Basically, if a council officer happens to notice something, action MIGHT be taken.
What audits are carried out on the contractors engaged by Council for garden maintenance and street speed traffic calmer gardens? Please include the frequency and manner that the audits occur so that an understanding of what is occurring can be obtained if audits do occur.
Auditing for the maintenance of gardens in our Local Area Traffic Management (LATM’s) devices is by visual inspection. The contract is supervised by Council’s Recreation Assets Officer and whilst driving around the LGA undertaking park inspections and triaging customer service requests, he sees the majority of LATM’s. Targeted visits are made to LATM’s in less regularly travelled back streets.
Each inspection checks the condition of plants, weed growth and litter. Where necessary, work is referred to the contractors for attention in line with maintenance standards or if a site appeared to have been missed in the contractor’s program of work.
Unfortunately, landscape works are sometimes vandalised, in particular through the theft of new plantings for what appears to be private use. Some incidents are reported as Customer Service Requests. Mostly, they are noticed and rectified by Council staff as part of their normal duties.
Anyone wishing to report concerns about the condition of gardens in our LATM’s can contact Council on 9777-1000 or by email at firstname.lastname@example.org
For decades Council’s street sweepers in the Council have operated on a fortnightly rotation. This regularity has changed done now to intermittent and irregular street operations being between 4 to 5 weeks visits. Why is this? What is the policy or operational issues behind this change?
The street sweeping schedule is generally fortnightly, which has been the case for many years. That program is subject to all machinery being operational, but can at times be affected by breakdowns, in which case we prioritise certain high activity locations. Given the ageing nature of one of our two road sweepers, we have tendered for and purchased a new road sweeping machine and expect delivery before the end of May 2021. In line with asset renewal plans and funding availability, our second road sweeping machine will be replaced next financial year.
Motion going to Council. g: – That Council brings back a report detailing how Willoughby City Council can escalate its targets to 100% renewable energy by 2030 and zero emission by 2040.
Council Officer’s responded that given the extensive work involved in preparing a Council Report, it is recommended that Council be provided with a briefing prior to any report. They also provided the following information: Emissions associated with electricity comprise over half of Councils total emissions. The procurement of a large proportion of renewable energy is a cornerstone of our emissions reduction strategy. Our Green City Plan 2028 provides a strategic framework to achieve climate change outcomes for the community and includes the following targets:
• By 2020 we will emit at least 20 per cent less GHG emissions from our operations compared with 2008/09
• By 2028 we will emit at least 50 per cent less GHG emissions from our operations compared with 2008/09
• Our operations will achieve net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner if viable
• 20 per cent renewable energy target by 2020 for Council operations.
• 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2028 for Council operations.
The NSW Government’s is proposing to reduce developer contributions. Other proposals include linking population growth in the calculation of rates. There are significant financial implications of these combined reforms.
In the response to the Government Council Officers have argued aligning rates revenue with population growth must be equitable and not further burden existing ratepayers. Under these proposals, existing residents would, in effect, take on the burden of providing infrastructure that was previously the responsibility of developers.
MATTER DETERMINED DA-2020/240 at 99 Beaconsfield Road & 22B Greville Street, CHATSWOOD NSW 2067. Demolition of two (2) existing dwellings and construction of Seniors Living consisting of seven (7) self-contained dwellings, tree removal, car-parking and associated works.
PANEL CONSIDERATION AND DECISION The Panel considered: the matters listed at item 6, the material listed at item 7, the material presented at the meeting and briefings and the matters observed at site inspections listed at item 8 in Schedule 1 of this Determination and Statement of Reasons. The Panel adjourned at the end of the meeting to deliberate on the matter and formulate a resolution.
Development application The Panel determined to refuse the development application pursuant to section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The decision was unanimous.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION The reasons outlined in the Council assessment report, specifically:
Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the matters for consideration under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 (Seniors SEPP) and the Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012 (WLEP) for the following reasons: a) The proposed development is non-compliant with Clause 40(4) of the Seniors SEPP with respect to the height of buildings, the number of storeys for buildings adjacent to a boundary and buildings located in the rear 25% of the site being more than one storey. The applicant has not provided a Clause 4.6 written request with respect to any of the three non-compliances with Clause 40(4) of the Seniors SEPP; b) The subject site does not comply with Clause 26 of the Seniors SEPP with regards to access to facilities and public transport. The applicant has not provided a Clause 4.6 written request to justify non-compliance with Clause 26 of the Seniors SEPP; c) The proposed floor space ratio exceeds the maximum threshold stipulated in Clause 50 of the Seniors SEPP and the floor space ratio development standard within Clause 4.4 of the WLEP and is found to be excessive and not compatible with the surrounding locality. The applicant has not provided a Clause 4.6 written request to justify non-compliance with the floor space ratio; d) The proposal does not meet Clause 33(f) of the Seniors SEPP or the aims in subclause 1.2(c)(i) and 1.2(c)(ii) of the WLEP 2012 as the removal of thirty-five (35) trees (of which five (5) trees are listed on the Willoughby Natural Heritage Register) is found to result in adverse impacts on the neighbourhood amenity and landscape character of the locality; e) The proposed landscape plan is unsatisfactory as it lacks well-sized deep soil areas for suitable canopy trees and planting and therefore does not meet the neighbourhood amenity and streetscape requirements stipulated in Clause 33 of the Seniors SEPP; Reference: DA-2020/240 Page 2 of 3 f) The Development Application has not provided adequate parking for disabled persons in accordance with Schedule 3, Clause 5(a) of the Seniors SEPP; g) The Development Application has not provided sufficient information with regards to stormwater management, vehicular access and parking.
Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal is not in the public interest. CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNITY VIEWS In coming to its decision, the Panel considered written submissions made during public exhibition and heard from all those wishing to address the Panel. The Panel noted that key issues of concern included: Seniors SEPP requirements not met: Non-compliance with standards of Clause 40 and 50 of the Seniors SEPP o Access to facilities requirements not met – Clause 26 of the Seniors SEPP; o Vegetation and tree removal; o Flora and fauna; o Removal of trees listed on the Willoughby Natural Heritage Register; o Inadequate landscaping; o Design excellence not achieved; o Excessive FSR; o Traffic and parking; o Visual privacy; o Solar access; o Stormwater management; o Site works; o Management plans; o Acoustic impacts; o Design is not in character with the surrounding character and streetscape. The Panel considered that concerns raised by the community have been adequately addressed in the assessment report and that no new issues requiring assessment were raised during the public meeting.