Agenda of Extraordinary Council Meeting

Extraordinary Council Meeting

24 May 2016

Item No: Item 3

Subject: Evaluation and Proposed Outcomes of Trial Off Leash Areas at Laxton Reserve, Petersham Park and Sydenham Green

File Ref: 16/4718/57025.16

Prepared By: Peter Montague – A/Manager Culture and Recreation, Marrickville

Authorised By: Josephine Bennett - A/Director Community Services, Marrickville

SUMMARY

This report details the outcomes from the recent evaluation process undertaken to assess the current trial of three dog off leash areas at Laxton Reserve, Petersham Park and Sydenham Green.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. the report be received and noted;

2. the trial dog off leash areas at Petersham Park, Petersham and Sydenham Green, Sydenham are made permanent under the same conditions used during the trial period;

3. Council ceases the off leash trial at Laxton Reserve, Dulwich Hill;

4. Council implements a trial off leash area at Johnson Park, Dulwich Hill subject to the following time restrictions:

- 6am to 9am, 6pm to 8pm during daylight saving, and 5pm to 7pm during non-daylight saving time;

5. Council implements a trial off leash area at Morton Park, Lewisham; and

6. all residents who have provided feedback during the trial and evaluation process are notified of Council’s decision.

BACKGROUND

Council’s Recreation Policy and Strategy (2013) states that:

“Council actively promotes responsible pet ownership, recognises the value of pet ownership in contributing to community well-being, and acknowledges that providing public spaces to exercise pets is essential. Council’s approach to equitable access to parks for people with pets is based on:

· safe and shared use of Marrickville’s parks and open space;

· the development of facilities to meet the needs of residents and their pets; and

· ongoing management of pet access in parks and open space.”

The aim of Council’s Biodiversity Strategy 2011-21 is to:

‘Protect and enhance Marrickville’s biodiversity values and the ecosystem services they provide’

The Biodiversity Strategy sets out six strategic focus areas that have specific, associated strategies to achieve the aim. The following focus areas are relevant to parks in the GreenWay Priority Biodiversity Area:

1. Priority Biodiversity Areas – preserve and enhance the biodiversity value of Priority Biodiversity Areas.

3. Threats – eliminate or mitigate key present and future threats to Marrickville’s biodiversity.

Further Council’s Biodiversity Action Plan (2011-15) and Draft Biodiversity Action Plan (2016-21) lists the following action for the GreenWay Priority Biodiversity Area:

Investigate and implement options to exclude or manage dog access in parks within the Bandicoot protection Area and incorporate into Council policy relating to dog access in parks.

In 2014 Council conducted off leash trials at a number of parks resulting in the development of five new permanent off leash areas and amendments to permitted off leash hours at two existing areas.

Consistent with Council’s strategic position, a 6 month trial of additional DOLAs was implemented at Laxton Reserve Dulwich Hill, Petersham Park and Sydenham Green.

The objectives of the trials were to:

§ inform Council’s decision making on the future of DOLAs by investigating and measuring community attitudes;

§ identify issues arising from the trial for Council to investigate / address;

§ record compliance issues for future policy making purposes;

§ educate park users on ways to share the spaces; and

§ encourage the community to create their own solutions to park sharing issues.

Community Engagement

The community was encouraged to provide feedback throughout the trial and an evaluation process was conducted at the trial’s conclusion. Specifically, the community engagement undertaken comprised:

§ letterbox drop to residents adjacent to the three trials informing them of the trial;

§ Council Column notice;

§ media releases;

§ information on the Council website;

§ development and installation of DOLA signage in relevant parks; and

§ the installation of additional bins and bags (December 2015).

Evaluation of the trial included the following:

§ an evaluation survey on Your Say Marrickville;

§ letterbox drop to residents adjacent to the three trials informing them of the evaluation process;

§ a designated email address dogs@marrickville.nsw.gov.au was set up for feedback during the duration of the trial; and

§ promoting awareness of the evaluation through Council Column and media release.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There is an allocation of $30,000 in the 2016/17 Operational Plan for the establishment of new and improvements to existing dog off leash areas. This should be sufficient to fund the implementation of the three trial areas as proposed in conjunction with a possible further trial area at HJ Mahoney Reserve in Marrickville as proposed in the draft Cooks River Parklands Plan of Management and Master Plans recently endorsed by Council for public exhibition. Resources will be required for signage, local resident notification and the evaluation process.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Overall level of response

A total of 472 communications were received during the trial and evaluation period.

§ 233 people participated in the evaluation process through March into early April 2016;

§ 239 emails were received through the dogs@marrickville email address; and

§ 154 communications were received through Council’s Customer Response Management system (Merit).

At the request of residents, a meeting was held in November 2015 with local residents and the Principal of St Paul of the Cross School regarding the trial off leash area at Laxton Reserve.

Monitoring

Council Rangers conducted a total of 364 patrols across the three off leash areas during the trial period. Further information on the monitoring of the trials is included in ATTACHMENT 1.

Laxton Reserve

Open space in Dulwich Hill is limited and consequently the available open space has to work hard to deliver multiple outcomes for the community. The largest areas of open space with potential for off leash use comprise the closely linked parks at Laxton Reserve, Arlington Reserve and Johnson Park. These areas are located in the bandicoot protection area under Council’s DCP which aims to protect the endangered long-nosed bandicoot population of inner western Sydney as listed under NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Dogs, cats and foxes are a recognised threat to bandicoots.

The Recreation Policy and Strategy 2013 (based on the findings from the Recreation Needs Research 2012) identifies Johnson Park in the Dulwich Hill area as a potential off leash area. Following liaison with Monitoring Services and Environmental Services, the area at Laxton Reserve was selected due to the reduced likelihood of impacting on the bandicoot population.

The trial commenced in September 2015. Council was notified of an incident at the park in late November 2015 involving a dog knocking over a child in the playground area. Due to this incident, the conditions of use of the dog off leash area were reviewed in December 2015 and investigations conducted to develop options for the management of the space in the short term. Fencing options to prevent dogs entering the playground were considered, however it was found that this would result in a disjointed and poorly functioning park which is at odds with the objective of shared open space and park best practice. The preferred option was to implement time restrictions for the off leash area before 8am and after daylight hours in the evening to reduce the likelihood of conflict between children’s play and off leash dogs. The amended conditions were put in place from 8 January 2016 onwards.

Laxton Reserve - Evaluation

The evaluation process provided opportunity for feedback on the initial three months of the trial and the ensuing three months under the amended time restrictions. Respondents were initially asked if they visited the park to exercise their dog (dog users) or for other reasons (non-dog users). Depending on the response, respondents were then referred to relevant questions. Reponses have been collated into categories of dog users and non-dog users.

Laxton Reserve - Dog users

71 respondents indicated they visited Laxton to exercise their dog and were asked:

§ to rate the success of the trial;

§ what changes they noticed with the implementation of the time restrictions halfway through the trial;

§ suggestions for an alternative off leash facility in the area;

§ how they travelled to the park; and

§ where else they exercised their dogs.

Feedback

§ the majority dog users (79%) rated the initial period of the trial as a success;

§ the implementation of the time restrictions had a considerable impact and 75% of this group rated the trial under time restrictions as unsuccessful;

§ suggestions for alternative off leash areas were as follows:

- Johnson Park - 37

- Hoskins Park - 3

- Morton Park - 3

- Yeo Reserve - 1

Almost all respondents indicated they walked to the park. Other locations respondents used to exercise their dogs were:

§ Hawthorne Canal Reserve in Haberfield; and

§ on leash around local streets.

Other comments included:

§ has been positive for exercising dogs;

§ good to meet other dog owners and neighbours;

§ too small for conflicting uses – playground, picnic facilities – 10m rule;

§ has increased the use of the park;

§ requires fencing;

§ issues with local residents;

§ implementation of time restrictions made many users feel unsafe after dark;

§ unable to see dog waste to clear up after dark; and

§ majority of users are responsible.

The full list of dog user responses from Laxton Reserve is included at ATTACHMENT 2.

Laxton Reserve - Non-dog users

69 respondents identified themselves as visiting the park for reasons other than exercising a dog (non-dog users) and were asked;

§ to rate the success of the trial;

§ what changes they noticed with the implementation of the time restrictions halfway through; and

§ suggestions for an alternative off leash facility in the area.

Feedback

§ the majority of non-dog users (86%) rated the trial as unsuccessful;

§ with the implementation of time restrictions, 77% of this group rated the trial as unsuccessful; and

§ suggestions for alternative off leash areas were as follows:

§ Johnson Park - 31 responses;

§ Yeo Reserve - 5 responses;

§ Cooks River - 3 responses;

§ Hoskins Park - 2 responses;

§ Marrickville Park - 2 responses; and

§ Tempe – 1 response.

Other comments included:

§ issues with children’s safety;

§ too small for conflicting uses – playground, picnic facilities – 10m rule;

§ prevents St Paul of the Cross School using the park during school hours;

§ issues with close proximity to residences;

§ residents not feeling comfortable to walk through the park;

§ dog waste;

§ noise from barking;

§ has been divisive for the local community;

§ reduction in birthday parties in the park;

§ dog owners not adhering to time restrictions;

§ no being effectively monitored;

§ needs fencing; and

§ divided the community.

The full list of non-dog user responses from Laxton Reserve is included at ATTACHMENT 3.

Feedback through ‘dogs@marrickville.nsw.gov.au’

A total of 228 communications were received during the trial period from a total of 68 different people. There were multiple communications from some residents (140 communications were received from three individuals - 88, 31 and 21 respectively).

The feedback included comments on Laxton Reserve’s unsuitability and the predominant themes included:

§ too small and safety issues with conflicting uses – playground, picnic facilities;

§ needs fencing;

§ proximity to residences;

§ dog waste; and

§ noise with barking.

Feedback through Merit

A total of 145 communications were received through Council’s Customer Response Management system from a total of 32 individuals. The most populous items included:

§ safety issues with dogs entering the children’s playground;

§ issues with dog waste;

§ excessive dog barking;

§ dogs entering private properties; and

§ dog owners not complying with time restrictions.

Two online petitions were started in relation to Laxton Reserve, one opposed to the off leash trial (currently 245 supporters) and another in support (currently 340 supporters).

Laxton Reserve - Outcomes

Council identified the need for off leash dog facilities across Marrickville in the 2012 Recreation Needs Research and the trial at Laxton Reserve has validated the popularity of this recreation activity in the Dulwich Hill area. Dulwich Hill has a limited supply of open space and there are similarly limited options to provide an off leash facility.

Notwithstanding the level of support or opposition, the trial at Laxton Reserve has divided the local community and this is reflected in the polarised feedback. In this regard the trial has not educated park users on ways to share the spaces and encourage the community to create their own solutions to park sharing issues.

The safety issues associated with preventing dogs from entering the children’s playground have been unable to be resolved in addition to difficulties with managing access such that dogs do not go within 10 metres of the playground.

There has been feedback on fencing parts of Laxton Reserve and as a result investigations have been undertaken on options to effectively prevent dogs entering the playground. Fencing the playground or the dog off leash area within Laxton Reserve reduces park connectivity and divides the park into compartmentalised use areas that results in unusable space, concentrated use and wear areas. This is inconsistent with the objective of shared open space associated with the trial and will result in a disjointed and poorly functioning park. The implementation of time restrictions at Laxton Reserve was unpopular with both dog users and non-dog users alike. While there is a good level of support for off leash at Laxton, in light of the evident safety, management and community issues, it is not considered a viable long term option and it is not proposed to make this a permanent off leash area.

Laxton Reserve - Implications

The Laxton trial has demonstrated the evident need for an off leash dog area in the locality. Without a designated off leash area, it is foreseeable that unauthorised off leash use will proliferate in all available open space in Dulwich Hill resulting in impacts on residents and the endangered bandicoot population.

Other options investigated to provide an off leash facility to effectively service the Dulwich Hill area include:

§ Johnson Park – this option was most frequently mentioned as an alternate off leash area by the community. The park is well used and has a playground, fitness facilities, basketball court, cricket nets, open grassed area and is located in the bandicoot protection area. A trial of time restricted use has potential to minimise conflicts with children’s play (including the Magic Yellow Bus) and the endangered bandicoot population;

§ Hoskins Park – this park contains children’s play facilities and the site is relatively small for this use. The pathway connections from the play facilities to the public toilets would conflict with an off leash area and the park is also located in the bandicoot protection area adjacent to the rail corridor;

§ Yeo Reserve (Ashfield Council) – although not located in the Marrickville Local Government Area, the location of Yeo Reserve would effectively service the Dulwich Hill area. The park is currently on leash only. Yeo Park Infants School is located within the park providing public education for K – 2 years in an unfenced facility. Discussions with representatives of the school have revealed that the school is unfenced as well as existing issues with unleashed dogs and children. Any proposal to introduce off leash use to the park would not be supported by the school; and

§ Morton Park – this park has been the subject of an online petition by residents as suitable for an off leash facility (currently with 180 supporters). The park is of a reasonable size and contains children’s play facilities and is not in the bandicoot protection area. The location is a considerable walking distance from Dulwich Hill and requires the traversing of two major roads. Nonetheless Morton Park may effectively service the needs of residents on the eastern side of Dulwich Hill and remove some pressure from the more conflicted open space around Laxton Reserve / Arlington Reserve / Johnson Park.

To provide effective management of conflicting uses and potential impact on the endangered bandicoot population from unauthorised off leash dogs in the Dulwich Hill area, it is proposed to implement trial off leash areas as follows:

§ Johnson Park - the proposed trial area at will comprise the raised rectangular grassed area which is easily defined and not immediately adjacent to the rail corridor which based on the available evidence is the most likely location for bandicoots. To manage potential impacts to the endangered bandicoot population, minimise conflict with the children’s playground and cricket nets and not coincide with the Magic Yellow Bus program, the trial is proposed to be subject to the following time restrictions:

§ 6am to 9am, 6pm to 8pm during day-light saving, and 5pm to 7pm during non-daylight saving time.

§ Morton Park - the proposed trial area is in the north-western area of the park to minimise any conflict with children’s play.

Petersham Park

Petersham Park - Evaluation

Respondents were initially asked if they visited the park to exercise their dog to identify dog owners from other park users. They were then they were asked if they were:

§ supportive;

§ somewhat supportive;

§ neutral;

§ somewhat opposed; or

§ opposed.

The opportunity was also given to add further comment / feedback on the trial. A total of 84 people provided feedback in response to the evaluation survey for Petersham Park.

§ 63 (78%) were dog users and were supportive (97%) or somewhat supportive (3%) of the trial.

§ 21 non dog users rated their support of the trial as follows:

- opposed 11

- somewhat Opposed 1

- neutral 1

- somewhat supportive 3

- supportive 5

§ The most common issues raised in comments by all respondents in order of frequency were:

- need for more enforcement / monitoring 9

- safety – inadequate control of dogs 6

- lack of fencing 6

- dogs adjacent to playground 5

- dog waste 5

All responses from dog and non-dog users at Petersham Park are included at ATTACHMENTS 4 and 5.

Feedback through ‘dogs@marrickville.nsw.gov.au’

A total of 3 communications were received concerning Petersham Park and expressed concerns about the need to monitor owners who did not effectively control their dogs.

Feedback through Merit

A total of 9 communications were received through Council’s Customer Response Management system. The majority of these communications raise potential safety issues with off leash use and dogs off leash outside the designated trial area.

Petersham Park - Outcomes

While those opposed to the trial expressed strong views, there was overall support for the trial from the community. Notwithstanding Council’s decision for trialing an additional off leash area, in light of the level of support from the community it is proposed that the area covered by the current trial is made permanent.

Following a petition from local residents a meeting was held with local residents on site. A Notice of Motion was presented on 19 April 2016 and Council resolved to implement an additional trial off leash area at Petersham Park allowing dogs around the oval off leash between the hours of 6am and 9am, and 5pm and 8pm during day-light saving, and 4pm and 6pm during non-daylight saving time. The existing artwork on the signs will need to be replaced and an assessment of the need for additional signs / bin supply undertaken prior to commencement which is anticipated in the next few months pending adoption of the 2016/17 budget.

Sydenham Green

Sydenham Green - Evaluation

The evaluation process for Sydenham Green was identical to that used for Petersham Park.

A total of 36 people provided feedback in response to the evaluation survey for Sydenham Green.

§ 21 (%) were dog users and were supportive (95%) or somewhat supportive (5%) of the trial.

§ 15 non dog users rated the support of the trial as follows:

- Opposed 7

- Somewhat opposed 2

- Supportive 6

§ The most common theme raised by 4 respondents was the need for fencing due to proximity to roads.

All responses from dog and non-dog users at Sydenham Green are included at ATTACHMENTS 6 and 7.

Feedback through ‘dogs@marrickville.nsw.gov.au’

A total of 3 communications were received concerning Sydenham Green all from the same resident. They expressed concerns with the size and popularity of the existing fenced area and that the trial area was unfenced and adjacent to busy roads.

Feedback through Merit

No communications were received through Council’s Customer Response Management system concerning the off leash trial area at Sydenham Green.

Sydenham Green – Outcomes

While there was a much lower level of feedback throughout the trial and response to the evaluation at Sydenham Green, the trial was highly supported by dog users with a level of support from non dog users. Based on evidence gathered during patrols by Rangers, the trial DOLA at Sydenham Green did not appear to be highly used. Nonetheless Rangers have referred to the relevance of the area for the purpose of re-educating off leash users of the nearby Tillman Park of the trial area at Sydenham Green in order to transfer off leash use at Tillman to Sydenham Green. Given the overall support from the community it is proposed that the current trial area is made permanent.

Internal Engagement

There has been regular internal engagement throughout the off leash trials project involving Corporate Communications and Strategy, Environmental Services, Investigation and Design and Monitoring Services.

Comments from Environmental Services

As custodians of the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995), Environmental Services recommend that Office of Environment and Heritage (National Parks and Wildlife) are consulted as part of the current trial evaluation and any potential expanded trial proposal/changes in relation to impacts to the Endangered Bandicoot population at parks within Council’s Bandicoot Protection Area.

Council Officers collaborate and implement a strategic approach to DOLA in relation to Council’s Priority Biodiversity Areas and Bandicoot Protection Area that will protect and enhance biodiversity as per Council’s Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans. See map attached for parks within the Bandicoot Protection area.

Johnson Park

The proposed trial DOLA at Johnson Park is not supported by Environmental Services given these changes could further potentially negatively impact the endangered bandicoot population through:

§ an increased predation risk by dogs; and

§ a decrease in foraging habitat.

Any negative impacts to the bandicoot population as a result of this proposal potentially contravene Council’s responsibilities under the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995).

Council’s Biodiversity Officer has previously considered off leash areas in parks within the Bandicoot Protection Area and because of the relatively small space at Johnson Park within the context of biodiversity and Threatened Species protection / legislative responsibilities and the potential for conflict with many other uses in the park, concluded that it is not suitable as a potential DOLA.

Morton Park

Environmental Services supports a trial DOLA at nearby Morton Park. This park is not within the Bandicoot Protection Area and the space large enough to accommodate multiple users and a DOLA potentially with minimal conflict.

Yeo Park (Ashfield)

Environmental Services supports a trial DOLA at nearby Yeo Park. This park is not within the Bandicoot Protection Area and the space large enough to accommodate multiple users and a DOLA potentially with minimal conflict and worthy of further investigation.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Extensive community engagement has been undertaken as follows:

§ Letterbox drop to residents adjacent to the three trials informing them of the trial;

§ Council Column;

§ Media releases;

§ Council website;

§ Development and installation of DOLA signage in relevant parks; and

§ Installation of additional bins and bags (Dec ’15).

Evaluation of the trial was through the following:

§ An evaluation survey was undertaken throughout March into early April 2016;

§ Letterbox drop to residents adjacent to the three trials informing them of the evaluation process;

§ A designated email address dogs@marrickville.nsw.gov.au was set up for direct submissions from the community throughout the trial;

§ Your Say Marrickville;

§ Council Column; and

§ Media release.

CONCLUSION

The trial off leash areas at Petersham Park and Sydenham Green have received overall support from the community and it is proposed that the current trial areas are made permanent. The trial at Laxton Reserve has highlighted a number of issues and it is not proposed that the use of this area for off leash dogs is continued. The Laxton trial has demonstrated the evident need for an off leash dog area in the locality. Without a designated off leash area, it is foreseeable that unauthorised off leash use will proliferate in all available open space in Dulwich Hill. To provide effective management of conflicting uses and potential impact on the endangered bandicoot population from unauthorised off leash dogs, it is proposed to implement trial off leash areas at Johnson Park (time restricted) and Morton Park.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Monitoring Report on Trial Off Leash Areas - September 2015 to March 2016
2.⇩	Laxton Reserve Dog Users Evaluation Responses
3.⇩	Laxton Reserve Non-dog Users Evaluation Responses
4.⇩	Petersham Park Dog Users Evaluation Responses
5.⇩	Petersham Park Non-dog Users Evaluation Responses
6.⇩	Sydenham Green Dog Users Evaluation Responses
7.⇩	Sydenham Green Non-dog Users Evaluation Responses

Extraordinary Council Meeting

24 May 2016

Item No: Item 4

Subject: Review of Waterplay Facility at Steel Park

File Ref: 16/4718/57042.16

Prepared By: William Blunt - Executive Manager Major Projects, Marrickville

Authorised By: Vanessa Chan – Interim General Manager

SUMMARY

This report provides a review of the Waterplay Facility following the successful completion of its 6^th season of operation.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. the report be received and noted;

2. Council resolves to undertake the works including the small expansion as discussed in the report; and

3. Council resolves to include an allocation of $300k in the 2016/2017 capital budget for the proposed works.

BACKGROUND

In 2004, Council commissioned Prior Cheney and H M Leisure to conduct a review of its aquatic facilities. The consultants considered the need for a third pool within the LGA including the needs of the residents in the southern part of the LGA.

The report included:

At its December 2006 meeting, Council resolved to seek the community's views on two site options for a Waterplay Park – in front of the Debbie and Abbey Borgia Recreation Centre or at the southern end of Steel Park adjacent to the Cooks River. A program of public exhibition and community consultation for the proposal was held between Wednesday 7 March 2007 and Wednesday 4 April 2007.

Views of possible Waterplay facility in front of the DAB Centre

The feedback from this consultation was reported back to the Major Projects Steering Committee and Council. At its meeting of 15 May 2007, Council resolved to seek quotes from consultants to prepare preliminary Waterplay designs for the two Steel Park site options.

In June 2007, Council endorsed the engagement of consultants to prepare preliminary concept designs.

At Council’s meeting of 5 November 2007 Council resolved to approve Steel Park on the Cooks River foreshore as the preferred site option. Council appointed a consortium of consultants led by the firm KIAH Infranet for the design, approvals and documentation.

At its meeting of 17 June 2008 Council resolved to endorse further investigation of a revised scope for the project involving a broader integration with Council’s planned Steel Park upgrade. Council also allocated additional funding of $500,000.

Holistic design incorporating the Waterplay, relocated cycle way, salt marsh and stormwater devices along with extensive plantings.

Further technical and design investigations were carried out on a holistic design, followed by a community consultation and further reporting to the Major Projects Steering Committee and Council, and the subsequent lodgment of a development application.

Final adopted concept for the Waterplay including; The Source, Water Rills and The Estuary.

Work commenced in April 2010 for completion within 5 months. Excessive wet weather which created quagmire conditions resulted in the works being completed in late October 2010.

The facility was opened on 7 November 2010 when the new facility was described as follows:

The new facility will provide an interesting series of waterplay features for children. These include a ‘source’ feature representing the water flowing from the mountains, a ‘rills’ section representing water flowing in a river across plains, and an ‘estuary’ that includes a collection of jets and sprays.

Each of the features can be operated separately.

The Waterplay Park also has a new adjacent playground that can be accessed via the new pedestrian and cycle pathway.

Funding was received from the Australian Government’s Bike Path Project, the Roads and Traffic Authority, the Water for the Future initiative under the National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns though the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority and Marrickville Council.

The Waterplay facility has proved exceptionally popular with continuing positive feedback from the community.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

An allocation of $300k will be incorporated in the 2016/2017 capital budget for the planning, design and construction of the proposed expansion of the Waterplay Facility funded by developer contributions.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

A review of the Waterplay Facility was conducted by the Executive Manager Major Projects. The following matters are discussed.

Recent Community Survey

Council conducted a survey of users of the facility on 13 and 21 January 2016 to seek feedback and identify any issues that would be of assistance in guiding the continued operation of the Facility.

A report of the survey is included as ATTACHMENT 1.

Participants in the survey were asked to prioritise potential future works by Council.

The graph below identifies the priorities as follows:

Regarding these priorities, the following comments are provided:

· Provision for more picnic facilities is incorporated in the Cooks River Parklands Plan of Management and associated Master Plan for Steel Park. The Master Plan also includes for the upgrade of the existing barbeque facilities.

· It is possible to provide a small extension to the Waterplay to provide a separate fenced area (pool type fencing) for small children incorporating soft fall pavement (same as at Fanny Durack Aquatic Centre), more seating and an additional shade structure. This extension would be created by re-directing the small water flow at the top of The Estuary towards the oval over the new soft fall material. By re-directing an existing feature, there would be no requirement to enlarge the water pumping and treatment equipment or tank. The potential extension is shown as “A” on the drawing included as ATTACHMENT 2.

Area for possible extension of Waterplay facility.

In addition to the priorities, further issues were raised. Those relating to the Waterplay are discussed below;

· Upgrade toilets: At the time the Waterplay was being planned, it was believed the use would be limited and it was therefore determined to only use the facilities that existed at the time (2009/2010). The existing facilities were upgraded. Given the popularity of the facility, provision of further amenities could be considered if and when the existing building is refurbished. The Cooks River Plan Parkland Plan of Management and associated Master Plan for Steel Park provides for an upgrade of the existing amenities building although that is a lower priority to other parks toilet upgrades.

· Car Parking: There is no standard for the number of parking spaces to be provided for a waterplay facility. The number of spaces provided was based on an analysis by a traffic expert based on best estimates of the number of likely users of the facility and consideration of available space within the site area. It is not physically possible to expand the number of spaces. A related issue of long term parking was raised. It appears the car park is being used by backpackers. This has been referred to compliance staff to investigate.

· Slippery materials: Materials were selected that had an appropriate slip resistance: cobbles, exfoliated stone, broom finished concrete.

Operational Issues

A review of the facility identified the following issues which are shown on the drawing included as ATTACHMENT 2.

· Fencing to car park “B”: The lack of fencing between the northern car park and the waterplay was raised by a number of users as an area of concern. Addition of a fence would improve the level of separation between children in the waterplay and vehicles entering and leaving the car park. It would also prevent ongoing trampling of vegetation in the adjacent landscaped area.

· Ponding on Pavement “C”: It is recommended that a small area of concrete pavement be removed and replaced with better falls (slope) to prevent the ponding of water at the entrance doorway to the amenities.

Areas of ponding to be rectified

· Ponding of water “D”: It is recommended that an additional absorption pit be constructed in the low area between the waterplay and the picnic area. During rain and heavy use of the Waterplay, water runs to the low point and ponds before soaking into the ground. The addition of a further gravel filled soakage pit will assist to keep this area dryer. Due to the high ground water table and the very low level in the area, complete elimination of ponding in heavy rain will not be possible.

· Muddy conditions “E”: It is recommended that the paving slab at the base of The Source be extended towards the flying fox and picnic area to eliminate the muddy area by providing an extended interface between the pavements and the grass.

Additional issues:

· Flooding: There have been at least two floods which have covered the Waterplay and surrounding area. Given the nature of the facility (being water based), there was no damage. Extensive cleaning was required to restart the facility. There was no reported damage to the filtration and control systems however, it should be noted that a flood at a higher level, will likely result in damage to the equipment. At such a level, it is also likely that plant and equipment serving the whole of the amenities building would also be damaged.

2012 flood event – view from Illawarra Road towards the amenities building and Waterplay facility.

Stormwater: The project included the construction of swales to collect runoff from Illawarra Road and the car park. The swale system has worked well although ongoing maintenance is required to ensure drains leading from the Illawarra kerb and the swales are cleaned of debris.

Stormwater swale leading from the carpark to the river.

Salt Marsh: A key initiative of the project included the demolition of part of the river wall and the construction of a salt marsh. The salt marsh has been successful established with small fish observed in the marsh area at higher tides.

View of salt marsh adjacent to partially removed river wall.

Vegetation: Both via the construction contractor and with the assistance of the community, the area adjacent to the river, swales and salt marsh was revegetated. The vegetation has become well established and is currently maintained by a specialist contractor engaged via the Biodiversity team.

Well established vegetation between the river and cycleway.

Water Quality: At the time the Waterplay was designed (2009/2010), such facilities which were rare and were not captured by any specific regulations. The system was however designed and constructed to meet the requirements as if it was a public swimming pool. The water filtration and dosing system is essentially the same as that installed at Annette Kellerman and Fanny Durack aquatic centres, although on a much smaller scale. With similar facilities being provided to the community, the Department of Health has now advised that such facilities are defined as a “swimming pool” under the Public Health Act and must comply with the requirements for public swimming pools.

The original design included water filtration and dosing equipment based on a bromine tablet system. This was found to be too slow to respond to the changing conditions found in the facility; water volume, sunlight, shallow water over pavements and ingress of vegetation. The equipment was replaced by a liquid chlorine injection system controlled by a sophisticated electronic water chemistry testing and control unit (same as installed at Annette Kellerman and Fanny Durack Aquatic Centres).

This replacement system has worked well and when maintained and calibrated (as at the Aquatic Centres), appropriate water quality standards have been maintained.

Over the last six seasons, there have been two outbreaks of Cryptosporidiosis in the local area. On both occasions, the Department of Health determined that the Waterplay facility was not the source of the outbreak. On both occasions, the Department has provided advice re the management of appropriate water quality standards for the facility.

Given the nature of the facility, it is essential that ongoing management of the equipment is conducted at an appropriate level with regular inspections and maintenance from the suppliers of the equipment. Appropriate allowances are including in each year’s maintenance budget for the facility.

An inspection by a specialist consultant will be undertaken prior to the next season to ensure the system is operating correctly and is meeting the water quality requirements.

It would be appropriate to make provision for the replacement of the water filtration and dosing equipment following the 10^th season in 2019/2020.

In addition and to ensure appropriate water quality, parents need to supervise young children and when necessary, children need to wear appropriate swimming nappies. Signage explaining the requirement is installed at the facility.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

A survey of users was conducted on two days during January 2016. The results of the survey are included as ATTACHMENT 1.

CONCLUSION

The Waterplay facility has proven to be extremely popular and well patronized with ongoing favorable feedback from users.

To ensure the success of the facility, it will be necessary to ensure the successful maintenance of the facility continues and that appropriate budget allocations are incorporated in future budgets.

A potential to expand the Waterplay facility has been identified.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Results of Survey
2.⇩	Diagram of Proposed Extension and Other Miscellaneous Works

Extraordinary Council Meeting

24 May 2016

Item No: Item 5

Subject: Sydney Fringe Festival 2016 and Council Funding

File Ref: 16/4718/57012.16

Prepared By: Victoria Johnstone - A/Arts and Cultural Development Coordinator, Marrickville

Authorised By: Josephine Bennett - A/Director Community Services, Marrickville

SUMMARY

The paper proposes that Council sponsor the 2016 Sydney Fringe Festival and outlines the recommended conditions of that funding.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. the report be received and noted; and

2. Council considers supporting the Sydney Fringe Festival with a cash contribution of $30,000 with a condition that Sydney Fringe Festival presents a Sydney Fringe Festival family event hub at Camperdown Park.

BACKGROUND

Founded in 2010, Sydney Fringe Festival (SFF) is an initiative of Newtown Entertainment Precinct Association (NEPA). NEPA was established through the Newtown Entertainment Precinct Project, a broad based Council driven cultural development project that ran from 2002 to 2006. Marrickville Council was a founding sponsor of SFF 2010, contributing $40,000 cash and $12,000 value in kind.

Now in its seventh year, SFF is the largest independent festival in NSW and has expanded across City of Sydney, Marrickville, Leichhardt and Waverley LGAs.

The objectives of Sydney Fringe Festival are to:

- support, profile and provide opportunities for artists to develop new works, collaborate, experiment and reach new audiences;

- add to the cultural vibrancy of the area;

- stimulate day and night time economies, contributing substantially to local economies;

- support local venues; and

- attract new audiences, residents and visitors to Sydney Fringe Festival events, participating venues and local businesses.

Last year’s (2015) program included all ages ticketed and free events, public forums, pop – up installations and performances.

The Festival presented 324 shows across 9 genres in 52 venues, with:

- 63% of venues and 40% of events in City of Sydney;

- 17% of venues and 54% of events in Marrickville;

- 20% of venues and 8% of events in other LGAs (primarily Leichhardt and Waverley);

- 6% of events located in other areas (primarily Leichhardt and Waverley); and

- Participation by 1944 artists of which 83% were local Sydney residents.

According to NEPA’s Post Event Report, 47,000 visitors attended SFF 2015 with an estimated $8,819,737 contributed to local economies.

Following a 2014/2015 review of the benefits received by Marrickville Council and community stakeholders through SFF, and in response to recommendations of a Council Report (CO41tem 6), Council supported the 2015 SFF with $40,000 and supply of Marrickville Road street banner poles. Funding was contingent upon specified deliverables, including $10,000 being used by NEPA to present a family hub over 9 days during school holidays (19-27 September 2015).

A contract between SFF and Council specified conditions for Council’s funding of the 2015 SFF. A SFF/Cross Council Working Group was established fostering better profile of Council, cross promotions, and inclusion of Culture and Recreation, Economic Development, Library and History, Children’s, Youth and Family programs in the 2015 SFF program and promotions.

The family hub at Marrickville Town Hall attracted 1,493 ticket buyers with box office revenue of $25,139, of which $22,471 was retained by artists.

Funded by Council with a 2014 Arts and Cultural Grant, Aerialize Theatre Company presented sell-out SFF shows and were awarded the 2015 Fringe Award for Physical Theatre and Circus and the Festival Director’s Award.

More information about SFF 2015 programs, partners, communications, demographics, audience attendance, media coverage and benefits to local economies and communities are detailed in the SFF 2015 End of Year Report (ATTACHMENT 1) and the Council Funding Acquittal (ATTACHMENT 2).

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are sufficient funds allocated in the 2016/2017 budget to fund the $30,000 cash funding.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

SFF Government Funding Partners, 2015 to 2016

	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015
Marrickville Council	$40,000	$40,000	$40,000	$35,000	$40,000	$40,000
City of Sydney	$50,000	$100,000	$100,000	$100,000	$180,000	$180,000

For SFF 2016, City of Sydney has committed $180,000.

For SFF 2016, Leichhardt Council has committed $40,000. This is specifically to fund the program to launch the new creative arts precinct, Off Broadway. NEPA will manage implementation and first stages of the new precinct (Parramatta Rd, between Pyrmont Bridge Rd and Norton St). Launched as part of SFF over the weekend 10 to 11 September 2016, Off Broadway will include pop up activations in local venues, empty shops and the introduction of Off Broadway branding.

Inner West Council Partnership with NEPA – SFF 2016

Culture and Recreation staff met with SFF representatives and identified opportunities for 2016 whilst maintaining the collaborative approach, profile and benefits to Inner West Council.

In particular, the opportunity for SFF to present a 2016 SFF Family Events Hub at Camperdown Park over the weekend of 17 and 18 September 2016 was suggested. This focus would support Council’s aim of profiling the refurbished Camperdown Park, community and recreation facilities, Chrissie Cotter Gallery, Art Camp and the new Camperdown Commons. Activities would include pop up performances in the new community room and bandstand, fancy dress cricket games, roving music and performances, a family movie in the park and a Fringe Festival Bar at Camperdown Commons. It will connect Camperdown Park with Parramatta Road and Leichhardt’s Off Broadway initiative.

It is proposed that Inner West Council support the 2016 SFF through $30,000, and supply of Street Banner poles along Marrickville Road with the following conditions attached to funding:

- Council’s Manager Culture and Recreation (or a nominated representative) is invited as an “x-officio” guest at meetings of the NEPA Board, the organisation responsible to deliver SFF;

- SFF and Council will maintain operations of the Council / NEPA working group, including staff from Council’s Library and History, Children’s, Culture and Recreation, Economic Development and Communications services;

- NEPA agrees to present a SFF family activity and event hub, at Camperdown Park, 17 and 18 September 2016;

- Inclusion of a welcome message and photo on front page of SFF 2016 program alongside the Lord Mayor of Sydney and NEPA representatives;

- The Administrator or nominated representative is invited to speak alongside Lord Mayor of Sydney at SFF 2016 launch event;

- Acknowledgement and branding of Inner West Council as “Founding Sponsor” of SFF with Inner West Council logo in all materials promoting the Festival, including but not limited to the 2016 SFF program, the website homepage, posters, brochures, advertisements, postcards, street, stage and event banners, artist passes;

- Option for SFF to produce street banners with Council logo and “Founding Sponsor” branding to be installed along Marrickville Road from 15 August to 30 September 2016.

- Full page Inner West Council colour advertisement in the SFF 2016 printed program;

- Inner West Council will receive 25 double passes to any Sydney Fringe Festival show or event (subject to availability); and

- VIP invitations to SFF 2016 launch event.

NEPA is aware and supportive of these conditions. If endorsed by Council, these elements will be incorporated into the agreement with NEPA for the 2016 Sydney Fringe Festival.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

NEPA representatives have been consulted in relation to this issue.

CONCLUSION

Inner West Council is a founding and current sponsor of the Sydney Fringe Festival (SFF). Culture and Recreation have reviewed Council’s sponsorship of SFF and benefits received in return for that funding. For 2016, it is recommended that Council support SFF, contingent on SFF presenting a family activity and event hub, over 6 days (19 – 27 September 2015) at Camperdown Park. The report outlines proposed conditions and benefits to be supplied by SFF in return for Council funding.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Sydney Fringe Festival 2015 Post Event Report
2.⇩	Sydney Fringe Festival 2015 Marrickville Council Aquittal Report

Extraordinary Council Meeting

24 May 2016

Item No: Item 8

Subject: Proposed Tree Removal - 2 Vincent Street, Marrickville

File Ref: 16/4718/56921.16

Prepared By: Neil Strickland - Director Infrastructure Services, Marrickville and Wal Petschler - Manager Design and Investigation, Marrickville

Authorised By: Vanessa Chan - Interim General Manager

SUMMARY

At its April 2016 meeting Council deferred consideration of removal of a tree on the footpath verge at 2 Vincent St, Marrickville to enable investigations to be completed by Council staff concerning alleged tree root damage to the adjacent building. Exploratory excavation undertaken could not substantiate tree roots as the cause of building defects.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. the tree adjacent 2 Vincent Street, Marrickville be retained; and

2. the matter be subject to further review should conclusive evidence be presented demonstrating the tree to be the primary cause of property damage.

BACKGROUND

At its meeting of 19 April 2016, Council considered a notice of motion for the removal of a mature tree on the footpath verge fronting No 2 Vincent Street, Marrickville and its replacement with a more appropriate planting. Removal was proposed based on damage to the adjacent building allegedly caused by tree roots.

Council resolved that “the elected Council expresses its concern and requests a report to the next Council Meeting about a street tree outside 2 Vincent Street Marrickville and requests that Council consider replacing it with a more appropriate planting as a matter of urgency.”

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The cost of tree removal, replacement and establishment is estimated at $2,500 and could be completed within existing operational resources.

The value of this tree to the streetscape and public domain is estimated at $55,000 based on the industry recognised THYER valuation method. This methodology places a value on the tree’s significance, health and condition, age and life expectancy, size, environmental and social benefits.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

The tree in question as depicted in the photo below is a fully mature Corymbia citriodora (Lemon Scented Gum) in good condition with no known structural defects and a Usable Life Expectancy (ULE) of 20+ years. It is considered a highly valuable street tree that contributes significantly to the urban canopy and visual amenity of the streetscape which is defined by an avenue of these trees.

Photo 1: Existing Lemon Scented Gum

An engineer’s report prepared in 2015 attributed damage to the building to tree roots emanating from the adjacent tree. This conclusion was reached based on visible damage caused to the adjacent public footpath illustrated in the Photo 2 below taken from the engineer’s report.

Photo 2: Footpath leading to property

To complete a more detailed investigation of the likely contribution of tree roots to the property damage, Council officers removed the concrete path and undertook exploratory excavation by hand adjacent the building and the two driveways. Trenches adjacent these structures were dug to a depth until hard compacted clay subsoil was encountered or to expose the base of the building footing or driveway slabs.

Photo 3: Footpath removal adjacent tree

Photo 3 shows evidence of roots located under the public footpath which caused the lifting and damage to the concrete path shown in Photo 2. However the excavations did not reveal any visible evidence of tree roots extending to or under the building. The trenched areas were largely devoid of tree roots. Only one 30mm diameter root was uncovered running alongside the building footing. This has been cut approximately 2.5m from the building as a preventative measure.

Photo 4: Excavation adjacent doorway

Whilst an indirect contribution of the tree towards cracking/ movement of building elements cannot be categorically ruled out there is no evidence demonstrating it to be the primary cause. Other causes such as structural loading of the slab/footings may be the predominate contributor to the defects referred to in the engineer’s report.

Based on the available evidence the need to remove such a prominent tree cannot be substantiated. Should the property owner propose to undertake defect rectification of the internal slab in accordance with the engineer’s recommendation, further confirmation of the presence or absence of tree roots under the building can be undertaken following excavation of the defective slab.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

There has been no public consultation to date. It is desirable that Council publicly notify its intention to remove such a significant tree prior to initiating works as is normal practice.

CONCLUSION

Based on the information presented to Council and Council’s own exploratory excavation and investigations there is insufficient evidence to identify the tree as the primary cause of building defects. As its impact on the adjacent property is unsubstantiated, the removal of such a high value tree is not recommended at this time. The matter can be further considered should conclusive evidence be presented demonstrating the tree to be the primary cause of property damage.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Extraordinary Council Meeting

24 May 2016

Item No: Item 9

Subject: Cultural Action Plan 2016 - 2020

File Ref: 16/4718/56972.16

Prepared By: Josephine Bennett – A/Director Community Services, Marrickville and Naomi Bower - A/Arts and Cultural Development Coordinator, Marrickville

Authorised By: Vanessa Chan - Interim General Manager

SUMMARY

Council is advised that the Draft Marrickville Cultural Action Plan 2016 - 2020 was placed on public exhibition from 14 March to 4 April 2016. The feedback received has been considered in the finalisation of the plan.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. the report be received and noted; and

2. Council endorses the implementation of the Draft Marrickville Cultural Action Plan.

BACKGROUND

Following the release of the State Government’s Cultural Planning Guidelines in 2004, Council engaged consultant Susan Conroy to undertake a comprehensive research project into the arts and cultural life of the Marrickville LGA that included a program of consultations, seminars, and surveys in the community, the arts and the creative industries to build a comprehensive map of the cultural landscape of the area. With over 1,000 individuals, groups and businesses consulted, the findings were presented as the Marrickville Cultural Research Report 2008, Celebrating our diverse and creative community: Culture as we live it (CC14, June 2008), and largely informed the development of the Marrickville Cultural Policy 2010.

The Marrickville Cultural Policy 2010 articulates a position for Council on its role in local culture, in which culture is used as an inclusive term incorporating creativity, community, diversity, knowledge and heritage as expressed in the social, physical, economic and governance spheres that create the way of life unique to the Marrickville local government area. The Marrickville Cultural Policy 2010 notes that implementation will occur through the development of specific strategies and plans. The Cultural Action Plan 2016-2020 (CAP 2016 – 2020) presents the key strategic actions for the implementation of the Marrickville Cultural Policy.

Council’s Community and Corporate Services Committee endorsed the public exhibition of the Draft Marrickville Cultural Action Plan 2016 – 2020 (CC0316 Item 4) for 21 Days.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The draft CAP has been prepared with a view to being largely implemented within existing resources. Any unfunded actions will be considered as part of the annual budget development process.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

CAP Overview

The draft CAP 2016-2020 sets out a strategic four year plan of actions within each of the three policy spheres of the Marrickville Cultural Policy – the Creative Life, the Creative Community and the Creative Economy. It is intended as a strategic and targeted plan, rather than one that attempts to address the broad spectrum of arts and culture in Marrickville. The actions were selected based on community feedback undertaken in mid-2015 – please see below for further details. Each of the three policy areas contains three key priorities, which in turn contain a number of specific outcomes. Indicators or measures for each of those outcomes is detailed in the table that starts on P27 of the draft plan.

The CAP can be considered a strategic refinement of the programs and services Council is already undertaking, and it therefore has been designed to tie in with Council’s other programs and strategies to maximise outcomes for the community while making the best strategic use of existing programs and services. The draft plan is intended as a high level document that will be implemented through specific plans for target areas including:

· Marrickville Artist Residency Review 2015

· Marrickville Library and History Services Plan

· Library and History Strategy 2016-2020 (working title)

· Marrickville Live Music Action Plan 2014

· Marrickville Public Art Plan (in development)

· Marrickville Sister Cities Plan (in development)

· Public Domain Strategy (in development)

· Marrickville Climate Change Plan 2015 – 2025

· Marrickville Local Environment Plan 2011

· Marrickville Disability Inclusion Action Plan (in development)

The CAP will be delivered through Council’s existing arts and cultural programs, including:

· Arts and Cultural Grants Program

· Independent Artist Grants Program

· Marrickville Open Studio Trail

· Sister Cities program

· International Exchange Program

· Open Marrickville

· Public Art Program including Street Art and Graffiti Management Program incorporating Perfect Match the Newtown Art Seat

· Chrissie Cotter Gallery

· Marrickville Artist Residency Program

· Art Post ebulletin and online portal

· Library and History Services Community Initiatives

CAP Development

Over the past 7 years, the information from the 2008 cultural research project has been built upon by regular feedback from Council groups and committees including the Marrickville Visual Arts Network, Live Music Marrickville Forum, Marrickville Aboriginal Consultative Committee, Marrickville Sister Cities Committee, Marrickville Public Art Reference Group and the dynamic Marrickville Artists Pool that contributes to peer review of arts and culture programs.

In preparing the CAP, the 2008 cultural research report was reviewed and targeted community consultation through the ‘#creativemarrickville campaign’ was undertaken to understand changes in key arts and cultural priorities. ABS and NIEIR data was also used and revealed that not only is the local creative community stronger than ever, it is changing with new specialisations in art that crosses over into design and arts and technology, including film and music editing.

The #creativemarrickville campaign was designed to touch base with the community in an innovative and engaging way and reconfirm existing research. It was not intended to be a full-scale community engagement process. As such, instagram, other social media and online surveys were used as the key means of engagement. Approximately 1000 postcards were distributed throughout the local area. Over 508 instagram posts were tagged with #creativemarrickville and the online survey received 35 responses, while there were 15 attendees at the Visual Arts Forum and 30 attendees at the Live Music Forum.

Analysis of the data revealed the following key trends and issues:

· Street art and art in the public domain is key to our area's identity;

· The need for artists' spaces, including help to establish venues, is a top priority;

· Marrickville's communities love live music, community festivals and events;

· Makers are increasingly calling Marrickville home;

· We need more opportunities for kids and young people to participate in the arts and nurture their creativity; and

· Marrickville needs strong, distinctive arts events with greater Sydney appeal.

CAP Presentation

The draft CAP has been designed as an ‘online plan’ that will feature a number of click-throughs to supporting plans and information. The attached version (ATTACHMENT 1) will be graphically re-designed for the online experience. As some of the supporting plans are still in development, provisions will be made for those documents, eg. through a landing page message. The CAP will also be supported by a number of short films that will also be linked to the document. These short films will showcase each cultural theme, eg. the creative life, the creative community and the creative economy, while a fourth film will provide an overview of local arts and culture. It is anticipated that this format will remain dynamic with new material and supporting documents to be added over the life of the plan.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The Draft Marrickville Cultural Action Plan was placed on public exhibition from 14 March to 4 April 2016. Notice of the public exhibition was included in the following:

· social media;

· ArtPost enewsletter;

· Your Say Marrickville enews;

· Council e-news March edition;

· Council column in Inner West Courier;

· Council’s website;

· monthly Open For Comment posters displayed at the Administration building, libraries and community noticeboards; and

· promoted at the 2016 Bairro Portugues Food and Wine Festival.

The CAP Have Your Say page was viewed 182 times with two responses received that addressed the needs of live music venues and better accessibility of library services. The feedback was considered in finalising the CAP.

Over 1000 individuals and groups were interviewed for Council’s original Cultural Research Mapping (Conroy, 2008) while the 2015 #creativemarrickville consultation included over 500 instagram responses, 35 online survey responses and two industry focus groups.

CONCLUSION

Nil.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Cultural Action Plan

Extraordinary Council Meeting

24 May 2016

Item No: Item 11

Subject: 801-807 New Canterbury Road, Dulwich Hill

File Ref: 16/4718/57927.16

Prepared By: Daniel East - Senior Town Planner - Development Assessment, Marrickville

Authorised By: Judy Clark - Manager Development Assessment, Marrickville

SUMMARY

This report concerns an application under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify Determination No. 201500081, dated 28 October 2015, to re-configure the internal layout of the building, construct an additional storey to Building A and Building B and an increase to the finished floor level of the eastern portion of Building B by 200mm to accommodate the approved substation.

The development application relates to a type of development that the Minister of Planning and Environment has categorised as being of regional significance. The Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel is the consent authority for the purposes of determining the application.

Council officers have carried out an assessment of the application and the Council officer’s report on the application was forwarded to the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel for the Regional Panel’s consideration. A copy of the Council officer’s assessment report on the development application is provided as ATTACHMENT 1. The officer’s report recommends that the application be approved.

The matter was heard by the Panel on Wednesday 18 May 2016 at the Christie Centre, Level 3, 3 Spring Street, Sydney. The matter was approved by the JRPP subject to the conditions recommended in Council’s assessment report, with an additional condition to remove a blade wall on the northern elevation of Building B.

The matter is referred to the Administrator to receive and note the application.

PART A - PARTICULARS

1. Background

A development application (DA201500081) was submitted to Council on 3 March 2015, seeking consent to demolish the existing improvements and construct a 5 storey development consisting of a residential flat building (Building A) containing 42 dwellings and a mixed use building (Building B) containing 3 retail tenancies and 38 dwellings with 2 levels of basement car parking accommodating 108 car parking spaces at 801-807 New Canterbury Road, Dulwich Hill.

Approval was granted by Determination No. 201500081, dated 28 October 2015, to demolish the existing improvements and construct a 4 storey development consisting of a residential flat building (Building A) containing 37 dwellings and a mixed use building (Building B) containing 3 retail tenancies and 30 dwellings with 2 levels of basement car parking accommodating 108 car parking spaces on the above property.

The Section 96(2) application the subject of this assessment was submitted to Council on 22 December 2015. On 15 April 2016 the applicant submitted amended plans and additional information that responded to Council’s concerns in relation to the extent of the upper floor. In the submitted amended plans, the applicant proposes to increase the western and eastern side setbacks of the proposed upper floor as set out below:

· An increased eastern/western side setback of between 5.6 metres to 6 metres for the proposed Level 4 of Building B;

· To increase the western side setback to 6 metres for Level 4 of Building A;

· To maintain the existing 4.7 metres to 6.7 metres side setback to the eastern boundary of Building A as it was reduced during the original DA process to alleviate overshadowing impacts; and

· Side set back areas are proposed to contain non-trafficable concrete roof areas.

The amended plans submitted on 15 April 2016, are the subject of this assessment report.

The application was notified in accordance with Council's Notification Policy and 2 submissions were received in response to the original notification. As part of the JRPP process, all objectors were notified of the JRPP meeting, which is a public meeting. 1 objector addressed the Panel with regard to blade walls on the northern elevation of Building A.

The JRPP Panel considered Council’s Assessment Report and the material presented by the speakers at the meeting. The panel resolved to accept the recommendation of the assessment report to approve the development application pursuant to Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for the following reasons:

“The additional floor is setback and does not have material impact on adjoining development;

The additional floor results in 2 x 5 storey buildings which fit into their context, in particular the height of development on the southern side of Canterbury Road, where the controls allow taller buildings.

The strategic planning unit of the Council has acknowledged that the height of the FSR controls relating to the precinct in which the site is located should be increased.”

The JRPP resolved to impose an additional condition to ensure a blade wall was deleted as follows:

“The plans are to be amended to remove all references to the fire blade wall on the north eastern corner of Building B. The change shall be reflected on the plans to be submitted with the Construction Certificate.”

A copy of the report on the application that was considered by the Joint Regional Planning Panel is provided as ATTACHMENT 1.

2. Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014

The carrying out of the development would result in an increased demand for public amenities and public services within the area. A contribution of $1,310,200.90 would be required for the development under Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014. The above contribution is the contribution applicable as at 27 April 2016.

However, the application includes a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) which the applicant has entered into with Council for the development as part of the original application. The VPA seeks to provide a public benefit in addition to Section 94 Contributions being imposed by Council.

3. Any planning ( or draft planning) agreement under Section 94F of the Act

The specific details and an assessment of the VPA have been prepared by Council’s General Counsel and is provided as a separate report on this agenda.

4. Conclusion

The Panel Secretariat has advised that the matter was approved by the Joint Regional Planning Panel on Wednesday 18 May 2016 at the Christie Centre, Level 3, 3 Spring Street, Sydney.

PART E - RECOMMENDATION

THAT the report be received and noted.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Officer's Report - 801-807 New Canterbury Road, Dulwich Hill

Extraordinary Council Meeting

24 May 2016

Item No: Item 12

Subject: Representation on External Organisations

File Ref: 16/4718/57424.16

Prepared By: Ian Naylor – Manager Governance and Administration, Leichhardt

Authorised By: Matthew Phillips - Director Corporate and Information Services, Leichhardt

SUMMARY

The Former Councils had appointed councillors to a number of external organisations and new appointments need to be made for the Inner West Council.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council determine appointments to External Organisations.

BACKGROUND

The table below shows the representation and recommendations for appointments to external committees. The Proclamation allowed members of the Joint Regional Planning Panel from former councils to complete any function currently being exercised and then new appointments were to be made.

Organisation	Leichhardt	Ashfield	Marrickville	Recommendation
SSROC	1 Councillor	2 Councillors	4 Councillors	Administrator
SSROC Program Delivery	1 Councillor	1 Councillor	3 Councillors	General Manager or nominee
SSROC Sustainability	1 Councillor	1 Councillor	3 Councillors	General Manager or nominee
Metropool	N/A	N/A	1 Councillor	Defer subject to review
NSW Public Libraries	1 Councillor	1 Councillor	1 Councillor	General Manager or nominee
Sydney Airport Community Forum	1 Councillor	1 Councillor	3 Councillors	General Manager or nominee
Joint Regional Planning Panel	Staff and Community Representative	2 Councillors	3 Councillors	Administrator
Parramatta River Catchment Group	3 Councillors	1 Councillor	N/A	General Manager or nominee
Cooks River Alliance Board	N/A	1 Councillor	1 Councillor	General Manager or nominee
Greenway Steering Committee	1 Councillor	1 Councillor	1 Councillor	Administrator
ClubGrants	N/A	1 Councillor	1 Councillor	General Manager or nominee
Eastern Region Local Government Region of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Forum	1 Councillor	N/A	N/A	No nomination
Sydney Coastal Council Group	2 Councillors	N/A	N/A	General Manager or nominee

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

CONCLUSION

That Council determine appointments to external organisations.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Extraordinary Council Meeting

24 May 2016

Item No: Item 15

Subject: 3rd Quarter 2015-16 Budget Review Statement for the former Marrickville Council

File Ref: 16/4718/56962.16

Prepared By: Caroline Bugg - Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Marrickville

Authorised By: Steve Kludass - Director Corporate Services, Marrickville

SUMMARY

Clause 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that a quarterly budget review be considered by Council, which shows revised estimates for income and expenditure for the year, indicates whether Council’s financial position is satisfactory and makes recommendations for remedial action where needed.

The Quarterly Budget Review Statements (QBRS) are prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting. This report provides a comprehensive high level overview of Council’s financial position as at 31 March 2016 in accordance with the Code, together with supplementary information. The report recommends budget adjustments where required and advises Council on issues that are currently being managed.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. the report be received and noted; and

2. Council approves the variations identified as matters requiring budget adjustments and incorporate the changes into 2015/16 revised budget.

BACKGROUND

This report provides an overview of Council’s quarterly financial position as at 31 March 2016.

The mandatory QBRS report is prepared in accordance with the Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting. It includes the following supplementary information:

	Mandatory	Item
ATTACHMENT 1	Yes	Income & Expenses (External Reporting Format)
ATTACHMENT 2	Yes	Income & Expenses by Key Result Activity
ATTACHMENT 3	No	Income & Expenses Working Capital Result
ATTACHMENT 4	No	Income & Expenses KRA Working Capital Result
ATTACHMENT 5	Yes	Capital Budget
ATTACHMENT 6	Yes	Cash & Investments
ATTACHMENT 7	Yes	Key Performance Measures
ATTACHMENT 8	Yes	Contracts Listing
ATTACHMENT 9	Yes	Consultancy & Legal Expenses
ATTACHMENT 10	No	Capital Project Rephasing

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Responsible Accounting Officer Report

Clause 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that the Responsible Accounting Officer reports whether the revised financial position is satisfactory having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure and if that position is unsatisfactory, to recommend remedial action.

Accordingly, the Responsible Accounting Officer (Director Corporate Services, Marrickville) reports that:

It is my opinion that the Quarterly Budget Review Statements for Marrickville Council for the quarter ended 31 March 2016 indicates that Council’s projected financial position at 30 June 2016 will be satisfactory.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Review of the Operating Budget and Capital Budget

All Budget Program Managers are required to review the 2015/2016 Operating Budget and Capital Budget on an on-going basis. This process identifies any proposed variations to the adopted budget in order to ensure all adopted budgets and programs are achieved. Minor amendments with a net nil impact have been treated as an Administrative Budget Adjustment.

Council’s consolidated working funds position is as follows:

Details		Amount
Working Capital as at 30 June 2015		$3,987,000
Original Budget: · Operating Budget Surplus · Capital Budget Deficit	$1,754,529 ($1,752,983)
Original Budget Surplus		$1,546
Forecast Original Working Capital Position at 30 June 2016		$3,988,546

Working Capital as at 30 June 2015		$3,987,000
Original Budget Surplus	$1,546
September Review – Budget Surplus/Deficit	$0
December Review – Budget Surplus/Deficit	$0
March Review – Budget Surplus/Deficit	$0
Revised Budget Surplus		$1,546
Projected Working Capital Position at 30 June 2016		$3,988,546
Revised Projected Working Capital		$3,988,546
Benchmark Figure as at 30 June 2015		$1,557,000

Summary of Council approved budget adjustments

The following budget adjustments are proposed in response to Council decisions:

Summary	Meeting Type	Meeting Date	Item	Amount	Net Impact
Revenue, savings and adjustments identified in the expenditure review as at 31 March 2016.	Council *	17/5/2016	New	$124,205	$124,205 surplus
Marrickville Fit for The Future and amalgamation work.	Council	1/3/2016	1	$10,000	$10,000 deficit
Flood studies Johnson Creek and Alexandra Canal	IPES	01/03/2016	8	$91,000	Nil
Street tree planting allocation	Council*	17/5/2015	New*	$40,000	$40,000 deficit
Increases in S88 levy on disposal costs.	Council*	17/5/2015	New*	$74,205	$74,205 deficit
Regional bike route funded by RMS grants	IPES	5/4/2016	5	$287,000	Nil
Adjustment in interest revenue as a result of falling interest rates offset by a reduction to transfer to interest and s94 interest reserves.	Council*	17/5/2015	New*	$450,000	Nil
Total					$0

* Denotes being before Council for the first time (not yet resolved).

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Income & Expenses (External Reporting Format)
2.⇩	Income & Expenses by Key Result Activity
3.⇩	Income & Expenses Working Capital Result
4.⇩	Income & Expenses KRA Working Capital Result
5.⇩	Capital Budget
6.⇩	Cash & Investments
7.⇩	Key Performance Measures
8.⇩	Contracts Listing
9.⇩	Consultancy & Legal Expenses
10.⇩	Capital Project Rephasing

Date - Time 6.30pm	Meeting	Location
24 May 2016	Extraordinary Council	2-14 Fisher Street Petersham
28 June 2016	Ordinary Council	7-15 Wetherill Street Leichhardt
26 July 2016	Ordinary Council	260 Liverpool Road Ashfield
23 August 2016	Ordinary Council	2-14 Fisher Street Petersham
27 September 2016	Ordinary Council	7-15 Wetherill Street Leichhardt
25 October 2016	Ordinary Council	260 Liverpool Road Ashfield
22 November 2016	Ordinary Council	2-14 Fisher Street Petersham
13 December 2016	Ordinary Council	7-15 Wetherill Street Leichhardt

1.⇩	Draft Terms of Reference - Inner West Implementation Advisory Group
2.⇩	Draft Terms of Reference - Inner West Council Local Representation Committee

1.⇩	Financial Incentives
2.⇩	Kylie's Off Grid House
3.⇩	Street Coolers Overview

1.⇩	Part A - 3rd Quarter Budget Review
2.⇩	Part B - Program Financial Report
3.⇩	Part C - Councillor Major Issues - 3rd Quarter Report

1.⇩	Statement of Investments as at 30 April 2016
2.⇩	Investment Portfolio Credit Rating and Institutional Credit Exposure
3.⇩	Investment Commentary

1.	Gratuity Payment 1 - Confidential
2.	Gratuity Payment 2 - Confidential
3.	Gratuity Payment 3 - Confidential