Agenda 3 October 2006 - mosman.nsw.gov.au · All remaining items will be dealt with following...

MOSMAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING

AGENDA

MEETING DATE: 03 October 2006

INFORMATION ABOUT PROCEDURES FOR THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Open Question Time Council meetings are scheduled to commence at 6.30pm. However, Open Question Time is held for a maximum of 10 minutes if required, from 6.30pm 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 6.30pm 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 2006-2007 MAYORAL TERM

Cr Patricia Harvey OAM

East Ward

Manager

Governance / Finance

Minutes

Secretary

General Manager

Mayor

Cr Denise Wilton Director

Environment and

Planning

Manager Development

Services

Director Corporate Services

DirectorCommunity

Development

Balmoral Ward

Cr David Strange

Cr Lynette Elsegood West Ward

Cr Simon Menzies

Cr Anne Connon

Cr Jim Reid

Middle Harbour Ward

Cr Andrew Brown

Cr Kate Traill

Cr Dom Lopez OAM

Cr Shirley JenkinsCr Martin Skipper

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 19 September 2006

7. MAYORAL MINUTES MM/15 Mayoral Minute - Mosman Festival.......................................................................1 MM/16 Mayoral Minute - 2006 Mosman Art Prize ............................................................3

8. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT

GM/39 SHOROC..............................................................................................................5 GM/40 ICMA 2006 Conference - Attendance by General Manager .................................7 GM/41 General Manager's Contract - Mayoral Delegations.............................................9 GM/42 Cross Street Drill Hall Site ..................................................................................11

9. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORTS

CD/50 Art, Library & Cultural Development 25 September 2006 Meeting.....................15 CD/51 Public Art Policy - Draft.......................................................................................17

10. CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORTS

CS/60 Code of Meeting Practice ...................................................................................19 CS/61 Council Business Papers....................................................................................23 CS/62 Pecuniary Interest, Ordinary Returns and Register as at 30 September 2006...25 CS/63 Revotes...............................................................................................................27 CS/64 Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2006 ....................................29 CS/65 Bus Shelter - Commercial Advertising Bradley's Head Road .............................31 CS/66 Ward Boundaries and Ward Names ...................................................................33 CS/67 Bus Shelters - Etched Glass Trial.......................................................................37 CS/68 Investments ........................................................................................................41 CS/69 Allan Border Oval Pavilion - Licence to Cricket and Soccer Clubs.....................43 CS/70 Pippies at Balmoral Long Day Child Care Centre...............................................45 CS/71 Development Applications Meetings with Residents ..........................................49 CS/72 11-21 The Esplanade - Outdoor Dining Approvals .............................................53

11. ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORTS

EP/208 Minutes of Sporting Field User Group Meeting held on 23 August 2006............59 EP/209 Sporting Fields - Review of Contract for Maintenance 2001- 2009 ...................61 EP/210 Tree Removal Application - Suakin Drive, Middle Head Road ...........................63 EP/211 Section 94 and Section 94A Contributions Plans 2006 ......................................65 EP/212 Tree Preservation Order Applications.................................................................67 EP/213 Indian Mynah Birds - Control ..............................................................................71 EP/214 Contract for the Removal of Graffiti from Council Assets ...................................75

EP/215 Civic and Public Amenity Buildings - Cleaning Contract 2006 to 2008...............77 12. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

13. CORRESPONDENCE

COR/32 Correspondence - Donations..........................................................................81 COR/33 Correspondence - 2006 National General Assembly of Local Government .................................83

14. NOTICE OF MOTIONS/RECISSION MOTIONS

NM/6 Notice of Motion - Mosman Toll Tunnel and Section 22 Short Term Bus Solution.................................................................................85

ATTACHMENTS

GM/39 SHOROC........................................................................................................... A3 CD/50 Art, Library & Cultural Development 25 September 2006 Meeting.................. A13 CD/51 Public Art Policy - Draft.................................................................................... A22 CS/60 Code of Meeting Practice ................................................................................ A32 CS/63 Revotes............................................................................................................ A35 CS/65 Bus Shelter - Commercial Advertising Bradley's Head Road .......................... A37 CS/66 Ward Boundaries and Ward Names ................................................................ A41 CS/71 Development Applications Meetings with Residents ....................................... A47 CS/72 11-21 The Esplanade - Outdoor Dining Approvals .......................................... A50 EP/208 Minutes of Sporting Field User Group Meeting held on 23 August 2006......... A62 EP/210 Tree Removal Application - Suakin Drive, Middle Head Road ........................ A66

Reports to Ordinary Meeting of Council - 03 October 2006 Page 1

7. MAYORAL MINUTES

MM/15 Mayoral Minute - Mosman Festival MAYOR: Cr Denise Wilton MOSPLAN REF: 10.08.06 RECOMMENDATION That the Mayoral Minute be noted. MAYORAL MINUTE The 2006 Mosman Festival ran from 16-24 September and was highly successful. There was a preview opening on 15 September hosted by Mosman Returned Services Club for the Mosman is Shopping Week component of the festival. The opening night was 16 September and a large crowd enjoyed the community photography competition based on the theme “The Faces of Mosman” and the wonderful Brian McInerney exhibition. On the Saturday evening we welcomed our guests from our Friendship Community, Glen Innes over dinner which I was pleased to host at the Art Gallery. Councillor Anne Connon, Trish Arber and I accommodated the official delegation from Glen Innes comprising their Mayor, Cr Steve Toms, and his wife Judi, the Deputy Mayor, Cr Colin Price, and his wife Christine and Councillor Rosemary Curtis. I would like to thank Cr Connon and her husband Gordon, and Trish Arber not only for that hospitality but also for their hard work during the Festival. The following day, Sunday 17 September, was the Parade Day which was fantastic to judge by the feedback we have received and the smiling faces of everyone present on the day. Over 1000 people marched to the music of the Navy Band and HMAS Penguin, the Clan McLeod Pipe Band and the Glen Innes Pipe Band. They were led out by vintage bikes and cars kindly provided by the Pittwater Motor Enthusiasts Association. The Parade was followed by Pets Day Out which was bigger and better than years before; a Family Concert on the outskirts of Allan Border Oval; and, the Taste of the World Food Fair at Mosman High School. All were well attended and much enjoyed. During the week there were a series of activities including various sports activities and open days, Teddy Bears Picnic, Children’s Fair and Parriwi Park bushwalk. Mosman is Shopping Week was conducted throughout the period with the highlight being the Fashion Parade on Thursday 21 September at Mosman Caché. The following weekend saw the fabulous Jane Rutter and Peter Cousens in concert in the Grand Hall and the Balmoral Fun Day on 24 September. There were 18 events that day from 7am to 6pm starting with the Balmoral Beach Fun Run and including a Treasure Hunt, Sand Sculpture Competition, Recycling Relays, Painting in the Park, Emergency & Services Expo, lots of sporting activities to try, food to eat and music in the Rotunda to enjoy. The 20/20 Cricket Match at Rawson Park was also a pleasure on that day.


Many people contributed to the Festival. There was an organising group established early in the year with more than 30 active participants. The Organising Group comprised Councillors, staff and over 30 residents and each is to be thanked. The Executive Group comprised Councillors Andrew Brown and Kate Traill with Councillor Connon making major contributions especially to Shopping Week. The Councillors decided earlier this year to appoint champions for many components of the Festival. They were Community Street Parade and Family Concert, chaired by Cr Menzies; Taste of the World Food Fair, chaired by Cr Connon; Pets Day Out and Vintage Vehicle Display, chaired by Cr Skipper; Balmoral Fun Day, chaired by Cr Elsegood; Mosman is Shopping Week, chaired by Cr Traill; Mosman is Sport, chaired by Cr Lopez. However I must say that there was a lot of crossover and support for key events from other Councillors. Congratulations to those who supported this Festival. The festival Sponsors were much appreciated. The gold sponsors were The Mosman Daily, 2UE, McIntosh of Mosman, L.J. Hooker Mosman & Neutral Bay, Infinity Skin Institute, and House of Phillips Fine Art. The silver sponsors were Coburn Fine Art Conservation, GM Photographics, and Wizard Home Loans. The bronze sponsors were Bridgepoint Mosman, Cienna, Leigh Jones Orthodontics, Sydney Weekly Courier, and Kimbriki Recycling & Waste Disposal Centre. Gallery exhibition sponsors were Digital Master, Nikon, Epson and Amarisco. Thanks also go to Mosman Coaches. Many members of staff contributed time and effort to the festival and their support was essential and much appreciated particularly on the two big Sundays. I have written to each one individually to thank them for their contributions. The Community Development Department worked exceptionally hard and I thank them for their dedication and determination to make the Festival a success. The Director Community Development will ensure that Council receives a major review including a cost:benefit analysis of the Festival, most likely at our December meeting. Your input will be most valuable for planning the Festival in 2007!


MM/16 Mayoral Minute - 2006 Mosman Art Prize MAYOR: Cr Denise Wilton MOSPLAN REF: 10.06.01 RECOMMENDATION That the Mayoral Minute be noted. MAYORAL MINUTE The 2006 Mosman Art Prize opened on Friday evening, July 28. The Prize remains one of the most prestigious and popular local government art awards in Australia, and continues to attract a large field of artists of all ages. This year 820 entries were received, and of these, 92 works were exhibited. In addition, two new sponsors contributed to the exhibition this year with Bridgepoint Shopping Centre adopting the Commendation Award and the House of Phillips Fine Art introducing the inaugural ‘Young Emerging Artist’s Award’. The Prize was judged by Antonia Syme the former Director of ARTBANK, Australian’s leading contemporary art rental agency. Prior to this appointment, Antonia Syme had worked in a number of roles including curator and conservator at the Powerhouse Museum, the Mint & Barracks Museums, and The National Maritime Museum. After scrutinising all the entries Antonia Syme selected a diverse and compelling exhibition, which included the entire spectrum of painting practice from highly realistic and detailed images to energetic, abstract expressionism and collage. Antonia awarded the major prize of $15,000 to Dongwang Fan for his painting titled Descendent. This outstanding painting, like many others produced by the artist, explores the collision between two cultures; that of his original homeland, China and that of his new homeland, Australia and its western traditions. In China, Dongwang Fan studied classical Chinese brush painting, the traditional art of ivory carving and western oil painting. Accordingly, his paintings reflect these practices, especially in his use of bold decorative designs and ornamental forms. In his painting, Descendant, Dongwang Fan has reproduced a plastic, ‘transformer’ robot toy, placing it on a richly painted, textile-like background. The toy is a symbol of a highly mechanized society while the background refers to the delicate, hand-crafted nature of traditional Chinese textiles. Dongwang Fan is an artist with an impressive list of credentials including a Master’s Degree in Visual Arts and a Doctorate of Creative Arts, which was conferred on him in 1999. A survey exhibition of his work is currently touring regional art galleries of NSW. Dongwang Fan migrated to Australia in 1990 and now lives in Sydney. In 2003 he was awarded the Commendation Prize of the Mosman Art Prize. The 2006 Commendation Prize of $1,000, sponsored by Bridgepoint Shopping Centre, was awarded to Peter O’Dougherty for his painting titled Lizard Chair. This solitary, empty lounge chair with its bright colours and strong geometric pattern marks a distinctive period and style of domestic furniture design, and reminds the artist of his suburban childhood home in New Zealand during the 1960s. This wonderful painting was subsequently purchased for the Mosman Art Collection.


The 2006 Allan Gamble Memorial Art prize for a painting with a ‘Built Environment’ theme was awarded to Rachel Ellis for her nostalgic painting, Russell & Havannah Street Corner, Bathurst. This delicate suburban landscape painting evokes that ‘old world charm’ often associated with beautifully maintained, weatherboard cottages and simple manicured gardens. The Viewers’ Choice prize of $1,000, sponsored by Mosman Toyota, was won by David Rose for his highly realistic and emotive, landscape painting called After the Fires at Kariong. As the title suggests, this painting depicts a resilient angophora tree surrounded by devastated bush land and ashes. It is as much a painting of destruction, as it is of life and regeneration. The House of Phillips Fine Art inaugural Young Emerging Artists’ Award of $1,000 has been won by Ernest Aaron for his painting Untitled. Using only black and white paint, Aaron depicts an elevated view of people milling around on a street with streamers at their feet, as though a parade has just passed by. ‘The image is slightly burred, like an out of focus photograph, creating an abstract quality, which intrigues and distances the viewer at the same time’. This painting was purchased by the House of Phillips Fine Art, providing an additional form of support and encouragement for the artist. Mosman Council is extremely grateful to the following sponsors who have helped to make the 2006 Mosman Art Prize another great success: Mosman Toyota, Bridgepoint Shopping Centre and the House of Phillips Fine Art. Mosman Council is also grateful for the expertise and time provided by the judge Antonia Syme. In conclusion, I would like to remind Council that next year is the 60th anniversary of the Mosman Art Prize. To celebrate this landmark the Prize will be increased from $15,000 to $20,000, which will undoubtedly raise the profile of the event, making it even more attractive to artists and collectors as well as art lovers and galley goers.


8. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT

GM/39 SHOROC MOSPLAN REF: 12.04.01 REPORT BY: General Manager, Viv May SUMMARY Minutes of the SHOROC Executive meeting held on 24 August 2006. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The General Manager recommends: That the Minutes of the SHOROC Executive meeting held on 24 August 2006 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 24 August 2006 are circulated. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments • Minutes of the SHOROC Executive meeting of 24 August 2006


GM/40 ICMA 2006 Conference - Attendance by General Manager MOSPLAN REF: 02.05.04 REPORT BY: General Manager, Viv May SUMMARY Report on General Manager’s attendance at ICMA 2006 Conference. 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 I attended the International City Managers Association 2006 annual conference in San Antonio, Texas, from 9 to 13 September. It was the third largest conference in the Association’s 92-year history with total registrations of 3,925 delegates. Over 150 exhibitors showing the latest in products and services were also available to those in attendance. The theme of the conference was ‘Sustaining our Communities in an Uncertain World’ with keynote speakers including Consuelo Castillo Kickbusch; Jim Collins, author of ‘Good to Great: Not Just for the Private Sector’; William McDonough; and Mary Robinson, currently President of the Ethical Globalisation Initiative. The ICMA has annual awards for both professional (four awards) and program (four awards in three population categories) excellence. Our Community Environmental Contract project team submitted an entry under the ‘Community Sustainability Award – Population of 10K – 50K’ and I am pleased to say that at the conference it was announced that we won, and as the recipient General Manager I was presented to the opening ceremony. Mosman was the only non-North American winner in any of the categories. A copy of a booklet detailing the awards will be attached to the Minutes for the record. The conference caters for a diversity of interests with concurrent educational sessions, round table discussions, solutions classrooms, field demonstrations and ICMA University workshops. There was a hectic social program and as an award winner I was invited to the Leaders’ Dinner. During the conference there is a myriad of concurrent opportunities available and some of the sessions I attended included: Lean Government: From Planning to Performance; Small Community Service Evaluation and Performance Measurement; Is There a Perfect Form of Local Government?; Delivering on What Matters to Elected Officials; Lifting the Fog: What is Urban Sustainability?; Asset Management: What is the Value of Professional Management? and the Ethics Court. I was also invited to be an international member of the conference evaluation committee which also kept me busy.


I found the conference to be very rewarding professionally, though with the pace and the heat of Texas exhausting. At the conclusion of the conference and at my own expense I travelled to Austin and spent half a day with City Council representatives discussing their asset management initiatives and strategies for communicating same to residents. This visit, together with general networking discussions at the conference, highlighted the fact that world wide local government (or for that matter government generally) is not investing enough in their assets and simply passing the problem to future generations. While there are some large local councils in the USA, most authorities are approximately the same size or smaller than Mosman and though we individually provide a different range of services, our problems and opportunities appear to be similar. I would thank the Council for again presenting me with an opportunity of furthering my local government management knowledge, skills and experience, and I was very proud to receive the sustainability award for the CEC on behalf of the Council. The cost to Council of my attendance at the ICMA San Antonio conference was $4,952.


GM/41 General Manager's Contract - Mayoral Delegations MOSPLAN REF: 02.05.04 REPORT BY: Executive Officer, Corporate and Human Development,

Nicola Atmore SUMMARY The General Manager’s contract requires that various matters be submitted for approval. This report sets those matters out and recommends appropriate delegations. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Executive Officer, Corporate and Human Development recommends: That the Mayor be delegated authority to approve various matters required by the General Manager’s contract of employment, viz: • absences from the business of Council • the structure of Mr May’s remuneration package, not the amount of the package • leave • approval for expenses incurred on Council business Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: No REPORT At the Council meeting on 5 September 2006, Council resolved to offer the General Manager, Mr VHR May a new contract. This contract has now been signed. The contract, which is the Standard Contract of Employment prepared by the Department of Local Government, makes provision for certain matters which require approval from time to time: • absences from the business of Council • the structure of Mr May’s remuneration package, not the amount of the package • leave • approval for expenses incurred on Council business It is appropriate that the authority to approve these matters be delegated to the Mayor. Under Clause 7 of the contract a performance contract must be negotiated within three months, and a further report to Council will be submitted for Council’s consideration on this matter. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services


GM/42 Cross Street Drill Hall Site MOSPLAN REF: 06.01.10 REPORT BY: General Manager, Viv May SUMMARY Lease of site and general update. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The General Manager recommends: That

A. The advices be received and noted.

B. The General Manager be authorised to arrange bank guarantees to guarantee removal of the existing netball courts, remediation etc and conservation and restoration of the Drill Hall site, in the sums of $100,000 and $436,000 respectively.

C. Subject to the approval of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, the name of ‘Drill Hall Common’ be adopted for the site.

Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT All documentation for the lease of the Cross Street Drill Hall site was completed on 6 September 2006 and Council took possession of the site effective from that date. This is the third report submitted to Council in relation to the 25-year lease of the entire Cross Street site from the SHFT and as a result of negotiating the final terms of the lease some alteration is needed to the existing program. In addition to the lease, a Deed of Agreement was executed, particularly in relation to staging of the works with the following alterations from earlier reports being brought to the attention of Council:

• Council will not be permitted to allow the new outdoor netball courts on the Cross Street Drill Hall site to be used until the netball courts on the Rawson Park site have ceased to be used

• Council is permitted to design the indoor court and submit the development application to the Trust concurrently with the refurbishment of the Drill Hall; however, construction will not be permitted until the Drill Hall refurbishment is complete.

• Outdoor courts are provided for practice and training purposes only. Practice and training may include school matches on school days.

• Council will only permit the building and ball courts within the premises to be used between 7.00am and 10.00pm on any day, and Council must ensure that activities are ceased by no later than 10.00pm on any other day.


• Bank guarantees are required to be submitted to guarantee removal of the existing netball courts, remediation etc and conservation and restoration of the Drill Hall site of $100K and $436K respectively.

• Refurbishment work of the Drill Hall site shall be completed within three years

A copy of the Lease, Deed of Agreement and Memorandum are available for viewing in the Council’s files. As a result of the completed documentation, the following amended budget summary has been prepared by the project team: Year Cost ($) Items of Work 2006/2007 Total 06/07

100,000

300,000

50,000

50,000

500,000

Consultancy and project management for outdoor courts Construct 3 Nos. Outdoor Courts and Acoustic earth bunds Essential landscape works around netball courts (allow) First part of the drainage works

2007/2008 Total 07/08

80,000

100,000

450,000 50,000

120,000

800,000

Remediation of existing netball courts at Rawson Garden (works likely mid-2007) Consultancy and project management for refurbishment of the Drill Hall & other works Refurbishment of the Drill Hall Essential landscape works around the Drill Hall (allow) excluding car parks Design of indoor sports complex and associated work

2008/2009 Total 08/09

100,000 1,000,000 1,100,000

Project management and on-site management by consultant Part construction of Indoor Sports Building

2009/2010 Total 09/10

80,000 850,000 200,000

70,000 1,200,000

Project management and on-site management Complete construction of Indoor Sports Building Finishing works of landscape and stormwater works Unspecified work

TOTAL 3,600,000 Supplementary

50,000 20,000

160,000 70,000

Stormwater / Rainwater Reuse scheme:

Design and Project management Extra over Excavation Installation of tanks Filtration/ disinfection/ pumps/ plumbing/ electrical/meters etc

Total 300,000 (Not funded)

As indicated in earlier reports, Council is commissioning the Trust’s existing consultants to progress work for the site under the management plan (and now Lease and Agreement) to


ensure that continuity is maintained and this has caused some problems under Council’s Procurement Policy. Accordingly, prior to engaging consultants the scope of works are negotiated and contact made with the SHFT to confirm that hourly rates etc are consistent with those obtained by the Trust following their engagement of consultants under Federal Government procurement guidelines. Consultants already engaged are EDAW Gillespies ($22,920) and Storm Consulting (approx. $35,000), consultants engaged by the SHFT to prepare the plans for the development of outdoor hard surface courts, including essential landscape works to operate the courts and stormwater management inclusive of a water reuse facility. Council is negotiating to engage Simpson Dawbin, Architects and Heritage Consultants in association with Roger Dobbs (historian) to finalise details and update the cost estimate of the Drill Hall refurbishment work. In addition, following discussions with representatives of the Trust, options to create a new entry foyer to the existing Drill Hall at the northern doorway are being investigated. This option has the benefit that it would prevent noise escaping from the western door towards residents, opens out to a more pleasant space than a carpark and better addresses Rawson Park. It is also proposed to engage the services of EDAW Gillespies for the balance of the landscape consultancy work with the construction of the indoor sports centre. Further consideration to the selection of consultants for the indoor sports building in compliance with the management plan will be dealt with in due course. The project team have made two applications for Government grants:

• Community Water Grant for Stormwater Reuse and Management. An application under the pilot project category for the Australian Government Water Fund – Community Water Grant. The total amount is $380,000 and if successful Council would receive approximately 50% of the estimated cost.

• Regional Sports Facilities Program, NSW Sports & Recreation. An application to obtain grants to develop outdoor courts. The total amount is approximately $375,000 and if successful Council would receive approximately 50% of the estimate.

In the event that the application for stormwater reuse and management is approved, additional funds will be required and a further report in this regard will be submitted to Council at the time. If the application for the grant for the development of the outdoor courts is successful it would reduce the need for additional funds for stormwater re-use but it is far too early to speculate. The report to Council of 4 July 2006 suggested that the site be known as ‘Drill Hall Common’ and subject to the approval of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust it is recommended that this name be adopted.


9. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORTS

CD/50 Art, Library & Cultural Development 25 September 2006 Meeting

MOSPLAN REF: 08.01.00 REPORT BY: Director Community Development, Kay Clarke SUMMARY Minutes of the Art, Library & Cultural Development Community Group meeting held on 25 September 2006. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Director Community Development recommends: That the Minutes of the Art, Library & Cultural Development Community Group meeting held on 25 September 2006 be received and the feedback and actions be noted. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT Minutes of the Art, Library & Cultural Development Community Group meeting held on 25 September 2006 are circulated. Key items discussed included the draft Public Art Policy which is addressed as a separate item on this agenda. Recommendation endorsed by General Manager. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments • Minutes of the Art, Library & Cultural Development Community Group meeting held on

25 September 2006. • PowerPoint for the Art, Library & Cultural Development Community Group meeting held

on 25 September 2006.


CD/51 Public Art Policy - Draft MOSPLAN REF: 10.05.10 REPORT BY: Manager Cultural Services, Tony Geddes SUMMARY Report on Draft Public Art Policy. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Cultural Services recommends: That the Draft Public Art Policy be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT In accordance with the objectives in the Cultural Plan 2005–2009 and the current edition of MOSPLAN, a draft Public Art Policy has been prepared for Council’s consideration. The Policy is set out under the following headings: • Policy Purpose • Definitions • Aims & Objectives • Benefits of Public Art • Mosman; History & Background • Public Art Collection • Scope of Public Art • Policy Principles • Acknowledgements The draft has been considered by the Art Gallery Consultative Group and their suggestions have been incorporated into the Policy along with some redrafting by the Director Environment & Planning in relation to Section 94A contributions. The Art, Library and Cultural Development Community Group considered the draft Policy at its meeting on 25 September and commended it to the Council. The draft Policy is attached to business papers. Recommendation endorsed by Director Community Development. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments • Public Art Policy - Draft


10. CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORTS

CS/60 Code of Meeting Practice) MOSPLAN REF: 01.01.02 REPORT BY: Manager Governance, Anthony Fitzpatrick SUMMARY Adoption of amended Code of Meeting Practice. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Governance recommends that: A. The advices be received. B. The Code of Meeting Practice as amended and circulated, be adopted subject to

Clause 44 (5) being amended to read:

Meetings of Council are to be adjourned between 8.30pm and 8.45pm for a supper recess, with the cost of suppers and refreshments provided at Council and Committee meetings being met by Council and the supper consisting solely of sandwiches, cake, tea, coffee and soft drink, with liquor allowed after Council Meetings at the discretion of the Mayor.

C. The General Manager implement the circulation of a regular bulletin of significant

letters of notification to residents, to interested Councillors only on the basis detailed in the report.

D. Council determine seating arrangements in Chambers for Council meetings as raised

in Mayoral Minute 15. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: No REPORT Council at its meeting on 2 May 2006 considered a report (CS/27) on the review of the Code of Meeting Practice. The review was to best reflect practice standards provided in the Department of Local Government Meeting Practice Note (Practice Note 16) and other matters. Council resolved that:

A. The advices be received. B. The Code of Meeting Practice as amended and circulated be noted. C. In accordance with Section 362 (2) of the Local Government Act, 1993,

Council is of the opinion that the proposed amendments to the Code of Meeting Practice are substantial and determine that the amendments be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days.


D. At the conclusion of the exhibition period the matter be brought back to Council for adoption.

E. A workshop be convened prior to the matter coming back to Council, with a

colour coded copy circulated as soon as possible. A colour coded copy of the amended Code of Meeting Practice with proposed changes in strike out (deletions) and red italic text (insertions) was circulated to Councillors on 3 May 2006, together with a copy of the judgement of the South Australian Supreme Court in Yates v District Council of Penola (1997) 68 SASR 64 referred to in Part 9 of the Meetings Practice Note (Practice Note 16) at page 45. A copy of Practice Note 16 was circulated to Councillors as an attachment to CS/27. The proposal was placed on public exhibition with submissions being received up to 9 June 2006. One submission was received from Mr Graeme Hargrave of 28 Muston Street who raised concerns regarding access to attachments to reports submitted to Council. The following response was made to this submission:

“A copy of any attachment that is integral to a report such as a draft policy or code shall be made available to the public without charge upon written request. Senior staff within Council’s Corporate Services Department shall determine whether a document is integral to a report. In making this determination due regard shall be taken as to whether this document is to be available for a fee following adoption by Council. Copies of attachments shall not be made available to the public as a matter of course and the proposed amendments to Clause 23 (9) shall remain as exhibited for adoption by Council.”

Two Mayoral Minutes were considered at the meeting of 5 September 2006 as follows: • MM/13 Provision of Information to Councillors

I believe that Councillors need to be better informed of issues in their Wards and that when a letter goes out to residents about a Council matter, a copy goes to each of the relevant Ward Councillors. This would not include any letters which would breach a resident’s privacy. An example is the letter which recently went to the residents of Ballantyne Street about footpath paving. As a West Ward Councillor, I would have been better equipped to deal with a resident’s complaint had I been a recipient of the letter. There are many such issues, and only three extra copies of the letter need be made and included in Councillors’ satchels.

• MM/15 Seating in Council Chambers

Some Councillors have requested flexibility in seating arrangements in Chambers for Council meetings. I propose that Councillors’ name plates and a satchel with relevant materials be collected and returned to a central location, e.g. the Councillors’ Lounge, and that each Councillor chooses where to sit during Council meetings.

Council resolved that the Mayoral Minutes be referred for consideration at the Code of Meeting Practice workshop to be held on 12 September 2006 The workshop convened on 12 September 2006 with the Mayor and Councillors Connon, Lopez and Strange in attendance. The following matters were considered:


1. In relation to MM/13, it was proposed that a weekly bulletin of significant letters of notification to residents be circulated to interested Councillors only.

2. MM/15 concerning seating in Council Chambers be referred back to Council. 3. The supper break be taken at 8.30 pm in lieu of 9.00 pm. Accordingly, Clause 44 (5) be

amended to provide for the supper break to be taken between 8.30 pm and 8.45 pm. 4. Concern was expressed that the time taken for speeches by residents often exceeded

the 3 minutes time limit. The workshop nonetheless considered it appropriate that the limit remain at 3 minutes for both residents and Councillors.

There were no further issues raised in respect of the amended Code. In relation to 1 above, as this is outside the scope of the Code of Meeting Practice, it is proposed that this matter be referred to the General Manager to progress administratively. It is proposed the bulletin would comprise copies of significant notification letters sent to residents and would be circulated only to those Councillors who wish to receive it. As there is not necessarily a delivery to Councillors every week and implementing a weekly delivery is not practical, it is proposed to deliver the bulletin twice a month, with the circulation of the first Council meeting agenda (last Wednesday of the month) and with late correspondence for the second Council meeting (third Monday of the month). Additional circulations will be arranged on a needs basis. Further, legal advice was taken in relation to Clause 30 dealing with the moving of amendments and the apparent inconsistency with Clause 247 of the Regulation particularly Council’s supplementary provision allowing a third amendment to be moved if an amendment has been accepted. It would appear that Council’s alteration to allow a further amendment to be moved if an amendment has been accepted may in fact be inconsistent with the Regulation and therefore ultra vires. Council’s Code of Meeting Practice presently provides in respect of the moving of amendments as follows:

30. How Subsequent Amendments may be Moved (Clause 247 Regulation)

(1) If an amendment has been accepted or rejected, a further amendment can be moved to the motion in its original or amended form (as the case may be) and so on, but no more than one motion and one proposed amendment can be before the Council at any one time.

(2) It is permissible to debate the motion and amendment concurrently.

(3) It is permissible during the debate on an amendment for a further

amendment to be foreshadowed. However, any such foreshadowed amendment shall not be moved and debated until the amendment is dealt with.

The Code notes that the words appearing in italics in this Code are supplementary provisions to the Act and Regulation which are not inconsistent with legislation. Clause 247 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 provides:

247 How subsequent amendments may be moved


If an amendment has been rejected, a further amendment can be moved to the motion to which the rejected amendment was moved, and so on, but no more than one motion and one proposed amendment can be before the council at any one time.

Home Wilkson Lowry advise that the words “accepted or” need not be deleted from Council’s Code as in effect they are not inconsistent with the Regulation and therefore not ultra vires. They are however superfluous and whilst they appear to confer more rights on the Council, in practical terms they do not, as motions can be continually amended whether amendments are accepted or rejected. In general, if an amendment is accepted it becomes the motion. If an amendment is rejected, a further amendment may be put or if there are no further amendments, the original motion must be put. A copy of the advice of Home Wilkson Lowry dated 11 September 2006 is attached to the business papers. It is proposed to make no amendment to Clause 30 in view of the advice. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations

• Letter dated 11 September 2006 from Home Wilkinson Lowry


CS/61 Council Business Papers MOSPLAN REF: 01.01.01 REPORT BY: Manager Governance, Anthony Fitzpatrick SUMMARY Review of the practice of starting all business paper reports on a "right hand", that is, even numbered page. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Governance recommends: That the requirement that all reports start on a "right hand", that is, even numbered page be removed and all agenda items be again produced sequentially in the business papers. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT Council at its meeting held on 7 June 2004 endorsed a review of the format and content of reports to be submitted to Council. This included a requirement that all reports start on a "right hand", that is, even numbered page to allow Councillors to detach them from the business paper if required. This practice has been adhered to over the past two years and it is evident that it wastes a considerable amount of paper for little benefit given that approximately 600 agenda items will be reproduced annually in the 46 business papers copied for each meeting, noting although that the public copies of Development Application reports are produced individually. Whilst it may only be a small yet positive contribution to reducing paper wastage, it is proposed that the requirement that all reports start on a "right hand", that is, even numbered page be removed and all agenda items be again produced sequentially in the business papers. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services


CS/62 Pecuniary Interest, Ordinary Returns and Register as at 30 September 2006

MOSPLAN REF: 01.03.02 REPORT BY: Director Corporate Services, Max Glyde SUMMARY To table returns lodged by Councillors and designated staff in accordance with Section 449 of the Local Government Act, 1993. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Director Corporate Services recommends: That the advices be received and the returns be acknowledged as being tabled. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT The Local Government Act, 1993, requires Councillors and designated persons to complete and lodge with the General Manager within three months after 30 June each year a return in which all interests as required must be disclosed. In accordance with the requirements I advise that all persons holding the position of Councillor as at 30 June 2006 have completed and lodged their respective returns. All staff determined to be designated staff have lodged their respective returns. An acknowledgement of the receipt of returns has been issued to each Councillor and designated member of staff. Section 450A Part 2 requires that these returns be tabled at the first meeting of the Council after 30 September. The returns will be tabled at the meeting. Recommendation endorsed by General Manager.


CS/63 Revotes MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.01 REPORT BY: Manager Finance, Mark McDonald SUMMARY Revoting of funds voted in 2005/2006 in respect of work not completed or not commenced as at 30 June 2006 OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Finance recommends: That an amount of $847,533 be revoted in 2006/2007 in respect of work not completed or not commenced as at 30 June 2006 including an amount of $414,563 from Council’s Working Capital. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: No REPORT The attached schedule details funds allocated for works prior to 2006/2007 which were not completed or commenced as at 30 June 2006 and require revoting. The total votes recommended from Working Capital amount to $414,563. Other votes where funding is provided from reserve or grant/contributions do not affect Council’s Working Capital position but which need to be reinstated. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments • Schedule of recommended revotes from 2005/2006 to 2006/2007 will be attached to the

Minutes. •


CS/64 Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2006 MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.01 REPORT BY: Manager Finance, Mark McDonald SUMMARY Statement by Council in respect of 2005/2006 Financial Statements. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Director Corporate Services recommends: That :

A. The Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2006, 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 7 November 2006.

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 29 September 2006. Recommendation endorsed by General Manager


CS/65 Bus Shelter - Commercial Advertising Bradley's Head Road MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.04 REPORT BY: Director Corporate Services SUMMARY To further consider the placement of commercial advertising in Bus Shelter on Bradley’s Head Rd north of King Max St OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Director Corporate Services recommends: That subject to Adshel Street Furniture converting the non advertising shelter on Bradley’s Head Road to a scrolling advertising shelter at no cost to Council and that Council will receive revenue as per agreement that Adshel be informed of Council’s approval of the conversion. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT Following consideration of a Question Without Notice by Councillor Lopez requesting Council to review its previous decision not to have commercial advertising in the Bradleys Head Road shelter Council resolved to consult with property owners/residents adjacent to the Bradleys Head / King Max shelter seeking comment on the proposed conversion of the non-advertising shelter to an advertising shelter with a further report to be submitted to Council following the conclusion of the consultation period. On 9 August a letter was written to 111 property owners and to residents of properties in the adjacent area seeking their comments on the proposal and advising that this report would come to this meeting. In response to Council’s notification 4 responses have been received all objecting to the proposal. A copy of these is attached. The objections raised in the submissions are as follows:

• Bradleys Head Rd is presently uncluttered by commercial signage. • A large illuminated advertising panel will mar the pleasant streetscape. • Our unit will be directly impacted by illuminated sign. • Proposal inappropriate for residential area and will detract from domestic nature of

neighbourhood. • Opposed to using scrolling advertisements on any shelters in residential areas. • Advertisement will block see through view for traffic turning out of King Max Street

thus creating a traffic hazard. • The billboard lighting will cause visual disturbance at night to residents in adjacent

units. • Moving and lit advertising will be a highly visible intrusion and detract from a high

value residential precinct. In accordance with planning requirements a review of environmental factors has been undertaken in respect of the conversion of the shelter to a scrolling advertising shelter by


Chris Young Planning. The review which endorses the proposal has been considered by Council’s Director Environment and Planning who has indicated that it is satisfactory. After due consideration of the letters of objection and the review of environmental factors it is recommended that Council proceed to have Adshel convert this non add shelter to a scrolling advertising shelter. There are no cost implications to Council for the conversion works as Adshel have advised that they will undertake the necessary work at no cost to Council. Council will however receive income as per the agreement. A photograph of the shelter showing the Bradleys Head Road shelter and the King Max intersection follows.

Recommendation endorsed by General Manager. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations • 4 letters of objection to the conversion of the shelter at the corner Bradleys Head Road &

King Max Street for advertising.


CS/66 Ward Boundaries and Ward Names MOSPLAN REF: 01.02.01 REPORT BY: Director Corporate Services SUMMARY To determine Ward boundaries and names following the reduction of the Wards from four to three for the 2008 elections. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Director Corporate Services recommends: That: A. Option C as exhibited be submitted to the Electoral Commissioner and the

Commonwealth Statistician as Council’s determined Ward Boundaries. B. The Ward names be Middle Harbour, Balmoral and Mosman Bay. C. The Ward boundaries as determined be advertised in the Mosman 2088 Magazine. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT At its meeting on 4 July 2006 Council when considering a further report on the Ward boundaries and Ward names for the three new Wards from September 2008 unanimously resolved as follows: That: A. The following four proposals be put on public exhibition:

1. the original 2. Ken Chown Option B 3. Steve Goudie 4. P Ahearn, et al

B. All suggested ward names accompany the four proposals. C. The proposals be notified in the Mosman Daily and Council website and displayed in

the Council Chambers foyer and Library for a minimum of 28 days. D. A letterbox drop be arranged advising residents of the displays and seeking their

comment. E. The Electoral Commissioner be asked to comment. As per the resolution, Clauses C and D were actioned and prior to doing so the four options were drawn out of a hat and named as follows: Option A Steve Goudie Option B Ken Chown Option B Option C Original proposal by General Manager Option D P Ahern, et al Since the commencement of the exhibition period Council has received 171 submissions containing 228 names supporting the various Ward boundary options. A small number of submissions indicated either/or proposals whilst two others indicated that all are acceptable. The outcome of preferences including the 13 multiples received is as follows:


Option A 4 Option B 95 Option C 132 Option D 10 A further review of the submissions has clearly revealed that in relation to the Ward names Middle Harbour, Balmoral and Mosman Bay are by far the most preferred names for the Wards. The numbers supporting each are as follows:

• Middle Harbour, Balmoral and Mosman Bay 71 • Middle Harbour, Balmoral and Mosman Bay (or Sirius Cove) 3 • Middle Harbour / Magura, Balmoral / Garragurrang,

Mosman Bay / Gawura 1 • Middle Head, Balmoral and Mosman Bay 23 • Middle Harbour, Balmoral and West 4 • No name change 3 • Keep Balmoral 23 • North, East & South 2 • 1,2 & 3 1 • Magura, Garragurrang, Gawura 1 • Hunter, Bungaree, Harnett 3 • No suggestion given 103

Of the above Ward name suggestions it is assumed that the 23 persons who indicated Middle Head Ward actually meant Middle Harbour Ward. This assumption is made following a sample being phoned and all indicated that they meant Middle Harbour Ward. In addition to this it could also be assumed that the persons who indicated Options B & D for boundaries and did not indicate preferred Ward names could have been inferring that they also preferred Middle Harbour, Balmoral and Mosman Bay as these names were affiliated with these Options. The keeping of two of the current Ward names may lead to a perception that it gives those current sitting Councillors in those wards an unfair advantage at the next elections in 2008. The question as to the relevance of Wards in a small area as Mosman continues to be questioned however another constitutional referendum would be required to abolish all Wards in the area should Council wish to do so. A list summarising all submissions is attached and a copy of the individual submissions will be made available for viewing by interested Councillors upon request to the Director Corporate Services. It is evident from analysing the submissions received that there has been a significant amount of lobbying and the use of standard form letters in this matter. Despite this however the 171 submissions received containing 238 names is only a small number of submissions considering the notification process taken. As required under Clause E of the resolution the Electoral Commissioner was asked to comment on the respective options and by way of letter dated 16 August 2006 advised that all four Ward Boundary options are acceptable as they comply with Sections 210(7) and 210A(1)(a). Providing Council does not make any changes to the boundaries as advertised in Options A to D this satisfies the requirement under the Local Government Act to consult with the Electoral Commissioner and also by placing the four proposals on exhibition the finally adopted proposal will not be required to again be put on exhibition. Recommendation endorsed by General Manager.


COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments • List summarising submissions received.


CS/67 Bus Shelters - Etched Glass Trial MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.04 REPORT BY: Director Corporate Services SUMMARY To review current trial of the use of etched glass in bus shelters. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Director Corporate Services recommends: That Adshel be instructed to replace all damaged glass backs in the remaining shelters with the etched glass as trialled. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT Following consideration of a report on 28 November 2006 Council resolved to trial a fern patterned glass in the rear panels of 10 of its 26 shelters. Council also indicated that it wished to explore opportunities to design its own pattern. The patterned glass was required to be made overseas and was ultimately installed in the bus shelters on 12 April 2006. Having just completed 6 months it is clear from a recent survey of the shelters that the introduction of the pattern glass in the rear panels has been successful in keeping the glass more presentable to the public. Adshel have confirmed this from their point of view and have advised by way of letter dated 25 September 2006 as follows:

“ We wish to report that from Adshel’s perspective, the trial has been highly successful in masking the senseless scratching and vandalism of the glass. We recognise and highlight that the scratching still occurs, however, it is not as visible or obvious when the glass is etched. Accordingly we would welcome and encourage the opportunity to install further panels of etched glass on the bus shelters throughout Mosman and welcome Council’s permission.”

In respect of the pattern to use in the future Adshel have indicated that what ever is decided must be able to be used elsewhere in Australia, otherwise the glass is too expensive to produce due to the setting up costs. Adshel have had its staff co-ordinate other designs which may be appropriate and these follow.


Boomerang


Calming Waters

Dancing Waters

Recommendation endorsed by General Manager.


CS/68 Investments MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.01 REPORT BY: Manager Finance, Mark McDonald SUMMARY Investment Schedule for the month of September 2006. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Finance recommends: That the Schedule of Investments for September 2006 be adopted. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT Schedule of all monies invested under Section 625 of the Local Government Act for the month of September 2006 will be circulated to Councillors’ prior to the meeting. 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 September 2006 (will be circulated)


CS/69 Allan Border Oval Pavilion - Licence to Cricket and Soccer Clubs

MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.08 REPORT BY: Manager Governance, Anthony Fitzpatrick SUMMARY Renewal of the Licence Agreements with Mosman Cricket Club and Mosman Soccer Club for their respective use of the Allan Border Oval Pavilion. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Governance recommends that: A. The General Manager be delegated authority to seek the approval of the Minister for

Lands to the granting of a new five (5) year non-exclusive Licence to both the Mosman Cricket Club and Mosman Soccer Club commencing 1 September 2006 and 1 April 2007 respectively for their respective use of the Clubrooms contained within the Pavilion at Allan Border Oval.

B. Subject to the Minister granting consent to new Licences, Council as Manager of the

Mosman Park (D500470) Reserve Trust consent to the granting of a new five (5) year non-exclusive Licence to both the Mosman Cricket Club and Mosman Soccer Club commencing 1 September 2006 and 1 April 2007 respectively for their respective use of the Clubrooms contained within the Pavilion at Allan Border Oval.

C. The General Manager be delegated authority to finalise terms of the Licence

Agreements consented to above including determination of the licence fee and fee reviews, maintenance responsibilities, other special conditions and any condition or requirement of the Minister.

D. The Common Seal of Council be affixed to any necessary documentation. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: No REPORT Council at its meeting on 8 May 2001 consented to a 5 year non-exclusive Licence with the Mosman Cricket Club and Mosman Soccer Club for their respective use of the Clubrooms contained within the Pavilion at Allan Border Oval. The Licence Agreements with Mosman Cricket Club and Mosman Soccer Club terminated on 31 March 2006 and 31 August 2006 respectively and the agreements need to be renewed. The Pavilion is located within the Mosman Park (D500470) Reserve Trust and Council is the Reserve Trust Manager. Council will need to seek the consent of the Minister for Lands to enter into new Agreements with the Clubs. A licence fee of $1,000 per Club per annum subject to CPI increase applied to the expired agreements. It is proposed to renew the agreements with a licence fee of $2,000.00 per Club per annum in view of the necessary works to be completed by Council within the term of the proposed agreements, as identified in the condition audit detailed below. It should be noted


that Mosman Rugby Club pay a base fee of $4,000.00 per annum effective from 1 September 2002 for Rawson Oval Pavilion agreement. A condition audit of the premises has been conducted and the building fabric is satisfactory, however a list of items requiring immediate attention follows. Clubs’ responsibility: • Cleaning • Remove redundant drink vending machine • Remove redundant sofa • Replace pigeon-hole unit • Install locks on cupboards Council’s responsibility: • Repair “sticking” northern entrance door • Repainting • Repair lifting and worn areas of carpet • Replace worn carpet at entry landings with pvc/vinyl • Treat and repair mould on ceiling • Investigate the reglazing or repair of windows due to "scratch graffiti" Arrangements are being made to have the above works completed. In addition the following works have been identified as being necessary to bring the premises up to standard. These would be the responsibility of Council and will be referred to the Manager Assets and Services for investigation, budget allocation and completion. • Install fire exit signs • Install emergency light • Install smoke detector • Install fire detector • Install additional power sockets • Installation of ceiling vents or other method of ventilation With regard to the need for the premises to be cleaned, it should be noted that it is the Clubs’ responsibility to clean the Clubrooms in the pavilion and Council should not undertake cleaning work should the Clubs’ fail to comply with the agreements. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services


CS/70 Pippies at Balmoral Long Day Child Care Centre MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.08 REPORT BY: Manager Governance, Anthony Fitzpatrick SUMMARY Review of the Lease of the Pippies at Balmoral Long Day Child Care Centre in light of the refusal of DA 8.2004.105.1. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Governance recommends: That: A. The advices be received. B. Council as Manager of the Part Balmoral Park (R1004168) Reserve Trust consent to

the renegotiation of the Lease of the facility to Pippies at Balmoral Pty Limited on the basis of the provision of 2-6 year old places only.

C. The General Manager be delegated authority to proceed with renegotiation and to

finalise variations to the existing agreement. D. The General Manager be delegated authority to seek the consent of the Minister to

the agreed variations. E. The Common Seal of Council be affixed to any necessary documentation. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: No REPORT Council at its meeting on 19 September 2006 (EP/194) refused Development Application 8.2004.105.1 for alterations and additions to Pippies at Balmoral Long Day Child Care Centre due to the NSW Rural Fire Service’s requirement for an Asset Protection Zone that has not and could not be reasonably met. The RFS required the adjoining landowner Department of Defence to recognise in its Plan of Management a 16 metre Asset Protection Zone on its land which requires thinning of the Angophora forest such that canopies of trees do not intersect. The Department of Defence could not accommodate this requirement. The child care centre has been catering for 38 children 2 to 6 years old, including the availability of 10 affordable places, until such time as the Development Application was approved to allow the necessary upgrading of the building to meet Department of Community Services (DOCS) requirements for children aged 0–2. As development consent has not been granted, the matter of the Lease needs to be revisited. History Mosman Municipal Council as Manager of the Part Balmoral Park (R1004168) Reserve Trust (hereafter referred to as “Council”) called for Expressions of Interest in February/March 1998


for both the Balmoral site and the Alexander Avenue site with a view to addressing the shortages of child care for 0-2s and 3-5s. Council resolved inter alia that rents be reduced on the basis of the Centres between them providing 10 affordable places for children 0-3 and 10 affordable places for children 3-5 and in recognition of the capital works required. Council went to tender in October 1999 for the Lease, upgrade and maintenance of a quality long day care centre at the Balmoral site for at least 30 children aged 0-3 including 10 affordable places. The tender specifications required the successful tenderer to address a number of defects in the building as well as prepare a Development Application and make the necessary upgrades for a 0-3 Centre. On 14 March 2000 Council resolved to decline to accept a tender and delegated authority to the General Manager to: • negotiate with Jack and Jill Kindergarten Pty Ltd with a view to entering into a contract

subject to resolution of a number of issues outlined in the report, including the gazettal of the Balmoral Plan of Management

• to make application to the Department of Land and Water Conservation to enter into a Lease for a 10 year period

• to finalise the 10 year Lease • to grant month by month extension to the existing lessee to April 2000 (The existing

lessee had given notice to Council in 1998 of his intention to terminate his Lease with a view to relocating to Scots Kirk. In the end he vacated the premises in September 2000.

On 30 January 2001 a Licence Agreement for the period 25 January 2001 to 24 January 2002 was agreed between Council and Jack and Jill Kindergarten Pty Ltd and forwarded to the Department of Land and Water Conservation to enable preliminary upgrade, including rectification of defects, and commencement of a child care centre for children 2 to 6 years (as existed) but excluding any obligation to upgrade the premises as would be needed for 0-2s. It is important to note that the Centre could not then and cannot now operate for 0-2s until capital works are undertaken according to DOCS standards. These were dependent on a range of matters including gazettal of the Balmoral Plan of Management, Ministerial approval, approval of a DA by Council and approval by DOCS. The operation of a 2-6 centre could continue as it was an existing use therefore the Licence and subsequently the Lease provided for the continuation of the centre for those ages, with 10 affordable places until such time as the centre could offer the 0-2 places. The option would have been to close the centre until the various agencies gave formal approvals and the construction work was completed. Pippies at Balmoral opened as a 38 place 2-6 child care centre including the availability of 10 affordable places in March 2001 under the 12 month Licence approved by the Minister for Lands. This Licence was renewed in March 2002. The reason for a Licence not a Lease was that the Lease was dependent on the gazettal of the Balmoral Plan of Management. This occurred in December 2002. The Lease was subsequently prepared with effective dates from 14 March 2003 to 13 March 2013. A series of matters previously reported to Council held up the DA and a complying application was lodged on 31 March 2004, however a number of issues including RFS requirements needed to be resolved. During that time an increase in rent was negotiated whilst the service provided for 2-6s only. The present Lessee


The present Lessee is Pippies at Balmoral Pty Limited (ABN 42 095 700 655). Philippa Wrench-Podvinec and Michael Podvinec are the Directors. There have been from time to time some minor compliance issues surrounding the Lease including rent arrears, provision of the required number of affordable places, hours of operation and lack of a complaints protocol. However despite these the Lessee’s overall operation of the facility is considered satisfactory. The Lessee is unable to comply with Section 5A (Upgrading Works) of the Lease, being a fundamental breach of the Lease. The Lessee has been unable to comply with this condition, due to circumstances beyond its control, as 0-2 year old places cannot be provided at this site in view of the need to adhere to the RFS requirement. Options available 1. Determine the Lease on the basis that the Lessee has been unable to provide the up

to 2 year old places and call for tenders for the provision of 2 to 6 years old places. It would be proposed that the Lessee be given an ongoing tenancy to 1 January 2008 whilst Council conducts the tender process, noting the Lessee may of course re-tender.

2. Renegotiate the Lease with the Lessee on the basis of providing 2 to 6 year old

places Regardless of what option Council takes, the facility will be unable to offer 0-2 year old places. The Balmoral Plan of Management refers to the child care centre and does not specify 0-2 year old places. Officers of the Department of Lands have previously advised that the Department would not be concerned about of ages of the children. Option 1 – Determine the Lease Council’s legal advice is that the Reserve Trust may determine the Lease relying primarily on the use provisions which are essential terms of the Lease. However, this position may be less clear due to the passage of time and the substantial overruns of the timetables set out in the Lease for: 1. preparation of the DA; 2. lodgement of the DA; 3. determination of the DA; and 4. commencement of the upgrading works. Accordingly, it may be preferable to negotiate the determination process with the Lessee. As the provision of 0-2 year old places was a fundamental component of the tender process and given that these cannot be provided at this facility, it would be appropriate that Council re-tender for the Lease of the premises on the basis of providing 2-6 year places only. The Lessee would be given notice of termination of the Lease and that Council requires vacant possession by 1 January 2008. Council would proceed immediately with a re-tender for a 2-6 year old place Lease commencing 1 January 2008. The Lessee may of course submit a tender. Option 2 – Renegotiation Should Council be satisfied to retain the existing Lessee on the basis of the Lessee’s satisfactory service provision since the commencement of the Licence and the Lease and further be satisfied that there would be no public benefit in re-tendering for the provision of 2 to 6 year old places (noting that the lessee is currently providing 2-3 year old places as well


as 4–6 year old places), Council may renegotiate the provision of 2–6 year old places. Any variation to the Lease agreed upon should be subject to the Minister’s concurrence having regard to Sections 102 and 103 of the Crown Lands Act. Action proposed Renegotiation of the Lease with the existing Lessee is the preferable option provided Council is satisfied with the Lessee and that there would be no benefit in re-tendering. It is recommended that Council renegotiate the Lease with Pippies at Balmoral Pty Limited subject to the consent of the Minister to any variations agreed upon. Should Council be of the view that it is appropriate to re-tender for the provision of 0–6 year old places, the following resolution would be necessary: That: A. The advices be received. B. The existing Lease to Pippies at Balmoral Pty Limited be terminated effective 31

December 2007. C. The General Manager be delegated authority to proceed with a re-tender of the

Lease of the facility on the basis of the provision of 2-6 year old places only and to commence on 1 January 2008.

Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services


CS/71 Development Applications Meetings with Residents MOSPLAN REF: 01.03.02 REPORT BY: Manager Governance, Anthony Fitzpatrick SUMMARY Report on Notice of Motion concerning documentation of meetings between councillors and applicants/objectors of development applications and the contents of the ICAC brochure Lobbying Local Government Councillors. 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 Councillor Elsegood submitted the following Notice of Motion to Council’s meeting on 5 September 2006:

In light of the comments by the Commissioner Jerrold Cripps from ICAC and the practice in many other metro Councils, if Councillors are requested to meet with residents/ratepayers in regard to a DA be they either applicants or objectors, the Councillor should document the meeting and send it into Council for placing on the relevant file.

Council resolved that a report be prepared on the Notice of Motion and the contents of the ICAC brochure entitled Lobbying Local Government Councillors. ICAC released in August a brochure entitled Lobbying Local Government Councillors to inform councillors, the community and other interested stakeholders about what the ICAC considers to be best practice in the area of lobbying. A copy of the brochure is attached to the business papers. ICAC’s view is that lobbying of councillors is a normal and acceptable feature of the relationship between citizens and their elected representatives and assists councillors in obtaining information that may be relevant to their decision making, including the merit assessment of development applications. Lobbying of councillors by tenderers is of course the exception and is not permissible. Inappropriate or unlawful lobbying however could occur through attempts to obtain preferential consideration or treatment rather than the merits of the case and councillors need to manage each matter in accordance with the Local Government Act and Code of Conduct. The guide provides examples of inappropriate or unlawful conduct during a lobbying process. The guide acknowledges the difficulties for councillors in avoiding informal contact with constituents who seek to lobby them and suggests councillors should exercise judgement when deciding whether to be involved in private meetings with people seeking to influence a council decision and to consider the potential for suspicions of inappropriate lobbying to arise


when lobbying is not open to public scrutiny. The guide offers a number of options for councillors to ensure transparency of the lobbying process, including documenting meetings with proponents; providing copies of information presented during lobbying meetings to council officers for consideration and assessment (if required), distribution to other councillors and filing as part of council’s records; and asking people who have requested a meeting to put their arguments in writing. Regardless of whether a meeting with proponents to a development application is documented, it is considered that meetings with selected parties (say at the applicant’s request only) can lead to suspicions of impartiality and should not be entertained. All parties to a development application should have equal access to put their view forward to the Council at the appropriate time. The guide also notes that councils must deal with late submissions in relation to development applications, fairly and impartially. It is considered that Council’s policy in relation to circulation of late correspondence the day before a meeting and ability of proponents to orally address the Council at the meeting meets the test of fairness and impartiality. The proposal set out in the Notice of Motion for councillors to document meetings with applicants or objectors to development application for inclusion in council’s records is addressed in the Code of Conduct. Clauses 4.5 and 4.6 of the Code provide for proper record keeping as part of councillor’s work:

Accountability You are accountable to the public for your decisions and actions and must consider issues on their merits, taking into account the views of others. This means recording reasons for decisions; submitting to scrutiny; keeping proper records; establishing audit trails. Openness You have a duty to be as open as possible about your decisions and actions, giving reasons for decisions and restricting information only when the wider public interest clearly demands. This means recording, giving and revealing reasons for decisions; revealing other avenues available to the client or business; when authorised, offering all information; communicating clearly.

The NSW Ombudsman’s Good Conduct and Administrative Practice: Guidelines for state and local government (2003) states that “public officials must make and keep full and accurate records of their official activities. Good recordkeeping assists in improving accountability and provides for transparent decision-making.” The view of the Australia Local Government Association in relation to the documentation of meetings between councillors and proponents is that Council has an obligation to comply with the State Records Act 1998. The Act provides that a State record is “any record made and kept or received and kept, by any person in the course of the exercise of official functions in a public office, or for any purpose of a public office, or for the use of a public office”. A council is a public office and councillors are subject to the Act when they create or receive “State records” while undertaking business on council’s behalf. They are not subject to the Act when conducting personal business or business that is unrelated to their role as councillors. State Records’ view is that councillors need to understand the responsibilities for recordkeeping and the regulatory and best practice requirements they are expected to meet when undertaking duties on behalf of Council. Whilst Council has a compliance requirement


to have a general records management policy, there is no compliance requirement to have a policy/procedures document specifically for councillors. However, State Records NSW has created a sample records management policy and procedures for councillors to assist councillors in their responsibilities. Interested Councillors may obtain a copy by contacting the Manager Governance. In deciding to meet with proponents to a development application, Councillors then need to consider the above and make a judgement on whether the meeting needs to be documented to ensure that there is transparency in the lobbying process. It should be remembered though that documentation of meetings with proponents is but one of a number of options suggested by ICAC to assist transparency in the lobbying process. Should a Councillor decide it is appropriate to enter their record of the meeting into Council’s records system, it is considered that any meeting note submitted to Council would need to clearly detail the date of the meeting, subject, property, those present, précis of discussions, and any actions arising including whether assessment/comment by staff is required. The view of the Local Government Association and Department of Local Government shall be sought in relation to the interpretation of the State Records Act requirement to include all records retained by Councillors in the course of their official duties as part of Council’s official records system. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations • ICAC brochure Lobbying Local Government Councillors dated August 2006


CS/72 11-21 The Esplanade - Outdoor Dining Approvals MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.08 REPORT BY: Manager Governance, Anthony Fitzpatrick SUMMARY Granting of Outdoor Dining Approvals under Section 125 of the Roads Act 1993 to Balmoral Sandbar, Café Balmoral and Bottom of the Harbour located at 11A, 11B and 17-21 The Esplanade respectively OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Governance recommends that: A. Council consent to Outdoor Dining Approvals under Section 125 of the Roads Act

1993 being granted to Balmoral Sandbar, 11A The Esplanade; Café Balmoral 11B The Esplanade; and Bottom of the Harbour, 17-21 The Esplanade for 22.5m2, 22.5m2

and 29m2 respectively subject to standard conditions (including non-smoking requirement) and special conditions including a restriction on night use requiring the removal of all tables and chairs from Council land prior to sunset during the months April to September inclusive and prior to 8.00 PM (6.00 PM for Balmoral Sand Bar, 11A The Esplanade) during the months October to March inclusive; measures to ensure cleanliness in the area; and reduction of noise from movement of furniture, for a term of seven (7) years commencing upon the practical completion of the streetscape upgrade works and in accordance with the differential fee structure for the sites contained within Council’s Pricing Policy.

B. The General Manager be delegated authority to finalise the conditions of the

Approvals. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT The streetscape upgrade works at 11 – 17 The Esplanade are due to be completed with the installation of paving and umbrellas due to take place in October. Council has previously agreed to renew its consent to conduct outdoor dining to the proprietors of the cafes Balmoral Sandbar, Café Balmoral and Balmoral Lifesaver located at 11A, 11B and 17 The Esplanade upon the completion of the works. The previous Licence Agreements granted to each of the businesses under Section 125 of the Roads Act have expired and the granting of new outdoor dining approvals has been held in abeyance pending the completion of the streetscape upgrade works. The development application for the amalgamated Bottom of the Harbour business at 17-21 The Esplanade was lodged subsequent to the negotiated settlement of the introduction of a differential fee structure for outdoor dining approval associated with the streetscape upgrade. It is proposed that the new business will still be occupying the agreed 29m2 area in front of the former Balmoral Lifesaver site. It is proposed to grant outdoor dining approvals under Section 125 of the Roads Act 1993 to Balmoral Sandbar, Café Balmoral and Bottom of the Harbour located at 11A, 11B and 17-21


The Esplanade respectively. 11A and 11B The Esplanade propose an area of 22.5m2 each and 17-21 The Esplanade proposes an area of 29m2. Following a meeting of residents with the Mayor, an undertaking was given that residents would be given the opportunity to comment on any proposal to consent to the granting of outdoor dining approvals. Residents in the precinct were subsequently advised of the proposal to grant consent upon completion of the upgrade works and were invited to make comment in relation to any issue arising from the operation of outdoor dining at these locations. It was indicated to residents that any approval granted for outdoor dining would be conditioned to improve amenity for neighbouring properties and pedestrians. Council has received nine (9) submissions (including 2 pro forma letters) generally objecting to night time trading and raising issues relating to hours of operation, noise and waste/litter. Some matters relate directly to the outdoor dining approval, however other matters are development consent related and would be best dealt with on a compliance basis. A precis of the main issues raised follow. Operating hours • Restrict outdoor dining to 7am to 7pm including all setting up and clearing of tables and

chairs • Restrict outdoor dining hours to 8 am to 5 pm • Council has no power to approve under Roads Act (Note: Council does have authority under

Section 125 of the Roads Act 1993 to grant an outdoor dining approval for the locations proposed) • No status quo of late trading for operators at 11 The Esplanade to protect, although

Sandbar operated on some nights to 9.00 pm in summer Noise • Patrons – loud talking, laughter, alcohol consumption • Clean up activities – plate collections, dragging tables and chairs, stacking chairs,

dumping bottles into bin, breaking plates, glasses, banging of pots, pans and cutlery • Refrigeration, coffee machines and other machinery • Noise after 6.00 pm should be 0 decibels • Residents deserve peaceful, quite enjoyment of residences • Introduce alcohol free zones • Late night and early morning noise from staff • Noise from kitchen Waste/litter • Litter on footpath - serviettes, salt packets, tea bags, coffee cups, foodstuffs, ice cream

sticks on ground not cleaned up and general grime on footpath • Garbage bins placed in front of 15 The Esplanade for collection - should remain in

laneway between 11B and 15 The Esplanade Other • Night time dining would cause greater demand for parking from patrons • More noise and disturbance from delivery vehicles • Limited parking for residents, but plenty for motor cycle patrons • Business are breaching seating capacity and number of seats should be enforced • Health issues presented by Indian Mynah birds attracted to outdoor dining areas The matters concerning positioning of waste bins and Indian Mynah birds are being dealt with by the Manager Environment and Services. The General Manager has delegated authority to consent to the granting of outdoor dining approvals, however due to the concerns expressed by residents, the matter is submitted to Council for determination.


Prior to finalising this report, the proprietors of the cafe were given the opportunity to comment on the proposed consent noting that the new agreements would be in keeping with the previous agreement for outdoor dining for the businesses and would be subject to conditions including restriction on night use requiring the removal of all tables and chairs from Council land prior to sunset during the months April to September inclusive and prior to 8.00 PM during the months October to March inclusive. The proprietor of Bottom of the Harbour has indicated concern at the restriction on night time use and proposes to lodge a submission in this regard with late correspondence prior to the Council meeting. The expired Licence Agreements with the three businesses did not specify any restriction on the operating hours of the approved outdoor dining however did specify that each of the three businesses were to occupy 6.75 square metres each with 11A and 11B The Esplanade each allowed 3 tables and 9 chairs and 17-19 The Esplanade allowed 3 tables and 12 chairs. The matter of operating hours of outdoor dining had not been raised in discussions with the proprietors regarding the outdoor dining approvals and streetscape upgrade. It is understood that the three businesses had closed before sunset and some may have occasionally operated at night. The intention from Council’s point of view during negotiations on the renewal of outdoor dining was that the status quo would remain and there was no suggestion of an extension of use of the outdoor dining areas during night time. The fees for the outdoor dining areas assessed by Council’s valuer and negotiated with the applicants did not consider night time trading and were a generic rental value of the relevant areas of footpath for outdoor dining purposes. Any restrictions on hours for outdoor dining do not necessitate further review of the agreed fees. The phased in differential fee structure (per square metre per annum) based on Council providing the umbrella structures and adopted by Council in 2005 follows.

• Years 1 and 2 $550 (GST-inclusive) • Years 3 and 4 $650 (GST-inclusive) • Year 5 $750 (GST-inclusive) • Years 6 and 7 $750 (GST-inclusive) + CPI increases

Details of development consents issued for the affected properties follow. • Balmoral Sand Bar at 11A The Esplanade was granted development consent 508/97 in

1998 to use the premises for a coffee shop/café between the hours of 7am and 6pm daily with seats limited to 20.

• Café Balmoral at 11B The Esplanade was granted development consent 200/95 in 1995

to use the premises for a coffee shop/café between the hours of 7am and 11pm daily with seats limited to 20.

• The proposed new Bottom of the Harbour premises at 17-21 The Esplanade was granted

development consent 8.2005.489.1 on 5 July 2006 for the existing restaurant and existing shop businesses to be amalgamated into one business and to operate from 7am to 10pm with seating limited to 25.

To provide a historical perspective, previous development consents affecting 17-21 The Esplanade follow.


• On 7 June 1983 Council approved an application for 19 The Esplanade to be used as a café/restaurant and take-away food shop to operate during the hours of 9am and 11pm weekdays and Saturdays, and 9am and 5pm on Sundays.

• On 25 October 1984 Application DCA 104/84 was approved for the change of use of

the premises 17 The Esplanade from a hairdresser's shop to a take-away chicken/salad shop. Condition of consent restricted the hours of operation to between 9am and 7pm weekdays and weekends.

• On 4 July 1986 Application DCA 165/88 was approved for the use of the premises as

a take away fish and chips shop at No. 21 the Esplanade. Condition of consent restricts the hours of operation to between 9am and 7pm weekdays and 8am to 8pm on the weekends.

Council may grant outdoor dining approvals under Section 125 of the Roads Act for these businesses subject to conditions that improve the amenity for neighbouring residents and pedestrians. In this regard it would be appropriate for the outdoor dining approval to restrict hours that the businesses may use the footpath for outdoor dining regardless of the hours of operation of the business specified by the development consents. In the case of 11A The Esplanade which has development consent for operation to 6pm, it would not be appropriate for Council to grant an outdoor dining approval beyond 6pm. As total seating provided for patrons inside and outside must not exceed any limitation specified in development consents, granting of an outdoor dining approval does not allow the businesses to increase seating. Any increase in either operating hours or seating would require further development consent. The proprietor of Bottom of the Harbour has indicated that furniture which can be bolted down is being proposed. This is not supported as it will only encourage use of the area after hours by patrons and other persons alike and make it difficult for Council to enforce the night time restriction. The preferable way of achieving the restriction is to require removal of the tables and chairs from the footpath at the designated time as has been the practice in the past. It is proposed that outdoor dining approvals under Section 125 of the Roads Act be granted to the three businesses subject to standard conditions (including non-smoking requirement) and special conditions including a restriction on night use requiring the removal of all tables and chairs from Council land prior to sunset during the months April to September inclusive and prior to 8.00 PM (6.00 PM for Balmoral Sand Bar, 11A The Esplanade) during the months October to March inclusive; measures to ensure cleanliness; and reduction of noise from movement of furniture. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations • Submission received from objectors to outdoor dining 1 • Submission received from objectors to outdoor dining 2 • Submission received from objectors to outdoor dining 3 • Submission received from objectors to outdoor dining 4 • Submission received from objectors to outdoor dining 5 • Submission received from objectors to outdoor dining 6 • Submission received from objectors to outdoor dining 7 • Submission received from objectors to outdoor dining 8


• Submission received from objectors to outdoor dining 9


11. ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORTS

EP/208 Minutes of Sporting Field User Group Meeting held on 23 August 2006

MOSPLAN REF: 6.01.13 REPORT BY: Parks Supervisor, Peter Barrett SUMMARY Minutes of Sporting Fields User Group Meeting held on Wednesday 23 August 2006. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Parks Supervisor recommends that the report be received and noted. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT The Minutes of the Meeting of the Sporting Fields User Group Meeting held on 23 August 2006 are attached. Recommendation endorsed by Manager Assets and Services. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations • Minutes Of Sporting Fields User Group meeting 23 August 2006


EP/209 Sporting Fields - Review of Contract for Maintenance 2001- 2009

MOSPLAN REF: 6.03 REPORT BY: Parks Supervisor, Peter Barrett SUMMARY The Contract for Maintenance of Sporting Fields 2001 - 2009 has recently been reviewed. The Contract has been in place since October 2001. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Parks Supervisor recommends: That the Contract for Maintenance of Sporting Fields 2001 - 2009 held by “Around The Grounds” be extended for a further 3 years until 1 October 2009 in accordance with the option available to Council under the terms of the Contract. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT The Contract for Maintenance of Sporting Fields 2001 - 2009 is currently held by “Around The Grounds” Contractors and audits completed to date highlight that they have complied with and met the specifications of the contract and contract requirements. There has been one change to the contract since it was last reviewed in 2003, which has been the addition of the maintenance of the irrigation systems in September 2004. The current value of the Contract for Maintenance of Sporting Fields 2001 – 2009 is $ 235,862.40 + GST per annum. The ovals, despite current water restrictions and the amount of use, can be said to be in good order when compared to other sports fields within the region. The contractor currently has a good working relationship with Council staff as well as with all the sporting clubs and schools that hire Council's facilities. This contract is monitored both internally by monthly audits and externally through the Sporting Fields User Satisfaction Surveys. Over the last 3 years the Contract has been audited monthly which enables Council to assess the oval conditions throughout the year. All ovals (Allan Border Oval, Rawson Oval, Georges Heights Oval, Balmoral Oval and Middle Head Oval) maintained under this contract are audited on a sliding scale of 1-5; with 1 being poor, 3 meeting specification, and 5 being excellent. When audited each oval is assessed on grass coverage, linemarking and overall aesthetics of the facility. The contractor has no knowledge of when an audit is going to be carried out. The results of the audits have been positive. Since the last review over 300 items have been audited with over 95% meeting the specification. The only poor results were related to turf coverage towards the end of the winter season. The primary reason for these results is the amount of use the ovals have to sustain during the winter months when turf is in its dormancy. It is not through lack of cultural practices by the oval's contractor. Although the ovals have sustained a great deal more wear this winter due to the increase in numbers from


all sporting groups, the turf restoration program being undertaken by the contractor during September will bring the ovals up to an acceptable standard for summer users. The results of the Sporting Fields and Amenities Satisfaction Surveys reiterate Council's audits as Council has received no unsatisfactory comments for works undertaken under this contract from those organisations that use the facilities and completed the survey. After reviewing the results of the contract audits and user satisfaction surveys, as well as considering the overall performance of “Around The Grounds”, it is recommended that an extension be granted for a further three years to 1 October 2009 at which time the contract will expire. Recommendation endorsed by Manager Assets and Services.


EP/210 Tree Removal Application - Suakin Drive, Middle Head Road MOSPLAN REF: 05.05.03 REPORT BY: Tree Management Officer, Elizabeth Hannon SUMMARY An application to remove three Lophestemon confertus from the nature strip near Suakin Drive has been lodged by Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. One objection has been received to the proposed removal. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Tree Management Officer recommends: That approval for the removal of two Lophestemon confertus from the nature strip be granted. Replacement plantings are to be incorporated into the landscaping along the new vehicular crossover in this location. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT An application was received on 15 August 2006 from the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust (SHFT) for the removal of 3 Lophestemon confertus on public land on the street verge near Suakin Drive. SHFT is proposing to alter the current vehicular access layout to Headland Park by replacing the existing arrangement with a single well defined access, and the removal of the trees is considered necessary as they sit within the footprint of the proposed new access. In order to accommodate the new layout, existing kerb and gutter is to be replaced and gradients changed and this will have a negative impact on the subject trees. The applicant submitted a revised plan for the access on 20 September 2006 and this indicates the removal of 2 of the subject trees on Council land. The removal of the trees will be substituted with additional planting of new trees within the immediate area and it is considered that the associated landscaping will have a positive effect on the aesthetics of the area and the access to Georges Heights. In accordance with Council policy, the trees were signposted and letters sent to surrounding residents. Stickers were placed on the subject trees on 28 August 2006 and one objection letter from the resident at 1 Methuen Avenue was received by Council. The nature of this objection is that the resident envisages the removal of the trees will be to accommodate a roadway which the resident considers unsafe. The objection states that the new access road will increase risks to driver and pedestrian safety.


A report on the access works was considered and subsequently endorsed by Council at the meeting on 5 September. In relation to the issues raised in the objection by the resident of 1 Methuen Avenue the report states:

SHFT subsequently engaged a consultant to examine the submissions and any other perceived traffic impacts. The report came to the conclusion that the proposed realignment would not have an adverse impact on traffic safety and may result in an improvement. Council's Traffic and Landscape teams have examined the proposal, including the consultant’s report and residents' submissions, and raise no objection subsequent to all relevant applications being received from SHFT.

Based on the information outlined above it is recommended that the application for removal of the trees to accommodate the vehicular crossing in this location be approved. Recommendation endorsed by Manager Assets and Services. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations

• TPO Application - Entrance to Headland Park, Cnr Middle Head / Suaikin SHFT • Letter regarding notice of application for tree removal Headland Park • Letter to residents - Notice of application to remove trees, entrance to Headland Park.


EP/211 Section 94 and Section 94A Contributions Plans 2006 MOSPLAN REF: 03.03.03 REPORT BY: Director Environment and Planning SUMMARY Review of exhibition of draft section 94 and section 94A contributions plans. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Director Environment and Planning recommends that: A. The contents of the report be received and noted. B. Council adopt the Section 94 Contributions Plan 2006 and Section 94A Contributions

Plan 2006 (as amended). C. The Minister for Planning be informed of the adoption of the plans in accordance with

section 94AE of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. D. A copy of the Plans (as amended) be attached to the Minutes and Council’s Policy

Register be amended accordingly. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole No REPORT In August 2005 Council resolved to prepare draft contributions plans for Mosman to replace and update existing contributions plans for open space and car parking. The draft plans were adopted by Council for exhibition at the Council meeting on 4 April 2006. The Draft Plans then were exhibited by means of newspaper advertisement and on the Council's web site from 4 May to 4 June 2006. Copies of all relevant documents were available at Council's Offices and at Mosman Library during the period of exhibition. The Draft Plans also were referred to Council's solicitors for comment during the period of public exhibition. This led to suggestions for changes in structure and some additional explanatory content in the Draft Plans. Two submissions also were received from members of the public which also led to amendments to the plan. Council again considered the matter on 4 July 2006 and resolved to re-exhibit the plans which had been amended following the initial submissions. The Draft plans were re-exhibited in the same manner as before for the period 6 July 2006 to 4 August 2006. No further submissions were received. A number of changes have been made to the plans after the exhibition which are outlined below. The changes are considered to be of a minor nature not requiring re-exhibition. 1. In the Council report of 4 April 2006 the issue of the “bedroom tax” was discussed

with the result that the draft S.94 would refer only to additional dwellings and


subdivided lots. The exhibited S94 Plan has been amended to ensure that this is accurately reflected in the Plan.

2. The threshold for requiring quantity surveyor’s report in the S.94A Plan has been increased from $500,000 to $1,200,000. Without this change it is considered that with the high cost of development in Mosman an unreasonable number of applications would require quantity surveyor reports creating an additional expense to the cost of development.

3. Annexure and map references have been clarified and their consistent use in the documents checked.

4. Section 94A Plan clause 1.5 "Are there any exemptions to the levy?" has been amended to clarify what “conservation purposes” means, and increase the development threshold from $10,000 to $50,000. This increased cost threshold is considered reasonable as a recent survey of applications showed that most applications exceed the $50,000 figure.

5. A savings clause has been included in section 94A Plan consistent with the one in the Section 94 Plan.

The revised Plans will be attached to the Minutes. The amended plans have been circulated to Councillors separately. Council may now adopt the new plans. This will occur upon public notice being given in accordance with the Act and Regulation. Further, the provisions of section 94AE of the Act require that: “A council is, as soon as practicable after approving a contributions plan, to provide the Minister with a copy of the plan.” Recommendation endorsed by General Manager.


EP/212 Tree Preservation Order Applications MOSPLAN REF: 05.05.01 REPORT BY: Team Leader Open Space, John Grady SUMMARY Report in response to a recent Question Without Notice requesting information on Tree Preservation Order Applications. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Team Leader Open Space 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 of 5 September 2006 the following Question Without Notice was asked by Councillor Lopez: "Following recent newspaper publicity can I be given a list of the residents who have applied to Mosman Council in the last month for tree pruning, lopping, removal etc? Can I also see how many applications have been approved and how many have been rejected?" The response at that meeting was: Informed by the General Manager in the negative due to Privacy Act restrictions, however the matter will be listed for Council’s direction at the October meeting. The following table outlines the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) assessments undertaken by Council staff between 1 August 2006 and 21 September 2006. It should be noted some single applications refer to multiple trees. The table below lists the number of individual trees assessed. There were 41 TPO applications assessed for private land and 8 applications assessed for public land. All the applications and assessments are registered in Councils document management system, Dataworks.

No. of Trees

assessed Works Requested Works Approved More

Information

Prune Remove Prune Remove Required

Appeal

Private 65 38 27 38 20 7 - Public 15 10 5 12 3 - -

As can be seen in the table above, the large majority of applications move through the assessment process in accordance with Council policy. In saying that, it is not uncommon for Council to request additional information in response to applications to remove trees.


This is generally the case where there is a perceived hazard where no supporting information has been provided for consideration as part of the assessment of the application. No formal appeals to the above assessments have been received by Council to date. Councillors will be aware tree issues can become contentious. Put simply this is due to some members of the community not valuing the benefits trees provide as highly as others. On the whole the indication is that people like trees and enjoy the benefits they provide. As such Council has developed the Urban Forest Policy to guide the management of and meet the goal to 'Conserve Replenish and Enhance' the tree canopy cover of Mosman. Council staff undertake Tree Preservation Order assessments in accordance with Council's Urban Forest Policy and the Tree Preservation Order assessment procedures. Within the Urban Forest Policy it is stated that trees on both private and public land contribute to Mosman's urban forest which is highly valued by the community and this is why trees on private property are subject to the Tree Preservation Order. However, when a tree is impacting directly on a property, the applicant can tend to lose sight of the benefits the tree may be providing to surrounding residents and the community. On private land TPO assessments carried out by Council take into consideration factors such as; the amenity the tree is providing to the surrounding area; its environmental contribution; and evidence of the reason for the application. Council does not undertake hazard assessments on trees on private property. This is something that should be considered and submitted by the applicant as part of the supporting documentation for a TPO determination. On public land assessments carried out by Council take into consideration factors such as; amenity; environmental contribution; risk management; and evidence of the reason for the application. Council staff use their experience and knowledge to look for alternatives to tree removal to manage the problem associated with the reason for application. While there are many benefits associated with trees in urban areas there can also be some negative impacts. On occasion residents disagree with TPO assessments which seek to manage, rather than eliminate, some of those negative impacts (in accordance with Council policies). Under the Tree Preservation Order there is an option for residents to appeal if they disagree with an assessment and the process for doing this is outlined on the assessment form. In such appeal cases the matter, along with all relevant information, is then reported to Council for a determination. Over the past 4 years, in excess of 1800 TPO applications have been assessed by Council staff. In this time 16 appeals by the applicant have been reported to Council. These have related to a total number of 23 trees. The outcome of these appeals is as follows: TPO Appeals to Council by applicant

Public land Private land

Retain Remove Retain Remove Officer Recommendation 3 - 20 - Council Decision 2 1 4 16

Councillors will also be aware that there have also been around 6 instances over the past 4 years where trees have been removed in accordance with TPO approvals which have raised concern and objections from surrounding residents. In noting these figures it can be seen that over 98% of TPO applications are dealt with by staff in accordance with Council policy.


Council staff will continue to manage Mosman's Urban Forest in accordance with this policy, unless otherwise directed, and this will mean assessing TPO applications consistently on both public and private land and, where necessary, requesting further information from the applicant. No doubt there will be occasions when some residents will disagree with Tree Preservation Order assessments made in accordance with Council's Urban Forest Policy but this is inevitable given the subjective nature of the matter. It should be noted that some recent tree related articles covered by the media have not been entirely accurate or have failed to include information that is relevant to the matter which has been reported. If Councillors or members of the community would like to discuss articles they have seen in the media they are welcome to contact staff. Recommendation endorsed by Manager Assets and Services


EP/213 Indian Mynah Birds - Control MOSPLAN REF: 05.09 REPORT BY: Senior Environmental Health Officer, Adrian Finati SUMMARY Question without Notice by Councillor Elsegood concerning issue surrounding the presence of Indian Mynah Birds at Balmoral Beach. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Environment and Services recommends: That:

A. Council staff arrange a meeting/s with the proprietors of shops at Balmoral with a view to developing an awareness program for the shop proprietors, customers and other stakeholders on the detrimental issues associated with the bird’s activities. Such approach would involve providing information on methods of preventing or deterring the birds from indoor and outdoor food consumption areas.

B. The outcomes of the meeting/s be reported back to Council at its December 2006

meeting.

C. The outcomes of other Council trapping programs as reported to the Urban Feral Animal Action Group be reported to Council in March 2006.

Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT At the Council meeting held on 4 July 2006, Councillor Elsegood asked the following two questions requesting action:

“Could Council investigate measures that have been undertaken to rid the area of Indian Mynahs? The birds have become a health hazard in the cafes at Balmoral Beach.”

and

“Could Council investigate and report on the major problems being created by Indian Mynah Birds. The birds are a health hazard particularly in eating outlets and their outdoor areas. The birds are also responsible for killing nature birds eggs and fledglings and the young of other mammals. Waverley Council and Penrith Council have taken the problem on board. Currently Ku-ring-gai Council is trialling a remedy.”

Council has also received a recent complaint from a resident regarding the same matter; however, the incidence of other complaints has been historically sporadic.


To understand the problems associated with Indian Mynah birds and determine a position for Council, it is important to review and understand the behaviour and characteristics of the bird. This report will outline these issues so that a comprehensive review of options available to Council may be assessed. General Background Information The Indian Mynah, Acridotheres tristis, was brought to Australia in the 1860s in an attempt to control insect pests in Victorian market gardens and later taken to Queensland in an attempt to control insects in cane fields. It has spread to become a pest species and has earned the reputation of being one of the worst feral animals in Australia reducing biodiversity by out competing native birds, driving them out of scarce nesting hollows in trees, and evicting small mammals like sugar gliders from hollows. In 2000 the International Union for Conservation of Nature declared the bird among the top ‘100 of the World’s Most Invasive Species’.

The Indian Mynah is very aggressive and may compete with native wildlife for nesting hollows, food and territory. The bird has been known to attack nesting birds and force the chick out of the nest and assume the nesting spot. This forces indigenous birds such as the Rosella, to find nesting that may be available in diminishing habitats. The Indian Mynah has been known to build nests on top of existing eggs and chicks of other species of bird, thereby preventing them from breeding and populating the area, and has also been known to kill smaller birds like wrens and wagtails, and evict larger birds such as Kookaburras and Dollar birds from their nests.

Indian Mynahs also pose a potential health risk to humans as they flourish in cohabitating comfortably in the urban environment. They are accomplished scavengers and feed on almost anything including insects, fruits and vegetables, scraps, pet food and other fledgling birds. Described as “Garbage Birds" and/or "Flying Rats”, their populations also thrive around garbage tips, schools, factories and shopping centres. Their feeding behaviour complements their roosting and breeding habits by converging in large flocks in roof voids, bridges, large trees, outdoor eating areas and fast food outlets.

This accumulation of large numbers of Indian Mynahs around feeding and roosting sites causes concentrated fouling from birds faeces. Their nesting habits is also a potential health threat to humans, as their nests are heavily infested with mites and once the baby birds have fledged the mites move out of the nest down to the house in search of alternate food sources. The Indian Mynah has the potential to spread disease to humans and domestic animals through mites and concentrated fouling at roost sites that may carry the diseases psittacosis & ornithosis, salmonellosis and avian influenza. Inhaled mites may cause asthma and hay fever and the actual bites can cause irritation of the skin.

Previous Council Action

The issue of the control of Indian Mynah birds has previously been considered by the Olympics, Tourism and Business (OTB) Committee in February, June and August of 1999, and as a result the Australian Museum Business Service (AMBS) was engaged to undertake a small scale trapping trial which took place in October 1999. The trial was unsuccessful for a number of reasons and only two birds were captured. The consultant's report (AMBS Consultant March 2001) from the exercise recommended that further trials should continue incorporating improved technical methods utilising equipment and resources. The trials did not proceed and in February 2000, the OTB Committee resolved to refer the matter to SHOROC.

Present Situation and Potential Adverse Impacts on Biodiversity and Human Health Whilst the Indian Mynah Bird has been known to impact adversely on other bird species by competing for food and nesting hollows, and causing the spread of weeds into bushland


areas, there is currently no scientific evidence to support that the Indian Mynah Bird is a major threat to the bushland and biodiversity at Balmoral. In order to consider potential health impacts, a series of observations were recently conducted on the behaviour of the Indian Mynah birds at Balmoral. The observations revealed that there is a constant presence of the birds at Balmoral during daylight hours. They appear to be occupying the large fig trees in the park opposite the food outlets and using these trees as their vantage point to scavenge for food. From these trees, they swoop in on outside eating areas and feed on unattended food, scraps that have fallen on the ground, food that is thrown onto the ground by patrons for the purpose of feeding the birds, and seemingly to stalk people who eat in the park. The numbers vary from as few as a dozen to numbers estimated at 40-50. Their presence creates noise, causes concentrations of faeces on the ground and on restaurant furniture and the harassment of other birds that may threaten their feeding territory. This coincides with the types of complaints that Council has received regarding their behaviour and interaction with the urban environment. This issue with the Indian Mynah birds has seemingly placed an expectation on Council by the community of Balmoral to undertake some form of action to rid the area of this perceived urban menace. Evidently, it would be ideal to reduce or eliminate the number of Indian Mynah birds in the Mosman Council area, but the practicality of this process is under scrutiny.

Potential Physical Control Measures

Many other councils have similar or more excessive situations than Mosman and have already undertaken trials and research initiatives to eliminate the Indian Mynah. The methods that have been considered to address the problem are poisoning, habitat modification, fertility control and trapping. Of these it has been found that poisoning is very effective but undesirable because it is non – specific. There is a very likely chance that other birds may consume the poison and die as a result. Implementing habit modification to alter the bird’s way of life would require lopping or even removal of roosting trees of a wide variety. This would seriously impact on the landscape of the beach front at Balmoral and cause anguish amongst the community. Fertility controls are impractical at present until further scientific research can be undertaken.

The final method of control and removal is trapping. This method is selective, safe for humans and the environment and the use of trapping and euthanasia is considered to be a humane way of removing Indian Mynah birds. Trials and test programs have been undertaken by various other Councils including Warringah Council, Waverley Council, Cairns City Council and Shellharbour City Council, all with low levels of success. In undertaking any approach to trapping Indian Mynah birds, humane considerations need to be applied along with appropriate disposal of the birds, monitoring of the traps, maintenance, correct application of the traps to maximise capture of the birds, and security. If a program of trapping were to be considered by Council using the newly designed traps from the Australian National University, it would involve the following:

• An initial cost of $399.00 per trap (delivery extra) – it is estimated that 4 to 6 traps would be required for Balmoral.

• Purchase bottles of CO2 gas for euthanasia and payment for the disposal of the

birds. Burial would be the best method of disposal.

• An open space in an area where Indian Mynahs are common and where the traps can be placed. The cages often need to be fixed to the ground to prevent toppling.


• Barriers around the trap (to at least 10-15 metres in all directions) as the traps cannot be approached by humans under any circumstances during daylight hours or else the birds will not approach the cage. This would have to be monitored regularly to ensure people are not approaching the traps otherwise, the trapping will be unsuccessful.

• Traps would need to remain in place for months at a time to have a significant

impact on the Indian Mynah bird population. In experiments, the trap can catch anything from zero to 20 birds in a session.

• The traps would require daily attention (including weekends). Throughout both the

free feed and the catching period, to ensure there is plenty of food and water inside. This would mean staff availability to monitor and maintain the traps every day for months at a time, extra time allowed during the trapping times for euthanasia and disposal of the birds.

• The traps work best with limited other food sources in the near vicinity, therefore

given the amount of food available at Balmoral Beach; it would be likely that numbers caught would be limited.

• The traps would also need to be monitored consistently to ensure that non-target

bird species are not caught in the traps.

• Any trapping program would require significant staff resources, which is currently accounted for in implementing MOSPLAN initiatives.

Discussion and Conclusions Given the high traffic area and the constant presence of humans utilising Balmoral Beach for recreational purposes it is highly doubtful that these traps would work in this area. Traps could possibly be placed on roof tops of cafés and apartment buildings along The Esplanade, however given that a regular food source is found on the ground and along the beach this would have very limited, if any, success. This would also open up OH&S issues about climbing onto the roofs, entering public property and would still require as much manual labour to maintain the trap requirements. It would be extremely expensive and likely require additional staff. It is unlikely that the general public would want to witness the capture and holding of these birds during their visit to the area. It would therefore be difficult to prevent people, particularly children and dogs, from approaching the cages or tormenting the birds inside and therefore ensure a successful catch under humane circumstances. The traps are also large and unsightly to be in open view for this particular area and would be open to vandalism. A number of surrounding Councils, members of Urban Feral Animal Action Group (UFAAG), will be undertaking trials with these traps over the next 12 months, or as soon as the traps become available. Regular reports on their success, and problems and issues arising from the trapping programs will be made at the quarterly UFAAG meetings of which Mosman Council is a regular participant. It is therefore considered prudent for Council to wait for the findings of these reports before considering the best approach to take at Balmoral. An alternative action in the interim would be to conduct an awareness program for the shop proprietors, customers and other stakeholders on the detrimental issues associated with the bird’s activities. This would involve providing information on methods of preventing or deterring the birds from indoor and outdoor food consumption areas. Additionally, it is proposed to review the type of bins used (fully enclosed) on the beachfront. In view of the uncertainty of the success of the use of traps as being an effective method of removal, this approach may be the most suitable solution in the interim until a more efficient control method is discovered.


EP/214 Contract for the Removal of Graffiti from Council Assets MOSPLAN REF: 05.11 REPORT BY: Team Leader Service Contracts, John Saul SUMMARY Contract for Removal of Graffiti from Council’s Assets. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Team Leader Service Contracts recommends: That: A. The General Manager be authorised to finalise the Tender Documents for the

removal of Graffiti from Mosman Council’s assets and proceed to open tender. B. The General Manager be delegated authority to negotiate with other authorities and

utilities to enter into arrangements for Council’s contractor to remove graffiti from their assets if and when appropriate.

Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: No REPORT The current Graffiti Policy, adopted 15 July 1997, provides for the removal of graffiti from Mosman Council assets only, and that it will be removed within 24 hours. There is no provision in the policy for removal from private property or assets that are the property of or under the control of other authorities. Currently there is no formal contract for the removal of Graffiti from Mosman Council’s assets. Mosman Council has an agreement with a Company to remove Graffiti on an as required basis. Under this agreement, the Company provides a service to inspect assets, detect and report the graffiti, and undertake its removal within 24 hours of detection or notification. This arrangement does not meet the requirements of the Procurement Policy, so it is therefore proposed that Council proceed to open tender for graffiti removal. It is further proposed that rather than enter into a long term contract with a service provider, any contract should be for a period of 12 months (with provisions for a 12 month extension) to allow Council an opportunity to review its policy position. Such a review would logically be driven by the development and utilisation of the Asset Management System, via which specific response protocols could be developed and tailored to particular assets, their location, the type of graffiti, and whether there are other options – apart from removal - that could be used. It would also allow time for Council staff to negotiate with other authorities and utilities to determine the most appropriate and efficient approach to removing graffiti from their assets. Based on the above, tender documents are currently under preparation, with the specification to be based on the following key elements:


• The Contractor shall inspect Council assets identified as being vulnerable to graffiti

attack every 24 hours, and remove instances of graffiti and bill posters within 24 hours of detection;

• The Contractor shall inspect all other Council assets in streets and public areas every

5 days and remove instances of graffiti and bill posters within 24 hours of detection; • The Contractor shall remove instances of graffiti and bill posters reported to it by

Council within 24 hours of notification; • The Contractor shall remove offensive graffiti immediately after detection or

notification; • The Contractor shall remove only offensive graffiti from the Skate Park bowl; • The Contractor shall take a digital photo of all graffiti and billposters prior to removal,

and submit the same to Council on a monthly basis with prescribed details including location, dimensions of the affected area, nature of surface, and medium used to apply the graffiti;

• The Contractor shall maintain a database of all instances of graffiti, including all

details specified in the above point. The format and content of such database shall be developed in consultation with Council and all relevant stakeholders.

• The specification shall include clauses providing for quality control and performance

measurement to be undertaken by Council. • The specification shall have the flexibility to allow Council to direct the Contractor to

remove graffiti from non-Council property. The proposed timetable for entering into a Contract is as follows: • Call Tenders 17 October 2006 • Tenders Close 7 November 2006 • Report to Council 28 November 2006 • Commence new Contract 1 January 2007 This matter is brought to Council's attention in accordance with its policy, which requires the reporting of all service contracts prior to calling tenders Recommendation endorsed by Manager Environment and Services.


EP/215 Civic and Public Amenity Buildings - Cleaning Contract 2006 to 2008

MOSPLAN REF: 05.11 REPORT BY: Team Leader Service Contracts, John Saul SUMMARY Award of Civic and Public Amenity Buildings - Cleaning Contract 2006-2008. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Environment and Services recommends: That pursuant to clause 178(1)(a) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council accept the Tender of Storm International Pty Ltd for the Civic and Public Amenity Buildings - Cleaning Contract 2006 to 2008, and enter into a Contract with the Company on the following basis: (i) In accordance with the Tender submitted by the Company, incorporating the

variations accepted pursuant to Clause 176(4) of the Local Government (General) Regulation as set out in its email dated 13 September 2006;

(ii) For the options detailed in Parts 2.1 and 2.2 of the Services Specification as set out in

Section C of the Tender Documents, being for the cleaning of Civic Buildings and the cleaning of Public Amenity Buildings only;

(iii) For an annual fee of $187,150, subject to rise and fall variations specified in the

Conditions of Contract as set out in Section B of the Tender Documents; (iv) In the form of the Conditions of Contract as set out in Section B of the Conditions of

Contract. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: No REPORT At its meeting held on 1 August 2006, Council authorised the General Manager to finalise the Tender Documents for the Cleaning of Civic and Public Amenity Buildings and proceed to tender. The Tender Documents were consequently finalised with the scope of works covering the cleaning of the: • Civic buildings, including kitchens and carpets; • Public Amenity buildings; and • Staircases and lifts in the Vista Street car park. Tenders were subsequently invited and during the tender period, all prospective Tenderers were provided with a further specification for the option of cleaning the Cowles Road Depot, and were directed to incorporate this additional requirement into their Tenders.


Nine (9) Tenders were received by the closing date of 5 September 2006. All Tenders were assessed in accordance with the criteria detailed in the Conditions of Tendering set out in Section A of the Tender Documents, and with the process set out in the Tender Evaluation Plan. All details regarding the comprehensive evaluation of the Tenders have been documented in a confidential Tender Evaluation Report circulated to Councillors separately to the Agenda for this meeting. The Tender Evaluation Report recommends that Council accept the Tender of Storm International Pty Ltd for the Cleaning of Civic and Public Amenity Buildings (excluding the option for the cleaning of the Cowles Road Depot) for a price of $187,150 per annum subject to rise and fall variations.


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


13. CORRESPONDENCE

COR/32 Correspondence - Donations MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.01 RECOMMENDATION That the correspondence be received. CORRESPONDENCE Council provided an amount of $3,000 in its 2006/2007 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: • Chatswood Mental Health Service Young People’s Group • Royal North Shore Hospital Child & Family Health Trust • Royal Far West Children’s Health Scheme • Mercy Innercity Mission • Father Chris Riley’s Youth Off the Streets • Sydney Wildlife • WIRES Inc • Life Education NSW • NSW Breast Cancer Institute • Sir David Martin Foundation • Sydney Children’s Hospital Foundation


COR/33 Correspondence - 2006 National General Assembly of Local Government

MOSPLAN REF: 01.01.04 RECOMMENDATION That the correspondence be received and the Mayor and General Manager (or nominees) attend the 2006 ALGA National General Assembly of Local Government. CORRESPONDENCE The National General Assembly of Local Government will be held in Canberra from 27 to 30 November 2006. The theme of the Assembly is “Pushing the Agenda” and early bird registration (up to 6 October) is $760 per person. The Mayor and General Manager (or nominees) usually attend the ALGA National General Assembly of Local Government and have attended past Assemblies.


14. NOTICE OF MOTIONS/RECISSION MOTIONS

NM/6 Notice of Motion - Mosman Toll Tunnel and Section 22 Short Term Bus Solution

SUBMITTED BY: Councillor Reid MOSPLAN REF: 11.04 NOTICE OF MOTION That: A. Council revisit as a matter of urgency Mosman’s resolved position in favour of a

Cammeray to Manly toll tunnel solution for the northern peninsula. B. Council revisit our position on the Section 22 short term solution of buses to the

northern peninsula. This follows the recent press conference where the Minister for Roads, the Hon Eric Roozendaal, and Member for Manly, David Barr, confirmed that the major reason for pursuing the Spit Bridge widening was to facilitate all day bus lanes along Military/Spit Roads. Further David Barr reiterated his intention to pursue his 4/2 lane tidal flow across the bridge with buses to be directed up Parriwi Road to circumvent the police objection to his original proposal of 4 lane tidal flow up the Spit Hill S-bends in the a.m. The Minister in his press conference referred to Mosman’s position of a toll tunnel and advised that this was estimated to cost $3B which is an absurd suggestion to serve just 260,000 residents on the northern peninsula. Further recently, Jillian Skinner, when talking on the Spit Road clearways advised that her position was the same as Mosman’s. i.e. toll tunnel. David Barr continues to call for the STA to direct buses up Parriwi Road., despite being advised of the structural inadequacies of Parriwi Road.

Agenda 3 October 2006 - mosman.nsw.gov.au · All remaining items will be dealt with following...

Documents

Transcript of Agenda 3 October 2006 - mosman.nsw.gov.au · All remaining items will be dealt with following...