Agenda of Council Meeting

Council Meeting

26 April 2017

Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting

held at Ashfield Service Centre on 28 March 2017

Meeting commenced at 6:30pm

Present:
Richard Pearson	Administrator
Rik Hart	Interim General Manager
John Warburton	Deputy General Manager Community and Engagement
Michael Tzimoulas	Deputy General Manager Chief Financial and Administration Officer
Kelly Loveridge	Group Manager Procurement & Fleet
Wal Petschler	Group Manager Footpaths, Roads, Traffic & Stormwater
Tanya Whitmarsh	Group Manager Governance
Gabrielle Rennard	Acting Group Manager Community Services & Culture
Ian Naylor	Manager Governance & Administration, Leichhardt
Katerina Maros	Governance Officer, Leichhardt (Minute Taker)

Public Speakers: see last page of these minutes.

1. Acknowledgement of Country by Chairperson

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

2. Notice of Live Streaming of Council Meeting

The Administrator advised that the Council meeting was being streamed live on Council's website and members of the public must ensure their speech to the Council is respectful and use appropriate language.

3. Disclosures of Interests

The Administrator declared that he had no declarable interests in any matter listed on the business paper.

4. Confirmation of Minutes

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 28 February 2017 be confirmed.

C0317 Item 1 WestConnex Stage 1 (M4 East) draft addendum to Urban Design & Landscape Plan

The Administrator determined that Council:

1. Receives and notes this report; and

2. Forwards to Sydney Motorway Corporation any comments additional to those discussed in this report as a late addendum to Council’s submission.

C0317 Item 2 Minutes of the IAG Meeting held 9 March 2017 and Minutes of the LRAC Meeting held 14 March 2017

The Administrator determined that:

1. The Minutes of the IAG Meeting held on 9 March 2017 be noted; and

2. The Minutes of the LRAC Meeting held on 14 March 2017 be noted.

C0317 Item 3 Adoption of Affordable Housing Policy Following Public Exhibition

The Administrator determined that Council:

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

2. Submits the following recommended notice of motion to the National General Assembly (NGA) of Local Government (18-21 June 2017) to be held in Canberra, namely that the Federal Government give urgent consideration to measures to improve housing affordability in areas affected by high levels of housing stress such as Sydney's Inner West, including taxation and other non-supply side mechanisms that are currently inadequately utilised in initiatives to improve housing affordability;

3. Amend Clause 2.3 of the Policy to add an additional target group being shift workers; and

4. Amend the Policy in relation to the timing principle under Clause 2.5.2 as follows:

Delete “acquired for redevelopment after a nominated date related to the implementation of the policy” and replace with “that is subject to a proposal for a rezoning or variation to planning controls where the application is received after the Policy is approved by Council. For applications that have been made or are under consideration prior to the Policy’s approval, this Policy will provide guidance as to the quantum of affordable housing contribution that is considered to be appropriate”.

The amended clause shall state:

“Timing – in consideration of reasonableness and equity, the value capture requirement should apply to land that is subject to a proposal for a rezoning or variation to planning controls where the application is received after the Policy is approved by Council. For applications that have been made or are under consideration prior to the Policy’s approval, this Policy will provide guidance as to the quantum of affordable housing contribution that is considered to be appropriate”.

C0317 Item 4 Addressing Domestic and Family Violence in the Inner West

The Administrator determined that:

1. Noting that Inner West Council is working in partnership with local community groups, organisations, networks and key national associations to address domestic and family violence, that the following priorities are funded in the 4-year Operational Plan 17/18, 18/19 19/20 and 20/21.

a. $20,000 program funding annually to continue and expand the Speak Out Awareness Raising Campaign

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

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

2. Noting the partnerships between Inner West Council and the three Police Local Area Commands to present White Ribbon Day, that Council allocate $18,000 annually for four years as program funding to continue 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.

C0317 Item 5 Council Response to Draft Central District Plan

The Administrator determined that Council:

1. Receive and note this report; and

2. Make a submission on the Draft Central District Plan based on the contents of this report and issues raised at the Council Meeting on 28 March 2017.

C0317 Item 6 Planning Proposal Request - 183 & 203 New Canterbury Road, Lewisham

The Administrator determined that Council:

1. Support the planning proposed request for 183 & 203 New Canterbury Road, Lewisham to rezone and set development controls for the land;

2. Forward the planning proposal to the Minister for Planning for a Gateway determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979;

3. Request that it be delegated plan making functions in relation to the planning proposal; and

4. Resolves to develop site specific planning controls to apply to the future development at 183 New Canterbury Road for inclusion in MDCP 2011 Part 9.36 (Commercial Precinct 36) and that these be publicly exhibited concurrently with the planning proposal.

C0317 Item 7 Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) for Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities

The Administrator determined that Council receive and endorse this report which forms the basis of the submission to the Department of Planning and Environment on the draft SEPP for Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities.

C0317 Item 8 Proposed Amendments to Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

The Administrator determined that:

1. Council receive and note this report including the draft submission at Attachment 1; and

2. That the submission be sent to the Department of Planning and Environment.

C0317 Item 9 Statement of Vision and Priorities

The Administrator determined that:

1. The report be received and noted; and

2. The Statement of Vision and Priorities, inclusive of the amendments, be adopted as an interim document until the development and implementation of the Community Strategic Plan.

C0317 Item 10 Homelessness Policy

The Administrator determined that Council:

1. Adopts the Homelessness Policy and incorporates its strategies and actions in future operational plans; and

2. Investigates how to address the issue of homelessness in extreme weather events.

C0317 Item 11 Proposed Name of the New Marrickville Library Site

The Administrator determined that Council endorse the proposed naming of the new Marrickville Library site as Patyegarang Place in recognition of Bajaragang or 'Patyegarang', an Aboriginal woman who lived at the time the first fleet arrived in Australia.

C0317 Item 12 Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 2 March 2017

THAT the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 2 March 2017 be received and the recommendations be adopted subject to the following change to Item 16 Improving Garbage Truck Access in Oxford Street, Newtown;

That the words Monday 5am – 10am be removed so that the “no parking zone” applies at all times.

C0317 Item 13 Inner West Council Investments as at 28 February 2017

The Administrator determined that the report be received and noted.

Procedural Motion

Administrator determined that Item 15 and Item 17 be brought forward and considered at this time.

C0317 Item 15 Administrator's Minute: Marrickville Public School Fee Assistance

THE Administrator determined that Council fund the tipping of asphaltic concrete as part of the re-design of the school yard at Marrickville Public School to a maximum sum of $1,000.00 to be funded from the 2016/17 Community Grants Contingency Fund.

C0317 Item 17 Administrator's Minute: Parramatta Road Public Transport Improvements – Guided Electric Transit System

The Administrator determined that Council:

1. Request the NSW State Government to jointly fund a Preliminary (Stage 1) Feasibility Study to examine the provision of a centre-running Guided Electric Transit System along Parramatta Road, between Strathfield and the Sydney CBD;

2. Offer to provide dollar for dollar funding, to a maximum of $80,000, toward a joint Council/State Government Preliminary (Stage 1) Feasibility Study of a centre-running Guided Electric Transit System along Parramatta Road, between Strathfield and the Sydney CBD; and

3. Invite other Councils along the Parramatta Road Corridor, between Strathfield and Sydney CBD, to contribute toward the Preliminary (Stage 1) Feasibility Study.

The Administrator moved into closed session at 8.45pm to allow Council to consider items of business containing confidential information. Members of the public were asked to leave the chamber.

The Administrator returned to open session at 8.54pm to read out the recommendations from the Closed Session and resolve as follows in relation to Items 14 and 16.

C0317 Item 14 Trial Extension of the Current Swimming Season at Fanny Durack Aquatic Centre.

The Administrator determined that:

1. Confidential Attachment 1 to the report be treated as confidential under the provisions of Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 as it relates to a matter specified in Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Act.

2. Council endorse a trial extension of the operations of the Fanny Durack Aquatic Centre till the end of April 2017 and receive a report in June 2017 to summarise and review the trial extension.

3. Council writes to the Head Petitioner to advise of Council’s decision.

C0317 Item 16 Procurement of Asset Management Consultancy Services

The Administrator determined that:

1. Confidential Attachment 1 to the report be treated as confidential under the provisions of Section 10A(1) of the Local Government Act 1993 as it relates to a matter specified in Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Act.

2. Pursuant to section 55(3)(i) of the Act, the Council resolves that a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders for the provision of the subject asset management consultancy service for the consolidation of asset registers due to the following extenuating circumstances:

a. The services to be performed are specialised, particularly due to the proprietary nature of the software to which the services relate;

b. There is insufficient time to conduct a tender and still have the service performed in order to meet the legislative requirement to complete Council’s end of financial year statements ;

c. Given that the provider is a TechnologyOne company, the services can be performed in a manner that integrates into the broader ICT system Council is procuring which consequently brings with it overall efficiencies that alternate providers are not capable of delivering.

d. The proposed revaluation, asset management plans and strategy are driven by the consolidated data within the new strategic Asset Management System which only Jeff Roorda and Associates can provide.

3. Council endorse the process that has been undertaken and endorse Jeff Roorda and Associates to provide asset management consultancy services including Data Health Check, Revaluation, Maturity Assessment, Works Program and Statutory Reporting for a Consolidated Asset Register for council.

4. Council delegate authority to the Interim General Manager to finalise the terms of, and execute, a contract with Jeff Roorda and Associates.

Meeting closed at 8.55pm.

Public Speakers

Item 1:	Alex Lofts, Ashfield LRAC	Summer Hill
	Richard Dudley – Smith	Annandale
	John Lozano	Haberfield

Item 2:	John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC	Balmain
	Alex Lofts, Ashfield LRAC	Summer Hill


Item 3:	John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC	Balmain
	Wendy Hayhurst	Petersham
	John Nicolades	Redfern
	Hal Pawson	Petersham
	Eleanor Pridham	Camperdown
	Rita Martin	Petersham
	James Gilronan	Dulwich Hill
	Alex Lofts, Ashfield LRAC	Summer Hill

Item 5:	Frank Breen, Leichhardt LRAC	Birchgrove
	John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC	Balmain
	Michelle Hacking	Balmain
	Alex Lofts, Ashfield LRAC	Summer Hill
	James Gilronan	Dulwich Hill
	John Lozano	Haberfield

Item 7:	Alex Lofts, Ashfield LRAC	Summer Hill

Item 9:	John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC	Balmain

Item 10:	Alex Lofts, Ashfield LRAC	Summer Hill


Item 12:	Brian Crump	Newtown
	Grant Flanagan	Summer Hill
	Michelle Hacking	Balmain

Item 13:	John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC	Balmain
	Frank Breen, Leichhardt LRAC	Birchgrove

Item 17:	Alex Lofts, Ashfield LRAC	Summer Hill

Council Meeting

26 April 2017

Item No: C0417 Item 2

Subject: WestConnex Update Report: Procurement for local area traffic improvement strategy and assessment of Stage 3 (M4-M5 Link) design plans; and submission on proposed modification of Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements for Stage 3

File Ref: 16/6116/38131.17

Prepared By: Kendall Banfield - Manager WestConnex Unit

Authorised By: Simon Manoski - Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

This report relates to progress of two WestConnex items. The first is procurement for Council’s WestConnex traffic modelling study (or Local Area Traffic Improvement Strategy - LATIS) and assessment of Stage 3 (M4-M5) Link design plans. For this item, the report recommends the direct appointment of a consultant to undertake the project. It also recommends that Council notes that a request for quote (RFQ) has recently been issued to a selection of suitable consultants to assess the forthcoming WestConnex Stage 3 design plans. The second item is Council’s recent submission on the proposed modification to the Secretary’s Environmental Impact Assessment Requirements (SEARs) for the Stage 3 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). For this item, the report recommends that Council forwards to the Department of Planning & Environment (DP&E) any comments additional to those raised in the Council officers’ submission as a late addendum to the submission.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. Council receives and notes this report;

2. Pursuant to section 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993, the Council resolves that a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders for the provision of the subject traffic modelling study due to the following extenuating circumstances:

a) The services to be performed are specialised, particularly due to the proprietary nature of the software to which the services relate;

b) A request for quote (RFQ) through Local Government Procurement did not identify any consultants capable of carrying out the scope of work;

c) There is insufficient time to conduct an open tender and still have the service performed to meet the timeframe to which council is working.

3. Council delegates authority to the Interim General Manager to enter into negotiations directly with Veitch Lister Consulting (VLC) and execute a contract for the provision of a traffic modelling study;

4. Council notes that staff will issue a RFQ to select a suitable consultant to undertake a peer review of the traffic modelling to be undertaken by VLC.

5. Council notes that staff have recently issued a RFQ to select a suitable consultant to undertake an assessment of the forthcoming WestConnex Stage 3 design plans;

6. Council forwards to the Department of Planning & Environment (DP&E) any comments additional to those raised in the Council officers’ submission on proposed modifications to the Secretary’s Environmental Impact Assessment Requirements (SEARs) for the WestConnex Stage 3 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - as a late addendum to the submission.

BACKGROUND

Item 1: Procurement for Council’s Local Area Traffic Improvement Strategy and assessment of Stage 3 design plans

1. Local Area Traffic Improvement Strategy

A progress report on this item was considered at Council’s 11 April 2017 Local Representation Advisory Committee (LRAC). It was explained that at its 6 December 2016 meeting, Council considered an Administrator's Minute: WestConnex Traffic in Local Neighbourhoods & Streets & Assessing Stage 3 Impacts. Council resolved (among other things) to commission a study to assess the impacts of each stage of WestConnex will have on residential neighbourhoods and streets following the progressive opening of each stage of WestConnex. The study would recommend appropriate traffic management measures based on traffic modelling outcomes to respond to the impacts predicted to occur. A Strategic Transport Model (STM) was considered to be the key tool for predicting these impacts. Council resolved to allocate $250,000 to this study.

In early 2017, Council staff developed a project brief and called for quotations through Local Government Procurement. The RFQ sought a suitable consultant to work with Council and other relevant stakeholders to develop this study – now known as the Local Area Traffic Improvement Strategy (LATIS). Only one submission was received and it has been determined that this submission does not satisfy the project’s requirements.

Council staff have investigated the availability of strategic transport modelling software and determined the following:

· Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) has a WestConnex Road Traffic Model (WRTM) and microsimulation models for each portal area which considers main roads only;

· Veitch Lister Consulting (VLC) have a transport model (known as the ‘Zenith model’) for the Sydney metropolitan area that can model traffic on local roads;

· There is no other strategic transport model available for council to model traffic on IWC local roads which is what is necessary to achieve the goals of the study.

Having found no suitable consultants through the initial LGP RFQ process, then determining that there was only one consultant in the market who could be considered able to satisfactorily perform the role, as well as noting the tight timeframes to complete the work; it is considered that direct negotiations should be entered into with this consultant, rather than undertake an open tender process. This is allowed by section 55 of the Local Government Act 1993 where extenuating circumstances warrant it. In this case, the extenuating circumstances are:

a) The services to be performed are specialised, particularly due to the proprietary nature of the software to which the services relate;

b) An RFQ through Local Government Procurement did not identify any consultants capable of carrying out the scope of work;

c) There is insufficient time to conduct an open tender and still have the service performed to meet the timeframe to which Council is working.

Council staff intend to request VLC submit a proposal for the traffic modelling studies for evaluation and negotiation to ensure Council’s objectives will be fully achieved. It is noted that VLC has been previously engaged by a private company working for WestConnex, so in order to minimize any perception of potential conflict of interest, council intends to engage through RFQ an independent traffic consultant to peer-review VLC’s findings.

2. M4-M5 Link assessment

A progress report on this item was considered at the 11 April 2017 LRAC meeting. The LRAC report explained that as part of consideration of an Administrator's Minute: WestConnex Traffic In Local Neighbourhoods & Streets & Assessing Stage 3 Impacts at its 6 December 2016 meeting, Council had resolved (among other things) to allocate $250,000 for suitable consultants to assess of the design plans and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for WestConnex Stage 3.

SMC has advised that the design plans will be publicly exhibited in "coming weeks”, while the EIS will be exhibited later in 2017. The exhibition of the design plans is non-statutory and the extent and nature of the information within these plans is not known. It is however expected that they will include information on key issues of concern to Council and the community, such as mid-tunnel construction dive-sites, end-portals, the Rozelle Interchange and the alignment of the main tunnel. The start date and length of the exhibition period is also not known, but it is expected to commence in late April or early May 2017 and run for about four to six weeks.

In early 2017 in anticipation of the exhibition, Council staff had called for expressions of interest (EOIs) from four potentially suitable consultants to assess the design plans and EIS and to assist the preparation of Council’s submission. Council has received and reviewed the four EOIs received. Given the exhibition of the Stage 3 design plans is imminent, Council staff have issued a request for quote (RFQ) from the four consultants that had submitted EOIs. The RFQ applies only to the assessment of the design plans (not to the EIS), so it is estimated that only approximately $50,000 of the available $250,000 budget will be required for this task. A separate larger RFQ or tender process will be undertaken for the EIS later in 2017, pending the final estimated value of that scope.

The RFQ requests these consultants to submit a formal quote as soon as the design plans are available at the commencement of the exhibition. It is necessary for the consultants to wait for the commencement of exhibition to allow them to assess the extent and nature of information available so they are able to submit an accurate quote. A suitable consultant will be selected as soon as possible to ensure the assessment work commences soon after the commencement of exhibition. It may be appropriate for Council to separately engage other specialist consults to assess niche topics (e.g. social impacts) if the need is identified.

Item 2: Council submission on proposed modification of Secretary’s Environmental Impact Assessment Requirements (SEARs) for the Stage 3 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

On 17 March 2017, Council was notified by the Department of Planning & Environment (DP&E) that a proposal by WestConnex proponent RMS to modify to the Secretary’s Environmental Impact Assessment Requirements (SEARs) for the Stage 3 EIS would be on public exhibition until 3 April 2017. Council officers made a preliminary draft submission (at ATTACHMENT 1), which explained that the exhibition did not allow time for the submission to be considered by Council before it was lodged. This report recommends that any comments additional to those raised in the Council officers’ submission be forwarded to the DP&E as a late addendum to the submission.

In its submission, Council expresses its continued opposition to WestConnex and preference to public transport solutions to Sydney’s traffic problems. A summary of issues raised for each of the proposed modifications is as follows:

1. Removal of traffic interchange at Camperdown – Council generally supports this change, as traffic impacts in the densely developed Camperdown area would be avoided – however, it is noted that this may result in additional traffic impacts at the Rozelle and St Peters interchanges.

2. Realignment of mainline tunnels – Council generally supports this change, mainly on the basis that tunnelling would not affect sensitive equipment at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital.

3. Refinement of the Rozelle Interchange design – Concerns are raised about the increased tunnelling area (and consequently increased number of properties at risk of cracking) and possible impact on future light rail to White Bay and Balmain.

4. Increasing the mainline tunnel configuration from three to four lanes – Council opposes this modification because increasing road capacity will lead to greater car use and ultimately increased congestion. Council is also concerned that the increased capacity was not a consideration for the planning of Stages 1 and 2, and as a result traffic at Stage 1 and 2 portals will be at higher levels than forecast. The added capacity will also increase construction timeframes and consequent construction impacts, and will increase the area subject to risk of subsidence and consequently cracking of buildings.

5. Removal of Easton Park from the project construction footprint – This is supported, but Council notes that there may be indirect impacts from construction activities within the nearby Rozelle Rail Yards.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil. Though this report deals with processes for engaging consultants, the required funds have already been allocated according to a Council resolution in December 2016.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Relevant Council staff have been involved in the drafting of this report.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil. WestConnex is a NSW Government project and Council is an external stakeholder. There is no need or requirement for Council to undertake consultation additional to that undertaken by the WestConnex proponent. There is also no requirement for Council to undertake public consultation for procurement of consultants to undertake WestConnex studies.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Council's submission to the DP&E on proposed SEARs modifications for WestConnex Stage 3

Council Meeting

26 April 2017

Item No: C0417 Item 4

Subject: Supplementary Report: Marrickville Heritage Review

File Ref: 15/5816/22511.17

Prepared By: Maxine Bayley - Strategic Planner

Authorised By: Simon Manoski - Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

Council considered a report on this matter at its 28 February 2017 meeting (included at ATTACHMENT 1) and resolved that the matter be deferred for further consultation to be undertaken. In accordance with the resolution, meetings were offered to all objectors who attended the Council Meeting.

Meetings were held with three of the owners who accepted that offer.

All objectors were given until 31 March 2017 to submit additional information for consideration by Council’s Heritage Advisor. Additional information received is assessed within this report.

This report addresses the following properties:

- 30 Carrington Road, Marrickville

- 149 Unwins Bridge Road, Tempe

- 294 Livingstone Road, Marrickville

- 51 Frederick Street, St Peters

- 389 Illawarra Road, Marrickville (Church of Christ)

- 545 Princes Highway and 2 Samuel Street Tempe (St Peter’s and St Paul’s Catholic Church and Presbytery)

This report recommends the following changes to the planning proposal:

- Remove 30 Carrington Road, Marrickville, from the planning proposal

- Defer 149 Unwins Bridge Road, Tempe, from the planning proposal for a detailed heritage assessment (while retaining its draft heritage status)

It is therefore recommended that the following properties be retained within the planning proposal for heritage listing:

- 294 Livingstone Road, Marrickville

- 51 Frederick Street, St Peters

- 389 Illawarra Road, Marrickville (Church of Christ)

- 545 Princes Highway and 2 Samuel Street Tempe (St Peter’s and St Paul’s Catholic Church and Presbytery)

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. Council adopt the recommendations contained within the 28 February 2017 report with the following amendments:

- Delete 30 Carrington Road, Marrickville, from the planning proposal

- Defer 149 Unwins Bridge Road, Tempe, from the planning proposal for further assessment (while retaining its draft heritage status)

2. Council allocate $5,000 to fund a heritage assessment for 149 Unwins Bridge Road, Tempe

BACKGROUND

At its Ordinary Meeting of 28 February 2017, Council considered a post exhibition report on the Marrickville Heritage Review and resolved to defer the matter for ‘further consideration of issues raised and report back to March 2017 Council Meeting’. In response to the resolution, Council officers undertook a further round of consultation with owners objecting to the proposed heritage listing of their properties. Due to the reporting timeframes, a return report was not able to be prepared for the March Council meeting.

The Marrickville Heritage Review planning proposal process was commenced in July 2015 when the former Marrickville Council resolved to prepare and submit a planning proposal to amend Marrickville Local Environmental Plan (MLEP) 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.

Following Gateway determination of the planning proposal, community consultation was undertaken. At the conclusion of the formal public exhibition process, individual on-site meetings were offered to all objectors. As part of this process 13 meetings were held with property owners to discuss their property in detail and to enable Council’s Heritage Advisor to undertake internal inspections of these properties. A detailed report was then prepared by Council’s Heritage Advisor containing recommendations for each disputed heritage listing.

Following Councils’ resolution of 28 February 2017 additional consultation has been undertaken with the following property owners or representatives who accepted Council’s offer for further consultation:

- 294 Livingstone Road, Marrickville

- 389 Illawarra Road, Marrickville

- 51 Frederick Street, St Peters

Following consideration of the 28 February 2017 meeting, Council’s Administrator received representations from St Peter’s and St Paul’s Catholic Church and Presbytery at 545 Princes Highway and 2 Samuel Street, Tempe. These properties are part of the planning proposal but did not respond to Council’s offer of an onsite meeting following the formal consultation period. They also did not attend the Council meeting on 28 February 2017. This property has been included within this report.

All properties submitted additional documentation for Council’s consideration.

The concerns of these properties are responded to as follows:

30 Carrington Road, Marrickville

Image 1: 30 Carrington Road, Marrickville

30 Carrington Road forms part of the Carrington Road precinct within the Sydenham to Bankstown urban renewal corridor. Council has met with the site owners and representatives on numerous occasions to discuss a planning proposal for the redevelopment of the area as a mixed-use precinct.

The planning proposal proposes 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

An independent heritage assessment report prepared Paul Davies included 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 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.

At the time of public exhibition, Council received submissions on Nos. 6 and 16 Carrington Road, but not in relation to 30 Carrington Road. Council Officers met representatives for Carrington Road in late 2016 who stated they had acquired 30 Carrington Road in the intervening period and were now objecting to its proposed heritage listing.

Council received a heritage assessment report for 30 Carrington Road on 28 February 2017 (see ATTACHMENT 2). Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the report (which detailed modifications to the building) and concluded ‘having regard to the Heritage Council’s guidelines (refer “Assessing Heritage Significance,” 2001), it has lost its design integrity. For that reason I now consider that 30 Carrington Road should not be listed, or included in the proposed listing.’ A full copy of Council’s Heritage Advisor’s assessment is included at ATTACHMENT 3. Image 2 shows the original building façade, as opposed to the current rendered façade shown in Image 1.

Image 2: Original building facade

The Paul Davies report looked at the history of the Carrington Road precinct in detail. However, it did not provide much detail regarding 30 Carrington Road. For example, the report did not prepare a draft Heritage Inventory Sheet for the property. Rather, it recommended that this property (and others) be added to the existing heritage listing within the MLEP 2011 applying to the facades of 10 and 47 Carrington Road. The heritage assessment submitted by the owners has provided additional information on the property not available within the Paul Davies report. This new information has been considered by Council’s Heritage Advisor who has agreed with the conclusion that this building has lost its heritage values. Consequently, it is recommended that 30 Carrington Road, Marrickville, be removed from the planning proposal and not be pursued as a heritage item.

149 Unwins Bridge Road, Tempe

Image 3: 149 Unwins Bridge Road, December 2016

During the public exhibition process, two submissions were received from the property owner. The owner raised issues with the following:

- Lack of information provided about historical information and value of the property.

- The property is no different to others within the area and that the property has been renovated over time but still needs repairs both internally and externally.

- The house has no historical importance nor it is any different to those in the area and, therefore, should not be heritage listed.

- The research undertaken does not provide sufficient information regarding the impact of heritage listing on property owners, for example loss of redevelopment potential.

Council officers met with the property owners in late 2016 to discuss the abovementioned matters. Following the meeting, additional information on the property was sought from the heritage consultants who undertook the original assessment in response to matters raised by Council’s Heritage Advisor. A copy of this correspondence is included at ATTACHMENT 4.

Following consideration of this and the property owner’s comments, a reassessment was undertaken by Council’s Heritage Advisor as attached to the 28 February 2017 Council Meeting. This assessment concluded that the property ‘has historical significance as, like a handful of others nearby, it was built with stone from a local quarry. The unusual and skillful historic integration of a late Federation façade with a vernacular 19^th century sandstone cottages gives it aesthetic significance and it retains research potential’.

Council’s Heritage Advisor assessed the building as meeting four heritage criteria established by the NSW Heritage Office, being historical, aesthetic, technical/research and rarity. It is important to note that only one of the criteria needs to be met in order for a building to meet the threshold for local heritage significance.

Following the 28 February 2017 Council Meeting, the property owner engaged a heritage consultant to undertake an assessment of the property and requested that the submission period be extended to 17 April 2017. Council officers agreed to this request. On Monday 13 March, Council received notification from the Marrickville Heritage Society that the front façade and side wall to Unwins Bridge Road had been rendered without Development Consent. Council’s Heritage Advisor and Team Leader attended the site and took photographs of the changes which are included at ATTACHMENT 5. Council’s Monitoring Services section and General Counsel have been informed of the modifications and requested to take action as they deem appropriate.

Image 4: 149 Unwins Bridge Road, Tempe, following rendering, March 2017

In light of the changes, Council’s acceptance of the proposed 17 April 2017 timeline for submission of their heritage report was rescinded. The property owners were given until 31 March 2017 to submit their information as per the other property owners to enable this report to be considered at the April 2017 Council Meeting.

Council subsequently received a detailed heritage assessment for the property prepared by Heritage Solutions (ATTACHMENT 6). The heritage assessment submits that the site is not of heritage significance and raises a number of questions about the level of assessment undertaken by the Paul Davies report and the subsequent conclusions reached within their assessment.

The various heritage reports and information regarding this property highlight the uncertainty regarding certain aspects of this building, for example when it was built and by whom. Both the Paul Davies report and Heritage Solutions report contain certain levels of conjecture regarding these aspects of the site. For example, Paul Davies considers the building likely to have been constructed in 1891 due to information contained within the Sands’ Directory. The Heritage Solution report confirms that the actual date of construction is unknown but ‘believed to be built after circa 1915’. Overall, there is an overall lack of certainty regarding many aspects of this property, which relate to its overall heritage significance. The Heritage Solutions report is silent on the recent rendering of the property. However, the recent unauthorised modifications to the property and the heritage values of the property are interrelated matters. Removing this property from the planning proposal is not recommended for this site as it would allow further modifications to this potential heritage item as exempt development.

Accordingly, given the circumstances applying to the site in respect to its disputed heritage status, coupled with the unauthorised development that has been undertaken, it is recommended that this property be deferred from the planning proposal to enable Council to commission a detailed heritage assessment to consider all of the information obtained on the property to date. Concurrently, Council will be investigating the unauthorised modifications to the property and considering enforcement options. It is recommended that this site retain its status as a draft heritage item to ensure there are no further modifications pending the outcome of the detailed heritage assessment. Deferring 149 Unwins Bridge Road, Tempe, site will allow for the remainder of the planning proposal to proceed to the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) for final making and gazettal.

294 Livingstone Road, Marrickville

Image 5: 249 Livingstone Road, Marrickville

Objections from the property owner and representatives predominantly raised concerns with the financial implications of the proposed heritage listing to the resale potential of the property and the additional costs of undertaking maintenance work to the property. The owner is a pensioner and claims he is unable to afford these costs. Representatives for the property owner also claim that the property is already protected under controls within the Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

It has been argued that the property is protected via Council’s Development Control Plan controls for period buildings and streetscape controls. However, it remains at threat of demolition as a consequence of State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008, which permits demolition as complying development in certain circumstances. As complying development certificates can be issued by private certifiers, Council would not necessarily be a part of the assessment process. Therefore, the building cannot be considered to be protected under Council’s controls unless it is heritage listed within the MLEP 2011.

It is acknowledged that heritage listing can result in additional costs for owners seeking to make changes to their properties. As a pensioner, the owner would automatically be entitled to a 50 percent discount on all applicable fees. As per recommendation 7 of the 28 February 2017 report, it is recommended that a further report be prepared identifying options for financial assistance for heritage property owners.

Further representation from this property was received following its consideration at the 28 February 2017 report as shown at ATTACHMENT 7. The advice questioned the proposed heritage listing and the processes undertaken by Council. This advice has been forwarded to Council’s Heritage Advisor for comment and a response is included at ATTACHMENT 8. Council’s Heritage Advisor remains of the opinion that the property should be heritage listed.

Regarding Council’s processes for heritage listing, heritage identification and assessment is an ongoing process. Council has undertaken only one comprehensive heritage study which occurred in 1986. A further comprehensive heritage study commenced in the late 1990s but did not proceed to gazettal. Therefore, it should be anticipated that Council will undertake more studies as funding permits to identify other properties requiring heritage protection. It is recommended that 249 Livingstone Road, Marrickville, be retained within the planning proposal for listing as a heritage item.

389 Illawarra Road, Marrickville (Church of Christ)

Image 6: 389 Illawarra Road, Marrickville

The proposed listing relates to the Church of Christ located at 389 Illawarra Road, Marrickville. Council received an objection as part of the initial public exhibition process requesting that Council limit any heritage listing to the front façade of the property only, to allow the church to redevelop the building to accommodate other community uses. Council officers offered an onsite meeting for this property in late 2016 but did not receive a response. Council’s Heritage Advisor has reassessed the property and concluded that it meets four of the Heritage Office’s criteria for heritage listing, and that the proposed listing for the entire building should proceed.

Additional documentation was tabled at Council’s meeting of 28 February 2017. Council’s Heritage Advisor met with a Church representative to discuss the matter. At this meeting redevelopment options for the site were discussed. The Church representative also expressed a concern that properties can be heritage listed without owners consent. Council received a heritage assessment report on the site prepared by Archnex Designs.

The assessment report is included at ATTACHMENT 9. Council’s Heritage Advisor has considered this report and responded to the issues raised in detail as shown in ATTACHMENT 10. Council’s Heritage Advisor maintains that the property should be heritage listed in the MLEP 2011.

It is important to note that heritage listing within the MLEP 2011 triggers Clause 5.10 (10) Heritage Incentives clause which allows Council to permit heritage items to be used for purposes other than those permissible within the LEP subject to certain conditions. This provision provides additional flexibility for the site in terms of suitable future uses for the site.

It is recommended that 389 Illawarra Road, Marrickville, be retained within the planning proposal for listing as a heritage item.

51 Frederick Street, St Peters

Image 7: 51 Frederick Street, St Peters

No. 51 Frederick Street is a purpose built shop premises and dwelling constructed in 1881. The property owner expressed concerns with the proposed heritage listing as they plan to redevelop the site in the longer term. Council’s Heritage Advisor and officer met a representative of the property owner on site in late 2016 but were unable to gain access to the property.

Council’s Heritage Advisor reassessed the site and concluded that ‘the corner shop retains much of its original form and detail, including the shopfront which has had only minor modification’. It was concluded that the site meets the threshold for three of the Heritage Office’s criteria for heritage listing, and that the proposed listing should proceed.

Council officers again met with the property owner following Council’s consideration of the post exhibition heritage report on 8 March 2017 and discussed his concerns. The property owner reiterated his objection to the proposed listing and its implications for their plans for redevelop the property.

He also expressed significant concern with the structural condition of the property and provided officers with documentation showing damage caused by a leaking roof. Cracks in the building façade around the parapet were also shown to the officers. The owner explained that there are significant costs associated with maintaining the premises. Additional information submitted by the owner is shown at ATTACHMENT 11 and ATTACHMENT 12.

Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the additional information and provided the following comment:

I think that what the owner thinks is a structural crack across the front is the uneven lower edge of the render where it meets the flashing to the veranda roof. The claimed one inch wide crack at the corner, if it is there, looks like the result of a lintel or arch bar over the front window/door opening rusting and expanding at the bearing point. This is not difficult to remedy. The cost of repairs is of course not relevant to an assessment of significance (though of obvious concern to an owner) but I note there is no actual quote or detail provided.

The owners submission contends that a builder has inspected the site and indicated rectification of the building would cost in the vicinity of $100,000. Whilst it is acknowledged this is a significant amount of money, it indicates that the building is not beyond repair. Regardless, the condition of the building is not a factor in determining heritage values. Therefore, the conclusion that the site is of heritage value has not been amended by the additional information provided by the property owner.

Consequently, it is recommended that 51 Frederick Street, St Peters, be retained within the planning proposal for listing as a heritage item.

545 Princes Highway and 2 Samuel Street, Tempe (St Peter’s and St Paul’s Catholic Church and Presbytery)

Image 8: 545 Princes Highway, Tempe

Image 9: 2 Samuel Street, Tempe

Council received an objection to the proposed heritage listing of these properties in response to the public exhibition of the planning proposal in 2016. The objection stated that the Paul Davies report overvalues the heritage significance of the property and is incomplete due to the declining social significance of the property as the church is only used once a week and the presbytery is unused. Further, that the integrity of the building has been diminished as elements have been removed or modified, including the Princes Highway boundary wall, and that the interior of the buildings have not been investigated.

Following the public exhibition period, Council offered on site meetings with all objectors to enable internal inspections, however did not receive a response regarding this property. Council received further representations regarding this property objecting to its proposed listing following its consideration of the 28 February 2017 report.

As an objection was received as part of the public exhibition process, this site was reassessed by Council’s Heritage Advisor and included in the peer review report considered by Council on 28 February 2017. Council’s Heritage Advisor concluded that ‘despite the modifications referred to by the objector, the buildings are historically and aesthetically significant, as identified by the Study’. The properties were re-evaluated against the NSW Heritage Office’s criteria and found to meet the threshold for historical significance, aesthetic significance and rarity.

The site (comprising both 545 Princes Highway and 2 Samuel Street) are zoned RE2 Private Recreation within the MLEP 2011. This is a relatively limited zoning as only a small range of activities are permissible with consent on the land. Should the properties be heritage listed, Clause 5.10 (10) Heritage Incentives of the MLEP would apply to the site and would allow for the site to be used for purpose other than those permissible within the LEP subject to certain conditions. This additional flexibility may assist the property owners in establishing new uses for the site into the future.

Additional information has been received on the properties which was forwarded to Council’s Heritage Advisor for comment as shown at ATTACHMENT 13. Council’s Heritage Advisor has considered this information and concluded that the church is of historical significance, and that the church and presbytery have aesthetic significance and are rare when considered together.

Therefore, it is recommended that the church and presbytery be retained within the planning proposal for listing as a heritage item within the MLEP 2011.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The funds required for the heritage review can be funded within existing budgets.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Extensive consultation has occurred regarding the Marrickville heritage planning proposal. Consultation undertake includes a formal exhibition period, offer of onsite meeting for all objectors and a further consultation period following Council’s consideration of a report on the matter on 28 February 2017.

CONCLUSION

This report details additional consultation undertaken in relation to the Marrickville heritage planning proposal in accordance with Council’s resolution of 28 February 2017.

It recommends some changes to the planning proposal being the deletion of 30 Carrington Road, Marrickville, and the deferral of 149 Unwins Bridge Road, Tempe, for further heritage assessment.

It is recommended that Council adopt the recommendations in this report and forward the planning proposal to the DP&E for final making and gazettal.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Post Exhibition Report: Marrickville Heritage Review 28 February 2017
2.⇩	Submission : 30 Carrington Road, Marrickville
3.⇩	Heritage Advisor's Assessment: 30 Carrington Road, Marrickville
4.⇩	Additional advice from Paul Davie's Historian: 149 Unwins Bridge Road, Tempe
5.⇩	Photos: 149 Unwins Bridge Road, Tempe March 2017
6.⇩	Heritage Solutions Heritage Assessment 149 Unwins Bridge Road, Tempe
7.⇩	Submission: 294 Livingstone Road, Marrickville
8.⇩	Heritage Advisor's Assessment: 294 Livingstone Road, Marrickville
9.⇩	Submission: 389 Illawarra Road, Marrickville
10.⇩	Heritage Advisor's Assessment: 389 Illawarra Road, Marrickville
11.⇩	Submission: 51 Frederick Street, St Peters
12.⇩	Additional submission: 51 Frederick Street, St Peters
13.⇩	Heritage Advisor's Assessment: 545 Princes Highway and 2 Samuel Street, Tempe

Council Meeting

26 April 2017

Item No: C0417 Item 5

Subject: Inner West Council Operational Plan and Budget 2017/2018

File Ref: 17/6069/28777.17

Prepared By: Kathryn Ridley - Corporate Strategy Planner

Authorised By: Pav Kuzmanovski – Group Manager Finance

SUMMARY

The Inner West Council (IWC) is required to adopt and implement an Operational Plan and Budget for 2017/18. The strategic imperatives guiding the Operational Plan this year include; the Statement of Vision and Priorities, results of recent Community Satisfaction Surveys, consolidation of the three constituent councils, and maintaining existing levels of service. The Operational Plan and Budget also ensures continuation of the on-going activities and key initiatives identified in the Delivery Programs of the former councils.

Council must adopt an Operational Plan and Budget for 17/18 prior to 30 June 2017.

Public exhibition of the Draft is required under the Local Government Act 1993 and Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The Draft Operational Plan and Budget for 2017/18 be endorsed for the purpose of public exhibition for a period of at least 28 days.

2. The Draft Fees and Charges for 2017/18 be endorsed for the purpose of public exhibition for a period of at least 28 days.

3. Council notes that a further report will be prepared following the public exhibition period outlining all submissions/feedback received.

BACKGROUND

All Council’s in NSW are required to adopt an Operational Plan and Budget by 30 June 2017

in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 and Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

“The Integrated Planning and Reporting framework recognises that most communities share similar aspirations: a safe, healthy and pleasant place to live, a sustainable environment, opportunities for social interaction, opportunities for employment and reliable infrastructure. The difference lies in how each community responds to these needs. It also recognises that council plans and policies should not exist in isolation and that they in fact are connected.”
- Office for Local Government 2013

The Integrated Planning & Reporting Framework is demonstrated in the diagram over page.

Usual circumstances would dictate that the Operational Plan and Budget reflect the relevant year of Council’s previously adopted four year Delivery Program (e.g. Year 4 of 4 ). The Inner West Council, as a newly amalgamated entity, is in the process of developing both a Community Strategic Plan (CSP) for the Inner West and a supporting Delivery Program. Both must be in place by 1^st July 2018.

In the absence of both a single CSP and supporting Delivery Program, the development of IWC’s Operational Plan and Budget 17/18 has been guided by a Statement of Vision of Priorities. The Statement takes into account the plans and strategic objectives of the former merged Council’s. To this end, the Operational Plan and Budget 17/18 therefore continues the work identified within the former Council’s Delivery Programs. It has been structured to reflect Council’s current service delivery model.

The Statement of Vision and Priorities

The Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) required all newly amalgamated councils to prepare a Statement of Vision and Priorities. It is described as a succinct statement to “provide high level guidance for the early period of the new council, until the adoption of the first community strategic plan”. This includes informing the development of an Operational Plan and Budget in the absence of the single Community Strategic Plan and supporting Delivery Program.

The Community Priorities were identified following a three month period of community engagement and an eight week period of community review. Over 1,700 people participated in the development of the Statement of Vision and Priorities including via a telephone Community Satisfaction Survey undertaken by Micromex Research. The Community Priorities are:

Priority 1 - Planning and Development

Priority 2 - Transport

Priority 3 - Social vitality, creativity and quality of life

Priority 4 - Sustainability and the environment

Priority 5 - One council

Priority 6 - Local industry and business

Priority 7 – Advocacy

Priority 8 - Local democracy.

Each of Council’s service areas and its associated activities and key initiatives have been assigned to one or more of the above Priorities. Council will report back to the community throughout the year on how we are progressing in addressing the Priorities, in accordance with Local Government Act requirements.

Operating context and highlights

The Inner West Council is committed to remaining financially sustainable, maintaining existing services and funding all currently scheduled major projects from the three former Councils. The 17/18 financial year will be one of consolidation rather than growth progressing all agreed activities while aiming to build capacity for any unknown risks and externalities that may impact service delivery and resources.

In addition to ongoing service delivery Council is undertaking key integration work ensuring the consolidation and harmonisation of operations. The key strategic areas of work include organisational redesign, establishing a new framework for local democracy and community engagement, systems and services integration and supporting staff through change. An Integration and Transformation Program has been established to operationalise our ongoing integration work.

Our Capital Works Program is a 10 year forward works program again reflecting the former constituent councils. Projects have been prioritised in the Asset Management Plans as based on previous community engagement outcomes, and identified need, with a focus being on renewals to reduce our infrastructure backlog. The total spend for 17/18 on capital works projects is estimated at $66 million.

Service area	2017/18	2018/19	2019/20	2020/21
ICT	$4.6m	-	-	-
Roads & Stormwater	$23.6m	$23.2m	$22.7m	$18.1m
Trees, Parks and Sportsfields	$12.9m	$15.4m	$8.8m	$11.0m
Procurement and Fleet	$6.8m	$4.0m	$6.8m	$6.8m
Property, Buildings and Major Projects	$18.4m	$25.8m	$11.1m	$8.7m
Total Capital Works	$66.3m	$70.9m	$49.4m	$44.6m
Funding Sources
Operating Grants and Contributions	$2.3m	$1.8m	$1.7m	$0.9m
Capital Grants and Contributions	$4.4m	$10.4m	$5.3m	$1.9m
Loan Funds	-	$11.0m	$3.0m	$1.6m
Sale of Assets	$2.3m	$1.8m	$2.1m	$2.0m
Developer Contributions	$23.4m	$15.2m	$12.6m	$15.4m
Statutory Reserves	$14.2m	$10.8m	$3.3m	$1.7m
Working Funds	$19.7m	$19.9m	$21.4m	$21.1m
Total Capital Works	$66.3m	$70.9m	$49.4m	$44.6m

Highlight projects include

Project	Budget	Priority alignment
Steel Park Child Care Facility	3,400,000	Priority 3 - Social vitality, creativity and quality of life
The Greenway	2,821,000	Priority 2 – Transport; Priority 4 - Sustainability and the environment;
Ashfield Aquatic Centre	2,568,000	Priority 3 - Social vitality, creativity and quality of life
Ashfield Town Centre Upgrade	1,650,000	Priority 1 – Planning & Development; Priority 3 - Social vitality, creativity and quality of life
Lilyfield Road Cycleway	1,650,000	Priority 2 - Transport
Weston St Balmain - Fenwick Building	1,400,00	Priority 1 – Planning & Development; Priority 5 - Local industry and business; Priority 3 - Social vitality, creativity and quality of life
Petersham Park staged upgrade	845,000	Priority 3 - Social vitality, creativity and quality of life
Sydenham Green Stage 2 basketball court and lighting upgrade	700,000	Priority 3 - Social vitality, creativity and quality of life
Blackmore Oval Wetland Stormwater Upgrade	590,000	Priority 3 - Social vitality, creativity and quality of life; Priority 4 - Sustainability and the environment
St Peters Town Hall upgrade works	495,000	Priority 3 - Social vitality, creativity and quality of life

BUDGET SUMMARY

The 2017/18 budget sees the first integrated budget of the Inner West Council. The budget has been built on the premise that existing service levels will be maintained and focus on the former Community Strategic Plans (CSP) is maintained until a new Inner West Council CSP is adopted. The budget also includes a 4 year, achievable capital works program that sees a number of large scale projects commencing during the financial year.

Key drivers of the budget include:

• 1.5% IPART approved rate peg with the exception of the former Ashfield LGA which has an IPART approved Special Rate Variation to increase rates by 8.9% (including the rate peg).

• 2.5% Domestic Waste Management Charge increase across each constituent Council

• Consolidation of Statutory and similar Fees and Charges with a view to have complete consolidation for the 2018/19 financial year. A 2.5% has been applied to non-statutory Fee and Charges.

• Increase of Salaries and Wages by 2.5% as an anticipated award increase

• Service unit structures have been developed that allows transparent service unit reporting including full overhead allocation (subject to refinement during exhibition period);

• Implement a transparent, achievable 4 year capital works program focused on capacity to reduce Council’s backlog;

• Implementation of Technology One – One Council Solution with a view of developing a long term ICT strategy.

• Development of a working capital approach and work towards maintaining only legislative reserves (e.g. s94, Employee Entitlements, Waste etc.).

These drivers form the basis of a budget that has been balanced for the 2017/18 financial year from a working funds perspective. The budget will continue to be reviewed during the public exhibition period with any material variances reported in the June Council report.

Risks to Council

Council is inherently exposed to a number of external financial risks that continually challenges its long term financial sustainability. A number of financial strategies have been implemented to ensure that these financial risks are mitigated.

Interest rates remain at record lows and this has had an impact on Council’s interest revenue. It is forecast that interest rates will remain at record lows for the 2017/18 financial year which will stretch Council’s ability to fund its recurring operations during the financial year. This issue will be compounded when investment portfolio is reduced due to funds being used to fund the 2017/18 capital program. This will be monitored during the financial year.

Rate pegging continues to be a risk for Council as it has no control over the increase over its largest source of revenue. The rating increase determined by IPART for the 2017/18 financial year was 1.5%, being the lowest rate increase since 1993 and well below the anticipated award increase of 2.5% with employee costs being Council’s largest expenditure item.

2017/18 Rates and Annual Charges

The rates for the 2017/18 financial year are set in accordance with the Local Government Act and have been increased in accordance with Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) determination. The maximum rates increase determined by IPART for 2017/18 is 1.5%. In addition to this, the former Ashfield Council have an IPART approved Special Rate Variation (year three of four) that allows a total rate increase above the rate peg of 8.9% (including the rate peg). This Special Rate Variation is only applicable to the former Ashfield Council area.

A restraint placed on all newly amalgamated Council’s (as part of the amalgamation proclamation) saw a rates path freeze which restricts Council’s to consolidating rating calculations until 30 June 2020. This means that the three constituent Council’s will continue to levy rates in accordance with their pre amalgamation rating structures until June 2020.

The State Government has passed legislation that will see changes to the way the FESL (formerly Emergency Services Levy) will be collected. Previously the FESL was collected through insurers as a part of property insurance premiums but will now be levied directly through rates notices and collected by Council. Council will remit these funds directly to the State Government. The changes will occur from 1 July 2017 and be itemised separately on the rates notices.

Rating Valuations

All three constituent Councils’ property owners have received their new property valuations from the Valuer General advising of their revised property value. This signifies the alignment of the property valuation cycle of the Inner West Council local government area of which all property owners will have a common property valuation base date of 1 July 2016 (constituent Councils were previously on different valuations cycles). The result of the new property valuation will result in some ratepayers having an increased rates burden (higher than the rate peg) due to the relative increase in their property valuation. This usually occurs when a property’s percentage value has increased above the average property percentage value increase. By law, Council can only increase its rates in accordance with IPART determination (rates peg or Special Rate Variation) and will not generate any additional revenue (above the rate peg) as a result of the new property valuations. The rating category mix for each constituent Council has remained the same for the 2017/18 financial year.

Rebates and Hardship

All pensioner rebates and discounts policies will remain the same for each former Council for the 2017/18 financial year. Council recognises that due to exceptional circumstances ratepayers may at times encounter difficulty in paying their annual rates and charges. Council has a Hardship Policy that provides a framework for providing relief to any ratepayers who are suffering genuine financial hardship.

Pricing Policy and Fees and Charges

The structure of the Inner West Council Fees and Charges schedule sees a consolidation of 3 constituent schedules into one document. Statutory fees and similar fees have been consolidated, but a number of fees and charges have yet to be consolidated. The consolidation process will continue throughout the 2017/18 financial year with a view of having a relatively more concise document for the 2018/19 financial year. This report is recommending that the 2017/18 Draft Fees and Charges be placed on public exhibition with the Operational Plan.

Fees and Charges have largely been increased by 2.5% for the 2017/18 financial year.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

A considerable effort has been made to ensure the budget is funded in a sustainable manner. This process has resulted in a balanced working funds budget for the 2017/18 financial year. Council is forecasting an approximate operating loss of $3 million (excluding capital grants and contributions) for the 2017/18 financial year. This is primarily due to a number of one off operating expenses that will not continue into Council’s operations in future years.

The budget will be continually reviewed through the public exhibition period with any material changes being noted in the June Council report.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

This report is seeking endorsement of the Draft Operational Plan and Budget 2017/18 and the Draft Fees and Charges for the purpose of public exhibition. In accordance with the Local Government Act, the Operational Plan and Budget must be exhibited for a 28 day period prior to formal adoption and implementation.

The following methods will be used to consult on the suite of documents for public exhibition:

· Placement of copies of the documents, rating maps, supporting information and submission boxes at our three Service Centres

· Placement of the documents, rating maps and supporting information, with an electronic feedback form, on the ‘Your Say Inner West’ website

It is intended that the following methods be used to communicate that the draft documents are on exhibition:

· Placement of information on Council’s website

· Placement of advertisement in the Inner West Courier

· Promotion in the Administrators Message in the Inner West Courier

· Preparation and distribution of a special e-newsletter

· Preparation and distribution of specific information to the Your Say Inner West registered community

· Promotion via social media

· Preparation and display of posters on Council’s community noticeboards

This addresses all statutory requirements related to the Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Program, Operational Plan and Statement of Revenue Policy under the Local Government Act 1993 and associated regulations.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the Draft Operational Plan and Budget 2017/18 be endorsed for public exhibition and that a further report be submitted following the public exhibition of all documents providing details of submission received.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Draft IWC Operational Plan and Budget 2017-18
2.⇩	Draft Fees_And_Charges_Report_20170418

Council Meeting

26 April 2017

Council Meeting

26 April 2017

Council Meeting

26 April 2017

Item No: C0417 Item 6

Subject: Draft Community Engagement Policy and Framework

File Ref: 17/5382/36658.17

Prepared By: Prue Foreman - Coordinator Communication and Engagement

Authorised By: Simone Schwarz - Group Manager Communications, Engagement and Events

SUMMARY

Inner West Council identified the development of the Community Engagement Framework as a corporate priority project. The Framework defines how staff will plan, implement and evaluate community engagement. The Framework will strengthen local democracy through guiding how Council will engage so that a broad range of perspectives are sought and the community has a strong voice in Council’s decision-making.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council endorses the Draft Community Engagement Policy and Framework for public exhibition from 28 April 2017 to 26 May 2017.

BACKGROUND

Inner West Council formed by proclamation on 12 May 2017 identified the development of a unified Community Engagement Framework as a corporate priority project. The Framework which defines how staff plan, implement and evaluate community engagement was required so that:

· there is a consistent principles-based approach to engagement embedded across the organisation

· the organisational commitment, and roles and responsibilities of staff and consultants undertaking engagement activities on behalf of Council, are clearly defined and understood

· a culture and capacity for quality engagement is supported across Council

· community needs and expectations are understood and reflected in the decisions and actions of Council

· the community’s trust in Council and satisfaction with Council’s performance is increased.

Community engagement was a high priority at each of the three former councils that amalgamated to form Inner West Council. Excellent practice was demonstrated through a variety of methods that ensured a strong community voice in decision-making by the councils. This legacy will be continued and strengthened at Inner West Council.

The development of the Draft Framework was informed by engagement with staff and the Local Representation Advisory Committee (former Councillors); and the engagement frameworks of the three former councils.

The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Framework considered best practice internationally and within Australia, underpinned the three former councils’ practice and forms the foundation of the Inner West Council Draft Community Engagement Framework.

The Draft Framework details the role of community engagement processes in local democracy at Inner West Council. It recognises that good community engagement is the basis for understanding decisions, sharing perspectives, improving outcomes and building trust between Council, the community, and other partners.

In developing the Framework, a prescriptive approach was considered but a principles-based approach was determined to best meet the needs of Council which has a wide diversity of areas of business. The Framework is applicable to the array of engagement processes that shape programs, services and infrastructure provided by Council, and plans that guide Council’s work. The Framework enables Council to engage with the community in a strategic, ongoing, flexible and locally appropriate way.

Four elements are essential to the success of the Framework

· Commitment

· Core principles

· Capacity

· Continuous improvement

The five principles are:

· Authentic

· Planned

· Tailored

· Inclusive

· Transparent

Practice is based on a clear process with five stages:

· Plan

· Implement

· Analyse

· Decide

· Evaluate

The elements, principles and process are detailed in the Framework.

Council’s online engagement hub Your Say Inner West (www.yoursayinnerwest.com.au) is a key component of the practice. It provides a range of engagement tools, detailed reporting and a permanent record of engagement projects and outcomes. Council’s practice will however balance digital and non-digital techniques and feedback mechanisms to maximise participation from the whole community.

The Draft Policy forms part of the overall Framework. The Draft Policy outlines Council’s commitment to Community Engagement, articulates the principles that underpin all engagement practice within Council and outlines the high-level process by which engagement is planned and implemented.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The development of the Draft Community Engagement Framework which was developed and designed in-house has no financial implications and will be implemented within existing resources. Council project budgets provide for engagement funding where required.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil. The community will be invited to participate in the review of the Draft Framework. The review will take place within one year of adoption.

CONCLUSION

The Community Engagement Framework will strengthen local democracy through guiding how Council will engage so that a broad range of perspectives are sought and the community has a strong voice in Council’s decision-making.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Draft Community Engagement Policy
2.⇩	Draft Community Engagement Framework

Council Meeting

26 April 2017

Item No: C0417 Item 8

Subject: Post Exhibition Report - Draft Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 Amendment - 85 Margaret Street, Petersham

File Ref: 15/4738/30254.17

Prepared By: Peter Wotton - Strategic Planning Projects Coordinator

Authorised By: Simon Manoski - Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

This report concerns the public exhibition of a planning proposal to amend Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (MLEP 2011) to rezone the land known as 85 Margaret Street, Petersham from SP2 Educational Establishment to R2 Low Density Residential with appropriate floor space ratio and height of building development standards. The subject land, which contains a dwelling house, is currently part of the Petersham TAFE site.

The planning proposal was publicly exhibited in accordance with the Gateway determination from 14 February 2017 to 17 March 2017. One individual submission and three submissions from Government agencies were received in response to the exhibition of the planning proposal.

The submissions received did not raise any issues that would warrant not proceeding with the planning proposal.

Following the registration of the approved plan of subdivision of the Petersham TAFE site into 2 lots, minor consequential changes to the heritage listing and mapping of the Petersham TAFE heritage item have been incorporated into the planning proposal as detailed in this report.

It is recommended that Council resolve to forward the draft amendment to MLEP 2011 to the Department of Planning & Environment seeking final approval and gazettal.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. the report be received and noted; and

2. Council forward the draft amendment to MLEP 2011 to the Department of Planning & Environment seeking final approval and gazettal.

BACKGROUND

At its meeting on 5 April 2016 the former Marrickville Council considered a report which recommended that Council resolve to prepare a draft planning proposal to make a number of amendments to Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. The proposed amendments were referred to as draft Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Amendment No. 4).

One of those amendments related to a request, on behalf of Petersham TAFE, to prepare a planning proposal to rezone the land at 85 Margaret Street, Petersham.

An extract from the report considered by Marrickville Council in relation to the matter is reproduced below:

“85 Margaret Street, Petersham

A request to prepare a planning proposal to rezone the land referred to as 85 Margaret Street, Petersham, was submitted to Council on 29 February 2016.

The land forms part of the site (Lot 1 DP749931) known as 25 Crystal Street, Petersham, owned by the Minister for Education containing Petersham TAFE. The land referred to as 85 Margaret Street, Petersham, contains a single storey dwelling house. The dwelling house is not used in association with the TAFE. Determination No. 201400132 dated 6 June 2014 approved an application to carry out internal renovations and external repairs and use the building known as 85 Margaret Street as a dwelling.

A photograph of the premises referred to as 85 Margaret Street, Petersham, is provided below:

Image 1: 85 Margaret Street, Petersham (as viewed from Margaret Street)

The request seeks an amendment to MLEP 2011 to rezone the land from SP2 Educational Establishments to R2 Low Density Residential. The reason given for the requested amendment was to “allow the TAFE College to sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of or deal with 85 Margaret Street as a standalone entity.

It is proposed to subdivide the TAFE land into 2 lots to excise the land referred to as 85 Margaret Street from the remainder of the TAFE land. A development application is to be submitted for the proposed subdivision. The rezoning request includes a subdivision plan. The proposed lot for the land referred to as 85 Margaret Street has an area of approximately 298sqm and a width of approximately 7.5 metres. The proposed lot is in keeping with the subdivision pattern of other residential properties along this section of Margaret Street.

An extract from the rezoning request identifying the site referred to as 85 Margaret Street, Petersham, with a thick red line and showing the zoning of land under MLEP 2011 in the locality, is reproduced below:

No FSR or HOB controls apply to the subject land under MLEP 2011. The request also seeks amendments to MLEP 2011 to introduce a maximum building height of 9.5 metres and a maximum floor space ratio of 0.6:1 for the subject land.

All the residentially zoned properties in the immediate area are zoned R2 Low Density Residential under MLEP 2011. Those properties have a floor space ratio control of 0.6:1 with land identified with a thick red line and labelled F on Floor Space Ratio Map and a maximum 9.5 metre (J (9.5m)) height control applies to the land under MLEP 2011. The requested FSR and HOB controls for the property 85 Margaret Street, Petersham, are considered appropriate.

The planning proposal is consistent with applicable State Environmental Planning Policies and Section 117 Directions.

It is recommended that the rezoning request be incorporated into the planning proposal submitted to the Department for Gateway determination.

MLEP 2011: Land Zoning Maps

Recommendation L-LZN_003 (15):

That the zoning on Land Zoning Map (LZN_003) for the property 85 Margaret Street, Petersham, be amended to R2 Low Density Residential.

Current Land Zoning Map:

Proposed Land Zoning Map:

MLEP 2011: Floor Space Ratio Maps

Recommendation L-FSR_003 (19):

That a label of F (0.6:1) be added to the property 85 Margaret Street, Petersham, and the land identified with a thick red line and labelled F on Floor Space Ratio Map (FSR_003).

Current Floor Space Ratio Map:

Proposed Floor Space Ratio Map:

MLEP 2011: Height of Buildings Maps

Recommendation L-HOB_003 (16):

That a maximum 9.5 metre (J (9.5m)) height control be placed on the property known as 85 Margaret Street, Petersham, on Height of Buildings Map (HOB_003).

Current Height of Buildings Map:

Proposed Height of Buildings Map:

Letter from Petersham TAFE

Planning consultants on behalf of Petersham TAFE, by email dated 8 December 2016, requested that their planning proposal request to rezone the Petersham TAFE site at No 85 Margaret Street, Petersham, be excised from the planning proposal known as Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Amendment No. 4) and progressed as a separate standalone planning proposal. Council officers discussed the request with officers from the Department of Planning and Environment who raised no objection in principle to the matter being progressed as a separate standalone planning proposal.

Gateway Determination

The planning proposal was forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment on 14 December 2016 for Gateway determination. A Gateway Determination for the proposal, giving conditional approval for the planning proposal to proceed to public exhibition, was issued by the Department on the 27 January 2017 (Department Ref: PP 2017 IWEST 002_00). A copy of the Gateway Determination is ATTACHMENT 1.

Public Exhibition

The planning proposal was publicly exhibited in accordance with the Gateway determination from 14 February 2017 to 17 March 2017. Four submissions were received in response to the public exhibition, one individual submission and submissions from three government authorities/agencies. The issues raised in the submissions are discussed below.

DISCUSSION

Submissions

Individual submissions

One non-government authority/agency submission was received which stated “If the proposed changes to the planning controls mean that the property will become a residence under similar regulations as the other houses in the street, I am in favour of the proposal.”

Government Authorities/Agencies submissions

i. NSW Environment Protection Authority

The EPA advised that it “has reviewed the submitted information and the modification does not appear to relate to any matters regulated by the EPA. On this basis, the EPA has no further comment on this planning proposal”.

ii. Department of Education and Communities

The Department of Education and Communities advised that they “do not have any objection to the re-zoning”.

iii. Office of Environment and Heritage

The Office of Environment and Heritage, by letter dated 27 March 2017, advised (in part):

“The subject site does not contain items listed on the State Heritage Register (SHR) and there are no SHR items in the vicinity of the subject site. However, it is noted that the subject land is incorporated in the existing title of Petersham TAFE which is identified as a local heritage item within Schedule 5 – ‘Environmental heritage’ of MLEP 2011 and referred to as item 185.

Given that Petersham TAFE is an item of local heritage significance, Inner West Council is the consent authority in this instance. It is advised however, that the Inner West Council give consideration to any adverse impact the proposed changes and any potential future development on the subject site would have on the heritage significance of Petersham TAFE.”

Comment:

The planning proposal seeks to adopt zoning, height, density controls that align with adjoining residential properties. Any future development on the subject site would require an application to be submitted in the prescribed manner. The extent to which the carrying out of that development would affect the heritage significance of Petersham TAFE would be a matter for consideration in the assessment of that application.

Part of the Petersham TAFE site is identified as a heritage item under MLEP 2011 (Heritage Item No. I185 Petersham TAFE, including interiors). The property description in Schedule 5 of MLEP 2011 is Lot 1, DP 749931. That property description relates to the entire site (including the land known as 85 Margaret Street, Petersham) however the heritage item identified on the Heritage Map (HER_003) identifies the heritage item only on the southern half of the property. The heritage item identified on the map does not include land along the Margaret Street frontage, including the land the subject of the proposed rezoning known as 85 Margaret Street, Petersham.

A development application (DA201600163) was lodged seeking approval to subdivide the TAFE land (Lot 1 DP 749931) into two lots to excise the land, the subject of the rezoning request, from the remainder of the property. (The plan submitted with that application identifies the lot relating to the land known as 85 Margaret Street, Petersham, as Proposed Lot 100) The subdivision application was approved by Modified Determination No. 201600163 dated 5 October 2016.

The approved plan of subdivision creating a separate lot for the property known as 85 Margaret Street, Petersham, was registered on 12 April 2017 (Lot 101 DP 1221608). The new property description for the land containing the TAFE is Lot 100 DP 1221608. The property description of the heritage item in MLEP 2011 needs to be amended to relate to the new property description for the item. The Heritage Map Sheet HER_003 also needs to be updated to show the lots created by that subdivision and to indicate that the Heritage Item No. I185 does not include the property known as 85 Margaret Street, Petersham. The following recommendations have been prepared to address the above matters:

Recommendation L-Sch. 5-Part 1:

That the heritage listing of the Petersham TAFE, including interiors (Heritage Item No. I185) in Part 1 of Schedule 5 of MLEP 2011 be amended to read as follows:

Petersham

Petersham TAFE, including interiors

25 Crystal Street

Lot 101, DP 1221608

Local

I185

Recommendation L-HER_003:

Proposed Heritage Map:

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The planning proposal was publicly exhibited, in accordance with the Gateway determination issued by the Department of Planning & Environment, between 14 February 2017 and 17 March 2017.

CONCLUSION

One individual submission and three government agency submissions were received in response to the public exhibition of the planning proposal. The submissions did not raise any issues that would warrant not proceeding with the planning proposal, or require changes to be made to the planning proposal.

It is recommended that Council resolve to forward the draft amendments to MLEP 2011 to the Department of Planning & Environment seeking final approval and gazettal.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Gateway Determination

Council Meeting

26 April 2017

Item No: C0417 Item 9

Subject: Post Exhibition Report - Draft Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 Amendment - To protect employment land and support the viability of commercial activities in the B7 Business Park zone and on other Business zoned land

File Ref: 15/4738/30359.17

Prepared By: Peter Wotton - Strategic Planning Projects Coordinator

Authorised By: Simon Manoski - Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

This report concerns the public exhibition of a planning proposal to amend Marrickville Local Environmental Plan (MLEP) 2011 to protect employment land and support the viability of commercial activities in the B7 Business Park zone and on certain other business zoned land.

The planning proposal seeks to strengthen planning controls to protect employment land and support the viability of commercial activities in the B7 Business Park zone and on other business zoned land by limiting the extent of residential development permitted on such land.

The planning controls limiting residential accommodation on such land are currently contained in Marrickville Development Control Plan (MDCP) 2011. The planning proposal essentially seeks to incorporate those existing MDCP 2011 provisions into MLEP 2011.

The planning proposal was publicly exhibited in accordance with the Gateway determination from 21 February 2017 to 24 March 2017. As part of the community consultation, letters were sent to the property owners and occupiers of land zoned B7 Business Park and the property owners and occupiers of the business zoned land in the Key Sites and Masterplan Areas (identified in proposed Clause 6.16 (2)). Approximately 500 letters were sent out advising of the public exhibition of the planning proposal.

Seven submissions were received in response to the exhibition of the planning proposal, three submissions in support of the planning proposal and four submissions which raised issues with the planning proposal, or certain aspects of the planning proposal.

It is not considered that the submissions raise issues that warrant not proceeding with the planning proposal.

It is recommended that Council resolve to forward the draft amendment to MLEP 2011 to the Department of Planning and Environment seeking final approval and gazettal.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. the report be received and noted; and

2. Council forward the draft amendment to MLEP 2011 to the Department of Planning & Environment seeking final approval and gazettal.

BACKGROUND

At its meetings on 1 December 2015 and 5 April 2016 the former Marrickville Council considered reports which recommended that Council resolve to prepare a draft planning proposal to make a number of amendments to Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. The proposed amendments were referred to as Draft Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Amendment No. 4).

Two of those amendments related to:

i. Residential accommodation in the B7 Business Park zone; and

ii. Residential accommodation in mixed use developments in certain key sites and Masterplan Areas.

The recommendations adopted by the former Marrickville Council in relation to those matters were as follows:

Recommendation L-6.13: That Clause 6.13 of MLEP 2011 be amended to read as follows:

“6.13 Dwellings and residential flat buildings in Zone B7 Business Park

(1) The objective of this clause is to provide for limited residential development in association with non-residential uses permitted in Zone B7 Business Park, including small scale live-work enterprises, to assist in the revitalisation of employment areas and to provide a transition between adjoining land use zones.

(2) This clause applies to land in Zone B7 Business Park.

(a) the residential development is part of a mixed use development that includes a non-residential use permitted in Zone B7 Business Park,

(b) no part of the ground floor of the development that fronts a street will be used for residential purposes (excluding access, car parking and waste storage),

(c) a minimum of 60% of the total gross floor area of the development is to be used for non-residential purposes.

(4) For the purposes of determining the percentage of the total gross floor area of the development used for non-residential purposes under Clause (3) (c), area(s) used for amenities, such as kitchen and bathroom facilities, in conjunction with the non-residential use(s), do not constitute gross floor area used for residential purposes.

(5) Dwellings permitted by this clause as part of a mixed use development must be on the same title as the non-residential use and must not be on an individual lot in a strata plan or an individual lot in a community title scheme.”

Recommendation L-6.16: That the following clause titled “Clause 6.16 Residential accommodation, as part of a mixed use development, on certain land identified on the Key Sites Maps and in certain Masterplan Areas” be inserted in MLEP 2011 at the end of Clause 6.15:

6.16 Residential accommodation, as part of a mixed use development, on certain land identified on the Key Sites Maps and in certain Masterplan Areas

(1) The objective of this clause is to limit the density of residential development in certain business zones to ensure an appropriate proportion of residential accommodation as part of mixed use developments on that land.

(2) This clause applies to the following land:

(a) on land identified as “E” on the Key Sites Map,

(b) on land identified as “F” on the Key Sites Map,

(d) on land identified as “H” on the Key Sites Map,

(e) land at 76 Wilford Street, Newtown, being Lot 1, DP 617685.

(3) Development consent must not be granted to development for the purpose of residential accommodation on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a) no part of the ground floor of the development that fronts a street will be used for residential purposes (excluding access, car parking and waste storage),

(b) the percentage of the total gross floor area of the development to be used for non residential purposes is not less than:

(i) 20% on land identified as “E” on the Key Sites Map,

(ii) 40% on land identified as “F” or “G” on the Key Sites Map,

(iii) 70% on land identified as “H” on the Key Sites Map,

(iv) 30% on land at 76 Wilford Street, Newtown, being Lot 1, DP 617685.”

Due to delays with the larger amendments it was decided to excise the above matters from the planning proposal known as Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Amendment No. 4) and progress these as part of a separate standalone planning proposal.

Extracts from the reports considered by Marrickville Council in relation to those matters, and maps showing the land zoned B7 Business Park and the land identified as “E”, “F”, “G” or “H” on the Key Sites Map and the property 76 Wilford Street, Newtown, are contained in ATTACHMENT 1 – “Background information - Residential accommodation in the B7 Business Park zone and in mixed use developments in certain key sites and Masterplan Areas”.

Gateway Determination

The planning proposal was forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment on 7 December 2016 for Gateway determination.

A Gateway determination for the proposal, giving conditional approval for the planning proposal to proceed to public exhibition, was issued by the Department on 3 February 2017 (Department Ref: PP 2017 IWEST 004_00). A copy of the Gateway determination is ATTACHMENT 2.

Public Exhibition

The planning proposal was publicly exhibited in accordance with the Gateway determination from 21 February 2017 to 24 March 2017.

As part of that community consultation letters were sent to the property owners and occupiers of land zoned B7 Business Park and the property owners and occupiers of the business zoned land in the Key Sites and Masterplan Areas (identified in proposed Clause 6.16 (2)). Approximately 500 letters were sent out advising of the public exhibition of the planning proposal.

The submissions received and the response to the issues raised, are discussed below:

Submission 1

Support for proposal with an amendment that “No zone should be less than 30% non-residential”.

Comment: The planning proposal does not change the maximum percentages of residential accommodation permitted on such land under the current planning controls contained in Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011. (The only land where the current controls permit less than 30% non-residential is the land identified as “E” on the Key Sites Map (refer to Map 3).

Submission 2

Supports the planning proposal.

Submission 3

The submitter was “totally opposed to this proposal to “Protecting Employment Lands”. The submission raised a number of issues including:

· Absurd that some properties can be re-developed with up to 80% residential while others only up to 60% residential and still other sites no more than 30% residential.

· The 30% residential limit results in redevelopment not being financially viable.

· Controls should permit more housing in areas close to amenities, services and public transport.

· “Sydney is undergoing a housing shortage making housing not affordable for many but these sites especially those closest to St Peters Station (north side of May Street) should be available for 80% residential development”.

· The current zoning is “ridiculous”.

Comment: Considerable investigations were undertaken to inform the preparation of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011, in particular the Marrickville Urban Strategy (MUS) 2007 which set the direction for the LEP, along with major studies, including the St Peters Urban Design Study, and reviews on employment lands, village centres, heritage and industrial precincts. The LEP also responded to the NSW Government’s South Subregion Draft Subregional Strategy's Marrickville local government area targets of 4,150 additional dwellings between 2004 and 2031, and 500 additional jobs between 2001 and 2031.

The maximum percentage of residential development permitted on land zoned B7 Business Park and on the land identified as “E”, “F”, “G” or “H” on the Key Sites Map and the property 76 Wilford Street, Newtown were informed from those studies and that planning strategy. The planning controls limiting the maximum percentage of residential development permitted on such land are currently contained in Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011. The planning proposal essentially seeks to incorporate those existing MDCP 2011 provisions into MLEP 2011.

All the land identified as “E”, “F”, “G” or “H” on the Key Sites Map and approximately one third of the properties zoned B7 Business Park under MLEP 2011 are located in St Peters in the area known as the St Peters Triangle (Precinct 25 under Part 9 Strategic Context of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011).

The Marrickville Urban Strategy identified the St Peters triangle precinct as an investigation area for redevelopment of industrial land into a new centre (potential village), with improved access to shops, services and transport for new residential development, increased housing choice and employment. However, it was acknowledged that the area would require initial investigation then comprehensive master planning to understand its potential capacity for housing and employment.

Under the NSW Government’s South Subregion Draft Subregional Strategy a Category 2 designation applied to the precinct. That strategy set an employment focus for the area, with limited scope for residential development thereby undermining the Marrickville Urban Strategy’s aspirations for the precinct. However, as a result of Council representations, the Department of Planning advised that while the Category 2 designation for the precinct would be retained, it would permit a greater proportion of residential land uses within the precinct. The planning controls for the precinct, contained in MLEP 2011 and MDCP 2011 reflect the Department’s agreed approach.

Submission 4

More residential should be permitted within the B7 Business Park zone for two reasons:

1. There are already a large number of dwellings within the zone; and

2. “It is ecologically and socially beneficial for residents to live closer to where they work. This necessitates more residential development within traditionally commercial and industrial zones.”

The submitter also considers that “Council should focus on requiring more low cost residential development and housing within new residential developments.”

Comment: All the land zoned B7 Business Park under MLEP 2011 was previously zoned either General Industrial or Light Industrial under Marrickville Council’s former environmental planning instrument, MLEP 2001. Of the 182 properties zoned B7 Business Park, 89 properties were zoned General Industrial and 93 properties were zoned Light Industrial under MLEP 2001.

The B7 Business Park zone is an employment zone. One of the objectives of the zone is “To provide for limited residential development in conjunction with permissible active ground floor uses”. Any residential development permitted within the zone should be limited to protect the employment zoned land and support the viability of commercial activities in the zone.

It should also be noted, as detailed earlier in this report, that nearly all of the land zoned B7 Business Park is located in an ANEF Contour of 25 or greater. Table 2.1 Building Site Acceptability Based on ANEF Zones in Australian Standard AS2021-2015 Acoustics – Aircraft noise intrusion – Building siting and construction considers residential development “unacceptable” on land “Greater than 25 ANEF”.

Council adopted an Affordable Housing Policy at its Ordinary meeting on 28 March 2017. The Policy is aimed primarily at creating more affordable housing within new residential development across the Inner west Council area.

Submission 5

The submission relates to the property 76 Wilford Street, Newtown. The submitter considers “that the proposed amendment to the LEP is neither necessary nor beneficial” and requests that the inclusion of the property 76 Wilford Street in the proposed amendment be reviewed. The submitter notes that “76 Wilford Street is a stand-alone property at a residential interface with its own zoning” and considers that “Council will benefit far greater by retaining the flexibility in its approach to this property”. The submission states (in part) that the property “was zoned as Category 3 by the State Government in the draft South Subregional Strategy, and Architectus, the firm that prepared the Marrickville Urban Strategy, supported a purely residential zoning”.

Comment: The property known as 76 Wilford Street, Newtown was zoned Light Industrial under Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2001.

Action 1.4 Select rezoning of industrial sites of the Marrickville Urban Strategy states (in part):

“This action proposes that selected industrial areas are considered for ‘mixed use’ activities. Sites would require comprehensive masterplanning, with particular attention to providing an appropriate treatment of transition areas to control potential amenity impacts with other industrial lands as well as potential impacts on business competitiveness. These sites would be required to maintain and enhance employment on rezoned land by identifying opportunities for community services and creative industries.”

The work undertaken to inform the preparation of MLEP 2011 supported a change of zoning of the land.

That work culminated in the site being zoned B5 Business Development, with an additional use being permitted on the land, under MLEP 2011.

The Land Use Table for the B5 Business Development zone permits “business premises”, “light industries” and “office premises” with consent. “Residential accommodation” and “retail premises” are listed as a prohibited form of development in the Land Use Table for the B5 Business Development zone.

The provisions of Clause 2.5 Additional permitted uses for particular land of MLEP 2011 apply to the property 76 Wilford Street, Newtown. Under Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses of MLEP 2011 “Development for the purpose of residential accommodation is permitted with consent, but only as part of a mixed use development” is permitted with consent on the property.

Site specific planning controls were set for the property. Primary development controls were set for the property to manage the scale of development so that it relates to the future desired character of the area and to manage impacts on surrounding development including the site’s sensitive residential interface. Under MLEP 2011 a maximum floor space ratio of 1.5:1 and a maximum height of building of 17 metres apply to the land. With a restriction that the percentage of the total gross floor area of the development to be used for non-residential purposes is not less than 30%, a development (built to the maximum floor space ratio permitted for the land and containing 30% non-residential gross floor area) could contain a maximum residential gross floor area of approximately 1,930 square metres.

The specific planning controls set for the property in Part 9.8.5.1 of MDCP 2011 include the following control “C4 The residential component of the development must not be greater than 70 percent of the gross floor area.”

The proposed control contained within the planning proposal relating to the property reflects the existing MDCP 2011 control, albeit expressed in a different manner.

In light of the above the proposed provision should be retained.

Submission 6

In support of planning proposal. The submitter considers that “It is very important to retain local jobs and businesses in the Inner West. Excessive residential development displaces businesses and industries which provide local employment and economic benefits. It also puts pressure on roads, schools etc. because of increased population. It is best to retain the diversity we now have as much as possible.”

Submission 7

The submission objects to the planning proposal’s amendments to the Business Park B7 zonings and considers that “Overall, this planning proposal seeks to further restrict provisions relating to the B7 zone which render the future use of the land unviable and economically unfeasible with a detrimental impact on the vitality of this precinct.”

The submission raised the following concerns:

i. Ground floor business activity clarification (proposed clause 6.13 (3) (b));

ii. Restriction of GFA to be used for residential purposes unnecessary – request to delete proposed clause 6.13(3)(c);

iii. Little demand for business activity;

iv. Method to calculate GFA – request to delete proposed clause 6.13(4);

v. Dwellings should be able to be individual lots within a strata plan (proposed clause 6.13 (5) should be deleted; and

vi. Strategic vision for creative hub and increased business activity with the St Peters Triangle needs review.

Comment:

Point i.

Proposed Clause 6.13(3)(b) reads: “no part of the ground floor of the development that fronts a street will be used for residential purposes (excluding access, car parking and waste storage)”.

The submitter considers that the clause “is unclear and open to interpretation – does the clause relate to the entire ground floor level of a building that has a street frontage or does it relate to the section of the development (e.g. front room only) that has a frontage to a street that is on ground level?” The submitter also considers that “it is unrealistic to restrict the entire ground level of a mixed use building to business activity and we object to such on the basis that good design and active frontage should take precedence.”

The wording of proposed clause is similar to the wording of other clauses contained within MLEP 2011. For example:

Clause 6.14 Location of sex services premises. Sub-clause 6.14 (3) (a) reads as follows:

“(3) Development consent must not be granted for development for the purpose of sex services premises:

(a) on land in Zone B6 Enterprise Corridor if any part of the sex services premises (excluding access, car parking and waste storage) is located at street level, or”

Clause 6.15 Location of boarding houses in business zones. Sub-clause 6.15 (3) (a) reads as follows:

“(3) Development consent must not be granted to development for the purpose of a boarding house on land to which this clause applies if any part of the boarding house (excluding access, car parking and waste storage) is located at street level.”

Point ii.

The submitter considers that “Good development should not be restricted or hindered on the basis they provide too little economic activity (e.g. if less than 60% of the GFA). In essence, if the proposed development complies with the height and GFA development standard and provides a business activity to the street frontage, it should be worthy of support”. The submitter considers that “proposed clause 6.13 (3) (c) is unnecessary, unfounded, unfair and unnecessarily restricts good future development that would provide a positive urban outcome”.

The B7 Business Park zone is for employment uses but was adapted in MLEP 2011 to include innovative provisions supporting creative and population serving industries and to assist in revitalising some industrial areas by allowing small scale opportunities for people to live and work in one place. This is reflected in the objectives of the zone, namely “To provide for limited residential development in conjunction with permissible active ground floor uses”. It is also reflected in the planning controls in Part 6.6 of MDCP 2011, namely control “C88 A minimum of 60% of the total gross floor area must be used for non-residential purposes”.

As stated previously, the B7 Business Park zone is an employment zone. Any residential development permitted within the zone should be limited to protect the employment zoned land and support the viability of commercial activities in the zone.

Proposed clause 6.13 (3) (c) is essential to ensure that any future development is in accordance with the intent of the zone. The requirement that a minimum of 60% of the total gross floor area of the development is to be used for non-residential purposes reflects the current MDCP 2011 planning control.

Point iii.

The submitter considers that in the St Peters Triangle precinct, “there is little demand for greater business activity, having regard to the difficulty to lease areas and the high vacancy rates”. The submitter advises that there is greater demand for residential uses and urges “Council to review the B7 zone objectives and ensure they maintain a mixed use nature that aligns with the future character of the area, without the need for inclusion of such specific numeric restrictive controls”.

As detailed previously, 182 properties (or parts of properties) are zoned B7 Business Park under MLEP 2011 (refer to Map 1 and Map 2). Approximately one third of those properties zoned B7 Business Park are located in the St Peters Triangle. Development has taken place on some properties zoned B7 Business Park outside the St Peters Triangle.

The B7 Business Park is an employment zone and the objectives of the zone reflect that the zone is a business zone and not a residential zone.

Point iv.

The submitter considers that “Proposed clause 6.13 (4) only confuses the idea of GFA, particularly as it’s a separately defined term within the standard instrument. This clause only opens up methods for developers to take advantage of the vagueness that this clause introduces (how large is a bathroom and/or kitchen?).”

Proposed Clause 6.13 (4) reads as follows:

“(4) For the purposes of determining the percentage of the total gross floor area of the development used for non-residential purposes under Clause (3) (c), area(s) used for amenities, such as kitchen and bathroom facilities, in conjunction with the non-residential use(s), do not constitute gross floor area used for residential purposes.”

The above clause was included following a request from the former Marrickville Councillors to officers to examine ways to incorporate changes to the proposed amendment to clarify what constitutes gross floor area used for “non-residential purposes”.

Point v.

The submitter considers that “subject to reasonable amenity and size, dwellings should be able to be individual lots within a strata scheme. There is a housing affordability crisis and increased demand for dwellings …….subdivision should be supported, as a vital key to assisting to address the housing shortage. Further, there is no planning justification provided by Council as to the purpose of this clause and subsequently it is considered unnecessary to achieve the objectives of the zone. It is not reasonable to restrict an owner from developing their land, with the inability to subdivide the spaces.”

The proposed clause is based on the existing planning controls contained in Section 6.6 Residential Uses in Specified Employment Areas (Live/work) of MDCP 2011. The DCP details the purpose of the controls as follows:

“Specific ownership and subdivision controls protect light industrial activity from potential residential conflict and promote genuine small scale live/work enterprises by requiring the residential dwelling/s to be in the same ownership as the commercial/industrial use most commonly occurring at ground floor level.

Subdivision, including strata and community title schemes, is not permitted. This restriction promoted the reuse and redevelopment of the small lots in the subject areas while avoiding the construction of larger buildings which would function predominantly as residential flat buildings. This restriction also enables better management of mixed uses.”

Proposed Clause 6.13 (5) essentially incorporates the existing DCP control into the LEP.

Point vi.

The submitter considers that the “strategic vision for creative hub and increased business activity with the St Peters Triangle needs review”.

This is a matter outside the scope of this planning proposal.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The planning proposal was publicly exhibited, in accordance with the Gateway determination issued by the Department of Planning & Environment, from 21 February 2017 to 24 March 2017.

CONCLUSION

Seven submissions were received in response to the public exhibition of the planning proposal.

As discussed previously the submissions did not raise any issues that would not warrant not proceeding with the planning proposal, or require changes to be made to the planning proposal.

The planning proposal is essentially a housekeeping amendment to incorporate existing controls in MDCP 2011 limiting the extent of residential accommodation permitted on land zoned B7 Business Park and on certain other business zoned land into MLEP 2011. The planning proposal does not change the maximum percentages of residential accommodation permitted on such land under the current planning controls contained in MDCP 2011.

It is recommended that Council resolve to forward the draft amendments to MLEP 2011 to the Department of Planning & Environment seeking final approval and gazettal.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Background information - Residential accommodation in the B7 Business Park zone and in mixed use developments in certain key sites and Masterplan Areas
2.⇩	Gateway Determination - Department of Planning and Environment

Council Meeting

26 April 2017

Background information - Residential accommodation in the B7 Business Park zone and in mixed use developments in certain key sites and Masterplan Areas

i. Residential accommodation in the B7 Business Park zone

“Clause 6.13 Dwellings and residential flat buildings in Zone B7 Business Park

Clause 6.13 of MLEP 2011 reads as follows:

6.13 Dwellings and residential flat buildings in Zone B7 Business Park

(1) The objective of this clause is to provide for limited residential development for small scale live-work enterprises, to assist in the revitalisation of employment areas and to provide a transition between adjoining land use zones.

(2) This clause applies to land in Zone B7 Business Park.

(3) Development consent must not be granted to development for the purpose of a dwelling or a residential flat building on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development is part of a mixed use development that includes business premises or office premises or light industry on the ground floor.

The following types of “residential accommodation” are permitted in the B7 Business Park zone under MLEP 2011:

· Dwelling houses (under Clause 6.11, but only purpose built dwelling houses existing on the land that were erected before the commencement of MLEP 2011);

· Residential flat buildings (under Clause 6.13, but only as “part of a mixed use development that includes business premises or office premises or light industry on the ground floor”); and

· Shop top housing.

Part of the objective of the clause is “to provide for limited residential development for small scale live-work enterprises”. Under the provisions of the clause the only limiting factor on the residential development in the B7 Business Park zone is that the residential development has to be “part of a mixed use development that includes business premises or office premises or light industry on the ground floor.”

MDCP 2011 supplements the provisions of MLEP 2011 and provides more detailed provisions to guide future development including some provisions which place restrictions, or limitations, on residential development in the B7 Business Park zone. Those controls are primarily contained in Part 6 – Industrial Development of MDCP 2011 and include:

“C78 The area of the premises used for small scale creative industries must not exceed 300m2 of gross floor area.

C87 Dwellings (including live/work studios) must not be an individual lot in a strata plan or community title scheme.

C88 A minimum of 60% of the total gross floor area must be used for non-residential purposes.”

The following points are made in relation to the B7 Business Park zone:

· The B7 Business Park zone is an employment zone.

· The land is primarily intended to be used for employment purposes with a minor residential component that allows people to live and work on the same site.

· Limited residential development permitted in zone (maximum percentage of residential permitted = 40% of GFA).

· The residential limit was originally in the LEP but was required to be placed in DCP as part of the original Gateway determination for MLEP 2011.

· 182 properties (or parts of properties) are zoned B7 Business Park under MLEP 2011.

· 59 of those properties zoned B7 Business Park are located in the St Peters Triangle.

· No land zoned B7 Business Park is located on the Key Sites Map.

· Nearly all of the land zoned B7 Business Park is located in an ANEF Contour of 25 or greater.

The provisions in MLEP 2011 relating to the B7 Business Park zone are an innovative feature of the LEP intended to support creative and innovative industries and to assist in revitalising some industrial areas by allowing small scale opportunities for people to live and work in one place.

The Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government Discussion Paper “Creative Councils for Creative Communities” (July 2015) provides good background to the issue and the development of the controls.

“Marrickville Council has also recognised the role played by creative industries in establishing the area’s unique character and is increasing local employment opportunities through the Marrickville Urban Strategy that includes the aim of supporting creative and innovative industries (Marrickville Council 2007). The council recognised that creative industries, often operating as start-up micro businesses, are highly sensitive to price increases and that renewal of industrial areas posed a threat to the ability of creative industries to operate as land values increased. The council attempted to minimise these impacts by identifying ways in which planning controls could be used to support existing creative industries and encourage new ones as part of the development of the ‘Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011’.

Accordingly, the council developed a definition for creative industries, and identified areas suitable for their operation. Once defined, creative industries were identified as an appropriate land use buffer between traditional heavy industrial areas and residential development, and were identified as being suited to light industrial areas in the Marrickville LGA, which are largely situated adjacent to residential development.

Business development zones were also identified as locations suitable for live-work enterprises and were considered to have the potential to help reduce the costs of creative industries, maintain active street frontages and, in some cases, promote the adaptive reuse of existing buildings…….” (pages 7 and 8)

Council’s website includes a section on “Creative Industries” which reads as follows:

“Marrickville Council's Local Environmental Plan 2011 recognises that the Marrickville area is the centre of Sydney's independent arts scene and is home to many artists, studios, commercial art galleries, artist-run initiatives, theatres and festivals.

The LEP includes a 'B7 Business Park' zone that has the objective of providing for creative industries such as the arts, technology, production and design sectors. It is an employment zone that permits limited residential development in conjunction with employment uses at the ground floor.

The 'IN2 Light Industrial' zone will allow for certain creative industries which take the form of business premises or office premises in the arts, technology, production and design sectors.

The creative industries provided for include:

· audio-visual, media and digital media

· advertising

· craft, visual arts and Indigenous arts

· design

· film and television

· music

· publishing

· performing arts

· cultural heritage institutions”

The B7 Business Park zone also permits creative industries such as those referred to above permitted in the IN2 Light Industrial zone.

A review was undertaken of the B7 Business Park zoning provisions of a number of other Council’s LEPs prepared under the Standard Instrument. Council’s B7 Business Park zoning provisions are unique in terms of what residential accommodation is permitted within the zone. Most of the environmental planning instruments of other Councils reviewed listed “residential accommodation” as “Prohibited” in the Land Use Table for the B7 Business Park zone. Where residential accommodation was permitted it was limited to a single dwelling. For example Clause 6.12 of Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 permits development for the purpose of a dwelling where the “dwelling is part of a mixed use development that includes office premises or light industries on the ground floor” and “the dwelling and ground floor premises will be occupied by the same person or persons”. The objective of the subject clause “is to provide for ancillary residential accommodation for small-scale live-work enterprises, to assist in the revitalisation of employment areas and to provide a transition between adjoining land use zones”. “Shop top housing” is listed as “Prohibited” in the Land Use Table for the zone.

The provisions in MLEP 2011 relating to the B7 Business Park zone are unique when compared to other Council’s environmental planning instruments.

The following maps show the land currently zoned B7 Business Park under Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011:

Map 1: Land zoned B7 Business Park under MLEP 2011 on Land Zoning Map LZN_003

Map 2: Land zoned B7 Business Park under MLEP 2011 on Land Zoning Map LZN_004

ii. Residential accommodation in mixed use developments in certain key sites and Masterplan Areas

“New Clause – Mixed Use Developments in certain key sites and Masterplanned Areas

Limited residential accommodation is permitted with consent, as part of a mixed use development, under Council’s planning controls on certain land identified on the Key Sites Maps and in certain Masterplan Areas.

The provisions limiting the extent residential development permitted on such land are contained in the Strategic Context controls in Part 9 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

Those provisions are as follows:

Part 9.8 Enmore North and Newtown Central Precinct

9.8.5.1 76 Wilford Street, Newtown

“C4 The residential component of the development must be no greater than 70 percent of the total gross floor area.”

Part 9.25 St Peters Triangle Precinct

9.25.6 Precinct-specific planning controls

“To manage mixed use development along the Princes Highway and May Street the following controls apply.

C2 On land coloured blue and identified as “E” on the MLEP 2011 Key Sites Map, residential accommodation is permitted with consent but only as part of a mixed use development where the residential component comprises a maximum of 80% of the total gross floor area.

C3 On land coloured blue and identified as “F” or “G” on the MLEP 2011 Key Sites Map, residential accommodation is permitted with consent but only as part of a mixed use development where the residential component comprises a maximum of 60% of the total gross floor area.

C4 On land coloured blue and identified as “H” on the MLEP 2011 Key Sites Map development is permitted with consent for the purpose of:

i. Retail premises which, in total, does not comprise more than 30% of the total gross floor area; and

ii. Residential accommodation which, in total, does not comprise more than 30% of the total gross floor area.”

The following maps identify the land referred to in proposed Clause 6.16 (2):

Map 3: Land identified as “E”, “F”, “G” or “H” on the Key Sites Map

(Clause 6.16 (2) (a), (b), (c) and (d))

Map 4: Land known as 76 Wilford Street, Newtown

(Clause 6.16 (2) (e))

Council Meeting

26 April 2017

Item No: C0417 Item 11

Subject: LOCAL APPROVALS POLICY - PUBLIC EXHIBITION OUTCOMES

File Ref: 17/4718/38161.17

Prepared By: Gill Dawson - Manager Environment and Urban Planning

Authorised By: Simon Manoski - Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

This report responds to the former Leichhardt Council's April 2016 resolution that a draft Local Approvals Policy and a draft amendment to Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 be exhibited in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and Council's Community Engagement Framework. This report also provides an update on the response from the Office of Local Government and outcomes of the public exhibition.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Adopt the draft Local Approvals Policy in accordance with section 166 of the Local Government Act 1993;

2. Approve the proposed amendment to Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 and adopt the amended Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013.

BACKGROUND

In support of Council's community, cultural and economic development objectives, the former Leichhardt Council explored ways to support Live Music venue operators and other event managers to negotiate the approvals process, manage noise and open up new spaces to performers. In 2014, the former Leichhardt Council participated in a Live Music Zone Reference Group with the former Marrickville Council, City of Sydney, live music industry representatives and musicians and related business owners. The scope of the Reference Group included consideration of the recommendations of the City of Sydney Taskforce report, site inspections, identification of opportunities and recommendations which will enhance the potential of Parramatta Road and Sydenham as future cultural, live music and performance destinations. One of the recommendations was that the former Leichhardt Council improve planning and approvals processes.

In 2015 an Internal Working Group was set up to identify opportunities to reduce red tape, costs and resources by streamlining and simplifying application and approval processes for events and activities through the implementation of a Local Approvals Policy. It was determined that the scope of the Policy should be limited to events and activities in the public domain. The Local Government Act 1993 enables Council to develop and implement a Local Approvals Policy which gives Council the power to approve a predetermined range of events, promotions and related activities by licence, in the public domain. It can also establish approvals for pre-determined locations such as Norton Street or certain streets in Balmain on ANZAC Day/ locations. Pre-determined land uses can include:

· promotional activities adjacent to and in association with an existing approved land use

· amplified and non-amplified entertainment at certain times of day

· school stalls, buskers, food vans etc

On 8 September 2015 Council resolved (C430/15P) to develop a draft Local Approvals Policy and a draft Planning Proposal to extend Exempt and Complying provisions. The draft Local Approvals Policy was developed and report was presented to the former Leichhardt Council in April 2016 seeking endorsement of the draft policy. This report responds to the former Leichhardt Council's April 2016 resolution (C170/16P) which recommended the following:

1. Endorse the draft Local Approvals Policy.

2. Place the draft Local Approvals Policy on public exhibition for a period of 28 days and allow 42 days for lodgement of submissions, in accordance with the Local Government Act and Regulations and Councils Community Engagement Framework.

3. Refer the draft Local Approvals Policy to the Office of Local Government in accordance with s.162 of the Local Government Act.

4. Exhibit an amendment to the Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 as detailed in section 1.3 of this report.

5. Delegate authority to the General Manager to make changes to the draft Local Approvals Policy and draft amendment to Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 prior to the public exhibition as a result of consideration by Councillor where there are minor changes that do not affect the substance of the provisions; and

6. Endorse the Community Engagement Plan for the draft amendments to the draft Local Approvals Policy and draft Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 as outlined in section 1.4 of the report.

Summary of the exhibited draft Local Approvals Policy:

The draft policy outlines the matters relevant to obtaining an approval for selected events and outdoor activities from Council under the Local Government Act 1993. It sets the framework for what types of activities and circumstances are relevant to such applications. It also sets out the circumstances for exemptions from the need to gain an approval (See Attachment 1). It was the former Leichhardt Council's intention that after its adoption, this policy would be expanded to include mobile food vending and other regulatory matters.

In addition to some ‘standard’ provisions for waste management; stormwater; car parks; and amusement devices; the policy will support the delivery of:

· community and promotional (for profit) events on Council land

· community and council events on community land

· live music

· retail trading and display of merchandise on footpaths

· A-frames signage

Summary of the exhibited amendment to Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013:

To ensure consistency with the draft Local Approvals Policy, a draft amendment to the Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 was also exhibited. It proposes changes to the wording of clause A3.9 Activity Applications to simplify notification requirements for the types of activities covered by the Local Approvals Policy (See Attachment-2).

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Assessment and Compliance officers commented during the exhibition of the draft Local Approvals Policy that the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (Codes SEPP) could pose difficulties in the enforcement of the provisions for footpath dining in Part C Section 4 - Non-Residential Provisions of the Leichhardt DCP 2013.

The DCP 2013 footpath dining provisions that require a 1.5 metre uninterrupted clear path of travel between street furniture, public infrastructure, outdoor eating areas and the building line. This level of detail is not defined in the Codes SEPP.

Current LEP and DCP Provisions in relation to outdoor dining:

Leichhardt LEP 2013

Leichhardt DCP 2013

Schedule 2 Exempt Development

Outdoor dining areas in Zone B1 or Zone B2

1. Must be associated with a restaurant or café being carried out with lawful consent.

2. Must not be associated with a pub or take away food and drink premises.

3. Must be located adjacent to the associated premises.

4. Must not provide seating for more than 6 patrons.

5. Must not result in the premises exceeding its approved seating capacity.

6. Must not be used before 7.30am or after 10pm.

7. Must be set back to accommodate a straight, unobstructed path that is at least 1.5m wide for pedestrians.

8. Must not include the installation of any structures other than tables, chairs, umbrellas, heaters and barriers, which must be maintained and in good working order.

9. Tables, chairs and umbrellas must not incorporate advertising.

10. Maximum height of barriers - 1m.

11. If located on the footway of a public road, must be consistent with an approval granted under section 125 of the Roads Act 1993.

12. If located on community land, use must be consistent with an approval under Division 2 of Part 2 of Chapter 6 of the LG Act.

C4.20 Outdoor Dining Areas

Background

This element outlines objectives and controls that should be met to obtain Development Consent for the use of footways in association with restaurants or cafes and food shops within the road reserve (public domain). Once development consent is obtained, Council map, under the Roads Act 1993, issue a license for the use of a footway for such purposes. Concurrence of NSW Roads and Maritime Services must be obtained where the footway is within the reserve of a classified road.

Kerb-side outdoor dining areas are preferred in Leichhardt as they allow a clear path of travel along the building line. However, all applications are considered in relation to the width of the footpath, presence of other street furniture and infrastructure and the location of any established adjacent outdoor seating.

Approval process

The approval process for outdoor dining areas includes:

a. Checking the exempt and complying schedule within Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 as to whether a development application is required;

b. Submitting a development application and obtaining development consent (Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979);

c. Obtaining approval under the Roads Act 1993 through an 'Application for Approval to place tables/chairs/obstructions on footway' Form. This is available from Leichhardt Council Customer Service or the Leichhardt Council website; and

d. Determining whether additional permits, approvals or requirements under the Roads Act 1993, the Local Government Act 1993, or AUSTROADS Guide to Road Design Part 6A - Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths may be required. There may also be additional requirements for development on classified roads.

It is noted that SEPP was amended on 22 February 2014, and applies to footpath dining associated with food and drink premises as follows:

Division 1 General Exempt Development Code

Subdivision 20A Footpaths-outdoor dining

2.40A Specified Development

The use of a footway or public open space within the meaning of the Roads Act as an outdoor dining area associated with lawful food and drink premises is development specified for this code.

2.40B Development Standards

The standards specified for that development are that the development must:

(a) not be associated with a pub or small bar, and

(b) be carried out in accordance with an approval granted under section 125 of the Roads Act, including in accordance with any hours of operation to which the approval is subject, and

(c) be carried out in accordance with any approval granted under section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993.

As the SEPP prevails over the LEP/DCP provisions for outdoor dining on footpaths associated with a lawful food and drink premises (that are not a pub or small bar) both the LEP and DCP will require amendment to remove the clauses in relation to outdoor dining areas. This will be dealt with in a future Council report.

Given that the majority of footpath dining will occur on either the footway of a public road or on community land, the relevant approvals must be obtained under s 125 of the Roads Act and Division 2 of Part 2 of Division 6 of Local Government Act 1993. Consequently the draft Local Approvals Policy was amended to include the existing LEP/DCP outdoor dining provisions. This addressed the concern that the SEPP did not provide the level of detailed controls for outdoor dining that were already in the LEP and DCP.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

In accordance with the aforementioned Council resolution (C170/16P), the draft Local Approvals Policy was exhibited for 42 days from 17 May 2016 to 28 June 2016 and draft amendment to Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 was exhibited for 28 days from 17 May 2016 to 14 June 2016. The consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, Local Government Regulation 2005, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 – Part 3, Division 2 Public Participation and the former Leichhardt Council's Community Engagement Framework.

Draft Local Approvals Policy:

Notification of the community consultation included:

· A quarter-page advertisement/ public notice in the local newspaper (Inner West Courier) on 10 May 2016 (6 days prior to the commencement of exhibition period);

· A second quarter-page advertisement/ public notice in the Inner West Courier on 21 June 2016;

· Advertised on the Council's Have Your Say webpage throughout the consultation period;

· Documents on exhibition were made available for 42 days from 17 May 2016 to 28 June 2016 via:

o Council's Have Your Say webpage;

o copies at Council's Customer Service Centre (Leichhardt), Leichhardt Library and Balmain Library.

Amendment to Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013:

· Notification of the community consultation included:

· A quarter-page advertisement/ public notice in the local newspaper (Inner West Courier) on 10 May 2016;

· Advertised on the Council's Have Your Say webpage throughout the consultation period;

· Documents on exhibition were made available for 28 days from 17 May 2016 to 14 June 2016 via:

o Council's Have Your Say webpage;

o copies at Council's Customer Service Centre (Leichhardt), Leichhardt Library and Balmain Library.

Public Exhibition Outcome:

No external submissions were received. Internal officer comments are discussed above and the draft Local Approvals Policy was amended to reflect these comments. The proposed changes reiterate the provisions of Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 for the use of footways for outdoor dining areas within the road reserve under Part 2 - Criteria that Council May consider When Determining Applications of the draft Local Approvals Policy - Leichhardt. The amendment is considered inconsequential as it did not modify the intent of the exhibited policy.

Approval from relevant authorities:

In accordance with the Council resolution (C170/16P), the amended draft Local Approvals Policy was referred to the Office of Local Government and Department of Planning and Environment for approval under section 68 (1) and 162 of the Local Government Act 1993. Council has now been granted consent to adopt the Local Approvals Policy from both agencies and exempt the necessity to obtain approvals for certain activities within the former Leichhardt area (See Attachments 3 & 4). This consent will remain in effect until either the exemption provisions are changed or until twelve months after the next local government ordinary elections.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the Council adopt the Local Approvals Policy under section 166 of the Local Government Act 1993. It is also recommended that the Council approve the proposed amendment to Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 and adopt the amended Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Attachment 1- Amended Draft Local_Approvals_Policy
2.⇩	Attachment 2 - Proposed DCP Amendment 7 Leichhardt Development Control Plan
3.⇩	Attachment 3 - Approval from Office of Local Government to adopt Local Approvals Policy
4.⇩	Attachment 4 - Approval from Department for adoption of LAP
5.⇩	Attachment 5 - Council Resolution 12 April 2016 Leichhardt Council
6.⇩	Attachment 6 - Council Report 12 April 2016 Leichhardt Council

Council Meeting

26 April 2017

Item No: C0417 Item 12

Subject: Venue for Council Meetings until September 2017

File Ref: 16/4718/142306.16

Prepared By: Ian Naylor - Manager Governance and Administration and Tanya Whitmarsh - Group Manager Governance

Authorised By: Tanya Whitmarsh - Group Manager Governance

SUMMARY

At the Council Meeting of 6 December 2016, Council resolved to defer consideration of the venue for Council Meetings for the period May – December 2017. This report reviews the use of the Council meeting chamber at the Ashfield Service Centre since June 2016 and its suitability for Council Meetings to be held in the period May 2017 to September 2017.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the Council meeting chamber at the Ashfield Service Centre of Inner West Council be used as the venue for the conduct of Ordinary Council meetings already scheduled on the following dates in 2017:

· 23 May

· 27 June

· 25 July

· 26 September

BACKGROUND

At the Ordinary Council meeting of 6 December 2016, the Administrator determined as follows, with regard to the schedule of Council meetings to be held in 2017:

“1. Ordinary Council meetings be held at Ashfield Service Centre on 28 February, 28 March and 26 April 2017;

2. Ordinary Council meetings be held on 23 May, 27 June and 25 July 2017 and the venue of the meetings be determined at a later stage; and

3. Ordinary Council meetings be held on 26 September, 24 October, 21 November and 12 December 2017 and the venue of the meetings be determined by the new Council.

Clause 393B of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 limits councils’ ability to exercise some of their functions in the four weeks preceding the date of an ordinary local government election (the caretaker period). In light of these limitations, the Administrator reserved the right to set a Council meeting date for August 2017 if it were to become evident that there were sufficient matters not affected by Clause 393B that could not reasonably wait for the attention of the incoming Council.

DISCUSSION

The first election of councillors for Inner West Council will be conducted on 9 September 2017. As per the proclamation on 12 May 2016 that created Inner West Council, the Administrator continues in the role of Administrator until immediately before the first meeting of the new council. Accordingly, a Council meeting venue needs to be determined for the first meeting of the incoming Council as well as the balance of Council meetings to be conducted before the Administrator completes his term of office.

A fresh assessment of the three Council meeting venues that were used by the former Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils has been conducted. There has been no change in circumstances since the 2016 assessment that improve the suitability of the Leichhardt or Petersham (ex Marrickville) venues over the Ashfield one. Consideration has also been given to use of the Petersham and Leichhardt Town Halls - they offer even less amenity than the venues used for meetings of the former Councils, and scheduling conflicts with other use such as after school care services would prove very problematic.

The Ashfield venue has worked well as a place for meetings of Inner West Council since June 2016. There is a capacious reception area on the Ground floor as well as spacious and comfortable amenities on Level 6 all of which are conducive to the efficient and effective conduct of meetings. The venue continues to be a superior facility in terms of local accessibility too. It is well serviced by bus, taxi and rail transport and there is ample parking in the vicinity. The facility has the greatest capacity for safely accommodating members of the public and Council officers – it is a more modern construction than the other two venues and consequently meets higher Building Code of Australia safety standards for ingress and egress than are possible for the other two venues.

The standard of the fit-out and amenities at Ashfield are better than those at Leichhardt and Petersham. Overall set-up requirements at Ashfield have proven to be faster and simpler to manage than would otherwise be the case at the chambers located at Leichhardt and Petersham. The venue has superior technology in place for capturing and displaying live minutes as well as superior sound amplification and recording capabilities. It is the only venue that is fitted with technology necessary for live streaming of meetings.

Live streaming of meetings was introduced in December 2016 as an important means of increasing the transparency and accountability of Council decision making by making meetings far more accessible. The webcasting technology in place permits easy viewing through either live broadcast or on-demand after a meeting. Use of alternative venues, including town halls and the like as well as Council chambers at Leichhardt and Petersham, would require expenditure on installation of technology to support the live streaming of meetings. It is difficult to justify such additional expenditure under the current circumstances.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the Council meeting chamber at the Ashfield Service Centre of Inner West Council continue to be the preferred venue for the Council Meetings until at least September 2017. It continues to be the most efficient, effective and safest option among the current range of feasible venues for the conduct of Council meetings.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Current arrangements are fully funded in Council’s budget.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Not applicable.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.