AGENDA R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

 

TUESDAY 2 AUGUST 2016

 

6:30pm

  

 


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

 

 

 

 

INDEX

 

 

1          Welcome by Administrator

 

2          Acknowledgement of Country

 

3          Apologies

 

4          Disclosures of Interest (Section 451 of the Local Government Act
and Council’s Code of Conduct)

 

5          Election of Chairperson

 

6          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                         Page

             Minutes of 15 June 2016 LRAC Leichhardt                                                                    4

7          Staff Reports

 

 

Staff Reports

ITEM                                                                                                                                    PAGE #

 

LL0816 Item 1     Summary of Resolutions                                                                              7

LL0816 Item 2     Shields Playground - Proposed Netball Courts                                         108

LL0816 Item 3     LPAC Olympic Pool Starting Blocks                                                        112

LL0816 Item 4     Chemical Risk Assessment of Glyphosate Pesticide                               114

LL0816 Item 5     Affordable Housing over Hay Street Car Park, Leichhardt                      121

LL0816 Item 6     Alfred Street, Rozelle - Traffic Calming Report                                        130

LL0816 Item 7     No Sewerage Outlets for Sydney Harbour                                               133

LL0816 Item 8     Restaurant/Café at 107 Elliott Street, Balmain                                         137

LL0816 Item 9     Elkington Park Cottage, Balmain - Possible Conversion to Cafe             188

LL0816 Item 10   Open Space and Recreation Developer Contributions Plan Interim Update (2016)      273

LL0816 Item 11   Responses from Councils on Active Support for Yes Campaign if a Plebiscite is Held     275   


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

Minutes of Local Representation Advisory Committee (Leichhardt)

held at Leichhardt Service Centre on Wednesday 15 June 2016

 

The meeting commenced at 6.30pm.

 

Members:                   Mr Frank Breen
Mr John Stamolis
Mr Darcy Byrne
Mr  John Jobling 
Ms Michele McKenzie
Ms Vera-Ann Hannaford
Ms Linda Kelly
Mr Tony Costantino 
Mr Simon Emsley

Other Attendees:      Richard Pearson         Administrator

                                    Vanessa Chan            Interim General Manager

Matthew Phillips          Director Corporate & Information Services, Leichhardt

Nellette Kettle              Director Corporate & Community Services, Ashfield

Peter Gainsford          Director Infrastructure & Service Delivery, Leichhardt

                                    Simone Schwarz        Director Community Services, Marrickville

Erla Ronan                  Group Manager Community & Cultural Services, Leichhardt

                                    Darryl Watkins                        Policy Advisor, KJA

Ian Naylor                   Manager Governance & Administration, Leichhardt

                                    Popy Mourgelas          Manager Corporate Governance, Ashfield

                                    Tanya Whitmarsh       Manager, Governance & Risk, Marrickville

Helen Tola                   Manager Customer Service & Corporate Planning, Leichhardt

                                    Rad Miladinovic          Coordinator, Governance & Administration, Leichhardt

                                    Ken Welsh                   Transport Planner, Leichhardt

                                    Katerina Maros           Governance Officer, Leichhardt

 

1.         Welcome by Administrator

 

2.         Acknowledgement of Country

 

3.         Apologies:       Nil.

 

4.         Disclosures of Interest:       Nil.

 

5.         Election of Chairperson: 

Nomination: Byrne/Kelly

That Chairperson for the inaugural Leichhardt LRAC be Darcy Byrne and for future LRAC meetings the chairperson be nominated at the commencement of each meeting, rotated in alphabetical order and by decision of the member as to whether they wish to Chair the meeting accordingly.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 

 

Darcy Byrne was appointed as Chairperson by majority vote for this meeting.

 

6.         Items for consideration by LRAC

Item 1 - Terms of Reference for Local Representation Advisory Committees

Recommendation                   BYRNE/KELLY

1.    That the Terms of Reference for the Local Representation Advisory Committees be noted and the following feedback be provided to the Administrator:-

 

·         That meetings be conducted under procedures of the former Leichhardt Council Code of Meeting practice.

 

·         That Clause 6 of the Terms of Reference be amended to specify that Committee Members are not permitted to speak to the media on behalf of Council rather than not permitted to speak to the media.

·         That the LRAC business paper agenda include the item 'Questions on Notice' from committee members. 

·         That the agenda be provided three working days prior to a meeting.

·         That the meeting time be 6.30pm to 9.30pm with an extension of 30 minutes as agreed. 

·         That LRAC agendas be publicly advertised on the website prior to the LRAC meeting.

2.    That the Administrator consider holding the Leichhardt LRAC on a Tuesday evening.

3.    That the LRAC and Ordinary Council business papers include a summary of resolutions of previous Council resolutions and all business moved at LRAC and Ordinary Council Meetings of the new Inner West Council.

            CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

Item 2 - Ratifying Council’s Position on Westconnex

Recommendation                   BYRNE/JOBLING

That the Local Representation Advisory Committee supported the following motions the Administrator is proposing to move at the next Council Meeting:

 

1.    Inner West Council formally adopts a position of continued opposition in the strongest terms to the WestConnex project, both approved and future stages, consistent with the positions of the former councils of Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville.

2.    Council establishes a central WestConnex Response Unit to coordinate Council responses to resident concerns regarding impacts associated with the construction of approved stages of WestConnex, as well as submissions and representations on future stages.

3.    Council continues to press the immediate need for the Department of Planning and Environment to fund and establish a dedicated WestConnex compliance officer in the local area to respond promptly to resident issues.

4.    Council establish a regular bi-monthly forum chaired by the Administrator with representatives of all the inner west WestConnex resident action groups to discuss concerns with the project and opportunities for their resolution.

5.    A report from staff be brought forward to the next meeting of Council outlining a community engagement plan to elicit views of the broader community with regards to ways the Council can assist them with concerns regarding WestConnex.

6.    A report from staff be brought forward to the next meeting of Council which summarises the outstanding resolutions of the previous Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils regarding WestConnex and action to be taken to implement.

7.    That a combined meeting of the LRACs be convened and that one of the issues to be further discussed at the combined meeting is Inner West Council's position on WestConnex.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

Item 3 - Draft Operational Plan and Budget 2016-17

Recommendation                   STAMOLIS/BREEN

1.    That the Local Representation Advisory Committee(s) note the Inner West Council Draft Operational Plan and Budget 2016-17, including Fees and Charges, noting that the document is on public exhibition until Thursday, 30 June 2016.

2.    That a quarterly budget review be reported to the LRACs.

3.    That a quarterly review of progress on major infrastructure project be reported to LRACs.

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY


Item 4 - 2016 Grants and Local Representation Advisory Committee

Recommendation                   BYRNE/KELLY


That the LRACs note the 2016 Inner West Grants program and the following feedback be provided to the Administrator:-

 

·         That the commencement of grant applications be deferred until the draft criteria can be reported back to the LRACs.

·         That representations be made to the State Government to request that the $1m community grant funding be in addition to the $15m Stronger Community Funds already allocated to Council.


CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Item 5 - Lilyfield Road Regional Bike Route Separated Cycleway Design

Recommendation                   JOBLING/ HANNAFORD

That the report be received and noted.

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

Item 6 - WestConnex Status 

Recommendation                   KELLY/BYRNE

 

1.    That Council staff continue to liaise with the Sydney Motorway Corporation in an effort to minimise impacts of WestConnex Stage 3 on local residents and businesses.

 

2.    That all new information on WestConnex as received be reported to the following LRAC meeting.

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

The meeting concluded at 8:15pm.


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

Item No:         LL0816 Item 1

Subject:         Summary of Resolutions  

File Ref:         16/4718/84124.16         

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

Authorised By: Matthew Phillips -   Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

To advise LRAC of the Summary of Resolutions of the former Leichhardt Council.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The Summary of Resolutions of the former Leichhardt Council shown attached, have been updated by staff to reflect the progress of each resolution as of 22 July 2016.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

 

 

CONCLUSION

Nil.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Former Leichhardt Council - Ordinary Meeting - Resolution Tracking

2.

Former Leichhardt Council - Policy Meeting - Resolution Tracking

  


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

Item No:         LL0816 Item 2

Subject:         Shields Playground - Proposed Netball Courts  

File Ref:         16/6014/76637.16         

Prepared By: Aaron Callaghan - Senior Parks and Open Space Planner, Leichhardt  

Authorised By: Simone Schwarz - Director, Service Delivery

 

SUMMARY

At the March 2016 Policy meeting, Leichhardt Council resolved with the Mayor using his casting vote in part as follows:

 

1.   Proceed with detailed design works and the lodgement of a Development Application for the development of three hard surface netball Courts, public toilet facilities and associated landscaping improvements works at Shields Playground, Darley Road Leichhardt.

 

During the community engagement phase of this project substantial community opposition was noted at both public meetings during the public submission process and at Council’s March 2016 Policy Meeting.  

 

At the request of local residents, Council’s Administrator and Council staff met with residents on Monday 6th June 2016 to discuss the project and listen to community concerns.  At the conclusion of the meeting a commitment was undertaken that prior to lodging a Development Application, Council officers would consult colleagues and investigate options for netball court provision within the boundaries of the new Inner West Council. Consultation and investigations by Council officers has identified an alternative option for netball court and amenity provision. This report highlights the alternative option and provides recommendations from Council officers moving forward.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

1.       the Leichhardt Representation Advisory Committee note Council officers' advice on the suitability of an alternative site for netball court provision in the northern section of Richard Murden Reserve;

2.       work on the preparation of a Development Application for netball courts and public amenities at Shields Playground is put on hold, pending the development of new concept plans and community engagement; and

3.       local residents in both Ashfield and Leichhardt are consulted and updated on the alternative option.

 

 

 

 

Background

 

Current Status

Council’s Senior Parks Planner has held discussions and undertaken site investigations with staff from both Marrickville and Ashfield branches of Council. An alternative option for the provision of three hard surfaced netball courts has been identified in the northern section of Richard Murden Reserve in Ashfield. Support for this initiative has been forthcoming from Council officers in both Ashfield and Marrickville.

 

The alternative option involves:

·    the upgrade of the two existing basketball courts to multipurpose courts (including netball provision)

·    the provision of one additional multipurpose court 

·    provision of a new amenities block

·    sports floodlighting for evening training

·    relocated path works

·    improved car parking facilities.  

 

The alternative option has a number of positive factors. Two existing courts are already in place and there is good access across the northern Hawthorne Canal Road pedestrian bridge to Blackmore Park (Leichhardt).. In addition the Leichhardt Wanderers Netball Club have their club rooms located in walking distance to this site and current netball courts in Richard Murden Reserve are not meeting the needs of this growing club.

 

 

 

Fig 1.0   Arial Photo of Existing Hard Surfaced Basketball Courts-Northern Zone of Richard Murden Reserve (Ashfield)

 

 

 

 

Fig 1.1   Ariel Photo Illustrating location of Original Proposal and Alternative location

 

 

Financial Implications

Council has funding of $704K which could be utilised for this project. Any future project will be subject to detailed design and a revision of costings.

 

 

Other Staff Comments

This option is supported by the Coordinator of Parks and Trees at the Ashfield Service Centre.

 

 

Public Consultation

Public consultation in accordance with Council’s community engagement framework will be undertaken once draft design options are completed for the proposed new multipurpose courts and the associated lighting and amenity provision.  

 

 

Conclusion

The opportunity to consult colleagues and investigate options for netball court provision within the boundaries of the new Inner West Council has arisen as a result of the recent Council amalgamations. These investigations have identified an alternative option for netball courts and public amenity provision.

 

An alternative option in the northern portion of Richard Murden Reserve has been identified as a possible option for netball facility within the new local government area. The site identified has a number of positives in terms of its location and proximity to the former Leichhardt LGA and in meeting local sporting needs into the future. It is recommended that Council proceed with new design options for the upgrading of the existing court facilities and the provision of one additional court, sports floodlighting and public amenity improvements. Car parking issues will also be addressed as part of any new design study.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

Item No:         LL0816 Item 3

Subject:         LPAC Olympic Pool Starting Blocks  

File Ref:         16/6032/77502.16         

Prepared By: Bill Meaney - Manager Recreation Facilities, Leichhardt  

Authorised By: Cathy Edwards-Davis - Director, Public Works

 

SUMMARY

At the March 2016 meeting, Leichhardt Council resolved (C123/16) to upgrade the LPAC Olympic Pool starting blocks in winter 2016 and to allocate funding in the 2016/2017 budget.  Council Officers were to report back on options prior to commencing works.

Opitons were investigated to retrofit the starting blocks; however, none were suitable. The removal and re-installation of seven (7) new starting blocks is the only viable option to meet the appropriate purpose. Works will require closure of the Olympic pool for approximately seven days with a cost approximately $38,000 for the works and associated loss of revenue estimated to be $15,000.

The removal of the existing concrete starting blocks and replacement starting platforms are not recommended this winter and the works are to be considered as part of the LPAC Masterplan process.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the removal of the existing concrete starting blocks and replacement with new Antiwave starting platforms is considered in the early phase of the LPAC Masterplan works.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

At the November 2015 meeting (C565/15) Council resolved that officers explore the possibilities for upgrading the starting blocks in the Olympic pool, including upgrade of the Olympic Pool at LPAC and report back to Council. This was completed and a report presented to the March meeting including information on the LPAC masterplan.

A report was submitted to the March 2016 Council meeting and Council resolved (C123/16) to upgrade the starting blocks in winter 2016 and to allocate funding in the 2016/2017 budget. Council officers were asked to report back on options prior to commencing the works.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The Council Officers did seek quotes from contractors experienced with this type of work and the cost to remove and replace the existing seven (7) concrete starting blocks is $37,633.

The Olympic Pool would also need to be closed to patrons for approximately seven (7) days for the works to be completed and the loss of income and disruption is estimated at $15,000. Total cost of works and loss of income estimated to be $52,633.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Council officers consider that there are some major factors which need to be given consideration prior to the closure of the Olympic pool, to conduct the works.

It is considered that the replacement and associated works of the LPAC Olympic Pool Starting blocks is better to planned during any major upgrade to the Olympic pool.

The LPAC Masterplan is outdated, being 10 years since the last consultation and community comment through community engagement. It is not known whether the Masterplan is still relevant to the community needs, considering the recreation needs study, changing demographics in the area and industry changes. Council has funding in 2016/2017 to engage a consultant to review and update the LPAC Masterplan, in consultation with the community.

A report will be submitted to Council in December 2016 to present a revised LPAC Masterplan, following re-engagement with the community, which will provide recommendations for staging of future works and financial implications. This report will likely lead to a recommendation for a complete renovation of the Olympic Pool, including new modern starting platforms.

It is therefore recommended that the removal of the existing concrete starting blocks and replacement with new Antiwave starting platforms is considered in the early phase of the Masterplan works.

Further to the above, there has been no public consultation regarding the replacement of the starting blocks, or the associated closure of the pool.  Public complaints are anticipated with any pool closure.

While the contractors have said that structural damage to the pool is not anticipated, this cannot be guaranteed.

The usage of the starting blocks is minimal in the overall use of the Olympic pool, and new modern blocks would benefit the Swim Club and squad swimmers. The Swim Club uses the starting blocks for 3 hours on Saturday mornings in summer only, carnivals use the blocks approximately 5 times per year and LPAC coaching squads use 2-3 lanes in the afternoons and mornings. The use of the starting blocks is estimated at 15% of the total opening hours of the Olympic pool by the three user groups. The starting blocks are isolated during recreation swimming for safety under Safe Pool Operating Guidelines (GSPO).

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

No public consultation has occurred over replacement or pool closure to complete the works.

 

 

CONCLUSION

That the removal of the existing concrete starting blocks and replacement with new Antiwave starting platforms is considered in the early phase of the LPAC Masterplan works.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

Item No:         LL0816 Item 4

Subject:         Chemical Risk Assessment of Glyphosate Pesticide  

File Ref:         16/6014/85250.16         

Prepared By: Richard Jarvis – Manager Parks and Assets, Leichhardt

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Major Projects and Engineering  

 

SUMMARY

Glyphosate is used by Council to control weeds.  The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority has reaffirmed its previous advice on the safe use of Glyphosate: “that products containing glyphosate are safe to use as per the label instructions”.

 

Last year a report issued by the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’.  A joint expert task force reviewed the information considered by the IARC and recommended that the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticides Residues (JMPR) undertake a full re-evaluation of glyphosate. 

 

In May 2016, the JMPR review concluded that while there was some evidence for a positive correlation between occupational glyphosate exposure and non-hodgkin lymphoma in some studies, the only well designed large cohort study found no association at any exposure level.

 

The JMPR further concluded that the overall weight-of-evidence indicates that glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations are not genotoxic in mammals, even at high oral doses and is unlikely to be genotoxic to humans at likely levels of dietary exposure.

 

Finally, the JMPR concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT LRAC note the following recommendation:

 

That Council continue to use pesticide formulations containing glyphosate in accordance with the label instructions for weed control, and the Integrated Weed Management Strategy, and the notification and reporting in accordance with the Pesticide Notification Plan.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Leichhardt Council resolved at its meeting on 23 February 2016

That Council defer any consideration of changing its currently adopted Integrated Weed Management Strategy until further advice is received from the APVMA (which is expected in May 2016) and a subsequent report to Council no later than June 2016. (C77/16)

 

Glyphosate is used by Council to control weeds.  The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority has reaffirmed its previous advice on the safe use of Glyphosate: “that products containing glyphosate are safe to use as per the label instructions”.

 

Last year a report issued by the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’.  A joint expert task force reviewed the information considered by the IARC and recommended that the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticides Residues (JMPR) undertake a full re-evaluation of glyphosate. 

 

In May 2016, the JMPR review concluded that while there was some evidence for a positive correlation between occupational glyphosate exposure and non-hodgkin lymphoma in some studies, the only well designed large cohort study found no association at any exposure level.

 

The JMPR further concluded that the overall weight-of-evidence indicates that glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations are not genotoxic in mammals, even at high oral doses and is unlikely to be genotoxic to humans at likely levels of dietary exposure.

 

Finally, the JMPR concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The advice from APVMA maintains the previously existing advice, thereby no financial implications arise.  Terminating the use of glyphosate would have significant cost and service implications for Inner West Council which have not been assessed for the new council.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

In the former Leichhardt LGA the majority of weed control is undertaken by non-chemical methods, including steam, mechanical and manual weed removal.  Glyphosate is used where other methods cannot be applied, and for spot control of persistent weeds that resist the other treatments.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

No public consultation has been undertaken with respect to the advice from APVMA.

 

 

CONCLUSION

As the APVMA advice re-affirms their previous advice regarding the safe use of glyphosate, then Council should continue to use pesticide formulations containing glyphosate in accordance with the label instructions for weed control, and the Integrated Weed Management Strategy, and the notification and reporting in accordance with the Pesticide Notification Plan.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Update

  


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

Item No:         LL0816 Item 5

Subject:         Affordable Housing over Hay Street Car Park, Leichhardt  

File Ref:         16/6014/85269.16         

Prepared By: Lyn Gerathy - Manager Property and Commercial Services, Leichhardt  

Authorised By: Matthew Phillips - Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

Leichhardt Council resolved, amongst other things, that in consultation with the registered housing provider, a PRE-DA be prepared for affordable and other housing over the Hay Street car park.  Expressions of Interest were invited.  The selection of a preferred housing provider became urgent in order to allow it to include this project in its tender for the $1 billion NSW State Government Social and Affordable Housing Fund.  This report outlines the current position and proposed future actions.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT LRAC note the following recommendations proposed to be put to Council; 

 

1.         That the report be received and noted.

 

2.         That Council pursue the acquisition of Lot 3 DP227326 from Ausgrid subject to             the price being reasonable (as determined by an independent valuation), noting             that a new kiosk substation will be included elsewhere on the car park site as             part of the affordable housing development.

 

3.         That Council enter into discussions with owners of properties fronting             Parramatta Road and adjacent to the car park about the possibility of granting             rights of way, for market value to those properties, provided that this does not             adversely affect the proposed affordable housing development on the Hay             Street car park. 

 

4.         That Council apply for possessory title of the strip of land known as Chancery             Lane which is incorporated into the car park.

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

On 24 November 2015, Leichhardt Council resolved (C598/15):

 

That Council:

 

1.      Notes that clause 1.9A of Leichhardt Local Environment Plan 2013, permitted by section 28 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, provides that a covenant does not apply to the extent necessary for the purpose of allowing development on any land in any zone in accordance with the LEP.

 

2.      Commence discussions with registered community housing providers about an Agreement for Lease and Development Deed permitting the construction and sub-lease of affordable housing above the Hay Street Car Park in Leichhardt.

 

3.      Following discussions and in consultation with the community housing provider, appoint an architect to prepare broad concept plans and an external traffic engineer to provide parking advice and traffic impacts, and lodge a Pre-DA for supported housing, affordable housing for key workers and community housing above the ground level Hay Street car park. 

 

4       Receive a further report after receipt of the Pre-DA advice and the reviewed discussion paper in accordance with Resolution C426/15 with recommendations on the type of affordable, supported and community housing and a list of possible registered community housing providers for this site.

 

5.      Consider utilising the affordable housing fund for this project.

 

In this report, “affordable housing” is usually a generic term to cover social, affordable, key worker, supported living, below market, and other subsidised housing.

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The granting of a lease of the airspace and ancillary rights rent-free is a valuable financial contribution by Council to the project but does not require any cash expenditure by Council.

 

It is recommended that the (Leichhardt) Affordable Housing Fund, currently approximately $700,000, be used for this project which will deliver affordable dwellings. 

 

Relocation of the substation, probably closer to the street boundary of the car park, and the investigation of the purchase of Ausgrid’s Lot 3 is recommended.  Lot 3 has an area of 31.6m2 and has not yet been valued.  The purchase can be funded from the Property Reserve.  The dismantling of the current substation and the new kiosk substation would be paid for by the lessee as part of the building works.

 

There is a prospect of obtaining funds by formalising rights of way in favour of adjacent properties provided this does not adversely affect the development including the replacement public car park at ground level.  It is recommended that any funding so received be applied to this project.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

The report writer, Manager Property and Commercial Services Leichhardt, has consulted and is working with:

 

·        Acting Group Manager Community and Cultural Services Leichhardt / Team Leader, Community Planning and Development Leichhardt; and

 

·        Affordable Housing Officer Marrickville

 

as well as the Manager and Team Leader Traffic Leichhardt, the Transport Planner Leichhardt, the Team Leader Strategic Planning Leichhardt and other officers.

 

Update

 

In respect of paragraph 1 of resolution C589/15 of 24 November 2015, it is noted that clause 9 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (“SEPP”) also provides for the suspension of covenants for the purpose of enabling development in accordance with the SEPP.

 

In respect of paragraphs 2 and 3 of that Resolution, Expressions of Interest were invited from registered community housing providers interested in a long-term lease over the public car park in Hay Street, Leichhardt for construction and management by the Lessee of affordable housing and/or housing for key workers and/or supported living housing and/or social housing and/or community housing and/or other housing which fits Council’s strategic objectives and housing objectives. 

 

The invitation for expressions of interest was emailed to the NSW Department of Family and Community Services and the NSW Housing Association with requests that it be circulated to housing providers.  The invitation was also emailed directly to a number of specific registered housing providers as advised by Council’s Team Leader, Community Planning and Development Leichhardt.

 

Three Expressions of Interest were received. 

 

All had their own architects and/or other consultants either in-house or externally who had undertaken preliminary investigations and design options.   It was proposed to select one to be the community housing provider with whom to continue discussions and pursue the Pre-DA (paragraph 3 of the November resolution.)  This would be the preferred provider for the lease if the initial arrangements and proposed designs were satisfactory.

 

All three advised that they were short-listed for the NSW State Government’s $1 billion Social and Affordable Housing Fund (“SAHF”).  Each wanted to include this project in its tender or proposal for SAHF funding. The closing date for the SAHF tender was 3 August 2016, but to include this project, they needed agreement from Council and they needed to do a lot of financial modelling and obtain other reports and information to support the tender for SAHF funding for this project to maximise the chance of obtaining SAHF funding for the project.

 

This project can proceed without SAHF funding, but not having that funding would mean less social housing (at 30% of income for very low and low income households) and more other affordable housing (eg at a rent discounted from market for moderate income earners) and/or more likelihood of a need for some market rent to cross-subsidise and/or a longer head lease from Council and/or a lower quality building, to make the project financially feasible for the lessee housing provider. 

 

It was considered important to try to obtain SAHF funding, but it meant that the selection of the preferred housing provider became urgent in order to meet the deadlines.   The Interim General Manager under delegated authority approved:

 

1          Link Housing is the preferred housing provider for affordable housing over the Hay Street car park.

 

2          It is noted that this will allow Link Housing to include this project in its tender to the NSW Government Social and Affordable Housing Fund.

 

3          Council will work with Link Housing and its architects and planners on designs and a Pre-DA (as per paragraph 3 of resolution C598/15).

 

4          The Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt be briefed.

 

Heads of Agreement were prepared to cover the initial period of the SAHF tender and the preparation of the preliminary designs and Pre-DA application; these are the binding parts of the Heads of Agreement.  The heads of agreement also outline indicative terms and matters for negotiation for the development deed, agreement for lease, lease (including the required mix of types of housing) and other documents which are to be drafted by Council’s external solicitors and negotiated in this initial period but without binding the parties to proceed if it is not financially feasible or otherwise does not work out in this initial period.

 

Ausgrid

 

Ausgrid owns a 31.6m2 lot within the carpark.  It is towards the west side but not on the side boundary.  It is surrounded by the car park site.  The preferred housing provider enquired about relocating the substation as part of the development.  This is a good idea.  Preliminary discussions have commenced with Ausgrid which is investigating.  A valuation would be obtained to inform the setting of the purchase price.

 

Parramatta Road properties

 

A DA has been lodged for 305-313 Parramatta Road, with 311-313 backing onto the driveway from Redmond Street to the main part of the car park. The DA for these Parramatta Road properties proposed dedicating part of the land to widen the “lane” which would then be the main pedestrian entry way to that development.  However the driveway is not a public lane but a private lot, owned by Council and part of the car park site.  The Assessors have other issues with the particular DA lodged, but there is merit in entering into discussions with the owners of these properties.  Granting them a legal right of access can be valued having regard to the benefit to them and their proposed dedication to Council.  Any funds obtained, in addition to the land dedication, can be applied to the affordable housing project.

 

There is another property, 315 Parramatta Road, which backs onto the main part of the car park.  It is using the car park for rear access to park cars on its site.  It is using the site of the right of way in favour of 325 Parramatta Road and a bit more, but 315 Parramatta does not have a registered right of way.  Rear access to that property is likely to be valuable to it, especially as there have been indications of an intention to redevelop.  The width, location and specific terms of the right of way would have to be negotiated.  Provided it does not adversely affect the proposed affordable housing development, this may be a source of funds to apply to the affordable housing project.   It is recommended that discussions be opened with the owners after preliminary investigation of the design of the affordable housing is advanced.

 

Chancery Lane

 

In the north-west of the car park is a strip of land called Chancery Lane in Council records.  Despite that name, it is not a public lane.  It is not constructed as a lane.  Part of it is incorporated into the car park with bitumen, line marking, wheel stops etc.  Part is a garden between the car park and the adjacent property. 

 

As it has been taken over by Council and treated as Council property for at least 12 years, it is recommended that Council apply to Land and Property Information for title to be granted to Council on the basis of its possession.

 

This is similar to the application Council made for title to three blocks of Marlborough Lane.  However, in the case of Chancery Lane, it would not be gazetted as a public road but would become part of the car park site.

 

Definitions

 

Many terms are used in connection with “affordable housing” which are defined or used differently for different purposes and by different organisations.  This leads to confusion.

 

A draft list of definitions has been prepared and is annexed as Attachment 1 to this Report.  It is intended to reach an agreed list of definitions with sub-categories, and these will in due course be included in the long-term lease.  This will provide clarity when specifying the mix of housing (although for a long-term lease, there will have to be provisions for changes, for example if there are changes to legislated definitions or how statistical data is provided.)

 

 The following matters about the definitions are highlighted.

 

·          Some of the words have been given the same definitions in Attachment 1 as in an Act or the SEPP or the LEP / Standard Instrument, although organisations do not always use these definitions.  Some phrases in Attachment 1 are commonly used but are not defined in a planning instrument and are defined differently by different organisations. Except as set out in the following bullet point, in one sense it doesn’t matter what definitions are used for a project as long as the words are defined so that all parties have the same understanding.

 

·          “Affordable Housing” is defined in Attachment 1 as in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.   At least 50% of the housing at Hay Street must be affordable housing within this definition to obtain the 0.5 extra FSR and other advantages under the SEPP.

 

·          There can, and will be, sub-categories of affordable housing set out in the final list of definitions.  One is social housing, as defined in Attachment 1.  Others are to be worked out, for example moderate income earners (compared to very low and low income earners) and key workers who meet the income limits for affordable housing.

 

·          Key workers will usually fit within the moderate income band for affordable housing.  However, some key workers may earn more than the limit for affordable housing as defined but still be unable to afford to rent within this LGA.  There is a definition of key worker housing which is to be at less than market rent, with the details to be agreed.

 

·          “Supported living” is a term which has been used within Council but is not defined in the SEPP.  It includes but is not limited to “supportive accommodation” which is defined in the SEPP.

 

Further work will be done on this as part of the process to determine the required mix of housing types in the development.  This will involve the Local Representation Advisory Committee.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

This project was supported by the former Leichhardt Council’s Housing Advisory Committee.  It is referred to in the draft Housing Action Plan which was on public exhibition. 

 

 

CONCLUSION

The project for affordable housing over the Hay Street Car Park has advanced with the selection of a preferred registered community housing provider who is including this project in its tender for funding from the $1 billion NSW State Government Social and Affordable Housing Fund and will work with Council to prepare a PRE-DA Application.  There will be update reports to the Committee from time to time including after receipt of the Pre-DA advice in accordance with the resolution of November 2015.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Draft list of Definitions

  


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

Item No:         LL0816 Item 6

Subject:         Alfred Street, Rozelle - Traffic Calming Report   

File Ref:         16/6014/85446.16        

Prepared By: John Stephens – Traffic Manager, Leichhardt

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Major Projects and Engineering  

 

SUMMARY

To advise on the results of recent vehicular speed counts taken in Alfred Street, Rozelle.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT LRAC note the following recommendations:

 

1.   That radar speed display units be installed in Alfred Street, Rozelle, between Gordon Street and Denison Street facing eastbound and westbound traffic for a 6-month period and the results be reported back to the Traffic Committee.

2.   That Council notifies residents that "SLOW DOWN IN MY STREET" stickers will be affixed to waste bins of every second property in association with the above radar speed display units.

3.   That the affected residents be notified of Council's resolution.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The Local Traffic Committee at its meeting held on 3rd December 2015 considered a request from a number of residents in Alfred Street for Council to install traffic calming treatments in Alfred Street between Gordon Street and Denison Street.

 

The Committee noted that the majority of vehicles were travelling below the 50km/h signposted speed limit and there had been no reported collisions in the RMS 5 year reported accident history (2009-2014).  The recorded vehicular volume was also noted to be acceptable.

 

The Committee recommended:

 

a)   "That radar speed display units be installed in Alfred Street, Rozelle, between Gordon Street and Denison Street facing eastbound and westbound traffic for a 6-month period and the results be reported back to the Committee.

b)   That Council notifies residents that "SLOW DOWN IN MY STREET" stickers will be affixed to waste bins of every second property in association with the above radar speed display units.

c)   That the affected residents be notified of the Committee’s recommendation.”

 

Council at its meeting held on 23rd February 2016 considered the Traffic Committee's Minutes and resolved the following change to Item 2.11:

 

a)   "That Council staff take further traffic counts and report back to Council in 3 months.

b)   That Council investigate other Traffic Calming and speed reduction measures to be reported back at the same time.

c)   That the report include information regarding the occasions that speed in Alfred Street, Rozelle has been considered by the Traffic Committee."

 

Further traffic counts have been undertaken in Alfred Street between Gordon Street and Denison Street and the results are shown in the Table below.

 

Alfred Street, Rozelle – Traffic Speed Summary Comparison

 

7th October 2015 Data:

Alfred Street (between Gordon Street and Alfred Lane)

 

Eastbound

Westbound

85th% Speed (km/h)

45

42

Average

39

35

Alfred Street (between Alfred Lane and Denison Street )

Eastbound

Westbound

85th% Speed (km/h)

46

47

Average

40

39

 

20th May 2016 Data:

Alfred Street (between Gordon Street and Alfred Lane)

Eastbound

Westbound

85th% Speed (km/h)

46.8

45

Average

39.9

35.9

Alfred Street (between Alfred Lane and Denison Street )

Eastbound

Westbound

85th% Speed (km/h)

49

48.2

Average

43.2

40

Based on the above results, the majority of vehicles were travelling below the 50km/h speed limit and are similar to the speed results reported to the December 2015 Traffic Committee meeting.

 

As such, it is considered that there would be merit in installing radar speed display units in Alfred Street for a 6-month period to show motorists their speed along the street. The use of these units will be evaluated towards the end of the 6-month period.  To supplement the radar units and to affect a speed behaviour change, "SLOW DOWN IN MY STREET" stickers would be affixed to waste bins of every second property.

 

Over recent years, a number of traffic counts have been undertaken in Alfred Street, Rozelle and the recorded speed results were within acceptable limits.  Also, a review of the database indicated that there had been no previous reports on speeding in Alfred Street considered by the Traffic Committee in the last 10 years.

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

 

CONCLUSION

Based on the collected traffic data, the majority of vehicles are travelling below the 50km/h speed limit, consistent with the results reported to the December 2015 Traffic Committee meeting.

 

As such, implementation of speed reduction devices is not warranted; however, it is considered that there would be merit in installing radar speed display units in Alfred Street for a 6-month period to show motorists their speed.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

Item No:         LL0816 Item 7

Subject:         No Sewerage Outlets for Sydney Harbour  

File Ref:         16/6014/85504.16         

Prepared By: Richard Jarvis – Manager Parks and Assets, Leichhardt

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Major Projects and Engineering  

SUMMARY

During heavy rainfall events stormwater enters the sewerage networks producing flows in the sewerage networks that exceed the capacity of the sewer pipe networks.  Surcharge flows from the sewerage network occur when the network fails to convey all the sewage flow during storm events, commonly occurring as discharges of excess flows from manholes and connections to the sewers.  These discharges can affect connected premises, roadways, and stormwater drainage networks, which also eventually convey the excess sewage flows to Sydney Harbour.

 

The Sydney Coastal Councils Group and Sydney Water share a vision to facilitate a collaborative approach to Integrated Water Management and enhance Sydney’s urban water, sewerage and stormwater network to optimise environmental, social and economic outcomes. Recently a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been developed in consultation with various sections of Sydney Water.  The MOU is intended to establish a framework for the parties to work collaboratively to advance Integrated Water Management and build on the history that the parties share.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT LRAC note the following recommendation:

 

That Council adopt a policy position of opposing the direct discharge of sewerage to stormwater networks or the harbor, and actively support the Sydney Coastal Councils Group and the Parramatta River Catchment Group in their efforts to influence Sydney Water’s policy and practices.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Leichhardt Council at its meeting of 22 March 2016 (C142/16 NO SEWERAGE OUTLETS FOR SYDNEY HARBOUR) resolved that Council:

1.         Adopt a position opposing any further sewerage outlets in Sydney Harbour.

2.         Write to neighbouring councils including the City of Canada Bay informing them of our position and inviting them to join a campaign against these outlets.

3.         Write to Sydney Water and the relevant State Government Ministers informing them of this position and calling on them to develop alternate solutions.

4.         Receive a report at the May Ordinary Council Meeting on the impact of existing and proposed sewerage outlets in Sydney Harbour. 

5.         Consult the Sydney Coastal Council group on this matter.

 

Council wrote to neighbouring Councils, Sydney Water and Ministers on this matter.  This report details the factors which result in the construction of sewerage outlets into Sydney Harbour, and the current activity of Council’s representative organisations in addressing the issue in order to influence change.

 

During heavy rainfall events stormwater enters the sewerage networks producing flows in the sewerage networks that exceed the capacity of the sewer pipe networks, resulting in surcharges from the networks, commonly at low points adjacent to creeks and waterways.

 

Typical stormwater discharges conveyed by the stormwater networks during storm events also pollute Sydney Harbour and its tributaries.  Councils are improving the water quality of stormwater discharges through the provision and operation of water quality improvement devices.

 

Surcharge flows from the sewerage network occur when the network fails to convey all the sewage flow during storm events, commonly occurring as discharges of excess flows from manholes and connections to the sewers.  These discharges can affect connected premises, roadways, and stormwater drainage networks, which also eventually convey the excess sewage flows to Sydney Harbour.

 

Sewerage outlets to Sydney Harbour and its tributaries are installed by Sydney Water to convey excess sewage flows during surcharge events, such as heavy rainfall storms, from locations of surcharges in the sewerage network, to waterways. Storm flows in sewers dilute the sewerage, and where the storm surcharge flows are diverted to the harbour, they are further diluted at the discharge location. There are also existing surcharge relief connections into the stormwater drainage networks.

 

Hence, during storms or system failures the excess sewage flows now enter Sydney Harbour by various routes, some of which expose the public to diluted raw sewage.  The direct connections installed by Sydney Water reduce the possibility of contact by the public with undiluted sewage flows.

 

The industry’s typical alternative to discharging sewage surcharge flows into channels and waterways is to divert the excess flows to a storage tank, which is pumped back into the network after the storm event has abated.  This solution requires the construction of storage tanks with pumps at the sewerage network low points, which are commonly immediately adjacent to creeks and waterways.  The storage capacity provided may also be exceeded in major events, resulting in smaller volume surcharges to channels and waterways.

 

Achieving the necessary investigations, land acquisitions, design and construction of storage tanks and pumping systems requires considerable lead time, during which the exposure of the public and property to raw sewage may be unacceptable.  For that interim period, the direct conveyance of sewage overflows to the harbour is a possible risk reduction strategy, preferable to overland flows.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial Implications for Council.

 

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Council is a member of the Parramatta River Catchment Group (PRCG) which is working toward the objective of making the Parramatta River swimmable.  Sydney Water is also a member, and is participating in progress toward that objective.  After recent publicity on sewage surcharge connections to the harbour, PRCG published a press release on the topic which included the following:

 

“In regards to wet weather overflows

-           The wastewater system is designed to transport more than what is needed for dry weather – around four times more. However, during periods of heavy rainfall, stormwater can enter the system through illegal stormwater connections, maintenance holes, or cracked or damaged wastewater pipes. This causes the system to reach capacity and overflow. During wet weather, the quality of an overflow resembles urban stormwater runoff, comprised of a mix of about 80% stormwater and about 20% wastewater.

-           Rather than wastewater overflowing into homes, backyards and other infrastructure, overflows points have been built into the system to direct this excess flow in a controlled way to areas least likely to damage property or cause a risk to public health such as stormwater channels or local waterways.”

 

Inner West Council has also sought advice from the Sydney Coastal Councils Group (SCCG), of which Council is a member.  Sydney Coastal Councils Group has been addressing the discharge of sewage to the harbour and ocean since its inception, and recently prepared a Literature Review and Draft Issues Paper - Sewage overflows management in the Sydney Region - December 2015. 

 

The Draft Issues Paper has identified the following areas as key issues for consideration in determining future options to reduce and mitigate sewage overflows:

• Community and stakeholder perspectives

• Integrated urban water management including Water Sensitive Urban Design

• Addressing illegal connections and faults in the private sewer network

• Issues regarding the current management of stormwater, including the relative contributions to waterway pollution of stormwater and sewage overflows

• Sydney Water’s risk based approach to sewage overflow management which is proposed to replace frequency targets in Environment Protection Licences

• Transparency, communication and engagement between stakeholders

 

Recently a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been developed in consultation with various sections of Sydney Water.  The MOU is intended to establish a framework for the parties to work collaboratively to advance Integrated Water Management and build on the history that the parties share.  A copy of the Literature Review, Issues Paper, and MOU is provided as an attachment.

 

SCCG and Sydney Water share a vision to facilitate a collaborative approach to Integrated Water Management and enhance Sydney’s urban water, sewerage and stormwater network to optimise environmental, social and economic outcomes. The MOU sets out a framework to advance this vision.

 

The MOU is comprised of the Schedule which describes the proposed key outcomes for the participating parties (Key Outcomes) and the Priority Activities to be undertaken by the parties to facilitate achieving the objectives.  The Key Outcomes are those actions which have been agreed to be focused on over a five year period from 2016 – 2021.  “Priority Activities” are to be progressed (as far as possible) within a twelve month period.  It is anticipated that the scope of the MOU will evolve as the relationship matures.

 

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

No public consultation has been initiated.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council adopt a policy position of opposing the direct discharge of sewerage to stormwater networks or the harbor, and actively support the Sydney Coastal Councils Group and the Parramatta River Catchment Group in their efforts to influence Sydney Water’s policy and practices. Such a policy is a responsible and constructive approach to this matter.

 

This approach recognises the impacts on the community and their needs for immediate relief from wastewater overflowing into homes, backyards and other infrastructure, through the use of overflows points which have been built into the system to direct this excess flow in a controlled way to areas least likely to damage property or cause a risk to public health such as stormwater channels or local waterways.  The approach also seeks to curtail the discharge of untreated sewage into our waterways.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.  


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

Item No:         LL0816 Item 8

Subject:         Restaurant/Café at 107 Elliott Street, Balmain  

File Ref:         16/6014/85536.16         

Prepared By: Lyn Gerathy - Manager Property and Commercial Services, Leichhardt  

Authorised By: Matthew Phillips - Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

The existing restaurant building is constructed mainly on land owned by Roads and Maritime Services and leased to Council, and partly on land owned by Council.  The building is in a poor state, is not accessible and is non-compliant with BCA.  Scopes of work were prepared by architects and costed by a quantity surveyor.  It is not financially worth doing alterations and additions especially when rent has to be paid to RMS.  It is recommended that the lease from RMS be terminated and the building be demolished.  It is also recommended that Council continue to investigate (at minimal further cost) the feasibility of a new building to be constructed by or with financial contribution from a lessee prior to making a decision about the future of the site.  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT LRAC note the following recommendations proposed to be put to Council;

 

1.         That Council terminate its current lease from Roads and Maritime Services (“RMS”) of lot 26 DP850832 being part of the site known as 107 Elliott Street, Balmain.

 

2.         That Council prepare and lodge a development application for demolition of the current restaurant building and terrace.

 

3          That Council seek a new licence from RMS at its minimum licence fee of lot 26 DP850832 for public open space to connect Paringa Reserve and the proposed open space to be dedicated at 102 Elliott Street.

 

4.         That Council lodge an Application for PRE-DA advice for construction of a replacement café/restaurant on Council land only, with outdoor seating on RMS’ land, and use of the new structure as a licensed café/restaurant (noting that concept plans and supporting reports have already been obtained). 

 

5.         That Council then receive a further report.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

There was a report to the closed session of the Ordinary Meeting of Leichhardt Council on 26 April 2016.  Leichhardt Council resolved that the item be deferred pending a Councillor briefing.   It is for that reason that this report is being brought to the Local Representation Advisory Committee.

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Council is paying approximately $7,500 per year rent to Roads and Maritime Service under the head lease.  It is recommended that Council give notice to end the lease which is on holdover.

 

There is $425,000 funding in the budget for this project.  In addition to the investigations already undertaken, this will cover demolition of the current building and the preparation and lodgment of a Pre-DA application for which most of the information has already been obtained so there is minimal further cost.  

 

Construction of any new building would require a substantial contribution from the lessee and it is proposed that this be considered further after Pre-DA advice is obtained.    

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

The current structure is a rendered building most of which is on RMS land being lot 26 DP850832 with a smaller part of the building including toilets and all the paved outdoor area on Council land.  A small part of the building encroaches onto the road reserve. 

 

The survey below shows:

·     The main building outlined in red.

·     The outdoor dining area outlined in dark green (with adjacent shrubbery planted by the former lessee in light green).

·     RMS land (lot 26) outlined in blue.

 

Council has a head lease from RMS of the RMS land.  The original term has expired and the lease is now on holdover. 

 

The long-term tenants vacated.  At its Ordinary Meeting on 24 March 2015, Council resolved (C97/15), relevantly to this property:

 

1.         In respect of the restaurant adjacent to the Elliot Street Wharf, Balmain, that Council:

 

a)    continue negotiations with RMS for a new head lease, and report back to Council prior to any commitments being made;

b)    apply for a Building Certificate for existing unauthorised work which is not to be demolished;

c)    subject to agreement with RMS for a head lease, prepare a development application for any demolition, new and/or replacement building work; and

d)    subject to agreement with RMS for a head lease, prepare a (draft) development application seeking consent for use as a licensed café / restaurant. Proposed seating numbers and hours will be considered in discussion with consultants (including parking and acoustics) and reported to Council for approval prior to the DA being finalised for lodgment.

 

5.

b)    That a business plan be provided to Council with the report on the discussions with consultants about proposed seating numbers and hours in respect of the restaurant adjacent to the Elliott Street Wharf.

c)    These plans are to cover the expected costs to Council, the expected revenues, the time lines for these and the payback period and the rate of return on the funds invested in respect of each property.

 

Council commissioned various inspections and reports on the restaurant building at 107 Elliott Street including:

·     Market Rental Assessment by Chaloner Valuations

·     Retail Market Analysis and Feasibility Report by Brain and Poulter

·     Building Report by Cantilever Engineers

·     Preliminary Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment by McLaren Traffic Engineers (prior to construction starting at 100-102 Elliott Street and taking into account the expected traffic and parking demands from that development)

·     Acoustic / noise impact report by Acoustic Logic.

 

The building work was done by the previous long-term lessee.  Once the building was vacant and inspected, its deficiencies were more obvious. 

 

Attached to this report as Attachment 1 is the building report by Cantilever Engineers.

 

In addition to the poor state of the building structure:

 

·     It is not accessible, having no accessible toilet and with a narrow doorway and stairs to the outdoor terrace.  

 

·     The building is constructed on top of the seawall. 

 

·     Its layout with internal walls is problematic for efficient service and placement of tables.

 

·     It is externally unattractive from many angles. 

 

As discussed in more detail later in this report, architects prepared a Scope of Works [Attachment 2] to renovate the building based on the structural engineer’s report, accessibility requirements and other matters and this was costed by a quantity surveyor. 

 

Before continuing this discussion, it is appropriate to look at the situation with the head lease from RMS to Council of the part of the RMS land on which most of the main building is located. 

 

Lease from RMS to Council

 

Most of the current building is on land (lot 26) owned by RMS and leased to Council.  The rest of the building including the toilets and much of the kitchen area, and the large outside terrace are on land (lots 1 and E and part of the road reserve) owned by Council.  With Council having a head lease of the RMS’ land, Council was able to offer a sub-lease of the RMS’ land and a lease of the Council land to a restaurant operator.  Council received rent from the restaurateur.  Council must pay rent to RMS under the head lease.  When Council’s lease to the long term tenants ended, Council was paying approximately 15% of the rent it received to RMS under the head lease.  (At the last review, RMS had sought a much larger share but Council officers negotiated it down on the basis that Council was a head lessee not an agent for RMS which meant that Council had to pay rent under the head lease even if the sub-lessee failed to pay Council and Council had all the risks.) 

 

In accordance with the March 2015 resolution, at the same time the reports were being obtained from external consultants, Council officers were talking to officers from Roads and Maritime Services about a new head lease of the relevant part of lot 26.  It would be the same as before, with Council being the head-lessee from RMS of its part, and Council then granting a sub-lease of the RMS land and lease of the Council land to the operator. 

 

RMS officers made it clear they were seeking a larger share of rent under any future new lease to reflect the area of the restaurant building on the RMS land. The initial discussions with RMS were that the renovated building would be put out to a competitive process for a new lessee operator for the whole restaurant building and terrace, and there would be agreed instructions to a valuer to determine how much of the rent Council would pay RMS under the head lease.  The area of disagreement came with the treatment of capital costs to be incurred by Council in undertaking alterations and additions to the building.  Council said this must be taken into account by the valuer in determining the share of the total rent to be paid to RMS under the head lease.  RMS said that it would grant a longer lease (20 years instead of 10 years) to allow Council to recoup its investment but would not agree to the valuer taking the expenditure into account in determining the rent under the head lease.  This is unacceptable in this case. 

 

RMS officers inspected the site and saw the extent of work required and therefore the high costs that would be involved.  They then understood better why costs by Council should be taken into account in the assessment of rent under the head lease.

 

Demolition was discussed.  The RMS officers said that if the building were demolished, they wouldn’t bother to rebuild.

 

In response to the enquiry by the council officer, RMS advised that if Council surrendered the head lease, it would require Council within 6 months to demolish the building and pave the area to match the rest of the wharf entry area. 

 

RMS said it is willing to continue discussions once Council has decided whether and how to proceed.

 

Council is still paying rent under the head lease to RMS.  The lease is still on foot although on holdover.  It was not appropriate to terminate while Council was undertaking its investigations, and the obtaining of a new lease on good terms was more likely if the current lease continued.  For these reasons, a rent reduction to RMS’ minimum was not initially sought.  Earlier in 2016, Council requested that the rent be reduced to RMS’ minimum whilst Council is not receiving any income (although, as stated above in this report, the rent under the head lease had been negotiated down because Council has to pay regardless of any sub-lessee paying.)  RMS stated that it would consider this request for rent reduction after being advised how Council intends to proceed. 

 

Scope of Works, Concept Plans and Estimated Costs

 

The formal valuation by Chaloner Valuations in June 2015 assessed  rent on the basis of certain assumptions including the upgrade work being done by Council (but with the lessee to fitout the kitchen), lease length, number of chairs and operating hours.  The food premises advisers considered the number of chairs required for the business to be viable and the likely rent.  Part of the rent would have to be paid to RMS under the head lease of lot 26.

 

The architects prepared concept plans and a scope of work for the required upgrade to the current building to comply with accessibility and BCA requirements and structural repairs in accordance with the structural engineer’s report.  

 

Two scopes were prepared, a renovation and a revision.  Attached to this report as Attachment 2 is the Scope of Works and concept plans for the renovation upgrade and the revision upgrade of the current building. 

 

The quantity surveyor, Wilde and Woollard Pty Ltd, assessed the required budget for the Refurbishment (renovate) and for the Refurbishment (revision).  This is being kept confidential at this stage in case of later tenders.

 

            The estimated costs are more than the current budget.  One option is for Council to obtain development consent and then lease the building to a lessee who would undertake all the renovation work at its cost.  Obviously, the rent would be lower and the lease term longer than it would be if Council did the base building work, but Council’s part could be done within the budget.  This would require agreement by and a head lease from RMS and payment of rent to RMS throughout the new lease term.  It would also require renewals of the lease from RMS in future. 

 

            Renovating an existing poor building is often labour intensive which increases the costs. It was considered appropriate to investigate demolition and rebuilding for comparison with renovating.

 

            Demolition and Rebuilding

           

It was thought likely that it would be more cost effective to demolish and rebuild rather than try to upgrade the existing poor-quality building which would be an expensive exercise and result in a less than satisfactory building.  There are other benefits in demolition and rebuilding rather than making alterations and additions to the current building which is mainly on RMS land.

 

·        It would allow the new building to be moved back off the sea wall, reducing maintenance and repair costs of the seawall.

 

·        It gives the opportunity to rebuild the permanent structure all on Council land rather than having a building over lands owned by two different owners (Council and RMS). 

 

This would overcome problems with trying to lodge a development application for a building on land with two separate owners.  (The original building work was done by the former tenants with DA but no BA and then extended without development consent, so a DA would be required.)

 

A head lease from RMS would not be required.

 

Council would retain all the rent from the restaurateur lessee and not be required to pay any rent to RMS.  This increases the financial return to Council.

 

Council would not be held to ransom by RMS each time the lease was renewed in future. 

 

·          The encroachments by the current building onto the Elliott Street road reserve would be removed.  This would allow a wider and safer pathway around the end of Elliott Street, benefitting the proposed connection of the pedestrian pathway from the new open space at 102 Elliott Street into Paringa Reserve.

 

·          It would allow a better presentation to Elliott Street, to Paringa Reserve and to the new open space, and allow the new building and open spaces to complement and activate each other.

 

·          It could be built so as to allow public use of the toilets by those visiting the parks on both sides and those walking the anticipated extended pedestrian walk around the harbour.

 

The architects were instructed to prepare rebuilding plans with the main building all on Council land and not any on RMS’ land, with the possibility of outdoor seating only being on RMS land. 

 

If the outdoor seating (if any) was simply on a paved area on RMS land rather than on a lightweight deck or other structure, it would not be necessary to have a head lease.  There could be a separate licence agreement to use the area which would be easier and involve a lesser payment to RMS. 

 

“Garden Piazza”

 

The architects were instructed to prepare concept plans for a new building to be constructed entirely on the Council owned land, although with provision for a light-weight, easily detached structure for outdoor seating on the RMS land.

 

Two concepts plans for demolition and rebuilding on Council land were prepared.  The two concepts are the “Garden Piazza” and the “In the Round” proposals.  The architects’ site analysis and the two concepts are attached to this report as Attachment 3.

 

The same quantity surveyors, Wilde and Woollard Pty Ltd, who had assessed the budget for renovation of the current building, estimated the required budget for the “Garden Piazza” concept.  Again, this is being kept confidential at this stage in case of future tenders. 

 

The costs for demolition and rebuilding the “Garden Piazza” are less than for renovating the current building.   One main reason is that renovation is fiddlier and more labour intensive than demolition and new construction. 

 

Renovation of the current building provides more total seating that the Garden Piazza but fewer inside seats and more outside seats.  Therefore it is fair to compare the costs.  More outdoor seating may be possible on the RMS land for the Garden Piazza. 

 

With both scenarios (renovation of the current building,  and demolition and construction of the Garden Piazza) being over the budget, more work could be required to be done as part of the lessee’s fitout to be done by the lessee at its cost, rather than base building work to be done by Council which would reduce the cost to Council.  This would also reduce the rent payable by the lessee to Council and likely require a longer lease term.

 

The cost could be reduced by reducing the extent and quality of the external works to the park and around Elliott Street outside the café, although this is not recommended.  Part of this work could be done as part of s.94 open space works. 

 

The costs of renovation and rebuilding are similar but being able to construct a new building all on Council land would mean Council retaining all the rent from the lessee and not being required to pay any to RMS for its land.  There would be a greater financial return to Council from the new Garden Piazza than renovation of the current structure.

 

            Regardless of how much of the work is done by Council at its cost and how much by the lessee at its cost, and whether or not Council proceeds with a café at the site, these plans and costings confirm that it is not worth renovating the current building which is partly on RMS land and partly on Council land. 

 

            It is recommended that the head lease from RMS be terminated, so that rent will no longer be payable, and a DA be lodged for demolition of the current building. 

 

            The DA for demolition will advise that following demolition, there will either be a new structure built for which a separate DA will be lodged or the land will be public open space.  Further investigation to assist in this decision would be at minimal cost as most of the investigation and reports have already been done. 

 

“In the Round”

 

The “In the Round” concept is larger than the Garden Piazza concept and is more expensive (as costed by Wilde and Woollard Pty Ltd).

 

One difference is that the “In the Round” concept puts the toilets on Paringa Reserve outside the current area occupied by the restaurant and terrace.  They would be able to be used by park visitors, walkers and other members of the public as well as café/restaurant patrons. [Section 44 of the Local Government Act 1993 states that pending a Plan of Management, the “nature and use” of community land must not be changed.  It is now public open space and this would not be altered by construction of toilets or a pathway.  Any toilets would have to be adjacent to the café to comply with the BCA requirements for the cafe.]  There would be a covered area between the cafe/restaurant and the toilets. 

 

This concept also extends the area of the external works with a corresponding increase in costs. 

 

Public Plaza- end of Elliott Street

 

There is an additional proposal, following from the wharf no longer being used for public ferries, the concept plans for demolition and rebuilding, and the anticipated dedication of the public open space at 102 Elliott Street and extension of its pathway to Paringa Reserve as per the February 2016 resolution. 

 

If RMS would grant or licence to Council of all lot 26 for RMS’ minimum licence (now $530 a year) but not to build the replacement café building on it, then it could be converted to more of a public plaza or open space, thus increasing the total area of open space and better connecting the proposed new public reserve at 102 Elliott Street with Paringa Reserve.  There could be an extra fee payable to RMS if there were outdoor café tables and chairs on lot 26 for which Council was receiving a fee.

 

As it was convenient to do so at the same time, the architects looked at improving the RMS wharf at the end of Elliott Street to be a public plaza.  This is included in the concept plans in Attachment 3 but not included in the costs assessments.  It is not part of this project or contemplated by the budget for this project but it is recommended that it be considered as part of the extension of the pedestrian walkway.  

 

Other considerations

 

The estimated costs of the building work exceed the budget. Despite that, there are some matters to consider.

 

1          Lessee to Contribute to Capital Cost

 

The original idea was for Council to do the base building work and the lessee to do the fitout including the kitchen.  Some items could be considered either base building work or fitout. 

 

As stated above, Council could obtain DA consent to upgrade the current building and then invite tenders from lessees to do the work and then run the business.  However, it is not considered financially worthwhile to upgrade this building which is partly on RMS land.

 

In light of the costs and the wide interest from potential lessees including a proposal for a café/restaurant to be constructed from containers by the lessee (see next section), it is now recommended that Council obtain PRE-DA advice for a new building and its use as a café/restaurant, and then invite expressions of interest for a lease involving the lessee constructing or contributing substantially to the capital costs of a new structure and/or more work (eg walls and ceilings) being included in the lessee’s fitout to be done at its cost. 

 

As it is operational land, not community land, it is not necessary to invite tenders for the lease [s.55 (3)(e) of the Local Government Act, 1993.]  This gives Council greater freedom to investigate potential lessees and negotiate, and to withdraw if it is not financially viable to continue. 

 

This would be without significant further expenditure due to the plans and reports already done so there is little lost by the further investigation.  

 

An increase in the budget is not sought for the café proposal (although see the comments below in the section headed “3 Community Benefit” and above in respect of the possible Public Plaza).                                                                                                            

 

2          Wide Interest

 

Council has a distribution list of 19 people who contacted Council asking to lease the building to run a café or restaurant business and who want to be notified when expressions of interest are invited for a lessee operator.  These have been cold calls to Council without any advertising to invite expressions of interest.  This confirms that there would be competition for a lease of the site.

 

One interested person has said he has investors and is able and expects to do building / substantial fitout work.  He and a number of the others have contacted Council several times seeking updates.

 

Another person referred Council to her recommended architects and fitout designers, and also contacted them to ring Council.

 

Most recently, Council was contacted by an experienced restaurateur with a number of outlets proposing that there be a new café on the site constructed from containers. 

 

Council officers are aware of this trend to convert containers for cafes, which are faster and cheaper to install than a new building but are functional and attractive.  This is considered suitable for this site.  It would allow a new café structure and provide rent to Council for the land, without Council having to pay any part of the rent to RMS and without Council incurring costs other than the costs of demolition of the current building which it would have to pay even if there were no new café – although the balance of the current budget may be applied to new toilets to ensure they were available to the public.  Although this proposal appears suitable, it is still considered appropriate to invite expressions of interest and then select the most promising for further negotiations.  A business plan then has to be prepared before Council makes a final decision. 

 

3          Community Benefit

 

When the report was prepared for the March 2015 Ordinary Council Meeting, this was almost exclusively a commercial project requiring a profit in a reasonable payback period. 

 

It now has more of a community aspect to it as well.

 

The proposed dedication of public open space on the waterfront of the former Nutrimetics site immediately opposite this café/restaurant will assist in joining the two areas of open space and activating Paringa Reserve.  If (following the resolution in February 2016) Council succeeds in obtaining a right of way over the NSW Housing land to connect the new open space and Paringa Reserve via the right of way and roads to Elkington Park, and with the improved walkways on the other site of the new open space to Iron Cove, any café/licensed café/restaurant at the end of Elliott Street would be a destination and stopping point for walkers from Elkington Park to the Bay Run. 

 

Council’s Community and Cultural Plan has as an Action:  “Investigate options for providing cafes or other gathering points for families and other people using local parks.”

 

It was because of the anticipated new open space and the extended pedestrian walkway that one of the concept plans for new work included the toilets for the café also being available to park visitors and walkers. 

 

If there is funding, for example from the s.94 Plan for Open Space and Recreation subject to the new plan, Council may consider additional external works to the RMS land (if licensed for minimal rent) and into Paringa Reserve, around the café building. 

 

4          Restaurant Advice

 

Advice was obtained from specialist food business consultants, Brain and Poulter, which is not set out here for commercial reasons.

 

Some matters require market testing which could be through an expression of interest process following Pre-DA advice which would be at minimal further expense. 

 

Next steps

 

The recommended next steps are:

 

RMS land

 

·        Regardless of whether or not any replacement café/restaurant is built, it is recommended that Council terminate the current lease from RMS and advise RMS that the building will be demolished and the leased area made good.  Rent will not then have to be paid to RMS. 

 

·      It is proposed that a DA for demolition be lodged.

 

·      Once the building is demolished, this will leave clear RMS’ lot 26 which has an area of approximately 135 m2.  It is at the end of Elliott Street.  It connects Paringa Reserve and the foreshore land which is to be dedicated to Council as a condition of the DA for 100-102 Elliott Street.  Part of this wharf entry is now paved and is now open to the public.  When the current RMS lease is terminated, the building demolished and the land made good, the rest will be paved and open to the public.  However, there are some benefits (as well as costs) in Council controlling this land.  Principally, through signage and design cues, it would enable the two areas of open space on either side of Elliott Street to be better connected.  Whether or not a new café / restaurant is constructed, it gives Council more land and freedom to embellish it in a way which complements the two areas of open space.

 

It is recommended that Council seek a new licence from RMS of all lot 26 for the purposes of embellishment and use as a public plaza / public open space, at RMS’ minimum licence fee currently $530 per year.

 

If Council decides to proceed with a new café with outdoor seating on RMS’ land, the licence from RMS could provide that a certain amount (eg half the licence fee for the outdoor seating only) be paid to RMS.  Otherwise, only the minimum annual fee would be payable.

 

Pre-DA

 

·      Council would lodge an application for Pre-DA advice.  The aim is to seek advice to assist in establishing the maximum size and area, numbers and operating hours.  This gives the widest scope for potential lessees and negotiations.

 

It is proposed that the plan of the “In the Round” concept be used because it is larger than the “Garden Piazza” and puts the (shared) toilets on Paringa Reserve thus establishing the maximum area.  One reduction will be the covering and structures on the RMS land.  It will be shown only as uncovered outdoor seating on the paving similar to tables and chairs on footpaths. The proposed materials will be simple.  The Pre-DA may refer to construction from converted containers.

 

Maximum hours will be sought in the Pre-DA.  A lessee will not be obliged to operate the maximum hours but can trade for shorter hours.  However, obtaining PRE-DA advice on the maximum hours likely to be approved by DA will assist negotiations.  Similarly, the Pre-DA application will propose maximum seating numbers able to be accommodated within the concept plan, supported by the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment and the Noise Impact Assessment and its recommendation for any amelioration of noise impacts.  It may be that any future building will have fewer seats but this Pre-DA is to establish the maximum for future planning and negotiation, eg for converted containers.

 

As the plans and reports have already been obtained, there is minimal cost in applying for Pre-DA advice.

 

Expressions of Interest

 

Following receipt of the Pre-DA advice, it is anticipated that a further report will be prepared recommending that Council invite expressions of interest from potential lessees for construction and operation of a new café/restaurant on the on Council land. 

 

The new structure would have to be not inconsistent with the Pre-DA advice.  Council would demolish or contribute the costs of demolition of the current building and making the site suitable for the new construction.  Council would contribute the balance of its current budget for the project in particular for toilets which are to be available to park users and walkers.

 

Interested persons would be asked to propose a lease length and rent payable in their expression of interest.  Negotiations will be undertaken with the preferred proposers.  Updated costs assessments will be obtained.

 

Business Case

 

The business case will then be finalised in line with Resolution C97/15.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

In 2011, Amendment 18 to Leichhardt LEP 2000 reclassified the part of Paringa Reserve occupied by part of the restaurant to “operational land” and added a site specific provision to the LEP allowing the area occupied by the restaurant building and terrace to be used for a refreshment room with consent.  The latter has been translated to Leichhardt LEP 2013 as a site specific provision allowing use as a café or restaurant with development consent. 

 

The amendment to the LEP required community consultation and a public hearing prior to it being adopted and gazetted.

 

 

CONCLUSION

It is not financially worth doing the necessary upgrades to the current building.  It is recommended that the lease from RMS, now on holdover, be terminated and a development application lodged for demolition.

 

It is proposed that a PRE-DA application be prepared and lodged seeking advice on construction of a new café / restaurant building entirely on Council’s land.  The concept plans and supporting reports are held so there is minimal further expense.  This will assist Council in deciding whether to pursue a new building or to leave the area as open space.  A further report will be prepared on this.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Building Report dated 18 June 2015 by Cantilever Engineers

2.

Scope of Work for alterations and additions to the current building

3.

Concepts Plans (2) and Site Analysis by Urakawa Jenkins Architects

  


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

Item No:         LL0816 Item 9

Subject:         Elkington Park Cottage, Balmain - Possible Conversion to Cafe 

File Ref:         16/6014/85571.16        

Prepared By: Lyn Gerathy - Manager Property and Commercial Services, Leichhardt 

Authorised By: Matthew Phillips - Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

Council has been investigating the feasibility of adaptive re-use of Elkington Park Cottage as a café, obtaining reports from a number of specialist consultants.  There has been a first round of community consultation.  The results of the investigation and consultation are outlined in the report.  The next steps are awaiting the gazettal of the amendment of the LEP.  In the meantime, it is being recommended that feedback be provided to those who took part in the consultation by notifying them of the outcomes of the consultation and other information to be on the website.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT LRAC note the following recommendations:

 

1.      That the Report be received and noted.

 

2.      That the results of the first round of community consultation be placed on the website, with the Parking and Traffic Impact Assessment and other supporting documents, and that Council advise this to all who completed a survey or made a submission.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The former Leichhardt Council had been undertaking a Review of all its real property to identify, amongst other matters:

·     properties and buildings that could provide financial returns, or higher financial returns, to Council with possible and recommended uses,

·     properties and buildings that could be used to satisfy, or to satisfy better, Council’s strategic aims and how,

·     actions and requirements to implement the recommendations.

 

The 2004 Plan of Management for Elkington Park recommends investigation of adaptive re-use of the caretaker’s cottage and listed matters to be considered.

 

The (Leichhardt) Council’s Community and Cultural Plan Strategic Objective 2, Outcome 2.2, Strategy 2.2.1, Action 1 is:  Investigate options for providing cafes or other gathering points for families and other people using local parks …

 

At its Ordinary Meeting on 24 March 2015, Leichhardt Council resolved:

 

1.       In respect of Elkington Park Cottage, Balmain:

a)      that the community be consulted about a proposal for a licensed café, with Dawn Fraser Museum, artist in residence and/or other uses; and

b)      that investigations be continued into the feasibility of a licensed café with other uses at Elkington Park Cottage.

5.       a)      That a business plan be provided, in respect of each of the Elkington Park Cottage and …., with the reports to Council on public consultation.

c)      These plans are to cover the expected costs to Council, the expected revenues, the time lines for these and the payback period and the rate of return on the funds invested in respect of each property.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There is $600,000 in the budget for the work to adapt the cottage for use as a cafe.  Estimated costs as assessed by an external quantity surveyor are within the budget.  There is also sufficient in the budget for the costs of the exhibition of the draft Amended Plan of Management and related matters.

 

Commercial rent would be received by Council if the cottage were adaptively re-used as a cafe.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Investigations have been undertaken to determine the feasibility of a (licensed) café at Elkington Park Cottage. 

 

The following are attached to this Report:

 

Attachment 1:           Accessibility Report

Attachment 2:           (Draft) Parking and Traffic Impact Assessment.

 

The hours covered by the draft Parking and Traffic Impact Assessment are longer and later than is likely to be sought in any DA or traded by an operator.  This was to ensure the full possible range was covered.  The hours can easily be reduced from those in the preliminary impact assessment but could not be extended without new counts and a new impact assessment. The most likely trading hours are daylight hours.  The Report will be finalised once mid-year counts are finalised and there is greater certainty about patron numbers.

 

A Conservation Management Plan was obtained and given to the architects who prepared concept plans.  A structural engineer’s report and a hydraulic services report were obtained and given to the architects and the quantity surveyors.  Copies are not attached to this report but are available on request.

 

Council also commissioned a Market Analysis and Feasibility Report by retail food specialist consultants Brain and Poulter.  They looked at location, features, likely demand, trading hours and options, possible revenue and rents.  For commercial reasons related to possible future tenders for a lessee, this is being kept confidential at this stage. 

 

Concept Plans and Estimated Costs

 

Architects were appointed to prepare concept plans having regard to the Conservation Management Plan, the Feasibility Report, the Accessibility Report and other matters. 

 

The architects’ report on adaptive re-use for a café with concept plans is attached to this report as Attachment 3.  The initially preferred concept is below: 

 

 

The features are:

 

·      The current added-on domestic kitchen, bathroom and laundry section, which has asbestos, and the rear lean-to section are demolished.  A new kitchen space and an accessible toilet and additional toilet are constructed.  They are set back from the original cottage to allow an accessible path of travel from the cottage to the rear courtyard and WCs, and also to allow a side entry to the courtyard.  These access ways are to be covered for protection from weather, as usually required by the accessibility consultant.  The lessee would be required to fitout the kitchen.

 

·      The heritage cottage is retained except for (1) the conversion of a rear bedroom window to a doorway to the rear courtyard; (2) the creation of a wall opening between two bedrooms to create a larger space, with this wall opening below the picture rail and with nibs on both sides in accordance with heritage advice so that the original layout is demonstrated; and (3) the doorway between what is now the lounge room and dining room may have to be widened for access. 

 

·      The entry through the gate, then to the verandah and then into the front door (where there are currently single steps at each point), and around the side of the cottage to the rear courtyard, will be made accessible.

 

·    There will be some repairs and maintenance, BCA required works and cosmetic works.

 

The works have been assessed by an external quantity surveyor.  The estimate is within the budget for the project, leaving funds for consultation and other matters, but is being kept confidential at this stage in view of possible future tenders for construction.

 

Accessible Toilets for Park Visitors

 

The report writer, Manager Property and Commercial Services Leichhardt, discussed the cottage with the Manager Parks and Assets Leichhardt and the Senior Recreation Planner Leichhardt. 

 

The 2004 Plan of Management for Elkington Park calls for the upgrade of the current toilet block near the playground, or its demolition and rebuilding roughly in the same location.  It has been suggested that the converted cottage could also provide an accessible toilet for all park users, enabling the existing park toilet block to be demolished and its site returned to open space.  This was included in the brief to architects and is referred to in the architect’s report in Attachment 3 but it requires further investigation.  It can be looked at during design development but the main issues in respect of the cottage are:

 

·      Whether park visitors are to be allowed to use the toilets only when the café is not operating or also when the café is operating.  If the latter, there may be some conflict and other issues.

 

·      Café patrons may access the toilets through the cottage/café.  Most park users would reach the WC from the side, from the service drive from Fitzroy Avenue.  It is likely that accessible entry from the side driveway can be made compliant near the cottage but less likely that it will comply nearer the WC’s as the gradient at this section is too steep.   This is one issue that may lead to a conflict referred to in the previous dot point.  There would be another accessible route around the other side of the cottage to the rear courtyard but this also may cause conflict with café operators and patrons, raise security issues and may breach the Disability Discrimination Act by requiring park visitors in a wheelchair or with other mobility disabilities, who are not café patrons, to take a roundabout route.  These proposals will be discussed further with the architect, engineers and accessibility adviser.

 

·      The Building Code of Australia (BCA) mandates the number of toilets required depending on the number of patrons the café can seat and staff numbers.  The concept plan has one unisex accessible WC (which counts as two under the BCA) and one unisex ambulant WC.  Making the toilets available to park visitors may require additional toilets be constructed.  One issue with this is whether there is sufficient area.  Another issue is the cost not only for the additional toilet/s but of further excavation of the current garden area at a higher level.  The additional cost could possibly come from the Open Space budget if there were support for this proposal. 

 

It is recommended that this proposal remain as an option for further investigation during design development. 

 

Access into Elkington Park for Persons with a Disability

 

The cottage was inspected by an accessibility consultant who advised that the cottage could be adapted for use as a café, noting it was heritage, subject to certain recommendations being followed. 

 

The consultant asked about access to the cottage.  The driveway from the Fitzroy Avenue car parking area is too steep.  It was proposed that the pathway starting near the playground, on the White Street side of the park, going across the park to the cottage (“cross path”) would be the preferred access to the adapted cottage.  It would be except that the cross path only starts (and ends) at the bins near the playground and doesn’t extend to the park entry. 

 

This brought to light the limits on access into the park. There is no access into the park for unassisted wheelchair users.  The pathway from the corner of Glassop and White Street, down to the rotunda, then around the rotunda to meet with the cross path, does not comply as it is too steep.  The 2004 Plan of Management for Elkington Park has general objectives about accessibility and refers to extending the cross path to the toilets. The body of the Plan of Management does not specifically refer to access into the park but there is a reference in the Action Plan to a link with entry from opposite Tilba Avenue. 

 

There needs to be access into the park itself and then to connect with the cross path.  This is not only relevant for access to the cottage.  It needs to be looked at even if use of the cottage does not alter.  There should be access into the park, to connect with the existing path across the park, and to the playground and to accessible toilets. 

 

The proposal is that a new path be constructed from White Street, approximately opposite Tilba Avenue, to connect to the existing cross path.  This new park entry path may be a curved path following the contours of the land or a zig zag or a combination.  The cross path could then be upgraded if necessary and extended to the playground and to the toilets (if they are rebuilt in the same location rather than at the cottage.)  Perhaps there could be a disabled parking space in White Street near the new park entry. 

 

 

Regardless of what decisions are made about the cottage, it is proposed that unassisted access into Elkington Park for persons in a wheelchair or with other disabilities now be investigated.

 

Amendment of the Plan of Management

 

The 2004 Plan of Management for Elkington Park states:

 

The recommendation of this Plan is to continue the existing use and occupation of the cottage for the short to medium term and undertake a more detailed feasibility study on alternative uses for the cottage. Any change to the use must address significant issues such as:

•           The impact on parking and vehicular access on the park and surrounding residents.

•           The financial cost of the conversion and return to council from the operation of any facility.

•           The provision of maximum benefit to a wide range of park users.

•           The hours and scope of operation and any lease conditions.

•           The retention of heritage significance and link to the pool.

 

That Plan was adopted in 2004, 12 years ago.  The residential use has continued for more than the short to medium term (up to 4 years under the plan).   Investigations have now been undertaken on adaptive re-use including the obtaining of a Conservation Management Plan, an accessibility report, a feasibility study for a café which looked at hours of operation, and a preliminary draft traffic and parking impact assessment.    

 

It is thought that the current plan of management already allows adaptive re-use of the cottage for a café and/or other uses.  However, it is considered better to amend the Plan of Management to make express provision.  The changes make any proposals more transparent.  Exhibition of the proposed changes to the Plan of Management would be another round of consultation. 

 

 

Community land cannot be leased unless there is specific authorisation in the Plan of Management for a lease to be granted.  The 2004 Plan of Management for Elkington Park states on page 66: 

 

Any future leases and licences or renewal of existing licences for Elkington Park is authorised by this Plan of Management, provided the proposed use is consistent with …  the objectives,  zoning, and requirements in the Local Government Act, 1993 … 

 

Use as a café satisfies the requirements in the Local Government Act, 1993 for the use of parts of community land – restaurants and refreshment kiosks being referred to expressly in s.46(5) – and the other matters in this section of the Plan of Management, but it is preferable and probably necessary to have a more specific authorisation in the Plan of Management to lease the cottage for a café and other compatible uses. 

 

It is recommended that changes be made to the Plan of Management to authorise adaptive re-use of the cottage as a café or restaurant and/or other uses and to authorise expressly the cottage being leased for such purposes.  Amending the Plan of Management as proposed would authorise the adaptive re- use and lease.  It does not require it to happen.  

 

If the Plan of Management is being amended for this purpose, it is thought appropriate to add something more about accessibility into and within the park and options for the location of the new toilets. 

 

The Local Government Act states that a Plan of Management can only be amended by a Plan of Management adopted in accordance with the provisions in the Act. 

 

Amendments have been prepared to the Plan of Management as outlined above.  These cannot be placed on exhibition until the LEP is amended, as outlined in the following paragraph.  

 

Leichhardt LEP 2000 contained a provision to the effect that, with consent, any development was permitted if authorised by a Plan of Management.  This allowed cafes in parks if it was in the Plan of Management.   That general provision was not allowed in Leichhardt LEP 2013, and so amendments are being made effectively to allow the same matters, with DA consent, as previously could be authorised by the Plan of Management for a park.  Council resolved on 14 April 2015 (C127/15P) to seek a number of amendments to the LEP including to allow cafes and restaurants, with consent, in public recreation areas.  These amendments passed through the Gateway determination, were adopted by Council on 10 November 2015 (C549/15P) and are with the Parliamentary Counsel’s office.

 

Once the LEP has been so amended, the draft Amended Plan of Management will be brought to LRAC for approval to be put on public exhibition as required by the Local Government Act, 1993.

 

Next steps

 

Because of the time since the original consultation was done during the summer period and the delay in gazettal of the amendment to the LEP, it is thought important to provide some feedback to the residents who took part in the consultation.  It is proposed to put the outcomes of the consultation (as outlined below in this report) on the website, together with the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment.  All those who took part by completing a survey and/or making a submission would be directly notified.  The information would include advice about the proposed amendment of the draft Amended Plan of Management and that they would be notified when it went on exhibition.

 

A Pre- DA application can be prepared proposing chair numbers and hours of operation informed by and supported by the Accessibility advice, Feasibility Report, Conservation Management Plan, Heritage Impact Statement, Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment and a Noise Impact Assessment, although subject to gazettal of the amendment to the LEP.  This Pre-DA is to obtain another level of advice on the general acceptability of the proposals from the planning aspect.  The additional costs are minimal as most of the work has already been done.

 

Updated market rent assessments and (if necessary) updated construction cost estimates will then be obtained.  This will allow finalisation of the Business Plan.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

There was community consultation about the possible adaptive re-use of the caretaker’s cottage in Elkington Park. The consultation was from 1 December 2015 to 31 January 2016.  This period included the Christmas and New Year period and school holidays, but it was for 2 months and in this case, the initial consultation (like the parking and traffic study) was thought to be better done in the summer and including the school holiday period when there would likely be a larger attendance at the Baths. 

 

Notification of the consultation included:

·   being on Council’s web-site

·   posters at Dawn Fraser Baths and various locations in Elkington Park as well as the Administration Centre, Balmain Library and various Council noticeboards in Balmain, Balmain East, Birchgrove and Rozelle

·   advertisements in The Courier

·   references in Council’s weekly e-News

·   direct notification by email to the local Precinct and a representative of the Friends of Dawn Fraser Baths and 

·   individual addressed letters posted to owners and occupiers of properties in Fitzroy Avenue, Punch Street, Gow Street, Gow Lane, part of Birchgrove Road, Addison Street, part of Hampton Street, part of Glassop Street, White Street, Tilba Avenue, Carieville Street, Carieville Lane and Phoebe Street.

 

The notifications advised that there was information on Council’s web site with a link to a survey and that submissions were invited.

 

The on-line survey asked the following questions:

 

1          Do you support Elkington Park Caretaker’s Cottage being adapted for a use which allows public access to the cottage?

 

2          Do you support a café in Elkington Park Cottage?

 

3          Please explain why you do or do not support a café at Elkington Park or why you are unsure.

 

4          Do you support a Dawn Fraser Museum in Elkington Park Cottage?

 

5          Do you support one or more of the rooms in Elkington Park Cottage being made available to local artists for, say, 3 months at a time?

 

6          Do you have any suggestions for other uses for Elkington Park Cottage?

 

7          Please ask any questions or make any other comments or submissions you wish about the cottage, it use and its future.

 

There were 63 responses to the on-line surveys although not all responded to all questions.  The results are set out below.

 

Of the 63 responders:

o 47 said yes, 7 said they were not sure and 9 said no. 

o 74.60% said yes, 11.11% were not sure and 14.29% said no.

 

Of the 62 responders:

o 36 said yes, 5 were unsure and 21 said no.

o 58.06% said yes, 8.06% were not sure and 33.87% said no.

 

Note however that one person who answered no to this question 2 then made a comment under question 3 which did indicate support for a cafe. 

 

Of the 62 responders:

o 29 said yes, 11 were unsure and 22 said no. 

o 46.77% said yes, 17.74% were not sure and 35.48% said no.

 

 

Of the 62 responders:

o 38 said yes, 6 were unsure and 18 said no.

o 61.29% said yes, 9. 68% were not sure and 29.03% said no.

 

 

Question 3    Please explain why you do or do not support a café at Elkington Park or why you are unsure.

 

Question 6    Do you have any suggestions for other uses for Elkington Park Cottage?

 

Question 7    Please ask any questions or make any other comments or submissions you wish about the cottage, it use and its future.

 

Attached to this report, as Attachment 4, is a full list of the responses to questions 3, 6 and 7 of the survey and the submissions received separately, in some cases with officer’s comments.  As is usual with consultations and matters on exhibition, those opposed to a proposal were more likely to give an explanation or make a longer comment or submission than those who support the proposal.  The comments are summarised below.

 

People in support of a café at Elkington Park Cottage said there wasn’t now a café, there was a lack of outdoor venues, this was a pleasant setting for a café, it is a better community use of the building, it’s popular and a café would be nice, it’s close to a good recreation area, it is a good socially positive redeployment of the asset, it is a beautiful setting and would be a lovely place to meet friends, a lovely meeting point and a good use of the building, there are Balmain cafes but not in a park setting, it would be beneficial for park users and for locals to stroll to, it would provide the large number of park visitors and dog walkers a meeting place to socialise and entertain and provide the council with a revenue asset, nice to have a cafe away from any busy roads and enjoy the lush surroundings, best way for the whole community to enjoy the building.

 

People who do not support a café raised the following issues.

 

·        There was a lot of concern about the effect of a café on traffic and parking.  This was also raised by several of those who answered “not sure” to the question. 

 

Council commissioned a Parking and Traffic Impact Assessment.  Parking counts were done in the school holidays and after the school holidays on selected hot days.  It was thought that this is when there would be most visitors to Dawn Fraser Baths and so when there would be the greatest parking demand and traffic.  A copy of the draft Parking and Traffic Impact Assessment is attached to this report, as Attachment 2. It covers longer hours than is proposed to ensure the full possible range is included. Hours can easily be reduced but if sought to be extended, new counts and a new impact assessment is required.  If Council proceeds to a development application, this impact assessment will be finalised and used to inform the preparation of and support the DA.

 

·        Several people thought there were already too many cafes in Balmain.

 

·        There is a kiosk in the Baths. 

 

·        There was an objection to commercialisation of the park. 

 

·        Others thought a café was not suitable for the passive recreation and quiet nature of this particular park; that a café brought noise and rubbish.

 

·        A cafe in this park will change the nature of what is currently a very well-used and much-appreciated public space for everybody (e.g. it will discourage picnic groups, ball games, dog-walking).

 

Any café would be in the cottage and its fenced yard which is currently tenanted and not available for use by the public.  There would be no loss of public open space available for picnics, ball games and dog walking.

 

·        Viability of a café business was questioned by some opposed and some who were unsure about a cafe.  One said a café was not supported as it would require Council subsidy such as cheap rent and Council should promote a restaurant which would enable a viable business; the market should decide; and Council should look at other successful venues.

 

A café and a restaurant are both listed together in paragraph (a) of “food and drink premises” under Leichhardt LEP 2013 so there is no difference in planning terms.  Subject to DA, the market would decide the nature of the business and what was offered at different times and different days.  Council did obtain advice from external specialist consultants in the area of retail sale of food and beverages including restaurants and cafes.  This advice was not exhibited during the consultation for commercial reasons. 

 

·        There is a large amount of support for the cottage remaining a residence for a council employee who would provide passive security and be available to respond to incidents in the Park and the Baths.

 

Whilst the benefits of passive security are noted and residential use of a cottage on community land is permitted by the Local Government Act, 1993 and supported on heritage grounds, this use does not allow public access to the heritage cottage.  It is a subsidised private use of a public asset with the caretaker having no specific duties.

 

In response to question 6 about other uses:

 

·    Some repeated their support for a café, artists in residence or caretaker’s residence.

 

·    Others suggested that rooms be available for hire for various book clubs, mothers’ groups, community groups etc.

 

The Community Facilities Review (2011) stated that there are sufficient rooms and halls for hire (although Leichhardt suburb did not have a community or neighbourhood centre).   

 

Noting the cottage floor plan and concept plans for a cafe, a café may provide a meeting place for some groups and the café operator may be willing to hire a room or reserve all tables in a room for groups of patrons.

 

Summary of Preliminary Consultation:

 

Of the respondents to the on-line survey:

·    74% support an adaptive re-use of the cottage which will allow public access

·    58% support a café and another 8% were unsure

·    46% support a Dawn Fraser Museum being included

·    61% support artists in residence being included

 

As three-quarters of respondents support an adaptive re-use which allows public access and more than half support a café, it is recommended that Council continue to look at this.  The major issues raised were the impact on parking demand and traffic volume and the desire for a resident “caretaker.”

 

There is support for artists in residence.  This may impact on the viability of the cottage for a café and there may be security issues with shared use.   Areas in Dawn Fraser Baths are used annually in the winter months (when the pool is closed to the general public) for the artists in residence programme known as “Winter Dawn.”  Whites Creek Cottage is considered better for artists in residence than Elkington Park Cottage.  (Whites Creek Cottage was looked at as part the Property Review and will be reported separately.)

 

As less than half support a Dawn Fraser Museum, it is proposed not to pursue this for Elkington Park Cottage.  Areas within the Baths themselves could be looked at in connection with this if there were demand for it.  There are already archives held at the Baths.

 

 

CONCLUSION

The public consultation supported the heritage cottage being used in a way which allowed public access.  A majority supported it being a café.  In view of the time since, it is recommended that the outcomes of the first round of consultation be given to those who took part, by directly notifying them of the outcomes of the consultation and other information being put on the website. 

 

It is proposed that investigation of this project be pursued further by:

 

·   exhibiting an amended Plan of Management for Elkington Park which more expressly allows the adaptive re-use and for the cottage to be leased for a café, once the LEP is amended – with the draft brought to LRAC prior to exhibition;

 

·   preparing and lodging a Pre-DA application to establish acceptability of the proposed work and the chair numbers and hours of operation, with the Pre-DA supported by the concept plans, a Conservation Management Plan, Heritage Impact Statement, Accessibility Report, Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment and Noise Impact Assessments; and

 

·   finalising the Business Plan.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Accessibility Report - Elkington Park Cottage

2.

Elkington Park - Draft Parking and Traffic Impact Assessment

3.

Elkington Park - Concept Plans and Architect’s Report on Adaptive Re-Use

4.

Elkington Park - Comments and submissions made during the community consultation

  


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

Item No:         LL0816 Item 10

Subject:         Open Space and Recreation Developer Contributions Plan Interim Update (2016)   

File Ref:         16/6014/85888.16         

Prepared By: Gill Dawson – Manager Environment and Urban Planning, Leichhardt   

Authorised By: Phil Sarin – Director Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

Council, at its meetings of 26 April 2016 and 3 May 2016, resolved (C194/16, C222/16E, C223/16E, C224/16E & C225/16E) to exhibit a revised Works Schedule in relation to the Open Space and Recreation Developer Contributions Plan (2005). The draft Open Space and Recreation Developer Contributions Plan Interim Update (2016) was placed on public exhibition from 10 May 2016 to 28 June 2016. Two submissions were received in relation to the draft update. This is an interim report to advise the matter will be reported to the September 2016 Local Representation Advisory Committee (LRAC) meeting.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the report be noted

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Section 94 contributions, under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, are monetary contributions levied by councils where it can be demonstrated that the development will, or is likely to, require the provision of and/or increase the demand for public amenities and public services within the area.

The former Leichhardt Council has three S94 Contributions Plans:

·    Open Space and Recreation Developer Contributions Plan (2005)

·    Community Facilities and Services Developer Contributions Plan (2005)

·    Transport and Access Developer Contribution Plan (1999)

These plans are now more than 10 years old.  Council has commenced work on a comprehensive review to identify infrastructure requirements for the local government area to 2037, based on current provision of infrastructure, benchmarks and projected development.

In the interim, the former Leichhardt Council proposed an update to the works program within the Open Space and Recreation Developer Contributions Plan (2005). The purpose of the Interim Update Plan (2016) was to:

§  Remove projects that have or will be completed within the 2015/2016 financial year.

§  Identify specific park improvement projects.

§  Identify projects under Park’s Plans of Management for the 2016/2017 financial year.

§  Amend costings to reflect 2016 valuations.

§  Ensure that the works program for S94 aligns with Council’s budget, Capital Expenditure Plan and Community Strategic Plan.

The draft Interim Update Plan (2016) was placed on public exhibition 10 May 2016 to 28 June 2016 and two submissions were received. These submissions are being reviewed and due diligence being undertaken. The draft Open Space and Recreation Developer Contributions Plan Interim Update (2016) will be reported to the September 2016 LRAC meeting.

 

It is noted that the following projects are included in the 2016/17 budget.

 

Project

S94 funded

 

Council /grant funded

Mort Bay Park POM works

100,000

 

Leichhardt Park landscaping and regeneration

100,000

 

Birchgrove park accessible ramp

60,000

 

Balmain High Foreshore link

60,000

 

Whites Creek BBQ facility

31,500

 

Leichhardt Oval Hill Area

275,085

336,215

Leichhardt Oval Northern Amenities upgrade

285,165

348,535

Leichhardt Number 2 Amenities Upgrade

135,000

165,000

Paringa Reserve – purchase ROW

320,000

 

Paringa Reserve - embellishment

24,070

32,230

Broderick St walkway

11,000

 

Historical Markers & Interpretive signage

10,000

 

TOTAL

1,411,820

881,980

 

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Two submissions were received and will be reported to the September 2016 LRAC.

 

 

CONCLUSION

Nil.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt

2 August 2016

 

Item No:         LL0816 Item 11

Subject:         Responses from Councils on active support for yes campaign if a plebiscite is held 

File Ref:         16/6014/86040.16        

Prepared By: Tara Day-Williams - A/Group Manager Community and Cultural Services, Leichhardt 

Authorised By: Simone Schwarz - Director, Service Delivery

 

SUMMARY

The former Leichhardt Council resolved to (C187/16):

1.   Write to all NSW councils to gauge their interest in actively supporting the Yes Campaign should a plebiscite on marriage equality proceed.

2.   Share the list of responses from the above councils with peak LGBTQI advocacy organisations such as the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby and Australians for Marriage Equality.

 

On 1 July 2016 the Administrator of the Inner West Council wrote to all NSW councils to gauge their interest in actively supporting the Yes Campaign should a plebiscite on marriage equality proceed. 

 

This report provides a summary of responses received and outlines the action to share the responses with peak LGBTQI advocacy organisations.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the Leichhardt LRAC note the report.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

In October 2014 Leichhardt Council unanimously adopted a Marriage Equality Proclamation which supports the principle of marriage equality (C388/14).

On 26/April/2016 the former Leichhardt Council resolved to (C187/16):

1.   Write to all NSW councils to gauge their interest in actively supporting the Yes Campaign should a plebiscite on marriage equality proceed.

2.   Share the list of responses from the above councils with peak LGBTQI advocacy organisations such as the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby and Australians for Marriage Equality.

 

On 1 July 2016 the Administrator of the Inner West Council wrote to all NSW councils to gauge their interest in actively supporting the Yes Campaign should a plebiscite on marriage equality proceed. 

 

Responses Received from NSW councils

Responses have been received from 13 NSW Councils, of these the following eight Councils have indicated that they will actively support a yes campaign if there is a plebiscite on marriage equality:

·    Albury City;

·    Bega Valley Shire;

·    Byron Shire;

·    City of Sydney;

·    City of Wagga Wagga;

·    Lake Macquarie City

·    Nambucca Shire; and

·    Tenterfield Shire.

 

Western Plains Council noted the letter.  Four Councils have indicated that they will not actively support a yes campaign.

 

Responses from NSW Councils continue to be received.

 

Action to share responses with LGBTQI advocacy organisations

Council staff met with Australians 4 Equality in May, and will engage with peak advocacy organisations, including Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby and Australians for Marriage Equality in August, when responses have been received from NSW Councils.  

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Not applicable.

 

 

CONCLUSION

Nil.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.