Agenda of Council Meeting - 28 February 2017

Council Meeting

28 February 2017

Item No: C0217 Item 1

Subject: WestConnex Update Report

File Ref: 16/6107/14358.17

Prepared By: Kendall Banfield - Manager WestConnex Unit

Authorised By: John Warburton - Deputy General Manager Community and Engagement

SUMMARY

This report provides an update on Council’s involvement with key WestConnex planning and construction issues from December 2016 to early February 2017. In all its dealings on WestConnex, Council continues to express its opposition to the project and preference for public transport solutions to Sydney’s traffic problems. Notwithstanding, Council continues to work with project proponent Sydney Motorway Corporation (SMC), consent authority Department of Planning & Environment (DP&E) and other stakeholders to ensure that all WestConnex plans and construction activities minimise impacts and create positive outcomes for the Inner West community at every opportunity. A similar report was considered by Council’s Local Representatives Advisory Committee (LRAC) at its meeting on 14th February where the recommendations below were drafted and inserted into this report. Council staff support these recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Expresses concern about the demolition of Heritage Houses in Campbell Road (Bradfield Terrace listed on the State Heritage Register 2004) and 82 Campbell Street (Brickworker’s Cottage State Heritage Listing 2009);

2. Acknowledges the considerable disruption to residents’ lives by Sydney Motorway Corporation (SMC) works, road closures and use of local streets for parking and vehicle access; and

3. Informs local residents around Simpson Park about the future of the fig trees in Simpson Park which border onto the proposed Campbell Street widening.

BACKGROUND

This report is a summary of a progress report on WestConnex matters by Council’s Manager WestConnex Unit within the agenda for the 2 February 2017 WestConnex Community Liaison Forum (WCLF) meeting. The report is divided into sections according to the WestConnex project stage, and also includes a general section to cover items related to the entire project. A similar report was considered by Council’s Local Representatives Advisory Committee (LRAC) at its meeting on 14 February 2017. At this time LRAC members raised a number of relevant issues in relation to the demolition of heritage houses in Campbell Road, general disruption caused by SMC and the future of fig trees in Simpson Park. These concerns inform the above recommendations, which Council staff support.

Stage 1 – M4 East

Council staff and the Department of Planning & Environment’s (DP&E’s) WestConnex Compliance Officer have continued to work to try to resolve a range of traffic, noise, parking and other consultation issues raised by residents in the Haberfield area. Council & DP&E staff also continue to attend regular stakeholder project meetings and inspections of M4 East worksites convened periodically by Sydney Motorway Corporation (SMC). In January 2017 SMC advised Council that construction of a culvert along Dobroyd Canal would make it problematic to maintain the existing pedestrian pathway through Reg Coady Reserve. This path has now been closed until May 2017 and alternative route using an existing footpath on Henley Marine Drive has been provided. Council staff and the DP&E’s WestConnex Compliance Officer have been working with SMC to ensure the alternative pathway proposed is satisfactory. Throughout the M4 East construction period, there have been a number of temporary road closures and diversions. A three-month closure of Ramsay Street between Wattle Street and Walker Avenue commenced on 20 January 2017. Council and DP&E staff are monitoring progress of this closure will refer issues to SMC as they arise. In December 2016 Council met with SMC and consultants to begin developing M4 East ‘Legacy Projects’ - projects sited on residual WestConnex lands designed to benefit the community. Uses discussed included landscaping, active transport routes, community meeting space and affordable housing. In December 2016 and January 2017, SMC advertised for community members to register to attend two workshops to be held in February 2017 to assist with further development of this project. In a January 2017 media release Council’s Administrator stated the M4 East Legacy Project and similar projects for the other stages of WestConnex represented an opportunity for the NSW Government to show that it would deliver local benefits to Inner West residents, who are bearing the brunt of the project. The media release is available on Council’s website.

In December 2016, Council staff attended a meeting of the M4 East Urban Design Review Panel to participate in discussions on the draft M4 East Urban Design & Landscape Plan (UDLP) and its various sub-plans. This plan overlaps with the M4 East Legacy Project in that it is concerned with designs for residual WestConnex lands. In recent months, Council staff have also met with SMC staff and contractors to discuss the M4 East tree replacement program. SMC will soon submit details of this program to the DP&E, and Council will be consulted prior to DP&E approval. In late 2016, Council SMC representatives discussed use of Council’s Cove Street depot instead of Reg Coady Reserve at Martin Street Haberfield as a WestConnex employee car park. Council expressed a preference for Cove Street as it would facilitate the cleanup of the site and would avoid the need to use public parkland. SMC investigated the Cove Street option and advised it will not use the Cove Street depot site. Instead, SMC has secured parking through the lease of the former Five Dock Motor Registry on Ramsay Street and an arrangement with the Jehovah Witness Centre on Wattle Street. In 2016 Council’s had inquired about SMC’s use of the Brescia Furniture site at Ashfield. SMC advised Council that RMS has a legal agreement in place with the owner of the property and there is no requirement or agreement for the partially demolished building on the site to be removed. Upon completion of the M4 East, the leased land will be returned to the owner.

Stage 2 – New M5

The extent of New M5 construction activity has increased in recent months, and Council staff and the DP&E’s WestConnex Compliance Officer have worked to try to resolve a range of traffic, noise, parking and other consultation issues raised by residents in the St Peters area. Issues raised to date include footway access blockages or diversions, increased parking demand, illegal parking and noise from night works.

Demolition of acquired dwellings along the south-western side of Campbell Street at St Peters has proceeded in January and February 2017. Throughout this process, Council’s heritage staff have been working with SMC’s heritage consultants by identifying items of heritage value for storage. To date, nine shipping containers have been filled with salvaged items, and these will be delivered to a warehouse and items distributed in the near future. Council and DP&E staff also continue to attend regular stakeholder project meetings. In December 2016 Council staff attended a meeting of the New M5 Urban Design Review Panel to participate in discussions on the draft New M5 Urban Design & Landscape Plan (UDLP) and its various sub-plans. SMC has recently developed and released a Construction Parking & Access Strategy, which aims to ensure parking impacts from New M5 construction activity are acceptable to the community and are well-managed. Council staff are referring to this strategy when dealing with parking complaints related to New M5 employee and project vehicles. In addition to the abovementioned parking strategy, SMC has recently posted other management plans required by conditions of consent. These include:

· Arboricultural Report, Campbell Street and Campbell Road (City of Sydney area);

· New M5 Catalogue of Historic Building Fabric 28, 32 and 42-44 Campbell Street St Peters (City of Sydney area);

· New M5 Construction Contaminated Land Management Plan; and

· New M5 Water Quality Plan & Monitoring Program.

SMC has recently forwarded to Council for comment a draft copy of an Arboricultural Report for the part of Campbell Street and Campbell Road within the Inner West Council area. Council will provide comments shortly. SMC also informed Council and the community about investigation works to be carried out in Tempe Reserve from 18 January 2017. At its meeting on 14 February 2017, LRAC drafted a set of recommendations related to demolitions and other WestConnex-related works in the area of Campbell Street and Simpson Park, St Peters. These recommendations have been inserted into this report.

Stage 3 – M4-M5 Link

In December 2016 Council staff were briefed by SMC staff about the Rozelle Rail Yards (RRY) Review of Environmental Factors (REF), which was at that time on public exhibition. Council lodged a submission which discussed issues related to: heritage; biodiversity; waste & contamination; noise & vibration; traffic & transport; acid sulphate soils & flooding; and relevant issues raised at the 1 December 2016 WCLF meeting. It was subsequently brought to Council’s attention that the existing railway tracks on the Rozelle Rail Yards (RRY) site should be retained until corridors for future light rail connections to White Bay and Balmain have been identified and protected. Consequently, Council has written to SMC to raise this issue as an addendum to its submission.

Council is aware that SMC is actively considering a number of possible dive sites in the Leichhardt/Lilyfield area – but no site acceptable to Council had been identified. Council has informed SMC that at this stage its preferred option is for no dive site to be located in the densely populated Leichhardt / Lilyfield area, even though it is acknowledged that this may add to construction times and costs. It is anticipated that further information on dive-site options will be available when M4-M5 Link design plans are publicly exhibited in February 2017. Council is currently identifying suitable specialist consultants that could be called upon to assist Council’s assessment of these design plans.

General WestConnex matters

At the 6 December 2016 Council meeting, the recommendations of an Administrator’s minute entitled WestConnex – Traffic in Local Neighbourhoods & Streets and Assessing Stage 3 Impacts were adopted. Accordingly, Council will soon commission a study to assess the operational impacts each stage of WestConnex will have on residential neighbourhoods and streets. The study will recommend appropriate traffic management measures, and Council will advocate to the NSW Government that it fund implementation of these measures prior to any stages of WestConnex opening to traffic. To assist this study, Council has requested traffic modelling data from Roads & Maritime Services (RMS). Council will also shortly engage specialist consultants to undertake a detailed assessment of key issues to inform Council's submissions on the Stage 3 design plans and EIS. Council has commissioned legal advice from Tim Robertson SC in relation to whether the changes announced to Stage 3 in 2016 - particularly the deletion of Camperdown ramps and increase in number of tunnel lanes - would invalidate the Stage 1 and 2 approvals. His advice is expected to be provided in February 2017.

In January 2017 Council’s Administrator and Council staff met with SMC to discuss arrangements for the new State WestConnex Community Reference Group (CRG). This State-level group will have an independent facilitator and will provide for direct communication between community members and staff from the WestConnex project, relevant State agencies and all affected Councils. SMC has selected a Chair and panel members, and is currently liaising with Council staff over arrangements for the first meeting expected to be held in February 2017. Council’s WestConnex Community Liaison Forum (WCLF) met on Thursday 2 February 2017 in Council’s Leichhardt Service Centre. Draft minutes will be distributed by e-mail to members and will be adopted at the next meeting planned for 2 March 2017. Minutes of all previous meetings are available on Council’s WestConnex web page. Council’s Administrator continues to advocate to the NSW Government that an increase in resources for compliance motoring of WestConnex is needed. Currently compliance monitoring for all stages of the project is undertaken by a single DP&E WestConnex Compliance Officer. This is not considered to be adequate given the high number of compliance issues raised by construction of the M4 East over the past year and a recent increase in New M5 compliance issues now that construction of this stage of the project is underway.

In September 2016 Council’s Administrator had written to the Minister for Roads, Maritime & Freight seeking a response to a number of matters raised at 2016 WCLF meetings. The Minister responded in December 2016, and this response was discussed at the February 2017 WCLF meeting. Council’s Administrator is concerned that the Minister’s response does not include any substantial new commitments to better manage the construction impacts of the project. Council’s Administrator has recently written to the new Minister for WestConnex to relate Council’s position of opposition to WestConnex and preference for public transport solutions to Sydney’s traffic problems. The letter also raises some key WestConnex issues, including:

· need for better management of construction impacts;

· need for enhanced resources for compliance monitoring and enforcement;

· a commitment to no M4-M5 Link mid-tunnel construction dive site in the Leichhardt area;

· a commitment to funding and implementing traffic calming schemes in areas that will experience increased traffic due to WestConnex;

· facilitating full access to Roads & Maritime Services traffic modelling data to assist Council to target its traffic calming scheme plans;

· a commitment to dedication of all residual lands from WestConnex to parkland or other community uses;

· implementation of a 40kph school zone along Campbell Street, St Peters near St Peters Public School; and

· retention of rail tracks within Rozelle Rail Yards until corridors for future light rail extensions have been identified and protected.

Council’s Administrator has requested to meet with the new Minister to discuss these issues.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil - public participation has not been necessary. Notwithstanding, Council is involved in a range of activities on an ongoing basis that are designed to improve the public’s knowledge of WestConnex plans and actions.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Council Meeting

28 February 2017

Item No: C0217 Item 2

Subject: Post Exhibition Report: Marrickville Heritage Review

File Ref: 17/4718/13041.17

Prepared By: Maxine Bayley - Strategic Planner, Marrickville

Authorised By: Gill Dawson - Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

Council has concluded community consultation for a planning proposal aimed at strengthening heritage protection within the former Marrickville local government area via the inclusion of 75 new heritage items and 2 new heritage conservation areas; expanding 3 current heritage conservation areas; amending 1 current heritage item; and correcting various anomalies identified within the heritage schedule of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. Associated amendments were also made to the Marrickville Development Control Plan (MDCP) 2011 to retain consistency between planning documents.

A public exhibition period commenced on 4 July 2016 and concluded on 25 August 2016. Submissions were received objecting to 23 of the proposed heritage listings contained within the planning proposal. The objections included pro-forma letters signed by multiple signatories and multiple submissions relating to the same property. A number of submissions were also received either supporting the planning proposal or raising concerns with a perceived loss of heritage within the local government area. All submissions raising heritage concerns were referred to Council’s Heritage Consultant for review. As a result of the submissions received, additional consultation was offered to property owners objecting to their proposed heritage listing via onsite meetings. 13 meetings were held with property owners to discuss their property in detail and to enable Council’s Heritage Consultant to undertake internal inspections of these properties. A detailed report has been prepared by Council’s Heritage Consultant containing recommendations for each disputed heritage listing. The report is included at ATTACHMENT 1.

This report predominantly addresses properties which were the subject of objections to the proposed heritage listing. Unless otherwise discussed, all other properties included within the original planning proposal which were not the subject of an objection have been retained and are recommended for heritage listing. It is recommended that Council forward the planning proposal request to the Department of Planning & Environment for gazettal, subject to the amendments identified in Table 2 of this report. It is further recommended that Council adopt the exhibited amendments to the MDCP 2011 as amended by the recommendations within this report.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Receive and note this report;

2. Proceed with the heritage listing of properties contained within Table 1 of this report;

3. Not proceed with the heritage listing of properties contained within Table 2 of this report;

4. Adopt the exhibited amendments to Marrickville Development Control Plan (MDCP) 2011 including the additional amendment identified in this report;

5. Forward the proposed revised amendments to MLEP 2011 to the Department of Planning & Environment with a request that the Minister make the plan;

6. Place a notice in local newspapers when the amendments to MLEP 2011 are gazetted advising that it has come into force, and that the MDCP 2011 amendments will come into force at a date specified in the notice;

7. Consider options to provide financial support to the owners of heritage properties as part of a future report;

8. Consider a further report outlining options for the development of a Significant Tree Register for the Inner West Council area;

9. Consider options for the identification, heritage assessment and management of public domain assets, including sandstone and brick kerb and guttering for the Inner West Council area as part of a future report; and

10. Delay the assessment of identified potential heritage items, heritage conservation areas and additional heritage studies until the structure and resources for heritage management in the new organisation are established.

BACKGROUND

At its meeting of 21 July 2015 the former Marrickville Council resolved, inter alia, to prepare and submit a planning proposal to amend Marrickville LEP 2011 Schedule 5 (Environmental Heritage) Part 1 and Part 2 and the Heritage Map to:

- Add 75 new heritage items;

- Add 2 new heritage conservation areas;

- Amend an existing heritage item listing and description;

- Expand 3 existing heritage conservation areas; and

- Correct various anomalies identified within the heritage schedule of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011.

The contents of the planning proposal and MDCP 2011 amendment were derived from various heritage projects as follows:

- A heritage review of southern sections of the Marrickville local government area (defined as areas south of the Illawarra/Bankstown railway line) for potential Heritage Items (including proposed items list provided by Council) and Heritage Conservation Areas, for inclusion within Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011;

- A contributory building assessment & mapping exercise for 6 select Commercial Centres, for inclusion within Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011;

- A heritage assessment of 3 potential Heritage Items (1 individual building and 2 groups of buildings) for potential listing as Heritage Items or Heritage Conservation Areas (either as new Heritage Conservation Areas or expansion of existing Heritage Conservation Areas) within MLEP 2011;

- Heritage assessment of 6 Livingstone Road, Petersham, known as the ‘Beynon and Hayward’ building;

- Heritage assessment of the “I Have a Dream” mural located on the eastern wall of No. 305 King Street, Newtown;

- Listing of early and rare example of an internal mural depicting historical events and believed to be sourced directly from cartoons appearing in newspapers and the Bulletin Magazine at 36 Terminus Street, Petersham; and

- Identified errors and anomalies within MLEP 2011 Schedule 5 Parts 1 and 2 and the Heritage Map.

A conditional Gateway Determination for the planning proposal was issued by the Department of Planning & Environment (DP&E) in November 2015. The Gateway Determination specified the planning proposal was required to be publicly exhibited for a minimum of 28 days in accordance with the requirements of its document A Guide to Preparing LEPs (Planning & lnfrastructure 2013), and that the LEP be completed within 12 months of the Gateway Determination. Council was not issued delegation in relation to the planning proposal. Upon request, to allow for additional public consultation, the completion date for the planning proposal set by the Gateway determination was extended to 1 June 2017.

The Gateway Determination also specified amendments required to the planning proposal prior to its public exhibition, including consultation with the Office of Environment and Heritage which subsequently raised no objections with the contents of the planning proposal. Subsequently, the amended planning proposal document and all supporting studies and maps were publicly exhibited between 4 July and 4 August 2016. Additional time was requested by several property owners and the exhibition closing date was extended to 25 August 2016. Upon request, a group of landowners from 2-12 Warburton Street, Marrickville, were given until 8 September 2016 to submit their response in order for them to engage a professional consultant.

Public Exhibition

All landowners were notified by letter of the planning proposal public exhibition. The notification included:

- Individually tailored information sheets on each proposed heritage listing.

- A ‘Question and Answers’ document developed in conjunction with Council’s Corporate Strategy and Communications section.

- A dedicated ‘Your Say Inner West Council’ page was developed for the public exhibition which explained the contents of the planning proposal.

- Links to all relevant heritage studies, individual heritage inventory sheets, previous Council reports, copies of proposed DCP amendments, current and proposed LEP heritage maps and an information document prepared by the Heritage Council of NSW explaining heritage listings.

In response to the public exhibition, objections were received to 23 of the proposed heritage listings. These included internal objections from Council’s Investigation and Design Team.

Council also received feedback from property owners who submitted that heritage listing is punitive, particularly financially. For example, fees are applicable for minor works applications for works that would be exempt development if the property were not heritage listed. Conversely, there is little support for owners of heritage properties, despite the retention of these properties benefitting the wider community. As a consequence, a number of property owners expressed significant opposition to the proposed heritage listings.

The nature of heritage listing is it creates a community benefit which disproportionality burdens individual property owners. Heritage identification and protection is one of the roles of Council and the perceived loss of local heritage has for many years been identified as a key concern to the wider community.

The development of a new, larger organisation in the form of the Inner West Council provides an opportunity to explore options for Council to provide greater support to heritage property owners. Accordingly, this report recommends that a further report be prepared at an appropriate time examining these opportunities.

On-site Consultation

Council’s Heritage Consultant was engaged to undertake a review of the submissions received raising objections to the proposed heritage listings. Council’s Heritage Consultant was not involved in the initial stages of the project and was engaged to undertake an independent heritage review of all disputed listings.

Following consideration of the submissions, additional consultation in the form of onsite meetings was considered appropriate to address concerns raised and to allow Council’s Heritage Consultant internal access to properties. All property owners who objected to the proposed heritage listing of their property were invited to take part in this process. Meetings with 13 property owners or representatives concluded on 22 December 2016. On site meetings were held at the following properties:

- 6 Lymerston Street, Tempe

- 48 & 50 Frederick Street, Sydenham

- 149 Unwins Bridge Road, Tempe

- 50 & 52 Warren Road, Marrickville

- 51 Frederick Street, St Peters

- 8 Warren Road, Marrickville

- 20 Canal Road, St Peters (Cooks River Container Terminal)

- 294 Livingstone Road, Marrickville

- 6 Tramway Street, Tempe

- 40 Excelsior Parade, Marrickville

- 17 Railway Terrace, Lewisham

- 231A Wardell Road, Dulwich Hill

Additionally, a meeting at Council’s Petersham Administration Centre was held with representatives from the Carrington Road precinct, Marrickville.

A detailed report responding to all submissions raising heritage objections has been prepared by Council’s Heritage Consultant and is included at ATTACHMENT 1 to this report. Although it mainly deals with heritage matters, it also addresses non-heritage objections such as cost burdens and loss of development potential.

Recommendations

Table 1 below includes all properties recommended to remain with the planning proposal and proceed as heritage items. A full assessment of each property is included in ATTACHMENT 1 to this report.

TABLE 1: Disputed properties recommended to be retained within the planning proposal and to be listed as heritage items and/or heritage conservation areas

Property Address	Item Name	Ref. No.
545 Princes Highway & 2 Samuel Street, Tempe	St Peter’s and St Paul’s Catholic Church and Presbytery	22
149 Unwins Bridge Road, Tempe	Skelton - Quarryman’s cottage	14
40 Excelsior Parade, Marrickville	Calthorpe – Victorian filigree style villa	31
91 Camden Street, Enmore	HCA 18 - Camden Street & James Street Heritage Conservation Area (Enmore)	8
36 Terminus Street, Petersham	Cartoon mural	34
51 Frederick Street, St Peters	Shop	43
294 Livingstone Road, Marrickville	Roseen-Dhu - detached house	29
31-33 Cook Street, Tempe	Pair of sandstone semi-detached houses	3
47 Hart Street, Tempe	Former Methodist Chapel	44
47 Lackey Street, St Peters	HCA 37 – Lackey Street/Simpson Park (St Peters)	6
6, 8 & 10 Warren Road, Marrickville	Group of three Victorian Italianate style villas	23
231A Wardell Road, Dulwich Hill	HCA 29 – Expansion to South Dulwich Hill Heritage Conservation Area	41
75 Beauchamp Street, Marrickville	Heatherbrae – Victorian Filigree style house	18
6 Tramway Street, Tempe	WWI War Widows’ houses - No. 4 (Pozieres), No. 6 (Coramie), No. 8 (Messines)	20
6 Lymerston Street	Glenora – Victorian Italianate style villa	24
389 Illawarra Road, Marrickville	Church of Christ	15
17 Railway Terrace, Lewisham	Two-storey Federation Queen Anne style residence (Heritage Item and inclusion within HCA 26)	30
16 Carrington Road, Marrickville	Inter-war factory building	42
30 Carrington Road, Marrickville	Inter-war factory building	42
Cooks River Container Terminal	Electric Overhead Travelling Crane, Lay Down Points Lever, McS Hr T Administration Building, Pre Cast Concrete Hut 1, Pre Cast Concrete Hut 2	29 & 37

TABLE 2: Disputed properties recommended to be removed from the planning proposal and not be listed as heritage items and/or heritage conservation areas

Property Address	Item Name	Ref. No.
50 & 52 Warren Road, Marrickville	Pair of Inter war Art Deco style residential flat buildings	33
48 & 50 Frederick Street, St Peters	Corner Shop & Residence	35
2-12 Warburton Street, Marrickville	Group of three pairs of Federation Queen Anne style semi-detached houses	46
6 Carrington Road, Marrickville	Name	42
Carrington Road (western side of Carrington Road, northern side of Renwick Street and southern side of Warren Road adjacent to no. 49 Carrington Road), Marrickville	Ficus street trees	42
Various	Street trees	26
Various	Sandstone and brick kerb and guttering	32

OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS

50 & 52 Warren Road, Marrickville

Council’s Heritage Consultant has identified issues with the level of evidence provided to support the assessment of these properties as being historically significant. The physical evidence these buildings demonstrate may indicate a historic trend of converting Victorian villas into residential flat buildings during the Inter-War period. Other examples of this type of modification are evident within the former Marrickville local government area. However, as research into this process has not been undertaken it is recommended these properties be removed from the planning proposal at this time.

It is recommended that Council consider undertaking a review of historic conversions of dwelling houses into residential flat buildings to determine the historical significance of these buildings as part of future heritage work.

6, 16, 30 & Ficus Street trees Carrington Road, Marrickville

The planning proposal included an amendment to an existing heritage listing applying to select property facades and trees along Carrington Road, Marrickville. The MLEP 2011 currently contains the following heritage listing for the Carrington Road precinct:

Property Address	Item Name	Item No.
10 and 47 Carrington Road (facade only)	Carrington Road—Select industrial facades and Canary Island Palms	I68

The Paul Davies Southern Areas Report undertook further research of the Carrington Road area and made the following recommendations:

- Change the title of the Item Name to Carrington Road industrial precinct – select industrial facades and street tree plantings of Phoenix Canariensis and Ficus (or similar title depending on the outcome of the public exhibition process);

- Add the buildings at Nos. 6, 16 & 30 Carrington Road to the precinct heritage listing to be publicly exhibited (the proposed heritage listing for No. 16 is recommended to include the central brick building on the site only); and

- Add to the precinct heritage listing to be publicly exhibited the Ficus street trees on the west side of Carrington Road, the Carrington Road end (northern side only) of Renwick Street and the Carrington Road end of Warren Road (south side only) adjacent to No. 49 Carrington Road.

Council received an objection from Mecone Pty Ltd on behalf of the landowners (Mirvac) specifically objecting to the inclusion of Nos. 6 and 16 as part of the existing heritage listing. Significant supporting documentation was included regarding the relationship between Nos. 6 and 16 to the historical automotive use of the area. Council staff met with representatives from Mecone and Mirvac regarding the proposed listing and its relationship with a forthcoming planning proposal for the Carrington Road area.

Council’s Heritage Consultant has agreed that No. 6 Carrington Road should not be included within the heritage listing as the objection has adequately established that it was never part of the General Motors plant at No. 10 Carrington Road. However, Council’s Heritage Consultant does not concur that No. 16 should not be listed and has concluded that the building is important in the area’s history, is aesthetically distinctive and reasonably intact, and hence satisfies the criteria for heritage listing.

No specific objection was received in relation to No. 30 Carrington Road, though at the recent meeting it was stated that the site had recently been acquired to form part of a planning proposal. In relation to this site, Council’s Heritage Consultant has reviewed the property and concluded it meets the threshold for heritage listing.

The identified street trees have not been assessed for heritage significance within the Paul Davies report. Consequently, they have been removed as potential heritage items and added to Council’s list of potential heritage items for assessment at a later stage.

The Paul Davies report recommended that the additional items be added to the existing heritage listing. However, Council’s Heritage Consultant has raised concerns with the nature of the current listing being for building facades only. Council’s Heritage Consultant has recommended that the existing listing be expanded to include the entire buildings. However, as proposed change is outside the scope of the current process, it is recommended this be considered as part of a future heritage study.

Council’s Heritage Consultant has also raised issue with the current listing containing several buildings and trees on separate, unconnected lots and considers they should be listed separately. Consequently, the recommendation is to list Nos. 16 and 30 as separate items, rather than as an amendment to the current listing. Separate Heritage Inventory Sheets will need to be developed for both Nos. 16 & 30 Carrington Road, containing Statements of Significance for each item which can be completed in-house.

Cooks River Container Terminal

Council received an objection from NSW Ports which manages the Cooks River Container Terminal site under a 99-year lease granted by the NSW Government. The site is occupied and operated by Maritime Container Services (MCS) under the oversight of NSW Ports. The objection raised concerns with the potential for the proposed heritage listing to significantly and unreasonably impact upon operations at the site, which are of State wide importance. The entire site, as well as select individual components, are listed on the s.170 Register under the Heritage Act 1977.

Council officers met with representatives from MCS on 1 December 2016. It was agreed that the intent of the listing is not to compromise the operation of the site, but rather to ensure that Council is advised of works to significant heritage elements. An agreed position was reached where the significant elements on the site are to be mapped on the Heritage Map, with a reasonable curtilage applied to each element. The listing would therefore be limited to significant elements of the site, rather than applying to the site in its entirety. Following the meeting, MCS engaged heritage consultants to define suitable curtilage to individual elements which has been submitted to Council and approved by Council’s Heritage Consultant. The description in the LEP will specify which parts of the site are included within the listing to differentiate them from the site as a whole.

28-44 & 82 Campbell Street, St Peters

These 10 residential properties have been included for acquisition and demolition as part of the WestConnex roadway project, despite the proposed listing of these buildings as heritage items within the MLEP 2011 and their inclusion within the s.170 Register maintained by the RMS. These building have been assessed as having heritage significance; however their demolition for the project is imminent.

Consequently, it is recommended that these building be removed from the planning proposal. Retaining demolished buildings within the heritage schedule is considered unnecessary and impractical from a management perspective and in the event that the buildings are not demolished their listing could be revisited.

204 Unwins Bridge Road, Sydenham

During the course of the public exhibition it was noted that the proposed heritage items at 204 Unwin Bridge Road, Sydenham, is already a listed heritage item within the MLEP 2011. As this building is already a listed heritage item, it has been removed from the planning proposal.

Brick and Sandstone Kerb and Guttering

These public domain elements were identified within the Paul Davies Southern Areas assessment. Currently, select areas of sandstone and brick kerb and guttering (and footpaths) are heritage listed, but the listings are not comprehensive across either the former Marrickville LGA or the wider Inner West LGA.

Concerns were raised by Council’s Infrastructure Planning & Property Services section regarding the implications of the heritage listing to the ongoing maintenance and management of these assets. Should the listing proceed, individual development applications (or minor works applications) would be required which would impede the works program and create additional costs which is considered not to be in the public interest.

The submission claims Council requires a more holistic and pragmatic review considering other factors such as street context and the surrounding built form in assessing the heritage value of kerbs and guttering. This review should consider all public assets that are potential heritage items in a holistic manner and document how best to manage these in a sustainable way.

The Paul Davies report recommended the following in relation to sandstone and brick kerb and guttering:

- Council review the extent and integrity of the sandstone and brick kerbing in the identified streets, mapping the extent and location of the sandstone and brick kerbing in these streets;

- Council develop a management strategy for historic sandstone and brick kerbing within the Marrickville LGA. For example, one management approach is that in streets where such historic kerbing is fragmentary (which will be apparent from the mapping), the kerbing could be allowed to be removed from these streets in order to repair the historic kerbing in streets with more extensive and intact historic kerbing; and

- Based on the mapping information for historic sandstone and brick kerbing, Council consider heritage listing, and reviewing existing heritage listings, to cover all extensive intact runs of sandstone and brick kerbing in particular streets (not remnants).

The Paul Davies study was limited to the southern section of the former Marrickville local government area. However, it is acknowledged that sandstone and brick are prominent building materials and their use is widespread throughout the Sydney area, in both the public and private domain. Whilst the study identifies a small range of the existing sandstone and brick kerb and guttering in the public domain, it is not a comprehensive assessment.

It is agreed that a holistic approach to the management of these public domain assets is required. It is recommended that Council review existing heritage listings in the public domain and develop a draft management strategy to be reported back to Council. The strategy should consider options such as targeting extensive runs of intact sandstone and brick kerbing for heritage listing.

Street Trees

A number of street trees were identified within the Paul Davies Southern Areas report and recommended for further assessment and potential heritage listing. Council received an objection from its Tree Management Services section on the basis that the trees are protected at present under the MLEP 2011 under Clause 5.9 and are managed in accordance with Council’s tree management policies.

The submission suggested that if there is a need to record the heritage value of these trees, it should be done as part of a Register of Significant Trees that would form part of Council’s Tree Management suite of strategic documents and sit alongside Council’s Street Tree Master Plan and Urban Forest Strategy. Locations where inroad tree planting treatments currently exist and are considered worthy of further assessment for inclusion on a Register of Significant Trees or the LEP was included as follows:

Address	Street Tree Master Plan Precinct
Canonbury Grove, Dulwich Hill	1. Dulwich Hill East
Durham Street, Dulwich Hill	1. Dulwich Hill East
Ness Avenue, Dulwich Hill	1. Dulwich Hill East
Williams Parade, Dulwich Hill	2. Dulwich Hill West
David Street, Marrickville	4. Marrickville Central
Harney Street, Marrickville	4. Marrickville Central
Marrickville Avenue, Marrickville	4. Marrickville Central
Northcote Street, Marrickville	4. Marrickville Central
Robert Street, Marrickville	4. Marrickville Central
Woodcourt Street, Marrickville	4. Marrickville Central
Graham Avenue, Marrickville	5. Marrickville Central
Frampton Ave, Marrickville	5. Marrickville Industrial
Juliett Street, Marrickville	5. Marrickville Industrial
Victoria Rd (east of Juliett St)	5. Marrickville Industrial
Ewart Street, Marrickville	6. Marrickville South
Excelsior Parade, Marrickville	6. Marrickville South
Harnett Avenue, Marrickville	6. Marrickville South
Kays Avenue East, Marrickville	6. Marrickville South
Osgood Avenue, Marrickville	6. Marrickville South
Warburton Street, Marrickville	6. Marrickville South
Marmion Street, Camperdown	7. Newtown North & Camperdown
Charles Street, Enmore	8. Newtown South & Enmore
Juliett Street, Marrickville	8. Newtown South & Enmore
Liberty Street, Newtown	8. Newtown South & Enmore
Metropolitan Road, Newtown	8. Newtown South & Enmore
Pemell Street, Newtown	8. Newtown South & Enmore
Goodsell Street, St Peters	11. Sydenham & St Peters
Griffiths Street, Tempe	12. Tempe
John Street, Tempe	12. Tempe
William Street, Tempe	12. Tempe

The Paul Davies report recommends the following actions in relation to the identified trees:

- The potential heritage items…be added as heritage items to Schedule 5: Environmental Heritage of the Marrickville LEP 2001, following preparation of State Heritage Inventory (SHI) forms for each item for public exhibition of the LEP amendment; and

The street trees identified in the Paul Davies report have not undergone a heritage assessment process which satisfies the requirement of the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage. Consequently, Heritage Inventory sheets have not been prepared as part of this planning proposal process. Therefore, it is recommended that they be removed from this planning proposal.

As noted above, Council’s Tree Management Services have raised concerns that their management and maintenance of heritage listed trees would necessitate the lodgement of development applications, which would add an unsustainable burden to their workload. This concern is noted and, although works could be applied for via a minor works application, it is acknowledged heritage listing these trees would necessitate the lodgement of numerous applications. They have also noted that the list of trees identified is not exhaustive and misses other potentially significant trees. This is due to the relatively constrained parameters of the study area and budget.

The submission from Council’s Tree Management Services suggested the establishment of a Register of Significant Trees, which would form part of Council’s Tree Management suite of strategic documents and sit alongside Council’s current Street Tree Master Plan and Urban Forest Strategy. Several other Councils, including the City of Sydney, Strathfield and Randwick operate Registers of Significant Trees. These generally operate using an assessment methodology for determining the significant trees is based on criteria developed by the NSW Heritage Office, in accordance with the Burra Charter. The assessment criteria used in these registers is based on the following five basic categories in the assessment criteria:

1. Outstanding Visual or Aesthetic Significance

2. Botanic or Scientific Significance

3. Significant Ecological Value

4. Historical and Commemorative Significance

5. Social Significance

This approach to significant tree identification, assessment and management should be investigated by Council for the Inner West local government area. Works proposed to trees which are included on the register would be discussed with Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to their undertaking. Management policies can be developed in conjunction with the Register of Significant Trees.

It is recommended that the street trees identified within the planning proposal be removed and that Council investigates options for the development of a Register of Significant Trees to identify, assess and manage important landscape elements within the Inner West local government area. This document can be added to the existing suite of Tree Management documents and strategies.

Additional Matters

Heritage item name and description amendments

Council received advice that the Inventory Sheet for 94 Renwick Street, Marrickville, included the incorrect property name. It is recommended the sheet be amended to read ‘Sarnia House’ and that the date of construction be amended to read 1881.

Building interiors

As part of Amendment 1 to MLEP 2011, Council amended all existing heritage item descriptions to include the words ‘including interiors’. This was based on legal advice which claimed there was ‘potential for internal alterations to heritage items to be allowed without the need for consent…’ due to the wording of Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation in MLEP 2011. Accordingly, it is recommended that all heritage items progressed as a part of the planning proposal have the words ‘including interiors’ included within the Item Name within Schedule 5 of the MLEP 2011 for buildings. This does not include the proposed listing for 36 Terminus Street, Petersham, which already lists only the interior of the building.

Additional heritage assessments

The heritage studies completed by Paul Davies both identified a number of additional potential heritage items and heritage conservation areas within the former Marrickville local government area. Additionally, internal processes continue to identify buildings considered worthy of further review and assessment.

Currently, the structure of the new Inner West Council is being established. As stated earlier, heritage management will form part of the considerations in establishing the structure for the composite Inner West Council. Until the organisational structure is established, allocating funds to additional heritage projects is premature. However, the need for additional heritage studies, funding and overall management structure needs to form part of discussions regarding the future operations of the Inner West Council entity.

Once the structure has been established, further work can be undertaken on matters identified within this report including management of sandstone and brick kerb and guttering, investigating the establishment of a Significant Tree Register, reviewing heritage listing applying to facades only, and providing greater assistance to heritage property owners.

MDCP 2011 amendments

No submissions were received in relation to the proposed DCP amendments. Two minor changes to Part 5 (Commercial and Mixed Use Development) and Part 8 (Heritage) are recommended as follows:

- One minor change is recommended to Part 8 (Heritage) of the MDCP 2011. The document currently states:

Part 8 applies to heritage items, heritage conservation areas (HCAs), archaeological sites and Aboriginal heritage. (p. 1).

It is recommended that ‘period building’ be added to this sentence to ensure that it accurately reflects the full scope of this chapter.

- The draft amendments to MDCP 2011 Part 5 (Commercial and Mixed Use Development) contain the same heading twice. To rectify this duplication it is recommended that Section 5.1.2 be amended to:

5.1.1 Contributory and Period Buildings in Commercial Centres

Requirements for buildings over 50 years old

Council resolved at its meeting of 21 July 2015 to ‘Consider options for the assessment of proposed heritage items contained in Attachment 6 and a policy to request Statement of Heritage Impact and/or archaeological assessment report before granting consent for substantial demolition of a period building within a commercial centre which is over 50 years old as part of a forthcoming report to Council on heritage management options’.

The abovementioned recommendation was contained within the Paul Davies report ‘Contributory and Period Building Assessment and Mapping Project for 6 Select Commercial Centres’ which was undertaken by Paul Davies in 2014. The report identified a number of commercial buildings which had newer facades, potentially visually obscuring the age of the original building. The report attempted to address this situation through recommending the development of a policy for Council to request a Statement of Heritage Impact and/or archaeological assessment report before granting consent for substantial demolition of a period building within a commercial centre which is over 50 years old.

Contributory and Period buildings are defined within the MDCP 2011 as follows:

Contributory buildings are buildings, not listed as heritage items, that are located within a heritage conservation area that make an important and significant contribution to the character and significance of that heritage conservation area. They are buildings that have a reasonable to high degree of integrity and date from a key development period of significance of the heritage conservation area. Contributory buildings are buildings from a key period of development that are either:

- highly or substantially intact; or

- altered, yet recognisable.

Period buildings are buildings, not listed as heritage items, which are not located within a heritage conservation area, which are generally intact that make a positive and valuable contribution to the character of the streetscape and broader townscape.

Contributory and period buildings are mapped and planning controls are contained within MDCP 2011 Part 8 (Heritage) and referenced within Part 5 (Commercial and Mixed Use Development). One of the publicly exhibited amendments to the MDCP 2011 inserted the following words within Part 8 of MDCP 2011:

Council may request an assessment by a suitably qualified heritage consultant of the heritage and/or architectural significance of identified period buildings within commercial centres as part of development proposals for total or substantial demolition.

It is considered that the development controls contained within Part 5 and Part 8 of the MDCP 2011 already afford considerable protection for proposed changes to both contributory and period buildings. This new inclusion seeks to strengthen these protections by allowing Council discretion to request these studies based on a merit assessment. It is considered that this inclusion responds to the recommendation within the Paul Davies report.

Supplementary Information

At the Local Representation Advisory Committees (LRAC) Meeting on 14 February 2017 there was discussion as part of Item 3 - Post Exhibition Report: Marrickville Heritage Review concerning No’s 28-44 & 82 Campbell Street, St Peters. The report recommended that the heritage listing of these properties not proceed on the basis of their imminent demolition for Stage 2 of WestConnex (New M5). As part of the discussion it was submitted that these properties had been demolished that day. Notwithstanding, the LRAC resolved to include these items as part of the draft MLEP 2011 amendment.

Council officers have sought subsequent advice from the project team responsible for the New M5 concerning the status of these properties and have been advised that the buildings were ‘in the process of being demolished’ as of 15 February 2017.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil at this stage. Further heritage projects identified through this process are recommended to proceed at a later stage once the structure and related budgets for the Inner West Council are finalised.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Comments from Council’s Investigation and Design Team were sought and have been addressed in this report.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The planning proposal was publicly exhibited between 4 July and 25 August 2016. All landowners were notified by letter of the planning proposal public exhibition. The notification included:

- Individually tailored information sheets on each proposed heritage listing.

- A ‘Question and Answers’ document developed in conjunction with Council’s Corporate Strategy and Communications section.

- A dedicated ‘Your Say Inner West Council’ page was developed for the public exhibition which explained the contents of the planning proposal.

Following consideration of submissions received, on-site meetings were offered to property owners expressing objection proposed heritage listing for their properties. 13 meetings were held between November and December 2016. A detailed report has been developed in response to objections received and each property reassessed by Council’s Heritage Consultant.

CONCLUSION

Council has concluded a consultation process for a planning proposal aimed at protecting heritage within the former Marrickville local government area. Consultation included a formal exhibition period and on-site meetings upon request. To respond to the objections received, Council engaged its Heritage Consultant to undertaken an independent heritage review. A detailed report was developed including a heritage reassessment and recommendation for each disputed property.

It is recommended that the amended planning proposal be forwarded to the Department of Planning & Environment with a request that it be finalised. It is also recommended that Council resolve to adopt the proposed amendments to the MDCP 2011 to come in force once the planning proposal is gazette.

ATTACHMENTS

1.	Heritage Assessment Report: Graham Hall

Council Meeting

28 February 2017

Council Meeting

28 February 2017

Item No: C0217 Item 3

Subject: Planning Proposal - 168 Norton Street, Leichhardt

File Ref: 17/6032/11648.17

Local Representation Advisory Committee at its meeting on 14 February 2017 resolved that the matter be referred to the Council Meeting meeting to be held on 28 February 2017.

Prepared By: Kim Johnston - Planning Consultant, Leichhardt

Authorised By: Gill Dawson - Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

A Planning Proposal was submitted to Inner West Council on 5 December 2016 by Uniting (formerly Uniting Care) seeking to amend Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 as it applies to 168 Norton Street, Leichhardt to facilitate redevelopment of the site for the purpose of a mixed use, self-contained seniors housing development with affordable housing pursuant to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 (Seniors SEPP 2004).

While Council officers broadly support the objectives of the Planning Proposal, following further analysis, and in response to concerns raised by Council officers, the Planning Proposal will be required to be amended by the Proponent through imposition of conditions on the Gateway Determination with a revised urban design scheme required prior to exhibition. The changes required to the Planning Proposal will be included in the report to the Department, and are presented for endorsement and submission to the Minister for Planning for Gateway determination.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The attached Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Minister for Planning for a Gateway determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979;

2. The Department of Planning and Environment be requested to delegate the plan making functions, in relation to the subject Planning Proposal, to Council;

3. Following receipt of a Gateway determination, and compliance with any conditions and following the required changes being made by the Proponent, the Planning Proposal and supporting documentation be placed on public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days and public authorities be consulted on the Planning Proposal in accordance with the Gateway determination; and

4. A report be presented to Council at the completion of the public exhibition period detailing submissions received and the outcome of consultation with public authorities.

BACKGROUND

A Planning Proposal was submitted by City Plan Services on Uniting's behalf on 5 December 2016 requesting an amendment to the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 (LEP 2013) as it applies to 168 Norton Street, Leichhardt (the site). Under the recent review of the Planning Proposal process by the State Government, Council has 90 days until 5 March 2017 to decide whether to support this Planning Proposal. The Planning Proposal and supporting documentation has been reviewed by Council Officers with a meeting held with the Proponent on 20 January 2017 to discuss some concerns with the proposal. There are a number of changes that are recommended to be made to the Planning Proposal to be undertaken by the Proponent prior to exhibition including to the proposed amending clause to LEP 2013 as well as the proposed urban design scheme for the site.

The Planning Proposal prepared by the Proponent is generally supported by Council officers, subject to various changes to be undertaken to the Planning Proposal by the Proponent following the Gateway Determination. The changes are discussed in this report and relate to amendments to the building envelope controls including increasing some of the setbacks of the building envelope and other urban design issues including the provision of a larger deep soil zone, increased tree planting and additional communal open space.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The proponent has paid fees for the assessment and preparation of a planning proposal for submission to Gateway. An additional fee is payable to progress the Planning Proposal subsequent to a Gateway determination. The proponent will also be responsible for meeting costs associated with revising documentation prior to exhibition as required by a Gateway determination and for the peer review of this material or additional studies should they be deemed necessary.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Background to the Proposal

The site has been the subject of significant discussions and negotiations between the owners of the site, Uniting (formerly UnitingCare Ageing), and Council. In February 2013, representatives of Uniting met with representatives of Leichhardt Municipal Council, now Inner West Council, to discuss housing issues and potential planning options for a number of their Leichhardt properties. These properties included Annesley House, located at 15-17 Marion Street Leichhardt, Harold Hawkins Court, located at 168 Norton Street, Leichhardt (the site the subject of this Planning Proposal) and Lucan Care and Wesley Church at 1-3 and 5 Wetherill Street Leichhardt. The discussions continued, as outlined below, for all three properties, however, the current Planning Proposal is only for 168 Norton Street, Leichhardt.

Council resolved at its meeting on 23 April 2013 to commence negotiations with Uniting to establish a planning agreement applying to the site to assist in the provision of affordable and supported housing at those locations for people of all ages, key workers and people with disabilities. Further, that in order to maximise Council’s support for the social benefit enabled through the dedication of these valuable land holdings, and in light of the clearly stated philanthropic intent of Uniting to assist in the capacity of Leichhardt’s residents to `age in place’, that Council explore opportunities made available to projects on both sites through the granting of density bonuses.

On 20 August 2013, a report was presented to the Housing Advisory Committee outlining progress in relation to the Uniting Properties, which noted that Council staff had begun the process of preparing for the negotiations for establishing an agreement with Uniting and identifying the key outcomes Council would like to achieve in relation to the two sites, namely:

· Facilitating the redevelopment of both sites

· Ensuring that redevelopment is financially viable

· Achieving a significant housing outcome in terms of the provision of one or more of the following on each of the sites:

§ Modern Aged Housing

§ Affordable Housing for Key Workers

§ Supported Housing

· Activating the ground level Norton Street frontage

· Providing on-site parking suited to the likely future demand created by tenants

· Ensuring that urban design considerations inform the ultimate building envelope and development footprint and confirm an upper limit in terms of floor area

· Involving the local community and other key stakeholders throughout the process

In January 2014, the Mayor commenced community consultation on the proposal following correspondence from Uniting. This took the form of three community forums. The first Community Forum was held on 12 March 2014, attended by 62 people, where presentations were provided by Council and Uniting on housing issues and the proposal. The forum then discussed, in small groups, the issues with unanimous support for Council working with Uniting to address the housing Issues. Council considered the outcomes of this forum at its meeting on 27 May 2014, where it resolved to proceed to work with Uniting, the local community and other key stakeholders to confirm guiding principles and to develop plans for the future development of all three (3) Uniting properties with continued community consultation.

The second Community Forum was held on 14 July 2014, attended by 18 people, the purpose of which was to develop guiding principles for the sites. Presentations were made by Council and Allen Jack + Cottier (AJ&C), the urban design/Architectural consultants engaged by Council. AJ&C presented a set of draft guiding principles, which were based on Council reports, discussion with owners and initial research by the architects. The participants were then asked to rate each of the draft guiding principles, which were then used to inform the concept options that would be presented at the next forum. These guiding principles (in order) included:-

Rating	Principles
Highest rating	1. Achieve significant housing outcomes
Highest rating	2. Facilitate Development
Mid rating	3. ensure development is financially viable
	4. Continue to provide and improve services to local residents – able to live longer in own home
	5. Activate Norton Street
	6. Ensure urban design informs the building envelope
Lower rating	7. provide local employment
	8. Provide on-site [parking suited to use
	9. Involve local community and stakeholders throughout the development process.
	10. Design principles

The third Community Forum was held on 31 July 2014, attended by 20 people, with presentations from Council and AJ&C. The purpose of this final forum was to present and review broad ‘Concept Options’ for the three sites. The options were prepared by AJ&C in response to the guiding principles developed in the second community forum. In relation to the site, the participants generally considered the building envelope to be positive given it would activate Norton Street, it was a significant improvement on the current development on the site and the envelope aligned the buildings with the street and allowed for good sight lines. The controls developed by AJ&C for the site resulting from the community forums are outlined in Table 1 and Figure 1.

In summary, the community forums reflected a keen interest for the redevelopments to occur, which were clearly outlined in the top two voted principles, with the proposed concept options for all three sites generally being positively received. Participants agreed with the need for greater social housing within the Leichhardt area and supported the future developments particularly with regards to enabling greater access to sunlight, activation of street frontages and provision of community/public space.

Table 1 Site Controls from Community Forum

Control	Norton Street frontage	Carlisle Street frontage
Site Objectives	· Activate ground floor Norton Street streetscape · Street frontage height to align with existing neighbours parapets · Ensure that the scale and modulation responds to the existing fine-grain context · Improve pedestrian access · Activate the rear lane by providing pedestrian access to the development · Ensure good amenity to the residential component of the development · Provide sufficient areas of private and communal open space for the residential component of the development	· Provide a residential development that integrates with the surrounding context · Provides sufficient off street parking for building use · Encourage use of public transport, buses and light rail · Improve streetscape
Site Provisions	· Build to street alignment and continue strong street edge · Continue existing fine-grain pattern along Norton Street · Ensure clear interface between retail and public domain by use of fenestration · Step down building entries to retail/commercial tenancies to follow the fall of street to ensure level pedestrian access · Continue street awnings along active frontage of Norton Street · Provide street address and access from Norton Street to upper level residential · Vehicle access to basement parking from rear lane · Rear building setback to allow access to pedestrian entries, loading zones and parking · Minimise overshadowing to neighbours · Articulate the built form along the lane by providing entries, balconies and fenestration. This will also provide surveillance of the lane increasing safety and security.	· Provide landscaped front setback with deep soil planting · Respect adjacent 2 storey residential on Carlisle Street by stepping down built form from 4 storeys to 3 storeys to Carlisle Street and laneway · Residential address off Carlisle Street · Share entry to basement parking with Norton Street development
Floor to Ceiling Heights	Commercial/retail street level – 3.6m	Commercial/retail street level – 3.6m
	Commercial/retail upper levels – 3.3m	Commercial/retail upper levels – 3.3m
	Residential – 2.7m	Residential – 2.7m
	Balcony balustrades – 1.1m (included within the building envelope)	Balcony balustrades – 1.1m (included within the building envelope)
Estimated FSR	3:1	3:1

Figure 1 Building Envelope Plan (AJ&C, September, 2014)

On 23 September 2014, Council considered a report summarising the details of the community forums conducted in July 2014 in relation to confirming the guiding principles and developing plans for the future development of the three sites. Council resolved to seek further clarification on the legal mechanisms for giving effect to the proposed planning changes and sought a briefing on the proposal.

Such a briefing to Councillors was held on 7 October 2014. Subsequently, a report to the Council meeting of 16 December 2014 was prepared seeking endorsement of the outcome of the community consultation and the proposed building envelopes for the site, including heights, setbacks and indicative FSRs. This report also sought authorisation for the Mayor and General Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which would outline the building envelopes and development controls for each site, protect the community benefit of 15% affordable housing and the activation of the Norton Street frontage.

This MOU, the purpose of which is to outline the key principles and objectives for cooperation and a future pathway for implementation of planning proposals for the sites, was subsequently signed by both Uniting and the Council on 5 March 2015. The outcomes/controls for the site outlined in Table 1 of the MOU are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Site Controls as outlined in Table 1 of the MOU

Site	Indicative Proposal and Example Use	Indicative Anticipated Community Benefits
168 Norton Street, Harold Hawkins Court	FSR - 3:1	15% ratio of affordable housing or housing for those on lower income levels
	Height –5 storeys/ 18 metres	Activation of street frontage which may include non-residential uses such as retail.
	40 Independent Living Units

While the Planning Proposal is generally consistent with these controls, such controls were not based on a detailed assessment of the site. Accordingly, the proponent has been advised to revisit the submitted urban design scheme and refine it to provide a satisfactory built form outcome that reduces adverse impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties. Such adverse impacts result primarily from overshadowing and overlooking into adjoining properties.

The Site and Context

The site is located on the western side of Norton Street on the northern edge of the Leichhardt town centre, between Macauley Street to the north and Carlisle Street to the south. The site comprises an L-shaped lot wrapped around buildings facing Norton Street to the south of the site. Pioneers Memorial Park is located 200 metres to the north of the site, while the Town Hall is 240 metres to the south. (Figure 2). There are also two (2) medical centres located in close proximity to the site including on Short Street and Allen Street within 150 metres of the site.

The site is located within a mixed use area comprising both residential and commercial development. The site is surrounded by low density residential to the north, south and west and to the east by multi-storey commercial development along Norton Street. A bus stop is located at the front of the site along Norton Street which provides connections to the eastern suburbs, Haberfield, Campsie and Canterbury.

The site is legally described as Lots 1 and 2 in DP 1119151, Lot 1 in DP 963000, Lot 5 DP 1112635 and Lots 3 and 4 Section 3 in DP 328 and is known as No 168 Norton Street, Leichhardt (the site). The site has an area of 1800.7m² and is referred to as Harold Hawkins Court.

The site has two (2) street frontages, with the main frontage being to Norton Street comprising approximately 34 metres along the eastern boundary, and a smaller frontage of 14.5 metres to Carlisle Street along the southern boundary. A narrow laneway exists along the western side boundary of the site, with a frontage to the site of 57 metres (Figure 3). A narrow laneway/right of way, approximately 1.83 metres wide, exists along the eastern boundary of the portion of the site adjoining Carlisle Street to the rear of the properties facing Norton Street to the south (Nos 158-166).

Figure 2 Site locality Plan (Source: SIX maps)

Figure 3 Site Location (Source: SIX Maps)

There is an existing building on the site, Harold Hawkins Court (Figures 4 and 5), formerly the Marlboro Theatre which operated until around 1960. This existing building comprises a three (3) and four (4) storey courtyard style brick building, on a nil front setback to Norton Street and a 6 metre setback to Carlisle Street. This building, previously used for an aged care facility for approximately 40 years containing accommodation for approximately 104 people and employing 50 staff, has been vacant since 2004 and is in poor condition.

The site slopes from the highest point in the south-east corner along the Norton Street frontage to the rear north-western corner adjoining the laneway of around 3 metres. The majority of the site comprises the building footprint, however, there are several trees located in the central courtyard on the site.

The adjoining development to the south comprises two (2) storey rendered buildings which consist of shop top housing developments with vehicle access, service areas and a solar collector to the rear (Figures 6 and 7), comprising Nos 158-166 Norton Street. The adjoining development to the north comprises a two storey commercial building currently used as a restaurant. The remaining adjoining development to the north comprises the rear yards of single dwelling houses addressing Macauley Street (Figure 8). Development to the west, on the opposite side of the laneway, comprises medium density villa style housing with some private open space and living room windows facing the site.

Development on the opposite side of Norton Street comprises two (2) storey commercial buildings while development on the opposite side of Carlisle Street also comprises two storey commercial buildings. Development further along Carlisle Street comprises single detached dwellings. The Royal Hotel, a local heritage item (Figure 9), is located on the opposite corner of Carlisle Street comprising a two storey building.

Figure 4 Existing Development on the site from Norton Street

Figure 5 Existing Development on the site from Carlisle Street

Figure 6 Adjoining development to the south (No 158-166 Norton Street)

Figure 7 Adjoining Development to the South (rear of No 158-166 Norton Street) - Carlisle Street elevations

Figure 8 Adjoining Development to the north addressing Macauley Street

Figure 9: Development to the south on the opposite side of Carlisle Street - Royal Hotel (local heritage item)

Current Planning Controls

The site is zoned B2 Local Centre under LEP 2013 (Figure 10), while the adjoining properties to the north and west are zoned R1 General Residential. The objectives of the zone pursuant to Clause 2.3 of LEP 2013 are:

· 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.

· To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

· To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

· To ensure that development is appropriately designed to minimise amenity impacts.

· To allow appropriate residential uses to support the vitality of local centres.

· To ensure that uses support the viability of local centres.

· To provide a mixture of compatible land uses.

· To reinforce and enhance the role, function and identity of local centres by encouraging appropriate development to ensure that surrounding development does not detract from the function of local centres.

· To integrate suitable business, office, residential, retail and other development in accessible locations.

Uses permitted with consent in the B2 zone in item 3 of Clause 2.3 of LEP 2013 include, among others, commercial premises, community facilities, residential flat buildings, shop top housing and any other development not specified in item 2 (permitted without consent) or 4 (prohibited). Seniors housing is permissible in the zone since it is not a use which is prohibited or permissible without consent.

Figure 10 Extract from the Zoning Map (LLEP 2013) showing land affected by the Planning Proposal

The maximum FSR for the site is 1:1 pursuant to Clause 4.4(2) and the Floor Space Ratio Map (Figure 11). The site, however, is located within “Area 1” and therefore pursuant to Clause 4.4A(3) of LEP 2013, the maximum FSR for the site is 1.5:1 subject to the building having an active street frontage, the building comprising mixed use development, including residential accommodation, and the building being compatible with the desired future character of the area in relation to its bulk, form, uses and scale.

Pursuant to Clause 5.10 of LEP 2013, the site is located within the Whaleyborough Estate Heritage Conservation Area (C13). The site is also in close proximity to a local heritage item, the Royal Hotel including interiors (Item No I682), located at 156 Norton Street Leichhardt, on the corner of Norton and Carlisle Streets to the south of the site (Figure 12).

Figure 11 Extract from the Floor Space Ratio Map (LLEP 2013) showing land affected by the Planning Proposal

Figure 12 Extract from the Heritage Map (LLEP 2013) showing land affected by the Planning Proposal

The site is affected by Class 5 acid sulphate soils pursuant to Clause 6.1 of LEP 2013. However, is not affected by flooding (Clause 6.3 of LEP 2013). The earthworks and stormwater controls pursuant to Clauses 6.2 and 6.4 of LEP 2013 are also relevant for any future development on the site.

The site is located within the area affected by the obstacle limitation surface (Clause 6.7 of LEP 2013), limiting development on the site to below 110m AHD. The site is also affected by aircraft noise (Clause 6.8 of LEP 2013), with the majority of the site being located within the 20-25 ANEF contour and a small portion along the front of the site being located in the 25-30 ANEF contour.

The site is affected by Clause 6.11A of LEP 2013, the objective of which is to promote residential accommodation as part of mixed use developments in business zones to support the vitality of neighbourhood and local centres. Development consent must only be granted to development for the purpose of residential accommodation on the site if the building comprises mixed use development, including residential accommodation, will have an active street frontage and the building will be compatible with the desired future character of the area in relation to its bulk, form, uses and scale.

Similarly, Clause 6.13 of LEP 2013 also applies to the site which aims to ensure the provision of a mix of dwelling types in residential flat buildings and mixed use developments that includes shop top housing. This clause requires that at least 25% of the total number of dwellings includes self-contained studio dwellings or one-bedroom dwellings, or both, and no more than 30% of the total number of dwellings will include dwellings with at least 3 bedrooms.

The Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP 2013) effectively controls height for the site with the provisions for the Leichhardt Commercial Distinctive Neighbourhood (Part C2.2.3.5(C13) imposing a maximum building wall height of 3.6 metres. The site is located within the Norton Street – Centro Sub Area (Part C2.2.3.5(c) of DCP 2013) of the Leichhardt neighbourhood, which does not include any site-specific numerical controls for height or scale. Other controls relevant to the site under DCP 2013 would be considered at DA stage.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) and the associated Apartment Design Guide (ADG) as well as State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 (Seniors SEPP 2004) are also relevant to the Planning Proposal. These planning controls are considered further in Attachment 1.

Site Constraints

As outlined above, the site is affected by heritage, aircraft noise and height restrictions relating to the obstacle limitation surface for Sydney airport. These issues are considered by the relevant Council Officers in the attached Planning Proposal.

Request to amend the planning controls

A Planning Proposal, prepared by City Plan Services, on behalf of Uniting, was lodged with Council on 5 December, 2016. The proposal sought to amend LEP 2013 as it applies to 168 Norton Street, Leichhardt to facilitate redevelopment of the site for the purpose of a self-contained seniors housing and mixed use development with affordable places by:

· increasing the maximum floor space ratio for the site from 1.5:1 to 3:1;

· introducing a maximum height of buildings to RL 59.4;

· requiring the increased development capacity of the site to be only available for a seniors housing development with 15% of dwellings to be ‘affordable places’ under the Seniors SEPP 2004; and

· provision of an active street frontage to Norton Street.

A meeting was held with the Proponent on 20 January 2017, at which time various concerns were raised with the Planning Proposal including:

· Concerns with the building envelope controls including setbacks to the proposed development, particularly the upper levels, along various frontages and boundaries;

· The lack of detail regarding the proposed maximum height(s) and the location of the various maximum heights within the site. In addition, the need to express the maximum height in storeys, rather than an RL;

· Urban design issues associated with the development such as the need to provide additional deep soil areas, an increase in replacement tree planting and the provision of additional communal open space;

· The need to ensure the proposed built form is compatible with the heritage conservation area within which the site is located;

· A Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) to be progressed as part of the Planning Proposal to ensure the affordable places will be managed by Uniting as a community housing provider.

· Further/revised information required regarding the ownership of the pedestrian lane located at the rear of the properties at Nos 158-166 Norton Street;

· A revised basement parking plan which more thoroughly considers potential car parking provision, basement entry requirements and traffic generation for the site as well as potential upgrade works which may be required to the laneway along the western boundary;

· The requirement to specify more accurately the type of seniors housing to be provided on the site, which is to comprise self-contained seniors housing; and

· The requirement to delete the definition of ‘active street frontage’ from the amending clause given it is already defined in LEP 2013.

Following consideration of the proposal against the ADG and in response to concerns raised by Council officers, various changes are required to be made to the Urban Design Scheme as presented in the Planning Proposal. Given these concerns, it is considered that the proposal to increase the maximum height applying to the site is not supported in its current form. To substantiate the proposed FSR of 3:1 and inform a height of building control, it will be requested that a Gateway Determination require the planning proposal to be revised prior to exhibition.

The proponent has been advised to revisit the submitted urban design scheme and refine it to provide a satisfactory built form outcome that reduces adverse impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties. Depending upon the requirements of the Gateway, the urban design concept for the site will need to be amended prior to public exhibition.

Planning Proposal

The Planning Proposal, included as Attachment 1, has been prepared by Council Officers following consideration and assessment of the Proponent’s requested amendments to LEP 2013.

The intent of the Planning Proposal is to facilitate redevelopment of the site for the purpose of a self-contained seniors housing and mixed use development incorporating 15% of the units to be affordable places under the Seniors SEPP 2004, and an activated street frontage containing retail premises along Norton Street.

This redevelopment will take advantage of the orientation and topography of the site to provide additional seniors and affordable housing in close proximity to public transport and services. This location will facilitate access to services and transport, required by seniors and housing for people with a disability, under the Seniors SEPP 2004.

The Planning Proposal seeks to amend LEP 2013 as follows:

· Include an “Additional Local Provisions” Clause in Part 6 of the LEP which allows the following:-

- Increase the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 1.5:1 to 3:1;

- Only allow the increased FSR and height for a ‘seniors housing’ development with a minimum of 15% of the dwellings to be ‘affordable places’ under the definitions contained in State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

- Require an active street frontage along Norton Street.

· Update the Key Sites map to include the site and the application of the new “Additional Local Provisions” Clause in Part 6 of the LEP.

The Planning Proposal also seeks to introduce new site-specific building envelope controls applying to the site into DCP 2013, which seeks to generally give effect to the building envelope controls developed at the community forums and the above changes to LEP 2013.

Following a thorough consideration and assessment of the Planning Proposal, Council Officers are generally supportive of the Planning Proposal subject to a number of amendments to the building envelope controls for the site. These proposed amendments include further refinement to the setbacks, deep soil zone and communal open space and a revised basement parking level and accompanying revised Traffic report to address various parking and traffic concerns. Various amendments are also required to the proposed amending clause to ensure the future use of the site is carried out for self-contained seniors housing with affordable places.

While the proponent’s Planning Proposal requested the maximum building height be expressed as RL 59.4, it is considered that the maximum height limit should be further considered following the revising of the urban design scheme prior to detailing the maximum height for the site. The maximum building height is likely to be a combination of RL and number of storeys to reflect the variations in the slope of the site and its various frontages.

While the provision relating to the inclusion of an active street frontage along Norton Street is supported, the definition of active street frontage is not required as it is provided in Clause 4.4A(5) and 6.11A(4) of LEP 2013.

Strategic alignment

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives and actions of A Plan for Growing Sydney, the Draft Central District Plan and the former Leichhardt Council’s strategic plans, specifically the Community Strategic Plan Leichhardt 2025+, Leichhardt Community and Cultural Plan 2011-2021 and the Integrated Transport Plan. The Planning Proposal is also generally consistent with the applicable State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and Ministerial Directions (s.117 directions), with some inconsistencies with SEPP 65, the ADG and Seniors SEPP 2004.

The proponent has been advised to revisit the submitted urban design scheme and refine it to propose a better built form outcome that reduces adverse impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties.

While Part 3 of the Planning Proposal demonstrates that the amendments have strategic merit, more detailed consideration is required to ascertain if the bulk of development that would be facilitated under the proposed amendment to the FSR is appropriate for the site. This results from various inconsistencies of the Planning Proposal with several aspects of SEPP 65, the ADG and the Seniors SEPP 2004, which are discussed in Attachment 1.

Accordingly, amendments to the anticipated built form massing and compliance with SEPP 65, the ADG and the design principles of Part 3 of the Seniors SEPP 2004 should be required prior to exhibition through imposition of conditions on a Gateway determination.

The Proponent’s Planning Proposal was accompanied by supporting documentation, including concept architectural plans and sketch as well as ADG compliance tables, an Urban Design Report, Traffic Impact Assessment, Heritage Impact Assessment, survey plans, an Aircraft Noise Intrusion Assessment, an Arboricultural Impact Assessment, a Draft DCP Amendment and a letter of offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement for the provision of the affordable places. The Planning Proposal to be submitted to the Minister, prepared by Council officers, requests that a Gateway determination require some of this material to be updated prior to exhibition to reflect the development concept envisaged under the current Planning Proposal.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The Planning Proposal has been the subject of significant discussion and consultation between the Proponent, community and the Council. During these discussions, significant public consultation has been undertaken as outlined in the background section of this report. A series of Community Consultation Forums were held by Council in March 2014 and July 2014 to discuss the potential redevelopment of the site at which time the building envelope controls and guiding principles were developed.

Should the Planning Proposal receive a Gateway determination allowing it to proceed, public authority consultation and public exhibition of the Planning Proposal would then commence. Contingent on the conditions of a Gateway determination, it is anticipated that the Planning Proposal would be exhibited for at least 28 days with notification:

- on the Inner West Council website;

- in the Inner West Courier; and

- in writing to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby properties.

Exhibition material would be made available on the Inner West Council website, in the Leichhardt Customer Service Centre at 7-15 Wetherill Street, Leichhardt and on the Department of Planning and Environment’s website. The outcomes of the public authority consultation and public exhibition would then be reported to Council.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council approve the Planning proposal at Attachment 1 for submission to the Minister for Planning for Gateway Determination subject to the required changes to the Planning Proposal being undertaken by the Proponent prior to exhibition in accordance with any conditions.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Planning Proposal - 168 Norton Street Leichhardt
2.⇩	Proponent’s Planning Proposal and Supporting Documentation
3.⇩	Uniting Care Voluntary Planning Agreement - Letter of Offer

Council Meeting

28 February 2017

Council Meeting

28 February 2017

Item No: C0217 Item 4

Subject: Annandale Conservation Area Extension

File Ref: 17/4718/13058.17

Prepared By: Steve Roseland - Senior Strategic Planner, Leichhardt

Authorised By: Gill Dawson - Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

In September 2015 the former Leichhardt Council resolved to review the boundary of the Annandale Heritage Conservation Area. That review has been completed and it has demonstrated that there is justification for extending the boundary of the Conservation Area. A draft Planning Proposal to that effect is attached for endorsement and submission to the Minister for Planning for Gateway Determination.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The attached Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Minister for Planning for a Gateway Determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979;

2. The Department of Planning and Environment be requested to delegate the plan making functions, in relation to the subject Planning Proposal, to Council;

3. Following receipt of a Gateway Determination, and compliance with any conditions, the Planning Proposal and supporting documentation be placed on public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days and public authorities be consulted on the Planning Proposal in accordance with the Gateway Determination; and

4. A report be presented to Council at the completion of the public exhibition period detailing submissions received and the outcome of consultation with public authorities.

BACKGROUND

At the September 2015 Ordinary Meeting Council resolved (C458/15) the following:

1. That a review of the 2004 Godden McKay Logan Heritage Review: Stage 2 be undertaken by Council’s Strategic Planning team to identify steps required to implement an alteration to the boundary of the Annandale Heritage Conservation Area;

2. A report be brought back to the March 2016 Policy meeting to provide Council with an update in relation to the review; and

3. That the report also be tabled at the Heritage Committee for discussion.

The matter was raised as Council was made aware of a complying development certificate being issued by a private certifier to demolish all existing structures at 307 Nelson Street, Annandale. The concern discussed was that the property and adjoining properties on the eastern side of Nelson Street can be demolished under the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) Exempt & Complying Codes because they sit just outside the Annandale Heritage Conservation Area (C1) listed and mapped in Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013. Annandale Heritage Conservation Area currently covers the majority of the suburb (see Map 1) with some properties along the western and eastern boundaries within close proximity of Whites Creek and Johnston Creek being excluded.

Map 1 – Annandale Conservation Area (C1)

Analysis and recommendations of Leichhardt Heritage Review: Stage 2 (Jan 2004)

In 2003 heritage consultants Godden Mackay Logan were commissioned by Council to complete stage two of Council’s Heritage Review. The outcome of the study was as follows:

· Review of the existing conservation area boundaries;

· Drafting of ‘Statement of Significance’ and ‘Key Values’ for each Area;

· Identification of thresholds/benchmarks for the subsequent assessment of contributory buildings/values by Council; and

· Review of the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) provisions relating to heritage and the structure/framework of the DCP.

The study emphasised that the approach of Council’s Residential Development Control Plan (DCP) at the time was towards providing advice about new development and recommended that the guidelines focus on ensuring that the existing fabric within conservation areas should be retained as much as possible with minimal change. This included a recommendation that additional protections for small attached and semi attached houses be incorporated into the DCP.

The study also noted a number of ongoing heritage management concerns including inappropriate alterations and additions, the demolition of contributory items within conservation areas and the general demolition of structures within these areas detrimentally affecting the significance of the Area.

With regard to Annandale the study recommended that the existing Annandale Conservation Area boundaries be increased slightly to include the whole suburb from Whites Creek to Johnston Creek. The study highlighted that the suburb of Annandale was largely laid out and formed as a single entity and therefore needed to be managed as a whole. The study recommendations were endorsed by Council and incorporated into a draft LEP amendment to extend a number of the existing conservation areas. This draft amendment was publicly exhibited and forwarded to the Department of Planning.

In the interim the NSW Government and Department had prepared the Standard Instrument LEP program requiring all NSW Councils to redraft their LEPs using the common format and content required by the standard LEP template. The Department required the proposed amendment to be put on hold until Leichhardt Council could prove that what would become Leichhardt LEP 2013 could meet all obligations and requirements with regard to residential dwelling targets and jobs provision required by the Inner West Subregional Plan.

Progressing extension of Annandale Conservation Area

Preliminary work indicated that development approved and undertaken in the areas outside the Conservation Area is consistent with that which has been constructed and approved within the Annandale Conservation Area during the same period (2003-present) resulting in a consistent built form with identified heritage significance. A full re-assessment was undertaken to determine whether the development approved or constructed is likely to have compromised the suitability of those areas for inclusion within Annandale Conservation Area.

Part of this re-assessment was completed by Council’s heritage consultants carrying out the heritage assessment of the Parramatta Road corridor as part of its Strategic Sites and Corridors work. This study was presented to the March 2016 Policy meeting and endorsed (C96/16P) by Council. The area covered by this study includes the southern and eastern parts of the original proposed extension to the Annandale Conservation so the heritage value of all the properties in these localities have been updated. This includes the properties along:

· the southern side of Albion Street;

· the eastern side of Susan Street; and

· the eastern side of Taylor Street.

There were approximately 200 properties outside the Annandale Conservation Area within the suburb yet to be assessed. Using the same methodology NBRS implemented to complete the Parramatta Road / Norton Street Heritage Study Council’s Strategic Planning team completed the assessment of all properties within the suburb of Annandale lying outside the Conservation Area (see Map 2) to determine whether the Area should be extended and if so to what extent.

Map 2 – Study Areas reviewed outside existing Annandale Conservation Area

Any extension of the heritage conservation areas within former Leichhardt Municipality listed in Schedule 5 (Environmental Heritage) of LEP 2013 would require an LEP amendment.

Heritage assessment of all properties within the suburb of Annandale lying outside the existing Conservation Area

Consistent with the NBRS study the heritage assessment has been undertaken using methodology and guidelines drafted by the Heritage Office of NSW set out in Assessing Heritage Significance (2001), Conservation Areas (1996) and Planning and Heritage (1996).

The assessment included a site survey undertaken during August, September and October 2016 of the frontages of all properties in the study area. Data sheets (Attachment 2) were prepared listing each property, the predominant architectural style, notes on the character, design features and history of the structure/site and photos documenting the property on the date visited. The data sheet includes a ranking to define the degree to which individual buildings contribute to the character of the area (see table below).

Ranking	Definition
Heritage Item (local listing) - HI (local)	A building of state or local heritage significance that also contributes substantially to the stated character of the area in the terms given in the definition of the Conservation Area.
Building which contributes to the Area (heritage & aesthetic significance) - HA	A building which contributes to the character of the area but significance has been reduced by loss of original architectural detail and materials and/or unsympathetic additions.
Neutral - N	A building where the impact on the heritage character of the area is neutral.
Detracting - D	A building which has an adverse impact upon the character of the area because of its scale, design, assertiveness, materials or the like, or because its original qualities have been militated or removed.

To conduct the study the study area was spilt into two parts:

· Annandale Conservation Area Extension investigation – West (properties within close proximity of White Creek) includes 194 data sheets

· Annandale Conservation Area Extension investigation – East (properties within close proximity of Johnston Creek) includes 129 data sheets

Each data sheet includes an assessment specific to that individual site. The assessment uses the methodology to make recommendations to inform the buildings ranking as follows:

· Retain and where possible reinstate the significant façade and character

· Potential for sympathetic alterations and additions at the rear of the property

· Any proposed development to respect the character of the area

· Potential development site

The heritage assessment resulted in the following:

Annandale Conservation Area Extension investigation – West
Ranking	Tally
Heritage Item (local listing) - HI (local)	2
Building which contributes to the Area (heritage & aesthetic significance) - HA	166
Neutral - N	17
Detracting - D	2
Other (includes parks & N/A)	7

Annandale Conservation Area Extension investigation – East
Ranking	Tally
Heritage Item (local listing) - HI (local)	3
Building which contributes to the Area (heritage & aesthetic significance) - HA	85
Neutral - N	36
Detracting - D	2
Other (includes parks & N/A)	3

The study has found that the vast majority of buildings in the suburb of Annandale not located within the existing conservation area either contribute to, or do not detract from, the collective heritage significance of the suburb. These buildings/structures should be protected from potential demolition.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Not applicable.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Any future planning proposal will be publicly exhibited in accordance with Department of Planning guidelines and Council’s Community Engagement Framework.

CONCLUSION

To preserve the characteristics which reflect the Statement of Significance of the existing Annandale Conservation Area (C1) and ensure that buildings/structures which contribute to the landform and history of Annandale cannot be demolished under the Exempt & Complying Codes SEPP it is proposed to extend the conservation area (see Map 3). A draft Planning Proposal to facilitate this LEP amendment has been prepared (Attachment 1) in accordance with the Department’s published guidelines including stated objectives, intended outcomes, detailed justification for the proposed change and public consultation in accordance with Council / Department of Planning requirements.

Map 3 – Proposed draft Annandale Conservation Area

This proposed extension of the Annandale Conservation Area shall provide greater certainty for existing and future property owners and residents of the suburb regarding the built form to be preserved and clarify the types of alterations and additions that shall be encouraged to ensure consistency in the decision-making process.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Planning Proposal Annandale Conservation Area Extension
2.⇩	Heritage Assessment of Potential Annandale Conservation Area Extension (data sheets)

Council Meeting

28 February 2017

Council Meeting

28 February 2017

Item No: C0217 Item 6

Subject: Marrickville Golf Course Lands and Dibble Avenue Waterhole - Plan of Management

File Ref: 17/4816/16264.17

Prepared By: Cathy Edwards-Davis - Group Manager Trees, Parks and Sports Fields

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Deputy General Manager Assets and Environment

SUMMARY

Land and water management at the Marrickville golf course lands and Dibble Avenue Waterhole do not reflect current best environmental practice. The development of a new Plan of Management for this land will provide a mechanism to improve environmental management at the site.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the preparation of a Plan of Management for the Marrickville golf course lands and Dibble Avenue Waterhole be prioritised and brought forward to commence in 2017.

BACKGROUND

The management of the Marrickville golf course lands and Dibble Avenue Waterhole has an extensive history. The land on which the golf course operates has complex land titling and an historic lease.

Community members have raised concerns about the governance of land and water management at the golf course and waterhole. A community petition has requested a ban on the use of glyphosate and to stop the Dibble Avenue Waterhole being “pumped dry.” The petition also requests the implementation of a Plan of Management (PoM) for the golf course lands and waterhole.

Marrickville Golf Club

Marrickville Golf Club has operated at its current site since the 1940s. Community and Council expectations of environmentally sustainable land and water management practices have increased since this time. However, the lease conditions around the Club’s land and water management practices have not. The current lease allows unlimited access to water, for irrigation of the golf course, from the Dibble Avenue waterhole. This waterhole is a bird sanctuary, a locally listed Heritage Item and Priority Biodiversity Area in the Biodiversity Action Plan 2011-2015.

The Club has been using water from Dibble Avenue Waterhole since the 1940s, and continues to do so under existing use rights. According to the Club’s website, the waterhole was purchased by Council with the specific purpose of providing a water supply for the irrigation of the golf course. In 1958 it is noted to have almost been pumped dry. The Club has indicated they are heavily dependent on the waterhole supply to irrigate the course.The terms of the lease do not allow Council to control the quantity or quality of water taken from the Dibble Avenue Waterhole. As a consequence, the health and biodiversity of the Waterhole is not protected, despite this being a priority biodiversity area.

Lease

Council entered into a lease with the Marrickville Golf Club in 1987 for a period of ten years, with a possible further ten year renewal option. The lease included the following clauses (in part):

8. (k) The Lessee will at all times permit members of the public to enter upon any portion of the demised premises except the club house and greens for the purpose of passive recreation.

10. The Lessee shall at all times during the period of this lease have the right to draw water from the waterhole…

The existing lease with the Club is under a holdover period which has been the case for some years. The lease can be terminated at any time. A valid PoM is required by legislation (Local Government Act 1993) before Council can enter into a new lease on this Community Land.

Should Council enter into any new lease over the land, it would likely include updated terms which would reflect expected environmental practices and understandings. Any new lease would take into consideration Council’s biodiversity prioritisation and water management strategies as well as other important considerations for such a large open space and recreational area.

Land Ownership

A significant obstacle to the drafting of any new lease is that the land comprises many parcels made up of Community Land, Crown Land, old systems title land, Torrens title parcels, some road closures and some property which is owned by Canterbury Council. The consolidation of the land parcels is a significant project in its own right.

An interim means of securing a formal binding agreement with a Lessee could be through an ‘Agreement to Lease’ which similarly requires a PoM to be in place, but does not require consolidation of the land parcels. The ‘Agreement to Lease’ could be superseded by a future Lease once the consolidation of the land parcels project is completed.

Recreation Needs Study

In 2011/2012, a Recreation Needs Research – Strategic Directions for Marrickville 2012 report was developed. The plan aims to ensure that recreational planning and implementation in Marrickville is aligned with demographic and other social changes that impact on the recreation needs of the community, alongside the prioritisation of environmental programs and biodiversity as these reflect the shared goals of Council and the Community. It provides an evidence base drawn from local, state, national and international data as well as site visits and audits and a robust community and stakeholder engagement process.

A recommendation from the study was to “reduce the golf course to 9 holes, using the freed up land for biodiversity corridors along the river and into the catchment and new needed sports fields (adjacent to Mahoney Reserve).” The Recreation Needs Research report was adopted by the former Marrickville Council in November 2012. The recommendation to reduce the golf course to 9 holes was opposed by the Marrickville Golf Club at the time. Council therefore specifically resolved that the golf course remain 18 holes.

It is proposed to prepare a new Recreation Needs Research report for the new larger Inner West Council area. The upcoming study will look at local, regional and national trends in participation in recreation activities, including golf. It will provide a more robust evidence base to recommend future use of open space and recreational lands and address not just environmental, but recreation and social outcomes. This study will likely be completed in 2018.

Plan of Management

Plans of Management (PoM) provide a planning and management framework for the future use, development and maintenance of areas classified as Community Land. The associated Master Plan is the illustrative representation of the proposed design and construction outcomes.

A Draft PoM and Draft Master Plan for Marrickville Golf Course, 1999 were adopted by the former Marrickville Council’s Technical Services Committee in October 1999 for the purposes of public exhibition and receipt of public submissions. In April 2000, after the public exhibition period, the recommendation to adopt the Plan of Management was deferred indefinitely “for further consideration, including a full detailed cost assessment of the proposal, visual impacts (views), alternative pedestrian and bicycle routes, and access issues”.

There have been numerous requests by community and environmental groups for Council to adopt the 1999 PoM. Informed by the Recreation Needs Research, Council’s Recreation Policy and Strategy 2013 identifies a total of 13 Plans of Management to be developed across the former Marrickville Council area. The Council had planned to prepare a new PoM for the golf course lands in 2018-2019.

Plan of Management Alternatives

Until the PoM has been adopted and any possible new lease entered into, an alternative means to manage the governance of land and water management at the golf course, in accordance with Council and community expectations, may be to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Marrickville Golf Club. An MOU would be nonbinding, has no legal enforceability and it is unlikely that the Club would agree to enter into this arrangement. This option was therefore considered unproductive.

Until Council has an adopted PoM, there is necessarily a reliance on appealing to the goodwill of the Golf Club management. Council staff have therefore undertaken to meet regularly with the Club to discuss best practice land management and to manage the relationship with the Club. This forum also allows staff to flag the issues which will likely form the terms of a future Agreement to Lease.

Dibble Avenue Waterhole

On the 7 February 2017, Sydney experienced heavy rainfall. There was a landslide to part of the Dibble Avenue Waterhole. As a precautionary measure, residents in an adjacent apartment block were evacuated for some hours. Council has undertaken emergency stablisation works at the Dibble Avenue Waterhole, to ensure safety. Council has engaged an independent geotechnical engineer to review the Waterhole and provide any recommendations for the ongoing management of this land.

LRAC Consideration

This matter was discussed at the LRAC meeting on the 14 February 2017 where it was recommended to support the following:

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are sufficient funds with Council’s budget to fund the PoM. A budget amount of $30,000 will be incorporated, partly into the 16/17 financial year, with the balance in the 17/18 financial year with the report is completed.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Staff from the Sustainability & Environment and Legal service units were consulted in the preparation of this report.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Representatives of Marrickville Golf Club were informally advised at a meeting on the 10 February 2017 that Council was giving consideration as to whether to bring forward the PoM for the Marrickville golf course lands and Dibble Avenue Waterhole.

As with all parks PoMs, a robust engagement process will provide the evidence base for determining the community’s recreation, environmental and other needs for the golf course lands. Following the development of draft plans of management, there will be opportunity for additional stakeholder and community input. Stakeholders will provide an important contribution to the future plans of the open space land.

CONCLUSION

A perceived change in management practices at Marrickville Golf Club over the last 18 months has resulted in a heightened level of concern raised by staff and the community around environmental management practices. The existing lease terms are outdated and do not support current best practice land and water management. It is recommended that the PoM for this land be prioritised and brought forward to commence in 2017. This will provide a mechanism to improve environmental management at the site.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Council Meeting

28 February 2017

Item No: C0217 Item 9

Subject: ADDRESSING DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE IN THE INNER WEST

File Ref: 17/4718/10819.17

Prepared By: Joe Banno - Acting Team Leader, Community Planning and Development, Leichhardt

Authorised By: Erla Ronan - Group Manager Community Services and Culture

SUMMARY

This report provides an update on Council’s partnerships with local community groups, organisations, networks and key national associations to address domestic and family violence across the Inner West Local Government Area.

Domestic and family violence is a significant community safety issue, a principle local policing issue and a major concern for wellbeing.

Initial outcomes from the Speak Out Awareness Raising Campaign, Love Bites, the Inner West Respectful Relationship Project and White Ribbon Day have seen positive early results and this report recommends Council continue to support these initiatives as part of the 2017/18 budget to the value of $67,000.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The funding priorities outlined in the report are considered in March 2017 as part of the overall Council budget drafting process, acknowledging that the outcome is to be exhibited for public review and comment.

2. Council note it is working in partnership with local community groups, organisations, networks and key national associations to address domestic and family violence across the Inner West Local Government Area.

3. Council continue to support the Speak Out Awareness Raising Campaign, Love Bites, the Inner West Respectful Relationship Project and White Ribbon Day through continued community partnerships and program funding of $67,000, comprising of:

a. $10,000 program funding to continue and expand the Speak Out Awareness Raising Campaign

b. $15,000 program funding to continue the delivery of the Love Bites program in local secondary schools across the Inner West

c. $25,000 program funding to support Council’s significant partnership in guiding the implementation of the Inner West Respectful Relationships Project

d. $17,000 program funding to continue and expand Council’s partnerships with local community organisations, the three local Police Local Area Commands and local domestic violence committees to deliver local White Ribbon Day events.

BACKGROUND

Community safety is an important responsibility of Council. Through local community partnerships Council is able to work towards creating a safe community for everyone.

Domestic and family violence is a significant community safety issue in the Inner West Local Government Area (LGA). Information provided by local Police Local Area Commands indicates the prevalence of domestic and family violence across our community. In the Leichhardt Local Area Command, Officers have reported that domestic violence is the number one contributing factor to all assaults. In the Marrickville Local Area Command, Officers have reported that domestic violence is the most resource intensive category of work with almost 40% of assaults being domestic violence related.

Inner West Council works in partnership with local community groups, organisations, networks and key national associations in addressing domestic and family violence across the Inner West LGA, including;

· Leichhardt Women’s Community Health Centre;

· Leichhardt Marrickville Domestic Violence Liaison Committee;

· Inner West Domestic Violence Liaison Committee;

· Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Local Area Commands;

· Inner West Love Bites;

· National Association for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (NAPCAN);

· White Ribbon;

· Local sporting groups; and

· Local businesses.

Through these partnerships Council aims to bring about generational change to end domestic and family violence and foster respectful relationships in the Inner West.

Discussion - Outcomes Achieved Through Current Initiatives

Speak Out Awareness Raising Campaign

In October 2014, the former Leichhardt Council resolved to make use of Council work and industrial vehicles to promote health and wellbeing campaigns (C367/14). Following from this, the Speak Out Awareness Raising Campaign was developed.

In December 2015, the former Leichhardt Council resolved to allocate $10,000 to fund the development and production of materials for phase two of the Speak Out Campaign (C635/15). Further to this, in February 2016 the former Leichhardt Council also resolved to allocate $10,000 to fund staff to implement phase two of the campaign (C46/16).

The Speak Out Awareness Raising Campaign is Council’s partnership with Leichhardt Women’s Community Health Centre to raise community awareness about respectful relationships and the prevention of domestic and family violence and the abuse of children. The campaign also provides information to assist people to access support and services.

Phase one of the Speak Out Campaign involved the display of messages on Council garage trucks and other industrial vehicles.

Phase two of the Speak Out Campaign involved the design of promotional material including posters, street flags, street banners, bus stop advertisements, outdoor pull-up banners, stickers, and Keep Cups (re-usable coffee cups). The materials were distributed to, promoted to and/or displayed at local businesses, community organisations, schools, local sporting groups and religious organisations in the former Leichhardt LGA. Social media was also widely used to promote the campaign.

Following from phase two of the Speak Out Campaign, Leichhardt Women’s Community Health Centre experienced a 58% increase in domestic violence as a presenting issue in clinics and counselling. The centre attributes this to the local awareness campaign re-enforcing national messages. The centre has subsequently been successful in obtaining additional grant funding to continue and expand their work to support women experiencing domestic and family violence.

A $10,000 investment from Council as part of the 2017/18 budget is required. This investment will facilitate the development of new promotional materials with Inner West Council branding that can be distributed, promoted and displayed across the Inner West LGA. Furthermore, this investment will allow Council officers to explore other / additional promotional activities such as public murals, cinema advertising and re-usable water / drink bottles. This investment will build on the success, visibility and momentum of the campaign in the former Leichhardt LGA.

Love Bites

In February 2016, the former Leichhardt Council resolved to allocate $15,000 to NAPCAN, (in consultation and collaboration with the Inner West Love Bites) to fund the delivery of Love Bites training to 400 young people in the Leichhardt area during 2016 (C46/16).

Love Bites is an interactive and innovative school-based domestic, family and relationship violence and sexual assault prevention education program aimed at young people aged 14 – 16 years (year 10 students). Love Bites is based on best practice standards for education programs as recommended by the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearing House and other leading academics in the area of violence against women.

The Love Bites program consists of two interactive education workshops followed by creative workshops that consolidate the information from the education workshops. The creative works produced by participants are often used for local community based awareness raising activities, events and campaigns. Artworks created by local students have been used and displayed at White Ribbon Day events throughout the Inner West during 2016. Creative works are also shared with the wider community via social media, including an Instagram gallery of artworks #innerwestlovebites.

The program is delivered in schools through a collaborative network of trained service providers from local organisations, known as Love Bites facilitators. Training is provided by NAPCAN. In the Inner West, Love Bites is co-ordinated and delivered by Inner West Love Bites. Inner West Love Bites is a working group of the Leichhardt Marrickville Domestic Violence Liaison Committee. Rozelle Neighbourhood Centre is the lead organisation.

Council’s funding allocation of $15,000 was utilised by Inner West Love Bites in 2016 to deliver Love Bites workshops to 408 students across the Inner West as indicated in Table 1 (refer to attachment 1). There was an overwhelmingly positive response to the 2016 program by participating students, with only one participant reporting that they did not think that Love Bites applies to real life.

In order to continue the local delivery of the Love Bites program, a $15,000 investment from Council as part of the 2017/18 budget is required. This investment will support the next cohort of local year 10 students in 2017 to be educated and creatively engaged and furthermore, enable Council and the community continue it’s commitment to bring about generational change to end domestic and family violence and foster respectful relationships in the Inner West.

Inner West Respectful Relationship Project

In April 2016, the former Leichhardt Council resolved to allocate $25,000 to scope and plan a partnership between Leichhardt Council, Ashfield Council, Marrickville Council and NAPCAN to create generational change to end domestic and family violence (C204/16).

In March 2016, the former Ashfield Council resolved to support the initiative to work with Leichhardt Council and Marrickville Council to create generational change to end domestic and family violence (MM9/2016).

In March 2016, the former Marrickville Council resolved to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the NAPCAN, Leichhardt Council and Ashfield Council to establish the governance arrangements for the partnership and the methodology and resources to support generational change to end domestic and family violence. (C0316 Item 1).

The Inner West Respectful Relationship Project seeks to create generational change to end domestic and family violence in our community by providing every child and young person in the Inner West LGA with the opportunity to participate in respectful relationships education.

Inner West Council has partnered with NAPCAN and formed a community steering group to undertake community consultation and scope the development and implementation of the Inner West Respectful Relationship Project. The project steering group includes representation from:

· Inner West Council (Community Development);

· Inner West Council (Children’s Services);

· Leichhardt Women’s Community Health Centre;

· Department of Education;

· Inner West Love Bites (Rozelle Neighbourhood Centre);

· NAPCAN;

· Western Sydney University (Centre for Educational Research);

· Metro Assist; and

· Eaton Street Centre / Leichhardt OSHC Network.

Significant community consultation and engagement has been undertaken by NAPCAN and the project steering group as part of the project scoping phase, mapping existing education and prevention initiatives being undertaken by local schools and organisations (ensuring the project complements rather than replaces existing initiatives) as well as identifying the needs for and interest in participating in respectful relationships education.

The outcome of the scoping phase will be a practical implementation plan to guide the facilitation of opportunities for all children and young people to participate in respectful relationships education. It is anticipated that the project implementation plan will be completed by the end of February and will be reported to Council following from this.

The NAPCAN progress report (refer to attachment 2) outlines the significance of this project in light of local, state and national interest and momentum for the prevention of domestic and family violence and respectful relationship education. In order to facilitate Council’s ongoing commitment to community safety as well as bring about generational change to end domestic and family violence and foster respectful relationships, a $25,000 investment from Council as part of the 2017/18 budget is required. This will support the priorities of the Inner West Respectful Relationships Project, assist in maintaining local, state and national interest and momentum and build a culture of respect and self-regulated behaviour.

White Ribbon Day

White Ribbon is Australia's male-led campaign to prevent men's violence against women. The campaign culminates each year with White Ribbon Day on 25 November (also known as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women). White Ribbon Day is acknowledged by local community groups and businesses across Australia through awareness raising activities and events. Men and women are called to wear a white ribbon or wristband as a visual symbol of their commitment and take the White Ribbon Oath (I will stand up, speak out and act to prevent men’s violence against women. This is my Oath).

The former Ashfield Council worked in partnership with local community organisations, Ashfield Local Area Command and key member organisations of the Inner West Domestic Violence Liaison Committee to host a local White Ribbon Day event. The former Ashfield Council has previously committed $5,000 to White Ribbon Day.

In December 2015, the former Leichhardt Council resolved to host a White Ribbon Day event in 2016 (C635/15). Further to this, in February 2016 the former Leichhardt Council allocated $10,000 to develop the event in consultation with Leichhardt Local Area Command and the Leichhardt Marrickville Domestic Violence Liaison Committee. (C46/16)

The former Marrickville Council worked in partnership with local organisations to support an annual White Ribbon Day event by providing assistance and in-kind support to develop, promote and help operate the event, including personnel. The event, a collaboration of local service providers who work with children and/or family members experiencing domestic and family violence, including Marrickville Local Area Command, was led by Metro Assist.

White Ribbon Day in Marrickville was initiated in 2010 by the Multi Mix Mob, a group of young Aboriginal and culturally/linguistically diverse mums who formed a social support group and playgroup, supported by Connect Marrickville, KU Children’s Services, Catholic Care and Metro Assist.

In 2016, Inner West Council partnered with key local community organisations, each of the three the Local Area Commands across the Inner West LGA (Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville) and member organisations of the two local domestic violence committees to present a series of three localised events to mark White Ribbon Day and encourage members of the community to take the White Ribbon Oath. These events are outlined in Table 2 (refer to attachment 3).

White Ribbon Day in Rozelle was presented in partnership with Leichhardt Local Area Command and supported by Rotary, Youth Off the Streets and other local organisations.

White Ribbon Day in Marrickville was led by Metro Assist in partnership with Newtown Neighbourhood Centre, Marrickville Local Area Command and other local organisations.

White Ribbon Day in Summer Hill was presented in partnership with Ashfield Local Area Command, Metro Assist, Youth Off the Streets and The Infants Home.

White Ribbon Day provides important opportunities to engage the wider community in interactive awareness raising activities and events that encourage people to stand up, speak out and act to prevent men’s violence against women. In order to continue and expand Council’s partnerships with local community organisations, Police Local Area Commands and local domestic violence committees for White Ribbon Day, a $17,000 Investment from Council as part of the 2017/18 budget is required.

This investment will allow Council to build on the success of the 2016 White Ribbon events and build further local partnerships that continue Council and the community’s efforts to bring about generational change to end domestic and family violence and foster respectful relationships in the Inner West.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

This report recommends that Council include $67,000 in 2017/18 Budget to fund the following programs:

1. $10,000 program funding as part of the 2017/18 budget to continue and expand the Speak Out Awareness Raising Campaign.

2. $15,000 program funding as part of the 2017/18 budget to continue the delivery of the Love Bites program in local secondary schools.

3. $25,000 program funding as part of the 2017/18 budget to support Council’s local partnerships to guide the implementation of the Inner West Respectful Relationships Project.

4. $17,000 program funding as part of the 2017/18 budget to continue and expand Council’s partnerships with local community organisations, Police Local Area Commands and local domestic violence committees to deliver local White Ribbon Day events.

5. All programs will be evaluated to assess impacts and outcomes in order to inform ongoing partnerships and investment.

CONCLUSION

Council’s partnerships with local community groups, organisations, networks and key national associations to address domestic and family violence facilitate a safe community for everyone. These partnerships support wellbeing and are aligned with Priority 3 of the Inner West Council Draft Statement of Vision and Priorities - Social Vitality, Creativity, Quality of Life.

Local partnership programs and initiatives including the Speak Out Awareness Raising Campaign, Love Bites, the Inner West Respectful Relationship Project and White Ribbon Day enable Council and the community work together to bring about generational change to end domestic and family violence and foster respectful relationships in the Inner West.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Table 1: Inner West Love Bites – Workshops Delivered in 2016
2.⇩	Inner West Respectful Relationships Project - Scoping Phase Update Report - December 2016
3.⇩	Table 2: Inner West White Ribbon Day Events – 2016

Council Meeting

28 February 2017

Item No: C0217 Item 10

Subject: Quarter 2 Progress Report - IWC Operational Plan

File Ref: 17/4718/9749.17

Prepared By: Kathryn Ridley - Corporate Strategy Planner

Authorised By: Gill Dawson - Group Manager Strategic Planning and Simone Schwarz - Group Manager Communications, Engagement and Events

SUMMARY

This Bi-Annual Progress Report provides Council with an overview of progress made against actions in the Inner West Council Operational Plan 2016/2017.

Overall, 85% of updated actions in the Operational Plan 2016/17 are considered to be progressing – on track or completed.

This report is the first iteration of integrated reporting for the Inner West Council i.e. reflecting the new organisational structure. The report remains inclusive of all actions detailed in the adopted Inner West Council Operational Plan 2016/2017.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the report be received and noted.

BACKGROUND

Inner West Council’s (IWC) first Operational Plan commenced in August of 2016 with a focus on delivering high quality services and programs while also progressing the integration and harmonisation of operations.

The IWC Operational Plan 2016/17 was structured by service centre to reflect the former councils of Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville. Since that time we have been moving towards a fully integrated service delivery model and in recent months the organisation has been restructured to achieve this.

We have also developed a draft Statement of Vision and Priorities to provide high level guidance until the development and implementation of a common Community Strategic Plan for the inner west.

The draft priorities are:

1. Planning and development

2. Transport

3. Social vitality and quality of life

4. Sustainability and the environment

5. One council

6. Local industry and business

7. Advocacy

8. Local democracy

In order to reflect this progress, the Bi-Annual Progress Report has been designed to:

a) Reflect the new organisational structure; and

b) Identify the key projects and programs already in train to support the draft priorities.

While the service units are new, the work being undertaken is not – the actions identified in the Bi-Annual Progress Report remain true to the actions in the adopted 2016/17 Operational Plan as delivered under the previous organisational structure. In some cases, actions have been combined to reduce duplication of reporting. We will be working with the inner west community over the coming months to develop the Inner West Council Community Strategic Plan. As part of this process we will be engaging the public in the development of a reporting framework – one that best suits the needs and interests of Council, the community and stakeholders.

How to read this report

The Q2 progress report is structured by service unit. Actions being carried out by the service unit have been assigned a status using a traditional traffic light scheme. The traffic lights provide a visual indication of the status of each Action as follows:

n	Progressing – On Track
n	Progressing – Behind Schedule
n	Not Progressing
n	Completed
n	Not Due To Start

Structure

The report is structured by service unit, reflecting the new organisational structure. Each Action is assigned a Code beginning with A, L or M to indicate which chapter of the Operational Plan the Action originates i.e. Ashfield, Leichhardt or Marrickville.

The full IWC 2016/17 Bi-Annual Progress Report is attached.

OVERVIEW OF Q2 PROGRESS

1. Status of Operational Plan actions

2. Highlights reporting against Draft Priorities

In December 2016 Council adopted the draft Statement of Vision and Priorities for the purpose of community review. At the time of writing this report, the Statement had not yet been formally adopted, however, it provides us with an interim high level framework for reporting back to the community on matters of priority concern. Once the final Priorities have been determined all of the Actions in the Operational Plan will be assigned to a Priority.

Priority 1 – Planning and development

· Held first meetings of the newly established Inner West Planning Panel, an independent hearing and assessment panel, in November and December 2016

· More than $10 million in public benefits Including four residential units transferred to Council for affordable housing purposes (est. value of $2.7 million) as a result of the Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) associated with Meriton’s Lewisham Tower redevelopment.

· Completed the draft IWC Affordable Housing Policy (December 2016) for the purpose of public exhibition. The Policy supports Council to acquire a fair share of the increase in land values resulting from planning decisions in order to increase affordable rental housing and create more affordable housing on public land changes to the planning system via several methods including; changes to the planning system, a 15 per cent affordable housing target on large developments, and an affordable housing target of 30 per cent on government owned land in urban renewal areas such as The Bays Precinct.

Priority 2 – Transport

· Opened the new Tempe Cooks River Bridge, a shared footpath and cycleway over the Cooks River connecting Inner West Council with Bayside Council, providing a safer and more attractive way for pedestrians and cyclists to continue along the popular and much-utilised Cooks River path. (Project cost $740,000)

· Opened a revitalised section of GreenWay between Marion Street and Parramatta Road, which included path widening, installation of new lights, landscaping and construction of two new rest areas.

· Approximately $2m of the Stronger Communities Fund has been allocated to projects related to the Greenway including $500,000 for the GreenWay Missing Link pedestrian/cycle way tunnel under Longport Street; $600,000 for the GreenWay Missing Link Gadigal Reserve Cycle path; $700,000 for the GreenWay Missing Link pedestrian/cycle bridge under Battle Bridge at Parramatta Road

Priority 3 – Social vitality, creativity and quality of life

· Determined the schedule of projects for the $14m Stronger Communities Major Projects Program, prioritising recreation and sustainability projects following feedback from over 650 people via an online survey, public forum and engagement at community events.

· Allocated Round 1 of the Stronger Communities Fund, with $300,000 supporting 12 community projects.

· Applied to the NSW Government Before and After School Care Fund to expand enrolled placements at the Camdenville service and Marrickville West Outside School Hours Care service to create an extra 45 before-and-after school care places to ease the chronic shortage of places in the inner west.

· Identified gaps in services for people who are homeless and adopted a Homelessness Policy for the purpose of public exhibition. Partnered with the Exodus Foundation to hold a community forum on homelessness with over 40 participants and 20 different services providing input on the new Homelessness Policy and Protocol.

· Progressed development of the IWC Disability Inclusion Action Plan with a draft prepared for the input of Strategic Reference Groups and LRAC. Public exhibition will occur early in 2017. The Plan was a collaborative effort across all three service centres with working group members co-locating one day a week to ensure best possible integration of existing plans and strategies. A detailed engagement and marketing plan has been developed and will commence shortly.

Priority 4 – Sustainability and the environment

· Acknowledged at the Local Government NSW (LGNSW)’s Environment Awards for environmental excellence in two categories; the overall Sustainable Procurement Award for Embedding sustainability into 'value for money', and the Category B award for Communication, Education and Empowerment for Council’s revamped online Sustainable Shopping Guide, which offers low-environmental impact choices for food, fashion, furniture and packaging. Of the almost 3,000 people who visited the on-line Guide during promotions, 63% returned to the site to use it again.

· Partnered with Dulwich Hill Public School to deliver their Water Sensitive Urban Design Project. The Rain Garden, opened in November 2016 by the Member for Summer Hill, supports the schools longer term vision of better managing storm water and avoiding run off into the Cooks River while also educating pupils about the catchment. The project was planned, designed and constructed by members of the school community and facilitated by Council via a series of conceptual and practical workshops.

Priority 5 – One council

· Adopted a draft Statement of Vision and Priorities for the purpose of community review, following a three-month period of community engagement. The Statement provides high level guidance to Council and is considered a first step towards the development of a single Community Strategic Plan for the inner west. Over 1,700 people provided input.

· Commenced development of Council’s organisational values, with over 900 staff participating in the process.

· Commenced roll out of a new permanent organisational structure. The next phase of the structure will be finalised in consultation with staff in early 2017.

· Completed preliminary service integration planning for Group Managers to finalise, prioritise and resource in the upcoming quarter.

· Determined Council’s approach to system integration including implementation of an out-of-the-box solution including demonstrations for staff. Detailed scoping and development of this project is planned for next quarter.

Priority 6 – Local industry and business

· Commenced development of a new Business Newsletter for the inner west, “Business Matters”. Due to be released next quarter it will include business tips, information on business networks, details of proposed workshops and business events and information on the “shop local” campaign.

· Partnered with the Newtown Precinct Business Association to deliver a Creative Industries Business Incubator Proposal. The sustainable incubator will support creative industry start-ups and full commercialisation of home based businesses in an environment that offers expert advice and shared services.

· Continued planning for Back to Business Week scheduled for February with IWC hosting four events

· Continued work on the proposed Sydenham Station Creative Hub; a new, vibrant entertainment and employment precinct with live music venues, small bars, restaurants and cafes living alongside traditional and creative industries.

Priority 7 – Advocacy

· Allocated $500,000 to examine the impacts of WestConnex on inner west streets and communities in response to the State Government’s inadequate assessment of those impacts. The funds will include $250,000 for traffic modelling studies and $250,000 for consultants to assess Stage 3 of the Motorway project

· Continued to lobby for changes to legislation and policy that will reduce the evident barriers to affordable housing and collaborated on potential projects to increase the supply of affordable housing. In addition to the significant milestone of drafting the Affordable Housing Policy (AHP), Council participated in SSROC's Affordable Housing Working Group (AHWG). Preliminary work was undertaken to plan an Affordable Housing Forum for early April 2017 to explore measures that Community Housing Providers can utilise to increase the supply of affordable housing.

· Continued to advocate for better transport outcomes, partnering with a range of stakeholders including working with the City of Sydney in relation to WestConnex Stage 2 (Sydenham to Bankstown) and Stage 3, Urban Growth NSW on the New Parramatta Road Strategy and Transport for NSW on the development of plans for Sydney Metro Stage 2.

· Held discussions with WestConnex representatives regarding the issue of "residual land". Council raised the issue of Yasmar Estate with WestConnex staff and their consultants, noting its potential use for community purposes. The Yasmar site and its future has been advocated by Council on many occasions, including at the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy workshops. Discussions are ongoing.

Priority 8 – Local democracy

· Established a suite of Strategic Reference Groups to ensure Council maintains it’s close links to the community. There was strong interest from the community, with over 160 applications received during the Expression of Interest period. A Selection Panel consisting of three LRAC members and the Administrator determined Reference Group membership in November. First meetings of the Reference Groups will be held in February.

· Commenced live-streaming of Council meetings in December, with proceedings viewed online over 430 times.

· Developed the Your Say Inner West website, inviting residents to engage on projects that are shaping the future of the Inner West.

3. Major Projects

The IWC Operational Plan 2016/17 highlights the following major projects as having significant community outcomes.

Development of the old Marrickville Hospital site

The development of the old Marrickville Hospital site is on track. The site’s development application was lodged by Mirvac in Q1, with exhibition submissions closing in November. In Q2, preliminary works for the site commenced ahead of schedule, with the car park on the corner of Livingstone and Marrickville roads permanently closed in mid-November to begin works on the sewer line.

The site is gaining a new library, community hub and facilities, meeting spaces, an auditorium and the conservation of the historic hospital building. Council will also retain approximately $64 million in value from the redevelopment of the site. The development will include 250 new apartments across three buildings, including nine affordable housing apartments.

Adaptive reuse of 1880’s Fenwick Stone Building

The historic Fenwick’s Store will resume life as a daytime only café. A development application was approved on 23 August 2016 for certain work to be done and with the café to operate under reduced daily opening hours of 7am - 5pm in response to resident concerns. Council invited and is assessing tenders for the construction work. Council has approved the calling of tenders to operate the building as a café under a five year lease agreement which will be done following the review of the tenders for the construction work.

The Ashfield Aquatic Centre redevelopment

The tender process for the project construction was unsuccessful. The project is now proposed to commence in April 2018. The redevelopment was made possible by funding of $14 million from the Special Rate Variation.

Completion of the Childcare Centre at Steel Park

The new facility at Steel Park, Marrickville, will create an additional 60 childcare places. The project is expected to cost $4 million with a completion date of January 2018. In Q2, the tender process for the project progressed on track, with a contract expected to be awarded in February 2017. The project is due for completion in late 2017.

The Ashfield Town Centre renewal

This substantial renewal project is continuing with an upgrade of Hercules Street, Brown Street and the Esplanade. The upgrade will include new street furniture, wider footpaths, energy efficient lighting, multi-function poles, tree plantings, landscaping, water sensitive design, public art, activated lane ways and outdoor dining areas. The total project cost is $11 million with $7.5 million to be spent this financial year. The project will result in a livelier destination to visit, with pedestrian-friendly, beautiful, safe and enjoyable public spaces.

In Q2, construction has been delayed due to an unsuccessful tender process for Hercules Street and The Esplanade. Designs for the Fox’s Lane upgrade are currently underway.

Leichhardt Oval

The upgrade of Leichhardt Oval includes new stairs to improve public movement and access, new toilets, and catering facilities. This project will start before the first NRL match in 2017 and will be completed before the end of the year.

Centenary Park community and sport facility

A new Centenary Park Oval amenities building will be more than twice the size of the existing building, including two store rooms, a canteen, referees’ room, two change rooms and male and female toilets. The upgrades will also deliver improved sports field lighting. Work commenced on the site in October, with the demolition of the old building and the commencement of earthworks and footings construction. However, asbestos contamination at the site has postponed advancement on the project by approximately two months.

Upgrade works have been made possible by grant funding provided by the NSW Government Office of Sport and Recreation. Once complete, the improvements will be welcome news for patrons of the well-used venue, including local schools and cricket, football and soccer clubs.

Camperdown Park grandstand and toilet upgrade and Marrickville Park and amenities replacement and grandstand upgrade

Stage Two of the Marrickville Park upgrade was completed in Q2, including a new playground and picnic area, fitness equipment, tree and garden planting, lighting, and part-installation of the new park loop pathway and Sporting Walk of Honour plaques. A new World War II memorial sculpture was installed in November.

The Camperdown Park grandstand and toilet upgrade also concluded in Q2, with a new amenities building replacing the existing grandstand. The new building contains two accessible public toilets, changing rooms, a kiosk, community function room and storage.

4. Special Rate Variation

Ashfield SRV

Concept designs were completed for the Dover Street reconstruction in Q2. The concept design will be put to the February Council meeting for approval. Once the concept design has been approved, detailed design will be carried out. Construction work is planned for the 17/18 financial year.

Design for the road reconstruction of Arthur Street has been substantially completed. All civil works were completed for the Sloane Street reconstruction in Q1, including new stormwater lines, reconstructed kerb and gutter, footpath and driveways. In coming quarters, the road will be resheeted as part of Council’s Resheet Program.

The 2016/17 SRV budgets are listed in the table below.

Category	2016/17 Budget
Transport	$1,090,000
Stormwater	$100,000
Parks	$520,000
Buildings	$1,890,000
Aquatic Centre	$13,855,000
Total	$17,455,000

Marrickville SRV

One carpark has been procured and is ready to commence in Q4, with another carpark in design phase. The buildings renewal project of St Peters Town Hall roof replacement is complete. Two storm water reline projects are also complete. One pipe reconstruction is complete and another is procured, ready to commence in Q4. One road renewal project is completed and four road renewal projects are under construction due for completion in Q3. The park footpath replacement projects have also been procured and are ready to commence in Q4.

The 2016/17 SRV budgets are listed in the table below.

Category	2016/17 Budget
Carparks	$265,000
Stormwater	$247,000
Local roads	$580,000
Park footpaths	$193,000
Buildings	$100,000
Total	$1,385,000

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

A separate Quarterly Budget Review has been prepared by Finance.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The Bi-Annual Progress Report will be made available for viewing and download on Council’s website. A progress “snap shot” will also be prepared in consultation with Council’s Communications team for the purpose of capturing major highlights.

CONCLUSION

85% of updated actions in the Operational Plan 2016/17 are considered to be progressing – on track or completed.

The IWC Leadership Team will convene to discuss those action items not progressing, or progressing – behind schedule, and take relevant corrective action as necessary.

It is recommended that the Bi-Annual Progress Report be received and noted.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Draft Bi-Annual Progress Report

Council Meeting

28 February 2017

Council Meeting

28 February 2017

Item No: C0217 Item 14

Subject: Inner West Council Investments as for the periods ending 30 November 2016, 31 December 2016 and 31 January 2017

File Ref: 17/4718/17800.17

Prepared By: Brian Chen - Team Leader Financial Accounting

Authorised By: Pav Kuzmanovski - Group Manager Finance

SUMMARY

In accordance with the requirements of clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council is provided with a listing of all investments made pursuant to section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993 and reported for periods ending 30 November 2016, 31 December 2016 and 31 January 2017.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the report be received and noted.

BACKGROUND

Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that a report be presented to Council each month listing all investments with a certification from the Responsible Accounting Officer. Attached to this report are further reports from Council’s Investment Advisors, Prudential Investment Services.

DISCUSSION

The Investment Holdings report (Attachment 1) for the periods ending 30 November 2016, 31 December 2016 and 31 January 2017 and reflects Council’s holding in various investment categories these are listed in the table below:

Holdings as at 30 November 2016

Bonds 3,000,000.00 3,069,931.56 4.1667

Cash 14,399,918.77 14,399,918.77 1.0798

Floating Rate Note 26,500,000.00 26,600,311.69 3.0566

Mortgage Backed Security 1,669,818.11 1,210,247.25 2.3847

Term Deposit 163,000,000.00 164,661,143.45 2.8738

208,569,736.88 209,941,552.72 2.7878

Ashfield 37,022,363.33 37,240,677.59 18%

Leichhardt 94,397,089.00 95,361,717.03 45%

Marrickville 77,150,284.55 77,339,158.10 37%

208,569,736.88 209,941,552.72 100%

Holdings as at 31 December 2016

Bonds 3,000,000.00 3,034,732.82 4.1667

Cash 13,362,498.35 13,362,498.35 1.0871

Floating Rate Note 26,500,000.00 26,632,062.93 3.0596

Mortgage Backed Security 1,669,818.11 1,213,629.19 2.3847

Term Deposit 157,500,000.00 159,058,319.73 2.8387

202,032,316.46 203,301,243.02 2.7678

Ashfield 38,022,851.35 38,236,434.37 19%

Leichhardt 93,454,841.00 94,485,668.32 46%

Marrickville 70,554,624.11 70,579,140.33 35%

202,032,316.46 203,301,243.02 100%

Holdings as at 31 January 2017

Bonds 3,000,000.00 3,054,216.08 4.1667

Cash 9,288,655.45 9,288,655.45 1.0930

Floating Rate Note 26,500,000.00 26,703,201.48 3.0632

Mortgage Backed Security 1,669,818.11 1,217,011.11 2.3847

Term Deposit 163,000,000.00 164,415,810.39 2.8109

203,458,473.56 204,678,894.51 2.7818

Ashfield 37,023,339.83 37,249,291.75 18%

Leichhardt 91,176,386.00 92,097,667.89 45%

Marrickville 75,258,747.73 75,331,934.87 37%

203,458,473.56 204,678,894.51 100%

Environmental Commitments

	Non Fossil Fuel %
Portfolio	30 November 2016	31 December 2016	31 January 2017
Ashfield	42%	47%	51%
Leichhardt	63%	64%	60%
Marrickville	48%	48%	59%
Total	51%	53%	57%

The attachments to this report summarise all investments held by Council and interest returns for periods ending 30 November 2016, 31 December 2016 and 31 January 2017.

The period ending 31 January 2017, the portfolio for Inner West Council had a One-Month Portfolio Investment Return (3.01%) was above the UBSWA Bank Bill Index Benchmark (1.86%). Council has a well-diversified portfolio with 98% of the portfolio spread among the top three credit rating categories (A long term / A2 short term and higher).

The Current Market value is required to be accounted for by the accounting standards and are due to the nature of the investment, and are unlikely to impact on the eventual return of capital and interest to Council. The Current Market Value is a likely outcome if Council were to consider recalling the investment prior to its due date.

Certificate by Responsible Accounting Officer:

I, Pav Kuzmanovski, hereby certify in accordance with Clause 212 (1) (b) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 that the investments listed in the attachments have been made in accordance with section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993 for each of the Branches of the Inner West Council. There will be a review of the separate investment policies in the coming months with the view to develop a consolidated investment policy for the Inner West Council.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	IWC Investments Nov 2016
2.⇩	IWC Monthly Interest Nov 2016
3.⇩	IWC Economic and Investment Portfolio Commentary Nov 2016
4.⇩	IWC Investment Dec 2016
5.⇩	IWC Monthly Interest Dec 2016
6.⇩	IWC Economic and Investment Portfolio Commentary Dec 2016
7.⇩	IWC Investment Jan 2017
8.⇩	IWC Monthly Interest Jan 2017
9.⇩	IWC Economic and Investment Portfolio Commentary Jan 2017

1.⇩	Minutes - 9 February 2017 Implementation Advisory Group Meeting
2.⇩	Minutes - 14 February 2017 Local Representation Advisory Committee Meeting

1.⇩	Minutes of Local Traffic Committee Meeting 1st December 2016
2.⇩	Minutes of Local Traffic Committee Meeting 2 February 2017

1.⇩	Minutes of the IWC Flood Management Advisory Commitee 1 Feb 2017
2.⇩	Business Paper IWC Flood Management Advisory Committee 1 Feb 2017

1.⇩	Proposed Inner West Council Schedule of Fees and Charges for Planning Proposals 2016/17
2.⇩	Comparison of Existing Planning Proposal Fees and Charges for former Council Areas

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