Georges River letterhead design_HEADER

Council Meeting

Notice of Meeting

 

Monday, 7 November 2016

1 November 2016

 

Mr John Rayner

 

An Ordinary Council meeting will be held at 6.00pm in Council Chambers, Hurstville Civic Centre, MacMahon Street, Hurstville, on Monday, 7 November 2016 for consideration of the business available on Council's website at http://www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au/Council/Council-Meetings

 

 

 

 

 

Gail Connolly

General Manager

 

BUSINESS

1.      Acknowledgement of Country

2.      Apologies

3.      Disclosures of Interest

4.      Administrator Minute

5.      Minutes of previous meetings

6.      Environment and Planning

7.      Finance and Governance

8.      Assets and Infrastructure

9.      Community and Culture

10.    Confidential items

 


Ordinary Meeting

Summary of Items

Monday, 7 November 2016

 

Previous Minutes

MINUTES: Council Meeting - 10 October 2016

Environment and Planning

CCL093-16       Status Report - Planning Proposal - PP2014/0003 - Nos. 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville - Hurstville Ward

(Report by Manager Strategic Planning, Carina Gregory)...................................... 2

CCL094-16       Summary of Development Applications lodged and determined and new Class 1 Appeals filed

(Report by Manager – Development Assessment, Tina Christy)......................... 13

Finance and Governance

CCL095-16       Property Matter - Former Oatley Bowling Club Site - River Road, Oatley

(Report by Manager Property, Claire Stuckey)....................................................... 17

CCL096-16       UOW Jubilee Oval - Arrangements for the Ongoing Utilisation by St George Illawarra Dragons and the Georges River Community for 2017 and beyond

(Report by Executive Manager, Rebekah Schulz).............................................. 152

CCL097-16       Advice on Court Proceedings - October 2016

(Report by General Counsel, Jenny Ware)........................................................... 156

CCL098-16       Southern Sydney Regional Organisations of Councils Supply and Delivery of Sodium Hypochlorite (Bulk Liquid Chlorine)

(Report by Coordinator Procurement, Marea Getsios)........................................ 162

CCL099-16       Georges River Council Quarterly Budget Review Statement to 30 September 2016

(Report by Chief Financial Officer, John Maunder)............................................ 164

CCL100-16       Investment Report as at 30 September 2016

(Report by Coordinator Financial Management, Francis Mangru)................... 182

CCL101-16       Georges River Council Transformation and Change Implementation Plan 2016

(Report by Director Transformation and Change, Marissa Racomelara)......... 200

Assets and Infrastructure

CCL102-16       Georges River Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 18 October 2016

(Report by Manager Assets Planning and Services, Obi Thomas).................. 254

 

CCL103-16       Tender for Clarendon Road, Peakhurst Drainage Upgrade

(Report by Manager Engineering Services, Michelle Whitehurst)................... 261

CCL104-16       Tender for the Supply and Delivery of A Footpath Scrubber

(Report by Manager Engineering Services, Michelle Whitehurst)................... 263

CCL105-16       Tender T4/2016 Drainage Culvert Construction and Ancillary Works – Harris & Nelson Streets, Sans Souci, NSW

(Report by Manager Parks and Waterways, Glen Moody).................................. 265

Community and Culture

CCL106-16       Community Development and Services Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 12 September 2016

(Report by Manager Community Services, David Linden)................................. 267

CCL107-16       Aboriginal Advisory Committee Meeting - 10 October 2016

(Report by Manager Community Services, David Linden)................................. 270

CCL108-16       2016 Georges River Stronger Communities Fund Grant Program

(Report by Coordinator Community Development, Nicolas Best)..................... 272

 

Confidential (Closed Session)

CON022-16       Tender for Clarendon Road, Peakhurst Drainage Upgrade

(Report by Manager Engineering Services, Michelle Whitehurst)

CON023-16       Tender for the Supply and Delivery of A Footpath Scrubber

(Report by Manager Engineering Services, Michelle Whitehurst)

CON024-16       Tender T4/2016 Drainage Culvert Construction and Ancillary Works – Harris & Nelson Streets, Sans Souci, NSW

(Report by Manager Parks and Waterways, Glen Moody)  

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 November 2016                                                                        Page 1

 

AGENDA

1.      Acknowledgement of Traditional Custodians

Council acknowledges the traditional custodians of the land on which this meeting is being held as the Biddegal people of the Eora Nation.

2.      Apologies 

3.      Disclosure of Interest

4.      Administrator Minutes

5.      Minutes of previous meetings

MINUTES: Council Meeting - 10 October 2016


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 November 2016                                                                        Page 3

6.      Environment and Planning

 

Item:                   CCL093-16        Status Report - Planning Proposal - PP2014/0003 - Nos. 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville - Hurstville Ward 

Author:              Manager Strategic Planning, Carina Gregory and Director Environment and Planning, Meryl Bishop

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council note the receipt of the Gateway determination for the Planning Proposal for Nos. 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville.

(b)     That the Planning Proposal proceed to public exhibition subject to an appropriate material public benefit being identified, negotiated and formalised in an agreement to the satisfaction of the General Manager.

(c)     That should this agreement on the material public benefit not be achieved within 21 days, the matter be referred back to Council for consideration. 

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      This report provides an update on the receipt of the Gateway determination for the Planning Proposal (PP2014/0003) for Nos. 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville (the Site).

 

2.      The Planning Proposal was lodged on 7 November 2014 by KPoint Investments Pty Ltd on behalf of the Churches of Christ Trust and requested the following amendments to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“HLEP 2012”):

 

·    increasing the maximum building height from 40m to 55m

·    increasing the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) from 4.5:1 to 7:1

·    including a bonus 1:1 FSR for a community facility within the proposed FSR of 7:1.

 

3.      The former Hurstville City Council considered the Planning Proposal on 1 April 2015 and resolved not to support the Planning Proposal request due to a number of reasons including:

 

·    the exceedance of development standards,

·    inconsistency with the Hurstville City Centre Transport Management and Accessibility Plan, 2013 (the “TMAP”) recommendations,

·    inconsistency with S117 Direction 3.4: Integrating Land Use and Transport and

·    the setting of a precedent.

 

4.      The Applicant lodged a Pre-Gateway Review Application (PGR_2015_HURST_001_00) with the Department of Planning and Environment (the “Department”) on 22 May 2015. The application was considered by the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel (“JRPP”) at its meetings of 20 April 2016 and 1 June 2016. The JRPP recommended that “the proposed instrument should be submitted for a Gateway determination” subject to a number of amendments.

 

5.      Georges River Council (“Council”) advised the Department that it would agree to act as the Relevant Planning Authority (“RPA”) on 15 July 2016 and prepared a Planning Proposal for the Site in accordance with Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) and the Department's guidelines titled, “A guide to preparing local environmental plans” and “A guide to preparing planning proposals” which reflected the JRPP recommendations and includes a minimum “non-residential” FSR of 0.5:1 on the site.

 

6.      A Gateway determination request was submitted to the Department on 10 August 2016.

 

7.      Council has received a Gateway determination dated 28 September 2016 to enable public exhibition of the planning proposal to amend the height and FSR controls for 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville which contains a number of conditions (refer Attachment 1). The Department expects Council to place the planning proposal on exhibition as soon as practicable as the time frame for completing the LEP is July 2017.

 

Background

 

The Site

 

8.      The Site is located at Nos. 29 and 31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville. The site is rectangular in shape, has a total site area of 1,112.6m2, a frontage of 30.18m and the depth is 47m.

 

Figure 1: Site Location

 

9.      The Site is owned by The Churches of Christ Property Trust and contains an existing two storey residential apartment block (4 dwellings) and a single storey Church. Vehicular access is provided off MacMahon Street.

 

Applicant’s Planning Proposal Request, 7 November 2014 (PP2014/0003)

 

10.    The Planning Proposal request was lodged by KPoint Investments Pty Ltd on 7 November 2014 and requested the following amendments to HLEP 2012 in relation to the Site:

 

·        Amend the Height of Buildings Map to increase the height from 40 metres (approx. 12 storeys) to 55 metres (approx. 17 storeys)

·        Amend the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Map to increase the FSR from 4.5:1 to 7:1 (this included an FSR of 1:1 for a ‘community facility’).

 

Council’s consideration of Planning Proposal

 

11.    Hurstville City Council considered the Planning Proposal request at its meeting of 1 April 2015 and resolved not to support the Planning Proposal due to the request exceeding the development standards in HLEP 2012 (Amendment No. 3) by a significant amount, inconsistencies with the Hurstville City Centre TMAP recommendations and S117 Direction 3.4: Integrating Land Use and Transport and the setting of a precedent of amendments to the development standards in an instrument recently finalised.

 

Pre Gateway Review Application (22 May 2015) and JRPP consideration

 

12.    The Applicant lodged a Pre-Gateway Review application (PGR_2015_HURST_001 00) with the Department on 22 May 2015. The Application was considered by the JRPP on two (2) occasions; 19 April 2016 and 1 June 2016.

 

13.    On 30 June 2016, the Department requested that the Planning Proposal be updated to reflect the JRPP recommendations by:

·        reducing the proposed maximum height to 50m (approx. 15 storeys)

·        reducing the proposed FSR to 5.5:1

·        removing the site specific 1:1 FSR bonus for development involving a community facility

 

Applicant’s amended Planning Proposal - 3 August 2016

 

14.    The Applicant submitted an amended Planning Proposal and a revised Urban Design Study on 3 August 2016 which reflected the recommendations of the JRPP.

 

15.    The amended Planning Proposal removed all references to “community use” and “place of public worship” on the Site and has included reference to “non-residential” uses on the ground floor level.

 

16.    The Applicant has not made an Offer to enter into a Planning Agreement in relation to the Subject Site.

 

Council’s request for Gateway Determination

 

17.    Council advised the Department that it will act as the RPA on 15 July 2016.

 

18.    In line with the recommendations of the JRPP in its determination of PGR_HURST_001_00 and in accordance with Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) and the Department's guidelines, Council submitted a Planning Proposal for the Site to the Department for a Gateway determination on 10 August 2016.

 

19.    A summary of the current planning controls, Applicant Proposal (original lodged in November 2014 and revised lodged in August 2016), JRPP Recommended and Final Recommended planning controls is provided in the Table below:

 

 

 

Current Controls

Applicant Proposal (Original Nov 2014 and revised August 2016)

Recommended JRPP

(June 2016)

Recommended

Site Area

1,112.6m2

--

 

--

Zone

B4 Mixed Use

B4 Mixed Use

 

B4 Mixed Use

FSR

4.5:1 (5,007m2)

Original:

7:1 (7,788m2)

(approx. 70 apartments)

Revised:

5.75:1 (6,398m2)*

(approx. 60 apartments)

5.5:1 (6,119m2)

5.5:1

Including a minimum non-residential floorspace of 0.5:1

Height

40m (12 storeys)

Original:

55m (17 storeys)

 

Revised:

50m (15 storeys)

50m (15 storeys)

50m (15 storeys)

* The total GFA of 6,398m2 includes a non-residential floorspace of approx. 1,000m2 (0.9:1) and a residential floorspace of 5398m2 (4.8:1) as detailed in the Urban Design Study which results in an overall FSR of 5.75:1. The revised Planning Proposal request identifies an FSR of 5.5:1.

 

20.    In summary, the proposed changes included in the Planning Proposal request to the Department for Gateway determination, in line with the recommendations of the JRPP included:

·        reducing the requested height from 55m (approx. 17 storeys) to 50m (approx. 15 storeys)

·        reducing the requested FSR from 7:1 (including bonus FSR) to 5.5:1

·        consultation with the appropriate authorities about the height in relation to Obstacle Limitation Surface.

 

21.    An additional proposed change was included in the Planning Proposal request in response to the current strategic planning studies being undertaken in relation to the business zones and reflecting the identified ground level “non-residential” land use in the Applicant’s revised Planning Proposal request:

·        a minimum 0.5:1 “non-residential” FSR be required on the site for employment purposes.

 

22.    Council noted that the following supporting studies may be required and that these issues were previously raised by both Council and the Department in its Information Assessment and Recommendation Report (February 2016):

 

·        a Traffic Study to demonstrate consistency with the TMAP, traffic impacts of the proposed place of worship and community facilities and consultation with TfNSW and RMS,

·        a Heritage Impact Assessment to address any potential impacts of the revised Planning Proposal on the two heritage items, and

·        an analysis of demand for recreation and community facilities.

 

Gateway Determination

 

23.    A Gateway Determination, dated 28 September 2016 (refer Attachment 1), has been received from the Department under section 56 of the Act in respect of the Planning Proposal to amend the height and FSR controls for the Site.

 

24.    The Department notes Council’s recommendations for studies in urban design, traffic, heritage and additional demand for facilities; however, it has determined that the existing information provided is sufficient for the purpose of the Planning Proposal.

 

25.    The Department acknowledges that Council does not wish to exercise its Plan-making delegation in relation to the Planning Proposal.

 

26.    The Gateway includes the following conditions:

 

1.   Community consultation is required under sections 56(2)(c) and 57 of the Act as follows:

i. Planning Proposal to be publicly exhibited for 28 days

ii.        The RPA (Council) to comply with notice requirements identified in section 5.5.2 of the Department’s A Guide to Preparing LEPs (2013)

 

2.   Consultation is required with the following public authorities under section 56(2)(d) of the Act and to comply with the requirements of relevant section 117 Directions:

 

i. Transport for NSW

ii.        Roads and Maritime Services

iii.       Department of Education and Communities

iv.       NSW Ministry of Health

v.        NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

vi.       Sydney Airport Authority

vii.      Civil Aviation Safety Authority and

viii.     Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

 

Each public authority is to be provided with a copy of the Planning Proposal and relevant supporting material and given at least 21 days to comment on the proposal.

 

3.   A public hearing is not required under section 56(2) (e) of the Act.

 

4.   The timeframe for completing the LEP is 9 months from the week following the date of the Gateway determination, i.e.; 5 July 2017

 

 

VPA Offer

27.    It is noted that no Offer to enter into a Planning Agreement was submitted with the Planning Proposal.

 

28.    On 1 August 2016, Council adopted a Policy on Planning Agreements that includes provisions when Council may consider entering into a planning agreement.

 

29.    On 10 August 2016, Council requested the Applicant to advise if they have an intention to provide an Offer to enter into a Planning Agreement. Council did not receive a response from the Applicant to this correspondence and a further letter was sent on 25 October 2016.

 

30.    On 31 October 2016, the Applicant responded to Council’s letters, however has not clarified its position as to whether an Offer is to be made to enter into a Planning Agreement.

 

 

Next Steps

A.  The Planning Proposal proceed to public exhibition subject to an appropriate material public benefit being identified, negotiated and formalised in an agreement to the satisfaction of the General Manager.

 

B.  That should this agreement on the material public benefit not be achieved within 21 days, the matter be referred back to Council for consideration. 

 

Financial Implications

31.    Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

14/1818

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Gateway Determination - 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville - 28 September 2016

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 November 2016

CCL093-16          Status Report - Planning Proposal - PP2014/0003 - Nos. 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville - Hurstville Ward

[Appendix 1]         Gateway Determination - 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville - 28 September 2016

 

 

Page 10

 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 November 2016                                                                        Page 14

Item:                   CCL094-16        Summary of Development Applications lodged and determined and new Class 1 Appeals filed 

Author:              Manager – Development Assessment, Tina Christy and Manager Planning and Development, George Andonoski

Directorate:      Office of Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

 

 

Recommendation

a)      That the information on development applications lodged and determined and new Class 1 Appeals filed for September 2016 be received and noted.

 

Executive Summary

1.      A snap-shot of Georges River Council’s development applications over the past 3 months and also new Class 1 Appeals lodged with the Land and Environment Court for the month of September 2016 is contained within this report. 

 

2.      The information includes details on numbers received and determined, a breakdown of application types, mean and median time-frames, the estimated value of applications determined and the number of applications that have been with Council and under determination for more than 40 days. This information will be prepared monthly and enable review of trends in assessment timeframes and Class 1 Appeals filed.

 

Report

 

3.       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 past three (3) months are set out below.

 

4.      These figures are based on the gross turn-around times and include development applications, s96 modification applications, and s82A review of determinations (included in the DA figures). The gross determination figure has been used to ensure any anomalies in the data sets from the two previous Councils are assimilated.

 

5.      The Appendix, which has a detailed breakdown of each development type, the value of work for each type, the numbers received and determined and the mean determining times for each category.

 

 

6.   A summary of the key elements within the Appendix tables are:

 

·    The major category of developments determined were for Residential New, Residential Alterations and Additions and New Second Occupancies

·    The total estimated value for development applications determined over the last 3 months is $223,435,050. In September - commercial/retail/office development was valued at $7.6 million and residential development approvals were valued over $9million.

·    The average determination time for development applications was 142 days. This was an improvement from August, where the determination time for an application was 199 days.

·    The average determination time for S96 applications was 133 days. The determination time is slightly higher than in August, where the determination time for the s96 applications was129 days.

 

7.   The table below indicates that in September there was a reduction in the number of application determined. However, the number of applications being lodged with Council is remaining consistent, with the majority of applications being for dwelling houses and dual occupancies

 

The table introduces a new figure that reports on the number of applications that have been with Council and under assessment for more than 40 days but less than 100 days and over 100 days. This figure is currently at 219 applications.

 

Month

Applications Received

Applications Determined

Outstanding Applications

Apps – with Council over 40 days <= 100 days

Apps – with Council over 100 days

JULY

76

66

351

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AUG

86

106

323

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sept

82

71

325

100

119

 

          To note - Outstanding Applications relates to applications that:

·         have just been lodged with Council

·         under neighbour notification

·         are under assessment 

·         are awaiting determination via the relevant planning pathway.  

 

 

8.      The following new Class 1 Appeal has been filed with the Land and Environment Court for September:

·    Filed 28/9/16 – LEC No. 306015 of 2016 deemed refusal of development application DA2016/0035 for demolition of existing structures and erection of a child care centre, including basement car parking – Foxground Property Investments Pty Ltd – 66 Mulga Road Oatley

 

Operational Plan Budget

9.      Within budget allocation.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Application determination statistics for last 3 months

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 November 2016

CCL094-16          Summary of Development Applications lodged and determined and new Class 1 Appeals filed

[Appendix 1]         Application determination statistics for last 3 months

 

 

Page 16

 

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 November 2016                                                                        Page 18

7.      Finance and Governance

Item:                   CCL095-16        Property Matter - Former Oatley Bowling Club Site - River Road, Oatley 

Author:              Manager Property, Claire Stuckey

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council not proceed with the 2014 resolution of the former Hurstville City Council to rezone the site to residential to facilitate a 5-9 storey, mixed use residential and seniors housing development.

(b)     That Council note the submission of the Planning Proposal to reclassify the site from ‘community’ land to ‘operational’ land and rezone the site to SP2 Infrastructure with the designated land uses of ‘seniors housing’ and ‘community facility’ to facilitate aged care and community uses.

(c)     That the General Manager be given delegated authority to make changes to the Planning Proposal and associated documentation following comments received during public consultation.

(d)     That extensive public consultation be undertaken prior to Gateway submission in accordance with Attachment three.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      Following closure of the former Oatley Bowling Club site (“the site”) in 2006, Council investigated various options in relation to appropriate future uses of the site. 

2.      In 2009, the community was consulted on these options with majority support for seniors housing and community uses of the site.

3.      In 2010 Council resolved to submit a planning proposal to rezone and reclassify the site for seniors and community uses and use the funds from the lease to repay the loan for the upgrade of Jubilee Park, Mortdale and the construction of the Mortdale Community Centre.  

4.      Since 2010 further feasibility has been undertaken as the site is subject to significant constraints including bushfire, which restricts the area which can be developed for seniors housing.  

5.      In 2014 the former Hurstville Council investigated use of the site for seniors housing in the form of retirement living apartments and residential apartments.  This concluded that given the restricted area which could be developed for seniors housing, up to 9 storeys would be required to make the site viable for retirement living apartments.  This concept also included 5 storey residential apartments on the reminder of the site, this being the southern and western portions of the site.    

6.      Following proclamation of Georges River Council in May 2016, the General Manager requested a review of the 2014 proposal for residential use of the site.  As the previous studies did not address what the community supported in 2009, further feasibility has now been undertaken in relation to use of the site for what was originally envisaged, this being seniors housing and community uses. 

7.      This feasibility indicates that there is a significant shortage of seniors housing in the locality and recommends seniors housing on a portion of the site in the form of residential aged care which can be developed at between 3 to 5 storeys, a height which is considered to be more appropriate in this location given the scale of the nearby apartment and town house developments.   

8.      Enhanced uses community uses comprising community gardens, public recreation area, toilets, barbeque areas, walking trails, adventure play, bicycle parking and public car parking can also be provided as part of the overall development.  These uses are considered to complement the adjacent Myles Dunphy Reserve.  

 

9.      A coordinated approach to the redevelopment of the whole site will ensure that necessary remediation works are undertaken, and can potentially be funded by a future aged care component. 

10.    As this proposal has the potential to deliver considerable benefits to the wider community and is in accordance with Council’s original intention for the site a planning proposal to rezone and reclassify the site has been prepared (Attachment one). 

11.    The planning proposal seeks to facilitate use of the site for the proposed uses and addresses many concerns previously raised by members of the public in relation to environmental, planning, bushfire, traffic and access issues. 

12.    As this matter has been ongoing since 2009, the purpose of this report is to provide a detailed summary and review of options in relation to the future use of the site prior to lodgement of the planning proposal for formal assessment. 

 

Background

 

13.    The former Oatley Bowling Club site is located at land known as 35 and 40 River Road, Oatley (also known as 34 Mimosa Street, Oatley) and Part River Road.

 

14.    The former Oatley Bowling Club site (“the site”) was located on several parcels of land which were purchased by Hurstville City Council in 1945, and adjacent lots which were resumed by Council in 1960 to ‘improve and embellish the area’ and the Oatley bowling Club was constructed on the site shortly thereafter. 

 

15.    The site is presently in considerable disrepair and, having been built on and developed, does not qualify as ‘natural area’ under the relevant NSW Government guidelines.  For this reason, it was not included in the Myles Dunphy Reserve and Wetland Plan of Management when it was adopted by Hurstville Council in 2013.  The land falls under s36 (4) of the Local Government Act 1993, ‘Community Uses’.

 

16.    Since the former Oatley Bowling Club closed in 2006, Council has undertaken comprehensive feasibility studies of the site in order to determine the most appropriate future use of the site. 

 

17.    This included detailed investigations into four main options comprising re-vegetation, community uses, private function centre and aged care. 

 

18.    In 2009, Council undertook extensive community and stakeholder consultation on these options (including combinations of options) which indicated little support for re-vegetation (this option was also considered to offer minimal benefit to the community given its proximity to the adjacent bushland reserve and the high cost of creating this type of habitat).  The majority of the community support was for seniors housing and the upgrade of Jubilee Park, Mortdale or, the restoring the club building for community uses. 

 

19.    As the Hurstville Open Space, Recreation, Community & Library Facilities Strategy (2010) did not recommend the conversion of the site for community purposes but the construction of a new community building within the Mortdale area to service both Oatley and Mortdale communities (which have since been provided by way of improvements to Jubilee Park including a new community centre and recreational facilities) on 22 September 2010, Council resolved:   

 

a)      “THAT Council acting as land owner, submits as soon as possible, an application to rezone to Residential and reclassify to Operational Land the former Oatley Bowling Club site for the purpose of making seniors housing permissible with development consent on the site and enabling the Council to lease the site to a lessee for use for the purpose of seniors housing subject to development consent and all other necessary approvals being obtained.

 

b)      THAT Council acting as land owner ensures that any seniors housing development of the site includes a community meeting facility and community garden for general public use.

 

c)      THAT funds from the lease be directed towards the upgrading of Jubilee Park, Mortdale including the construction of a Community Centre.

 

d)      FURTHER THAT prior to submitting an application to rezone and reclassify the site that Council consult with Kogarah Council, engage an access consultant to report on grades and pathway widths, the proposal goes to the Access Committee, and investigate and report on alternative solutions to overcome excessive grades and narrow pathway widths and to ensure that constraints of excessive grades can be feasibly overcome and to prepare a specific plan of management for the Myles Dunphy Reserve.”

 

20.    It should be noted that the definition of seniors housing pursuant the relevant Commonwealth and NSW legislation includes: a residential care facility or a hostel or a group of self-contained dwellings or a combination of these types of accommodation. 

 

21.    Subsequently, after standing vacant for five years, Council demolished the club building in 2011 due to public health and safety concerns. 

 

22.    In 2014, Council was advised that bushfire legislation had been amended resulting in a reduction in the site area which could be developed for seniors housing.  This resulted in previous development studies (undertaken in 2006 by NRP Architecture) no longer being applicable. 

 

23.    As a result, further detailed investigations were undertaken by consultants The Planning Group (TPG) in relation to providing Council with various options for future use and development of the site based on the reduced useable site area (Former Oatley Bowling Club – Design Options Analysis, May 2014).  This recommended option 4, mixed used residential and seniors housing across the site at a maximum height of 4-5 storeys (16m).  This was considered by Hurstville Council at its meeting on 2 July 2014 who resolved:

 

          “That a preliminary feasibility study be obtained.” 

 

24.    On this basis, Premier Consulting was engaged to provide advice (November 2014) including an interim project feasibility report (March 2015) to determine whether a financially viable mixed use residential and seniors housing (option 4) could be achieved.  The consultants recommended that option 4 would only be financially viable with a minimum yield of 80 seniors living apartments.  This feasibility study did not investigate the potential for seniors housing in the form of residential aged care.

 

25.    In order to facilitate 80 seniors apartments, further design options were investigated by TPG which concluded that to achieve 80 seniors living apartments in the reduced site area would require the seniors  living apartments to be 7 storeys (potentially up to 9 storeys) rather than 5 levels as previously recommended.  On this basis, at the Hurstville Council meeting of 19 November 2014 Council resolved:

 

“That further investigations be undertaken to optimise the concept design in finalising the preliminary feasibility study”

 

Current Position

 

Review of Previous Studies

 

26.    Previous studies did not address or include community uses which is not consistent with what the community supported in 2009.  Additionally, previous studies only investigated seniors housing in the form of self-contained seniors living apartments (which would be required to be built at heights of up to 9 storeys) and did not investigate the potential for seniors housing in the form of a residential aged care facility (nursing home) which would have been more consistent with the community’s request.       

 

27.    As such, further investigation has now been undertaken by consultants Ansell Strategic to ascertain:

 

·        Whether or not the site is actually suitable (given the site constraints), for seniors housing, if so what type (for example seniors living apartments or residential aged care);  

·        Whether or not there is a need for seniors housing in this location; and

·        Suitable community uses. 

 

The Need for Seniors Housing 

 

28.    The consultant’s preliminary findings indicate:   

 

·        The site is suitable for seniors housing as it benefits from close proximity to public transport, local services and amenities.

·        A residential aged care facility (nursing home) is recommended as this requires less site area (due to smaller room sizes) and could be developed at 3 to 5 storeys rather than self-contained seniors living apartments which would need to be up to 9 storeys to be feasible.   

·        Market analysis indicates strong demand for seniors housing in this location.

·        There is currently a large proportion of ageing residents in Oatley and in the wider local government area.  Population forecasts (for this area) predict this will continue to increase above State and national averages.  This indicates long term demand for aged care services.  

·        A review of competitors indicates that local residents within the immediate area will be underserviced by residential aged care options. Within the immediate area, residential aged care is very limited with services either catering to a specific cultural or social group, or are dated and inappropriate for current needs.  There is a significant shortage of seniors housing in the locality.

·        Overall, the subject site offers significant potential to develop a residential aged care facility to cater for unmet demand in the area and will enable residents to ‘age in place’.

 

29.    Further information in relation to the above can be found in Market Assessment/Needs Analysis Report (Ansell Strategic, December 2015), Attachment one.

 

Community and Aged Care Uses

 

30.    In order to better understand the potential of the site for community and aged uses, a feasibility study and concept plans have been prepared.   This considers opportunities and constraints and provides an indicative development concept to assist understanding of what type of development could be constructed if the site were rezoned.        

 

31.    Whilst the plans are not intended to reflect an exact outcome for the site, concepts seek to illustrate the envisaged outcome that could realistically be achieved as a result of a change in zoning, classification, height and floor space ratio controls.  These concepts seek to demonstrate how the site can be used to provide an appropriate balance between the provision of aged care and enhanced community uses of the site.   

 

32.    The indicative concept is based on the following principles:

 

·        To provide community uses and facilities comprising community gardens, public recreation area, toilets, shaded barbecue areas, walking trails, adventure play, bicycle parking as well as public car parking;

·        The provision of residential aged care and services within a community with an increasing ageing population, taking into consideration existing site constraints, in particular, bushfire;

·        To complement the use of the site for seniors and community activities with a public recreation area, including a wide range of place making features that could be available, in perpetuity, to all members of the community and provide greater connection with the adjacent Myles Dunphy Reserve;

·        To introduce public car parking to access the community facilities and improve accessibility to the Myles Dunphy Reserve without encroaching into or impacting on the Reserve itself, and;

·        Transform and reinvigorate a site, which is currently not freely accessible and which presently provides limited public benefit to the community, into a multipurpose destination that will benefit a diverse local community.

 

33.    Based on the site’s achievable building envelope for residential aged care, it is envisaged that the aged care facility would include a maximum height of 3 to 5 storeys providing up to 80 beds with associated aged care support facilities. 

 

34.    The indicative concept proposes that approximately 49% of the site is allocated for public recreation, access and public car parking (24 spaces) and 51% of the site is allocated for the aged care component.  

 

35.    The indicative concept considered a number of key issues comprising: 

 

·        Bushfire constraints which limits the provision of seniors housing to a small area in the north-east corner of the site;

·        Overlooking: use of screens to prevent direct overlooking towards properties to the north;

·        The provision of adequate car parking for both aged care and public recreation activities;

·        Consideration of building height and bulk: height transition along the northern boundary has been considered to reduce impact on existing residential properties to the north;

·        Location of existing sewer: existing sewer line runs diagonally through the subject site. A civil engineer would be required to confirm detailed design at development application stage to confirm sewer location, depth and potential for development over and/or relocation. 

 

36.    Further information in relation the feasibility study and concept plans (Ansell Strategic, September  2016)  can be found in Attachment one.

 

Planning Considerations

 

37.    In order to facilitate any future development for seniors housing and community uses, the site will need to be rezoned and reclassified as it is currently zoned RE1 Public Recreation under the Hurstville LEP 2012 (HLEP 2012) and is classified as ‘community land’ under the Local Government Act 1993. 

 

38.    As such, a planning proposal (PP) has now been prepared.  The objectives and intended outcomes for the PP include:

 

·        amend the Hurstville LEP 2012 to rezone and permit the development of the site for the purposes of ‘seniors housing’ and a ‘community facility’ with Council consent;

·        reclassify the land from ‘community’ to ‘operational’ under the Local Government Act 1993 to enable the land to be developed for the purpose of seniors housing;

·        provide seniors housing to meet identified community need for seniors housing in accordance with the Community Strategic Plan 2025 and associated Delivery Program and Operational Plan;

·        provide for a public recreation space to serve as a community gathering place, inclusive of a community garden consistent with the resolution of Hurstville Council dated 22 September 2010 (Minute No. 303 CCL186-10);

·        ensure the zoning enables the provision of a ‘community facility’ in the form of a public recreation space on areas of the site where habitable components of seniors housing cannot be achieved due to bushfire constraints and ensure the permissibility of such community related uses are not incidental to the ‘seniors housing’ use;

·        make more efficient and equitable use of an underutilised land resource, which currently provides limited public benefit, in accordance with the relevant objects of the EP&A Act and provisions of the Local Government Act 1993;

·        generate revenue for Council that will be used to repay the costs (loan) to already implemented improvements to Jubilee Park, Mortdale including a new community centre and recreational facilities, consistent with Council’s operational plan and the resolution of Council dated 22 September 2010 (Minute No. 303 CCL186-10);

·        ensure that future development on the site is sustainable, and is capable of being accommodated on the site without unreasonable environmental impact, and

·        Facilitate the remediation of contaminated land at little (or nil) cost to ratepayers. 

 

 

39.    The PP will seek to amend the Hurstville LEP 2012 as follows:

 

·        amend Schedule 4 – ‘Classification and reclassification of public land’ in order to reclassify the subject land to ‘operational land’;

·        amend the Land Zoning Map to rezone the site to SP2 Infrastructure with the designated uses of ‘seniors housing’ and ‘community facility’; and

·        amend the Height of Buildings Map to introduce a maximum building height of 18.5m; and amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to introduce a maximum FSR of 0.6:1.

 

40.    The SP2 Infrastructure zone is an existing zone provided for within the HLEP 2012. Mapping for the site and using the designation ‘seniors housing’ and ‘community facility’ will only allow these land uses and any uses considered ordinarily ancillary or incidental uses to those uses. Mixed use or residential uses (or other types of development) will therefore not be permitted. 

 

41.    The proposal demonstrates the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed reclassification, rezoning and inclusion of height and FSR controls under the HLEP 2012 to enable the development of ‘senior’s housing’ and ‘community facility’ land uses with appropriate management of environmental planning and design issues which will be further investigated at the Development Application stage.  

 

42.    Preliminary investigations into environment and planning issues indicate: 

 

Bushfire Protection

43.    Travers Bushfire and Ecology has undertaken an analysis of bushfire constraints and has advised that of a total site area of 11,010m2, approximately 2,032 m2 could contain ‘seniors housing’ which can be located in the north-east corner of the site, with a further 4,647 m2 that could contain (adjoining) ancillary aged care services.  Based on this advice, the concept plan indicated that the aged care building could comprise approximately 10% of the total site area.    

 

Environmental

44.    An Ecological Constraints Analysis has been prepared by Molino Stewart and is provided in Attachment one.  This includes a constraints assessment and a comprehensive biodiversity assessment for the site and surrounding areas within the Myles Dunphy Reserve.   This advises that any impacts arising from future redevelopment of the site can be mitigated through appropriate measures. 

 

Access, Traffic and Parking

45.    A Traffic Impacts Analysis has been prepared by traffic consultants GTA and is provided in Attachment one.  This considers site accessibility and traffic impacts for the proposed future uses and recommends the following: 

·        Existing footpaths in the vicinity of the site provide convenient access to local points of interest including bus stops, local parks, Oatley Railway Station as well as Oatley West and Oatley Village Shops, all within a 2 minute walk from the site.

·        Accessibility to Oatley Railway Station is currently being improved for people with disabilities, with new lift access to the station from Oatley Parade and Mulga Road, as well as a new pedestrian footbridge across the railway line.

·        The existing footpath along River Road South has sections of gradients where it would be impractical to provide an accessible path that complies with the relevant Australian Standards (AS1428.1 and AS1428.2).

·        A new compliant raised/elevated board walk, with appropriate ramps to reduce the gradient, could be considered within the 20m wide River Road South road reserve, between the carriageway and Myles Dunphy Reserve. This would facilitate appropriate pedestrian access for a seniors housing development.

·        River Road South (site access), which functions as an access way, would need to be upgraded to provide a minimum 6.0m wide carriageway to adequately function as an access way. Kerbside car parking within the carriageway would restrict capacity and two-way flow thus indented car parking bays are recommended, if required.

·        There is adequate spare local road network capacity to cater for traffic generated by a medium size seniors housing development (up to 100 units), whilst maintaining some capacity for other development in the surrounding area.

·        There is adequate and generally unobstructed sight distances at the Mulga Road/River Road South intersection to comply with the relevant Austroads guidelines, subject to trimming of trees and undergrowth within Myles Dunphy Reserve to the west.

·        The provision of public car parking will complement and enable greater accessibility to facilities on the site and the natural bushland areas currently enjoyed by the local community.  This would alleviate on-street parking demands and is not expected to generate any significant additional vehicle trips to the area. 

·        The existing pathway to the eastern side of River Road is obstructed by electrical infrastructure and undergrounding power lines on River Road could be considered to enable adequate access width to be provided where possible. 

 

46.    Any future DA would be accompanied by a detailed traffic study relevant the particular development and this traffic analysis is for the PP only. 

 

Contamination

47.    A Phase 1 Contamination Assessment prepared by Douglas Partners is included in Attachment one.  This recommends that the site is suitable for the proposed rezoning and that it could be made suitable for seniors housing following intrusive investigations to address the extent of contamination identified above.  Douglas Partners advises that Phase 2 investigations are required prior to future the development of the site.  It would generally be considered appropriate for Phase 2 investigations to be undertaken at a later DA/detailed design stage. However, Council has decided to progress Phase 2 investigations.  These are not yet complete and will be submitted at a later stage to inform Council’s assessment of the PP and subsequent Gateway and exhibition processes.

 

48.    The proposal also addresses geotechnical, train noise and vibration, and hydraulic services issues, of which are not considered to cause any significant issues for future development of the site for intended purposes and would ordinarily be reassessed in greater detail as part of a future development proposal.     

 

Site Boundary

49.    A subdivision development application seeking to create a single consolidated site was approved by Georges River Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel on 8 September 2016.  The approved subdivision establishes a new (consolidated) cadastral boundary for the site and provides a zoning boundary for purposes of a planning proposal and to facilitate the future coordinated development of the site for both aged care and community uses.  

 

50.    The site boundary has been carefully and methodically determined with the aim of responding to the site’s typography by utilising existing features to define the site’s western and southern boundaries consistent with the Myles Dunphy Plan of Management boundary. 

 

51.    The site boundary includes the area set aside for proposed community uses, whilst this use could be undertaken within existing zoning and classification provisions, any future development would need to address numerous constraints, particularly bushfire, contamination and access requirements which will have significant impact on future site planning.  This is likely to require the flexibility of a larger site to ensure these constraints can be managed to facilitate a superior aged care and community use outcome on the site.   

 

Community Consultation

52.    Council has previously undertaken a range of consultation activities which have informed its various resolutions to proceed with rezoning and reclassifying the site for seniors housing and community uses. 

 

53.    However, in addition to the statutory requirements for public consultation following Gateway determination, Council will also be holding community information sessions/open days to ensure the community and key stakeholders are fully consulted and have an opportunity to provide input into the proposal prior to the submission of any PP for Gateway determination.  In particular, Council intends to involve the community in refining place making elements reflected in concept plans prepared by Ansell Strategic. 

 

Consideration of Options

54.    In consideration of the above, there are three main options to consider going forward, these comprise:  

         

Option 1    Defer any action on the site until after September 2017 and allow returning Councillors to pursue their vision for the site. 

 

Option 2    Proceed with former Hurstville Council’s 2014 resolution to pursue a development concept comprising 9 storey seniors living apartments and 5 storey residential apartments

 

Option 3    Proceed with submission of the 2016 planning proposal to facilitate use of the site for aged care (at 3-5 storeys) and community uses  

 

55.    The advantages and disadvantages of the above options are outlined below: 

 

Option 1 – Defer Action  

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

·    Site remains available for public recreation in its current state

·    Is not what the community supported  during the  consultation undertaken in 2009

·    Allows returning Councillors to pursue previous resolutions (or a new vision) for the site

·    Does not address the need for seniors housing in the locality in accordance with the Community Strategic Plan 2025

 

·    Does not generate revenue to pay for Jubilee Park and funds have to be sought from elsewhere (eg: rates/fees/charges increases)

 

·    Site is not freely accessible and provides limited public benefit to the wider community

 

·    Site is not remediated and remains contaminated and retaining walls continue to deteriorate requiring stabilisation at some stage in the future (at a direct cost to ratepayers)   

 

·    Provides no certainty for local community regarding decisions which may be made in the future regarding residential use of the site

         

Option 2 - Proceed with Hurstville Council’s 2014 resolution to pursue a development comprising 9 storey senior living apartments and 5 storey residential apartments

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

·    Maximises development potential of the site

·    Is not what the community supported during the  consultation undertaken since 2009

·    Generates significant revenue for Council which can be used to repay the Jubilee Park loan and also be reinvested or directed towards the provision of community facilities elsewhere or upgrades in Myles Dunphy Reserve

·    Loss of land made available to the public

 

·    May not be an appropriate land use or scale of development in this location

 

 

 

56.    An indicative concept for development comprising 9 storey senior living apartments and 5 storey residential apartments can be found in Attachment two.  

 

Option 3   Proceed with the 2016 Planning Proposal to facilitate use of the site for aged and community uses  

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

·    Is what the community has requested since 2009

·    Loss of portion of the site for aged care uses which is currently available to the public

·    Considered to be appropriate land uses in this location

 

·    Addresses the need for seniors housing in the locality in accordance with the Community Strategic Plan 2025 and recent demand analysis

 

·    Provides enhanced public recreation space which complements the adjacent Myles Dunphy Reserve and bushland setting

 

 

·    Site remediation and retaining wall works can be undertaken as part of future redevelopment which could potentially result in nil cost/cost neutral to Council  (aged care development funds site remediation works)

 

 

·    Provides on-site public car parking for users of the adjacent Reserve and community area

 

 

·    Makes more efficient and equitable use of an underutilised land resource which currently provides limited public benefit

 

 

·    Generates revenue from its future use and management that will be used to offset already implemented improvements to Jubilee Park, Mortdale  including a new community centre and recreational facilities

 

 

·    Sets clearly defined development standards for the site ensuring that future development on the site is sustainable, and is appropriate for this location

 

 

·    Improves vehicle and public  access to the site and adjoining Reserve

 

 

Conclusion   

 

57.    In light of the considerable community benefits which can be demonstrated it is recommended that the planning proposal be submitted for formal consideration. 

 

58.    Details regarding the process and timeframe can be found in Georges River Council’s information sheet (September 2016) Attachment three

 

Financial Implications

59.    Within budget allocation.

 

Appendices to Attachment 1 Planning Proposal will be published under separate cover and be made available on Council’s website.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Planning Proposal

Attachment View2

Building envelope - 9 and 5 Storey Senior Living

Attachment View3

Community Information - Oatley Bowling Site

Attachment View4

Appendix A - Feasibility Study - published in separate document

Attachment View5

Appendix B Ansell Needs Analysis(2) - published in separate document

Attachment View6

Appendix C - TIA Final Sept 2016(2) - published in separate document

Attachment View7

Appendix D - Table of SEPPs(2) - published in separate document

Attachment View8

Appendix E - Ecology Constraints Assessment(2) - published in separate document

Attachment View9

Appendix F - Phase 1 Contamination Assessment(2) - published in separate document

Attachment View10

Appendix G - Train Noise and Vibration Assessment(2) - published in separate document

Attachment View11

Appendix H - Bushfire Assessment(2) - published in separate document

Attachment View12

Appendix H- Schedule 1_Bushfire(2) - published in separate document

Attachment View13

Appendix H- Schedule 2_Bushfire(2) - published in separate document

Attachment View14

Appendix I - Table of Section 117 Directions(2) - published in separate document

Attachment View15

Appendix J - Evidence of reserve status interests  trusts A(2) - published in separate document

Attachment View16

Appendix J - Evidence of reserve status interests  trusts B(2) - published in separate document

Attachment View17

Appendix K - Geotechnical Report(2) - published in separate document

Attachment View18

Appendix L - Hydraulic Services Infrastructure Report(2) - published in separate document

Attachment View19

Appendix M - Site survey(2) - published in separate document

Attachment View20

Appendix N - Approved Stamped Subdiv(2) - published in separate document

Attachment View21

Appendix N - Consent Subdiv(2) - published in separate document

Attachment View22

Appendix O - Proposed Map Amendments FSR(2) - published in separate document

Attachment View23

Appendix O - Proposed Map Amendments FSR(2) - published in separate document

Attachment View24

Appendix O - Proposed Map Amendments LZN(2) - published in separate document

Attachment View25

Appendix P - Minutes OCM 22 September 2010(3) - published in separate document

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 November 2016

CCL095-16          Property Matter - Former Oatley Bowling Club Site - River Road, Oatley

[Appendix 1]         Planning Proposal

 

 

Page 30

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 November 2016

CCL095-16          Property Matter - Former Oatley Bowling Club Site - River Road, Oatley

[Appendix 2]         Building envelope - 9 and 5 Storey Senior Living

 

 

Page 145

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 November 2016

CCL095-16          Property Matter - Former Oatley Bowling Club Site - River Road, Oatley

[Appendix 3]         Community Information - Oatley Bowling Site

 

 

Page 148

 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 November 2016                                                                        Page 153

Item:                   CCL096-16        UOW Jubilee Oval - Arrangements for the Ongoing Utilisation by St George Illawarra Dragons and the Georges River Community for 2017 and beyond 

Author:              Executive Manager, Rebekah Schulz

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council continue its long standing commitment to St George Illawarra Dragons and provide access to UOW Jubilee Oval for the 2017 NRL Season and beyond for games and training requirements as requested by the Dragons.

(b)     That Council commence a review of management options for UOW Jubilee Oval to maximise community benefit, encourage partnerships with sporting, health and medical communities, to provide opportunities for community participation and to ensure costs associated with maintaining and operating the facility are met in future years.

(c)     That a report be submitted to a future Council Meeting detailing the outcomes of the above review and future commercial arrangements with the Dragons for 2017 and beyond.

 

Executive Summary

1.      This report is presented to Council to outline the options for increased community access and the future management of UOW Jubilee Oval.

 

Background

2.      Jubilee Oval is a multipurpose stadium within the Georges River Local Government area that is currently the home ground of NRL St George Illawarra Dragons (The Dragons).  The Dragons also play games at Wollongong's WIN Stadium. The ground was formerly the sole home of The Dragons before they merged with the Illawarra Steelers.

 

Current Licence Agreement, Maintenance and Utilisation

3.      St George Illawarra Dragons wrote to Georges River Council on 6 October 2016:

“I refer to our ongoing discussions regarding the Lease at UOW Jubilee Oval, which it is noted, expires in February 2017.

I recognise and understand the due diligence the Council has been, and is still undertaking in respect of the ongoing lease arrangements for such a Venue.

However, the Dragons need to confirm that the UOW Jubilee Oval will be available for NRL games and training for the Dragons and Junior teams in 2017, in principle and as soon as possible, if not by the 8th of November 2016, at the latest.

As the Dragons have utilized 4 different Venues in the past, the 'NRL Draw Process', which is progressing, is quite a complex undertaking, and the NRL have asked us to confirm availability of Venues, asap.

Of course, the Dragons would be interested in negotiating a more lengthy contractual relationship re UOW Jubilee Oval, similar to that at WIN Stadium in Wollongong, going forward, and confirmation of arrangements, in principle for 2017, would enable us to work on more detailed, commercial arrangements, as well.”

4.      The Dragons currently have a lease with Georges River Council that expires on 1 February 2017.  This lease provides The Dragons sole use and management of UOW Jubilee Oval.  The Dragons have indicated that they will not request an extension of the lease under the current terms and conditions and as such the management of the facility will be handed back to Council.

 

5.      The current lease agreement was brokered in 1989 between the former Kogarah City Council and the St George Illawarra Dragons. Since this time, UOW Jubilee Oval has been managed solely by The Dragons. With management of the facilities returning to Council in 2017, Council officers are now reviewing the information available on utilisation, budgets, maintenance and agreements that form part of the facility, as part of the due diligence process.

 

6.      The Dragons lease arrangement for UOW Jubilee Oval has been heavily subsidised by the former Kogarah City Council for many years, and as such The Dragons annual rental payment to Council is currently $94,946.  The Dragons currently have annual maintenance costs of approximately $900,000 which is offset by the revenue they receive from ticket sales, advertising, game day income, meeting room hire, corporate boxes, corporate sponsorship and stadium naming rights.

 

7.      In addition to the above costs, Council has an annual average maintenance cost of approximately $20,000 for park and community facility maintenance at the Oval.

 

8.      The University of Wollongong (UOW) naming rights agreement is due to expire at the end of the 2017 season.

 

Current Utilisation of UOW Jubilee Oval

9.      UOW Jubilee Oval is primarily utilised by rugby league, with infrequent use by St George Football Association and schools, and very occasional use for charity events, international exhibition matches, training for visiting football teams, junior rugby league games and local finals.

 

Asset Management and Maintenance

10.    A building condition assessment has been commissioned to provide details on all structural, mechanical, hydraulics, fire and electrical components of the facility.  The assessment will also provide condition ratings and highlighting remediation works with indicative costs.  This assessment will be finalised in November 2016.

 

11.    To complement the building condition assessment, Council Officers will be updating an asset list for the site that will document all current assets (including furniture, equipment, etc). 

 

12.    Both reports will form the basis of a new Asset Management Plan for UOW Jubilee Oval to be prepared from late December 2016.

 

Strategic Priorities for Jubilee Oval

13.    As part of the NSW State Government 2012 Stadia Strategy, Jubilee Oval was classified as a Tier 2 Sydney Stadia meaning “Total capacity of between 20,000 and 40,000, some corporate facilities; home grounds for sporting teams playing in national competitions”.

 

14.    Key actions identified for Tier 2 Sydney Stadia in the NSW State Government 2012 Stadia Strategy include:

a.   Developing or updating master plans for Tier 2 stadia and their precincts, again looking at transport, spectator experience and facilities;

b.   Talking to the community and to local government about what role they see for the multi-use Tier 2 stadia that fall outside the stadia identified in this strategy;

c.   Undertaking more detailed work regarding community sport and recreation facilities in NSW.

 

15.    In the former Hurstville City Council “Hurstville Open Space, Recreation, and Library Facilities Strategy“ (dated June 2010) a Guiding Principle for future consideration for open space is co-location:

 

“clustering together different services and facilities including open space is intended to enhance both coordination among services and convenience for clients who can access multiple services from a single point of contact”.

 

16.    Reviewing the current lease at UOW Jubilee Oval in conjunction with the NSW State Government 2012 Stadia Strategy and former Hurstville City Council Hurstville Open Space, Recreation, and Library Facilities Strategy, now provides an opportunity to revisit the operating model of the facility and revitalise the precinct.

 

17.    As a newly proclaimed Council, Georges River and the community have a unique opportunity to build on the NSW Government’s program to improve local government capacity and partnerships with the local sporting, health and medical communities.  It is an opportunity for Council to re-create a vibrant sporting precinct that could utilise its proximity to the Kogarah Medical Precinct to provide support services (eg: chiropractic, physiotherapy, massage, etc) for users of the Oval.  The facility could house both sporting and medical practitioners as well as a sporting groups and community space.  This would ensure the long term sustainability of UOW Jubilee Oval and create a multi-use facility for the community.

 

Principles of Shared Use of Facilities by the Community

18.    UOW Jubilee Oval is valued by the Council as a community facility that could potentially accommodate many sporting codes including football and rugby league in accordance with the NSW State Government 2012 Stadia Strategy.  However, Council recognises the key relationship between Jubilee Oval and The Dragons that has been established over a long period of time and the connection this relationship has with Rugby League and the wider community.

 

19.    For these reasons, it is imperative that Council provides a firm commitment to The Dragons in accordance with their recent request - to have access to UOW Jubilee Oval for the 2017 NRL season for four games and training requirements.

 

20.    Given the advice from The Dragons that they no longer wish to retain management and operational rights for the facility, it is prudent that Council commence a review of management options for UOW Jubilee Oval with a report to be tabled to a future Council Meeting for consideration. This report will consider a range of commercially-viable options that maximise community benefit, encourage partnerships with sporting, health and medical communities and provide opportunities for community participation within the Jubilee Oval precinct.  The review must also provide options to Council which will ensure that the revenue derived from operating the facility covers the cost of maintenance and renewal of this important Council asset into the future.

 

Financial Implications

21.    Based on information available, Council estimates the cost to maintain UOW Jubilee Oval is approximately $900,000 per annum with current income estimates being unavailable at the time of writing this report.  Council currently budgets for an annual income of $94,946 from the current lease agreement and expends an average (based on the last five years) of $20,000 per annum on maintenance costs. It is anticipated that in the medium term the facility would cover maintenance and renewal costs and in the longer term the facility would become commercially viable.

 

File Reference

16/1125

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 November 2016                                                                        Page 157

Item:                   CCL097-16        Advice on Court Proceedings - October 2016 

Author:              General Counsel, Jenny Ware

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the information be received and noted.

 

Executive Summary

1.      Advice on Council’s Court Proceedings for the period 24 September 2016 to 31 October 2016 is contained within this report.

 

Background

2.      The current Court proceedings for the reporting period are broken down as follows:

Land and Environment Court Appeals

·        11 x Class 1 (Merit/DA)

·        1 x Class 2 Appeal (Appeal against Order)

·        2 x Class 4 Proceedings

Local Court

·        12 x Prosecutions

District Court

·        1 x Defamation Proceedings

 

Total Costs

·        Total costs to date for the 2016/17 financial year are $250,535.00 [$103,731.00 (Hurstville) and $146,804.00 (Kogarah)]. 

Historical Costs

·        Total costs for 2015/16 financial year are $897,624.00 [$815,167.00 (Hurstville) and $82,457.00 (Kogarah)];

·        Total costs for 2014/15 financial year are $1,468,351.00 [$1,401,608.00 (Hurstville) and $66,743.00 (Kogarah)].

 

New Matters

3.      Three new Class 1 appeals (Foxground), (Shayben) and (Mayer) were received in the reporting period.

 

Finalised Matters

4.       Three matters were resolved, one by way of S34 Agreement (Moussawell) saving approximately 2 days of Court time and costs (estimated savings $16,000.00). Two were heard by the Court with appeals upheld (Kotsifas) and (Raftopoulos).

 

Current Table

5.      The Court proceedings current for the reporting period for Council are set out below. The external costs include both external legal and consultants’ fees.

 

 

 

 

No.

Property Address / Applicant / Proceedings Number

Description of Matter

Status / Critical Dates

External Costs to Date Up to 2015/16 FY

External Costs to Date From 2016/17 FY

Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Class 1 Appeals

1

849 King Georges Road

SOUTH HURSTVILLE

 

Applicant:

Nassar Hussein

 

Proceedings No.

157514 of 2016

 

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 heard by the Court on 22-25 August 2016.    Judgment reserved.

$51,147.68

$128,536.50

2

799 Forest Road PEAKHURST

 

Applicant:

CC Builders (NSW) Pty Ltd

 

Proceedings No.

155689 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. 

 

Matter listed for hearing on 16 December 2016.

$8,720.00

$18,701.75

3

78 Stuart Street

BLAKEHURST

 

Applicant:

Nicholas and Maria Kotsifas

 

Proceedings No.

156135 of 2016

 

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

Matter heard 25 July 2016. Court allowed some modification of conditions and refused others.  Awaiting final orders with consolidated modified consent from Court.

$2,911.70

$22,687.48

4

58 Lawrence Street

PEAKHURST

 

Applicant:

Mehedin Abdul-Rahman

 

Proceedings No.

162874 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.

Matter adjourned to 7 November 2016 to enable applicant to prepare further amended plans.

$0

$9,052.00

5

26 Parkside Drive

KOGARAH BAY

 

Applicant:

Jim and Harriet Raftopoulos

 

Proceedings No.

163044 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.

Matter heard 12-13 September 2016. Appeal upheld subject to plans being amended and additional conditions imposed.

$2,370.50

$4,691.50

6

37 Ogilvy Street

PEAKHURST

 

Applicant:

Rabi Moussawell

 

Proceedings No.

195732 of 2016

Class 1 Appeal against actual refusal of development application DA2015/0057 for the demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a two storey detached dual occupancy.

Matter resolved through S34 Agreement on       19 October 2016.

$0

$13,937.50

7

1-3 Peake Parade

PEAKHURST

 

Applicant:

Jack Fatouleh

 

Proceedings No.

221690 of 2016

Class 1 Appeal against actual refusal of development application DA2015/0031 for the demolition of existing structures, construction of a three storey residential flat building and basement parking.

Matter listed for resumed S34 conference on 15 November 2016.

$0

$11,723.66

8

58 and 60 Blackshaw Avenue

MORTDALE

 

Applicant:

Marion McDowell and Associates

 

Proceedings No.

241879 of 2016

Class 1 Appeal against Council Order for demolition of existing unauthorised  structure.

Matter listed for S34 conference on 29 November 2016.

$0

$2,789.80

9

66 Mulga Road OATLEY

 

Applicant:

Foxground Property Investments Pty Ltd

 

Proceedings No.

290679 of 2016

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of development application DA2015/0035 for demolition of existing structures and construction of new two storey childcare centre for 51 children with basement car parking.

Matter listed for S34 conference on 19 December 2016.

$0

$0

10

4 St Georges Parade

HURSTVILLE

 

Applicant:

Shayben Construction Pty Ltd

 

Proceedings No.

299262 of 2016

Class 1 Appeal against actual refusal of development application DA110/2016 for an additional 3 levels (6 units) on a residential flat building under construction.

Matter listed for directions hearing 4 November 2016.

$0

$0

11

36 Chamberlain Street

NARWEE

 

Applicant:

Katherine Mayer

 

Proceedings No.

306015 of 2016

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of development application DA2016/0086 for alterations and first floor addition to dwelling and use of building as childcare centre for 60 children.

Matter listed for directions hearing 10 November 2016.

$0

$0

Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Class 4 Proceedings

 

1

84D Roberts Avenue

MORTDALE

 

Parties:

 

Romanous Developments Pty Ltd

 

Proceedings No.

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 on-going monitoring and compliance with Court Orders. Respondents have lodged required Wall DA and Section 106 application under final orders. Awaiting determination of applications by Council.

$283,921.51

$0

2

37 Boronia Street

KYLE BAY

 

Parties:

Mrs Megan McOnie

 

Proceedings No.

40940 of 2015

 

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.  Application for substituted service on Respondent commenced.

$20,658.60

$5,575.65

Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Class 2 Appeals

 

1

1 Arnold Street

PEAKHURST

 

Parties:

Mofeed Louis Tanious

 

Proceedings No.

155914 of 2016

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

Judgment handed down on 11 August 2016. Mr Tanious to remove all poultry from premises with exception of 10 chickens and 5 other poultry. 90 days to comply. Mr Tanious lodged a s56A appeal on question of law and matter listed for hearing on 1 November 2016.

$0

$6,336.50

Local Court Proceedings

 

1

13-17 Peake Parade

PEAKHURST

 

Parties:

Oxford (NSW) Pty Ltd

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

Matter part heard on 20 May  and 26 October 2016. Magistrate requires further submissions. Stood over to 10 May 2017.

$221.50

$0

2-6

13-17 Peake Parade

PEAKHURST

 

Parties:

Oxford (NSW) Pty Ltd

 

 

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 fully contested hearing on all matters on 21 February 2017.

$190.00

$3,582.00

7-12

25 Koorabel, 25A Koorabel, 25B Koorabel Street

LUGARNO

 

Parties:

Daoud & Daoud Developments Pty Ltd

Appeals against six PINs issued for carrying out development not in accordance with development consent.

Matter listed for hearing for on 6 April 2017. Council to submit brief by 6 March 2017.

$0

$3,956.80

District Court Proceedings

 

1

Con Hindi v Michael Watt

 

No. 99504 of 2016

Proceedings commenced against former Council staff member for defamation.

Council has no part in the proceedings except for payment of insurance excess under its councillor and officer liability insurance policy.

$9,608.17

$6,301.35

 

6.      The cost savings to date by virtue of S34 delegations are as follows:

 

Month

Savings

July

$34,000.00

August

$24,000.00

September

$0

October

$16,000.00

Total

$74,000.00

 

 

Financial Implications

7.      Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

09/1077

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 November 2016                                                                        Page 163

Item:                   CCL098-16        Southern Sydney Regional Organisations of Councils Supply and Delivery of Sodium Hypochlorite (Bulk Liquid Chlorine) 

Author:              Coordinator Procurement, Marea Getsios

Directorate:      Office of the Chief Operating Officer

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

(a)     That in accordance with the recommendations of the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) tender evaluation panel (Confidential report dated June 2016 attached to the report) for Supply and Delivery of Sodium Hypochlorite (Bulk Liquid Chlorine), the tender submission from Ixom Operations Pty Ltd be accepted for a term of three (3) years subject to satisfactory performance as determined by SSROC, with an option to extend the agreement for a further one (1) plus one (1) years, with an estimated  annual budget expenditure of $60,000.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      To consider the recommendations of the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) tender evaluation panel for a contract for Supply and Delivery of Sodium Hypochlorite (Bulk Liquid Chlorine).

Background

2.      As part of the SSROC Supply Management Group’s work plan for 2015/16, it was identified that a new tender for the Supply and Delivery of Sodium Hypochlorite (Bulk Liquid Chlorine) would be beneficial to the region due to a number of councils’ ongoing requirement for this product and the expiry of the current contract.

3.      Accordingly, SSROC coordinated a regional open tender on behalf of member Councils to drive cost savings, provide robust terms and conditions of contract, realise optimal delivery and supply logistics, and promote environmental and social initiatives that are important to the region.

 

4.      SSROC participating councils utilise approximately 800,000 litres of sodium hypochlorite per annum collectively. With this collaborative approach, the region is able to benefit from cost savings, therefore providing Georges River Council with the best value in this category. Georges River Council spends approximately $60,000 per year on pool chemicals which puts Council over the tendering threshold over a three (3) year period. Participating in this regional tender also allows Council to save on unnecessary costs of going out for tender and allocating resources elsewhere.

 

5.      In addition to Georges River Council, six (6) SSROC Councils agreed to participate in this tender. Sutherland Council was the host Council for this tender.

6.      One submission from Ixom Operations Pty Ltd was received. The attached confidential SSROC report provides further information about this submission.

7.      The recommendation of Ixom Operations Pty Ltd ensures continuity of pool chlorine across our metropolitan wide Southern Sydney area. Ixom Operations Pty Ltd is the incumbent sole supplier under the current SSROC contract and currently provides goods and services to SSROC member councils. It is recommended that the tender submission from Ixom Pty Ltd be accepted in accordance with the SSROC Assessment and Panel’s report of June 2016.

 

Financial Implications

8.      An annual budgeted expenditure of $60,000 has been allocated for the duration of the 3 year contract term.

 

File Reference

< Enter Records Reference Number Here >

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

SSROC - 2016-05 Sodium Hypochlorite Tender Recommendation (Confidential)

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 November 2016                                                                        Page 165

Item:                   CCL099-16        Georges River Council Quarterly Budget Review Statement to 30 September 2016 

Author:              Chief Financial Officer, John Maunder

Directorate:      Office of the Chief Operating Officer

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the report in relation to the September 2016 Quarterly Budget Review Statement be received and noted.

(c)     That the proposed budget variations as detailed in the report be approved.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      This report is a review of the first quarter's financial performance against the 2016-17 current budgets and recommends approval of proposed budget variations in line with the revised projected year end result.

 

Background

2.      Clause 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that a quarterly budget review be considered by Council that shows current estimates for income and expenditure for the year, indicates whether Council’s financial position is satisfactory and makes recommendations for remedial action where required.

 

3.      Quarterly Budget Review Statements attached to this report provide a comprehensive high level review of Council’s financial position at 30 September 2016, in accordance with requirements developed by the Office of Local Government that will assist Councils in meeting their obligations as set out in legislation.

 

4.      A review of Council’s budget up to 30 September 2016 has identified some proposed variations to existing budgets based on updated budget forecasts for the financial year. Details of the proposed budget variations and their effect on the projected year end result are attached to this report.  

 

5.      The Quarterly Budget Review Statements Include an Income and Expenses Review Statement, Capital Budget Review Statement, Cash and Investments Budget Review Statement, Key Performance Indicator Budget Review Statement, and a Contracts and Other Expenses Review Statement.

 

Financial Comment

6.      Council has been operating within budget for the quarter ending 30 September 2016.

 

 

 

7.      After reviewing the budget figures to date, Council’s yearly forecasts should be achieved.

 

8.      Council’s projected level of available working funds at year-end remain in a satisfactory position as at 30 September 2016.

 

Financial Implications

9.      If the proposed budget are adopted, Council’s unrestricted working funds will increase by $4,432,012 and Council’s restricted working funds will increase by $7,809,653.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Georges River Council QBRS September 2016

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 November 2016

CCL099-16          Georges River Council Quarterly Budget Review Statement to 30 September 2016

[Appendix 1]         Georges River Council QBRS September 2016

 

 

Page 167

 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 November 2016

CCL099-16          Georges River Council Quarterly Budget Review Statement to 30 September 2016

[Appendix 1]         Georges River Council QBRS September 2016

 

 

Page 169

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 November 2016

CCL099-16          Georges River Council Quarterly Budget Review Statement to 30 September 2016

[Appendix 1]         Georges River Council QBRS September 2016

 

 

Page 172

 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 November 2016

CCL099-16          Georges River Council Quarterly Budget Review Statement to 30 September 2016

[Appendix 1]         Georges River Council QBRS September 2016

 

 

Page 173

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 November 2016

CCL099-16          Georges River Council Quarterly Budget Review Statement to 30 September 2016

[Appendix 1]         Georges River Council QBRS September 2016

 

 

Page 175

 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 November 2016

CCL099-16          Georges River Council Quarterly Budget Review Statement to 30 September 2016

[Appendix 1]         Georges River Council QBRS September 2016

 

 

Page 177

 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 November 2016

CCL099-16          Georges River Council Quarterly Budget Review Statement to 30 September 2016

[Appendix 1]         Georges River Council QBRS September 2016

 

 

Page 180

 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 November 2016                                                    Page 183

Item:                   CCL100-16        Investment Report as at 30 September 2016 

Author:              Coordinator Financial Management, Francis Mangru

Directorate:      Office of Chief Operating Officer

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

 

 

Recommendation

a)      That the Investment Report as at 30 September 2016 be received and noted.

 

Executive Summary

1.      This report details Council’s performance of its investment portfolio for September 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.

 

2.      Council’s financial year to date return is 3.40%, which is 1.21% above benchmark. Income from interest on investments and proceeds from sale of investments totals $1.48 million, $247,000 above 2016/17 budget.

 

Background

3.      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

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

       

September

Annual

Council Return

3.43

3.40

Benchmark

1.74

2.19

Variance

1.69

1.21

 

 

 

 

 

5.      Council’s investment portfolio as at the end of September was as follows:

 

$000's

%

Cash

      16,473

9.71

Term Deposit

      87,750

51.72

Fixed Rate Notes

        3,121

1.84

Floating Rate Notes

      54,710

32.25

Enhanced Cash Fund

        7,608

4.48

Total Cash Investments

    169,662

Investment Properties

      15,300

Total Investments

    184,962

 

Council’s Investment Properties Portfolio

6.      Council’s investment properties updated as at the end of September were as follows:

 

 

 


         

7.      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.

 

8.      Council continues to utilise the Federal Government’s current guarantee   ($250,000) 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.

 

9.      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

 

10.    Council was participating in the IMF class action regarding Lehman Brothers Australia Liquidation. The IMF class action matter is now finalised.

 

Loan Liability

 

11.    Council’s loan liability as at 30 September was $3 million which represents the balance of $5 million ten (10) year loan drawn down on 16 November 2012 for Jubilee Park upgrade. Next repayment of $125,000 is due 28th December 2016. The outstanding balance on this facility is at a variable interest of 194 basis points over 3 month BBSW. At the current 3 month BBSW rate, the interest rate payable is 3.67% pa.

 

12.    Council receives a 4.00% 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 0.09%pa. It is intended to continue this financially-advantageous arrangement through to full term in 2022.

Cost of Loan/3 month Bank Bill Swap Rates (BBSW)

Comparison

 

Policy Limits

13.    The following graph shows the limits, as a percentage of total cash investments, of the amount by periods, as allowed under Council’s policy, and comparing them to the amounts actually invested, as a percentage of the total cash investments.

 

14.    It shows that the funds invested are within the limits set in the Investment Policy.

Policy Limits on Maturities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Investment Portfolio as at 30 September 2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


* Market value are indicative prices only, and do not necessarily reflect the price at which a transaction could be entered into.

 

Investment Income

                                                     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Certificate by Chief Financial Officer (Responsible Accounting Officer): John Maunder

 

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

 

Analysis of Investments

16.    The following graphs show analysis of the total cash investment by:

 

·        Institutions

·        Type of Investment

·        Durations

·        Rating

 

Investment by Institution

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Investment Duration

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


17.    Council’s portfolio is very liquid, with 21% of assets maturing within 3 months and an additional 18% maturing within 12 months. FRNs, funds and fixed bonds also provide additional liquidity in an emergency.

 

Financial Implications

 

18.    Income from interest on investments and proceeds from sales of investments totals $1.48 million being $247,000 above revised budget projections.

 

Types of Investments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


         

19.    Council’s investment portfolio is mainly directed to term deposits, which account for approximately 52% of total investments. Yields have steadily contracted, while tracking bond market volatility in the short term.

 

20.    Bank Floating Rate Notes (FRN) offer liquidity and a higher rate of income accrual, which is highly recommended by our Investment Advisors (CPG Research & Advisory) going forward.

 

21.    The following are the types of investments held by Council:

 

a)      At Call refers to funds held at a financial institution, and can be recalled by Council either same day or on an overnight basis.

 

b)      A Floating Rate Note (FRN) is a debt security issued by a company with a variable interest rate. This can either be issued as Certificates of Deposit (CD) or as Medium Term Notes (MTN). The interest rate can be either fixed or floating, where the adjustments to the interest rate are usually made quarterly and are tied to a certain money market index such as the Bank Bill Swap Rate.

 

c)      A Fixed Rate Bond is a debt security issued by a company with a fixed interest rate over the term of the bond.

 

d)      A managed fund is a professionally managed investment portfolio that individual investors can buy into, purchasing 'units' rather than shares. Each managed fund has a specific investment objective. This is usually based around the different asset classes (cash, fixed interest, property and shares). The money you invest is used to buy assets in line with this investment objective. When you invest in a managed fund, you are allocated a number of 'units'. The value of your units is calculated on a daily basis and changes as the market value of the assets in the fund rises and falls.

 

* These managed funds have been grandfathered since 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).

 

Credit Rating

 

Investment by Rating

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


22.    Credit ratings are generally a statement as to an institution’s credit quality. Ratings ranging from AAA to BBB- (long term) are considered investment grade.

 

23.    A general guide as to the meaning of each credit rating that Council deals with is as follows:

 

AAA:               the best quality companies, reliable and stable. An obligor has extremely strong capacity to meet its financial commitments.

         

AA:                 quality companies, a bit higher risk than AAA. An obligor has very strong capacity to meet its financial commitments. It differs from the highest-rated obligors only to a small degree.

 

A:                    economic situation can affect finance. An obligor has strong capacity to meet its financial commitments but is somewhat more susceptible to the adverse effects of changes in circumstances and economic conditions than obligors in higher-rated categories.

 

BBB:               medium class companies, which are satisfactory at the moment. An obligor has adequate capacity to meet its financial commitments. However, adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to lead to a weakened capacity of the obligor to meet its financial commitments.

 

Unrated:         This category includes unrated Authorised Deposit-Taking Institutions (ADI’s) such as some Credit Unions and Building Societies to the extent not Commonwealth-guaranteed. No rating has been requested, or there is insufficient information on which to base a rating.

 

24.    The credit quality of Council’s portfolio is relatively high with approximately 68% of assets rated ‘A’ or higher. The ‘AAA’ assets represent the deposit investments covered by the Federal Government’s Financial Claims Scheme (FCS).

 

25.    The remaining 32% rated ‘BBB’ or ‘unrated’ reflects the attractive deposit and Floating Rate Notes (FRN) investments with the regional and unrated ADIs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council’s Investment Powers

 

26.    Council’s investment powers are regulated by Section 625 of the Local Government Act, which states:

 

·        A council may invest money that is not, for the time being, required by the council for any other purpose.

·        Money may be invested only in a form of investment notified by order of the Minister published in the Gazette.

·        An order of the Minister notifying a form of investment for the purposes of this section must not be made without the approval of the Treasurer.

·        The acquisition, in accordance with section 358, of a controlling interest in a corporation or an entity within the meaning of that section is not an investment for the purposes of this section.

 

27.    Council’s investment policy and strategy requires that all investments are to be made in accordance with;

 

·        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 (Financial Management) Regulation 1993

·        Investment Guidelines issued by the Department of Local Government

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Overview of Investment - Sept 2016

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 November 2016

CCL100-16          Investment Report as at 30 September 2016

[Appendix 1]         Overview of Investment - Sept 2016

 

 

Page 194

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 November 2016                                                                        Page 201

Item:                   CCL101-16        Georges River Council Transformation and Change Implementation Plan 2016 

Author:              Director Transformation and Change, Marissa Racomelara

Directorate:      Transformation and Change

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the Georges River Council Transformation and Change Implementation Plan (October 2016), inclusive of attachments and as updated from time to time, be adopted.

 

Executive Summary

1.      As part of the Amalgamation process, the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) requires the development of an Implementation Plan.  The Implementation Plan defines the guiding principles and governance of change management within the organisation.  The first iteration of the Georges River Council Transformation and Change Implementation Plan is attached (Attachment 1).

 

Background

2.      The DPC has set deadlines for the development and adoption of Implementation Plans for each of the newly merged councils. A first draft was due 30 September, 2016 and this was reviewed by DPC representatives to ensure alignment with reporting and monitoring requirements.  Feedback from DPC at this stage was positive, and further work to develop a timeframe and budget was undertaken.

 

3.      A detailed Implementation has now been developed.  This plan is:

·           aligned with the principles guiding change defined by the DPC

·           local, based on the individual contexts of Georges River Council and the needs and interests of our community

·           targeted, with a focus on the 10 key results and most urgent priorities

·           adaptive, able to respond rapidly to unexpected issues and new opportunities

·           prioritised, with a clear understanding of the costs and benefits of activities

·           measurable, with a clear framework for monitoring and communicating progress.

4.      Further, the Implementation Plan aligns with other key amalgamation documents including:

a)      The Stronger Councils Framework for Georges River Council (Attachment 2).  This document sets out the characteristics of strong councils as defined by the DPC via a common set of “Enduring Characteristics” and “Longer Term Indicators”.  For each of these, short term measures have been developed.  These measures are a combination of DPC and OLG measures common to all merged councils and a number of locally defined measures that align with the “Statement of Local Benefits” within the Implementation Plan.

b)      The New Council Implementation Fund Allocations (NCIF) (Attachment 3).  The NCIF was established to assist with the up-front costs of implementing the new council.

c)      The Savings Targets (“Delivering the Benefits of Council Amalgamations” – Attachment 4).  This document sets the draft baseline targets for the realisation of savings associated with the formation of merged councils.

d)      Georges River Council Savings Targets (Attachment 5). This document summarises the draft savings targets recommended by Council to the DPC and is intended to be used in discussions with DPC in determining final savings targets. At this time, the process for determining final savings targets has not been clarified by DPC.

e)      The Georges River Council Operational Plan 2016/17 which defines the key activities of council and includes a specialised chapter on “Building Organisational Capacity”.

 

5.      The Implementation Plan is designed to be adaptive and responsive to community priorities and can be amended by Council resolution any time. It is supported by detailed Project Plans for each of the 11 Project Streams.

 

6.      Ongoing external reporting on is required in two key areas:

a)      Project Implementation Status – the DPC requires monthly status reports on key projects outlined within the plan.

b)      New Council Implementation Fund (NCIF) Reporting – The OLG requires quarterly reporting on the expenditure and outcomes of projects funded under the NCIF grant.

 

7.      Reporting to the community will be undertaken quarterly via reports to Council which combine the above two reports into a single document and will be delivered as part of the quarterly budget review.

 

Financial Implications

8.      The New Council Implementation Fund Grant of $10M from the DCP covers the expenditure detailed in the Transformation and Change Implementation Plan

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Att2 Characteristics of Strong Councils

Attachment View2

Att3 NCIF Budget Allocations

Attachment View3

Att4 DPC Draft Savings Targets

Attachment View4

Att5 Council Draft Savings Targets

Attachment View5

Att1 Implementation Plan

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 November 2016

CCL101-16          Georges River Council Transformation and Change Implementation Plan 2016

[Appendix 1]         Att2 Characteristics of Strong Councils

 

 

Page 202

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 November 2016

CCL101-16          Georges River Council Transformation and Change Implementation Plan 2016

[Appendix 2]         Att3 NCIF Budget Allocations

 

 

Page 203

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 November 2016

CCL101-16          Georges River Council Transformation and Change Implementation Plan 2016

[Appendix 3]         Att4 DPC Draft Savings Targets

 

 

Page 205

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 November 2016

CCL101-16          Georges River Council Transformation and Change Implementation Plan 2016

[Appendix 4]         Att5 Council Draft Savings Targets

 

 

Page 217

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 November 2016

CCL101-16          Georges River Council Transformation and Change Implementation Plan 2016

[Appendix 5]         Att1 Implementation Plan

 

 

Page 220

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 November 2016                                                                        Page 254

8.      Assets and Infrastructure

Item:                   CCL102-16        Georges River Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 18 October 2016 

Author:              Manager Assets Planning and Services, Obi Thomas

Directorate:      Assets and Infrastructure

Matter Type:     Assets and Infrastructure

 

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the Minutes of the Georges River Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting held on 18 October 2016 be adopted.

 

Executive Summary

1.      The Minutes of the Georges River Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting held on 18 October 2016 are submitted to Council for consideration and adoption.

 

Background

2.      The Traffic Advisory Committee meeting on 18 October 2016 was held at Hurstville Civic Centre.

3.      The meeting was attended by a member of the public, Ms Wendy Jennings, who addressed members in relation to report “TAC066-16 Bennet Road, Riverwood – Concerns Regarding Commuter Parking”

 

Financial Implications

4.      Budget allocation

a.   RMS Traffic Facilities Grant       $384,080

b.   LATM Projects                               $40,000

5.      Balance to date

a.   RMS Traffic Facilities Grant       $307,053

b.   LATM Projects                               $37,200

6.      Estimated cost of works recommended by Traffic Committee is $5,900 from RMS Traffic Facilities Grant.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Minutes - Traffic Advisory 18 October 2016

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 November 2016

CCL102-16          Georges River Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 18 October 2016

[Appendix 1]         Minutes - Traffic Advisory 18 October 2016

 

 

Page 256

 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 November 2016                                                                        Page 262

Item:                   CCL103-16        Tender for Clarendon Road, Peakhurst Drainage Upgrade 

Author:              Manager Engineering Services, Michelle Whitehurst

Directorate:      Assets and Infrastructure

Matter Type:     Assets and Infrastructure

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the report be received and noted.

(b)     That the separate report on this agenda relating to Tender for the Clarendon Road, Peakhurst Drainage Upgrade be considered in closed session, in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Chapter 4 of the Local Government Act 1993, Section 10A (2) (c) as it is considered the information, if disclosed, confers a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

Executive Summary

1.      This report is presented to Council to select a preferred Contractor for the Clarendon Road, Peakhurst Drainage Upgrade.

 

Background

2.      As part of the Georges River Council 2016/2017 Operational Plan and Budget, a key action in Assets and Natural Environment is as follows:

“1.21 Provide quality stormwater infrastructure to minimise flooding and enhance water quality.”

 

3.      Clarendon Road, Peakhurst has been highlighted by Council Officers as a priority project to alleviate concerns raised by local residents and the former Hurstville City Council.

 

4.      This project is funded by the Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) Recovery Reserve.

 

5.      Accordingly, tender documentation was prepared and tenders were called in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 for the Clarendon Road, Peakhurst Drainage Upgrade.

 

6.      The tender called for an experienced Contractor to undertake the following works:

 

a.   Upgrade the existing drainage culvert across the intersection of Clarendon Road and Ogilvy Street, Peakhurst to increase the capacity of the culvert to convey 100 year ARI event (100 year storm event)

b.   Construct new kerb and gutter to direct water flow into the appropriate channels

c.   Construct two (2) new stormwater pits to accommodate water to be directed into the drainage line and into the creek

d.   Reinstate landscaping, road and concrete.

 

7.      The tender closed at 2.00pm, Thursday 6 October 2016 and four (4) conforming submissions were received from the following companies:

a.      Celtic Civil Pty Ltd

b.      KK Civil Engineering

c.       Pan Civil Pty Ltd

d.      Quality Management and Construction Pty Ltd

 

8.   A tender assessment panel was formed comprising:

a.      Assets Engineer

b.      Traffic Engineering Officer

c.       Manager Infrastructure Planning

d.      Manager Contracts

 

9.      Submissions were assessed as outlined in the confidential report.

 

Financial Implications

10.    Within budget allocation - funded by the Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) Recovery Reserve.

 

File Reference

T16/021

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 November 2016                                                                        Page 264

Item:                   CCL104-16        Tender for the Supply and Delivery of A Footpath Scrubber 

Author:              Manager Engineering Services, Michelle Whitehurst

Directorate:      Assets and Infrastructure

Matter Type:     Assets and Infrastructure

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the report be received and noted.

(b)     That the separate report on this agenda relating to Tender for the Supply and Delivery of a Footpath Scrubber be considered in closed session, in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Chapter 4 of the Local Government Act 1993, Section 10A (2) (c) as it is considered the information, if disclosed, confers a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

Executive Summary

1.      This report is presented to Council to approve the Contract for the Supply and Delivery of a Footpath Scrubber.

 

Background

2.      Georges River Council currently provides a street sweeping service to every street in the local government area, and a town centre cleaning regime for each commercial area.

 

3.      As part of Council’s commitment to this service, funds were allocated in the 2016-2017 Budget to replace one of the Footpath Scrubbers.  The cost of this plant is funded by the Vehicle and Plant Reserve which has a current balance of $1,653,016 (Plant Replacement being $1,042,123).

 

4.      Accordingly, tender documentation was prepared and tenders were called in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 for the Supply and Delivery of a Footpath Scrubber.

 

5.      The tender called for the following specifications:

a.      2016 Footpath Scrubber model

b.      Recirculation water systems

c.      Diesel engine

d.      Air-Conditioned Cabin with air suspension seat

e.      Minimum 2m3 Hopper

f.       Maximum machine height 2m

g.      Rotating LED beacons

h.      Side and rear cameras

i.       Front working lights

 

6.      The tender closed at 2.00pm, Wednesday 5 October 2016 and three (3) conforming submissions were received from the following companies:

 

a.      Hako Australia Pty Ltd

b.      Rosmech Sales & Service Pty Ltd

c.      Tennant Australia Pty Limited

 

7.      A tender assessment panel was formed comprising:

a.      Cleansing Coordinator

b.      Depot Operations Manager

c.      Fleet Manager

d.      Manager Contracts

 

8.      Submissions were assessed as outlined in the confidential report.

 

Financial Implications

9.      Within budget allocation – funded by the Vehicle and Plant Replacement Reserve which has a current balance of $1,653,016 (Plant Replacement being $1,042,123).

 

File Reference

T16/022

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 November 2016                                                                        Page 266

Item:                   CCL105-16        Tender T4/2016 Drainage Culvert Construction and Ancillary Works – Harris & Nelson Streets, Sans Souci, NSW 

Author:              Manager Parks and Waterways, Glen Moody

Directorate:      Assets and Infrastructure

Matter Type:     Assets and Infrastructure

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the report be received and noted.

(b)     That the separate report on this agenda relating to the Tender for the Drainage Culvert Construction and Ancillary Works - Harris & Nelson Streets, Sans Souci be considered in closed session, in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Chapter 4 of the Local Government Act 1993, Section 10A (2) (c) as it is considered the information, if disclosed, confers a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

Executive Summary

1.      This report is presented to Council to select a preferred contractor for the Drainage Culvert Construction and Ancillary Works - Harris & Nelson Streets, Sans Souci.

 

Background

2.      In 2014 Council commissioned consultants Kustom Engineering to investigate and model local flooding and drainage issues in Harris Street, Sans Souci, and prepare stormwater mitigation options to reduce the existing flood impacts experienced at 8, 18, 20 and 22 Harris Street.

 

3.      The report concluded that the most effective mitigation option involved the amplification of the existing footpath drainage system and raising driveway levels at No. 22 and No. 24. This proposed design included upgrading the existing 300mm diameter stormwater pipe to a 900mm wide by 600mm deep box culvert, significantly increasing the capacity of this drainage system.

 

4.      The former Kogarah City Council called for tenders in March 2016 and seven tenders were submitted.

 

5.      At the meeting of 4 July 2016 Council resolved, in part, as follows:

That Council decline to accept any of the tenders for Drainage Culvert Construction and Ancillary Works – Harris & Nelson Streets (Tender T2/2016).

That Council’s decision to decline to accept is on the basis that current market prices are considered excessive and do not represent value for money.

 

6.      Tenders were re-advertised by Georges River Council on Tuesday 9 August 2016 in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

7.      The tender closed at 11.00am, Thursday 1 September 2016 and eleven (11) conforming submissions were received from the following companies:

·        All Civil Solutions Group Pty Ltd

·        Ashmarc Constructions Pty Ltd

·        Cadifern Pty Ltd

·        Celtic Civil Pty Ltd

·        Citywide Civil Engineering NSW Pty Ltd

·        Josa Constructions Pty Ltd (T/A JCG Australia Pty Ltd)

·        KK Consultants Pty Ltd (T/A KK Civil Engineering)

·        Quality Management & Constructions Pty Ltd (T/A QMC Group)

·        Starcon Group Pty Ltd

·        Stateline Asphalt Pty Ltd

·        TGB & Son Pty Ltd

8.      A tender assessment panel was formed comprising:

Manager Parks and Waterways

Coordinator Catchments and Waterways

Engineering Assistant – Stormwater

 

9.      Submissions were assessed as outlined in the confidential report.

 

10.    Once the contract is awarded it is anticipated that works will commence within four weeks and be carried out over a ten week period.

 

 

Financial Implications

11.    This project is within its budget allocation which is funded by the Stormwater Levy and Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) Recovery Reserve.

 

File Reference

T4/2016

 

 

 

 

   


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 November 2016                                                                        Page 267

9.      Community and Culture

Item:                   CCL106-16        Community Development and Services Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 12 September 2016 

Author:              Manager Community Services, David Linden

Directorate:      Community and Culture

Matter Type:     Community and Culture

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the Community Development and Services Advisory Committee Minutes for 12 September 2016 be adopted.

 

Executive Summary

1.      Minutes of the Community Development Advisory Committee meeting held on 12 September 2016 are submitted to Council for consideration and adoption.

 

Background

2.      In accordance with the adopted Terms of Reference, the Community Development Advisory Committee will meet bi-monthly, and items considered by the Committee will be presented to Council for their adoption and will be posted to Council’s website.

 

Financial Implications

3.      Financial implications are indicated in each individual report.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Minutes - CDSA - 12 Sept 2016

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 November 2016

CCL106-16          Community Development and Services Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 12 September 2016

[Appendix 1]         Minutes - CDSA - 12 Sept 2016

 

 

Page 269

 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 November 2016                                                                        Page 270

Item:                   CCL107-16        Aboriginal Advisory Committee Meeting - 10 October 2016 

Author:              Manager Community Services, David Linden

Directorate:      Community and Culture

Matter Type:     Community and Culture

 

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the report be received and noted.

(b)     That the Agenda items be deferred to 6 February 2017 Aboriginal Advisory Committee Meeting.

 

Executive Summary

1.      The Aboriginal Advisory Committee scheduled for 10 October 2016 did not proceed due to lack of a quorum.

 

Background

2.      As the Aboriginal Advisory Committee meeting for 10 October 2016 did not proceed, it is proposed that the Agenda items be deferred to the following scheduled meeting which is 6 February 2017.   

                                      

Financial Implications

3.      The financial implications are indicated in each individual report.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Aboriginal Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 10 October 2016

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 November 2016

CCL107-16          Aboriginal Advisory Committee Meeting - 10 October 2016

[Appendix 1]         Aboriginal Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 10 October 2016

 

 

Page 271

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 November 2016                                                                        Page 273

Item:                   CCL108-16        2016 Georges River Stronger Communities Fund Grant Program 

Author:              Coordinator Community Development, Nicolas Best

Directorate:      Community and Culture

Matter Type:     Community and Culture

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the funding allocation for the 2016 Georges River Stronger Communities Fund Program, listed within Attachment 1, be endorsed.

 

Executive Summary

1.      The purpose of this report is to seek approval for the allocation of $1 million in grants of up to $50,000 to not-for-profit community groups to build more vibrant, sustainable and inclusive local communities in the Georges River Local Government Area.

2.      The 2016/17 Grants Program Assessment Panel has assessed the 63 applications received and has recommended the funding of 27 applications with a total funding of $1,000,000. For a list of successful applications please refer to Attachment 1 – 2016 Georges River Stronger Communities Fund – Summary of Funded Applications, which will be tabled at the Council meeting.

 

Background

3.      The Stronger Communities Fund has been established by the New South Wales Government to provide newly amalgamated councils with funding to kick start the delivery of projects that improve community infrastructure and services.

4.      The 2016 Georges River Stronger Communities Fund Grant Program opened on 15 August and closed on 16 September 2016.

5.      Georges River Council received 63 Stronger Communities Fund applications with funding requests totalling $2,389,888.

6.      Applications were considered in four different categories: Community Development; Cultural and Arts Development; Environment and Conservation; and Sports and Recreation.

7.      Applications were assessed against a range of criteria including the social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits of the project. Consideration was also given to the projects’ alignment with identified community needs and strategic alignment with Council’s Plans of Management (POM).

8.      The 2016/17 Grants Program Assessment Panel met on 5 October 2016.  Membership of the Panel included State Members of Parliament or their nominated representative; the Regional Coordinator of the Department of Premier and Cabinet; the General Manager; an independent probity advisor; one former Councillor from the former Hurstville Council and one former Councillor from the former Kogarah Council.

9.      Council will be a strong partner in the delivery of a number of these projects where there is a strategic alignment with POMs.

10.    For a full list of all 27 applications recommended to receive funding, please refer to Attachment 1, as tabled at the Council meeting.

 

 

Financial Implications

11.    Within the budget allocation of $1 million from the Stronger Communities Fund.

 

File Reference

16/945

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 


 

 

10.    Confidential items (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 closed.

 

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.

CON022-16       Tender for Clarendon Road, Peakhurst Drainage Upgrade

(Report by Manager Engineering Services, Michelle 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.

CON023-16       Tender for the Supply and Delivery of A Footpath Scrubber

(Report by Manager Engineering Services, Michelle 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.

CON024-16       Tender T4/2016 Drainage Culvert Construction and Ancillary Works – Harris & Nelson Streets, Sans Souci, NSW

(Report by Manager Parks and Waterways, Glen 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) 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.

 

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.

That Council now resolves itself into a Closed Council and in accordance with Section 10A of the Local Government Act 1993, Council Staff (other than members of the Executive, the Manager Corporate Governance and others at the invitation of the Chairperson) and members of the press and the public be excluded from the Council Chamber during consideration of the items referred to Closed Council.

 

 

  

11.    Open Council

12.    Consideration of Closed Council Recommendations