Agenda Template Council - Mosman Council · EP/212 Tree Preservation Order ... CS/86 Investments - August 2005 ... This project has been included in MOSPLAN 2005-2008 with revised

MOSMAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING

AGENDA

MEETING DATE: 5 September 2005

INFORMATION ABOUT PROCEDURES FOR THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Open Question Time Council meetings are scheduled to commence at 6.00pm. However, Open Question Time is held for a maximum of 10 minutes if required, from 6.00pm prior to the commencement of the meeting. Questions from members of the gallery may be directed to the Mayor on any relevant matter unless it is on the Agenda for this meeting. Open Question Time is an opportunity for questions only, not speeches, and every endeavour to answer will be given immediately by the Mayor or referred to the General Manager. Ordinary Meeting The Ordinary Meeting of Council commences in accordance with the Agenda prepared for the Meeting. Committee of the Whole The General Manager will ask residents prior to the commencement of the Council meeting if they seek to address Council on a General Manager’s and Departmental Report listed on the agenda and will register their names. Council will resolve into Committee of the Whole to allow residents to address the Committee and for Councillor discussion and questioning in relation to the report listed on the agenda. Reports on which residents wish to address Council will be dealt with expeditiously as possible between 6.00pm and 8.00pm. Should there be too many matters to be heard or should residents have major matters that need lengthy discussion, the affected residents will be advised to come back to the meeting at a particular time. All remaining items will be dealt with following resolution of reports which residents have an interest in. The Committee of the Whole is delegated authority to resolve items by majority vote. Supper Adjournment At approximately 9.00pm there is usually a recess break for 15 minutes at which time the Mayor will invite those people in the gallery to join the Councillors for supper. Resume Ordinary Meeting The Ordinary Meeting resumes at the conclusion of the supper break.

MOSMAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS SEATING 2004-2007 MAYORAL TERM

Cr Patricia Harvey

East Ward

Manager Finance

Minutes

Secretary

General Manager

Mayor

Cr Shirley Jenkins Director

Environment and

Planning

Manager Development

Services

Director Corporate Services

DirectorCommunity

Development

Balmoral Ward

Cr Denise Wilton

Cr David Strange

West Ward

Cr Lynette Elsegood

Cr Simon Menzies

Cr Anne Connon

Cr Martin Skipper

Cr Jim Reid

Middle Harbour Ward

Cr Andrew Brown

Cr Kate Traill

Cr Dom Lopez, OAM

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

PEOPLE 2. WELCOME TO VISITORS 3. APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

4. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 5. DISCLOSURES OF NON-PECUNIARY INTEREST 6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Confirmation of the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 15 August 2005 and the Extraordinary Meeting held on 22 August 2005.

7. MAYORAL MINUTES 8. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT

GM/26 MOSPLAN Quarterly Review April - June 2005.....................................................1 GM/27 2005 Local Government Association Conference, Mudgee ..................................9 GM/28 General Manager.................................................................................................11 GM/29 Development Assessment - Attachments and Inspections..................................13 GM/30 Waste - Joint Services Committee.......................................................................15 GM/31 SHOROC .............................................................................................................17

9. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORTS

CD/25 Shorelink Library Network Committee .................................................................19 CD/26 Childcare Fees Adjustment - Occasional Child Care...........................................21

10. CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORTS

CS/81 Revotes................................................................................................................23 CS/82 Mayoral Discretionary Fund.................................................................................25 CS/83 Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2005 .....................................27 CS/84 Internal Audit Discussion Paper...........................................................................29 CS/85 Hawker Report on Cost Shifting to Local Government ........................................33 CS/86 Investments - August 2005 ..................................................................................37 CS/87 39 - 41 Wyong Road - Lease to Northern Nursery School ..................................39 CS/88 Council Meetings - Motions Without Notice .........................................................43 CS/89 Mosman Skate Park ............................................................................................45 CS/90 Local Government Amendment (Discipline) Act 2004 and ICAC.........................51 CS/91 Citizen of the Year ...............................................................................................53 CS/92 Field Lane and 2 Mandolong Road......................................................................55 CS/93 Inkerman Street Wharf - Supplementary Report on Tender ................................57

11. ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORTS

EP/207 Want Street Median Island Upgrade....................................................................59 EP/208 5 Morella Road - Notice to Consider Listing on the State Heritage Register .......61 EP/209 Cowles Road Street Trees...................................................................................65 EP/210 Bushland Restoration Contracts ..........................................................................67 EP/211 Ludwigia Longifolia - Declaration as a Noxious Weed.........................................71 EP/212 Tree Preservation Order ......................................................................................73 EP/213 Contract for Parks and Gardens Management ....................................................77 EP/214 Feral Rabbit Control Program..............................................................................79 EP/215 Land Contamination Issues - BMX Track Site and Adjacent Playing Fields........81 EP/216 Mosman Council's Ecological Footprint Project...................................................85

12. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE T/47 Military Road - Relocation of Bus Stop near Cardinal Street ...............................89 T/55 Shadforth Street - Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) and Pick Up/Drop Off Area

for School Children ..............................................................................................93 T/56 Safety Around Schools Audit - Proposed Drop Off/Pick Up Area on Medusa

Street and Roundabout at the Intersection of Medusa Street and Pindari Avenue.................................................................................................................97

T/57 Heydon Street - Replacement of "No Standing" Restriction ..............................101 T/67 Rangers Avenue - Traffic Management Issues .................................................103

13. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ............................................................................. 107 14. CORRESPONDENCE

COR/29 Correspondence - Donations.............................................................................109 COR/30 Correspondence - Mayor of London ..................................................................111 COR/31 Correspondence - Minister for the Environment and Heritage ..........................113

15. RECISSION MOTIONS

Rescission Motion - EP/202 39 Raglan Street..................................................................115 ATTACHMENTS

GM/30 Waste - Joint Services Committee...................................................................... A1 GM/31 SHOROC ............................................................................................................ A7 CD/25 Shorelink Library Network Committee .............................................................. A29 CS/84 Internal Audit Discussion Paper........................................................................ A35 CS/86 Investments - August 2005 ............................................................................... A51 CS/89 Mosman Skate Park ......................................................................................... A53 EP/208 5 Morella Road - Notice to Consider Listing on the State Heritage Register .... A85 EP/212 Tree Preservation Order ................................................................................... A91 EP/213 Contract for Parks and Gardens Management ................................................. A95 EP/214 Feral Rabbit Control Program........................................................................... A99 EP/215 Land Contamination Issues - BMX Track Site and Adjacent Playing Fields... A103 T/56 Safety Around Schools Audit - Proposed Drop Off/Pick Up Area on Medusa

Street and Roundabout at the Intersection of Medusa Street and Pindari Avenue............................................................................................................ A107

T/67 Rangers Avenue - Traffic Management Issues .............................................. A109 Rescission Motion - EP/202 39 Raglan Street............................................................... A189

Reports to Ordinary Meeting of Council – 5 September 2005 Page 1

8. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT

GM/26 MOSPLAN Quarterly Review April - June 2005 MOSPLAN REF: 01.02.03 REPORT BY: Executive Officer, Corporate and Human Development, Nicola

Atmore SUMMARY By way of exception, the following reports MOSPLAN and CEC targets that were not met or were exceeded for the quarter 1 April 2005 to 30 June 2005. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The General Manager recommends: That the advices be received. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT In accordance with Section 407 of the Local Government Act, 1993, MOSPLAN Program Convenors have undertaken a review of their responsibility areas for the 1 April 2005 to 30 June 2005 quarter of the financial year. Strategies and performance targets have been reviewed and the following report highlights for Council any significant strategies or targets exceeded or underachieved for particular reasons. All other Management Plan activities are considered to be on target and within appropriate time frames and budgets. PROGRAM 3 - STRATEGIC TOWN PLANNING Sub-Program 03.01: Policy and Administration and Customer Focus

Objective A. To identify, through involvement, community aspirations about development and urban planning issues.

Comments Meets other Objectives

Additional means of communication this year included Mosman 2088, Art Gallery of NSW publication, email network lists, such as heritage network; and media coverage in metropolitan newspapers.

-

Sub-Program 03.03: Planning Policy Development

Objective A. To have in place and maintain development control plans which are objective based, include a combination of numerical and performance standards, and reflect community needs and aspirations.



Not completed due to direction from Future Mosman objectives to review LEP and DCPs. Comprehensive review to commence shortly

B

Transport DCP adopted by Council 6 June 2005. B

Objective B. To prepare and review Development Control Plans and other planning policies which protect the environment from potentially adverse development.


Project has been carried over into MOSPLAN Program 6.02 for 2005-2008. Not completed due to lack of resources.

-

Objective C. To review S.94 contribution plans and the appropriateness of the approach for other initiatives.


Not completed - awaiting outcome of SHFT decision on Cross Street site before proceeding with any amendments.

-

Sub-Program 03.04: Heritage Planning

Objective A. To ensure the built and landscape heritage of Mosman is comprehensively identified and strategies developed to ensure its continuing conservation.


Not completed due to limited staff resources during the year. Work is underway; new completion date (in MOSPLAN 2005-2008) is June 2006.

C, B

This project has been included in MOSPLAN 2005-2008 with revised completion date. Lack of staff resources meant this project could not be completed.

C

Objective B. To undertake work on the assessment of heritage items in accordance with the principles of the Burra Charter. (See comments in above objectives.)

Objective C. To educate the community on the heritage of Mosman and promote its importance and conservation. (See comments in above objectives.)

Sub-Program 03.06: Housing Strategy

Objective B. To provide the planning framework for the provision for housing choice and opportunity to meet the housing needs of the community, while at the same time encouraging maintenance of population levels.



Unsuccessful in obtaining funding. Made new application in May 2005 for next round of Planning Reform Funding.

C, D

Objective C. To develop housing strategy which satisfies both local and State Government objectives. (See comments in above objectives.)

Objective D. To ensure high quality residential development which meets community expectations. (See comments in above objectives.)

PROGRAM 4 - BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Sub-Program 04.02: Development

Objective C. To monitor existing urban infrastructure to ensure compliance with prevailing legislation and community standards.


New general patrol procedures written for Rangers auditing building sites -

PROGRAM 5 - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Sub-Program 05.01: Policy and Administration and Customer Focus

Objective A. To ensure responsible environmental management, consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development, is incorporated into all Council’s operations, activities and contracts for the provision of works and services, to a standard which will meet or exceed all legislative and regulatory requirements.


Environmental Management Plan completed, adopted by Council, and incorporated into MOSPLAN 2005/08

-

The revision of the environmental requirements of Council contracts has been incorporated into MOSPLAN 2005/08.

-

Development of an environmental impact assessment manual for Council projects has been incorporated into MOSPLAN 2005/08.

-

Sub-Program 05.02: Atmospheric Environment

Objective B. To mitigate the effect that Mosman Council and the Mosman community has on air quality in Mosman.


Ongoing building site audits conducted to prevent incidents and detect pollution -


Sub-Program 05.03: Water Cycle Management

Objective A. To mitigate the effect of stormwater pollution on the terrestrial and aquatic environment.


Rangers continue to issue Clean Up Notices and infringement notices where appropriate. Forms part of building site audit procedures for Rangers

-

Sub-Program 05.06: Land Management

Objective A. To prevent and mitigate land and foreshore degradation. Comments Meets other

Objectives

New building site audit and general patrol procedure developed and on going audits conducted to detect and prevent pollution

-

Objective B. To minimise environmental and human health risks associated with existing contaminated sites.


The development of a contaminated land policy has been incorporated into MOSPLAN 2005/08.

-

PROGRAM 6 - PUBLIC HEALTH

Sub-Program 06.02: Waste Management

Objective A. To minimise the generation of waste by encouraging its avoidance. Comments Meets other

Objectives

Various waste education initiatives have been incorporated into MOSPLAN 2005/08.

B, C

Objective B. To maximise resource recovery. (See comments in above objectives.)

Objective C. To dispose of residual waste in an environmentally sound manner. (See comments in above objectives.)

Objective D. To provide a high quality, cost effective and equitable waste management service.


A review of Council's waste management function has been incorporated into MOPSPLAN 2005/08.

-


Sub-Program 06.05: Companion Animals

Objective A. To reduce problems associated with dogs and cats. Comments Meets other

Objectives

Ongoing registration reminders sent out to animals owners. -

Ongoing Rangers continue to promote anti barking collars -

Ongoing B

Website up to date with information. Update planned on release of the revised Companion Animals Act late 2005

B

Objective B. To promote dog obedience classes. Comments Meets other

Objectives

Ongoing with Rangers providing handouts to where problem dogs are identified -

PROGRAM 8 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES


Objective H. To facilitate understanding of issues and non-discriminatory social outlets for all target groups.


Information flyers and posters produced in the main community languages of Cantonese and Japanese promoting Council's English conversation classes for people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds were distributed in the community.

-

Sub-Program 08.06: People with Disabilities

Objective H. To develop, maintain and promote within Mosman an inclusive and accessible environment which enables people with disabilities to be independent.


Regular patrols conducted to detect low hanging branches and notices served where required

-

PROGRAM 9 - LIBRARY AND INFORMATION


Objective A. To plan library and educational services using the Community Profile and demographic projections and needs identified in user and non-user surveys.



Focus Group conducted May 2005. Participants were asked about their awareness of the Library’s services, which services they used, what they liked about the library, what they did not like & how they would like to see the Library develop in the future.

B

Objective B. To plan and initiate new services and programs according to changing needs in the community. (See comments in above objectives.)

Sub-Program 09.02: Library Resources

Objective E. To provide fast, efficient access to material not held in the collection, including material published in electronic format.


Stage 2 of the Shorelink eBooks Project was launched in May 2005. eBooks are full-text electronic versions of printed books that Library customers can borrow, read and return over the Internet. They are accessed remotely through the Library catalogue and then viewed on any device with Internet access. The Project was funded by a Library Council of New South Wales Library Development Grant. Borrowers have access to more than 250 non-fiction titles on a range of subjects including travel, health, philosophy, resumes, meditation and cookery, together with over 3500 public domain titles comprising literary classics such as the works of Dickens, Shakespeare and Henry James. In the two months since the launch of the collection 485 customers registered as eBook users and more than 1,000 hits have been recorded on eBook titles.

-

Sub-Program 09.03: Library Services

Objective J. To provide education and assistance to clients in the use of the Library’s resources.


09.03.09 The Mosman Library Wired for Youth Project was launched during Australian Library and Information Week in May 2005.

-

Sub-Program 09.04: Library Information Technology

Objective B. To have information technology resources which provide a gateway to local, state, national and international information and to provide support to our community in using these resources effectively.


Stage 1 of Shorelink It Project Plan (introduction of web content filtering) implemented. Shorelink Committee approved Wide Area Network upgrade.

C

Objective C. To have sufficient appropriate technology in order to provide access to the full range of the Library's resources in all formats.


(See comments in above objectives.)

Sub-Program 09.07: Local Studies

Objective F. To encourage community support of Mosman’s unique heritage. Comments Meets other

Objectives

Celebrated Heritage Festival 2005 with the exhibition "Mosman….This is your heritage", a workshop on conserving personal collections and a discussion evening entitled "What's mine is yours" where local groups and individuals shared information of how they had contributed to preservation of Mosman's environment.

-

PROGRAM 10 - PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE

Sub-Program 10.03: Recreational Facilities

Objective C. To implement the Recreation Strategy Action Plan which reflects the recreation needs and desires of the Mosman Community for the 0-5 year timeframe in the categories of Sporting Facilities, Youth Facilities, Playgrounds, Aquatic Facilities, Informal Recreation Areas, Hockey Facilities and Disability Access.


Skate facility completed and opened to users in March 2005. Final completion certificate issued in April 2005.

-

Sub-Program 10.04: Beaches, Sea Pools and Foreshores

Objective A. To enhance the visual and recreational amenity and safety of Mosman's beaches, sea pools and foreshores through the development of a staged and prioritised program of improvements and an effective maintenance program. (See comments in above objectives.)

Sub-Program 10.06: Gallery Exhibitions and Activities Objective D. To properly house, care for, document and develop the Mosman art Collection

so that it is both accessible and well preserved and to ensure the proper running of the Mosman Art Prize.

Comments Meets other

Objectives A new picture hanging system has been installed in the Council Chamber. This will enable regular ‘focus displays’ of Mosman Art Collection for the benefit of Councillors, staff and residents.

-


Sub-Program 10.10: Friendship Agreements

Objective A. To foster community partnerships between Mosman and our friendship communities which currently comprise: Glen Innes Norfolk Island Isle of Wight Paciano, Italy Mudanjiang, China Douglas Shire, Queensland

and to develop new relationships when appropriate. Comments Meets other

Objectives In May, the Manager, Cultural Development visited Glen Innes to strengthen the Friendship between the two communities and present a cheque for $2,000 to the Mayor of Glen Innes for the purpose of establishing a Scholarship Fund for Aboriginal youth,

-

PROGRAM 11 - TRANSPORT AND TRAFFIC

Sub-Program 11.04: Traffic Management

Objective B. To ensure residents and visitors are aware of carparking facilities and to ensure that those facilities feel safe.


Rangers continue to carry out daily patrols of all Council carparks for illegal parking and to report other offences

-

Sub-Program 11.05: Road and Pedestrian Safety

Objective D. To improve accessibility levels of Council's infrastructure. Comments Meets other

Objectives

Has been included in the Building Site Audit procedure and forms part of routine patrols

-


GM/27 2005 Local Government Association Conference, Mudgee MOSPLAN REF: 01.01.04 REPORT BY: General Manager, Viv May SUMMARY Conduct of the 2005 Annual Local Government Association Conference to be held in Mudgee from 22 - 26 October. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The General Manager recommends: That Councillor Wilton be nominated to join Councillors Elsegood, Harvey and Jenkins to attend the 2005 Annual Local Government Association Conference in place of Councillor Connon and that those attending nominate the three delegates. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT The 2005 Conference of the Local Government Association of NSW will be held in Mudgee from 22 to 26 October. Mosman Council is entitled to three delegates to the Conference and at its meeting on 1 August Council resolved that Councillors Elsegood, Harvey, Connon and Jenkins be appointed to attend the Conference and those attending nominate amongst themselves the three delegates and one observer. Councillor Connon has since advised that she is unable to attend and Councillor Wilton has requested that she attend in Councillor Connon’s place. The following motions for the Conference were submitted to the Association: Subject: Commonwealth Electoral Rolls Motion Text: That the Commonwealth Electoral Act be amended to provide that a copy of a roll/s for an Electoral Division/s within a local government area be made available for inspection at the office of the relevant local authority/ies and representations be made to the Australian Attorney General in this regard. Note from Council: In 2004 Parliament amended the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act removing the electoral roll from sale and redefining access provisions allegedly to prevent the commercial use of information. While public access was reduced the law still provides for a copy of the roll to be available for public inspection at the office of the relevant divisional returning officer. In addition, Federal Parliamentarians are provided with copies of the electoral roll for their own electorate.


It is the view of Council that for as long as Federal Parliamentarians get access, State and Local elected officials should have the same rights to ensure open and transparent government. Subject: Accredited Certification System Motion Text: That the Association write to the Minister for Planning expressing its concern regarding the certification system, in particular: • The unsatisfactory professional conduct of a number of Accredited Certifiers of

ensuring that construction certificate plans are consistent with approved Development Application plans;

• The regularity with which a number of certifiers fail to ensure compliance with conditions of consent (either at CC or inspection stage) which are directed towards ensuring compliance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, minimising environmental impacts during construction, ensuring safety, lessening amenity impacts for neighbours and/or ensuring greater compliance with planning policies;

• Funding for the Building Professionals Board appears inadequate to ensure expeditious investigations and disciplinary action for unprofessional certifiers;

• The inability to initiate prompt disciplinary action by the Building Professionals Board. This results in unprofessional certifiers continuing to operate with an increased likelihood of problems with amenity issues for neighbours, structural or compliance issues for the owner and/or enforcement issues for Councils and the Board;

• Inequitable obligations. Private certifiers can issue a Notice of Intent to Give an Order for a breach but consideration of the merits of that matter and its enforcement returns to Councils despite Councils not receiving fees for the CC. Often the breach could have been avoided through the proper supervision of works by the certifier. Furthermore, if procedures for Notices of Intent prescribed by the Act are not followed by the certifiers, future Orders may fail with Council responsible for either defending the matter or reissuing a new Notice of Intent;

• The frustration caused to the community who still look to Council to enforce matters during the construction stage and/or be answerable for private certifiers who fail to respond to enquiries or who fail to respond in an appropriate manner;

• The conflict of interest that private certifiers have with developers as a proper implementation of the certifier’s responsibilities may diminish the likelihood of the receipt of further work from that developer;

• As enforcement action through the Courts is costly and time consuming with no certainty for success, a low percentage of cases are progressed down this path. Penalty infringements notices of just $600 under clause 284 of the Regulations for not developing in accordance with approved plans are not a disincentive for unscrupulous developers building otherwise than in accordance with approved plans and conditions.

Note from Council: There are too many instances of developers getting away with changes or breaches of conditions through inadequate management from certifiers. Ultimately this undermines the attainment of objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, causes angst amongst the community, reduces public confidence in the town planning and development system and creates unreasonable burdens on Councils.


GM/28 General Manager MOSPLAN REF: 02.05.08 REPORT BY: General Manager, Viv May SUMMARY Arrangements for Acting General Manager during the absence of the General Manager. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The General Manager recommends: That: A. The Director Corporate Services, Maxwell Norman Glyde, act as General Manager for

the periods 13 October to 27 November 2005, and 16 to 26 January 2006 inclusive. B. The Director Community Development, Kay Clarke, act as General Manager for the

period 28 November 2005 to 15 January 2006 inclusive. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT As has previously been report to Council, I will be on a mixture of special, annual and long service for the period 13 October 2005 until 26 January 2006 inclusive. In accordance with the employment contract the General Manager is entitled to attend the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers International Conference in Edinburgh, following which I will spend a week making study visits to a number of councils in Scotland and England to be organised by the Scottish Audit Commission. Arrangements are also in hand for inspections of alternate waste technology projects in Toronto, Canada, and Dublin, Ireland, for SHOROC during the leave period and civic visits will be made to Council’s friendship communities in Paciano, Italy, and the Isle of Wight, UK. Having regard to the length of time that the General Manager will be absent from Mosman, it is appropriate that an Acting General Manager be appointed.



GM/29 Development Assessment - Attachments and Inspections MOSPLAN REF: 04.02.02 REPORT BY: General Manager, Viv May SUMMARY Interim response to Notice of Motion submitted to the 1 August meeting of Council. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The General Manager recommends: That the advices be received and a detailed report be submitted to Council at the November cycle in relation to the circulation of attachments following completion of the six month trial period. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT At the meeting of Council held on 1 August 2005 Council referred to the General Manager for report the following Notice of Motion: A. That Councillors receive copies of letters sent to Council, by residents or their

representatives, in the attachments to the Council agendas for Council meetings. These attachments can be on disc or hard copy according to the Councillor’s needs.

B. That Councillors’ and residents’ requests for the inclusion of a property in the Council

Planning Meeting Inspections will be decided by the majority of Councillors present on the day of inspections.

C. That these resolutions be written into Council policy. Following a Councillor planning workshop it was resolved in April 2005 to introduce a suite of changes, including amended delegations and procedures to facilitate improvements in the operation of the development services area of the Environment & Planning Department. Discussions flowed from the reforms introduced by Council in April 2004, consideration of the introduction of an Independent Hearing & Assessment Panel and areas that in the view of staff could be improved in the consideration, reporting and determination of development applications. The following advices were conveyed to that meeting of Council “4.0 Councillors' Attachments Options Put to Workshop 1. Noting alternate means of access exist to objector submissions and the resource

intensive nature of producing all submissions, copies of public submissions no longer be included in the Councillors' attachments.


2. Continue to attach hard copies of all submissions received to the agendas. Draft Recommendation Put to Workshop Option 1 was recommended. Workshop Discussions The Director Environment & Planning commented that Mosman was the only Council of the 8 he had worked at that forwarded entire copies of all public submission on development applications. The staff noted that producing all submissions as attachments in either hard copy or disc form was extremely cumbersome and often led to administrative difficulties with running the agenda. There were differing views amongst Councillors as to the value of public submissions in the attachments and how often they were relied upon or were necessary having regard to other means of accessing submissions. There seemed to be support for option 1 on the basis of a 6 month trial. A new option, marked C below would cover the proposed trial. C. Noting alternate means of access exist to objector submissions and the resource

intensive nature of producing all submissions, Council trial for 6 months not forwarding copies of public submissions in the Councillors' attachments after which time the matter be remitted for further consideration. Correspondence received after preparation of the Business Paper will be forwarded to Councillors as late correspondence in accordance with current practice.”

Council adopted Option C and a report will be presented to the November meeting cycle in accordance with the decision. There has been a significant improvement in outstanding applications, processing times and staff morale as a result of the suite of changes and I am unaware of any community backlash. All of these matters will be reported to Council so it will be in a position to make an informed decision on the circulation of attachments and the upgrade to the Council’s internet facility will be in place to improve access to DAs online (which registered 15,000 inquiries in the last financial year). It is assumed that Clause B of the Notice of Motion flowed from a memo dated 21 April 2005 from the Mayor in relation to the Code of Conduct and inspections. This memo was issued following correspondence on a number of matters, including site inspections, from the NSW Ombudsman. The present practice in relation to inspections is consistent with the Notice of Motion. All the memo sought to do was address the issue and re-state advice from the Ombudsman and concerns expressed by Council officers of requests to visit sites not listed for inspection, and on at least one occasion not even on the agenda. Advice from the Ombudsman is that arguably that conduct may potentially constitute a breach of the Code and the Mayor reminded Councillors that they must be very careful to ensure that they do not expose themselves as elected members in this regard.


GM/30 Waste - Joint Services Committee MOSPLAN REF: 06.02.02 REPORT BY: General Manager, Viv May SUMMARY Minutes of the Joint Services Committee meeting held on 18 August 2005. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The General Manager recommends: That the Minutes of the Joint Services Committee be received and the recommendations contained therein be adopted. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT The Minutes of the Joint Services Committee meeting held on 18 August 2005 are attached to Councillors' Business Papers. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments • Minutes of the Joint Services Committee meeting held on 18 August 2005



GM/31 SHOROC MOSPLAN REF: 12.04.01 REPORT BY: General Manager, Viv May SUMMARY Minutes of the SHOROC Executive meetings held on 6 July and 24 August 2005. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The General Manager recommends: That the Minutes of the SHOROC Executive meetings held on 6 July and 24 August 2005 be received and the recommendations contained therein be adopted. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT Minutes of the SHOROC Executive meeting of 6 July and 24 August 2005 are circulated. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments • Minutes of the SHOROC Executive meeting of 6 July 2005 • Minutes of the SHOROC Executive meeting of 24 August 2005



9. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORTS

CD/25 Shorelink Library Network Committee MOSPLAN REF: 09.04.01 REPORT BY: Manager Library Resources, Jill Cuthbert SUMMARY Minutes of the 115th meeting of the Shorelink Library Network Committee. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Library Resources recommends: That the minutes be received. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT The 115th meeting of the Shorelink Library Network Committee was held in the Mosman Council Chamber on 22 June 2005. The main items on the Agenda were the launch of the Shorelink eBooks Project and discussion of the request by Leichhardt Council to join the Shorelink Network. The Committee resolved to decline this request on the basis that there is no shared ‘community of interest’ between Leichhardt and the Shorelink members and the best interests of Shorelink would not be served by extending the network as far afield as Leichhardt. The Committee thanked Leichhardt for their interest and recommended that they approach their neighbouring Councils to explore the possibility of establishing a cooperative network based on the Shorelink model. Recommendation endorsed by Director Community Development. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments • Minutes of the 115th meeting of the Shorelink Library Network Committee



CD/26 Childcare Fees Adjustment - Occasional Child Care MOSPLAN REF: 08.03.06 REPORT BY: Director Community Development, Kay Clarke SUMMARY Adjustment of fees for Mosman Occasional Child Care to improve services. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Director Community Development recommends: That Council advertise that it is placing on public exhibition its intention to increase its Occasional Child Care fees from $8 per hour to $10 per hour effective 10 October and that existing users be advised accordingly. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT To cater for the occasional needs of parents who require a break to attend appointments and the like, Council operates Occasional Child Care from its facility adjacent to Allan Border Oval. The service cares for an average of 30 children per day aged between 6 weeks and 6 years. The current hours are 9am to 3pm Monday to Friday with bookings taken from 8am. The fees are currently $8 per hour. There are some issues which need to be addressed. The 8am start is awkward for many parents particularly those who have older children who need to be taken to school and an earlier booking time would be much appreciated. The 3pm closing time is a little early and parents may appreciate an additional half an hour. The staff are only able to take a half hour lunch break which is barely long enough to walk up to the shops for a sandwich and staff who look after small children need to be able to relax a little more in the middle of the time in the interests of the children and themselves. The current staffing arrangements mean that casuals are brought in rather more often than is desirable for the provision of quality care. It is proposed to open the booking service at 7.30am; to allow the staff a one hour break; to extend the opening time to 3.30pm if parents would like; and, to extend the hours of some of the part time staff. This would improve the service significantly. To cover the costs it is proposed to increase the fees from $8 to $10 per hour making them commensurate with many other occasional child care services in the region. Any parents who are financially disadvantaged as assessed by Centrelink would be able to access the services for $8 per hour. This matter was brought before the Community Development Advisory Group at its meeting of 24 August 2005 where it received unanimous support. Recommendation endorsed by General Manager.



10. CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORTS

CS/81 Revotes MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.01 REPORT BY: Manager Finance, Mark McDonald SUMMARY Revoting of funds voted in 2004/2005 in respect of work not completed or not commenced as at 30 June 2005. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Finance recommends: That monies be revoted in 2005/2006 in respect of work not completed or not commenced as at 30 June 2005 as outlined in a report which will be circulated to Councillors separately. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: No REPORT A schedule of recommended revotes is currently being finalised (in conjunction with the 2005 Financial Statements) and will be circulated to Councillors on Friday 2 September 2005. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments • Schedule of recommended revotes from 2004/2005 to 2005/2006 will be attached to the

Minutes.



CS/82 Mayoral Discretionary Fund MOSPLAN REF: 01.01.03 REPORT BY: Manager Finance, Mark McDonald SUMMARY Provision of a Mayoral Discretionary Fund to assist in the payment of non personal matters associated with the office of the Mayor. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Finance recommends: That Council amend its existing Policy in relation to the payment of expenses and provision of facilities to the Mayor and Councillors to include an annual allocation of $5,000 for the facilitation of a Mayoral Discretionary fund for the payment of non personal matters associated with the office of the Mayor and that the Manager Finance include this item in the September 2005 Quarterly Financial Review. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: No REPORT At its meeting of 1 August 2005, Council adopted the officer’s recommendation in relation to the provision of a Mayoral Discretionary Fund to assist in the payment of non personal matters associated with the office of the Mayor. Council has advertised the proposed alteration to the Policy for 28 days and no submissions have been received. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services.



CS/83 Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2005 MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.01 REPORT BY: Manager Finance, Mark McDonald SUMMARY Statement by Council in respect of 2004/2005 Financial Statements. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Director Corporate Services recommends: That: A. The Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2005, comprising the General

Purpose Reports, the Special Schedules, Special Purpose Financial Reports and the Statements by Council be adopted.

B. The Statements by Council, as required by Section 413 (2) (C) of the Local

Government Act, 1993, be signed by the Mayor, one other Councillor, being the Deputy Mayor, the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer (Manager Finance).

C. The General Manager be authorised to give at least two weeks public notice that

Council proposes to present its audited Financial Reports, together with the Auditor's reports to the public at its meeting to be held on 3 October 2005.

D. All other recommendations in the Report be adopted. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: No REPORT A full report is currently being finalised in consultation with Council’s Auditors and will be circulated to Councillors on Friday 2 September 2005. Recommendation endorsed by General Manager. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments • Draft Statement by Council – General Purpose/Special Purpose to be circulated prior to

the meeting • Statement of Financial Performance, Statement of Financial Position, Statement of

Charges in Equity, Statement of Cash Flows and Statement of Performance Measurement – General Purpose to be circulated prior to the meeting

• Statement of Financial Performance and Financial Position – Special Purpose to be circulated prior to the meeting


Circulations • Draft Auditor’s Report to be circulated prior to the meeting


CS/84 Internal Audit Discussion Paper MOSPLAN REF: 01.03.04 REPORT BY: Manager Governance, Anthony Fitzpatrick SUMMARY Submission in response to the release of the Department of Local Government’s Internal Audit Discussion Paper. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Governance recommends: That the submission made to the Department of Local Government in response to the Internal Audit Discussion Paper be endorsed. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT The Department of Local Government (DLG) is developing internal audit guidelines for NSW local government and has prepared a discussion paper on the issue. An Internal Audit Discussion Paper has been released and the DLG has invited interested councils to make submissions on specific issues, closing 31 August 2005. DLG Circular 05/33 and the Discussion Paper are attached to the business papers. In view of the deadline, a submission has been made to the DLG in the terms of this report and a copy forwarded to the Local Government Association. The concept of developing internal audit guidelines for all councils is supported, for at the moment it appears be the haves and the have nots in local government in relation to internal audit, as the large, well resourced councils can facilitate an internal audit function while small councils such as Mosman have the will (it has been a long held key objective in MOSPLAN) but not the resources. A set of internal guidelines based on best practices standards for the industry would greatly assist all councils, but particularly the smaller ones, to get an internal audit function up and running. The DLG have requested specific comment on the following points raised in the Discussion Paper. Council’s response is provided in italics. • Whether there is a need for best practice standards for internal audit in NSW local

government.

Yes. Much in the same manner as the Model Code of Conduct where minimum standards are set. The operation of Contracts and Tenders for instance would then be subject to a minimum standard of review.

• Whether councils develop their own internal audit guidelines.


Yes, but using industry guidelines built around the best practice standards developed in the first instance to which individual councils may add or amend aspects.

• Whether and to what extent there is a need for legislative support.

Legislative support considered not necessary. With best practice, the development of guidelines and the ability to resource an internal audit function, councils will more and more look at implementing such a function. The will is there but not the resources and guidance. Councils with the resources to implement an internal audit function and not doing so, will soon be found out under the Department’s Best Practice reviews.

• Who the internal auditor should report to and how.

Report to the General Manager directly. No direct instruction whatsoever from Mayor or Councillors. On matters concerning the General Manager, the Internal Auditor should report to the Public Officer in these instances.

• Whether all councils should have a designated internal auditor and/or audit committee.

Not necessarily. Depends on individual Council’s situation and the depth and range of issues it faces. An Audit Committee may be required to provide direction to the internal audit function and a method of review, but that could also come from General Manager/Senior Management. Where no Committee is in place, Council can still provide input through normal channels in raising issues to be considered by the audit function from the floor of Council, which the General Manager would then implement. Dependant on the size of a Council, it may not be necessary to have a designated internal auditor. Whilst this would be preferable, smaller Councils may be able to use methods such as resource sharing on a regional basis, outsourcing or facilitate an existing internal position to also carry out an internal audit function, but with the latter you may lose some independence of the function.

• What should be the role and make-up of audit committees.

Any Audit Committee created should not be politically dominated. As a minimum the Mayor, General Manager, General Manager’s delegate or Internal Auditor & External Auditor and/or legal advisor.

• What are the options for small councils wanting to establish an internal audit function.

Agree with any of the options identified in the Discussion Paper, plus an existing role may also be able to take on a limited internal audit function if facilitated and resourced.

• What strategies can be implemented to support the internal audit role.

Appropriately resourced; internal audit charter in place with clear objectives; clear lines of reporting; independence; support of Council, management and staff; support for any finding and recommendations made and a clear procedure on how they are dealt with. Education of Councillors, staff, contractors and other stakeholders on the role of the internal auditor to gain trust and co-operation in the process.

• What requirement is there for a charter outlining the jurisdiction and authority of the

internal auditor and audit committee.


A charter would need to be mandatory for any internal audit function to be implemented by a council.

• Any other issues relating to internal audit in local government which have not been

addressed in this discussion paper.

Conflicting lines of responsibility for issues dealt with by Public Officer, Internal Ombudsman, External Auditor and the like.

Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations • DLG Circular 05/33 dated 15 July 2005 “Internal Audit Discussion Paper” • DLG Discussion Paper “Internal Audit in NSW Local Government”



CS/85 Hawker Report on Cost Shifting to Local Government MOSPLAN REF: 01.01.11 REPORT BY: Manager Governance, Anthony Fitzpatrick SUMMARY Update on the Federal Government’s response to the Hawker Report on Cost Shifting to Local Government. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Governance recommends: That the advices be received. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT The Federal Government has tabled its response to the Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration: “Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government” (the Hawker Report ). A copy was circulated to Councillors on 29 June 2005 for information pending comments on the response from the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) and the Local Government and Shires Associations (LGSA) The Federal Government’s response confirms its commitment to developing an intergovernmental agreement to address cost shifting and has proposed a Productivity Commission study on the barriers to local government revenue raising. As lobbied by Mosman, the proposal to abolish minimum grants under the Financial Assistance Grant system has been rejected. Also welcomed is the proposal for a Parliamentary resolution in both Houses of Parliament that recognises Local Government as an integral level of governance in Australia. MOSPLAN has long held the objective to achieve Constitutional recognition for local government. The proposed resolution is short of Constitutional recognition however is an important shift in attitude and a step towards achieving that objective. The LGSA summary of the response follows and is self-explanatory:

“The report recognised cost shifting as a significant problem confronting councils. It made 18 recommendations to address cost shifting and improve relations across the three spheres of government. It should be noted that under the terms of reference for the Inquiry, all of its recommendations had to be revenue neutral to the Federal Government. This meant that the Inquiry did not directly address the adequacy of Local Government finances and certainly not the level of Financial Assistance Grants (FAGs). The Associations were generally supportive of the recommendations with a few specific exceptions. Most notably, the Associations objected to Recommendation 16 which proposed a new distribution methodology for Local Government FAGs. This would have inevitably led to a shift in FAGs grants away from councils in NSW to


councils in other States/Territories. The Associations are pleased that the Government has rejected Recommendation 16. The Associations also objected to Recommendation 7 which would have extended the powers of the Australian National Audit Office to examine the expenditure of Federal Specific Purpose Payments to Local Government and Recommendation 9 that proposed to impose FAGs penalties on councils deemed to be negligent in managing infrastructure. The Government has also rejected these recommendations. The Australian Government's response has four key components: • Intergovernmental agreement on cost shifting. • Productivity Commission study on barriers to local government revenue. • Recognition of local government by both Houses of Federal Parliament. • Review of interstate distribution of the identified roads component of financial

assistance grants. In addition, the Federal Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Jim Lloyd MP, has committed the Australian Government, through the joint media release, to “explore opportunities to further develop partnerships with local government to the benefit of local communities”. 1. Intergovernmental Agreement on Cost Shifting There is in principle support for the IGA. The Commonwealth clearly indicates: • desire to work collaboratively with State and Territory governments (at the Local

Government level) and Local Government on developing an IGA • commitment to seek an agreed IGA with all spheres of government • notes that it will need to be referred to COAG. Preliminary work has already commenced on the IGA involving Federal, State and Local Government representatives. A report is due to be considered by the Local Government and Planning Ministers Council, of which ALGA is a full member, on 4 August in Melbourne. Negotiating the agreement will be a complex task that will take some time – possibly 12 months or more. 2. Productivity Commission study of revenue options The terms of reference for the Productivity Commission study will be important. The Minister said in the joint press release that he will “work with ALGA” on the terms of reference. ALGA will argue that all revenue sources need to be examined, including the adequacy of Australian Government grants paid to Local Government. Broad terms of reference which look at the adequacy of all sources of revenue, including grants, should open the door for a discussion on ‘quantum’. While this is welcomed by the Associations, the Government should also work with State/Territory Local Government Associations in developing the terms of reference. 3. Recognition of Local Government by Federal Parliament The Government proposes a Parliamentary resolution in both Houses of Parliament that recognises Local Government as an integral level of governance in Australia. This falls well short of Constitutional recognition. However, ALGA sees this as a ‘first step’ towards constitutional recognition. The wording of the resolution could be important. The Minister has said that the resolution would be developed with ALGA. While recognition is welcomed by the Associations, the Government should also work with State/Territory Local Government Associations in developing the resolution.


4. Review of identified roads component of financial assistance grants to find long term solution to South Australia disadvantage under current formula Last year, the Australian Government announced short term additional funding for South Australian councils in recognition of their disadvantage in the current formula used to determine the identified roads component of financial assistance grants. ALGA argues that no council should receive less money as a result of this review. The Associations would strongly object to any change that would disadvantage councils in NSW.”

The ALGA has particularly welcomed the development of an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) to put an end to cost shifting. The recent meeting of the Local Government and Planning Ministers Council agreed to the development of an IGA between the three spheres of government that will help ensure fair treatment of local government in its financial dealings with its state and federal counterparts. A draft IGA will be developed over the next six months and brought back to the next meeting of the ministerial council in March 2006. The ALGA is seeking an agreement that: • ensures the three spheres of government will work together on who does what; • establishes some principles that guide decision making; • ensures the deals made with local government are adequately funded; and • provide assurance that the deals reached actually ‘stick’ At a recent meeting with the Prime Minister, the ALGA President outlined local government’s objectives of an IGA and reiterated local government’s argument that the quantum of annual financial assistance from the Australian Government should be set at a percentage of Commonwealth taxation revenue of at least 1%. The Prime Minister indicated he would seek advice on the case to secure, long term funding arrangements for local government. Further updates will be provided to Council as progress is made on the key matters in the Federal response. Recommendation endorsed by General Manager.



CS/86 Investments - August 2005 MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.01 REPORT BY: Manager Finance, Mark McDonald SUMMARY Investments Schedule for the month of August 2005. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Finance recommends: That the schedule of investments be adopted. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT A Schedule of all monies invested under Section 625 of the Local Government Act for the month of August 2005 is attached to Councillor’s Business Papers. Council’s Manager Finance certifies that the investments have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1999 – Section 16 and Council’s Investment Policy. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments • Investment Schedule for the month of August 2005.



CS/87 39 - 41 Wyong Road - Lease to Northern Nursery School MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.08 REPORT BY: Manager Governance, Anthony Fitzpatrick SUMMARY Update on the proposal for the reconstruction of the Northern Nursery School at 39 - 41 Wyong Road. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Governance recommends: That: A. No further action be taken in relation to a loan borrowing application by Council to

provide funding for the reconstruction of the Northern Nursery School. B. The General Manager be delegated authority to negotiate with the Board of the

Northern Nursery School in relation to the proposed sale of the land occupied by the School at a market value that recognises the land’s current restrictive 5(a) Community Use zoning and the community and social obligations that the site is addressing, for further report to Council on any outcomes.

Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: No REPORT Council at its meeting on 6 June 2005 considered the feasibility study for temporary and new accommodation for the Northern Nursery School and resolved that: A. The advices be received.

B. The concept feasibility study for temporary and new accommodation for the Northern Nursery School prepared by Tompkin Whittle Pty Limited be noted.

C. Council grant owner’s consent to the lodgment of a development application for the reconstruction of the Northern Nursery School.

D. The Northern Nursery School be requested to provide Quantity Surveyor advice confirming the estimated cost of the project, together with an independent condition assessment of the existing building to confirm its condition and life expectancy.

E. A further report be referred to Council addressing the matters requiring further investigation and relating to the new Lease, rental, funding, level of student fees charged (including market vs. affordable), building condition, confirmation of building costs, loan mechanisms, alternative accommodation contingency plans/costings and priority access issues and making a recommendation in relation to a new Lease and a loan agreement with Northern Nursery School. The report is to also address the alternative of selling the site to the School.


Actions to date The School has submitted a building condition report prepared by URS Australia Pty Limited indicating that movement of the supporting ground will continue to occur due to the inherent nature of the supporting ground. Movement at present is marginal. The report notes that these ongoing movements will not only require regular building maintenance but will also not justify investment on building renovations and improvements, resulting in the continuous deterioration of the building condition and amenity. No life expectancy of the building is offered in the report however it details a monitoring program to minimise risks associated with the continuing use of the existing building, noting that instability of a catastrophic nature will not occur without sufficient warning in the form of cracking to the walls. The report notes that the only reasonable option for improving the building condition will be to demolish the existing building and to rebuild with foundations supported on solid ground. The School has prepared and lodged a Development Application on 29 August 2005. The Quantity Surveyor’s Certificate lodged with the DA estimates construction costs at $1,490,500. Potential temporary accommodation during the construction phase has been located at the buildings adjacent to the parade ground in the former School of Artillery, North Head Barracks, Manly which may be suitable and available subject to soil testing. The School cannot commit to it until the issue of funding is resolved. Council’s preference is for the School to obtain its own loan funds for the project and has insisted that this avenue be investigated in the first instance. The School has explored the feasibility of obtaining loan funding itself for the project with the School’s banker advising that it is unable to fund a loan directly to the School unless Council as owner of the land guaranteed the loan. Council's auditor recommends that it is inappropriate for Council to be Guarantor to a loan taken out by the School. As Council is unable to guarantee the loan Council would only be able to assist by borrowing the funds itself, then lend the funds to the School under a loan and interest repayment agreement. Such an arrangement would adversely impact Council’s debt ratio comparative performance indicator. This option would need to be approved by Council and would require the approval of the Minister for Local Government. Council would be required to make application to the Minister to increase Council’s borrowing limit for 2005/2006 which would be subject to a capital expenditure review approval to accord with Department of Local Government requirements. As the project is outside the normal scope of “an authorised purpose”, a capital expenditure review would require some detailed work including cost/benefit analysis in support of the application. This would also include Council’s auditors undertaking a review of past and proposed budgets to confirm that loan and interest repayments to Council would be sustainable for the School. The advice from the Department of Local Government is that the current global borrowing limit for local government is already exceeded, making the chances of receiving a favourable response to an application to further increase its loan borrowing limit highly unlikely. Funds for the proposed building works were not include in Council’s 2005/2006 loan borrowing application, as the feasibility study had not been considered at that stage and Council has not to this point approved borrowing for this purpose. The School has been advised that in view of the above it may not be in Council’s power to obtain a loan borrowing approval to fund the proposed a loan to the School in 2005/2006. Applications in future financial years to increase Council’s borrowing limit to accommodate the School’s funding needs will also be subject to the approval of the Minister and a capital expenditure review approval.


With regard to the alternative proposal of Council selling the land to the School, Council’s valuer has assessed the site and advises that the market value of the land is $2.3M. The valuer notes that it would cost the School $3.6M to purchase comparable land with zoning that allowed a preschool use to establish a new preschool at a new site in the precinct. The School has indicated that it is highly unlikely it will ever have the ability to purchase the land. Council’s valuer discounted the market value of $2.9M by 20% to take account its current restrictive 5(a) Community Use zoning, which is a one off ‘spot’ zoning in a residential 2(a1) location. It would be reasonable for Council to consider a further discount to the market value having regard to the use of the site meeting community and social obligations, given that 85% to 95% of children enrolled at the Centre live in Mosman. If a 50% discount was applied for instance this would reduce the market value to $1.45M which would be an option that the School should consider, given that the School has proposed that it could meet loan repayments on a $1.35M loan for the building project by increasing fees by $10.50 per place per day. That is, for an additional $10.00+ per place per day the School may well be able to purchase the land and have complete security of tenure, plus provide it with the equity to obtain a loan for the building project. It is considered that this option should be fully investigated by the School with the aid of independent financial advice rather than rejecting it outright. Obviously any sale of the land to the School and the cessation of a lease agreement would limit Council’s ability to influence the access policies of the School. Proposed action on funding The effect of the School funding a loan repayment has been modelled and it would push the present fee of $34.00 per place per day to $44.50 per place per day. This model is conservative and it is anticipated that the fee increase to fund the actual loan repayment would come in lower. This fee is comparable to the fees charged by other local 9.00am to 3.00pm preschools of $42.50 to $44.00. It is considered there is margin for the School to consider funding the purchase of the land. Notwithstanding that the School is anxious to be in a position to commence works in December 2005, it is considered highly unlikely that a loan borrowing increase would be approved by the Department of Local Government in 2005/2006 and Council can give no guarantee that it would be approved any time after that. Accordingly, funding by way of a loan through Council may not be achievable in the short term and as Council has no other available funds, the position is at an impasse. Whilst this may be disappointing for the School, the work done to date is not wasted, as any development consent granted by Council presently allows 2 years for work to commence. It has always been Council’s preference that the School obtain its own funding for the project. Noting that Council receives no return on the land as it is provided rent free to the School, it is considered that the School should be investigating further the proposal by Council to purchase the land, possibly at a further discounted value to reflect the restrictive use of the land and the community and social obligations the site is addressing. Any sale would need to be conditioned to ensure that an agreement was in place that in the event of the School ceasing operation, Council had first option of purchasing the land back at a valuation assessed on the same basis on which it may be sold. The School should be considering all options to raise the funds to purchase the land, including fee structures, continuation of building levies and fundraising. Mechanisms to purchase the land may include taking out a loan for a full payment to Council or a deferred payment arrangement with Council. It is proposed that the General Manager be delegated authority to negotiate the matter with the School and a further report be made to Council on any outcomes. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services.



CS/88 Council Meetings - Motions Without Notice MOSPLAN REF: 01.01.01 REPORT BY: Manager Governance, Anthony Fitzpatrick SUMMARY Response to a Question Without Notice requesting the introduction of an urgency motion at Council Meetings. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Governance recommends: That the advices be received. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT At the meeting on 18 July 2005 Councillor Harvey asked the following Question Without Notice:

“Pittwater Council is able to deal with a Business without Notice as an “urgency motion”. Councillors as well as the Mayor can instigate this instead of waiting for lengthy reports. Could Mosman instigate a similar motion please?”

The matter was referred to the Director Corporate Services for report to Council. Clause 24 of the Code of Meeting Practice with reference to Clause 14 of the Local Government (Meetings) Regulation 1999 states: “24. Giving Notice of Business (Clause 14 Regulation)

(1) Council must not transact business at a meeting of the Council:

a. unless the Councillor has given notice of the business in writing by 12 noon on the Thursday immediately preceding the meeting; and

b. unless notice of the business has been sent to the Councillors at least 3 days

before the meeting or, in the event of an extraordinary meeting called in an emergency, at least one day.

(2) Sub-clause (1) does not apply to the consideration of business at a meeting if the

business:

a. (i) is already before, or directly relates to a matter that is already before the council; or


(ii) is the election of a Chairperson to preside at the meeting as provided by

clause 18 (1); or

(iii) is a matter or topic put to the meeting by the Chairperson in accordance with clause 26; or

(iv) is a motion for the adoption of recommendations of a Committee of the

council.

b. reports of Committees of the Council;

c. reports from officers which in the opinion of the Chairperson or the General Manager are urgent; and

d. reports from officers placed on the agenda pursuant to a decision of a

Committee that additional information be provided to the Council in relation to a matter before the Committee.

(3) Despite Sub-clause (1), business may be transacted at a meeting of the Council even

though due notice of the business has not been given to Councillors. However, this can happen only if:

a. a motion is passed to have the business transacted at the meeting; and

b. the business proposed to be brought forward is ruled by the Chairperson to be

of great urgency and the reason for urgency is recorded in the Minutes.

Such a motion can be moved without notice.

(4) Despite Clause 36 of this Code, only the mover of a motion referred to in Sub-clause (3) can speak to the motion before it is put.”

For a motion without notice to be considered at a Council Meeting, it must meet the criteria set out in Sub-clause (3) above. Accordingly, a Councillor may propose to bring forward a motion without notice, however it may only be considered if the Chairperson (presumably, the Mayor) rules the business to be of great urgency and provides the reason for the urgency. The Council must then pass a motion that the motion without notice be considered. Only then may the motion without notice be dealt with. Otherwise appropriate notice has to be given to allow a motion to be dealt with at a Council Meeting in compliance with the Regulation. The Code of Meeting Practice cannot be amended to provide for any other form of urgent motion or motion without notice. There is no reference in Pittwater Council’s Code of Meeting Practice to an “urgency motion” or the like, other than the requirements set out in Clause 14 of the Local Government (Meetings) Regulation 1999. Any urgent motion at Pittwater would be dealt with in the same manner as at Mosman, other than there being no requirement to record the reason for the urgency in the Minutes. This has been confirmed with Pittwater Council’s Administration. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services


CS/89 Mosman Skate Park MOSPLAN REF: 10.03.14 REPORT BY: Manager Property & Assets, Gordon Brown SUMMARY To review the installation and operation of the Skate Park and in particular address the issues raised in the Acoustic Report. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Property & Assets recommends: That:

A. The advices be received.

B. The actions taken in respect of the installation of a pool height safety fence be noted and endorsed.

C. Further consideration or development of the sprinkler system proposal be held in abeyance at least until after the findings of the Environmental Management Plan for Balmoral which was adopted by Council on 06 June 2005 is completed.

D. Necessary measures be taken as detailed in the report to eliminate the offensive metallic grinding emanating from use of the “handrail” feature within the park as identified in the Noise Consultant’s report.

E. Council install a steel security style fence around the facility at a cost not exceeding $25,600 with the funding to be referred to the Manager Finance for report to Council in conjunction with the 30 September 2005 Quarterly Financial Statement.

F. No further action be taken to install either a roof structure or a fully enclosed building on the site.

Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: No REPORT The report addresses the following:

1. Action taken in relation to the safety audit report tabled to the Council meeting of 6 June 2005 at which Council resolved, “That Council consider installing a fence the height of a pool fence around the accessible sections of the perimeter of the skate facility”

2. Provide advices in respect of the use of a motion detector sprinkler system to manage the permitted hours of use

3. Report on findings & recommendations following completion of the noise assessment of the skate park activities

4. Respond to Question without Notice on 6 June 2005 from Councillor Connon – Re the Skateboard: “if noise, discomfort to nearby residents and/or accidents become a constant feature, could we have an estimate as to the cost of putting up a building around the facility. This could alleviate noise and allow the park to be locked at night.”


BACKGROUND Council completed the construction of the skate park facility in March 2005 and a safety audit report was submitted to the 6 June Council meeting wherein the following actions were endorsed:

• The Audit Report be received

• The draft “Plan of Management” be finalised for formal adoption by Council following the completion of the noise assessment.

• The feasibility of installing a motion detector trigger system to wet the skating area surface to prevent use of the park outside the permitted hours be further investigated.

• That Council consider installing a fence the height of a pool fence around the accessible sections of the perimeter of the skate facility.

It was also noted that a condition of the DA approval required a noise assessment to be carried out within 3 months of the opening of the facility and Council was advised by the Manager Property and Assets that this was due to be completed in July. OUTCOMES 1. Pool Height Safety Fence Installation Following consideration of the safety audit report the Manager Property and Assets commissioned the construction and installation of a 1.05m high fence around the unprotected areas of the skate park to enclose it and prevent uncontrolled access onto the facility. A continuation of the existing fence surrounding the higher sections of the facility was installed in late July. This fence is designed to encourage users to enter the facility via the defined path and entrance way on the western side of the facility. 2. Motion Detector Sprinkler System This proposal involved the installation of a motion detector to trigger a sprinkler system which would wet the skating area surface whenever encroachment occurred during unauthorised hours thus rendering the facility unusable. There were a number of critical factors in assessing this idea but the restrictions imposed by Sydney Water preclude Council from irrigating this type of asset using potable water. In order to overcome this restriction the Manager Property and Assets, in conjunction with the Manager Assets and Services and the Manager Environment and Services considered “capturing” stormwater from the Oval pavilion roof or “harvesting stormwater” from alternative sources to act as a supply, but the cost of doing this proved prohibitive. In view of this situation it was decided to postpone any further action on this proposal and await the findings of the “Environmental Management Action Plan” which is researching and reporting upon the feasibility of stormwater reuse, groundwater extraction and rainwater harvesting for a range of uses at Balmoral which is due to be published in November 2005. This plan will identify ways that Council can capture and re-use water in a cost effective manner and consideration of any system for the skate park could be included as part of this overall plan. However if Council adopts recommendation 4) above then it is anticipated that the sprinkler system will not be necessary. 3. Noise Assessment Following the receipt of quotations from 4 specialist consultants, RSA Acoustics were commissioned to undertake a study of the noise emissions from the use of the skate park. Council provided a comprehensive brief for the study which required RSA Acoustics to report on:


• The times and dates the studies were conducted. • The equipment used and the noise levels recorded. • Findings and analysis. • Comments as to whether the noise levels satisfy EPA standards and are acceptable. • Any measures that can be taken to reduce unsatisfactory noise levels.

RSA commenced its study in July and carried out a number of tests and readings culminating in a report which included the following key points:

• There are no adopted specific noise limits in NSW for this type of facility and the assessment is based on ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the “Environmental Operations Act (1997)” with reference to “Industrial Noise Policy” which was developed by the Environment Protection Agency NSW in January 2000.

• Measurements were taken at the park and on private properties close to the facility.

• Measurements were recorded during weekday daylight hours (including during school holidays), weekend daylight hours and the evening of Thursday 7 July.

• Operational noise measurements were obtained when activities such as rugby games, training sessions and the pre-school use were occurring

The report also identified that there were a number of activities (other than the use of the skate park) that take place in the area which exceed the recommended noise criteria and that the skate park generally is not worse than any of these. However the Consultant considered that there were certain facets of the skate park’s use that needed to be controlled or changed to ensure that the noise generated was not unduly intrusive.

In short these recommendations are:

a. Council to take appropriate measures (in this case a security fence is recommended) to prohibit out of hours use.

b. Certain features should be removed or modified to limit the distinctive noises created by their use.

c. An absorbent roof structure be built over the facility to deaden the sound caused by boards smacking on the park surface.

Council Findings in Relation to the Noise Assessment Recommendations a. The introduction of a suitably designed security fence would provide an effective deterrent

to prevent the park being used out of hours. The Manager Property and Assets has met on site with a representative of Northern Group (fencing contractors) who has recommended the construction and installation of a suitable security fence (to a height above ground of 2m) at a cost of $25,592. The vertical railings would be a square section design with a “spear tip” end profile to act as a deterrent to would be climbers. The fence posts would be fixed to the outer wall of the facility or concreted into the ground with the panels located on top of the surrounding sandstone wall, painted heritage green to blend in with the surrounding trees and greenery. A sliding gate would be provided at the single entrance point on the western side and would be secured by a padlock every evening by Council Rangers. The photographs below are indicative of the style of fence to be installed which is similar to that being installed at many schools and also at the Brookvale Bus Depot.


Recommendation - Council install a steel security style fence around the facility at a cost of $25,592

b. It has been ascertained from the noise assessment that one particular feature of the skate park (a pipe rail - pictured below) is producing a very intrusive noise when certain tricks are performed.

c. To address this problem advice has been sought from specialists in the skateboard world who have advised of 3 options to minimise the intensity of the sound:

i. Fill up the circular top member rail with foam to “deaden” the noise.

ii. Redesign the feature to include a parallel tube which will stop rider’s boards “screeching”.

iii. Completely remove the feature.

Recommendation – Undertake a “process of elimination” in carrying out i to iii above to remove the offensive metallic grinding as identified in the Noise Consultant’s report.

d. The erection of a noise attenuation roof over the facility could be completed, however the cost to do this would exceed $100,000 (including extensive work to provide suitable


foundations and drainage) and would require DA approval. The report did state that the intrusive noises predominantly occurred when the park was being used out of the permitted hours. If Council is in agreement to construct the higher safety fence as indicated at (a) above, then it is anticipated that this would effectively control access and virtually eliminate the noise intrusion.

4. Response to QWN from Councillor Connon Without preparing a detailed design and getting formal quotations a rough order estimate is as follows:

• Based on the purchase cost of a typical steel panelled “industrial style” building of a size of 45m x 20m x 3m high would be in the vicinity of $50,000,

• Added to which would be the cost of carrying out excavations (which may require specialist work to deal with contaminated soil),

• The construction of foundations

• The erection costs, drainage work, services supply and the provision of fixtures and fittings would be likely to exceed $150,000.

The total capital cost is therefore likely to exceed $200,000 and, assuming DA approval was forthcoming, Council would also have the annual maintenance and running cost issues to contend with. Furthermore there would be operational considerations such as the need for lighting and ventilation, as well as how to control temperature. Finally, activities within an enclosed space would require significant management and supervision so as to address anti-social behaviour including vandalism and safety measures particularly given that the activities would not be visible to anyone outside the facility.

Recommendation – Council not to provide a covered building to enclose the facility. Recommendations endorsed by Director Corporate Services. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachment • Noise Impact Statement – Mosman Skate Park



CS/90 Local Government Amendment (Discipline) Act 2004 and ICAC

MOSPLAN REF: 01.03.02 REPORT BY: Manager Governance, Anthony Fitzpatrick SUMMARY Advice from the Independent Commission Against Corruption informing of the changes brought about by the Local Government Amendment (Discipline) Act 2004. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Governance recommends: That the advices be received. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT The Local Government Amendment (Discipline) Act 2004 became law on 1 January 2005. The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has written to councils confirming the additional scope the Act gives the ICAC to investigate the conduct of councillors and council staff. Provided the requirements of Section 8 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 are met, the ICAC may investigate conduct of councillors and council staff which involves or may involve a substantial breach of a council’s code of conduct. The ICAC have produced a brochure “The Local Government Amendment (Discipline) Act 2004 and the ICAC” to inform councillors and council staff of the changes. The brochure has been distributed to Councillors and is also available at www.icac.nsw.gov.au/go/prevention-and-education/local-government. The brochure includes information concerning the powers granted to the ICAC by the recently commenced Independent Commission Against Corruption Amendment Act 2005. This enables the ICAC to issue a report to the Director-General of the Department of Local Government recommending that consideration be given to the suspension of a councillor. Information is also provided on some key aspects of the Model Code of Conduct relating to non-pecuniary conflicts of interest and inappropriate interactions. Council adopted an amended Model Code of Conduct in February 2005. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services



CS/91 Citizen of the Year MOSPLAN REF: 10.08.11 REPORT BY: Manager Governance, Anthony Fitzpatrick SUMMARY Response to a Question Without Notice concerning nominations for Citizen of the Year. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Governance recommends: That non-residents involved in voluntary community service or other activities directly benefiting the Mosman community or environment or bringing credit to Mosman be eligible for nomination for Citizen of the Year and Young Citizen of the Year. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT At the meeting on 1 August 2005 Councillor Wilton asked the following Question Without Notice:

“Could the Citizen of the Year include those who might not live in Mosman, but through voluntary community service could warrant recognition for this prestigious award?”

The matter was referred to the General Manager for report to the next meeting of Council. The process for awarding of Citizen of the Year and Young Citizen of the Year was last considered by Council in October 2004. At present, the Awards are for local citizens who have made a particular effort during the preceding year for the benefit of Mosman or have been involved in activities which have brought credit to the Mosman area. The proposal put forward in the Question Without Notice would extend nominations to recognise voluntary community service by a non-resident. Provided this voluntary community service or other activities directly benefits the Mosman community or environment or brings credit to Mosman, it is considered reasonable that non-residents involved in such activities be eligible for nomination. The review and selection of nominations would continue to be considered on individual merit by the selection panel. Recommendation endorsed by General Manager.



CS/92 Field Lane and 2 Mandolong Road MOSPLAN REF: 02.01.10 REPORT BY: Manager Governance, Anthony Fitzpatrick SUMMARY Application to change the name of Field Lane (M23) and the address of 2 Mandolong Road. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Governance recommends: That the matter be determined by Council. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: No REPORT Application has been received from the developer of 2 Mandolong Road to rename Field Lane to Field Road, Street or Avenue. Field Lane (M23) is a narrow vehicular carriageway running between Military Road and Clifford Street, adjacent to the Fire Station and was named in 1990 along with a number of other lanes. The lane was named after three generations of firemen at the Mosman Fire Station. The development at 2 Mandolong Road comprises 6 residential dwellings fronting Field Lane and lot numbers would be assigned to the 6 individual dwellings in the strata. There would be the opportunity for confusion with addresses for the development should the address remain 2 Mandolong Road as no dwelling will be fronting Mandolong Road. Whilst the change of address for the development is appreciated, it would appear to be a marketing issue for the developer to have the name of Field Lane changed, as Field Lane could remain as an address for the new dwellings in the development. In support of the application to change the name from a “lane” to a “road, street or avenue”, the applicant argues that a 0.75m wide strip of land along the full frontage of Field Lane is to be dedicated to provide a footpath, taking the accessway from a traditional lane to a functioning road. No footpath exists on either side at present and the accessway is only wide enough for 2 vehicles to pass in opposite directions provided none are parked in the accessway. As the dedication does not affect the remainder of the accessway to Clifford Street and as the accessway is still a narrow vehicular carriageway, it will still function as a lane and the applicant’s argument to the contrary is not supported. Accordingly whilst the change of address of 2 Mandolong Road to 1 Field Lane is supported, the change of name of Field Lane to Field Road, Street or Avenue is not. However, should the applicant wish to distance the development from a “lane” address and the Council is supportive, it is proposed that an alternative of Field Way be adopted. This has been discussed with the applicant, who is in agreement with the proposal. Should Council be supportive of the change of name from Field Lane to Field Way, it would be appropriate to pass the following resolution:


That: A. Council make application to rename Field Lane to Field Way. B. The General Manager be authorised to progress the matter of the renaming of

the lane and the change of address for 2 Mandolong Road to 1 Field Way administratively.

Should the Council not support the change of name, it would be appropriate to pass the following resolution:

That: A. The application to change the name of Field Lane be refused. B. Should the applicant wish to pursue the change of address for 2 Mandolong

Road, the General Manager be authorised to progress the matter of the change of address for 2 Mandolong Road to 1 Field Lane administratively.

Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services


CS/93 Inkerman Street Wharf - Supplementary Report on Tender MOSPLAN REF: 10.04.01 REPORT BY: Manager Property & Assets, Gordon Brown SUMMARY Further advices following negotiations with preferred tenderer for the Inkerman St Wharf Contract OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Property & Assets recommends: That the Contract for the Repairs and Rehabilitation of the Inkerman St Wharf be awarded to Mayale Pty Ltd in the sum of $63,568.00 subject to receiving confirmation from NSW Maritime that the grant will be revised to fund 50% of this sum. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: No REPORT Background At its meeting on 1 August 2005 Council in respect of Item CS/79 adopted the Manager Property & Assets recommendation to award the tender for the Separable Portion A in respect of the repairs and rehabilitation of Inkerman Street Wharf and the adjacent sea wall to Mayale Pty Ltd and to not proceed with the provision of dinghy racks at this site. Subsequent to the resolution, a meeting was held on 16 August 2005 between Manager Property & Assets and the preferred tenderer Mayale Pty Ltd to clarify matters relating to the tendered price once it was known that the dinghy rack construction was not to proceed. These negotiations became necessary as a result of advice received from Mayale Pty Ltd after the Council meeting. Although the tender document clearly stated that the schedules were separable portions A & B (and could therefore be proceeded with independently) Mayale confirmed that their tender was priced on the incorrect assumption that both elements of work were to be carried out. Council did ask for confirmation of the pricing strategy prior to the 1 August meeting but Mayale’s response was not received until after that meeting, hence the original recommendation to Council and subsequent decision to proceed on the basis of the initial tender offer. Mayale Pty Ltd advised via fax to the Manager Property and Assets (MPA) that a change in their price for Separable Portion A (the Wharf and sea wall repairs) was necessary as a result of Council’s decision not to proceed with the dinghy rack work and this amounted to an additional sum of $11,000 over and above their previous offer. Mayale stated that their tender, on the basis that only Separable Portion A is to be undertaken, is $66,685 for this element of the contract. In discussion Mayale’s representative explained that the costs associated with gaining access to the site and transporting materials were significant and fixed and the loss of the dinghy racks meant that these costs could no longer be apportioned


to that element of the work and had to be covered by the Wharf works alone. Thus they indicated that they were unable to do the work for the originally quoted amount. MPA did point out that there was an error in the original schedule A in that the measurement item for the piles had been listed twice. This meant that the sum of $3,000 allowed for by Mayale for this item would be deducted from the revised tender figure and this was accepted. The actual amended tender offer therefore now stands at $63,685, which is $15,185 above Council’s budget allocation of $48,500 (funded by $26,000 from Council Capital funds and $22,500 from a NSW Maritime grant). In view of the additional cost the NSW Maritime were contacted verbally and in writing with a view to it increasing its current grant allocation of $22,500 to meet the 50% funding. The initial verbal indications to take the NSW Maritime contribution to $31,847.50 were favourable given the tender price changes. On this basis Council will need to find an additional $5,840 to meet its commitment to fund the remaining 50%. Funds have been identified across several items within the Property & Assets budget to meet this additional sum and it is therefore recommended that, subject to receiving confirmation from NSW Maritime that it will provide 50% of the necessary funding, Council accept the amended tender offer from Mayale in the sum of $63,568. These variations will be identified in the Manager Finance’s report to Council on its financial position as at 30 September 2005. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services


11. ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORTS

EP/207 Want Street Median Island Upgrade MOSPLAN REF: 10.02.08 REPORT BY: Team Leader Open Space, John Grady SUMMARY Request from residents of Want Street to have the centre median strip of Want Street included in the public gardens upgrade program for the current year. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets and Services recommends: That a street garden upgrade for Want Street be included in the public gardens upgrade program for this financial year and that works be coordinated by Council’s Landscape Designer as outlined in the report. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT Council has received requests from a number of residents of Want Street to have the median strip in the street upgraded as a garden. A set of criteria and priority program for public garden upgrades was reported to the Natural Environment Committee (NEC) on 24 February 2004. The NEC endorsed the criteria for assessment and the Public Garden Upgrade Priority Program. The adopted program did not include Want Street. Council has been progressively working through the Public Gardens Upgrade Program and has completed works at The Civic Centre, Crux Park, Herron Park, The Bathers Pavilion, Cnr The Esplanade & Botanic Road and recently Military Road street gardens. Coming works include Spit East car park, Reservoir Park, Mosman Park and the Spit Road/Stanton Road car park. Under the criteria adopted by Council the Want Street median strip would be rated as follows: Profile: 2 Use: 2 Works Required: 2 Inquires: 5 – Total 11. With the above rating there are at least 7 sites which have a higher priority rating. However in acknowledgement of the high level of inquiry from residents it is recommended that the works be undertaken this financial year. The works will be a basic upgrade including spraying out and mulching of existing turf areas and planting with native species in accordance with Councils ‘Guide to Native plant Species for Mosman Gardens’. A particular issue will be the preservation of sight lines for traffic using the street as will opportunities for pedestrians to cross the median. It should be noted that this type of garden upgrade is a relatively simple process which does not require formal landscape plans to be developed. The street received a low ‘profile’ rating


and is used primarily by residents and their visitors. Works will be co-ordinated by Councils Landscape Designer in consultation with residents which have made submissions.


EP/208 5 Morella Road - Notice to Consider Listing on the State Heritage Register

MOSPLAN REF: 03.04 REPORT BY: Strategic Planner, Maxine Bayley SUMMARY Notice from the New South Wales Heritage Office of its intention to consider listing 5 Morella Road on the State Heritage Register. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Transport recommends: That: A. The report be noted. B. Council make a written submission supporting the proposed listing of 5 Morella Road

on the State Heritage Register. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT Background No. 5 Morella Road, “Morella”, is a private residence located at Clifton Gardens. The building and gardens of “Morella” are of heritage significance. No. 5 Morella Road was initially identified as historically significant during the 1988 Heritage Review. It was further identified as significant during the 1996 Heritage Review. Currently the building and surrounding gardens are listed in Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 as a Heritage Item. The building is also listed on the Royal Australian Institute of Architects list of significant 20th century buildings. In 1999 Council approached the NSW Heritage Office concerning the poor condition of 5 Morella Road. The Heritage Office indicated that it was unable to act as the property was not listed on the State Heritage Register and therefore it could not be dealt with under the Heritage Act 1977. In 2001 Council approached the Heritage Office to pursue the listing of 5 Morella Road on the State Heritage Register. Council also attempted to contact the owner of 5 Morella Road to offer financial assistance under the Local Heritage Assistance Fund to undertake urgent repair works. Correspondence was received in 2003 from the Heritage Council stating that the nomination of 5 Morella Road was being considered by the Heritage Office. On 19 July 2005 Council received a Notice of Intention from the NSW Heritage Office to consider the listing of 5 Morella Road on the State Heritage Register.


Level of Significance Council’s Heritage Advisor has assessed 5 Morella Road and concluded that:

“No. 5 Morella Road is an outstanding example of the Burley Griffin style of architecture within the Mosman Area and has been assessed as being of State significance. Built for the Parer family the house combines elements of Art Deco and Romanesque details in a unique form set in a native landscape. The house is the work of Eric Nicholls the partner of Walter Burley Griffin who continued his practice after Griffin’s untimely death in the mid 1930s.”

A draft Inventory Sheet prepared by the NSW Heritage Office for the listing of 5 Morella Road on the State Heritage Register is attached to Councillor’s Business Papers. Site Visit A site visit to 5 Morella Road was held on 26 May 2005. In attendance were:

o James Taylor, James Taylor & Associates Civil & Structural Consulting Engineers (representing the owner),

o Professor Ian Jack, Chair Heritage Council, State Heritage Register Committee, o Susan Macdonald, Assistant Director, NSW Heritage Office o Anthony Mitchell, Heritage Office o Paul Connett, Hughes Trueman Consulting Engineers, Planners & Managers o Robert Staas, Heritage Advisor to Mosman Council o Maxine Bayley, Strategic Planner, Mosman Council

The aim of the site visit was to assess the condition of 5 Morella Road to assist the Heritage Office determine whether the property should be listed on the State Heritage Register. Previous inspections of the property indicated the house and garden have been poorly maintained and showing signs of dilapidation. The site visit revealed the property to be in very poor condition. Access to the front of the property off Morella Road is hazardous due to debris and overgrowing vegetation. Access into the building was not attempted due to safety concerns. The house was found to be unsafe to enter and partially collapsed. Internally the building shows extensive signs of water damage as the building is without a roof. Tarpaulin introduced in 1996 as a temporary water proofing measure has since failed. Generally 5 Morella Road shows signs of severe and long term neglect. However it was decided that the building was structurally sound. Attendees were also in agreement that the building would need to be completely rebuilt internally due to its current condition, but that the exterior form could be retained and enhanced. The site visit concluded with representatives from the Heritage Office and Heritage Council indicating they wished to further discuss the property and its potential listing on the State Heritage Register. Notice of Intention to Consider Listing Council has received notice of intention from the NSW Heritage Office to list “Morella” on the State Heritage Register. Written submissions are being accepted by the Heritage Office until 19 September 2005. 5 Morella Road has been identified in numerous heritage studies as an item of heritage significance. Upon further investigation the property has been identified as potentially warranting listing on the State Heritage Register. Such a move would bring the property under the jurisdiction of the NSW Heritage Office and Heritage Act 1977. The Heritage Act 1977 stipulates minimum standards of maintenance for all listed properties. It is hoped that


listing the property on the State Heritage Register will ensure the current owners meet these minimum maintenance standards. “Morella” is in need of urgent stabilisation and repair works. Without listing on the State Heritage Register it is unlikely that these urgent works will be undertaken. If deterioration of the building the costs and scope of works necessary will escalate until a point is reached where it is no longer feasible. The proposed listing should be supported as it may lead to much need works being carried out to save the building from further deterioration. Recommendation endorsed by Director Environment and Planning COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations • Draft Inventory Report created for 5 Morella Road by the New South Wales Heritage

Office



EP/209 Cowles Road Street Trees MOSPLAN REF: 05.05. REPORT BY: Team Leader Open Space, John Grady SUMMARY Impacts of pest attack on street trees in Cowles road in regard to heritage listing. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets and Services recommends: That the report be received and noted. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT It has been reported to Council previously that a significant number of street trees in Cowles Road are in decline. A report was considered by Council’s Policy and Finance Committee on 6 May 2003 (Item PF/71) in regard to the street trees in Cowles Road and the effect of thaumastocorid bugs on Eucalyptus scoparia along Cowles Road and throughout Sydney. Thaumastocorid bugs result in a condition known as ‘winterbronzing’ which can affect the health and wellbeing of a tree. The officer’s recommendation to contribute $5000 to the University of Sydney to further research to the impacts and management of winterbronzing was adopted. This research is continuing. The issues and the impacts of winterbronzing were again reported to Council on 6 September 2004 (Item EP/174). It is stated in the report:

‘Cowles Road, which intersects with Military, is well known for the mature Eucalypts which line the street, particularly to the south of Military Road. Unfortunately these trees, Eucalyptus scoparia, are over-mature in age and have been devastated by insect attack and will all be progressively removed over the next 5 years as they die out.’

In acknowledgment of the issues and the fact that the trees will have to be progressively removed Council undertook significant street tree planting in Cowles Road late in 2004. It should be noted that the street trees on Cowles Road are listed as heritage items under Councils LEP. The management of all trees, being living organisms which are affected by a variety of environmental factors, can be complex. Despite the listing of these and other trees as heritage items under the LEP it is necessary to undertake inspections, pruning, and in drastic circumstances removal of trees which pose an imminent hazard to persons and/or property. As has been reported previously many trees will need to be removed progressively over the coming years. Some replacement trees have already been planted along Cowles Road and will continue to be planted in accordance with Council’s Street Tree Planting program. Council’s commitment to tree management is reflected through its Urban Forest Policy. This policy and the documents referred to in it, outline specific processes and criteria for the


management of Mosman’s Urban Forest to enable the enjoyment of this valuable asset by current residents and future generations. The purpose of this report is to alert Councillors to the fact that the street trees in Cowles Road need to be managed from a public safety perspective first and foremost and this may at times conflict with their heritage listing.


EP/210 Bushland Restoration Contracts MOSPLAN REF: 05.04.02 REPORT BY: Bushland Officer, Steven Smith SUMMARY The Bushland Restoration Contracts 2001 – 2011 are due for renewal following completion of the 4th year of operation. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets and Services recommends: That the Bushland Restoration Contracts 2001 – 2011 for the Middle Harbour and Port Jackson catchments be renewed with Urban Bushland Management Projects and Australian Bushland Restoration respectively for a further 3 years in accordance with the options available to Council under the terms of the contracts. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: No REPORT Following a complete review of Council’s bushland management activities in 2000/2001, including a flora and fauna survey, Council awarded contracts for bushland restoration to Urban Bushland Management Projects (UBMP) for Middle Harbour catchment, and Australian Bushland Restoration (ABR) for the Port Jackson catchment in 2001. The contracts were renewed in 2002 following a review of the first year of operation and extended for a further 3 years to 30 September 2005. A further review is now due and Council has the option to extend the contracts for a further 3 years. Council’s Bushland Officer and an external auditor recently carried out a comprehensive review and audit of all bushland reserves managed under the contracts. The external auditor was Adam Burrowes, the Bushland Officer from North Sydney Council and Mosman Council’s Bushland Officer from 1999 – 2002. Adam was also responsible for putting together the contracts and was familiar with all of the bushland reserves in Mosman when the contracts commenced. The review also involved an analysis of the bushland restoration annual work reports provided for each reserve. An assessment of the success of on-ground works in the reserves was an important part of this process. It should also be noted that regular visitation of the reserves on days that the contractors were working to assess the methods being used on-site for weed control and regeneration also occurred throughout the year. Another important part of the review was the contractor’s performance in regard to contract administration i.e. timeliness of invoicing, quality of monthly reports and annual work reports and plans and the uptake of information forwarded to contractors by Council. Following is a summary of the outcomes of the review including comments from the external auditor.


Middle Harbour Catchment Contract Parriwi Park UBMP is meeting its contract specification. Quakers Hat Park UBMP is meeting its contract specification. Quakers Hat North UBMP is meeting its contract specification. Wyargine Reserve UBMP is meeting its contract specification. Problems with Ehrharta noted, however the period when the contractors could not spray the reserve is most likely responsible for the increase. Lawry Plunkett Reserve UBMP is just meeting its contract specification. This is mostly due to Council’s Bushland and Heritage Project in this reserve. There were inaccuracies in mapping the reserve and too many weed species in flower or about to flower. The Spit Reserve UBMP’s performance is above contract specification. Balmoral Reserve UBMP is just meeting its contract specification although the site is not progressing as well as one would hope. Site suffers from lack of resources and mapping of native vegetation was inaccurate. The contractor will reassess resource allocation to this reserve to ensure contract specifications are met. Quakers Hat South UBMP’s performance is well above contract specification. This is mostly due to Council’s seawall and revegetation project. It was also aided by having access to heavy machinery to remove waste and re-shape the landscape. Parriwi Point UBMP is meeting its contract specification. Rosherville Reserve UBMP is meeting its contract specification. Parriwi Lighthouse UBMP’s performance is above contract specification. Chinaman’s Beach Dunes UBMP is meeting its contract specification. External Auditor Comments – Middle Harbour Catchment Comments from the external auditor are as follows,

“Bushland restoration work in the Middle Harbour Catchment has improved all of the contract areas to varying degrees. Some reserves, such as Balmoral and Wyargine, have improved but only slightly, while others such as The Spit, Quakers Hat North and Rosherville Reserve have had impressive weed control, regeneration and/or revegetation. Reserves such as Quakers Hat South and Lawry Plunkett have improved greatly, however, whether this is mostly due to the extensive project work (with additional


funds separate from the contracts) or due to the quality of the bush regenerators is debatable.” “Overall, UBM seem to be doing a good job and restoring the reserves in the Middle Harbour Catchment and improvements in all reserves were noticed.”

Port Jackson Catchment Contract Morella Road ABR performance is above contract specification. Clifton Gardens ABR is meeting its contract specification. This site has also benefited from a Metropolitan Greenspace Grant that allowed large weed trees to be removed, large scale revegetation works and creekline works. Curraghbeena Reserve ABR performance is above contract specification. Sirius Park East ABR is meeting its contract specification. Sirius Park West ABR is meeting its contract specification. Reid Park ABR is meeting its contract specification. Harnett Park ABR is meeting its contract specification. External Auditor Comments – Port Jackson Catchment Comments from the external auditor are as follows:

“With a higher density of urban consolidation and fewer northern aspects, natural regeneration in the Port Jackson Catchment will always be challenging. However, many of the reserves, especially the newly contracted reserves, have shown remarkable improvement.” “The most outstanding success in terms of regeneration was Curraghbeena Reserve. Woody weed removal and burns in the centre, with fast spreading weeds well controlled on top edges, the site has responded well with impressive regeneration. However, the small number of dwellings and stormwater outlets on the bushland edge has contributed to this.” “Clifton Gardens has also responded well to a combination of revegetation and regeneration and project work to control stormwater.” “Sirius Park East has mixed results with areas not responding well to regeneration. Sirius Park West also has issues of uncontrolled weeds on top edges and possible over clearing of primary weeds. Most serious area of concern with weed growth is on the unmade road, below McLeod Street (end of Curraghbeena Rd) and the entire edge of Curlew Camp Road.”

In conclusion, on-ground works have proceeded to a high standard overall. There has been a significant change to weed densities in all reserves since the inception of the Bushland


Restoration Contracts 2001-2011. The standard of all reports, monthly and annual has been high and have been fully descriptive of the work carried out within the reserves. Generally, all targets set in work plans have been met, with the exception of things such as planting which have had factors including exceptionally dry weather working against them and tree removals which have had political and financial reasons for their slow implementation. Contract administration has been an issue with both contractors. Overall the performance of both bushland contractors is excellent, bearing in mind the original state of the bushland and the amount of edge to area ratio of the reserves. That is all the reserves apart from Parriwi Park are bordered by urbanisation and are influenced by drainage changes, weed propagule influxes, vandalism and dumping. It is recommended that the Contracts for Bushland Restoration in both the Middle Harbour and Port Jackson catchments be renewed for a further 3 years in accordance with the options available to Council under the terms of the contracts. Copies of the annual work reports for 2004-2005 and annual work plans for 2005-2006 for each reserve will be available in the Councillors' Lounge for a period of 3 weeks from Monday 30 August 2005. Copies of the audit sheet for each reserve as completed by Council’s Bushland Officer and Adam Burrowes will also be available for viewing at these times. Any Councillor that wishes to review the annual report or work plan for an individual bushland reserve with a staff member is invited to contact the Manager Assets and Services.


EP/211 Ludwigia Longifolia - Declaration as a Noxious Weed MOSPLAN REF: 05.03.04 REPORT BY: Bushland Officer, Steven Smith SUMMARY Report on proposed declaration of Ludwigia longifolia as a W2 noxious weed under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993, in the Mosman LGA. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets and Services recommends: That Council endorse the declaration of Ludwigia longifolia as a W2 noxious weed under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993, in the Mosman LGA, subject to the approval of the Noxious Weeds Advisory Committee. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT Ludwigia longifolia (Willow Leaf Primrose) is a high priority ‘new incursion’ weed in the Sydney region and has been included in the NSW Department of Primary Industries list of weed alert species. It is already a major problem in the Central Coast and Hunter regions and is being found more and more throughout the Sydney region. It is believed that Ludwigia longifolia has the potential, similar to Ludwigia peruviana (declared noxious), to become a major weed and spread throughout Sydney’s waterways. Ludwigia longifolia is an introduced perennial shrub that invades watercourses and wetlands. Its thick growth obstructs water flow and out-competes native vegetation. Originally from South America, it was introduced in Australia as an ornamental aquatic plant. Each plant produces tens of thousands of tiny seeds that are easily spread by machinery and humans. Cuttings or broken pieces from the plant can also float and spread downstream. Although it is not currently found in Mosman and will most likely never be a problem due to limited potential habitat areas, Mosman Council is a member of the Sydney North Regional Weeds Committee and a participant in the Sydney-wide Regional Ludwigia Management Plan 2003-2008 which covers both Ludwigia species. This plan has been developed to co-ordinate a regional and strategic approach to control of Ludwigia species in the Sydney region and reduce its detrimental impact on the environment. The Plan has been endorsed by the Minister for Primary Industries’ Noxious Weeds Advisory Committee and the Department of Primary Industries. In the plan, it is proposed that Ludwigia longifolia be listed as a W2 noxious weed. Over the past two years, local and state government representatives on the Weeds Committee have discussed and agreed upon seeking a uniform regional listing for Ludwigia longifolia as a W2 declared noxious weed. As a W2 category, “the weed must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed”. These weeds pose a threat to agriculture, the environment or the community, and have the potential to spread to other areas. The Sydney North Regional Weeds Committee strongly supports the declaration of Ludwigia longifolia as a noxious weed to improve its management, prohibit its sale and distribution and thus assist Councils to take more


preventative measures now to reduce the future costs of weed control. In June 2005, the Sydney North Regional Weeds Committee submitted a list of revised noxious weed declarations to be consistent throughout all 11 LGAs in the region. On this list, Ludwigia peruviana, a weed of regional significance is declared as a W2 weed, and strategic control of this weed is already being undertaken by several Councils and in national parks in Sydney North. Both Ludwigia species are often found in close proximity. Having them both declared as W2 noxious weeds would maximise the opportunity for noxious weed funding from the Department of Primary Industries and effective on ground control. Because of the limited extent of infestations across Sydney the continuous suppression and destruction of all infestations through weed control programs and private property regulation is still a feasible control objective. The proposed listing is supported and recommended for endorsement.


EP/212 Tree Preservation Order MOSPLAN REF: 05.05.01 REPORT BY: Team Leader Open Space, John Grady SUMMARY Finalisation of making of new Tree Preservation Order pursuant to Council’s resolution of 8 July 2003. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets and Services recommends: That: A. Council confirm the operation of the Tree Preservation Order made by it on 14 March

2000 from the date of its coming into effect on 11 January 2001 up to its revocation pursuant to point B below.

B. Pursuant to Clause 9 of Mosman LEP 1998, Council revoke all existing Tree

Preservation Orders made by it. C. Pursuant to Clause 9 of Mosman LEP 1998, Council make a new Tree Preservation

Order in the form of the tree preservation order attached to this report and that a copy of such Tree Preservation Order be attached to the Minutes.

D. Notice of the revocation in point B above and the Tree Preservation Order made by

point C above be published in a newspaper circulating in the area of Council. E. Subject to the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993, the Environmental

Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and relevant policies of Council and in accordance with Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993, the General Manager be delegated authority to administer the Tree Preservation Order made by point C above.

Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: No REPORT Over a reasonably extended period Council has been considering revision of its Tree Preservation Order, most recently at Council’s meeting of 8 July 2003. A review of Council’s records has confirmed that the currently existing TPO was made by Council at its meeting of 14 March 2000 and put into effect by publication in the Mosman Daily of 11 January 2001. On 8 July 2003 Council resolved:

“A. Council prepare and exhibit an amendment to Mosman LEP 1998 to amend the definition of tree to:


“Tree means a perennial plant with at least one self-supporting woody or fibrous stem.”

And define root pruning as:

“Root Pruning means the cutting or severing, by any means, of tree roots larger than 75mm in diameter.”

B. In accordance with section 54 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment

Act (1979), Council give notice to Planning NSW of its intention to amend Mosman LEP 1998.

C. Following gazettal of the amendments to Mosman LEP 1998, Council revoke

the previous Tree Preservation Order made under Mosman LEP No 1 for all land covered by Mosman LEP 1998.

D. Pursuant to the provisions of Mosman LEP 1998 and the Environmental

Planning and Assessment Act (1979) Council make a new Tree Preservation Order as outlined in the report and in accordance with the circulation to Councillors.

E. Notice of the revoked Tree Preservation Order and adoption of the new Tree

Preservation Order be advertised in the Mosman Daily. F. Subject to the requirements of the Local Government Act (1993), the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979) and relevant policies of council, and in accordance with section 377 of the Local Government Act (1993) the General Manager be delegated authority to administer the Tree Preservation Order.

G. A further report be submitted regarding the potential for financial contributions

in lieu of on-site planting where on-site planting cannot be accommodated within the site.”

The intention of this resolution was a 3 step process namely: Amendment of the LEP.

Following gazettal of the amendments, revocation of the existing TPO and the making

of a new TPO. Publication of the revocation and new TPO thereby bringing the revocation and new

TPO into effect. In fact the TPO, including a citation of revocation of all Tree Preservation Orders presently in force, was published in the Mosman Daily of 21 August 2003. However, as amendment of the LEP was a precondition to revocation of the previous TPO, the publication of the revocation in the Mosman Daily on 21 August 2003 was not effective and it is unlikely that any other Tree Preservation Order was put into effect by the notice. The amendments to Mosman LEP 1998 were published in the New South Wales Government Gazette of 12 August 2005 (Government Gazette No. 102) and it is now in order to finalise revocation of the current TPO made on 14 March 2000 and make a new Tree Preservation Order.


COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments • Mosman Council Tree Preservation Order 2003



EP/213 Contract for Parks and Gardens Management MOSPLAN REF: 10.02.08 REPORT BY: Parks Supervisor, Peter Barrett SUMMARY The Contract for Parks and Gardens Management and Associated Works 2004-2009 is now up for extension. The Contract has been in place for twelve months and it is recommended that Council extend the contract for one year with a review on 17 August 2006. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets and Services recommends: That the General Manager be authorised to negotiate with Marsupial Landscapes to extend the Contract for Parks and Gardens Management 2004 – 2009 for one year with a further review in August 2006. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: No REPORT The Contract for Parks and Gardens Management and Associated Works 2004 – 2009 started on 18 August 2004 and is currently held by Marsupial Landscapes. This contract is an integrated contract incorporating the previous Parks and Gardens Maintenance contract, section A of the Grass Cutting contract which took in the management of turf areas in Council’s larger parks, the former Irrigation Maintenance Contract, parts of the former Weed Spraying Contract and the Playground Inspection Program. The current value of the contract is $ 282,597.12 per annum. The contract is audited on a monthly basis. Five sites are randomly selected from both A and B locations and inspected. The Civic Centre gardens are audited each month bringing the total number of sites to six per month. The audit checklist is made up of 26 items based on the specifications of the contract. The main items audited include:

• Grass cutting - Edges, levels, debris, maintenance around fixtures / furniture / trees. • Garden maintenance – Weeds, mulching, pruning, soil improvement, pest disease

control. • Playground maintenance – Minor repairs, soft fall, inspections & reporting. • Irrigation maintenance. – Compliance with water restrictions, operational

performance, repairs required. Each item is rated using the following scale: 1 Poor, 2 Fair, 3 Meeting Specification, 4 Good and 5 Very Good. Below is a summary of the audit results conducted during the first 12 months of the contract. Month No. of Items

Audited 1- Poor 2- Fair 3 – Meeting

Specification 4 – Good 5 – Very

Good Sept 2004 69 1 34 34 Oct 2004 66 17 49 Nov 2004 85 8 77 Dec 2004 107 8 99 Jan 2005 85 10 75


Feb 2005 78 3 75 Mar 2005 46 1 45 Apr 2005 89 7 82 May 2005 82 4 78 June 2005 63 3 60 July 2005 83 2 81 Aug 2005 81 3 78 Totals 934 1 100 833 An example of Council’s audit sheet is attached to Councillors’ business papers. All completed audit sheets are available for viewing by Councillors by contacting the Manager Assets and Services. As the results indicate there were a number of “teething” issues at the beginning of the contract with over 50% of the fair ratings being recorded in the first two months. These issues can be attributed to the change of structure from the previous contract which was specific ‘task oriented’ to the current contract which is ‘outcomes oriented’. The majority of these fair ratings were recorded in the grass cutting component of the contract. It should be noted that Marsupial Landscapes has made improvements to their performance in relation to grass cutting after the initial months of the contract. After reviewing the results of the audits as well as the general performance of Marsupial Landscapes during the course of the contract it is recommend that an extension be granted for one year of the two year option available to Council to 17 August 2006 to further monitor on ground results. The contract will again be reviewed at the end of the coming one year period. The terms of the contract require Council to either renew the contract for two years. Given the teething problems it is proposed to negotiate with Marsupial Landscapes for an extension of one year with a further review in August 2006. A further option would be not to renew the contract and call fresh tenders for the work. Whilst the performance of Marsupial Landscapes was below par in some areas at the beginning of the contract, these issues have largely been dealt with. There have not been any recurring issues at the same site except one at the very beginning of the contract. Council staff and Marsupial Landscapes are confident that the issues which reflected negatively in the audit process in the initial stages of the contract period have been resolved and the on ground results in the coming year will meet the service specifications in accordance with the contract requirements. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations • Parks Contract Audit Sheet


EP/214 Feral Rabbit Control Program MOSPLAN REF: 05.04.02 REPORT BY: Bushcare Officer, Lyndall Thornhill SUMMARY Report on proposed participation in the Integrated Feral Rabbit Control Program for Middle Head. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets and Services recommends: That Mosman Council undertake an active role in the proposed Integrated Feral Rabbit Control Program in coordination with the other land managers throughout Middle Head as outlined in the report and endorse the proposed memorandum of understanding outlining responsibilities for the various land managers. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT There has been recent evidence observed throughout the Council area that suggests there has been a significant increase in the population of feral rabbits within Mosman. Observations of diggings, scats and rabbit sightings have been noted by Council staff and residents. In addition, at the Council meeting on 15 August 2005 Councillor Wilton asked the following Question Without Notice:

‘Residents in Avenue Road report an escalation in the rabbit population around the Mosman Wharf and in private properties. What can Council do about it? Is there a management plan for feral animals?’

Staff from the Parks and Wildlife Division of the Department of Environment and Conservation and from HMAS Penguin have also observed an increase in rabbit populations. In response to the problem an Integrated Feral Rabbit Control Program for Middle Head has been proposed. The proposal includes a regional plan that will accommodate the entire Middle Head area with the cooperation of all public land owning bodies, including the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC - National Parks & Wildlife Service), Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, the Department of Defence, Taronga Zoo and Mosman Municipal Council. An integrated approach to feral rabbit control is necessary for effective population control as it prevents rabbits from moving between treated and untreated areas in order to survive. The proposed program will involve the land owners contracting a single pest control company to undertake a baiting and warren destruction/fumigation program throughout the entire Middle Head area. This will involve a collaborated baiting program of Pin Done over a period of almost 2 weeks (3 days of free feeding, then baiting carrots with Pin Done for one night in every four for a total of 3 nights poisoning). This will be followed up by or completed in conjunction with warren destruction or fumigation throughout Middle Head.


It is intended to undertake warren destruction and/or fumigation as an integral step in the complete control and management process. Although there are currently no known defined rabbit warrens on Mosman Council land, part of the process will include locating these in order to mark for destruction and to locate optimal baiting areas. All safety precautions will be upheld throughout the entire process. By locating optimal baiting areas we can reduce the chances of non target animals being exposed to the bait. By using Pindone as opposed to 1080 we remove the impact on non-target species such as dogs. It is also safe to use with the presence of possums due to the volume of the poison that possums must consume in order for it to cause harm. All non-taken baits will be removed each morning and returned only at the appropriate time on the nights of poisoning. There is no risk to bandicoots in this area. The risk to native animals through this program is extremely minimal and there were no known cases of native animal poisoning having occurred in the North Head version of this program run recently. After the initial baiting and fumigation program it is proposed that each organisation will contract a control shooting company to undertake follow-up and control shooting throughout the year when required in order to keep the population at manageable levels. All shooting will be done at night using silencers and will only be undertaken by fully trained professionals experienced in such activities. Some professionals do consider shooting to be the most humane method of eradication and control, however it should be noted that this process will only be a follow up procedure, carried out as required to help reduce and maintain the population as necessary. It is proposed that baiting and warren destruction will be the primary methods of initial control and should only be required once or twice a year. Public notification of this program will take place throughout the entire process, particularly just prior to and throughout the baiting period. This will be achieved through advertisements in the Mosman Daily and signage placed at the baiting and shooting locations. An estimate of cost for the initial stage of this program has been developed based on the recent costs of the same program having been undertaken in the North Head area. The total estimated cost is approximately $12,715.00, however this is to be divided between the various participating organisations dependent on their required participation. It is difficult to put an exact figure on costs until a contract has been awarded. Council’s does have a budget for feral animal control and it is anticipated that Council can meet its contribution to the program from the existing allocation. A Memorandum of Understanding has been drafted between the appropriate organisations and a copy is attached to Councillors’ business papers. An increase in feral rabbit population can have a significant effect on the natural environment by causing erosion to an area and destruction of emerging native seedlings through feeding. It is important to confront rabbit control on a regional level to prevent the migration of rabbits from treated areas to non-treated areas and back again. It is recommended that Mosman Council agree to participate in the proposed program in coordination with the other major land holders throughout Middle Head in order to control the feral rabbit population. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations • Memo of Understanding Re: Integrated feral Rabbit control Program with DEC.


EP/215 Land Contamination Issues - BMX Track Site and Adjacent Playing Fields

MOSPLAN REF: 05.06 REPORT BY: Manager Environment & Services, Warren Burgess SUMMARY Land Contamination Issues – BMX Track and Balmoral Reserve OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Director Environment & Planning recommends: That the report be received and noted. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT In May of this year Council granted development consent for the construction of a BMX facility at Balmoral Park. In granting consent Council imposed the following condition to be met prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

“A site contamination assessment must be prepared and submitted to the Accredited Certifier. The report must include but not be limited to:

• Details of the nature, extent and degree of contamination present on the site; • A risk assessment of the risk posed by any contaminants present on the site to

health and the environment; • Details of health and environmental safeguards to be applied during construction; • Details of the development of a remedial action plan (RAP), if required; • Details of the development of validation procedures and reporting, if required. Any recommendation of the site contamination assessment requiring environmental and occupational health and safety risk control shall be complied with.”

Consequently, Council staff engaged a suitably qualified and experienced contaminated land consultant to undertake an environmental site assessment. The environmental site assessment revealed elevated levels of contaminants present at the BMX track site in excess of health investigation levels. In summary, 7 soil samples taken from 6 boreholes were analysed for a variety of contaminants and elevated levels were encountered in the fill from 5 of the boreholes (Total Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons were found at 3 of the locations, elevated levels Benzo(a)pyrene were found at 5 of the locations, and elevated levels of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons was found at one of the locations). The resultant report recommended remediation of the site in order to be suitable for a BMX track, and that further assessment of the site be undertaken to protect park users from the risk associated with the fill soil contamination. The timing of the receipt of the environmental site assessment report did not allow for the matter to be reported to the first council meeting in August. However, given the nature of the


findings, the potential for significant additional costs to Council, the potential for significant delays to the project, and the potential for community alarm, the Director Environment & Planning issued a statement at the 1 August 2005 Council meeting that outlined the issues and the approach that staff were intending to take in response to the findings (A copy of the Statement is attached to Councillors’ business papers). In this regard, further consideration of the matter was made in consultation with representatives of the Department of Environment & Conservation’s (DEC’s) Contaminated sites Section and with Council’s contaminated land consultant. Following is the course of action as determined and the progress to date against each item: 1. Forward correspondence to the DEC

To provide a copy of the environmental site assessment and formally advise of Council’s intended approach with respect to points 2, 3 & 4 below. Progress: Correspondence forwarded to the DEC on 8 August 2005. Response in

writing received on 24 August 2005 noting, its review of the assessment, its consideration of Council’s approach as being appropriate, and a number of suggestions regarding the further investigation (A copy of both letters has been attached to Councillors’ business papers). This suggestion by the DEC has been incorporated into the scope of works for the audit referred to in point 4 below.

2. Erect fencing around the site of the proposed BMX track

Whilst Council does not have any evidence to suggest a significant risk of harm to public health it was considered prudent to exercise a duty of care and restrict access to the BMX track site by erecting appropriate fencing. Progress: Fencing erected on 12 August 2005.

3. Obtain a scope of works, from Council’s contaminated land consultant, for investigation of the playing fields area and the immediate adjacent open space

Whilst the existing data does not indicate a risk to users of the area it was considered prudent for Council to exercise a duty of care and engage an independent expert to obtain all relevant information required to validate that the site is suitable for its current use. The scope of works is designed to obtain information about potential residual contamination, and any associated risk to public health and the environment. Progress: Preliminary scope of works obtained on 8 August 2005 and revised on 19 August 2005.

4. Engage a site auditor, accredited under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.

To undertake an independent audit of the environmental site assessment to determine compliance with relevant standards, procedures and guidelines, and whether it provides a robust basis for future decisions or actions relating to the proposed BMX track site, and To review the preliminary scope of works obtained from point 3 above, to ensure it is adequate with respect to determining the nature, extent and risk associated with any potential residual contamination.


Progress: The site auditor has been engaged. The audit and assessment is in

progress and the initial response for comment by Council and the contaminated land consultant is due to be completed prior to 16 September 2005. It is envisaged that the final report will be submitted to Council no later than 30 September 2005.

5. Prepare an options report for the BMX track proposal

Will detail options and associated costs necessary to decide on the most appropriate course of action with respect to the BMX track proposal. Progress: Dependent upon the outcomes of point 4 above.

6. Engage the contaminated land consultant to undertake the investigation of the playing fields area and the immediate adjacent open space

To obtain robust information regarding the nature, extent and risk associated with any potential residual contamination of the area. Progress: Dependent upon the outcomes of point 4 above.

7. Engage site auditor, accredited under the Contaminated Lands Management Act 1997.

To audit all investigations and works undertaken as a consequence of points 5 and 6 above, to certify that the land is suitable for the approved use.

Progress: Dependent on the outcomes of points 5 and 6 above.

As evident, the above approach is complex and necessarily detailed, and as such significant delays are being incurred with the BMX track project. Accurate estimates regarding additional construction costs and timing can not be made until at least the options report (Point 5 above) has been prepared. When this information is available a further report will be submitted to Council for its consideration. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments • Copy of the Statement made by the Director Environment & Planning at the Council

meeting held on 1 August 2005 concerning land contamination issues associated with the BMX track proposal.

• Letter to the Department of Environment & Conservation dated 8 August 2005. • Letter of reply from the Department of Environment & Conservation dated 22 August

2005.



EP/216 Mosman Council's Ecological Footprint Project MOSPLAN REF: 05.01 REPORT BY: Senior Environment Officer, Lyndall Pickering SUMMARY Mosman Council’s Ecological Footprint project OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Environment and Services recommends: That the report be received and noted. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT At the Council meeting on 1 August Councillor Wilton asked the following Question Without Notice: "What is Council going to do to answer the damaging article in today’s Sydney Morning Herald regarding Mosman’s ecological footprint? Could we have a comparison with some other Councils which have conducted the same type of survey?" At the meeting, the General Manager said that he considered the report in the Sydney Morning Herald to be a fair representation of the report and that he would seek information from other Councils who had undertaken similar projects in an endeavour to obtain comparison data. Whilst the headline ecological footprint number of 14.7 global hectares was attention grabbing, it is considered that the Sydney Morning Herald article, and others in the local media, have highlighted the leadership of local residents in making a decision to reduce their own ecological footprint, and cited them as positive examples for the rest of the community. Subsequent editorials in the Sydney Morning Herald, and coverage on radio station 2BL emphasised the leadership that Council has demonstrated by using the ecological footprint tool, and discussed the suitability of its adoption by other Councils. The Sydney Morning Herald editorial also discussed the wider issues of the pricing of goods and services that do not take into account environmental costs, and the need for different taxation and regulatory regimes that encourage more sustainable consumption habits. These are important public debates, and it is positive that Mosman’s project has been able to spark them. At this stage it is not possible to make a direct comparison with other Council areas using the ecological footprint tool. To date, only Wollongong Council has conducted a footprint calculation of the entire Council area. They used a different methodology, and their result was affected by the very different nature of the populations, industries and land uses in the Wollongong area. The Wollongong project did not publicise the size of the Council’s footprint in a widely distributed booklet, as Mosman did. A Penrith Council open day has seen over


500 people sign a community pledge to reduce the size of their ecological footprint, although the Council has not yet calculated the overall size of Penrith’s footprint. Council has received enquiries from several Sydney councils, including Sutherland Council and Holroyd Council, about the methodology used to calculate the ecological footprint. Managers at these Councils have been keen for their staff to emulate the work done by Mosman. Council has also been in communication with council officers from Lane Cove, North Sydney and Willoughby Councils. These three councils have jointly implemented a community sustainability project, with funding also received from the Department of Environment and Conservation. While this project has also used the concept of the Ecological Footprint to inspire behaviour change amongst participants, the project has not so far attempted to measure the ecological footprint of their entire communities. Any currently published figure about the ecological footprint of North Sydney residents has come from the very limited survey of participants in the project. In comparison the Mosman ecological footprint calculation was conducted using wide ranging data about overall land use, consumption, waste, transport and energy use for the entire municipality. The calculation was made using a spreadsheet from Redefining Progress, a consultancy widely acknowledged to be at the forefront of ecological footprint research. It is believed that North Sydney may be conducting a project soon in attempt to produce similar data for their Municipality. The success of the project has been reinforced by the commendations Council has received from organisations considered to be at the forefront of sustainability planning. These include the CSIRO (Future Cities Theme), and the University of Sydney, which has been involved in the implementation of some ecological footprint projects, and is well regarded in this field. Council has also been approached by the South Australian Office of Sustainability, which is interested in the work that Council has done, and wishes to pass information about Mosman’s project on to other South Australian councils. Council has already received requests from other Mosman residents who are keen to undertake similar projects in their street, and staff will be working with them. Additionally, the project is a finalist in the Sustainable Cities Awards, in the Environmental Education category. Council has also entered the project in the upcoming Local Government and Shires Excellence in the Environment Awards.


12. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE The Traffic Committee met in the Council Chamber, Mosman Square on Wednesday 17 August 2005 from 10.08am to 12.25pm. PRESENT The Chairperson (Councillor D J Lopez, OAM) in the Chair with Mrs Marilyn Cameron (representative of Jillian Skinner, MP), Mr Geoff Cox (RTA), Sergeant David Olsen (Harbourside Police), together with the Manager Planning and Transport, Contract Engineer, Senior Transport Planner, Traffic Engineer and EP Admin Officer. David Callahan, Warren Finnan and John Jenkins from the State Transit Authority (STA) were in attendance. The Mayor Councillor Jenkins, and Councillors Connon, Wilton and Menzies were in attendance. The Chairman, Councillor Lopez, left the meeting at 12.20pm. The Mayor Councillor Jenkins chaired the meeting from 12.20pm during the discussions on:

T/48 Bus Stops – Linemarking T/49 Musgrave Street – Excavation in Bus Turning Area T/50 Military Road – Removal of Kerbside Parking T/51 Military Road – Temporary Closure of Bus Stop

APOLOGIES An apology was received from Councillor Elsegood. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS There were no disclosures of pecuniary interests from Councillors or Staff. DISCLOSURES OF NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS There were no disclosures of non-pecuniary interests from Councillors or Staff.


Items RESOLVED pursuant to authority delegated to the Committee: Item No Description T/46 Traffic Management Plan for Freedom of Entry 2005 T/48 Bus Stops – Linemarking T/49 Musgrave Street – Excavation in Bus Turning Area T/50 Military Road – Removal of Kerbside Parking T/51 Military Road – Temporary Closure of Bus Stop T/52 Minutes of Mosman Bicycle Working Group T/53 Schemes for RTA funding 2006/07 T/54 Clifford Street – Review of Residential Parking Schemes (RPS) T/58 Middle Head Road – Replacement of “No Standing” Restriction T/59 Awaba Street – Replacing “No Parking” Restriction with “Loading Zone”

and “1 Hour Parking” T/60 Queen Street – Proposed “No Stopping” and “No Parking” Restrictions T/61 Middle Head Road / Muston Street – Visibility T/62 Congewoi Lane – Parking Restrictions T/63 Queen Street – School Crossing near Milner Lane T/64 Hordern Place – Pedestrian Safety in the Shared Zone T/65 Brierley, Oswald and Reginald Streets – Proposed Safety Improvements T/66 Outstanding Schemes for Traffic Committee Meetings


T/47 Military Road - Relocation of Bus Stop near Cardinal Street MOSPLAN REF: 11.04.01 REPORT BY: Contract Engineer, Brian Leckey SUMMARY Consideration of submissions received following the advertising of the proposal to relocate the bus stop on the northern side of Military Road from its present position east of Cardinal Street to west of Cardinal Street. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Planning and Transport recommends: That: A. Due to safety issues associated with school children, the State Transit Authority

(STA) be requested to relocate the bus stop on the southern side of Military Road east of Cardinal Street to the southern side of Military Road west of Cardinal Street.

B. Following advises from the STA that it is in agreement with the relocation of the bus

stop, the General Manager be delegated the authority to negotiate with the Bus Shelter Contractor all matters associated with the moving of the bus shelter to the new location in view of the safety issues involved with the present location, particularly the safety issues related to school children.

C. The relocation of the bus stop be co-ordinated with the moving of the bus shelter. Can this item be resolved by the Committee: No Mr Mike Downes, 6/8 Earl Street, Master Harry O’Connell, Sacred Heart School, and Mrs Miranda O’Connell, 123 Awaba Street addressed the meeting. Mr Downes advised that he spoke on behalf of six objectors to the relocation of the bus stop. COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION Motion Olsen/Cameron That the Officer’s Recommendation be adopted. CARRIED For: Olsen/Cameron/Cox Against: Lopez HISTORY The Traffic Committee gave consideration to this matter at its meeting on 9 February 2005 (Item T/1). The matter concerned safety issues with the pedestrian traffic signals in Military Road between Cardinal Street and Wudgong Street and the location of the bus stop on the southern side of Military Road just east of Cardinal Street.


A preliminary discussion was held on site with an officer from STA and the safety problems with the present location of the bus stop were considered. The officer from the STA raised no objection in principle to the relocation of the bus stop as suggested, but would need to consider any submissions raised by residents and bus passengers to the proposal. REPORT The proposal to relocate the bus stop was advertised. Forty nine submissions have been received. Forty one favour the relocation and eight are against. Of the forty one submissions favouring the relocation, thirty nine are form letters that appear to be from the parents of children attending the Sacred Heart School. Copies of the nine submissions against the relocation of the bus stop are attached to the Members' business papers. A copy of the two letters supporting the proposal and a copy of the form letter submitted by thirty nine parents are attached to the Members' business papers. The reasons given for supporting the relocation of the bus stop are: (a) The bus shelter and passengers waiting for buses occupy a large part of the footpath

and school children walking to school are forced towards the edge of the road and in some cases are forced out onto the road when passing the present bus stop. This is a serious safety issue.

(b) A large tree growing on the footpath just east of the bus shelter obstructs bus

passengers' view of approaching buses and the number of the bus. (c) School children waiting for the bus have to project their head and shoulders out into

Military Road and its heavy traffic flow to see the number of the approaching bus due to the tree and children do not have a mature sense of spatial awareness and the consequent danger.

(d) It is not possible to erect pedestrian fencing along the kerb line between the traffic

signals and Cardinal Street to protect school children walking to and from school with the bus stop in its present location.

(e) The relocation of the bus stop will eliminate any possible conflict between bus

passengers and school children walking to and from school. (f) The visibility problems caused by the tree referred to in (b) above will be removed if

the bus stop is relocated. (g) The relocation of the bus stop will enable pedestrian safety fencing to be erected

between the traffic signals and Cardinal Street. The reasons given for objecting to the relocation of the bus stop are: (i) Moving the bus stop will place it too close to the next stop in a westerly direction. (ii) The distance between the new location for the bus stop and the previous bus stop will

be too far. (iii) Passengers waiting at the existing stop have a clear view of approaching buses. (iv) The proposed location of the stop is around a bend in Military Road and the bend will

obscure the view of approaching buses.


(v) Residents of the Sacred Heart Retirement Village and the proposed extensions will

have further to walk to the bus stop. (vi) The present location of the bus stop is safer. (vii) School children already have a safe school crossing in Cardinal Street. (viii) The present bus stop is close to the pedestrian crossing signals and the proposed

location will require bus passengers to cross Cardinal Street. (ix) The present location is more convenient for residents living north of Military Road,

particularly elderly residents. In regard to the above objections, moving the bus stop from one side of Cardinal Street to the other side does not vary to any significant degree the distances between the previous bus stop to the east and the next bus stop to the west. Passengers waiting at the existing bus stop do not have a clear view of approaching buses due to the tree and the situation will be improved considerably if the bus stop is relocated as proposed. There is no bend in Military Road between the eastern and western sides of Cardinal Street and there is no obstruction of the view of approaching buses. The additional distance for bus passengers to walk if they have crossed Military Road at the traffic signals will be approximately 30 metres if the bus stop is relocated to the western side of Cardinal Street. Seven of the nine residents who object to the relocation of the bus stop live on the north side of Military Road and have to walk about 150 metres to the present location of the bus stop. Residents of Bardwell Road and Cardinal Street will have a shorter distance to walk to the bus stop if it is relocated as proposed. Bus passengers who cross Military Road at the traffic signals will have to cross Cardinal Street if the bus stop is relocated but Cardinal Street has a very light traffic volume and there should be no problem experienced in crossing Cardinal Street even for elderly bus passengers. Some of the issues raised against the relocation of the bus stop have little substance and the safety issues involved with the present position of the bus stop far outweigh the issues raised against the relocation. The STA should be requested to relocate the bus stop. A few small trees have been planted by Council on the footpath area between Cardinal Street and Bardwell Road in the past 12 to 18 months. Some of these trees will need to be removed in conjunction with the relocation of the bus stop. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The cost of removing and re-erecting bus zone signs can be financed from the Traffic Facilities Fund. The contract for the erection and maintenance of bus shelters indicates that the contractor may be responsible for the costs associated with relocating the shelter on safety grounds.


BICYCLE STRATEGY IMPLICATIONS There are no implications. ROAD SAFETY COMMENTS The relocation of the bus stop as recommended will considerably improve the safety for school children using the footpath between the traffic signals and Cardinal Street. It will also enable the erection of fencing along the outer edge of the footpath between the signals and Cardinal Street to further improve the safety for school children. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations • Letter from Fran Garrett, Principal, Sacred Heart School • Letter from Harry O’Connell, 123 Awaba Street • Form submissions from 39 residents (copy of one attached) • Letter from Mrs E K Palmer, 12 Wudgong Road • Letter from Irene Gillies, 8/8 Earl Street • Letter from Michael & Yvonne Petiot, 10/8 Earl Street • Letter from J & D Spencer, 3/8 Earl Street • Letter from David Greenberg, 11/8 Earl Street • Letter from Bronwyn Munro, 11/419 Military Road • Letter from Ewen & Nola Moore, 4/8 Earl Street • Letter from A M Downes, 6/8 Earl Street • Letter from Pamela Morrison, 6/1 Bond Street


T/55 Shadforth Street - Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) and Pick Up/Drop Off Area for School Children

MOSPLAN REF: 11.04.01 REPORT BY: Contract Engineer, Brian Leckey SUMMARY Consideration of a Question Without Notice in regard to the introduction of a RPS in Shadforth Street and consideration of a request for an extension to the pick up/drop off area at Mosman Church of England Preparatory School. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Planning and Transport recommends: That: The owners of properties in the section of Shadforth Street between Avenue Road and Canrobert Street, including the owners of ten properties with boundaries to both Shadforth Street and Avenue Road, be invited to comment on the following: A. Changing the "No Standing, 8.00am-9.00am and 2.30pm-3.30pm, School Days Only"

restriction on the southern side of Shadforth Street in front of Mosman Church of England Preparatory School to a "No Parking, Drop Off/Pick Up Only, 8.00am-9.00am and 2.30pm-3.30pm, School Days Only" restriction.

B. Extending the length of the restriction proposed in Item A to in front of all properties

forming part of the Church of England Preparatory School. C. The introduction of either a "2 or 3 Hour Parking, 8.00am-6.00pm, Monday to Friday"

restriction in conjunction with a RPS along the southern side of Shadforth Street between Hamlet Lane and Canrobert Street, except at the location of Items A and B and in front of the Child Care Centre.

D. The introduction of either a "2 or 3 Hour Parking, 8.00am-6.00pm, Monday to Friday"

restriction in conjunction with a RPS along the northern side of Shadforth Street between No 124 Shadforth Street and Canrobert Street.

Can this item be resolved by the Committee: Yes Mr Garry Brown, Headmaster Mosman Church of England Prep School, and Ms Jenny Gormly, 84B Shadforth Street addressed the meeting. The Committee was advised that representations have been made to Council for an extension of the RPS into Avenue Road between Shadforth Street and the first shop property to the east of Shadforth Street. COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION Motion Olsen/Cameron That the Officer’s Recommendation be adopted and in addition:


E. The owners of properties on the southern side of Avenue Road between Shadforth

Street and 167 Avenue Road be invited to comment on the introduction of either a “2 or 3 hour parking 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday” restriction in conjunction with a RPS on the southern and eastern sides of Shadforth Street between Hamlet Lane and Avenue Road and on the southern side of Avenue Road between Shadforth Street and 167 Avenue Road.

For: Cameron, Olsen Against: Lopez, Cox There being an equality of voting, the matter is referred to full Council for its consideration. HISTORY In 1991, a "No Standing, 8.00am-9.00am and 2.30pm-3.30pm, School Days Only" restriction was introduced along the southern side of Shadforth Street in front of Mosman Church of England Preparatory School, to provide a location where parents could drop off and pick up school children. The length of the restriction provided for three to four car parking spaces. The Australian Road Rules require the phasing out of the "No Standing" restriction and its replacement with "No Stopping" or "No Parking". The introduction of a RPS in Shadforth Street has no history. REPORT Councillor Wilton asked the following Question Without Notice at the Council meeting on 29 November 2004:

"Due to the DAs in Shadforth Street for a child care centre and Mosman Prep School and increased pressure on traffic and parking which will ensue, can the residents of Shadforth Street be canvassed as to whether they want a Resident Parking Scheme?"

A letter has been received from Mosman Church of England Preparatory School requesting an extension of drop off/pick up zone in front of the school. A copy of the letter is attached to the Members' business papers. A survey has been carried out in Shadforth Street between Avenue Road and Canrobert Street to establish the properties that would be eligible to participate in a RPS. There are 21 properties on the northern side of this section of Shadforth Street. Seven house properties have no off-street parking facilities and would be eligible for 2 permits per household. Ten house properties have one off-street parking space and would be eligible for 1 permit per household. Two properties consisting of 2 flats and 6 units have no off-street parking and would be eligible for 1 permit per flat or unit. One property consists of 3 units with two off-street parking spaces and would be eligible for one permit. Another property consisting of 4 units has 4 off-street parking spaces and would not be eligible for any permits. A maximum of 33 permits could be issued on the northern side of Shadforth Street. There are approximately 25 kerbside parking spaces in front of the 21 properties on the northern side of Shadforth Street.


There are 10 properties on the northern side of Shadforth Street at the eastern end that have boundaries to both Shadforth Street and Avenue Road. These properties have not been included in the assessment, but the owners will be invited to comment on the proposal outlined in the recommendation. There are 18 properties on the southern side of Shadforth Street, but one is a Child Care Centre and another is the Mosman Church of England Preparatory School. Of the other 16 properties, four house properties have no off-street parking spaces and would be eligible for 2 permits per household. Three house properties have one off-street parking space and would be eligible for 1 permit per household. Seven are house properties with two or more off-street parking spaces and would not be eligible for permits. One property consist of 4 units with no off-street parking spaces and would be eligible for 1 permit per unit. Another property consists of 4 units with under building carparking and would not be eligible for permits. The Child Care Centre and the School would not be eligible to participate in a RPS. A maximum of 15 permits could be issued on the southern side of Shadforth Street. There are approximately 24 kerbside parking spaces in front of the 16 properties on the southern side of Shadforth Street. There is already a period parking restriction in front of the Child Care Centre. Observations of traffic movements in Shadforth Street just before school starting and just before school finishing has revealed that the existing location for parents to drop-off and pick-up school children is not long enough to accommodate parents' vehicles. Extension of the area allocated in front of the school for parents to park while dropping-off and picking-up children, will improve this situation and will provide an additional 8 spaces. In the first instance, property owners should be invited to comment on the introduction of a period parking restriction in conjunction with an RPS and increasing the length of the drop-off, pick-up zone in front of the school. Funding has been provided in the 2005/2006 financial year to carry out a safety audit around this school. The RTA is contributing towards the cost of the audit. The introduction of any extension to the drop-off / pick-up zone should await the completion of the safety audit, but resident comment may assist in the preparation of the audit. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications at this stage. BICYCLE STRATEGY IMPLICATIONS There are no implications. ROAD SAFETY COMMENTS Parents double parking while waiting to drop-off and pick-up children creates safety issues with passing traffic. Extending the drop-off/pick-up area as proposed in recommendation “A” will improve this situation. The Road Safety Auditors will conduct a detailed investigation into all road safety matters regarding a drop off and pick up area. There are no safety issues with the proposed period parking restriction and RPS. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations


• Letter of support from resident received 10 January 2005 • Letter from Mosman Church of England Preparatory School dated 7 February 2005


T/56 Safety Around Schools Audit - Proposed Drop Off/Pick Up Area on Medusa Street and Roundabout at the Intersection of Medusa Street and Pindari Avenue

MOSPLAN REF: 11.04.01 REPORT BY: Traffic Engineer, Sam Sathanesan Road Safety Officer, Rebecca Klemke SUMMARY Consideration of residents submissions on the proposed drop off / pick up areas outside Beauty Point School on Medusa Street and the roundabout at the intersection of Medusa Street and Pindari Avenue. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Transport and Planning recommends: That: A. Drop off/pick up areas on both sides of Medusa Street, as per the modified Plan No

TR-789, be approved

B. A roundabout be installed at the intersection of Medusa Street and Pindari Avenue subject to funding approval.

Can this item be resolved by the Committee: Yes Mr Graham Phillips, Principal Beauty Point Public School, Mrs Lily Surgeon, 14 Pindari Street, and Ms Maureen Williams-Barrow, 13 Medusa Street addressed the meeting. The Police and STA advised that they were not in favour of the roundabout due to problems with buses and loss of parking. COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION Motion Cameron/Olsen That Part A of the Recommendation be referred to Council for determination and that no further action to be taken in regard to Part B. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY HISTORY Council engaged a consultant to conduct an audit of safety around Beauty Point School in March 2005. The audit involved consultation with the school communities, observations of pedestrian and motorist behaviour around the schools and audits of pedestrian engineering treatments. As a result of the audit, recommendations were made by the consultant for stakeholders’ consideration and action. At its meeting on 8 June 2005 the Traffic Committee considered these recommendations and resolved inter alia that the engineering works including the drop off and pick up area outside Beauty Point School on Medusa Street and the roundabout at the intersection of Medusa


Street and Pindari Avenue be advertised for public comment, affected residents be advised and then reported to the Traffic Committee on the 17th of August 2005. REPORT 1. Residents feedback In July 2005, letters were sent to all residents whose properties had boundaries to Medusa Street and Pindari Avenue. They were asked to comment on the proposal to create drop off/pick up areas on Medusa Street and a roundabout at the intersection of Medusa Street and Pindari Avenue. These proposals were also advertised in the Mosman Daily. Twenty submissions have been received and are summarized in the table below.

Name

Address

Proposed drop off and pick up area

Proposed roundabout at Medusa Street and Pindari Avenue intersection

1 Mrs Ann Henderson 15 Medusa Street Disagree No comment 2 Mr R D & Mrs B A

Pearson 4 Pindari Avenue Comment: Should not

inconvenience many people

Comment: May prove a challenge for buses and large delivery vehicles

3 Mr F & Mrs M Martin 22 Medusa Street Agree No comment 4 Mr John Leske 11 Medusa Street Disagree No comment 5 Mr E J Surgeon 14 Pindari Avenue No comment Disagree 6 Mr A & Mrs T Duthie 25 Medusa Street Disagree Agree 7 Mr L F Zirkzee 12 Pindari Avenue Agree Disagree 8 Mrs R L Bampton 19 Pindari Avenue Disagree Agree 9 Ms Rebecca

Fitzpatrick 27 Medusa Street Disagree Agree

10 Mr J & Mrs J McAlpine 26 Medusa Street Disagree Agree 11 Mr B J & Mrs L M

Wookey 18 Medusa Street Disagree Agree

12 Mr R & Mrs M Berkman

20 Medusa Street Disagree No comment

13 Ms Victoria Pollard 16 Medusa Street Comment: I endorse neighbours comment

No comment

14 Mr Graham Phillips Beauty Point School Agree Agree 15 Ms Louise Cantrill 28 Medusa Street Disagree No comment 16 Ms Merran Crompton 222 Spit Road Comment: An

alternative scheme (ie concrete median along Medusa Street) should be considered

Same comment

17 Ms Maureen Williams-Barrow

13 Medusa Street Disagree Disagree

18 Ms Bonnie Harris-Magid

9 Medusa Street Disagree No comment

19 Ms Susan A Anthony 21 Medusa Street Disagree Comment: I am not sure that the suggestion of a rounabout will change the bad behaviour

20 Mr C & Mrs S Johnston

32 Pindari Avenue No comment Agree


2. Proposed drop off/pick up areas The majority of the residents are concerned that the proposal will further reduce already limited parking in Medusa Street. They have suggested that the school should create a drop off /pick up area on the school property or consideration should be given to have staggered finishing times. It should be noted that there is a need for drop off/pick up zones during school drop off/pick up periods for the following reasons:

a. The existing “No Stopping” areas are being illegally used for drop off/ pick up purposes. This is considered to be a safety risk to children using the pedestrian crossing.

b. Drivers park across driveways and some times double park due to insufficient pick up/drop off areas close to the school.

c. Provision of drop off/pick up areas during school drop off/pick up times on either side of the existing “No Stopping” areas during school hours has been identified as a “High” priority item in the Safety Around Schools Audit Final Report.

Under the current proposal four short term parking spaces would be created on the northern side (i.e. school side) of Medusa Street and seven spaces would be created on the southern side of Medusa Street. However, recent site visits and observations indicate that there is room for alteration of the current proposal without compromising its objectives. It is considered that eight parking spaces (i.e. four parking spaces on each side of Medusa Street) would be sufficient to meet the current demand. In addition, the school believes that the proposed “No Parking” times are excessive and would unnecessarily disrupt their neighbours. School classes commence at 9:00am and conclude at 3:00pm. It would be of no use to the school to have the morning drop off/pick up time extend beyond 9:00am and the afternoon period commencing at 2:30pm. It is expected that a 30 minute period in the morning (i.e. 8:45am to 9:15 am) and afternoon (i.e. 2:45pm to 3:15pm) would satisfy the school’s needs and minimize inconvenience to the residents in the area. It is therefore recommended that Council’s modified proposal, as detailed in the Plan No TR-789, be approved. 3. Proposed roundabout at the intersection of Medusa Street and Pindari Avenue Residents are concerned that the proposed roundabout will lead to loss of parking spaces on Pindari Avenue at the Medusa Street intersection. It should be noted that U-turns in the vicinity of the school crossing have been a concern to the school and Council and are considered a risk to the safety of children who use the crossing. As mentioned in the Audit Report a more practical treatment option would be to install a small mountable roundabout at the intersection of Medusa Street and Pindari Avenue to facilitate U-turn movements. The roundabout may also have a calming effect on traffic. It is therefore recommended that a roundabout at the intersection of Medusa Street and Pindari Avenue be installed. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The cost of installing the signs can be financed from the Traffic Facilities Fund. The proposed roundabout at the intersection of Medusa Street and Medusa Street does not have funding. Its construction would be dependant upon successful grant application with the RTA. The rough order cost estimate would be in the range of $35,000 to $45,000.


BICYCLE STRATEGY IMPLICATIONS There are no implications. ROAD SAFETY COMMENT Audits of each school zone are being conducted at the rate of two per year until complete. The purpose of the audit is to make both the school and Council aware of the problems and safety issues that have been arising around the school. This in turn would enable both parties to take measures to improve all road users’ safety. COUNCILLORS ATTACHMENTS Circulations

• Letter from Mrs Ann Henderson 15 Medusa Street • Letter from Mr R D & Mrs B A Pearson 4 Pindari Avenue • Letter from Mr F & Mrs M Martin 22 Medusa Street • Letter from Mr John Leske 11 Medusa Street • Letter from Mr E J Surgeon 14 Pindari Street • Letter from Mr A & Mrs T Duthie 25 Medusa Street • Letter from Mr L F Zirkzee 12 Pindari Avenue • Letter from Mrs R L Bampton 19 Pindari Avenue • Letter from Ms Rebecca Fitzpatrick 27 Medusa Street • Letter from Mr J & Mrs J McAlpine 26 Medusa Street • Letter from Mr B J & Mrs L M Wookey 18 Medusa Street • Letter from Mr R & Mrs M Berkman 20 Medusa Street • Letter from Ms Victoria Pollard 16 Medusa Street • Letter from Mr Graham Phillips Beauty Point Public School • Letter from Ms Louise Cantrill 28 Medusa Street • Letter from Ms Merran Crompton 222 Spit Road • Letter from Ms Maureen Williams-Barrow 13 Medusa Street • Letter from Ms Bonnie Harris-Magid 9 Medusa Street • Letter from Ms Susan A Anthony 21 Medusa Street • Letter from Mr C & Mrs S Johnston 32 Pindari Avenue • Map of proposed drop off and pick up zones on Medusa Street (TR-789)

Further Circulations • Support for proposed Medusa Street pick up and drop off area from Beauty Point

Public School


T/57 Heydon Street - Replacement of "No Standing" Restriction MOSPLAN REF: 11.04.01 REPORT BY: Contract Engineer, Brian Leckey SUMMARY Consideration of resident submissions on the replacement of the "No Standing" restriction at the northern end of the section of Heydon Street north of Ourimbah Road, with either "No Stopping" or "No Parking" in accordance with the Australian Road Rules OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Planning and Transport recommends: That the existing "No Standing" restriction at the northern end of the section of Heydon Street north of Ourimbah Road be replaced with a "No Parking" restriction. Can this item be resolved by the Committee: Yes Ms Marianne Schmidt, 35 Heydon Street and Mr Donald Fathers, 3/33 Cavil Street, Harbord (representing Monica Fathers, Killarney Retirement Village) addressed the meeting. COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION Motion Cox/Cameron That the matter be deferred for further investigation and report to the next Traffic Committee meeting. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY HISTORY This matter has no history. REPORT The Australian Road Rules provide for the phasing out of the "No Standing" restriction and the replacement with either a "No Stopping" or a "No Parking" restriction. A survey has commenced to establish the location of all "No Standing" restrictions and following consultation with residents where considered necessary, the matter is being referred to members of the Traffic Committee for decision in accordance with Council's decision on delegated authority. The vast majority of these matters will be dealt with by way of the above delegated authority. However, when there is a contentious item, the matter will be referred to the Traffic Committee. Letters were written to all residents whose properties have boundaries to the section of Heydon Street north of Ourimbah Road suggesting that the existing "No Standing" restriction at the northern end of this section of Heydon Street be replaced with a "No Stopping" restriction.


Three letters were received. One letter from the Operations Manager of the Garrison and Killarney Retirement Centre favouring "No Parking" and the other from Monica Fathers of Killarney Retirement Village indicating that a five minute restriction was preferred but if this was not possible, the replacement restriction should be "No Parking". The other letter favoured "No Parking". Copies of their letters are attached to the Members' business papers. The matter was discussed with Mrs Fathers on the telephone and a site meeting was arranged to enable a full understanding of the problem experienced by the elderly residents of Killarney Retirement Village. Following the site meeting, a plan was prepared (Plan No TR-777A) which provided for needs of the elderly residents and provided an area for vehicles to turn at the end of Heydon Street. A disadvantage of this plan was the loss of kerbside parking. Plan No TR-777A and a plan showing the existing parking conditions at the northern end of Heydon Street (Plan No TR-777) were sent to all residents in the section of Heydon Street north to Ourimbah Road inviting comments. Copies of the plans are attached to the Members' business papers. Plan No TR-777A has not been favourably received. Two letters object to the proposal and one suggests alterations. These alterations are not supported as not sufficient area will be available for turning vehicles. Copies of the letters are attached to the Members' business papers. The Killarney Retirement Village has its main entrance in Dalton Road where there are no parking or turning problems and the proposal to provide "10 Minute Parking" at the northern end of Heydon Street was to assist elderly residents who reside within the retirement complex near Heydon Street. However, in view of the objections and in view of the fact that the elderly residents have alternative means of access, replacing the "No Standing" restriction in Heydon Street with a "No Parking" restriction is now the favoured course of action. Vehicles can still stop in the proposed "No Parking" area in Heydon Street to pick up and set down elderly residents. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Funds can be provided from the Traffic Facilities Fund for replacing the signs. BICYCLE STRATEGY IMPLICATIONS There are no implications. ROAD SAFETY COMMENTS There are no road safety implications at this location. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations • Copy of submissions • Plan Nos TR-777A and TR-777


T/67 Rangers Avenue - Traffic Management Issues MOSPLAN REF: 11.04.01 REPORT BY: Traffic Engineer, Sam Sathanesan SUMMARY Consideration of the issues raised by a resident relating to the traffic management of Rangers Avenue. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager of Planning and Transport recommends: That: A. Speed and volume counts be undertaken in Rangers Avenue. B. A report be prepared to advise the Committee of the results. C. Council’s Rangers be instructed to regularly monitor Rangers Avenue for any

breaches of load limit restrictions. Can this Item be resolved by the Committee: Yes Mr Lawrence Angus , 50 Rangers Avenue, Mr Mark Magnus, 75 Rangers Avenue, Ms Yvonne Grant, 18 Rangers Avenue and Ms Stephanie Bentley, 1/6A Rangers Avenue addressed the meeting. Mr Magnus tabled a letter and petition together with a copy of an acoustic report to the Committee. COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION Motion Olsen/Cameron That the officer’s recommendation be adopted and the matter be referred to Council for consideration, together with a submission delivered on behalf of Rangers Avenue residents and a copy of the Traffic Management Plan for the Woolworths development in North Sydney Council area. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY HISTORY This matter has no history. REPORT Council has received a letter from a resident in relation to the current and future traffic management of Rangers Avenue. The resident is concerned that in the past few years the traffic congestion during peak periods (non school holiday week days) has worsened gradually and he believes it exceeds well over 200 vehicles per hour.


The resident has asked the Traffic Committee to advise him on the following issues relating to the traffic management of Ranges Avenue.

1. What are the measures the Committee plans to implement to regulate the growth of traffic in the future on Rangers Avenue?

2. Some bus companies have been given permission to use Rangers Avenue. Given the existing traffic issues what were the consideration of Council in giving such permission and what will be the considerations for any future applications.

3. The road has a weight limit restriction but trucks exceeding the weight limit are still using Rangers Avenue contrary to the weight limit restriction. What could the Council do to enforce the weight restriction?

1. Regulating growth in traffic Rangers Avenue is the only Collector Road connecting Cremorne to Avenue Road shops and Mosman Wharf, and therefore provides the most convenient direct route. In existing developed areas, Collector Roads pose particular problems because they cater for through traffic (an arterial road function), local traffic and access to abutting properties (local road function), with conflicting requirements for each. A Collector Road can carry up to 500 vehicles per hour in peak period. During the 1984 West Ward Traffic Management Scheme raised speed tables were installed on Rangers Avenue to discourage through traffic and reduce vehicle speeds. The speed tables were designed to allow thoroughfare of buses at that time. In April 2002, a safety audit was commissioned by Council following concerns raised about safety in Rangers Avenue. The Road Safety Audit recommended a number of remedial measures to improve safety in Ranges Avenue. The priority ones have now been carried out. At present there are no other improvement proposals for Rangers Avenue. However, it is proposed to undertake speed and volume counts in Ranges Avenue in October 2005. Further assessment will be carried out based on the data collected. The outcome of the investigation will be presented to the Committee. 2. Consideration of exemptions to 3 Tonne Load Limit In February 1998, the Traffic Committee approved a 3 Tonne Load Limit on Rangers Avenue. This was due to residents’ concerns about the number of heavy vehicles using Rangers Avenue as a by-pass to Military Road. State Transit Authority buses are not permitted to use Rangers Avenue at any time. In January 2004, Council received a request from Telford Tour’s to be granted an exemption from the 3 Tonne Load Limit on Rangers Avenue to provide a School Bus Service between Mosman and Cremorne. Due to the cancellation of the ferry service across Sydney Harbour, Telford Tour’s have been contracted by various schools in the eastern suburbs to provide a private school bus service to assist children residing in Mosman to attend schools in the eastern suburbs. The route requires the buses to travel from Balmoral to Mosman (via Raglan Street), Mosman to Cremorne (via Rangers Avenue) and Cremorne to North Sydney. The use of Rangers Avenue by buses as part of the route will enable a number of school children in Cremorne Point and Mosman Bay to use the bus service.


Council records show that the proposal to allow Telford Tour’s buses to use Rangers Avenue was advertised in the Mosman Daily for public comment to which Council received no written objections during that time. At its meeting of 25 February 2004, the Traffic Committee formally considered Telford Tour’s request and resolved that an exemption be granted for Telford Tour’s School Service to the 3 Tonne Load Limit along Rangers Avenue for no more than two buses each morning at approximately 7:30am and two buses each evening between 4:00pm and 5:45pm schools days only to carry school children from Mosman to eastern suburb schools. To date Council has not received any other requests from bus companies to be granted exemption from the 3 Tonne Load Limit on Rangers Avenue, however, the issues raised in the resident’s letter have been noted and will be brought to the attention of the Traffic Committee if a request is received. 3. Enforcement of 3 Tonne Load Limit In regard to the enforcement issues, Council’s Rangers have been advised of the matter and will continue to patrol the area. It is recommended that the resident should immediately contact Council’s Rangers whenever the violation occurs. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications at this stage. BICYCLE STRATEGY IMPLICATIONS There are no implications. ROAD SAFETY COMMENT Road safety issues will be considered as part of the investigation. COUNCILLORS’ ATTACHMENTS Circulations

• Further Letters from Residents following Traffic Committee Meeting • Traffic Management Plan for the Woolworths development in North Sydney Council

area



13. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Questions Without Notice to be submitted by Councillors for consideration.



14. CORRESPONDENCE

COR/29 Correspondence - Donations MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.01 RECOMMENDATION That the correspondence be received. CORRESPONDENCE Council provided an amount of $3,000 in its 2005/2006 budget for each Councillor to allocate $250 to a charity or organisation of their choice. Letters of thanks for Councillor nominated donations have been received from: • Life Education Australia • NSW Breast Cancer Institute • Northside Enterprise Inc • Royal Far West Children’s Health Scheme • Sir David Martin Foundation • Sister Leonie Martin, Sisters of Charity • Sydney Children’s Hospital Foundation • Wires Inc • Youth Off The Streets



COR/30 Correspondence - Mayor of London MOSPLAN REF: 01.01.10 RECOMMENDATION That the correspondence be received. CORRESPONDENCE The Mayor of London writes to the Mayor:



COR/31 Correspondence - Minister for the Environment and Heritage MOSPLAN REF: 05.03 RECOMMENDATION That the correspondence be received. CORRESPONDENCE Following receipt of correspondence from the Mayor of Broken Hill calling for support for the health of the Darling River system, Council resolved on 2 May that “the Mayor write letters of support to the State and Federal Members of Parliament, Minister for the Environment and the Prime Minister, and that all Councillors who wish to endorse the letters be invited to sign same.” Letters were prepared and sent under the signatures of the Mayor and Cr Connon. The Hon Tony Abbott referred the letter addressed to him to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and has received the following response:



15. RECISSION MOTIONS

Rescission Motion - EP/202 39 Raglan Street SUBMITTED BY: Councillors Lopez, Brown and Menzies MOSPLAN REF: 04.04.02 RESCISSION MOTION That the decision on item EP/202 – 39 Raglan Street be rescinded. Note by General Manager Council considered Item EP/202 – 39 Raglan Street at its meeting on 15 August 2005 and resolved: That the Officer’s Recommendation be adopted with additional conditions to read as follows: A. In order to lessen privacy impacts for No. 41 Raglan Street, the inclinator is to stop

level with the landing at the base of the stairs from the carport (RL 47.43). Amended plans are to be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

B. That suitable screening species be planted on the southern side. C. That the carriage be enclosed with non-transparent material on north and south

sides. The Officer’s Recommendation was deferred commencement approval with conditions. Substantive Motion In the event that Council’s decision at its meeting on 15 August 2005 in respect of Item EP/202 – 39 Raglan Street is rescinded, the following Substantive Motion has been lodged by Councillors Lopez, Brown and Menzies: That the motion as passed be the substantive motion, with the addition of the following clauses: To defer the approval to enable the applicant and his architect to liaise with David Liddy Architect on behalf of Mr and Mrs Robb of no. 37 Raglan Street and Michael Blakeney Architect on behalf of Mr and Mrs Eather of No. 41 Raglan Street in order to achieve the following to all parties satisfaction: 1. Locate the inclinator with adequate boundary clearance to allow adequate

landscaping.

2. To specify design of carriage rail and stations.

3. To provide an acoustic report.

4. To sufficiently enclose the carriage with obscure panels for aural and visual privacy issues.

5. To terminate the rail and locate the top station adjacent to the study of no. 41 approximately mid-way between the top steps and next flight below.

6. Delete any excavation or build-up of ground level adjacent to no. 37’s Pittosporum to ensure its survival.


7. Cover the carport roof extension to retain the outlook from no. 41’s kitchen window. Retain conditions: Part A re the easement, and

No. 3 re no work on no. 41’s stone wall. COUNCILLORS’ ATTACHMENTS Report to Council 15 August 2005.

Documents

Agenda Template Council - Mosman Council · EP/212 Tree Preservation Order ... CS/86 Investments - August 2005 ... This project has been included in MOSPLAN 2005-2008 with revised