Agenda of Council Meeting - 6 December 2016

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 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

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

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

o 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

o 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

o Infrastructure Schedule

§ Costed and prioritised for local, regional and state infrastructure

o Urban Amenity Improvement Plan

§ $198m program of local amenity works

· Reference Reports

o Precinct Transport Report

o Social Infrastructure Analysis Report Volumes 1 & 2

o Fine Grain Study

o Economic Analysis Report

o Sustainability Implementation Report

o 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:

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

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

o 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

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

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 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

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

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	IWC’s Director, Major Projects and Engineering
Mr Joe Di Cesare Mr Boris Muha	IWC’s Manager, Design and Investigation, Marrickville IWC’s Traffic Projects Engineer, Ashfield
Ms Nina Fard	IWC’s Senior Traffic Engineer, Leichhardt
Mr Manod Wickramasinghe		IWC’s Traffic & Parking Engineer, Leichhardt
Mr Emilio Andari	IWC’s Traffic Engineer, Marrickville
Ms Mary Bailey	IWC’s Parking Planner, Marrickville
Ms Jenny Adams	IWC’s Road Safety Officer, Marrickville
Mr Benny Horn Mr Pierre Ayoub	IWC’s Cycling Organiser, Marrickville IWC’s Civil Engineer, Marrickville
Mr Davide Torresan	IWC’s Traffic Engineer, Ashfield
Mr Caloust Chichmanian SC John Micallef	State Transit Authority NSW Police - Ashfield

VISITORS

Mr Douglas Ramsbottom

Mr Sam McClean

Item 1

Item 2

Mr Mathew Bergan

Mr Daniel Younan

Item 7

Item 13

APOLOGIES

Mr John Stephens	IWC’s Traffic Manager, Leichhardt
Mr George Tsaprounis	IWC’s Coordinator Traffic Engineering Services, Marrickville
SC Stephen Flanagan SC Anthony Kenny	NSW Police - Marrickville NSW Police – Newtown
Mr Brandon Morson	Roads & Maritime Services

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS

Nil.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on Thursday, 6 October 2016 were adopted at Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday, 25 October 2016.

MATTERS ARISING FROM COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION OF MINUTES

Nil.

PART A – ITEMS WHERE COUNCIL MAY EXERCISE ITS DELEGATED FUNCTIONS

TRAFFIC MATTERS

T1116 Item 1 Nicholson Street, Balmain East - Children’s Crossing
(Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

The Traffic Committee at its meeting in November 2015 approved the installation of a

‘Children’s Crossing 8:30am-9:30am to 2:45pm-3:45pm, School Days’ in Nicholson Street, just south of Brett Avenue, Balmain East. Council late last year endorsed the Traffic Committee’s recommendation and the crossing was subsequently installed in February 2016.

Council has since received correspondence from a number of local residents in regards to the safety of children using the crossing at its current location and have requested relocation of the crossing to north of Brett Avenue.

Traffic Committee Discussion

Public speaker: Mr Douglas Ramsbottom

Mr Ramsbottom from No. 9 Nicholson Street, Blamain East addressed the committee and expressed concerns in regards to the Children’s Crossing at its current location. He advised the following:

· We acknowledge that a crossing in Nicholson Street is needed; however, we oppose the crossing at its current location as it forces children to cross Nicholson Street and Brett Avenue. If the crossing was relocated north of Brett Avenue there would be no need for children to cross Brett Avenue, hence making the crossing safer.

· The primary purpose of the crossing is to improve safety for the school children and in that sense, not relocating the crossing because of the potential impact on parking would be unacceptable.

· School teachers supervise the crossing in the morning but not in the afternoon. They are not trained for the job and should be replaced with an accredited school crossing supervisor.

· Parents park in the ‘No Stopping’ zones to drop off and pick up students and rangers are rarely available to issue infringement notices.

Council Officers advised Committee members that significant studies of the issues raised by the residents have been undertaken by Council officers. The data from the study has been included in the report for the committee’s deliberation. The traffic generation of Brett Avenue is very minimal and can be compared to a driveway for a residential unit development. Relocation of the crossing north of Brett Avenue would eliminate the need for some children to cross Brett Avenue, however vehicles could reverse over the crossing when performing a 3-point turn using Brett Avenue, which is an unsafe manoeuvre. 'The children's crossing cannot be located any further north as it would impact the drop-off and pick-up zone directly outside the school.

The Local Member representative for Balmain advised that he acknowledges the crossing would be better located north of Brett Avenue; however, he supports the STOP sign and TF holding line in Brett Avenue as the first step to minimise cost and loss of parking.

An email from Chris Pevy-Buenen, Principal of Nicholson Street Public School was tabled at the meeting;

“The school is committed to continuing to work with the community and council to ensure the crossing of Nicholson Street is utilised in a safe way by all members of the school community. We thank the council and the traffic committee for the positive way in which they have endeavoured to work with all members of the community through the issues presented throughout this process and we look forward to a positive outcome for all involved.”

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. the current location of the Nicholson Street Children’s Crossing (south of Brett Avenue) be retained; and

2. a STOP sign and the associated TF holding line be installed in Brett Avenue at the intersection of Nicholson Street.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 2 Balmain Road at Stanley Street, Leichhardt - Raised Pedestrian Crossing (Leichhardt Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

As part of Council’s 2016-17 traffic facilities program, it is proposed to upgrade the existing

pedestrian (zebra) crossing on Balmain Road, south of Stanley Street to a raised (zebra)

pedestrian crossing.

Traffic Committee Discussion

Public speaker: Mr Sam McClean

Mr McClean from No. 2 Short Street, Leichhardt addressed the committee and expressed concerns in regards to the proposed upgrade of the crossing on Balmain Road, south of Stanley Street. He stated the following:

· Raising the crossing is ineffective in improving pedestrian safety as it will give pedestrian’s a false sense of security and encourage them to cross without taking due care.

· The noise associated with a raised crossing will be exacerbated, causing problems for the immediately affected residents.

· The option of extending the existing School Zone (40km/h) to include the subject crossing in order to encourage lower speeds and improve safety, be investigated.

· Consideration be given to implementing a speed camera or employ an accredited crossing supervisor.

· That If none of the above are viable options that a noise engineer evaluate the potential impact of the raised crossing before the work is commenced, and should the works still be undertaken that Council be responsible for noise mitigation on adjacent properties.

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

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the proposed upgrade of the existing pedestrian (zebra) crossing to a raised pedestrian (zebra) crossing be supported as detailed in Attachment 1.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the matter be deferred to a future Traffic Committee meeting for further investigation

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 3 Catherine Street at Ilka Street, Lilyfield - Pedestrian Conditions (Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate /Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

A resident has raised concern regarding pedestrian safety at the Catherine Street/Ilka Street

intersection associated with conflict between northbound vehicles making u-turns in Catherine Street and pedestrians. These pedestrians, in particular children are crossing Catherine Street to access to War Memorial Park and are not expecting u-turns at this location. A pedestrian refuge is provided in Catherine Street at Ilka Street to provide pedestrian access to the park via a staged crossing.

Traffic Committee Discussion

An email from Bob Moore, representative of bike Leichhardt was tabled at the meeting

“I appreciate the intention of widening the shoulder lane northbound but I don't think it will provide a safe width at the first parked car after the No Stopping sign, which is too close to the refuge according to the relevant RMS technical note. As there is no residential frontage there I ask that the sign be moved further north.”

The Local Member representative for Balmain similarly requested that the ‘No Stopping’ zone on the western side of Catherine Street be moved further north to prevent cars from parking and obstructing the bike lane.

Council staff advised that further investigation will be undertaken to determine the required length of the subject ‘No Stopping’ zone after the edge-line has been adjusted.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. road flaps be installed in the central painted median island in Catherine Street at Ilka Street to prevent u-turns; and

2. the edgeline on the western side of Catherine Street be adjusted to provide a wider bicycle shoulder parking lane whilst retaining a 3.2 metre wide northbound travel lane.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT:

1. road flaps be installed in the central painted median island in Catherine Street at Ilka Street to prevent u-turns; and

2. the edgeline on the western side of Catherine Street be adjusted to provide a wider bicycle shoulder parking lane whilst retaining a 3.2 metre wide northbound travel lane.

3. Once linemarking has been installed that an on-site meeting be held with the representative of Bike Leichhardt to assess if an extended ‘No Stopping’ is required.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 4 View Street/Piper Street South, Annandale - Pedestrian Conditions (Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate /Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

A business owner has raised concern regarding pedestrian safety conditions at the View

Street/Piper Street South intersection as a result of speeding vehicles and corner cutting. The new café is generating more pedestrian movements in and around the intersection which has highlighted the issue.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. a 10 metre ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the southern side of Piper Street South west of View Street, Annandale;

2. chevron linemarking be marked around the south western kerb return to reduce the travel lane width, slowing motorists as they make a left turn and providing improved separation between pedestrians and vehicles; and

3. installation of a STOP sign and stop linemarking be undertaken in View Street at Piper Street South.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 5 Foreman Street, Tempe - Proposed ‘No Right Turn’ Restriction into Princes Highway - Consultation Results
(Marrickville Ward/Heffron Electorate/Newtown LAC)

SUMMARY

It has been reported that the right turn movement from Foreman Street into Princes Highway,

Sydenham is dangerous because of the high volume of traffic on the highway and should be

banned.

Consultation with affected residents and businesses regarding a proposal to introduce morning and afternoon peak hour right-turn ban at this location has been undertaken and the results are presented in this report for consideration.

It is recommended that an AM (6am-10am) and PM (3pm – 7pm) peak hour ‘No Right Turn’

restriction from Foreman Street into Princes Highway, Tempe be approved and implemented,

subject to a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) being considered and approved by the Roads

and Maritime Services (RMS).

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. the findings of the community consultation be received and noted; and

2. the installation of an AM (6am-10am) and PM (3pm – 7pm) peak hour ‘No Right Turn’ restriction from Foreman Street into Princes Highway, Tempe be APPROVED and implemented, subject to a Traffic Management Plan being considered and approved by the Roads and Maritime Services.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 6 Merton Street, Rozelle - Kerb Blisters
(Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

As part of the 2016-17 traffic facilities program, it is recommended to install kerb blisters on

Darling Street at Merton Street, Rozelle to improve pedestrian amenity.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the construction of kerb blisters on both sides of Darling Street, Rozelle immediately south of Merton Street be supported as detailed in Attachment 1.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 7 Union Street, Tempe - Proposed Traffic Calming Revised Design Plans (Marrickville Ward/Heffron Electorate/Newtown LAC)

SUMMARY

A presentation by a resident of Union Street, Tempe was made to the Local Traffic Committee at its meeting on 6 October 2016. A number of concerns and issues were raised as part of the presentation regarding the proposed traffic calming measured in Union Street. It was resolved to refer the matter back to the November Local Traffic Committee meeting in order to address the resident’s concerns.

The report below addresses the issues raised through the resident’s presentation and

incorporates changes to the detailed design plan following consideration of these issues.

Traffic Committee Discussion

Public speaker: Mr Mathew Bergan

Mr Bergan from No. 41 Union Street, Tempe addressed the committee with the following comments:

· The proposed landscaped kerb island outside No. 41 Union Street is too long and will remove two parking spaces in an area with very high parking demands due to the close proximity of a church and a school.

· The landscape kerb island at its proposed location will not stop cars from mounting the kerb and hence will not improve safety.

· Increased number of heavy vehicles (mainly construction trucks but also the occasional service vehicles) use the area. This number is expected to rise as a number of future warehouse developments are expected to be approved in the area.

· Trucks turning right out of School Lane in to Union Street, regularly mount the kerb. Bollards should be installed at this location to improve safety.

· The proposed traffic calming works in Union Street will reduce the width and only allow one vehicle to exit at a time, this will not improve the traffic flow in the surrounding streets.

The Local Member representative for Heffron advised that local residents have requested the implementation of ‘Keep Clear’ linemarking on Unwins Bridge Road to improve the right turn out of Union Street.

Council staff advised that the propose kerb island outside No. 41 Union Street is intended to improve site visibility and is implemented within the 10m statutory ‘No Stopping’ zone. The narrowing at the intersection of Union Street and Unwins Bridge Road has been intentionally designed to improve safety. The traffic volumes in Union Street are not high and the impact on traffic flow will be minimal.

RMS representative advised that there are strict RMS guidelines in regards to implementation of ‘Keep Clear’ linemarking. RMS will consider Council’s proposal.

Officer’s Recommendation

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

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT

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

2. A vehicle length restriction in School Lane to access Union Street, Tempe be investigated.

3. “Keep Clear” linemarking on Unwins Bridge Road at Union Street, Tempe be investigated.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 8 Jersey Street & Moyes Street, Marrickville - Proposed Traffic Calming Revised Design Plans
(Marrickville Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Marrickville LAC)

SUMMARY

Revised design plans have been finalised for the proposed drainage improvements,

landscaping and associated signs and line marking works at the intersection of Jersey Street

and Moyes Street, Marrickville as part of Council’s Drainage Facility Capital Works Program.

The proposal for three new storm water inlets, a new kerb and gutter alignment and associated signs and line markings will improve drainage amenities and traffic conditions at

this location.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the detailed design plans for drainage improvements, landscaping and associated signs and line marking works at the intersection of Jersey Street and Moyes Street, Marrickville (as per the design plan No. 6102_A) be APPROVED.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 9 Temporary Road Closure to Carry Out Reinstallation of Mobile Phone Antenna Mount Across Agar Street, Marrickville (Marrickville Ward/Marrickville Electorate/Marrickville LAC)

SUMMARY

An application has been received from K&D Traffic Management Pty Ltd for the temporary full road closure of Agar Street (between Addison Road and Newington Road) Marrickville for a period of 7 hours from 10am to 5pm on 3th and 4th of December 2016, in order to stand a

mobile boom crane on Agar Street to reinstall a mobile phone antenna mount across Agar

Street, Marrickville. It is recommended that the proposed temporary road closure be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in this report.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the proposed temporary full road closure of Agar Road(between Addison Road and Newington Road) Marrickville be APPROVED for a period of 7 hours from 10am to 5pm on 3^th and 4^th of December 2016 December 2016, in order to stand a mobile boom crane on Agar Street to reinstall a mobile phone antenna mount across Agar Street, Marrickville, subject to the following conditions:

1. a fee of $1,354.60 for the temporary full road closure is payable by the applicant in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges;

2. the temporary full road closure be advertised in the local newspaper providing 28 days’ notice for submissions, in accordance with the Roads Act;

3. a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) be submitted by the applicant to the Roads and Maritime Services for consideration and approval;

4. a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) which has been prepared by a certified Traffic Controller, is to be submitted to Council for review with a copy of the Traffic Controllers certification number attached to the plan, not less than 5 days prior to implementation of closure;

5. a Road Occupancy License be obtained by the applicant from the Roads and Maritime Services’ Transport Management Centre;

6. notice of the proposed closure be forwarded by the applicant to the NSW Police, the NSW Fire Brigades and the NSW Ambulance Services;

7. notification signs advising of the proposed road closures and new traffic arrangements to be strategically installed and maintained by the applicant at each end of the street at least 7 days prior to the closure;

8. all affected residents and businesses shall be notified in writing, by the applicant, of the proposed temporary road closure at least 7 days in advance of the closure with the applicant making reasonable provision for residents;

9. vehicular and pedestrian access for residents and businesses to their off-street car parking spaces be maintained where possible whilst site works are in progress;

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

11. the holder of this approval shall indemnify the Council against all claims, damages and costs incurred by, or charges made against, the Council in respect to death or injury to any person or damage in any way arising out of this approval. In this regard, a public liability insurance policy for an amount not less than $20,000,000 for any one occurrence is to be obtained and is to note the Council as an interested party. The holder of this approval shall inform its insurer of the terms of this condition and submit a copy of the insurance policy to the Council prior to commencement of the work the subject of this approval;

12. the operator of any unit exercising this approval shall have this approval with them and produce it if required along with any other relevant authority approvals granted in the connection with the work;

13. mobile cranes, cherry packers or concrete boom pumps shall not stand within the public way for extended periods when not in operation under this approval;

14. the operation of the mobile crane shall not give rise to an "offensive noise" as defined in the Protection of Environment Operations Act, 1997. Furthermore, vibrations and/or emission of gases that are created during its operations and which are a nuisance, or dangerous to public health are not permitted;

15. all work is to be carried out in accordance with Work Cover requirements; and

16. the costs to repair damages, as a result of these works, to Council's footway and roadway areas will be borne by the applicant.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 10 Short Street, Balmain - Road Occupancy
(Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

Council has received an application from a resident of Short Street, Balmain to conduct a

Christmas street party in Short Street between Spring Street and Curtis Road. This is an

annual event.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. the temporary road closure of Short Street, Balmain between Spring Street and Curtis Road, on Saturday, 17^th December 2016 between 6.00pm and 11.30pm be approved, subject to the following conditions:

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

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

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

d. the approved Traffic Control Plan (TCP) be implemented at the applicant’s expense including RMS accredited traffic controllers;

e. the Fire Brigade (Balmain) be notified of the intended closure;

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

i. Barrier Boards;

ii. ‘Road Closed’ (T2-4) signs;

iii. ‘Detour’ (T5-1) signs;

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

h. the applicant must comply with the risk assessment conditions supplied by Council’s Employee Services Section prior to the event. (Council contact: David Gollan on 9367 9222);

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 11 Heighway Avenue, Ashfield - Annual Road Occupancy (Christmas Street Party) on Saturday 3rd December 2016
(Ashfield Ward/Strathfield Electorate/Ashfield LAC)

SUMMARY

Representation has been received from Ms Julia Pokorny for residents in Heighway Avenue,

requesting the temporarily closure of Heighway Avenue, between Walter Street and Frederick Street, to conduct an annual Christmas Street party from 5.00pm-9.00pm on the Saturday 3^rd December 2016.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the Committee raises no objection for Council to proceed and arrange the temporary closure of Heighway Avenue, Ashfield, between Walter Street and Frederick Street, to conduct an annual Christmas Street Party on the Saturday 3 December 2016, from 5.00pm - 9.00pm. The closure will be subject to relevant conditions as imposed by Council together with any other conditions from the RMS and Police.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 12 Anthony Street, Croydon - Annual Road Occupancy (Christmas Street Party) on Saturday 17 December 2016
(Leichhardt Ward/Strathfield Electorate/Ashfield LAC)

SUMMARY

Representation has been received from Ms Jackie Speak for residents in Anthony Street,

Croydon, requesting the temporary closure of Anthony Street, Croydon, between Croydon

Road and Etonville Parade, to conduct an annual Christmas Street party from 4.00pm 9.00pm on Saturday 17 December 2016.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the Committee raises no objection for Council to proceed and arrange the temporary closure of Anthony Street, Croydon, between Croydon Road and Etonville Parade, to conduct an annual Christmas Street Party on the Saturday 17 December 2016, from 4.00pm - 9.00pm. The closure will be subject to relevant conditions as imposed by Council together with any other conditions from the RMS and Police.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 13 Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) 15-17 Hercules Street, Ashfield (Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Ashfield LAC)

SUMMARY

AAA Traffic Control Pty Ltd for Daniel Younan & Associates has prepared a Construction

Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) as required under condition of consent for the development of 15-17 Hercules Street, Ashfield.

The CTMP dated 14th October 2016 (Attachment 1) has been developed in discussion and

meetings on site between the developer, Council, Police and STA for use of the rear lane,

known as Fox’s Lane, for road occupation and construction vehicle access to the site.

It is recommended that the CTMP operate to the extent of providing a full road closure in Fox’s Lane, and the installation of a work zone, during DA times of operation. This would be subject to the CTMP being further revised to include Council permit conditions for the use and operation of the Fox’s Lane under appropriate Council fees and charges, and include any other conditions as required by the RMS and/or Police.

Any out of hours operation, will need to be approved under special permit arrangement (e.g.

the erection and dismantling of a tower crane.) and may be included in Council permit

conditions in use and operation of Fox’s Lane.

Traffic Committee Discussion

Public speaker: Mr Daniel Younan

Mr Younan addressed the committee and advised that the developers have met with Council’s (Ashfield) staff on numerous occasions, to ensure the CTMP is in accordance with Council’s requirements. He encouraged the committee to approve the CTMP.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT support be given for the Construction Traffic Management Plan to operate to the extent of providing a full road closure in Fox’s Lane and installation of a work zone in Fox’s Lane, during DA times of operation for development works of 15-17 Hercules Street, Ashfield. This is subject to the CTMP being further revised (for Council approval) to include:

1. Council permit conditions for the use and operation of Fox’s Lane under appropriate Council fees and charges; and

2. any other conditions as required by the RMS and/or Police.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 14 Local Route 3 (Livingstone Road) - Public Consultation Report

SUMMARY

Council has prepared a final concept plan for improvements to Local Route 3, a bicycle route

identified in Council’s Bicycle Plan, following public exhibition of the draft concept plan. 62%

of the responses received did not support the concept plan. The concept plan has been

amended in response to the main objection of the proposed removal of on-street parking on

Livingstone Road. The final concept plan identifies a route along Livingstone Road from the

Bankstown Line rail corridor to Marrickville Park to make bike riding safer, more comfortable

and more convenient, and addresses the community concerns by reducing impacts to onstreet parking by 99%. This report recommends that the final concept plan be approved and detailed designs for the route be developed.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Local Member representative for Balmain objected to the proposal due to the following safety concerns:

· 2m wide bi-directional bike path is too narrow for fast bicycle traffic.

· The cycle path is on the footpath side and only 200mm away from parked cars. There is a risk of collision between the passengers opening doors and cyclists.

· The path is on the footpath side of bus stops; passengers will not be expecting speeding cyclists as they move towards the footpath.

· The design is unsafe at minor road junctions for contraflow cyclists. Turning cars will not be looking for cyclist traffic coming from their right.

· The design could cause conflict between cyclists and pedestrians using the pedestrian refuges. Pedestrians will not be expecting a rider approaching from their right.

· There are no provision for cyclists turning east off Livingston Road.

· The proposed path is subject to obstruction by residents garbage bins. The narrowed road lane width could encourage residents to place their bins adjacent to the road, in the bike path.

The Committee members agreed to defer the recommendation to a future Traffic Committee meeting to allow for further community engagement.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the final concept plan for Local Route 3 be approved and detailed designs for the route be developed.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the item be deferred to the December LTC for further community engagement.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 15 Local Route 18 (Dulwich Hill Station to Marrickville Station) - Public Consultation Report

SUMMARY

Council has prepared a final concept plan for improvements to Local Route 18, a bicycle route identified in Council’s Bicycle Plan, following public exhibition of the draft concept plan. The final concept plan identifies a route between Dulwich Hill station and Marrickville station to make bike riding safer, more comfortable and more convenient. 70% of submissions received during public exhibition indicated support for the draft concept plan. This report recommends that the final concept plan be approved and detailed designs for the route be developed.

Traffic Committee Discussion

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

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. the final concept plan for Local Route 18 be approved and detailed designs for the route be developed; and

2. Council consult further with Sydney Metro to seek agreement on a bike route in the rail corridor between School Parade and Randall Street.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the item be deferred to the December LTC for further community engagement.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 16 Regional Bicycle Route 7 (Lewisham to Newtown) - Public Consultation Report

SUMMARY

Council has prepared a final concept plan for improvements to Regional Route 7, a NSW

Government priority bicycle route and part of strategic bicycle corridor, following public

exhibition of the draft concept plan. The final concept plan connects Lewisham and Newtown

to make bike riding safer, more comfortable and more convenient. 77% of submissions

received during public exhibition indicated support for the proposal. This report recommends

the final concept plan be endorsed to progress to the detailed design stage.

Traffic Committee Discussion

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

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. the final concept plan for Regional Route 7 be approved and detailed designs for the route be developed; and

2. Council consult further with Roads and Maritime Services and the City of Sydney to identify options for improved bicycle access across King Street, Newtown.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the item be deferred to the December LTC for further community engagement.

For motion: Unanimous

PARKING MATTERS

T1116 Item 17 Livingstone Road, Marrickville - Relocation of Existing ‘Bus Zone’ & ‘No Parking’ Restrictions
(Marrickville Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Marrickville LAC)

SUMMARY

A detailed signage plan has been finalised for the proposed relocation of a ‘Bus Zone’ on

Livingstone Road, Marrickville as part of the proposed development of Council’s new Library

and Community Hub located on the corner of Marrickville Road and Livingstone Road,

Marrickville. The proposal for a new ‘Bus Zone’ with associated signs will improve traffic

conditions at this location as a result of the future development.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the detailed signage plan of the ‘Bus Zone’ relocation with associated signs on the eastern side of Livingstone Road, Marrickville near its intersection with Marrickville Road (as per the signage plan No. PTC-001 Rev5) be APPROVED.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 18 Australia Street, Camperdown - Amendment to Mail Zone Restrictions to allow Residential Parking in Non-Operational Periods (Stanmore Ward/Newtown Electorate/Newtown LAC)

SUMMARY

A local resident has requested that parking be allowed in the recently formalised ‘Mail Zone’

adjacent to 44-50 Australia Street, Camperdown. Details of operational times for the ‘Mail

Zone’ at this location were requested from Australia Post. Australia Post advised Council that

they did not object to a time restricted ‘Mail Zone’ at this location thereby allowing an

opportunity to extend the adjacent Resident Parking Scheme (M1) for the benefit of local

residents.

Due to the high utilisation of on-street parking in the subject area, it is recommended that the

dedicated ‘Mail Zone’ become time restricted to Australia Post operational times of 5.00pm –

8.00pm, Sunday to Friday and the existing Resident Parking Scheme (M1) in Australia Street, Camperdown, be extended into the mail zone outside Australia Post’s operational hours.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. the existing dedicated ‘Mail Zone’ adjacent to 44-50 Australia Street, Camperdown be time restricted to Australia Post operational times of 5.00pm – 8.00pm, Sunday to Friday;

2. the adjacent Residential Parking Scheme restrictions be extended into the ‘Mail Zone’ with amended times of ‘2P 8.30am – 5.00pm, Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted – Area M1’; and

3. the applicant, surrounding residents, Australia Post and Council Parking Officers be advised in terms of this report.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 19 Ferndale Lane, Newtown - Extension of ‘No Parking’ Restrictions in the Laneway (Stanmore Ward/Newtown Electorate/Newtown LAC)

SUMMARY

A resident of Ferndale Street, Newtown raised concerns with regards to vehicles being parked in Ferndale Lane opposite their garage and therefore restricting vehicular access into and out of their garage. It is recommended that the existing 'No Parking' restrictions on the western side of Ferndale Lane be extended 16 metres northward from the rear of property No.32 Ferndale Street to the rear of the property No.24 Ferndale Street, Newtown to improve

vehicular access to residents’ off-street parking.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. the existing 'No Parking' restrictions on the eastern side of Ferndale Lane BE EXTENDED by 16 metres northward from the rear of property No.32 Ferndale Street to the rear of property No.24 Ferndale Street, Newtown to improve vehicular access to residents’ off-street parking; and

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

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 20 Briar Lane, St Peters - ‘No Parking’ Restrictions in the Laneway (MarrickvilleWard/Heffron Electorate /Newtown LAC)

SUMMARY

Representations have been received from local residents for the installation of full time ‘No

Parking’ restrictions in Briar Lane, St Peters as vehicular access is often blocked by parked

vehicles in the laneway and some residents are unable to access their off-street parking due to parked vehicles. Residents have been notified of the proposal to install ‘No Parking’

restrictions along the eastern length of the laneway along with statutory 10 metre ‘No

Stopping’ signs on the south-east side of Briar Lane at its intersection with Henry Street.

It is recommended that the proposal be approved.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. the installation of full-time ‘No Parking’ restrictions on the eastern side of Briar Lane, St Peters commencing adjacent to property No. 9 Henry Street and extending to the northern end of the laneway be APPROVED, in order to provide unobstructed vehicular access to the laneway and to the off-street car parking spaces and deter illegal parking across vehicular crossings;

2. the installation of statutory ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on the south-east side of Briar Lane, St Peters for a distance of 10 metres from its intersection with Henry Lane, St Peters be APPROVED, in order to deter illegal parking, improve access for turning motorists and increase safety; and

3. the applicants, affected residents and Council Rangers be advised in terms of this report.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 21 2 South Street, Marrickville - Request for a Drop-Off & Pick-Up Zone outside the Waranara Centre
(Marrickville Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Marrickville LAC)

SUMMARY

A request has been received from the Waranara Centre for the provision of a morning and

afternoon school P10minute drop-off/pick-up zone adjacent to the school in South Street,

Marrickville to assist parents and carers with the drop-off and pick-up of children. It is

recommended that the proposal be approved.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the installation of ‘P10minute, 8:00am-9:30am and 2:30pm-4:00pm, Mon-Fri’ restrictions on the eastern side of South Street, Marrickville directly outside property 2 South Street (10 metres in length), be APPROVED, in order to provide an on-street drop-off/pick-up parking facility and to improve safety for passing traffic and access for children and parents into their vehicles.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 22 Wooley Lane, Marrickville - Request for ‘No Parking’ Restrictions in Laneway (Marrickville Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Marrickville LAC)

SUMMARY

Representations have been received from local residents for the installation of full time ‘No

Parking’ restrictions in Wooley Lane, between Warburton Street and Greenbank Street,

Marrickville adjacent to their off-street car parking spaces along the laneway, as vehicular

access is often blocked by parked vehicles in the laneway.

Residents have been notified of the proposal to extend the existing ‘No Parking’ restrictions on the western side of Wooley Lane by 30 metres to encompass the entire length of the laneway to improve access to off-street parking. It is recommended that the proposal be approved.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. the existing full-time ‘No Parking’ restrictions on the western side of Wooley Lane, between Warburton Street and Greenbank Street, Marrickville BE EXTENDED by 30 metres southward, in order to provide unobstructed vehicular access to the off-street car parking spaces and deter illegal parking across vehicular crossings;

2. the installation of statutory ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on the southern end of the western side of Wooley Lane, Marrickville for a distance of 10 metres from its intersection with Greenbank Street, be APPROVED, in order to deter illegal parking, improve access for turning motorists and increase safety; and

3. the applicants, Council Rangers and affected residents be advised in terms of this report.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 23 Requests for Mobility Parking Spaces
(Ashfield, Stanmore & Marrickville Wards/Summer Hill & Newtown Electorates/Stanmore & Marrickville LACs)

SUMMARY

Requests have been received from residents within the Local Government Area (LGA) for the provision of dedicate mobility parking space outside their residence. It is recommended that the following ‘Mobility Parking’ spaces be approve das the applicants current medical conditions warrant the provision of these spaces and they have constrained or no off-street parking opportunities.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT subject to the below conditions, the following locations be APPROVED as a ‘mobility parking’ space:

1. Southern side of Station Street, Petersham adjacent to property no 36 Station Street, Tempe;

2. Southern side of Camden Street, Tempe adjacent to property no 160 Camden Street, Tempe; and

3. Northern side of Alfred Street, Marrickville adjacent to property no 1A Alfred Street, Marrickville.

The conditions are:

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

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

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

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 24 Lion Street and Wetherill Street, Croydon - Proposal for Permit Parking Area 2 and 7 Respectively
(Ashfield Ward/Strathfield Electorate/Ashfield LAC)

SUMMARY

Requests have been received from local residents for consideration of a Resident Parking

Scheme in Lion Street and Wetherill Street, Croydon.

Surveys and recent consultation was conducted to consider the inclusion of Lion and Wetherill Streets as part of the extension of the Ashfield LGA Residential Parking Scheme with precincts introduced in the surrounding street areas over the last few years.

The following recommendation is made to propose installation of ‘2P 8.00am-6.00pm Mon-Fri., Permit Holders Excepted – Area 2 (east side of Wetherill Street, north of Liverpool Road) & ‘2P 8.00am-6.00pm Mon-Fri., Permit Holders Excepted - Area 7 (west side of Lion Street).

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. ‘2P 8.00am-6.00pm Mon-Fri., Permit Holders Excepted - Area 2’ restrictions be installed on the eastern side of Wetherill Street, north of Liverpool Road, Croydon; and

2. ‘2P 8.00am-6.00pm Mon-Fri., Permit Holders Excepted - Area 7’ restrictions be installed on the western side of Lion Street, Croydon.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 25 Mullens Street, Rozelle between Mansfield Street and No. 181 Mullens Street - Resident (Permit) Parking Scheme Restrictions
(Leichhardt Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

Council has received a petition form the residents of Mullens Street (between Mansfield Street and No. 181 Mullens Street). The residents have requested extension of the existing Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) Zone R1 to include the frontage of their properties for a total of 5 indented parking spaces. The request intends to deter long term commuter parking which was recently exacerbated following the installation of RPS restrictions in the nearby Mansfield Street, Rozelle.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT ‘2P 8am-6pm, Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted, Area R1’ restrictions be installed on the western side of Mullens Street, Rozelle (between Mansfield Street and No. 181 Mullens Street).

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 26 Darling Street, Balmain East - 1/4P Parking Restriction
(Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

Council has received a petition from a number of business owners in Darling Street between

Curtis Road and Stephen Street, requesting the installation of two short term parking spaces.

The business owners have raised concerns in regards to the low turnover in the existing 2-

hour parking zones in this section of Darling Street and the impacts on their customers’

parking needs.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT ‘1/4P 8am-6pm’ and ‘2P 6pm-10pm, 7 days’ Permit Holders Excepted, Authorised Area B2’ signage be installed outside No.224 Darling Street, Balmain for a length of 6 metres (as shown on the plan).

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 27 Flood Street, Leichhardt - No Stopping
(Leichhardt Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

It is recommended to signpost the statuatory 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone on the eastern side of

Flood Street, south of Albert Street to provide adequate sight lines to traffic in Flood Street.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT a 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone be signposted on the eastern side of Flood Street, Leichhardt immediately south of Albert Street.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 28 Wharf Road, Lilyfield - No Parking Restrictions
(Leichhardt Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

It is recommended to install a 13 ‘No Parking’ zone on the western side of Wharf Road extending 3m either side of the University of Tasmania car park driveway in order to address

concerns with vehicles being unable to pass each other in Wharf Road.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT a 13 ‘No Parking’ zone be installed on the western side of Wharf Road extending 3m either side of the University of Tasmania car park driveway.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 29 Walumil Street, Balmain - Motorbike Parking
(Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

It is proposed to provide a dedicated on-street Motorbike Parking space in Walumil Street to

address concerns raised by the Colgate Palmolive building management regarding scattered

motorbike parking in Colgate Avenue and Walumil Street, Balmain.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT a 6m ‘Motorbike Only’ restriction be installed on the northern side of Walumil Street, Balmain immediately west of St Andrew Street.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 30 Minor Traffic Facilities
(Leichhardt & Balmain Wards/Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

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

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

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. a 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ space be installed in front of No.16 George Street, Balmain;

2. a 8m 'Works Zone 7.00am - 5.00pm Mon-Fri, 7.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed in front of No.8 Derbyshire Road, Leichhardt for 12 weeks; and

3. a 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ space be installed in front of No.13 Hearn Street, Leichhardt including construction of associated kerb ramps.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

RECOMMENDATION

T1116 Item 31 Lewisham Parking Review - Final Report

SUMMARY

The Lewisham Parking Study was completed in 2013 and the recommendations of the study

implemented in 2014. This is a review of the implemented actions of the final study. Following public exhibition of the draft recommendations 68% of the community feedback supported the Lewisham Parking Study Review recommendations. The final report and recommendations have been revised following the community feedback.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the Committee endorse the recommendations in the Lewisham Final Parking Study Review and Management Plan.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 32 Riverside Parking Study - Final Report

SUMMARY

The final Riverside Parking Management Plan is a comprehensive community engagement,

review, analysis and parking management plan for the Riverside area. The draft report was

placed on Public Exhibition during August with 57% not supporting the recommendations

within the report. The comments on the draft recommendations from public exhibition during

August 2016 have informed and amended the final recommendations for Riverside precinct.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the Committee endorse as detailed in this report, the recommendations (Table 2) and action plan (Table 3) in the Riverside Final Parking Management Plan.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

PART B – ITEMS FOR INFORMATION ONLY

T1116 Item 33 Illawarra Road, Marrickville - Safety Concerns of Pedestrian Crossing near Thompson Street
(Marrickville Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Marrickville LAC)

SUMMARY

This report is for Council to consider the findings of a review into the safety of the raised

pedestrian crossing on Illawarra Road, Marrickville, near its intersection with Thompson Street and speeding issues in the section of Illawarra Road between Sydenham Road and Thompson Street.

Council Officers undertook an investigation into the safety of this raised pedestrian crossing

which revealed that speeding is not an issue on approach to the crossing nor does the

crossing require further improvements at present.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the report be received and noted.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 34 Local Traffic Committee Meeting Schedule for 2017

SUMMARY

The proposed schedule of the Local Traffic Committee meetings has been prepared for the

2017 calendar year. It is recommended that the proposed meeting schedule be received and

noted.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the proposed schedule of meetings of the Local Traffic Committee for the 2017 calendar year be received and noted.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

PART C – ITEMS FOR GENERAL ADVICE

T1116 Item 35 Stanmore Parking Study - Draft Report

SUMMARY

The draft Stanmore Parking Study identifies the extent and utilisation of parking in the precinct, establishes community opinion and concerns and proposes a strategy for parking in the area. It makes a number of recommendations for resident, short term and laneway parking

restrictions to address concerns raised by the community and based on the data collected. It

is recommended to place the draft Stanmore Parking Study and recommendations on public

exhibition for community feedback.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the Draft Stanmore Parking Study report be approved for Public Exhibition.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 36 Newtown Enmore Parking Review - Draft Report

SUMMARY

The Newtown Enmore Parking Study was completed in 2013 and the recommendations of the study implemented in 2014. This is a review of the implemented actions of the final study. An interim study and recommendations around the Alice Street development have been endorsed and will be implemented this year. This review and draft report has a focus on restrictions in laneway parking in response to resident feedback of the ongoing issue. It is recommended to place the draft Newtown Enmore parking review report and recommendations on public exhibition for community feedback.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the Draft Newtown Enmore Parking Review report be approved for Public Exhibition.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 37 Local Route 16 (Addison Road) - Draft Concept Plan for Public Exhibition

SUMMARY

At its 26 July 2016 meeting, Council endorsed a draft concept plan proposing bicycle route

improvements on Addison Road for public exhibition. The draft concept plan has since been

revised to incorporate a new configuration for a separated bike path on local bike routes

agreed by Council and RMS. The proposed improvements seek to address bicycle rider safety on Addison Road associated with existing conditions, and greatly reduce the impact of on street parking. This report recommends the revised draft concept plan be placed on public

exhibition.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. the revised draft concept plan for Local Route 16 be placed on public exhibition for 28 days; and

2. following public exhibition, a final report be prepared detailing outcomes of consultation and a final concept plan.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

T1116 Item 38 ILLAWARRA ROAD, MARRICKVILLE - PROPOSED BUS ZONE SIGNS AND LINE MARKING REVISED DESIGN PLANS Parking Study - Draft Report (MARRICKVILLE WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)

SUMMARY

On the 9th September 2016, Council held an Extra-Ordinary Local Traffic Committee meeting

via email. The Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) and State Transit Authority (STA) raised a number of concerns and issues regarding the proposed relocation of a ‘Bus Zone’ on Illawarra Road, Marrickville as part of the Marrickville Railway Station upgrade. It was resolved to refer the matter back to the Local Traffic Committee meeting in order to address the RMS and STA concerns.

The report below addresses the issues raised by the RMS and STA and incorporates changes to the detailed design plan following consideration of these issues.

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the detailed design plans of the new ‘Bus Zone’ with associated signs and line

markings on Illawarra Road, Marrickville adjacent to Marrickville Railway Station (as

per the attached design plan TAP-1826-CI-3560 06) be APPROVED.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

GENERAL BUSINESS

T1116 Item 39 PROPOSED NO PARKING RESTRICTIONS NEAR NO.131 SMITH STREET, SUMMER HILL (ASHFIELD/SUMMER HILL)

SUMMARY

The Traffic Committee at its meeting held on 6^th October 2016 considered Item 19 on “Proposed ‘No Parking’ restrictions near No.131 Smith Street, Summer Hill” and recommended the following:

“THAT:

1. a 'No Parking 8.30am-6.00pm Mon-Fri., 8.30am-12.30pm Sat., Buses with Disabled

Persons Excepted.' zone be installed for 6-8metres to the east of the driveway to

the Community Centre outside No.131 Smith Street, Summer Hill; and

2. the existing 1P 8.30am-6.00pm Mon-Fri., 8.30am-12.30pm Sat parking signs be

amended for the above No Parking proposal.

subject to agreement of RMS to the wording of the proposed sign. ”

Following further discussion with the RMS representative, it was resolved to amend the wording of the above mentioned signs to “Mini Bus Zone 8:30am-6:00pm Mon-Fri, 8.30am-12.30pm Sat”

Traffic Committee Discussion

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

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

2. the existing 1P 8.30am-6.00pm Mon-Fri., 8.30am-12.30pm Sat parking signs be amended for the above Mini Bus Zone proposal.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

THAT the Officer’s recommendation be adopted.

For motion: Unanimous

Future meetings

The next meeting of the Traffic Committee is scheduled for Thursday, 1st December 2016 to

be held at Ashfield Service Centre.

Meeting closed at 11:30 pm.

Council Meeting

6 December 2016

Item No: C1216 Item 16

Subject: Sky+Park - Proposed Rooftop Open Space Facility on TfNSW Commuter Carpark, Ashfield

File Ref: 15/5238/127862.16

Prepared By: Michael Craven - Senior Project Manager, Ashfield

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

SUMMARY

At its meeting of 25^th October 2016, Council deferred consideration of this report to allow discussion at the November Local Representative Advisory Committee (LRAC).

Council has been negotiating with Transport for NSW (TfNSW) for the inclusion of public open space embellishments on the upper level of their proposed multi-storey commuter carpark in Brown Street, Ashfield adjacent Ashfield Station. The additional carpark level and its embellishments would be funded by Council at preliminary cost likely to be in the order of approximately $4 million.

In order to progress necessary designs TfNSW now require a decision from Council as to whether it wishes to commit to the project. Due to the high level of uncertainty surrounding its likely success and the significant financial risks it is recommended that Council not proceed with the proposal at this time.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Not proceed with the proposal to fund an additional level and open space embellishments to the commuter carpark to be constructed by TfNSW adjacent Ashfield Station at this point in time.

2. Seek provision in the current design to cater for the future construction of an additional floor to accommodate open space embellishment or some other Council use in the future.

3. Council negotiate an agreement with TfNSW to provide public toilets as part of the proposed car park development and delegate authority to the General Manager to execute an agreement.

4. Council consider a budget allocation to fund its contribution to the provision of these public toilets as part of the 2017/18 budget.

BACKGROUND

Transport for NSW (TfNSW) advised in late 2015 that they intended to construct a 3 level commuter carpark on the site of the existing ‘at grade’ carpark in Brown Street adjacent to Ashfield Station (refer Figure 1). The proposed carpark will provide 235 parking spaces, an increase of 120 over the existing ground level carpark. TfNSW have advised Council of the following with regards to their current proposal:

·
TfNSW have awarded a Design and Construct contract as part of a package of 4 commuter carparks across Sydney;

· They have prepared a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) which has not as yet been released for public comment;

· Once commenced construction is expected to take approximately 12 months;

· They propose to design the carpark to structurally cater for up to 2 additional levels of future commuter parking;

· They do not initially propose to have time limits on the parking and will include a provision for boom gates should they be needed in the future; and

· They do not propose to include any toilets in the carpark.

FIGURE 1: Locality Sketch

Recently there has been substantial residential development in the Ashfield Town Centre in line with objectives for urban consolidation around transport nodes. This has resulted in a demand for appropriate infrastructure to support an increasing population including high quality open space.

In consideration of this need, the former Ashfield Council identified a potential opportunity to provide recreational open space on the upper level of the proposed commuter carpark – a “Sky+Park”. Conceptual perspectives of the idea were developed and are provided in Attachment 1.

Following approaches to the Greater Sydney Commission and the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, TfNSW agreed in principle to the proposal and have drafted a Heads of Agreement (HoA) for Council consideration.

The proposal and associated HoA raises a number of issues which are discussed in this report for Council consideration.

Open Space Options

Council should note that there has not been a recreation needs study nor specific public engagement to support the viability of the proposed “Sky+Park”. Notwithstanding, there are a wide range of active and passive uses that could be considered for incorporation in the “Sky+Park”.

Passive uses

Passive uses of the upper level could include landscaped areas, seating, shade, picnic shelters, BBQ’s, water features, meeting spaces, reading areas, and public art displays.

Active uses

Active uses could include such things as outdoor gym equipment, futsal (5 a side football), basketball, tennis, volley ball, golf driving nets, table tennis, badminton, indoor cricket, children’s playground and informal ball game areas. These could either operate on an informal basis, hired out, and/or used for training or formal competitions.

If ball games were proposed then a fully caged area would be required to prevent balls going over the edge of the roof and posing a significant public liability issue. It is likely that ball games would need to be prohibited outside of netted areas and that this would require a level of ongoing enforcement.

There would also be a level of management required for active areas. This could range from online bookings through Council with occasional supervision to sub-leasing as a commercial operation, which would hire out the courts and run competitions. Benefits of the latter approach would be a permanent presence to manage the usage and safety of the space and some income could potentially be generated to offset ongoing costs to some extent.

Although investigations have not been undertaken to determine the commercial viability of a leased facility it is considered that there would need to be at least 2 or 3 courts available.

Pop-up community events

The roof area could be used for pop-up community events such as shows, movie screenings, outdoor art exhibitions, small concerts, markets & festivals.

Community gardens

The area could also be used for community gardens. There would be structural limitations on the layout of the garden beds which would need to be raised for drainage and soil containment. There would need to be some level of management of the community garden whether by community committee or council resourced supervision.

Other uses

As there are 3 high schools and 2 Primary schools within 500m of the carpark there is also an option to provide outdoor educational spaces and for the schools to utilise the recreation and community garden facilities on the ‘Sky+Park’. The Sky+Park could also include community meeting spaces, creche and pop up café/ coffee cart.

Feasibilty Considerations

Discussions have been held internally with Council’s Open Space and Recreation staff. The strong consensus among staff is that the proposed ‘Sky+Park’ is unlikely to be successful in terms of utilisation if operated as passive open space alone. To attract adequate utilisation there likely needs to be another reason to make the ‘Sky+Park’ a destination.

As a passive space there are significant differences to a traditional park. These include the use of artificial grass rather than natural grass, the lack of trees, and the lack of visibility and direct access from street level. These issues are likely to limit its use and attractiveness as passive open space. Successful elevated public open spaces, such as the New York High Line Park, form a pedestrian link between destinations which provide a reason to be there.

It is considered that the most likely reason for people to visit the isolated space would be the provision of facilities which encourage active use and promotion.

As noted above active open space would most likely involve some sort of fully netted playing field. The minimum recommended sizes for a number of different playing fields in comparison to the proposed roof top space is illustrated in Figure 2A. As can be seen the illustrated courts do not fit across the width of the carpark when taking into consideration the required fire exists and the vehicle ramps.

As noted previously it is anticipated that at least 2 or 3 courts would be required to be commercially viable. Using futsal, the smaller of the courts, as an example, courts would need to be located along the length of the carpark as shown in Figure 2B. Such a configuration would leave little space for passive uses, taking into consideration the need for vehicle access to the roof level.

If 3 courts were provided they would occupy all of the roof area leaving no space for other uses. This is not a use that was envisaged in the original proposal and there has been no investigation to date to establish the likely utilisation of such a facility in the Ashfield Town Centre. Further the netting required would dominate the feel of the space and potentially cause blockage of egress paths to the fire exits.

Given the dimensional constraints, for the ‘Sky+Park’ to operate as a multi-use space as originally envisaged, it would only be feasible to have one playing court, which would occupy approximately one third of the available area. The management of one court would likely fall to Council and become an operating cost.

Pop up community events could be possible although they are likely to be intermittent, create a demand for parking and toilets, and are not considered to justify creation of the ‘Sky+Park’ alone. There are other locations around the town centre that could also be used for such events such as the deck at the Esplanade (when re-furbished), Ashfield Park, Pratten Park and the Civic Centre forecourt. Community gardens could be considered on the roof area although there would be technical issues to overcome and ongoing management of the space.

Proposed Heads of Agreement

TfNSW have prepared a draft Heads of Agreement (HoA) for the consideration of Council on the following basis:

1. Council would fund an additional level of the carpark, which would be constructed as a future parking level by TfNSW;

2. Council would design, obtain approvals, construct, fund and manage open space facilities on the upper level of the carpark;

3. Any open space facilities installed on the upper level would need to be capable of being removed should TfNSW wish to add additional levels of parking in the future and then subsequently reinstated onto the new upper level; and

4. Council would manage the operation, cleansing and enforcement of the whole carpark under a nominal lease arrangement with TfNSW.

Should Council wish to proceed with the proposal, the draft agreement would be subject to detailed legal review.

FIGURE 2: Potential Court Layouts

Risks

There are a wide range of risks and costs associated with the proposal. These include:

1. There is a risk that the proposed ‘Sky+Park’ will not be successful due to lack of community utilisation. This risk is mitigated as the space can be converted to car parking. Should this happen TfNSW require any time restricted Council managed parking to be on the ground floor with the upper level converted for commuter parking.

2. TfNSW retain the right to approve or otherwise the activities that Council may propose to carry out on the upper level. This would include sub-leasing. Sub leasing may be required for such things as coffee cart or operation of sports courts.

3. Council bears the risk for obtaining planning consent. Such consent may not be granted or may contain conditions with restrictions on usage or cost implications. The consent will also include compliance with building regulations which may have implications on the whole building and not just the roof level. Implications may include the need for automatic fire doors, increased fire stair widths and increased toilet facilities.

4. Council is responsible for the capital costs associated with building the extra level. These costs are not fixed and could increase during the design and construction process. They could also include costs for work to other parking levels if that work was triggered by the open space level e.g. satisfying fire safety and building regulation requirements.

5. If TfNSW elect to add additional levels of parking in the future Council would at its cost be required to remove all equipment and embellishments and re-install on the added upper level when the extension was complete. The HoA indicates that this would not occur within 20 years however there are a number of clauses that may compromise this restriction which would need modification.

6. The lease could be terminated if TfNSW decides to extend the carpark, to privatize the operation of the carpark or install paid parking. If Council was not managing the carpark there would be interface issues with a private operator.

7. Council is required to manage and maintain the whole carpark, excluding structural issues, and pay all utility costs.

Planning Issues

TfNSW have indicated that they propose to approve the carpark under Part 5 of the EP&A Act and the Infrastructure SEPP. They propose to carry out a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) and have advised that this will be placed on public exhibition prior to construction.

Allowable building height for this site is 15m. This will not restrict the construction of the ‘Sky+Park’ and the proposed 3 levels of parking. It could however be an issue if TfNSW build an additional 2 levels of parking in the future depending on the height of structures proposed for the ‘Sky+Park’.

TfNSW propose to obtain their consent for a carpark only. If Council proceeds with the ‘Sky+Park’ then Council will be required to obtain consent to change the use to open space and for any structures proposed to be built. It is noted that additional uses in the ‘Sky+Park’ may also generate a demand for additional parking in addition to the commuter parking allocation.

Building Regulations

A park is not usually subject to building regulations and is not covered by the BCA. Constructing a park on the upper level of the building however triggers the need for it to be classified as part of the building and to comply with building regulations.

A preliminary analysis indicates that the park may be classified under the BCA as 9(b) -General Entertainment. As this is a different classification to the carpark (7a) there may need to be fire separation between the different levels. As there are ramps connecting the levels this may require automatic fire doors to be installed. The fire stairs would need increased widths and a minimum level of accessible toilet facilities would need to be provided in accordance with the BCA. Any such measures would be at cost to Council as they would not be required if the building was solely for use as a carpark.

Management and Enforcement

TfNSW have proposed in the HoA that Council would manage and maintain the carpark in lieu of lease payments for the ‘Sky+Park’. It is noted that Council currently leases the existing site for carparking but does not carry out enforcement. Council responsibilities are likely to include payment of utilities, lift maintenance, fire services maintenance, cleaning, graffiti removal, security, enforcement, complaint handling and managing anti-social behaviour.

It is also considered likely that as a result of the potential for anti-social behaviour and the proximity of nearby residences that the Sky+Park would be closed at night. This would require someone to check the area and lock up at an agreed time.

TfNSW have also indicated that in the future they may use Opal card access for the carpark. In this scenario they have indicated that they will most likely take over management of the carpark.

Other Options

In lieu of committing to the full expense of the project and associated risks at this point in time, Council could consider seeking a design which caters for the future addition of an additional floor to accommodate open space embellishment or some other use at some time in the future. TfNSW are designing for the future addition of two floors. This option would require a design and associated strengthening of supporting elements to accommodate the future addition of three floors.

Members of LRAC have also expressed the view of the need to incorporate public toilets into the proposed car park to service the town centre. These would need to be provided as a matter of course should the proposed ‘Sky+Park’ proceed. TfNSW are not proposing the provision of public toilets as part of their proposal as these facilities are available for train patrons within the station complex. TfNSW have indicated that a proposal for public toilets could be accommodated at Council’s cost.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Capital Costs

TfNSW have tendered and appointed a design and construct contractor with a priced option to design and construct an additional level for Councils use. They have not confirmed the likely cost of this option which is expected to be in the order of $3 million.

Costs for fit-out and embellishment of the upper level for open space, community or sporting facilities is yet to be determined but is expected to be in the order of $1million. It is also noted that anything constructed on the upper level needs to be removable should TfNSW wish to add further parking levels in the future.

Council currently has $3.85 Million in the Section 94 reserve for acquisition and embellishment of new open space which could potentially be used for funding the proposal.

As a comparison based on typical land rating valuations in the town centre of $4,000 per sqm, land of this size (2600sqm) would cost in the order of $10 million to purchase without improvements, if such land was available.

The costs of a standalone proposal to provide public toilets is yet to be determine but a preliminary budget of $300,000 should be allowed.

Operating and Maintenance costs

In lieu of lease payments TfNSW is proposing that Council manage the operation, maintain and pay utility costs for the carpark. Utility costs would include electricity, water, telecommunications and sewer costs. Other maintenance costs would include cleaning, graffiti removal, lift maintenance, fire services maintenance, minor repairs etc. It is estimated that ongoing maintenance and operational costs would be in the order of $100,000 to $150,000 pa. If the carpark remains with unrestricted parking times then there is minimal opportunity for a revenue source.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

A workshop was held with staff members of the Ashfield Town Centre Upgrade Place Team to develop ideas and opportunities. Internal consultation has also been held with internal staff from open space and recreation, planning and building, enforcement, environmental sustainability and engineering. The output from this consultation has been incorporated into this report.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

There has been no specific public consultation as yet on this proposal. TfNSW have advised that they will be formally consulting with Council and the community as part of the REF process, which is expected to take place prior to construction. If Council were to proceed with the Sky+Park then it is envisaged that extensive consultation and a recreation needs analysis would be required.

CONCLUSION

This report has outlined a number of options relating to building an additional level onto the proposed commuter carpark to be constructed by TfNSW and embellishing it for use as public open space at Council’s cost.

TfNSW have let a contract for the design and construction of the carpark and require a decision from Council confirming whether it wishes to proceed with the project and the likely makeup of the embellishments. The decision cannot be delayed further as it impacts their brief for the design work.

Whilst the proposal is an innovative idea there are however a number of issues that potentially expose Council to a significant level of financial risk, particularly arising from lack of utilization and uncertain community benefit and ongoing long term tenure. The lack of a recreation needs analysis demonstrating a clear public demand and business case for such a facility located on top of a building creates a high degree of uncertainty surrounding its viability. Site dimensional constraints and probable building code compliance issues create further obstacles to a successful outcome.

Given the capital outlay required it is considered there are too many uncertainties and risks associated with the project as it currently stands. There is insufficient time to enable Council to complete a detailed project feasibility and needs analysis. Accordingly it is recommended that Council not proceed with the proposal at this time but seek provision in the structural design by TfNSW to accommodate the construction of an additional floor in the future for potential use by Council. It is also proposed that negotiations be undertaken with TfNSW for the provision of public toilets as part of the proposed development.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Ashfield Commuter Carpark Concepts

[1] Information Paper 2049.0 - Census of Population and Housing: Estimating homelessness, 2011

[2] Newtown Neighbourhood Centre is concerned with the security of boarding house residents in the Inner West, and provides the Boarding House Outreach Service and a Boarders and Lodgers Project. There are significant numbers of boarding houses in the IWC, particularly in Marrickville and Ashfield. Boarding Houses form an important part of the local context of homelessness as many rough sleepers originate from and transition to boarding houses.

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

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

Date - Time 6.30pm	Meeting	Location
28 February	Ordinary Council	260 Liverpool Road Ashfield
28 March	Ordinary Council	260 Liverpool Road Ashfield
26 April	Ordinary Council	260 Liverpool Road Ashfield
23 May	Ordinary Council	260 Liverpool Road Ashfield
27 June	Ordinary Council	260 Liverpool Road Ashfield
25 July	Ordinary Council	260 Liverpool Road Ashfield
26 September	Ordinary Council	260 Liverpool Road Ashfield
24 October	Ordinary Council	260 Liverpool Road Ashfield
21 November	Ordinary Council	260 Liverpool Road Ashfield
12 December	Ordinary Council	260 Liverpool Road Ashfield

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

1.⇩	STATEMENT OF VISION AND PRIORITIES
2.⇩	Statement of Vision and Priorities Engagement Report-final (3)

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

1.⇩	RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING OIW 2017
2.⇩	NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING OIW 2017
3.⇩	Open Marrickville Festival Review Report

1.⇩	The former Ashfield Council - Finalised Financial Statements 2015-16
2.⇩	The former Leichhardt Council - Finalised Financial Statements 2015-16
3.⇩	The former Marrickville Council - Finalised Financial Statements 2015-16

1.⇩	Summary Community Facilities Recommended Rates and Fee Waiver Report
2.⇩	Summary of LPAC Fee Waiver report

1.⇩	Consolidated Financials
2.⇩	Ashfield Branch
3.⇩	Leichhardt Branch
4.⇩	Marrickville Branch

1.⇩	IWC Investments Oct 2016
2.⇩	IWC Monthly Interest Oct 2016
3.⇩	IWC Economic and Investment Portfolio Commentary Oct 2016

1.	Confidential Attachment 1 - Yeend Street Birchgrove - Confidential
2.⇩	Attachment 2 - Yeend Street Stamped Plan