealth public authorities consulted in accordance with the Gateway determination?

 

State and Commonwealth public authorities will be consulted following the outcomes, and in line with any recommendations, of the Gateway Determination.

 

32.       Part 4 – Mapping

The following maps have been prepared, consistent with the “Standard Technical Requirements for LEP Maps” and identify the Subject Site and the proposed land use zone and development standards:

·     Land subject to the Planning Proposal;

·     Proposed land use zone;

·     Proposed minimum lot size;

·     Proposed maximum building height; and

·     Proposed maximum floor space ratio.

 

The full set of maps showing the proposed changes is included in Appendix 2.

 

The current land use zone and principal development standards (minimum lot size, maximum building height and maximum floor space ratio) maps are considered above in an earlier section of the report.

 

33.       Part 5 – Community Consultation

It is anticipated that the Planning Proposal will be exhibited for a period of twenty eight (28) days in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and Regulation, 2000 and any requirements of the Gateway Determination.

 

Exhibition material, including explanatory information, land to which the Planning Proposal applies, description of the objectives and intended outcomes, copy of the Planning Proposal and relevant maps will be available for viewing during the exhibition period on Council’s website and hard copies available at Council offices and libraries.

 

Notification of the public exhibition will be through:

·        Newspaper advertisement in The St George and Sutherland Shire Leader;

·        Exhibition notice on Council’s website;

·        Notices in Council offices and libraries;

·        Letters to State and Commonwealth Government agencies identified in the Gateway Determination; and

·        Letters to adjoining landowners (in accordance with Council’s Notification Procedures).

 

34.       Part 6 – Project Timeline

The anticipated project timeline for completion of the Planning Proposal is shown below:

 

Task

Anticipated Timeframe

Lodgement of Planning Proposal request by Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation.

8 March 2016

Reporting to Council on Planning Proposal

4 July 2016 (this report)

Anticipated commencement date (date of Gateway determination)

July/August 2016

Anticipated timeframe for the completion of required technical information

N/A

Timeframe for government agency consultation (pre and post exhibition as required by Gateway determination)

July/August 2016

Commencement and completion dates for public exhibition period (twenty eight (28) days)

August 2016

Dates for public hearing (if required)

As required

Timeframe for consideration of submissions

September 2016

Timeframe for the consideration by Council of a proposal post  exhibition

September/October 2016

Date of submission to the Department to finalise the LEP

October 2016

 

It is noted that the project timeline will be assessed by the Department of Planning and Environment and may be amended by the Gateway Determination.

 

35.    CONCLUSION

In summary, the Planning Proposal to rezone two (2) lots within the Danebank School campus (No. 87 and No. 89 The Avenue, Hurstville) from R2 Low Density Residential to SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishments), consistent with the zoning of the majority of the campus, and the removal of the principal development standards; minimum lot size, maximum building height and maximum floor space ratio (also consistent with the SP2 Infrastructure zoned land) is supported. The key reasons for support include that the:

·        Proposed SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment) zoning and changes to the principal development standards will provide consistent zoning and development standards across the majority of land within the Danebank School campus and reflects the existing school use of the site;

·        Proposed zoning change, and the consequent reduction in R2 Low Density Residential zoned land, will not impact on the supply of residential accommodation in the LGA. The Subject Site has been owned and used by Danebank School for school-related purposes for more than 10 years; and

·        Rezoning will provide for long-term certainty for the existing Danebank School, as well as provide for the current and likely future needs of educational facilities in the Georges River LGA.

 

36.    NEXT STEPS

 

Support Planning Proposal

If Council resolves to support the Planning Proposal and send the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for consideration.

 

Once the Planning Proposal is submitted to the Department the Proposal will be assessed and a recommendation to the Minister (or delegate) as to whether there is merit in the Proposal proceeding and if so, whether any conditions should be attached to the Proposal to ensure it progresses. If it is determined that a Proposal should proceed, the Minister (or delegate) will issue a Gateway Determination and the matter will be returned to Council to finalise in accordance with any conditions imposed by the Gateway Determination.

 

37.    Pre-Gateway Review

If Council resolves not to adopt the recommendation in this report to support the Planning Proposal, the Applicant has the opportunity to request a pre-Gateway Review by the Department of Planning and Environment. An applicant has forty (40) days from the date of notification of Council’s decision to request a review.

 

The Department will notify Council of an Applicant’s request for review if it is confirmed to be eligible and complete. The Council will have twenty one (21) days to provide a response in relation to why the original request to Council was not supported. The Department will review the Proposal and the Secretary will make the final decision whether the Planning Proposal proceeds to Gateway.

 

Operational Plan Budget

Within budget allocation.

 

 

 

APPENDICES

Appendix View1

Applicant's Planning Proposal Report - 87 and 89 The Avenue Hurstville

Appendix View2

Proposed Hurstville LEP 2012 Map Amendments

Appendix View3

SEPP and S117 Direction Consideration

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016

CCL023-16          Planning Proposal - PP2016/0001 - 87 and 89 The Avenue Hurstville - Danebank School

[Appendix 1]          Applicant's Planning Proposal Report - 87 and 89 The Avenue Hurstville


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016

CCL023-16          Planning Proposal - PP2016/0001 - 87 and 89 The Avenue Hurstville - Danebank School

[Appendix 2]          Proposed Hurstville LEP 2012 Map Amendments


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016

CCL023-16          Planning Proposal - PP2016/0001 - 87 and 89 The Avenue Hurstville - Danebank School

[Appendix 3]          SEPP and S117 Direction Consideration

State Environmental Planning Policies

The following is a list of State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) that apply to the Subject Site and consideration of the Planning Proposal’s consistency with the objectives and provisions of the SEPPs.

State Environmental Planning Policy

Applicable

Consideration

SEPP No.1 – Development Standards

Not applicable to Hurstville.

Repealed by clause 1.9 of Hurstville LEP 2012.

SEPP No.14 – Coastal Wetlands

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

SEPP No.15 – Rural Landsharing Communities

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

SEPP No.19 – Bushland in Urban Areas

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

The Subject Site is located within the established urban area of Hurstville in the existing Danebank School campus.

SEPP No.21 – Caravan Parks

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

The proposed rezoning to SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment) will prohibit caravan parks.

SEPP No.26 – Littoral Rainforests

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

SEPP No.29 – Western Sydney Recreation Area

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

SEPP No.30 – Intensive Agriculture

Not applicable to Hurstville

--

SEPP No.32 – Urban Consolidation (Redevelopment of Urban Land)

Not applicable to Planning Proposal.

The proposed rezoning to SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment) will reflect the current use of the land for school purposes. Residential accommodation will be prohibited under the SP2 zone. The Planning Proposal does not hinder the application of this SEPP.

SEPP No.33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

The proposed rezoning to SP2 Infrastructure (Education Establishment) will prohibit hazardous and offensive industries on the Subject Site. The existing R2 Low Density Residential zoning also prohibits these land uses.

SEPP No.36 – Manufactured Home Estates

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

SEPP No.39 – Spit Island Bird Habitat

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

SEPP No.44 – Koala Habitat Protection

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

SEPP No.47 – Moore Park Showground

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

SEPP No.50 – Canal Estate Development

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

The Planning Proposal does not propose canal estate development.

SEPP No.52 – Farm Dams and Other Works in Land and Water Management Plan Areas

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

SEPP No.55 – Remediation of Land

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Consistent. The Planning Proposal will not hinder the application of this SEPP.

SEPP No.59 – Central Western Sydney Regional Open Space and Residential

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

SEPP No.62 – Sustainable Aquaculture

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Consistent. The Planning Proposal will not hinder the application of this SEPP.

SEPP No.64 – Advertising and Signage

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Consistent. The Planning Proposal will not hinder the application of this SEPP.

SEPP No.65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

The proposed rezoning to SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment) will reflect the current use of the land for school purposes. Residential flat buildings will be prohibited under the SP2 zone.

SEPP No.70 – Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes)

Not applicable to Hurstville.

---

SEPP No.71 – Coastal Protection

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

The proposed rezoning to SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment) will reflect the current use of the land for school purposes. Residential accommodation will be prohibited under the SP2 zone.

SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Any future school development will not be required to comply with the BASIX requirements for residential accommodation.

SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Not inconsistent. The Planning Proposal does not hinder the application of this SEPP.

SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

The proposed rezoning to SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment) will reflect the current use of the land for school purposes. Residential accommodation will be prohibited under the SP2 zone.

SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007

Applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Consistent. The SEPP will apply to all future development on the SP2 Infrastructure zoned land.

SEPP (Kosciuszko National Park – Alpine Resorts) 2007

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

SEPP (Kurnell Peninsula) 1989

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

SEPP (Major Development) 2005

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Not inconsistent. The Planning Proposal does not hinder the application of this SEPP.

SEPP (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Not inconsistent. The Planning Proposal does not hinder the application of this SEPP.

SEPP (Miscellaneous Consent Provisions) 2007

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Not inconsistent. The Planning Proposal does not hinder the application of this SEPP.

SEPP (Penrith Lakes Scheme) 1989

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

SEPP (Rural Lands) 2008

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

SEPP (SEPP 53 Transitional Provisions) 2011

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

SEPP (State and Regional Development) 2011

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Not inconsistent. The Planning Proposal does not hinder the application of this SEPP.

SEPP (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

SEPP (Three Ports) 2013

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

SEPP (Urban Renewal) 2010

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Not inconsistent. The Planning Proposal does not hinder the application of this SEPP.

SEPP (Western Sydney Employment Area) 2009

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

SEPP (Western Sydney Parklands) 2009

Not applicable to Hurstville

--

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No.2 – Georges River Catchment (deemed SEPP)

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Not inconsistent. The Planning Proposal does not hinder the application of this deemed SEPP.

 

Section 117 Ministerial Directions

The following is a list of Directions issues by the Minister for Planning to relevant planning authorities under section 117(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. These directions apply to planning proposals lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment.

Direction

Applicable

Comment

1. Employment and Resources

1.1  Business and Industrial Zones

Objectives:

(a)   Encourage employment growth in suitable locations

(b)   Protect employment land in business and industrial zones,

(c)   Support the viability of identified strategic centres.

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

The Subject Site is not located within a business or industrial zone.

1.2  Rural Zones

 

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

1.3  Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries

Objective:

To ensure that the future extraction of State or regionally significant reserves of coal, other minerals, petroleum and extractive materials are not compromised by inappropriate development.

Not applicable to Planning Proposal.

The Planning Proposal does not have any effect on mining, petroleum production and extractive industries.

1.4  Oyster Aquaculture

Objectives:

(a)   To ensure that Priority Oyster Aquaculture Areas and oyster aquaculture outside such an area are adequately considered when preparing a planning proposal.

(b)   To protect Priority Oyster Aquaculture Areas and oyster aquaculture outside such an area from land uses that may result in adverse impacts on water quality and consequently, on the health of oyster and oyster consumers.

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

The Planning Proposal does not propose a change in land use which could result in adverse impacts on a Priority Oyster Aquaculture Area or an incompatible use of land.

1.5  Rural Lands

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

2. Environment and Heritage

2.1  Environment Protection Zones

Objective:

To protect and conserve environmentally sensitive areas.

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

The Subject Site is not located within an environmental protection zone and the Proposal does not impact on environmentally sensitive areas.

2.2  Coastal Protection

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

2.3  Heritage Conservation

Objective:

To conserve items, areas, objects and places of environmental heritage significance and indigenous heritage significance.

Applicable to the Planning Proposal.

The Hurstville LEP 2012 contains Standard Instrument LEP provisions to facilitate the heritage conservation. No change to these provisions is proposed. The Subject Site includes two (2) heritage items as considered in the body of the report. No change to the heritage listing is proposed.

2.4  Recreation Vehicle Areas

Objective:

To protect sensitive land or land with significant conservation values from adverse impacts from recreation vehicles.

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

The Planning Proposal is not within an environmental protection zone or coastal areas identified in the Direction.

3. Housing, Infrastructure and Urban Development

3.1  Residential Zones

Objectives:

(a)   To encourage a variety and choice of housing types to provide for existing and future housing needs

(b)   To make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services and ensure that new housing has appropriate access to infrastructure and services

(c)   To minimise the impact of residential development on environment and resource lands.

Applicable to Planning Proposal.

The Planning Proposal will result in a very minor reduction in R2 Low Density Residential zoned land. The current and future use of the Subject Site is for an educational establishment.

3.2  Caravan Parks and Manufactured Home Estates

Objectives:

(a)   To provide for a variety of housing types

(b)   To provide opportunities for caravan parks and manufactured home estates.

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

The proposed rezoning to SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment) will reflect the current use of the land for school purposes. Caravan parks and manufactured home estates are prohibited under the SP2 zone.

3.3  Home Occupations

Objective:

To encourage the carrying out of low-impact small businesses in dwelling houses.

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

The proposed rezoning to SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment) will reflect the current use of the land for school purposes. Dwelling houses (and home occupations) are prohibited under the SP2 zone.

3.4  Integrating Land Use and Transport

Objective:

To ensure that urban structures, building forms, land use locations, development designs, subdivision and street layouts achieve the following planning objectives:

(a)   Improving access to housing, jobs and services by walking, cycling and public transport

(b)   Increasing the choice of available transport and reducing dependence on cars

(c)   Reducing travel demand including the number of trips generated by development and the distances travelled, especially by car

(d)   Supporting the efficient and viable operation of public transport services

(e)   Providing for the efficient movement of freight.

Not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Consistent. The Subject Site is strategically positioned in term of proximity to the Hurstville City Centre and the Hurstville Railway Station and Bus Interchange. The Planning Proposal does not hinder the application of this Direction.

3.5  Development Near Licensed Aerodromes

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

3.6  Shooting Ranges

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

4. Hazard and Risk

4.1  Acid Sulfate Soils

Objective:

To avoid significant adverse environmental impacts from the use of land that has a probability of containing acid sulfate soils.

Not applicable to Planning Proposal.

The Subject Site is not within an area identified as land having a probability of containing acid sulfate soils.

4.2  Mine Subsidence and Unstable Land

 

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

4.3  Flood Prone Land

Not applicable to Planning Proposal.

The Subject Site is not within an area identified as Flood Prone Land.

4.4  Planning for Bushfire Protection

Not applicable to Planning Proposal.

The Subject Site is not within a Bushfire Prone Area.

5. Regional Planning

5.1  Implementation of Regional Strategies

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

5.2  Sydney Drinking Water Catchments

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

5.3  Farmland of State and Regional Significance on the NSW Far North Coast

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

5.4  Commercial and Retail Development along the Pacific Highway, North Coast

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

5.5  Revoked

--

--

5.6  Revoked

--

--

5.7  Revoked

--

--

5.8  Second Sydney Airport: Badgerys Creek

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

5.9  North West Rail Link Corridor Strategy

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

6. Local Plan Making

6.1  Approval and Referral Requirements

Objective:

To ensure that LEP provisions encourage the efficient and appropriate assessment of development.

Yes

The Planning Proposal does not include provisions that require concurrence, consultation or referral of development applications to the Minister or public authority or identify development as designated development.

6.2  Reserving Land for Public Purposes

Objective:

(a)   To facilitate the provision of public services and facilities by reserving land for public purposes, and

(b)   To facilitate the removal of reservations of land for public purposes where the land is no longer required for acquisition.

Yes

Consistent. The Planning Proposal does not hinder the application of this Direction. No lands are proposed to be reserved for Public Purposes through the Planning Proposal.

6.3  Site Specific Provisions

Objective:

To discourage unnecessary restrictive site specific planning controls.

Not applicable to Planning Proposal.

No site specific provisions are proposed.

7. Metropolitan Planning

7.1  Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney

Objective:

To give legal effect to the planning principles, directions and priorities for subregions, strategic centres and transport gateways contained in A Plan for Growing Sydney.

Yes

The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with the NSW Government’s A Plan for Growing Sydney (December 2014).

7.2  Implementation of Greater Macarthur Land Release Investigation

Not applicable to Hurstville.

--

 

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016                                                                       Page 62

 

Item :                  CCL024-16        Submissions Received to Public Exhibition of Draft Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1 

Author :             Strategic Planner, Mr K Sanderson and Manager Strategic Planning, Ms C Gregory

 

 

 

Recommendation

a)      THAT Council resolve, pursuant to Section 74C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and in accordance with Clause 21 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, to approve the amendment to Hurstville Development Control Plan No.1, as described in this report.

 

b)      THAT Council give public notice of the decision to approve the amendment to Hurstville Development Control Plan No.1, in the local paper within 28 days in accordance with Clause 21(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

c)      THAT Council endorse the Acting Director Environment and Planning to make minor modifications to any numerical, typographical, interpretation and formatting errors, if required, in the finalisation of the draft plan.

 

d)      FURTHER THAT those persons who made a submission regarding draft amendments to Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1 be advised of Council’s decision.

 

 

Executive Summary

The former Hurstville City Council at its meeting of 9 December 2015 resolved to publicly exhibit a draft amendment to Development Control Plan No. 1 – LGA Wide (DCP No.1).  DCP No. 1 applies to land within the Peakhurst, Mortdale and Hurstville Wards of Georges River Council (with the exception of land identified as the Hurstville City Centre). The primary purpose of the draft amendment to DCP No. 1 is to:

 

1.      Reinforce its guidance role,

2.      Reduce the size and complexity of the document,

3.      Update controls for all residential development types (Section 4) including:

a.      Residential Flat Buildings

b.      Multi Dwelling Housing

c.       Dual Occupancy

d.      Dwelling Houses on Standard Lots

e.      Dwelling Houses on Small Lots

f.        Secondary Dwellings

g.      Outbuildings

4.      Consolidate and update landscaping (Section 3.5) and stormwater management provisions (Section 3.7),

5.      Introduce new public domain provisions (Section 3.6),

6.      Update car parking rates (Section 3.1),

7.      DCP formatting, cross-referencing, diagrams and layout,

8.      Minor changes to public notification requirements for undetermined development applications,

9.      Minor and administrative amendments.

The draft amendments to DCP No.1 were exhibited from Wednesday 27 January to Thursday 25 February 2016 and three (3) submissions were received. All submissions relate to solar access requirements for residential development.

This matter was considered by the former Hurstville City Council on 6 April and 4 May 2016 and the Council was unable to achieve a quorum.

This report provides details of the public exhibition of the draft amendment to DCP No.1 and recommends that Council approve the amendments as set out in this report.

 

Background

1.         The former Hurstville City Council initiated the proposed amendment to DCP No.1 – Hurstville LGA Wide through a Mayoral Minute on 5 November 2014 (Minute No. 475), as follows:

“As Councillors may be aware, there is some ambiguity between the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Development Control Plan No. 1, as well as within the Development Control Plan No. 1. In order to rectify this issue, I propose that the General Manager be given authority to engage a consultant to undertake a review of the two plans and amend the anomalies. This will ensure that both plans are in order, concise and user-friendly.”

2.         Following this, Council engaged independent planning consultants (JBA Urban Planning) to conduct a review and prepare a new DCP No. 1 document and make recommendations for amendments to Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012.

 

3.         For a complete discussion on the changes to DCP No.1 refer to attachments 1 and 2.

 

Councillor Workshops

4.         As a part of the review, three (3) workshops with Councillors of the former Hurstville City Council were held on 9 May 2015, 22 July 2015 and 21 November 2015. The purpose of the first workshop was for the consultants to gather feedback. The second and third workshops were to brief Councillors on key recommendations and proposed changes to DCP No. 1 and Hurstville LEP 2012.

 

Public Exhibition

5.         The Draft Hurstville DCP No. 1 - LGA Wide (Amendment No. 5) was placed on public exhibition from Wednesday 27 January 2016 to Thursday 25 February 2016. The draft plan was available for viewing in hard copy at the Hurstville Service Centre and the Hurstville and Penshurst Public Libraries. The draft plan was also available electronically on Council's website. A total of two (2) advertisements were placed in the St George Leader newspaper on Wednesday 27 January 2016 and Wednesday 17 February 2016.

 

Submissions Received

6.         Council received three (3) submissions during the public exhibition period.

 

7.         All submissions relate to solar access requirements for residential development (Residential Flat Buildings, Multi Dwelling Housing, Dual Occupancy, Dwelling Houses on Standard Lots and Dwelling Houses on Small Lots). The submissions request an amendment to the Performance Criteria and Design Solutions relating to solar access on east-west orientated sites.

 

8.         In order to ensure an appropriate amount of solar access is maintained to adjoining sites, the Draft DCP includes the following Design Solution and Note:

“Development allows for at least 3 hours of sunlight on the windows of main living areas and adjoining principal private open space of adjacent dwellings between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm on 22 June.”

“Note 2:   Exemptions will be considered for developments that comply with all other requirements but are located on sites with an east-west orientation.”

9.         One of the submitters requests that the following wording be added to the Note:

“Note 2:   Exemptions will be considered for developments that comply with all other requirements but are located on sites with an east-west orientation [except where an adjoining dwelling has a north-south orientation].”

10.       Circumstances where the adjoining dwelling has a north-south orientation include lots situated on and near street corners or dwellings within a Multiple Dwelling development with courtyards situated towards the northern boundary of sites. Other submitters suggest removal of the exemption for east-west sites altogether.

 

11.       In support of this request, BASIX guidelines are referred to which set out that energy efficiency and passive home heating is maximised by “locating private open space to the north in order to allow sufficient space from adjacent buildings for winter solar access”.  It is also stated that other councils in the area do have such an exemption and that the Land and Environment Court issued planning principles on solar access do not include any exemptions for east-west site orientation, and said in part, “Overshadowing arising out of poor design is not acceptable, even if it satisfies numerical guidelines. The poor quality of a proposal’s design may be demonstrated by a more sensitive design that achieves the same amenity without substantial additional cost, while reducing the impact on neighbours”.

 

12.       The submitters also suggest that, for consistency with the Residential Flat Building section, the wording of the Solar Access Performance Criteria for Multi Dwelling Housing and Dual Occupancy be adjusted as follows:

“Development ensures an appropriate amount of solar access to main living areas and areas of private open space within the site and adjoining sites [is maintained].

Council officer comment:

13.       The exemption for east-west sites which comply with all other requirements is intended to allow for a merit based assessment on a case by case basis. While 3 hours of sunlight to windows of main living areas and principle private open space of adjacent dwellings between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 22 June is always the most desired outcome, it is also acknowledged that there are instances where meeting this standard can be unreasonable due to site orientation and the context of the development site and surrounds. In these cases, the exemption enables a merit based assessment to be carried out which balances the need to allow for an appropriate level of solar access to adjoining sites with the ability to develop sites in accordance with other requirements (in particular, the allowable building height and required building setbacks). For this reason, limiting the flexibility the exemption provides is not supported. It is recommended that no change to the exemption for east-west sites be made.

 

14.       The requested amendment to the Solar Access Performance Criteria for Multi Dwelling Housing and Dual Occupancy to include the wording “is maintained” is not supported. Including this wording implies that the level of solar access currently experienced on a site may never be reduced when an adjoining site is developed under the planning controls. This is not always achievable, particularly where the site to be developed is currently vacant or underdeveloped.

 

15.       However, the wording “is maintained” was inadvertently included in the Residential Flat Building part (Section 4.1) of the exhibited Draft DCP No.1. It is recommended that, for consistency, the Performance Criteria for Residential Flat Buildings be amended as outlined below. Input from Council’s Development Assessment staff has informed the response to issues raised in the submissions received.

Recommendation

16.       It is recommended that the following amendment be made to Solar Access Performance Criteria for Residential Flat Buildings (Section 4.1, PC9) of the Draft DCP No.1 as a result of the public submissions received:

 “Development ensures an appropriate amount of solar access to main living areas and areas of principal private open space of adjoining sites is maintained

17.       The Performance Criteria for Residential Flat Buildings only relates to solar access to adjoining sites as the level of solar access to apartments within a development is controlled separately by the Apartment Design Guide (NSW Department of Planning and Environment, 2015).

 

Other Post-exhibition Amendments

18.       Following the public exhibition of Draft DCP No.1, a number of amendments to Hurstville DCP No.1 have been identified by staff and are set out in the following table.

 

DCP Section

Exhibited

Proposed amendment

Name of DCP 1 and document formatting

The exhibited Draft DCP was titled “DCP No.1 – Hurstville LGA Wide”

The DCP has been renamed as “Hurstville DCP No.1” throughout the document. This renaming is needed following the amalgamation of the former Hurstville and Kogarah councils to form the new Georges River Council.  DCP No.1 applies to land within the Peakhurst, Mortdale and Hurstville Wards of the Georges River Council, with the exception of land identified as the Hurstville City Centre, to which DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre applies.

The formatting of the exhibited Draft DCP No.1 has also been adjusted to remove references to “Hurstville LGA” and the Hurstville Council logo throughout the document.

Solar Access Performance Criteria - Dwelling Houses

(Section 4.4, PC6 and Section 4.5, PC6)

During the exhibition period it was noted that the wording of the Performance Criteria (PC) for Solar Access differs between residential development types. Dwelling Houses on Standard Lots and Dwelling Houses on Small Lots include the following wording:

“Development provides adequate solar access to main living areas and areas of principle private open space and minimises reliance on artificial light”

It is recommended that the wording of the Performance Criteria for Solar Access for Dwelling Houses on Standard Lots (Section 4.4, PC6), and Dwelling Houses on Small Lots (Section 4.5, PC6), be amended to be made consistent with the Solar Access Performance Criteria for Multiple Dwellings and Dual Occupancy, as follows:

“Development ensures an appropriate amount of solar access to main living areas and areas of principal private open space within the site and adjoining sites”

Solar Access - Design Solutions  - Residential Development

 

Section 4.2 - Multi Dwelling Housing

Section 4.3 - Dual Occupancy

Section 4.4 - Dwelling Houses on Standard Lots

Section 4.5 - Dwelling Houses on Small Lots

 

In the exhibited DCP No.1, the wording of the Design Solutions (DS) for Solar Access differ between residential development types (see Attachment 3).

There is no reason for the minor differences in the wording of Solar Access Design Solutions between residential development types. It is recommended that these be adjusted to generally align with the Design Solutions proposed for Dual Occupancy development (see Attachment 3). The Design Solutions relate to shadow diagrams (clarifying that they are required for development 2 storeys and over); the use of window shading devices;   energy efficiency standards,  and the application of BASIX requirements.

The exception to this is controls for Residential Flat Buildings as solar access requirements for apartments within the development are set out in the NSW Government Apartment Design Guide (ADG).

Section 4.1 - Residential Flat Buildings

Mix of Residential Apartment types and sizes

Content on apartment mix and size was included in the exhibited Draft DCP No.1 as follows:

PC12 - A range of apartment types and sizes is provided to cater for different household types now and into the future.

DS12.1 - A variety of apartment types is provided.

DS12.2 - The apartment mix is appropriate, taking into consideration:

·    The distance to public transport, employment and education centres

·    The current market demands

This content is duplicated from the Apartment Design Guide (ADG). As standards relating to apartment mix and size within apartment developments are contained in the ADG, it is recommended that these controls be deleted from DCP 1.

Section 4.4 - Dwelling Houses on Standard Lots and Appendix 2

Design Guidelines for Absorption Trenches

No content was exhibited on design guidelines for absorption trenches.

Content has been included in Section 4.4 Dwelling Houses on Standard Lots which refers to new guidelines for the “Design of Absorption Trenches” in Appendix 2 dealing with properties falling to the rear.

These controls are necessary as the creation of an easement through a downstream property for a low scale development up to a dual occupancy development is not always possible.

These guidelines will allow for a portion of a development site for a Dwelling House (Standard and Small lots) including alterations and additions, Secondary Dwelling or Dual Occupancy development to drain to an absorption trench without creating an easement over downstream properties. Alternative methods will only be considered where there are no detrimental impacts on adjoining neighbours.

Appendix 2

Drainage and On Site Detention Policy

 

The exhibited draft DCP did not include the Design Rainfall Intensity Diagram and Wolli Creek/ Georges River catchment map within the Drainage and On Site Detention Policy.

The Design Rainfall Intensity Diagram and Wolli Creek/ Georges River catchment map have been included as these are referred to in the Drainage and On Site Detention Policy contained in Appendix 2.

 

Next Steps

Approval of Hurstville DCP No.1

19.       A copy of the Draft Hurstville DCP No. 1 (Amendment 5) recommended for approval by Council can be accessed through the link provided below.

 

20.       Subject to Council’s approval, it is anticipated that a notice will be placed in the St George Leader on 13 July 2016 for Hurstville DCP No. 1 (Amendment No. 5) to become effective.

http://hurstville.nsw.gov.au/Hurstville-DCP-No1---Amendment-5---4-July-2016.html

 

Operational Plan Budget

Within budget allocation.

 

 

 

APPENDICES

Appendix View1

CCL054-15 - Council Report of 9 December 2015 - Review of Hurstville LEP 2012 and Development Control Plan No 1 - LGA Wide

Appendix View2

CCL055-15 - Council Report of 9 December 2015 - Development Control Plan No 1 - Proposed Amendments to Stormwater Drainage Controls

Appendix View3

Draft Hurstville DCP No.1 – Comparison of Solar Access Design Solutions for Residential Development

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016

CCL024-16          Submissions Received to Public Exhibition of Draft Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1

[Appendix 1]          CCL054-15 - Council Report of 9 December 2015 - Review of Hurstville LEP 2012 and Development Control Plan No 1 - LGA Wide

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016

CCL024-16          Submissions Received to Public Exhibition of Draft Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1

[Appendix 2]          CCL055-15 - Council Report of 9 December 2015 - Development Control Plan No 1 - Proposed Amendments to Stormwater Drainage Controls

 


 


 


 

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016

CCL024-16          Submissions Received to Public Exhibition of Draft Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1

[Appendix 3]          Draft Hurstville DCP No.1 – Comparison of Solar Access Design Solutions for Residential Development

 



Georges River Council – Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016                                                                    Page 109

 

Item :                  CCL025-16        Summary of Development Application determination times and new Class 1 Appeals filed 

Author :             Manager – Development Assessment, Ms T Christy and Manager Planning and Development, Mr G Andonoski

 

 

 

Recommendation

a)      That the information on development application determination times and new Class 1 Appeals filed for the period April – May 2016 be received and noted.

 

Executive Summary

Advice on Georges River Council’s development application determination numbers and time-frames and also new Class 1 Appeals lodged with the Land and Environment Court for the months of April 2016 and May 2016 is contained within this report. This information will be prepared monthly and enable review of trends in assessment timeframes and Class 1 Appeals filed.

 

Background

1.      Georges River Council was proclaimed on 12 May 2016, combining the former Hurstville and Kogarah City Councils. The development application determination numbers and time-frames for the months of April and May are set out below. These figures are based on the gross turn-around times and include development applications, s96 modification applications, and s82A review of determinations. The gross determination figure has been used to ensure any anomalies in the data sets from the two previous Councils are assimilated.

 

Month

Council

Total no. determined

Average Gross Days

April

Kogarah

Hurstville

total

67

32

99

90.4

171

130.7 (average of both)

May

Kogarah

Hurstville

total

31

49

80

108.8

178

143.4 (average of both)

 

2.      The following new Class 1 Appeals have been filed with the Land and Environment Court:

April:

-     Filed 1/4/16 – LEC No. 10295 of 2016 - DA2015/0209 – M & J Conradt Pty Ltd and M & J Conradt Investment Trust – 59 Park Street Peakhurst – Refusal of Multi Dwelling Housing Development.


 

 

May: 

-     Filed 1/5/16 – LEC No. 10402 of 2016 – DA2015/0404 – Vincent Caristo – 102 Gungah Bay Road Oatley – Deemed Refusal of New Two Storey Dwelling with Inground Swimming Pool and Cabana.

 

-     Filed 11/5/16 – LEC No. 10436 of 2016 – DA2016/0051 – Mehedin Abdul-Rahman – 58 Lawrence Street Peakhurst – Deemed Refusal of Multi Dwelling Housing Development.

 

Operational Plan Budget

3.      Within budget allocation.

 

 

  


Georges River Council – Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016                                                                    Page 111

 

Item :                  CCL026-16        Expansion of the Voluntary Pensioner Rebate Scheme 

Author :             Chief Financial Officer, Mr T Caltabiano

 

 

 

Recommendation

a)      That the voluntary pensioner rebate scheme, applicable to residents of the former Hurstville local government area, be extended to include residents of the former Kogarah Local Government Area.

b)      That the 2016/17 and 2017/18 operating budgets be updated to reflect this change.

 

Executive Summary

The former Hurstville City Council provided a Voluntary Pensioner Rebate in addition to the mandatory statutory rebate, for eligible pensioners. The former Kogarah City Council only provided the mandatory statutory rebate to eligible pensioners. It is proposed that the voluntary pensioner rebate be extended to include all eligible pensioners within the new Georges River Council local government area. It is also proposed to grandfather eligibility to the voluntary pensioner rebate scheme as at 30 June 2016 not extend to any new pension applications received after 30 June 2016.

Background

1.      All pensioners applying for Mandatory and Voluntary rebates have to be owner occupiers to be eligible.

2.      The former Hurstville Council provided a Voluntary Pensioner Rebate combined with the NSW Statutory Rebate, for eligible pensioners, as illustrated in the table below:

 

Combined

Ordinary Rate Levy & Domestic Waste Service Charge

Mandatory Pensioner Rebate1 per rate assessment

Rebate amount up to maximum, as per structure below: - based upon pensioner eligibility criteria

Council’s Additional Voluntary Pensioner Rebate1 per rate assessment

Rebate amount up to maximum, as per structure below: - based upon pensioner eligibility criteria

Up to $ 500

50 %

nil

$ 501 - $ 550

$ 250.00

nil

$ 551 - $ 600

$ 250.00

$ 10.00

$ 601 - $ 650

$ 250.00

$ 30.00

$ 651 - $ 700

$ 250.00

$ 40.00

$ 701 - $ 750

$ 250.00

$ 60.00

$ 751 upwards

$ 250.00

$ 75.00

Estimated Annual Value

$1,230,000

$370,000

3.      At the former Hurstville City Council, there has been a downward trend on numbers and expenditure for the Voluntary Pensioner Rebate, as illustrated in the table below:  

Year

No. of Nett Pensioners

Amount of Nett Voluntary (Approx.)

2011/12

5,767

$376,000

2012/13

5,630

$372,000

2013/14

5,756

$375,000

2014/15

5,626

$371,000

2015/16

5,484

$369,000

4.      The former Kogarah City Council only provided the mandatory pensioner rebate, and currently has 3,313 eligible pensioners.

 

5.      The former Hurstville City Council’s voluntary pensioner rebate scheme had a sliding scale of rebate based on the value of ordinary rates and domestic waste charges levied on the applicable property. However, increases in rates and charges over time have made this scale virtually redundant with only 8 eligible properties attracting less than the maximum voluntary rebate of $75.

 

6.      All of the eligible pensioners of the former Kogarah City Council have a combined ordinary rate levy and domestic waste charge greater than $750. They would all therefore attract the maximum $75 voluntary rebate if the scheme is extended. The cost to council of extended the voluntary pensioner rebate scheme to residents of the former Kogarah City Council would be $248,475.

7.      Options available:

(i)      Remove the voluntary pensioner rebate scheme. This would result in a saving of approximately $370,000 per annum.

(ii)     Extend the voluntary pensioner rebate scheme to eligible pensioners of the former Kogarah City Council. This will result in an addition to non-budgeted funds of $248,475 per annum.

(iii)    Extend the voluntary pensioner rebate scheme to eligible pensioners of the former Kogarah City Council and decrease maximum voluntary rebate amount to $50 for all eligible pensioners. This will result in an addition to non-budgeted funds of $28,750 per annum being the additional cost to extend to former Kogarah City Council pensioners of $165,650 less savings from reducing voluntary rebate amount to former Hurstville City Council pensioners of $136,900.

(iv)    Extend the voluntary pensioner rebate scheme to eligible pensioners of the former Kogarah City Council and grandfather scheme to eligible pensioners as at 30 June 2016. New pensioner rebate applications received from 1 July 2016 would only be eligible for mandatory pensioner rebate. This will result in an addition to non-budgeted funds of $248,475 for 2016/17 financial year. This option would reduce the cost of the voluntary pensioner rebate scheme for Georges River Council over time. This approach was adopted by Marrickville Council in the 2000’s and Bankstown Council in the 90’s to reduce voluntary pensioner rebates over time without reducing the contributions of existing pensioners on the scheme.

 

Operational Plan Budget

8.      Additional non-budgeted funds of $248,475 from Operating Budget 2016/17.

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council – Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016                                                                    Page 114

 

Item :                  CCL027-16        Georges River Council Audit and Risk Management Committee 

Author :             Acting Manager Corporate Governance, Mr A Gearon

 

 

 

Recommendation

a)   That Council adopt the attached Internal Audit Charter.

 

b)   That Council establish an Audit and Risk Management Committee consisting of four voting members as follows:

(i)   two Georges River Councillors (when elected – the Administrator in the interim); and

(ii)  two independent external members, at least one of whom has financial management expertise; and

(iii) one of the external independent members shall be the Chair.

 

c)   That the Administrator appoint the independent external members of the Committee.

 

d)   That the General Manager nominate relevant Council officers to support the operation of the Audit and Risk Management Committee.

 

 

 

Executive Summary

Councils are encouraged by Office of Local Government (OLG) Ministerial Guidelines issued in September 2010, to establish an Audit Committee as an integral part of an Enterprise Risk Management function.

 

Both the former Kogarah and Hurstville Councils operated Audit Committees and it is appropriate that Georges River Council now establish an Internal Audit function and an Audit and Risk Management Committee. 

 

This report recommends establishment of an Audit and Risk Management Committee, together with adoption of an Internal Audit Charter, which is the formal Council policy on the conduct of an Internal Audit function.

 

 

Background

1.      Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) is described as the process of planning, organising, leading and controlling the activities of an organisation in order to minimise the effects of risks, to the organisation’s objectives, capital and earnings. 

 

2.      The definition and understanding of Council’s priority objectives and the identification, analysis, prioritisation and management of risks to those objectives, is the essence of ERM.

 

3.      The components of a robust ERM framework include:

·        A Risk Register

·        An ERM culture

·        An Internal Audit (IA) function 

·        An Audit Plan

·        The Audit and Risk Management Committee

 

4.      A Risk Register, as its name implies, is a register of defined risks which can enable Council to name its top ten strategic risks, then to name and prioritise a range of “operational” risks. The Risk Register at a slightly lower level, will list and prioritise risks which impact on all of the functions of the council, which need to be considered in the development of an Audit Plan. Risks identified will arise out of every function of the Council and cannot be limited to traditional forms of financial risk.

 

5.      An ERM culture as described above, is highly favoured by insurers and informed communities, for optimising the safety of the workplace and community, minimising fraud and corrupt conduct, accidents, insurance claims, injuries and associated costs.

 

Internal Audit function

6.      Internal Auditing seeks to monitor risk mitigation strategies to maintain them and be assured of their continuing effectiveness.  This process is continuous and in time, it will bring about the evolution of an effective “ERM culture”.

 

7.      The Internal Audit function supports the creation of an Audit and Risk Management Committee and Audit Plan, which should encompass both Internal and External Audit activity. The desired result is that Council has a synchronised approach to the use of audits and auditors, who may include externally sourced expertise, working on Internal Audit projects, to an Audit Plan which is a cornerstone of the Council’s ERM framework.

 

8.      It should be noted that Council, as part of the recent endorsement of the senior staff structure, has authorised the creation of the Office of the General Manager and the position of Internal Auditor within that Office.  Recruitment of the position has commenced as at the date of this report.

 

An Audit Plan

9.      The Audit Plan is prepared and prioritised with reference to the Risk Register, creating a programme of Audit projects which analyse a selection of prioritised risks, define strategies and controls to mitigate those risks, then monitor the controls and report results to the Audit and Risk Management Committee and to Management.

 

An Audit and Risk Management Committee

10.    This Committee advises on Governance, Risk Management and Internal Audit matters, policy and strategies, working to the Audit Plan to encourage good Governance, provide improved assurance and to strengthen the Council's systems and procedures.

 

11.    The Audit and Risk Management Committee provides independent oversight of an Audit programme, as well as monitoring Council’s activity in strategic risk management and the maintenance of the Enterprise Risk Management framework. These Committees usually consist of a voting membership of between three and five persons including Councillor representation, plus at least two independent, appropriately qualified and experienced persons. The Committee would be supported by relevant Council officers.

 

12.     An extract of the (then) Department of Local Government Circular 03/2009 remains relevant today and reads as follows:

 

“The Department’s Internal Audit Guidelines make it clear that it is not good practice for a general manager or staff members of a council to be members of a council’s internal audit committee or be entitled to vote at such meetings. This exclusion is to ensure that the key traits of an internal audit committee of independence and objectivity are preserved. The Guidelines emphasise the importance of the committee being composed of members external to the council and its operations.”

 

“The Guidelines recommend that the chair of the internal audit committee is a person who is independent of and external to the council.  Independent members of the internal audit committee should have relevant personal qualities, skills and experience and where possible include at least one member with a strong financial and/or audit background. In selecting and appointing independent members for the committee, care should be taken to ensure that the selection is undertaken in a transparent and unbiased manner.“

 

13.    The Department’s views on the use of Council staff as internal auditors, were based on concerns for the independence of the internal audit role, given the Local Government Act provision that all staff are appointed by and responsible to, the General Manager.

 

 

Conclusion

14.    The major forms of resource and activity planning required of local government, include development of Strategic, Management, Environmental, Community and Financial/Resource Planning, as well as associated reporting.  All forms of planning should be founded on a well designed, Enterprise Risk Management framework, which identifies integral systems and facilitates organisational focus on priorities identified within the framework.

 

15.    The Internal Audit function assists governance of the organisation by providing assurance to community stakeholders and to management, that current practices and risk controls are reasonable and appropriate. It also directs focus to those systems which are most in need of review, attention and resources, in relation to their probity and effectiveness. In this way the Council will be able to develop more informed awareness of its activities on behalf of the community. An Audit and Risk Management Committee would facilitate this awareness.

 

 

Operational Plan Budget

Within budget allocation.

 

 

 

APPENDICES

Appendix View1

Audit and Risk Management Committee Charter

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016

CCL027-16          Georges River Council Audit and Risk Management Committee

[Appendix 1]          Audit and Risk Management Committee Charter


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016                                                                    Page 131

 

Item :                  CCL028-16        Georges River Investment Policy 

Author :             Chief Financial Officer, Mr T Caltabiano

 

 

 

Recommendation

a)   That Council adopts the revised Investment Policy for Georges River Council.

 

Executive Summary

This report consolidates and revises former Hurstville and Kogarah Councils Investment Policies. 

 

Background

1.      Council’s Investment Policy is regularly reviewed to improve its effectiveness and to ensure on-going legislative adherence.  The proposed Policy complies with the Local Government Act (1993), Local Government (General) Regulation (2005), Ministerial Order (January 2011) and other relevant legislation.

 

2.      The attached Investment Policy has been prepared in consultation with Council’s independent Investment advisors, CPG Research and Advisory. Former Hurstville and Former Kogarah Councils both utilised the services of CPG Research and Advisory.

 

3.      The existing policies of the former Councils were very similar and no major changes were required in the preparation of the new investment policy for Georges River Council. The following minor amendments to the previous Hurstville City Council Investment Policy have been made to align it to the former Kogarah City Council Investment Policy:

 

(i) Council has minimum and maximum limits in the policy for investment horizon. The previous Hurstville City Council had a minimum allocation of the investment portfolio held in working funds (0-3 months maturity horizon) of 10%. The previous Kogarah City Council had a minimum allocation of the investment portfolio held in working funds of 5%. The proposed investment policy for Georges River Council has a minimum allocation of the investment portfolio held in working funds of 5%. 

(ii)          The previous Hurstville City Council had a minimum allocation of the investment portfolio held in short term funds (3-12 months maturity horizon) of 20%. The previous Kogarah City Council had a minimum allocation of the investment portfolio held in short term funds of 10%. The proposed investment policy for Georges River Council has a minimum allocation of the investment portfolio held in short term funds of 10%.

(iii)         Council has minimum and maximum limits in the policy for credit quality based on the long term rating range of the deposit taking institution. The previous Hurstville City Council had a maximum allocation of the investment portfolio held in “A” rated institutions of 60%. The previous Kogarah City Council had a maximum allocation of the investment portfolio held in “A” rated institutions of 70%. The proposed investment policy for Georges River Council has a maximum allocation of the investment portfolio held in “A” rated institutions of 70%.

(iv)         The previous Hurstville City Council had a maximum allocation of the investment portfolio held in “BBB” rated institutions of 40% and unrated institutions of 10%. The previous Kogarah City Council had a maximum allocation of the investment portfolio held in “BBB and unrated” institutions of 40%. The proposed investment policy for Georges River Council has a maximum allocation of the investment portfolio held in “BBB and unrated” institutions of 40%.

 

Operational Plan Budget

No budget impact for this report.

 

 

 

APPENDICES

Appendix View1

Georges River Investment Policy - Draft

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016

CCL028-16          Georges River Investment Policy

[Appendix 1]          Georges River Investment Policy - Draft

DRAFT

Investment Policy

 

Document Status and Version Control

Ownership and Version Control

 

Document Name:

Investment Policy

Document Status:

Draft

Version:

1.0

Date:

20/06/2016

Author:

Chief Financial Officers

Document Owner:

Finance

Authorised By:

Council Resolution

Distribution:

Internet/Intranet

Council Report Reference:

 

Council Meeting Date:

04/07/2016

Document No:

 

File No:

15/892

 

 

Change History

 

Version

Release Date

Author

Reason for Change

1.0

04/07/2016

Chief Financial Officers

New Council

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Related Documents

Local Government Act 1993 - Section 625

Local Government Act 1993 - Order (of the Minister) dated 12 January 2011;

The Trustee Amendment (Discretionary Investments) Act 1997 – Sections 14A(2),   14C(1) & (2);

Local Government General Regulation 2005;

Division of Local Government Investment Policy Guidelines, May 2010;

Office of Local Government Circulars;

Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting; and

Australian Accounting Standards.

 


 

Contents

 

 

Contents                                                                                                                       3[AV1] 

General                                                                                                     4

    Purpose of Document                                                                                    4

    Related Documents                                                                              4

    Application/Scope                                                                                          4

    Definition of Terms                                                                                         5

Investment Policy                                                                                                7

    Investment Objectives                                                                                   7

    Legislative and Regulatory References                                                          7

    Delegation of Authority                                                                                 8

    Prudent Person Standard                                                                                8

    Ethics and Conflicts of Interest                                                                      8

    Authorised Investments                                                                                 8

    Prohibited Investments                                                                                  9

    Risk Management Guidelines                                                                        9

    Investment Advisor                                                                              10

    Accounting                                                                                                      10

    Safe Custody Arrangements                                                                          10

    Credit Quality Limits                                                                                     11

    Counterparty Limits                                                                             12

    Term to Maturity Limits                                                                                 13

    Performance Benchmarks                                                                              14

    Reporting                                                                                                       15

    Review of Policy                                                                                            15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

General

 

 

 

PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT

 

The purpose of this document is to establish the framework within which investment principles are to apply to the investment of Council funds.  It details:

·    Council Funds covered by this Investment Policy;

·    Council’s objectives for its investment portfolio/s;

·    how investments are to be undertaken;

·    the applicable risks to be managed;

·    any constraints and other prudential requirements to apply to the investments of Funds having regard to the applicable legislation and regulations governing Council investment;

·    the manner in which compliance with the Policy & Strategy will be monitored and reported;

·    appropriate benchmarks for each category of investments.

 

RELATED DOCUMENTS

 

This policy statement has been prepared to recognise the legislative requirements and obligations for the investment of Council’s funds.  The legislative requirements are detailed within this Investment Policy.

 

Council’s will comply with investment regulations and directions of the Office of Local Government – which will prevail in the event of inconsistencies with published Policy and Strategy.

 

APPLICATION/SCOPE

 

The effective date of this Investment Policy Statement is 4 July 2016 and will be reviewed at regular twelve monthly intervals, or when either changes in regulation or market conditions necessitate a review.

 

This policy applies to all officers within Georges River Council delegated to invest surplus funds of Council.

 

 

DEFINITION OF TERMS

 

Act                      Local Government Act, 1993.

ADI                            Authorised Deposit-Taking Institutions (ADIs) are corporations that are authorised under the Banking Act 1959 (C’wlth) to take deposits from customers.

AusBond BBI           Formerly the UBS BBI. The UBS Australia index family was acquired by Bloomberg from Q3 2014, and while branding changed the benchmark construction is unaltered. It represents the performance of a notional rolling parcel of bills averaging 45 days and is the widely used benchmark for local councils and other institutional cash investors.

Bill of

Exchange                  A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to bearer.

BBSW                       The Bank Bill Swap reference rate (BBSW) is the average of mid-rate bank-bill quote from brokers on the BBSW Panel. The BBSW is calculated daily. Floating rate securities are most commonly reset quarterly to the 90-day BBSW.

Council Funds          Surplus monies that are invested by Council in accordance with section 625 of the Act

Debenture                A debenture is a document evidencing an acknowledgement of a debt, which a company has created for the purposes of raising capital.  Debentures are issued by companies in return for medium and long-term investment of funds by lenders.

FRN                           A Floating Rate Note (FRN) is a medium to long term fixed interest investment where the coupon is a fixed margin (“coupon margin”) over a benchmark, also described as a “floating rate”. The benchmark is usually the BBSW and is reset at regular intervals – most commonly quarterly.

LGGR                          Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (NSW).

NCD                          Is a short term investment in an underlying security being a negotiable certificate of deposit (NCD) where the term of the security is usually for a period of 185 days or less (sometimes up to 2 years). NCDs are generally discount securities, meaning they are issued and on-sold to investors at a discount to their face value.

OLG                           NSW Office of Local Government, and its predecessors the Division / Department of Local Government.

RAO                           Responsible Accounting Officer of a council means a member of the staff of the council designated by the General Manager, or if no such member been designated, the General Manager. (LGGR, clause 196)

Semi-

government             Issued or guaranteed by a State or Territory government (within Australia)

T-Corp               New South Wales Treasury Corporation.

Grandfathered        Investments held by Council that were previously allowed under the Minister’s Order but were grandfathered when the NSW State Government changed the list of Approved Investments as a result of the Cole enquiry (which was reflected in the Ministerial Order dated 31/7/2008).

IPS                              The Investment Policy Statement provides the general investment goals and objectives of Council and describes the strategies that must be employed to meet these objectives.  Specific information on matters such as asset allocation, risk tolerance, and liquidity requirements are also included in the IPS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Investment Policy

 

 

 

INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES

 

The purpose of this Policy is to provide a framework for the optimum investment of Georges River Council’s Funds at the most favourable rate of return available to it at the time to maximise returns, whilst having due consideration of risk, liquidity and security for its investments.

 

While exercising the power to invest, consideration is to be given to the preservation of capital, liquidity and the return of investment.  Council therefore has several primary objectives for its investment portfolio:

·    Compliance with legislation, regulations, the prudent person tests of the Trustee Act and best practice guidelines;

·    The preservation of the amount invested;

·    To ensure there is sufficient liquid funds to meet all reasonably anticipated cash flow requirements; and

·    To generate income from the investment that exceeds the performance benchmarks mentioned later in this document.

 

Council’s Investment Strategy will run in conjunction with its Investment Policy and will outline:

·    Councils current cash flow expectations and the implications for deviations from a long-term liquidity profile;

·    Diversification: allocation of investment type, credit quality, counterparty exposure and term to maturity profile;

·    Market conditions and the appropriate responses – particularly relative positioning within the limits outlined in this policy;

·    Relative return outlook, risk-reward considerations, assessment of the market cycle and hence constraints on risk; and

·    Appropriateness of overall investment types for Council’s portfolio.

 

LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY REFERENCES

 

All investments are to comply with the following:

 

 

·    Local Government Act (1993);

·    Local Government (General) Regulation (2005);

·    Ministerial Investment Order;

·    The Trustee Amendment (Discretionary Investments) Act (1997) – Section 14;

·    Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting;

·    Australian Accounting Standards;

·    Office of Local Government Investment Policy Guidelines; and

·    Office of Local Government Circulars

 

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

 

Authority for implementation of the Investment Policy is delegated by Council to the General Manager in accordance with the Local Government Act (1993).

 

The General Manager may in turn delegate the day-to-day management of Council’s Investment to the Director responsible for Finance and Chief Financial Officer, subject to regular reviews.

 

Officers’ delegated authority to manage Council’s investments shall be recorded and required to acknowledge they have received a copy of this policy and understand their obligations in this role.

 

PRUDENT PERSON STANDARD

 

The investments will be managed with the care, diligence and skill that a prudent person would exercise.  As trustees of public monies, officers are to manage Council’s investment portfolios to safeguard the portfolio in accordance with the spirit of this Investment Policy and not for speculative purposes.

 

ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

 

Officers shall refrain from personal activities that would conflict with the proper execution and management of Council’s investment portfolio. This policy requires officers to disclose any conflict of interest to the General Manager.

 

Independent advisors must also declare that they have no actual or potential conflicts of interest, and receive no inducements in relation to Council’s investments.

 

 

AUTHORISED INVESTMENTS

 

All investments must be denominated in Australian Dollars.  Authorised Investments are limited to those allowed by the Ministerial Investment Order, currently:

·    Commonwealth / State / Territory Government securities e.g. bonds;

·    Interest bearing deposits / senior securities issued by an eligible ADI;

·    Bills of Exchange (< 200 days duration) guaranteed by an ADI;

·    Debentures issued by a NSW Council under Local Government Act (1993);

·    Deposits with T-Corp &/or Investments in T-Corp Hour-Glass Funds;

·    Existing investments grandfathered (included structured investments) under the Ministerial Investment Order.

 

Where referencing Growth assets, new Core (Medium Term or Long Term) or single sector Asset Class (all but Cash or Bond Funds) Hour-Glass investments must be ratified by Council before purchase, backing specific long-term liabilities.

 

PROHIBITED INVESTMENTS

 

This Investment Policy prohibits the following types of investment:

·    Derivative based instruments;

·    Principal only investments or securities that provide potentially nil or negative cash flow; and

·    Stand-alone securities issued that have underlying futures, options, forwards contracts and swaps of any kind.

 

This policy also prohibits the use of leveraging (borrowing to invest) of an investment.  However, nothing in the policy shall prohibit the short-term investment of loan proceeds where the loan is raised for non-investment purposes and there is a delay prior to the expenditure of loan funds.

 

Prohibited investments are not limited to the list above, and extend to any investment carried out for speculative purposes.

 

RISK MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES

 

Investments obtained are to be considered in light of the following key criteria:

 

 

·    Preservation of Capital – the requirement for preventing losses in an investment portfolio’s total value.

·    Credit Risk – The risk that a party or guarantor to a transaction will fail to fulfil its obligations.  In the context of this document it relates to the risk of loss due to the failure of an institution/entity with which an investment is held to pay the interest and/or repay the principal of an investment;

·    Diversification – the requirement to place investments in a broad range of products so as not to be over exposed to a particular sector of the investment market;

·    Liquidity Risk – the risk an institution runs out of cash, is unable to redeem investments at a fair price within a timely period and thereby Council incurs additional costs (or in the worst case is unable to execute its spending plans), or that Council requires funds prior to the maturity of its investments and incurs additional costs;

·    Market Risk – the risk that fair value or future cash flows will fluctuate due to changes in market prices, or benchmark returns will unexpectedly overtake the investment’s return;

·    Maturity Risk – the risk relating to the length of term to maturity of the investment.  The longer the term, the greater the length of exposure and risk to market volatilities; and

·    Rollover Risk – the risk that income will not meet expectations or budgeted requirement because interest rates are lower than expected in future.

·    Counterparty – The risk that a party to a transaction will fail to fulfil its obligations.  In the context of this document it relates to Council’s policy of limiting its exposure to any one ADI based on its credit rating;

 

INVESTMENT ADVISOR

 

The Council’s investment advisor must be approved by Council and licensed by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. The advisor must be independent and have no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to investment products being recommended and is free to choose the most appropriate product within the terms and conditions of the Investment Policy.

 

The independent advisor is required to provide written confirmation that they do not have any actual or potential conflicts of interest in relation to investments they are recommending or reviewing, including that they are not receiving any commissions or other benefits in relation to the investments being recommended or reviewed, except as fully rebated to Council promptly.

 

 

ACCOUNTING

 

Council will comply with appropriate accounting standards in valuing its investments and quantifying its investment returns.

 

In addition to recording investment income according to accounting standards, published reports may show a break-down of its duly calculated investment returns into realised and unrealised capital gains and losses, and interest.

 

Other relevant issues will be considered in line with relevant Australian Accounting Standards, such as discount or premium, designation as held-to-maturity or on a fair value basis and impairment.

 

SAFE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS

 

Where necessary, investments may be held in safe custody on Council’s behalf, as long as the following criteria are met:

·    Council must retain beneficial ownership of all investments, and assets cannot be pledged, secured, or lent by the custodian;

·    Adequate documentation is provided, verifying the existence of the investments at inception, in regular statements and for audit;

·    The Custodian conducts regular reconciliation of records with relevant registries and/or clearing systems; and

·    The Institution or Custodian recording and holding the assets will be:

Ø The Custodian nominated by TCorp for Hour-Glass Funds;

Ø Austraclear;

Ø A major global bank subsidiary specialising in custody arrangements with adequate licensing and insurance, including professional indemnity insurance and other insurances considered prudent and appropriate to cover its liabilities under any agreement.

 

CREDIT QUALITY LIMITS

 

The portfolio credit guidelines to be adopted will reference the Standard & Poor’s (S&P) ratings system criteria and format - however, the Minister’s Order also previously referenced Moody’s and Fitch Ratings and any of the three ratings may be used where available. 

 

The primary control of credit quality is the prudential supervision and government support and explicit guarantees of the ADI sector, not ratings.

 

The maximum holding in each rating category for Council’s portfolio shall be:

 

 

Credit Quality

Maximum Holding

Federal Government

100%

AAA semi-government (State guarantee)

100%

AA Other semi-government and Major Banks*

100%

A Category

70%

BBB Category & unrated Category

40%

 

*For the purpose of this policy, “Major Banks” currently defined as:

 

The ADI deposits or senior guaranteed principal and interest ADI securities issued by the major Australian banking groups including ADI subsidiaries whether or not explicitly guaranteed, and brands (such as St George):

 

Ø Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited

Ø Commonwealth Bank of Australia

Ø National Australia Bank Limited

Ø Westpac Banking Corporation

 

Council may ratify an alternative definition from time to time.

 

AAA Category includes TCorp Hour-Glass Cash Facility, which typically maintains a credit score consistent with AAA rating.

AA Category also includes TCorp Hour-Glass Strategic Cash Facility, which typically maintains a credit score consistent with AA rating.

Unrated Category includes unrated ADI’s such as some Credit Unions and Building Societies to the extent not Commonwealth guaranteed.

 

Standard & Poor’s ratings attributed to each individual institution will be used to determine maximum holdings.

 

In the event of disagreement between agencies as to the rating band (“split ratings”) Council shall use the higher in assessing compliance with portfolio policy limits, but for conservatism shall apply the lower in assessing new purchases.

 

COUNTERPARTY LIMITS

 

Exposure to individual counterparties/financial institutions will be restricted by their rating so that single entity exposure is limited, as detailed in the table below.  It excludes any government guaranteed investments.

 

Breaches of individual or aggregate limits due to downgrades of an institution require only suspension of new purchases within the affected category until compliance is restored.  However, Council will not purchase new investments contrary to the policy limits.

Individual Institution or Counterparty Limits

Credit Quality

Limit

AAA Semi-government (State guarantee)

40%

AA Other semi-government and Major Banks*

30%

A Category

15%

BBB Category

10%

Unrated Category

5%

 

INVESTMENT HORIZON LIMITS

 

Council’s investment portfolio shall be structured around the time horizon of investment to that liquidity and income requirements are met.

 

“Horizon” represents the intended minimum term of the investment; it is open for the Investment Strategy to define a target date for sale of a liquid investment.

 

Once the primary aim of liquidity is met, Council will ordinarily diversify its maturity profile as this will ordinarily be a low-risk method of obtaining additional return as well as reducing the risks to Council’s income.  However, Council always retains the flexibility to invest as short as required by internal requirements or the economic outlook.

 

The factors and/or information used by Council to determine minimum allocations to the shorter durations include:

·    Council’s liquidity requirements to cover both regular payments as well as sufficient buffer to cover reasonably foreseeable contingencies;

·    Medium term financial plans and major capex forecasts;

·    Known grants, asset sales or similar one-off inflows;

·    Seasonal patterns to Council’s investment balances.

Investment Horizon Description

Investment Horizon - Maturity Date

Minimum Allocation

Maximum Allocation

Working capital funds

0-3 months

5%

100%

Short term funds

3-12 months

10%

100%

Short-Medium term funds

1-2 years

0%

70%

Medium term funds

2-5 years

0%

50%

Long term funds

5-10 years

0%

25%

 

Within these broad ranges, Council relies upon assumptions of expected investment returns and market conditions that have been examined with its investment advisor.

 

PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS

 

The performance of each investment will be assessed against the benchmarks listed in the below. 

 

It is Council’s expectation that the performance of each investment will be greater than or  to the applicable benchmark by sufficient margin to justify the investment taking into account its risks, liquidity and other benefits of the investment.

 

It is also expected that Council will take due steps to ensure that any investment is executed at the best pricing reasonably possible.

 

Investment

Performance Benchmark

Time Horizon

11 am Account, short dated bills, deposits issued by financial institutions of appropriate term.

AusBond Bank Bill Index (BBI)

3 months or less

Term Deposits of appropriate remaining term, FRN’s nearing maturity.

AusBond Bank Bill Index (BBI)

3 months to 12 months

Term Deposits with a maturity date between 1 and 2 Years, FRN’s.

AusBond Bank Bill Index (BBI)

1 to 2 years

FRN’s, Bonds, Term deposits with a maturity date between 2 and 5 Years (except as otherwise designated on a shorter horizon).

AusBond Bank Bill Index (BBI)

2 to 5 Years

T-Corp Hour Glass Managed Funds

Fund’s Internal Benchmark

5 to 10 Years

 

The decision on when to exit investments are based on a range of criteria specific to the investments – including but not limited to factors such as:

·    Executing best value

·    Returns expected over the remaining term

·    Fair values

·    Competing investment opportunities

·    Costs of holding

·    Liquidity and transaction costs

·    Outlook for future investment values

 

REPORTING

 

Documentary evidence must be held for each investment and details thereof maintained in an investment register.  The documentary evidence must provide Council legal title to the investment (or, where an approved custodian, clearing house or nominee is used, beneficial ownership).

 

For audit purposes, certificates must be obtained from the banks/fund managers/custodian confirming the amounts of investment held on Council’s behalf at 30th June each year.

 

All investments are to be appropriately recorded in Council’s financial records and reconciled at least on a monthly basis.

 

A monthly report will be provided to Council.  The report will detail the investment portfolio in terms of holdings and impact of changes in market value since the previous report.  The monthly report will also detail the investment performance against the applicable benchmark, investment income earned versus budget year to date and confirm compliance of Council’s investments within legislative and policy limits.  Council may nominate additional content for reporting.

 

REVIEW OF POLICY

 

The Investment Policy will be reviewed annually and as required in the event of legislative change or as a result of significantly changed economic/market conditions. 

 

As mandated by the Minister’s Order, an amended policy does not take effect until ratified by a resolution of Council.

 

To the extent that the policy becomes inconsistent with the regulatory framework, the regulations will prevail.


Georges River Council – Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016                                                                    Page 148

 

Item:                   CCL029-16        Investment Report as at 31 May 2016 

Author:              Financial Accountant and Risk Management, Ms R Matienga

 

 

 

Recommendation

That the Investment Report as at 31 May 2016 be received and noted.

 

Executive Summary

This report details Council’s performance of its investment portfolio for May 2016 and compares it against key benchmarks. The report includes the estimated market valuation of Council’s investment portfolio, loan liabilities, and an update on Council’s legal action against various parties.

Council’s financial year to date return is 3.86%, which is 1.61% above benchmark. Income from interest on investments and proceeds from sale of investments totals $3.6M, $316K above budget.

Background

1.         Council’s Responsible Accounting Officer, is required to report monthly on Council’s Investment Portfolio and certify that the Investments are held in accordance with Council’s Investment Policy and Section 625 of the Local Government Act.

Investment Performance Commentary

Council’s performance against the benchmark for returns of its investment portfolio for May 2016, are as follows:

 

May

12 Mth

FYTD

Council Return

3.86

3.48

3.86

Benchmark

2.25

2.24

2.25

Variance

1.61

1.56

1.61

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council’s investment portfolio as at the end of May was as follows:

                  

Cash/Term Deposits

$76.6M

57.0%

Floating Rate Notes

$46.1M

34.3%

Enhanced Cash Fund

$8.4M

6.3%

Fixed Bonds

$3.2M

2.4%

Total Cash Investments

$134.3M

 

Investment Properties

   $15.3M

 

Total Investments

$149.6M

 

 

 

 

2.         Council’s investment properties updated as at the end of May were as follows:

                  

Hurstville House, 34 MacMahon Street, Hurstville

$8.0M

38 Humphreys Lane, Hurstville

$7.3M

Total Property Investments

$15.3M

 

3.         The investment property valuations listed above have been undertaken in accordance with the revaluation process to ‘fair value’ by an independent valuer, in compliance with the Australian Accounting Standards.

 

4.         Council continues to utilise the Federal Government’s current guarantee ($250K) investing in Term Deposits with a range of Authorised Deposit Taking Institutions (ADI’s) on short to medium term investments (generally 30 days to 180 days maturity) where more competitive rates are available.

 

 

5.         Council’s income from investments is above budget, due mainly to Council receiving more funds from Section 94 contributions, with investment income for General Revenue remaining steady.

 

Legal Issues

6.         Council is participating in the IMF class action regarding Lehman Brothers Australia Liquidation. An interim dividend of $3.6m net of costs was received on 27 May 2016.

 

Loan Liability

 

7.         Council’s loan liability as at 31 May was $3.25 million which represents the balance of $5M ten year loan drawn down on 16 November 2012 for Jubilee Park upgrade. The outstanding balance on this facility is at a variable interest of 194 basis points over 90-day BBSW. At the current 90-day BBSW rate, the interest rate payable is 4.05%pa. Council receives a 4% pa subsidy under the NSW Government’s Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme funding agreement for this Jubilee Park upgrade facility. Thus the net cost of this money is only 0.05%pa.  It is intended to continue this financially-advantageous arrangement through to full term in 2022.

 

Operational Plan Budget

Investment income

Financial Year to Date Actual

$3,582M

Budget

$3,265M

Variance

$316K

                                     

Within budget allocation.

No budget impact for this report.

 

Certification by Chief Financial Officer:Tino Caltabiano

Investments have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, Minister's Guidelines, Regulations and Council's Investment Policy.

 

 

 

APPENDICES

Appendix View1

Investment Register - May 2016

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016

CCL029-16          Investment Report as at 31 May 2016

[Appendix 1]          Investment Register - May 2016


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016                                                                    Page 155

 

Item:                   CCL030-16        Advice on Court Proceedings - June 2016 

Author:              General Counsel, Ms J Ware

 

 

 

Recommendation

THAT the information be received and noted.

 

Executive Summary

Advice on all Council’s Court proceedings for the month of June 2016 is contained within this report.

The total current Court proceedings for this month are broken down as follows:

Land and Environment Court appeals

·    13 x Class 1 (Merit/DA)

·    1 x Class 2 Appeal (Appeal against Order)

·    5 x Class 4 Proceedings

Local Court

·    7 x Prosecutions

Total costs to date for matters contained within this report are $694,552.27.

No new Class 1 appeals were lodged in the month of June 2016.

One matter was resolved by way of s34A Agreement (Succar) saving approximately two days of Court time and costs (estimated savings of $8,800).

 

Background

1.         All current Court proceedings for Council are set out below.  The external costs include both external legal and consultants’ fees.

 

Property Address / Applicant / Proceedings Number

Description of Matter

Status / Critical Dates

 

External Costs to Date

 

 

Class I matters

 

 

 

 

14 Wright Street

HURSTVILLE

 

Applicant:

Prajna Monastery

Australia Inc.

 

LEC Proceedings

10499 of 2015

 

Class 1 Appeal against actual refusal of development application DA2014/0978 for construction of a meditation/prayer hall with basement parking. 

Matter heard before Commissioner Pearson on 7 and 8 March 2016. Judgment reserved.

$84,910.05

849 King Georges Road

SOUTH HURSTVILLE

 

Applicant:

Nassar Hussein

 

LEC Proceedings

11204 of 2015

 

Class 1 Appeal against the deemed refusal  of development application DA2015/234 for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a two storey place of public worship (being a mosque with associated classrooms) over three levels of basement car parking.

 

Matter listed for hearing on 22-24 August 2016. Sandra Duggan SC has been briefed to appear on Council’s behalf.

$51,147.68

48-50 Forest Road

HURSTVILLE

 

Applicant:

Adgemis Holdings Pty Ltd

 

LEC Proceedings

11256 of 2015

Class 1 Appeal against the deemed refusal of development application DA2015/0413 for the construction of a three storey building comprising a childcare centre, two levels of residential apartments and basement car parking.

 

 

Matter listed for s34 conciliation conference on 8 April 2016. Adjourned to allow amended plans to 30 June 2016. Parties still involved in S34 discussions.  Proceedings listed for hearing on 22 and 23 August 2016.

$29,767.87

Unit 53

2-8 Bridge Street

HURSTVILLE

 

Applicant:

Marko Kozarovski

 

LEC Proceedings

10105 of 2016

Class 1 Appeal against actual refusal of development application DA2014/1108 for conversion of office to child care centre.

Matter listed for further S34 conference on 5 August 2016.

$11,853.38

8 Cooloongatta Road

BEVERLY HILLS

 

Applicant:

Deab-Anthony Succar & Sally Succar

 

LEC Proceedings

10201 of 2016

Class 1 Appeal against actual refusal of development application DA2015/0129 for the demolition of existing dwellings and construction of dual occupancy.

Section 34 Agreement reached and filed in Court. Development consent granted subject to conditions. Proceedings now dispensed with. Applicant has now paid s97B costs of $7,500.00.

$15,301.58

799 Forest Road PEAKHURST

 

Applicant:

CC Builders (NSW) Pty Ltd

 

LEC Proceedings

10230 of 2016

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of development application DA2015/0457 for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a multi dwelling housing development including six dwellings. 

 

Section 34 conference held on 16 June 2016.  The Applicant to lodge amended proposal by 11 July 2016.  Matter listed for further conciliation on 1 August 2016.

$5,000.00

106 Edgbaston Road BEVERLY HILLS

 

Applicant:

Steve Zhou

 

LEC Proceedings

10241 of 2016

Class 1 Appeal against deferred commencement condition relating to storm water in development consent DA2015/0236 for demolition of existing dwellings and construction of new two storey attached dual occupancy.

 

The applicant has now amended its storm water design in accordance with comments of Council’s consultant hydraulic engineer.  The matter is listed for hearing on 28 and 29 June 2016.

$0

45 Ogilvy Street

PEAKHURST

 

Applicant:

Emad & Eva Nada

 

LEC Proceedings

11040 of 2014

 

 

Class 1 appeal relating to a child care centre.  Commissioner satisfied that DA worthy of approval, subject to storm water issues being resolved.  Applicant attempted to obtain easements and was unsuccessful.  Class 1 appeal re-opened with applicant’s alternative storm water plan. 

 

Final conditions of consent submitted to Court with applicant’s version and Council’s version.  Awaiting Judgment.

$127,079.13

59 Park Street

PEAKHURST

 

Applicant:

M & J Conradt Pty Ltd and M & J Conradt Investment Trust

 

LEC Proceedings

10295 of 2016

Class 1 Appeal against actual refusal of development application DA2015/0209 for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of multi dwelling housing development comprising three dwellings and strata subdivision.

 

Matter listed for hearing of Consent Orders 19 and 20 July 2016 with resident objectors giving evidence.

$0

78 Stuart Street

BLAKEHURST

 

Applicant:

Nicholas and Maria Kotsifas

 

LEC Proceedings

10307 of 2016

 

Class 1 Appeal against refusal of Section 96 application to modify development consent 306/2012/3 for detached extended family unit and swimming pool to delete conditions relating to vehicular and construction access from River Street.

 

Matter listed for s34 conciliation conference on 25 July 2016.

$2,449.70

102 Gungah Bay Road

OATLEY

 

Applicant:

Vincent Caristo

 

LEC Proceedings

10402 of 2016

 

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of development application DA2015/0404 for construction of new two storey dwelling with in-ground swimming pool and cabana. Only issue is proposed removal of significant tree on Council’s nature strip.

 

Matter listed for s34AA conciliation and hearing on 15 and 16 July 2016.

$0

58 Lawrence Street

PEAKHURST

 

Applicant:

Mehedin Abdul-Rahman

 

LEC Proceedings

10436 of 2016

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of development application DA2016/0051 for demolition of existing dwellings and structures and subsequent construction of a multi dwelling housing development comprising seven dwellings, basement car parking and associated landscaping. Assessment being carried out by external planner.

 

Matter listed for s34 conference on
1 September 2016.

$0

26 Parkside Drive

KOGARAH BAY

 

Applicant:

Jim and Harriet Raftopoulos

 

LEC Proceedings

10441 of 2016

 

Class 1 Appeal against actual refusal of development application DA2015/0172 for the Torrens Title subdivision and construction of a new dwelling on a new rear lot.

Amended plans filed with the Court. Matter listed for s34AA Conciliation and hearing on 12 and 13 September 2016.

$0

 

Class 4 matters

 

 

 

 

84D Roberts Avenue

MORTDALE

 

Parties:

 

Romanous Developments Pty Ltd

 

LEC Proceedings

40883 of 2013

 

Class 4 commenced in relation to unauthorised works.  Following Court Orders, the respondents have complied with their initial obligations to appoint a site auditor and to finalise the necessary remediation plan.  Council’s costs paid by respondents. 

Site subject to ongoing monitoring.

Development Application for remedial works and a section 106 modification application to section 68 approval for drainage lodged by respondent and currently being processed by Council.

$283,705.51

58 Johnstone Street

PEAKHURST

 

Parties:

Kevin Jacobs

 

LEC Proceedings

40060 of 2015

 

Class 4 commenced in relation to clean up of property. Council removed waste from premises.

Debt recovery proceedings commenced for approximately $100,000 outstanding in costs orders for this and other matters.

$66,602.02

58 and 60 Blackshaw Avenue

MORTDALE

 

Parties:

Marion McDowell & Associates Pty Ltd

 

LEC Proceedings

40249 of 2016

 

Class 4 commenced in relation to unauthorised use of premises as a waste transfer station.

Court Orders obtained to cease use until development consent is obtained.  Costs to be paid by 1 August 2016.

$0

37 Boronia Street

KYLE BAY

 

Parties:

Mrs Megan McOnie

 

LEC Proceedings

 

Class 4 commenced in relation to failing to comply with Council Notices/Orders relating to a non-compliant swimming pool fence, overgrown vegetation and unhealthy swimming pool water.

Court Orders in support of Council’s Notices/Orders were provided on 21 April 2016. Orders not served due to Mrs McOnie’s whereabouts being unknown (she has no fixed place of abode).

 

$11,925.02

105 Forest Road HURSTVILLE

 

Parties:

Australian Consulting Builder Pty Ltd

 

LEC Proceedings

40361 of 2016

Class 4 commenced in relation to failing to comply with Council Notices/Orders relating to overgrown vegetation, accumulation of waste and breeding place for vermin.

Works partially carried out. Timetable set for evidence and listed for further directions hearing on 29 July 2016.

$4,620.33

 

Class 2 matters

 

 

 

 

1 Arnold Street

PEAKHURST

 

Parties:

Mofeed Louis Tanious

 

LEC Proceedings

20069 of 2016

 

Class 2 commencing in relation to failing to comply with Council Notices/Orders concerning keeping of poultry and  birds.

Matter listed for hearing on 2 and 3 August 2016.

$0

 

Local Court matters

 

 

 

13-17 Peake Parade

PEAKHURST

 

Parties:

Oxford (NSW) Pty Ltd

 

Sutherland Local Court

Appeal against PIN for breaches of development consent. Defendant pleaded not guilty.

Matter part heard on 20 May 2016. Listed for further hearing on 26 October 2016.

$0

13-17 Peake Parade

PEAKHURST

 

Parties:

Oxford (NSW) Pty Ltd

 

Sutherland Local Court

Appeals against five PINs for breaches of development consent and one water pollution offence under POEO Act. Defendant entered not guilty pleas on all offences.

Matter listed for mention on 19 July 2016.

$190.00

25 Koorabel Street

LUGARNO

 

Parties:

Daoud & Daoud Developments Pty Ltd

 

Burwood Local Court

Appeal against PIN issued for carrying out development no in accordance with development consent.  Defendant pleaded not guilty.

Matter listed for hearing on 10 August 2016.

$0

 

 

 

TOTAL

 

$694,552.27

 

 

Operational Plan Budget

Within budget allocation.

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council – Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016                                                                    Page 161

 

Item:                   CCL031-16        Council Seal 

Author:              Manager Governance, Ms C Bush

 

 

 

Recommendation

a)      That the previous Georges River Council Common Seal adopted at the Extraordinary Council meeting 19 May 2016 be revoked.

b)      That the revised Georges River Council Common Seal as shown in the Attachment to the report be adopted in accordance with Clause 400 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

 

Executive Summary

To consider the adoption of a newly revised Georges River Council Seal due to Council recently obtaining an Australian Business Number (ABN).

 

Background

1.         Clause 400 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that “The Seal of a council must be kept by the Mayor or General Manager, as Council determines.”

 

2.         Following the proclamation of the Georges River Council on 12 May 2016, Council was required to adopt a new Common Seal.  At its Extraordinary Council meeting of 19 May 2016 Council adopted a new Common Seal for Georges River Council. 

 

3.         Since the adoption of the Common Seal, Council has obtained an Australian Business Number (ABN) now the Council Seal needs to be revised to reflect this change.  Therefore, the previously adopted Common Seal needs to be revoked.

 

4.         A confidential copy of a proposed design for the newly revised Georges River Common Seal is attached.

 

5.         The design replicates the font of the Georges River Council logo and the leaf pattern reflects the native tree, Ficus rubiginosa, also known as the Port Jackson fig which is native to the Georges River region.  The design also includes name, establishment date and the ABN.

 

Operational Plan Budget

 

Within budget allocation.

 

Governance Operating Budget 2015/16 – Stationery/Purchase of a Common Seal Stamp - $90.

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council – Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016                                                                    Page 162

 

Item:                   CCL032-16        Power of Attorney 

Author:              Manager Governance, Ms C Bush

 

 

 

Recommendation

a)   That the Power of Attorney granted to Gail Connolly as Interim General Manager of Georges River Council in accordance with a resolution made on 19 May 2016 be revoked.

b)   That pursuant to Sections 8 and 9 of the Powers of Attorney Act 2003 a limited Power of Attorney be granted to Gail Connolly as Interim General Manager of Georges River Council in accordance with the draft instrument attached to this report.

c)   That the Administrator be authorised to affix the Common Seal of Council to the Power of Attorney instrument under Clause 400 (4) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

 

Executive Summary

 

To grant Power of Attorney to Gail Connolly as Interim General Manager of Georges River Council due to the recently revised Council Seal.

 

Background

 

1.         Council is a Corporation with a Common Seal of Council as its formal means to execute documents requiring the affixing of a seal such as Real Property Act forms and Deeds.

 

2.         Clause 400 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 governs the safekeeping and use of the Common Seal of Council.

 

3.         At its Extraordinary Council Meeting on 19 May 2016, and following proclamation of the Georges River Council on 12 May 2016, Council adopted its Seal.

 

4.         Execution under the Common Seal of Council is not the only means under which Council can lawfully execute documents.

 

5.         The Registrar General and the law generally, gives the same validity to documents exercised under Power of Attorney.

 

6.         Following her appointment by proclamation on 12 May 2016 to the position of Interim General Manager of Georges River Council, at the Extraordinary Council Meeting of 19 May 2016, Council resolved to grant a Power of Attorney to Ms Gail Connolly.  Since that meeting Georges River Council has obtained an Australian Business Number (ABN) and Council’s seal has been updated to reflect this change. Therefore, Ms Connolly’s previous Power of Attorney must be revoked and replaced with a new Power of Attorney that includes the revised Seal.

 

7.         A report on the adoption of the revised Seal of Georges River Council was listed for consideration earlier at this meeting.

 

8.         Should Council wish to grant Power of Attorney to the Interim General Manager the execution of the document regarding the Power of Attorney (attached) will need to be made under Common Seal of Council.  It is necessary that for this execution the Administrator be authorised to affix the Common Seal of Council.

 

9.         The Grant of the Power of Attorney is personal, that is it will name Gail Connolly as the recipient of the grant and it is capable of revocation at any time by the Council.

 

 

Operational Plan Budget

No budget impact for this report.

 

 

 

APPENDICES

Appendix View1

Power of Attorney Instrument - 4 July 2016

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016

CCL032-16          Power of Attorney

[Appendix 1]          Power of Attorney Instrument - 4 July 2016

 

POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

 

THE COUNCIL OF GEORGES RIVER (hereafter called the “Council”) hereby nominates, constitutes and appoints GAIL CONNOLLY, Interim General Manager of the Council, as and to be its true and lawful attorney for it to do all such acts of every description that may be necessary or expedient to transfer property both real and personal of the Council and to the Council, to grant, release, accept, surrender or vary any lease or licence for the use of any land or other property and to enter into, vary or release restrictive covenants, and to accept indemnities on behalf of the Council involving land owned by the Council or any other land provided however:

 

(a)       the transaction has already been approved by resolution of the Council; or

(b)       the transactions is a matter within the delegations given to the Interim General Manager of the Council by the Council under Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993; or

(c)       the transaction is required under a condition of consent issued by the Council pursuant of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

IN WITNESS HEREOF the common seal of the Council has hereunto been affixed.

 

 

 

THE COMMON     SEAL   OF      THE      )

COUNCIL    OF    GEORGES     RIVER     )

was       hereunto         affixed      this               )

          day of                                        2016         )

in  accordance  with  a  resolution  made      )

on the 4th day of  July 2016                              )

 

                                                                   _____________________________

                                                                   Administrator

 

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016                                                                    Page 165

 

Item:                   CCL033-16        Pecuniary Interests Disclosures Returns and Register 

Author:              Manager Governance, Ms C Bush

 

 

 

Recommendation

a)      That the tabling of the Pecuniary Interests Disclosure Returns by the Administrator, John Rayner and Interim General Manager, Gail Connolly in accordance with requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 be noted.

b)      Further, that the Pecuniary Interest Disclosure Returns tabled in a) above be included in the Disclosure of Pecuniary Interests Returns Register.

 

Executive Summary

To table the Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest Returns incorporating returns lodged by the Administrator and Interim General Manager in accordance with the requirements of Section 449 (1) and Section 450A (2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Background

1.         Section 449 of the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) requires the lodgement of returns disclosing interests of councillors and designated persons. 

2.         The Georges River Council was proclaimed on 12 May 2016.  In this regard, under Section 449 (1) a councillor or designated person must complete and lodge with the General Manager, within 3 months after becoming a councillor or designated person, a return in the form as prescribed by the regulations.

3.         The Administrator and the Interim General Manager are deemed to be ‘designated persons’ for the purposes of section 441 of the Local Government Act 1993 by the proclamation of the new Georges River Council on 12 May 2016.

4.         Under Section 450A (2) and 450 A (2) (a) of the Act, requires returns lodged with the General Manager under Section 449 to be tabled at a meeting of the Council, in this instance, for the returns lodged in accordance with section 449 (1) must be tabled at the first Council Meeting held after the last day of lodgement.  Ordinarily pecuniary interest returns of newly designated persons must be submitted within three months of appointment. In the interests of transparency for the new Council, lodgement and tabling of the first returns of both the Administrator, John Rayner and Interim General Manager, Gail Connolly have been accelerated.

5.         These returns will be incorporated into the Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest Returns register.   The register can be inspected by contacting either Council’s Manager Governance or Manager Customer Service.

6.         It should also be noted that under Section 449 (4) a person need not lodge a return within 3-month period after 30 June in a year if the person lodged a return under subsection (1) within 3 months of 30 June in  that year.  However under Section 449 (5) nothing in this section prevents a councillor or designated person from lodging more than one return in any year.

 

7.         The current register covers interests of designated persons in the former council for the period ending 30 June 2015.  A further report regarding returns for designated persons will be submitted to a future Council meeting in accordance with legislation requirements.

 

Operational Plan Budget

8.      No budget impact for this report.

 

Attachments / Annexures

Nil.

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council – Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016                                                                    Page 167

 

Item :                  CCL034-16        Establishment of a Regional (Georges River) Chamber of Commerce 

Author :             Hurstville Place Manager, Mr C Edmondson

 

 

 

Recommendation

a)   That a Georges River Chamber of Commerce be established.

b)   That the General Manager be authorised to prepare and execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Georges River Chamber of Commerce and Georges River Council that outlines key deliverables to be achieved.

c)   That subject to, the agreement to establish a Regional Chamber of Commerce and a supporting MOU, Council, contribute $30,000 per year over five years to assist in the development of programs that support the business community in Georges River LGA.

d)   That, subject to the agreement to establish a Regional Chamber of Commerce and a supporting MOU, Council provide a dedicated meeting/office space in the Hurstville Entertainment Centre for a five year period, as well as a meeting space at Kogarah Library (or similar) for a five year period to enable Chamber sub-groups to meet.

 

Executive Summary

Currently in the Georges River Council area there are four (4) Chambers of Commerce – Hurstville, Kogarah, Lugarno and Mortdale. Following the proclamation of Georges River Council on 12 May 2016, there is an opportunity to develop a Regional (Georges River) Chamber of Commerce that could support and increase the capacity of the existing Chambers of Commerce, providing many benefits to the Georges River community. In order to support the development of a Regional Chamber of Commerce, Council could provide financial support, in addition to in-kind support through access to Council economic development programs, communications networks and venues.

 

Background

1.      It is envisaged that the Georges River Chamber of Commerce will be a voice for local businesses that will be focused on identifying current issues and future needs of business. A strong Chamber and a healthy business sector translate to a healthy community in which to work and live.

2.      The objectives of a Regional Chamber of Commerce would be to:

§  To promote the interest of business in Georges River Council;

§  To represent the business community of Georges River for the purpose of business development and growth;

§  To promote the interchange of services and information, to advocate for positive measures affecting commerce, business or community welfare within Georges River;

§  To encourage friendly relations and trade between members and to enhance the precinct as a vibrant and enjoyable place to work, conduct trade, live and visit;

§  To promote interactive projects and maintain an effective cooperative relationship with the Georges River Council, local members and other organizations within the local area;

§  To provide a regular opportunity for business people in Georges River to exchange information and ideas, and to solve common problems.

3.      Previous submissions from the Hurstville Chamber to the former Hurstville City Council had indicated that funds would be used to organise a program of business seminars and networking events for both members and non-members of the Hurstville Chamber of Commerce that would run from July 2015 until May 2016. The letter also stated that the Chamber would concentrate on the following areas:

(i)    Providing networking opportunities

(ii)   Educating members in business and business growth

(iii)  Being the voice of the greater business community in Hurstville

(iv)  Creating an open dialogue with local, state and federal government

(v)   A strong community representation regarding all business matters in the local area.

4.      The former Hurstville Council agreed to grant the Chamber’s request and in November 2015 Council considered a further request from the Chamber seeking approval from Council to utilise meeting space in the Hurstville Entertainment Centre.

5.      Subsequently, a small office adjacent to Amaroo 2 Meeting Room within the Hurstville Entertainment Centre was set aside and some minor renovations occurred with the Chamber taking up residence in early 2016.

6.      The Chamber President and Vice President also met with the Administrator and General Manager on Tuesday 7 June 2016. At that meeting, the Chamber outlined its plans to form a regional Chamber of Commerce that would incorporate the Lugarno Progress Association (currently active) and the Mortdale Chamber of Commerce (currently in hiatus).  Contact has also been made with the Rockdale Chamber of Commerce.

7.      The Chamber also indicated that talks had been initiated with Kogarah Chamber of Commerce to investigate the possibility of working together. To date, discussions with the Kogarah Chamber of Commerce are continuing.

8.      This report recommends that Council assist the formation of a Regional (Georges River) Chamber of Commerce and work towards developing a MOU that will outline the key expectations of the entity and a commitment from Council to provide funding, accommodation and in kind support.

 

Operational Plan Budget

No budget impact for this report.

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council – Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016                                                                    Page 169

 

Item :                  CCL035-16        Annual Major Events Schedule for Georges River Council 

Author :             Acting Director Community and Culture, Ms A Murphy

 

 

 

Recommendation

That the following annual major events schedule be endorsed for the Georges River Council local government area:

 

a)   That one Australia Day event be held at Carss Bush Park, incorporating a Citizenship Ceremony, Citizen of the Year Awards, local community entertainment from Georges River Council area, professional entertainment and fireworks;

b)   That Georges River Council promote a festival program for the Lunar New Year that includes a Lunar New Year event to be held in Hurstville CBD, a smaller event with community entertainment to be held in Kogarah Town Square, and incorporate, Library programs and activities that celebrate Lunar New Year;

c)   That Citizenship Ceremonies be held at Hurstville Civic Centre on a bi-monthly basis as outlined in this report and that the ceremonies be consistent with the format outlined in this report;

d)   That Council holds a Christmas function in December each year to recognise the efforts of community organisations and businesses throughout the year;

e)   That a Council sponsorship proposal be developed to support future major events;

f)    That Council continues to facilitate major community events as outlined in this report; and

g)   That community events be reviewed in conjunction with the establishment of the Georges River Community Grants Program, to ensure that best value for ratepayers is achieved.

 

 

Executive Summary

To advise Council on the annual major events schedule for Georges River Council.

 

Background

1.         The former Kogarah and Hurstville City Councils and former Hurstville City Council had a number of major annual events scheduled to occur.  These included:

·    Australia Day;

·    Chinese New Year; and

·    Citizenship ceremonies.

2.         There is now an opportunity to bring these events together into a single events calendar to enable the community to celebrate significant events and identify as Georges River Council.

 

Australia Day

3.         In the past Kogarah City Council held a large Australia Day event at Carss Bush Park that included a Citizenship Ceremony, Australia Day Award announcements and a full day of community and professional entertainment, concluding with fireworks at 9pm.  The event continued to attract more than 20,000 people annually.

4.         In the past Hurstville City Council organised an Australia Day family fun day at Oatley Park from 10am to 4pm.  The event included a Citizenship ceremony, Citizen of the Year Awards, charity BBQ and a range of children’s entertainment and activities.

 

5.         It is suggested that Council consider organising one Australia Day event to be held at Carss Bush Park and that the event incorporate a Citizenship Ceremony, Citizen of the Year Awards, local Community entertainment from Georges River Council area, leading into professional entertainment and fireworks to conclude the night.

 

Chinese New Year

6.         In previous years Kogarah City Council would hold a Chinese New Year event in the Kogarah Town Square on a Thursday evening from 6pm to 9pm.  The Chinese Consul General would attend and Community entertainment was provided.  A VIP reception for sponsors and Chinese Community organisations was also held.

7.         In previous years Hurstville City Council would hold a large Lunar New Year event on a weekend, attracting a large amount of sponsorship and media coverage.  The Chinese Consul General would attend and community entertainment was provided.  The event last year attracted more than 35,000 people to the city centre.  A VIP reception for sponsors and Chinese Community organisations was also held.

8.         It is suggested that Council consider promoting a Festival Program for the Lunar New Year and that the program include a Lunar New Year event to be held in Hurstville CBD, and a smaller event with community entertainment to be held in Kogarah Town Square.  The Festival program should also incorporate and promote Lunar New Year programs and activities which would be provided by Council’s Libraries and Community Development teams.

 

Citizenship Ceremonies

9.         Both the former Kogarah and Hurstville City Councils held bi-monthly citizenship ceremonies.  As Hurstville Civic Centre has the capacity to hold more people it is suggested that from August 2016, future ceremonies be combined and held at Hurstville Civic Centre.  The following ceremonies are proposed:

·    Thursday, 28 July 2016 – Hurstville Civic Theatre / Marana Auditorium
(70 candidates);

·    Thursday, 8 September 2016 – Hurstville Civic Theatre / Marana Auditorium
(70 candidates);

·    Thursday, 3 November 2016 - Hurstville Civic Theatre / Marana Auditorium
(70 candidates); and

·    Thursday, 26 January 2017 - Australia Day celebrations Carss Bush Park
(100 candidates).

10.       It is recommended that Council consider the following format when conducting future citizenship ceremonies:

·    The Endeavor Harmony Choir (or similar) provide background music for ceremonies.

·    That tea, coffee, juice and Anzac biscuits or similar minimal catering be provided.

·    That a professional photographer is available for the ceremonies and that their contact details are provided to new citizens if they wish to purchase photos.

·    That information packs regarding Georges River Council be provided to new citizens at ceremonies.

 

Business Awards

11.       In the past Kogarah City Council sponsor the St George Business Awards in the amount of $6,000 each year.  This ensured the awards were held in our area and minimal organisational involvement was required from Council.  Council representatives were invited to participate in the Award night presentations, where finalists and winners were announced.  The event was also sponsored by St George Leader and provided good promotional opportunities for Georges River Council.

12.       In the past Hurstville City Council organised Business Awards specifically for the former Hurstville Council area.  The budget for the event was $20,000 and involved significant staffing resources to coordinate award categories, assessment process and award evening.

13.       It is recommended that Council sponsor the St George Business Awards produced by Precedent Productions and that the former ‘Hurstville Business Awards’ no longer be held.  It is also proposed that funding and resources which were previously allocated by Hurstville Council to the Awards now be redirected to other business initiatives that benefit the Georges River business community.

 

Annual Mayoral Christmas Function

14.       The former Kogarah and Hurstville City Councils held Christmas functions early in December and invited Local Members, representative community and business organisations and Council event sponsors during the year.  It is recommended that Georges River Council hold a Christmas function early in December to recognise the efforts of community organisations and businesses in supporting the Georges River Community throughout the year.

 

Sponsorship for Major Events

15.       Previously, both the former Kogarah and Hurstville City Councils have been successful in attracting sponsorship funding for major events.  It is recommended that appropriate Georges River Council sponsorship proposals be developed to support the resourcing of future major events.

 

Major Community Events

16.      Previously, both the former Kogarah and Hurstville City Councils have facilitated community events including the Lugarno Spring Fair, Oatley Spring Fair and the Greek Festival. It is recommended that this support continues.

 

Operational Plan Budget

17.      Within budget allocation.

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council – Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016                                                                    Page 172

 

Item:                   CCL036-16        Georges River Council Traffic Committee - 7 June 2016 

Author:              Acting Director Assets and Infrastructure, Mr L O’Connor

 

 

 

Recommendation

THAT the minutes be adopted.

 

Executive Summary

Meeting of the first Georges River Council Traffic Committee was held on 7 June 2016 at the Kogarah Civic Centre.

 

Background

In accordance with the proclamation a new Georges River Council Traffic Committee was formed and its first meeting was held on 7 June 2016.

 

Attached are the Minutes of the Meeting for adoption.

 

Operational Plan Budget

No budget impact for this report.

 

 

 

APPENDICES

Appendix View1

Traffic Committee Minutes - 7 June 2016

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016

CCL036-16          Georges River Council Traffic Committee - 7 June 2016

[Appendix 1]          Traffic Committee Minutes - 7 June 2016


 


 


 


 


 


 

  


Georges River Council – Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016                                                                    Page 180

 

1.      Confidential (Closed Council Meeting)

Council's Code of Meeting Practice allows members of the public present to indicate whether they wish to make representations to the meeting, before it is closed to the public, as to whether that part of the meeting dealing with any or all, of the matters below should or should not be considered in closed session.

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Chapter 4 of the Local Government Act 1993, the following matters be considered in closed Council Meeting at which the press and public are excluded.

CON005-16       Proposed Road Closure and Sale of Part Boronia Parade Lugarno

(Report by Property Portfolio Manager, Mr B Morabito)

THAT in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Chapter 4 of the Local Government Act 1993, the matters dealt with in this report be considered in closed Council Meeting at which the press and public are excluded. In accordance with Section 10A(2) (c) it is considered the matter information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

THAT in accordance with Section 10D it is considered that if the matter were discussed in an open Council Meeting, it would on balance, be contrary to the public interest as it information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

CON006-16       Proposed Lease of Kyle Bay on Georges (Formerly Club Blakehurst) Building

(Report by Buildings and Facilities Officer, Ms M  Malivindi)

THAT in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Chapter 4 of the Local Government Act 1993, the matters dealt with in this report be considered in closed Council Meeting at which the press and public are excluded. In accordance with Section 10A(2) (c) (d(i)) it is considered the matter information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND concerns commercial information of a confidential nature that would if disclosed prejudice the position of a person who supplied it.

THAT in accordance with Section 10D it is considered that if the matter were discussed in an open Council Meeting, it would on balance, be contrary to the public interest as it information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND concerns commercial information of a confidential nature that would if disclosed prejudice the position of a person who supplied it.

CON007-16       Tender for the Hurstville Library Courtyard Modication and Archive Storage Facility

(Report by Manager Engineering Services, Mrs M Whitehurst)

THAT in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Chapter 4 of the Local Government Act 1993, the matters dealt with in this report be considered in closed Council Meeting at which the press and public are excluded. In accordance with Section 10A(2) (d(i)) it is considered the matter concerns commercial information of a confidential nature that would if disclosed prejudice the position of a person who supplied it.

THAT in accordance with Section 10D it is considered that if the matter were discussed in an open Council Meeting, it would on balance, be contrary to the public interest as it concerns commercial information of a confidential nature that would if disclosed prejudice the position of a person who supplied it.

COW008-16      Tender - T2/2016 Drainage Culvert Construction and Ancillary Works - Harris & Nelson Streets, Sans Souci, NSW

(Report by Manager Parks and Waterways, Mr G Moody)

THAT in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Chapter 4 of the Local Government Act 1993, the matters dealt with in this report be considered in closed Council Meeting at which the press and public are excluded. In accordance with Section 10A(2) (c) (d(i)) it is considered the matter information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND concerns commercial information of a confidential nature that would if disclosed prejudice the position of a person who supplied it.

THAT in accordance with Section 10D it is considered that if the matter were discussed in an open Council Meeting, it would on balance, be contrary to the public interest as it information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND concerns commercial information of a confidential nature that would if disclosed prejudice the position of a person who supplied it.

COW009-16      Tender T3/2016 - New Toilet Facility, Oatley Bay Boat Ramp, Hurstville Grove, NSW

(Report by Manager Parks and Waterways, Mr G Moody)

THAT in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Chapter 4 of the Local Government Act 1993, the matters dealt with in this report be considered in closed Council Meeting at which the press and public are excluded. In accordance with Section 10A(2) (c) (d(i)) it is considered the matter information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND concerns commercial information of a confidential nature that would if disclosed prejudice the position of a person who supplied it.

THAT in accordance with Section 10D it is considered that if the matter were discussed in an open Council Meeting, it would on balance, be contrary to the public interest as it information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND concerns commercial information of a confidential nature that would if disclosed prejudice the position of a person who supplied it.

COW010-16      SSROC Provision of Agricultural Products Tender

(Report by Coordinator Procurement, Ms M Getsios)

THAT in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Chapter 4 of the Local Government Act 1993, the matters dealt with in this report be considered in closed Council Meeting at which the press and public are excluded. In accordance with Section 10A(2) (c) (d(i)) it is considered the matter information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND concerns commercial information of a confidential nature that would if disclosed prejudice the position of a person who supplied it.

THAT in accordance with Section 10D it is considered that if the matter were discussed in an open Council Meeting, it would on balance, be contrary to the public interest as it information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND concerns commercial information of a confidential nature that would if disclosed prejudice the position of a person who supplied it.

COW011-16      Insurance Matter - 6 Kingsway, Kingsgrove

(Report by General Counsel, Ms J Ware)

THAT in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Chapter 4 of the Local Government Act 1993, the matters dealt with in this report be considered in closed Council Meeting at which the press and public are excluded. In accordance with Section 10A(2) (b) (g) it is considered the matter contains information concerning the personal hardship of a resident or ratepayer; AND contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

THAT in accordance with Section 10D it is considered that if the matter were discussed in an open Council Meeting, it would on balance, be contrary to the public interest as it contains information concerning the personal hardship of a resident or ratepayer; AND contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

 

THAT in accordance with the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act, the reports and correspondence relating to these matters be withheld from the press and public.

FURTHER, THAT Council now moves into Closed Council in accordance with Section 10A of the Local Government Act 1993, Council Staff (other than members of the Executive, the Acting Manager Corporate Governance and others at the invitation of the Administrator) and members of the press and the public be excluded from the Council Chamber during consideration of the items referred to Committee of the Whole.

 

 

  


Georges River Council – Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 4 July 2016                                                                    Page 183

 

2.      Open Council

3.      Consideration of Confidential Recommendations

 

 


 [AV1]Recheck numbering when complete