Council Meeting

Notice of Meeting

 

Monday, 3 July 2017

27 June 2017

 

Mr John Rayner

 

An Ordinary Meeting of Council will be held at 6.00pm in the Civic Theatre, 16 MacMahon Street, Hurstville on Monday, 3 July 2017 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, 3 July 2017

 

Previous Minutes

MINUTES: Council Meeting - 5 June 2017

Environment and Planning

CCL115-17       Georges River Council Enforcement Policy - Outcome of Public Exhibition

(Report by Manager Environmental Health & Regulatory Services).................... 2

CCL116-17       Section 94A Contributions Plan 2017 - Amendment 1

(Report by Strategic Planner).................................................................................... 12

CCL117-17       Adoption of Amendments to Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012

(Report by Manager Strategic Planning)................................................................. 47

CCL118-17       State Significant Precinct and Land Use Infrastructure Program - Riverwood

(Report by Manager Strategic Planning)............................................................... 144

CCL119-17       Summary of Development Applications lodged and determined

(Report by Manager Development and Building)................................................ 155

CCL120-17       62 Algernon Street Oatley - Construction of a new jetty, ramp and pontoon - DA189/2016

(Report by Independent Assessment, Consultant Planner).............................. 159

Finance and Governance

CCL121-17       Advice on Court Proceedings - June 2017

(Report by General Counsel).................................................................................. 190

CCL122-17       Georges River Council Public Interest Disclosure Reporting Policy

(Report by Manager Governance and Risk)......................................................... 199

CCL123-17       Tender for Internal Audit Services - Providers Panel

(Report by Internal Auditor)...................................................................................... 220

CCL124-17       Tender - Legal Services Panel - Specialised in Property Law

(Report by General Counsel).................................................................................. 223

CCL125-17       Enterprise Risk Management - Policy and Strategy

(Report by Project Manager).................................................................................... 225

 

 

 

CCL126-17       Investment Report as at 31 May 2017

(Report by Team Leader Financial Reporting)..................................................... 254

CCL127-17       Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Determination - Mayor and Councillors fees for 2017-2018

(Report by Executive Manager)............................................................................... 268

CCL128-17       Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils SSROC - Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting

(Report by Executive Manager)............................................................................... 295

CCL129-17       Georges River Council Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy

(Report by Governance Officer).............................................................................. 304

CCL130-17       Georges River Council Visitor Access Policy

(Report by Governance Officer).............................................................................. 312

CCL131-17       Georges River Council Workplace Surveillance Policy

(Report by Governance Officer).............................................................................. 319

Assets and Infrastructure

CCL132-17       Property Matter – Proposed Grant of Easement to Drain Water – Seaforth Avenue Reserve Oatley

(Report by Strategic Property Officer)..................................................................... 331

CCL133-17       Georges River Council Graffiti and Posters Policy

(Report by Project Manager).................................................................................... 335

CCL134-17       Georges River Council Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting - 20 June 2017

(Report by Traffic Engineer).................................................................................... 343

Community and Culture

CCL135-17       Draft Georges River Council Customer Service Strategy

(Report by Project Leader)........................................................................................ 350

CCL136-17       Draft Georges River Sister City Policy

(Report by Community Development Officer, Cultural Services)...................... 360

CCL137-17       Georges River Council Complaints Policy

(Report by Project Leader)........................................................................................ 369

CCL138-17       Draft Georges River Council Historical Markers Policy

(Report by Community Development Officer, Cultural Services)...................... 386

CCL139-17       Georges River Council CCTV Operations Policy

(Report by Manager Community and Cultural Development)........................... 394

 

 

 

CCL140-17       Library Services Radio Frequency Identification RFID Inventory Management System - Q17/011

(Report by Manager Library Services).................................................................... 401

CCL141-17       Community Development and Services Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 19 June 2017

(Report by Manager Community and Cultural Development)........................... 403

 

Confidential (Closed Session)

CON008-17       Library Services Radio Frequency Identification RFID Inventory Management System - Q17/011

(Report by Manager Library Services)  

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    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 - 5 June 2017

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 2

6.      Environment and Planning

 

Item:                   CCL115-17        Georges River Council Enforcement Policy - Outcome of Public Exhibition 

Author:              Manager Environmental Health & Regulatory Services

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council adopt the Georges River Council Enforcement Policy as publicly exhibited.

(b)     That Council support an annual allocation of funds within the Environment and Planning budget to undertake a compliance program on emerging issues within the community.

 

Executive Summary

1.      Council at its meeting on 3 April 2017 endorsed the draft Georges River Council Enforcement Policy for the purpose of public exhibition.  A further recommendation required that a copy of the draft Policy be referred to The Independent Commission Against Corruption for review and comment.

2.      The draft Georges River Council Enforcement Policy was placed on public exhibition from 5 April to 19 May 2017.  The draft Policy was placed on Councils web page and appeared in the May-June edition of Georges River news and Council’s quarterly newsletter to residents.

 

3.      A copy of the draft Policy was also referred to The Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Implementation Advisory Committee for review and comment.

 

 

4.      One submission was received from the Implementation Advisory Committee which raised a number of valid suggestions of an operational nature and these will be incorporated into future procedures which will be developed to support the Policy.

 

5.      Advice was received from the Independent Commission Against Corruption on 1 June 2017.  The advice referred Council to a number of publications written by the NSW Ombudsman to review prior to finalizing our documents.  Council staff have already reviewed the documents as part of the policy development process.

 

6.      It is recommended that the publicly exhibited version of the Georges River Council Enforcement Policy be adopted unchanged.

 

Background

7.      The public exhibition of the draft Georges River Council Enforcement Policy resulted in one submission which was received via the Implementation Advisory Committee. The submission made comments and suggestions relating to the following parts of the Policy:

 

 

Public Interest

“1.6. Public interest - the cost/benefit of taking enforcement or prosecution action in circumstances where the non-compliance can be easily remedied or where Council approval could have been obtained needs to be balanced against the cost of any action.”

 

8.      The purpose of the policy is to provide a framework to ensure the investigation and detection of any breach of the law will be conducted in a fair. Lawful, consistent, transparent and professional manner and with a thorough consideration of all available facts, to assist Council and its Authorised Officers in making decisions in its regulatory functions.

 

9.      The Policy was originally considered at the Council meeting of 3 April 2017 where Council resolved, in accordance with the provisions of Section 160 of the Local Government Act 1993, to provide public notice and exhibition of the draft Enforcement Policy.  The Policy was on public exhibition from 5 April to 19 May 2017.

 

10.    The comment in the submission states that in relation to 1.6 was “that there appears to be culture amongst developers and builders that appears  to be gaining momentum whereby these persons construct a non-complying building intentionally because they know that the situation can easily be remedied by applying for a building certificate and/or a Section 96 modification and it appears to have become much easier to get an approval by applying for a building certificate rather than incorporating the non-compliances in the original development application. However, sometimes Council needs to make an example of these persons and even if it is costly to Council and the Cost Benefit Analysis doesn’t stack up, Council may decide to spend the money in order to take action and expose the culprit and make an example of what is viewed as bad practices and will not be tolerated, in our local government area.”

 

11.    The Policy reflects the Council’s approach for dealing with unlawful building works.  Council has obligations to take appropriate action under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. At the conclusion of an investigation and after carefully considering the severity of the offence and the associated environmental impact, Council may have one or more of the following options.

·    Take no action

·    Counsel the alleged offender

·    Issue a formal letter or warning

·    Issue Notices and Orders under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

·    Issue Penalty Infringement Notices (on-the-spot fines)

·    Commence criminal proceedings; and/or

·    Commence Civil Proceedings

 

12.    If unlawful building works are considered acceptable to Council, retrospective approval may be granted through formal development and building applications. Enforcement action will be considered as part of the assessment process.

 

13.    Given the current framework it is considered that the policy does not need to be amended to deal with non-complying building activity.

 

Next Steps

 

14.    After adoption of the Policy, relevant Council staff will collaborate to develop a set of operational procedures which reflect the adopted policy.  These procedures will be reviewed by Council’s Legal Counsel and ratified by the Executive. Such procedures will be supported by a training program with staff and information sessions with the community, where relevant.

 

15.    Recurrent funding of $30,000 has been included into the 17/18 budget to run a compliance program on key matters emerging within our community.  This program will commence with Boarding Houses in 17/18 and will have future scope to deal with other building compliance issues such as use of Public Footpaths and Advertising Signage.

 

 

Financial Implications

16.    No budget impact for this report.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Georges River Council DRAFT- Enforcement Policy 2017 (JLW FINAL)

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL115-17          Georges River Council Enforcement Policy - Outcome of Public Exhibition

[Appendix 1]         Georges River Council DRAFT- Enforcement Policy 2017 (JLW FINAL)

 

 

Page 5

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 12

Item:                   CCL116-17        Section 94A Contributions Plan 2017 - Amendment 1 

Author:              Strategic Planner

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council endorse that the Draft Section 94A Contributions Plan 2017 – Amendment 1 (Attachment 1) be placed on public exhibition for 28 days in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

(b)     That the Draft Section 94A Contributions Plan 2017 – Amendment 1 be reported back to Council following the completion of the public exhibition period.

 

Executive Summary

1.      At its Extraordinary Meeting of 13 December 2016 Council adopted the Georges River Section 94A Contribution Plan 2017 (S94A Plan) and resolved that the S94A Plan become effective from 1 February 2017.

2.      Since the S94A Plan has been in operation some administrative issues have arisen, especially in respect to the indexation of the monetary contribution payable by the developer at the respective time of payment.

3.      The indexation section of the S94A Plan has been reviewed and redrafted to clearly state how the monetary contributions payable are to be indexed at their respective time of payment. Other administrative components of the S94A Plan have also been reviewed and redrafted to make the plan more robust and effective in accordance with the latest S94E Directions and provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) and Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EPA Reg). Such amendments include:

i.       Bringing the S94A Plan up to date with the latest S94E Direction from the Minister in regards to exclusions, such that particular developments are not being unnecessarily excluded;

ii.      Clearly stating that development under taken by Council that is funded by the S94A Plan and Council’s Section 94 Plan are exempt from the S94A Levy;

iii.     Deletion of Works-In Kind Agreement (WIK Agreements) paragraphs, as WIK Agreements cannot be accepted in lieu of S94A Contributions under the EPA Act;

iv.     Clearly stating when the S94A levy is payable when a particular development may involve both subdivision certificate and construction certificates;

v.      Additional provisions added to deferred and periodic payments in respect to the calculation of the required bank guarantees in respect of interest etc, so both Council and the proponent are clear on what is required;

vi.     Amendments to wording on Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPA) to remove WIK Agreement references and specify that Accredited Certifiers cannot agree to, or enter into a VPA on Council’s behalf.

4.      No changes have been made to the contribution rate percentage calculations on the value of development or the works program.

5.      Therefore it is recommended that the Draft S94A Plan – Amendment 1 (Attachment 1) be placed on public exhibition for 28 days in accordance with the relevant provisions of the EPA Act and EPA Reg.

 

Background

6.      At its Extraordinary Meeting of 13 December 2016 Council adopted the Georges River Section 94A Contribution Plan 2017 (S94A Plan) and resolved that the S94A Plan become effective from 1 February 2017.

7.      Since the S94A Plan has been in operation some administrative issues have arisen, especially in respect to the indexation of the monetary contribution payable by the developer at the respective time of payment. The S94A Plan in its current form requires the monetary contribution payable to be indexed from the date of consent to the date of payment. However the Plan was silent on whether indexing would occur quarterly or annually.

Other Amendments to the Draft S94A Plan

8.      Hence Clause 4.13 has been amended to clearly state that indexation is to occur quarterly and the indexation formula has been amended to allow for this. The indexation formula also now clearly states how to determine the ‘Base’ and ‘Current’ indexes. These amendments now allow for ‘time value of money’ to be calculated correctly, as the ‘Base’ index is derived at the same time the value of the development is accepted by Council, and the ‘Current’ index is the most recently published CPI figure from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Please refer to changes in Attachment 1.

9.      Other administrative amendments have been made to the Plan to properly align it with recent S94E Directions from the Minister, especially in regard to exclusions. The Plan currently states under Clause 4.2:

In accordance with the Section 94E Direction issued on 4 October 2016, A Section 94A levy cannot be imposed to a development where a Section 94 Contribution has already been imposed at the subdivision stage.

          The above, does not include the final part of the sentence contained in the S94E Direction which reads in full:

In accordance with the Section 94E Direction issued on 4 October 2016, A Section 94A levy cannot be imposed to a development where a Section 94 Contribution has already been imposed at the subdivision stage, unless that other development will, or is likely to, increase the demand for public amenities or public services beyond the increase in demand attributable to the initial subdivision.

Without the final part of the S94E Direction, the S94A Plan unnecessarily excludes particular development. Hence Amendment 1 introduces the final part of the S94E Direction to remove the unnecessary exclusion.

10.    Wording has been added in the exclusion section of the S94A Plan to make it clear that any work or development funded by the S94A Plan or Council’s Section 94 Plans are exempt from S94A levy, as such works that are for public purposes and provide public benefits to ameliorate against the impact of the development from which it’s funding has been derived.

11.    The exemption of S96 Modifications to DAs has been removed. Developers from time to time seek further improvements to their particular developments that may increase the value of the development. In such cases Council can seek the relevant commensurate contributions increase.

12.    Reference to Work-In-Kind (WIK) and Dedication of Land Agreements has been deleted from the S94A Plan. Section 94A of the EPA Act only contemplates the payment of a monetary contribution, therefore WIK and Land Dedication Agreements cannot be conditioned in lieu of a Section 94A Monetary Contribution. To do so may allow a developer to challenge the WIK or Land Dedication condition, which if found in favour of the developer, would render Council without any contribution for the particular development monetary or material. Nevertheless, should a developer wish to enter an agreement with Council to provide a public benefit or dedicate land in lieu of the S94A levy, the proper and only mechanism is a Planning Agreement under Section 93F of the EPA Act, which allows Council to exclude S94A from particular developments where agreed between the parties.

13.    Amendments have also been made to the provision of Bank Guarantees under Clause 4.14 – Deferral or Periodic Payments of the S94A Plan, which provides a base from which Council can apply interest. Without such a base, the applicant may argue with Council’s applied interest rate. Hence the ‘Base’ from which to apply interest provides certainty to both Council and the developer.

14.    The above discussed amendments to the administration part of the S94A Plan will make the document more robust, easier to understand and applicable to development that was unnecessarily previously excluded. Once the amendment is adopted by Council after exhibition a new standard condition will be inserted into development consents that will reflect the indexing provisions proposed.

15.    Thus it is recommended that a Draft S94A Plan – Amendment 1 (Attachment 1) containing the amendments discussed in the body of this report to be placed on public exhibition for 28 days in accordance with the relevant provisions of the EPA Act and EPA Regulations, including:

a.      Public Notice in local newspaper;

b.      Details posted on and downloadable from Council’s website

c.       Hardcopy version available for viewing at Council’s Customer Service Desks

16.    Following the closure of the public exhibition period the Draft S94A Plan will need to be reported back to Council to consider submissions (if any) and final adoption. The Council is to note that the amendment relating to the indexing does not affect the other existing Section 94 Plans that apply within the Georges River LGA.

 

Financial Implications

17.       No budget impact for this report. The amendments proposed to the S94A Plan clarify particular matters in the administration of the document, which will allow Council to properly index monetary contributions to be collected via the S94A Plan; and charge particular developments that are currently unnecessarily exempt.

 

Next Steps

18.       If this report is adopted then the amendments proposed to the S94A Plan will be placed on public consultation in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act and its Regulation for a minimum period of 28 days.

19.       After exhibition a further report will be referred to Council to adopt the amended S94A Plan.

 

Further Amendments

20.    It should be noted that Council on 1 May 2017 resolved as follows:

That Council prepare a new Section 94 Contributions Plan to amend Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 to address the following:

i.        The development types listed to ensure consistent with the LEP definitions for developments.

ii.       The indexation formula in accordance with the legal advice and past internal audit review.

iii.      The costing of works as some projects have been or are currently under construction.

iv.      The possible expansion of the City Centre land application map (Map 1 in Appendix B) to cover additional areas identified by the draft Georges River Employments Lands Study and the Hurstville Urban Design Review.

That Council resolve to prepare a new Section 94 Contributions Plan for the Georges River LGA incorporating the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 and the separate Kogarah S94 Plans.

 

21.    A new Section 94 Contributions Plan for the Georges River Council incorporating the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 and the four (4) separate Kogarah S94 Plans has been listed in the Workplan 2017/18 for the Council’s Strategic Team.

 

File Reference

SF17/664 & 16/1052

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Draft Section 94A Contributions Plan - Amendment 1

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL116-17          Section 94A Contributions Plan 2017 - Amendment 1

[Appendix 1]         Draft Section 94A Contributions Plan - Amendment 1

 

 

Page 16

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 47

Item:                   CCL117-17        Adoption of Amendments to Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 

Author:              Manager Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council approve Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan (Amendment No. 2) to include Kempt Field, the Hurstville East Site (bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane) and the Bing Lee Site (being 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road) Hurstville into the Hurstville City Centre land application map; and

(b)     That Council give public notice of its decision in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act and its Regulation.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      Council at its meeting held 1 May 2017 resolved to amend:

a.      Georges River Section 94A Plan (change the reference from clause 142(2) to 136L in Section 4.9) and the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 (change the reference to Appendix C in Section 1.1 to Appendix B) as minor typographical corrections as per Clause 32(3)(a) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000; and

b.      to prepare a new Section 94 Contributions Plan to include Kempt Field, the Hurstville East Site (bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane) and the Bing Lee Site (being 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road) into the City Centre land application map in the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 and place the Draft Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan on public consultation in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act and its Regulation for a minimum period of 28 days.

2.      A copy of the report is contained in Attachment 1.

3.      The minor typographical corrections as per Clause 32(3)(a) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 were effective on 31 May 2017.

4.      The amendments to the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 was placed on exhibition from Wednesday 31 May to Friday 30 June 2017.  No submissions have been made to date.

5.      This report recommends that Council now adopt the new Section 94 Contributions Plan to include Kempt Field, the Hurstville East Site and the Bing Lee Site into the City Centre land application map in the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 and give public notice of its decision in accordance with Clause 31 of the Environmental Planning & assessment Regulation 2000.

 

Background

6.      The table below provides an overview of the Contributions Plans currently applying to the Georges River LGA:

 

Section 94 Contributions Plan

Land to which the Plan Applies

Georges River Section 94A Plan

The Plan applies to the whole of the Georges River LGA.

Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012

Applies to all the land within the Hurstville, Mortdale and Peakhurst Wards.

The plan levies residential development contributions for community facilities, open space and public domain works. Non-residential development in the Hurstville City Centre is levied for public domain works. Within the commercial centres of the Hurstville City Centre, Penshurst, Mortdale, Beverly Hills and Riverwood contributions are levied where car parking is not provided on-site.

Ramsgate Commercial centre Development Contributions Plan 2006

A joint plan that applies to land within the former City of Kogarah and the City of Rockdale that comprises the Ramsgate Commercial Centre. The plan has a joint works schedule that identifies works on both the Georges River Council side and the Rockdale City Council side of the Ramsgate Centre.

Section 94 Contributions Plan No 1 – Road and Traffic Management

Applies to all areas in the Kogarah Bay and Blakehurst Wards, outside of the Kogarah Town Centre, Hurstville Town Centre and Ramsgate Town Centre.

Section 94 Contributions Plan

No 5 Open Space – 2007

Applies to all areas in the Blakehurst and Kogarah Bay Wards outside of the Kogarah Town Centre and Ramsgate Town Centre.

The plan applies to multi-unit development only and funds are utilised for the embellishment of existing open space.

Section 94 Contributions Plan No 8 – Kogarah Town Centre

Applies to land within the Kogarah Town Centre and levies contributions for streetscape works, roads and traffic, pedestrian upgrades in lieu of on-site car parking, community facilities and stormwater and drainage.

Section 94 Contributions Plan No 9 – Kogarah Libraries

Applies to all land across the Kogarah Bay and Blakehurst Wards and is for building upgrades and the acquisition of new books.

Kogarah Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

Applies to the Kogarah Bay and Blakehurst Wards.

 

The section 94A Plan allows contributions to be levied in established urban areas where development is mainly ‘infill development’.

 

7.      Council at its Meeting held 1 May 2017 considered a report on a number of changes required to both the Georges River Section 94A Plan and the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 as follows:

a.      The minor change to the Georges River Section 94A Plan relates to a change of reference from clause 142(2) to 136L in Section 4.9 relating to Complying Development Certificates and the obligations of accredited certifiers.

b.      The minor change to the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 relates to a change of reference to Appendix C in Section 1.1 to Appendix B. Reference to Appendix C in Section 1.1 is an error as Appendix B contains the maps and not Appendix C.

c.       The inclusion of Kempt Field, the Hurstville East Site and the Bing Lee Site into the City Centre land application map (Map 1 in Appendix B) in the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012.

8.      The changes to the Georges River Section 94A Plan (change the reference from clause 142(2) to 136L in Section 4.9) and the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 (change the reference to Appendix C in Section 1.1 to Appendix B) were effective on 31 May 2017. As these were minor typographical corrections no public exhibition was required.

9.      The inclusion of Kempt Field, the Hurstville East Site (bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane) and the Bing Lee Site (being 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road) into the City Centre land application map of the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 was required to be exhibited.

10.    The sites are detailed in the Figures 1, 2 and 3 below:

 

http://infoweb.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au/grinfocouncil/Open/2016/11/IHAP_24112016_AGN_AT_files/image015.png

Figure 1 - Bing Lee Site at Nos 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road, Hurstville

 

 

Figure 2 - Hurstville East, site bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street

and Roberts Lane, Hurstville

Figure 3 - Kempt Field

11.    Figure 4 below is the new Land Application Map for the Hurstville City Centre.

Figure 4 – Updated Hurstville City Centre Map

 

12.    The following reasons were provided to Council as to why the City Centre land application map required updating to include the Bing Lee site, the Landmark Square site and Kempt Field:

a.      The Bing Lee Site is known as Nos. 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road, Hurstville. Council at its Meeting held 13 December 2016 resolved to amend the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 to identify the site within the Hurstville City Centre and prepare an amendment to the Hurstville DCP No.2 – Hurstville City Centre to include site specific provisions including (but not limited to) setbacks, street activation, vehicle access points, building massing and form, public domain, landscaping and through site connections. The Council also resolved to support the rezoning of the site from B2/R3 to B4 Mixed Use, increase the FSR to 4:1 and increase heights to 34.5m and 46m.

The Planning Proposal was issued a Gateway Determination on 24 February 2017.

b.      Hurstville East is the site bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane, Hurstville. The Planning Proposal is seeking a FSR of 2.1:1 and 3.5:1 and a height of up to 65m.  The Planning Proposal was before the DRP on 6 April 2017 and will be sent to an IHAP this year once the heads of agreement to enter into a VPA have been prepared.

c.       Kempt Field is located just outside the most eastern boundary of the Hurstville City Centre and provides both neighbourhood level open space and a landscaped buffer between the low density residential area along Lily Street and further to the east, and the larger scale development in the Eastern Gateway to the Hurstville City Centre (East Quarter development). Kempt Field currently has a strong visual relationship with land to the west (Hurstville City Centre).

Kempt Field is identified as a Neighbourhood level facility in the Hurstville Open Space, Recreation, Community and Library Facilities Strategy (2010) and its use by the neighbouring City Centre residents will increase in the future with the proposed improvements as part of the new Kempt Field Plan of Management (currently being prepared) and the through-site connections proposed as part of the East Quarter development.

It would be beneficial if Kempt Field is included within the boundary of the Hurstville City Centre in order to reflect its strong relation with the City Centre, both through its visual connection to the eastern side of the City Centre and its capacity to provide neighbourhood level open space to both existing and future residents.

No change to the RE1 Public Recreation zoning is proposed.

 

13.    Council resolved at its Meeting held 1 May 2017 as follows:

(a)     That the changes to the Georges River Section 94A Plan (change the reference from clause 142(2) to 136L in Section 4.9) and the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 (change the reference to Appendix C in Section 1.1 to Appendix B) be considered to be minor typographical corrections as per Clause 32(3)(a) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

(b)    That the minor typographical corrections outlined in (a) above be notified in The Leader as minor typographical corrections to the existing Plans.

(c)    That Council prepare a new Section 94 Contributions Plan to include Kempt Field, the Hurstville East Site and the Bing Lee Site into the City Centre land application map (Map 1 in Appendix B) in the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 and place the Draft Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan on public consultation in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act and its Regulation for a minimum period of 28 days.

(d)    That Council prepare a new Section 94 Contributions Plan to amend Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 to address the following:

i.       The development types listed to ensure consistent with the LEP definitions for developments.

ii.      The indexation formula in accordance with the legal advice and past internal audit review.

iii.     The costing of works as some projects have been or are currently under construction.

iv.     The possible expansion of the City Centre land application map (Map 1 in Appendix B) to cover additional areas identified by the draft Georges River Employments Lands Study and the Hurstville Urban Design Review.

(e)     That Council resolve to prepare a new Section 94 Contributions Plan for the Georges River LGA incorporating the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 and the separate Kogarah S94 Plans.

 

Public Consultation

14.    The changes to the Georges River Section 94A Plan (change the reference from clause 142(2) to 136L in Section 4.9) and the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 (change the reference to Appendix C in Section 1.1 to Appendix B) were effective on 31 May 2017. As these were minor typographical corrections no public exhibition was required.

15.    The amendments to the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 to include Kempt Field, the Hurstville East Site and the Bing Lee Site into the City Centre land application map were placed on exhibition from Wednesday 31 May to Friday 30 June 2017. No submissions have been made to date.

 

Next Steps

16.    If Council adopts this report and approves the amended Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012, Council is required to give public notice of its decision in accordance with the provisions Clause 31 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

17.    The updated Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 will be placed on the Council’s website.

18.    A copy of the updated Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 is attached in Attachment 2.

 

Financial Implications

19.    Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

SF13/263 & 12/2060

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Attachment 1 - Copy of Report to Council meeting held 1 May 2017

Attachment View2

Hurstville Development Contributions Plan 2012  - Amendment No. 2 for Council Meeting 3 July 2017

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL117-17          Adoption of Amendments to Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012

[Appendix 1]         Attachment 1 - Copy of Report to Council meeting held 1 May 2017

 

 

Page 54

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL117-17          Adoption of Amendments to Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012

[Appendix 2]         Hurstville Development Contributions Plan 2012  - Amendment No. 2 for Council Meeting 3 July 2017

 

 

Page 62

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 143

Item:                   CCL118-17        State Significant Precinct and Land Use Infrastructure Program - Riverwood 

Author:              Manager Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the Administrator for Georges River Council in conjunction with the Administrator of Canterbury/Bankstown Council write to the Minister for Planning supporting the  declaration of the Riverwood area as a Priority Precinct and recommending that the Minister delegate the planning of this priority precinct for Canterbury/Bankstown and Georges River Councils.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      This report provides an update to the recent announcement (1 June 2017) that the Riverwood area has been declared a new priority precinct.

2.      Priority Precincts are defined in the draft South District Plan as areas that the Minister for Planning considers have a wider social, economic or environmental significance for the community or have redevelopment potential on a scale that is important in implementing the State’s planning objectives. Priority Precincts are envisaged as larger areas usually made up of multiple land holdings, capable of delivering significant additional growth and requiring coordination from State and local government to realise their potential.

3.      The declaration of Riverwood Centre and its surrounds as a priority precinct will ensure that planning for this area is coordinated by the NSW State Government, Georges River Council and Canterbury/Bankstown Council.  Infrastructure such as schools, parks, community facilities, public transport and road upgrades will also be delivered within the Precinct to support the future community needs.

4.      This report recommends that the Administrator of Georges River Council in conjunction with the Administrator of Canterbury/Bankstown Council lodge a submission to the Minister for Planning  supporting  the declaration of the Riverwood area as a Priority Precinct and  requesting that the NSW State Government work closely with Council to achieve the a great community outcome.

 

Background

5.      The Riverwood Estate social housing estate is located within the Canterbury-Bankstown LGA. The nearby Riverwood Centre is within the Georges River LGA.

6.      The Riverwood Estate is currently under renewal by the NSW Government as part of its Communities Plus program. The renewal program aims to deliver approximately 6000 dwellings. The redevelopment will be undertaken in two stages. Stage 1 is the newly completed Washington Park, which contains 757 dwellings (including 150 social housing units). Refer to Figures 1 and 2.

 

Figure 1 - Washington Park Site Plan

 

Figure 2 - Massing View from the East of Washington Park

 

7.      Stage 2 relates to the rest of the Riverwood Estate and proposes a mix of private and affordable housing; similar to the newly completed Washington Park. The Estate currently contains about 994 social housing dwellings. Stage 2 has been declared a State Significant Precinct (SSP).

8.      As well as the SSP, the Department of Planning & Environment (DPE) are undertaking a LUIIP (Land Use and Infrastructure Implementation Program) which will:

a.   identify state and regional infrastructure which may be required for the broader Riverwood precinct, including a funding model which identifies how these projects will be delivered and the timing of implementation,

b.   provide a mix of housing types and job opportunities close to public transport, shops and services, and

c.   make changes to the zones and planning controls (FSR and height).

 

Declaration of a State Significant Precinct – Riverwood Estate (Stage 2)

9.      By being declared a SSP, the process is triggered to commence detailed investigations into preparing an appropriate set of planning controls for the study area. To be considered as having State or regional significance a site or precinct must satisfy at least one of the following criteria:

a.      be a large area of land within a single ownership or control, typically Government owned

b.      be of State of regional importance in achieving Government policy objectives, particularly those relating to increasing delivery of housing and jobs

c.       be of State or regional importance for environmental or natural resource conservation

d.      be of State or regional importance for heritage or historical significance.

10.    The Stage 2 renewal of social housing at Riverwood Estate was declared a State Significant Precinct (SSP) in July 2016. The renewal will include the provision of 1600 social housing and affordable housing, mixed with private housing (estimated total housing 6000 dwellings). The Estate has also been identified as worthy of investigation for renewal under the Communities Plus program.  Communities Plus NSW is an ongoing program that redevelops LAHC sites to deliver integrated social, affordable and private housing.

Figure 1 - Riverwood Estate - Stage 2

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Figure 3 – Riverwood Estate Stages 1 and 2

 

 

11.    In declaring the Riverwood Estate a SSP the Department issued a document titled Study Requirements Nominated State Significant Precinct – Riverwood Estate dated December 2016. The Key Study Requirements are:

·        Vision, strategic context and justification

·        Urban design

·        Land use and planning controls

·        Traffic and transport

·        Biodiversity

·        ESD

·        Climate change mitigation and adaptation

·        Heritage

·        Utilities

·        Social infrastructure needs

·        Local, State and Regional infrastructure

·        Geotechnical and contamination

·        Water

·        Flooding and stormwater

·        staging

·        consultation

 

12.    This study is underway and is informing a Masterplan that includes:

·    New street grid design option that retains part of the existing street pattern and improves the passive surveillance of the precinct.

·    Creation of new open space and pocket parks within the precinct and introduction of green ‘car free’ streets

·    Housing proposed in two sub-precincts each with a distinct character:

·        Southern sub-precinct - urban character with street blocks up to 20 storeys towards Belmore Road and Riverwood Centre with some maisonette style terraces at the base of buildings similar to Harold Park development.

·        Northern sub-precinct -  built form will be lower scale ‘garden neighbourhood’ typology 5 storey wall height with 2 storey pop up (7 storeys) buildings with approximately 60 dwellings per block.

13.    The LAHC at its last briefing held on 1 June 2017 provided an update on the lodgement of the SSP Application. LAHC had anticipated that all the information will be ready to submit to DPE by mid-June. Once the application is submitted to the DPE, the Department will undertake a Test of Adequacy.

14.    Test of Adequacy involves the Department of Planning & Environment determining if the submitted Environmental Assessment adequately addresses the Director General Requirements (s75H (2) the Act).

15.    If the proposal complies, the SSP will be placed on formal exhibition. The Department was aiming to have the SSP on exhibition in early August.

16.    Council Officers were briefed on the draft masterplan in June 2017 by Architectus who have been appointed by LAHC to prepare the Masterplan. The draft Masterplan indicates a major redevelopment of Stage 2 of the Riverwood Estate encompassing over 6000 dwellings in an area of 30.5 ha.

17.    A number of issues have been identified with the Masterplan and include:

·        The infrastructure provision – open space, transport (public and private), capacity of the road network, schools, community facilities etc – which will be required for 6000 new dwellings.

·        The lack of information on the methodology and justification for the proposed heights. To date this information has not been received.

·        The study supporting the draft Masterplan has not been released and therefore the impacts of the redevelopment of Stage 2 from 900 dwellings to 6000 dwellings and the amelioration of these impacts is not known.

·        Ability to deliver the infrastructure proposed under the masterplan has not been explained. It is considered that the infrastructure (transport, roads, parks and services) should be provided up front – with development blocks laid out. Without this approach it will be too difficult to deliver the required infrastructure under the Masterplan.

·        It is unclear whether or not wholesale demolition is proposed. Is it realistic or too ambitious? No staging plan has been provided.

·        There should be more diversity of heights and dwelling styles proposed within Stage 2 to provide a mix of dwellings to cater for all stages of life.

·        The lack of connection of the Riverwood Estate (Stage 2) to the surrounding area.

18.    Amendments to the zones and planning controls for State Significant Precincts can be made through a State Environmental Planning Policy.  This can be approved by the Minister for Planning for any matter that the Minister considers to be of state or regional planning significance (section 37 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

19.    In most cases, the State Environmental Planning Policy will amend the relevant local environmental plan(s). These amendments will be supported by more detailed planning controls set out in a development control Plan.

 

Land Use and Infrastructure Implementation Program (LUIIP)

20.    As part of the SSP, DPE are undertaking a LUIIP which will identify state and regional infrastructure which may be required for the broader Riverwood precinct, including a funding model which identifies how these projects will be delivered and the timing of implementation.

21.    The LUIIP will be centred on an 800m radius from Riverwood station which encompasses part of the SSP – refer to Figure 4 below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4 - 800m boundary of the LUIS

 

22.    Council was notified of the LUIIP by letter dated 15 February 2017 from the Minister for Planning (Attachment 1). However since that date Council has had little correspondence from the Department on the LUIIP and what stage it is at. It is also unknown as to the program for delivery.

23.    According to the Riverwood Priority Precinct Fact Sheet the process is detailed in Figure 5.

Figure 5 – Priority Precinct Process

 

Riverwood Priority Precinct

24.    On 1 June 2017 the NSW Premier declared Riverwood as a Priority Precinct. The boundary of the precinct is illustrated by the red line in Figure 6 below.

 

Figure 6 – Boundary of the Priority Precinct

 

25.    Council is already under pressure from a number of owners within the Riverwood Business centre for redevelopment opportunities to higher densities. The centre currently suffers from poor connectivity and public domain and is in need of renewal.

26.    Council supports the declaration of Riverwood as a Priority Precinct. This will ensure (hopefully) that planning is coordinated and infrastructure such as schools, parks, community facilities, public domain, public transport and road upgrades are delivered to support the future community needs.

27.    The declaration of Riverwood as a Priority Precinct will provide the mechanisms to deliver infrastructure in a coordinated and guided approach -

a.   State infrastructure through a special infrastructure contribution (SIC) such as emergency services, schools, state and district roads, district open space and transport facilities; and

b.   Local infrastructure through Section 94 Levies and VPAs.

28.    However the declaration does raise a number of issues as follows:

a.   Riverwood has no status in A Plan for Growing Sydney, or the Draft South District Plan, and that growth of the scale proposed under the Priority Precinct planning would be inconsistent with those unless they are amended;

b.   Staging – it is recommended that development of the suburb be staged (similar to the approach adopted in the Growth Centres) starting with the LAHC site due to its size and single ownership;

c.   High quality open space, community facilities, schools, walking/cycling/road infrastructure needs to be provided within the Priority Precinct boundary in order to support growth; and

d.   The State and local contributions mechanisms need to be agreed to and in place before development is allowed to occur. Infrastructure such as schools, parks, community facilities, public domain, public transport and road upgrades needs to be planned for upfront to ensure that future community needs are met.

29.    In light of the concerns, it is the recommendation of this report that Council approach the NSW State Government advising that it would be supportive of the Minister delegating the planning of this priority precinct for Canterbury/Bankstown & Georges River Councils to do.

30.    Preliminary discussions have been held with the staff of Canterbury Bankstown Council and they support this approach. It is considered necessary for both Councils to work in partnership with the Department of Planning & Environment to undertake the work.

 

Next Steps

31.    Council in conjunction with Canterbury/Bankstown Council should pursue a comprehensive planning outcome for the Riverwood area.

32.    As suggested above, it is recommended Canterbury/Bankstown Council and Georges River Council write to the Minister for Planning that it would be supportive of the Minister delegating the planning of this priority precinct for Canterbury/Bankstown & Georges River Councils to do.

33.    This partnership approach would deliver:

·    Masterplan outlining a coordinated land use strategy for the Priority Precinct.

·    A set of planning controls for the extended SSP that would provide for integrated and sustainable redevelopment.

·    An open space and pedestrian accessible network.

·    An Infrastructure delivery program.

·    A Funding mechanism or program to ensure that both regional and local needs are provided.

 

Financial Implications

34.    No budget impact for this report. There will be budget impact if the recommendations of the report are supported by the NSW State Government.

 

File Reference

17/1113 & 17/626

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Correspondence to the Administrator - Minister for Planning - Anthony Roberts - Notification of Land Use and Infrastructure Strategy -Riverwood Estate - LUIS

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL118-17          State Significant Precinct and Land Use Infrastructure Program - Riverwood

[Appendix 1]         Correspondence to the Administrator - Minister for Planning - Anthony Roberts - Notification of Land Use and Infrastructure Strategy -Riverwood Estate - LUIS

 

 

Page 151

 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 153

Item:                   CCL119-17        Summary of Development Applications lodged and determined  

Author:              Manager Development and Building

Directorate:      Office of Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the information on development applications lodged and determined for March 2017 - May 2017 be received and noted.

 

Executive Summary

1.      A snap-shot of Georges River Council’s development applications over the past 3 months 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.

This report also provides information on process improvements and new initiatives being undertaken by the Environment and Planning Directorate to reduce the number of outstanding applications.

 

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 four (5) months are set out below.

 

Month

Applications Received

Applications Determined

Outstanding Applications

Apps – with Council over 40 days <= 100 days

Apps – with Council over 100 days

Jan

48

42

341

142

153

Feb

71

64

348

103

146

Mar

109

88

369

84

174

Apr

67

35

371

118

153

May

86

96

348

107

130

 

4.       The reporting for the applications was refined and improved at the end of May, resulting in a more accurate reflection of applications and time-frames.

5.      To note - Outstanding Applications relates to applications that:

·         have just been lodged with Council

·         are under neighbour notification

·         are under assessment 

·         are awaiting determination via the relevant planning pathway.  

 

6.      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.

 

7.      The Appendix provides 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.

 

8.      A summary of the key elements are:

 

·        The major category of developments determined for the last quarter were “Residential New” and “Residential new second occupancy”.

·        There has been a reduction in undetermined applications overall, and also a reduction in both categories of 40-100 days old and >100 days. This shows that the Clearance program identified below has started to make a positive “dent” in reducing the number of applications undetermined.

·        Also, some of the doubling up of admin work has been reduced and staff are getting used to new systems, which has improved time-frames.

 

9.      Council staff are continuously focussing on improved ways to reduce the number of outstanding applications, as seen in the month of May. 

·        The “Clearance Program” which focused on reducing the back-log of applications, not necessarily just fast-track, determined 110 applications over the 4 month period up until May. 

·        The aim now is to continue with clearing the volume of undetermined applications.

·        Over the month of April, all staff relocated back to the Hurstville office, so moving forward will make it easier and quicker to deal with applications and departments within Council.

·        From 1 May 2017 – all DA related applications have been lodged in an electronic format, to make it easier to work with the applications, reduce administration tasks within Council and improve the overall time-frames for each aspect of the application.

·        Conditions and templates have been unified to make them consistent.

·        It is expected in the next month that all new applications will be moved onto one computer system so as to refine and improve processes moving forward. However existing applications will remain working in the two different systems.

·        From 1 July 2017 – emphasis is being placed on speeding up internal referrals, such that if there are any issues they are identified earlier in the process. This is in line with the Department’s Best Practice Guidelines.

 

10.    Moving forward Council staff have also initiated Phase 2 of the Clearance Program, aimed at a more targeted approach in reducing the older outstanding Development Applications. This commenced on 5 June and will conclude on 31 August. This Phase involves a dedicated team of 5 staff to focus on determining applications that have been in Council for over 100 days.  

 

11.    As at 22 June, through this process 15 applications have been determined and consents signed.

 

 

Financial Implications

12.    Within budget allocation.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

GRC DA Reporting Mar-Apr-May

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL119-17          Summary of Development Applications lodged and determined

[Appendix 1]         GRC DA Reporting Mar-Apr-May

 

 

Page 156

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 157

Item:                   CCL120-17        62 Algernon Street Oatley - Construction of a new jetty, ramp and pontoon - DA189/2016 

Author:              Independent Assessment, Consultant Planner

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

Recommendation

That Council approve the Development Application (DA189/2016) for the construction of a jetty, ramp and pontoon at 62 Algernon Street, Oatley subject to the attached conditions including centrally locating the structure and that the pontoon be provided in a longitudinal position, offset to the east of the ramp.

 

Site Plan

 

Executive Summary

1.      Council is in receipt of a development application for the erection of a new jetty, ramp and pontoon adjacent to the subject site.

 

2.      That given the circumstances of the site, including the established character of this part of the Oatley Bay foreshore, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions, including centrally locating the structure and that the pontoon be provided in a longitudinal position, offset to the east of the ramp.

 

Site and Locality

3.      The site is located on the southern side of Algernon Street, Oatley and has a street frontage of 19.8m and has an access handle to an existing 5m long and 3.65m wide reclamation and sea wall fronting the Georges River. The land at the foreshore is held under the title of the allotment.

 

4.      Development within the immediate locality consists of residential dwellings constructed on the freehold land and a variety of waterfront structures erected below the Mean High Water Mark (MHWM).

 

5.      As shown on the site plan prepared by Harbour Port Pty Ltd which forms part of the development application, the MHWM is setback several metres from the water’s edge. As a result of the location of the MHWM, the length of the structures along this stretch of foreshore exceed the maximum design guidelines under the Council’s Development Control Plan however from a visual perspective they are no longer than similar nearby structures. Further, surrounding built forms on the foreshore such as the neighbouring boat shed and timber deck are forward of the MHWM and are substantially located on reclaimed land.

 

6.      The site is within the Foreshore and Waterfront locality 10: Oatley Bay (Oatley Point Reserve to Neverfail Bay) within C4 of the Kogarah Development Control Plan. This foreshore and waterfront locality is described as “semi urban” in nature and there is a moderate to high level of development below MHWM, including jetties, ramps, floating pontoons and moorings including mooring pens

 

7.      The site was inspected on Wednesday 29 February 2017.

 

Zoning and Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 Compliance

8.      The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential and the adjacent reclamation and waterway is zoned W2 (Recreational Waterways) under Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is a permissible form of development with Council’s consent.  

 

 

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP 2013)

9.      The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant provisions of Part C3 Section 6 – Foreshore and Waterfront Development and Part C4 – Foreshore Locality Controls of Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013. Variations are sought to the Development Control Plan controls due to the narrowness of the foreshore frontage and the length of the structure. This is due to the location of the MHWM being located behind the existing seawall and measurements for Development Control Plan compliance are taken from the MHWM. The non-compliances are as follows.

 

10.    The waterfront boundary is only 3.65m in width. The Development Control Plan control requires a minimum 9m width, unless they are shared facilities.

 

11.    The length of the jetty structure is 12m from the Mean High Water Mark (MHWM). The Development Control Plan control requires a maximum of 9m from MHWM including reclamation.

 

12.    The combined length of the jetty and ramp is 18m from the MHWM. The Development Control Plan control advises a maximum length of 15m.

 

Submissions

13.    One (1) submission was received raising the following concerns: 

 

·      Suitability of the site for a waterfront structure due to the narrow width of the access handle.

·      Non-compliance with the Development Control Plan controls and objectives.

·      Impact on the use of their waterfront facilities.

·      Usual “clutter” on the waterways.

 

Mediation

14.    A meeting was arranged in Council’s offices on the 15 June 2017 to allow the owners of 62a Algernon Street (the immediate neighbours and objectors), representatives of the applicant (Harbour Port) and the owner of the subject site (62 Algernon Street) to meet to attempt to resolve issues raised with the application. The consultant planner and Council’s Manager Development and Building were also in attendance.

 

15.    Council is to note that the neighbours do not support the jetty.  However their two (2) main concerns are:

 

·      Firstly, the location of the jetty in relation to the property boundary and division of waterway and a desire to see the jetty moved further towards the north east, away from their property.

 

The location of the jetty (ie that part of the structure which meets the land) was resolved between the parties following an offer by the applicant to centrally locate it on the foreshore property boundary and this is conditioned within the recommendation.

 

·      Secondly, there was a desire by the objectors to have the water based structure altered from a jetty, ramp and pontoon (as proposed) to a jetty and sea stairs.

 

An option was presented by the applicant to have an offset domestic pontoon rather than as currently proposed (centrally located at the end of the ramp). This would reduce the visibility of the pontoon from the objectors’ property.

 

16.    Both options (jetty and sea stairs and jetty, ramp and pontoon) have been examined and this is fully discussed within the report.

 

Conclusion

17.    Having regard to the Heads of Consideration under Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the circumstances of the site and following a detailed assessment of the proposal. Development Application No. 189/2016, it is recommended that the application should be approved subject to conditions.  These are to include:

 

·        That the structure is to be relocated so that the centre line of the jetty is situated in the centre of the foreshore property boundary, and

 

·        The pontoon is to be provided in a longitudinal position and offset to the east of the jetty/ramp structure.

 

Report in Full

 

Proposal

18.    Council is in receipt of a development application for the construction of a new jetty, ramp and pontoon (the structure) adjacent to the subject site at 62 Algernon Street, Oatley. The current proposal has the structure extending from the western side boundary

 

19.    The structure (including the pontoon) is proposed to be attached to the existing sea wall and extend 14.9m from that point into the Georges River. Due to the circumstances of the site, the MHWM is 5m behind the formalised seawall. Therefore, while the proposed structure will extend into the waterway at the same or similar length to other surrounding structures, the proposal does not comply with some numerical controls when the length is measured from MHWM.

 

20.    Following the notification of the proposal and receipt of one (1) objection, the proposal was initially discussed with the applicant in May 2017 in regard to alternative solutions which would enable the proposal to come closer to numerical compliance by reducing the length of the structure and/or to address issues raised by the objector to the south-west of the site.

 

21.    The first option explored was to move the entire structure to the east, away from the common boundary with the adjoining property to the west. The applicant was initially reluctant to move the structure as they wanted to make sure that any mooring was restricted to the north eastern side. From a visual perspective, it was considered that any relocation of the structure towards the centre of the frontage would not alter to any significance, the way in which the structure would be viewed from the foreshore or waterway. However, as discussed in the summary of the proposal, if a jetty and pontoon is constructed, everyone’s preference from the meeting of 15 June 2017 is that the structure be relocated to the centre of the site (centre line of the jetty be located in the centre of the foreshore property boundary). A condition to this effect will form part of any approval.

 

22.    The second option discussed in May 2017 was to possibly reduce the overall length of the structure by deleting the pontoon and ramp and having a fixed jetty with sea stairs. The stairs would be designed to be within the width of the existing jetty structure (1500mm). Various reasons were given by the applicant as to why this was undesirable. The main issue being the increased height of the structure over its entire length and that it is less practical in its use.

 

23.    At the meeting of 15 June 2017, the objectors’ maintained that if the development was approved that their preference for a jetty and sea stairs to create a more slimline structure when viewed from their property (1500mm in total width) as opposed to having a jetty, ramp and pontoon (current proposal) which has a jetty and ramp 1500mm in width with domestic pontoon attached being 3600mm in length and 2400mm in width. The objectors’ concern was the visibility of the pontoon on the waterway.

 

24.    As part of discussions on 15 June 2017, the applicant has offered an offset domestic pontoon as a possible solution. This is positioned at the end of the ramp with the bulk of the surface area of the pontoon distributed on the eastern side of the ramp, thus away from the objectors’ property. Small bollards sit 150mm above the pontoon as tie points.

 

25.    Extensive consideration has been given to this issue and drawings were provided at the June meeting showing both options in elevation. The issue which would arise with the jetty/stairs option is that the maximum height of the structure would be greater over its entire length than as currently proposed. This is because the maximum height of the jetty at 1.29 AHD would need to extend further into the waterway to achieve minimum water depth than proposed. There will be no reduction in the total length of the structure. The current proposal tapers down into the waterway and reduces the visual impact of the structure when viewed from both the land and waterway and is consistent with the form of the surrounding jetties, ramps and pontoons. The proposed pontoon will sit 600mm above the waterline as the pontoon floats in the changing levels of the tide whereas the jetty and stairs need to be designed to account for both high and low tides as they are fixed. Therefore, at times of low tide the jetty structure will be much higher than the waterline. The increased visibility of the jetty and stairs, particularly in low tides is undesirable.

 

26.    Further to the above, the construction of a jetty and sea stairs would require piers to be installed beside the jetty to stop the side of the boat from hitting the jetty. These piers are of a greater height than the jetty (900mm – 1200mm above the jetty height). This would be inconsistent with other surrounding waterside structures and visually the entire structure would be higher and bulkier than as proposed. This proposal would also result in a greater non-compliance with the overall length of a fixed jetty, as suggested in the Council’s Development Control Plan. Of equal concern is the safety aspect and continual maintenance of sea stairs. Traversing up and down stairs and on and off boats, with any form of moss or plant form growing on them is an ongoing safety concern which should also be given some weight in the assessment.

 

27.    Moving from a ramp onto a pontoon which sits above the waterline and therefore is not prone to the same type of plant growth; and then onto a boat, is considered a safer option for all future users.  

 

28.    All of the above issues are further explored and discussed within this report.

 

The Site and Locality

29.    The site is located on the southern side of Algernon Street Oatley and has a street frontage of 19.8m and has an access handle to an existing 5m long and 3.65m wide reclamation and sea wall fronting the Georges River. The land at the foreshore is held under the title of the subject site.

 

30.    Development within the immediate locality consists of residential dwellings constructed on the freehold land and a variety of waterfront structures erected below the Mean High Water Mark. The site is within in Locality 10: Oatley Bay within C4 Council’s Development Control Plan. This locality is described as being “Semi- Urban” in its development setting. “Semi Urban” is defined within the Development Control Plan as “Associated with areas where larger dwellings are more scenically acceptable, but where there are still significant amounts of native vegetation remaining particularly on the ridgeline and the foreshore”.

 

31.    To the north of the site, on the foreshore’s edge and waterway are a number of ramps, jetties and pontoons. Some of the pontoons are close together (approximately 5m or less). The site immediately to the north east is developed with a two (2) storey dwelling, stone faced ramp and slip, sea pool, jetty and pontoon. Further to the north west are a slip and jetty, ramp and pontoon. The property immediately to the north west of the site is developed with a boatshed, timber decking, slip, jetty, ramp and pontoon. The timber decking and boatshed are partially located on reclaimed land and are forward of the MHWM. A boat was observed in the boatshed. Further to the north west is a jetty, ramp and pontoon and three (3) pier mooring pen where a boat and run about were secured.

 

Section 79C Assessment

32.    The following is an assessment of the application with regard to Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

(1) Matters for consideration – general

33.    In determining an application, a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application.

 

(a) the provision of:

(i) any environmental planning instrument,

 

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP 2012)  

 

Part 2 – Permitted or Prohibited Development

 

Clause 2.1 – Land Use Zones

34.    The site  zoned R2 Low Density Residential and the adjacent reclamation and waterway is zoned W2 (Recreational Waterways) under Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is a permissible form of development with Council’s consent. In particular, the objectives of the Zone W2 Recreational Waterways have been examined to ensure that the proposal satisfies the applicable objectives. The stated objectives are:

 

“To protect the ecological scenic and recreation values of recreational waterways.

 

To allow for water-based recreation and related uses.

 

To provide for sustainable fishing industries and recreational fishing.”

 

Comment: Two (2) of the stated objectives for this zone are relevant to the proposal. The third relates to sustainable fishing industries which is not particularly relevant to this proposal.

 

The proposal has included sufficient information within the Statement of Environmental Effects to satisfy Council that there are no adverse impacts to the marine ecology if the proposal is approved. No land based vegetation is affected by the proposal. Further, NSW Fisheries have raised no objection to the proposal. In regard to scenic value, the site is within a section of the Georges River foreshore which is already developed with water based structures and land based structures which are close to the foreshore’s edge and the locality is described within the Kogarah Development Control Plan as “semi-urban”. From a visual perspective, the proposed structure will sit comfortably within the existing water based structures and associated land based structures including dwellings, boatsheds, seawalls, sea pool and swimming pool balustrades which are all close to the site.

 

The proposed jetty, ramp and pontoon will allow the owners to enjoy water-based recreation by enabling passengers to embark and disembark from a boat which will not be permitted to permanently moor from this location.  

 

The third relates to sustainable fishing industries which is not relevant to this proposal other than the proposal will not inhibit the ability of the Georges River to provide for sustainable fishing industries and recreational fishing.

 

The proposed development satisfies the relevant clauses contained within Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 as detailed below.

 

Part 5 – Miscellaneous Provisions

 

Clause 5.9 – Preservation of Trees or Vegetation 

35.    The proposed development does not involve the removal of any tree or vegetation subject to the provisions of this clause. 

 

Clause 5.10 – Heritage Conservation  

36.    The subject site is not listed as a heritage item in Schedule 5, is not within a Heritage Conservation Area, nor are there any heritage items located nearby. 

 

Part 6 – Additional Local Provisions

 

Clause 6.1 – Acid Sulfate Soils

37.    The subject site is not shown as being affected by acid sulfate soils as identified on the Acid Sulfate Soil Map.

 

Clause 6.4 – Limited Development on Foreshore Area

38.    The subject site is affected by a 30m foreshore building line, however the proposed structure is a permissible form of development below this line. 

 

(ii) any draft environmental planning instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority, and

 

39.    There are no draft planning instruments that are applicable to this site.

 

(iii) any development control plan, 

 

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP 2013)

40.    The proposed development is subject to the provisions of the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP2013). The following comments are made with respect to the proposal satisfying the objectives and controls contained within the Development Control Plan. In making an assessment of the proposal, consideration has been given to the purpose and status of a Development Control Plan as a guidance document in local planning decision making and whether the Development Control Plan provides for a sensible outcome having regard to other planning documents, including the Local Environmental Plan. In this regard the zoning of the waterways in this location specifically includes jetties; and water recreation structures as being permissible with the consent of Council.

 

41.    The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant provisions of Part C3 Section 6 – Foreshore and Waterfront Development of Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013.

 

Section 6.1 General Objectives

42.    (a) Minimise the impact of development on the natural landform of the foreshore and waterway by integrating structures into the site with a minimum change to the natural topography

 

Comment: The proposal will not alter the foreshore or natural topography, it being noted that the natural topography of the foreshore’s edge in the stretch of Algernon Road is already highly modified and developed with a variety of manmade structures. The manner in which the structure tapers down in height from the jetty to the ramp to pontoon, which then floats 600mm above the surface of the water, minimises visual intrusion.

 

43.    (b) Minimise the visual impact of development when viewed from adjacent land and waterways

 

Comment: The visual impact has been minimised by providing a structure which is no higher, longer or bulkier than any of the surrounding water based structures. It will be in character with the surrounding foreshore development. A visual assessment was carried out from several vantage points on the site and due to the steep topography of the land between the dwelling and the foreshore, it is almost impossible to gain a wide view of this stretch of foreshore from the top of the rear garden and steps which lead down to the foreshore. It is only evident when you descend to the foreshore itself and even then, the configuration of the foreshore and lack of access along the foreshore only allows views to a few waterside structures at any one time. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal will not result in increased visual clutter when viewed from land above the foreshore. While a visual assessment was not carried out from the water, the proposed structure will only be readily visible from boats approaching the shore. Further, as the nearest vantage point is a considerable distance across the waterway it cannot be reasonably agued the structure will contribute to visual clutter at this distance. It will simply form part of a developed section of the foreshore and is of a similar form, height and distance from the foreshore as the surrounding waterside structures. The issue which would arise with the alternative solution of jetty and stairs as preferred by the objectors, is that the overall height of the structure would be increased which would make it more obvious in the group of structures when viewed from the water than as currently proposed. This is due to the greater height over the length of the structure and the need for piers which would be up to 1.2m above the decking of the jetty.

 

44.    (c) Blend developments into the foreshore and waterfront environment by using designs and materials which complement the natural landscape

 

Comment: The proposed materials (for the most part, timber construction) are complementary to the foreshore and natural landscape. In regard to design, the current design which utilises a jetty, ramp and pontoon tapers down to the water thus reducing any perceived visual disruption or creation of visual clutter when viewed from the land or water. Upon reassessment of the proposal and bearing in mind the wishes of the neighbouring objectors to have a jetty and sea stairs instead of a jetty, ramp and pontoon, the current proposal before Council is the preferred option from an overall visual perspective.

 

45.    (d) Retain and enhance endemic native vegetation along the foreshore and ensure that development does not adversely affect any estuarine flora or fauna habitat

 

Comment: No flora or fauna will be affected by the proposal and there is no adverse effect upon the marine ecology.

 

 

46.    (e) Achieve an appropriate balance between private development and the alienation of the waterways, which is a public resource, from public use

 

Comment: There is no public access to the foreshore. The proposed structure will not prevent the public use of the waterway.

         

47.    (f) Council will not permit waterfront structures on land that does not have frontage to a waterway.

 

Comment: Although narrow in width, the site has frontage to the waterway.

 

Section 6.1 Controls

48.    (1) Council will not grant consent for residential waterfront structures to land which does not have frontage to the waterway. This includes allotments which only have a right of way to the waterway.

 

Comment: Complies. The site is a battle axe shaped block and has legal frontage to the foreshore of 3.65m in width.

 

49.    (2) Where an existing allotment has a water frontage of less than 9m, Council will not permit waterfront structures unless they are shared.

 

Comment: The subject site has a frontage to the water of only 3.65m and the structure is not shared. This has been discussed between the two parties however the applicant prefers their own structure, especially since it still achieves sufficient manoeuvring area for boats. From an analysis of aerial views with allotment boundaries overlaid, there appear to be several battle-axe shaped blocks along this stretch of Algernon Street, the majority of which appear to have frontages on the foreshore of less than 9m. Many of these already contain water based structures such as jetties, slips and ramps. 

 

As discussed above, the site has been examined in regard to what affect the proposed structure would have on visual clutter. Having taken into consideration the steep topography of the land, the lack of access along the foreshore and the configuration of the foreshore boundary it is considered that the proposed structure will not adversely contribute to visual clutter. Any observer on land or water is extremely unlikely to perceive this additional structure as contributing to visual clutter as the structure is in character with the existing structures in this stretch of foreshore. It being noted that many of the surrounding sites have multiple structures which are located on reclaimed land and/or within the waterway and as a result there are varying degrees of spatial separation between structures. Further, within the immediate vicinity of the site are boatsheds, raised decks, slips, ramps, jetties, pontoons, a sea pool and mooring pen.

 

This planning guideline was given considerable consideration in the assessment of this proposal given the site’s narrow width. However on balance and given the proliferation of structures on the surrounding sites (some sites having more than one waterside structure per allotment), the existing setbacks between existing structures within this particular stretch of foreshore it is considered that the proposed installation of a jetty, ramp and pontoon is satisfactory and will not result in contributing adversely to visual clutter.  

 

Section 6.2 Jetty, Ramp and Pontoon Structures Objectives

50.    (a) The design of jetty, ramp and pontoon structures should not obstruct or interfere with navigation within the waterway.

 

Comment: There is no evidence that the proposal will interfere with navigation to and from adjoining structures. Details on the submitted plans indicate that loading and unloading be restricted to the north eastern side of the structure, leaving a clearance of 5.3m between the outer edges of the pontoons.

 

If the offset pontoon is approved and the structure is located central to the site, then this distance increases to 6.82m to the pontoon to the west, whilst not compromising the distance to the next pontoon to the north east (current separation 9.7m) which would be decreased to 7.72m. The RMS has raised no objections to the proposal in regard to the proposed clearance between the proposed pontoon and its neighbouring pontoons. A site inspection revealed that there are other pontoons within the close proximity of this site that appear to be closer than 5.75m from each other. Upon further research and verbal advices from the RMS, there is no minimum distance between pontoons as each case is assessed on merit. While there is no minimum requirement under the RMS guidelines or within the Council’s Development Control Plan, other waterside councils adopt a 5m clearance between pontoons. The offset pontoon will also restrict boats to the north eastern side of the ramp.

 

51.    (b) Structures should blend in with the natural environment.

 

Comment: The structure is predominantly of timber construction and is not dissimilar to other existing structures.

 

52.    (c) Structures are to be designed to protect and enhance features and natural vegetation.

 

Comment: There is no adverse effect upon the marine or land based vegetation

 

53.    (d) Public access along the foreshore is not restricted has been designed to taper down to the water from the land by providing a jetty, ramp and pontoon.

 

Comment: There is no public access to the foreshore at this point.

 

54.    (e) The cumulative impact of waterfront structures is to be reduced, particularly in areas where it is difficult to attain reasonable water depths or adequate riparian rights.

 

Comment: It is considered that the visual impact of the proposed structure will be of neutral effect, that is, it will neither enhance nor reduce the visual impact of the structures along this stretch of the foreshore when viewed from the either the land or adjacent waterway .In this case reasonable water depths can be obtained with a structure which does not protrude into the waterway to any greater degree than any of the surrounding structures. As the properties on either side of the subject site have been developed with a number of structures along the foreshore, it is unlikely that riparian rights will be adversely affected by this proposal.

 

As discussed, this assessment has considered the potential visual clutter of this stretch of foreshore from both land and waterway and including the land opposite the site. Due to the steep topography of the site and its surrounds, the limited access around the foreshore and the configuration of the foreshore edge, the proposed structure will not contribute to visual clutter due to the number of structures already in existence and the limited opportunities to view this stretch of foreshore.

 

 

 

 

Section 6.2 Jetty, Ramp and Pontoon Structures Controls

 

55.    (1) A fixed jetty is not to exceed a length of 9m from MHWM including any existing reclamations. The jetty may have a maximum width of 1500mm and a maximum height of 750mm above MHWM (1.29AHD)

 

Comment: The length of the jetty from the MHWM is measured at 12m. The actual length of the structure, as viewed from the seawall is 7m. The outer edge of the pontoon will be in line (or closer to the foreshore) with adjoining structures. This technical non-compliance is due to the MHWM being well setback from the water’s edge and not due to the length of the jetty being excessive or out of character with its neighbours.

 

This control was examined in regard to the alternative proposal discussed with the applicant in the initial stages of the assessment and again at the completion of a meeting between the applicant and objector at Council’s offices. While the overall length of the structures would be the same, the non-compliance with this planning guideline (18m long jetty) would result in a much greater deficiency than as proposed because the length of the jetty would be longer, rather than the structure comprising part jetty and part ramp.

 

56.    (2) A ramp and pontoon extension to a jetty may be permitted provided that the total length of the ramp and jetty does not exceed 15m from MHWM.

 

Comment: The combined length is 18m. The actual visual length from the seawall is 13m. As discussed above, the non-compliance is due to the MHWM being located back from the water’s edge and will not result in a structure which exceeds the length of surrounding structures.

 

57.    (3) Pontoons are to be a maximum of 3.6m x 2.4m, constructed to the appropriate Australian Standard and only used as a facility to provide access to the water.

 

Comment: Complies. The offset domestic pontoon option will also comply.

 

58.    (4) In all cases, the length of the structure is to be confined to the minimum needed to reach useable water, which is 600mm depth at 00 low tide (-1.53m AHD).

 

Comment: Complies.

 

59.    (5) The construction of “L” or “T” ends or other types of elongations or steps at right angles to jetties are not permitted.

 

Comment: Complies, although the offset domestic pontoon is not centred and the bulk is pushed to the north eastern side of the ramp.

 

60.    (6) The jetties, ramps and pontoons are to be treated or stained in brown or dark tones to reduce the visual impact of the structure, or can be left as natural timber, except where alternative treatments are necessary for public safety. In areas where there are seagrasses and other estuarine habitats, the surfaces of structures should be slatted or meshed to allow light penetration into the intertidal or sub-tidal zone.

 

Comment: The jetty is natural timber. A condition is to be applied.

 

61.    (7) The materials used for construction are not to be harmful to marine life, for example antifouling paints or treated woods are not to be used. These materials inhibit marine growth and reduce the habitat available to marine life.

 

Comment: Complies. A condition is to be applied.

 

62.    (8) Meshed decked jetties and ramps are encouraged overall species of seagrass except ‘Posidonia australis’ (strapweed seagrass).

 

Comment: There is no seagrass present.

 

63.    (9) No foreshore structures will be permitted over ‘Posidonia australis’ (strapweed seagrass).

 

Comment: There is no strapweed seagrass present.

 

64.    (10) Jetties are to be supported on piles. Solid fill structures such as groynes, or similar, are not permitted.

 

Comment: Complies

 

65.    (11) Railings are not permitted on jetties, ramps or pontoons.

 

Comment: Complies

 

66.    (12) Council does not permit the construction of jetties, ramps or other structures in areas where they may interfere with public access along the waterfront. In exceptional circumstances where a jetty is allowed across a public waterfront, the design must allow for pedestrian access across the structure by providing timber steps on either side of the jetty.

 

Comment: There is no public access to this section of the foreshore.

 

67.    (13) The Foreshore Locality Controls specify where foreshore access must be maintained and in some areas the placement of jetties may be restricted.

 

Comment: Jetties are not prohibited in this location.

 

68.    (14) Council strongly supports the use of shared facilities for two or more adjoining residential waterfront properties. This particularly applies in confined bays and/or bays characterised by shallow water, which would otherwise tend to create a demand for long structures to attain reasonable water depths.

 

Comment: The proposal is not for an extended or long jetty. The numerical variations to the Development Control Plan controls are due to the MHWM being 5m behind the seawall. From a visual perspective the structure will sit comfortably with the other surrounding structures. The structure will be in character with all of the surrounding structures in regard to length, width and height.

 

69.    (15) The Foreshore Locality Controls specify the circumstances where shared facilities are encouraged.

 

Comment: See comment above. This is difficult to achieve when adjoining neighbours already have leases in place and structures on both sides are already erected, as is the case with the subject site.

 

Further, the applicant’s preference is for their own jetty/pontoon structure which will achieve adequate manoeuvrability between their structure and the existing adjoining structures.

 

Section C4 – Foreshore Locality Controls

 

Foreshore Locality Plan – 10 - Oatley Point Reserve to Neverfail Bay

70.    The subject site is located within Foreshore Locality 10 Oatley Point Reserve to Neverfail Bay and any design for a development within in the locality must have regard to the control guidelines of Section C4 – Foreshore Locality Controls of Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013.  This is discussed below.

 

Part C4 Section 10.8 – Water Based Development of KDCP 2013

71.    The site is located within mapping area 10b. Jetties, ramps and pontoons are permitted subject to special controls below MHWM. Specifically, jetties, ramps and pontoons will only be permitted in Area10 (b) where they comply with the maximum length requirements as outlined in Part C3 Section 6.2.

 

72.    The proposal does not comply with the maximum length controls due to the MHWM being located 5m behind the established seawall where structures would be attached to the land. By reducing the length of the proposed structures minimum water depth is not obtained and the structure itself would be out of character with the surrounding structures by being much closer to the shoreline.

 

73.    The following objectives of Section C4 10.8 are considered relevant to the application:

 

74.    (c) Permit watercraft facilities in areas where they will not have an adverse impact on the visual and ecological quality of the waterway.

 

Comment: When viewed from the dwellings on the opposite side of the Georges River and from the waterway itself, this area is characterised by a moderate to high level of development below MHWM and as such the proposed structures, which are consistent with the general form and placement along the shoreline of other similar type facilities will not be out of character. There will be no significant adverse ecological effects.

 

In regard to cumulative visual clutter, the proposal has been assessed in regard to how it will sit within this stretch of foreshore and within the suite of existing structures. Given that there are several waterside structures within close proximity to the subject site, the proposed jetty, ramp and pontoon will sit comfortably within the existing water based and land based structures, some of which are on reclaimed land. While there are non-compliances in regard to the length of the structure, this is due to the location of the MHWM behind the seawall and water’s edge. The structure will comply with the controls for width, height and appearance and for all intent and purpose be a complying structure to any land based or water based observer. As discussed, modifying the proposed structure to incorporate sea stairs would not reduce the overall length of the structure and would result in a higher structure for a greater length at a height of 129 AHD, thus adding to the visual bulk and clutter of the immediate area.

 

75.    (d) Ensure that watercraft facilities do not encroach on navigation channels or adversely affect the use of the waterway by adjoining landowners.

 

Comment: The proposed structure will not impact on the main navigation channels of the Georges River and there is no evidence that it will adversely impact on the use of the waterway by adjoining landowners. It being noted that the plans state that loading and unloading will be restricted to the northern side of the structure and a condition to this affect can be imposed.

 

76.    (e) Minimise the individual and cumulative visual impact of watercraft facilities and ensure that they do not detract from the visual quality of the waterway.

 

Comment: Given that there are a variety of land based and water based structures already in this particular area and some are spaced at a distance which is consistent with the proposal, it is not considered that the proposed jetty, ramp and pontoon will have a negative cumulative effect on the quality of the waterway, when viewed from the neighbouring waterfront properties and from over the water. The issue of visual clutter has been assessed and considered when the site inspection was carried out.

 

Given the topography of the area, any principal views from the nearest dwelling, immediately to the south west of the site, would look over waterside structures rather than towards them and not detract from the overall visual quality of the waterway and amenity enjoyed by these residents.

 

From further up the hillside this stretch of foreshore is not highly visible due to the steep topography and therefore the structures are not readily visible together. From the waterway, the proposed structure will sit comfortably within the existing structures due to the fact that it is generally of the same length, height and materials as other structures in this immediate area.

 

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Table

77.    The following table outlines the proposals compliance with the primary controls contained within Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013.

 

Jetty, Ramp and Pontoon

Performance Criteria

Design Solution

Proposed

Complies

Minimum Lot Width

9m

3.65m

No

Jetty and ramp length

15m

18m

No

Fixed jetty length

9m

12m

No

Length of Pontoon

3.6m

3.6m (total)

1.9m (additional to the ramp

Yes

Jetty width

1.5m

1.5m

Yes

Water Depth

1.5m AHD

1.5m AHD

Yes

 

(iv) any matters prescribed by the regulations, that apply to the land to which the development application relates,

 

78.    Not applicable.

 

79.    (b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,

 

80.    The proposed development (as conditioned by this report) is not considered to significantly impact on the natural or built environment as it has no affect upon the natural state of the foreshore or how this is viewed from afar and it will sit amongst other built structures. There is no evidence that it will adversely impact the ability of neighbours to safely navigate to and from their water based structures, it being noted that the RMS (Maritime) has not objected to the proposal. Given that this Authority has the expertise to assess navigational issues it is considered that the opinion of the RMS should be highly regarded on this issue.

 

81.    (c) the suitability of the site for the development,

 

82.    It is considered that the proposed development is suitable for this site despite non-compliances with the Kogarah Development Control Plan for the reasons stated in this report.  When viewed from the waterway it will form part of the general foreground of the view of this stretch of Algernon Road. The structure will be of similar height, width and materials of the majority of structures in this section of the waterway and its length, while exceeding the controls in the Development Control Plan, will sit comfortably within the existing structures as it does not protrude further into the waterway than the wealth of surrounding structures. To the observer, the proposed structure will be consistent with surrounding water based structures.

 

83.    Put simply, it will not be apparent to any observer on the waterway that the proposal is non-compliant with some Development Control Plan controls as the proposed structure will sit comfortably within the established character.

 

84.    Further, due to the width of the waterways in this location, the additional proposed structure will not be highly apparent from any land based use on the other side of the waterway. In regard to the dwellings on Algernon Road, the view will not alter in any manner which is detrimental to the enjoyment of their land.

 

85.    (d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations,

 

86.    In accordance with the provisions of Section A2 – Public Notification of Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013, the application was placed on neighbour notification for a period of fourteen (14) days where adjoining property owners were notified in writing of the proposal and invited to comment. One submission was received raising a number of non-compliances and concerns. 

 

87.    Many of the issues raised in this submission have been considered in the Development Control Plan section of this report.  While there are non-compliances with the Development Control Plan, in general there are circumstances which relate to the site, such as the MHWM sitting behind the seawall and at which point the measurements are taken under the Development Control Plan controls, which result in numerical non compliances. However, the built form will be consistent with the surrounding water based structures.

 

88.    In addition, the following commentary is provided:

 

89.    (1) The proposal does not comply with the minimum frontage guideline of 9m.

 

Comment The property has a frontage of 3.65m and does not comply with the minimum frontage control of 9m. This has been considered by onsite inspection and by an analysis of aerial views of the site and surrounds. Given the current highly developed waterfront built environment along this stretch of foreshore, it is considered that the proposal will be neutral in its impact upon the visual qualities of this area. The aerial analysis and overlay of subdivision pattern reveals that there are other properties with narrow frontages that are already developed with waterfront structures.

 

Further, consideration has also been given to the percentage of the property width at the foreshore which is occupied by structures. In the case of the proposed site the jetty has a total width of 1500mm and the site is 3650mm. This equates to approximately 40% of the width of the site being occupied with the structure. The combined width of the structures (concrete platform, boatshed, concrete ramp and slip, jetty) on 62a Algernon Street (to the south west of the site) equates to approximately 50% of the frontage width. The site to the north east (62 Algernon Street) is almost fully developed along its frontage with a sea pool and decking, boatshed and ramp and pontoon.

 

Lastly, the amended proposal, ie centrally located and offset pontoon, still maintains sufficient manoeuvrability space for boats within the immediate area.

 

90.    (2) The proposed jetty, ramp and pontoon does not comply with the Part C3 Section 6.2, Objective 9 (a) of the Development Control Plan as the design of the structure is likely to obstruct and interfere with navigation within the waterway.

 

Comment: The proposal has been designed to have boats temporarily moored on the north-eastern side of the structure, away from the neighbour’s jetty, ramp, pontoon and boatshed. Further, the neighbours boatshed and slip is on the southern end of their frontage, it is unlikely that there will be conflict between water craft. The RMS have raised no issues with regard to navigational issues within this body of waterway. In fact, they have recommended that the jetty and pontoon structure be located central to the site which would allow sufficient manoeuvring of boats.

 

91.    (3) The proposed jetty length (12m) exceeds the control which requires 9m maximum length.

 

Comment: As discussed throughout this report, this is a technical non-compliance due to the MHWM being located approximately 5m behind the existing seawall. From a visual perspective, the length of the jetty will be consistent with surrounding jetties and therefore any observer on land or water will be unaware of a technical non-compliance.  The alternative favoured by the objectors would elongate the jetty and would create a greater non-compliance.

 

92.    (4) The length of the entire structure (19.9m) exceeds the maximum control of 15m from MHWM. The proposed length will create an extremely hazardous navigational environment due to the proximity to adjoining structures.

 

Comment: The control referred to limits the length of a fixed jetty and ramp to 15m whereas the proposal is for a structure of 18m in length (excluding the pontoon which is not specifically referred to in this control). This is a technical non-compliance due to the location of the MHWM 5m behind the seawall. From a visual perspective, the length of the jetty and ramp will be consistent with surrounding jetties and ramps and therefore any observer on land or water will be unaware of a technical non-compliance. The RMS have raised no objections to the proposal on navigational grounds and have required a condition limiting the use to temporary moorings.

 

93.    (5) Negative impact on the use of the objector’s waterfront structure and surrounding waterfront structures due to the close proximity of the proposal to the objector’s property. It would not allow safe navigation in and around the adjoining pontoons and ramps.

 

Comment: Taking into account the proposed offset domestic pontoon and the structure being centrally located, which has been offered by the applicant, the separation between the pontoons will increase from 5.3m to 6.82m. This situation would be unlikely to restrict navigation of vessels to and from the pontoon on 62A Algernon Street. Further, loading and unloading from the proposed pontoon is restricted to its north eastern side. It also noted that 62a Algernon Street has a slip and boatshed on the southern side of its jetty, ramp and pontoon which may indicate that this side is more likely to be used by the owners.

 

94.    (6) The narrow frontage has resulted in the proposed structure being placed on the western side boundary of the subject site (at the common boundary with 62a Algernon Street) and not centrally located This will result in an adverse impact upon amenity of 62a Algernon Street and create a public perception of enclosure and privatisation of the foreshore.

 

Comment: This has been resolved by the jetty being centrally located on the property boundary of 62 Algernon Street.

 

95.    (7) Any condition imposed which restricts temporary mooring to the northern side is unenforceable.

 

Comment: The plans state that loading/unloading will be carried out from the northern side and this can be reinforced by condition and be enforced, if required in a similar manner to any other condition on a development consent. The offer by the applicant to have an offset domestic pontoon on this side of the ramp would ensure that water craft would use this side of the structure to load and unload, thus having limited impact on the adjoining neighbour.

 

96.    (e) the public interest.

 

          Comment: For the reasons as outlined in this report, there is nothing which is contrary to the public interest which would prevent the approval of this application. A review of aerial shots of this stretch of the foreshore (also showing lot boundaries) indicates that most lots with foreshore frontage already have structures along the foreshore.

 

Further, a visual assessment of the proposal has been carried out from the upper levels of the site, from the reclamation along the foreshore and neighbouring structures and it is considered that the impact upon this stretch of foreshore and waterway will be neutral. That is, due to the number of properties which are already developed along the waterway with a variety of structures including boatsheds, a mooring pen, fixed jetties, ramps, pontoons, decking, slips and pools the proposed jetty, ramp and pontoon will not have either a detrimental or positive impact upon the existing character of this area - it will be neutral. The proposed structure has been designed to achieve the necessary clearance into the waterway however it has also been designed to reduce it height as it moves into the water so that it is as recessive as possible when viewed from vantage points. This is due to the jetty stepping down into a ramp and then onto a pontoon. While other options have been considered in discussions with the owner and applicant, they would be more visually obtrusive and would create a greater non-compliance in the overall length of the jetty.

 

It is acknowledged that the proposal is non-compliant in regards to some of the Development Control Plan guidelines however the circumstances of this site are not envisaged by the Development Control Plan. That is the MHWM is setback 5m behind the established seawall and therefore calculations are measured from this point and not from the water’s edge.

 

In view that the proposal is in line with other jetties and pontoons and does not protrude past them, the structure will be neutral in its impact upon the visual qualities of this location. Under the circumstances it is reasonable to vary the guidelines in the Development Control Plan.

 

This proposal will allow equitable access from the foreshore onto a boat to facilitate the enjoyment of the adjoining waterway with no significant environmental affect upon the surrounding community. It is therefore in the public interest. Further, while preferred by the objectors, there is no public benefit in altering the design to a jetty and sea stairs as this would result in a higher structure over the water, over a longer distance. It would also result in the need for piers which are of a greater height than the jetty (such piers sit between 900mm and 1.2m above the deck height). The result would be a structure which was different to the surrounding jetty, ramps and pontoons and would result in a greater non-compliance with the Development Control Plan in regards to the overall length of a jetty

 

Owner’s consent has been given from the Department of Lands for the applicant to lodge a Development Application for the proposed structure erected on Crown Land below MHWM. A license would be required to be issued by that Department for these structures if consent is granted for this Development Application. 

 

A copy of the application was referred to NSW Maritime and NSW Fisheries as the proposed works are located below Mean High Water Mark (MHWM). These Departments responded and raised no issues with the proposal on public navigational grounds or on the potential impact on marine life.

 

Determination

97.    The application has been assessed having regard to the Heads of Consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013.   

 

98.    Following detailed assessment, it is considered that Development Application No 189/2016 should be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

99.    (1)     The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans prepared by Harbour Port Pty Ltd dated September 2014 and stamped as the approved plans subject to the following conditions:

 

a)      The jetty and ramp shall be constructed of timber.

 

b)      All loading and unloading to and from a vessel from the structure shall be carried out from the north eastern side of the ramp at all times to allow adequate clearance to the jetty and ramp at 62a Algernon Street.

 

c)      A vessel shall not be permanently moored from the structure.

 

d)      The proposed jetty and structure must be repositioned as follows:

 

The centreline of the jetty must be centrally located along the southern boundary between Lot 4 DP 629661 and Lot A DP 365214, such that it sits central to the subject site.

 

100.  (2)     As offered by the applicants at a meeting of 15 June 2017, the proposed pontoon is to be an offset domestic size pontoon, offset to the east of the jetty structure and situated in a longitudinal position to the ramp.

 

Schedule A – Site Specific Conditions

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans except where amended in accordance with the conditions below and to ensure that the appropriate fees and bonds are paid in relation to the development.

 

1.         GEN1001 - Approved Plans - The development must be implemented in accordance with the approved plans and supporting documentation listed below which have been endorsed by Council’s approved stamp, except where marked up on the plans and/or amended by conditions of this consent:

 

Reference No.

Date

Description

Revision

Prepared by

Dwg No. 01

September 2014

Site Plan

-

Harbour Port Pty Ltd

Dwg No. 02

September 2014

Elevation Plan

-

Harbour Port Pty Ltd

Dwg No. 03

September 2014

General Specifications

-

Harbour Port Pty Ltd

 

2.         GEN1002 - Fees to be paid to Council - The fees listed in the table below must be paid in accordance with the conditions of this consent and Council’s adopted Fees and Charges applicable at the time of payment.

           

Payments must be made prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate or prior to the commencement of work (if there is no associated Construction Certificate).

 

Please contact Council prior to the payment of Section 94 Contributions to determine whether the amounts have been indexed from that indicated below in this consent and the form of payment that will be accepted by Council.

 

Form of payment for transactions $500,000 or over - Council will only accept Bank Cheque or Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) for transaction values of $500,000 or over. Council must be contacted prior to payment to determine correct total amount to be paid and bank account details (if applicable)

 

          (a)     Fees to be paid:

 

Fee types, bonds and contributions

 

Fee Type

Builders Damage Deposit

Inspection Fee for Refund of Damage Deposit

 

The following fees apply where you appoint Council as your Principal Certifying Authority (PCA). (If you appoint a private PCA, separate fees will apply)

 

PCA Services Fee

$326.30

Construction Certificate Application Fee

$326.30

Construction Certificate Imaging Fee

$71.00

         

Fees and charges above are subject to change and are as set out in the version of Council's Schedule of Fees and Charges or as required by other Government Authorities, applicable at the time of payment.

 

3.         GEN1015 - Damage Deposit - Minor Works - In order to insure against damage to Council property the following is required:

 

(a) Payment to Council of a damage deposit for the cost of making good any damage caused to any Council property as a result of the development: $550.00.

 

(b) Payment to Council of a non-refundable inspection fee to enable assessment of any damage and repairs where required: $110.00.

 

(c)  At the completion of work Council will inspect the public works, and the damage deposit will be refunded in full upon completion of work where no damage occurs. Otherwise the amount will be either forfeited or partly refunded according to the amount of damage.

 

(d) Prior to the commencement of work a photographic record of the condition of the Council nature strip, footpath and driveway crossing, or any area likely to be affected by the proposal, shall be submitted to Council

 

(e) Payments pursuant to this condition are required to be made to Council before the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

(f)  Fees and charges above are subject to change and are as set out in the version of Council's Schedule of Fees and Charges or as required by other Government Authorities, applicable at the time of payment.

 

SEPARATE APPROVALS UNDER OTHER LEGISLATION

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that the applicant is aware of any separate approvals required under other legislation, for example: approvals required under the Local Government Act 1993 or the Roads Act 1993.

 

4.         APR6001 - Engineering - Section 138 Roads Act and Section 68 Local Government Act 1993

 

Unless otherwise specified by a condition of this consent, this Development Consent does not give any approval to undertake works on public infrastructure.

 

A separate approval is required to be lodged and approved under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and/or Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 for any of the following activities carried out in, on or over a public road (including the footpath):

 

(a) Placing or storing materials or equipment;

(b) Placing or storing waste containers or skip bins;

(c)  Erecting a structure or carrying out work

(d) Swinging or hoisting goods over any part of a public road by means of a lift, crane or the like;

(e) Pumping concrete from a public road;

(f)  Pumping water from the site into the public road;

(g) Constructing a vehicular crossing or footpath;

(h) Establishing a “works zone”;

(i)   Digging up or disturbing the surface of a public road (e.g. Opening the road for the purpose of connections to utility providers);

(j)   Stormwater and ancillary works in the road reserve; and

(k)  Stormwater and ancillary to public infrastructure on private land

(l)   If any excavation is to be supported by the use of below ground (cable) anchors that are constructed under Council’s roadways/footways.

 

These separate activity approvals must be obtained and evidence of the approval provided to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

The relevant Application Forms for these activities can be downloaded from Georges River Council’s website at: www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au

 

For further information, please contact Council’s Customer Service Centre on (02) 9330 6400.

 

REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

These conditions have been imposed by other NSW Government agencies either through their role as referral bodies, concurrence authorities or by issuing General Terms of Approval under the Integrated provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

5.         GOV1019 - NSW Government Agency - Department of Primary Industries - Irrespective of any development consent or any approval given by other public authorities, any work or occupation of Crown land cannot commence without a current tenure from the Department of Primary Industries authorising such work or occupation.

 

You are required to forward to Department of Primary Industries - Lands a copy of any development consent or other approval as soon as practical after that consent or approval is received.

 

6.         GOV1020 - NSW Government Agency - Roads and Maritime Services

 

1.    The tenant shall not be exempted from the provisions of the Management of Waters and Waterside Lands Regulations - NSW, and shall at all times comply with the requirements of all Acts and Regulations administered by Roads and Maritime Services.

 

2.    Tenant shall at all times comply with any directions given by Roads and Maritime or an officer of the Authority in regard to painting, lighting or use or alteration of any structure as may, from time to time, be required in the interests of safe navigation, equitable use of and conservation of waterways and the prevention of pollution.

 

 

3.    Area of tenure shall include only that area below high water mark covered by the actual structures plus the berthing area.

 

4.    The sites of any freestanding piles installed for the purpose of mooring a vessel at a

       jetty/pontoon shall be included in the area of the tenure.

 

5.    Any existing moorings affected by the proposal will be relocated at the developers expense.

 

6.    Jetties shall be of substantial construction, have a minimum deck height of O.75m above local mean high water level, with end piles and piles not more than 15m apart to have a minimum height of 1.0m above local mean high water level. Piles shall be finished at even height, stripped of bark above deck level and painted white. No outlying wires or obstructions shall project outside the extremities of the jetty.

 

7.    Freestanding piles for the mooring of a vessel at a jetty/pontoon shall be erected to a height of at least 1.0m above the level of local mean high water and have the bark stripped off 0.6m down from the top and be painted white and the permissive occupancy number displayed thereon.

 

8.    Any vessel attached to the structure is not to impede the safe access of any other vessel to any adjoining property.

 

9.    No vessel is to be permanently berthed at the location. This structure is to be used for embarking and disembarking of passengers and goods only.

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

These conditions either require modification to the development proposal or further investigation/information prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate to ensure that there is no adverse impact.

 

7.         CC2004 - Development Assessment - Design Change - The following design changes are required and are to be incorporated into the plans to be lodged with the Construction Certificate application.

 

(a) The stairs, upright post supports, landings, handrails and treads are to be of hardwood timber construction and are to be finished in a natural stain, gloss or similar.

 

(b) Materials used for construction must not be deleterious to marine life (e.g. antifouling paints).

 

(c) The proposed jetty and structure must be repositioned such that the centreline of the jetty is centrally located along the southern boundary between Lot 4 DP 629661 and Lot A DP 365214, such that it sits central to the subject site.

 

(d) The proposed pontoon is to be an offset domestic size pontoon, offset to the east of the jetty structure and situated in a longitudinal position to the ramp.

 

8.         CC2002 - Development Assessment - Site Management Plan - Minor Development - A Site Works Plan detailing all weather access control points, sedimentation controls, fencing, builder’s site sheds office, amenities, materials storage and unloading arrangements must be submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate.

 

9.         CC2001 - Development Assessment - Erosion and Sedimentation Control - Erosion and sediment controls must be provided to ensure:

 

(a) Compliance with the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

(b) Removal or disturbance of vegetation and top soil is confined to within 3m of the approved building area (no trees to be removed without approval)

(c)  all clean water run-off is diverted around cleared or exposed areas

(d) silt fences, stabilised entry/exit points or other devices are installed to prevent sediment from entering  drainage systems or waterways

(e) all erosion and sediment controls are fully maintained for the duration of demolition, excavation and/or development works

(f)  controls are put into place to prevent tracking of sediment by vehicles onto adjoining roadway

(g) all disturbed areas are rendered erosion-resistant by turfing, mulching, paving or similar

(h) Compliance with Managing Urban Stormwater - Soils and Construction (Blue Book) produced by Landcom 2004.

 

These measures are to be implemented before the commencement of work (including demolition and excavation) and must remain until the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

10.       CC7004 - Building - Structural details - Structural plans, specifications and design statement prepared and endorsed by a suitably qualified practising structural engineer who holds the applicable Certificate of Accreditation as required under the Building Professionals Act 2005 shall be submitted along with the Construction Certificate application to the Certifying Authority for any of the following, as required by the building design:

 

(a)  piers

(b)  footings

(c)   columns

(e)  structural steel

(d)  reinforced building elements

(e)  structural framework

 

PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK (INCLUDING DEMOLITION AND EXCAVATION)

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that all pre-commencement matters are dealt with and finalised prior to the commencement of work.

 

11.       PREC2001 - Building regulation - Site sign - Soil and Erosion Control Measures - Prior to the commencement of works (including demolition and excavation), the durable site sign issued by Georges River Council in conjunction with this consent must be erected in a prominent location on site.  The site sign warns of the penalties which apply to pollution, storing materials on road or footpath and breaches of the conditions relating to erosion and sediment controls.  The sign must remain in a prominent location on site up until the completion of all site and building works.

 

 

12.       PREC7001 - Building - Registered Surveyor’s Report - During Development Work - A report must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority at each of the following applicable stages of construction:

 

(a)        Set out before commencing excavation.

 

(b)        Piering prior to installing jetty.

 

(c)        Completion of all Work - Detailing the location of the structure (including eaves/gutters) relative to adjacent boundaries and its height relative to the datum shown on the approved plans.  A final Check Survey must indicate the reduced level of the main ridge.

      

       Work must not proceed beyond each stage until the Principal Certifying Authority is satisfied that the height and location of the building is proceeding in accordance with the approved plans.

 

DURING WORK

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that there is minimal impact on the adjoining development and surrounding locality during the construction phase of the development.

 

13.       CON6001 - Engineering - Cost of work to be borne by the applicant - The applicant shall bear the cost of all works associated with the construction of the development that occurs on Council property. Care must be taken to protect Council's roads, including the made footway, kerbs, etc, and, where plant and vehicles enter the site, the footway shall be protected against damage by deep-sectioned timber members laid crosswise, held together by hoop iron straps and chamfered at their ends. This construction shall be maintained in a state of good repair and condition throughout the course of construction.

 

14.       CON2001 - Development Assessment - Hours of construction, demolition and building related work - Any work activity or activity associated with the development consent that requires the use of any tools (including hand tools) or any power operated plant and machinery that creates noise on or adjacent to the site shall not be performed, or permitted to be performed, except between the hours of 7.00 am to 5.00 pm, Monday to Saturday inclusive. No work or ancillary activity shall be permitted to be performed on any Sunday, Good Friday, Christmas Day or any Public Holiday. A penalty infringement notice may be issued for any offence.

 

In addition to the foregoing requirements, construction work on all buildings (except that on single dwelling houses and associated structures on the site of a single dwelling house) shall be prohibited on Saturdays and Sundays on weekends adjacent to a public holiday.

 

15.       CON2002 - Development Assessment - Ground levels and retaining walls - The ground levels of the site shall not be excavated, raised or filled, or retaining walls constructed on the allotment boundary, except where approved separately by Council.

 

16.       CON6002 - Engineering - Obstruction of Road or Footpath - The use of the road or footpath for the storage of any building materials, waste materials, temporary toilets, waste or skip bins, or any other matter is not permitted unless separately approved by Council under Section 138 of the Roads Act and/or under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993. Penalty Infringement Notices may be issued for any offences and severe penalties apply.

 

17.       CON8001 - Waste - Waste Management Facility - All materials removed from the site as a result of demolition, site clearing, site preparation and, or excavation shall be disposed of at a suitable Waste Management Facility. No vegetation, article, building material, waste or the like shall be ignited or burnt whatsoever or in association with the work on site. Copies of all receipts for the disposal, or processing of all such materials shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and a copy provided to the Manager Environmental Services, Georges River Council.

 

ONGOING CONDITIONS

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that the use or operation of the development does not adversely impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood or environment.

 

18.       All loading and unloading to and from a vessel from the structure shall be carried out from the north eastern side of the ramp at all times to allow adequate clearance to the jetty and ramp at 62A Algernon Street.

 

19.       ONG4018 - Health - Amenity of the neighbourhood - The implementation of this development shall not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood or interfere unreasonably with the comfort or repose of a person who is outside the premises by reason of the emission or discharge of noise, fumes, vapour, odour, steam, soot, dust, waste water, waste products, grit, oil or other harmful products.

 

No vegetation, article, building material, waste or the like shall be ignited or burnt whatsoever or in association with the work on site.

 

ADVICE

This advice has been included to provide additional information and where available direct the applicant to additional sources of information based on the development type.

 

20.       ADV2002 - Development Assessment - Site Safety Fencing - Site fencing must be erected in accordance with WorkCover Guidelines, to exclude public access to the site throughout the demolition and/or construction work, except in the case of alterations to an occupied dwelling.  The fencing must be erected before the commencement of any work and maintained throughout any demolition and construction work.

 

For more information visit www.workcover.nsw.gov.au

 

21.       ADV2009 - Development Assessment - Security deposit administration & compliance fee - Under Section 97(5) of the Local Government Act 1993, a  security deposit (or part) if repaid to the person who provided it is to be repaid with any interest accrued on the deposit (or part) as a consequence of its investment.

 

Council must cover administration and other costs incurred in the investment of these monies. The current charge is $50.00 plus 2% of the bond amount per annum.

 

Interest rate applied to bonds is set at Council's business banking facility rate as at 1 July each year. Council will accept a bank guarantee in lieu of a deposit.

 

All interest earned on security deposits will be used to offset the Security Deposit Administration and Compliance fee. Where interest earned on a deposit is not sufficient to meet the fee, it will be accepted in full satisfaction of the fee.

 

Schedule B – Prescribed Conditions

 

Prescribed conditions are those which are mandated under Division 8A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 and given weight by Section 80A (11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Detailed below is a summary of all the prescribed conditions which apply to development in New South Wales. Please refer to the full details of the prescribed conditions as in force, at www.legislation.nsw.gov.au.

 

It is the responsibility of the beneficiary of this consent to determine which prescribed conditions apply.

 

22.      PRES1003 - Clause 98A – Erection of Signs - Requires the erection of signs on site and outlines the details which are to be included on the sign.  The sign must be displayed in a prominent position on site and include the name and contact details of the Principal Certifying Authority and the Principal Contractor.

 

Schedule C – Operational & Statutory Conditions

 

These conditions comprise the operational and statutory conditions which must be satisfied under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000. Please refer to the full details of the Act and Regulations as in force, at www.legislation.nsw.gov.au.

 

It is the responsibility of the beneficiary of this consent to determine which operational and statutory conditions apply.

 

23.      OPER1001 - Requirement for a Construction Certificate - The erection of a building must not commence until a Construction Certificate has been issued by the consent authority, the Council (if the Council is not the consent authority) or an accredited certifier.

 

An application form for a Construction Certificate is attached for your convenience.

 

24.      OPER1002 - Appointment of a Principal Certifying Authority - The erection of a building must not commence until the beneficiary of the development consent has:

 

(a) appointed a Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) for the building work; and

(b) if relevant, advised the PCA that the work will be undertaken as an Owner-Builder.

 

If the work is not going to be undertaken by an Owner-Builder, then the beneficiary of the consent must:

 

(a) appoint a Principal Contractor to undertake the building work. If residential building work (within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989) is to be undertaken, the Principal Contractor must be a holder of a contractor licence; and

(b) notify the PCA of the details of any such appointment; and

(c)  notify the Principal Contractor of any critical stage inspections or other inspections that are required to be carried out in respect of the building work.

 

An Information Pack is attached for your convenience should you wish to appoint Georges River Council as the Principal Certifying Authority for your development.

 

25.      OPER1003 - Notification of Critical Stage Inspections - No later than two (2) days before the building work commences, the PCA must notify:

 

(a) the consent authority and the Council (if not the consent authority) of his or her appointment; and

(b) the beneficiary of the development consent of the critical stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out with respect to the building work.

 

26.      OPER1004 - Notice of Commencement - The beneficiary of the development consent must give at least two (2) days notice to the Council and the PCA of their intention to commence the erection of a building.

 

A Notice of Commencement Form is attached for your convenience.

 

27.      OPER1007 - Critical Stage Inspections - The last critical stage inspection must be undertaken by the Principal Certifying Authority.  The critical stage inspections required to be carried out vary according to Building Class under the Building Code of Australia and are listed in Clause 162A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

28.      OPER1008 - Notice to be given prior to critical stage inspections - The principal contractor for a building site, or the owner-builder, must notify the principal certifying authority at least 48 hours before each required inspection needs to be carried out.

 

Where Georges River Council has been appointed PCA, forty eight (48) hours notice in writing, or alternatively twenty four (24) hours notice by facsimile or telephone, must be given to when specified work requiring inspection has been completed.

 

29.      OPER1009 - Occupation Certificate - A person must not commence occupation or use of the whole or any part of a new building unless an Occupation Certificate has been issued in relation to the building or part.

 

Only the Principal Certifying Authority appointed for the building work can issue the Occupation Certificate.

 

An Occupation Certificate Application Form is attached for your convenience.

 

If you need more information, please contact the Senior Development Assessment Officer below on 9330-6400 between 9.00am -11.00am business days.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Site Plan - Elevation Plan - General Specifications - 62 Algernon Street Oatley

Attachment View2

Survey Plan - 62 Algernon Street Oatley

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL120-17          62 Algernon Street Oatley - Construction of a new jetty, ramp and pontoon - DA189/2016

[Appendix 1]         Site Plan - Elevation Plan - General Specifications - 62 Algernon Street Oatley

 

 

Page 183

 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL120-17          62 Algernon Street Oatley - Construction of a new jetty, ramp and pontoon - DA189/2016

[Appendix 2]         Survey Plan - 62 Algernon Street Oatley

 

 

Page 186

 

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 187

7.      Finance and Governance

 

Item:                   CCL121-17        Advice on Court Proceedings - June 2017 

Author:              General Counsel

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 27 May 2017 to 26 June 2017 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

·    9 x Class 1 (Merit/DA)

·    1 x Class 2 Appeal (Tree Dispute)

·    3 x Class 4 Proceedings

Supreme Court

·    1 x Application for leave to Appeal (Tanious)

Local Court

·    13 x Prosecutions

Cost Recovery

·    10 x cost recovery matters

 

Total Costs

·        Total costs to date for the 2016/17 financial year are $684,018.66 [$522,938.66 (Hurstville) and $161,080.00 (Kogarah)]. 

·       Total legal costs recovered to date for the 2016/17 financial year are $187,107.00 [$168,925.00 (Hurstville) and $18,182.00 (Kogarah)]. Therefore net legal costs for Court proceedings for the 2016/17 financial year are $496,911.66

 

Historical Costs

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

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

 

 

New Matters

3.      Three new matters were received during the reporting period: one Local Court matter (Webber), one Supreme Court appeal (Tanious) and one tree dispute (Atanasovski).

Finalised Matters

4.         One matter (Webber) was resolved - Council awarded $5,400.00 fine plus $1,600.00 Prosecutor’s costs.  The sum of $110,764.85 was recovered from Jacobs litigation.

 

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

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.

Judgment handed down on 13 June 2017.  Council’s order was upheld.

$0

$17,605.30

2

399-403 Princes Highway

CARLTON

 

Applicant :

Michael Murr

 

Proceedings No.

336689 of 2016

Class 1 Appeal against refusal of DA 75/2016 for 5 storey residential flat building containing 22 units and strata subdivision.

S34 conference

Proceedings fixed for contested hearing on 24 and 25 May 2017.  Matter relisted on 20 June 2017 for submissions on need for cl. 4.6.  Judgment reserved.

$0

$26,155.23

3

8-10 Princes Highway

KOGARAH

 

Applicant:

Outdoor Systems P/L

 

Proceedings No. 344564 of 2016

 

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of Section 96 application DA30/1997 to delete conditions relating to a digital advertising sign. 

Matter part heard and listed for a further hearing day on 24 April 2017.  RMS joined to proceedings.  Council filed submitting appearance as it has no objection to application.  Awaiting Court decision.

$0

$7,642.44

4

25 Old Forest Road, LUGARNO

 

Applicant: George Antoniou

 

Proceedings No. 2826 of 2017

 

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA 2016/0314 for child care centre for 45 children.

S34 Conciliation terminated.  Matter listed for hearing on 23 August 2017.  External traffic and acoustic consultants briefed.

$0

$21,650.00

5

12 – 22 Woniora Road, Hurstville

 

Applicant: Combined Projects (Hurstville) Pty Limited

 

Proceedings No. 64848 of 2017

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA 154/2016 for construction of an additional two storeys to Building D of mixed use development

Matter listed for S34 Conference on 21 June 2017.  External planner briefed.  Conciliation terminated following failure to resolve the matter.  Directions hearing 28 June 2017.

$0

$4,290.00

6

365 – 377 Rocky Point Road, Sans Souci

 

Applicant: Primus DMS Pty Limited

 

Proceedings No. 71976 of 2017

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA 283/16 for alterations and additions to mixed use development

Matter listed for S34 Conference 6 July 2017.

$0

$0

7

35 – 39 Ocean Street, Kogarah

 

Applicant: Mario Briglia, Enio Briglia & Maria Cerra

 

Proceedings No. 77304 of 2017

Class 1 Appeal against refusal of DA 26/16 for the demolition of existing dwellings and construction of multi-dwelling housing over basement car parking and strata subdivision

Matter listed for S34 Conference on 28 July 2017.

$0

$0

8

19 – 23 Bembridge Street, Carlton

 

Applicant:

William Karavelas

 

Proceedings No: 98274 of 2017

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA 9/2016/78/2 for modification of DA 9/2016/78/1 to amend condition 4, relation to Section 94 contributions and delete conditions 13, 14 and 15 relating to design amendments

Matter listed for S34 Conference on 3 August 2017

$0

$0

9

977 Forest Road, Lugarno

 

Applicant: Congregational Christian Church Samoa Parish of Sydney

 

Proceedings No: 103967 of 2017

Class 1 Appeal against refusal of DA2015/0443 for a child care centre

Matter listed for hearing of Notice of Motion to dismiss proceedings on 19 June 2017.  Matter dismissed with order that Applicant pay Council’s costs.

$0

$0

 

Subtotal

 

 

$0.00

$77,342.97

Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Class 2 Proceedings

 

1

5 Munmurra Road, Riverwood

Parties:

Saso Atanasovski & Olivera Atanasovska

No: 178780 of 2017

Class 2 Appeal – Tree Dispute Application

Matter listed for 25 July 2017.  Council has advised applicant it has no objection to removal of trees.  Awaiting decision of the Court.

$0.00

$0.00

 

Subtotal

 

 

$0.00

$0.00

Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Class 4 Proceedings

 

1

84D Roberts Avenue

MORTDALE

 

Parties:

 

Romanous Developments Pty Ltd

 

Proceedings No.

40883 of 2013

Court orders entered on 24 July 2015 for Class 4 proceedings requiring remediation works under supervision of independent site auditor.

DAs for wall and drainage approved.  Respondent to carry out works pursuant to approvals by 21 June 2017.  Respondent filed motion seeking to vary period to carry out works by 21 weeks.  Section 96 modification, mostly concerned with engineering design lodged 6 June 2017 is  being assessed.  Motion listed in Court on 14 July 2017.

$283,921.51

$2,168.50

2

5 Maclaurin Street, PENSHURST

 

Parties: Emanuel Mifsud & Crystina Mifsud

 

Proceedings No. 377447 of 2016

Class 4 commenced in relation to clearing of articles and matter.

Contempt proceedings commenced against Mr Mifsud. Sentencing hearing listed on 26 July 2017.

$0.00

$22,138.25

3

117 Kyle Parade, Kyle Bay

 

Parties: Michael Stanley Lowe

Class 4 commenced in relation to removal of crane

Proceedings commenced and directions for filing evidence made.  Further directions hearing on 21 July 2017.

$0

$2,163.22

 

Subtotal

 

 

$283,921.51

$26,469.97

Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Supreme Court

 

1

1 Arnold Street

PEAKHURST

 

Parties:

Mofeed Louis Tanious

 

Proceedings No.

2017/32320

 

Class 2 commencing in relation to failing to comply with Council Notices/Orders concerning keeping of poultry at the premises.  Orders upheld by Court with extension of time to comply to 25 April 2017.

Further S56A lodged by applicant was listed for hearing on 17 May 2017.  Council was successful in upholding the Order.  Mr Tanious has filed a Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal which is listed for 17 July 2017.

$0

$25,439.00

 

Subtotal

 

 

$0

$25,439.00

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, which was subsequently adjourned to 25 September 2017 due to illness of defendant’s lawyer.

$221.50

$12,275.10

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 pleaded guilty to 4 offences, 1 withdrawn.  Magistrate has ordered written submission evidence on sentencing.  Listed on 10 May 2017, which was subsequently adjourned to 25 September 2017 due to illness of defendant’s lawyer.

$190.00

$12,827.99

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 adjourned for sentencing to 16 August 2017.

$0

$14,360.50

13

Parties:  Matthew James Webber

PIN for illegal dumping

Defendant pleaded guilty.  Mr Webber fined $5,400 and $1,600 Prosecutor’s costs.

$0

$0

 

Subtotal

 

 

$411.50

$39,463.59

Cost Recovery

 

1

The Baptist Church Union of NSW and The Baptist Churches of NSW Property Trust

 

No. 83357 of 2017

Church has taken proceedings to  prevent gazettal of the acquisition notice relating to 4 – 6 Dora Street, Hurstville

Council was successful in resisting the Church’s injunction.  Property acquired by Council on 31 March 2017.  Court orders to be enforced.  Council proceeding to recover costs awarded by Court.  Church has filed a Notice of Intention to Appeal, giving it 3 months in which to appeal.

$0

$39,876.50

2

66 Mulga Road OATLEY

 

Applicant:

Foxground Property Investments Pty Ltd

 

Proceedings No.

290679 of 2016

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

Matter resolved by S34 Agreement filed with the Court on 22 March   2017.  Awaiting payment of s97B costs.

$0

$41,821.11

3

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 made. Application for substituted service on Respondent commenced.  Pool secured by Council December 2016.

$20,658.60

$1,560.50

4

832-836 King Georges Road & 51 Connells Point Road, SOUTH HURSTVILLE

 

Applicant:  Cash Warwick Pty Limited

 

Proceedings No. 380571 of 2016

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA 99/2016 for demolition of existing dwellings and construction of 1 x 7 and 1 x 5 storey residential flat buildings.

S34 Agreement entered into.  Council proceeding to recover s97B costs.

$0

$7,710.11

5

5 Booyong Ave, Lugarno

 

Parties: Sasho Naumcevski

Class 5 proceedings in relation to unauthorised excavation works at 5 Booyong Avenue, Lugarno

Costs payable pursuant to Court Orders in enforcement proceedings.  Mr Naumcevski has entered into an instalment arrangement in relation to the $49,881.24 payable.  The balance due is now $19,398.26.

$0

$0

6

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. 

 

Judgment handed down on 16 February 2017.  Consent granted to amended plans.  Costs recovery for s97B costs underway.

$8,720.00

$57,175.51

7

105 Forest Road & 1A Hill Street, Hurstville

 

Parties: Australian Consulting Builders

Court orders entered on 5 August 2016 relating to cleaning up of property at 105 Forest Road.  Related adjoining property also in disrepair.

Proceedings commenced. Consent orders agreed following clean-up of property.  Respondent to pay Council’s costs. Subject to continual monitoring.

Costs recovery - $10,357 to be paid in two instalments.

$11,806.33

$14,210.76

8

159 The Promenade

SANS SOUCI

 

Parties:

Gary Beers

Valerie Beers

Leonie Beers

 

Proceedings No.

325776 of 2016

Class 4 commenced in relation to failing to remove overgrown vegetation from rear of property.

Costs of $5,236.61 recovered on 6 June 2017.  Matter completed.

$0

$6,094.50

9

45 Ogilvy Street

PEAKHURST

 

Applicant:

Emad & Eva Nada

 

Proceedings No.

11040 of 2014

 

Class 1 appeal relating to a child care centre.  Commissioner satisfied that DA worthy of approval, subject to storm water issues being resolved. Consent granted by Court. 

Council’s motion for costs of the re-opening of the proceedings successful on 21 June 2017.  S97B costs also payable by Applicant.

$128,382.63

$13,474.00

10

58 Johnstone Street

PEAKHURST

 

Parties:

Kevin Jacobs

 

Proceedings No.

40060 of 2015

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

Debt recovery proceedings commenced for approximately $100,000 outstanding in costs orders for this and other matters.  The sum of $110, 764.85 has now been received.

$66,602.02

$0

 

Subtotal

 

 

$236,169.58

$181,922.99

 

 

 

 

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

November

$32,000.00

December

$0.00

January

$48,000.00

February

$0.00

March

$32,000.00

April

$16,000.00

May

$0.00

June

$0.00

Total

$202,000.00

 

Financial Implications

 

7.      Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

09/1077

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 196

Item:                   CCL122-17        Georges River Council Public Interest Disclosure Reporting Policy 

Author:              Manager Governance and Risk

Directorate:      Office of the Chief Operating Officer

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council adopt the Georges River Council Public Interest Disclosure Reporting Policy attached in Appendix 1.

 

Executive Summary

1.      The Public Interest Disclosure Reporting Policy outlines the Council’s requirements and system for the reporting by Georges River Council officials (Councillors and staff), of disclosures of corrupt conduct, maladministration, serious and substantial waste of public money, local government pecuniary interest contraventions and government information contraventions.

 

Background

2.      It is appropriate that Council has a policy and associated procedures, to encourage and support the reporting and disclosure of specific forms of undesirable or illegal conduct.

3.      The policy encourages public interest disclosures to be made to the Disclosure Coordinator, or Nominated Disclosure Officers, or the General Manager, or to the Mayor as an alternative to the General Manager.

4.      The policy seeks to protect persons who provide disclosures, from unlawful and / or detrimental consequences arising from their disclosure.

5.      Council has formulated operational procedures for the administration of this policy, which are contained within the Code of Conduct and Code of Conduct Procedures.

 

Financial Implications

 

6.      Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

D17/94059

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Georges River Council Public Interest Disclosure Reporting Policy - Final June 2017

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL122-17          Georges River Council Public Interest Disclosure Reporting Policy

[Appendix 1]         Georges River Council Public Interest Disclosure Reporting Policy - Final June 2017

 

 

Page 197

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 216

Item:                   CCL123-17        Tender for Internal Audit Services - Providers Panel 

Author:              Internal Auditor

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the report be received and noted.

(b)     That the following five firms be appointed to Council’s internal audit panel, for the three year period to 30 June 2020:

1.   Prosperity Audit Services

2.   O'Connor Marsden & Assoc

3.   Inconsult

4.   BDO East Coast

5.   Grant Thornton

 

Executive Summary

1.      This report is presented to Council to select the membership of a panel of audit services professionals, from whom selections will be made when required, to conduct individual, audit related projects which have been identified by Management or the Audit Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC) via the Committee’s Audit Plan, during the next three years. 

2.      This procurement was not required to be dealt with by tender under the provisions of S55 of the Local Government Act, as the distribution of works to any one panel member will not equal or exceed $150,000 in value, over the three year life of any agreement made under this tender. Tenders were called in the interests of probity and transparency in the procurement process.

 

Background

3.      Council’s Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee relies on externally sourced audit expertise for the conduct of more specific audit investigations and projects. Projects might be expected to take between three days and several weeks to complete, depending upon the complexity of investigation required. It needs be borne in mind that matters and controls subject to audit, must often be thoroughly investigated and verified without reliance upon information easily provided by our staff, as an auditor cannot rely on trust in individuals, because, “trust is not a control”.

 

4.      The establishment of a panel with a range of skill sets is seen as an efficient way to source independent, specific skills and experience for specific assignments, without the need for a comprehensive procurement routine on each occasion.

5.      A panel of five providers is being established.  This should allow for a spread of the limited number of funded projects across the whole panel. The panel could be bigger or smaller, but a wider spread of funded work could see each panel member allocated very little work. 

6.      Tender documentation was prepared and tenders were called for the provision of audit services for internal audit and project audits.

7.      The tender, designated T17/002 was conducted using the on line Tenderlink service. Tenders closed at 2.00pm, Tuesday 30 May 2017 and eleven (11) submissions were received from the following service providers, listed here in alphabetical order:

 

1)       BDO East Coast

2)       Crowe Horwath

3)       Curijo P/L 

4)       Daniel Cooper

5)       Grant Thornton

6)       Hill Rogers

7)       Inconsult

8)       O'Connor Marsden & Associates

9)       Prosperity Audit Services

10)     RSM

11)     The Centium Group

 

8.      The tenderers included the former Hurstville City Council’s external Auditor, Hill Rogers and a number of entities with histories of the provision of external audit services to local government. The Internal Auditor has previously worked with and / or engaged the following persons or entities who have submitted tenders:

·    Hill Rogers,

·    Inconsult,

·    Daniel Cooper,

·    O’Connor Marsden,

·    BDO,

·    Grant Thornton

 

9.      A tender assessment panel was formed comprising:

·     Internal Auditor

·     Chief Financial Officer

·     Manager Governance, Risk and Procurement.

 

10.    Submissions were assessed according to weighted criteria advertised in the tender. Council is not seeking an external service provider for the whole of our Internal Audit function, as many of these tenderers would be well capable and experienced at providing. The services sought by Council on this occasion relate to specific projects of indefinite complexity and duration, which are yet to be identified.

11.    Council requires a relatively small panel due to the small number of funded projects which will be accommodated in Council’s budget and commissioned by the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee in any financial year. It is estimated that a panel of 5 providers could allow for each provider to receive at least one assignment within a 3 year period. Additional assignments might be allocated on a needs basis, if the ARIC deems it necessary and funding is available.

 

12.    With the majority of these tenderers being demonstrably capable of providing the required services to a high standard, the criteria of price and details provided about projects experience have been influential in the process of narrowing the field down to the five recommended tenderers. 

 

Financial Implications

13.    Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

T17/002

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 219

Item:                   CCL124-17        Tender - Legal Services Panel - Specialised in Property Law 

Author:              General Counsel

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council appoint the following two legal firms to its Legal Services Panel – Specialised Property Law:

(i)         Pikes & Verekers Lawyers

(ii)        Owen Hodge Lawyers

(b)     That Council give authority to the General Manager to execute all appropriate documentation to appoint the firms.

 

Executive Summary

1.      The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the appointment of 2 law firms that specialise in property law to 1 March 2019, with an option to renew for a further 2 years.

Background

2.      Following amalgamation, there has been a substantial increase in the amount of legal property work required by Council.  A need has been identified to appoint specialist property law firms to assist Council’s in-house legal team, its existing legal panel and its property section to meet this demand Subsequently a Tender Evaluation Panel (TEP) was convened comprising the following Council staff:

·     General Counsel

·     Internal Auditor

·     Property Portfolio Manager, Commercial Property

A Procurement Officer was appointed as probity advisor.

Tender

3.      The tender closed on 14 June 2017.  Submissions were received from the following legal firms:

·     Hall & Wilcox Lawyers

·     Keith Redenback Legal

·     Maddocks

·     Matthews Folbigg Pty Limited

·     Owen Hodge Lawyers

·     Pikes & Verekers Lawyers

 

Evaluation Process

4.      The tenders were judged against the following criteria:

·     Capacity and resources to provide legal services to Council;

·     Experience and expertise in providing legal services to local government in nominated areas of law;

·     A competitive and cost effective fee structure;

·     Complementary/”value-add” services such as workshops, seminars, training sessions and newsletters.

 

5.      It is intended that this panel provides services that complement Council’s existing legal services panel.  That panel consists of the following law firms:

·     Henry Davis York

·     HWL Ebsworth

·     Lindsay Taylors Lawyers

·     Sparke Helmore (workplace relations only)

 

6.      The existing panel will remain in place and is not impacted by this panel.  The panels will however terminate concurrently in March 2019, unless the options to renew are exercised.

 

7.      The TEP, independently and unanimously, agreed that Pikes & Verekers and Owen Hodge Lawyers best met the selection criteria.  The appointment of these terms is therefore recommended.

 

Financial Implications

8.      Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

09/1077

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Owen Hodge Lawyers Rates for Tender - Legal Services Panel - Specialised In Property Law (Confidential)

Attachment View2

Pikes & Verekers Lawyers Rates for Tender - Legal Services Panel - Specialised in Property Law (Confidential)

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 221

Item:                   CCL125-17        Enterprise Risk Management - Policy and Strategy 

Author:              Project Manager

Directorate:      Transformation and Change

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council adopts the attached Georges River Council Risk Management Policy.

(b)     That Council adopts the attached Georges River Council Enterprise Risk Management Strategy.

(c)     That the attached Georges River Council Enterprise Risk Management Strategy be referred to the Audit Risk and Improvement Committee for information.

 

Executive Summary

1.      The attached Georges River Council Risk Management Policy is an essential component of the Enterprise Risk Management Framework for Georges River Council and is aligned with ISO31000:2009 International Standard for Risk Management.   

2.      The attached Enterprise Risk Management Strategy is a key requirement of Council’s Risk Management Policy and services to support the policy.

3.      Both documents have been developed by the Risk Management Working Group established by Transformation and Change utilising current research and situational analysis.

Background

4.      The Risk Management Policy has been presented to Council on 1 May 2017 and has since completed its public exhibition period from 4 May 2017 to 31 May 2017.

5.      The Policy was also presented to the Implementation Advisory Committee for review and comment, and one submission was received.  The recommended change involved an additional responsibility for Councillors that “considers their responsibilities being stated as relating to managing widespread and sustained damage to Councils reputation due to their actions and the Communities negative perceptions of such actions.” This recommendation has been considered with Councillors now having the responsibility “to apply this policy to all decision making to ensure alignment with Council’s risk appetite statements”. 

6.      On the 10 April 2017 the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC) reviewed the Executive endorsed Policy and the draft Georges River Council Enterprise Risk Assessments. The ARIC highly recommended the draft policy as an example of best practice. It is recommended that once adopted the attached Enterprise Risk Management Strategy is referred to the next ARIC meeting for information.

7.      Actions listed within the strategy have been developed from the Enterprise Risk Management workshops attended by all Executive team and key managers from across the organisation.

8.      The strategy supports the policy and the Council in mitigating strategic risks and anticipating and responding to foreseeable risks to achieving organisational goals.

9.      As Council’s service delivery changes over time, and situational and environmental changes, the potential risks that Council will face will also change. For this reason it is imperative that this document not remain static, but adapts and responds to those changes.

10.    An Enterprise Risk Management Review group will establish to monitor progress in implementing the strategy, act as a reporting group and coordinate reviews and amendments to the strategy.

 

Financial Implications

11.    Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

D17/86060

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Georges River Council Risk Management Policy June 2017

Attachment View2

DRAFT ERM Strategy

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL125-17          Enterprise Risk Management - Policy and Strategy

[Appendix 1]         Georges River Council Risk Management Policy June 2017

 

 

Page 223

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL125-17          Enterprise Risk Management - Policy and Strategy

[Appendix 2]         DRAFT ERM Strategy

 

 

Page 230

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 250

Item:                   CCL126-17        Investment Report as at 31 May 2017 

Author:              Team Leader Financial Reporting and Property Portfolio Manager

Directorate:      Office of the Chief Operating Officer

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the Investment Report as at 31 May 2017 be received and noted.

 

Executive Summary

1.      This report details Council’s performance of its investment portfolio for May 2017 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 annualised rate of return is 3.43%, which is 1.58% above benchmark. Income from interest on investments and proceeds from sale of investments totals at $4.905 million is $170,214 above year to date Q3 forecast.

 

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 May 2017, are as follows:

 

 

1 Month

3 Month

12 Month

Portfolio Performance

0.28%

0.80%

3.43%

Performance Index

0.15%

0.45%

1.85%

Excess

0.13%

0.35%

1.58%

                         

Notes                                                       

1       Portfolio performance is the rate of return of the portfolio over the specified period

2       The Performance Index is the rate of return of the market (comparable securities) over the specified period                               

3       Excess performance is the rate of return of the portfolio in excess of the Performance Index

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Security Type

Market Value $000's

% Total
Value

Cash at Bank

19,737

11.13%

11am Cash

4,999

2.82%

31 Day Notice Account

15

0.01%

ASX Listed Fixed Rate Security

2,024

1.14%

Covered Floating Bond

1,014

0.57%

Floating Rate Deposit

3,002

1.69%

Floating Rate Note

61,145

34.48%

Floating Rate TCD

3,528

1.99%

Term Deposit

75,979

42.84%

Managed Funds Trust

5,897

3.33%

Total Cash and Investments

177,340

100.00%

 

 

 

Investment Properties

15,100

 

Portfolio Total

192,440

 

 

 

6.      At the end of May 2017 Total Cash and Investments were $177,340 million and have increased by $7.2 million from April 2017 largely as a result of receipt of fourth quarter rate instalments due on 31 May 2017. Cash at Bank is high to allow for strategic acquisition of various properties.

 

7.      The investment property valuations listed above have been undertaken in accordance with the revaluation process to ‘fair value’ by an independent value, 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.

 

Legal Issues

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

 

 

 

 

 

Loan Liability

10.    Council’s loan liability as at 31 May was $2.750 million which represents the balance of $5 million ten (10) year loan drawn down on 16 November 2012 for Jubilee Park upgrade in Mortdale. Next repayment of $125,000 is due 28 June 2017. 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 3.68% pa.

11.    Council receives a 4.00% pa subsidy under the NSW Government’s Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme funding agreement for this Jubilee Park upgrade facility. It is intended to continue this financially-advantageous arrangement through to full term in 2022.

 

Policy Limits

12.    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.

 

13.    It shows that the funds invested are within the limits set in the Investment Policy for A and AA rated investments. However investments in the BBB & Unrated category have exceeded the permitted limit under the Council’s investment policy as at 31 May 2017. This is as a result of the unforeseeable downgrade on 22 May 2017 of Bank of Queensland and Bendigo & Adelaide Bank from A- to BBB+ by the ratings agency Standard and Poor’s. However, according to Fitch both Bank of Queensland and Bendigo & Adelaide Bank are A- and according to Moodys, Bank of Queensland is A3 and Bendigo & Adelaide Bank is A2.

14.   Council has $10.5 million BBB & Unrated category maturities in June 2017. These will be redeemed and re-invested in ‘A’ rated category or better. Additionally any other adjustments required will be made in conjunction with our investment advisors (CPG) to ensure that all Investment Policy limits are met.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Investment Income

15.    Income from interest on investments and proceeds from sales of investments totals $4.905 million is $170,214 above year to date Q3 forecast.

 

Certificate by Chief Financial Officer (Responsible Accounting Officer): Rob Owens

 

16.    Investments have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, Minister’s Guidelines, Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy. However, due to an unforeseen downgrade by Standard and Poor’s on 22 May 2017, Council has gone overweight on BBB and Unrated investments by 10%. This is currently being rectified in conjunction with Council’s investment advisors CPG.

 

Analysis of Investments

    

Investment Duration

 

Investment Term

Market Value

% Total Value

Policy Limits %

0 to < Year

71,781

40.48%

100

1 to < 3 Years

52,233

29.45%

70

3 to < 5 Years

53,326

30.07%

50

> 5 Years

-

 

25

Portfolio Total

177,340

100.00%

 

 

 

17.    Council’s portfolio is very liquid, with 40.48% of assets maturing within 12 months. FRNs, funds and fixed bonds also provide additional liquidity in an emergency.

 

 

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

          Institution

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Investments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19.   Council’s investment portfolio is mainly directed to term deposits, which account for approximately 43% 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

22.    Credit ratings are generally a statement as to an institution’s credit quality. Ratings ranging from A1+ to NR (Short Term) & 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:

 

Short-term

A1+: the best quality companies, reliable and stable. An obligor has extremely strong capacity to meet its financial commitments.

 

A1:    Adequate capacity to meet financial commitments, many positive investment attributes but also elements susceptible to adverse effects of changes in economic conditions.

 

A2:    Adequate capacity to meet financial commitments, but also speculative s or lack of protection against changes of economic conditions.

 

B1:    Moderate characteristic capacity to meet financial commitments, also in good economic conditions.

 

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.         

 

Long-term

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 50% 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 50% 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

 

Commercial Property Income and Arrears

Georges River Council’s commercial property portfolio comprises 48 commercial lease agreements and licences contained within two commercial office buildings and a number of various commercial properties and land-holdings (including telecommunication facilities) located throughout the Georges River LGA. 

The table below shows a breakdown of the portfolio indicating the monthly value of rent inclusive of GST for each of the major assets classes together with details of rental arrears.

 

Property Address

No. of Current Leases

No. of Vacant Premises

Passing Rent (inclusive of GST)

Monthly Arrears

Commercial Office Building - 34 MacMahon Street, Hurstville – (Hurstville House)

22

2

$143,790

Nil

Commercial Office Building - 38 Humphreys Lane, Hurstville

3

NIL

$52,928

Nil

Other Leases

Commercial

Retail

Residential

 

 

31

3

2

 

 

NIL

NIL

NIL

 

$68,460

$24,636

$2,250

 

 

Nil

Total

61

2

$292,064

NIL

 

File Reference

 

D17/87755

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Investment Portfolio as at 31 May 2017

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL126-17          Investment Report as at 31 May 2017

[Appendix 1]         Investment Portfolio as at 31 May 2017

 

 

Page 259

 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL126-17          Investment Report as at 31 May 2017

[Appendix 1]         Investment Portfolio as at 31 May 2017

 

 

Page 262

 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 264

Item:                   CCL127-17        Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Determination - Mayor and Councillors fees for 2017-2018 

Author:              Executive Manager, Office of the General Manager

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council adopt the following fees for Councillors and the Mayor, effective from 1 July 2017:

(b)     Councillor fee of $24,550 per annum.

(c)     Mayoral fee of $65,230 per annum, in addition to the Councillor fee.

 

Executive Summary

1.      This report is presented to Council to advise of the recent determination in April 2017 made by the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal with respect to Councillor and Mayoral fees. In determining the Councillor and Mayoral fee increase, the Tribunal has determined that Georges River Council is categorised as a “Metropolitan Medium”. This report recommends that Council endorse the maximum Councillor and Mayoral fees and confirms that there are sufficient funds in the 2017-2018 budget for this allocation.

Background

2.      Section 239 of the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) states that the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal (LGRT) will determine the category of each Council. Sections 241 of the Act states that the LGRT will determine the fees to be paid to Councillors and the Mayor.  The Tribunal reviews and determines the category of each Council and Councillor fees annually.

3.      At its meeting on 25 May 2015, the former Kogarah City Council resolved to adopt the maximum fees payable to Councillors for the period of 2015-2016.

4.      At its meeting on 15 July 2015, the former Hurstville City Council resolved to adopt the maximum fees payable to Councillors for the period of 2015-2016.

5.      The “Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Annual Report and Determination 2017” dated 12 April 2017 is attached to this report. Prior to releasing the Report, the Tribunal invited submissions from Councils seeking comments on its proposed categorisation framework. The Tribunal considered all requests for re-categorisation from individual Councils and determined that minor changes were required to the overall existing categories of Councils. See Section 35 and following of the LGRT Annual Report and Determination 2017 for further detail on the categorisation of Councils.

6.      The Tribunal has determined that Georges River Council is categorised as “Metropolitan Medium” Council.

7.      In the review of Mayoral and Councillors Fees under this category, the Tribunal determined that an increase of 2.5% to Councillors fees and Mayoral fees was appropriate.

8.      The table below provides a summary of the minimum and maximum fees determined by the Tribunal.

 

 

 

Metropolitan Medium

Metropolitan Medium

Minimum fee

Metropolitan Medium

Maximum fee

Former Kogarah fee 2015-16

(Metropolitan)

Former Hurstville fee 2015-16 (Metropolitan Centre)

Councillor Annual Fee

$13,150

$24,550

$18,380

$23,370

Mayor Additional Fee

$27,940

$65,230

$40,090

$62,090

 

9.      The Mayor receives a Mayoral fee in addition to the Councillor fee.

10.    In previous years, the two former Councils have resolved to endorse the maximum fees payable to Councillors and the Mayor.

11.    The Implementation Advisory Committee, at its meeting on 14 June 2017, raised no concerns with the proposed fees payable to Councillors and the Mayor of Georges River Council.

12.    This report recommends that Council endorse the maximum Councillor and Mayoral fees noting that there are sufficient funds in the 2017-2018 budget.

Financial Implications

13.    Based on the table above, the total cost of paying the maximum Councillor and Mayoral fees will be $433,480 per annum. There is provision for this amount in the 2017-2018 budget. The new fees are payable as of 1 July 2017.

 

File Reference

16/80

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Annual Report and Determination 2017

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL127-17          Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Determination - Mayor and Councillors fees for 2017-2018

[Appendix 1]         Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Annual Report and Determination 2017

 

 

Page 266

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 291

Item:                   CCL128-17        Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils SSROC - Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting 

Author:              Executive Manager, Office of the General Manager

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) held on 18 May 2017 are noted and endorsed.

 

Executive Summary

1.      The minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) held on 18 May 2017 are presented to Council.

 

Background

2.      The minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) held on 18 May 2017 are included as an attachment.

 

Financial Implications

3.      No budget impact for this report.

 

File Reference

08/683

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Minutes SSROC Ordinary Meeting DRAFT 18 May 2017

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL128-17          Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils SSROC - Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting

[Appendix 1]         Minutes SSROC Ordinary Meeting DRAFT 18 May 2017

 

 

Page 292

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 300

Item:                   CCL129-17        Georges River Council Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy 

Author:              Governance Officer

Directorate:      Office of the Chief Operating Officer

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

Recommendation

That Council;

(a)     Adopt the Georges River Council Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy attached.

(b)     Note that a draft Fraud and Corruption Prevention Plan will be developed and submitted to the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee in October 2017, and subsequently submitted to a future Council meeting for adoption.

 

Executive Summary

1.      The Georges River Council Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy outlines the expectations and responsibilities of Councillors, members of staff, members of Council committees, delegates of Council, volunteers and contractors, and provides the mechanism for reporting suspected fraud and corrupt conduct.

 

Background

2.      The Georges River Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy was presented to and endorsed by the Executive Team on 21 June 2017.

3.      The Georges River Council Fraud and Corruption Policy will be supported by the development and implementation of a Fraud and Corruption Prevention Plan.  The Plan will assist in ensuring Council has the appropriate systems to detect and deter fraud and corruption activities.

4.      The Fraud and Corruption Prevention Plan will be referred to ICAC for comment. The Plan will also be submitted to the October meeting of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee and subsequently submitted to a future Council Meeting for adoption.

 

Financial Implications

5.      Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

D17/91596

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Georges River Council Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy - Final June 2017

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL129-17          Georges River Council Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy

[Appendix 1]         Georges River Council Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy - Final June 2017

 

 

Page 301

 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 307

Item:                   CCL130-17        Georges River Council Visitor Access Policy 

Author:              Governance Officer

Directorate:      Office of the Chief Operating Officer

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council adopt the Georges River Council Visitor Access Policy attached in Appendix 1.

 

Executive Summary

1.      The Georges River Council Visitor Access Policy has been developed to ensure the control of visitors into the secure areas of Council buildings and facilities, to maintain the safety of all staff and visitors and ensure the security of Council’s assets.

 

Background

2.      Following the relocation of all staff to the Georges River Civic Centre, it was necessary to formalise Council’s approach for access and egress to all areas of Council’s buildings and / or associated facilities.

3.   The draft Policy was presented to and endorsed by the Executive Team on 14 June 2017. The Policy references Councils Model Code of Conduct,  Administration of the Code of Conduct Procedures  Council’s protocol for entry of union officials to the workplace,

 

Financial Implications

4.      Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

D17/92864

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Georges River Council Visitor Access Policy - Final June 2017

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL130-17          Georges River Council Visitor Access Policy

[Appendix 1]         Georges River Council Visitor Access Policy - Final June 2017

 

 

Page 308

 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 314

Item:                   CCL131-17        Georges River Council Workplace Surveillance Policy 

Author:              Governance Officer

Directorate:      Office of the Chief Operating Officer

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council adopt the Georges River Council Workplace Surveillance Policy and associated forms attached.

 

Executive Summary

1.      Council is obliged to have a Workplace Surveillance Policy in accordance with the requirements of the Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 (NSW).

2.      The policy applies to all Council officials, including Councillors, members of staff, members of Council committees, delegates of Council, volunteers and contractors.

 

Background

3.      Workplace Surveillance is used for the general security of Council property and assets, operational needs and for the protection and safety of Council officials and the general public.

4.      The draft Workplace Surveillance Policy was submitted to the Consultative Committee for feedback on 16 May 2017 and 27 June 2017.

5.      The draft policy was presented to, and endorsed by, the Executive Team on 21 June 2017.

 

Financial Implications

6.      Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

D17/94020

D17/94513

D17/94497

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Georges River Council Workplace Surveillance Policy - June 2017 Final

Attachment View2

Surveillance Information Requests Register - Georges River Council

Attachment View3

Workplace Surveillance Information Request Form - Georges River Council

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL131-17          Georges River Council Workplace Surveillance Policy

[Appendix 1]         Georges River Council Workplace Surveillance Policy - June 2017 Final

 

 

Page 315

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL131-17          Georges River Council Workplace Surveillance Policy

[Appendix 2]         Surveillance Information Requests Register - Georges River Council

 

 

Page 322

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL131-17          Georges River Council Workplace Surveillance Policy

[Appendix 3]         Workplace Surveillance Information Request Form - Georges River Council

 

 

Page 323

 


 

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 325

8.      Assets and Infrastructure

 

Item:                   CCL132-17        Property Matter – Proposed Grant of Easement to Drain Water – Seaforth Avenue Reserve Oatley 

Author:              Strategic Property Officer

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Assets and Infrastructure

 

Recommendation

a)      That Council grant an Easement to Drain Water over Lot 20 and 21 Section 2 in DP3230 as detailed in this report.

b)      That the General Manager and Administrator be authorised to execute the s.88B Instrument or Transfer Granting Easement and all associated documentation to create the easement, under the Common Seal of the Council, if required.

c)      That all costs associated with the granting of the easement be met by the applicant.

 

Executive Summary

1.      As a deferred condition of Development Consent DA2016/0213, the owner of No. 76 Seaforth Ave, Oatley is required to obtain an Easement to Drain Water over adjoining Council land described as Lot 20 Section 2 in DP3230 and Lot 21 Section 2 in DP3230.  The subject land forms part of Seaforth Avenue Reserve which is located at 78 Seaforth Ave, Oatley.  The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the “in principle” terms agreed to between the parties and to subsequently seek approval to grant the proposed easement.

 

Background

2.   The former Hurstville City Council is the registered proprietor of a parcel of open space land legally described as Lot 20 Section 2 in DP3230 and Lot 21 Section 2 in DP3230. 

3.   Council has received a request from an adjoining owner located at 76 Seaforth Ave, Oatley for an Easement to Drain Water to be granted in favour of their property, to the existing public drainage infrastructure located within Seaforth Avenue Reserve. The required easement is a condition of approved Development Consent DA2016/0213 dated 7 March, 2017.

4.   The proposed easement to drain water will be granted over a Council owned parcel of “community classified land”.  In accordance with Section 46 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council is permitted to grant easements for drainage over community classified land to existing drainage facilities located within public reserves.

5.   The proposed easement will be 1m wide and 19.2m in length and will connect into the existing drainage infrastructure within the reserve as detailed in Annexure 1 to this report.  Attachment 2 is a location plan of the easement in relation to the reserve.

6.   In exchange for granting the proposed easement, the applicant will be required to pay market value consideration for encumbering Council’s land as determined in the confidential valuation advice, shown as Attachment 3 to this report.  Additionally, the applicant is required to pay Council’s incurred valuation, legal and all associated easement survey, lodgement and registration costs as well as costs for the necessary infrastructure works and subsequent make good.

7.   Council has in the past granted similar easements over public lands for comparable amounts of consideration.  It is considered that the imposition of such an easement will not significantly affect the value of the reserve parcel.  Accordingly, the determined amount of consideration is considered to represent fair market value for an encumbrance that will burden Council’s public reserve in perpetuity.

 

Financial Implications

8.      Within budget allocation.

 

 

File Reference

17/974

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Stormwater Easement Plan - 76 Seaforth Ave Oatley

Attachment View2

Easement Location Plan - Seaforth Ave Reserve

Attachment View3

Valuation Advice - 76 Seaforth Ave Oatley (Confidential)

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL132-17          Property Matter – Proposed Grant of Easement to Drain Water – Seaforth Avenue Reserve Oatley

[Appendix 1]         Stormwater Easement Plan - 76 Seaforth Ave Oatley

 

 

Page 327

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL132-17          Property Matter – Proposed Grant of Easement to Drain Water – Seaforth Avenue Reserve Oatley

[Appendix 2]         Easement Location Plan - Seaforth Ave Reserve

 

 

Page 328

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 329

Item:                   CCL133-17        Georges River Council Graffiti and Posters Policy 

Author:              Project Manager

Directorate:      Transformation and Change

Matter Type:     Assets and Infrastructure

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the draft Georges River Council Graffiti and Posters Policy be adopted.

 

Executive Summary

1.      The Draft Georges River Council Graffiti and Posters Policy provides guidance for the management of graffiti and posters within the Georges River Local Government Area (LGA).

 

2.      The draft Graffiti and Posters Policy was endorsed by Council on 1 May 2017 for public exhibition and referral to relevant stakeholders.  The Draft Policy as amended and attached in Attachment 1 is ready for final adoption.  

 

Background

3.      Council resolved on 1 May 2017:

(a)     That Council endorse the attached Draft Georges River Council Graffiti and Posters for the purpose of public exhibition for a period of not less than 14 days.

(b)     That the submissions received during the public exhibition period be reported back to Council together with any recommended changes to the Draft Graffiti and Posters Policy for adoption.

(c)     That during the public exhibition period the Draft Georges River Council Graffiti and Posters Policy be referred to the Implementation Advisory Committee for review and comment.

(d)     That the updated section on political posters be sent to State and Federal MPs and Local Political parties for comment.

 

4.      The public exhibition period commenced on 5 May 2017 and concluded on 31 May 2017.  During this time, the draft Policy was publically available on Council’s website and at libraries and advertised through Council’s website and the St George & Sutherland Shire Leader.  No public submissions were received during this period.

 

5.      The Political Posters section of the Draft Policy was referred to the local State and Federal MPs and Local Political parties for comment, however no concerns were raised.

 

6.      The Draft Policy was also referred to the Implementation Advisory Committee (IAC) for comment. One submission was received.  The comments made are detailed and discussed in the following section of this report.

 

Feedback on the Draft Graffiti and Posters Policy

Implementation Advisory Committee

At the Implementation Advisory Committee Meeting of the 10 May 2017, the following comments were made in relation to the Draft Policy:

(a)     The draft Policy appears to be appropriate.

Response: Noted.

 

(b)     Consideration should be given to the clauses that relate to Council removing graffiti on private property at its own cost.  It is recommended that the draft Policy be amended to clarify that Council will remove graffiti on private property only after notifying the property owner of its intention to do so.

Response: Section 12, Part 4 of the Graffiti Control Act 2008, states that Council is not required to notify private property owners of its intention to carry out graffiti removal work on private property as long as the graffiti is visible and accessible from a public place.  In practice however, Council will make an attempt to notify the owner or occupier of private land where this is reasonable. 

The Draft Policy has been amended to reflect this practice.

 

(c)     It is suggested that a clause be included in the Draft Policy to clarify that Council will only repair and repaint the specific area/portion of the wall affected by the graffiti on private property which is visible from a public place (i.e. Council will not repair and repaint the entire wall).

Response: The Graffiti Control Act 2008 refers to “graffiti removal work”, not repainting and repairing private property.  The wording in the Draft Policy reflects the wording in the legislation.

 

(d)     It is also recommended that if private property owners want the whole wall repaired or repainted, Council can undertake this work by agreement and at the expense of the property owner.

Response: Unfortunately, Georges River Council does not currently have the resources to offer this service to the community.

 

(e)     There should be guidance provided to politicians as to what is classified as “Council infrastructure” with reference to the placing of political posters and placards.

Response: The Draft Policy references the term “public place” which is defined in the NSW Local Government Act 1993.

 

Financial Implications

No budget impact for this report.

 

File Reference

SF17/574

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Draft Graffiti and Posters Policy

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL133-17          Georges River Council Graffiti and Posters Policy

[Appendix 1]         Draft Graffiti and Posters Policy

 

 

Page 331

 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 337

Item:                   CCL134-17        Georges River Council Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting - 20 June 2017 

Author:              Traffic Engineer

Directorate:      Assets and Infrastructure

Matter Type:     Assets and Infrastructure

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the Minutes of the Georges River Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting held on 20 June 2017 be adopted.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

1.      The Minutes of the Georges River Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting held on 20 June 2017 are submitted to Council for consideration and adoption.

 

Background

 

2.      The Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting on 20 June 2017 was held at Hurstville Civic Centre.

 

Financial Implications

 

3.      Budget allocation

a.   RMS Traffic Facilities Grant       $384,080

b.   LATM Projects                               $40,000

 

4.      Balance to date

a.   RMS Traffic Facilities Grant       $211,754

b.   LATM Projects                               $8,226

 

5.      Estimated cost of works recommended by Traffic Advisory Committee is $45,480.

 

6.      Dissection: RMS Traffic Facilities Grant $7,480 and $38,000 for the Tooronga Terrace crossing removal to be allocated from Council’s 2017/18 Capital Works Budget.

 

File Reference

16/148

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL134-17          Georges River Council Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting - 20 June 2017

[Appendix 1]         Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes

 

 

Page 338

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 343

9.      Community and Culture

 

Item:                   CCL135-17        Draft Georges River Council Customer Service Strategy 

Author:              Project Leader, Angelina Aversa-Morassut

Directorate:      Transformation and Change

Matter Type:     Community and Culture

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the Draft Customer Service Strategy as amended and attached to this report be adopted by Council.

 

Executive Summary

1.      The Draft Customer Service Strategy has been developed to harmonise and enhance Customer Service at George River Council and to align with the enduring characteristics of Stronger Council’s development by the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

2.      The Draft Customer Service Strategy has been publicly exhibited and is now ready for adoption.

 

Background

3.      The Draft Customer Service Strategy was developed in consultation with staff and Managers across the customer facing business units of Council.

4.      Council adopted the Draft Customer Service Strategy for a 14 day public exhibition period on the 5 June 2017.

5.      The public exhibition period commenced on 6 June 2017 and concluded on 20 June 2017.  During this period no submissions were received.

 

6.      During the public exhibition period, an informal ‘peer review’ of the Draft Customer Service Strategy was undertaken.  The following amendments were made to the Draft Customer Service Strategy in response to the comments received:

(a)     Adding “Council values its relationship with our customers” under the heading “Our Customers”.

 

(b)     Rewording the commitment “Inspire a culture of service” to “Inspire a culture of customer service”.

 

(c)     Replace the existing expected outcome of “work as a team” under ‘Inspire a culture of customer service’ with “work as a team and share a common goal”.

 

Financial Implications

7.      The service projects contained in the Action Plan will be funded through the New Councils Implementation Fund, operating budgets of the relevant business unit and/or the Stronger Communities Fund -Customer Service Hubs Project ($1.5M).

 

 

 

File Reference

SF17/652

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Draft Customer Service Strategy

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL135-17          Draft Georges River Council Customer Service Strategy

[Appendix 1]         Draft Customer Service Strategy

 

 

Page 345

 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL135-17          Draft Georges River Council Customer Service Strategy

[Appendix 1]         Draft Customer Service Strategy

 

 

Page 350

 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 353

Item:                   CCL136-17        Draft Georges River Sister City Policy 

Author:              Community Development Officer, Cultural Services

Directorate:      Transformation and Change

Matter Type:     Community and Culture

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the draft Georges River Council Sister City Policy be adopted.

 

Executive Summary

1.      The draft Georges River Council Sister City Policy was placed on public exhibition and presented to the Implementation Advisory Committee for feedback. During this period no comments were received and this report seeks Council’s adoption of the draft Policy.

 

Background

2.      At the Council Meeting on 1 May 2017, the following resolutions were made with regard to the draft Sister Cities Policy (Minute No. 105):

Council resolved:

 (a)   That Council endorse the attached Draft Georges River Council Sister City Policy for the purpose of public exhibition for a period of not less than 28 days.

(b)    That the submissions received during the public exhibition period be reported back to Council together with any recommended changes to the Draft Georges River Council Sister City Policy for adoption.

(c)    That during the public exhibition period, a copy of the Draft Georges River Council Sister City Policy be referred to the Implementation Advisory Committee for review and comment.

The purpose of this report is to advise that the public exhibition of the draft Policy was undertaken and that no submissions were received during the 28 day period. The draft Policy was also referred to the Implementation Advisory Committee for consideration and feedback. The report seeks Council’s adoption of the draft Georges River Council Sister City Policy.

Public Exhibition

The Draft Georges River Council Sister City Report was on public exhibition from Thursday 4 May until Wednesday 31 May 2017. No submissions were received.

Financial Implications

3.      No budget impact for this report.

File Reference

17/1029

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Sister City Policy - July 2017

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL136-17          Draft Georges River Sister City Policy

[Appendix 1]         Sister City Policy - July 2017

 

 

Page 354

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 361

Item:                   CCL137-17        Georges River Council Complaints Policy 

Author:              Project Leader

Directorate:      Transformation and Change

Matter Type:     Community and Culture

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the Georges River Council Complaints Policy as amended and attached to this report be adopted.

 

Executive Summary

1.      The Draft Complaints Policy which is based on the NSW Ombudsman’s Model Policy for Complaint Management has been developed to establish a framework for Georges River Council within which Council can receive and manage complaints in a consistent, fair and professional manner.

2.      The Draft Policy aims to provide customers with an understanding of what matters are considered ‘complaints’ and how this differs from ‘service requests’ or other types of requests handled by Council.  The Draft Policy also outlines the three tier framework for complaint resolution, how Council will manage Unreasonable Customer Conduct and the roles and responsibilities of Council staff in the implementation of this Draft Policy.

 

3.      The Draft Policy has been public exhibition for 28 days and presented to a range of internal and external stakeholders.

 

4.      The Draft Policy as amended and attached in Attachment 1 is ready for final adoption.  

 

Background

5.      The Draft Policy was first referred to the Executive Committee on the 21 December 2016.  A number of amendments were made to the Draft Policy and framework following this meeting and the Draft Policy was re-referred back to Executive Committee on the 15 March 2017.   At this meeting, Executive Committee endorsed the Draft Policy and Procedures for internal staff consultation and feedback and referral of the Draft Policy to the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) and NSW Ombudsman’s Office for comment.

 

6.      Ninety one staff across Georges River Council participated in briefing and feedback sessions on the Draft Complaints Policy and Procedures. The results of that feedback were reported to Executive Committee on the 12 April 2017 and incorporated in the Draft Policy document prior to it being placed on public exhibition.

 

7.      The Draft Complaints Policy was referred to the Implementation Advisory Committee (IAC) in April 2017.  The comments received are detailed and discussed in the following section of this report.

 

8.      The Draft Complaints Policy was referred to the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption for comment and feedback.   The comments received were reported to the Executive Committee on the 12 April 2017 and the changes incorporated in the Draft Complaints Policy prior to it going on public exhibition. 

 

There was no further need to re-refer the Draft Policy to the ICAC during the public exhibition period.

 

9.      The Draft Complaints Policy was referred to the NSW Ombudsman’s Office.  The NSW Ombudsman’s Office indicated that they found the Draft Policy and related Procedures to be “reasonable” and no issues or concerns were raised.

 

10.    The Draft Policy was referred to the Georges River Council Joint Consultative Committee (JCC) for information prior to it going on public exhibition on the 21 March 2017.  The results of the internal staff feedback and latest version of the Draft Complaints Policy was referred back to the JCC on the 16 May 2017.  The comments and feedback received from the JCC are detailed and discussed in the following section of this report.

 

11.    At its meeting on the 1 May 2017 Council resolved to publicly exhibit the Draft Complaints Policy. The Draft Policy was on public exhibition commencing on the 4 May 2017 and concluding on 31 May 2017.  No public submissions were received during this period.

 

12.    The Draft Complaints Policy was also referred to the members of the Georges River Council Audit Risk and Improvement Committee for comment and feedback via email.  Two submissions were received after the close of the public exhibition period.  The comments are discussed in the following section of this report.

 

Feedback on the Draft Complaints Policy

 

Georges River Council Joint Consultative Committee

 

13.    At the meeting of the 21 March 2017, the following comments were made:

 

(a)     Concern that the term ‘complaint’ is so commonly used by customers that the Policy needs to clearly articulate what type of complaint the Draft Policy is about. Is a complaint when a customer ‘perceives’ an issue to be a ‘complaint’? (Even though it is service request). Does the Policy relate to internal staff complaints about other staff?

 

Response: The definition of ‘complaint’ in the Draft Policy was modified to distinguish a ‘complaint’ from a ‘service request’ and ‘other type of requests’.  The definition of complaint was also amended to delete the words which caused ambiguity as to whether the Draft Policy related to internal staff complaints.  The Scope has also been amended to clarify that the Draft Policy only relates to complaints received from external customers about Council.

 

(b)     Suggestion that the scope of the Policy be narrowed to focus only on one type of complaint, for example ‘Complaints about staff’ only.

 

Response: This suggestion was not supported as the definition of ‘complaint’ as recommended by the NSW Ombudsman relates to all types of complaints about Council, for example: service quality, fees and charges, policies and procedures as well as complaints about staff.

 

(c)  Ability to distinguish between the Grievance and Dispute Resolution Policy and the Draft Complaints Policy.

 

Response: The Scope of the Draft Policy has been amended to clarify that the complaints only relate to external complaints.  Appendix A has also been amended to indicate that staff grievances are covered by the Grievance and Complaint Resolution Administration Policy and managed by Manager People and Culture.

 

At the meeting of the 16 May 2017, the following comments were made:

 

(a) Questions about which staff across the organisation would receive training in complaints handling?

 

Response: Committee Members were advised that all staff across the organisation who deal with external customers would receive training.  Training would include developing skills and knowledge in complaint management, understanding the Draft Complaints Policy (and Procedures) and systems training (where all future complaints will be logged and managed).

 

(b) Concern that frontline staff and other receiving officers would have the authority and power to log verbal ‘complaints’ about ‘staff’ in the system.

 

Response: All complaints which comply with definition in the Draft Complaints Policy are required to be registered in Council’s system. The Policy clearly articulates that all staff are responsible for entering and maintaining complaint data in Council’s system.

 

(c)  Question as to whether the ‘Customer Advocates’ within the organisation had been identified as yet?

 

Response: The members were advised that the Customer Advocates had not yet been officially appointed.  This decision would be the responsibility of the Manager Communications and Customer Service.

 

Implementation Advisory Committee

 

14.    At the 12 April 2017, Implementation Advisory Committee the following comments were made:

 

(a) Generally a very good document.

 

Response: Noted.

 

(b) In relation to ‘Anonymous Complaints’, a request that under the Draft Complaints Policy Councillors be permitted to lodge ‘complaints’ on “behalf of” their constituents, who wish to remain anonymous (because they fear retribution, for example). That the Draft Policy include wording to this effect and to clarify that the outcome of a complaint made in this way,  be reported back to the Councillor so that they can inform the complainant of the outcome.

 

Response: The current provisions of the Draft Complaints Policy as currently worded would enable any external customer to lodge a complaint “on behalf of another person”.    This courtesy would extend to a Councillor who wishes to lodge a complaint on behalf of a constituent who may wish to remain anonymous.  There are already provisions in the Draft Policy that deal with the investigation of anonymous complaints:

 

“Anonymous complaints will be accepted, however investigations will only be carried out where there is sufficient information provided to conduct the investigation”.

 

When a complaint is made on behalf of another person, Council will log the person making the complaint as the relevant contact for the life of the complaint. In this example, the Councillor would be the primary contact and would receive the status updates and result of the complaint investigation. All other Councillor interactions with staff must be in accordance with the Councillor and Staff Interactions Policy.

 

(c)     In relation to ‘Responsibilities’ of the General Manager to investigate complaints about the Mayor, Councillors and Directors, a request that a clause be added in the Draft Policy that would require:

 

(i)         The Mayor, Councillors and Directors and/or Senior Staff to be immediately informed when a complaint has been made about them, the details of the complaint and details of the complainant so that they can respond to the complaint made to the General Manager; and

 

(ii)        The General Manager to refuse to accept any “anonymous complaint” about the Mayor, Councillors, Directors and/or Senior Staff unless other legislation enables them to do this.

 

Response: The provisions in the Draft Complaint Policy that enable the acceptance of anonymous complaints and respect and protection of the identity of people making complaints (where practical and appropriate) reflect those provisions in the Model Policy published by the NSW Ombudsman’s Office.

 

As mentioned earlier in this report, the Anonymous complaint provision clearly stipulates that investigations can only be carried out where there is sufficient information provided to conduct the investigation.

 

Georges River Council Audit Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC)

 

15.    The following comments were made in the submissions received:

 

(a)     I appreciate the amount of work that went into developing this policy – I can see a huge effort has gone into engaging with staff to create a complaints policy that is workable and will improve the complaints handling process at Council.

 

Response: Noted

 

(b)     I have no substantive suggestions on the policy – I think the process outlined in it is fine, but I did pick up some minor drafting issues in the draft policy.

 

Response: All drafting errors referenced have corrected in the Draft Complaints Policy.

 

(c)     It may be useful for the ARIC to see a summary of the complaints received by Council as this could be useful in identifying tends in areas that need additional focus by the ARIC or internal audit…I don’t think this needs to be included in the policy, as the role of the ARIC in doing this is not “complaints handling”, but more of a tool to assist Council in improving its processes.

 

Response:  Under the provisions of the Draft Policy, the Customer Advocate function is responsible for monitoring and reporting on complaint data to the Executive Team. The ‘Executive Team’ Responsibilities in the Table has been amended to include the following responsibility:

 

“Refer results of complaint data to appropriate Georges River Council Committees’ as required to assist in continuous improvement, reduce risk and/or improve the quality of customer service”.

 

(d)     It might be useful for the ARIC to see also a summary of any compliments received by Council too.  Is there a mechanism in place for recording compliments so that this information can be easily extracted?

 

Response: A ‘spin off’ project generated by the completion of the Draft Complaints Policy is the development of a policy/procedure and framework to manage all types of customer feedback and rewarding and recognising customer compliments policy/procedure.  The development of this framework has endorsed by the Executive Team and now forms part of the Transformation & Change Customer Service Project Plan.  Like complaints, compliments will also be captured, acknowledged, actioned and reported in Council’s complaint management system.

 

(e)     Having seen many of these (i.e. Complaint Policies) over many years, my advice is to set up a process to capture observations about how it is working. And then to review it 6 monthly for the first 2 years. It's a very complex area and any policy and procedure will need tweaking for some time. It's a great start, and will be very helpful.

Perhaps we could be briefed in due course on how it will be promoted?

 

Response: The monitoring of the implementation phase of the project will be critical to the successful implementation of the Draft Policy and new framework. Staff training, appointment of staff in the customer advocate roles, development of the complaint management system and touching base with our customers will be closely monitored.

 

Commencement date of Draft Complaints Policy & New Complaint Management System

 

16.       In order for the Draft Complaints Policy to operate as intended, there are a number of steps which need to be undertaken.  These steps include finalisation of the Internal Complaint Procedures, establishing the complaint management system in TechOne and the roll out of organisation wide staff training. These steps will be undertaken as a staged approach following the Policy’s adoption to facilitate streamlined implementation.

 

Financial Implications

 

17.       The complaints training will be funded through the New Councils Implementation Fund (NCIF).

 

File Reference

SF17/98

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Draft Complaint Policy

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL137-17          Georges River Council Complaints Policy

[Appendix 1]         Draft Complaint Policy

 

 

Page 366

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 377

Item:                   CCL138-17        Draft Georges River Council Historical Markers Policy 

Author:              Community Development Officer, Cultural Services

Directorate:      Transformation and Change

Matter Type:     Community and Culture

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council endorse the attached Draft Georges River Council Historical Markers Policy for the purpose of public exhibition for a period of not less than 14 days.

(b)     That the submissions received during the public exhibition period be reported back to Council together with any recommended changes to the Draft Historical Markers Policy for adoption.

(c)     That an inventory of existing historical markers across the Georges River Council Local Government Area (LGA) be undertaken.

(d)     That Council place an amount of $6,000 in its future recurrent budgets to allow continued support for this program.

 

Executive Summary

1.      The Historical Markers Policy provides a consistent, transparent and accurate approach to the creation, maintenance and renewal of historical markers in the Georges River Council LGA.

2.      This Policy has been developed to build on the former Councils’ plaque programs and in response to community requests.

3.      Through the application of this Policy, Georges River Council will develop, maintain and promote a cohesive open air archive of historical markers for the benefit of the community and visitors to the area.

 

Background

4.      The Historical Markers Policy was developed by the Heritage Signage and Collection Management Working Group in consultation with Strategic Planning department. The Policy also incorporates findings from a community consultation held at the Hurstville Museum and Gallery on Friday 3 March 2017.

5.      The need for a Historical Markers Policy was determined for a number of reasons.

a.   The program recognises and creates awareness of the history, heritage and cultural identity of the LGA to build a strong sense of identity and belonging in the community.

b.   There are regular requests for historical markers from individuals, organisations and local historical societies. 

c.   Both former Councils had historical markers programs and policies in development.

d.   There are many historical markers already in existence throughout the LGA which provide a framework for a valuable community history resource.

 

6.      Key features included in the Policy are:

a.   There will be an annual application process and up to five markers will be selected each year, one for each Ward.

b.   This Policy recommends the use of a ‘marker’ (such as the City of Sydney’s Green Plaques Program, and the former Kogarah’s ‘Places of Significance Program’) rather than ‘interpretative signage’ (with longer text and images).

c.   This Policy applies to public buildings and public spaces. It only applies to privately owned buildings in the public domain if approval is given by the building owner.

d.   Installation of historical markers under this Policy does not indicate or imply that a site is heritage listed or of heritage significance.

e.   If a historical marker commemorates a person, that person must be no longer living.

f.    Following the application process, the details of the five sites selected will go on public exhibition to allow for community feedback.

7.      In addition to the annual Historical Markers program, a comprehensive inventory of existing historical markers throughout the LGA will be undertaken in 2017/18 and recorded in the Museum and Gallery Catalogue.

 

Financial Implications

8.      Operational funds of $6,000 from the Community and Culture budget are available in Council’s 2017/2018 budget to support this program. 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Draft Historical Markers Policy

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL138-17          Draft Georges River Council Historical Markers Policy

[Appendix 1]         Draft Historical Markers Policy

 

 

Page 379

 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 385

Item:                   CCL139-17        Georges River Council CCTV Operations Policy 

Author:              Manager Community and Cultural Development

Directorate:      Community and Culture

Matter Type:     Community and Culture

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council adopt the attached Georges River Council Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Operations Policy.

 

Executive Summary

1.      The Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Operations Policy will ensure compliance with legislative requirements, fulfil obligations under the Risk Management Action Plan and improve transparency of Council’s CCTV Operations.

2.      The draft CCTV Operations Policy was endorsed by Council on 1 May 2017 for public exhibition and referral to relevant stakeholders. The draft Policy as amended and attached in Attachment 1 is ready for final adoption.  

 

Background

3.      The former Councils had a range of CCTV systems that were used for the purposes of asset protection, public space safety and targeting illegal dumping.

4.      Following a review of the arrangements of the former Hurstville and Kogarah Council, a policy and compliance gap was identified.

5.      Prior to amalgamation, both Councils had won grants to implement additional public safety cameras; however these have not yet been purchased due to the policy gap. A tender will be required and will be initiated once the CCTV Operations Policy and Procedures are adopted.

6.      A Transformation and Change working group was established to document the CCTV cameras in place, to engage expert advice and to prepare new policy and procedure documents.

7.      Following the establishment of the working group, an independent security consultant was engaged to advise the group on the technical specifications required for the CCTV tender as well as the signage and documentation required for compliance. NSW Police were also engaged to advise the group on public safety priority areas.   

 

Compliance

8.      The proposed CCTV Operations Policy (Attachment A) will ensure compliance with legislative requirements.

 

Risk Management Action Plan

9.      The proposed CCTV framework and Executive endorsement of the CCTV Operations Policy fulfils one of the projects detailed in the 2016/2017 Risk Management Action Plan (RMAP) submitted to Council’s insurer Jardine Lloyd and Thompson (JLT). Fulfilment of the projects detailed in the RMAP qualifies Council for a rebate under the State Wide Mutual scheme.

 

Implementation

10.    The implementation of the CCTV Operations Policy and related Procedures will be undertaken by the working group which currently includes representatives from Transformation and Change, Community and Culture, Assets and Infrastructure and Environment and Planning.

11.    A detailed Implementation Plan is currently being developed which will include a number of strategies in relation to Policy implementation, legislative compliance and the rollout of the two grant funds.

12.    At the 1 May 2017 Council meeting, Council resolved:

(a)     That Council endorse the attached Draft Georges River Council Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Operations Policy for the purpose of public exhibition for a period of not less than 14 days.

(b)     That the submissions received during the public exhibition period be reported back to Council together with any recommended changes to the Draft Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Operations Policy for adoption.

(c)     That during the public exhibition period, the Draft Georges River Council Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Operations Policy be referred to the Implementation Advisory Committee for review and comment.

 

13.    The public exhibition period commenced on 5 May 2017 and concluded on 31 May 2017. During this time, the draft Policy was publically available on Council’s website and at libraries and advertised through Council’s website and the St George & Sutherland Shire Leader. No public submissions were received during this period.

14.    The Draft Policy was also referred to the Implementation Advisory Committee (IAC) for comment. One submission was received however no concerns were raised. 

15.    It should also be noted that Council has recently filled the vacant position of Head of                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Security and Emergency, who will become the custodian of this policy and all future amendments to the policy. The position of Head of Security and Emergency will also ensure compliance of the policy is adhered too.                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

      

Financial Implications

16.    No budget impact as a result of this report.

 

File Reference

D17/89696

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

CCTV Operations Policy - Final version for Council adoption - 3 July 2017

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL139-17          Georges River Council CCTV Operations Policy

[Appendix 1]         CCTV Operations Policy - Final version for Council adoption - 3 July 2017

 

 

Page 387

 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 392

Item:                   CCL140-17        Library Services Radio Frequency Identification RFID Inventory Management System - Q17/011  

Author:              Manager Library Services

Directorate:      Community and Culture

Matter Type:     Community and Culture

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the report be received and noted.

(b)     That the separate report on this agenda relating to the Request for Quotes for the           implementation of a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Inventory Management System           be considered in closed session, in accordance with the provision 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 supplier for the implementation of a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Inventory Management System across the Georges River Council Libraries.

 

Background

2.      On Monday 3 April 2017 Council resolved to advertise an open tender for the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Inventory Management System across the Georges River Council Library Service.

3.      Subsequently, advice was received from Council’s Procurement Officer that there was no requirement to go to open tender, as a selective Request For Quote (RFQ) process could be conducted through VendorPanel using the Local Government Procurement (LGP) panel contract- Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Systems, Equipment, Associated Products & Services (LGP309-2)

 

4.      Local Government Procurement (LGP) has been prescribed under s55 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), allowing councils to utilise supply arrangements coordinated by LGP without the need to go to tender in their own right. LGP therefore has the same status as NSW Procurement in having this legislative requirement.

 

5.      Accordingly, request for quote documents were prepared and submitted through the VendorPanel for the procurement of the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Inventory Management System.

 

6.      The Request for Quote closed on Monday 5 June 2017 and two submissions were received those being:

 

a.   FE Technologies Pty Ltd

b.   Bibliotheca Australia Pty Ltd

 

7.      The evaluation panel was formed comprising of:

a.   Manager Library Services

b.   Coordinator Library Operations

c.   Coordinator Library Resources

d.   IMT Systems Administrator

e.   Coordinator Procurement

 

8.      Submissions were evaluated according to a range of agreed criteria and to an objective scale as outlined in the closed report to Council.

 

Financial Implications

9.      Total cost for the implementation of the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Inventory Management System across the Georges River Council Libraries is $375,370.10 (excl GST). This cost will be offset by the New Council Implementation Funds (NCIF) Grant of $110,000. The remainder is covered within operational budget.

10.    The ongoing annual cost associated with the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Inventory Management System will be $21,543.80 (excl GST).

 

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 394

Item:                   CCL141-17        Community Development and Services Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 19 June 2017 

Author:              Manager Community and Cultural Development

Directorate:      Community and Culture

Matter Type:     Community and Culture

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the recommendations contained within the Minutes of the Community Development and Services Advisory Committee meeting held on Monday 19 June 2017 be adopted by Council.

 

Executive Summary

1.      Minutes of the Community Development and Services Advisory Committee meeting held at 5pm on Monday 19 June 2017 are attached for Council’s consideration and adoption.

 

Background

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

 

Financial Implications

3.      No budget impact for this report.

 

File Reference

D17/94437

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Minutes of the Community Development and Services Advisory Committee meeting held on Monday 19 June 2017

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 July 2017

CCL141-17          Community Development and Services Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 19 June 2017

[Appendix 1]         Minutes of the Community Development and Services Advisory Committee meeting held on Monday 19 June 2017

 

 

Page 395

 


 


 


 

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 3 July 2017                                                                                    Page 399

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 listed should or should not be considered in closed session.

 

Recommendation

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

 

CON008-17       Library Services Radio Frequency Identification RFID Inventory Management System - Q17/011

(Report by Manager Library Services)

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.

 

  

11.    Open Council

12.    Consideration of Closed Council Recommendations