AGENDA R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council Meeting

 

TUESDAY 6 DECEMBER 2016

 

6:30pm

 


Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 

 

Live Streaming of Council Meeting

 

In the spirit of open, accessible and transparent government, this meeting of the Inner West Council is being streamed live on Council’s website. By speaking at a Council meeting, members of the public agree to being recorded and must ensure their speech to the Council is respectful and use appropriate language. A person who uses defamatory, discriminatory or offensive language may be exposed to liability for which Council takes no responsibility. Any part of this meeting that is held in closed session will not be recorded

 

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          Notice of Live Streaming of Council Meeting.

 

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

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                         Page

Minutes of 25 October 2016 Council Meeting                                                                  5

5          Administrator’s Minute on WestConnex

            Not available at the time of printing (to be circulated prior to the meeting)

 

6          Staff Reports

 

VOLUME 1

 

ITEM                                                                                                                                    PAGE #

C1216 Item 1      Minutes of LRAC Meeting held 8 November 2016 and IAG Meeting held 10 November 2016                                                                                                             14

C1216 Item 2      Exhibition Draft Comprehensive Inner West DCP for Ashbury, Ashfield, Croydon, Croydon Park, Haberfield, Hurlstone Park and Summer Hill                     29

C1216 Item 3      39 Smith Street Summer Hill - Planning Proposal                                      68

C1216 Item 4      Statement of Vision and Priorities                                                             136

C1216 Item 5      Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy 2016                          160

C1216 Item 6      67 - 73 Lords Road, Leichhardt - Planning Proposal Public Exhibition    193

C1216 Item 7      Draft Affordable Housing Policy and Best Practice in Value Capture     317

C1216 Item 8      Draft Homelessness Policy: Responding to rough sleeping in the Inner West      453

C1216 Item 9      Expansion of Inner West Outside School Hours Care Services              470

C1216 Item 10    Stronger Communities Fund Major Projects Program                             474

 

VOLUME 2

 

C1216 Item 11    Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Review - Post-Gateway Determination Review  541

C1216 Item 12    Planning Proposal for Small Bars: Leichhardt LEP 2013 & Leichhardt DCP 2013 Amendments Public Exhibition Community Consultation                        588

C1216 Item 13    Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 3 November 2016                  661

C1216 Item 14    Open Inner West 2017 Program Recommendations                               690

C1216 Item 15    Outcomes from Investigations into the Feasibility of Constructing Cricket Nets at Petersham Park                                                                                        731

C1216 Item 16    Sky+Park - Proposed Rooftop Open Space Facility on TfNSW Commuter Carpark, Ashfield                                                                                                      734

C1216 Item 17    Audited Financial Reports as at 12 May 2016                                          745

C1216 Item 18    EquityFest                                                                                               1021

C1216 Item 19    Fee Waiver Applications for the use of Council facilities and the Leichhardt Park Aquatic Centre (LPAC) in 2017                                                                            1023

C1216 Item 20    Proposed Schedule for Council Meetings 2017                                     1028

C1216 Item 21    Quarterly Budget Review Statement for the Period ended 30 September 2016  1030

C1216 Item 22    Inner West Council Investments as at 31 October 2016                        1041

C1216 Item 23    Reporting of Code of Conduct Complaints for Inner West and Former Councils 1083

C1216 Item 24    Community Grants Contingency Fund For The Use Of Petersham Town Hall By Dulwich Hill Public School P & C Association                                                      1085

 

7          Reports with Confidential Information

 

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

 

C1216 Item 25    Sale Of Closed Road To Adjacent Owners – Part Yeend Street Birchgrove 1087

  


Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 

 

Minutes of Council Meeting

held at Ashfield Service Centre on 25 October 2016

 

 

Meeting commenced at 6.33pm

 

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

Popy Mourgelas

Manager Corporate Governance, Ashfield

Ian Naylor

Manager Governance & Administration, Leichhardt

Tanya Whitmarsh

Manager Governance & Risk, Marrickville

David Murray

Manager Financial Services, Leichhardt

Pav Kuzmanovski

Chief Financial Officer, Marrickville

Myooran Vinayagamoorthy

Chief Financial Officer, Ashfield

Lyn Gerathy

Manager Property & Commercial Services, Leichhardt

Graham Carnegie

Manager Employee Services & Risk Management , Leichhardt

Katerina Maros

Governance Officer, Leichhardt (Minute Taker)

 

 

Public Speakers: see last page 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. Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 27 September 2016 be confirmed.

 

 


4. Staff Reports

 

Procedural Motion

                                               

Administrator determined that Item 1 be deferred till later in the agenda when Council's

External Auditor is present.

 

 

C1016 Item 2      Planning Proposal for Sydenham Station Creative Hub

 

Administrator determined 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 subject to Areas A & B as shown on the map at Attachment 2 being combined into one area to allow small bars, restaurants, cafes and creative uses as specified in Clause 6.12 of MELP 2011 to be permitted within the existing IN1 General Industrial zone; 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.

 

 

C1016 Item 3      Inner West Stronger Communities Grants 2016

 

Administrator determined 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.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 


 

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

 

Administrator determined that Council:

 

1.       Receives and notes this report; 

 

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; and

 

3.       Consistent with recommendation 2 above, forwards the following comments to the WestConnex M4 East project team:  “Council has concerns about construction and operational (traffic) noise impacts on properties on the western side of Wattle Street near its intersection with Parramatta Road, Haberfield.  Council is particularly concerned about impacts on residents of dwellings at 14 to 24 Wattle Street, who currently endure significant construction impacts.  They will also have no physical or other type of protection against noise from six lanes of traffic on Wattle Street when WestConnex is operational.  It would appear these six dwellings will continue to suffer significantly greater noise impacts than others in the area as these dwellings (including bedrooms) are directly adjacent to heavy traffic – now and into the future.  Council requests the WestConnex M4 East project team to re-examine the road alignment and landscape designs in this area to minimise construction and operational noise impacts on these dwellings. This could include physical or other forms of noise barriers between these dwellings and traffic on Wattle Street.”

 

 

C1016 Item 6      Minutes of LRAC Briefing held 11 October 2016

 

 

Administrator determined that the Minutes of the LRAC Briefing held on 11 October 2016 be noted.

 

 

Procedural Motion

                                               

Administrator determined that Item 1 be considered at this time and asked Council's

External Auditor, Dennis Banicevic from PricewaterhouseCoopers to speak to the Draft

Financial Statements.

 

 

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

 

Administrator determined 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.

 

 

 

C1016 Item 7      Fenwick Building, Weston Street, Balmain – Assessment Criteria For Selection Of Lessee

 

Administrator determined that:

 

1.         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.         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

 

 

 


 

C1016 Item 8      Establishment of Alcohol Free Zones - Ashfield LGA

 

Administrator determined that:

 

1.         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;

·    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.         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.        

 

3.         Council adopt the establishment of Alcohol-Free Zones for a 4 year period operating         9pm to 7am 7 days per week at Summer Hill Fountain.

 

4.         A review be undertaken after 12 months.

 

 

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

 

Administrator determined that:

 

1.         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; and

 

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

 

 


 

C1016 Item 10    Open Space and Recreation Draft Interim S94 Contributions Plan

 

Administrator determined 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); and

 

2.       A public notice be placed in a local newspaper in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 advising of Council’s decision.

 

 

C1016 Item 11    Inner West Council Grant Program 2016/17

 

Administrator determined that Council approve the funding recommendations for Inner West Council Grants Program 2016/17 contained in Attachment 2.

 

 

 

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

 

Administrator determined that this matter be deferred to allow further discussion at the LRAC meeting in November.

 

 

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

 

Administrator determined 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.

 

 

 

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

 

Administrator determined 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.

 

 


 

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

 

Administrator determined that Council note the tabling of Pecuniary Interest Returns of Designated Staff for the return period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016.

 

 

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

 

Administrator determined that the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

The Administrator moved into closed session at 9.40pm 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 9.44pm to read out the recommendations from the Closed Session and resolve as follows in relation to Items 17 and 18.

 

 

5. Reports with Confidential Information

 

 

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

 

Administrator determined that Council:

 

1.         Resolves that Confidential Attachment 1 to the report be treated as confidential under       the provisions of Section 10A (1) of the Local Government Act 1993 as it relates to a            matter specified in Section 10A (2) (g) of the Local Government Act 1993 and as such        should be confidential;

 

2.         Note the correspondence provided by Fire and Rescue NSW for development on land     102-104 Elswick Street Leichhardt; 268 Darling Street, Balmain; 402 Catherine Street,         Lilyfield (also known as 33 Lonsdale St, Lilyfield); and 138-152 Victoria Road, Rozelle           (Balmain Leagues Club) has been tabled for the purposes of s121ZD of the             Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; and

 

3.         Note and endorse the Council Officer’s use of statutory powers (and discretion as             appropriate) under s121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to   require upgrades to 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 adequacy of the premises to suppress fire or prevent the spread of fire; and

·       improve the safety of persons in the event of fire

 

 

 


 

C1016 Item 18    Review of Insurances for Inner West Council

 

Administrator determined that:

 

1.         Council resolves that Confidential Attachments 1 and 2 to the report be treated as             confidential under the provisions of Section 10A (1) of the Local Government Act 1993            as they relate to a matter specified in Section 10A (2) (d)(i) of the Local           Government Act 1993            and as such should be confidential;

    

2.         Pursuant to section 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993 the Council determines     that a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders for the provision of     insurance services due to the following extenuating circumstances:

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.   The 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.

 

3.         Council endorse the process that has been undertaken and endorses Statewide    to be    Council’s provider of general insurances.

 

4.         The General Manager is authorised to finalise the final terms of the Insurances to best      meet and protect Council’s long term risk, insurance and financial position.

 

 

 

 

Meeting closed at  9:45pm.

 

 

 


Public Speakers:

Item 1:

Mark Drury, Ashfield LRAC

Ashfield

 

Lucille McKenna, Ashfield LRAC                

Summer Hill

 

Alex Lofts, Ashfield LRAC

Summer Hill

 

 

 

Item 2:

Victor Macri, Marrickville LRAC

Marrickville

 

Rosana Tyler, Marrickville LRAC

Tempe

 

Jo Haylen MP

Summer Hill

 

James Gilronan

Dulwich Hill

 

Kosmos Papadopoulos

Not supplied

 

Louise Dwyer

Sydenham

 

 

 

Item 4:

Chris Woods, Marrickville LRAC

Marrickville

 

 

 

Item 5:

Victor Macri, Marrickville LRAC

Marrickville

 

Lucille McKenna, Ashfield LRAC

Summer Hill

 

Alex Lofts, Ashfield LRAC

Summer Hill

 

Daniela Arlotta

Haberfield

 

John Lozano

Haberfield

 

Ted Cassidy, Ashfield LRAC 

Haberfield 

 

 

 

Item 6:

Darcy Byrne, Leichhardt LRAC

Leichhardt

 

Mark Drury, Ashfield LRAC

Croydon

 

Lucille McKenna, Ashfield LRAC                

Summer Hill

 

Alex Lofts, Ashfield LRAC

Summer Hill

 

Janet Bustall

Lilyfield

 

Leon Fry-Kontaxis

Annandale

 

Sharon Page

Lilyfield

 

Richard Walsham

Enmore

 

Richard Archer

Annandale

 

Matthew Howard

Not supplied

 

Ted Cassidy, Ashfield LRAC 

Haberfield

 

Simon Emsley, Leichhardt LRAC

Leichhardt

 

Don Smith

Ashfield

 

John Lozano

Haberfield

 

 

 

Item 7:

Gary Saunders

Balmain East

 

 

 

Item 8:

Alex Lofts, Ashfield LRAC

Summer Hill

 

Mark Drury, Ashfield LRAC

Croydon

 

Ted Cassidy, Ashfield LRAC 

Haberfield

 

Rene Holmes

Ashfield

 

 

 

Item 10:

Darcy Byrne, Leichhardt LRAC

Leichhardt

 

John Jobling, Leichhardt LRAC

Rozelle

 

Ted Cassidy, Ashfield LRAC 

Haberfield

 

 

 

Item 12:

Mark Drury, Ashfield LRAC

Croydon

 

Lucille McKenna, Ashfield LRAC                

Summer Hill

 

Ted Cassidy, Ashfield LRAC 

Haberfield

 

 

 

Item 13:

James Gilronan

Dulwich Hill

 

 

 

Item 16:

James Gilronan

Dulwich Hill

 

Mark Drury, Ashfield LRAC

Croydon

 

 

 


Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 

Item No:         C1216 Item 1

Subject:         Minutes of LRAC Meeting held 8 November 2016 and IAG Meeting held 10 November 2016  

File Ref:         16/4718/131033.16         

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

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford -  Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

To present the Minutes of the LRAC Meeting held on 8 November 2016, the IAG meeting held 10 November 2016 and adopt revised LRAC Terms of Reference.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:-

 

1.The Minutes of the LRAC Meeting held on 8 November 2016 be noted.

 

2. The revised LRAC Terms of Reference shown as Attachment 2 be adopted.

 

3. The Minutes of the IAG Meeting held on 10 November 2016 be noted.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

An LRAC Meeting was held on 8 November 2016. The minutes of the Meeting are shown as Attachment 1. LRAC during this Meeting adopted revised Terms of Reference which are shown as Attachment 2.

 

An IAG Meeting was held on 10 November 2016. The minutes of the Meeting are shown as Attachment 3.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

 

CONCLUSION

Nil.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Minutes of the LRAC Meeting on 8 November 2016

2.

Revised LRAC Terms of Reference

3.

Minutes of the IAG Meeting on 10 November 2016

  


Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 







Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 







Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 



Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 

Item No:         C1216 Item 2

Subject:         Exhibition Draft Comprehensive Inner West DCP for Ashbury, Ashfield, Croydon, Croydon Park, Haberfield, Hurlstone Park and Summer Hill 

File Ref:         16/4718/132115.16        

Prepared By: Con Colot - Senior Strategic Planner & Projects, Ashfield 

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

The Draft Comprehensive Inner West DCP 216 for Ashbury, Ashfield, Croydon, Croydon Park, Haberfield, Hurlstone Park and Summer Hill has completed its public exhibition. This report considers public submissions and recommends that Council endorse the DCP and give public notice of the adoption of the DCP.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

1.       Council note the submissions raised in submissions received during the public exhibition of the draft DCP and that in accordance with Part 3, Section 21 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Regulation 2000 these issues have been adequately considered by Council;

2.       the General Manager be authorised to make minor amendments to the DCP recommended in the report and any minor clerical amendments to the DCP which do not change the content and intent of the document;

3.       in accordance with Part 3, Clause 21 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Regulation 2000, Council endorse and give public notice of the adoption of the Inner West Comprehensive DCP for Ashbury, Ashfield, Croydon, Croydon Park, Haberfield, Hurlstone Park and Summer Hill as shown at Attachment 1 and amended by resolution (2), and give public notice in the local newspaper within 28 days of Council’s resolution;

4.       Council give notice in the local newspaper of the repeal of the Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007, Pursuant to Part 3, Clause 23 of EPA Act Regulation 2000; and

5.       Council provide the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment the DCP Plan pursuant to Part 3, Clause 25 AB of EPA Act Regulation 2000.

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

1.0       Overview

The former Ashfield Council considered a report on the draft Comprehensive DCP 2016 on 10 May 2016 and resolved as follows:

1/5     That Council endorse the Draft Ashfield Comprehensive DCP 2016 as shown at Attachment 1 of this report, for public exhibition.

2/5     That Council place Draft Ashfield Comprehensive DCP 2016 and ancillary documents on public exhibition as required under the procedures of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

3/5     That the exhibition of the Draft Ashfield Comprehensive DCP 2016 be carried out in accordance with the Public Engagement Strategy described in the report.

4/5     That the General Manager be authorised to make any minor clerical amendments to the Draft DCP content as required for its exhibition that do not result in any significant policy changes.

5/5     That, after completion of the public exhibition, a report be submitted for Council’s consideration.

 

The above resolutions now carry over to the Inner West Council. Due to the Council amalgamation the draft document was retitled as “Draft Comprehensive Inner West DCP for Ashbury, Ashfield, Croydon, Croydon Park, Haberfield, Hurlstone Park and Summer Hill” (referred to as Draft DCP 2016 in this report). This defines the area occupied by the former Ashfield LGA, which is the land affected by the Ashfield LEP 2013. This report advises on the outcomes of the public exhibition of the Draft DCP 2016 and recommends its adoption by the Council. The Draft DCP 2016 is referenced in Attachment 1 with details on how to access the document on Council’s website (due to the size of the document which is approximately 1000 pages). A Hyperlink to the document is provided below.

http://www.ashfield.nsw.gov.au/page/draft_comprehensive_dcp_former_ashfield_lga.html

Attachment 2 provides an Overview of the document (as exhibited and using the content found in the report to former Ashfield Council on 10 May 2016). In summary, this includes that: the document mostly reproduces the existing Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013 which the community are well familiar with, adds new upfront administrative sections, proposes a revised and updated part for Heritage Conservation in order to cover all 49 Conservation Areas (excluding Haberfield, which has its own section). It also places the Tree Preservation Policy within the DCP. The document was put together by specialist consultants and overseen by Council officers.

Part 2 of the report highlights the crucial need for an updated comprehensive DCP to be in place which reflects the provisions of Ashfield LEP 2013.

Part 3 of the report gives details on the public exhibition and responds to public submissions.

Part 4 of the report explains the remaining procedures for the finalisation of the DCP under the EPA Act & Regulations.

 

2.0       Need for a new Comprehensive DCP  

The content of Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007 was developed over time to reflect the provisions of the previous Ashfield LEP 1985. The Ashfield LEP 2013 came into force in December 2013, and advice from the State Department of Planning and Environment at that time was that an updated new DCP should be made after the gazettal. A considerable part of Ashfield LEP 2013 was in effect a translation of Ashfield LEP 1985 and so many sections of DCP 2007 were relevant to the Ashfield LEP 2013 but required translation to an updated document. Given this situation Council resolved in February 2014 to adopt the Interim Development Assessment Policy (IDAP) 2013. Its purpose was to act as an interim guide for how to translate and reference the Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007 relative to the Ashfield LEP 2013. Since then various matters delayed the production of a new updated comprehensive Ashfield DCP, which have been previously reported to the former Ashfield Council. In mid-2014 the Minister of Planning at that time initiated an external review of the heritage listings of the Ashfield LEP 2013 and had a report prepared by Victorian based consultants. At the 12 August 2014 meeting, the Council rejected the findings and recommendations of this report but did agree to review the heritage provisions of the DCP and the rankings of properties in all new listed heritage conservation areas. This work was undertaken over 2015 and 2016 and is contained in Chapter E1 - Heritage Items and Conservation Areas (Appendix 1).

The Draft DCP 2016 was presented at the former Ashfield Council Planning and Environment Committee meeting on 19 April 2016, with hard copies provided to all Ashfield councillors. This included presentations from Council’s consultant town planner and consultant heritage adviser. Copies of these presentations were provided in the report to the former Ashfield Council on 10 May 2016 (and placed on exhibition) together with hard copies of the Draft DCP 2016. At this meeting the Council resolved to exhibit the draft Comprehensive DCP in accordance with an engagement strategy.

It is essential for Council to have an updated Comprehensive DCP in place that reflects the Ashfield LEP 2013 for the following reasons:  

-    the former Ashfield Council receives between 400-450 development applications per year of varying complexity, ranging from detailed examination of housing types to complex multi-storey buildings in the Ashfield town centre and surrounding fringe areas.

-    Council needs a DCP to be in place in order to defend its position on development application determinations since a DCP document is a primary head of consideration under Section 79C of the EPA Act.

-    Now, as part of the Inner West Council, it is important to document via a DCP the spatial detail for what is important about the former Ashfield LGA and needs to be taken into consideration when assessing new development proposals. This will also act as a reference document when a new DCP is eventually prepared for the Inner West Council.

 

3.0       Public Exhibition of draft Comprehensive DCP

3.1 Exhibition Actions

As noted in the report to the former Ashfield Council on 10 May 2016, in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act the following procedures were carried out:

-    The Draft  DCP placed on public exhibition for a minimum 28 days - the exhibition time was from Monday 25 August 2016 until Friday 26 August – 5 working weeks. 

-    An advertisement placed in the local newspaper.

-    Paper copies of the Draft DCP provided at Ashfield Service Centre plus ancillary documents, including the current DCP 2007, current IDAP 2013 and Ashfield LEP 2013 and explanatory documents.

 

In addition to the above, the following was carried out in order to facilitate community awareness of the public exhibition (noting the Draft DCP 2016 uses a substantial part of the contents of the current IDAP 2013 with which the community is generally familiar):

-    Five weekly advertisements placed in the local newspaper, and also one prior to commencement in Council’s ‘Have Your Say’ section. 

-    Paper copies of documents at Ashfield library and Haberfield library, including past reports, an overview of the DCP, and ‘How to use the DCP’ document (also at the Ashfield Service Centre). 

-    Prominent signs provided at the Ashfield Service Centre, Ashfield Library and Haberfield Library highlighting the DCP exhibition.

-    Notices in Community Notice Boards (Ashfield, Summer Hill, Haberfield).

-    Staff available daily to answer questions at Customer Service Centre. 

-    An Open House held on the Comprehensive DCP.

-    An Open House held on Part E1 - Heritage Conservation.

-    Council’s ‘Have Your Say’ web page highlighted the draft DCP exhibition and provided a link to a dedicated Draft DCP 2016 webpage, enabled electronic submissions to be made by the public, and maintained a record of visits to the website. 

-    Council’s web page included a separate dedicated Draft DCP site which has an overview for each of the Draft DCP parts, hyperlinks to specific parts of the DCP, a  ‘How to use DCP’ page, and links to various ancillary documents.

 

3.2       Submissions on the DCP.

According to Council’s electronic ‘Have Your Say’ webpage, there were 320 visitations to the draft DCP website (a maximum of 27 per day) during the exhibition period. Council’s Development Services Technical Officer (based at the Ashfield Service Centre) noted that there were approximately 10 people per week (out of 5 working weeks) viewing the draft DCP documents at the centre. Pursuant to Section 21 of the EPA Regulation, Clause 21, Council is required to consider submissions made on the Draft Comprehensive DCP exhibition. Twelve written submissions were received, which are commented on below. The small number of written submissions can likely be put down to the fact that the draft DCP mostly reproduces the content of the existing IDAP 2013 and officers who had interactions with the community during the exhibition period noted comments to this effect.

 

Table 1 – Written submissions on draft DCP.

The heritage consultant who carried out the heritage conservation area property rankings review and prepared content for the heritage component of the DCP has provided a response to issues raised in submissions.  This response is contained in Attachment 3 and has been incorporated into the relevant responses below. To comply with guidelines issued by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, copies of submissions have not been included as attachments to this report, as this would reveal personal information of people who made submissions. Instead, the contents of submissions have been summarised in the table below.

Issues raised

Officer Response

Reiterates objection to the Rathgael Estate Conservation Area being listed in the Ashfield LEP 2013.

The purpose of draft DCP exhibition is not to reconsider the listing of the existing conservation areas but to establish guidelines for development within these areas.

Considers that Part E1- Heritage Items and Conservation Areas will require altered homes to be reverted back to their original condition.

The draft DCP does not have this requirement. It is not the intention of the draft DCP, and it has not been the former council’s practice, to require building owners for work which is not the subject of any alterations in a development application, to take back altered parts of a building to their original historic state, such as restoring front rendered walls or windows, or side walls, or front roofs.

DCP does not give guidance on how to adapt houses in Conservation area, and DCP should address suitable first floor additions in more detail. Submission states: “New DCP should address suitable first floor additions in more detail. This type of addition has been successfully controlled in the Canada Bay and Burwood LGAs”.  This submission considers that additions should be able to be placed directly above the existing original front house, or partly above the existing original front house.

Chapter E1- Part 3- Heritage Conservation Areas, gives numerous guidelines. Fundamental guidelines are covered and these include that the ‘front part’ of a house must be retained (Controls Clause 3 page 19), that additions can occur to the rear of the original ‘front part’ of a house (Diagram 1 page 20), and that rear additions may include a second storey (clause C5 on page 20). There are then numerous ancillary written guidelines that pertain to particular components of buildings, including in Part 3 and

Part 4. However, there are no specific ‘house design patterns’ provided that would show a designer how to design additions - such an approach is not feasible given the numerous potential design options. Council’s Heritage Consultant has advised that:

 

“The Draft DCP deliberately did not provide detail on the form or design for rear 1st floor additions so as not to be unnecessarily restrictive. The control requiring such additions to be away from the main roof form is to protect streetscapes but provide more scope for rear additions.

 

The form of first floor additions above the original main roof form of houses would undermine the integrity of Heritage Conservation Area streetscapes. The DCP heritage controls have been specifically written to encourage additions to the rear of the main original roof form of houses within Heritage Conservation Areas.

 

An important principle of the DCP is to retain and conserve what can be seen from the public domain, - that is generally the main street frontage - as it is the pattern, scale, form and rhythm of the streetscape that provides much of the historic significance of a precinct.  Consequently, the requirements for rear additions are more relaxed as this is the preferred location to undertake new works without affecting the streetscape”.

Considers Part E1 has requirements for houses within Conservation Areas to provide photographs of interiors.

There are no such requirements in the DCP for conservation areas. Also, the State Government Codes SEPP permits particular types of development to the interiors without Council approval as Complying Development.

Considers that “contributory” (original) buildings should be allowed to be demolished on the proviso they are rebuilt to replicate the historic architectural style. 

Wholesale demolition of authentic historic houses in Conservation Areas is entirely contrary to the principle of Heritage Conservation, and contrary to the objectives of the Ashfield LEP 2013. Council’s Heritage Consultant has advised that: “This approach would not comply with accepted Heritage Conservation practice, and would undermine the purpose of identification and listing Heritage Conservation Areas, which is to conserve the integrity of streetscapes of heritage significance, which in turn arises from having original buildings that are in either intact or in largely intact form”.

The DCP permits pavilion rear two storey additions, and this is impractical on sites which might be 12m wide and this would result in excessive amount of building on a site, and potential amenity problems.

 

 

Council’s Heritage Consultant has advised that: “The heritage section of the DCP must be read in conjunction with other LEP and DCP controls applying to a specific site. The amount of development allowable on a specific site relates to all LEP and DCP controls. On small sites, the size of rear additions would be subject to floor space ratio requirements”.

 

To add to the above comment:  any additions would need to comply with floor space and minimum landscaped area requirements for the site as required in Chapter F, Part 1 - Dwelling House and Dual Occupancy of the Draft DCP. In addition, the height and form of an addition must be one that will not compromise any solar access for adjacent properties pursuant to Chapter F, Part 1 Dwelling House and Dual Occupancy, clause PC3 (page 5), and be of  a compatible/sympathetic scale with the front part of the house – and so not have high side walls.

 

The purpose for having controls that permit a rear addition of this type is to allow building owners more flexibility. However, not all sites will be suitable for this form of addition.

Submission considers that first floor rear additions on top of the existing front houses, or on parts of the front of houses are a better solution to allowing rear pavilion additions.

Such an outcome is not considered desirable for a Heritage Conservation Area.  Council’s Heritage Consultant states: “The DCP heritage controls have been specifically written to encourage additions to the rear of the main original roof form of houses within Heritage Conservation Areas, as an important principle of the DCP is to retain and conserve what can be seen from the public domain - that is generally the main street frontage - as it is the pattern, scale, form and rhythm of the streetscape that provides much of the historic significance of a precinct”. 

 

The draft DCP promotes the retention of the front part of the building, such as the hipped part of the roof form covering the front rooms. This is an accepted conservation practice.

Existing contributory (historic/original) buildings do not meet BASIX environmental requirements, and the DCP should give practical guidance on how these buildings can be adapted to for BASIX.

Council’s Heritage Consultant states: “For rear additions, while also complying with the DCP heritage controls it is possible to provide a building form and layout oriented to take regard of winter solar access and uses passive solar design principles”.

 

Major new work will be located to the rear of a house and the front existing house part is not required to be retrofitted to comply with BASIX. For rear additions, it is a straightforward matter for a designer to provide a building form and layout which is oriented to take regard of winter solar access and uses passive solar design principles.

In light of the above concerns requests that the DCP period be extended and that professional design associations

review its contents.

The controls in Part E1 were analysed and put together by a specialist and experienced architecture and heritage conservation consultancy, whose personnel have also previously acted as local government heritage advisers and also undertake work for private clients.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the house building types for conservation areas are relatively simple, and the concerns expressed regarding the DCP guidelines and design options for rear additions have been responded to above. The design objectives are based on allowing more flexibility for building owners for rear additions, and ensuring that the front authentic contributory parts of historic buildings are conserved.

Wishes to ensure that the DCP encourages that “designs of buildings and public spaces support and encourage the passive use by pedestrians and cyclists”.

Chapter A, Part 8 - Parking in the parking standards table (page 57) of the Draft DCP has requirements for the provision of bicycle parking within developments.

 

Council controlled land such as roads and footpaths and demarcation of bicycle routes throughout the LGA are beyond the influence of individual private development. Nevertheless Section 2, Part B – Pubic Domain, on individual sites where there is opportunity for a link to a cycle route, this part will enable officers and an applicant to propose a footpath design which will be accommodating to that of a local bicycle route.

Implicitly, regarding points 2 and 3 in the submission which pertain to Chapter D, Pt 4, Enterprise Zone (B6) Parramatta Road of the draft DCP, that part should require spaces for cyclists on Council controlled land such as roads and footpaths, and this should influence the position of buildings.

A considerable part of the Parramatta Road corridor has been compromised by the WestConnex motorway, and this is flagged in various maps in Part 4, including its Maps 1 and 2. In the future, where any residual land is available and under Council’s control, there could be opportunities for new cycle paths connecting existing routes and this would require a separate detailed planning process. This exercise is currently outside the scope of this DCP.

Implicitly, regarding point 3 in the submission which pertains to Chapter D – Pt 4, Enterprise Zone (B6) Parramatta Road of the DCP, all buildings should be setback to enable continuous and large canopy tree planting along the road, and there should not be any “zero setbacks” for urban design reasons such as street corners.

As stated above, a considerable part of the Parramatta Road corridor has been compromised by WestConnex. In the future, the urban design outcomes will need to be revisited to take into account the new context along Parramatta Road, and it is agreed there should be places for large canopy tree planting along the road’s verge areas. At present, for areas not affected by WestConnex, the draft DCP guidelines are necessary in order to protect the amenity of adjacent neighbourhoods, such as having building height and setback planes.

Implicitly with regard point 4 in the submission, pertaining to Chapter C,  Part 4 –Tree Preservation and Management of the DCP- should require that:

-  substantial pruning, lopping or removal of trees must only be undertaken outside nest building and nesting times

 

 

 

- Council needs to be notified of any action to be taken of a tree of certain size.

 

- On site affected by a Development Application there should not be any pruning or lopping or removal action without first obtaining Council consent.

Under this Part approval will be required by Council. Council’s tree management officer advises that the following clarification could be included in the Draft DCP:  "Council recommends that all tree work consider the effects on the environment, including those of nesting animals.  It is the responsibility of the property owner and tree contractor to protect the environment and respect wildlife and animal welfare issues when carrying out tree work."  It is recommended that this be added to the DCP.

 

This is covered in the Draft DCP.

 

 

 

This is currently the case.

Provides various comments regarding the previous making of Ashfield LEP 2013 and inclusion of heritage listings including Fleet Street Conservation Area.

The purpose of draft DCP exhibition is not reconsider the listing of the existing Fleet Street Conservation Area in the Ashfield LEP 2013, which has been in place since December 2013.

 

Requests that the entire submission be made part of the report.

The Submission is contained in Attachment 3.

 

 

Fleet Street Conservation Area, including 6 Fleet Street, have had their building rankings upgraded to ranking no1, and this is not warranted. Property owners should have first been consulted.

Council’s Heritage Consultant has reviewed all 49 Conservation Areas (excluding Haberfield), which contain in excess of 2000 buildings. With regard to Fleet Street Conservation area the Consultant advises that: “The Heritage Review report (background to the draft DCP) confirmed the heritage significance of the Fleet Street Heritage Conservation Area. The Building Contribution rankings have been reviewed and updated for all Heritage Conservation Areas which were part of the review. The revised Building Contribution rankings reflect the actual streetscape presentation of buildings within Heritage Conservation Areas, are recorded on recent photographs of each building taken for the Review and are objective not subjective”.

 

It should also be noted that the property rankings are a guide - they are not a development standard. Their purpose is to provide information as to the relative intactness and the significance of the building in the streetscape.

 

In response to the submission, Council’s Heritage Consultant has been consulted and agrees that the rankings of 10-12 Fleet Street and 51 Smith Street could be changed to a Contributory Status no 2 (from 1) due to various alterations to the front of the original buildings (which nevertheless retain their original shape, scale and form). A change to the contributory ranking is recommended for these properties.

 

With regard to No 6 Fleet Street, this is a narrow and small allotment approximately 5m wide and 150m2 in size, with a side passageway. It includes at the front the original single storey intact attached dwelling, with the remaining site to the rear having a large building site coverage. The site has a ranking of 1, which pursuant to Part 3 Heritage Conservation, Clause 2 Controls 3 (page 19), means the front historic part of the house should be retained, as would be expected in a Conservation Area. There are no such restrictions to the rear of the property, e.g. the DCP states that the rear part is able to be demolished. This is shown graphically in Diagram 1 of Part E1 (page 20) (shown below in blue) and the benefit of the draft DCP is that introduces more flexibility in terms of how to make alterations to the back of the property, including rear two storey additions. 

 

 

The majority of sites within the Fleet Street Conservation Areas are small ones, and the proposed controls are not well suited to that type.

Council’s Heritage Consultant states: “The Heritage section Chapter E1 of the DCP must be read in conjunction with other LEP and DCP controls. On small sites, the size of rear additions may be restricted by LEP controls based on allowable floor space ratios”.

 

As stated above, a Category 1 ranking has the effect of recommending that the front historic part be retained. There are no such restrictions to the rear of the property, and the draft DCP introduces more flexibility in terms of how to make alterations to the rear of the property. This is shown graphically in Diagram 1 of Part E1 (age 20), (shown above).

Objects to the objectives and controls found in Chapter E1, Part 3 Heritage Conservation Areas, and that they impose unnecessary restrictions.

The objectives and controls are standard ones dealing with Heritage Conservation. Council’s Heritage Consultant states: “By providing more detailed controls for Heritage Conservation Areas the draft DCP provides clarity for building owners. The purpose of the draft DCP heritage controls is to protect the heritage significance of Heritage Conservation Areas, by providing guidance for development applicants on how to alter and extend buildings without adverse heritage impacts”.Also, see comments below.

The DCP requires the removal of non-original parts of a building within a Heritage Conservation Area, and returning them back to their original state, and references clauses on pages 19 and 20 of Part E1. 

Council’s Heritage Consultant states: “This is not a requirement of the draft DCP”.

 

(As previously stated) it is not the intention of the DCP, and it has not been Council’s practice, to require building owners for work which is not the subject of any Development Application, to be retrospective and bring back altered parts of a building to their original historic state, such as front rendered walls or windows, or side walls, or front roofs. In addition, the Codes SEPP overrides any DCP and allows internal alterations to houses as Complying Development without Council approval and without having to follow any historic references.

 

Chapter E1 - Clause C4, on page 20, refers to work which is solely the subject of alterations and additions, such as rear additions. It does not apply to work which is not the subject of change. It is recommended that an additional sub-clause be added after Clause C4 on page 20 to make this explicit, as follows:

 

C X : For alterations and additions to contributory buildings, including rear additions, existing parts of   buildings to be retained such as in locations shown in Diagram 1 are not required to have any altered  building elements  brought back to their original state. Owners may choose to reinstate original features in accordance with Clause C4 should they wish to do so.

 

Also to note - Under Clause 3 - Form Massing and Scale, Controls, Clause C2 (page 22), the DCP makes it explicit that rear additions are not required to imitate the existing style of buildings. However, property owners could chose to imitate the existing style if that is their preference.

The DCP requires an architect to regurgitate styles from the 1800s or 1900s whether or not the owners favour the style.

Council’s Heritage Consultant states: “This is not a requirement of the draft DCP”.

 

It follows that original buildings which are part of the historic streetscape, and are therefore contributory to that streetscape, are required to be retained and conserved. As stated above, new work consisting of rear additions are not required to imitate the existing style of buildings, but builder owners may chose this if that is their preference.

The current IDAP 2013 states that people who are not happy with Conservation areas should move out.

The IDAP 2013 does not state this, and there is no such statement in draft DCP 2016.

The DCP was inadequately notified.

The draft Comprehensive DCP 2016 exhibition was notified as explained in Part 3.1 this report and as resolved by the former Ashfield Council.

The DCP should be deferred until the next election.

The DCP is a critical document affecting the entire former Ashfield LGA and as explained in Part 2 of the report should be finalised to assist in formalising appropriate development guidelines for the community.

Notification of the DCP was inadequate, and the DCP contents introduce more restrictive requirements to that found in the current IDAP 2013, contrary to previous community requests.

The DCP exhibition was adequately notified as explained in Part 3.1 of this report.

 

Council Heritage Consultant states: “DCP controls may not be more restrictive than LEP controls. The DCP heritage controls have been written to explicate the heritage objectives and controls of Clause 5.10 of the Ashfield LEP 2013. The IDAP 2013 is an interim development control policy only, intended to be replaced once further research was undertaken on Heritage Conservation Areas. With regard to the majority of Heritage Conservation Areas the IDAP contains only very generalised and non-specific controls which are not helpful in providing guidance to development applicants. The new heritage chapter E1 of the draft DCP 2016 provides specific guidance to development applicants as to:

 -     heritage development control objectives and

 -   how to undertake additions and alterations to heritage items and buildings within Heritage Conservation Areas which comply with Clause 5.10 of the LEP by retaining heritage significance.

 

The Draft DCP does not introduce more restrictive controls for houses in conservation areas than currently exist. For example it has two new key guidelines found in Part E1, Part 3 Heritage Conservation Areas, being :

 

-           Controls, Clause 4 (page 20),  which allow a rear two storey pavilion addition and make it clear that Council will allow building owners more flexibility and “room space” to meet modern needs, which is what many building owners have been requesting from Council. The Draft DCP has explicit diagrams which show this on page 21.

 

-           Clause 3 - Form Massing and Scale, Controls Clause C2 (page 22), makes it explicit that rear additions to houses are not required to literally imitate the existing style of existing buildings. Nevertheless builder owners may choose to do this if that is their preference.

 

As explained in the response to the previous submission the DCP makes it clear that the “relevant rear parts” of houses may be demolished if the building owner so chooses.

Council can force building owners of heritage items to bring altered non-original parts of their buildings back to their original state.

Chapter E1 – Part 2 – Heritage Items has guidelines which are generic for the numerous heritage items listed in the Ashfield LEP 2013. It’s Clause 2 External Form and Setting, Controls C2 (page 15) states “remove unsympathetic elements and reconstruct significant elements where possible or appropriate”, which is discretionary and up to the building owner. It is not the intention of the DCP, and it has not been Council’s practice, to require building owners for work which is not the subject of any development application, to take back altered parts of a building to their original historic state (as stated above). This would place unfair burdens and costs onto the building owner. Additional wording has been recommended to make this more explicit (refer to previous submission comments)

Council can request photographs of the interiors of Heritage Items and this is not reasonable.

Chapter E1 – Part 2 – Heritage Items, Clause 3 - Interior Elements of Heritage Items, explains that Council in situations where “Heritage Impacts Statements” are required, such as major work to interiors of Heritage Items, that Council can request photographs of existing interiors. This is standard Heritage Conservation practice for buildings which are Heritage Items where both interior and exterior parts of the building are important. This is not a new imposition created by the draft DCP.

13 of the Rathgael Estate Conservation area have had their ranking increased, and implicitly – this is not warranted.

Council Heritage Consultant has advised :

 

“In relation to Building Contribution rankings within the Rathgael Estate Heritage Conservation Area, the entirety of the Croydon Road frontage of the HCA has been rated Contributory status “1”; on Bay Street of 17 buildings on the street frontage in the HCA, 13 are rated Contributory “1” or “2”; on Church Street, of the 13 buildings fronting the street, 9 are rated either Contributory “1” or “2”. In conclusion, the Rathgael Estate HCA has a high level of integrity/high numbers of Contributory buildings. 

 

The revised Building Contribution rankings have been checked and found to be correct in terms of identifying whether original houses have been significantly externally altered - such as having rendered walls and new roofs and substantial front alterations, or where there is a new house - and such sites are not identified with a high ranking of 1 or 2.

 

It should be noted the rankings are a guide, and that any future development applications will be carefully assessed on merit, using a site inspection, and using Council’s heritage advisory service”.

The DCP should be deferred.

The DCP is a critical document affecting the entire former Ashfield LGA area and as explained in Part 3 of the report it needs to be finalised.

The FSRs applying to the Rathgael Conservation area are too restrictive.

The FSR is contained in the Ashfield LEP 2013 and is 0.5:1, as this FSR was previously found in the Ashfield LEP 1985, and this adequately accommodates space requirements for dwellings.

The draft DCP should have been sent to all property owners

Part 3 of the report explains that the DCP was adequately notified. The material was available during business hours at the Ashfield Service Centre and Ashfield Libraries, and was available on Council’s website.

Chapter C – Sustainability does not contain discussion about active transport. 

Active transport is taken to mean providing bicycle routes that provide an alternative to the transport use of cars, and which make it easier and quicker to access public transport, and are cycle ways which would generally be located on public land controlled by Council. These are not places generally regulated by a DCP.

 

The former Ashfield LGA has a bike route plan called ‘Cycling Ashfield’ where locations on publicly controlled land and pavement treatments are provided by Council. Nevertheless, in Section 2, Part B , Public Domain, clause PC 6,  where there is opportunity for a link to a cycle route, PC6 will enable officers and an applicant to propose a footpath design which will be accommodating to that bicycle route. Also, Chapter A, Part 8 - Parking in the parking standards table (page 57) of the DCP has requirements for the provision of bicycle parking within developments, as found in the current IDAP 2013.

Requests that the DCP requires all “Traffic Reports submitted supporting Development Applications be required to count bicycles and pedestrians around developments as well as vehicles, and to consider the impact of proposed developments on active transport networks.

See comments above re provision of bicycle parking.  Also, a private development’s impact on existing footways and existing footway pedestrian traffic is a matter pertaining to the physical  design of footways which will be examined under Section 2, Part B , Public Domain, clause PC 6.

 

Council should identify areas of high pedestrian and bicycle activity in the LGA.

It is agreed that pedestrian desire lines and cycle paths are a fundamental public land management consideration for Council, however, these routes are found in documents which are not part of the DCP. Cycle routes are found in the ‘Cycling Ashfield’ map. High Activity Pedestrian routes are found in other documents such as the ‘Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan 2016’. 

Under Part 5-GreenWay- That transport corridors that bring pedestrians and cyclists to the GreenWay be identified and improved to enhance accessibility.

Clause PC 8 in that Part already states that “works on public land or publicly accessible land within private sites are to take relevant Council policies for the GreenWay into consideration”. The location and design documentation for these places, such as the tunnel pathways under and around Longport Street and pathways under and around Parramatta Road are “public works” carried out by Council’s works/engineering department, and their locations and details will be in the relevant technical documents and which are separate to the DCP.

Under Chapter D, Part 6 Enterprise Zone Parramatta Road,  ‘there should be a large setback at the conclusion of the WestConnex works’ for use by pedestrians and cyclists

A large part of this corridor has been compromised by the WestConnex motorway construction. Planning for areas either side of the ends of the motorway will need to be re-examined in the future, and require a separate planning process. These places have not yet been precisely defined, but when this occurs, further plans will be developed to inform any future DCP for residual sites and opportunities for pedestrian paths and cycle ways.

The Bland Street crossing at Parramatta Road is a critical crossing point for commuter cyclists and the pedestrians, which includes access to the GreenWay and Iron Cove, to Lilyfield and to the city. Council should work with the RMS to provide safe access.

It is evident that this is a key crossing, which has been compromised by WestConnex related construction activities. Detailed planning for this area will be examined in the future, and will require a separate plan for any future pedestrian or cycle routes. This will inform any future DCP for any residual sites such as the former Brescia site.

Submission states:

 

For ‘Section 2, General Guidelines, Chapter A, Miscellaneous, Part 4(page 22): Solar Access and Overshadowing’ with particular reference to PC1.  The criterion as stated in the draft states that :

 

‘Development optimises solar access to living rooms and principal private open space of neighbouring properties’.  Our comments are as follows:


1. This section refers to residential flat buildings.  We believe that the same criterion must be applied to all building types in relation to their impact on residential properties.

 

 

 

 


2. The statement in relation to optimising solar access to living rooms and principal private space must be amended to make it clear that the portion of private open space that must have sun is also adjacent to the living areas and not at some remote part of the property that offers little genuine benefit to the residents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The intention of this brief part of the DCP is to capture extraordinary situations where solar access is not covered in other specific sections of the DCP. Solar access for houses is under covered in Chapter F – Part1, at clause PC 13 (page 11).

 

It is agreed this should be clarified. It is recommended that the following clause be added to this DCP part.

 

DS 1.3 Private open space referred to in Clause DS1.1 is to be an area which is adjacent living areas.

 

 

 

Regarding dwelling sizes for new apartments, the DCP states in Chapter F, Part 5, clause DS 13.1 "Development provides a mix of dwelling sizes to cater for a variety of individual housing needs addressing a spectrum of affordability".

 

Submission states: “I'd like to see stronger language here. There are very few 3 bedroom apartments in Ashfield. Real estate.com.au currently shows only 4. I've never heard of 4br apartments. This forces families that need more than 2 bedrooms into houses or out of the area which changes the nature of the suburb. This is especially an issue when 4/5br houses are replaced by a block of 2br apartments”.

Dwelling mix is a consideration under the Apartment Design Guide referenced in SEPP 65 (which overrides a DCP), however, there is little practical direction given. For the reasons stated in the submission, it is agreed that there will be a need/demand for 3 bedroom apartments in the future. It is recommended that clause DS13.1 should have wording added which states: “This is to include a suitable mix of studio, one, two and three bedroom dwellings addressing local demand for apartments”.

Supports the DCP.

This is noted.

Requests to be advised of the Council meeting that will consider the report on the DCP.

This will occur.

States : Given I would like my family and friends to all be able to purchase properties at affordable prices in this great area I think we need to do as much as possible to quickly increase development in the Ashfield area.

Given we are one council now though shouldn't this new LEP apply across all of the inner west as we need to really encourage development in this area to revive the local shopping, restaurant districts and build local jobs and businesses.

This submission misunderstands that the documents on exhibition pertain to a DCP and not a reconsideration of the Ashfield LEP 2013.

There should be formal guidelines for notifying residents and business people about development applications.

Section 1 Part B Notification and Advertising contains these details, which are repeated from the IDAP 2013, and are currently in use.

Make plans and other details available on the website

Plans are currently available on the Council’s website for some areas and this is currently being extended to all of the new LGA.

Did not receive information about the DCP, and the DCP should have been provided on the website as one PDF.

Refer to part 3.1 of the report for how the DCP was exhibited.

 

The DCP on Council’s website was broken into parts due to the large electronic file size.

Submission states “It is my hope that the Development Control Plan 2016 for Ashfield maintains a distinction between the types of dwellings and density that surround Ashfield train station and the types of dwellings and density that form the area south of Ashfield Mall for the sake of sustainability, amenity and cultural heritage. High-density housing in Ashfield or elsewhere is only suitable close to suitable public transport, in sites where it does not harm resident access to sunlight or quiet, and where it is congruous with existing architecture and style.

The Development Control Plan 2016 for Ashfield must maintain current amenity enjoyed by residents as a priority.”

Places for higher residential densities are demarcated in the Ashfield LEP 2013 Maps, such as in the Ashfield Town Centre on B4 zoned land, but not in R2 Low Density Residential Zones.

 

R2 Zone Low Density Residential areas are also shown in the LEP maps. The DCP provides guidelines for these places in Chapter F-Dwelling Houses and Dual Occupancy, including matter pertaining to residential amenity.

Council can request photographs of the interiors of Heritage Items and this is not reasonable.

Chapter E1 – Part 2 – Heritage Items, Clause 3 - Interior Elements of Heritage Items, explains that Council in situations where “Heritage Impacts Statements” are required, such as major work to interiors, Council is able to request photographs of existing interiors. This is standard Heritage Conservation practice for buildings which are Heritage Items and therefore both interior and exterior parts of the building are important, and this is not a new imposition created by the draft DCP. Also, there are no such requirements for houses within conservation areas.

Council can force building owners in Conservation Areas to bring altered non-original parts of their buildings back to their original state.

As previously responded in the response to other submissions, this is not the case, and it is recommended this be clarified in the DCP.

Objects to Chapter E1 - Controls clause C5 (d) on page 20 which pertains to rear second storey additions, which submission states :  “providing it was compatible with the historic character of an HCA”…..(d) alterations and additions are designed to fit into the character of heritage conservation area and submissions considers  that therefore additions will have to be in what is referred to as a “mock period style”

Clause (d) is a standard conservation control which will require any new work to be in harmony with existing buildings given that the work is within a Heritage Conservation Area. This does not mean that the new work must be in a literal copy of the existing style and this is made clear by Controls Clause C2 (on page 22 under “Form, Massing Scale”).

 

Council’s Heritage Consultant states: “Chapter E1 of the Draft DCP deliberately did not provide detail on the form or design for additions so as not to be unnecessarily restrictive. The controls to require additions away from the main roof form are to protect the integrity of Heritage Conservation Area streetscapes. There is no requirement for additions to copy the existing style of buildings”.

 

Submission objects to what it refers to as a past Council practice of  “heritage fundamentalism “ in that only a design style which copies the existing style will be acceptable for such things as rear additions, and that implicitly the written content of the draft DCP will leave the guidelines open to interpretation and continue the termed “heritage fundamentalism”.

Council’s Heritage Consultant states:

“Chapter E1 of the Draft DCP deliberately does not provide detail on the form or design for additions so as not to be unnecessarily restrictive. There is no requirement for additions to copy the existing style of buildings. The DCP heritage controls provide guidance to minimise heritage impacts, for example by locating additions to the rear of houses, away from the main original roof form”.

 

Clause 3 - Form Massing and Scale, Controls Sub Clause C2 (page 22), makes it explicit that rear additions to houses are not required to literally imitate the existing style of existing buildings. Any person making design assessments will be bound to take that into consideration.

 

 

3.3       Staff comments from Ashfield Service Centre:

Manager of Development Services (Ashfield Service Centre)

The Manager of Development Services advises that: It is imperative to have an up to date Development Control Plan that reflects the Ashfield LEP 2013 in order to carry out day to day assessment of Development Applications and defending Council’s position in the Land and Environment Court. There have been several appeals where the Commissioners have highlighted the absence of an up to date DCP.

It considered that there is no need to have a savings provision clause because the proposed controls largely use the content of the existing IDAP 2013, and so existing development applications will not be unreasonably burdened by DCP 2016.

It is also recommended that in Chapter D, Part 3 - Ashfield Town Centre(page 10)  that for Map 3,  that future development in Murrell Street should have front gardens and so the Map be amended to remove reference (in red dotted line) to a having a front building with a zero building setback.

 

Submissions Summary

The matters raised in submissions do not warrant deferral of the DCP and as indicated in the report minor additions can be made to the DCP to clarify its intent. Minor changes are permitted by the EPA Act Regulation 2000, Clause 21(i)(b). The finalisation and making of the DCP 2016 should therefore be progressed.  

Also relevant is that advice from Department of Planning and Environment in a “Guide for merged Councils on planning functions - May 2016” that no new amalgamated Inner West LEP in draft form is expected prior to Sept 2017. Any such LEP and ancillary DCP for the entire Inner West Council will of course require prior community engagement, follow legal plan making processes and will need to be a priority of a newly elected Council. Given the significant task involved in preparing a new comprehensive LEP and DCP it is likely that Ashfield LEP 2013 will need to remain in place for a significant period of time so there is no currency in delaying the making of the current DCP pending the preparation of new planning controls for the new council area. 

 

4.0       Procedures for bringing the Draft Ashfield Comprehensive DCP into force.

Pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Regulations 2000, Part 3 - Development Control Plans, the following remaining procedures must be carried out to bring the Draft Comprehensive DCP into force: 

-    Pursuant to clause 21 of the EPA Act Regulation 2000, give notice in the local newspaper within 28 days of Council’s resolution, declaring that Council has adopted the DCP.

-    Council advise the Minister /Secretary of the Department within 28 days of the making of the DCP that it has been adopted.

Pursuant to Part 3, Clause 23 of EPA Act Regulation 2000, Council will also need to repeal the Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007 by:

-    Firstly giving a public notice in the local newspaper of its intention to repeal the Ashfield DCP 2007, and state the reasons for doing so – being that it would be replaced by the Inner West Comprehensive DCP for Ashbury, Ashfield, Croydon, Croydon Park, Haberfield, Hurlstone Park and Summer Hill, and that this reflects and supports the Ashfield LEP 2013. This intention notice must occur at least 14 days before the notice of repeal of the Ashfield DCP 2007.

-    Secondly, thereafter Council gives notice of the repeal of the Ashfield DCP 2007 by placing a public notice in a local newspaper which takes effect on the date the notice appears in the newspaper.

 

 

5.0       Conclusion

The Draft Comprehensive DCP for Ashbury, Ashfield, Croydon, Croydon Park, Haberfield, Hurlstone Park and Summer Hill referenced in Attachment 1 (found on Council’s webpage) is a substantial and complex document which supports Ashfield LEP 2013 and has been produced in collaboration with Council’s consultants.  It uses the contents of the existing IDAP 2013 and also updates some parts, including Part E 1 - Heritage Conservation to account for the new conservation areas created in LEP 2013, includes new provisions for Waste Management and places the Tree Preservation Policy within the DCP. It is laid out in a format which has clear performance criteria and related design solution options, making it easy read and to reference.

As explained in Part 3 of the report, submissions received on the draft DCP did not raise any matters that prevent the DCP from being finalised and adopted. Some minor additions and amendments to the DCP have been recommended in response to the submissions and will not affect the integrity of the document as exhibited.

It is recommended that Council resolve to adopt the Inner West Comprehensive DCP 2016 for Ashbury, Ashfield, Croydon, Croydon Park, Haberfield, Hurlstone Park and Summer Hill and also repeal Ashfield DCP 2007 as outlined in the report.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

DCP

2.

Overview Draft DCP

3.

Heritage Consultant Comments - Submissions Draft DCP

  


Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 


Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 

















Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 





Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 

Item No:         C1216 Item 3

Subject:         39 Smith Street Summer Hill - Planning Proposal  

File Ref:         16/4718/129356.16         

Prepared By: Con Colot - Senior Strategic Planner & Projects, Ashfield  

Authorised By: Phil Sarin -  Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

A Planning Proposal has been received on behalf of the site owner to remove 39 Smith Street, Summer Hill from Schedule 5 of the Ashfield LEP 2013 as a locally listed heritage item. The proposal has been put on preliminary public exhibition in accordance with the previous Council’s policy and public submissions have been received and commented on in this report. This report recommends that Council refer the application to the Gateway Panel (State Government) seeking authorisation to process and determine the application to delete the property as a heritage item.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1.      That Council resolve to progress a Planning Proposal to amend Ashfield Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013 to delete Heritage Item no 620, from Schedule 5 Environmental Heritage of the Ashfield LEP 2013.

 

2.      That Council forward the Planning Proposal to the Department of  Planning and Environment for Gateway Determination to allow the LEP plan amendment process to commence under Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).

 

3.      That Council resolve to request The Department of Planning and Environment to issue 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.

 

4.      That following the 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. 

    

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

 

 

 

 

1.0       Overview of Planning Proposal

 

The Planning Proposal is contained in Attachment 1 and seeks to remove the property’s heritage listing from the Ashfield LEP 2013. A Planning Proposal is a document that explains the intended effect of a proposed Local Environmental Plan (LEP) amendment and provides the justification for proceeding, in accordance with the Department Guidelines - “A Guide to preparing Planning Proposals”.

 

The applicant’s heritage report is contained in Attachment 2.

 

The proposal states that the existing property does not warrant heritage listing and does not meet the relevant listing criteria outlined in “Assessing Heritage Significance, NSW Heritage Manual” (refer to pages 26 - 29 of Attachment 2 for the detailed assessment). This includes that there is no association with any significant event or person, and the building is not aesthetically architecturally significant, and has been so altered so as to not be able to demonstrate any particular historical period or technological achievement.

 

2.0       Site, existing zoning and heritage listing.

 

39 Smith Street, Summer Hill is currently zoned R3 - Medium Density Residential under the Ashfield LEP 2013 (see Figure 1). The site is listed as heritage item number 620 under in Schedule 5 – Environmental Heritage of the LEP.

 

 

 

 

Figure 1 - Extract of Ashfield LEP 2013 Land Zoning Map showing 55-63 Smith Street, Summer Hill and existing R3 – Medium Density Residential zone, and showing the Heritage Conservation Map and 39 Smith Street Heritage item location.

 

Existing buildings on the site include:

 

-     A house at the front of the property originally constructed in the late 1800s which had additions to the rear constructed in the late 1980s.

 

The house was listed as a heritage item in 2003 via LEP amendment No 92. The inventory sheet from the Ashfield Heritage Study Review for Areas Zoned 2b and 2c in 2001 is contained in Attachment 3.  

 

-     At the rear of the site is a factory building and car parking area (approved in 1965).

 

 

Figure 2   Aerial view - 39 Smith Street is within red boundary

 

No 33 Smith Street (adjacent site to the east) was the subject of a development application for part 2 and 3 storey apartments and is also zoned R3 - Medium Density Residential. This application was recently approved by the Inner West Planning Panel.

 

No 41-43 Smith Street (adjacent to the west – see photo below) is within the Fleet Street Heritage Conservation area and contains a house which has a ‘neutral’ ranking as it is from a construction period which is outside of the key period of significance for the area.

 

Figure 3    41 - 43 Smith Street – left side of picture, adjacent 39 Smith Street

 

The souther side of Smith Street opposite the site contains the Quarantine Ground Conservation Area.

 

4.0       Preliminary notification and public submissions

 

In accordance with Council’s Notification Policy the proposal was put on preliminary exhibition between 9 August 2016 and 7 September 2016 in order to obtain public feedback to assist the Council in making a decision on whether or not to proceed further with the Planning Proposal.

 

Six submissions were received. To comply with guidelines issued by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, copies of actual submissions have not been included as attachments to this report, as this would reveal personal information of people who made submissions. The following table instead identifies each individual submission without stating the details of the person, and summarises the comments made. 

 

Table 1

 

Submissions

Issues raised

Officer Response

 

Submission 1 

Objects to removal of Heritage listing.

 

 

Removal of heritage listing would result in a loss of character of Smith Street.

It is correct that potential demolition of the existing house and redevelopment of the site will impact on this part of Smith Street. However, these are not grounds or rationale for heritage item listings. 

 

Removal of the heritage listing will affect the listing of the Fleet Street Conservation Area.

The Fleet Street Conservation Area listing will remain and is not affected this Planning Proposal.

 

 

Removal of the listing would lead to redevelopment of the site which would lead to a loss of sunlight and privacy.

The site is currently zoned R3 - Medium Density Residential and an application could therefore be prepared and submitted to redevelop the site in accordance with this zoning based on current planning controls, which include relevant amenity considerations. Issues such as solar access and privacy would need to be addressed as part of any redevelopment of the site, regardless of whether or not the site had a heritage affectation. 

 

Submission 2

 

Objects to removal of Heritage listing.

 

 

 

Removal of Heritage listing would result in loss of character of Smith Street.

Refer to previous comments.

 

Removal of the heritage listing will affect the listing of the Fleet Street Conservation Area.

This is not the case - refer to previous comments.

 

Removal of the listing would lead to redevelopment of the site which would lead to a loss of sunlight and privacy.

Refer to previous comments.

 

Submission 3 

Objects to removal of Heritage listing.

 

 

Removal of the listing would lead to redevelopment of the site which would lead to a loss of character in Smith Street

Refer to previous comments.

 

Removal of the listing, and consequent demolition of the house, is contrary to the Ashfield LEP clause 1.2, 2(b) “aims to retain and enhance identity of Ashfield an early residential suburb with local service industries and retail centres”, and this is in conflict with protecting the environment.

 

The first and primary consideration is whether the heritage listing in the Ashfield LEP 2013 is warranted, using Burra Charter and Heritage Manual provisions.  Clause 1.2, (2) b of the Ashfield LEP 2013, does not override this consideration.

 

Submission 4

Supports removal of Heritage listing of 39 Smith Street.

 

 

Raises other matters that do not affect this Planning Proposal.

 

 

Submission 5

 

Supports removal of Heritage listing of 39 Smith Street.

 

 

Raises other matters that do not affect this Planning Proposal.

 

 

Submission 6

 

 

Refers to 2010  Inventory

sheet found on Council’s website for 39 Smith Street and that it is not comprehensive.

The inventory sheet contains a basic level of information outlining the reasons for the initial listing.

 

Raises objection to removal of listing, if surrounding properties are not given equivalent development standards that benefit the R3 – Medium Density Standards of 39 Smith Street.

This is not a justifiable reason for applying an R3 zone to adjacent R2 Low Density Residential Zones.

 

4.0       Council Heritage adviser’s comments

 

Council’s Heritage Adviser, Robert Moore, has advised that:

 

I refer to the meeting with Ms. Marilyn Lean now some weeks ago, in which argument and evidence in a heritage assessment and impact statement were presented in support of a request to take the property off Council’s list of heritage items. I suggested that an inspection of the property was necessary and on Tuesday 27 September Mr. Con Colot and I inspected the house.

 

It is evident that much change has occurred to the property over its lifetime. Internally all ceilings and cornices have been replaced and other details, such as chimney pieces, have no clear authenticity. Joinery has also been incrementally changed.

 

Having regard to its degree of intactness and low level of retained original detail, I agree that the listing of the property is no longer warranted. I could not, in all conviction, argue in Court that this house was of such history and qualities in its fabric that it should remain an item of environmental heritage for Ashfield. It does not compare with other important properties that have been given this recognition.

 

Accordingly, in my opinion, Council could agree to include the property in such forthcoming adjustments to the schedule as are programmed.

 

5.0       Conclusion on whether to proceed with Planning Proposal.

 

The Planning Proposal is in a preliminary part of the processing with the initial decision being a requirement to refer the proposal for gateway Determination.

 

The Planning Proposal document contains the required necessary documentation which addresses Section 55 of the EPA AC 1979 and the State Government Department of Planning guidelines.  Strategically, it seeks to correct what it says was an inappropriate listing in the Ashfield LEP 2013 regarding 39 Smith Street, Summer Hill and so implicitly have the LEP have a more accurate alignment with Council’s heritage strategy as expressed in the Ashfield Urban Strategy 2010. This will better align with Council’s Housing Strategy.

 

Given the circumstances and current condition of the existing site and buildings, the arguments put forward in the applicant’s Heritage Study (Attachment 3) including that the house does not currently meet the relevant heritage listing provisions, Council’s Heritage Adviser‘s analysis of that document, site inspection and comments, it is agreed that the Planning Proposal should be progressed to the next procedural stage by Council. Further scrutiny of the application will be required through the referral processes as part of the formal public exhibition phase (see part 6 below).

 

6.0       Next steps

 

The Council is required to determine whether or not to proceed with the Planning Proposal. If Council resolves to proceed with the Planning Proposal the next steps are to follow the Department of Planning & Environment’s LEP plan making process:

 

·         Department of Planning and Environment undertakes an assessment and, if supportive of the proposal, will issue a Gateway Determination which will give Council the authority to continue the process and specify whether any additional studies are required.

·         Council formally exhibits the Planning Proposal.

·         Council considers submissions received and following community engagement decides whether or not to submit the LEP amendment to Minister/Department of Planning and Environment for gazettal if the plan making function is delegated to Council.

·         The plan is then notified and comes into effect.

6.0   LEP (plan-making) delegation former Ashfield LGA

 

In November 2012 the Minister for NSW Planning & Infrastructure delegated certain powers to councils to make and determine LEP amendments. This enables councils to exercise the Minister’s Plan making functions after the Gateway Determination stage.

 

The former Ashfield Council resolved to use the delegation on the proviso that the General Manager exercises the delegation with prior approval from Council whenever a Planning Proposal is processed. It is therefore recommended that Council resolve that the current General Manager be authorized to exercise the delegation for this particular proposal.

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended Council endorse the Planning Proposal and forward the documentation to the Department and request the Minister to issue the relevant Gateway Determination to allow the process of preparing an LEP to commence with progression to formal community engagement.

 

It is also is recommended that Council seek authority from the Gateway Panel to use the Council ‘Authorisation’ to process the Planning Proposal.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Planning Proposal

2.

Heritage Impact Assessment

3.

Inventory sheet

  


Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 






























Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 
































Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 


Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 

Item No:         C1216 Item 4

Subject:         Statement of Vision and Priorities  

File Ref:         16/6060/125958.16         

Prepared By: Kathryn Ridley - Corporate Strategy Planner, Marrickville  

Authorised By: Nellette Kettle - Director, Innovation and Strategy

 

SUMMARY

Council is required to develop a Statement of Vision and Priorities to provide high level guidance until the creation of a new Community Strategic Plan (CSP) for the Inner West. The Statement of Vision and Priorities is considered a first step in the development of the CSP. A first draft CSP will be completed by September 2017 at which point it will be presented to the newly elected Council for consideration.

 

It is proposed that the Statement of Vison and Priorities be adopted for the purpose of community review.

.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council adopt the Statement of Vision and Priorities for the purpose of community review.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) requires all newly amalgamated councils to prepare a statement of vision and priorities. The below is excerpt is from the DPC’s Managing Change: Guidance for Key Staff:

 

“By the end of December 2016 it is expected that a succinct statement of vision and priorities will have been prepared for the new council. The statement will provide high level guidance for the early period of the new council, until the adoption of the first community strategic plan.

 

New councils will prepare the statement of vision and priorities in the format that works best for their communities. It is expected that it will generally be a short document of no more than four pages. As its simplest, it may take the form of a one-page statement containing a one-sentence vision statement and a list of the top priorities for the new council.”

 

-       Page 32

 

The DPC further advises that the existing community strategic plans (CSP) should be used as a guide. Common language and themes should be taken into account. This helps to ensure that the intention and direction provided by the current community strategic plans is not lost.

 

The Statement of Vision and Priorities is considered the first step, or foundation piece, in the development of a Community Strategic Plan for the Inner West. The priorities will be further explored as part of an issues paper and community engagement program informing the CSP that will commence early in 2017.

 

It is recommended that Council adopt the Statement of Vision and Priorities for the purpose of community review.

 


PROCESS AND OUTCOMES

 

The draft Statement was prepared following a three month period of community and staff engagement. (A detailed Community Engagement report is attached). The community was asked to consider:

 

1) What's your vision for the Inner West? Please provide five words that describe the best Inner West that you can imagine.

 

2) What do you think the top three priority focus areas for Inner West Council should be over the next 12-18 months?

 

Staff analysed the results against the themes and priorities identified in the existing community strategic plans. Results at the high level indicated that, apart from dissatisfaction with the state government’s amalgamation process, there was minimal shift in regards to the top of mind issues identified in the current community strategic plans.

 

THE VISION

 

The Vision reflects the most commonly identified values and ideas for the future as expressed by the community during the engagement process. Three Vision statements, based on community feedback, were presented to the Local Representation Area Committee (LRAC) for consideration. Following input from LRAC members, who observed that recognition of our Aboriginal heritage should form the focus of our Vision, Option 3 was revised. This option was then presented at the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) meeting on Tuesday 22nd November at Leichhardt Town Hall. The following Vision was supported;

 

We are Inner West, land of the Gadigal and Wangal peoples, whose rich cultures, heritage and history we acknowledge and respect. Together we are an inclusive, passionate, creative, vibrant community united in our desire to build a great future for all who live and

do business here.

 

THE PRIORITIES

 

The community satisfaction survey alone attracted over 1000 participants. The results showed that the majority of people were concerned about the longer term impacts of “development in the area and the flow-on effects of traffic, congestion, population growth, public transport, parking, green spaces, environmental concerns and infrastructure.” (Micromex Research 2016).

 

Overall, eight high level priorities emerged as a result of the community engagement. They were;

 

1.   Planning and Development

2.   Transport

3.   Social vitality and quality of life

4.   Sustainability and environment

5.   One Council

6.   Local business and industry

7.   Advocacy

8.   Local democracy

 

 

The draft Statement of Vision and Priorities is attached and provides a level of detail behind each priority.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The Operational Plan and Budget 17/18 will factor in any specific programs and projects that specifically support implementation of the priorities. It should be noted that the current Operational Plan and Budget 16/17 supports many of the priorities as they remain largely reflective of the outcomes articulated in the community strategic plans, and therefore delivery programs, of the former councils.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Council implemented a community engagement program in the creation of the Vision and Priorities. Input was gathered through:

 

·    A community engagement forum held on 5 September 2016 at Ashfield Town Hall

·    Focus groups with members of the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander, Youth and Access communities.

·    Festivals and events held throughout October at Ashfield, Summer Hill and Marrickville, with Leichhardt’s Norton Street Festa.

·    A survey on Council’s online engagement hub, Your Say Inner West.

·    A Community Satisfaction Survey facilitated by Micromex Research

·    Staff engagement through an online and paper-based survey

·    Workshop with LRAC (Local Representation Advisory Committee – former councillors)

·    Final review of by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) meeting participants on 22nd November at Leichhardt Town Hall.

 

Over 1700 people participated across a range of face-to-face and online methods.

 

CONCLUSION

Early next year, Council will commence a broad program of in-depth engagement with community, partners and staff to develop the Inner West’s first Community Strategic Plan. The first draft CSP will be prepared for the consideration of the newly elected Council by September 2017. The Statement of Vision and Priorities is a first step in the development of the CSP and will provide direction to Council in the meantime. It will also serve to inform the Operational Plan 2017/18.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

STATEMENT OF VISION AND PRIORITIES

2.

Statement of Vision and Priorities Engagement Report-final (3)

  


Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 

DRAFT STATEMENT OF VISION AND PRIORITIES

INNER WEST COUNCIL

 

Message from the Administrator

I am pleased to present Inner West Council’s ‘Statement of Vision and Priorities’. The Statement was developed over a three month period in close consultation with the community of the inner west and council staff. The Statement sets out strategic priorities that will provide high level guidance to Council until the development of a single Community Strategic Plan (CSP) for the inner west. The CSP will establish a common direction for the new Council as we continue to work towards achieving better outcomes for the people who choose to live, work and invest in the inner west.

In preparing the Statement we asked the community what the key issues and challenges are for the inner west and what Council needed to focus on in the next 12 to 18 months. These issues formed the basis of our eight high level priorities. They are;

1.    Planning and Development

2.    Transport

3.    Social vitality, creativity and quality of life

4.    Sustainability and the environment

5.    One council

6.    Local industry and business

7.    Advocacy

8.    Local democracy.


The priorities will be further explored as we develop the Community Strategic Plan. Community engagement on the CSP is due to commence in early 2017 with an Issues Paper designed to help us better understand the more complex challenges that we face. It will also serve to open dialogue with potential partners and stakeholders as we investigate opportunities to work together in the best interests of the Inner West.

We are in the process of identifying a set of performance indicators that will tell us whether or not we are achieving better outcomes for the community across the eight priority areas. We will be reporting against these indicators on our website. If you would like to follow our progress please visit www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au.

 

 

 

 


 

About the Statement

The Statement has been designed to provide high level direction and guidance for Council until the adoption of a single Community Strategic Plan for the Inner West. It will also serve to inform the development of the Operational Plan and Budget for 2017/18.

The Statement supports an outcomes based agenda for engaging stakeholders and developing partnerships, ensures the continuity of the projects commenced by the former councils and provides a shared vision for the future.

Developing the Statement

Council implemented a community engagement program in the creation of the Statement of Vision and Priorities ensuring representation consistent with our demographics. Input was gathered through;

-      A community engagement forum held on 5 September 2016 at Ashfield Town Hall

-      Focus groups with members of the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander, Youth and Access communities

-      Festivals and events held throughout October at Ashfield, Summer Hill, Marrickville, and Leichhardt’s Norton Street Festa

-      A survey on Council’s online engagement hub, Your Say Inner West

-      A Community Satisfaction Survey facilitated by Micromex Research

-      Staff engagement through an online and paper-based survey

-      A workshop with our Local Representation Advisory Committee (LRAC)

-      Review by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) meeting participants, 22nd November at Leichhardt Town Hall

 

The community satisfaction survey was the most comprehensive engagement exercise undertaken with over 1000 residents participating. The survey showed that people are mostly concerned about the longer term impacts of “development in the area and the flow-on effects of traffic, congestion, population growth, public transport, parking, green spaces, environmental concerns and infrastructure.” – Micromex Research 2016.

Staff also examined the Community Strategic Plans (CSPs) of the former local government areas. This was to ensure that the intention and direction of the current plans were not lost. Analysis showed that the top of mind issues in the CSPs were largely reflective of those identified by the Inner West community during the engagement process.

Delivering on the priorities

Council staff are identifying the key pieces of work, planned or already in train, that support the priorities. Many have already been identified including the development and implementation of a Disability Inclusion Action Plan (supporting Priority 1), delivering the Stronger Communities Fund (supporting Priorities 2, 3 & 4) and development of a single Community Strategic Plan for the Inner West (supporting Priority 5). Some activities will address more than one priority, therefore achieving multiple community outcomes. Where gaps are identified, Council will consider any new actions required or projects that might be accelerated.

It is important to note that addressing the priorities is not solely the responsibility of Council. As is the case with the Community Strategic Plans, Council is one of several key stakeholders responsible for achieving better outcomes for the local community.  Council will therefore assign high level indicators against the priorities allowing us to measure whether or not we, and our partners, are on the right track.

These indicators, along with details of Council’s key supporting projects, will be available on our website from early 2017. The Operational Plan and Budget 2017/18 will identify the relevant Council service units and programs contributing to the priorities. A draft Operational Plan and Budget will be available for community comment in March 2017. Formal reporting against the Operational Plan will continue on a bi-annual basis.

The Statement of Vision and Priorities

In adopting this Statement of Vision and Priorities Council commits to working towards a shared vision and actioning projects and initiatives identified as essential to addressing the eight priorities listed below.

The Vision and Priorities will remain in place until the adoption and implementation of a new Community Strategic Plan for the Inner West.

The Vision

We are Inner West, land of the Gadigal and Wangal peoples, whose rich cultures, heritage and history we acknowledge and respect. Together we are an inclusive, passionate, creative, vibrant community united in our desire to build a great future for all who live and do business here.

 

The Priorities

 

 

 

Priority 1  - Planning and Development

B          

·      Managing and planning for population growth

·      Improving access to affordable housing

·      Protecting heritage buildings and items

·      Providing clean, safe, welcoming public spaces

·      Maintaining green/open spaces

·      Maintaining our community assets e.g. buildings and land

·    Retaining industrial land

 

 

Priority 2 - Transport

b

·      Delivering the Greenway

·      Managing traffic congestion

·      Provision and maintenance of local infrastructure e.g. roads, footpaths

·      Improving bike paths and networks

·      Improving accessibility and connectivity

·    Addressing car parking issues in key locations, including residential and business districts

 

Priority 3 - Social vitality, creativity, quality of life

·      Promoting inclusion, particularly for people with a disability

·      Providing social hubs, meeting places and community events

·      Supporting diverse, multi-cultural communities

·      Improving access to recreation, both active and passive

·      Promoting Aboriginal culture - past, present and future

·      Improving access to community facilities, particularly for youth and seniors

·      Supporting wellbeing

·      Supporting the arts

·    Addressing gaps in service provision e.g. childcare

 

Priority 4 - Sustainability and environment

 

ý

 

·      Protecting highly vulnerable areas and habitats including the Cooks River

·      Responding to, mitigating and managing the impacts of climate change

·      Tree management and protection

·      Promoting recycling

·      Supporting community gardens

 

 

 

Priority 5 - One council

˜

·      Providing equitable, integrated and efficient services across the whole LGA

·      Achieving innovation in service delivery

·      Establishing who we are, and what we stand for

·    Undertaking long term strategic planning for the Inner West

 

Priority 6 - Local business and industry

F

·      Delivering main street and town centre vitality

·      Creating vibrant night-time economies

·      Supporting small businesses

·      Creating new jobs, particularly for young people

·    Supporting innovation and creative industries

 

 

Priority 7 – Advocacy; representing our community

·      Minimising negative impacts of development and population growth e.g. on environment, infrastructure, liveability

·      Improving access to key services e.g. public transport, education

·      Achieving better community and environmental outcomes on local and urban projects e.g. WestConnex, Callan Park, Yasmar estate

 

 

 

Priority 8 - Local democracy

G

·      Ensuring participatory community engagement

·      Creating opportunities for youth engagement and pathways development

·      Developing partnerships

·    Providing accessible, transparent communication

                                                                                

 

 

 


Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 


















Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 

Item No:         C1216 Item 5

Subject:         Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy 2016 

File Ref:         16/4718/135494.16        

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

Authorised By: Phil Sarin -  Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

The Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy (Strategy) was released last month and spans a 20km long corridor from Granville to Camperdown. Four of its eight precincts are located entirely/in part within the Inner West Council area. It is forecast that within these four Precincts there will be a total of 7,200 new homes and 14,090 jobs by 2050 as a consequence of land use change along the corridor.

 

The Strategy has responded to a number of the issues raised by former councils in their submissions and through ongoing discussions. Some areas of concern still remain and a more detailed analysis of the Strategy and supporting documents will be undertaken over coming months.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.       The report be noted and a further report be brought back to the February 2017 Council Meeting with a more detailed analysis.

2.       Council work collaboratively with Strathfield, Burwood, Canada Bay and City of Sydney councils in advocating for provision of centre running public transport on Parramatta Road from “Day 1”.

3.       Council work collaboratively with other councils along the Corridor to adopt a consistent approach to assessing planning proposals where proponents want to use the Out of Sequence Check List.

4.       An urgent meeting be sought with the Department of Planning & Environment and Greater Sydney Commission to resolve the implications of having to consider planning proposals prior to the required precinct wide studies and planning being completed.

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

1.0       BACKGROUND

UrbanGrowth has been working on a Strategy for Parramatta Road for the past three years. This has included the exhibition of draft Strategies in November 2014 and October 2015. The Strategy spans a distance of 20km from Granville in the west to Camperdown in the east and comprises eight Precincts that have been identified for further growth, with four of those Precincts being located in the Inner West Council area. These are:

 

·    Kings Bay (across Burwood, Canada Bay & Inner West Council areas);

·    Taverners Hill;

·    Leichhardt; and

·    Camperdown.

 


The Strategy 2016 was released on 9 November 2016.

 

2.0       STRATEGY DOCUMENTS

 

The Strategy 2016 and Implementation Tool Kit are the NSW State Government’s 30 year plan for the renewal of the Parramatta Road Corridor and an integrated land use planning and transport framework for the transformation of the corridor. The Strategy 2016 comprises the following eleven documents:

 

·    Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy

·    Implementation Tool Kit

Implementation Plan 2016-2023

§ Staging/sequence Strategy

§ Precinct Plans including land uses and necessary infrastructure

§ Out of sequence checklist for planning proposals submitted before Council Local Environmental Plan amendments

Planning and Design Guidelines

§ Suggested land use and built form controls for the entire corridor

§ Land use, heights, densities, open space, movement and circulation for each Precinct

Infrastructure Schedule

§ Costed and prioritised for local, regional and state infrastructure

Urban Amenity Improvement Plan

§ $198m program of local amenity works

·    Reference Reports

Precinct Transport Report

Social Infrastructure Analysis Report Volumes 1 & 2

Fine Grain Study

Economic Analysis Report

Sustainability Implementation Report

Sydney CBD to Parramatta Strategic Transport Plan

 

Fact sheets for the Strategy and Tool Kit are included at Attachment 1.

 

3.0       OVERVIEW OF PRECINCTS

 

An extract of the maps and vision for each of the four Precincts located within the Inner West Council area are included in Attachment 2, with key data shown below. Note that the comments provided below are high level only, with a further report being prepared for the February 2017 Council Meeting following a more detailed analysis of the documents.

 

3.1       Kings Bay Precinct – Strategy 2016

 

Population       5,200 new people by 2050

Homes            2,500 new homes by 2050

Jobs                4,440 new jobs by 2050

 

Urban renewal opportunities

·    Land immediately fronting Parramatta Road

·    Spencer Street

·    William Street

·    Regatta Avenue

·    Kings Road

 


Comment:

 

Compared to the draft Strategy 2015 there has been a reduction in the number of new dwellings from 3,278 to 2,500. This is in part due to a reduction in height in places, allowing for a transition to adjacent lower scale development and changes in in residential zoning in parts of the precinct.

 

There is now an added focus on employment, with the projected job numbers increasing significantly from 53 new jobs to 4,440 by 2050. This is being achieved through reduction in residential zoned land and an increase in employment lands within the Precinct.

 

There are still matters of concern including:

 

·    The request to maintain existing R2 low density zonings has been disregarded, with the extent of land to be zoned R3 Medium Density Residential along the north side of Dalmar Street now extending to the east past Scott Street, and continuing to West Street (adjacent Dobroyd Canal).

·    There is still a lack of green setbacks other than on main streets.

·    Maps to show upper floor setbacks along Parramatta Road are not provided.

·    Unclear as to whether FSR and building heights align.

·    No additional land identified for open space.

 

3.2       Taverners Hill Precinct – Strategy 2016

 

Population       3,300 new people by 2050

Homes            1,300 new homes by 2050

Jobs                4,100 new jobs by 2050

 

Urban renewal opportunities

·    Land immediately fronting Parramatta Road

·    Tebbutt Street to Hathern Street

·    Lords Road

 

Comment:

 

Compared to the draft Strategy 2015, the number of new dwellings has decreased from 2,751 to 1,300 homes by 2050. The proposed density in draft Strategy 2015 was opposed by both the former Marrickville and Leichhardt Councils, with heights of up to 12 storeys considered out of character and unsuitable for the precinct. The Strategy 2016 is more closely aligned with proposals received from both Marrickville and Leichhardt. However, there are still some concerns, especially in relation to the loss of employment lands within the precinct and heights in some areas. 

 

The loss of the IN2 Light Industrial Lands at Lords Road, in particular, is not supported by Leichhardt’s Employment Land Studies (2015 and 2016). This land was identified as having an important role both now and into the future. This site is also the subject of a planning proposal to rezone the land for residential purposes.

 

3.3       Leichhardt Precinct – Strategy 2016

 

Population       2,100 new people by 2050

Homes            1,100 new homes by 2050

Jobs                3,250 new jobs by 2050

 

 


Urban renewal opportunities

·    Redevelop the car park site and buildings east of Norton Street (note: this is Council’s Hay Street car park site. Council is already looking to develop this site in partnership with a community housing provider).

·    Select infill properties on the western side of Norton Street, which also offer the opportunity to unblock east-west connections and connect Albion Street to Jarret Street via the Forum.

 

Comment:

 

Compared to the draft 2015 Strategy there has been a minor reduction in the number of new homes, from 1,188 to 1,100 by 2050 as a consequence of reduced heights to respect sensitive areas (heritage and low scale development). There are still concerns as to how development would transition to adjacent low scale development.

 

Instead of an anticipated loss of jobs there is now an increase of 3,250 jobs by 2050.

 

Further in depth analysis of the Fine Grain Study and the Planning and Design Guidelines is required to provide a more detailed response.

 

3.4       Camperdown Precinct - Strategy 2016

 

Population       1,400 new people by 2050

Homes            700 new homes by 2050

Jobs                2,300 new jobs by 2050

 

Urban renewal opportunities

·    The “Camperdown Triangle” – land bound by Parramatta Road, Mallet Street and Pyrmont Bridge Road as a Biomedical Hub.

·    Hordern Place Industrial Area – land bound by Australia Street, Cardigan Lane and Gantry Lane and O’Dea Reserve.

 

Comment:

 

Compared to the draft Strategy 2015 there has been a reduction from 1,339 to 700 new homes by 2050. Additional jobs are set to increase from 151 to 3,602 by 2050.

 

The Strategy 2016 has responded positively to the former Leichhardt Council’s submission that land within the Camperdown Triangle should be retained for employment purposes. In particular, the proposal for a biomedical hub that was put forward (in consultation with the University of Sydney and Royal Prince Alfred Hospital) rather than the high density residential development of the draft Strategy 2015. This “triangle” is now proposed to be prioritised for biotechnology and employment uses that support the growth of nearby health and education institutions, with only limited residential development envisaged.

 

On the southern side of Parramatta Road the height of residential development has been reduced to respond to the existing local character.

 

4.0       TRANSPORT AND TRAFFIC

 

Preliminary analysis, from a transport and traffic perspective, indicates that the Strategy relies on three key factors to manage the travel demand generated by the proposed increased densities;

 

·    spare capacity to be provided on Parramatta Road as a result of the WestConnex Motorway;

·    more restrictive on-site parking controls;

·    provision of full time bus lanes on Parramatta Road.

In considering the likely success of such factors it is important to note that much of the Strategy’s transport assessment is based on the ‘Sydney CBD to Parramatta Strategic Transport Plan’ which was finalised in September 2015. Since that time the alignment of WestConnex Stage 3 has been amended, several public transport initiatives have been proposed in other parts of Sydney and the Bays Precinct has progressed. In recognition of this highly dynamic transport environment the WestConnex Road Traffic Model (WRTM) is currently being revised. Consequently, concern is expressed that the transport modelling supporting the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy may be based on obsolete data.

 

It is also considered that in order to encourage revitalisation of Parramatta Road, spare capacity that is projected as a result of the WestConnex project should be used to provide enhanced public transport, improved public domain, kerbside parking and streetscape elements. Consequently, permitting traffic associated with the increased residential and business densities to use up any spare capacity (on Parramatta Road) has the potential to undermine opportunities to improve local amenity in a manner which will support the increased densities themselves.

 

It is considered that the use of restrictive parking polices will assist in encouraging a mode shift toward sustainable transport, particularly if combined with enhanced active transport facilities (proposed in the Strategy) and significant improvements to public transport.

 

While the Strategy does support several relevant improvements to the adjacent active transport network concern is expressed that the proposal to enhance public transport by providing increased frequencies of kerbside bus operations is insufficient to act as a genuine catalyst for revitalisation. In response to this, Council has commissioned the ‘Parramatta Road Light Rail Opportunities Study.  A preliminary draft of this study is currently being reviewed by Council officers and a final version is due in December of this year.

 

In essence this study reviews the practicality of providing a high order public transport system within the Parramatta Road Corridor. The current draft of the study identifies:

 

·    the need to provide world class public transport in order to provide “confidence”  for the revitalisation of the corridor and to act as a catalyst for increased densities;

·    the need for “Day 1” use of any spare capacity on Parramatta Road for public transport and public domain improvements, in order to ensure that such capacity is not taken up by additional traffic (Day 1 preservation of the public transport corridor);

·    that centre-running of public transport offers the opportunity to provide kerbside parking (at least outside peak periods) along Parramatta Road, to assist in reactivating frontage uses.

In relation to light rail infrastructure the study notes:

 

·    the long lead time associated with introducing light rail;

·    the relatively high costs associated with light rail (at least in relation to the early stages of revitalisation when existing densities prevail);

·    several “pinch-points” which present significant physical challenges to the introduction of light rail.

In examining worlds-best practice, and innovative future transport, the study examines opportunities for the introduction of centre-running Guided Electric Vehicles (GEVs) which could preserve the corridor, provide an incrementally upgradable public transport service (easily added to as densities increase) and could be integrated with light rail at a suitable time in the future. The completed study will be presented to Council once finalised.


5.0       AFFORDABLE HOUSING

 

The Strategy 2016 incorporates a minimum affordable housing target of 5% of all new homes in the eight renewal precincts. However, the Strategy allows for an increase in this target in line with any changes to State government policy.

 

Within the four Precincts located in the Inner West (including part of Kings Bay) this would equate to 360 new affordable housing dwellings.

 

Together with a minimum 5% affordable housing target, the Strategy incorporates a number of strategic actions to encourage the supply of affordable housing.

 

No.

Strategic actions for affordable housing.

Responsibility

1

Provide a minimum of 5% of new housing as Affordable Housing, or in-line with Government policy of the day.

Councils and Proponents

2

Amend the underlying Local Environmental Plan(s) to insert Affordable Housing principles.

Councils

3

Amend State Environmental Planning Policy No 70 – Affordable Housing (Revised Scheme) to identify that there is a need for affordable housing in all local government areas in the Corridor

DPE

4

Prepare model ‘development consent’ conditions for inclusion into future planning proposals/rezonings to enable the levying of monetary contributions that can be used to fund Affordable Housing.

Councils

5

Investigate planning provisions and mechanisms to deliver more Affordable Housing within the Precincts. These could include density bonuses or offsets, decoupled parking, relaxation of development contributions, and mechanisms to streamline and expedite assessment and approvals processes for Affordable Housing projects.

Councils

 

Comment:

 

Research commissioned by the Inner West Council reveals a large, disproportionate and growing number of local people in housing stress and shows that the market is not providing affordable housing for the vast majority of very low, low and moderate income households in the LGA. Nor is the market replacing existing housing stock lost through gentrification and redevelopment that is affordable to these groups.

 

Key findings of the research that supports Council’s Draft Affordable Housing Policy indicates the following:

 

·      The Inner West LGA has experienced some of the most rapid real increases in housing prices (rental and purchase) over the past decade, with accelerating trends in recent years. Even the lowest priced strata dwellings are no longer affordable to very low and low income households, and are generally affordable only to the upper end of the moderate income band.

 

·      This is leading to serious impacts on the social and economic fabric of the local community:

A large, disproportionate and growing number of local people are in housing stress, and sacrificing basic necessities to pay for their housing costs;

There is a considerable displacement of historical populations through ongoing gentrification and non-replacement of affordable and lower cost housing;

There are very high current and projected levels of unmet need for affordable housing for low income emergency and service sector workers, as well as for more vulnerable groups such as aged pensioners and people with a disability.

The research strongly indicates that virtually no new housing constructed in the future will be affordable to any very low or low income households, or to moderate income families, without strong intervention through the planning system to capture a reasonable share of land value uplift.

 

The five actions that encourage more affordable housing within the precincts are welcome.  However, given the chronic shortage of affordable housing in the corridor and adjoining local government areas, the minimum 5% target is underwhelming, especially since it is the State government that is driving the planning controls and land use in the corridor, and given that the land along the route will see significant value uplift.

 

In outlining strategic action to encourage housing diversity, the Strategy does refer to exploring “incentives such as value sharing where rezoning is necessary to achieve renewal of private sites to capture a proportion of the increased land value to fund affordable, diverse and social housing projects,” but there is no evidence that UrbanGrowth has done any modelling with respect to value capture nor taken into account the contribution that the sharing of value uplift can make to justifying a higher affordable housing target.

 

Modelling of value uplift commissioned by Inner West Council has identified that up to to15% affordable housing contributions were likely to be sustainable without affecting development feasibility depending on existing use and future controls.

 

It is also noted that the draft Central District Plan prepared by the Greater Sydney

(GSC) was released on Monday 21 November 2016. These plans include a target of providing 5% to10% affordable housing on new development projects. The housing would be rented at below market rates by households earning less than $67,600 annually.

 

The Strategy 2016 target of 5% is a minimum target and could be increased in line with other planning policies endorsed by the State government. The Information Notes 4 on Affordable Housing released by the Greater Sydney Commission with the draft Central District Plan refers to the need for an appropriate target to be set that is subject to development feasibility testing across the nominated renewal areas and growth precincts.

 

 

6.0       STRATEGY 2016 IMPLEMENTATION

 

The Strategy includes an Implementation Plan 2016 – 2023 and Infrastructure Schedule that are intended to manage redevelopment within the corridor.

 

Key aspects of these plans are the identification of sub-precincts within precinct specific ‘Action Plans’ that are to be the focus of initial redevelopment (until 2023) with development in the remaining areas not to occur until after this time. The 2023 release areas are primarily within the former Leichhardt LGA with all of the Leichhardt Precinct included in the initial release area, part of the Camperdown Precinct (north of Parramatta Road being the most affected) and a smaller area of the Taverners Hill precinct on both sides of Parramatta Road and extending northwards between Tebbutt and Flood Streets.

 

The Implementation Plan recommends that councils amend their LEPs and DCPs to incorporate the Strategy’s provisions in the longer term with planning proposals able to be submitted in the initial release areas immediately. These are to be assessed against the Out of Sequence Check List provided by the Strategy.

 

The implementation arrangements that are proposed present a number of challenges to council in assessing planning proposals, as follows:

 

-     There appears to be an expectation that planning proposals will be approved prior to the finalisation of planning for enhanced public transport services along Parramatta Road by TfNSW. This means that future land use and transport may not be adequately coordinated.

-     Lack of certainty over how local infrastructure will be provided i.e. via VPAs and/or amended Section 94 Plans. It is noted that due to the longstanding $20K contribution cap (unindexed) that some contributions are already at the contribution limit. Accordingly, the additional local infrastructure that the Plan identifies as necessary may not be able to be delivered via this means. Meanwhile, the State Government is able to levy for Regional Infrastructure via a State Infrastructure Contribution (SIC). The collection of local infrastructure funds via the SIC should therefore be considered.

-     Inconsistency between the affordable housing contribution rate (minimum 5%) within the Strategy, that which it is understood that the draft Central District Plan will require and potentially council’s own affordable housing rate (to be considered in a draft policy being reported to this Council meeting).

-     The identification of the need for each Precinct to undergo a traffic study with associated modelling that includes future WestConnex conditions (and presumably new mass transit on Parramatta Road) prior to any rezoning commencing. It is unclear who is responsible for this work and its timing in the Strategy. This information will be necessary to determine the location and extent (and the cost) of local traffic works.

 

It is critical that these issues are resolved prior to council having to evaluate planning proposals within the corridor. The recommendation of this report to seek an urgent meeting with the Department of Planning & Environment and GSC is the appropriate way in which to commence a dialogue to assist in resolving these issues.

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil at this stage. A further report in February 2017 will outline potential resourcing requirements to undertake further studies and analysis identified in the Strategy.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil. 

 

 

CONCLUSION

The Strategy 2016 has addressed a number of concerns raised by the former councils, but not all. A more detailed analysis of the documents will be completed over coming months and further information will be presented to the Council on future actions and work that needs to be undertaken.

 

Affordable housing has been included in a State Government strategy for the first time, which is welcomed, with a 5% affordable contribution required. However, research by Council reveals that 5% is inadequate and that a higher percentage is feasible within the corridor.

 

Enhanced public transport is a key catalyst to encourage revitalisation of Parramatta Road along with improved public domain, kerbside parking and streetscape elements. It is essential that any spare capacity on Parramatta Road is used for public transport and public domain improvements to ensure that such capacity is not taken up by additional traffic. Further, public transport needs to be centre running so that kerbside parking can be retained (at least outside peak periods) along Parramatta Road, to assist in reactivating frontage uses. The potential use of Guided Electric Vehicles (GEVs), which would assist in enhancing the corridor, could be introduced from a ‘Day 1’ scenario as a cost effect solution rather that the proposed kerbside rapid bus arrangement identified in the Strategy.

 

While the Strategy is a comprehensive approach to an urban renewal precinct, it also recognises that there is more detailed work required to address local precinct planning issues, particularly in relation to specific LEP and DCP controls. As outlined in this report, the implementation arrangements will present a number of challenges to council in assessing planning proposals so it is recommended that Council meet with other councils along the corridor to adopt a consistent approach to ‘out of sequence’ applications. It is also recommended that the Council arrange to meet with representatives from the Department of Planning & Environment and GSC and seek their assistance to address other issues raised in the report.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Fact sheets for the Strategy and Tool Kit

2.

Maps and vision for the four Precincts located within the Inner West Council area

  


Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 

















Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 









Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 

Item No:         C1216 Item 6

Subject:         67 - 73 Lords Road, Leichhardt - Planning Proposal Public Exhibition
  

File Ref:         16/4718/135319.16         

Prepared By: Roger Rankin - Team Leader Strategic Planning, Leichhardt  

Authorised By: Phil Sarin -  Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

The Planning Proposal to rezone 67-73 Lords Road, Leichhardt from light industry to residential and to increase the FSR to 2:4:1 has been placed on exhibition by the Sydney Central Planning Panel (SCPP) - formerly the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP). The closing date for submissions on the Planning Proposal is Wednesday 21 December 2016. The former Leichhardt Council opposed this Planning Proposal when it was submitted back in 2014 and the current exhibited proposal is effectively unchanged. The Council's original concerns remain and changing circumstances since 2014 plus Gateway Review Recommendations and Gateway Determination conditions that have not been addressed in the exhibited proposal have added to these concerns.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT COUNCIL:

 

1.   Note that the Planning Proposal to rezone 67-73 Lords Road, Leichhardt from IN2 Light Industrial to R3 Medium Density Residential and increase the maximum permissible floor space ratio (FSR) from 1:1 to 2.4:1 has been placed on public exhibition by the (SCPP); and

2.   Endorse the attached draft submission (Attachment 3) which strongly objects to the Planning Proposal and recommends that the SCPP not support the proposal.

3.   Requests the SCPP to extend the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal by a further 28 days given the timing of the exhibition period.

4.   Request the Sydney Central Planning Panel as relevant planning authority holds a hearing on the issues raised in this submission under section 57(5) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 No 203.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

1.0       PROPOSAL

The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 and Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 as follows:

 

·    Rezoning from Industrial (IN2) to Medium Density Residential (R3). 

·    An uplift in FSR from 1:1 to 2.4:1.

·    Site to accommodate 315 units in four (4) residential blocks ranging in height from four (4) storeys to eight (8) storeys.

·    Create a one way, shareway through the site from Lords Road to Davies Lane.

·    Establish a separate basement parking entrance and exit off Lords Road.

·    Create a central communal open space area.

·    Include childcare centre and café uses.

 

A Voluntary Planning Agreement offer was included in the original proposal, but is not a part of this exhibited proposal.

 

2.0       KEY ISSUES

 

The key concerns with the proposal are summarised below:

 

·    Recent rezonings, Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy (PRUTS) and WestConnex will result in the loss of 85.3% of the Leichhardt LEP area's industrial land supply. The proposal would lead to loss of an important local industrial precinct and jobs when the Greater Sydney Commission draft District Plan advocates a precautionary approach to the protection of industrial land for urban services. The former Leichhardt Council's recent industrial land studies demonstrate that Lords Road should be retained as an industrial precinct. The exhibited proposal's Industrial Rezoning Economic Justification is dated October 2013 and does not take account of any of these matters.

·    The site is identified in the PRUTS for rezoning to residential and a higher FSR, but the exhibited proposal does not meet the detailed requirements of the PRUTS Planning and Design Built Form Guidelines.

·    The PRUTS Implementation Plan 2016 - 2023 has a requirement that a Taverners Hill precinct wide traffic study and supporting modelling should be completed before any rezoning is commenced and that this study will identify road improvements that a rezoning project should provide. This work has not been done so this proposal is premature.

·    The proposal does not fully comply with the PRUTS Implementation Plan 2016 - 2023 "Out of Sequence" Checklist for Planning Proposals in the PRUTS corridor that come forward prior to publication of new Local Environmental Plan controls for the corridor.

·    The JRPP Gateway Review recommended that if exhibited the proposal should demonstrate compliance with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG). The exhibited proposal does not comply with a number of requirements of the ADG and also the proposed Development Control Plan, the related Concept Design Report and other supporting material obfuscate a number of other design matters so that it is impossible to establish with confidence that these elements would comply with the ADG.

·    The site is affected by High Hazard Category flooding and the exhibited proposal has not addressed this issue adequately.

·    The PRUTS, the Greater Sydney Commission District Plans and the Inner West draft Council Affordable Housing Strategy (due to be considered by Council for adoption on 6 December 2016) set higher targets for affordable rental housing provision in perpetuity, especially for very low and low income households compared to the 5% for 10 years in the exhibited proposal, which would only be affordable for the very top of the moderate household income band. The proposal should provide at least 15% of its units in perpetuity as genuinely affordable rental units for very low and low income households as defined in the Affordable Rental Housing State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP). 

·    Changes to the WestConnex alignment will significantly increase traffic in the neighbourhood, especially on Tebbutt Street into which Lords Road traffic feeds. The exhibited proposal does not address this issue.

·    The lack of provision for definite contributions to the cost of local, PRUTS and Greater Sydney Commission District Plan infrastructure.

 

 

3.0       BACKGROUND INFORMATION

 

67 - 73 Lords Road, Leichhardt is one of the most important local industrial precincts left in the former Leichhardt Council LGA. It is one of few remaining locations that can accommodate local urban services and it houses approximately 30 businesses with around 60 employees. SGS established as part of their 2014 Industrial Land Study for Leichhardt Council that it was earning the owner double the average rental levels of other industrial properties in the LGA.

 

The former Council resolved in August 2014 (C263/14) to not support this proposal for the following reasons:

 

a.   in the context of persistent demand and a low and decreasing supply of industrial land, a rezoning would dilute Councils ability to provide sufficient industrial land to accommodate demand; and

 

b.   the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with s.117 Direction 1.1 Business and Industrial Zones on the following grounds:

i.    the Planning Proposal is not justified by relevant strategies in relation to the retention of employment lands, including the Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2031 and the Draft Inner West Sub-regional Strategy.

ii.    the Planning Proposal is not adequately justified by an economic study prepared in support of the Planning Proposal

iii.   loss of this employment land would be of substantial significance to the local government area’s employment land supply.

 

c.   the proposed rezoning would result in a net loss of jobs in the local government area

 

d.   the proposed rezoning would result in the loss of an economically viable employment lands precinct containing local services, light industrial and other non-industrial activities which contribute to the diversity of the economy, community activities and employment opportunities

 

e.   the proposal does not have merit when assessed against the criteria established by the Leichhardt Employment and Economic Development Plan 2013-2023

 

f.    the Planning Proposal is not supported by an appropriate Net Community Benefit Test as it does not address the wider issue of cumulative loss of employment lands in the local government area

 

g.   the Planning Proposal is not supported by an adequate, comprehensive Social Impact Assessment

 

h.   the proposed zoning of R3 Medium Density Residential is inconsistent with the Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2031, Appendix D: Glossary of Terms as it relates to R3 Medium Density Residential.  The proposed building heights and residential density are, instead, consistent with the R4 High Density Residential Zone which is not included in the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013.

 

i.    the proposed Floor Space Ratio and building heights would result in unacceptable amenity impacts on the local area including:

i.    overlooking of Davies Street properties,

ii.    inadequate location and quantity of common and private open space

iii.   visual impact from the bulk and scale of buildings

iv.  overshadowing of open space areas

v.   inconsistency with the local character

 

j.    the Planning Proposal proposes that 15.8% of the site be communal open space and therefore does not meet the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Residential Flat Design Code which requires the provision of 25-30% of the site for communal open space

 

k.   the Planning Proposal is not consistent with Section 3.3.3 (Clause 3.3.1) of the Leichhardt Affordable Housing Strategy (2011) which seeks a 10% affordable housing contribution

 

l.    the proposed reduction in the width of existing streets to accommodate public domain works is unacceptable

 

m.  the proposed one-way share way vehicular movement system would result in an unacceptable number of vehicle movements in Davies Lane

 

n.   the proposal would result in significant additional traffic impacts, particularly in relation to intersections, which have not been adequately addressed in the supporting studies

 

o.   the Planning Proposal does not adequately address the strategic context of major NSW State government projects including:

i.    Bays Precinct Urban Renewal

ii.    Parramatta Road Urban Renewal

 

which may result in further, significant loss of employment land and an increased demand for non-residential goods and services arising from a growing population in the inner west

 

p.   Council has not been provided with adequate information to be satisfied that the site can be made suitable for the proposed residential development and use in accordance with SEPP 55 Remediation of Land.

 

q.   the Planning Proposal does not address issues associated with the proposed WestConnex Motorway including:

i.    traffic generation

ii.    location of air quality stacks

iii.   location of motorway entry and exit portals

 

The background for some of these points has changed and the key issues summary in Section 2.0 now incorporates the Inner West Council's position on this proposal. A copy of the Leichhardt Council 2014 report is, however, attached for information (Attachment 2) as most of the important assessment points remain the same.

 

In September 2014 the proponent requested a Pre-Gateway Review (PGR) from the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (the Department). The Department referred the PGR to the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) for advice. In October 2015 Council made a submission to the PGR process opposing the proposed rezoning on the same grounds it had for not supporting the Planning Proposal.

 

In December 2015, the JRPP made a formal recommendation to the Department that the Planning Proposal should be submitted for a Gateway Determination. The JRPP that reviewed the Planning Proposal had 5 members and the Panel made a majority decision with 2 members voting against the recommendation. One opposed the recommendation on the grounds that industrial land should be retained and the other on the grounds that as the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy was still in draft form the rezoning would be premature.

 

The JRPP also advised that the Planning Proposal should be updated to:

·    demonstrate consistency with the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy;

·    include a satisfactory arrangements provision for contributions to State public infrastructure designated under the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy; and

 

·    demonstrate that the proposed controls enable a development that complies with the Apartment Design Guide and does not significantly impact the amenity of the surrounding low density residential neighbourhood, consistent with the Panel’s recommendation.

 

Council's opposition to the loss of industrial land was supported by an SGS Industrial Land Study, which had been partly completed by August 2014.  This Industrial Lands Study was finalised and approved by Council in February 2015. It was then submitted to the PGR process prior to the JRPP's consideration of the Planning Proposal.

 

In February 2016 the Department informed Leichhardt Council that it had decided to refer the Planning Proposal for a Gateway Determination after having considered the JRPP recommendation and Council's advice. The Department also asked Council if it wished to be the Relevant Planning Authority (RPA) for the proposal.

 

Council resolved on 23 February 2016 (C44/16) to decline this invitation and on 23 May 2016 the Department appointed the JRPP as the RPA.

 

The December 2015 recommendation of the JRPP that the Planning Proposal should be submitted for a Gateway determination was made in advance of the completion of the second stage of the SGS Leichhardt Industrial Precinct Planning work and its consideration by Council. An interim report was presented to the former Leichhardt Council in April 2016 and the final document in May 2016.

 

On 20 July 2016 Inner West Council received a Gateway Determination from the Department's Deputy Secretary that he as the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) had determined that the Planning Proposal should proceed to public exhibition, subject to a number of conditions.

 

These conditions included exhibition requirements, a timeframe and the following specific issues:

 

1.   Prior to public exhibition, the planning proposal is to be updated to:

 

a)   address the social impact of the proposal, including consideration of the capacity of existing, and future need for affordable housing, education, health and emergency services;

b)   demonstrate consistency with s.117 Direction 4.1 Acid Sulfate Soils and Direction 4.3 Flood Prone Land; and

c)   include current and proposed Land Zoning and Floor Space Ratio maps (in accordance with the Standard Technical Requirements for Spatial Datasets and Maps).

d)   include a satisfactory arrangements provision for contributions to designated State public infrastructure identified as part of a draft or final strategic planning review for the Parramatta Road corridor.

 

2.   Prior to finalisation the planning proposal is to be amended to demonstrate consistency with any available findings of a draft or final strategic planning review for the Parramatta Road corridor.

 

Council requested a Post Gateway Review on the following grounds:

 

·    After the Planning Proposal was referred to the Gateway Process in February 2016 the former Leichhardt Council completed and adopted (C04/15P) its Industrial Precincts Planning Study, which provided clear evidence as to why all the industrial land should be retained with an industrial zoning.

·    The Draft Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy was still not finalised and consequently this Planning Proposal remained premature.

·    The Greater Sydney Commission was preparing the Draft District Plan for the area and initial indications from joint workshops with the GSC were that protection of existing industrial land would be a critical element of the District Plan.

·    The Gateway Determination conditions did not include a requirement for provision of an updated economic impact assessment, despite requiring such updates for affordable housing, education, health and emergency services.

 

The GSC now has responsibility for deciding Gateways and Gateway Reviews and Council considered it or its delegate the NSW Department of Planning & Environment should alter the Determination to one where the Planning Proposal should not proceed past the Gateway.

 

The Department of Planning & Environment rejected the Council's request for the Gateway Review on the basis that Council had declined to be the Relevant Planning Authority. Advice was received that there were no grounds for challenge on this policy decision.

 

The current Planning Proposal is essentially the same as the one that was not supported by Council in 2014. There are some minor updates of the proposal that partly, but inadequately, reflect the recommendations of the Gateway Determination and the JRPP recommendation. Overall, however, the exhibited proposal is the same as the version submitted in 2014 and many of the supporting documents were prepared in 2013. The proposal is out of date in terms of how circumstances in the area have changed since 2013 and premature in that it does not address these changes or the requirements of the PRUTS and the draft Central District Plan.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The Sydney Central Planning Panel is the relevant planning authority for this Planning Proposal (previously the JRPP) and is responsible for its public exhibition. Local residents were notified of the key points of this report in advance of the 6 December Council meeting.

 

As outlined previously, submissions on the Planning Proposal are due by Wednesday 21 December 2016. Given the timing of the exhibition of the proposal leading up to the Christmas/New Year period it is recommended that the Council request the SCPP to extend the exhibition period by a further 28 days. Most councils have notification policies which require an extended notification period during this time of the year so it would be reasonable to expect a major proposal of this type to also be subject to a similar process.

 

The exhibited Proposal is unacceptable from both a strategic and site specific perspective.  The Proposal is premature in relation to the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy (PRUTS), draft Central District Plan and Council policies and studies. It cannot be assessed properly because of a lack of accurate information and because of its inconsistent, badly presented design documents.  Most of the supporting information has not been updated since submission of the original proposal to Council in 2014. As a consequence the Sydney Central Planning Panel as relevant planning authority is requested to hold a public hearing on the issues raised in this submission under section 57(5) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 No 203

 

 

CONCLUSION

A detailed draft submission to the exhibition of the Planning Proposal has been prepared and is attached. This submission continues to express Council’s strong opposition to this proposal and includes, among many other matters, the following points:

 

·    Inadequate response to previous issues raised by the former Leichhardt Council, which remain relevant.

·    No updated economic impact assessment. 

·    No updated details in response to the PRUTS.

·    Poor interface with the character of the area and compatibility with surrounding heritage items. 

·    Non-compliance with the requirements of the Apartment Design Guide.

·    Inadequate response to Acid Sulphate Soils and Flood Prone Land concerns.

·    The site’s feasibility in relation to electricity, drainage and maintenance easements for the adjacent light rail corridor.

·    Inadequate response to current affordable housing requirements.

·    Significant concerns regarding traffic, transport and parking, which have not been updated.

 

The exhibited proposal is unacceptable from both a strategic and site specific perspective and is premature in relation to the PRUTS, draft Central District Plan and Council policies and studies. It cannot be assessed properly because of a lack of accurate information and because of its inconsistent, badly presented design documents. Most of the supporting information has not been updated since submission of the original proposal to Council in 2014.

 

The Planning Proposal has not complied with or fully addressed Gateway recommendations and conditions and continues to be one that will lead to an unacceptable loss of industrial land and an overdevelopment of the site with serious impacts on the amenity of the surrounding area.

 

It is therefore recommended that Council reinforce its strong opposition to the proposal and forward the attached submission to the Sydney Central Planning Panel for consideration.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Gateway Determination

2.

Council’s Report of 26 August 2014

3.

Submission

4.

Submission Cover Letter

  


Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 




Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 

 

 























































































Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 



























Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 



Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 

Item No:         C1216 Item 7

Subject:         Draft Affordable Housing Policy and Best Practice in Value Capture 

File Ref:         16/6022/131980.16        

Prepared By: Jon Atkins - Affordable Housing Officer, Marrickville 

Authorised By: Simone Schwarz - Director, Service Delivery

 

SUMMARY

It is now widely recognised that there is a major shortfall of affordable housing in most cities and many regional and rural communities across Australia. 

 

The Inner West local government area (LGA) is no exception in this regard.  It faces some of the most serious housing affordability challenges in Australia.  Research commissioned by Council reveals a large, disproportionate and growing number of local residents in housing stress. This research shows that the market is not providing affordable housing for the vast majority of very low, low and moderate income households in the LGA. Nor is the market replacing existing housing stock lost through gentrification and redevelopment that is affordable to these groups.

 

These findings provide clear justification for the Inner West Council to actively seek to increase the supply of affordable housing through its planning instruments and policies. This is in accordance with:

·    Council’s legislative obligations under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) relating to ‘the maintenance and provision of affordable housing’ [e.g. Object 5(a)(viii)]; and

·    the former councils’ affordable housing policies and strategies.

 

In order to contribute to the goal of achieving an increase in affordability for the target groups identified in the Policy, the strategy recommends stronger intervention through the planning system in the form of mechanisms to capture an equitable share of land value uplift, together with mandatory contributions or inclusionary zoning in larger development sites within the LGA and in major State redevelopment projects.

 

This report recommends that Council seeks State Government approval for amendments to SEPP 70 to enable the levying of mandatory Affordable Housing Contributions and set an affordable housing target of 15% for developments with a Gross Floor Area of 1,700m2 or greater.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

1.   Endorses the draft Affordable Housing Policy and the Position Paper: Best Practice in Value Capture;

2.   Places the draft Affordable Housing Policy and Position Paper: Best Practice Value Capture on public exhibition until 13 February 2017 and, following exhibition, submits a report to Council detailing submissions received and a final Affordable Housing Policy for Council’s adoption;

3.   Send the Affordable Housing Policy and Value Capture paper to the NSW Premier, Prime Minister, the economic policy unit of Australian Treasury and the Reserve Bank Governor;

4.   Seeks State Government approval for amendments to SEPP 70 — Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes) to make relevant amendments to its LEP, to enable the levying of Mandatory Affordable Housing Contributions under s94F of the Act to create Affordable Rental Housing in perpetuity;

5.   Note, for the purpose of Mandatory Affordable Housing Contributions, Council’s share of land value uplift will be taken as 15% of Gross Floor Area of the development for developments with a Gross Floor Area of 1,700m2 or greater;

6.   Commits to a target of 30% of all residential development on government owned land in the Bays Precinct to be Affordable Housing and undertakes a fully funded planning study to identify financially viable models to achieve this target;

7.   Prepares a 5-10 year housing action plan to implement the Affordable Housing Policy based on the Policy’s background data and Best Practice in Value Capture position paper, and drawing on existing Council research and plans;

8.   Continues to work with all levels of government and other key stakeholders such as the Greater Sydney Commission and Unions NSW to review the range of definitions of key workers;

9.   References its commitment to a 15% affordable housing target in its submission to the Greater Sydney Commission on the recently released District Plan;

10. Continues to advocate to all levels of government and key stakeholders such as the Greater Sydney Commission regarding the need for setting a 15% target for affordable housing in the Inner West LGA; and

11. Allocates funds to undertake an integrated communication strategy to promote the Affordable Housing Policy, including the organisation of a community forum in 2017.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

It is now evident that major State development projects  e.g. Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor and the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Program, offer a rare opportunity to generate affordable housing on a reasonably large scale through inclusionary zoning measures if applied by the State government. In this regard, such projects could be required to include a quantified component of affordable housing for very low to moderate income households that are managed by registered community housing providers.

 

Given the pipeline for large development proposals within the Inner West LGA, combined with the importance for Council to lobby for affordable housing targets in both major State development projects and in the Greater Sydney Commission’s district plans, it is considered urgent to develop an affordable housing policy based upon a credible evidence base as quickly as possible.

 

Consequently Judith Stubbs and Associates were commissioned to prepare an Affordable Housing Policy for Inner West Council. An Affordable Housing Background Paper and a Position Paper on Best Practice in Value Capture also were commissioned to provide a detailed evidence base for the Policy

 

In order to ensure that the draft Policy is relevant to the Inner West LGA, the policy documents include data and modelling across areas from the former LGAs of Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville. In addition, affordable housing objectives and a number of planning instruments and actions proposed in policy documents from the former councils have been incorporated in the draft Policy, where appropriate.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Key findings of the research that supports the draft Policy includes the following:

 

·      The Inner West LGA has experienced some of the most significant and rapid increases in housing prices (rental and purchase) over the past decade, with accelerating trends in recent years. Even the lowest priced strata dwellings are no longer affordable to very low and low income households, and are generally affordable only to the upper end of the moderate income band.

 

·      This is leading to serious impacts on the social and economic fabric of the local community, including:

a large, disproportionate and growing number of local people are in housing stress, and sacrificing basic necessities to pay for their housing costs;

there is a considerable displacement of historical populations through ongoing gentrification and non-replacement of affordable and lower cost housing; and

There are very high current and projected levels of unmet need for affordable housing for low income emergency and service sector workers, as well as for more vulnerable groups such as aged pensioners and people with a disability.

 

The socio-economic research strongly indicates that virtually no new housing constructed in the future will be affordable to any very low or low income households, or to moderate income families, without strong intervention through the planning system to capture a reasonable share of land value uplift.

 

Importantly, the economic modelling indicates that there will be significant land value uplift associated with rezoning across the LGA, particularly in larger brownfield and redevelopment sites such as Sydenham-Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor and the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy. Capturing a share of land value uplift before rezoning occurs is reasonable and feasible. It is important to stress that this is not a tax. Rather, it is a mechanism for capturing a reasonable share of the unearned increment in land value uplift created through the planning actions of councils and the State Government. 

 

The draft Policy contends that such value can be captured through voluntary planning agreements negotiated prior to rezoning (voluntary contributions) or through State Government approving Council to levy contributions under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 70 (Affordable Housing).  Each of these mechanisms is addressed in the Policy. Feasible levels of benefit capture in relation to variations to height and floor space ratio (FSR) are also included in the Policy.

 

The draft Policy also acknowledges that proposals to amend or exceed planning controls under a planning agreement will need to demonstrate that they have merit in their own right, prior to considering any contribution for a public purpose, including affordable housing.

 

The evidence base for the Policy also indicates that the implementation of value capture through the method of calculation recommended will not adversely impact on development feasibility and takes into account normal development profit. 

 

AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING TARGETS

 

The final version of the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy (the Strategy) was released by UrbanGrowth NSW on 9 November 2016.  The Strategy incorporates a minimum affordable housing target of 5% of all new homes in the project’s eight renewal precincts. However, the Strategy allows for an increase in this target in line with any changes to State government policy.

 

The Strategy requires the NSW Department of Planning and Environment to amend State Environmental Planning Policy No 70 – Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes) in order to identify that there is a need for Affordable Housing in all local government areas associated with the corridor.

It also requires councils to:

(a) amend Local Environmental Plan(s) to insert Affordable Housing principles;

(b)  prepare model ‘development consent’ conditions for inclusion into future planning proposals / rezonings to enable the levying of monetary contributions that can be used to fund Affordable Housing; and

(c) investigate planning provisions and mechanisms to deliver more Affordable Housing within the precincts.

 

In addition, the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) released its six draft District Plans on Monday 21 November, 2016. The District Plan proposes an Affordable Rental Housing Target of 5% to 10% that builds on Action 2.3.3 in A Plan for Growing Sydney. It also requires State and local governments to create Affordable Housing within government-led urban renewal projects.

 

The District Plans are to encompass areas that have been shown, via a local housing strategy, or another form of appropriate research, to have current or future need for affordable rental housing as well as applicable land within new urban renewal or greenfield areas (government and private) subject to development feasibility assessed at a precinct scale.

 

Both Shelter NSW and the NSW Federation of Housing Associations have described these Affordable Housing targets as underwhelming.  Given the chronic under-supply of Affordable Housing, a 15% target would have been warranted. Such a target also is in line with Council’s modelling that indicates a levy of 15% is likely to be sustainable for developments in such areas.

 

Presentations

 

Judith Stubbs has given three presentations on the Draft Affordable Housing Policy and the Position Paper on Best Practice in Value Capture. These presentations took place at the following times: (a) 22 June in Petersham (b) 16 August in Leichhardt and (c) 20 September in Leichhardt. The June and August presentations were given to Council staff while the September presentation was given to a joint LRAC meeting.  On each of these occasions, there was ample opportunity for participants to ask questions and provide feedback on the Policy’s analysis and recommendations.

 

Management of Council’s Affordable Housing Units

 

In keeping with the Guidelines for Council Owned Affordable Housing Units adopted by Marrickville Council on 14th October 2014, all affordable housing dwellings transferred to Council’s ownership will be managed by a registered Community Housing Provider chosen by Council and in accordance with the terms and conditions of an Affordable Housing Management Agreement signed by both parties.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

As indicated above, the substantial evidence showing a growing number of local residents in housing stress, together with current and projected levels of unmet need for affordable housing, provide ample justification for Council to actively seek an increase in the supply of affordable housing by setting a target of 15% for developments with a Gross Floor Area of 1,700m2 or greater.

 

The Affordable Housing Policy’s support for stronger interventions in the form of value capture, inclusionary zoning and development partnerships, offers Council the best means of increasing housing affordability for very low to moderate income households in the community and retaining diversity within the Inner West community.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Community Development - Affordable Housing - 1_DRAFT_AFFORDABLE_HOUSING_POLICY_Updated_25Nov2016 - 161128

2.

Community Development - Affordable Housing - 2_DRAFT_VALUE_CAPTURE_PAPER_Updated_25Nov2016 - 161128

3.

Community Development - Affordable Housing - 3_DRAFT_BACKGROUND_PAPER_Updated_25Nov2016 - 161128

  


Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 































Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 





















































Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 


















































Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 

Item No:         C1216 Item 8

Subject:         Draft Homelessness Policy: Responding to rough sleeping in the Inner West  

File Ref:         16/4718/126296.16         

Prepared By: Sue Pym - Social Planning Coordinator, Ashfield and Gabrielle Rennard - Group Manager, Community Programs and Services, Leichhardt  

Authorised By: Josephine Bennett -  Director, Community Services

 

 SUMMARY

The Draft Homelessness Policy: Responding to rough sleeping in the Inner West presents a framework for Council in addressing homelessness and its associated issues in the Inner West Local Government Area. It is recommended that the draft policy be placed on public exhibition from 14 December 2016 to 30 January 2017.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the Draft Homelessness Policy: Responding to rough sleeping in the Inner West be place on public exhibition from 14 December 2016 to 30 January 2017.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The former Ashfield Council endorsed a Draft Homelessness Policy for public exhibition on 22 March 2016, and the policy was placed on exhibition from 5 April until 5 May 2016. Six responses were received from the Department of Family and Community Services; the Better Pathways Project (Partners in Recovery); Aboriginal Corporation for Homelessness; Youth Off the Streets; Newtown Neighbourhood Centre and a former Ashfield  Councillor. The feedback received was generally positive with some minor edits suggested and subsequently incorporated into the draft document where appropriate.

 

As a result of the Council amalgamation, the draft policy has been reviewed and amended by relevant Inner West Council (IWC) staff to appropriately respond to homelessness throughout the new local government area. The Draft IWC Homelessness Policy (Attachment 1) reflects input from the earlier public exhibition period; consultation with IWC staff; and input provided from services such as the Newtown Neighbourhood Centre Boarding House Outreach Service and the Exodus Foundation.

 

The need for a homelessness policy stems from the increased numbers of people being reported as sleeping rough in the Inner West Council area. The numbers and locations of people sleeping rough have been documented through two late night street counts conducted in 2016; a Health NSW survey of Exodus clients; and the recording of rough sleepers identified by Council staff including rangers, community services, parks and waste services staff.

 

The challenge in managing this issue is the need to find a reasonable balance between respecting and acknowledging the rights of people who are homeless to be in public places, and Council’s responsibilities to provide a safe and peaceful environment for the wider community. The draft policy therefore incorporates strategies to improve the wellbeing of people who are homeless and reduce homelessness, while minimising the impacts of homelessness on other residents and park users. 

 


DISCUSSION

 

The Draft Homelessness Policy outlines the nature and extent of homelessness in the inner west; policy principles; the current approach to homelessness; appropriate roles for Council; the local context of service provision; and a suite of objectives and strategies. The policy objectives and strategies to respond to homelessness include the following: 

 

1.   Improve the wellbeing of people who are homeless in the Inner West Council by:

1.1. Promoting social inclusion and encouraging participation in community life

1.2. Identifying gaps and advocating for the services and funding needed to address local needs.

2.   Reduce the numbers of people sleeping rough in the Inner West Council area by:

2.1. Assisting to connect people who are homeless with the homelessness services that can support them to exit homelessness and access other relevant support

2.2. Encouraging the provision of affordable housing as a means of addressing one of the major underlying causes of homelessness

3.   Minimise any negative impacts of homelessness on local residents and other users of public places by:

3.1. Managing Council’s services and programs to facilitate accessibility while at the same time ensuring users do not infringe upon the safe and peaceful enjoyment of public places by others

3.2. Monitoring the nature and extent of primary homelessness and responding accordingly

It is proposed that following public exhibition period, the final Draft Homelessness Policy will be reported to Council for endorsement.

 

An internal staff Homelessness Working Group will implement, review, monitor and evaluate the policy once adopted by Council. This includes the implementation of a staff protocol for responding to rough sleeping, recording incidences and meeting quarterly to review data and the effectiveness of the policy and protocol.

 

Council staff are also actively engaging with NSW Health, Housing, FACS, Mission Australia and a range of other non-government agencies to develop an inter-agency response to this issue. This has resulted in two homeless services expanding their outreach services to cover the IWC area, at no cost to Council.

 

Financial Implications

 

It is anticipated that the Homelessness Policy can be implemented within existing resources. Homelessness already impacts on the work of staff from across many areas of Council including parks, waste, regulatory services, libraries and community services and is incorporated into operations.

 

In terms of support for new initiatives aimed at increasing participation of people who are homeless in local activities, Council’s grant programs and ClubGRANTS funding can assist projects aimed at disadvantaged groups such as people experiencing homelessness. 

 

Other Staff Comments

 

The Draft Homelessness Policy has been developed in consultation with relevant staff from across Council, including staff from regulatory services, parks, waste services, libraries and community services.

 

Public Consultation

 

The approach which Council has taken to date in addressing homelessness has been the result of ongoing consultation with local homeless services providers, FACS, NSW Health and Ashfield Police. It is envisaged that the IWC Draft Homelessness Policy would be placed on public exhibition from 14 December 2016 until 30 January 2017. The public exhibition process will be promoted through Council’s website (Your Say Inner West; Announcements); media releases; Inner West Courier, emails to homeless service providers; flyers and provision of hard copies in the libraries and customer service areas.

 

Conclusion

 

The Draft Homelessness Policy: Responding to rough sleeping in the Inner West provides a policy framework, objectives and strategies to guide Council in its response to the increasing incidence of people sleeping rough in the Inner West. The draft policy is ready to be released for public exhibition, the results of which will be presented to Council in early 2017.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Attachment 1 - Draft Homelessness Policy 23 November2016

  


Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 

 

 

Temporary IWC visual_cyanblack-long

 

 

 

Text Box: Homelessness Policy:
Responding to rough sleeping in the Inner West
 

 

 


Text Box: Homelessness Policy

                              

 

 

 

 

 

 

This policy will be reviewed by: Community Services and Culture

Next review date:  November 2018

 

 

 

 

 

Title:

 

 

Homelessness Policy: Responding to rough sleeping in the Inner West

 

Summary:

 

 

The policy outlines appropriate roles and strategies for Council in addressing the complex issues associated with people sleeping rough in public places.

 

TRIM Record Number:

 

 

 

 

Date of Issue:

 

 

 

 

Approval:

 

 

 

 

Version Control:

 

 

 

 

Contact Officer:

 

 

Sue Pym

 

Relevant References:

 

 

Refer to Appendix 4

 

 

Main Legislative or Regulatory References:

 

 

 

 

Applicable Delegation of Authority:

 

 

 

 

Related Council Policy:

 

 

 

 

Related Council   Procedure:

 

 

Homelessness Protocol

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purpose

Inner West Council (IWC) recognises the NSW Government’s “Protocol for Homeless People in Public Places”, August 2014, and thereby respects the rights of people who are homeless to be in public places, to participate in public activities and to be treated in a non-discriminatory, respectful manner. The purpose of this policy is to formulate an appropriate role for Council in addressing the complex issues associated with homelessness, and thereby give local expression to the principles contained in the NSW Protocol. In addition to the Protocol for Homeless People in Public Places, a number of policies and protocols from other councils have informed the development of this policy. These references are outlined in Appendix 4.

While homelessness takes many forms, the main focus of this policy is primary homelessness, which often takes the form of rough sleeping. The policy aims to address issues associated with the increasing prevalence of people who are homeless in public places, and in doing so assist Council to meet its obligation to manage these areas appropriately.

Other forms of homelessness (secondary and tertiary) include people living in temporary shelters, severely crowded dwellings, supported accommodation, emergency accommodation, boarding houses, refuges or temporarily staying with others (couch surfing). These forms of homelessness are significant and more prevalent than rough sleeping, however are not the primary subject of this policy.

Context

Homelessness is often the consequence of broad scale social and economic policies that result in homelessness triggers such as housing affordability, unemployment and loss of income support. While   homelessness is primarily the responsibility of state and commonwealth governments, local government has a significant role to play as custodians of public open space and other community assets which are used by people who are homeless and others.

In addition, in light of the national crisis in housing affordability and the interventions possible through the local planning system, Council also has a role to play in sustaining and endeavouring to expand the provision of affordable housing. The high incidence of housing stress and possible strategies for the Inner West Council to increase affordable housing are outlined in Council’s Draft Affordable Housing Policy, 2016.

The causes of homelessness are complex and varied. Men, women and children of all ages are now finding themselves homeless due to a diverse range of problems. Homelessness can result from drug, alcohol and gambling addiction; mental illness; family breakdown; shortage of stable and affordable housing; financial or housing stress; health issues; long term unemployment; domestic and family violence; loss of social and family networks; and people leaving healthcare services, child protection and correctional facilities.

While the majority of rough sleepers recorded in the local area are men, there are increasing numbers of less visible older women experiencing homelessness. Poverty and lack of housing affordability are significant factors leading older women to seek out less visible options such as couch surfing, sleeping in cars and sleeping rough in the relatively safer daylight hours, thereby not being counted in late night homelessness street counts (McFerran, 2010). Young people can also be relatively invisible, despite comprising 42% of the homeless population. This is in part due to couch surfing being the dominant form of homelessness amongst young people (Flatau et al).

Nature and extent of homelessness in the Inner West

The 2011 Census indicated that homelessness is increasing nationally, with 105,237 people recorded as being homeless, representing an 8% increase on 2006 figures.[1] These increased trends are also reflected in the Inner West Council area.   Rough sleepers have been reported in parks; in parked cars; in stairwells associated with public car parks; on verges and footpaths; on private property under eves and other semi-sheltered areas. Occasionally, tents have been erected in parks, footpaths and nature reserves in both residential and commercial areas.

A late night street count conducted in Ashfield, Summer Hill and Haberfield in March 2016 found that 20 people were sleeping rough in the area. This was followed by a winter street count in August 2016 that found that 23 people were sleeping rough, primarily in Ashfield, Summer Hill, Marrickville and Newtown with smaller numbers in Camperdown and Enmore. It is likely that this under represents the true extent of rough sleeping, however provides a useful benchmark and highlights locations where the extent of homelessness was previously unknown. Quantifying the number of people sleeping rough through street counts is inherently difficult due to some people being deliberately hidden from public view; people still being mobile at the time of the count; and the resources that would be required to check every street and public place in the municipality.

The experience of The Exodus Foundation suggests that the number of people who are homeless in the inner west is significant and growing. The Exodus Foundation’s Loaves and Fishes Restaurant serves 600 free breakfasts and lunches each day to people who are homeless and disadvantaged. Early results from a recent survey by Health NSW in conjunction with Exodus found that 20% of the 200 people interviewed at Exodus were sleeping rough. Outreach services such as Missionbeat have also noticed increased numbers of people who are homeless in the inner west.

While many people who are homeless have little adverse impact on others, there have been issues in some areas where nearby residents and other park users have complained about rubbish, the spread of belongings, drug and alcohol consumption, human waste, feeling unsafe and alienation of parkland through the erection of tents and other structures. In addition, Police have reported a number of incidents associated with some of the people who are sleeping rough in local parks, including behaviours which compromise community safety. This heightened level of community and Police concern has highlighted the need for Council to be clear about its role and appropriate responses.

Current Approach to Homelessness

 

·    The Inner West Council Operational Plan reflects a continued commitment to the objectives of providing an inclusive, equitable and socially just community. Respect for people who are homeless and recognition of their rights to fully participate in the local community and access Council facilities gives expression to these values.

·    A Protocol for Homeless People in Public Places has been developed and is being progressively implemented across the IWC. This protocol aims to guide the actions of staff in respecting the rights and needs of both people who are homeless and the other residents who share Council’s public places. It applies to indoor and outdoor public places including parks and other open spaces, libraries and customer services areas. The Protocol draws upon the principles contained in the NSW Government Protocol for Homeless People in Public Places.

·    A collaborative approach with both internal and external stakeholders underpins Council’s Protocol for Homeless People in Public Places, which acts as a guide for staff in responding to people sleeping rough in the area. This Protocol recognises the valuable information staff have concerning the location of people who are homeless, and enables this information to be referred to the services offered by specialist homelessness services. In this way people who are homeless may be offered welfare checks as well as information about accommodation and other support services.

·    The Protocol also reinforces Council’s partnership with Police in addressing any behaviour that threatens the safe and peaceful use of parks by the community. For example, local Police have been very helpful in working with Council’s Rangers to address antisocial behaviour associated with the tents that were present in Allman Park towards the end of 2015.

·    As part of the 2014 NSW Government’s Specialist Homelessness Reform, the Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) provides funding to 14 homelessness services which service the Inner West Council area. A list of these, as well as other homelessness services not part of the FACS funding program, are listed in Appendix 1.

Policy Principles

 

·    People who are homeless represent some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in our society. Homelessness is first and foremost an issue for the people who find themselves without shelter, and the obvious ramifications for them in terms of health, wellbeing, dignity and exclusion from society. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights recognises that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of themselves and their family, including access to housing (Article 25).

·    All members of the community, including people who are homeless, have the same right to be in public places. Equally, all members of the community have a shared responsibility to respect other users of public spaces and not unduly infringe on the safe and peaceful use of the public domain by others.

·    In the interest of promoting a socially inclusive society, all members of the community, including people who are homeless, have the right to participate in community events and activities, and use public facilities.

·    People who are homeless have the right to carry with them and store their own belongings, and are responsible for ensuring their belongings do not impair the safe and peaceful use of public spaces by others.

·    People who are homeless are not a homogenous group. As such, assumptions should not be made about the reasons people become homeless; the types of people who experience homelessness; and whether or not they may be interested in accessing homelessness services.

·    Where possible, vulnerable people in public places should be supported by specialist homelessness services and supported to exit homelessness.

·    Council’s Homelessness Policy does not override existing laws, statutory requirements or regulations; nor does it diminish the ability of agencies to enforce them. The Policy does not prevent relevant authorities from taking appropriate action where health or safety is threatened, or where a breach of the peace or unlawful behaviour has occurred.

Council Role

 

·    Management of public places: ensuring public places are accessible and able to be safely and peacefully enjoyed by all residents.

·    Information: Council may provide information to people who are homeless, Council staff and other interested residents concerning the homelessness services available in the area.

·    Advocacy: It is appropriate for Council to play an advocacy role concerning the provision of relevant state and commonwealth government supported services and policies that impact on homelessness. This may include policies regarding housing affordability; social housing; income support; and homelessness support services.

·    Community education: Council has the potential to increase community understanding about homelessness through the way it responds to the issue and the way it is communicated to the public

·    Monitoring: Council has a role in recording and monitoring the nature, extent and location of homelessness within the municipality

·    Facilitation: Council plays a facilitating role, through its Community Grants Program, in assisting programs that are targeted towards people who are homeless.

·    Training: It is appropriate for Council to provide training opportunities for staff who are in contact with people who are homeless through the normal course of their work

·    Planning: Council has a role to play in encouraging more affordable housing options through its planning strategies and instruments

Policy Objectives and Strategies

The following table sets out Council’s three policy objectives and six supporting strategies to respond to homelessness. Corresponding actions are listed in Appendix 2.

 

1.   Improve the wellbeing of people who are homeless in the Inner West Council by:

1.1. Promoting social inclusion and encouraging participation in community life

1.2. Identifying gaps and advocating for the services and funding needed to address local needs.

2.   Reduce the numbers of people sleeping rough in the Inner West Council area by:

2.1. Assisting to connect people who are homeless with the homelessness services that can support them to exit homelessness and access other relevant support

2.2. Encouraging the provision of affordable housing as a means of addressing one of the major underlying causes of homelessness

3.   Minimise any negative impacts of homelessness on local residents and other users of public places by:

3.1. Managing Council’s services and programs to facilitate accessibility while at the same time ensuring users do not infringe upon the safe and peaceful enjoyment of public places by others

3.2. Monitoring the nature and extent of primary homelessness and responding accordingly

Implementation

Council staff from across all departments are already involved with dealing with this issue during the normal course of their work. Specifically, this issue impacts on staff from areas such as regulatory services, parks, waste, libraries, customer services and community services. Consequently, an interdisciplinary approach across Council’s functional areas has proved to be an effective model for responding to this issue. The Homelessness Working Group will continue to meet quarterly to review homelessness data and the effectiveness of policies and procedures in addressing the issue. The Deputy General Manager, Community and Engagement will be responsible for the monitoring, evaluation and implementation of this policy, together with its review in two years.

 

 


 

 

Appendix 1 – Homelessness Services

 

The following list outlines the 14 homeless services operating in the Inner West Council area that are funded by the Family and Community Services Department.

 

·   The Inner West Youth Homelessness Service. Lead provider: Youth Off The Streets Ltd. Clients: young people

·   Sydney District Boarding House Outreach Service. Lead provider: Newtown Neighbourhood Centre Inc. Clients: women, men, families[2]

·   Sydney Homelessness Early Intervention Service. Lead provider: Mission Australia (Missionbeat). Clients: young people, men, women, families

·   Inner West Family Homelessness Support Service. Lead provider: St Vincent de Paul Society NSW. Clients: families. Also provides refuge and crisis accommodation for women with children at Elsie Women’s Refuge and Marian Centre

·   Sydney District Young Parents Homelessness Service. Lead provider: Launchpad Youth Community Inc. Clients: families, specifically young parents 16-24 years.

·   Sydney District West Family Homelessness Support Service. Lead provider: Women’s and Girl’s Emergency Centre Incorporated (WAGEC). Clients: families

·   Transgender Homelessness Support Service. Lead provider: The Gender Centre in Annandale. Clients: transgender people 18+.

·   Lesbian, Gay, bisexual, Transgender, Intersex or Queer Youth Homelessness Project. Lead provider: The Twenty ten Association Incorporated. Clients: young people under 25 who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex or queer (LGBTIQ).

·   Medium Term Homelessness Services for Girls and Young Women: Youth off the Streets. Clients: girls under 16 years requiring medium term accommodation and support

·   Homelessness Support Service for Girls and Young Women with Complex Needs: Detour House. Clients: girls under 16 years requiring crisis support

·   Aboriginal Women and Children’s Crisis Service: Marrickville Women’s Refuge. Clients: Aboriginal women and girls requiring accommodation and support leaving DV

·   Aboriginal Outreach Casework Project: Aboriginal Corporation for Homelessness: Early intervention and post crisis support for Aboriginal people

·   Sydney and South Eastern Sydney Districts Single Persons Homelessness Support Service- Mental health. Lead Provider: Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust through Wesley Mission. Service includes case management and supported transitional accommodation, as well as pathways to move from homelessness to long-term accommodation with appropriate mental health support.

·   Multidisciplinary Outreach Post-Crisis Support (MOPS). Lead Provider: Wesley. Assistance and support for chronic rough sleepers who have been allocated housing. Targets men, women & families.

 

 

In addition to the FACS funded specialist homelessness services, there are several

other organisations providing services in the Inner West:

 

·   The Better Pathways to Housing for People with Severe and Enduring Mental Illness is led by the Sydney Local Health District, FACS and Partners in Recovery to improve pathways to accommodation for people with severe mental illness. The project will map pathways to housing for people with severe mental illness for a range of housing providers and will plan and implement ways to improve this experience.

·   The Exodus Foundation provides meals, dental, medical, laundry, showers, referral and social services for people who are homeless and other vulnerable people. Several of the people sleeping rough in Ashfield’s parks are regular clients at Exodus, and it is possible that at least some of the people who are homeless are based in local parks to enable them to easily access Exodus services.

·   There are a range of other community organisations and churches providing food pantries and meals in the Inner West, including the mobile food pantry at the All Saints Church in Petersham; The Food Shed Enmore at Enmore Church of the Nazarene ; the Pop Up Pantry at Rozelle Neighbourhood Centre; the Tucker and Land Justice Food Pantry in the Addison Road Community Centre, Marrickville; weekday lunches at St Constantine’s Greek Church, Newtown; meals and food parcels at the Newtown Mission; and the weeknight Hare Krishna food van outside the Newtown Neighbourhood Centre.

 


Appendix 2 - Strategies and Actions

 

The following tables set out 17 actions that Council will implement to deliver the six strategies identified in the Homelessness Policy.

 

 

1.1 Promoting social inclusion and encouraging participation in community life

 

 

 

 

 

Action A: Promote Council’s services and programs through the Exodus Foundation and Newtown Neighbourhood Centre

 

 

 

 

 

Action B: Investigate ways in which Council’s services and programs can be more readily accessed by people who are homeless

 

 

 

 

 

Action C: Prioritise applications under Council’s Grants Program that seek to involve homeless people in community activities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2 Identifying gaps and advocating for the services and funding needed to address local needs.

 

 

 

 

 

Action D: Utilise the NSW Health survey of people using Exodus services together with Council data to identify local demand and service needs

 

 

 

 

 

Action E: Liaise with existing outreach services regarding their capacity to meet local needs and where appropriate make representations to relevant government departments and community organisations to address any unmet demand

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

2.1 Assisting to connect homeless people with the homelessness services that can support them to exit homelessness and access other relevant support

 

 

 

 

 

 

Action F: Disseminate the Homeless Assistance card to homeless people, staff, local community groups and interested residents

 

 

 

 

 

Action G: Foster cooperative relationships with Exodus, Newtown Neighbourhood Centre, Missionbeat, Youth Off the Streets and any other relevant services as they continue to assist Council in responding to rough sleepers

 

 

 

 

 

Action H: Keep abreast of the range of services available through the joint Homelessness Forums or networks convened by Exodus in partnership with Council

 

 

 

 

 

Action I: Council will undertake an annual street count of rough sleepers to record the location and extent of homelessness and thereby enable homelessness services to respond accordingly

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2  Encouraging the provision of affordable housing as a means of addressing one of the major underlying causes of homelessness

 

 

 

 

 

Action J: Develop and adopt an Affordable Housing Policy for the Inner West Council

 

 

 

 


 

 

3.1 Managing Council’s services and programs to facilitate accessibility while at the same time ensuring users do not infringe upon the safe and peaceful enjoyment of public places by others

 

 

 

 

 

 

Action K: Plans of management prepared for Council’s parks will encourage accessibility while minimising any negative consequences of rough sleepers

 

 

 

 

 

Action L: Explore the potential for the Homelessness Protocol to be adapted for use throughout the Inner West Council. 

 

 

 

 

 

Action M: The Homelessness Protocol will continue to be implemented and monitored to ensure Council’s response to homelessness is consistent with the provision of accessible, safe and peaceful open space.

 

 

 

 

 

Action N: The Homelessness Working Group will continue to monitor rough sleeping across the Inner West Council area and the implementation of the Homelessness Protocol.

 

 

 

 

 

Action O: Council will provide training opportunities for staff who encounter people who are homeless through the normal course of their work, including staff from Rangers, Waste, Parks, Libraries and Customer Services areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.2 Monitoring the nature and extent of primary homelessness and responding accordingly

 

 

 

 

 

Action P: Utilise the information from the street count to help shape the response by Council’s operational and regulatory staff to any issues stemming from rough sleeping in Council managed places

 

 

 

 

 

Action Q: Maintain a Homeless Incident Spreadsheet in order to record and where necessary respond to incidents of homelessness reported by staff, residents and others.

 

 

 

 


 

Appendix 3 - ABS Definitions and Statistics

 

   When a person does not have suitable accommodation alternatives they are considered homeless if their current living arrangement:

·      is in a dwelling that is inadequate; or

·      has no tenure, or if their initial tenure is short and not extendable; or

·      does not allow them to have control of, and access to space for social relations.

 

(ABS Reference: 4922.0 - Information Paper - A Statistical Definition of Homelessness, 2012)

 

 

·    The key national homelessness estimates from the 2011 Census are:

 

·      there were 105,237 people enumerated in the Census who are classified as being homeless on Census night (up from 89,728 in 2006);

·      the homeless rate was 49 persons for every 10,000 persons enumerated in the 2011 Census, up 8% from the 45 persons in 2006 but down on the 51 persons in 2001;

·      the homelessness rate rose by 20% or more in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT, with the largest fall being in the Northern Territory down 8%.

 

(ABS Reference: 2049.0 - Census of Population and Housing: Estimating homelessness, 2011) 


 

Appendix 4 - References

 

·    Department of Family and Community Service

Protocol for Homeless People in Public Places, Aug 2014

 

·    Department of Family and Community Service (FACS)

Specialist Homelessness Services Fact Sheet, Sydney District, August 2015

 

·    City of Sydney Street Count, Volunteer Manual

 

·    City of Sydney Homelessness website

 

·    Parramatta City Council Homelessness Policy, November 2011

 

·    Byron Shire Council Policy No 14/007, Homelessness

 

·    Manly Council, Homeless Persons Protocol

 

·    City of Boroondara, Homelessness Protocol

 

·    Waverley Council Library, Procedure and guidelines for working with people who are homeless

 

·    Chamberlain, C & Johnson, G (2011). Pathways into adult homelessness. Journal of Sociology 49: 60 DOI 10.1177/1440783311422458

 

·    Chigavazira, A., Johnson, G., Moschion J., Scutekkam, R., Tseng,Y.P., & Wooden, M. (2013) Findings from Waves 1 and 2. Retrieved from: http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/journeys_home/assets/pubs/2013/Chigavazira%20et%20Journeys%20Home%20Research%20REport%20W2.pdf

 

·    McFerran, L., It Could Be You: female, single, older and homeless, 2010 Retrieved from:

      http://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/4895912/data/it-could-be-you-by-ludo-mcferran-data.pdf

 

·    Flatau, P., Thielking, M., MacKenzie, D., and Steen, A. The Cost of Youth Homelessness in Australia Study Retrieved from:      http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/Global/Who%20we%20are/publications/2015/Youth%20Homelessness%20Report/The%20Cost%20of%20Youth%20Homelessness.pdf

 

·    ABS Reference: 4922.0 -  Information Paper - A Statistical Definition of Homelessness, 2012

 

·    ABS Reference: 2049.0 - Census of Population and Housing: Estimating homelessness, 2011

 

·    Inner West Council, Draft Affordable Housing Policy: Background Paper, 2016


Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 

Item No:         C1216 Item 9

Subject:         Expansion of Inner West Outside School Hours Care Services  

File Ref:         16/4718/124830.16         

Prepared By: Susanne Stuart-Watt - Manager Children and Family Services, Marrickville  

Authorised By: Josephine Bennett -  Director, Community Services

 

SUMMARY

Council’s endorsement is sought for the submission of applications to the NSW Government Before and After School Care Fund to expand the enrolled placements at the Camdenville Outside School Hours Care Service and the Marrickville West Outside School Hours Care Service to meet unmet community demand.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council endorse applications to the NSW Government Before and After School Care Fund for:

 

a)   a grant of $30,000 to expand the existing Camdenville Outside School Hours Care service to create an additional 15 placements; and

b)   a grant of $30,000, to expand the existing Marrickville West Outside School Hours Care service to create an additional 30 placements.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Local councils across NSW have for many years struggled to meet the demand from the community for before and after school services catering for the needs of working families with primary school aged children.In recognition of the widespread unmet demand for before and after school services, NSW Government announced the establishment of the $20 million Before and After School Care Fund as an election commitment.

 

Established in 2015, the Before and After School Fund provided one-off grants of up to $30,000 to NSW schools to assist with the creation of new before and after school care services.  The response to this initial phase of the funding resulted in less than 13% of the Fund being allocated .As a result, Phase 2 of this initiative was announced in mid 2016.

 

Phase 2 of the Before and After School Care Fund made the one-off grant of $30,000 available to local councils with existing before and after school care services who could demonstrate a need and capacity to expand. Grant applications are not assessed on the basis increases to enrolment places but on an overall service basis. The grants will enable existing before and after school care services to undertake a range of site modifications and purchase necessary equipment to ensure that services meet the expansion requirements.

 

DISCUSSION

 

DISCUSSION

DISCUSSION

 

Current Capacity at Inner West Council Before and After School Care Services

 

Council currently operates five before and after school care services. Each service operates on the grounds of a NSW Department of Education Public School and has a current leasing agreement in place.  Currently, Council provides 410 licensed child care positions each morning and afternoon as well as vacation care services during school holidays at  three of the
five services.  All services are fully utilised with 100% of enrolment targets met each day and there are waiting lists for placements.

 

  Table 1. Current Inner West Council Outside School Hours Care Services

 

SERVICE

ADDRESS

LICENCED

MAXIMUM OSHC PLACES

Camdenville OSHC

Camdenville Public School

Wells Avenue, Enmore

45

Ferncourt OSHC

Ferncourt Public School

Premier Street,  Marrickville

75

Marrickville West OSHC

Marrickville West Public School

Beauchamp Street,  Marrickville

60

Stanmore OSHC

Stanmore Public School

Cavendish Street, Stanmore

140

Wilkins OSHC

Wilkins Public School

17 McRae Street, Petersham

90

 

 

Unmet and Projected Demand at Inner West Council Before and After School Services

 

The Inner West Council has approximately 10,777 children of primary school age school living in the local government area making up 6.3% of the community.  Projections estimate that by  2017, a further 1,625 children in this age group will be living within the community.  Whilst there is no reliable data available regarding the total number of licenced enrolment positions for school aged children in before and after school services within the Inner West local area, what is evident is that at sites where Council operates before and after school services, there is a growing demand for increased enrolment places with waiting lists in place.

 

Table 2. Inner West Council Outside School Hours Care Services Waiting Lists

 

SERVICE

ADDRESS

NUMBER OF CHILDREN

 

Camdenville OSHC

Camdenville Public School

Wells Avenue, Enmore

66

Ferncourt OSHC

Ferncourt Public School

Premier Street, Marrickville

102

Marrickville West OSHC

Marrickville West Public School

Beauchamp Street, Marrickville

44

Stanmore OSHC

Stanmore Public School

Cavendish Street, Stanmore

95

Wilkins OSHC

Wilkins Public School

17 McRae Street, Petersham

49

 

 

 

Stakeholder Consultation

 

Whilst there is a general demand for an increase in before and after school care places throughout all of Council’s five Outside School Hours Care Services, there are accommodation limitations within the Department of Education schools that prevent the expansion of the Ferncourt, Stanmore and Wilkins sites. Camdenville Public School and Marrickville West Public School are able to accommodate an expansion of Council’s Outside School Hours Care Services and consultation has taken place with the Principals of these schools who have provided support and approved additional accommodation within the school premises to allow expansion to occur.


 

 Expansion Camdenville Outside School Hours Care Service

 

Officers have identified that the Camdenville Outside School Hours Care service could apply to the Department of Education and Communities to expand the existing licence to enable the service to offer an additional 15 before and after school care places if minor modifications were carried out to the existing leased premises so that the floor space ratio requirements meet the National Quality Standard. This would involve the erection of a covered outdoor shade-cloth area which has been approved in-principle by the School Principal, Sue Smith. The $30,000 Before and After School Care Fund grant would be allocated to cover the cost of these minor modifications.

 

If the application for funding is successful, the additional 15 enrolment places would increase the service’s capacity to 60 children per day.  It is anticipated that these positions will be made available by the commencement of the 2017 school year. If the application for the funding is unsuccessful, the expansion of the services’ licenced enrolment numbers will not be pursued due to compliance issues regarding the lack of the additional accommodation as required to the meet the National Quality Standard within the timeframe. 

 

Expansion Marrickville West Outside School Hours Care Service

 

Officers have identified that the Marrickville Outside School Hours Care service could apply to the NSW Department of Education and Communities to expand the existing licence. This would enable the service to offer an additional 30 before and after school care places. Additional accommodation that meets the National Quality Standard floor ratio requirements is available. The School Principal, Ruth Bradfield-Ling, has approved the relocation of the service to the school hall from the existing classroom currently being used. The $30,000 Before and After School Care Fund grant would be used to cover relocation costs and the purchase of multi-functional storage. This will provide mutual benefit to the school and the service.

 

The proposed expansion of the Marrickville West Outside School Hours Care service to offer an additional 30 enrolment places would increase the service’s capacity up to 90 children per day.  It is anticipated that these positions will be made available by the commencement of the 2017 school year. If the grant application is unsuccessful, it would still be feasible to expand the service as National Quality Standard compliance issues regarding additional accommodation can be met. Relocation from current rooms into the hall can occur without additional cost by the continued use of offices and storage facilities that the service is currently using. 

 

Whilst there is a general demand for an increase in before and after school care places throughout all of Council’s five Outside School Hours Care Services, there are accommodation limitations within the Department of Education schools that prevent the expansion of the Ferncourt, Stanmore and Wilkins sites. Camdenville Public School and Marrickville West Public School are able to accommodate an expansion of Council’s Outside School Hours Care Services and consultation has taken place with the Principals of these schools who have provided support and approved additional accommodation within the school premises to allow expansion to occur.

 

 

Officers have identified that the Marrickville Outside School Hours Care service could apply to the NSW Department of Education and Communities to expand the existing licence. This would enable the service to offer an additional 30 before and after school care places. Additional accommodation that meets the National Quality Standard floor ratio requirements is available. The School Principal, Ruth Bradfield-Ling, has approved the relocation of the service to the school hall from the existing classroom currently being used. The $30,000 Before and After School Care Fund grant would be used to cover relocation costs and the purchase of multi-functional storage. This will provide mutual benefit to the school and the service.

 

The proposed expansion of the Marrickville West Outside School Hours Care service to offer an additional 30 enrolment places would increase the service’s capacity up to 90 children per day.  It is anticipated that these positions will be made available by the commencement of the 2017 school year. If the grant application is unsuccessful, it would still be feasible to expand the service as National Quality Standard compliance issues regarding additional accommodation can be met. Relocation from current rooms into the hall can occur without additional cost by the continued use of offices and storage facilities that the service is currently using. 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Camdenville Outside School Hours Care Service

 

Additional expenses that are incurred relating to the expansion of licensed enrolled places at Camdenville Outside School Hours Care service would be offset against the allocation of the Before and After School Fund grant and additional revenue generated. The income generated from the additional 15 enrolment positions proposed is approximately $78,000 per year. One additional staff member would be required for the after school care session for 16 hours a week to ensure National Quality Standard staff ratios are met. The cost of this additional employee is approximately $20,833 per year. No additional staff member is required for the before school care session. There would be no net impact on Council’s working funds position.

 


Marrickville West Outside School Hours Care Service

 

Additional expenses that are incurred relating to the expansion of licensed enrolled places at Marrickville West Outside School Hours Care service would be offset against the allocation of the Before and After School Grant and additional revenue generated. The income generated from the additional 30 enrolment positions proposed is approximately $132,000 per year. Two additional staff members would be required to ensure National Quality Standard staff ratios are met. One staff member would work 16 hours per week with the cost of this additional employee is approximately $20,833 per year. The other staff member would be required to work 26 hours per week.  The cost of this additional employee is approximately $33,854 per year. If the grant application is unsuccessful, the costs of expanding the service would be offset by the increased income received. As such, there would be no net impact on Council’s working funds position.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

 

Nil

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Initial and ongoing consultation has commenced with the following stakeholders:

 

·         Individual parents from Camdenville Public School and Marrickville West Public School who have written, emailed or called Council in regard to increasing enrolled places at these services.

·         Parent and Citizen Association of Marrickville West Public School.

·         Camdenville Public School Principal, Sue Smith and Acting Principal, Michelle Holstrup

·         Marrickville West Public School Principal, Ruth Bradfield-Ling.

 

CONCLUSION

The addition of an extra 15 enrolment places at the Camdenville Outside School Hours Care Service and an additional 30 enrolment places at the Marrickville West Outside School Hours Care Service will increase the Inner West Council’s Outside School Hours Care portfolio, across the existing 5 service sites, to a total of 455 licensed before and after school care places per school day. With the trend toward part-time work for families and part-week enrolments for children, it is anticipated that the additional 45 enrolment places across the two services, will have the capacity to assist an estimated 80-90 families who are trying to access quality before and after school care programs.

Local councils across NSW have for many years struggled to meet the demand from the community for before and after school services catering for the needs of working families with primary school aged children.In recognition of the widespread unmet demand for before and after school services, NSW Government announced the establishment of the $20 million Before and After School Care Fund as an election commitment.

 

Established in 2015, the Before and After School Fund provided one-off grants of up to $30,000 to NSW schools to assist with the creation of new before and after school care services.  The response to this initial phase of the funding resulted in less than 13% of the Fund being allocated .As a result, Phase 2 of this initiative was announced in mid 2016.

 

Phase 2 of the Before and After School Care Fund made the one-off grant of $30,000 available to local councils with existing before and after school care services who could demonstrate a need and capacity to expand. Grant applications are not assessed on the basis increases to enrolment places but on an overall service basis. The grants will enable existing before and after school care services to undertake a range of site modifications and purchase necessary equipment to ensure that services meet the expansion requirements.

Local councils across NSW have for many years struggled to meet the demand from the community for before and after school services catering for the needs of working families with primary school aged children.In recognition of the widespread unmet demand for before and after school services, NSW Government announced the establishment of the $20 million Before and After School Care Fund as an election commitment.

 

Established in 2015, the Before and After School Fund provided one-off grants of up to $30,000 to NSW schools to assist with the creation of new before and after school care services.  The response to this initial phase of the funding resulted in less than 13% of the Fund being allocated .As a result, Phase 2 of this initiative was announced in mid 2016.

 

Phase 2 of the Before and After School Care Fund made the one-off grant of $30,000 available to local councils with existing before and after school care services who could demonstrate a need and capacity to expand. Grant applications are not assessed on the basis increases to enrolment places but on an overall service basis. The grants will enable existing before and after school care services to undertake a range of site modifications and purchase necessary equipment to ensure that services meet the expansion requirements.

The addition of an extra 15 enrolment places at the Camdenville Outside School Hours Care Service and an additional 30 enrolment places at the Marrickville West Outside School Hours Care Service will increase the Inner West Council’s Outside School Hours Care portfolio, across the existing 5 service sites, to a total of 455 licensed before and after school care places per school day. With the trend toward part-time work for families and part-week enrolments for children, it is anticipated that the additional 45 enrolment places across the two services, will have the capacity to assist an estimated 80-90 families who are trying to access quality before and after school care programs.

The addition of an extra 15 enrolment places at the Camdenville Outside School Hours Care Service and an additional 30 enrolment places at the Marrickville West Outside School Hours Care Service will increase the Inner West Council’s Outside School Hours Care portfolio, across the existing 5 service sites, to a total of 455 licensed before and after school care places per school day. With the trend toward part-time work for families and part-week enrolments for children, it is anticipated that the additional 45 enrolment places across the two services, will have the capacity to assist an estimated 80-90 families who are trying to access quality before and after school care programs.

Local councils across NSW have for many years struggled to meet the demand from the community for before and after school services catering for the needs of working families with primary school aged children.In recognition of the widespread unmet demand for before and after school services, NSW Government announced the establishment of the $20 million Before and After School Care Fund as an election commitment.

 

Established in 2015, the Before and After School Fund provided one-off grants of up to $30,000 to NSW schools to assist with the creation of new before and after school care services.  The response to this initial phase of the funding resulted in less than 13% of the Fund being allocated .As a result, Phase 2 of this initiative was announced in mid 2016.

 

Phase 2 of the Before and After School Care Fund made the one-off grant of $30,000 available to local councils with existing before and after school care services who could demonstrate a need and capacity to expand. Grant applications are not assessed on the basis increases to enrolment places but on an overall service basis. The grants will enable existing before and after school care services to undertake a range of site modifications and purchase necessary equipment to ensure that services meet the expansion requirements.

Local councils across NSW have for many years struggled to meet the demand from the community for before and after school services catering for the needs of working families with primary school aged children.In recognition of the widespread unmet demand for before and after school services, NSW Government announced the establishment of the $20 million Before and After School Care Fund as an election commitment.

 

Established in 2015, the Before and After School Fund provided one-off grants of up to $30,000 to NSW schools to assist with the creation of new before and after school care services.  The response to this initial phase of the funding resulted in less than 13% of the Fund being allocated .As a result, Phase 2 of this initiative was announced in mid 2016.

 

Phase 2 of the Before and After School Care Fund made the one-off grant of $30,000 available to local councils with existing before and after school care services who could demonstrate a need and capacity to expand. Grant applications are not assessed on the basis increases to enrolment places but on an overall service basis. The grants will enable existing before and after school care services to undertake a range of site modifications and purchase necessary equipment to ensure that services meet the expansion requirements.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 

Item No:         C1216 Item 10

Subject:         Stronger Communities Fund Major Projects Program 

File Ref:         16/4718/123297.16        

Prepared By: Simone Schwarz - Director, Service Delivery 

Authorised By: Rik Hart - Interim General Manager

 

SUMMARY

The Stronger Communities Fund Major Projects Program was established by the State

Government and funding of $14million provided to merged Councils to deliver new or

improved infrastructure or services to the community. By December 2016, councils are to notify the Office of Local Government of their three year plan for allocating the Stronger Communities Fund.

 

This report outlines the projects as assessed by the Stronger Communities Fund Assessment Panel, in accordance with the preferred option with the highest community support which will be submitted to the Office of Local Government as Inner West Councils’ three year plan for allocating the $14m Stronger Communities Fund.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council adopt the schedule of projects as assessed by the Stronger Communities Fund Assessment Panel, in accordance with the preferred option with the highest community support with a focus on recreation and sustainability and submit this to the Office of Local Government as Inner West Councils’ three year plan for allocating the $14m Stronger Communities Fund.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The Stronger Communities Fund Major Projects Program was established by the State

Government and funding of $14million provided to merged Councils to deliver new or

improved infrastructure or services to the community.

 

On 23 August 2016, Council considered a report on the governance and project framework for the consultation, assessment and delivery of the Stronger Communities Fund Major Projects Program.

 

It was resolved 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.

 

 

The adopted framework for consultation, assessment and delivery of the Stronger Communities Fund Major Projects Program included the following:

 


Consultation and engagement with the community

 

The community was asked to consider the priority categories and provide input into which of the three options – either Transport Infrastructure, Community Facilities or Recreation and Sustainability was preferred. 

 

The Stronger Communities Fund Assessment Panel then allocated projects and funds according to the option with the highest community support.

 

The option with the highest community support was Recreation and Sustainability, with more than half of the respondents supporting this option.

 

A breakdown of responses according to engagement method is as follows:

 

Option

Forum

Festivals

Online

Total

Transport infrastructure

12

88

42

142

Community Facilities

7

86

71

164

Recreation and Sustainability

17

119

214

350

Total

36

293

327

656

 

The full Stronger Communities Fund Engagement Report is an attachment to this report in Attachment 1.

 

 

Assessment and delivery of the Stronger Communities Fund Major Projects Program

 

Infrastructure position

 

As this is a one off opportunity to spend $14million additional funds for infrastructure, there is an opportunity to improve the infrastructure position of the new Inner West Council. The Inner West Council has an asset portfolio to the value of $1.6 billion, and already has an ambitious program to deliver considerable new community assets, with upcoming major projects including 2 new childcare centres (Leichhardt and Marrickville South), 2 new libraries (Dulwich Hill and Marrickville), new town centre (Ashfield) and aquatic facilities (Ashfield).

 

Rather than allocate all the available money to one or two new large scale projects, where all the funds would be exhausted, Inner West Council is aiming to deliver community benefits across the new LGA through the Stronger Communities Fund Major Projects Program.

 

It was considered important that the community feels that the money and projects are

geographically spread across the new Inner West Council area. Therefore projects and

spending were allocated equally in each ward per option.

 

The Stronger Communities Fund provides the opportunity to accelerate annual renewal

spending and thereby reduce the backlog of assets considered to be in an unsatisfactory

condition. It also provides an opportunity to address some program areas which are not sufficiently funded.

 

In summary, the principles and criteria adopted by Council and used to determine the projects were that projects:

 

·    are not new big projects that absorb all the funding in one or two projects

·    provide community benefits across the new local government area

·    are geographically spread across the Inner West Council

·    are allocated to provide equal spending in each ward

·    focus on infrastructure renewal

·    reduce the infrastructure backlog as a long term benefit of the Program

·    cover the three categories of Community Facilities, Transport and Recreation and Sustainability but will have a focus on the community preferred category of Recreation and Sustainability.

·    have been chosen to improve the quality of infrastructure as part of the ten year asset management plan forecast.

 

Project sources

 

Council officers scoped and costed individual projects for consideration by the Assessment Panel from the following sources:

 

·    Asset Management Plans

·    Traffic management Strategies

·    The Greenway Project Reports and Plans

·    Catchment Management Strategies and

·    Park Masterplans and Plans of Management

 

All the above plans and strategies were adopted by the previous Councils and involved various community consultation processes.

 

Decision Making Framework

 

Council previously endorsed that the Stronger Communities Fund Assessment Panel were to allocate projects and funds according to the option with the highest community support.

 

Individual projects were scoped and costed by officers and then a schedule of projects was provided to the Stronger Communities Fund Assessment Panel.

 

All projects met the State Government Program Criteria:

 

·    Have been through a community consultation process

·    Demonstrate social and/or economic benefits to the community

·    Consider issues of sustainability and equity across the broader community

·    Demonstrate project feasibility and value for money, including full lifecycle costs

·    Did not have funds allocated by the former councils

·    Give consideration to the process and procedures outlined in the Capital Expenditure Review Guidelines issued by the Office of Local Government – all projects were either exempt from these Guidelines, or were below the threshold amount.

           

Stronger Communities Fund Guidelines are attached in Attachment 2.

 

Capital Expenditure Guidelines Circular to Councils is attached in Attachment 3.

 

The Stronger Communities Fund Assessment Panel is prescribed by the State Government to include:

 

·  Administrator or delegate

·  State Members of Parliament or representative

·  Regional Coordinator of the Department of Premier and Cabinet or delegate

·  Other members, appointed by the Administrator, as required

·  An independent probity adviser, appointed by the Administrator to advise the Panel on
    their deliberation and assessment process.

 

The Assessment Panel met on 14 November. In attendance at the Assessment Panel Meeting were:

 

Simone Schwarz, Administrator’s Delegate, Inner West Council

Doug Thompson, Department of Premier and Cabinet

Sam Helweh – Independent Probity Advisor, SSROC

Jamie Parker MP – Member for Balmain

Mithra Cox, delegate for Jenny Leong MP – Member for Newtown

Jo Haylen MP – Member for Summer Hill

Ron Hoenig MP – Member for Heffron

Jacqui Thorburn delegate for Jodi McKay MP – Member for Strathfield

Morris Hanna OAM – LRAC Member

Mark Drury – LRAC Member

The Hon John Jobling – LRAC Member

 

The Panel raised a number of questions and made recommendations as follows:

 

 

Panel Questions/ Recommendations

Officer comments

Can the stronger communities funding be used for the Greenway missing links project?

There is nothing in the Stronger Communities Fund Major Projects Guidelines to preclude funding of the Greenway from the Stronger Communities Fund.

Does the Sydenham Green upgrade include full sized basketball courts and lighting to enable night time games?

Yes these elements are included in the project scope

Recommended the works on the Seaview Street Hall Refurbishment be done in conjunction with works on the old Dulwich Hill Library in the 2017/18 budget.

The internal refurbishment of the old Dulwich Hill Library is due to commence in early 2017. The Seaview Street Hall Refurbishment has been bought forward to be undertaken in 2017/18 pending approval of the draft 17/18 operational budget.

Recommended that works in Mahoney Reserve Priority 1 and 2 (wetland) be prioritised in the 2017/18 budget.

Council has also received Federal grant funding for other elements within Mahoney Reserve. The total cost of upgrade works in Mahoney Reserve is approx. $1.5m. Works of this magnitude need significant lead time to enable planning, design and tender processes. Pending approval of the draft operational budget, these works are currently programmed for planning in 2017/18, design in 2018/19 and construction 2019/2020. It is not considered feasible to accelerate these works.

Recommended consideration of seating and shade near the Steel Park water play park.

Council received a funding offer from the federal government in September for the provision of, amongst other things, seating, a new shade structure, a new BBQ facility and playground renewal and expansion in this area. These works will be integrated with the works proposed in Steel Park under the Stronger Communities Fund.

Recommended the community facilities projects considered, but not funded in the Stronger Communities Fund in Ashfield and Marrickville Wards are made are a priority in Councils proposed capital delivery program.

The community facilities projects considered but not funded include Deborah Little Child Care Centre (CCC), Herb Greedy Hall and Seaview Street Hall. Pending approval of the draft operational budget, Seaview Street Hall is programmed for 2017/18, Deborah Little CCC is programmed for 2018/19 and Herb Greedy Hall is programmed for 2019/20. Acceleration of any projects would require deferral of upgrades to other important facilities such as Jarvie Park Youth Centre, Marrickville Town Hall and/or Dulwich Hill ELC.

Why are there no sustainability projects included in the Stanmore Ward.

No sustainability works are currently identified in the Stanmore Ward due to the continuing focus on the Greenway and Cooks River areas.

 

 

The Panel moved a vote of thanks to Council officers for the work undertaken in pulling together the information for the projects and co-ordination of the assessment process.

 

The Stronger Communities Fund Assessment Panel has assessed the projects and is unanimously recommending the attached schedule of projects in Attachment 4. 

 


Council should note that:

 

1.   the estimated costs for nominated projects are based on limited investigations and therefore must be considered as preliminary only. Final project cost estimates will be subject to detailed scoping, design, specification and tendering outcomes. Any increase in final project costs above these preliminary estimates will need to be funded from savings elsewhere within the program or from other funding sources or from deferral of other projects within the identified program.

 

2.   In addition to the projects proposed to be funded within the $14 million fund limit, the panel has identified additional projects within each Ward which can be considered for inclusion should program savings be realised or should existing funded projects prove not to be feasible due to unforeseen circumstances.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Funding of $14million has been provided by the State Government to deliver the Stronger

Communities Fund Major Projects Program.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

 

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The ‘Stronger Communities Fund Engagement Report’ is Attachment 1 to this report.

 

Participants at the Community Forum raised the issue of the opportunity to include projects which honour the Aboriginal communities of the Inner West.  This was taken on board and projects have been included in each Ward.

 

In addition to the Engagement Program outlined in the attached report, the plans and strategies from which projects were sourced were adopted by the previous Councils and involved various community consultation processes. The Joint Local Representation Advisory Committee received a briefing on the Stronger Community Fund Major Projects Program – Community Engagement Program on 20 September 2016 and noted a draft report on the Program on 8 November 2016. The Implementation Advisory Committee received and noted the Stronger Communities Fund Engagement Report (attached) on 10 November.

CONCLUSION

By December 2016, councils are to notify the Office of Local Government of their three year plan for allocating the Stronger Communities Fund. This requirement means that tight

timeframes must be adhered to in order to achieve the deadline.

 

The Stronger Communities Fund is to be spent or committed by 30 June 2019 and all funding acquitted before 31 December 2019.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Stronger Communities Fund Engagement Report - Nov 16 - final

2.

Stronger Communities Fund Major Projects Guidelines

3.

Department of Local Government circular to Councils Stronger Communities Fund Capital Expenditure Guidelines

4.

Stronger Communities Fund Major Projects Final Project List

  


Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 















































Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 









Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 


Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 







Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 

Item No:         C1216 Item 11

Subject:         Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Review - Post-Gateway Determination Review    

File Ref:         16/4718/132116.16        

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

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

A review of the floor space ratio (FSR) in the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013 resulted in four 4 Options for change. Council officers recommended “Option 3 – Modest change” be the basis of a planning proposal. This option would reduce the reliance on the Leichhardt LEP 2013 Clause 4.6 (Exceptions to development standards). Council resolved 9 June 2015 for Option 2 – Minimal change. The Department of Planning issued a Gateway Determination 19 February 2016, but for Option 3. A Post Gateway Review was undertaken by the Planning and Assessment Commission (PAC) at the request of Council.  The PAC recommendation was for Option 3 also. This report recommends that a planning proposal be prepared based on Option 3 in accordance with the Gateway Determination issued 19 February 2016.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

1.       Notes the Post-Gateway Review that has been issued; and

2.       Amends the planning proposal to be consistent with Option 3 of the FSR Review and proceed to public exhibition in accordance with Gateway Determination requirements.

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Council initiated a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Review in 2009 and was provided with funding under the NSW Government Planning Reform Funding Program. The review was initiated in response to the then NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s concern that the former Leichhardt Council was making excessive use of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1). SEPP1 was used to vary Local Environmental Plan (LEP) development standards such as Floor Space Ratio (FSR) in particular.

The review collected data and developed four options:

Option 1 No change – No change to FSR controls other than the change in definition pursuant to Standard Instrument

Option 2 Minimal change – FSR controls which reflect what is, on average, being approved by Council;

Option 3 Modest change – FSR controls which would reduce Council’s reliance on clause 4.6 variations, whilst minimising the risk of unintended consequences that might occur as a result of the new controls; and

Option 4 Substantial change – FSR controls which would be high enough to significantly reduce reliance on clause 4.6.

 

At its meeting of 14 April 2015, Council considered a report in relation to the Community Consultation outcomes in which officers recommended Option 3 Modest Change. Council resolved to defer consideration pending further advice from the co-chairs of the Leichhardt Planning Panel.

The Planning Panel co-chairs indicated their support for Option 3.

A report (Attachment 3) was considered at the Policy Council Meeting held on 9 June 2015 and Council resolved the following:

·    To adopt the recommendations of Option 2 of the FSR Review (Minimal change); and

·    Prepare and submit a planning proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment to amend Leichhardt LEP 2013 consistent with FSR Review Option 2 for a Gateway Determination.

 

On 19 February 2016 Council received a Gateway Determination (Attachment 1) from the Department of Planning. The Department did not accept Council’s planning proposal to adopt Option 2 of the FSR Review (Minimal change) and instructed Council to adopt Option 3 (Modest change). The Department’s Assessment report considers that Option 2 will reduce the existing permissible residential density of land and subsequently the Determination requires that no lot within the former Leichhardt Municipality zoned R1 (General Residential) will have an FSR reduction imposed by the planning proposal and proposed LEP amendment.

At the March 2016 Policy Meeting a report was tabled recommending that the planning proposal be amended to be consistent with Option 3 (Modest change) in accordance with Gateway requirements. Council did not support the officer recommendation resolving (C110/16P) to request a review of the Gateway Determination by the Department of Planning.

In April 2016 the Department referred Council’s request for a Post-Gateway review to the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC).

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

 

POST-GATEWAY REVIEW REQUEST

On 1 August 2016 the Department responded (see Attachment 2) to Council’s request referring to PAC’s advice on the matter.

The Commission provided its advice to the Department stating that the planning proposal supporting Option 2 should not proceed past Gateway as it:

·    imposes tighter FSR controls than currently apply in some localities;

·    does not sufficiently reduce reliance on Leichhardt LEP 2013 clause 4.6 (Exceptions to development standards); and

·    does not improve the transparency or performance of the planning process.

 

This advice is generally consistent with that provided by the Leichhardt Independent Planning Panel, the outcomes of community consultation and recommendations of Council officers on the FSR Review.

The Department of Planning have reviewed the PAC’s advice and determined that the Gateway Determination should remain unaltered.

Prior to public exhibition the Gateway Determination requires Council to update the planning proposal to:

·    adopt Option 3 (Modest change) of the Floor Space Ratio Review;

·    ensure that no lots will have its FSR reduced below current FSR provision (eg. Rozelle (east)); and

·    further justify and provide adequate consideration of s117 Directions 3.1 Residential Zones, 4.1 Acid Sulfate Soils and 4.3 Flood Prone Land.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

In accordance with the Council’s endorsed community engagement plan and Gateway Determination requirements the Proposal/LEP Amendment and supporting documentation are to be placed on public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days. This is to include all notice requirements for planning proposals as identified in section 5.5.2 of A Guide to Preparing LEPs (Department of Planning & Environment 2013). As a consequence of the amendments required to the planning proposal by the gateway determination and not wanting to place it on exhibition over the December/January holiday period, it is it is proposed to place the planning proposal on exhibition January/February 2017.

 

 

CONCLUSION

The Planning Assessment Commission and Department of Planning and Environment advice reflects the officer recommendations to Council in June 2015 and March 2016 on the outcome of the FSR Review and would achieve the stated objective of reducing reliance on LEP 2013 clause 4.6 (Exceptions to development standards). 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Gateway Determination

2.

Department of Planning Response to Post-Gateway Review Request including Planning Assessment Commission Advice

3.

Report to 9 June 2015 Council Policy Meeting

  


Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 




Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 








Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 



































Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 

Item No:         C1216 Item 12

Subject:         Planning Proposal for Small Bars: Leichhardt LEP 2013 & Leichhardt DCP 2013 Amendments Public Exhibition Community Consultation   

File Ref:         16/4718/134502.16        

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

Authorised By: Phil Sarin -  Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

At the April 2016 Policy Council meeting the former Leichhardt Council resolved to exhibit a post-Gateway Determination Planning Proposal to amend Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 (LLEP) and Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 (LDCP) to help facilitate the establishment of small bars in appropriate locations. This report addresses the outcomes of the public exhibition and recommends that Council resolves to make the small bars LLEP 2013 amendment and adopts the associated LDCP 2013 amendments.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.       The report and attached Planning Proposal and Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 Amendment be noted.

 

2.       Council resolves to adopt the amended Small Bars Planning Proposal to amend Schedule 2 of the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 for a change of use exemption between small bars, restaurants and cafes in the B2 Local Centre zone.

 

3.       Council forwards the amended Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment and requests that it makes arrangements for the publication of LLEP 2013 amendment on the NSW Legislation website. 

 

4.       Council endorses the amended Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 in accordance with the requirements of Clause 21 of Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 and place a public notice in the local newspaper with the specified date of commencement.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

A report to the 25 March 2014 Leichhardt Council meeting advised that changes to the Liquor Act 2007 and Standard Instrument (LEP) Order 2006 had made a new type of land use - "small bars".

 

Council resolved (C82/14) to:

 

1)   Prepare a 'draft' Planning Proposal to facilitate small bars in appropriate locations across the Local Government Area.

 

A report to the 6 October 2015 Policy Meeting outlined proposed amendments to the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 and Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 in response to this resolution.

 

Council resolved (C484/15P) to:

 

1)   Endorse the Planning Proposal and forward it to the Minister for a Gateway Determination in accordance with section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;

2)   Endorse the draft amendments to the Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013, and place on public exhibition at the same time as the planning proposal;

3)   Request the Department of Planning and Environment to delegate the plan making functions, in relation to the subject Planning Proposal, to Council;

4)   Place the Planning Proposal and supporting documentation on public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days and public authorities be consulted on the Planning Proposal in accordance with the Gateway Determination, when issued; and

5)   Consider a report at the completion of the public exhibition period detailed submissions received and the outcome of consultation with public authorities.

 

Following the receipt of the Gateway Determination on 14 March 2016 for this Planning Proposal, a report was presented to Council on 12 April 2016 Policy Meeting as the Gateway Determination required a number of changes be made prior to public exhibition. These changes were:

 

·    Remove the proposed prohibition of small bars and pubs within the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone.

·    Update the discussion of the proposal's consistency with section 117 Direction 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport;

·    Remove the references to section 117 Direction 3.5 Development Near Licensed Aerodromes, as this direction is not considered relevant to the proposal;

·    Remove the reference to Direction 1.7 - Grow Strategic Centres of A Plan for Growing Sydney as it is not considered relevant to the proposal; and

·    Include mapping to show the locations of the B2 Local Centre zone within the Leichhardt Local Government Area (LGA).

 

Council resolved (C163/16P) to:

 

1)   Note that the Gateway Determination has been issued in relation to the Small Bars Planning Proposal; and

2)   Amend the Planning Proposal as requested by the Gateway Determinations and proceed to public exhibition.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The proposed LEP and DCP amendments were placed on public exhibition from 24 May 2016 until 21 June 2016 (29 days). During the public exhibition period 10,492 notification letters were mailed to all properties which are zoned either B1 Neighbourhood Centre or B2 Local Centre zones, and to any properties falling within 50m from these property boundaries. The public exhibition notices were published in the Inner West Courier Newspaper on 24 May 2016. The exhibition materials were made electronically available on Council's website and as hard copies at the Leichhardt Customer Service desk, and the Leichhardt and Balmain Libraries. 

 

Submissions Received

The process generated seventeen (17) submissions of which fourteen (14) were residents, two (2) were from business/commercial properties and one (1) from a public authority. Four (4) of the seventeen (17) submissions requested information rather than commenting on the proposals, so along with the single ‘no comment’ submission from NSW Transport, there were twelve (12) submissions that commented on the proposed LEP and DCP amendments. This represents 0.11% of the properties within the notification area and hence 99.89% of properties did not submit comments on the proposed changes.

There were mixed opinions of the twelve (12) submissions that commented on the proposed LEP and DCP amendments, as follows:

·    17% or two (2) submissions fully supported the proposed changes;

·    17% or two (2) submissions supported the overall intent of the proposed changes, however, had specific areas of concern;

·    66% or eight (8) submissions opposed the proposed changes.

A map showing the geographical spread of submissions is provided in Attachment 1.

 

Matters Raised in Submissions / Proponent Comments / Officer Responses

Summary of matters raised and frequency of mention:

Issue raised  

Frequency

Amenity & Noise Impacts

5

Parking

3

Lack of opportunity for comment on new small bars

2

Increase in Late Night Trading Operating hours

2

Too many Licensed Premises in an area & Public Safety

2

Number of patrons

2

Commercial Competition

1

Property values

1

 

Each of these issues or issue groups identified in the submissions is described in the following themed tables. Further to the tabled analysis outlined below, each submission and the issues raised, have been individually evaluated in the Submissions Summary Table (Attachment 2). The responses below are a summarisation of the comments made within Attachment 2.

 

Table 1 Amenity and Noise Impacts

Issue

The introduction of small bars will negatively impact residential amenity by creating noise pollution, compromising safety and reducing family-friendly neighbourhood characteristics. 

Officer Response

The first LEP Objective for the B2 zone is "To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area". Dwellings that are actually within the B1 and B2 business zones; or dwellings immediately adjacent to a business zone, will have a different level of amenity to those exclusively within a residential precinct. Notwithstanding, there are opportunities to better manage the residential/business interface, as has been the focus of the proposed DCP amendments.

 

The proposed DCP Amendments strengthen the controls that deal with adverse noise impacts on residential and sensitive land uses that might arise from licensed premises. They also help manage the interface between residential and business uses more effectively. It is not in the interest of operators of small bars to allow their premises to generate excessive noise as complaints recorded with Council or the NSW Office of Liquor and Gaming can affect future reviews of operating hours and ongoing liquor licence requirements. 

 All cafes, restaurants and small bars are similar operations and have similar potential impacts. They have to meet the same planning merit assessment tests. The proposed LEP amendment only seeks to remove the requirement of obtaining development consent for a change of use between these three uses. Any potential impacts on neighbouring properties would already have been dealt with in the development consent for the existing use. Accordingly, if a restaurant, café or small bar were to utilise the draft LEP clause it is required to operate within the provisions of that existing consent. If changes are proposed to the existing consents, such as to the plan of management or operating hours, either a new development application or modification will need to be lodged with Council.

 

Table 2 Parking

Issue

The proposed amendment will increase the demand for parking in residential streets already experiencing high demand levels.

Officer Response

The traffic and potential parking implications of the proposed changes were considered as part of the Council Report on 6 October 2015 (Attachment 3). A traffic review was necessary as small bars had not been previously considered with regard to appropriate parking requirements. The report concluded that small bars, restaurants and cafes of a similar size would generate similar traffic and parking needs and it was therefore appropriate that small bars were grouped with restaurants and cafes.

 

The concern that proposed LEP amendment would increase parking demand is not a reasonable assumption given the existing café/restaurant would have already obtained development consent with the relevant traffic and parking considerations applied in context and the car parking demand is likely to be similar. In addition, small bars are unlikely to generate the need for short term parking to collect takeaway meals or the like which is typical of restaurants or cafes. Accordingly, no changes are recommended.

 

Land Use

Staff and Visitors Combined

Minimum

Maximum

Small bars, Restaurants or Cafes

1 space per 80m2.

If the premises are located on a "Recognised Shopping Street" the first 50m2 are exempt from parking provision.

1 space per 50m2.

 

Table 3 Lack of opportunity for comment on new small bars

Issue

That the community will lose the ability to comment on small bar proposals.  

Officer Response

The process for obtaining a small bar liquor licence via the NSW Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing will require the applicant to submit a community impact statement. It is noted that some small bar applications will not be require a community impact statement in situations where development consent for a small bar has been previously obtained from Council. However, for proposals utilising the proposed LEP amendment where an existing development consent would not have been for a small bar, a community impact statement will be required.

 

A community impact statement requires that the applicant to contact adjacent properties or any buildings within 100 metres of the boundary of the premises and they have 30 days to prepare a submission. Other relevant stakeholders such as the Council and Local Police must also be contacted for comment. The NSW Office of Liquor and Gaming take into consideration all submissions as part of their assessment process. As such, the community still have a mechanism by which to provide comment on the proposed licensed premises as part of the assessment process of the liquor licence application.

 

Table 4 Increase in Late Night Trading Operating Hours

Issue

That the proposed amendments will increase late night trading hours. 

Officer Response

There are no proposed changes to the DCP Late Night Trading Areas or operating hours as part of this project, although there are minor administrative corrections. 10pm is the standard maximum operating time limit for all licensed premises in the former Leichhardt LGA. Any proposal to extend the operating hours of a small bar is subject to a development application and merit based assessment. If consent were to be considered it would be subject to at least one 12 month trial period and if granted following the trial period is subject to review every 5 years. No changes to this process are proposed. Extended operating hours could potentially occur in areas identified as late night trading areas.

 

The Late Night Trading DCP provisions were incorporated in 2008 and it is intended that it will be reviewed as part of a larger future project regarding live music and entertainment. It is acknowledged that a portion of the northern section of Norton Street in Leichhardt is zoned residential whilst also being identified as within the late night trading area. This would seem to be inconsistent and will be investigated and reported back to council as part of a future DCP amendment. It would not be appropriate to amend the Late Night Trading Area Map as part of this process given it has not been researched in its current context or previously raised with Council or the community.

 

Table 5 Too many Licensed Premises in an area & Public Safety

Issue

That there is already a saturation of licensed premises in the B2 zones causing public safety concerns. 

Officer Response

The land use table for the B2 zone encourages business activities for day and night time uses, whilst other zones tend to prohibit or restrict night time activities for reasons of incompatibility with its zone objectives. Consequently, B2 zones do tend to have more licensed premises. Notwithstanding, the saturation of licensed premises in the B2 zone can lead to undesirable alcohol-related public safety and amenity concerns. The NSW Office of Liquor and Gaming is able to refuse proposals for liquor licenses for reasons of negative social impacts under S48 of Liquor Act 2007.

 

An analysis of data from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics has shown that Leichhardt generally has lower rates of alcohol-related crime than the surrounding areas, and the rate of alcohol-related crime has been relatively stable over the past 5 years from 2011 to 2016. The number of liquor offences by publicans has dramatically decreased over the past 5 years by 30%. This time period also coincides with the introduction of small bars in the NSW Planning System, suggesting that the introduction of small bars has not influenced crime statistics in Leichhardt in any noticeable way.

 

Further to this, a report was undertaken on behalf of the City of Sydney by Woolcott Research in October 2013 evaluating the City of Sydney's small bar venues. The report concluded that small bars were considered low risk in terms of safety issues by operators, regulatory staff and customers. The majority of customers (79%) said they felt safer in the local area because of the presence of small bars. Operators and regulators cite the small, intimate nature of the bars, as well as more mature patrons for their low risk of anti-social behaviour and violent incidents. Therefore, it is the conclusion of this report that the issue of public safety concerns associated with small bars is a perceived threat rather than an actual threat.

 

Table 6 Patron Capacity

Issue

There was concern that the proposed DCP amendments had incorrectly stated a capacity of 120 patrons for 'low impact premises' whereas the proposed LEP amendment states a small bar's maximum capacity as 60 patrons. 

Officer Response

The proposed LEP amendment means that the maximum number of patrons allowed in a small bar is 60 patrons as stated by the Liquor Act 2007. The draft DCP Amendments, however, affect not only small bars but also licensed restaurants and cafes and pubs with a capacity of less than 120 patrons. The justification for why the 120 patrons was selected to be the maximum threshold for 'low-risk premises' in the proposed DCP amendments was outlined in the supporting information to the report to the Council Meeting held on 6 October 2015.

 

Namely, because there are three ways in which a small-bar style venue can obtain a liquor licence under the Liquor Act 2007:

1.   Hotel (General Bar) Licence;

2.   On-premise (restaurant) licence (with primary service authorisation); and

3.   Small bar licence (maximum patron capacity of 60 patrons).

 

By definition it is only the small bar licence which applies to the proposed LEP clause, however, all apply to the DCP Amendments (if they have a patron capacity of less than 120 patrons) in recognition they all could operate as a small-bar style venue through the existing liquor licensing scheme. Therefore, for reasons of compatibility within the existing framework, the maximum threshold of 120 patrons for low impact premises is recommended to remain within the proposed DCP amendments. 

 

Table 7 Commercial Competition

Issue

One existing Hotel argued that the proposed LEP & DCP amendments will create commercial competition with existing liquor licensed premises and is not needed in the area.

Officer Response

Economic impacts are generally considered during the development assessment process under Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act). However, the proposed LEP amendment seeks to circumvent this process by making small bars exempt development when changing use from restaurant or café. The justification for this is that there are no small bars currently operating in the former Leichhardt LGA, and only 50 small bars in the whole of NSW. Small bars represent a tiny fraction of liquor licences in NSW, and an even smaller fraction (existing restaurants and cafes) will be eligible to utilise the proposed LEP amendment, and so the economic impacts such as commercial competition are considered to be negligible.

 

Additionally, most small bars currently operate in the City of Sydney LGA and have been shown to enliven areas and positively contribute to place making, arts and culture projects, and laneway revitalization programs. Any commercial competition is likely to be offset by the bolstering of retail diversity which attract new customers and benefit the night time economies along main retail streets. Accordingly, the economic impact of increased commercial competition does not qualify as a legitimate planning concern in this instance.

 


Table 8 Depreciation of Property Values

Issue

That encouraging small bars in the LGA will depreciate the property values of nearby properties.

Officer Response

Small bars have been a permissible land use in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones since its introduction in the NSW Planning System in 2011. Business zones prioritise commercial land uses and have existed in their present spatial location for many decades being translated from the previous LEP 2000 and its environmental planning instrument predecessors. Any residential property in the vicinity of the business zones have long since acknowledged the potential for commercial land uses to impact upon their property and have been valued accordingly.

 

The proposed DCP amendment seeks to improve the existing policy framework regarding the business/residential interface, whilst the LEP amendment seeks to facilitate change for existing restaurants and cafes, with the impacts being already known by adjacent residences. As such, the depreciation of property values is not considered to be a relevant planning consideration. 

 

The Director of Planning and Environment and Manager of Environment and Urban Planning, Leichhardt recommend some minor editorial changes to the exhibited Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 and Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 to reflect elements of submissions received.

 

Consequently the following minor changes to the exhibited LEP and DCP proposed amendments are to be recommended to Council:

Leichhardt LEP 2013

1.   The addition of a Note below the relevant Schedule 2 Exempt Development clause for changes of use between restaurants and cafés and small bars to clarify that before a restaurant or café can become a small bar it must obtain a small bar liquor licence. If any other type of liquor licence is obtained the premises will not qualify as a small bar. The Note also confirms that footpath dining associated with a small bar must obtain separate development consent and be approved under the Roads Act 1993 and/or the Local Government Act 1993. The definition of restaurant or café is also confirmed in the Note.

2.   There are two small recommended changes to the exhibited clause as follows:

a.   Sub-clause a)ii will have 'small bar' added at the end of the clause to indicate that the change of use exemption applies for a small bar changing to a restaurant or café as well.

b.   The reference in sub-clause a)iii to a small bar having a capacity of no more than 60 patrons will be replaced by both the Note mentioned above which confirms that a small bar is defined by the Liquor Act, and by restricting the capacity to that prescribed by the Building Code of Australia.

The exhibited version and the recommended changes to that version are attached at (Attachments 4 & 5 respectively).  

Leichhardt DCP 2013

Although very few objections were received it was clear that those making comments were concerned about potential impacts on residential properties that might be located close to a small bar. In addition, the structure of the exhibited proposed amendments to clause C4.11 licensed premises sections of the DCP had not significantly clarified the level of protection from adverse impacts that would be afforded to residents and sensitive land uses in the vicinity of small bars.

Consequently the text of the exhibited DCP amendment has been re-structured to confirm that:

1.   Licensed premises fall into two categories:

a.   "Low impact" which includes small bars and licenced premises that have a capacity of 120 patrons.

b.   "Non-low impact" those are not defined as "low impact" in the Liquor Act, generally with a capacity exceeding 120 patrons.

2.   Development applications for "low impact" licensed premises that would normally operate after 10pm will need to meet the same new clause C1 Amenity controls as higher impact licensed premises.

3.   The Plans of Management required for development applications for "low impact" and "non-low impact" licensed premises must provide the same core information. The Plans of Management for "low impact" premises, however, while still onerous, do not have to provide as an extensive range of information as that for higher impact premises.

4.   The trading hours and trial period policy for "low impact" and higher impact premises are the same.

The exhibited version and the recommended changes to that version are attached (Attachments 6 & 7 respectively). 

 

 

CONCLUSION

This Planning Proposal aims to facilitate small bars in appropriate locations to strengthen the night time economies of local centres in the former Leichhardt LGA and warrants progression to final authorisation. It is therefore recommended that this draft Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 amendment be forwarded to the Department of Planning & Environment for publication on the NSW Legislation website and that the Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 Amendment outlined above be adopted.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Submissions Map

2.

Submission Summary Table

3.

Parking Assessment (as was attached to the Council Report on 6 October 2015)

4.

Exhibition Planning Proposal (LEP)

5.

Post-exhibition Planning Proposal (with changes)

6.

Exhibited Draft Development Control Plan

7.

Post-exhibition Draft Development Control Plan (with changes)

8.

Gateway Determination

  


Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 


Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 







Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 











Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 














Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 














Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 










Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 











Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 




Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 

Item No:         C1216 Item 13

Subject:         Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 3 November 2016  

File Ref:         16/4718/125607.16         

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 3 November 2016 are presented for Council consideration.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 3 November 2016 be received and recommendations for Items 1-37 & 39 be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

A meeting of the Inner West Council Local Traffic Committee was held on 3 November 2016 at Leichhardt. 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.

 

 

STAFF COMMENTS

Council should note that, in order to meet construction timeframes requested by TfNSW, the unanimous recommendation by the Traffic Committee concerning Item 38 Illawarra Rd, Marrickville – Proposed Bus Zone design plans has been approved under staff delegation.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Specific projects have undergone public consultation as indicated in the respective reports to the Traffic Committee. 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 3 November 2016

  


Council Meeting

6 December 2016

 

 

Minutes of Local Traffic Committee Meeting

held at Leichhardt Service Centre on 3 November 2016

 

Meeting commenced at  pm

 

 

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 Jason Scoufis

IWC’s Team Leader Traffic, Leichhardt(Chair)

Mr Ryan Horne

Roads & Maritime Services

SC Sam Tohme

Sgt Dan Chilvers

NSW Police – Ashfield

NSW Police – Leichhardt

Mr Bill Holliday

Representative for Jamie Parker MP, Member for Balmain

Mr Chris Woods

Ms Cathy Peters

Mr Mathew Howard

Representative for Ron Hoenig MP, Member for Heffron

Representative for Jenny Leong MP, Member for Newtown

Representative for Jo Haylen MP, Member for Summer Hill

 

OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE

Mr Wal Petschler