The Greater Sydney Commission is taking the opportunity to brief representatives of community groups on the draft District Plans. The briefing will provide attendees with information on the plans, as well as the ways you can encourage all Sydneysiders to get involved in shaping planning for a greater Sydney.

There will be a community drop in session in your district and more opportunities in February and March 2017 (details to come) to find out more about the draft District Plans – details can be found below. If you have any questions about the sessions, please contact us on 1800 617 681 or engagement@gsc.nsw.gov.au.

You can also join the conversation by visiting our website www.greater.sydney, or our social media pages on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and LinkedIn – search for Greater Sydney Commission.

The General Manager of Willoughby Council has provided the following update:

Status of Council amalgamation

 Willoughby City Council continues to deliver while awaiting the outcomes of Mosman and North Sydneys’ consideration of their next steps.

On 20 September 2016, a judgement was handed down from the NSW Land & Environment Court in relation to a number of councils’ challenges to merger proposals; including Mosman and North Sydney’s challenge to the merger with Willoughby.

In essence, most of the grounds were dismissed with the exception of one. The summary judgement states that Justice Moore found ‘defects’ in the reports prepared by the delegates into the proposed mergers of local governments involving Mosman, North Sydney and also Strathfield Councils. Those ‘defects’ related to inadequate consideration of ‘communities of interest’.

Separate to the appeals process, sections of the merger proposal reports will now presumably need to be redone and resubmitted for consideration to the Boundaries Commission and the Minister. The State government has not provided any further information on what this process will entail.

With regard to the appeals process open to Mosman and North Sydney with regard to their proposed merger with Willoughby, North Sydney has lodged an intention to appeal. Mosman has lodged an appeal. A date for directions for Mosman, which will settle the date of the hearing, has been set for 7 December 2016. The date for the hearing and the length of the court process is unknown at this time.

Debra Just – General Manager
WILLOUGHBY CITY COUNCIL

The Department of Planning and Environment has prepared a draft Medium Density Design Guide to encourage more low rise medium density housing to be built in NSW, providing greater housing choice, more housing affordability and better quality design. •

The Design Guide provides benchmarks for designing and assessing low rise medium density housing types including:

• Terrace style housing on small lots (attached dwellings)
• Dual occupancies and semi-detached dwellings;
• Multi-dwelling housing (strata titled terrace housing);
• Multi-dwelling housing (strata titled villas and townhouses);
• Community titled master-planned medium density developments of up to 2 storeys; and,
• Manor homes (2 storey buildings comprising 3-4 dwellings).

It is proposed that the Design Guide will be used for both complying developments and development applications to promote good design outcomes for medium density housing types across NSW.

It is expected that the Government will adopt the code early in 2017.

The following motion was put forward to the Federation of Willoughby Progress Associations and adopted:

DRAFT LETTER TO COUNCIL

Requested action by Council:

That Council undertake a public review of any policy dealing with matters as outlined below.

Background

At the recent meeting of the Federation of Willoughby Progress Associations it was carried that the Federation write to Council regarding perceived conflicts of interest with the process of handling applications/proposals from current and former members of Council staff and Councillors.

From time to time applications are submitted to Council where there may be a perceived conflict of interest. Such applications may be from current or past Council staff or Councilors. From a governance perspective, it is important that such matters are dealt with ‘at arms length’ and with a high level of transparency.

Council recently engaged with a Planning Proposal submitted by a company whose representatives were Council’s immediate past GM and Planning Director.

The current policy appears to be in such circumstances to engage external consultants to review the proposal. However, at the end of the day it is a Council Officer who makes the recommendation to Council and Councillors who have been extensively involved with the former staff who make the determination.

From a public perspective it seems like the application may be favourably (or otherwise) considered. Perhaps a scenario where the entire process is handled external to Council (e.g by another Council or ‘tribunal’ might be appropriate.

Council dealing with Personal Conflicts of Interest

1. Name of Matter: Council Conflicts of Interest – Personal Matters
2. Summary of Matter: From time to time applications are submitted to Council where there may be a perceived conflict of interest. Such applications may be from current or past Council staff or Councilors. From a governance perspective, it is important that such matters are dealt with ‘at arms length’ and with a high level of transparency.
3. This matter is put forward by the Chatswood West Ward Progress Association
4. Proposed Motions and Actions: That a letter be sent to Council and Councilors requesting a public review of any policy dealing with matters as outlined above.
5. (and where it is proposed a letter be sent, a draft letter should also be included)
6. Background and Discussion

• Why the matter has arisen/is put forward – Council recently engaged with a Planning Proposal submitted by a company whose representatives were Council’s immediate past GM and Planning Director.
• What the key issues are: The current policy appears to be in such circumstances to engage external consultants to review the proposal. However, at the end of the day it is a Council Officer who makes the recommendation to Council and Councillors who have been extensively involved with the former staff who make the determination.
• Why action should be considered: From a public perspective it seems like the application may be favourable (or otherwise) considered. Perhaps a scenario where the entire process is handled external to Council (e.g by another Council or ‘tribunal’ might be appropriate.
• Details of any legislation/Council decisions etc
• Where there are alternative views/perspectives, these should also be detailed: Please refer to details recently provided by Council’s Director in relation to this matter.

Response from Peter Conroy
Further to your recent inquiry, I have made additional inquiries with staff and can now advise you as follows:

Planning Proposals

• All Planning Proposals are reported to full Council for Council to resolve whether to proceed to Gateway/exhibition.
• If Council resolves to proceed to Gateway, the Planning Proposal is referred to the Department of Planning and Environment who may determine to issue Gateway or not. If a Gateway determination by the Department is not issued the matter cannot proceed any further.
• If Gateway is issued it proceeds to public exhibition.
• Following exhibition the Planning Proposal is reported back to Council. If Council resolves to proceed it is again forwarded to the Department who again may or may not decide to make the LEP change.

As you can see there are a number of checks and balances in the process

Development Applications

• Council Officers are required to report certain applications to Council for determination including:

–          applications where Council is the applicant or involves Council property, other than changes of use or internal alterations to premises within a business zone;

–          applications which, in the opinion of the General Manager, are sensitive or controversial and should be determined by Council, on the basis of (amongst other things) it involves a site rezoning.

Again there are checks and balances in the process.

Code of Conduct

Council Officers are also bound by the Council Code of Conduct which states:

4.14        How you manage a non-pecuniary conflict of interests will depend on whether or not it is significant.

4.15        As a general rule, a non-pecuniary conflict of interests will be significant where a matter does not raise a pecuniary interest but it involves:

1. a) a relationship between a Council official and another person that is particularly close, for example, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descendant or adopted child of the person or of the person’s spouse, current or former

spouse or partner, de facto or other person living in the same household

1. b) other relationships that are particularly close, such as friendships and business relationships. Closeness is defined by the nature of the friendship or business relationship, the frequency of contact and the duration of the friendship or relationship
2. c) an affiliation between the Council official and an organisation, sporting body, club, corporation or association that is particularly strong.

4.18        If you are a member of staff of Council, the decision on which option should be taken to manage a non-pecuniary conflict of interests must be made in consultation with your manager.

In the case of the 688-692 Pacific Highway Planning Proposal

• In accordance with Council practice the planning Proposal was reported to the full Council.
• As senior staff at the proponent company (Aqualand) had previously held senior roles at Council and worked with Council staff the Planning Proposal was referred to independent consultants to undertake assessment to avoid any perceived conflict of interest. This included urban design advice (Kennedy and Associates) and overall planning assessment (Ingham Planning).
• The urban design advice was provided to Ingham Planning for consideration in their assessment of the scheme as a whole. As you will note form the report, Ingham Planning’s assessment did not concur entirely with the advice of Kennedy and Associates.
• The reports of Kennedy and Associates and Ingham Planning were forwarded to Council as an attachment  to a Covering Report – prepared by Council Officer’s in accordance with Council’s Business Paper format. The recommendation in the Covering Report was the recommendation of Ingham Planning.

Other Planning Proposals submitted by Aqualand

Aqualand have also previously submitted a Planning Proposal for 31-35 Herbert St, St Leonards. An early assessment of this application by Council staff determined it was not worthy of support and was reported to Council on this basis.

A further application has now been lodged for 31-39 Herbert St. The initial assessment of this application is similar and it is likely to be reported in a similar manner.

These more recent applications have been dealt with under my direction as the Director of Planning and Infrastructure.  I have no previous connection with Aqualand staff.

Future Development Applications and Planning Proposals by Aqualand

It is intended to treat any future application (whether Development Application or Planning Proposal) submitted by Aqualand in a similar manner namely:

• if an initial staff assessment indicates it is not worthy of support, it will be reported directly to Council
• if a more detailed assessment is required, it will be referred to Independent Consultants.

I hope you have found this information/explanation useful, if not please do not hesitate to contact me on 9777-7701

Regards

Peter Conroy

The following motion has been proposed for action by the Federation of Willoughby Progress Associations.

The background to this motion is the concerns expressed when two former senior staff of Council lodged a Planning Proposal for the over development of 688 – 692 Pacific Highway Chatswood.

Background

At the nextt meeting of the Federation of Willoughby Progress Associations it is proposed that the Federation write to Council regarding perceived conflicts of interest with the process of handling applications/proposals from current and former members of Council staff and Councillors.

From time to time applications are submitted to Council where there may be a perceived conflict of interest. Such applications may be from current or past Council staff or Councilors. From a governance perspective, it is important that such matters are dealt with ‘at arms length’ and with a high level of transparency.

Council recently engaged with a Planning Proposal submitted by a company whose representatives were Council’s immediate past GM and Planning Director.

The current policy appears to be in such circumstances to engage external consultants to review the proposal. However, at the end of the day it is a Council Officer who makes the recommendation to Council and Councillors who have been extensively involved with the former staff who make the determination.

From a public perspective it seems like the application may be favourably (or otherwise) considered. Perhaps a scenario where the entire process is handled external to Council (e.g by another Council or ‘tribunal’ might be appropriate.

Requested action by Council: That Council undertake a public review of any policy dealing with matters as outlined above.

AS detailed in the Press Release below, Willoughby Council has had a good financial outcome for the past year.

Council achieved a surplus of over $13M with its cash reserves increasing by $14M and all financial indicators exceeding benchmarks.

However, Council only spent $3.5M in the year on capital works funded by its infrastructure levy. In line with many past years, Council was unable to spend its budget on infrastructure needing to carry forward over $1M. Perhaps this is because Council has reduced its workforce?

Revenue from The Concourse was positive and borrowings were able to be reduced by over $2M.

Whilst over $2M was saved in wages, many are concerned that this has seen a drop in Council’s level of service. It seems to have been some time since Council undertook a resident/ratepayer satisfaction survey.

A full report will be placed in front of Council on the 24th October and available on Council’s website from the 19th October 2106.

COUNCIL PRESS RELEASE

Willoughby City Council’s strong and stable financial position has been confirmed with Annual Financial Statements reporting a surplus operating position of $13.142M ($35.536M inc capital items), significant cash and cash reserves (increase of $14.172M from 2015 to $104.284M in 2016), and with all financial indicators exceeding benchmarks.

The audited Statements were adopted at last night’s Council Meeting, and show Council’s focus on improving services, facilities and programs through smart financial and organisational management is paying off for the local community.

Highlights of Council’s financial position, and the resulting ways projects and works are benefiting the community include:

Infrastructure Levy – Council’s commitment to providing its community with quality assets is embedded within its Long Term Financial Plan and is built on funding from the Infrastructure Levy, introduced in 2015. With the Levy, Council will invest a total of $40.269M over seven years into renewing and maintaining assets to meet community standards and expectations.

In the 2015/16 year the program of renewal works totalled $3.421M, including:

• Bridges – $227K
• Buildings –$1.230M
• Drainage – $464K
• Footpaths –$431K
• Parks -$433
• Playgrounds –$209K
• Sporting Fields -$427K
• An amount of $1.097M was carried forward by Council to 2016/2017 and a further $59K restricted in Reserve in order to complete all budgeted works.

The Concourse Precinct, Chatswood – Excluding the Library, The Concourse precinct returned an operating surplus of $1.68 M. There has been an improvement in the annual principal outstanding on The Concourse borrowings of $2.145M from $44.093M to $41.948M.

Improved delivery of Council projects – The implementation of a Project Management Office has seen Council systemise and prioritise all Council projects, ensuring effective delivery of works and services to the community. The Office has played a significant role in the success of the first year of the Infrastructure Levy, with 96 per cent of planned projects either completed or commenced at 30 June.

Decrease in wages and on-costs – There was a saving to budget on Employee Costs of $2.02M. An actual spend of $39.79M compared to the original budget of $41.81M

“The Annual Financial Statements show Council is in a strong position as we move forward through times of potential change,” said Willoughby Mayor, Gail Giles-Gidney.  “It’s fantastic to see that we are delivering a wide range of services and facilities required and expected by our community, and doing it in a way that shows Council’s focus on improvement through smart financial and organisational management,” she said.

The Financial Statements and Auditor’s Reports will now be presented to the public at the Council Meeting on Monday 24 October 2016.

We recently wrote to Council seeking clarification about the Conditions of Consent for the operations of the church. Here is the response:

:” am writing in response to your correspondence dated 5 September 2016.  Your email was forwarded to me by your local Ward Councillor and raises concerns regarding the recently opened Church of Scientology.

I have reviewed the relevant documentation, made additional inquiries with the staff involved and can now advise you:

• Development Consent DA-2014/430 was granted by Council 0n 12 March 2015 for, “Alterations and adaptive re-use of an existing building for the purposes of ecclesiastical management, theological studies and church activities, and associated works/uses including; demolition of an existing dwelling; construction of a pedestrian bridge, bus layover, passenger waiting area and new lift enclosure; and, use of an adjoining dwelling as a caretakers cottage”.
• Construction Certificate CC-15261 was issued on 11 November 2015 by Accredited Certifier Dean Goldsmith of Blackett Maguire & Goldsmith.
•         The Operational Plan of Management was lodged with Council on 3 June 2015. It was approved by Council on 1 June 2016.

•        An Interim Occupation Certificate was issued on 4 August 2016 by Accredited Certifier Dean Goldsmith of Blackett Maguire & Goldsmith. The Interim Occupation Certificate excludes Room 3.404 Level 3, the bus stop, the new driveway, the accessible ramp and waiting area adjacent to Millwood Avenue frontage.

 In relation to the specific matters raised in your correspondence dated 5 September 2016, I can advise you as follows:

1. “The bus bay on Millwood is not complete. We assume that this was a condition of consent and that the premises cannot be used until this is finished”.

Advice:

The bus bay is a requirement of the Development Consent. However, it appears that the works have not yet been completed. An Interim Occupation Certificate was issued on 4 August 2016 by the Accredited Certifier. The Interim Occupation Certificate excludes the bus stop.

2. “The fact that it is believed there will be church members living on the site surprised many. We thought this was a day time use only with mandated arrival and departure times”.

Advice:

Development Consent DA-2014/403 was granted for the use of church activities only. No residential accommodation has been approved onsite (other than within the caretakers cottage, previously known as 23 Millwood Avenue, Chatswood).

Conditions of Development Consent DA-2014/403 restrict hours of operations of the premises to:

The hours of operation of the ‘business premises’ and ‘place of public worship’ are restricted to 8.30am to 9.30pm, 7 days a week.

Except for security staff and/or cleaners, all staff, parishioners and visitors shall vacate the premises no later than 10.00pm.

3. How many day-time students will be coming to the site. We thought three busload i.e. around 120 but hearing numbers in the high hundreds being bandied about.

Advice:

Development Consent DA-2014/403 requires an Operational Plan of Management be approved. There are no conditions of consent that restrict the number of visitors. The Operational Plan of Management stipulates the number of staff but does not stipulate numbers of visitors.

The Statement of Environmental Effects submitted with the Development Application (which form part of the supporting information for the application) details “maximum number of people on site at any one time is 460 people (290 staff and 170 parishioners). Actual numbers are expected to fluctuate below the maximum, and will range throughout the day”.

Regards

Peter Conroy

       PLANNING & INFRASTRUCTURE DIRECTOR

Based on community feedback, Willoughby City Council has produced a Draft Landscape Improvements Plan for the reserve. This is the reserve near the old Acoustics Laboratory.

They welcome your feedback on the Draft Plan and invite you to comment at:

http://haveyoursaywilloughby.com.au/Greville-st

Following our last meeting we expressed concern on the way Council handles applications lodge by former senior staff. Below is there response:

Further to your recent inquiry, I have made additional inquiries with staff and can now advise you as follows:

Planning Proposals

• All Planning Proposals are reported to full Council for Council to resolve whether to proceed to Gateway/exhibition.
• If Council resolves to proceed to Gateway, the Planning Proposal is referred to the Department of Planning and Environment who may determine to issue Gateway or not. If a Gateway determination by the Department is not issued the matter cannot proceed any further.
• If Gateway is issued it proceeds to public exhibition.
• Following exhibition the Planning Proposal is reported back to Council. If Council resolves to proceed it is again forwarded to the Department who again may or may not decide to make the LEP change.

As you can see there are a number of checks and balances in the process

Development Applications

• Council Officers are required to report certain applications to Council for determination including:

–          applications where Council is the applicant or involves Council property, other than changes of use or internal alterations to premises within a business zone;

–          applications which, in the opinion of the General Manager, are sensitive or controversial and should be determined by Council, on the basis of (amongst other things) it involves a site rezoning.

Again there are checks and balances in the process.

Code of Conduct

Council Officers are also bound by the Council Code of Conduct which states:

4.14        How you manage a non-pecuniary conflict of interests will depend on whether or not it is significant.

 4.15        As a general rule, a non-pecuniary conflict of interests will be significant where a matter does not raise a pecuniary interest but it involves:

1. a) a relationship between a Council official and another person that is particularly close, for example, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descendant or adopted child of the person or of the person’s spouse, current or former

spouse or partner, de facto or other person living in the same household

1. b) other relationships that are particularly close, such as friendships and business relationships. Closeness is defined by the nature of the friendship or business relationship, the frequency of contact and the duration of the friendship or relationship
2. c) an affiliation between the Council official and an organisation, sporting body, club, corporation or association that is particularly strong.

 4.18        If you are a member of staff of Council, the decision on which option should be taken to manage a non-pecuniary conflict of interests must be made in consultation with your manager.

In the case of the 688-692 Pacific Highway Planning Proposal

• In accordance with Council practice the planning Proposal was reported to the full Council.
• As senior staff at the proponent company (Aqualand) had previously held senior roles at Council and worked with Council staff the Planning Proposal was referred to independent consultants to undertake assessment to avoid any perceived conflict of interest. This included urban design advice (Kennedy and Associates) and overall planning assessment (Ingham Planning).
• The urban design advice was provided to Ingham Planning for consideration in their assessment of the scheme as a whole. As you will note form the report, Ingham Planning’s assessment did not concur entirely with the advice of Kennedy and Associates.
• The reports of Kennedy and Associates and Ingham Planning were forwarded to Council as an attachment  to a Covering Report – prepared by Council Officer’s in accordance with Council’s Business Paper format. The recommendation in the Covering Report was the recommendation of Ingham Planning.

Other Planning Proposals submitted by Aqualand

Aqualand have also previously submitted a Planning Proposal for 31-35 Herbert St, St Leonards. An early assessment of this application by Council staff determined it was not worthy of support and was reported to Council on this basis.

A further application has now been lodged for 31-39 Herbert St. The initial assessment of this application is similar and it is likely to be reported in a similar manner.

These more recent applications have been dealt with under my direction as the Director of Planning and Infrastructure.  I have no previous connection with Aqualand staff.

Future Development Applications and Planning Proposals by Aqualand

It is intended to treat any future application (whether Development Application or Planning Proposal) submitted by Aqualand in a similar manner namely:  

• if an initial staff assessment indicates it is not worthy of support, it will be reported directly to Council
• if a more detailed assessment is required, it will be referred to Independent Consultants.

Councillor Stevens celebrates 20 years of service to the Willoughby community

 Willoughby Councillor, Mandy Stevens was presented with an Outstanding Service Award at Monday evening’s Council meeting, to recognise her service to the community through Local Government NSW, covering a period of 20 years as a member of Willoughby City Council.

Willoughby Mayor, Gail Giles-Gidney presented the motion on behalf of fellow Councillors and Willoughby Council staff.

Councillor Stevens has served the Willoughby Community for more than 30 years, 20 of those on Council, and is well known in community groups and clubs in the area, notably the West Ward Progress Association, the Chatswood RSL Club and West Ward Community Fire Unit.

She has worked with Meals on Wheels for more than 32 years and in fund raising for the Red Cross.

Councillor Stevens served on The Greek Orthodox Committee and helped bring about positive changes to aged care. She was instrumental in providing more childcare facilities to the area including the Johnson Street and Pelican Childcare services and in updating the playground and amenities at Lowanna Park Children’s Playground.

She supported moves to rename Western Park as Kenneth Slessor Park, and supported the Artarmon Loop Bus and West Chatswood Bus.

She has been a tireless advocate for balance in development in Chatswood and environmental sustainability and for her work with the Bushland Preservation Committee. She served on the NSW Local Government Women’s Association and on the Welcoming Committee for the Friendly City Relationship with our Sister City Suginami in Japan.

“Our community is fortunate to have people such as Councillor Stevens who are willing to give up their time and energy to contribute to and improve our community. On behalf of everyone at Willoughby City Council, I would like to congratulate Councillor Stevens on receiving this Award,” said Willoughby Mayor Gail Giles-Gidney.