AGENDA R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council Meeting

 

TUESDAY 25 OCTOBER 2016

 

6:30pm

 


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

Pre-Registration to Speak at Council Meetings

 

Council is encouraging members of the public to pre-register their interest to speak at Council Meetings as the Meeting venues have a maximum number they can hold. Members of the public can pre-register up until 2pm of the day of the Meeting.

If you wish to register your interest please fill in a Register to Speak Form, available from the Inner West Council website, including:

·      your name;

·      contact details;

·      item on the Agenda you wish to speak to; and

·      whether you are for or against the recommendation in the agenda.

 

Members of the public who pre-register will be asked to show photo ID upon entry to verify the pre-registration application.

 

What happens after I submit the form?

Your request will then be added to a list that is shown to the Chairperson on the night of the meeting.

 

Are there any rules for speaking at a Council or Committee Meeting?

The following rules apply when addressing a Council or Committee meeting:

·      keep your address to the point, the time allowed for each speaker is limited to three minutes with one extension of not more than three minutes with the approval of the Council/Committee. This time limit applies, no matter how many items are addressed by the speaker;

·      when addressing the Meeting you must speak to the Chairperson;

·      the Chairperson may curtail public participation where the information being presented is considered repetitive or irrelevant.


Where Items are deferred, Council reserves the right to defer speakers until that Item is heard on the next
occasion.

 

Accessibility

Inner West Council is committed to ensuring people with a disability have equal opportunity to take part in Council and Committee Meetings. If you have any access or disability related participation needs and wish to know more ring 9335 2222.

 

 

 

Persons in the public gallery are advised that under the Local Government Act 1993, a person may NOT tape record a Council meeting without the permission of Council.

 

Any persons found recording without authority will be expelled from the meeting.

 

“Record” includes the use of any form of audio, video and still camera equipment or mobile phone capable of recording speech.

 

An audio recording of this meeting will be taken for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the minutes.

 

 

 

 

INDEX

 

 

1          Acknowledgement of Country

 

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

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                         Page

Minutes of 27 September 2016 Council Meeting                                                             4

 4         Administrator’s Minutes

 

Nil at the time of printing.

5          Staff Reports

 

ITEM                                                                                                                                    PAGE #

C1016 Item 1      Draft Financial Statements for the Period Ending 12 May 2016                16

C1016 Item 2      Planning Proposal for Sydenham Station Creative Hub                          285

C1016 Item 3      Inner West Stronger Communities Grants 2016                                       371

C1016 Item 4      Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 6 October 2016                      398

C1016 Item 5      WestConnex Stage 1 (M4 East) draft Urban Design & Landscape Plan 425

C1016 Item 6      Minutes of LRAC Briefing held 11 October 2016                                     437

C1016 Item 7      Fenwick Building, Weston Street, Balmain – Assessment Criteria for Selection of Lessee     440

C1016 Item 8      Establishment of Alcohol Free Zones - Ashfield LGA                              450

C1016 Item 9      Water Street Balmain – Part Road Closure - Classification                     459

C1016 Item 10    Open Space and Recreation draft interim s94 contributions plan            463

C1016 Item 11    Inner West Council Grant Program 2016/17                                            479

C1016 Item 12    Proposed Rooftop Open Space Facility on TfNSW Commuter Carpark, Ashfield     516

C1016 Item 13    Planning Proposal – 101-103 Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield                               527

C1016 Item 14    Classification of Operational Land, 78 - 90 Old Canterbury Road, Lewisham      705

C1016 Item 15    Tabling of 2015/16 Annual Disclosure of Interest Returns for Designated Persons     707

C1016 Item 16    Inner West Council Investment as at 30 September 2016                       708

6          Reports with Confidential Information

 

Reports appearing in this section of the Business Paper are confidential in their entirety or contain confidential information in attachments.

 

C1016 Item 17    Mandatory Reporting of Fire Safety Reports referred to Council from Fire and Rescue NSW                                                                                                          749

C1016 Item 18    Review of Insurances for Inner West Council                                          752   


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

 

 

Minutes of Council Meeting

held at Ashfield Service Centre on 27 September 2016

 

Meeting commenced at 6.30pm

 

Present:

 

Richard Pearson

Administrator

Rik Hart

Interim General Manager

Simone Schwarz

Director Service Delivery

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

Cathy Edwards-Davis

Director Public Works

Peter Gainsford

Director Corporate Services

Wal Petschler

Director Major Projects and Engineering

Josephine Bennett

Director Community Services

Judy Clark

Manager Development Assessment, Marrickville

Lyn Gerathy

Manager Property & Commercial Services, Leichhardt

Popy Mourgelas

Manager Corporate Governance, Ashfield

Ian Naylor

Manager Governance & Administration, Leichhardt

Joe Strati

General Counsel, Marrickville

Tanya Whitmarsh

Manager Governance & Risk, Marrickville

Rad Miladinovic

Coordinator Governance & Administration, Marrickville (Minute Taker)

Katerina Maros

Governance Officer, Leichhardt

 

Public Speakers: see last two pages of these minutes.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

 

 

1.         Acknowledgement of Country by Chairperson

I acknowledge the Gadigal and Wangal people of the Eora nation on whose country we are meeting today, and their elders past and present.

 

 

2.         Disclosures of Interests

I declare that I have no declaration of interest in any matter listed on the business paper.

 

 

3.         Tabling of Pecuniary Interest Return

General Manager’s tabling of pecuniary interest return.

 

 

4.         Confirmation of Minutes

 

I move and declare a correction to the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 23 August 2016, following review of the audio recording:

 

·                Wording to Item 1 point 4 - Marrickville LRAC, should say “…. I determine to write to the Minister for Local Government advising him on the request of the Marrickville LRAC….”

 

I determine to adopt the Minutes subject to this correction.

 

 

5.         Staff Reports

 

C0916 Item 1      Joint Local Representation Advisory Committee Meeting Held On 13 September 2016

 

Administrator determined that the minutes of the Joint Local Representation Advisory Committee Meeting held on 13 September 2016 be received and noted.

 

 

C0916 Item 2      Development Application - 33 Smith Street, Summer Hill

 

Administrator determined that the matter be deferred to allow Council staff to give further consideration to the interface and stormwater issues affecting this development.

 

 

 

 

C0916 Item 3      Development Application - 66 Constitution Road, Dulwich Hill

 

Administrator determined that the matter be deferred to allow Council staff to give further consideration to the access and right of way issues affecting this development.

 

 

 

 

C0916 Item 4      Development Application - 351 Trafalgar Street, Lewisham

 

Administrator determined that:

 

THAT the application be APPROVED subject to the imposition of conditions in accordance with those outlined on pp. 293-316 of the Business Paper, and including endorsement of actions B and C contained therein.

 

Amendment to the deferred commencement condition

 

To ensure compliance with the apartment size requirements contained within the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), amended plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of Council which indicate a revised layout. All apartments within the development shall comply with the minimum apartment sizes prescribed by the ADG in accordance with Objective 4D-1, specifically Apartments 2 and 4 shall be amended to be a minimum area of 70 sq metres. This change must not result in any increase to the building footprint or reduction in the size of the balconies, unless such balconies retain an area of at least 10 sq metres.  

 

Condition 6 reworded

 

6.      5 off-street car parking spaces must be provided and maintained at all times in accordance with the standards contained within Part 2.10 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 - Parking. The parking must be allocated as follows:

 

a)         A minimum of 3 spaces being allocated to the residential dwellings; and

b)         2 accessible car parking spaces, 1 accessible car space per adaptable dwelling.

          

          All accessible car spaces must be provided and marked as disabled car parking spaces.

 

 

 

 

C0916 Item 5      Development Application - 308-314 Stanmore Road, Petersham

 

Administrator determined that the development application to demolish part of the premises and carry out alterations and additions to convert the existing residence into a 12 room hotel with a ground floor café, function rooms and florist be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined on pp. 343-360 of the Business Paper, and including endorsement of actions B and C contained therein.

 

 

C0916 Item 6      Development Application - 106 Carlton Crescent, Summer Hill

 

Administrator determined that this matter be deferred to allow Council to review the amended plans which have not been assessed, investigate the conditions around the walls and to consider the conditions the applicant would like to have reassessed.

 

 

 

 

C0916 Item 7      Section 82A Review Application - 669 King Street, St Peters

 

Administrator determined that the review request under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to review Determination No. 201600157 dated 3 May 2016 be APPROVED and a new Determination be issued approving the application to carry out building works and use the ground floor as a commercial premises and first floor as a residence subject to the conditions on pp. 459-466 of the Business Paper.

 

 

 

 

C0916 Item 8      Planning Proposal for 55-63 Smith Street, Summer Hill

 

Administrator determined that:

 

1.       Council resolve to progress a Planning Proposal to amend Ashfield Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013 to add the following additional uses to “Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses” of the LEP for the properties at 55-63  Smith Street Summer Hill:

·             Office premises

·             Business premises

·             Recreation facility (indoor)

·             Self Storage Units

          and that the applicant’s Planning Proposal be amended to reflect the Council’s resolution;

2.       accompanying the Planning Proposal there must be a site specific Development Control Plan produced by the applicant addressing the matters covered in the planning report, with the content being approved by Council;

3.       Council forward the Planning Proposal as amended  in clause (1) to the Department of  Planning and Environment for Gateway Determination to allow the LEP plan making process to commence under Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act);

4.       Council resolve to request The Department of Planning and Environment to issue a written authorization to Council’s General Manager to exercise and implement delegations in accordance with Section 23 of the EP& A Act 1979 to facilitate the plan making process following the Gateway Determination;

5.       following Gateway Determination by the Department of Planning and Environment, the Planning Proposal be progressed by Council, be put on formal public exhibition, and procedures carried out as required under the EP& A Act 1979, with a later report on the public exhibition being submitted to the Council for consideration on whether to continue to finalise the Planning Proposal; and

6.      people who made a submission as part of the preliminary community engagement process be advised of Council’s decision.

 

 

C0916 Item 9      Planning Proposal for 100-102 Elliott Street, Balmain

 

Administrator determined that:

 

Council resolve to make the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 amendment to rezone parts of the subject site at 100-102 Elliott Street, Balmain to General Residential (R1), Business Park (B7), Public Recreation (RE1) and retain Local Centre (B2) for the rest of the property as detailed in the exhibited Planning Proposal and supporting documentation.

 

 

 

 

C0916 Item 10    Establishment of an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel for the Inner West Council

 

Administrator determined that:

 

Council:

1.       establishes an independent hearing and assessment panel to be known as the Inner West Planning Panel (IWPP) as outlined in this report and in accordance with the details contained in the following procedural documents - Operational Guidelines, Code of Conduct  and Charter (Attachments 1, 2 and 3);

2.       requests the Interim General Manager arrange an Expression of Interest to recruit and appoint a pool of suitably qualified and experienced independent experts and community members to the IWPP;

3.       upon its commencement, delegates authority under Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993 to the Panel to determine all matters delegated to it, as per Attachment 5;

4.       at the relevant time, gives public notice of the commencement of the IWPP and cessation of the LPP;

5.       notes the estimated recurring cost of the IWPP of $163,800 per annum to be funded from the existing LPP budget, and allocate additional funds to cover the estimated recruitment cost of up to $30,000;

6.       requests officers provide an annual report to Council on the activities and outcomes of the IWPP in the previous 12 months;

7.       replace Point 10 of the Site Inspections Section in the Operational Guidelines with “site inspections are open to the people who made submissions within the notification area”; and

8.       delete boarding houses from point 7 in the proposed list of delegations (Attachment 5).

 

 

 

 

C0916 Item 11    Stronger Communities Fund Major Projects Program

 

Administrator determined that:

 

1.       Council adopt framework that supports the consultation, assessment and delivery of the Program; and

2.       the Stronger Communities Fund Assessment Panel are to allocate projects and funds according to the option with the highest community support.

 

As no member of the public has indicated they wish to speak to Items 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29 and 30 and, in accordance with Clause 6.02 of the Code of Meeting Practice, I move and declare that Items 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29 and 30 in the Open Council Section of the Business Paper be dealt with concurrently.  Further,
I determine to adopt the recommendations contained in the reports.

 

The Administrator called a short recess at 9.15pm. The meeting resumed at 9.25pm.

 

 

C0916 Item 12    Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 1 September 2016

 

Administrator determined that the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 1 September 2016 be received and the recommendations be adopted, with the exception of Item 1 which will be referred back to the Traffic Committee for further consideration.

 

 

 

 

C0916 Item 13    Anti-Poverty Week 2016 Grants

 

Administrator determined that Council endorses donations of $1,660 each to The Girls Refuge, Exodus Foundation and Aboriginal Women and Children’s Crisis Service, as part of its 2016 Anti-poverty Week activities.

 

 

 

 

C0916 Item 14    The Metropolitan Orchestra - Fee Waiver Request

 

Administrator determined that:

 

1.       Council approve the fee waiver for The Metropolitan Orchestra for the 2017 calendar year; and

2.       Council advise The Metropolitan Orchestra that changes in the fee waiver policy will be considered by Council in the near future as part of a development of a new grants framework and integrated fees and charges for the Inner West Council.

 

 

 

 

C0916 Item 15    Request for Chrissie Cotter Gallery Fee Waiver - AGNSW Staff Charity Exhibition

 

Administrator determined that:

 

1.       the report be received and noted; and

2.       Council waive the 15% commission for the AGNSW Staff Charity Fundraiser Exhibition at the Chrissie Cotter Gallery, 12 to 16 October 2016.

 

 

 

 

C0916 Item 16    Expenses and Facilities Policy for the Administrator

 

Administrator determined that Council adopt the amended Expenses and Facilities Policy for the Administrator, shown as Attachment 1 to this Report and publish it on the Inner West Council website.

 

 

C0916 Item 17    Expenses and Facilities Policy for IAG/LRAC Members

 

Administrator determined that Council adopts the amended Expenses and Facilities Policy for IAG/LRAC members, as shown in Attachment 1 to this report, and publish it on the Inner West Council website.

 

 

 

 

C0916 Item 18    Summary of Resolutions - Publishing on Website

 

Administrator determined that Council publishes a dedicated webpage that reports on outstanding recommendations and resolutions for the Inner West Council and three former councils and these reports no longer be reported separately to Council and committee meetings.

 

 

 

 

C0916 Item 19    Proposed Changes to the Schedule for Council Meetings 2016

 

Administrator determined that the change of location to Ashfield and the change of dates to the schedule of Council meetings for the remainder 2016 calendar year be adopted as recommended.

 

 

 

 

C0916 Item 20    Inner West Council Investments as at 31 August 2016

 

Administrator determined that the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

6.         Reports with Confidential Information

C0916 Item 21    Affordable and Supported Living Housing over Hay Street Car Park, Leichhardt

 

Administrator determined that:

 

THAT:

 

1.       Confidential Attachments 1, 2, 3 and 4 to the report be treated as confidential in accordance with section 10A of the Local Government Act, 1993 as they relate to a matter or matters specified in  sections 10A(2)(c) and (d)(i) of that Act;

2.       Council enters into the Heads of Agreement with Link Housing Limited in the form of Confidential Attachment 3 to the Report; and

3.       authority is delegated to the General Manager to sign the Heads of Agreement for Council.

 

 

 

C0916 Item 22    Cooks River Parklands - Draft Plans of Management and Master Plans 2016-2026: Feedback from Public Exhibition

 

Administrator determined that:

 

1.       Council resolves that Confidential Attachment 4 of the report be treated as confidential in accordance with Section 10A(4) of the Local Government Act 1993, as the information relates to a matter specified in Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993;

2.       the report be received and noted;

3.       Council adopts the draft Cooks River Parklands - Plans of Management and Master Plans as attached to this report;

4.       all residents and stakeholders who made submission during the public exhibition be notified of Council’s determination; and

5.       the Plans of Management and Master Plans be used to inform future management and capital upgrades of the Cooks River Parklands.

 

 

 

 

C0916 Item 23    SSROC Tender for Improving Recycling and Contamination Management in Multi Unit Dwellings (MUDs)

 

Administrator determined that:

 

1.       Council resolves that Confidential Attachment 1 to the report be treated as confidential in accordance with Section 10A (4) of the Local Government Act 1993, as they relate to a matter specified in Section 10A(2)(c) and 10A(2)D(i) of the Local Government Act 1993;

2.       the report be received and noted; and

3.       under Section 178 (1) (a) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council accept MRA Consulting Group Pty Ltd for Tender Number SSROC T2016-02 at a cost of $209,760 for  Improving Recycling and Contamination Management in Multi Unit Dwellings (MUDs).

 

 

 

 

The Administrator moved into closed session at 10.35pm to allow Council to consider items of business containing confidential information.  Members of the public were asked to leave the chamber.

 

The Administrator returned to open session at 10.45pm to resolve as follows in relation to Items 24 and 28.

 

 

C0916 Item 24    SSROC Tender for the Provision of Tree Pruning Services

 

Administrator determined that:

 

1.                                                 Council resolves that Confidential Attachment 1 to the report be treated as confidential in accordance with Section 10A (4) of the Local Government Act 1993, as they relate to a matter specified in Section 10A(2)(c) and 10A(2)D(i) of the Local Government Act 1993;

2.                                                 the report be received and noted; and

3.                                                 Council enter into a supply agreement with a panel of tree pruning providers for tree pruning services across the Inner West Council area for a period of 2 years with an option to extend for a further 3 x 1 years to the following suppliers:

·  Asplundh Tree Expert (Australia) Pty Ltd

·  Australian Urban Tree Services Pty Ltd

·  Sydney Arbor Trees Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

C0916 Item 25    Tender T06-16 - Rehabilitation of Regent Street, Leichhardt Stormwater Line Project

 

Administrator determined that:

 

1.       Council resolves that Confidential Attachments 2 and 3 to the report be treated as confidential in accordance with Section 10A (4) of the local Government Act 1993, as they relate to a matter specified in Section 10A (2) (c) and (d) Local Government Act 1993 and as such should be confidential;

2.       the report be received and noted; and

3.       Council accepts the tender of Monadelphous Water Infrastructure Pty in the amount of $313,258 (excl GST).

 

 

 

 

C0916 Item 26    Formation of an Audit & Risk Committee of Inner West Council

 

Administrator determined that:

 

Council:

 

1.       resolves that Confidential Attachment 3 to the report be treated as confidential in accordance with Section 10A (4) of the Local Government Act 1993, as they related to a matter specified in Section 10A(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1993;

2.       establishes an Audit & Risk Committee of Inner West Council comprising three independent members (including the Chair) and seeks expressions of interest from people who were serving as independent members of the Audit & Risk Committees of the former Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils when those Councils were dissolved;

3.       seeks to appoint one former representative from each of the Audit & Risk Committees of the former Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils and in the event that there is insufficient interest to meet this criterion that a merit selection process be adopted to identify another candidate/s from the pool of interested persons;

4.       conducts a merit selection process where more than one person nominates themselves for the role Chair;

5.       contracts independent members of the new Audit & Risk Committee to serve terms as members from 1 November 2016 to 31 October 2018;

6.       adopts the proposed Audit Committee Charter and the proposed Internal Audit Charter appearing as Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 of this report; and

7.       sets the remuneration of Audit & Risk Committee members of Inner West Council in accordance with the recommendations contained in Confidential Attachment 3.

 

C0916 Item 27    WestConnex - Advice from Senior Counsel

 

Administrator determined that:

 

1.       Council makes Confidential Attachment 1 available to the public; and

2.       Council takes no action to challenge the legality of approvals given for Stages 1 and 2 of WestConnex on the basis of advice received to date.

 

 

 

C0916 Item 28    Live Streaming of Council Meetings

 

Administrator determined that:

 

THAT:

 

1.       in accordance with the requirements under the Local Government Act 1993, the information contained in Confidential Attachments 2 and 3 of this report are classified as confidential under the provisions of Section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1993 for the following reasons:

a)    commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it;

b)    commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council;

Confidential information provided for assessment by Council is not to be shared or published; 

2.       Council implements option 3, using YouTube to webcast Council Meetings commencing from December 2016;  and

3.       Council investigate the feasibility of live streaming the Inner West Planning Panel (IWPP) meetings.

 

 

 

C0916 Item 29    ICT System Consolidation

 

Administrator determined that:

 

1.    in accordance with the requirements under the Local Government Act 1993, the information contained in Confidential Attachment 1 of this report is classified as confidential under the provisions of Section 10A (2) ) (c) (di) and (dii) of the Local Government Act 1993 for the following reasons:

c.       information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business;

d (i)   commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it;

d (ii)   commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council;

Confidential information provided for assessment by Council is not to be shared or published; 

 

2.    in accordance with Section 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993, Council delegate the authority to the Interim General Manager to negotiate directly with TechnologyOne and execute a contract for the provision of a new consolidated ICT system; and

3.    the extenuating circumstances are as follows:

a.       the amalgamation of the three former councils;

b.       the need to have a consolidated ICT system as a matter of priority in order to progress the integration of services across Council;

c.       there are only two main service providers in the industry and TechnologyOne capabilities are already well established within two of the three former councils;

d.       the tender process would add a significant and unreasonable time delay in consolidating ICT systems; and

e.       the benefit to Council by partnering with a TechnologyOne solution in providing long term benefits to the Council and the Community.

 

 

 

 

C0916 Item 30    Senior Staff Structure

 

Administrator determined that Council approves the senior staff positions (3 Deputy General Managers) within the organisational structure shown in Attachment 1, the respective roles and reporting lines and resources allocated towards the employment of senior staff, as outlined in this report.

 

 

C0916 Item 31    Administrator's Minute: Westconnex Mid Tunnel Construction Sites in Leichhardt

 

Administrator determined that:

 

Council:

 

1.         strongly opposes the use of any green spaces, ovals or parks within the Inner West Council area by the WestConnex project for a mid-tunnel construction site;

2.         strongly opposes the use of 7 Darley Road or Blackmore Oval as a mid-tunnel construction site in light of the likely significant adverse impacts on local environmental amenity, accessibility into and out of Leichhardt and Lilyfield via the City West Link, Darley Road and James Street and traffic congestion that would be created by the significant number of truck movements that such a site would generate;

3.         commits funds and resources to undertake an assessment of the impact of the proposal and/or concept design when information is provided by SMC; 

4.         notes that Council has written to SMC regarding the likely impacts from mid tunnel construction sites at Darley Road or Blackmore Oval and the need for substantive information to be immediately provided to Council and the community;  and

5.         requests that SMC refrain from releasing any concept design without providing for an adequate review period that does not include December or January so that the community are not disadvantaged by having to respond to such design during the holiday period or early in the New Year.

 

 

 

 

 

Meeting closed at 10.50pm.


 

Public Speakers:

 

Item 1:

John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC

Balmain

 

Jo Alley

Ashfield

 

John Lozano

Haberfield

 

 

 

Item 2:

Julie Passas, Ashfield LRAC

Ashfield

 

Myriam Mendez

Summer Hill

 

Tai Zhang

 

 

Jason Balgi

Summer Hill

 

Remus Dabb

Summer Hill

 

Helen Stasa

Summer Hill

 

Hong Foo

Summer Hill

 

Sophie Loy-Wilson

Summer Hill

 

Muhilan Sriravindrarajah

Summer Hill

 

Phillip (Fei) Yu

Summer Hill

 

Lester Alvis

Summer Hill

 

Andrew McLaren

Summer Hill

 

Maria Bresic

Summer Hill

 

Matthew Geason

Summer Hill

 

Joseph Panetta

Parramatta

 

Marcus Strom

Summer Hill

 

Alex Lofts, Ashfield LRAC

Summer Hill

 

Caroline Stott, Ashfield LRAC

Ashfield

 

 

 

Item 3:

Donna Duggan

Not supplied

 

 

 

Item 4:

Bruce Threlfo

Rozelle

 

 

 

Item 5:

Phillip Bull

Marrickville

 

 

 

Item 6:

Mohamed El Dardiry

Not supplied

 

Luiza Campos

Not supplied

 

Alex Lofts, Ashfield LRAC

Summer Hill

 

 

 

Item 8:

Chantelle Chow

Not supplied

 

 

 

Item 9:

Geoff Sturday

Balmain

 

Chantelle Chow

Not supplied

 

 

 

Item 10:

Simon Emsley, Leichhardt LRAC

Leichhardt

 

John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC

Balmain

 

Victor Macri, Marrickville LRAC

Marrickville

 

Chris Woods, Marrickville LRAC

Marrickville

 

Rose Gates

Not supplied

 

James Connelly

Not supplied

 

Paul Greenland

Leichhardt

 

John Jobling, Leichhardt LRAC

Leichhardt

 

John Lozano

Haberfield

 

 

 

Item 11:

Mark Drury, Ashfield LRAC

Ashfield

 

John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC

Balmain

 

Victor Macri, Marrickville LRAC

Marrickville

 

Simon Emsley, Leichhardt LRAC

Leichhardt

 

 

 

Item 12:

Elise Hawthorne

Tempe

 

Cameron Nichol

Rozelle

 

 

 

Item 18:

Simon Emsley, Leichhardt LRAC

Leichhardt

 

 

 

Item 20:

John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC

Balmain

 

 

 

Item 21:

Simon Emsley, Leichhardt LRAC

Leichhardt

 

 

 

Item 24:

Kim Haig Smith

Annandale

 

Paul Greenland

Leichhardt

 

John Lozano

Haberfield

 

Adrienne Shilling

Petersham

 

John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC

Balmain

 

 

 

Item 27:

Rhea Liebmann

Marrickville

 

Anne Picot

St Peters

 

John Lozano

Haberfield

 

 

 

Item 28:

Simon Emsley, Leichhardt LRAC

Leichhardt

 

Chris Woods, Marrickville LRAC

Marrickville

 

 

 

Item 31:

Catherine Cavill

Not supplied

 

John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC

Balmain

 

Lucille McKenna, Ashfield LRAC

Summer Hill

 

Alex Lofts, Ashfield LRAC

Summer Hill

 

 

 

 

 


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

Item No:         C1016 Item 1

Subject:         Draft Financial Statements for the Period Ending 12 May 2016  

File Ref:         4543/93075.16         

Prepared By: Pav Kuzmanovski - Chief Financial Officer, Marrickville  

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

The three former Councils (Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville) Financial Statements for the year ended 12 May 2016, comprising the Income Statement, Statement of Comprehensive Income, Balance Sheet, Statement of Changes in Equity, Statement of Cash Flow, Notes to the Financial Statements, Special Purpose Financial reports and Special Schedules have been completed and audited. There is a requirement under s418 of the Local Government Act to set a date to receive the Auditor’s report which is proposed to be at the December 2016 Council meeting.

 

The carry forward of unspent funds as at 30 June 2016 will also be reported to ensure the alignment of financial information relating to the Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS) with Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) information. 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council:

 

1.   Receives and notes the report;

2.   Resolves, in anticipation of receiving the Auditor’s Report, to set the date to that of the December 2016 Council Meeting at which the final Annual Financial Reports for the former Ashfield (ATTACHMENT 1), Leichhardt (ATTACHMENT 2) and Marrickville Councils (ATTACHMENT 3) be presented to the public.

3.   Approves to carry forward the unspent budgets for the former Ashfield (ATTACHMENT 4), former Leichhardt (ATTACHMENT 5) and former Marrickville (ATTACHMENT 6) Councils to be incorporated into the 2016/17 Inner West Council Budget.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Section 413 of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that Council must prepare financial reports for each year and refer them for audit.

 

Subsection (2) of section 413 also requires that the financial reports must include:

 

(a)  a general purpose financial report;

(b)  any other matter prescribed by the regulations; and

(c)  a statement in the approved form by the Council as to its opinion on the general purpose financial report.

 

All sets of financial reports have been prepared in accordance with the Local Government Act and Regulations, the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting, the Australian Accounting Standards and supplementary professional pronouncements (Department and Premiers Cabinet guidelines) for the period 1 July 2015 through 12 May 2016. These reports can be found at ATTACHMENT 1 for the former Ashfield Council, ATTACHMENT 2 for the former Leichhardt Council and ATTACHMENT 3 for the former Marrickville Council.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Reporting Requirements

 

Clause 215 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 provides that the statement required by section 413(2)(c) of the Act must:

 

(a) be made by resolution of the Council; and

(b) be signed by:

 

§ the Mayor;

§ at least one other member of Council;

§ the Responsible Accounting Officer; and

§ the General Manager.

 

In light of Council’s current circumstances, the Administrator would sign the financial reports as a representative of Council.

 

Clause 215 also provides that the financial statement must indicate:

 

(a)  whether or not the Council's annual financial reports have been drawn up in accordance   with:

 

·       the Act and the Regulations, and

·       the Code and Manual, and

·       the Australian Accounting Standards issued by the Australian Accounting Standards Board.

(b)  whether or not those reports present fairly Council's financial position and operating result for the year;

(c)  whether or not those reports accord with the Council's accounting and other records; and

(d)  whether or not the signatories know of anything that would make those reports false or misleading in any way, and include such information and explanations as will prevent those reports from being misleading because of any qualification that is included in the statement.

 

All three former Councils have prepared their statements in the spirit of Clause 215 of the Local Government Regulations.

 

There have been some material changes for the 2015/16 financial reporting period (in contrast to the 2014/15 financial reports) and the primary driver for these material changes in reporting were driven by the timing of the Proclamation. These changes are specified below:

 

-     The reporting period is 1 July 2015 - 12 May 2016 where a normal financial year would run until 30 June 2016. The 2016/17 financial reporting period will be 13 May 2016 – 30 June 2017. This set in the Proclamation issued by the State Government.

 

-     Although the reporting financial reporting period is 1 July 2015 - 12 May 2016, in accordance with Accounting Code 24a (issued by the Office of Local Government), Rates and Annual charges revenue have been accounted for until 30 June 2016. The impact of this will be that each former council will record a financial surplus as 12 months of revenue is being offset against 10.5 months of equivalent expenditure.

 

-     Material Budget Variances (note 16) and budget forecasts (adopted in the respective Operational Plans) are usually included in the General Purpose Financial Reports. Due to the timing of the Proclamation (occurring prior to 30 June 2016), the purpose of including budget information (comparative purpose) has become irrelevant and omitted in the 2015/16 Financial Reports.

 

All these changes have been incorporated in the former three Councils Financial Reports and reflective of their final financial positions as at 12 May 2016.

 

 

Financial Position

 

All three former Councils have reported positive financial performances for the period ending 12 May 2016 with all three former Council’s reporting an operating profit before and after capital income is taken into account. The primary driver for these larger than usual positive results was due to the Accounting Code of Practice holding the position that 12 months of Rates and Charges revenue (each Council’s primary source of revenue) has been accounted for against 10.5 months of equivalent expenditure. Due to this accounting treatment of the Rates and Charges revenue, each former Council has transferred funds into reserve to ensure that it can fund the equivalent expenditure in the 16/17 reporting period. 

 

Each former Council also reported strong liquidity, having an unrestricted liquidity ratio above the benchmark of 1.5:1. This means that for every dollar in current liabilities, each former Council has more than $1.50 to cover their respective current liabilities. All contingent liabilities have been disclosed along with any material events occurring after reporting date.

 

Auditors Report and Public Exhibition

 

Section 415 provides that Council's auditor must audit the Council's financial reports as soon as practicable after they are referred for audit. Section 416(1) requires the audit to be completed within four months of the end of the year (end of October) with a view of submitted to the Office of Local Government no later than the first week of November. This provision of the Act has been overridden by the Proclamation which has allowed amalgamated Council’s to have their audited reports submitted to the OLG by December 2016.

 

Section 418 provides that as soon as practicable after Council receives a copy of the auditor's reports:

 

(a)  It must fix a date for the meeting at which it proposes to present its audited financial reports, together with the auditor's reports, to the public; and

(b)  it must give public notice of the date so fixed.

 

Section 418 also provides that the date fixed for the meeting must be at least 7 days after the date on which the notice is given but not more than five weeks after the auditor's reports are given to Council.

 

It is proposed that the final audited reports be tabled at the Council meeting in the first week of December.

Carry forward of unexpended funds as at 30 June 2016

 

Council is required to prepare a Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS), reporting on Council’s financial position at the end of each quarter and forecasting the financial position for the remainder of the reporting period. The QBRS is aligned with the IPR reporting timeframes (July through to June) and due to the timing of the Proclamation, Council needs realign the financial budgeting information and capture any unspent funds as at 30 June 2016. 

 

The criteria used to determine the validity of proposed 2015/16 carry forwards into the 2016/17 financial year is as follows (must have met one of the following criteria):

 

- The project was funded by an external source of revenue (e.g. grants);or

- The project was capital in nature, or

- The project was a non-recurrent operating project and a similar budget allocation does not exist in the 2016/17 budget to complete the works.

 

A total of $32.5 million of unspent budgets is being proposed to be carried forward into the 2016/17 financial year.  A review of the capital budget is being conducted by the Director, Major Projects and Engineering to ensure the 2016/17 is deliverable with minimal budget carry forwards into the 2017/18 financial year. Any adjustments to the 2016/17 capital budget will be made as a part of the September 2016 QBRS.

 

The detailed project listing of the budget carry forwards for the former Ashfield Council (ATTACHMENT 4), former Leichhardt Council (ATTACHMENT 5) and former Marrickville Council (ATTACHMENT 6) are attached with narrations.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no net impacts on working funds as a part of the financial reporting changes and the projects nominated to for budget carry forwards. 

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

 

Nil

 

CONCLUSION

Council’s financial position is sound with most of the performance indicators trending positively. Council’s External Auditor will be present at the Council Meeting to report his findings on the audit and answer any questions Councillors may have.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Former Ashfield Council Financial Reports as at 12 May 2016

2.

Former Leichhardt Council Financial Reports as at 12 May 2016

3.

Former Marrickville Council Financial Reports as at 12 May 2016

4.

Budget Carry Forwards - Marrickville Branch

5.

Budget Carry Forwards - Leichhardt Branch

6.

Budget Carry Forwards - Ashfield Branch

  


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 









































































Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 
































































































Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 



















































































Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 








Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 








Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 



Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

Item No:         C1016 Item 2

Subject:         Planning Proposal for Sydenham Station Creative Hub 

File Ref:         14/5489/51061.16        

Prepared By: Maxine Bayley - Strategic Planner, Marrickville 

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

 

Work has progressed towards developing a planning proposal for the Sydenham Station Creative Hub precinct since the project was last reported to Council in August 2015.  A Social Impact Assessment, commissioned for the project, is attached to (and discussed in) this report.  Initial community engagement in April-May 2016 generated extensive feedback on the proposal.  Whilst community feedback has been generally supportive, concerns were raised from some existing business operators regarding potential negative impacts on their current and future operations.  In response to these concerns, a series of information sessions were held with business operators in August-September 2016, with participants given the opportunity to make written submissions after the sessions.  The results of the additional consultation have led to modest amendments to original proposal which aim to progress the original vision whilst addressing business operators’ concerns. The amendments seek to retain the existing IN1 General Industrial zoning, whilst permitting select additional uses including creative uses and small bars, cafes and restaurants in select areas only.

 

This report recommends that Council prepares a planning proposal for the precinct and submits it to the Department of Planning & Environment for Gateway determination.  Should Gateway approval be granted, the report recommends that Council prepares and places on public exhibition with the planning proposal an economic study and a strategy for a Development Control Plan (DCP) for the precinct – the latter including licensed premises controls and plans for public domain improvements.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

1.       receives and notes this report;

2.       endorses the Social Impact Assessment prepared for this project, at ATTACHMENT 1;

3.       prepares a planning proposal for the Sydenham Station creative hub precinct and submits it to the Department of Planning & Environment for Gateway determination.  In Area A shown on the map at ATTACHMENT 2, creative uses specified in MLEP 2011 Clause 6.12 would be permitted within the existing IN1 General Industrial zone, while in Area B, small bars, restaurants and cafes would be permitted in addition to the Clause 6.12 creative uses; and

4.       prepares and places on public exhibition with the planning proposal an economic study and strategy for a Development Control Plan (DCP) for the precinct should the planning proposal receive Gateway approval.  The DCP to include (among other things) a creative industries policy, licensed premises controls and plans for public domain improvements.

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

For two to three years, Council has been progressing the vision for the Sydenham Station creative hub - an entertainment and employment space where live music venues, small bars, restaurants and cafes thrive alongside traditional and creative industries. 

 

At its meeting of 2 September 2014 Council resolved to:

·     “give in-principle support to the development of a long term vision for revitalisation of the industrial lands adjacent Sydenham Station for traditional industry, creative industry and business with a potential night economy; and

·     consider preparing a Planning Proposal to implement the vision for the precinct when the findings of the Marrickville Employment Lands Study Review and Future Cities Program are completed.”

 

Council considered an update report on this project at its 15 August 2015 meeting and resolved to endorse the recommended action plan and allocate funding to progress the preliminary actions. One of the actions identified was development of a Social Impact Assessment (SIA). Accordingly, the SIA was commissioned and completed for the project (at ATTACHMENT 1), and its findings are discussed in this report.

 

Whilst the action plan had identified a preliminary economic assessment, it was subsequently determined the funding allocated was not sufficient.  It was considered appropriate to pursue a full economic study following Gateway determination and rely at this stage on the broad support lent to the proposal by the 2014 Marrickville Employment Lands Study (MELS) through Action 3.2: Continue to plan for a Sydenham music/entertainment precinct. Further discussion of the MELS and other supportive plans and strategies is in the discussion section of this report below.

 

Notwithstanding these supportive plans and strategies, the Department of Planning & Environment (DP&E) could (appropriately) require further investigation of employment lands or any other relevant issue after Gateway determination. 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Social Impact Assessment

 

The abovementioned SIA (at ATTACHMENT 1) was commissioned by Council and completed in May 2016 by social planning academics/consultants Dr Alison Ziller and Prof Peter Phibbs.

 

Council’s brief for the SIA required the following outputs:

1.    identification of current social issues within this precinct, relating this to lock-out laws and issues within the Newtown entertainment precinct and nearby areas, including Marrickville Road and Victoria Road;

2.    an assessment of likely negative social impacts if the precinct were to be developed as proposed, including impacts particularly relevant to late-night venue issues, such as:

·      alcohol and drug related violence;

·      other crimes, including break and enter, personal theft, assault, vandalism and antisocial behaviour;

·      night-time pedestrian safety risks;

·      night-time transport issues, such as access to taxis and late-night public transport;

·      night-time car parking safety issues.

·     an assessment of likely positive social impacts if the precinct were to be developed as proposed, including those relevant to late-night venue issues, such as:

·      assisting with the changing role of Marrickville’s industrial areas and responding pro-actively to change that is already occurring (this issue will also be covered by the economic study);

·      improved safety through surveillance from people on the street;

·      creation of a vibrant precinct that facilitates positive social interactions;

·      creation of new venues for creative expression by performers and variety of artists; and

·      strengthening of creative industry sector beyond this precinct.

3.    recommendations for mitigating/managing negative impacts and facilitating/promoting positive social impacts; and

4.    a recommendation that reaches a conclusion about whether the Sydenham Station creative hub project should proceed based on the assessment - and if so, in what form.

 

The resultant report examines the potential social impacts of the proposal specifically relating to:

1.    alcohol-related harm from an increase in the number of licensed premises and/or extended trading hours;

2.    increased risks for pedestrians (particularly those affected by alcohol); and

3.    potential loss of low-skilled manufacturing jobs.

 

The SIA’s overall conclusion (p.30) is that “there are a number of risks inherent in establishing a CTI [creative and traditional industries] and entertainment precinct… at the same time, we identify a number of benefits could arise from facilitation of the creative and traditional industries already in the area by providing additional amenities, financial and management support for small scale initiatives to ‘test the waters’ for further initiatives, general improvements in urban design and amenity including traffic controls, improved access to Sydenham station and public toilet facilities.

 

A number of risks and benefits in establishing the creative hub are identified in the SIA report, which suggests that the promotion of live music requires a well thought-out, robust and consistent policy framework. Further, the report suggests that policies should anticipate perverse consequences and proceed with caution (the precautionary principle) where adverse consequences are likely and difficult to prevent.

 

The SIA examines the current legislative framework regulating liquor licences - including the Liquor Act 2007, Liquor Amendment (Small Bars) Act 2013 and the roles of the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing (the Independent liquor authority) and local councils.

 

The report notes there is a relationship between alcohol-related harm and later trading and density of licences premises, and notes there are opportunities for Council to control trading hours or to limit the density of licenced premises.  Consequently, the report (p. 21) states that “Council should exercise caution in seeking to introduce live music venues to the Sydenham Creative and Traditional Industries precinct so that in the context of poor density controls, it does not lose control of the density of such venues”.  The report also identifies other anti-social impacts related to alcohol consumption - including noise and amenity issues such as public urination and safety.

 

The report recommends the following actions:

1.    treat live music as one of the creative industries so as to avoid expectations and pressures associated with designating an entertainment precinct. This would also encourage day time creative activities and protect existing night time industries (e.g. bakeries) from incompatible nearby uses;

2.    prepare a creative and traditional industries precinct policy/strategy which takes account of the epidemiology of alcohol-related harm, diversity of current industries, diversity of industries in the precinct in future, the current built form and its limits and opportunities. Carry the strategy findings into both the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and the DCP;

3.    set clear and specific standards in the DCP to apply to development applications, including specific limits on the size and density of licensed premises, presence of packaged liquor outlets, and trading hours in the precinct and on its borders;

4.    establish a precinct-wide limit to service of alcohol of (say) 2.00 am (consistent with the proposal’s emphasis on small bars) so as to ensure that the precinct’s primary raison d’être is creative and traditional industries rather than an entertainment precinct; and

5.    use the project to require improvements in acoustics when buildings are upgraded (to protect occupants from aircraft noise).

 

The report states that creation of the precinct will result in an increased risk for pedestrians, particularly if there is an increase in the number of licenced premises. It states that risks currently exist due to the relatively high level of traffic traversing the precinct (including trucks and other large vehicles) combined with a relatively poor quality of public domain and lack of lighting. Currently, there are limited pedestrian crossings in the precinct despite its close proximity to Sydenham Railway Station and the Marrickville Road commercial centre.

 

Potential mitigation measures are identified in the report as follows:

1.    create a quieter precinct on weekends (perhaps via posted speed limit restrictions, traffic calming devices or possibly by re-routing of traffic from Buckley Street to Sydney Street on weekends), whilst ensuring trucks are able to access roads and lanes to deliver goods to factories;

2.    improve pedestrian routes between the precinct and major public transport routes aimed at separating pedestrians from major traffic concentrations. (For example, provide an access trail from Sydenham Station to Barclay Street along the (unnamed) lane connecting Railway Parade with Barclay Street);

3.    improve existing pedestrian crossings and increase pedestrian crossings on Sydenham Road. In the longer term, investigate the feasibility of a pedestrian tunnel running from Sydenham station to Railway Parade; and

4.    improve street lighting and apply crime prevention through urban design principles to street improvements and upgrades.

 

The SIA highlights the importance of the creative hub proposal not displacing existing industries and employment within the precinct. It states that should the area be rezoned impacts on existing industries can be reduced by existing use rights provisions (in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment (EP&A) Act) and maintaining the current subdivision pattern. Further, it states that that if the change is gradual, negative social impacts will be minimised.

 

Mitigation measures identified in the SIA to support existing creative and traditional industries are:

1.    in order to reduce risks to existing industries use the proposed consultation strategy to anticipate impacts of any built form changes on business operation or viability (impact of street works on truck access); and

2.    introduce a weekend street market (perhaps in Barclay Street) based on creative and traditional industries already in the area. Encourage traditional businesses to participate as a way of increasing their turnover.

 

Potential impacts on employment lands

 

As previously discussed, an economic study will be developed and exhibited with the planning proposal should it receive Gateway determination. This study will be required to examine (among other things) potential economic impacts of the creative hub proposal on the existing business operations.

 

In the absence of an economic study, it is appropriate to assess the creative hub’s potential impact on employment and industrial lands against relevant current NSW Government and Council plans and strategies - A Plan for Growing Sydney (2014), the draft Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor Strategy (2016) and the Marrickville Employment Lands Study (2014).  A key forthcoming strategy is the District Plan for the Central subregion, currently being drafted by the Greater Sydney Commission with a view to public exhibition later this year.  It is also appropriate to assess the creative hub proposal against the current planning proposal for the Victoria Road precinct and ‘principles for rezoning employment lands’ developed by Council staff as discussed further in this report.

·                     A Plan for Growing Sydney includes an objective to identify and protect strategically important industrially-zoned land. The Plan includes Action 1.9.2: Support key industrial precincts with appropriate planning controls. The Plan states that the Industrial Lands Strategic Assessment Checklist will guide the assessment of proposed rezonings of industrial lands. The checklist poses questions about whether the site is near or within direct access to key economic infrastructure, how it contributes to a significant industry cluster, and how the proposed rezoning would impact on industrial land stocks and employment objectives in each subregion. Although the proposal is not proposing to rezone the land from its IN1 General Industrial zoning, it is considered appropriate to consider the questions raised within the checklist as follows:

 

-     Is the proposed rezoning consistent with State and/or council strategies on the future role of industrial lands?

 

The proposal seeks to retain the current IN1 General Industrial zoning for the precinct whilst also permitting a limited range of additional land uses. As the proposal will retain the industrial function of the area it is considered to be consistent with State and Council strategies to retain industrial land.

 

-     Is the site:

near or within direct access to key economic infrastructure?

contributing to a significant industry cluster?

 

The subject precinct itself is considered to be a significant industry cluster. The proposal ensures the ongoing utilisation of this land for industrial land uses through the retention of the current IN1 General Industrial zoning. The additional permitted land uses of creative industries will ensure that the precinct continues to respond to an evolving industrial sector into the future.

 

-     How would the proposed rezoning impact the industrial land stocks in the subregion or region and the ability to meet future demand for industrial land activity?

 

The proposal is not seeking to rezone the industrial land from IN1 General Industrial but permits additional land uses to complement their current function. Therefore, the proposal will not negatively impact upon the available stock of industrial land to meet the future demands of industry.

 

-     How would the proposed rezoning impact on the achievement of the subregion/region and LGA employment capacity targets and employment objectives?

 

The inclusion of creative industries within the precinct, and small bars, cafes and restaurants within a limited section of the precinct, is anticipated to contribute to the employment rates within the LGA through increased commercial activity within the precinct. Creative industries are generally able to operate within smaller spaces, therefore employment generation across the precinct is expected to increase through their inclusion.

 

-     Is there a compelling argument that the industrial land cannot be used for an industrial purpose now or in the foreseeable future and what opportunities may exist to redevelop the land to support new forms of industrial land uses such as high-tech or creative industries?

 

The proposal is to keep utilising the site for industrial purposes whilst introducing a range of additional land uses including creative industries, and small bars, restaurants and cafes in a select part of the precinct. The aim of the proposal is retain the area’s industrial function, whilst allowing the space to modernise and respond to current trends.

 

-     Is the site critical to meeting the need for land for an alternative purpose identified in other NSW Government or endorsed council planning strategies?

 

The land is not considered critical to meeting an identified alternative purpose in either a NSW Government or endorsed council planning strategy.

 

The draft Sydenham to Bankstown strategy identifies areas that can accommodate additional dwellings and jobs within walking distance (800m radius) of 11 railway stations on the Bankstown line from Sydenham to Bankstown.  In the future, this part of the Bankstown line is proposed to be upgraded to a high frequency service as part of the Sydney Metro line that extends from Rouse Hill to Bankstown via Chatswood, the City and Sydenham.

 

The Sydenham-Bankstown strategy identifies two areas of change within the ‘Sydenham precinct’.  The first is a small area outside (but adjacent to) the creative hub precinct at Meeks Road, Gerald Street and Marrickville Road.  This area is identified for predominantly residential use, which is supported by Council.  Land use conflicts are not anticipated, as this residential area is separated from the creative hub precinct by Marrickville Road.  The second area, identical to the creative hub precinct, is identified as the ‘Sydenham enterprise area’.  This area is identified for intensification of employment uses, with a shift toward more contemporary creative uses.  The creative hub proposal is thus considered to be consistent with the Sydenham to Bankstown strategy. 

 

Regarding employment areas within the Sydenham precinct, the Sydenham to Bankstown strategy states: “It is anticipated that Sydenham, an area that has traditionally been dominated by industrial activities, will have more businesses with lighter industrial activities, such as food manufacturing and distribution. Additionally it is expected that more ‘creative’ sectors will occupy the business areas in Sydenham. It is anticipated that an additional 1101 jobs will be created within the precinct by 2036 (based on Bureau of Transport Statistics forecasts). 36% of all employment in the precinct is in retail and hospitality and 29% in industry.”

 

As has been mentioned above, the creative hub proposal has broad support from the 2014 MELS.  MELS Action 3.2 - Continue to plan for a Sydenham music/entertainment precinct – states:

 

[The Sydenham Station precinct] “already has a number of live music venues. The more affordable warehouse-style buildings nave been highlighted by the Live Music Reference Group as being able to assist in the area’s evolution as a live music hub.  The encouragement of a live music hub in the industrial area closest to Sydenham Station may require some relaxation of the controls – however, any increase in the resident population (e.g. through mixed-use zoning on the precinct fringe) should be resisted as this would jeopardise the development and operation of venues.  Again, care is needed that any relaxation of controls does not jeopardise the role and function of the industrial precinct and the ability to meet forecast demand.  We note that residential uses are not proposed for the Sydenham Station creative precinct due to very high aircraft noise levels and potential for noise complaints against live music venues.”

 

The Victoria Road planning proposal (currently on public exhibition) relates to an area around Victoria Road, Marrickville to the north-west of the creative hub precinct.  It proposes the rezoning of IN1 General Industrial land to a mix of medium and high density housing and a variety of business uses.  The residential zonings would result in around 1,100 dwellings and the business zonings would increase the variety and density of business uses compared to that which current exists.  Whilst the Victoria Road precinct does not adjoin the creative hub precinct, it is located nearby.  It is not expected at this stage that the proposed land use changes in these two precincts would result in significant conflicts.

 

Council staff have developed a set of employment land rezoning principles to guide future rezoning proposals in light of the strong interest in rezoning industrial land in the former Marrickville Council area.  It is considered useful to assess creative hub proposal against these principles, as follows:

·     Principle 1:  Council will take a cautious approach to rezoning industrially zoned lands and generally only support rezoning where supported by a State and/or local planning strategy.  The creative hub proposal is consistent with this principle in that it seeks to slightly alter zoning provisions to allow additional employment uses while retaining the existing IN1 zoning.  Furthermore, a cautious approach is recommended for the additional late night economy uses with small bars, cafes and restaurants only recommended to be allowed in select areas in the first instance.

·     Principle 2:  Any rezoning submission that seeks to rezone industrial land must be wholly or predominantly for other employment uses (other than retail).  The creative hub proposal is consistent with this principle in that it seeks to slightly alter zoning provisions to allow additional employment uses, and no retail is proposed.

·     Principle 3:  Where a rezoning submission seeks to rezone industrial land to a new employment use, the new use(s) must be based on a needs/supply & demand assessment.  At this stage, the creative hub proposal is consistent with this principle.  The 2014 MELS acknowledges and supports the principle of a creative hub in this location, but warns that “care is needed that any relaxation of controls does not jeopardise the role and function of the industrial precinct and the ability to meet forecast demand.”  There is anecdotal evidence about strong demand for the additional uses proposed to be permitted, and this will be further tested by an economic study to be prepared and exhibited with the planning proposal should Gateway approval be granted.

·     Principle 4:  A rezoning submission that seeks to create a predominantly residential zone / use should generally not be supported on the basis that this would result in permanent loss of employment lands.  Such proposals will only be considered / supported where a needs assessment establishes that there is no viable employment uses and there is a State and / or local planning strategy that identifies a need for housing on the land.  This principle is not relevant, as no residential uses are associated with the creative hub proposal.

·     Principle 5:  Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 created buffer areas (B7, IN2) in some location between the core industrial area and surrounding residential areas.  The continuation of this approach in suitable locations is appropriate to minimise conflicts between industrial and residential uses and act as a buffer or transition area.  A minor live/work component can be included as part of this buffer area where it can be shown to provide for emerging / knowledge based and creative industries.  This principle is not relevant as no residential uses are associated with the creative hub proposal.

·     Principle 6:  Retail uses will only be supported as part of mixed use developments where they are small scale and provide for the needs of the local population.  This principle is not relevant as no retail uses are associated with the creative hub proposal.  The creative hub proposal does not alter the permissibility or extent of small-scale retail uses that are ancillary to manufacturing within the IN1 General Industrial zone.

·     Principle 7:  Large industrial lots should be preserved for traditional IN1-type industries and any fragmentation or encroachment of incompatible land uses should be avoided.  At this stage, the creative hub proposal is consistent with this principle.  The creative hub precinct is predominantly made up of smaller industrial lots, and lot size was a factor in determining the precinct’s location and boundary.  Notwithstanding, the creative hub proposal would retain the IN1 General Industrial zoning and would thus not prohibit any IN1-type activities.  Though the newly-permitted creative industries could potentially occupy large IN1 sites, it is envisaged the new creative industries would naturally seek smaller sites.  This will be tested by the proposed economic study.

·     Principle 8:  Land-use changes which create fragmented or isolated industrial land holdings should be avoided.  Avoiding the creation of isolated or fragmented industrial holdings was a consideration in choosing the location and boundary of the creative hub precinct.

·     Principle 9:  Land use changes that may cause conflict with the traditional land uses should not be supported. The proposed revised plan retains an IN1 General Industrial zone for the precinct in response to concerns raised by existing businesses. It is not considered likely that conflict will exist between traditional IN1 General Industrial uses and creative uses. However, the economic study will further investigate any potential for conflict between existing businesses and additional permitted land uses within the proposal and identify mitigation measures as required. 

 

LEP Amendments Proposed

 

As has been mentioned above, the recent concerns raised by business operators within the creative hub precinct has led Council staff to make modest changes to the creative hub proposal. 

 

The proposal, as exhibited in April-May 2016, was to change the zoning of the entire precinct from IN1 General Industrial to IN2 Light Industrial and allow additional creative business uses as well as small bars, restaurants and cafes.  This report however recommends that the IN1 zoning be retained, additional creative business uses be allowed across the entire precinct, and small bars, restaurants and cafes only be allowed in part of the precinct – on properties fronting Marrickville Road and lots fronting the road running parallel to Railway Road (opposite Sydenham Station). 

 

The rationale for retaining the IN1 zoning is that certain higher-impact industries, such as smash repairs, would be able to continue operating in the long term, even though they would benefit from existing use rights if the zoning changed.  This addresses concerns expressed by several of business operators that the change in zoning would force them out (even if only in the longer term).  It is not anticipated that retention of the IN1 zoning would lead to land-use conflicts between these types of industries and the newer creative businesses that would be permitted to operate. 

 

The rationale for restricting the area where small bars, restaurants and cafes would be permitted is to avoid a situation where these uses are widely scattered throughout the precinct away from activity areas.  This would be problematic from a pedestrian and personal safety perspective, particularly at night, as it would result in scattered pedestrian activity and would necessitate pedestrians crossing main roads and walking along poorly lit, secluded back streets.  Several business operators raised this concern, pointing out that these kinds of businesses would most likely not survive without high levels of pedestrian traffic and good surveillance. 

 

Accordingly, this report recommends that small bars, restaurants and cafes only be permitted along a strip fronting Marrickville Road and the road running parallel to Railway Road opposite Sydenham Station.  This strip, as the main walking route between the Marrickville Road commercial strip and Sydenham Station, already has high levels of pedestrian traffic during the day, with some traffic by night.  Operation of small bars and restaurants would boost pedestrian traffic levels at night and improve night-time surveillance (hence safety) along this strip.  This would be supported by improved lighting, upgraded footways, new pedestrian crossings and other public domain improvements proposed to be identified in a precinct-specific Development Control Plan and implemented in the longer term.  This strip could be viewed as an extension of the small bar / restaurant activity that is already becoming established along Marrickville Road.  The route would become a ‘gateway’ link between the centre and the station.  Notwithstanding, the potential establishment of an “entertainment facility” (e.g. music hall, concert hall, dance hall etc.) would continue to be permitted throughout the precinct as is currently the case in the IN1 zone under Marrickville Local Environmental Plan (MLEP) 2011.

 

To implement the proposal to allow additional uses in the creative hub precinct, MLEP 2011 would be amended by adding the two areas shown on the map at ATTACHMENT 2 to the LEP’s Key Sites Map.  A clause would also be added to the LEP within Schedule 1: Additional permitted uses, as follows:

 

“Use of certain land at Marrickville

(1)   This clause applies to certain land in Marrickville as shown coloured blue on the Key Sites Map.

(2)   Development for the following purposes is permitted with consent:

(a)   on land identified as “K” on the Key Sites Map — business premises and office premises, but only where the consent authority is satisfied that the business premises and/or office premises will be used for a creative purpose such as media, advertising, fine arts and craft, design, film and television, music, publishing, performing arts, cultural heritage institutions or other related purposes.

(b)   on land identified as “L” on the Key Sites Map — restaurants or cafes, small bars and business premises and office premises, but only where the consent authority is satisfied that the business premises and/or office premises will be used for a creative purpose such as media, advertising, fine arts and craft, design, film and television, music, publishing, performing arts, cultural heritage institutions or other related purposes.”

 

Land to be identified as “K” on the key sites map corresponds to “Area A” on the map at ATTACHMENT 2 and land identified as “L” corresponds to “Area B”.  The only difference between Areas A and B is that Area B permits restaurants, cafes and small bars in addition to the creative business/office uses permitted across the precinct.

 

Community Engagement

 

Council undertook a preliminary, non-statutory ‘public exhibition’ of the creative hub proposal which included:

·     a dedicated ‘Your Say Marrickville’ webpage;

·     letters posted to occupiers and owners of all properties within the creative hub precinct;

·     flyers explaining the proposal distributed to occupants (letterboxes) in a wider area around the precinct (around 8,000 in total);

·     an article about the creative hub proposal in the Saturday edition of the Sydney Morning Herald in April 2016; and

·     links to the project’s Your Say page from other social media, including Twitter and Instagram.

 

The engagement was undertaken in two stages:

 

1.   Broad community engagement to inform and obtain feedback via a survey and interactive map hosted Council’s (then) Your Say Marrickville website – 12 Apr-17 May 2016; and

2.   Additional targeted stakeholder engagement (business operators and landowners in the precinct), to provide an opportunity for one-on-one meetings with relevant Council staff to answer questions about specific properties within the precinct. Business operators and landowners were invited to make submissions directly to Council – August 2016.

 

375 submissions were received via the survey and interactive map hosted by Council’s (then) Your Say Marrickville website, while a further 24 individual submissions were either emailed or posted directly to Council.

 

A summary report of all submissions received is included at ATTACHMENT 3 to this report.

 

Whilst the majority of the 375 submissions received via the survey and interactive map were partially or completely supportive of the proposal, the majority of the 24 individual submissions to Council (which were generally from land owners / business operators in the area) objected to and / or raised concern with the proposed rezoning.

 

Some of the more commonly raised issues that have not been addressed in the main body of this report are discussed in detail below.

 

Lack of consultation

 

The timeframe for the project is in excess of five years, and this recent preliminary non-statutory consultation aims to commence an ongoing dialogue with business operators within the precinct and the wider community.  The proposal is still in an early development phase and there is opportunity for refinement as it evolves. Should the proposal obtain Gateway approval from the DP&E, a further statutory round of consultation will be undertaken and the outcomes reported to Council.

 

Impacts on existing & future business operations

 

The designation of the precinct as a creative and traditional industrial hub aims to ensure existing business can continue to operate within the precinct. Any public domain improvements will need to be designed to ensure that existing operations are not compromised. For example, the routes and turning paths of large vehicles will need to be considered as part of any proposed public domain modifications. The current objective of accommodating existing industries will continue to play a role in the further development of the strategy for the precinct. In general terms, it is anticipated that the public domain improvements proposed will benefit both new and existing industries through improved amenity for owners, visitors and employees.

 

The concerns expressed in submissions regarding the future of business operations have been noted and the proposal modified accordingly. It is noted that general industries are a prohibited land use within the IN2 Light Industrial zone and, although they can continue to operate indefinitely under the existing use right provisions of the EP&A Act, their long term viability is compromised. The ability of a business operating with existing use rights to expand or intensity may be limited and this may impact upon the ability of general industrial operations to expand over time.  Accordingly, the amendments seek to retain the existing IN1 General Industrial zoning, whilst permitting select additional uses including creative uses and small bars, cafes and restaurants in select areas only.

 

Lack of supply of employment lands

 

The Inner West LGA is within the Central subregion defined by the current NSW Government metropolitan strategy - A Plan for Growing Sydney. Council is currently awaiting release of the applicable District Plan to guide future development in the Inner West Council area. A Plan for Growing Sydney identifies certain industries as priority industries, including creative industries. It also identifies one of the priorities of the central subregion to “identify and protect strategically important industrial-zoned land”.  As is stated in other parts of this report, the creative hub proposal, by retaining the existing IN1 zoning and allowing some additional uses, is considered to represent a minor change that is consistent with the aim of retaining strategically-important industrial land.

 

Compensation for existing businesses

 

As noted above, a key objective of this project is that existing and new businesses can operate simultaneously.  By retaining the existing IN1 zoning for the precinct, the aim is for the industrial character of the precinct to be retained whilst supporting new businesses through the introduction of additional complementary land uses. 

 

Development of a strategy for the Sydenham Station creative precinct

 

The creation of the Sydenham Station creative precinct is a longer-term (5+ years) project involving a two-phase process, commencing with the rezoning of the area. The second phase would involve physical works to activate the area, including public domain improvements such as traffic calming and street greening. Phase two actions have ongoing financial and maintenance implication for Council.

 

As is noted in the SIA, a sound policy framework is integral to the successful establishment of the precinct. Hence a strategy for the precinct should be developed to cover both the initiation phase, as well as ongoing management. The strategy should address matters raised by the SIA and the community submissions, and should propose actions to manage them within established timeframes. It should also be linked to a works program for the area which identifies infrastructure needs, costings and timeframes. The strategy should also link to a site specific Development Control Plan (DCP) for the precinct which would specify development requirements for new businesses.

 

Should the proposal proceed through Gateway, Council should develop such a strategy and associated DCP to guide the precinct’s development and ongoing management. 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

No financial commitments are required or recommended for this project at this stage of the process.  Should the planning proposal receive Gateway determination, Council funding will be required to support the public exhibition, undertake and economic study and to develop a strategy for a DCP for the precinct that would include actions for public domain improvements.  In the longer term, funding will be required for development of the DCP and the public domain works identified in the DCP.

 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

 

The public engagement process is discussed in further detail above.  Relevant Council staff have been involved in this project at various stages in recent years, and some of these staff have been involved in the drafting of this report.  As the precinct is well within the boundaries of the former Marrickville LGA, specific additional consultation with staff from former Leichhardt and Ashfield councils is not required.  Should the planning proposal receive Gateway approval, a formal public consultation process will be undertaken that would include a minimum 8 week exhibition period.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Initial planning for the Sydenham Station creative precinct, including the development of a SIA and planning proposal, has been completed. Initial community consultation has generated extensive feedback – mostly in support, but valid concerns have also been raised by existing business operators.  Though the proposal overall is considered to have strategic merit, changes to the proposal that was originally proposed are warranted, with the detail of, and rational for these changes explained above. Accordingly, it is appropriate that the proposal proceed in accordance with the recommendations of this report – that a planning proposal be prepared and forwarded to the DP&E for Gateway determination. 

 

To manage the precinct effectively, this report recommends the development of a strategy for the precinct. The strategy offers a sound means to communicate the aims of the project; identify matters requiring further work or improvement (including social and economic considerations and associated costs); and provide details to be included within an precinct-specific DCP. It is recommended that Council develop this strategy should the planning proposal receive Gateway approval.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Map showing proposed Sydenham Station creative hub precinct

2.

Social Impact Assessment for Sydenham Station Creative Precinct

3.

Engagement Report - Sydenham Creative Hub

  


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 




































Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 








Page_000008


Page_000009


Page_000010


Page_000011


Page_000012


Page_000013


Page_000014


Page_000015


Page_000016


Page_000017


Page_000018


Page_000019

 


Page_000001


Page_000021

 


Page_000022

 


Page_000002

 


Page_000003


Page_000001

 


Page_000002


Page_000027


Page_000028


Page_000004


Page_000003


Page_000031


Page_000001
Page_000001


Page_000034


Page_000002


Page_000003


Page_000004


Page_000005


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

Item No:         C1016 Item 3

Subject:         Inner West Stronger Communities Grants 2016 

File Ref:         16/6062/110771.16        

Prepared By: Naomi Bower - A/Arts and Cultural Development Coordinator, Marrickville 

Authorised By: Josephine Bennett - Director, Community Services

 

SUMMARY

Council is advised of 73 applications received for the Inner West Stronger Communities Grants 2016. The Inner West Stronger Communities Grants Assessment Panel received and assessed 73 applications requesting a total of $2,061,485. 12 projects are recommended for funding in 2016, totalling $299,861 funding.  In addition, $47,000 is recommended for funding from the Inner West Stronger Communities Grants 2017 round.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Endorses funding for 12 grant applications as outlined in Attachment 1, to this report totalling $299,861 for the Inner West Stronger Communities Grants 2016;

2.   Endorses the commitment of funding for two applications totalling $47,000 for the Inner West Stronger Communities Grants 2017 as outlined in Attachment 2; and

3.   Endorses recommendations for the implementation of the Inner West Stronger Communities Grants 2017.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The Stronger Communities Grants Program forms part of the Stronger Communities funding available to Inner West Council (IWC) from the NSW Government.  It will allocate up to $1 million in grants over three years for projects that build more vibrant, sustainable and inclusive local communities.   

 

In July 2016, Council endorsed the Inner West Stronger Communities Grants Guidelines (C0716), including recommendations from the IWC Local Representative Advisory Committee (L0716 Item 3). 

The objectives of the Inner West Stronger Communities Grants Program are to:

 

·    Deliver social, arts and cultural, recreation, environmental and economic benefits for the communities of the IWC;

·    Strengthen the Inner West as the creative engine of global Sydney;

·    Deliver innovative projects to enhance liveability and wellbeing in the Inner West;

·    Enhance local identity in the communities, villages, neighbourhoods and precincts of the Inner West;

·    Support a vibrant street life, support local business and enterprise throughout the Inner West;

·    Reflect and celebrate community and cultural diversity;

·    Strengthen social justice and inclusion;

·    Support social, cultural, environmental and economic sustainability; and

·    Improve connectivity across the Inner West.

 

Preference was given to physical projects in 2016, which could include upgrades of club facilities, funding of sporting equipment, or providing tools and equipment to improve the delivery of community services. 

 

Approximately $300,000 was allocated for the Inner West Stronger Communities Grants 2016.

The Inner West Stronger Communities Grants 2016 opened on Tuesday 19 July 2016 and closed on Tuesday 29 August 2016 at 5pm. Three information sessions were held on Tuesday 2 August 2016 (at Leichhardt Service Centre, in conjunction with the Inner West Community Grants Program) and Wednesday 3 August 2016 (at Ashfield Service Centre, in conjunction with the Inner West Community Grants Program) and Thursday 4 August 2016 (at Petersham Service Centre).  The grants and information sessions were promoted through advertisements in the Inner West Courier, information on Council’s website and social media including Facebook and Twitter, community radio advertising (2SER) and email notices through networks such as Art Post, Rec Post, Library newsletters and existing community databases.

 

The panel considered 73 applications requesting a total of $2,061,485.  Ten applications (application numbers 4, 26, 29, 36, 41, 58, 70, 73, 103 and 126) were deemed ineligible by the panel. 

 

All applications were assessed by the Assessment Panel, comprising of:

·    Simone Schwarz - Director Service Delivery, Inner West Council

·    Wayne Green - Regional Coordinator, Department of Premier and Cabinet

·    Sam Helweh - Independent Probity Advisor, SSROC

·    Jamie Parker MP – Member for Balmain

·    Jo Haylen MP – Member for Summer Hill

·    Liz Yeo – CEO, Newtown Neighbourhood Centre (community representative)

·    Michael Hogan - Deputy Chair, Sydney Community Foundation (community representative)

·    Tamra Palmer - Summer Hill Lakers Netball Club (community representative)

 

*Matthew Howard attended the panel meeting to assist Jo Haylen MP.

 

The panel’s composition reflected the State Government’s Stronger Community Grants guidelines and community representatives deemed most suitable to assess the applications received. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The grants will be funded from the Stronger Communities Fund provided by the State Government to IWC.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

External information about the program was provided through various media. Council officer support was available via telephone, email and face to face as required throughout the application period.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil


 

CONCLUSION

Inner West Stronger Communities Grants 2016

Of the 73 applications assessed, 12 applications, requesting $368,950 are recommended for funding to a level of $299,861 for the Inner West Stronger Communities Grants 2016 round, as outlined in Attachment 1 of this report. Not all projects are recommended to receive the total amount requested; however, the selection panel believe the projects are still achievable within the funding amounts recommended.

The projects were assessed against the following pre-determined selection criteria:

·    Impact and quality of social, cultural, economic or environmental benefits to local communities;

·    Ability to improve access to and participation in community and cultural activities;

·    The merit of the application in addressing community priorities identified in  the community strategic plan and other plans of the former Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils;

·    Capacity to deliver a well-planned project or program;

·    Realistic budget, including all sources of income;

·    Engagement with the Inner West community and collaborative partnerships; and

·    Previous assistance received from the former Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils.

 

60 applications are not recommended for funding as outlined in Attachment 3 of this report.

The reasons for which applications were not recommended include:

·    the applications were not as strong as the recommended applications in one or more assessment criteria;

·    the project is still viable without Council funding;

·    the project’s benefits were not focused strongly enough in IWC LGA; and

·    the application was deemed ineligible.

 

Inner West Stronger Communities Grants 2017

One successful application (application number 45) was recommended for multi-year funding by the panel, with $20,000 recommended from the Inner West Stronger Communities Grants 2016 round and $27,000 recommended from the Inner West Stronger Communities Grants 2017 round.  The panel deferred one application (application number 2) to the Inner West Stronger Communities Grants 2017 round, with $20,000 funds recommended pending receipt of funds from another funding source.  These recommended funding commitments for the 2017 round, totalling $47,000, are listed on Attachment 2

The Assessment Panel also made recommendations for the implementation of the Inner West Stronger Communities Grants 2017.  These include:

 

·    Revise Inner West Stronger Communities Grants selection criteria; and

·    Council staff to pre-assess all applications and make recommendations for the panel.

 

Council officers will consult with the community to inform the revision of selection criteria.

 


With the panel’s recommendations for $299,861 funding to be allocated from the Stronger Communities Grants 2016 and the recommended commitment  to allocate $47,000 funding for the Stronger Communities Grants 2017 round, the following Inner West Stronger Communities Grants monies remain for distribution in future years:

 

2017 - $303,139; and

2018 - $350,000.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Attachment 1 Stronger Communities Grant Applicants Recommended for Funding

2.

Attachment 2 SCG Recommended for Funding 2017

3.

Attachment 3 SCG Not Recommended for Funding 2016

  


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 






Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 


















Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

Item No:         C1016 Item 4

Subject:         Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 6 October 2016  

File Ref:         16/4718/117639.16         

Prepared By: George Tsaprounis - Coordinator Traffic Engineering Services, Marrickville  

Authorised By: Wal Petschler - Director, Major Projects and Engineering

 

SUMMARY

The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 6 October 2016 are presented for Council consideration.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 6 October 2016 be received and the recommendations be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

A meeting of the Inner West Council Local Traffic Committee was held on 6 October 2016 at Ashfield. The minutes of the meeting are shown at ATTACHMENT 1.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Projects proposed for implementation in 2016/17 are funded within existing budget allocations.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Members of the public attended the meeting to address the committee on specific items.

 

 

CONCLUSION

Nil.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Minutes of Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 6 October 2016

  


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

 

Minutes of Local Traffic Committee Meeting

held at Petersham Service Centre on 6 October 2016

 

Meeting commenced at 10.08 am

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY BY CHAIRPERSON

 

 

Acknowledgement by Chairman:

 

“I acknowledge the Gadigal and Wangal people of the Eora nation on whose country we are meeting today and their elders past and present”

 

COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT

Mr Joe Di Cesare

IWC’s Manager, Design and Investigation, Marrickville (Chair)

Mr Ryan Horne

Roads & Maritime Services

SC Stephen Flanagan

NSW Police - Marrickville

Mr Bill Holliday

Representative for Jamie Parker MP, Member for Balmain

Mr Chris Woods

Representative for Ron Hoenig MP, Member for Heffron

 

OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE

Mr Wal Petschler

IWC’s Director, Major Projects and Engineering

Mr Boris Muha

IWC’s Traffic Projects Engineer, Ashfield

Mr Jason Scoufis

IWC’s Team Leader Traffic, Leichhardt

Ms Nina Fard

IWC’s Senior Traffic Engineer, Leichhardt

Mr George Tsaprounis

IWC’s Coordinator Traffic Engineering Services, Marrickville

Mr Emilio Andari

IWC’s Traffic Engineer, Marrickville

Ms Mary Bailey

IWC’s Parking Planner, Marrickville

Ms Christina Ip

IWC’s Administration Assistant, Marrickville

Mr Brandon Morson

Roads & Maritime Services

Mr Bruno Sinatambou

State Transit Authority

 

VISITORS

Mr Andrew Stringer

Item 17

Ms Elise Hawthorne

Item 28

 

APOLOGIES

SC Sam Tohme

NSW Police - Ashfield

Sgt Dan Chilvers

NSW Police - Leichhardt

Ms Cathy Peters

Representative for Jenny Leong MP, Member for Newtown

Mr John Stephens

IWC’s Traffic Manager, Leichhardt

SC Anthony Kenny

NSW Police – Newtown

 

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS

 

Nil.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on Thursday, 1 September 2016 and  Extraordinary Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on Friday, 9 September 2016 were adopted at Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday, 27 September 2016 with the exception of Item 1 – Union Street, Tempe – Proposed Traffic Calming Design Plans.

 

 

MATTERS ARISING FROM COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION OF MINUTES

 

Council resolved that Item 1 – Union Street, Tempe – Proposed Traffic Calming Design Plans be referred back to the Traffic Committee for further consideration.

 

 

PART A – ITEMS WHERE COUNCIL MAY EXERCISE ITS DELEGATED FUNCTIONS

 

TRAFFIC MATTERS

 

 

T1016 Item 1      Catherine Street, Lilyfield - Pedestrian Crossing Conditions
(Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

A resident has raised concern regarding pedestrian safety conditions at the existing raised

pedestrian (zebra) crossing in Catherine Street, immediately north of Piper Street resulting

from a recent pedestrian accident. Given these concerns a number of maintenance

improvements are to be undertaken and zig zag advanced pavement markings recommended.

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT zig zag advanced pavement markings be installed in Catherine Street on both approaches to the pedestrian (zebra) crossing location in Catherine Street, north of Piper Street, Lilyfield.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

T1016 Item 2      William Street at Elswick Street North, Leichhardt - Pedestrian Conditions
(Leichhardt Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

A resident has raised concern regarding pedestrian safety at the William Street/Elswick Street North intersection associated with vehicles cutting the corner and travelling on the wrong side of the road.

 

In order to improve safety at the intersection and reduce speeds, it is recommended that road flaps be installed on the existing (BB) double centrelines at the William Street/Elswick Street North intersection.

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT road flaps be installed on the existing (BB) double centrelines at the William Street/Elswick Street North intersection to improve safety.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

T1016 Item 3      Enfield Street at Livingstone Road, Marrickville - Safety Improvements Design Plans
(Marrickville Ward/Summer Hill)

SUMMARY

 

In 2015 Council adopted a Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) plan for Marrickville West

which recommended a series of projects.

 

Design plans have been finalised for the proposed entry of at grade threshold which include

landscaped kerb extensions, associated pram ramps and colored patterned surface treatment in Enfield Street at its intersection with Livingstone Road, Marrickville. This proposal forms part of the Marrickville West LATM study implementation.

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the design for  at grade entry threshold treatment  in Enfield Street at Livingstone Road Intersection which includes the provision of landscaped kerb extensions, associated kerb ramps, colored patterned surface treatment at crossing location  and  associated signage and line markings (Design Plans No 6120) be APPROVED.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T1016 Item 4      Darley Street at Marrickville Road, Marrickville - Proposed Kerb Extension & Line Marking Design Plans
(Marrickville Ward/Summer Hill)

SUMMARY

 

A detailed design plan has been finalised for the proposed traffic calming improvements in

Darley Street at Marrickville Road, Marrickville as part of Council’s Capital Works Program for Roads. The proposal for a kerb extension with a new kerb and gutter alignment and

associated signs and line markings will improve pedestrian safety and traffic conditions at this location.

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the detailed design plan of the kerb extension with a new kerb and gutter alignment and associated signs and line markings at the intersection of Darley Street at Marrickville Road, Marrickville (as per the attached design plan No. 6130) be APPROVED.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

T1016 Item 5      Albany Road at Douglas Street, Stanmore - Proposed Kerb Extension & Line Marking Design Plans
(Stanmore Ward/Newtown)

SUMMARY

 

A detailed design plan has been finalised for the proposed traffic calming improvements in

Albany Road at Douglas Street, Stanmore as part of Council’s Capital Works Program for

Roads. The proposal for a kerb extension with a new kerb and gutter alignment and

associated signs and line markings will improve pedestrian safety and traffic conditions at this location.

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the detailed design plan of the kerb extension with a new kerb and gutter alignment and associated signs and line markings at the intersection of Albany Road at Douglas Street, Stanmore (as per the attached design plan No. 6128) be APPROVED.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

 

T1016 Item 6      Clarendon Road, Stanmore - Proposed Traffic Calming Design Plans
(Stanmore Ward/Newtown)

SUMMARY

 

Detailed design plans have been finalised for the proposed traffic calming improvements in

Clarendon Road at Albany Road and at Percival Road, Stanmore as part of Council’s Capital

Works Program for Roads. The proposal for a median island, kerb extensions with a new kerb and gutter alignment and associated signs and line markings will improve pedestrian safety and traffic conditions at this location.

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

Council Officers clarified to Committee members that the regulatory 10m ‘No Stopping’ rule will still apply on Clarendon Road at its intersection with Albany Road, however Council is not proposing to signpost  this rule at this location.

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.    the detailed design plan of the kerb extension with a new kerb and gutter alignment and associated signs and line markings at the intersection of Clarendon Road at Percival Road, Stanmore (as per the attached design plan No. 6132) be APPROVED; and

 

2.    the detailed design plan of a median island, the kerb extension with a new kerb and gutter alignment and associated signs and line markings at the intersection of Clarendon Road at Albany Road, Stanmore (as per the attached design plan No. 6134) be APPROVED.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

T1016 Item 7      Proposed Temporary Traffic Calming Treatment - Tennyson Street, Dulwich Hill
(Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill)

SUMMARY

 

Since early 2015, Council has been developing the Tomorrow’s Dulwich Hill 10-year plan

which is recommending a series of integrated projects that have been included in the Capital

Works Program.

 

Design plans have now been finalised for the one way slow point in Tennyson Road. The

design includes landscaped islands, and associated signage and line markings. This has been completed as part of the Tomorrow’s Dulwich Hill 10-year plan, (Design Plan – Permanent Solution No 6048).

 

However, before the final installation it is proposed to install a temporary one-way slow point to test its effectiveness and ensure there are no driveway access issues. The proposal of the

temporary One-Way slow point is presented in this report for consideration, (One Way Slow

Point - Temporary Testing Plan No 6048).

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the temporary treatment of the Tennyson Road, Dulwich Hill - One Way Slow point consisting of two chevron white painted islands, outline with retro reflective guide posts; and associated signs and line markings (One Way Temporary Testing Plans No 6048) be APROVED.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

T1016 Item 8      Proposed Traffic Management Treatment, Victoria Road and Murray Street, Marrickville

SUMMARY

 

As part of its approved development proposal to expand the Metro Shopping Centre, by AMP

Capital Shopping Centres (AMPCSC), conditions were imposed on the developer to undertake traffic calming works on Victoria Road, between the Murray Street and the dead end. These works include speed humps to assist in the reduction of speed and a refuge island to prevent the entry of trucks which will benefit to the local residents. The proposal also includes upgrade of the existing cycleway refuge at Murray Street.

 

It is recommended that the construction of proposed entry treatment at Victoria Road and

Murray street intersection be approved.

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT :

 

1.       at Victoria Road / Murray Street Intersection-Marrickville, the construction of a pedestrian refuge island and stamped concrete threshold treatment, kerb ramps, modification of existing cycleway refuge at Murray Street and associated signage and line markings (Design Plan No 80216045-CI-MS-1002) be APPROVED ; and

2.       Council not proceed with a proposal to install speed cushions and a kerb blister adjacent to property 39 Victoria Road (Design Plan No 80216045-CI-VR-100O,  Rev:7).

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

T1016 Item 9      Red Lion Street, Rozelle - Annual Road Occupancy (Street Party)
(Balmain/Balmain/Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

This report seeks approval for the temporary road closure of Red Lion Street, Rozelle to

facilitate the annual ‘Christmas Street Party’ event that has been successfully conducted since 2009.

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.       the temporary road closure of Red Lion Street between Darling Street and Evans Street, Rozelle on Saturday, 17th December 2016 between 4.00pm and 11.00pm be supported, subject to the following conditions:

 

a.    an unencumbered passage minimum 3.0m wide be available for emergency vehicles through the closed section of Red Lion Street, Rozelle;

b.    the occupation of the road carriageway must not occur until the road has been physically closed;

c.    the organiser be advised to arrange accredited traffic controllers to manage the road closure;

d.    the applicant notifies all affected businesses, residents and other occupants of the temporary road closure prior to the event.  Any concerns or requirements in relation to the road closure raised by business proprietors, residents and other occupants must be resolved or accommodated.  The notification shall involve at the minimum an information letterbox drop distributed one week prior to the commencement of the event.  The proposed information, distribution area and period must be submitted to Council’s Traffic section for approval two weeks before the event;

e.    the supported Traffic Control Plan (TCP) be implemented at the applicant’s expense;

f.            the Fire Brigade (B) be notified of the intended closure by the applicant;

g.    the applicant provide and erect barricades and signs, in accordance with the current Australian Standard AS 1742.3: Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads.  As a minimum the following must be erected at both ends of the road closure area;

i.   Barrier Boards;

ii.  ‘Road Closed’ (T2-4) signs;

iii.  ‘Detour’ (T5-1) signs;

i.             the applicant be advised Council provides barricades and ‘Road Closed’ signs free or at minimum cost.  The applicant is required to arrange delivery by Council at cost, or arrange pickup from and return to Council’s Depot at no cost. Any non-standard signs may be provided at cost;

j.             the areas to be used for the activities must be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the satisfaction of Council’s Director Major Projects Engineering, or else the applicant will be required to reimburse Council for any extraordinary cleaning costs;

k.    the conduct of any activities or use of any equipment required in conjunction with the road occupancy and temporary road closure not results in any ‘offensive noise’ as defined by the Noise Control Act;

l.     a copy of the Council approval be available on site for inspection by relevant authorities;

m.   Council reserves the right to cancel the approval at any time;

n.    the applicant complies with any reasonable directive from Council Officers and NSW Police; and

2.       the applicant be advised of the Committee’s recommendation. 

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

T1016 Item 10    Newtown Festival - Temporary Road Closure for the Newtown Festival - 13 November 2016

SUMMARY

 

A Section 96 (2) application has been received from the Newtown Neighbourhood Centre in

relation to modifying conditions in holding the annual 'Newtown Festival' for the remaining 3

years assented, Sunday 13 November 2016, Sunday 12 November 2017 and Sunday 11

November 2018. The applicant has requested the temporary road closure, between the hours of 5.00Am to 8.00PM, of Lennox Street, Mary Street, Eliza Street and Federation Road, Newtown.

 

It is recommended that Council agree to the temporary road closures on Sunday 13 November 2016 between the hours of 5.00Am to 8.00PM; apply to the RMS for consent to close the subject roads, subject to the event being advertised, a Traffic Management Plan be submitted to the RMS for approval and advice of the proposed event being forwarded to the appropriate authorities, including the Transport Management Centre.

 

Comments of the Local Traffic Committee will be referred to Council’s Development

Assessment Section for consideration in determining the Section 96 Application.

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

 

THAT:

 

a.   the proposed temporary road closure of Lennox Street, Eliza Street, Mary Street and Federation Road, Newtown on Sunday 13 November 2016, between 5.00AM to 8.00PM, for the holding of the 38th annual 'Newtown Festival' (Class 2 event under the RMS Special Events Guide), be APPROVED subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions;

 

1.   the temporary road closure be advertised in the local newspaper providing 28 days notice for submissions;

 

2.   a Traffic Management Plan be submitted to the Roads and Maritime Services for consideration and approval; and a Road Occupancy License application be submitted to the Transport Management Centre;

 

3.   notice of the proposed event be forwarded to the N.S.W. Police, State Transit Authority, Newtown Local Area Commander, the NSW Fire Brigades and the NSW Ambulance Services;

 

4.   advance notifications signs for the event be strategically installed at least two (2) weeks prior to the event;

 

5.   "No Stopping - Special Event" signs be affixed over all existing timed parking restriction signs within the sections of streets to be closed on the afternoon of the day prior to the event;

 

6.   a 4-metre wide emergency vehicle access must be maintained through the closed road areas during the course of the event;

 

7.   the applicant is to consult with all affected residents and/or businesses in the area in writing and to conduct a letter box drop of surrounding properties at least two weeks prior to event; and

 

8.   adequate vehicular traffic control shall be provided for the protection and convenience of pedestrians and motorists including appropriate signage and flagging.  Workers shall be specially designated for this role (and carry appropriate certificates), as necessary to comply with this condition.  This is to be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1742.3 - Traffic Control Devices for works on roads

 

b.   the Festival Director, Newtown Neighbourhood Centre be advised in terms of this report and that all costs for advertising the event and implementation of the road closures are to be borne by the applicant; and

 

c.   the applicant be advised that an annual application needs to be submitted to Council for the temporary road closures associated with the festival.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

T1016 Item 11    Marrickville Festival 2016 - Temporary Road Closures for Special Event on Sunday 23 October 2016
(Marrickville Ward/Summer Hill)

SUMMARY

 

'Marrickville Festival' is an annual event and this year it will be held on Sunday 23 October

2016. As per previous years it will necessitate the temporary road closure of Marrickville Road (between Petersham Road and Victoria Road), Illawarra Road (between Sydenham Road and Petersham Road), Alex Travellion Plaza and the Calvert Street car park in Marrickville. Short sections of Silver Street, Garners Avenue, Gladstone Street and Frampton Avenue where these streets intersect Marrickville Road will also be closed.

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

It was recommended that the second part of the recommendation relating to the suspension of the Alcohol-Free Zone on Marrickville Road be removed from the recommendation as it is not considered to be a matter for the Traffic Committee.

 

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.   the proposed temporary road closure of Marrickville Road (between Petersham Road and Victoria Road), Illawarra Road (between Sydenham Road and Petersham Road), Alex Trevallion Plaza, the Calvert Street car park and short sections of Silver Street, Garners Avenue, Gladstone Street, Calvert Street and Frampton Avenue where these streets intersect Marrickville Road, Marrickville, from 11.00pm on Saturday 22 October 2016 to 11.00pm on Sunday 23 October 2016, for the holding of the annual 'Marrickville Festival' (Class 2 event under the RMS Special Events Guide), be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

a.   the temporary road closures be advertised in the local newspaper providing 28 days notice for submissions;

 

b.   a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) be submitted to the Roads and Maritime Services for consideration and approval; and a Road Occupancy License application be submitted to the Transport Management Centre;

 

c.   notice of the proposed event be forwarded to the N.S.W. Police, State Transit Authority, Marrickville Local Area Commander, the NSW Fire Brigades and the NSW Ambulance Services;

 

d.   advance notification signs for the event be strategically installed at least two (2) weeks prior to the event;

 

e.   'No Parking – Special Event' signs be affixed over all existing parking restriction signage within the area of the festival, on the afternoon of the day prior to the event - Saturday 22 October 2016;

 

f.    'No Parking – Special Event' signs be affixed both sides of Petersham Road, Marrickville (between Illawarra Road and Marrickville Road) on the afternoon of the day prior to the event - Saturday 22 October 2016;

 

g.   Traffic Controllers be located on Petersham Road to assist with the movement of the buses;

 

h.   a 4-metre wide emergency vehicle access must be maintained through the ‘closed’ road area during the course of the festival;

 

i.    all affected residents and businesses in the closed road area be notified in writing through a letter box drop of surrounding properties at least two (2) weeks prior to event; and

 

j.    adequate vehicular traffic control shall be provided for the protection and convenience of pedestrians and motorists including appropriate signage and flagging.  Workers shall be specially designated for this role (and carry appropriate certificates), as necessary to comply with this condition.  This is to be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1742.3 - Traffic Control Devices for works on roads.

 

2.   the existing Alcohol-Free Zone in the vicinity of Marrickville Road be suspended on Sunday 23 October 2016 for the purpose of holding this year’s ‘Marrickville Festival’.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.   the proposed temporary road closure of Marrickville Road (between Petersham Road and Victoria Road), Illawarra Road (between Sydenham Road and Petersham Road), Alex Trevallion Plaza, the Calvert Street car park and short sections of Silver Street, Garners Avenue, Gladstone Street, Calvert Street and Frampton Avenue where these streets intersect Marrickville Road, Marrickville, from 11.00pm on Saturday 22 October 2016 to 11.00pm on Sunday 23 October 2016, for the holding of the annual 'Marrickville Festival' (Class 2 event under the RMS Special Events Guide), be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

a.   the temporary road closures be advertised in the local newspaper providing 28 days notice for submissions;

 

b.   a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) be submitted to the Roads and Maritime Services for consideration and approval; and a Road Occupancy License application be submitted to the Transport Management Centre;

 

c.   notice of the proposed event be forwarded to the N.S.W. Police, State Transit Authority, Marrickville Local Area Commander, the NSW Fire Brigades and the NSW Ambulance Services;

 

d.   advance notification signs for the event be strategically installed at least two (2) weeks prior to the event;

 

e.   'No Parking – Special Event' signs be affixed over all existing parking restriction signage within the area of the festival, on the afternoon of the day prior to the event - Saturday 22 October 2016;

 

f.    'No Parking – Special Event' signs be affixed both sides of Petersham Road, Marrickville (between Illawarra Road and Marrickville Road) on the afternoon of the day prior to the event - Saturday 22 October 2016;

 

g.   Traffic Controllers be located on Petersham Road to assist with the movement of the buses;

 

h.   a 4-metre wide emergency vehicle access must be maintained through the ‘closed’ road area during the course of the festival;

 

i.    all affected residents and businesses in the closed road area be notified in writing through a letter box drop of surrounding properties at least two (2) weeks prior to event; and

 

j.    adequate vehicular traffic control shall be provided for the protection and convenience of pedestrians and motorists including appropriate signage and flagging.  Workers shall be specially designated for this role (and carry appropriate certificates), as necessary to comply with this condition.  This is to be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1742.3 - Traffic Control Devices for works on roads.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

 

T1016 Item 12    The Italian Forum Event on the Day of Norton Street Italian Festa 2016 - Traffic Management Plan
(Leichhardt/Balmain/Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

On the day of the Norton Street Italian Festa to be held on Sunday 30th October 2016, Co.As.It is arranging for a number of performances to be held at the Italian Forum. This report outlines the Traffic Management associated with this event.

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.       the Traffic Management Plan detailing the traffic arrangements for the Italian Forum on the day of the Norton Street Italian Festa be supported subject to Council receiving a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) for the Norton Street raised pedestrian (zebra) crossing; and

2.       the Traffic Management Plan be forwarded to Council’s Area Base Coordinator, Sydney Buses, Transport Management Centre and the NSW Police.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

T1016 Item 13    Traffic Management Plan for the 2016 New Year's Eve Event
(Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

The report (item 1) considered at the August meeting of the Traffic Committee was deferred

for further discussion with the NSW Police. This report updates the traffic management

associated with the event and includes the request from the NSW Police for an additional road closure in Grove Street at Rose Street, Birchgrove (eastbound direction) to be manned by NSW Police.

 

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.       the Traffic Management Plan (Attachment 1) detailing the traffic arrangements for the 2016 New Year’s Eve be supported;

2.       the Traffic Management Plan (Attachment 1) be forwarded to Council’s Area Base Coordinator, Transport Management Centre and the Major Events & Incidents Group (NSW Police);

3.       a temporary ‘No Stopping’ restriction be installed on the eastern side of Montague Street between Darling Street and Beattie Street, Balmain;

4.       the following modifications to bus stops be approved:

a.    on the northern side of Darling Street:

i. install temporary ‘Bus Zones’ between  Mort Street and Ford Street;

ii.   extend the ‘Bus Zone’ between Ford Street and McDonald Street;

iii.  extend the ‘Bus Zone’ between McDonald Street and Curtis Road, outside Nos.217-223 Darling Street;

iv. on the southern side of Darling Street: Install a temporary ‘Bus Zone’ between Booth Street and Beattie Street, outside No. 244-270 Darling Street;

5.       the Police representative be requested to provide bike unit resources to improve traffic/crowd controls around the Darling Street/Curtis Road intersection (roundabout);

6.       the Police be requested to liaise directly with the Roads and Maritime Services in regards to the installation of variable message signs (“Balmain Peninsula is closed” and “Alcohol Free Zone”) on the main access roads into Balmain Peninsula a few days in advance of the event;

7.       confirmation be sought regarding the areas to be declared alcohol free and the Police and Sydney Buses representatives be advised;

8.       the Sydney Buses representative be requested to place adequate notices on buses regarding the establishment of an alcohol free zone in the Balmain East area (details to be provided by Council);

9.       the taxi/hire car access to the Peninsula be restricted from 7:00pm;

10.     taxis/hire cars carrying mobility impaired or infirmed residents be permitted access at all hours into the Peninsula; and

11.     the Taxi Council be advised of the Committee’s recommendation.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



PARKING MATTERS

 

T1016 Item 14    Requests for Mobility Parking Spaces
(Marrickville Ward)

SUMMARY

 

Request has been received from resident for the provision of a dedicated mobility parking

space outside their residence. It is recommended that the following 'Mobility Parking' space be approved as the applicant’s current medical condition warrants the provision of the space and they have constrained off-street parking opportunities.

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.       a mobility parking space be approved on the Western side of Gorman Street, Marrickville adjacent to property no 24 Gorman Street, Marrickville subject to:

a)      the operation of the dedicated parking space be valid for twelve (12) months from the date of installation;

b)      the applicant advising Council of any changes in circumstances affecting the need for the special parking space; and

c)      the applicant is requested to furnish a medical certificate and current mobility permit justifying the need for the mobility parking space for its continuation after each 12 months period.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

 

T1016 Item 15    Request for a Mobility Parking Space outside No.12 St David’s Road, Haberfield
(Leichhardt/Summer Hill)

SUMMARY

 

Representation has been received from Ms Jo Haylen MP, State Member for Summer Hill on

behalf of a resident of No.12 St David’s Road in request of a Mobility Parking Space to the

front of her property.

 

Under the circumstances, it is recommended that a full-time Mobility Parking Space be provided outside No.12 St David’s Road.

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The Committee members noted that the recommendations were supported by NSW Police prior to the meeting.

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT a full time Mobility Parking Space be provided outside No.12 St David’s Road, Haberfield.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

T1016 Item 16    Minor Traffic Facilities
(Leichhardt & Balmain Wards/Balmain/Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

This report deals with minor traffic facility applications received by Inner West Council,

Leichhardt and includes ‘Disabled Parking’ and ‘Works Zones’.

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.       a 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ space be installed, in front of No.136 Trafalgar Street, Annandale;

2.       a 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ space be installed, in front of No.9 Foucart Street, Rozelle;

3.       a 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ space be installed, in front of No.96 Hubert Street, Lilyfield;

4.       a 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ space be installed, in front of No.35 Glassop Street, Balmain;

5.       a 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ space be installed, in front of No.18 Ellen Street, Rozelle;

6.       a 15m 'Works Zone 7.00am - 5.00pm Mon-Fri, 7.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed in Collins Street, Annandale on the side boundary of No.2 Wells Street for 12 weeks, subject to Council receiving written confirmation of concurrence from the directly affected property; and

7.       a 30m 'Works Zone 7.00am - 5.00pm Mon-Fri, 7.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed in North Street, Balmain on the side boundary of No.379 Darling Street and partially in front of No.2 North Street for 12 weeks, subject to Council receiving written confirmation of concurrence from the directly affected property.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

 

T1016 Item 17    Terry Street, Nagurra Place and Margaret Street, Rozelle - Proposed Short Term Parking Restrictions
(Leichhardt/Balmain)

SUMMARY

 

Council has received correspondence from a number of local businesses, the owners of the

retail precinct of Union Balmain development, Union Balmain Building and Facilities

Management and the Strata Managing Agent of Union Balmain requesting short term parking

restrictions in Terry Street, Nagurra Place and Margaret Street, Rozelle. The commercial

component of the development is now complete and retail tenancies are occupied. Installing

short term parking restrictions in the above mentioned streets would increase parking turnover and allow visitors to the residential properties and patrons of the retail spaces the opportunity to park for a short period of time.

 

Surrounding local business owners and residents have been notified of the proposal to install

short term parking restrictions in Terry Street, Nagurra Place and Margaret Street and it is

recommended that the proposal be approved.

 

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

Public speaker: Mr Andrew Stringer

 

Mr Stringer of Anchor Constructions, owner and developer of the Union Balmain development, expressed support for the recommendation for the installation of parking restrictions in Terry Street, Nagurra Place and Margaret Street to support the turnover of business for retailers in the development.

 

Council Officers advised Committee members that significant consultation was undertaken relating to parking changes and amendments were made accordingly. A late submission from Mr Joseph Bavaro, resident of Terry Street, was tabled at the meeting. Mr Bavaro objects to the proposed changes to parking in Terry Street and stated the following:

 

·    Terry Street in front of Building A and C is one of the few locations in the area with unrestricted parking;

·    The new retailers will bring an influx of vehicles  that will compete with residents for long term parking;

·    The development was approved with parking restrictions as is and changing this to suit commercial shows will place additional pressure on long term residents;

·    There is visitor parking at the new fruit retailer in the development which could potentially be shared if it is not already; and

·    More parking is required for residents, not for commercial properties.

 

Council Officers also advised that consultation was undertaken to consider implementation of a resident parking scheme on the south side of Terry Street. The support rate from this consultation was below Council’s Resident Parking Scheme Policy support rate of 50% and as such, the proposal was not supported. The Committee members were also advised that Mr Bavaro’s property was subdivided  in 2008 and in accordance to Council policy, would be ineligible for inclusion in a resident parking scheme.

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

 

 

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

The following parking restrictions in Terry Street, Nagurra Place and Margaret Street, Rozelle be installed (as per Attachment 1):

 

1.    Nagurra Place:

a.  “2P 8am-10pm Mon-Sun”, on both sides of Nagurra Place at the eastern end;

b.  “P30Min 8am-10pm Mon-Sun”, on both sides of Nagurra Place at the western end;

c.  “No Parking” west of the driveway of Building B;

2.    Terry Street:

a.  “2P 8am-6pm Mon- Fri”, fronting Building A;

b.  “1P 6pm-10pm Mon-Fri, 12pm-10pm Sat, 9am-10pm Sun”, short term restriction outside of the existing Loading Zone operating times (9am-6pm Mon-Fri, 8am-12pm Sat), fronting the retail building (north-east of Nagurra Place);

c.  “P 30min 9am-10pm Mon-Sun” to replace one existing “2P 9am-6pm” space fronting the retail building (north-east of Nagurra Place);

d.  “1P 8am-10pm Mon-Sun”, fronting Building C;

e.  “2P 8am-10pm Mon-Sun”, south of Building C;

f.   “2P 8am-6pm Mon- Fri”, fronting Nos. 41 and 43 Terry Street; and

3.    Margaret Street:

a.  revised parking controls “2P 8am-10pm Mon-Sun” to replace existing “2P 9am-4pm Mon-Sun”.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

 

 

T1016 Item 18    Keith Lane, Dulwich Hill - Proposed ‘No Parking’ & Permit Parking Restrictions
(Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill)

SUMMARY

 

Following the recent adoption by Council of the final Dulwich Hill Parking Management Plan

concerns have been raised by residents surrounding Keith Lane, Dulwich Hill, as it was

recommended that ‘No Parking’ restrictions be introduced to Keith Lane. A number of

residents have now raised concerns in relation to reducing some of the ‘No Parking’

restrictions to allow for parking.

 

Residents have been notified of the proposal to install 'No Parking' restrictions along both

sides of Keith Lane where currently unrestricted parking applies and that a section of ‘2P

8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri Permit Holders Excepted Area M13’ restrictions be installed on the

southern side of Keith Lane, in order to provide unobstructed vehicular access to the off-street car parking spaces within the laneway and deter illegal parking across vehicular crossings and maintain parking where feasible for the local residents. It is recommended that the proposal be approved.

 

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

Council Officers tabled a petition from residents of Bedford Crescent and surrounding streets objecting to the proposed parking changes for Keith Lane.

 

The Committee members agreed to defer the recommendation to a future Traffic Committee meeting to allow for further consultation with residents.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.       the installation of ‘2P 8.30am – 6pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted – Area M13’ restrictions (18 metres in length and adjacent to the rear of property no. 23 Bedford Crescent, Dulwich Hill) on the southern side of Keith Lane, Dulwich Hill be APPROVED, in order to provide parking opportunities for local residents;

 

2.       the installation of full-time ‘No Parking’ restrictions on the northern side of Keith Lane, Dulwich Hill (from the rear of property no. 2 Keith Street to property no. 26 Keith Street, Dulwich Hill inclusive) be APPROVED, in order to provide unobstructed vehicular access to the off-street car parking spaces, deter illegal parking across vehicular crossings and increase safety; and

 

3.       the installation of full-time ‘No Parking’ restrictions on the southern side of Keith Lane, Dulwich Hill (from the rear of property no. 1 Bedford Crescent to property no. 21 Bedford Crescent, Dulwich Hill inclusive) be APPROVED, in order to provide unobstructed vehicular access to the off-street car parking spaces, deter illegal parking across vehicular crossings and increase safety.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the matter be deferred to a future Traffic Committee meeting to allow for further consultation with residents.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

 

 

T1016 Item 19    Proposed No Parking Restrictions near No.131 Smith Street, Summer Hill
(Ashfield/Summer Hill)

SUMMARY

 

A request has been received from a member of the Local Representative Advisory Committee (LRAC) on behalf of the Summer Hill Community Centre, No.131 Smith Street, Summer Hill, for an on-street parking space to be provided for buses transporting persons with a disability to and from the Centre.

 

The Centre has a small off-street parking area that is difficult for buses transporting persons

with a disability to access and does not provide safe access for persons with a disability

through the carpark when full.

 

An on-street parking space dedicated for buses transporting persons with a disability to and

from the Centre, and similarly to other adjacent community facilities (e.g. Summer Hill Park),

would provide convenient and appropriate access at all times from outside the Centre.

 

The zone would be limited to general day time hour operations of the Centre.

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The Committee members noted that the recommendations were supported by NSW Police prior to the meeting.

 

The Roads and Maritime representative expressed in principle support for the recommendation, however requests that Council and RMS review and amend the wording and design of the ‘No Parking’ sign.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.       a 'No Parking 8.30am-6.00pm Mon-Fri., 8.30am-12.30pm Sat., Buses with Disabled Persons Excepted.' zone be installed for 6-8metres to the east of the driveway to the Community Centre outside No.131 Smith Street, Summer Hill; and

2.       the existing 1P 8.30am-6.00pm Mon-Fri., 8.30am-12.30pm Sat parking signs be amended for the above No Parking proposal.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted subject to agreement of RMS to the wording of the proposed sign.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

 

T1016 Item 20    Proposed Extension of ‘No Parking’ Restrictions at Reilly Lane Road, Sydenham
(Marrickville Ward/Heffron)

SUMMARY

 

A request has been received from a resident of 60 George Street for the extension of the

existing ‘No Parking’ zone on Reilly Lane, Sydenham to improve access to his off-street

parking.

 

It is recommended that existing ‘No Parking’ zone in Reilly Lane be extended for a length of

six ( 6) metres on the western side of Reilly Lane, Sydenham opposite to rear of property

58-60 George Street, Sydenham).

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the extension of the existing ‘No Parking’ restriction, for a length of six (6) metres, on the western side of Reilly Lane, Sydenham (opposite to rear of properties 58-60 George Street, Sydenham) be APROVED, in order to access to a resident’s off street car parking space.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

T1016 Item 21    Northwood Lane, Camperdown - Trial Painted Island Road Marking - No Parking Restrictions in Laneway

SUMMARY

 

A request has been received from a resident of Roberts Street, Newtown to review the

provision of ‘No Parking’ restrictions on the eastern side of Northwood Lane to improve

vehicular access to their off-street parking space. The resident provided additional information to show the difficulty of accessing into their property due to obstruction from parked vehicles.

 

Council dealt with a similar request for the extension of existing ‘No Parking’ restrictions in

Northwood Lane at its meeting in September 2016. In that case Council resolved to extend the existing 'No Parking' restrictions on the eastern side of Camden Lane 18 metres southward from the rear of property No.13 Northwood Street to the rear of property No.17 Northwood Street.

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The RMS representative objected to the 6 month trial of a white painted square with cross hatching on Northwood Lane as it is not an approved treatment for ‘No Parking’ linemarking and is not an enforceable regulatory measure. The representative advised that ‘No Parking’ signs should be installed and its effectiveness reviewed before considering alternative treatments.

 

Council Officers stated that the trial of crossing hatching was proposed as an alternative to reduce signage whilst providing a visual deterrent to parking in narrow roads. It was agreed to amend the recommendation so as not to infer it could be legally enforced.

 

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.       the installation of a white painted square with cross hatching (2.5m by 2.5m) on the eastern side of Northwood Lane, directly south of the driveway of No. 35 Northwood Street, Newtown be approved as a six month trial basis in order to improve vehicular access to residents’ off-street parking; and

2.       the applicant, Council's Rangers and all affected residents be advised in terms of this report.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the installation of a white painted square with cross hatching (2.5m by 2.5m) on the eastern side of Northwood Lane, directly south of the driveway of No. 35 Northwood Street, Newtown be approved as a six month trial basis in order to improve vehicular access to residents’ off-street parking.

 

For motion: Majority

Against:  RMS

 

 

 

T1016 Item 22    Ann Street, Balmain - No Stopping Zone
(Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Council has received a request to reduce an existing 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone which extends

across the driveway of No.3 Ann Street, Balmain. This would reinstate the statutory ‘No

Parking’ restrictions across the driveway and allow for the resident to drop-off/pick-up from this location.

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the existing ‘No Stopping’ zone on the western side of Ann Street, north of Gladstone Street be reduced to 6m so that it begins south of the driveway of No.3 Ann Street.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

 

T1016 Item 23    Schultz Street, Balmain - No Stopping Zone
(Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Proposal regarding the installation of a ‘No Stopping’ zone to address resident concerns

regarding vehicles parking on the northern side of Shultz Street too close to its intersection

with Memory Lane.

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT a 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone be provided on the northern side of Schultz Street, west of Memory Lane, Balmain.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

 

 

T1016 Item 24    Requests for Statutory ‘No Stopping’ Restrictions to be Installed
(Ashfield, Stanmore & Marrickville Wards/Summer Hill & Newtown)

SUMMARY

 

Requests have been received from residents for the provision of ‘No Stopping’ zones to deter

illegal parking within 10m of the intersection. Residents have advised that vehicles are

regularly parked too close to the subject intersection, which restricts available sightlines to

pedestrian crossing at this location and for turning motorists to maneuvering around these

vehicles safely.

 

It is proposed to install ‘No Stopping’ restrictions to improve traffic safety at the intersections

listed within the report by preventing parked vehicles from either restricting available sightlines for turning motorists or restricting maneuvering around these parked vehicles.

 

It is recommended that statutory 'No Stopping' signs, be installed for a distance of minimum

10 metres from the listed intersections in order to deter illegal parking, increase safety and

improve visibility and access.

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.    the following locations:

a.   Western side of Australia Street, 10 metres south of its intersection with Parramatta Road, Camperdown;

b.   Eastern side of Wardell Road, 10 metres north of its intersection with Morgan Street, Petersham;

c.   Northern side of Ewart Street, 10 metres west of its intersection with Ewart Lane, Dulwich Hill;

d.   Eastern side of Terrace Road, 10 metres north of its from intersection with Hercules Street, Dulwich Hill;

e.   Northern and southern side of Camden Street, 10 metres east of its intersection with Edgeware Road, Enmore; and

f.    Western and eastern side of Herby Greedy Place, 10 metres south of its intersection with Warburton Street, Marrickville; and

g.   Northern and southern side of Hercules Street, 13 & 16 metres from intersection with Terrace Road, Dulwich Hill;

 

be APPROVED, for the installation of ‘No Stopping’ restrictions.

 

2.    affected residents are notified of the proposed changes prior to installation.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

T1016 Item 25    Request for ‘Works Zone’ adjacent to Construction Site
(Marrickville Ward)

SUMMARY

 

A request has been received from Metrocorp, an authorised Sydney Water contractor for the

provision of 'Works Zone' restrictions to facilitate construction deliveries and permit the parking of construction vehicles during loading and unloading activities in the Local Government area.

 

It is recommended that the 'Works Zone' space be approved for the construction work subject to Council fees and charges applying.

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.       the installation of a ‘Works Zone 7AM-6PM Mon-Fri and 8AM-1PM Sat’ (total of 16 metres in length) on the southern side of Premier Street adjacent to property 24 Premier  Street, Marrickville be APPROVED for a period of eight (8) months, for the proposed construction works; and

2.       the costs of the supply, installation and removal of the signs and ‘Works Zone’ fees in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges are to be borne by the applicants.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

 

T1016 Item 26    Petersham Parking Strategy Final Report

 

SUMMARY

 

The draft Petersham Parking Strategy has been finalised following a period of public

exhibition. The final report includes recommendations for resident parking in 15 streets and for angle parking in one location. A number of short term parking opportunities are also identified.

 

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT Council endorses the recommendations of the Petersham Parking Strategy.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

 

PART B – ITEMS FOR INFORMATION ONLY

 

 

T1016 Item 27    Status Report - 10P Restrictions at Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield
(Leichhardt/Balmain/Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

This is a status report on the introduction of part-time ‘10P’ parking restrictions installed in

sections of Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield in March 2016.

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

LATE ITEM:

 

T1016 Item 28    Union Street, Tempe - Proposed Traffic Calming Revised Design Plans
(Marrickville Ward/Heffron)

SUMMARY

 

A presentation by a resident of Union Street, Tempe was made to Council at its meeting on 27 September 2016. A number of concerns and issues were raised as part of the presentation with regards to the traffic calming proposal in Union Street. It was resolved to refer the item back to the October Local Traffic Committee meeting in order to address the resident’s concerns.

 

 

Traffic Committee Discussion

 

Public speaker: Elise Hawthorne

 

Ms Hawthorne, resident of Union Street, stated that Council Officers and the representative for the Member for Heffron met with residents and resolved most of their concerns with the proposed design. She further raised the following concerns for Council’s consideration:

 

·    The proposed footpath kerb extension in Unwins Bridge Road could lead to vehicles overcompensating when turning  left from Union Street and potentially colliding with traffic travelling in the opposite direction on Unwins Bridge Road.

 

·    Union Street  currently allows space for left and right turning vehicles to concurrently queue up at the intersection to Unwins Bridge Road. The proposed kerb blister islands on Union Street only allows space for one car to queue to turn into Unwins Bridge Road which could increase congestion in  the street.

 

·    The existing fence on Unwins Bridge Road means that vehicles keep to the left of road to turn right into Unwins Bridge Road.  This is so that they can improve sight lines.

 

·    There is a ramp in front of 60 and 62 Union Street which takes away two potential parking spaces. If  the ‘No Parking’ signs on Union Street is moved from its current position to 10m from the corner of Union Street and the ramp was not there, two car spaces would be created to replace the two spaces lost from the redesign of the pedestrian crossing.

 

Committee comments

 

·    Low level planting proposed to replace section of existing pedestrian fence to improve sight distance along Unwins Bridge Road. Council Officers confirmed that a fence could be reinstalled should the proposed treatment prove unsuccessful in preventing pedestrians crossing Unwins Bridge Road at this location.

 

·    Suggestion for ‘No Right Turn’ restriction at Unwins Bridge Road not supported due to existing low traffic volumes, nil accident history and impact on access.

 

·    Suggestion to reduce length of blister and ‘No Stopping’ zone in Union Street east of School Lane not supported due to importance of ensuring adequate sight distance to traffic and pedestrians.

 

·    It was noted that the revised design has reduced the length of blister in Union Street west of School Lane.

 

·    Council Officers stated that the philosophy of the intersection’s proposed design was to give pedestrians priority over cars and the current two lanes in Union Street presents a hazard to pedestrians that the proposed kerb blisters intends to mitigate. Committee members were advised that since traffic volume in Union Street has reduced, it is less likely that traffic will queue up to turn into Unwins Bridge Road. In addition, motorists intending to turn left into Unwins Bridge Road also have the opportunity to enter via Edwin Street if they find there is congestion in Union Street.

 

·    RMS requested confirmation that the warrant for a continuous path across the intersection was met (i.e. max 45vph)

 

·    Ability to remove/reduce existing ‘No Parking’ zone near church requires further investigation.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the detailed design plan for a raised pedestrian crossing, a raised threshold and an at-grade threshold (including kerb blisters) and associated signs and line markings in Union Street, Tempe (as per the attached design plan No. 5912 ‘Amendment A’) be APPROVED.

 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

THAT the matter be deferred pending completion of investigation of outstanding issues.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

Future meetings

The next meeting of the Local Traffic Committee is scheduled for Thursday, 3 November 2016 to be held at Leichhardt Service Centre.

 

Meeting closed at  11.25 am.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

Item No:         C1016 Item 5

Subject:         WestConnex Stage 1 (M4 East) draft Urban Design & Landscape Plan 

File Ref:         1517-01/117873.16        

Prepared By: Kendall Banfield - Team Leader Planning Services, Marrickville 

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

A draft Urban Design and Landscape Plan for the WestConnex M4 East project was publicly exhibited from Monday 19 September 2016 to Monday 17 October 2016.  Council’s submission, lodged with the M4 East project team on 17 October 2016, is attached to this report for Council’s consideration.  Should Council raise any comments additional to those in the submission, it recommended they be forwarded to the M4 East project team as a late addendum to the submission. 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

 

1.       Receives and notes this report; and

 

2.       Forwards to the WestConnex M4 East project team any comments additional to those made in the Council submission (in two parts at ATTACHMENTS 1 & 2) as a late addendum to the submission.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

WestConnex proponent Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) has placed the draft Stage 1 (M4 East) Urban Design and Landscape Plan (UDLP) on public exhibition from Monday 19 September 2016 to Monday 17 October 2016.  This document outlines the proposed visual identity for WestConnex Stage 1 and includes information on the urban design and landscape plans for tunnel structures, interchanges, lighting and landscaping along the route.

 

The draft UDLP has been available electronically on the WestConnex website and in print form at the M4 East Community Information Centre at Burwood, the Inner West Council customer service centre at Ashfield, the City of Canada Bay Council customer information centre at Drummoyne, the Strathfield Council customer service centre at Strathfield and the Burwood Council customer service centre at Burwood.  All community members who provide feedback on the UDLP will be notified of future revisions if contact details are provided.  Further information has been available from the M4 East team on the toll free number 1800 660 248 or by e-mail to info@M4East.com.au

 

Relevant Council staff drafted a submission and lodged it before the 17 October 2016 deadline.  The submission (in two parts at ATTACHMENTS 1 & 2) is presented to Council for information - and to provide an opportunity for any additional comments that may be raised by Council to be submitted as a late addendum to this submission. 

 


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil. 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Relevant staff were involved in the drafting of this report and the submission attached to this report.  Key relevant staff included Council’s Strategic Project Planner & Projects, Heritage Advisor, and Head of WestConnex Project. 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.  This report responds to public consultation undertaken by the WestConnex proponent.  Council is an external stakeholder and there is no need or requirement for Council to undertake consultation additional to that undertaken by the proponent.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Council's submission on WestConnex M4 East draft Urban Design & Landscape Plan

2.

Heritage Advisor comments for Council's submission on WestConnex M4East draft Urban Design & Landscape Plan

  


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 









Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 



Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

Item No:         C1016 Item 6

Subject:         Minutes of LRAC Briefing held 11 October 2016  

File Ref:         16/4718/117876.16         

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

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

To present the Minutes of the LRAC Briefing held on 11 October 2016.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the Minutes of the LRAC Briefing held on 11 October 2016 be noted.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

An LRAC Briefing was held on 11 October 2016. The minutes of the Briefing are shown as Attachment 1.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

 

CONCLUSION

Nil.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Minutes of Joint LRAC held on 11 October 2016

  


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 



Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

Item No:         C1016 Item 7

Subject:         Fenwick Building, Weston Street, Balmain – Assessment Criteria for Selection of Lessee 

File Ref:         16/4718/115095.16        

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

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

Development consent has been granted for works to the heritage Fenwick Building and use as a café with trading hours limited to a maximum of 7am to 5pm.   Expressions of interest are to be invited from potential operators.  This report sets out the recommended Assessment Criteria with the most important being the ability to run a successful café.  Other criteria are for other social and community benefits, such as employment of persons with a disability, and the rent offered. 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1.   That the information to be included in the invitation for expressions of interest from potential lessees include that the applicant need not seek to lease all the building nor seat the maximum permitted by the development consent.

 

2.   That Council approves the Assessment Criteria for expressions of interest for the lease being:

 

(a)     Ability to operate a successful café business in these premises.

·    Experience

·    Qualifications

·    Financial history and position

·    Business Plan

·    Sample menu and indicative pricing.

·    Staffing and supervision and training of staff

 

(b)     Proposals for allowing the public to appreciate the heritage building and other social benefits for the whole municipality.

·    Proposals for the gallery space (beyond the minimum requirements in the lease.)

·    Proposals for community members to visit the heritage building (beyond normal patronage of the café.)

·    Proposals for the provision of promotional and information material on Balmain, its attractions and heritage, and public transport options.

·    Sample menu and indicative pricing.

·    Proposals or possibilities for addressing local training and employment needs, including opportunities for socially vulnerable groups.  This could include opportunities which are based on a social enterprise model, and/or employment opportunities for young people, immigrants, refugees or individuals who may have development, access or impairment difficulties.

 

(c)     Rent offered.

 

(d)     Compliance and Practices

·    Insurance

·    WHS systems

·    Industrial relations

·    Environmental practices and initiatives

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

On 23 February 2010, Leichhardt Council adopted a Leasing Policy for Council properties.  Council’s adopted Leasing Policy sets out Objectives:-

 

1.         Leases must be in the public interest.   

 

2.         The main objectives of leases of Council land are:

 

·    to ensure the provision of quality, affordable and reliable services for the public; and

 

·    to generate rental income which will contribute to the ongoing improvement and maintenance of public parks and other assets.

 

Both objectives are important but the weighting between them will vary depending on the location of the premises, the purpose of the lease, whether it is a commercial lease and other factors. 

 

At its Ordinary Meeting on 23 April 2013, Leichhardt Council considered a report by its Senior Recreation Planner, currently Acting Group Manager Community and Cultural Services Leichhardt, and resolved (C131/13) relevantly to this report: 

 

“That

1.   In response to the outcomes of community consultation Council confirm the adaptive reuse option for a commercial lease (based on commercial rent) of a licensed cafe/refreshment facility with gallery space at 2-8 Weston Street Balmain and Council proceed with an expression of interest process for such use in due course.

4.    The expression of interest process is include a condition that all applicants are to submit an independent and fully audited business plan for the proposed licensed cafe/refreshment facility with gallery space and that applications must also address local training and employment needs including opportunities for disadvantaged groups

5.   The proposed business plan should make provision for:

a)    private and managed functions within the Fenwick Stone building including weddings, community and corporate events. (Note the curtilage of the stone building and the parkland of 2-8 Weston Street will remain freely accessible for public use during such events however the curtilage is to be available for outdoor seating and dining).

b)    promotional and information material on Balmain, its attractions, and heritage.

c)    promotional and information material relating to public transport services as a means for visitors to access the East Balmain Foreshore.

6.    The outcomes of the Expression of Interest Process are reported back to Council as soon as practicable and that such outcomes include recommendations pertaining to the length of any proposed lease agreement and proposed fit out of the kitchen area and any future associated developments.

At its Policy Council Meeting on 14 April 2015, Leichhardt Council resolved (C123/15P) relevantly to this report:-

 

3.    That tenders for the construction of the fit out works be called after the Development Application has been assessed and approved.

 

4.    That the seating in the café be restricted to a maximum of 80 persons.

 

7.    That Council refers the development application for Fenwick’s Store to the IHAP for its consideration.

 

8.    That Council determines the development application for Fenwick’s Store based on the IHAP recommendation.

 

9.    That the trading hours of the café be 7am to 7pm.

 

10.     That within the EOI process consideration be given to Council retaining care, control and management of the gallery space.

 

At the Council meeting on 27 September 2016, the Administrator determined the Development Application by granting consent in line with the IHAP recommendation except that trading hours for the café were limited to 5pm all year.

 

Following the Council meeting, the Administrator and Council officers met with a former Councillor and local resident who expressed concerns including to the effect that the lessee may be obliged to trade the maximum hours permitted by the DA consent and suggested that potential lessees may not need to lease all the building or have the maximum number of seats permitted by the DA consent but could trade successfully with less.  It was confirmed that the list of information to be provided by potential lessees, now Attachment 1, required information on proposed hours and numbers of seats that could be less than the maximum.  However, recommendation 1 has now been included to ensure this.     

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The acquisition of 2-8 Weston Street as a public park (instead of new private apartment buildings) and initial restoration of the heritage Fenwick Building has cost approximately $15 million.  This was paid by all the former Leichhardt Council ratepayers.  Due to the cost and the location on the harbour, the site is important for the entire municipality to visit and appreciate.  

 

Rent will be received from a lessee.  The amount of rent is not the only or main criterion on which expressions of interest or tenders will be assessed.  This rent may be applied to on-going maintenance of the heritage building.  The rent will not recoup the restoration of the state listed heritage building which is to be further restored and used as a way of making it publicly accessible. 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

The objectives and aims of the DA and lease of the Fenwick Building include:

 

·    completion of the restoration and adaptive re-use of the heritage building;

 

·    maintenance and preservation of the restored heritage building;

 

·    allowing the restored and adaptively re-used heritage building to be visited and appreciated by residents and ratepayers of the whole municipality and other members of the public;

 

·    activating the public open space; and

 

·    having a gallery space.

 

Some of Council’s objectives and aims will be reflected in the lease with which the successful lessee must comply and some of Council’s aims are reflected in the information sought from interested potential lessees and the assessment criteria.

 

Legislative Requirements

 

The lease is covered by the Retail Leases Act, 1994With a few minor exceptions which are not relevant here, the Retail Leases Act 1994 provides that the lease must be for at least 5 years.  As the lessee will be required to fitout the kitchen which will be a substantial expense in addition to other fittings and furniture, a longer term or an option to renew may be indicated so that the lessee may be sure of being able to trade long enough to recoup the capital costs.  Alternatives are a rent-free period and/or lower rent throughout a 5 year term. This site is classified as “community land” under the Local Government Act, 1993

 

If the lease term or the initial lease term plus option period/s exceeds 5 years and the lease is not to a not-for-profit organisation, the selection of the lessee must be by tender.  Public notice must be given of the intention to grant the lease.  If there are any submissions objecting to the lease, the Minister’s consent is required to grant the lease.

 

If the lease term is 5 years or less, tender is not required and the lessee may be selected by an expression of interest process.  The proposal must be notified and Council must consider any submissions received.   

 

The initial documents and processes are similar for expression of interest or tender.  Whilst there is some concern that a 5 year term may not be long enough, an expression of interest process is less formal than tender, allows Council to negotiate (for example on the premises, chairs and hours), and may elicit concerns or other proposals by potential operators (eg part only of the building) which can then be considered. 

 

Expressions of Interest to select Lessee / Café Operator

 

The invitation to lodge expressions of interest will include:

 

·      information for potential lessees;

·      conditions of the process;

·      a list of the information to be provided by potential lessees (Attachment 1);

·      assessment criteria to evaluate and rank expressions of interest; and

·      the proposed contract, in this case, the draft Agreement for Lease annexing the Lease.

 

Gallery Space

 

Council officers from a number of sections discussed the appropriate way to include the gallery space and how it would best be run, noting the 2015 resolution to consider Council retaining control.  There are a number of considerations.

 

·    The downstairs and upstairs spaces are connected and share the same entries, kitchen (to be installed by the lessee) and toilets, so there would be operational, security, liability and insurance issues with having two different managers.

 

·    Council does not presently have the staff and other resources to run a gallery, source the works, curate the exhibitions for example hanging and display, advertise, organise viewings, supervise visits by patrons and other tasks to control the space.

 

·    The parking and traffic impact assessment did not support functions in the building (due to people arriving and leaving at the same time compared to a café where arrivals and departures are staggered. Further, the acoustic adviser said that functions with people leaving in large groups are more of a noise problem than later trading hours for a cafe.)  This limits how the gallery space could be used separately from the café and means it is not feasible for Council to retain care control and management and to run it as a separate facility from the cafe.

 

·    Council needs to offer commercially viable premises and commercially viable conditions to the proposed lessee.  If the café operator leases the upstairs, it will need to be sure that seating is available upstairs when required during busy periods, especially as there is only daytime trading with the business including gallery space to cease at 5pm at the latest.  The café operator will need to be able to take bookings for the upstairs space without the risk of these being cancelled for a council function or council organised function. 

 

Officers recommend the inclusion of provisions in the lease for use of the gallery space.

 

Lease Terms

 

Council and the selected operator will first enter into a conditional Agreement for Lease.  This is for the period of and covers the fitout of the kitchen by the lessee (if possible working in with Council’s builders) and the rest of the café premises.  It will require the lessee to lodge a DA and will be conditional on Development Consent for the fitout being granted.  There will be restrictions due to heritage, time limits, and other requirements to cover the development consent and construction of the fit out. 

 

The Agreement annexes the form of Lease and states how the starting date will be decided, usually on completion of fit out and issue of an Occupation Certificate.   It is recommended that the lease include the following principal terms:-

 

·      A term of 5 years;

 

·      The upper level of the building (the gallery space) is to showcase art works preferably by local artists.  The works may be for exhibition only or for sale.  The lessee will be required to changeover the works at least 3 times a year, with new works and not rehanging works previously exhibited there;

 

It is not unusual for cafes to exhibit local art on the walls, and make it available for sale.   It adds an extra dimension to the café and attracts patrons who are interested in the art works.  It is important that the art work be changed so it is more a gallery than decoration.  At least 3 times a year is considered reasonable for the lessee and sufficient to achieve the objectives of a gallery space.  The lessee may change exhibitions more often.

 

·      As well as the lease of the building, there will be the licence to put chairs and tables on the agreed area outside.  The area will be limited, the furniture must be stored inside every evening, and members of the public are still entitled to walk through the area;

 

·      As is usual, the lease will restrict use of the premises.  In this case, the use will be restricted to a licensed café with gallery space with maximum seats (not more than 80) and hours of operation (not more than 7am-5pm) as set out in the DA consent, subject to any fewer chair numbers negotiated during the expression of interest process;

 

·      Rent will be increased annually in line with CPI, unless the lessee in its expression of interest offers a more favourable method of reviewing the rent;

 

·      The café toilets may be used by ferry travellers, park visitors and others;

 

·      The lessee must serve all members of the public without discrimination; (except they can refuse service to anyone who is drunk or abusive or disruptive.) 

 

·      Council does not warrant the suitability of the building for the lessee’s business nor as to the income that could be earned.  This and the following points are standard and are set out in Leichhardt Council’s adopted Leasing Policy; 

 

·      The lessee occupies at its own risk, releases Council and indemnifies Council against all claims (except as caused by Council’s wrongful act or negligence) and must maintain public liability insurance;

 

·      The lessee will be required to provide security preferably by bank guarantee but otherwise by security bond equal to 3 months’ rent plus GST;

 

·      If the lessee is a company, its directors will be required personally to guarantee the lessee’s performance under the lease; and

 

·      The lessee cannot assign the lease without consent, subject to the Retail Leases Act, 1994 which limits the grounds on which consent may be refused by Council.

 

Information to be provided by potential lessees

 

The draft list of information to be provided by interested parties is in Attachment 1.

 

It includes the usual matters of legal identify, qualifications and training, financial history and current position, insurance, workplace questionnaire and environmental questionnaire.  More relevantly for this report, the information to be provided includes:

 

·      the previous relevant experience of the potential lessee and, if a partnership, of each partner and, if a company, of each director;

 

·    a Business Plan to include fitout costs, number of seats (not more than permitted by DA consent), anticipated occupancy and turnover of tables at different times, proposed or a sample or indicative menu and prices, expected average spend at different times, staffing, rent and anticipated profit;

 

       Despite the April 2013 resolution, the Business Plan is not required to include provision for private and managed functions within the Fenwick Stone building including weddings, community and corporate events.  This is because the traffic and parking impact assessment did not support weddings and similar functions; with a wedding or function, attendees tend to arrive and leave at about the same time, compared to the staggered arrivals and departures with a café.  [Further, the acoustic adviser said that functions with people leaving in large groups are more of a noise problem than later trading hours.]   Because it was not supported on parking and traffic grounds, functions were omitted from the Development Application.  Other matters mentioned in the April 2013 Resolution have been listed separately from the requirement for a Business Plan.

 

·      an outline of how the interested party proposes to comply with the requirements in the lease for the gallery space and any additional proposals for showcasing local art;

 

·      any proposals for allowing visitors to the heritage building beyond patronage of the café;

 

·      any proposals or possibilities for addressing local training and employment needs including opportunities for socially vulnerable groups, for example those with a disability.  This could include opportunities for a submission which is based on a social enterprise ethos focussing on inclusion and job creation; and/or job opportunities for refugees and immigrants or individuals who may have development, access or impairment difficulties; and

 

·      any proposals for the provision at the café of promotional and information material on Balmain, its attractions and heritage and public transport.

 

Assessment Criteria and Rationale

 

Council’s aims are to maintain and preserve the heritage building and allow it to be visited and appreciated by the residents and ratepayers of the municipality and other members of the public.  Those aims will be set out in the information to potential lessees but may not be set out that way in the assessment criteria.

 

The best way for the building to be maintained is for the café to thrive.  This is not only because the rent will be used for the on-going maintenance of the building.  It is because a thriving café will attract visitors to the heritage building.

 

It is often reported that more than half new businesses fail.  It would not be good if this building were leased to an operator who fitted out the kitchen and café, then failed and left the café closed and the building vacant.  Council would then have to seek a new lessee willing to take over the fitout done by the first or willing to replace it, which may be a more difficult task if there has already been a failure at the site away from other cafes and restaurants, and if goodwill has gone.  A closed café would not be an attraction for the park.

 

Therefore, whilst ensuring Council’s other objectives and aims for the site are met as far as possible, the main assessment criteria should be that the lessee has the ability to run a successful café (licensed or not) in this building.  

 

There are 4 recommended Assessment Criteria.  They must be read in conjunction with the lease to be offered and the information to be provided by potential operators (Attachment 1).  The recommended Assessment Criteria are:

 

1.         Ability to operate a successful café business in these premises;

 

·   Experience

·   Qualifications

·   Financial history and position

·   Business Plan

·   Staffing and supervision and training of staff

 

2.         Proposals for allowing the public to appreciate the heritage building and other social benefits for the whole municipality;

 

·   Proposals for the gallery space (beyond the minimum requirements in the lease).

·   Proposals for community members to visit the heritage building (beyond normal patronage of the café.)

·   Proposals for the provision of promotional and information material on Balmain, its attractions and heritage and public transport options.

·   Sample menu and indicative pricing.

·   Proposals or possibilities for addressing local training and employment needs, including opportunities for socially vulnerable groups. This could include opportunities which are based on a social enterprise model, and/or employment opportunities for young people, immigrants, refugees or individuals who may have development, access or impairment difficulties.

 

3.         Rent offered; and

 

4.         Compliance and Practices.

 

·    Insurance

·    WHS systems

·    Industrial relations

·    Environmental practices and initiatives.

 

They will not be weighted equally.  Although rent is important as it will be used to maintain the heritage building, it is not the main criterion.  The ability to operate a successful café is the main criterion.  Other social benefits are also important.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The development application was exhibited in the usual way prior to determination.  Public notification must be given of Council’s proposals to grant a 5 year lease and any submissions must be considered by Council prior to granting the lease.

 

CONCLUSION

Development consent has been granted.  It is proposed to invite expressions of interest from potential lessees.  Commencing this with the invitation for tenders for the construction work will improve the opportunities for the lessee to work its fitout in with Council’s work.  It will also elicit any other proposals or concerns of potential lessees which could then be addressed. Proposed Assessment Criteria are set out in the report for council’s approval.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Information to be provided by potential lessees

  


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 



Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

Item No:         C1016 Item 8

Subject:         Establishment of Alcohol Free Zones - Ashfield LGA 

File Ref:         16/4718/118239.16         

Prepared By: Lynne Greenwood - Leasing Officer, Ashfield 

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

Establishment of Alcohol Free Zones at various public locations in Ashfield LGA following requests received from Ashfield Police Local Area Command and the completion of the public consultation.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1.   That Council adopt the establishment of Alcohol-Free Zones for a 4 year period operating 24 hours 7 days per week at the following locations:-

 

·    Chessell Lane, Ashfield;         

·    Fox’s Lane, Ashfield;

·    Hercules Street, Ashfield;

·    Summer Hill Car Park;

·    Summer Hill Fountain;

·    The Esplanade, Ashfield;

·    Directly outside the Exodus Foundation on Liverpool Road, Ashfield; and

·    Directly outside the Catholic Club on Station Street, Ashfield (including from the intersection of Elizabeth and Charlotte Streets)

 

2.   That Council adopt the establishment of Alcohol Prohibited Areas  for a 4 year period operating from 9pm to 7am 7 days per week at the following locations:-

 

·    Bill Peters Reserve;                

·    Darrell Jackson Park;             

·    Allman Park;                           

·    Ashfield Park;                         

·    Centenary Park;                                 

·    Hammond Park;                                 

·    Pratten Park; and                           

·    Yeo Park.        

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Council has received a request from Ashfield Police to re-establish an Alcohol Free Zone (AFZ) and Alcohol Prohibited Areas (APA) on various streets and parks in Ashfield and Summer Hill in order to address anti-social behaviour by individuals and groups of people drinking in these public places. 

 

Alcohol-Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas are required by the NSW Police to assist in the management of irresponsible alcohol consumption and public safety. The Ashfield Local Area Command has identified several locations (itemised below) to be established as Alcohol-Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas within the former Ashfield Local Government Area.  Refer to below and to attached maps.

 

1.  Reasons to Support Alcohol Free Zones

 

The irresponsible consumption of alcohol has given rise to harassment and other anti-social behaviour, thereby compromising the safety of residents and members of the public.  Council has been collaborating with Ashfield Police Local Area Command to re-establish the AFZ and APA.  Ashfield Police advised that numerous instances of irresponsible drinking were observed at these locations and that Police are continually called upon to intervene in cases of people drinking.  An AFZ and an APA allows police to stop, speak to and move on people who are acting and drinking irresponsibly which may prevent the commission of more serious offences.

 

2.  Duration of the AFA and APA

 

The Guidelines allow Council to establish an AFZ and APA for a maximum duration of up to four (4) years.  The AFZ for streets applies for twenty-four (24 hours) per day and the APA for parks states specific times, following which a further review will be required.

 

3.  Council Consultation with Interested Parties

 

After preparing a proposal to establish an AFZ, Council is required to undertake a public consultation process.  The process under the Act involves all of the following:

 

a)   Publication of a notice of the proposal in a newspaper circulating in the area of the proposed AFZ and APA, allow inspection of the proposal and inviting representations or objections within 30 days from the date of publication.

 

b)   Sending a copy of the proposal to:

i)          The Local Area Commander and the officer in charge of the police station within or nearest to the proposed zones;

ii)         Liquor licensees and secretaries of registered clubs whose premises border on, or adjoin or adjacent to, the proposed zone;

 

and invite representations or objections within 30 days from the date of sending    the copy of the proposal; and

 

c)   Sending a copy of the proposal to any known organisations representations or able to speak on behalf of an identifiable Aboriginal or culturally and linguistically diverse group within the local area and inviting representation or objections within 30 days from the date of sending the copy of the proposal.

 

Council is required to give proper consideration to any representations, submissions or objections received and as a result may amend or withdraw a proposal to establish an AFZ or APA.  However, any amendment that extends the location of the proposal AFZ must be supported with reasons.

 

After complying with the procedures a Council may, by resolution, adopt a proposal to re-establish an AFZ.  The resolution itself will establish the AFZ or APA.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

 

Public consultation was undertaken by Council in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, State Government Guidelines for Alcohol-Free Zones (February 2009) and C10-33 Local Government Amendment (Confiscation of Alcohol) Act 2010 for Alcohol Prohibited Areas, for a period of 30 days from the date of publication – from 23 August 2016 to 23 September 2016.

 

EXHIBITED PROPOSAL

 

Proposed Alcohol-Free Zones (4 years duration 24 hours 7 days per week)

 

·    Chessell Lane, Ashfield;        

·    Fox’s Lane, Ashfield;

·    Hercules Street, Ashfield;

·    Summer Hill Car Park;

·    Summer Hill Fountain;

·    The Esplanade, Ashfield;

·    Directly outside the Exodus Foundation on Liverpool Road, Ashfield; and

·    Directly outside the Catholic Club on Station Street, Ashfield (including from the intersection of Elizabeth and Charlotte Streets).

 

Proposed Alcohol Prohibited Areas (4 years duration)

 

·    Bill Peters Reserve                 24 hours 7 days per week;

·    Darrell Jackson Park              24 hours 7 days per week;

·    Allman Park                            6pm to 6am;

·    Ashfield Park                          6pm to 6am;

·    Centenary Park                      6pm to 6am;

·    Hammond Park                      6pm to 6am;

·    Pratten Park                            6pm to 6am; and

·    Yeo Park                                 6pm to 6am.

 

LEGISLATION

 

An AFZ and an APA prohibits the consumption of alcohol in accordance with the provision of Part 4 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Alcohol Free Zones) and the Ministerial Guidelines on Alcohol Free Zones issued by the Department of Local Government (February 2009). The Local Government Amendment (Confiscation of Alcohol) Act 2010 in conjunction with the Department of Local Government Circular (15 December 2010) Alcohol Prohibited Areas – Amendments to the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Should Council wish to consider the establishment of AFZ and APA, Sections 644 and 644A of the Local Government Act requires that a proposal, addressing the location, need and duration of the zone(s) must be prepared for use in public consultation.  Council must then consider all representations and submissions duly made to and before proceeding with establishment of the zone.

 

SUBMISSIONS

 

Council received a total of 9 submissions – 3 submissions supported the proposed restrictions and 6 were against. The general theme of the objections centred round the hours for restriction of parks seeking later times to the exhibited proposal for Alcohol Prohibited Areas.           

 

Subsequent advice from Director Public Works and Group Manager Community Programs & Services recommended amending the hours of restriction to 9pm to 7am to be consistent with current Plans of Management. Ashfield Police Local Area Command has been advised of the amended hours of restriction.  Council will liaise with the Police should there be a need to review the restricted hours in the future.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

All AFZ and APA’s are required to be signposted in accordance with the provisions of the Guidelines and Council will incur the costs associated with each zone.  The costs for the required signage can be met from Council’s Operating Budget.

 

STAFF CONSULTATION

 

Council staff were consulted and support the amended hours of restriction for parks.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The establishment of the AFZ and APA will assist the Police to control the anti-social behaviour at these locations and will not interfere with any community promotions, as the Guidelines allow for Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas to be temporarily suspended at any time by Council resolution if needed.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

NSW Police Report -Establishment of Alcohol Free Zones

2.

Alcohol Free Zones 2016

3.

Alcohol Prohibited  Area - Parks

  


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

NSWPF_A_EXT_BLUE_RGB

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, 27 September 2016

 

 

 

 

Establishment of Alcohol-Free Zones

 

 

To whom it may concern,

 

In accordance with the Ministerial Guidelines on Alcohol-Free Zones 2009 and the Local Government Act 1993, Ashfield Local Area Command considers the establishment of Alcohol-Free Zones and their enforcement as an important tool in the management of irresponsible alcohol consumption and public safety.

 

Ashfield Local Area Command has conducted a review of Alcohol-Free Zones and has given consideration to the locations of a number of Alcohol-Free Zones. This process has resulted in the following Alcohol-Free Zones being listed as significant in terms of assisting police to manage public safety.

 

1.   Darrell Jackson Gardens, Summer Hill.

2.   Summer Hill Car park

3.   Ashfield Mall Forecourt, Ashfield.

4.   Civic Centre Forecourt, Ashfield.

5.   The Esplanade, Ashfield.

6.   Chessell Lane, Ashfield.

7.   Fox’s Lane, Ashfield.

8.   Markham Place/Lane, Ashfield.

9.   Pratten Park, Ashfield.

10. Bill Peters Reserve, between The Avenue and Heighway Ave, Ashfield.

11. Hammond Park, Frederick St and Henry St, Ashfield.

12. Centenary Park, usually near play equipment nearest to Church St, Croydon.

13. Yeo Park and Gough Reserve, Old Canterbury Road / Victoria St, Ashfield.

14. The Ashfield Park.

15. Liverpool Road (Southern boundary) between Queen St and Miller St, Ashfield.

16. Liverpool Road (Northern boundary) between Cavill Ave and Brown St, Ashfield.

 

Included with this submission is the ‘Application for Alcohol-Free Zone’ as well as data detailing the number of police interactions that have occurred at the above mentioned zones. These interactions include the following crime categories: person searches; move along directions, assault, robbery, street offences, intoxicated persons and malicious damage.

 

            LOCATION                                POLICE INTERACTIONS ALCOHOL RELATED              

Darrell Jackson Gardens

1995 to date – 563

Summer Hill Car park

1990 to date – 6

Ashfield Mall Forecourt

1999 to date – 116

Civic Centre Forecourt

1991 to date – 11

The Esplanade, Ashfield

1994 to date – 224

Chessell Lane, Ashfield

1993 to date – 0

Fox’s Lane, Ashfield

1998 to date – 49

Markham Place/Lane, Ashfield

1990 to date – 3

Bill Peters Reserve

1992 to date – 237

Hammond Park

1996 to date – 30

Centenary Park

2004 to date – 3

Yeo Park and Gough Reserve

1989 to date – 74

Ashfield Park

1988 to date – 158

 

It should also be noted that within the Ashfield and Summer Hill CBD are located a number of on-licensed premises, these being the Ashfield Hotel, Crocodile Farm Hotel, Club Polksi (Polish Club), Ashfield Catholic and Community Club, West’s Ashfield Leagues Club, Pratten Park Bowling Club, Ashfield Bowling Club and Ashfield RSL.

 

Furthermore, three (3) off-license premises are also located within the Summer Hill CBD and three (3) off-license premises located within the Ashfield CBD.

 

After careful deliberations with General Duties Officers, Ashfield Intelligence and the Crime Management Unit, our decision with the Alcohol-Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas remains the same:

 

Alcohol-Free Zones (4 years duration 24 hours 7 days per week)

Chessell Lane, Ashfield

Fox’s Lane, Ashfield

Hercules Street, Ashfield

Summer Hill Car Park

Summer Hill Fountain

The Esplanade, Ashfield

Directly outside the Exodus Foundation on Liverpool Road, Ashfield

Directly outside the Catholic Club on Station Street, Ashfield (including from the intersection of Elizabeth and Charlotte Streets)

 

Alcohol Prohibited Areas (4 years duration)

Bill Peters Reserve (24 hours 7 days per week)  

Darrell Jackson Park (24 hours 7 days per week)  

Allman Park 6pm to 6am

Ashfield Park 6pm to 6am

Centenary Park 6pm to 6am

Hammond Park 6pm to 6am

Pratten Park 6pm to 6am

Yeo Park 6pm to 6am

 

Ashfield Local Area Command would strongly support the establishment of the above mentioned Alcohol Free Zones for four (4) years. Alcohol-Free Zones and their enforcement are an important part of a multi-faceted strategy designed to combat alcohol related crime and its harmful affects upon the wider community.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Lisa Latu

Senior Constable

Ashfield Local Area Command

 


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 



Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

Item No:         C1016 Item 9

Subject:         Water Street Balmain – Part Road Closure - Classification  

File Ref:         16/4718/112841.16         

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

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

Council has applied to close as road part of Water Street Balmain, with two new lots to be created.  Proposed new lot 2 contains part of the Balmain Sailing Club, and road closure will allow more freedom to lease the land to the Club than exists under the Roads Act, 1993.  Proposed new lot 1 is now used as open space and this will continue.  Closed parts of roads are classified as operational land, but following submissions, it is recommended that the open space lot 1 be classified as community land, except for the travellator to the Club lot.   The procedure for the classification is set out in the Local Government Act, 1993 and requires the giving of Public Notice.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1.   That upon closure as road by gazettal, Public Notice be given under section 34 of the Local Government Act, 1993 of a proposed resolution to classify as community land that part of Water Street Birchgrove shown as Lot 1 in the stamped plan under approved development application D/2016/233, except for the part of the proposed lot 1 containing the travellator/inclinator to the proposed lot 2 which will remain as operational land.

 

2.   A further report be brought to Council on the submissions received following the giving of public notice of the proposed resolution to classify. 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

This report relates to that part of Water Street, Balmain between River Street and the waterfront.  Leichhardt Council resolved that an application be made for the formal closure of this part as road.  That means it ceases to be public road and becomes lots in a registered Deposited Plan with certificates of title issued in Council’s name.

 

This part of the Water Street is not constructed as vehicular carriageway; it is too steep for this to be an option.  There are steps constructed on the public road reserve giving public pedestrian access to one of the strata lots at 2 River Street, to the Balmain Sailing Club and to the harbour.  The site of this public pedestrian stairway will remain as public road to protect public rights of access.  There is also a rocky outcrop on the road reserve and this part will also remain as public road.  

 

The clubhouse of the Balmain Sailing Club is constructed partly on the road reserve and partly on land and water controlled by the Roads and Maritime Services.  The Club has a lease from RMS.  The Club is also holding over under a lease from Council under s.53 of the Roads Act.

 

Attachment 1 is the stamped Plan under the DA consent.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Classification

 

Under the Local Government Act, 1993, land under Council’s control (other than roads and crown land) must be classified as “community” or “operational” land.  Open space, parks and reserves are usually classified as community land.  Amongst other restrictions, community land cannot be sold and there are limits on how it can be used.  Under that Act, the default classification is community – if not classified one or the other by Council resolution within three months of acquisition, it is automatically classified as “community” land and can then only be reclassified to “operational” by a Local Environmental Plan.

 

However, under the Roads Act, 1993, closed roads are classified as “operational” for the purposes of the Local Government Act, 1993.  Presumably this is because most closed roads are to be sold to the adjacent owners.  Therefore, when the part of Water Street is closed as road and the titles are issued in Council’s name, both lots will be classified as operational land unless Council resolves otherwise.  This operational classification is desirable for the proposed lot 2 on which the Club is partly built.

 

The Local Government Act, 1993 allows land to be reclassified from “operational” to “community” by a Council resolution at any time.  However, for the reasons below, it is recommended that Council classify the proposed lot 1 as soon as it ceases to be road. Public notice must first be given and submissions invited and reported back to Council.

 

Submissions on Road Closure Application

 

To close a road requires two consents: 

 

1.       Development consent for the subdivision of the road reserve to create the new lot/s; and

 

2.       Consent from the Department of Primary Industries – Lands.  There is a procedure including, amongst other things, consultation and an obligation for Council to submit a signed report outlining objections and how they are to be resolved.

 

Nearby residents lodged objections to the development application for the subdivision.  They attended the Planning Panel where the DA was determined, as did the report writer.  Their concern was that the proposed lot 1 which is now used as open space may be sold by (a future) Council or redeveloped in unacceptable ways. 

 

At the Panel meeting, the report writer put forward the view that these were not submissions against the subdivision as such and not planning considerations for the DA, but was objections to the road closure application. 

 

The two step process was outlined and the report writer advised that the objections to the DA would be accepted as submissions on the proposed road closure and therefore would be included in the report to the Department of Primary Industries – Lands with advice on how it was proposed to resolve the objections.

 

The report writer also advised the Panel and the objectors who were present that an appropriate course would be to classify the proposed lot 1, the open space, as “community” land which would prevent its sale.  They were also advised that this would be brought to Council as soon as possible for a determination, so that the resolution for the classification could be included in the report to the Department of Primary Industries – Lands. 

 

Although on lot 1, it would be better if the strip of land containing the travellator / inclinator (see Attachment 1 Plan) remained operational so that a licence for use could be granted to the Club.

 

It is for the above reasons that this report is recommending that Council give the required Public Notice of its intention to resolve that the new lot 1 be classified as “community” land.  Submissions will be reported back to Council in the Report for the making of that resolution.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The recommendation is to give public notice of a proposed resolution and to invite submissions.

 

CONCLUSION

The part of Water Street Birchgrove proposed to be closed will give two new lots.  The proposed new lot 2 contains part of the Balmain Sailing Club and it is appropriate that it be classified as operational land.  The other lot, lot 1, is open space and it is appropriate that it be classified as “community” land except for the strip containing the travellator/inclinator.

 

It is recommended that the required Public Notice of the proposed classification of lot 1 as “community” land be given as soon as the road is closed.  This is in response to residents’’ concerns about the possible sale or redevelopment of lot 1.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Stamped DA Plan

  


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

Item No:         C1016 Item 10

Subject:         Open Space and Recreation draft interim s94 contributions plan 

File Ref:         16/4718/114337.16        

Prepared By: Gill Dawson - Manager Environment and Urban Planning, Leichhardt and Peter Gainsford - Director, Corporate Services 

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

The former Leichhardt Council, at its meetings of 26 April 2016 and 3 May 2016 (C194/16, C222/16E, C223/16E, C224/16E & C225/16E) resolved to exhibit a revised Works Schedule in relation to the Open Space and Recreation Developer Contributions Plan (2005). The proposed draft interim update to the Leichhardt Section 94 Contribution Plan 2005 is in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000, and was placed on public exhibition from 10 May 2016 to 28 June 2016, inclusive. Two submissions were received in relation to the draft s94 Plan. This report considers those submissions and makes recommendations to adopt the proposed Works Schedule with minor amendments.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.       Table 15: Acquisition and Embellishment Works Schedule 1 (Costings, Apportionment and Priority) included as Attachment 4 of this report be adopted to form the Open Space and Recreation Developer Contributions Plan Interim Update (2016).

2.       That a public notice be placed in a local newspaper in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 advising of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

 

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.

Contributions can only be levied by councils, which have adopted a contributions plan prepared in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

The former Leichhardt Council currently has three S94 Contributions Plans:

§  Open Space and Recreation Developer Contributions Plan (2005);

§  Community Facilities and Services Developer Contributions Plan (2005); and

§  Transport and Access Developer Contributions Plan (1999).

These plans are now more than 10 years old.  As a result, the former Leichhardt Council 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. However, with the proclamation on 12 May 2016 of council amalgamations this was temporarily placed on hold whilst the implications of the merger for the Inner West Council were assessed in relation to s94 planning. The Section 94 planning review will now be across the Inner West Council.

Whilst a comprehensive review was being undertaken, the former Leichhardt Council proposed an interim update to the works program within the Open Space and Recreation Developer Contributions Plan (2005), in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000.  The purpose of the Interim Update Plan (2016) being to:

§  Remove projects from the Works Schedule that have or will be completed by/within the 2015/2016 financial year (refer Attachment 1 – Completed Works).

§  Identify specific park improvement projects based on the Council resolutions C194/16, C222/16E, C223/16E, C224/16E & C225/16E (refer Attachment 2 – Proposed Works) .

§  Identify projects under Park’s Plans of Management for the 2016/2017 financial year (refer Attachment 3 – 2016/17 Budgeted Works).

§  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 proposed changes to the draft Work Schedule to the Open Space and Recreation Developer Contributions Plan (2005) do not affect the substance of the current Plan.  These works are generally considered an extension of the existing works program in the 2005 Plan.  The proposed draft Interim Update Plan (2016) revises the current Open Space and Recreation Developer Contributions Plan (2005) Works Schedule to align with Council’s Draft Budget and Delivery Program 2016/2017. The amendment comprises a new Table 15 to replace the existing 2005 Plan Works Schedule. Table 15 is included at Attachment 4.

The draft Interim Update Plan (2016) was placed on public exhibition 10 May 2016 to 28 June 2016, inclusive and two submissions were received. This report considers those submissions and makes recommendations to adopt the proposed Works Schedule with minor amendments.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The works program for S94 aligns with the former Leichhardt Council’s budget for 2016/17. Future budgets will consider the works program and funds held by Council for s94 purposes.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Following exhibition, the draft works schedule was amended to include a column for Priority Ranking. A ranking of 1-5 (similar to that included in the 2005 works schedule) provides an understanding of when the infrastructure works may be provided and is outlined below:

 

·    Priority of 1 means that funding is included in the 2016/17 budget or works/planning are due to commence in the 2016/17 period;

·    Ongoing roll out of projects, such as installation of shade sails, is reflected with a priority ranking of 1-5 or 2-5 (depending on timing);

·    Land acquisitions are generally ranked as Priority 5. However, if land becomes available then purchase will be acted upon and brought forward; and

·    Waterfront Drive has been given a priority of 1-3 in recognition that this requires the Office of Environment and Heritage to issue a license for the use of the land at Callan Park and that the State Government has not yet finalised a management strategy for the land.

It was also noted that whilst two projects, being works at: Lambert Park (totaling $128,600) and Marion Street Open Space ($500,000), were included in the Council resolutions (26 April & 3 May 2016) and the Detailed Description Table of Proposed Works, both of which were publicly exhibited, they were omitted from Table 15: Acquisition and Embellishment Works Schedule 1 (Costings, Apportionment and Priority).  This was an oversight.

 

Works at Lambert Park have been inserted (although the works themselves are different) in Table 15 Works Schedule and the Marion Street works have been omitted. Comments are provided in more detail later in this report.

 

The proposed works at LPAC are considered to  be regional and consequently in the 2005 plan the contributions were apportioned 45% to the developer and 55% to Council. The Council resolution of 26 April 2016 had a different apportionment. It is recommended that this be rectified in the Interim schedule such that the developer apportionment is 45% ($1,999,800) and the Council apportionment 55%. ($2,444,200).

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Two submissions were received in relation to the draft Works Schedule, one being from Friends of Callan Park and one from a member of the public. The matters raised are discussed below.

Submission

Officer Comment

Submission 1 – Friends of Callan Park

Concern that the upgrade of the playing fields would result in the erection of a security fence that would block sight lines.

A security fence is not part of any proposal.

 

Adverse impact on heritage (e.g., the Sydney Harbour War Memorial).

Heritage would be a key matter for consideration with any proposal for playing fields at Callan Park.

 

Exclusive use of oval or branding of grandstand.

Neither exclusive use of the playing fields or a grandstand are proposed.

Legitimacy of using s94 funds for upgrading existing open space and facilities.

In existing urban areas the acquisition of large tracts of new open space is not usually possible. It is established practice to utilise s94 funds to upgrade open space, such as playing fields, to allow greater use through the embellish of existing facilities. For example, this could include the installation of lights or improved drainage to extend the number of hours the field can be used, or it could include the installation of synthetic fields. The upgrading of playing fields at Callan Park would therefore satisfy the principles of the s94 Development Contributions framework as it would extend the numbers of hours that they could be used.

Parking and Traffic reports would be required for Callan Park and Broughton Hall prior to the consideration of multi uses of the foreshore.

Any proposal that would increase the use of Callan Park has the potential to increase traffic movements and therefore traffic and parking would require to be reviewed.

 

Submission 2 – Member of the public

Objects to the inclusion of the Waterfront ovals at Callan Park as Council does not own or control Callan Park and is unlikely that Council will control Callan Park or even this part of it in the near future.   This raises expectations that are unlikely to be met in the anticipated time frame for this amended s.94 Plan and divert money away from other projects that could be completed.

 

The proposed embellishment of Waterfront Drive (Callan Park) would be contingent on a licence from State Government. It has been assigned a priority ranking of 1-3 due to the uncertainty. Should a licence agreement be forthcoming then Council would be in a position to act immediately.

 

Notwithstanding, the comprehensive review of all the s94 plans will allow for this project to be considered in discussions with State Government and a firmer understanding of if the project can proceed will be known.

 

Acknowledges importance of Leichhardt Oval in the provision of a premier ground for playing of West Tigers Games, but considers the works, even though listed in a Parks Plan of Management, do not satisfy the nexus and reasonable tests as they are not related to increased demand from developments, but is for existing top level uses.

 

The upgrade of Leichhardt Oval is listed in the draft Works Schedule, with the apportionment of $695,250 from s94 funds and $849,750 from Council. This recognises the role that the Leichhardt Oval has for elite games and that it has a more regional role. It is considered that the inclusion of the works in the works program is appropriate.

 

Council may want to spend money on capital works at Lambert Oval which is leased under a 10+5 year lease, but s.94 funds should not be used as it doesn't satisfy the nexus and reasonable tests.

 

It is noted that APIA has a long term lease for Lambert Park and that the proposed works (electronic video screen and scoreboard, upgrade of western end secondary gates, greening Lambert Park and shade sails) are not included in the Lambert Park Plan of Management. It is also noted that the electronic video screen and scoreboard is already installed (2015).

 

It is recommended that the draft Works Schedule be amended to include $128,600 for upgrades to Lambert Park, with those works being in the adopted Park Plan of Management. They have been given a Priority Ranking of 3, meaning that the proposed works are not scheduled in the 2016/17 financial year. This matter can be further reviewed in more detail as part of the comprehensive review of s94 plans that is currently underway and consequently it is considered appropriate that the works remain in this Interim Works Schedule.

The Marion Street open space was omitted from the works schedule, though included in the detailed description of works. This open space meets nexus and reasonable tests for the Leichhardt area.

The omission from the Works Schedule is noted.

The Marion Street open space was part of the former Leichhardt Council Civic Precinct Master Plan. With the Inner West Council merger proclamation 12 May 2016 it is considered likely that this master plan will be revisited in the context of the new Inner West Council needs.

It is recommended that this not be included in this Interim Review Works Schedule.

Considers that arts and culture should be considered so as to improve the access to professional and semi-professional performances and similar matters.  For example, with the Marion Street open space, the annex to the Leichhardt main hall could be upgraded and other improvements made to increase its functionality for performances and other indoor recreation.

This interim review of the Open Space and Recreation Develop Contributions Plan did not intend to expand the range of facilities proposed. The review of community infrastructure and facilities as part of the comprehensive s94 contributions review will consider all these matters.

 

 

CONCLUSION

The proposed draft interim update to the Leichhardt Section 94 Contribution Plan 2005 was placed on public exhibition from 10 May 2016 to 28 June 2016, inclusive. Two submissions were received in relation to the draft s94 Plan. The matters raised in the submissions have been considered along with officer comments.  As a consequence the following amendments are proposed to Table 15 of the Leichhardt Section 94 Development Contribution Plan – Open Space and Recreation 2005 Interim Update (2016):

·    The omission of Marion Street Open Space – this to be included in the comprehensive s94 review;

·    The inclusion of Lambert Park works to the value of $128,600, with the works to be completed from those identified in the adopted Lambert Park Plan of Management; and

·    The apportionment for the proposed LPAC works be amended to 45% developer and 55% Council.

 

The issues raised regarding heritage and traffic and transport at Callan Park will be considered in any future planning for the Waterfront Drive. Further, as part of the comprehensive review of the s94 plans, infrastructure studies for open space, community facilities and transport and traffic may result in new/revised needs being identified. This work will inform the Works Schedule for the new comprehensive s94/s94A plans.

Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, after consideration of submissions, Council may approve the plan in the form it was exhibited, or may approve the plan with such alterations as the Council sees fit. The council must give public notice of its decision within 28 days after the decision is made.

Therefore it is recommended that Table 15: Acquisition and Embellishment Works Schedule 1 (Costings, Apportionment and Priority) being Attachment 4 to this report be adopted.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Attachment 1 – Completed Works

2.

Attachment 2 – Proposed Council Resolutions’ Works - Comments

3.

Attachment 3 – 2016/17 Budget - s94 Works

4.

Attachment 4 - Table 15 Acquisition and Embellishment Works Schedule 1 (Costings, Apportionment and Priority)

  


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 






Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 





Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

Item No:         C1016 Item 11

Subject:         Inner West Council Grant Program 2016/17  

File Ref:         16/4718/118174.16         

Prepared By: Sharon Mitchell - Community Engagement Officer, Leichhardt and Sue Pym - Social Planning Coordinator, Ashfield  

Authorised By: Simone Schwarz  - Director, Service Delivery  

 

SUMMARY

This report outlines the process and recommended grant allocations for the Inner West Council (IWC) Grants Program 2016/17.  A total of 86 applications were received requesting $507,777. Of these, 18 projects are recommended for funding from the IWC Ashfield budget of $55,000 and 29 Projects are recommended for funding from the IWC Leichhardt budget of $128,900.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council approve the funding recommendations for Inner West Council Grants Program 2016/17 contained in Attachment 2.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Following the Council amalgamation, the grant programs of the former Ashfield and Leichhardt Councils were combined to form the IWC Grants Program. Applications for the former Marrickville Council Grants Programs opened prior to the May 2016 amalgamation and were therefore not part of this process. There are plans for alignment of all IWC Grants Programs over the coming year in time for a fully integrated 2017/18 IWC Grant round and associated budget.

 

Council’s grants continue to provide financial support for non-profit, community-based organisations and/or individuals for new projects that benefit local residents. The maximum grant allocation available is $7,500 per project. The IWC Grant Program Guidelines 2016/17 (Attachment 1) were endorsed at the combined Local Representation Advisory Committee (LRAC) meeting on 12 July 2016 and Council meeting on 26 July 2016.

 

Applications for the IWC Grants Program opened on 19 July and closed on 29 August 2016. The program was promoted through local media, social media, bulk emails, flyers and Council’s website. Grant Information Sessions were conducted at both the Ashfield and Leichhardt Service Centres and a Council run Grant Writing Workshop drew participants from across the IWC area. Applicants were encouraged to call Council staff to discuss their application. Applicants advised that most were previous applicants, and had obtained information from IWC’s website or were notified through an email notification.

 

The application process for 2016/17 was modernised through the adoption of the online application management system known as Smartygrants, which has replaced the old paper based system previously used by Ashfield and Leichhardt. This was achieved through extending the former Marrickville license to cover Council’s expanded grant programs, including the new Stronger Communities Grant Program.

2016/17 PROCESS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The 2016/17 Grants Program attracted a total of 86 applications competing for a total of $507,777 from an available budget of $183,900 (comprising $55,000 from Ashfield’s budget and $128,900 from Leichhardt).  47 the 86 applications are recommended for funding and are outlined in Attachment 2.   Not all projects will receive full funding, however it is considered the projects will still be viable with a lesser amount.

 

Applications were assessed by selection panels comprising panel members with expertise relevant to the types of applications received, including community development, arts, events, environment and local history. The panels included staff from both Ashfield and Leichhardt branches, along with community representation in the case of the Leichhardt panel. The Leichhardt community representative was sought via email invitations to Council's former committee members and provided input into recommendations for grants assessment. In the case of the Ashfield Panel, the community representative was sent all applications for review, however was unable to attend the Panel meeting due to illness.

 

The panels assessed all applications against the eligibility and selection criteria outlined in the IWC Grants Program Guidelines. Panel members rated applications according to the extent to which projects addressed the Council’s grant program objectives; capability of the applicant; budget details; and project planning.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The recommended Ashfield applications can be met from the $55,000 available in the 2016/17 Ashfield grants budget, and the recommended Leichhardt applications can be met from the $128,900 available in the 2016/17 Leichhardt grants budget:

 

Ashfield funding allocations

Leichhardt funding allocations

Arts, Culture & Events:            $10,000

Arts, Culture & Events:           $37,200

Community:                             $37,500

Community:                            $45,000

Environmental:                          $7,500

 

Environmental:                        $20,090

 

Local History:                          $26,650

TOTAL                                   $55,000         

                                             $128,940                                 

COMBINED ASHFIELD AND LEICHHARDT TOTAL                              $183,940

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

 

 

CONCLUSION

A total of $183,940 is recommended for Council approval for the 2016/17 Inner West Council Grants Program (Attachment 2). The integration of the former Ashfield and Leichhardt Councils grant programs and guidelines was successfully implemented and this will be built upon for 2017/18 with the inclusion of Marrickville’s grants into a single IWC grant program.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Inner West Council Grants Program 2016/17 Guideline

2.

Inner West Council Grants Program s 2016/17 Recommendations

  


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 







Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 






























Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

Item No:         C1016 Item 12

Subject:         Proposed Rooftop Open Space Facility on TfNSW Commuter Carpark, Ashfield 

File Ref:         15/5238/117805.16        

Prepared By: Michael Craven - Senior Project Manager, Ashfield 

Authorised By: Wal Petschler - Director, Major Projects and Engineering

 

SUMMARY

Council has been negotiating with Transport for NSW (TfNSW) for the inclusion of public open space embellishments on the upper level of their proposed multi-storey commuter carpark in Brown Street, Ashfield adjacent Ashfield Station. The additional carpark level and its embellishments would be funded by Council at preliminary cost likely to be in the order of approximately $4 million.

 

In order to progress necessary designs TfNSW now require a decision from Council as to whether it wishes to commit to the project. Due to the high level of uncertainty surrounding its likely success and the significant financial risks it is recommended that Council not proceed with the proposal.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council not proceed with the proposal to fund an additional level and open space embellishments to the commuter carpark to be constructed by TfNSW adjacent Ashfield Station.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Transport for NSW (TfNSW) advised in late 2015 that they intended to construct a 3 level commuter carpark on the site of the existing ‘at grade’ carpark in Brown Street adjacent to Ashfield Station (refer Figure 1).

The proposed carpark will provide 235 parking spaces, an increase of 120 over the existing ground level carpark.

TfNSW have advised Council of the following with regards to the proposal:

·    TfNSW have awarded a Design and Construct contract as part of a package of 4 commuter carparks across Sydney;

·    They have prepared a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) which has not as yet been released for public comment;

·    Once commenced construction is expected to take approximately 12 months;

·    They propose to design the carpark to structurally cater for up to 2 additional levels of future commuter parking;

·    They do not initially propose to have time limits on the parking and will include a provision for boom gates should they be needed in the future; and

·    They do not propose to include any toilets in the carpark.

 

FIGURE 1: Locality Sketch

Recently there has been substantial residential development in the Ashfield Town Centre in line with objectives for urban consolidation around transport nodes. This has resulted in a demand for appropriate infrastructure to support an increasing population including high quality open space.

In consideration of this need, the former Ashfield Council identified a potential opportunity to provide recreational open space on the upper level of the proposed commuter carpark – a “Sky+Park”.  Conceptual perspectives of the idea were developed and are provided in Attachment 1.

Following approaches to the Greater Sydney Commission and the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, TfNSW agreed in principle to the proposal and have drafted a Heads of Agreement (HoA) for Council consideration.

The proposal and associated HoA raises a number of issues which are discussed in this report for Council consideration.

Open Space Options

Council should note that there has been no recreation needs study nor public engagement to support the viability of the proposed “Sky+Park”. Notwithstanding, there are a wide range of active and passive uses that could be considered for incorporation in the “Sky+Park”.

Passive uses

Passive uses of the upper level could include landscaped areas, seating, shade, picnic shelters, BBQ’s, water features, meeting spaces, reading areas, and public art displays.

Active uses

Active uses could include such things as outdoor gym equipment, futsal (5 a side football), basketball, tennis, volley ball, golf driving nets, table tennis, badminton, indoor cricket, children’s playground and informal ball game areas. These could either operate on an informal basis, hired out, and/or used for training or formal competitions.

If ball games were proposed then a fully caged area would be required to prevent balls going over the edge of the roof and posing a significant public liability issue. It is likely that ball games would need to be prohibited outside of netted areas and that this would require a level of ongoing enforcement.

There would also be a level of management required for active areas.  This could range from online bookings through Council with occasional supervision to sub-leasing as a commercial operation, which would hire out the courts and run competitions. Benefits of the latter approach would be a permanent presence to manage the usage and safety of the space and some income could potentially be generated to offset ongoing costs to some extent.

Although investigations have not been undertaken to determine the commercial viability of a leased facility it is considered that there would need to be at least 2 or 3 courts available.

Pop-up community events

The roof area could be used for pop-up community events such as shows, movie screenings, outdoor art exhibitions, small concerts, markets & festivals.

Community gardens

The area could also be used for community gardens. There would be structural limitations on the layout of the garden beds which would need to be raised for drainage and soil containment.  There would need to be some level of management of the community garden whether by community committee or council resourced supervision.

Other uses

As there are 3 high schools and 2 Primary schools within 500m of the carpark there is also an option to provide outdoor educational spaces and for the schools to utilise the recreation and community garden facilities on the ‘Sky+Park’.

The Sky+ Park could also include community meeting spaces, creche and pop up café/ coffee cart.

Feasibilty Considerations

Discussions have been held internally with Council’s Open Space and Recreation staff.  The strong consensus among staff is that the proposed ‘Sky+ Park’ is unlikely to be successful in terms of utilisation if operated as passive open space alone. To attract adequate utilisation there likely needs to be another reason to make the ‘Sky+Park’ a destination.

As a passive space there are significant differences to a traditional park. These include the use of artificial grass rather than natural grass, the lack of trees, and the lack of visibility and direct access from street level.  These issues are likely to limit its use and attractiveness as passive open space. Successful elevated public open spaces, such as the New York High Line Park, form a pedestrian link between destinations which provide a reason to be there.

It is considered that the most likely reason for people to visit the isolated space would be the provision of facilities which encourage active use and promotion.

As noted above active open space would most likely involve some sort of fully netted playing field. The minimum recommended sizes for a number of different playing fields in comparison to the proposed roof top space is illustrated in Figure 2A. As can be seen the illustrated courts do not fit across the width of the carpark when taking into consideration the required fire exists and the vehicle ramps.

As noted previously it is anticipated that at least 2 or 3 courts would be required to be commercially viable.   Using futsal, the smaller of the courts, as an example, courts would need to be located along the length of the carpark as shown in Figure 2B. Such a configuration would leave little space for passive uses, taking into consideration the need for vehicle access to the roof level.

If 3 courts were provided they would occupy all of the roof area leaving no space for other uses.  This is not a use that was envisaged in the original proposal and there has been no investigation to date to establish the likely utilisation of such a facility in the Ashfield Town Centre. Further the netting required would dominate the feel of the space and potentially cause blockage of egress paths to the fire exits.

Given the dimensional constraints, for the ‘Sky+Park’ to operate as a multi-use space as originally envisaged, it would only be feasible to have one playing court, which would occupy approximately one third of the available area. The management of one court would likely fall to Council and become an operating cost.

Pop up community events could be possible although they are likely to be intermittent, create a demand for parking and toilets, and are not considered to justify creation of the ‘Sky+Park’ alone. There are other locations around the town centre that could also be used for such events such as the deck at the Esplanade (when re-furbished), Ashfield Park, Pratten Park and the Civic Centre forecourt.

 

Community gardens could be considered on the roof area although there would be technical issues to overcome and ongoing management of the space.

 

FIGURE 2: Potential Court Layouts

 

 

Proposed Heads of Agreement

TfNSW have prepared a draft Heads of Agreement (HoA) for the consideration of Council on the following basis:

 

1.   Council would fund an additional level of the carpark, which would be constructed as a future parking level by TfNSW;

2.   Council would design, obtain approvals, construct, fund and manage open space facilities on the upper level of the carpark;

3.   Any open space facilities installed on the upper level would need to be capable of being removed should TfNSW wish to add additional levels of parking in the future and then subsequently reinstated onto the new upper level; and

4.   Council would manage the operation, cleansing and enforcement of the whole carpark under a nominal lease arrangement with TfNSW.

 

Should Council wish to proceed with the proposal, the draft agreement would be subject to detailed legal review.

Risks

There are a wide range of risks and costs associated with the proposal.  These include:-

1.   There is a risk that the proposed ‘Sky+Park’ will not be successful due to lack of community utilisation. This risk is mitigated as the space can be converted to car parking. Should this happen TfNSW require any time restricted Council managed parking to be on the ground floor with the upper level converted for commuter parking.

 

2.   TfNSW retain the right to approve or otherwise the activities that Council may propose to carry out on the upper level. This would include sub-leasing.  Sub leasing may be required for such things as coffee cart or operation of sports courts.

 

3.   Council bears the risk for obtaining planning consent. Such consent may not be granted or may contain conditions with restrictions on usage or cost implications.     The consent will also include compliance with building regulations which may have implications on the whole building and not just the roof level.  Implications may include the need for automatic fire doors, increased fire stair widths and increased toilet facilities.

 

4.   Council is responsible for the capital costs associated with building the extra level. These costs are not fixed and could increase during the design and construction process.  They could also include costs for work to other parking levels if that work was triggered by the open space level e.g. satisfying fire safety and building regulation requirements.        

 

5.   If TfNSW elect to add additional levels of parking in the future Council would at its cost be required to remove all equipment and embellishments and re-install on the added upper level when the extension was complete.  The HoA indicates that this would not occur within 20 years however there are a number of clauses that may compromise this restriction which would need modification.

 

6.   The lease could be terminated if TfNSW decides to extend the carpark, to privatize the operation of the carpark or install paid parking.  If Council was not managing the carpark there would be interface issues with a private operator.      

 

7.   Council is required to manage and maintain the whole carpark, excluding structural issues, and pay all utility costs.

Planning Issues

TfNSW have indicated that they propose to approve the carpark under Part 5 of the EP&A Act and the Infrastructure SEPP. They propose to carry out a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) and have advised that this will be placed on public exhibition prior to construction.

Allowable building height for this site is 15m. This will not restrict the construction of the ‘Sky+Park’ and the proposed 3 levels of parking.  It could however be an issue if TfNSW build an additional 2 levels of parking in the future depending on the height of structures proposed for the ‘Sky+Park’.

TfNSW propose to obtain their consent for a carpark only.  If Council proceeds with the ‘Sky+Park’ then Council will be required to obtain consent to change the use to open space and for any structures proposed to be built. It is noted that additional uses in the ‘Sky+Park’ may also generate a demand for additional parking in addition to the commuter parking allocation.

Building Regulations

A park is not usually subject to building regulations and is not covered by the BCA.  Constructing a park on the upper level of the building however triggers the need for it to be classified as part of the building and to comply with building regulations.

A preliminary analysis indicates that the park may be classified under the BCA as 9(b) -General Entertainment.  As this is a different classification to the carpark (7a) there may need to be fire separation between the different levels. As there are ramps connecting the levels this may require automatic fire doors to be installed. The fire stairs would need increased widths and a minimum level of accessible toilet facilities would need to be provided in accordance with the BCA. Any such measures would be at cost to Council as they would not be required if the building was solely for use as a carpark.

Management and Enforcement

TfNSW have proposed in the HoA that Council would manage and maintain the carpark in lieu of lease payments for the ‘Sky+Park’. It is noted that Council currently leases the existing site for carparking but does not carry out enforcement. Council responsibilities are likely to include payment of utilities, lift maintenance, fire services maintenance, cleaning, graffiti removal, security, enforcement, complaint handling and managing anti-social behaviour.

It is also considered likely that as a result of the potential for anti-social behaviour and the proximity of nearby residences that the Sky+Park would be closed at night.  This would require someone to check the area and lock up at an agreed time.

TfNSW have also indicated that in the future they may use Opal card access for the carpark. In this scenario they have indicated that they will most likely take over management of the carpark.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Capital Costs

TfNSW have tendered and appointed a design and construct contractor with a priced option to design and construct an additional level for Councils use. They have not confirmed the likely cost of this option which is expected to be in the order of $3 million.

Costs for fit-out and embellishment of the upper level for open space, community or sporting facilities is yet to be determined but is expected to be in the order of $1million.  It is also noted that anything constructed on the upper level needs to be removable should TfNSW wish to add further parking levels in the future.

Council has $3.85 Million in the Section 94 reserve for acquisition and embellishment of new open space which could potentially be used for funding the proposal.

As a comparison based on typical land rating valuations in the town centre of $4,000 per sqm, land of this size (2600sqm) would cost in the order of $10 million to purchase without improvements, if such land was available.

Operating and Maintenance costs

In lieu of lease payments TfNSW is proposing that Council manage the operation, maintain and pay utility costs for the carpark. Utility costs would include electricity, water, telecommunications and sewer costs. Other maintenance costs would include cleaning, graffiti removal, lift maintenance, fire services maintenance, minor repairs etc. It is estimated that ongoing maintenance and operational costs would be in the order of $100,000 to $150,000 pa. If the carpark remains with unrestricted parking times then there is minimal opportunity for a revenue source.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

A workshop was held with staff members of the Ashfield Town Centre Upgrade Place Team to develop ideas and opportunities. Internal consultation has also been held with internal staff from open space and recreation, planning and building, enforcement, environmental sustainability and engineering. The output from this consultation has been incorporated into this report.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

There has been no public consultation as yet on this proposal. TfNSW have advised that they will be formally consulting with Council and the community as part of the REF process, which is expected to take place prior to construction. If Council were to proceed with the Sky+Park then it is envisaged that extensive consultation and a recreation needs analysis would be required.

 

CONCLUSION

This report has outlined a number of options relating to building an additional level onto the proposed commuter carpark to be constructed by TfNSW and embellishing it for use as public open space at Council’s cost.

 

TfNSW have let a contract for the design and construction of the carpark and require a decision from Council confirming whether it wishes to proceed with the project and the likely makeup of the embellishments. The decision cannot be delayed further as it impacts their brief for the design work.

Whilst the proposal is an innovative idea there are however a number of issues that potentially expose Council to a significant level of financial risk, particularly arising from lack of utilization and uncertain community benefit and ongoing long term tenure. The lack of a recreation needs analysis demonstrating a clear public demand and business case for such a facility located on top of a building creates a high degree of uncertainty surrounding its viability. Site dimensional constraints and probable building code compliance issues create further obstacles to a successful outcome.

Given the capital outlay required it is considered there are too many uncertainties and risks associated with the project as it currently stands. There is insufficient time to enable Council to complete a detailed project feasibility and needs analysis. Accordingly it is recommended that Council not proceed with the proposal.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Ashfield Commuter Carpark concepts

  


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 




Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

Item No:         C1016 Item 13

Subject:         Planning Proposal – 101-103 Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield   

File Ref:         16/4718/114340.16        

Prepared By: Leah Chiswick - Executive Strategic Planner, Leichhardt 

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

A Planning Proposal was submitted to the former Leichhardt Council on 15 March 2016 seeking to amend Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 as it applies to 101-103 Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield to facilitate redevelopment of the site for the purpose of a mixed use development. Following further analysis and in response to concerns raised by Council officers, the Planning Proposal was revised by the proponent. An alternate Planning Proposal, partly reflecting the proponent’s revised request, has now been prepared by Council officers and is presented for endorsement and submission to the Minister for Planning for Gateway determination. 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   the attached Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Minister for Planning for a Gateway determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979;

2.   the Department of Planning and Environment be requested to delegate the plan making functions, in relation to the subject Planning Proposal, to Council;

3.   following receipt of a Gateway determination, and compliance with any conditions, the Planning Proposal and supporting documentation be placed on public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days and public authorities be consulted on the Planning Proposal in accordance with the Gateway determination; and

4.   A report be presented to Council at the completion of the public exhibition period detailing submissions received and the outcome of consultation with public authorities.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

A Planning Proposal was submitted by APP Corporation requesting an amendment to the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 (LEP 2013) as it applies to 101-103 Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield. The Planning Proposal and supporting documentation were reviewed and an alternate Planning Proposal prepared by Council officers.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The proponent has paid fees for the assessment and preparation of a planning proposal for submission to Gateway. An additional fee is payable to progress the Planning Proposal subsequent to a Gateway determination. The proponent will also be responsible for meeting costs associated with revising documentation prior to exhibition as required by a Gateway determination and for the peer review of this material or additional studies should they be deemed necessary.

 


OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Site details and context

101-103 Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield is an irregular ‘L’ shaped block located on the northern side of Lilyfield Road with a frontage of 18.29m and rear boundary of 29.57m (refer Figure 1 below). It has an approximate area of 650.5m2.

 

Figure 1: Aerial photograph showing land affected by the Planning Proposal

 

The site is currently occupied by a two storey residential flat building containing two dwellings, a single storey toilet building and a single storey brick building adjacent to the front boundary which accommodates a café/take away food premises.

 

The site is north of the Inner West Light Rail Line that runs between Central Station and Dulwich Hill. Catherine Street and the Lilyfield light rail stop are located to the south east of the site, with the entrance to the light rail stop, near the intersection of Catherine Street and City West Link, approximately 150m from the site.

 

Surrounding development predominantly comprises one and two storey dwelling houses. Notwithstanding, to the east of the site is a six storey residential flat building across three lots owned by the Department of Housing and multi dwelling housing comprising five (5) attached two (2) storey dwellings was approved in early 2016 at 107 and 109 Lilyfield Road, currently occupied by two dwelling houses. 

 

The site wraps around the adjoining two Sydney Water owned lots immediately to the west which are occupied by a sewer vent identified on the authority’s Heritage and Conservation Register under s170 of the Heritage Act 1977. Directly opposite the site are the Rozelle Rail Yards which are zoned Port and Employment under Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 26—City West (SREP 26) and currently occupied by light industrial uses including steel metal fabrication. This land falls within The Bays Precinct and is identified in The Transformation Plan: The Bays Precinct Sydney, prepared by UrbanGrowth NSW, as a long-term priority with works commencing in 2022 and beyond.

 

A rock wall extends across the subject site and the neighbouring sites to the west. The rock face has a maximum height of approximately seven (7) metres and it wraps around the rear and side of the existing buildings on the site. The northern portions of the site, located atop the rock face, slope up gradually toward the rear boundary. Beyond the site, the land continues to slope up approximately 2.5m to a high point, mid-block adjacent to Garnet Avenue. The rock face extends west of the site along Lilyfield Road to the intersection with Trevor Street. The topography means that a large portion of the subject site is substantially lower than the adjoining properties to the north and west.

 

Current planning controls

 

The site is zoned R1 General Residential under LEP 2013. The objectives of the zone are:

 

·    To provide for the housing needs of the community;

·    To provide for a variety of housing types and densities;

·    To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents;

·    To improve opportunities to work from home;

·    To provide housing that is compatible with the character, style, orientation and pattern of surrounding buildings, streetscapes, works and landscaped areas;

·    To provide landscaped areas for the use and enjoyment of existing and future residents;

·    To ensure that subdivision creates lots of regular shapes that are complementary to, and compatible with, the character, style, orientation and pattern of the surrounding area; and

·    To protect and enhance the amenity of existing and future residents and the neighbourhood.

 


Figure 2: Extract from the Land Zoning Map showing land affected by the Planning Proposal

 

The site has a maximum permitted floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.5:1. While there is no maximum height of building control for the site in the LEP, the Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP 2013) effectively controls height with the provisions for the Nanny Goat Distinctive Neighbourhood imposing a maximum building wall height of 3.6m.

 

Figure 3: Extract from the Floor Space Ratio Map showing land affected by the Planning Proposal

 

Request to amend the planning controls

 

Prior to lodgement of the Planning Proposal a meeting was held on 9 December 2015 between Council officers and the proponent, comprising the developer and their consultants. At this meeting advice was sought from Council officers regarding information that would be required to support a planning proposal. Council officers provided no indication as to the merits of the proposal during this meeting.

 

A Planning Proposal, prepared by APP Corporation on behalf of Ozzy States Pty Ltd, was lodged with Council on 15 March 2016. The proposal sought to amend LEP 2013 as it applies to 101-103 Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield to facilitate redevelopment of the site for the purpose of a six (6) storey mixed use development by:

 

·     increasing the maximum floor space ratio for the site from 0.5:1 to 1.53:1; and

·     introducing a maximum height of buildings of 22m.

 

Following consideration of the proposal against the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) and in response to concerns raised by Council officers, the proponent prepared an amended Planning Proposal to:

 

·     increase the maximum floor space ratio for the site to 1:1; and

·     introduce ‘food and drink premises’ as an additional permitted use for the site under Schedule 1.

 

The amended proposal no longer sought to introduce a maximum height of building control for the site. The proponent’s Planning Proposal is included as Attachment 2.

 

Planning Proposal

 

The Planning Proposal, included as Attachment 1, has been prepared by Council officers following consideration and assessment of the proponent’s requested amendments to LEP 2013. 

 

The intent of the Planning Proposal is to facilitate redevelopment of the site for the purpose of a mixed use development which will take advantage of the orientation and topography of the site to provide additional housing in close proximity to public and active transport which facilitate access to employment centres.  

 

The Planning Proposal seeks to amend LEP 2013 as follows:

 

·     Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to increase the FSR from 0.5:1 to 1:1;

·     Amend Schedule 1 ‘Additional Permitted Uses’ by inserting ‘restaurant or cafe’ and ‘take away food and drink premises’ as additional permitted uses for the land at 101-103 Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield and restricting the floor space of such uses to 50m2.

 

While the proponent’s Planning Proposal requested the inclusion of ‘food and drink premises’ in Schedule 1 as an additional permitted use on the site, the definition (provided below) would permit uses that that would be inappropriate on the site and incongruous with surrounding uses. Given the site is zoned R1 General Residential, development for the purposes of pubs and small bars would be inconsistent with the objectives of the zone and introduce a range of amenity impacts that would be inappropriate in a residential area.    

food and drink premises means premises that are used for the preparation and retail sale of food or drink (or both) for immediate consumption on or off the premises, and includes any of the following:

a)   a restaurant or cafe,

b)   take away food and drink premises,

c)   a pub,

d)   a small bar.

 

Accordingly, to facilitate a premises consistent with the intensity and scale of the existing café and ensure compatibility with the surrounding development, it is proposed that only ‘restaurant or cafe’ and ‘take away food and drink premises’ be included as additional permitted uses on the site, with a floor area restriction of 50m2. Limiting the floor space will ensure that the scale of future development is consistent with the prevailing residential character and does not adversely impact existing uses and amenity.

 

Strategic alignment

 

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives and actions of A Plan for Growing Sydney, the Draft Inner West Subregional Strategy and the former Leichhardt Council’s strategic plans, specifically the community strategic plan Leichhardt 2025+, Leichhardt Community and Cultural Plan 2011-2021 and the Integrated Transport Plan. The Planning Proposal also largely aligns with the applicable State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and Ministerial Directions (s.117 directions).

 

While Part 3 of the Planning Proposal demonstrates that the amendments have strategic merit, more detailed consideration is required to ascertain if the scale of development that would be facilitated under the proposed amendment to the FSR control is appropriate for the site. Accordingly, further detail on the anticipated built form massing and compliance with State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) and the ADG should be required prior to exhibition through imposition of conditions on a Gateway determination.

 

The proponent’s initial Planning Proposal was accompanied by supporting documentation, including concept plans, traffic impact assessment, ADG compliance table, view analysis and an arboricultural impact assessment. The Planning Proposal to be submitted to the Minister requests that a Gateway determination require this material to be updated prior to exhibition to reflect the development concept envisaged under the current Planning Proposal.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Should the Planning Proposal receive a Gateway determination allowing it to proceed, public authority consultation and public exhibition of the Planning Proposal would then commence. Contingent on the conditions of a Gateway determination, it is anticipated that the Planning Proposal would be exhibited for at least 28 days with notification:

 

-      on the Inner West Council website;

-      in the Inner West Courier; and

-      in writing to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby properties.

 

Exhibition material would be made available on the Inner West Council website, in the Leichhardt Customer Service Centre at 7-15 Wetherill Street, Leichhardt and on the Department of Planning and Environment’s website.

 

The outcomes of the public authority consultation and public exhibition would then be reported to Council.

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council approve the Planning Proposal at Attachment 1 for submission to the Minister for Planning for Gateway determination and public consultation in accordance with any conditions.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Planning Proposal – 101-103 Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield

2.

Proponent’s Planning Proposal and supporting documentation

  


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 





























Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

















































































































































Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

Item No:         C1016 Item 14

Subject:         Classification of Operational Land, 78 - 90 Old Canterbury Road, Lewisham 

File Ref:         16/5851/112584.16        

Prepared By: Brooke Martin - Manager Infrastructure Planning and Property, Marrickville 

Authorised By: Wal Petschler - Director, Major Projects and Engineering

 

SUMMARY

On 23rd September 2016, the Inner West Council acquired Land (‘The Land’) at Lot 34 – 37, 78 - 90 Old Canterbury Road, Lewisham as a result of a Voluntary Planning Agreement. The exchange of ownership for Lot 135 above will be completed by the end of the year.

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, it is recommended that the Land be classified as “operational land”.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council classifies land at Lot 34, 35, 36, 37 and 135, 78 - 90 Old Canterbury Road, Lewisham as operational land for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

On 23rd September 2016, the Inner West Council acquired land being Lots 34 – 37 at 78- 90 Old Canterbury Rd, Lewisham under a strata scheme as a result of a Voluntary Planning Agreement that was negotiated as part of a redevelopment of that site. The exchange of ownership for Lot 135 will be completed by the end of the year.

 

The 4 units (Lots 34-37) are intended for affordable housing and include 1 x 2 bedroom unit with 1 carspace and ensuite, 2 x 1 bedroom units and 1 x studio unit. The units are located within the Luna Development building G. Lot 135 located in Building C will be a Community room.

-

Figure 1: Location

 

Under Chapter 6, Part 2, Division 1 of the Local Government Act 1993, the Land must be classified as either operational or community land.

A community land classification is usually applied to land that is reserved for a public purpose (particularly open space land) as it comes with a number of management consequences under the Act (including plans of management, restrictions on the granting of leases/licenses/easements, selling the land). Such a classification is not considered appropriate for the Land in question given it is to be used as affordable housing units and community room (which requires a more flexible management) and is within a strata scheme.

In order for the Land to be classified as operational, a Council resolution is required to that effect within 3 months of acquisition (ie. by 23 December 2016). This report recommends such a resolution.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil provided that land is classified as operational. Otherwise, there will be some cost associated with managing the land as Community Land including the preparation of a plan of management.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The proposal to classify the Land as operational land was publicly exhibited on Council’s website at www.yoursayinnerwest.com.au from 26th September 2016 and closes 23rd October 2016. As at the date of writing this report 8 responses have been received. Five people have supported the classification noting that it is a good thing and close to public transport. One submission did not support the classification as they did not want Council to use rate payer money to support affordable housing. Two people made a submission requesting more information on the properties and this has been provided. Any additional submissions received by the advertised closing will be provided under separate cover.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

Item No:         C1016 Item 15

Subject:         Tabling of 2015/16 Annual Disclosure of Interest Returns for Designated Persons  

File Ref:         16/4718/89612.16         

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

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

To table the Pecuniary Interest Returns of Designated Staff for the return period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council note the tabling of Pecuniary Interest Returns of Designated Staff for the return period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Section 449(3) of the Local Government Act 1993 requires Designated Staff holding these positions as of 30 June 2016 to lodge a “Disclosures by Designated Persons Return” to the General Manager by 30 September 2016. Section 450A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 requires these disclosures to be tabled at the first Council Meeting after 30 September 2016.

All returns for Designated Staff in office as at 30 June 2016 have been submitted.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

 

 

CONCLUSION

Nil.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

Item No:         C1016 Item 16

Subject:         Inner West Council Investment as at 30 September 2016  

File Ref:         16/5386/116307.16         

Prepared By: Brian Chen - Team Leader Financial Accounting, Marrickville  

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

In accordance with the requirements of clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council is provided with a listing of all investments made pursuant to section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993 and held as at 30 September 2016.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that a report be presented to Council each month listing all investments with a certification from the Responsible Accounting Officer (Director Corporate Services). Attached to this report are further reports from Council’s Investment Advisors, Prudential Investment Services.

 

DISCUSSION

The Investment Holdings report (Attachment 1) for the period to 30 September 2016 reflects Council’s holding in various investment categories these are listed in the table below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Environmental Commitments

The former Leichhardt Council investment portfolio has 59% of its investments with non-fossil fuel ADIs and the former Marrickville Council investment portfolio has 48% of its investments with non-fossil fuel ADIs.

 

Attachments 1 and 2 to this report summarise all investments held by Council and interest returns as at 30 September 2016.

The portfolio for Inner West Council had a One-Month Portfolio Investment Return (2.87%) was above the UBSWA Bank Bill Index Benchmark (1.74%). Council has a well-diversified portfolio with 98% of the portfolio spread among the top three credit rating categories (A long term / A2 short term and higher).

The Current Market value is required to be accounted for by the accounting standards and are due to the nature of the investment, and are unlikely to impact on the eventual return of capital and interest to Council. The Current Market Value is a likely outcome if Council were to consider recalling the investment prior to its due date.

A Monthly Economic and Investment Portfolio Commentary from Prudential Investment Services, is at Attachment 3.

 

Certificate by Responsible Accounting Officer:

I, Peter Gainsford, hereby certify in accordance with Clause 212 (1) (b) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 that the investments listed in Attachment 1 have been made in accordance with section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993 for each of the Branches of the Inner West Council. There will be a review of the separate investment policies in the coming months with the view to develop a consolidated investment policy for the Inner West Council.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

IWC Investments Sept 2016

2.

IWC Monthly Interest Sept 2016

3.

IWC Economic and Investment Portfolio Commentary Sept 2016

  


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 




















Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 



















Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 


 


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

Item No:         C1016 Item 17

Subject:         Mandatory Reporting of Fire Safety Reports referred to Council from Fire and Rescue NSW  

File Ref:         16/507/114342.16         

Prepared By: Ryan Cole - Manager Compliance and Enforcements, Leichhardt  

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

This report provides mandatory notification to Council under s121ZD of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPAA) of correspondence regarding fire safety concerns received from Fire & Rescue NSW.

 

Following a review of the correspondence and a site inspection by Council’s Fire Safety Officer, this report also seeks Council to note the exercise of powers under s121B EPAA to require upgrades of the buildings to the satisfaction of Council’s Fire Safety Officer in order to:-

 

·    improve the provisions for fire safety at the premises;

·    improve the provision of fire safety awareness;

·    improve the adequacy of the premises to prevent fire;

·    improve the adequate of the premises to suppress fire or prevent the spread of fire; and

·    improve the safety of persons in the event of fire.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Moves into closed session to deal with this matter as the information contained in CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENTS of this report are classified as confidential under the provisions of Section 10A (2) (g) of the Local Government Act 1993  for the following reasons:

    

a.         advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege;

 

And in accordance with Sections 10A (4) of the Local Government Act 1993, that the Chairperson allow members of the public to make representations as to whether this part of the meeting should be closed.

 

2.   Adopt the recommendations contained within Confidential Attachment 1.

 

 

BACKGROUND

In accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPAA), Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) has referred letters to Council detailing a number of concerns with the fire safety measures and fire safety procedures for properties in the Inner West Council area.

 

Owners of buildings such as assembly buildings, commercial premises, residential flat buildings etc., have a legal obligation to ensure that all fire safety measures installed on the premises are, at all times, maintained and working to their relevant standard of performance for the safety of the buildings occupiers or users – whether the building is occupied or not. This is done through the installation of fire safety measures compliant with the National Construction Code (Building Code of Australia - BCA) or an alternative solution endorsed by a qualified Fire Engineer.        

 

A fire safety measure is any aspect of construction, piece of equipment or strategy, that are required to enhance the safety of people within the building in the event of a fire. These fire safety measures can vary significantly depending on the age of the building, its design and its use.  The determination of the appropriate fire safety measure is guided through the deemed to satisfy provisions / functional statements of the Building Code of Australia or through Alternative Solutions designed and developed by Fire Engineers and Accredited Certifiers (registered with the NSW Building Professionals Board).

 

FRNSW and Council’s Fire Safety Officer have undertaken inspections of all premises referred. As a result, Council’s Fire Safety Officer has concluded that the onsite buildings require upgrades in order to:-

 

·    improve the provisions for fire safety at the premises;

·    improve the provision of fire safety awareness;

·    improve the adequacy of the premises to prevent fire;

·    improve the adequate of the premises to suppress fire or prevent the spread of fire; and

·    improve the safety of persons in the event of fire.

 

As the premises are on private land, any required upgrades are able to be undertaken under through the issuing of orders under s121B EPAA. Thereby allowing the works to be undertaken without the necessity for the lodgement of a Development Application.

 

After all solutions are implemented and a Fire Safety Certificate is issued the building is listed on Fire Safety Register and Annual Fire Safety Inspections are required to be undertake in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

This annual inspection is to ensure that:-

 

i.        All fire safety measures are inspected by a properly qualified person to ensure they are maintained to the appropriate Standard of Performance; and

ii.       Fire Safety Statements are maintained in the approved form and are displayed in a clearly visible position and available for Fire and Rescue NSW or Council Authorised Officers.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

 

CONCLUSION

The letters from Fire and Rescue NSW have identified a number of fire safety matters are required to be addressed. Following an inspection, Council’s Fire Safety Officer has determined that Notices of Proposed Orders and Orders requiring various audits and upgrade to the buildings is required to be undertaken. These requirements will promote adequate fire safety or fire safety awareness in the buildings. These works are able to be undertaken in accordance with State Planning provisions through the issuing of Orders under s121B EPAA without the need to obtain a Development Application.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Mandatory Reporting of Fire Safety - Confidential Attachments - Confidential

  


Council Meeting

25 October 2016

 

Item No:         C1016 Item 18

Subject:         Review of Insurances for Inner West Council  

File Ref:         16/4718/117017.16         

Prepared By: Graham Carnegie - Manager Employee Services, Leichhardt and Tanya Whitmarsh - Manager Governance and Risk, Marrickville  

Authorised By: Rik Hart - Interim General Manager

 

SUMMARY

Following the merger of the former Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils which resulted in the establishment of the Inner West Council on 12 May 2016 it was determined that Council needed to rationalise the general Insurances by conducting an independent assessment of insurance arrangements. This report and its attachment detail the process Council staff have gone through to procure a rationalised suite of insurances.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Moves into closed session to deal with this matter as the information contained in CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENTS 1 and 2 of this report are classified as confidential under the provisions of Section 10A (2) (d)(i)  of the Local Government Act 1993  for the following reasons:

    

            a. commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed             prejudice the             commercial position of the person who supplied it;

 

            and in accordance with Sections 10A (4) of the Local Government Act 1993, that the Chairperson allow members of the public to make representations as to whether this     part of the meeting should be closed.

 

2.   Adopt the recommendations contained within Confidential Attachment 1.

 

 

BACKGROUND

Policy coverage for general insurance has been in place through the two previous providers servicing the former Councils until 31 October 2016. Insurance for Workers Compensation insurance has already been assessed and unified under one provider separately. 

Council officers including Tanya Whitmarsh, Manager Governance and Risk, Graham Carnegie, Manager Employee Services and Risk Management and Joe Strati, Legal Counsel agreed that one provider should be chosen for general insurance by 31 October. Due to the tight timeframes it was determined that the existing insurance providers would be invited via a Request for Proposals process to submit a proposal rather than undertake an open tender process.  This is allowed by section 55 of the Local Government Act 1993 where extenuating circumstances warrant it. In this case, the extenuating circumstances are:

a.  The local government sector is predominantly insured via “Mutuals” as opposed to the commercial insurance market;

b.  There are only 2 Mutuals servicing the sector;

c.  Those 2 Mutuals currently service the insurance needs of the Council due to their relationship with the predecessor councils;

d.  Given the history, circumstances and timing Council wishes to remain with a mutual insurance provider;

e.  There is, in any event, insufficient time to undertake a general tender process as current insurance expires on 31 October 2016; and

f.  There would be no better outcome by proceeding to open tender given the desire of Council to remain with a mutual insurance arrangement.

 

Assessment of Tender Bids

The Request for Proposals sought submissions on the following classes of insurance;

·    Public, Product Liability and Professional Indemnity;

·    Environmental Liability;

·    Industrial Special Risks;

·    Councillors & Officers Liability;

·    Statutory Liability;

·    Employment Practices Liability;

·    Crime;

·    Cyber;

·    Casual Hirers Liability;

·    Motor Vehicle;

·    Corporate Travel;

·    Personal Accident; and

·    Marine Transit.

 

Both providers were given the same Request for Proposal Document, underwriting information and claims data and were asked to provide a variety of options for the panel to review.

Under the independent  guidance of Roger McCallum, Inscon Consulting a tender panel of Joe Strati, General Counsel, Graham Carnegie Manager Employee Services and Risk Management (including Insurances) and Elizabeth Gallagher, Risk management Co-coordinator (including Insurances) has reviewed the presentations, proposal information, organisational capabilities, level of service and Claims Management experience, support and services of the tender bids and have made a recommendation on their preferred tenderer. Further detailed information and documentation on the assessment process is provided in the Confidential Attachments under commercial in confidence.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The rationalisation of general insurances will result in significant cost savings to Council.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

 

CONCLUSION

Nil.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Confidential General Insurance Report to Council 2016 - Attachment 1  - Confidential

2.

Confidential General Insurance Report to Council 2016 - Attachment 2   - Confidential