AGENDA R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council Meeting

 

TUESDAY 23 MAY 2017

 

6:30pm

 

 

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 

 

 

INDEX

 

 

1          Acknowledgement of Country

 

2          Notice of Live Streaming of Council Meeting

 

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

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                         Page

Minutes of 26 April 2017 Council Meeting                                                                        3

 

5          Administrator’s Minutes

            Nil at time of printing

 

6          Staff Reports

 

C0517 Item 1      WestConnex Update Report:  Exhibition Of M4-M5 Link Concept Design, Funding For WestConnex Community Organiser Position, Funding For Rozelle Against Weston’s Publication And M4 East Tree Replacement Program                                9

C0517 Item 2      Local Traffic Committee Meeting Held On 4 May 2017                            33

C0517 Item 3      Proposed Amendment To Floor Space Ratio Controls In Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013                                                                                                    56

C0517 Item 4      Development Advisory And Assessment Process Improvement              98

C0517 Item 5      Post Exhibition Report- Draft Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 Amendment - To delete shop top housing as a use Permitted with Consent in the B7 Business Park zone                                                                                                           109

C0517 Item 6      Code of Meeting Practice                                                                         122

C0517 Item 7      Attendance At The National General Assembly 18-21 June 2017           170

C0517 Item 8      NSW Aboriginal Rugby League Knockout Carnival (Koori Knockout)     171

C0517 Item 9      Inner West Council Grant Program Guidelines                                        177

C0517 Item 10    Adoption Of Draft Inclusion Action Plan                                                   202

C0517 Item 11    Inner West Council Investment Policy                                                      292

C0517 Item 12    Inner West Investments as at 30 April 2017                                             310

C0517 Item 13    Quarterly Budget Review Statement For The Period Ended

                            31 March 2017                                                                                          344  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 

 

  

 Minutes of Council Meeting held on Wednesday 26 April 2017

 

Meeting commenced at 6.32pm

 

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

Peter Gainsford

Deputy General Manager Assets and Environment

Pav Kuzmanovski

Group Manager Finance

Simon Manoski

Group Manager Strategic Planning

Wal Petschler

Group Manager Footpaths, Roads, Traffic and Stormwater

Tanya Whitmarsh

Group Manager Governance

Kendall Banfield

Manager WestConnex Unit

Gill Dawson

Manager Environment and Urban Planning

Marcus Rowan

Manager Planning Services

Mary Bailey

Parking Planner

Rad Miladinovic

Coordinator Governance and Administration (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.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

The Administrator determined that the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on Tuesday,
28 March 2017 be confirmed.

 

 

C0417 Item 1      Minutes of the IAG Meeting held 6 April 2017 and Minutes of the LRAC Meeting held 11 April 2017



The Administrator determined that:

 

1.       the Minutes of the IAG Meeting held on 06 April  2017 be noted;  and

2.       the Minutes of the LRAC Meeting held on 11 April 2017 be noted.

 

 


C0417 Item 2      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

The Administrator determined 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.

 

 

 

C0417 Item 3      Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 6 April 2017

The Administrator determined that the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 06 April 2017 be received and the recommendations be adopted.

 

 

 


C0417 Item 4      Supplementary Report: Marrickville Heritage Review

The Administrator determined that:

 

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

·           delete 30 Carrington Road, Marrickville from the planning proposal

·           delete 149 Unwins Bridge Road, Tempe from the planning proposal

·           delete 294 Livingstone Road Marrickville from the planning proposal

·           delete 51 Frederick Street St Peters from the planning proposal

·           delete 389 Illawarra Road Marrickville (Church of Christ) from the planning proposal

·           delete 545 Princes Highway and 2 Samuel Street Tempe from the planning proposal;  and

 

2.    any further consideration of these items be carried out as part of a future heritage study.

 

 

 

C0417 Item 5      Inner West Council Operational Plan and Budget 2017/2018

The Administrator determined 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 subject to minor administrative changes;

 

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.    a public meeting(s) be held as part of the consultation process;  and

 

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

 

 

 


C0417 Item 6      Draft Community Engagement Policy and Framework

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

 

 

 

C0417 Item 7      Short-term Licenses at 24 Australia St Camperdown

The Administrator determined that Council authorises the General Manager or his delegate to enter into short-term licenses for 24 Australia St Camperdown upon conditions detailed in this report

 

 

 

C0417 Item 8      Post Exhibition Report - Draft Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 Amendment - 85 Margaret Street, Petersham

The Administrator determined that:

 

1.    the report be received and noted; and

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

 

 


 

 

C0417 Item 9      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

The Administrator determined that:

 

1.    the report be received and noted; and

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

 

 

 

 

C0417 Item 10    Review of Planning Proposal Fees and Charges – Public Exhibition Outcomes

The Administrator determined that Council:

 

1.    approves and adopts the integrated Inner West Council planning proposal fee structure in accordance with the provisions of Local Government Act 1993;  and

2.    makes amendments to the Inner West Council Schedule of Fees and Charges 2016/17 to reflect the new planning proposal fee structure.

 

 

 

 


C0417 Item 11    Local Approvals Policy – Public Exhibition Outcomes

The Administrator determined that Council:

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

C0417 Item 12    Venue for Council Meetings until September 2017

The Administrator determined 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

 


 

 

 

C0417 Item 13    Inner West Council Investments as at 31 March 2017

The Administrator determined that the report be received and noted.

 

 

C0417 Item 14    Cottages at 9 and 11 Marion Street Leichhardt

The Administrator determined that:

 

1.    Council prepares a car parking plan on the site of 9 and 11 Marion Street Leichhardt which is to be reported to the Local Traffic Committee following a community engagement process;

 

2.    should the car parking plan be approved by the Local Traffic Committee, Council proceeds with this work under the  SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007;  and

 

3.    Council provides $300,000 funding in the draft 17/18 budget for the demolition of the former cottages at 9 and 11 Marion Street, Leichhardt and replacement with parking area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meeting closed at 8.07pm.

 

 

 


 

 

Public Speakers:

 

 

Item No.

Speaker                     

Suburb

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 1:

John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC

Balmain

 

Lucille McKenna, Ashfield LRAC

Summer Hill

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 2:

Lesley Treleaven

John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC

Richard Smith

John Lozano

 

Balmain

 

Haberfield

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 3:

Dane Mcintosh (Item 24)

St Peters

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 4:

James Cartwright

Andrew Woodhouse

Kevin Lam

Bruce Woolf

James Phillips

Tri Nguyen

Morris Hanna, Marrickville LRAC

Julie Passas, Ashfield LRAC

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maroubra

Ashfield

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 5:

Mark Drury, Ashfield LRAC

John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC

Lucille McKenna, Ashfield LRAC

Croydon

Balmain

Summer Hill

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 13:

Frank Breen, Leichhardt LRAC

Birchgrove

 

 

 

 

   

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 

Item No:         C0517 Item 1

Subject:         WestConnex Update Report:  Exhibition of M4-M5 Link Concept Design, Funding for WestConnex Community Organiser Position, Funding for Rozelle Against WestConnex Publication and M4 East Tree Replacement Program 

File Ref:         16/6107/46552.17        

Prepared By:     Kendall Banfield - Manager WestConnex Unit 

Authorised By:  Simon Manoski - Group Manager Strategic Planning

 

SUMMARY

This report relates to four WestConnex items.  The first is the recently-announced exhibition of the M4-M5 Link Concept Design.  The second is a request for continuation of funding for the WestConnex Community Organiser position administered by community group No WestConnex Public Transport (NoW PT).  The third is a request for a one-off funding contribution to community group Rozelle Against WestConnex (RAW) for a tabloid publication for distribution to the community.  The fourth item is Council’s comment on a minor modification of the M4 East tree replacement program - a requirement of an M4 East Condition of Approval.  Council’s comment states that whilst Council opposes WestConnex, it supports the tree replacement program and the proposed modification.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

1.       Receives and notes this report;

2.       Endorses continuation of funding of the full-time WestConnex Community Organiser position for a further 12 months from the end of the position’s current term in September 2017 at a cost of approximately $100,000;

3.       Writes to the City of Sydney seeking a contribution of half of the funding of the abovementioned Community Organiser position, i.e. $50,000; and

4.       Endorses a one-off funding contribution of $3,300 to Rozelle Against WestConnex (RAW) for a WestConnex opposition tabloid publication for distribution to the community.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Item 1:  Exhibition of M4-M5 Link Concept Design

 

On 12 May 2017 Sydney Motorway Corporation (SMC) placed the M4-M5 Link Concept Design on public exhibition.  The Concept Design is a 56-page document available from SMC’s website at https://www.westconnex.com.au/M4-M5LinkDesign.  Council has been advised that there is at this stage no end date for this exhibition – the exhibition will overlap with exhibition of the M4-M5 Link Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is planned to commence in mid-2017.  Council’s Administrator has written to the WestConnex Minister raising concerns about the overlapping exhibition period, indicating that this sends a message to the community that the exhibition of the Concept Design is rushed and tokenistic.  The Administrator has also issued a media release raising concerns about local impacts from this project.


 

 

Immediately after release of the document, Council staff undertook an initial identification of key issues for the community.  These issues are:

·     potential for increased traffic on Johnston Street and The Crescent - particularly as these streets would provide direct access from the Inner West to a future Western Harbour Tunnel – and possibly increased traffic on connecting streets Booth Street, Mallet Street and Northumberland Avenue;

·     truck traffic, noise, dust and other impacts from mid-tunnel construction dive-sites at Darley Road and Annandale/Camperdown on local residents, businesses, pedestrians, cyclists and bus operations – noting that the document briefly states that Rozelle Rail Yards (western end) will be considered as a possible alternative to Darley Road;

·     truck traffic, noise, dust and other impacts from other construction sites on residents, businesses, pedestrians, cyclists and bus operations

·     traffic safety and noise impacts from stabling and queuing of construction trucks wherever this may occur;

·     increased traffic on the eastern section of City West Link with only two pedestrian access points to the new linear park from the south;

·     no consideration of heritage for the Rozelle Rail Yards site;

·     bulk, scale and air quality impacts of ventilation facilities – particularly proximity of the Iron Cove ventilation facility to medium-density residential development at and around Balmain Shores and Terry Street; and

·     general impact of increased operational traffic volumes in the area around the Rozelle Interchange on local amenity, accessibility and pedestrian/cyclist safety.

 

Further information on Council’s identification and assessment of issues raised by the M4-M5 Link Concept Design for the Inner West Council area will be reported to future meetings of the Local Representation Advisory Committee (LRAC) and Council, and will be included in WestConnex Weekly Update Reports. Council is now in the process of engaging consultants and seeking comments from specialist Council staff to draft a submission on the Concept Design.  A similar process will be undertaken for Council’s assessment of the EIS. 

 

Item 2:  Continued funding of WestConnex Community Organiser position

 

In August 2015, former Marrickville and Leichhardt councils and the City of Sydney provided funding to No WestConnex Public Transport (NoW PT) for a part-time Community Organiser to provide co-ordination and support for local community groups that had formed to oppose WestConnex.  In September 2016 Inner West Council resolved to continue this funding for a further 12 months, but had increased the funding to $87,824 to enable it to be on a full-time basis.  There was no funding contribution from the City of Sydney for this second round of funding. 

 

In May 2017, NoW PT wrote to Council pointing out the current (second) round of funding expires in September 2017 and making a request for a further (third) round of funding for 12-months at a total cost of $99,352 (letter at ATTACHMENT 1).  A breakdown of the budget for the position is at ATTACHMENT 2.  A report to funders on the position for the period since the position’s inception (August 2015 to May 2017) is at ATTACHMENT 3

 

The NoW PT letter explains that the work of the Community Organiser is overseen by a Steering Committee which is guided by the Memorandum of Understanding between Council and NoW PT (at ATTACHMENT 4).  Council’s Manager WestConnex Unit is on the Steering Committee and the Committee typically meets bi-monthly.  Steering Committee meetings have been held in December 2016, March and April 2017. 


 

 

The letter explains that the work of the Community Organiser has furthered community education and has facilitated organisation of the various Inner West community groups that oppose WestConnex.  This has enabled strong and co-ordinated advocacy by the community groups and increased capacity of residents to identify non-compliance and comment constructively on detailed plans.  Council officers concur with NoW PT that the work of the Community Organiser has been beneficial to Council, to local WestConnex opposition groups and to the local community.  It is therefore recommended in this report that Council resolves to accept this funding request.

 

Consistent with NoW PT’s suggestion within the letter, it is also recommended in this report that Inner West Council seeks a half contribution from the City of Sydney ($49,676) for funding of this position.  This would not only reduce costs for Inner West Council, but would continue to strengthen the long-standing partnership between the two Councils on opposing inner-Sydney motorways including WestConnex. 

 

Item 3:  Funding contribution to Rozelle Against WestConnex (RAW) for tabloid publication

 

At meetings of Council’s WestConnex Community Liaison Forum (WCLF) in March and April 2017, the RAW representative verbally requested a one-off contribution of $3,300 (incl. GST) toward funding of a WestConnex opposition tabloid publication.  This verbal request is supported by a May 2017 letter from RAW at ATTACHMENT 5

 

The letter explains that the tabloid would be 16-page, full colour standalone edition with a print run of 60,000 copies for distribution to the Inner West community.  Articles would be sought from all of the resident groups in the IWC area who are opposed to WestConnex and Council would have a representative on the editorial committee.  RAW has already raised half of the production cost of $6,500 and seeks the balance of $3,300 from Council.  RAW advises that financial contributions will not be sought or accepted from political parties nor will articles from them be published.  Distribution will be arranged via existing community volunteer networks and the tabloid will be available to all Inner West Council residents free of charge.

 

Given council’s strong opposition to WestConnex and in the spirit of Council’s support to date of local WestConnex community opposition groups it is proposed that this RAW publication would deliver significant public benefit. In addition, this request could be eligible for funding under the Inner West Council 2017/2018 grant program however these funds would not be available until toward the end of 2017 which would be too late for publication. This report therefore recommends that Council resolves to support the request make a one-off contribution of $3,300 for this purpose.

 

Item 4:  Modification of M4 East Condition of Approval re tree replacement program

 

In April 2017, Council was notified by the DP&E (letter at ATTACHMENT 6) of a request by Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) (letter at ATTACHMENT 7) to modify M4 East Condition of Approval (CoA) B47 to allow for flexibility in the pot size of replacement trees and allow for a consistent definition of “tree”. 

 

M4 East CoA B47 currently states: “The SSI [State Significant Infrastructure] must be designed to retain as many trees as possible and provide a net increase in the number of replacement trees.  In the event that trees are to be removed, then replacement trees are to be planted within, or in close proximity to, the SSI boundary.  The location of the trees must be determined in consultation with the relevant council(s).  The replacement trees are to have a minimum pot size of 75 litres.”


 

 

It is proposed that CoA B47 be modified to read as follows:

 

“The SSI must be designed to retain as many trees as possible and provide a net increase in the number of replacement trees.  In the event that trees are to be removed, then replacement trees are to be planted within, or in close proximity to, the SSI boundary.  The location of the trees must be determined in consultation with the relevant authority.”

 

The replacement trees to have a minimum pot size of 75 litres except where the plantings are proposed in accordance with a relevant authority’s revegetation, street planting, landscaping and/or open space programs/plans (including Council-endorsed WestConnex ‘Legacy’ projects outside the project footprint associated with the M4 East project) that specify alternative pot sizes for trees.  In such cases, the Proponent must submit to the Secretary for approval a report which includes:

 

-     a copy of the relevant authority’s revegetation program/plan;

-     details on the proposed plantings (including type, size and location);

-     details on how the relevant plantings meet the requirements of the relevant authority’s revegetation program/plan; and

-     documentation from the relevant authority that it is satisfied with the Proponent’s proposed plantings.”

 

Council staff reviewed the request and agreed with RMS’s application that “the revised wording of CoA B47, as developed in liaison with the DPE, is considered appropriate in continuing to maintain the intent of the conditions while providing the flexibility required to achieve a more desired, sustainable and effective outcome”. Council also agreed that “the amendment of the tree definition ensures continuity between the CoAs and post-approvals compliance and is therefore necessary.”

 

In a letter May 2017 at ATTACHMENT 8, Council officers stated that though Council opposes WestConnex, it supports the M4 East tree replacement program.  The letter explains that all relevant Council staff and the Department of Planning & Environment’s (DPE’s) WestConnex Compliance Officer had been involved in meetings in late 2016 and early 2017 on this matter. At these meetings, Council staff have understood the intent of the modifications and raised no objections. Consistent with these meeting comments, it remains that Council raises no objections.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Items 2 and 3 above have financial implications that have not been allocated in Council’s 2017/18 draft budget.  Continuation of funding for the Community Organiser position will be undertaken with existing financial arrangements subject to variation if a 50% contribution is obtained from the City of Sydney.  The additional funds for a contribution to the Rozelle Against WestConnex (RAW) will also need to be allocated in the 17/18 budget.  A funding source will need to be identified and included as a part of the final 17/18 budget for both these items.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Comments from all relevant staff are included in this report.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.  Public consultation is not required for any of the items discussed in this report.

 


 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Letter from NoW PT seeking continuation of funding for the Community Organiser position

2.

Attachment to NoW PT letter showing budget for Community Organiser position

3.

Attachment to NoW PT letter - report to Community Organiser funder for period August 2015 to May 2017

4.

Attachment to NoW PT letter - Memorandum of Understanding for Community Organiser position September 2016

5.

Letter from RAW seeking Council funding contribution for WestConnex tabloid publication

6.

Letter from DP&E re proposed modification to M4 East CoA B47 - tree replacement program

7.

Modification request from RMS for M4 East CoA B47 - tree replacement program

8.

Letter from Council to DP&E commenting on proposed modification to M4 East CoA B47 - tree replacement program

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 

 

                                PO Box 270 Earlwood 2206

 

5  May  2017

 

Mr R. Pearson

Administrator

Inner West Council

PO Box 45

LEICHHARDT    NSW   2040

richardp@ashfield.nsw.gov.au

 

 

Dear Mr Pearson

 

No WestConnex Public Transport: Community Organiser -  application for further funding

 

Thank you for the support that Council has provided to date for the work of the No Westconnex Public Transport group (NoW).  We are particularly grateful for the funding provided in the 2016-2017 financial year by the Inner West Council (IWC) for our Community Organiser.  This funding has made a significant difference to the effectiveness of the campaign against WestConnex and the negative  impacts of the project on communities in the Inner West Council area.  We are pleased  the IWC has recognised the concern and opposition of many residents, ratepayers and businesses and acted to support IWC communities through funding NoW’s Community Organiser position.

The funds from Council enabled the employment of Alana West in the position until 3 February 2017.  Chris Kerle took up the role of Community Organiser on 20 February 2017 under the current grant arrangement with the Nature Conservation Council.  The position is funded until 29 September 2017.

The work of the Community Organiser is overseen by a Steering Committee which is guided by the Memorandum of Understanding between the IWC and NoW (see attached) . IWC has a representative, Kendall Banfield, on the Steering Committee and the Committee typically meets bi-monthly.   Steering Committee meetings have been held in December 2016, March and April 2017.  Also attached for your information is a report on the activities of the work of the Community Organisers since the inception of the position 

 

The work of the Community Organiser has furthered community education and facilitated community organisation in relation to the various  components of the WestConnex project.  It has enabled strong advocacy by community representatives on the Council’s Liaison Committee and the various  WestConnex advisory and reference groups. The work of the Community Organiser has also increased the capacity of residents to monitor compliance and identify non-compliance with environmental and construction standards, to seek amelioration for residents impacted on by the project, and to comment constructively on detailed plans as they are developed and rolled out by the Sydney Motorways Corporation (SMC) and WestConnex.

WestConnex will continue for many years to come. We therefore seek funding for the Community Organiser's position for a further 12 month period to continue campaigning against the massive impacts of this project in the Inner West Council area and to assist residents to represent their individual and community interests.

We have attached  a copy of the MOU signed in 2016  and a budget for the position for a further 12 months. NoW looks forward to your earliest response.

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

 

Chris Elenor

 (Co-convenor)

NoW PT

Mob.  0400 606 379

 

Attachments

 

1. Report on Community Organiser activities

2. Draft budget Community Organiser 2017-2018                  

3.  MOU:  IWC and NoW PT 2016-2017 

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 

Now Public Transport Community Organiser Budget for 2017-2018

 

 

 

Item

 

Amount

Full time employee, Community services worker level 4 - Step 1 for 52 weeks @ $34.413 x  38.0 hrs (5 days) x 52 weeks

 

$68,000.00

 

Superannuation, Annual Leave, Leave Loading, Workers Comp

 

$17,320.00

 

NCC Administrative and Office Fees

 

$5,000.00

GST (10%)

 

$9,032.00

Total:

 

$99,352.00

 

 

 

Adrienne Parr

Treasurer

NoW Public Transport

e: treasurer@westconnex.info

 

 

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 

Report back to Funders on the Activities of the No WestConnex Public Transport (NoWPT) Community Organisers

 

Period:  August 2015 to May 2017

 

Shaun Murray was appointed as Community Organiser to the No WestConnex Public Transport Campaign (“NoWPT”) in August 2015.  He was formally employed by the Nature Conservation Council (NCC) and worked to a Steering Committee comprising representatives of NoW PT,  NCC and the City of Sydney Council.

 

Meetings of the Steering Committee have been held approximately bi-monthly since August 2015, the most recent being in  April 2017.  The Inner West Council  provided a representative to this Committee as part of the requirement under the MOU signed between that Council and NoW PT for funding in 2016-2017.  

 

In March  2016,   Sean Murray  resigned and he was replaced in May 2016 by Alana West.  In  September 2016, the Community Organiser’s position was expanded to full time due to the increased and urgent demands of the role.  In February 2017  Alana West resigned and was replaced by  Chris Kerle.

 

The following is a summary of activities by the Community Organisers in the period from August 2015 to  May 2017:

 

·    Attended local group meetings and met individually with many of the key volunteers to enable better understanding and communications between all the stakeholders;

·    Facilitated regular meetings of the combined groups opposing the WestConnex project;

·    Assisted local groups with their organising capabilities and ensured they were able to generate strong media against the WestConnex drilling on sites in the City of Sydney, and  the then Marrickville, Leichhardt and Ashfield Council areas;

·    Organised contributions to the “People’s EIS” (please refer to http://m4eis.org/) by identifying experts to write professional submissions to assist community groups and by supporting individuals opposed to and affected by WestConnex to write submissions;

·    Co-ordinated volunteer distribution of 45,000 copies of a publication by EcoTransit entitled “WestConnex - $15 billion down a black hole” at railway stations and in letterboxes all across the proposed  route of WestConnex. (copy attached for your information);

·    Organised an information stand and a citizens contingent to march at the Climate Rally on 29 November 2015;

·    Planned, organised and ran strategy planning workshops for the combined groups and key volunteers;

·    Supported  and promoted “Uprooted” events on 6 December, a simultaneous 3-part picnic/rally auspiced by WAG and held at Kingsgrove, St Peters and Haberfield, to publicise to local people what amenity would be lost due to WestConnex incursions into houses, parks and public spaces;

·    Assisted  in co-ordinating  submissions  from NoW members to the People’s EIS for the M5 (www.m5eis.org).  As previously, NoW called on the Department of Planning to extend the deadline for submissions to 90 days but this call was ignored;

·    Established a CRM database which now has several thousand email contacts;

·    Provided guidance and training in producing media releases and engaging media on events organised by the local groups;

·    Drafted regular  “e bulletins”  in consultation with NoW Committee members, and disseminated these to campaign supporters and other stakeholders;

·    Developed, with some community volunteers, a new website designed to facilitate more streamlined volunteer recruitment and to promote latest developments about WestConnex activities;

·    Assisted in the production and dissemination  of media releases on aspects of the WestConnex project.  Initial media training for volunteers through a media professional was also organised;

·    Facilitated orientation and training in a range of communication and organising tools ie  Nationbuilder, website management and “phone banking”;

·    Provided guidance and organising capacity to the organisation of an event to  coincide with the tabling of the “Stop WestConnex” petition.  The following day, the Government released the business case;

·    Launched and promoted a petition calling on the Commonwealth Auditor-General to audit WestConnex, and collected more than 2,200 signatures;

·    Provided guidance and organising capacity to  a number of volunteers from several community groups to assist them in organising an event to coincide with the announcement of the approval of the M4 East Extension.  Approximately 120 people attended;

·    Assisted community groups to work more effectively with Councils to increase the understanding of  the potential impacts of WestConnex;  

·    Organised a  volunteer and recruitment information night at Leichhardt Town Hall.  Approximately 60 people attended;

·    Designed, produced and assisted with the distribution of 4,000 postcard petitions calling for withdrawal/cessation of Federal funding of WestConnex;

·    Updated No WestConnex: Public Transport website to provide much more information on the campaign, the organisation, pathways for involvement for volunteers and the community. Regular volunteers were trained to fulfil administration duties for the campaign;

·    Coordinated volunteers to run a No WestConnex stall at the Leichhardt FESTA;

·    Coordinated volunteers to assist in letterboxing for a rally in Leichhardt and for the Save Sydney Park camp;

·    Supported a working group focused on campaigning in Western Sydney. The group has now produced a pamphlet on tolls associated with WestConnex which will be distributed throughout 2017;

·    Disseminated through our social media channels information about the potential impact of WestConnex on RPA Hospital;


 

 

·    Organised an information session at the University of Sydney in collaboration with the Australian Student Environment Network and the Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Society to inform Sydney Uni students on the issues surrounding WestConnex and the potential impact on their university;

·    Assisted the newly-formed group ‘Leichhardt Against WestConnex’ in organising a rally to raise awareness about the possibility of Darley Rd and Blackmore Oval being mid-point tunnelling sites;

·    Submitted to the Inner West Council WestConnex Community Liaison Forum (on the request of the Administrator) a Report on key construction and design concerns across the 3 stages of WestConnex;

·    Supported residents’ calls for improved salvage of heritage items from housing demolitions and the recycling of these items to the community;

·    Facilitated activity by No WestConnex: Public Transport, WestConnex Action Group and other groups to create the Save Sydney Park camp. This successfully postponed tree removal works in Sydney Park and has greatly  grown the local campaign against WestConnex;

·    Supported the organisation of community groups meetings, public meetings and other events and monthly campaign meetings;

·    Managed the No WestConnex social media platforms;

·    Drafted, edited, co-wrote  media releases;  and

·    Designed several flyers for use across different aspects of the campaign.

·    Coordinated production of newspaper on environmental impacts , cost of tolls and public transport alternatives to WestConnex.

·    Assisted planning of the DisConnex-  Reframing Resistance Exhibition

·    Assisted residents and local groups to prepare submissions to the updated Westconnex Urban Design and Landscape Plan.

·    Assisted local groups to research  and oppose WestConnex Stage 3 dive site options in Leichhardt.

·    Developed an updated media plan and strategy for  local groups

·    Contributed to campaign strategy development and planning.

 

 

Chris Elenor

Co-convenor

No WestConnex  Public Transport  Inc. (“NoW PT”)

May 2017


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 

http://rozelleagainstwestconnex.org

 

 

Dear Mr Pearson,

Further to the proposal discussed in detail at the IWC forum on WestConnex in March on behalf of RAW I wish to offer the following in support of the application.

As per the details outlined in March, the tabloid is a 16 page, full colour standalone edition with a print run of 60,000 copies for distribution throughout the IWC footprint. As agreed to at the March meeting the IWC will have a representative on the editorial committee. Articles will be sought from all of the resident groups in the IWC area who are opposed to WestConnex & will focus on some of the little publicised negative aspects.

These include but are not limited to the failure to address the rationale behind WestConnex, the certainty that WestConnex will actually worsen the traffic situation in the Inner West, the alarming & lethal health impacts, the corruption allegations levelled against both CIMIC (formerly Leightons) & AECOM, rat running, loss of amenity, the cost including that to health as well as the wildly understated financial cost, (reckoned to be closer to $45 billion), the burden placed on the least affluent demographic to fund the tollway, the likelihood of punishing clauses that prevent competition from public transport & the government guarantee to make up the certain loss of revenue if/when usage falls below AECOM’s understated usage figures, the inflated cost benefit ratio, the displacement of residents forced from their communities, the theft of their homes at as little as 60 cents in the dollar, the loss of open space, of thousands of trees, of dozens of businesses employing hundreds of people, of irreplaceable historic & heritage homes.. the list is endless.

RAW has raised half of the production cost of $6,500 & seeks the balance of $3,300 from the IWC. Financial contributions will not be sought or accepted from political parties nor will articles from them be published. Distribution will be arranged via the existing networks & the tabloid will be available to all Inner West Council residents free of charge. 

Regards

Peter Hehir

Convenor RAW (Rozelle Against WestConnex)

Delegate to IWC Forum on WestConnex.

 

11 May 2017


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 

Item No:         C0517 Item 2

Subject:         Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 4 May 2017  

File Ref:         17/4718/48868.17         

Prepared By:     George Tsaprounis - Coordinator Traffic Engineering Services  

Authorised By:  Wal Petschler - Group Manager Footpaths, Roads, Traffic and Stormwater

 

SUMMARY

The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 4 May 2017 are presented for Council consideration.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 4 May 2017 be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

A meeting of the Inner West Council Local Traffic Committee was held on 4 May 2017 at Petersham. The minutes of the meeting are shown at ATTACHMENT 1.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

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

 

 

STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

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

 

CONCLUSION

Nil.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Minutes of Local Traffic Committee Meeting 04 May 2017

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 

Item No:         C0517 Item 3

Subject:         PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO FLOOR SPACE RATIO CONTROLS IN LEICHHARDT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2013 

File Ref:         17/6032/43768.17    

Prepared By:     Steve Roseland - Senior Strategic Planner 

Authorised By:  Simon Manoski - Group Manager Strategic Planning

 

SUMMARY

The planning proposal amending Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 floor space ratio controls has been publicly exhibited in accordance with Gateway Determination requirements. This report advises Council of the results of that community consultation process.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1.   receive and note this report; and

 

2.   request that an amendment to Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 be drafted by Parliamentary Counsel which reflects the planning proposal consistent with Option 3 of the Floor Space Ratio Review; and

 

3.   seek the Department of Planning and Environment to notify the amendment. 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Council initiated a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Review in 2009 and was provided with funding under the NSW Government Planning Reform Funding Program. The review was initiated in response to the then NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s concern that the former Leichhardt Council was making excessive use of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1). SEPP1 was used to vary Local Environmental Plan (LEP) development standards such as Floor Space Ratio (FSR) in particular.

 

In February 2009 the Department of Planning wrote to Council advising that:-

 

The current planning controls contain development standards that restrict the reasonable redevelopment of existing dwellings to carry out modest additions and alterations such as an additional bedroom or increased living area.”

 

Council raised its concerns with the Department about the impact of the new measure on development application processing times. In response the Department stated that:

 

As an interim measure (6 months), Leichhardt Council may assume concurrence subject to development applications being referred to a Council meeting if the variation in the case of alterations and additions to dwellings exceed 60% of the FSR standard and 40% of the landscaped area standard.”


 

The Department made it clear that this was viewed as a temporary exemption only, providing additional time for Council to update its development standards to provide reasonable development potential under its controls throughout the Leichhardt Local Government Area.

 

This concurrence measure has now been extended by the Department of Planning a number of times over the following years. The current concurrence will expire on 1 July 2017.

 

As has been previously reported to Council, if the former Leichhardt Council area had the same clause 4.6 concurrence as other NSW Councils, the analysis indicates approximately 44% of the average annual number of residential development applications in the FSR Review period would have to be reported to the Council (now the Leichhardt Planning Panel) due to a FSR variation of more than 10%.

 

The review collected data and developed four options:

 

Option 1 No change – No change to FSR controls other than the change in definition pursuant to Standard Instrument

 

Option 2 Minimal change – FSR controls which reflect what is, on average, being approved by Council;

 

Option 3 Modest change – FSR controls which are consistent with what has historically been approved by Council using clause 4.6 and currently approved by the Planning Panel using 4.6. Will reduce Council’s reliance on clause 4.6 variations whilst minimising the risk of unintended consequences that might occur as a result of the new controls; and

 

Option 4 Substantial change – FSR controls which would be high enough to significantly reduce reliance on clause 4.6.

 

At its meeting of 14 April 2015, Council considered a report in relation to the FSR Review Community Consultation outcomes. Most submissions (62%) expressed support for Option 3 or 4. The officer’s report recommended Option 3 (Modest Change). Council resolved to defer consideration pending further advice from the co-chairs of the Leichhardt Planning Panel.

 

The Planning Panel co-chairs indicated their support for Option 3.

 

A report was considered at the Policy Council Meeting held on 9 June 2015 and Council resolved the following:

·    To adopt the recommendations of Option 2 of the FSR Review (Minimal change); and

·    Prepare and submit a planning proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment to amend Leichhardt LEP 2013 consistent with FSR Review Option 2 for a Gateway Determination.

 

On 19 February 2016 Council received a Gateway Determination (Attachment 1) from the Department of Planning. The Department did not accept Council’s planning proposal to adopt Option 2 of the FSR Review (Minimal change) and instructed Council to adopt Option 3 (Modest change). The Department’s Assessment report considers that Option 2 will reduce the existing permissible residential density of land and subsequently the Determination requires that no lot within the former Leichhardt Municipality zoned R1 (General Residential) will have an FSR reduction imposed by the planning proposal and proposed LEP amendment.

 

At the March 2016 Policy Meeting a report was tabled recommending that the planning proposal be amended to be consistent with Option 3 (Modest change) in accordance with Gateway requirements. Council did not support the officer recommendation resolving (C110/16P) to request a review of the Gateway Determination by the Department of Planning.


 

 

In April 2016 the Department referred Council’s request for a Post-Gateway review to the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC).

 

In May 2016 the PAC considered the documents provided by both the Department and Council and recommended that the planning proposal supporting Option 2 should not proceed past Gateway for the following reasons:

 

·    It is inconsistent with S117 Direction 3.1 Residential Zones in that it seeks to reduce the potential density of residential development in some localities.

·    It does not sufficiently reduce reliance on clause 4.6, and as such does not sufficiently improve the transparency and performance of the planning process.

·    It is inconsistent with the recommendations of the FSR Review.

·    It is inconsistent with the outcome of community consultation on the matter.

·    It is inconsistent with the advice of the co-Chairs of the Leichardt Independent Planning Panel.

 

In August 2016 the Department communicated to Council that having reviewed the Commission’s advice the Gateway Determination should remain unaltered and the expectation was that Council would publicly exhibit the Planning Proposal and complete the LEP amendment by 26 April 2017. 

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting held in December 2016 (see Attachment 2 for report) the Administrator determined (C1216) that Council:

 

1.   Notes the Post-Gateway Review that has been issued; and

2.   Amends the planning proposal to be consistent with Option 3 of the FSR Review and proceed to public exhibition in accordance with Gateway Determination requirements.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

This report relates to a policy change and does not raise any financial obligation for Council.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

In accordance with Gateway Determination requirements the proposed amendment to Leichhardt LEP 2013 implementing Option 3 of Council’s FSR Review was placed on public exhibition (see Attachment 3) for 28 days from Friday 10 March 2017 until Friday 7 April 2017.

 

·    Approximately 21,000 notification letters were sent to all owners and occupiers of properties zoned General Residential (R1).

·    A notice appeared in the Inner West Courier on Tuesday 7 March.

·    The proposed amendment, planning proposal and supporting documentation were made available for viewing on the Inner West Council’s ‘Have Your Say’ online community engagement hub.

·    Hard copies of the relevant documents made available at Council’s Wetherill Street Administration Centre and Leichhardt and Balmain Libraries.

 

 

Public Exhibition – Submissions received / Issues raised

 

During the exhibition period Council’s ‘Have Your Say’ site received 1,070 visits, 809 of which downloaded linked documents.


 

By the end of the exhibition period this resulted in one-hundred and ninety-nine (199) submissions / responses to Council.

 

Support for the Planning Proposal

 

Of the submissions received one-hundred and one (131) submissions (65.8% of total) support the planning proposal. This includes:

 

·    Seventy (70) submissions (53.4%) which explain their support or request further clarification

·    Sixty one (61) submissions (46.6%) express support without providing any explanatory comments

 

Four (4) submissions have been received in support of the planning proposal which do not provide details including name / address / contact information.

 

Object to the Planning Proposal

 

Of the submissions received 68 submissions (34.2% of total) object to the planning proposal. This includes:

 

·    Fifty-seven (57) submissions (83.8%) which explain their objection or request further clarification 

·    Eleven (11) submissions (16.2%) object to the planning proposal without any explanatory comments

 

Two (2) submissions have been received which object to the planning proposal which do not provide details including name / address / contact information.

 

 

Issues raised by submissions

 

Submissions, both in support and objecting to the planning proposal, have raised a wide range of matters and issues they would like to see addressed (see Tables 1 and 2).

 

Many of these issues are common to a large number of submissions, and many of the submissions raise multiple issues.

 

The three most common issues raised by respondents supporting the planning proposal (Table 1) are:

 

·    Greater flexibility for extensions to existing homes for extended family / renting (16 submissions)

·    Higher density near existing infrastructure and jobs (15 submissions)

·    Existing FSR unrealistic and unenforceable, greater transparency to be achieved through new controls applied consistently (15 submissions)

 

The three most common issues raised by respondents objecting to the planning proposal (Table 2) are:

 

·    Further loss of open space / gardens / tree removal / recreational space (18 submissions)

·    Change will lead to overdevelopment (16 submissions)

·    No guarantee new controls will be enforced and not varied through the same process they are now (14 submissions)


 

 

TABLE 1

Issues raised by the respondents supporting the planning proposal

By number  of respondents

Greater flexibility for extensions to existing homes for extended family / renting

 

16

Higher density near existing infrastructure and jobs

 

15

Existing FSR unrealistic and unenforceable, greater transparency to be achieved through new controls applied consistently

 

15

Supportive but FSR in Leichhardt (suburb) still too low

 

9

FSR tailored to lot size

 

5

Support increase as long as other planning controls protect character and amenity

 

5

Affordable housing crisis in Sydney

 

4

Annandale smaller lots (0-300sqm) should be same as Balmain/Birchgrove

 

4

FSR should be increased by more than Option 3

 

3

FSR should be standardised across all suburbs

 

3

Support the change as if new FSR controls are enforced as a new benchmark with no more standard variations

 

3

Allow for transition between lot size groupings by incorporating sliding scale

 

2

Support conditional on the increase applying only to single dwellings, not encouraging townhouses and apartments

 

2

Making the development application process quicker and cheaper

 

2

Option 2 not really an option as increase negligible

 

1

Impact of FSR change on subdivision should also be reviewed

 

1

Support as long as my FSR increases

 

1

Rozelle (east of Victoria Road) should be the same FSR proposed for Balmain/Birchgrove

 

1

Basement living areas should be looked at as able to provide internal space without impacting on neighbours amenity

 

1

Supportive but question whether the proposed change and following increase in hard surface run-off with associated impacts on stormwater infrastructure can be mitigated by funding generated from the increase

 

1

Proposed change would be improved by taking into consideration differences in urban character, lot size and physical boundaries

 

1

 

 

TABLE 2

Issues raised by the respondents objecting to the planning proposal

By number  of respondents

Further loss of open space / gardens / tree removal / recreational space

 

18

Change will lead to overdevelopment

 

16

No guarantee new controls will be enforced and not varied through the same process they are now

 

14

Loss of residential amenity (including privacy and air quality)

 

13

Density already too high

 

11

Damaging to heritage significance

 

8

Overshadowing of neighbours (including solar power systems)

 

7

More traffic congestion / less parking availability

 

6

Such a major change should not proceed under an Administrator and be delayed until full Council elections can be held

 

5

Current FSRs are satisfactory

 

5

Loss of neighbourhood character

 

4

60% increase in FSR for some properties which is not a minor change with low impact

 

4

Increases pressure on existing infrastructure which is already stretched, no change should be made until infrastructure deficit is addressed

 

4

Proposed FSR for small lots (0-149sqm) is too high

 

3

Does not address environmental issues arising from the proposed change such as hard surface run-off / heat island effect / poorer air quality

 

3

Increasing residential density in areas subject to large motorway proposals such as WestConnex is not appropriate

 

3

The sample used by FSR review is too small and it is too long ago

 

2

Favour Option 2 over Option 3 as its purpose was to match built averages

 

2

Proposed FSRs are still too low

- near transport nodes

- not comparable to other similar inner city suburbs

 

2

More focus on quality design to address building bulk and scale

 

2

Unfair to disadvantage larger lots

 

2

Need for other planning controls to limit development e.g. height of buildings

 

2

There should be no reduction in FSR for any property

 

1

Not enough detail on what clause 4.6 does

 

1

Only purpose is to reduce number of development applications assessed by Council

 

1

FSR increases proposed for Lilyfield are too high

 

1

10% increase across all areas would allow for increase without detrimental development

 

1

Will make no difference to affordable housing provision

 

1

Introduction of subclause introduces more complexity

 

1

FSRs should be standardised between Birchgrove / Annandale / Balmain

 

1

Potentially devalue some properties due to view loss

 

1

No information on how many FSR exemptions are being allowed currently

 

1

The proposed FSR is overly generous and not supported by the Review

 

1

Increased FSR will further diminish small homes / cottages in the Municipality

 

1

Breaching of FSR should only be allowed when no negative impacts on neighbours

 

1

No mitigating conditions in the Planning Proposal for majority of residents who will be affected by larger scale development

 

1

Council likely to receive a larger number of submissions during DA exhibitions, primarily negative

 

1

Former Leichhardt Municipality has very different character to Marrickville and Ashfield Council areas, will the FSR apply across the whole Inner West Council

 

1

Residents have already been locked out of commenting on DAs sent to the Planning Panel

 

1

 

Responses to issues raised by community consultation

 

The following tables are a summary of the key issues raised through the public exhibition, including Council responses.

 

Opposed to the proposed LEP amendment

 

ISSUE – Greater flexibility for extensions to existing homes for extended family / renting

Number of respondents commented on issue - 16

RESPONSE

The focus of the FSR review and objective of the proposed changes has not been to achieve higher density residential developments. It has been to allow for reasonable extensions to existing residential dwellings which comply with consistently applied and transparent Council controls which provide for small population density increases, as homes are altered to accommodate larger families / extended families / rooms for rent. The Review has found that Option 3 confirms what is already being approved by Council through clause 4.6 variations and therefore best reflects a balance between the existing and desired built form across the suburbs of the former Leichhardt Municipality.

 

 

ISSUE - Higher density near existing infrastructure and jobs

Number of respondents commented on issue - 15

RESPONSE

The objective of the proposed changes and subsequent LEP amendment if endorsed is not to achieve an increase in dwelling numbers, press for higher dwelling projections or see more medium and high density housing developments constructed. It has been to review the existing FSR controls that have been regularly varied using a number of legal mechanisms and ensure they reflect the existing built form for residential dwellings within the R1 (General Residential) zone. Allowing for reasonable extensions to existing residential dwellings which comply with consistently applied and transparent Council controls may see a slight increase not in dwelling density but population density, as homes are altered to accommodate larger families / extended families / rooms for rent.

 

 

ISSUE - Existing FSR unrealistic and unenforceable, greater transparency to be achieved through new controls

              applied consistently

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 15

RESPONSE

The need for the review of the former Leichhardt Council’s FSR controls was identified by both the Department of Planning and Council due to the large number of variations required to the existing numerical standard. This resulted in Leichhardt Municipality having the highest number of variations in NSW. The following FSR review found that the existing FSRs do not reflect in many areas the existing built form and allow for no floor space increases, not even reasonable residential extensions, in many suburbs, particularly older areas on smaller lots.

 

Further analysis by Leichhardt Council staff in relation to the 417 residential DAs determined by Council in the 2009/10 financial year found that:

 

·      169 or 41% of residential DAs were determined using clause 4.6 (formerly SEPP 1);

·      154 or 37% of approved residential DAs exceed the FSR standard by 10%; and

·      42 or 10% of approved residential DAs exceed the FSR standard by 60%.

 

A more recent analysis of approved FSRs from July 2015 to June 2016 showed Council determined 344 residential DAs in R1 zones of which:

 

·      199 (57.85%) DAs relied on clause 4.6 Variations to FSR standard; and

·      177 (51.45%) residential DAs were approved with FSR variations above 10%

 

 

There is broad agreement that if the FSRs were more aligned with the existing and desired built form there would be no need for constant variations to these controls and the lack of consistency and clarity that results.

 

There is a fair community expectation that if the proposed FSRs are adopted Council should strictly enforce the new controls for the same reason they are necessary, Option 3 confirms what is already being approved by Council through clause 4.6 variations and therefore best reflects a balance between the existing and desired built form across the suburbs of the former Leichhardt Municipality. Ongoing monitoring of FSR variations will continue to be undertaken by Development Assessments team, allowing Council to review the proposed FSR change to determine its effectiveness. There is a public register of application determined by Council with variations to a development standard available on Council’s website.   

 

 

ISSUE - Supportive but FSR in Leichhardt (suburb) still too low

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 9

RESPONSE

The rationale for FSR controls that differ between suburbs is similar to that for FSR controls that differ according to different lot size categories. FSR controls in the former Leichhardt Municipality need to vary between suburbs and lot sizes because of the diversity of the area’s built environment. Each suburb has developed its own character for various historical, economic, social and environmental reasons. FSR data reflects the differences with the average approved FSR for residential DAs in various suburbs. Removing differential suburb FSRs to create uniform FSR controls across the Council area could have a negative impact on the built form of the suburbs.

 

 

ISSUE - FSR tailored to lot size

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 5

RESPONSE

The FSR Review and subsequent analysis over a number of years has recognised that it is very difficult for smaller lots within the former Leichhardt Municipality to meet the existing FSR controls in Leichhardt LEP 2013. The diverse character, range of building typologies and unique streetscapes and the need to comply with planning controls to protect the amenity of these neighbourhoods and suburbs such as setbacks, private open space, landscaping, privacy and heritage preservation further complicates FSR compliance. Many of the older residential dwellings within the Council area already exceed the current FSR requirements making reasonable extensions impossible if FSR controls were to be strictly enforced. This has resulted in the constant variation of FSR controls, subject of Council’s FSR Review. Taking into consideration lot sizes in setting FSR controls which better reflect existing built form would allow current and future owners of residential dwellings in the area slightly more flexibility in designing small extensions while meeting other LEP and DCP planning controls.       

 

 

ISSUE - Support increase as long as other planning controls protect character and amenity

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 5

RESPONSE

All existing planning controls which relate to and protect residential amenity, including heritage conservation, setbacks, overshadowing, privacy, open space, landscaping and urban design, are to remain unchanged and applicable to any new development proposed should the FSR controls be changed. A slight increase in FSR, depending on lot size, does in no way remove the requirement for an applicant to comply with all existing planning controls.  

 

 

ISSUE - Affordable housing crisis in Sydney

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 4

RESPONSE

The objective of the proposed changes and subsequent LEP amendment is not the provision of affordable housing stock. It has been to review the existing FSR controls and ensure they reflect the existing built form for residential dwellings within the R1 (General Residential) zone. If the proposed amendment proceeds and allows for reasonable housing extensions/additional rooms to existing residential dwellings which comply with consistently applied and transparent Council controls the area may see a slight increase not in dwelling density but population density, as homes are altered to accommodate larger families / extended families / rooms for rent, providing more affordable housing options in residential neighbourhoods.

 

ISSUE - Annandale smaller lots (0-300sqm) should be same as Balmain/Birchgrove

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 4

RESPONSE

The rationale for FSR controls that differ between suburbs is similar to that for FSR controls that differ according to different lot size categories. FSR controls in the former Leichhardt Municipality need to vary between suburbs and lot sizes because of the diversity of the area’s built environment. Each suburb has developed its own character for various historical, economic, social and environmental reasons. FSR data reflects the differences with the average approved FSR for residential DAs in various suburbs. Removing differential suburb FSRs to create uniform FSR controls across the Council area could have a negative impact on the built form of the suburbs.

 

ISSUE - FSR should be increased by more than Option 3

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 3

RESPONSE

The objective of the proposed changes and subsequent LEP amendment if endorsed is not to achieve an increase in dwelling numbers, press for higher dwelling projections or see more medium and high density housing developments constructed. It has been to review the existing FSR controls that have been regularly varied using a number of legal mechanisms and ensure they reflect the existing built form for residential dwellings within the R1 (General Residential) zone. The Review has found that Option 3 confirms what is already being approved by Council through clause 4.6 variations and therefore best reflects a balance between the existing and desired built form across the suburbs of the former Leichhardt Municipality.

 

 

ISSUE - FSR should be standardised across all suburbs

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 3

RESPONSE

The rationale for FSR controls that differ between suburbs is similar to that for FSR controls that differ according to different lot size categories. FSR controls in the former Leichhardt Municipality need to vary between suburbs and lot sizes because of the diversity of the area’s built environment. Each suburb has developed its own character for various historical, economic, social and environmental reasons. FSR data reflects the differences with the average approved FSR for residential DAs in various suburbs. Removing differential suburb FSRs to create uniform FSR controls across the Council area could have a negative impact on the built form of the suburbs.

 

 

ISSUE - Support the change as if new FSR controls are enforced as a new benchmark with no more standard

              variations

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 3

RESPONSE

Clause 4.6 (Exceptions to development standards) is a compulsory clause included within the NSW government’s Local Environmental Plan Standard Instrument legislation. All NSW Councils are required to insert the clause in their adopted LEPs. The objective of the clause is to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards. The issue that arose within the former Leichhardt Municipality is that clause 4.5 (and prior to its inclusion in Leichhardt LEP 2013 the use of State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 1 – Development Standards) was the regularity of its use and the constant variation of the existing FSR controls which have been found not to reflect the existing built form. The outcome of the Review and the change to Option 3 state that if the FSRs were more aligned with the existing and desired built form there would be no need for constant variations to these controls and the lack of consistency and clarity that results. There is a fair community expectation that if the proposed FSRs are adopted Council should strictly enforce the new controls for the same reason they are necessary, Option 3 confirms what is already being approved by Council through clause 4.6 variations and therefore best reflects a balance between the existing and desired built form across the suburbs of the former Leichhardt Municipality. Ongoing monitoring of FSR variations will continue to be undertaken by Development Assessments team, allowing Council to review the proposed FSR change to determine its effectiveness. There is a public register of application determined by Council with variations to a development standard available on Council’s website.

 

 

ISSUE - Allow for transition between lot size groupings by incorporating sliding scale

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 2

RESPONSE

The potential for a sliding scale to address individual lots, which lie at the extremes of lot size groupings, has been raised a number of times during the Review process and discounted for two reasons.

 

Firstly it will further increase the complexity of determining FSR for owners and assessment planners.

 

Secondly using a sliding scale to calculate FSR suggests that development should be permissible dependent upon a compliance with a precise mathematical formula. There is a danger, present in all FSR calculations but even more so if it is tailored to individual lots, that conforming to the formula automatically results in a false expectation that that proposed development is suitable for that site without taking in to consideration all existing planning controls which relate to residential amenity including heritage conservation, setbacks, overshadowing, privacy, open space, landscaping and urban design.  

 

 


 

 

ISSUE - Support conditional on the increase applying only to single dwellings, not encouraging townhouses and

              apartments

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 2

RESPONSE

The objective of the proposed changes and subsequent LEP amendment if endorsed is not to achieve an increase in dwelling numbers, press for higher dwelling projections or see more medium and high density housing developments constructed. It has been to allow for reasonable extensions to existing residential dwellings which comply with consistently applied and transparent Council controls. The proposed FSR increases, taking into consideration lot size and that all existing planning controls which relate to residential amenity are to remain unchanged and applicable to any new development, will not result in medium to high density housing.

 

 

ISSUE - Making the development application process quicker and cheaper

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 2

RESPONSE

The primary reason for reviewing the FSR controls is because the existing FSR controls have been regularly varied over a decade using a number of legal mechanisms. Option 3 has been found to align closest with what is already being approved by Council through clause 4.6 variations and therefore best reflects a balance between the existing and desired built form across the suburbs of the former Leichhardt Municipality. While new FSR controls will provide greater consistency and clarity to both existing and future land owners on the size and scale of development permitted within the R1 (General Residential) zone, this should also result in a quicker and cheaper development assessment process for all involved.

 

 

ISSUE - Option 2 not really an option as increase negligible

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

The FSR Review which produced Option 2 has clearly stated that a large number of DAs would still require FSR variations through clause 4.6 of Leichhardt LEP 2013 (29% of the average annual number of DAs during the prescribed FSR Review period). This does not meet the objective of the review, which is to reduce dependence upon the variation mechanisms and result in FSR controls which better reflect the current built form being approved and constructed in the R1 zone within the former Leichhardt Council area.

 

At Council’s request the Department of Planning has issued a Gateway Determination stating that the planning proposal must be updated to adopt Option 3 of the FSR Review for a number of reasons:

 

·      ensure that no lots have their FSR reduced below its current FSR provision (Option 2 would reduce FSR for some lots within Rozelle)

·      Option 2 would not reduce the number of development applications reliant on clause 4.6 exceptions to a significant enough degree to improve transparency in decision making

·      Option 3 will better align with proven patterns of development approval in the former Leichhardt local government area.

 

Option 3 was the favoured outcome resulting from community consultation undertaken in 2015. Option 3 is also supported by Council officers, the Department of Planning and Environment, the co-Chairs of the Leichhardt Independent Planning Panel and the Planning Assessment Commission as the best way to meet the objectives of the Review. 

 

A more recent analysis of approved FSRs from July 2015 to June 2016 showed Council determined 344 residential Das in R1 zones of which:

 

·      199 (57.85%) DAs relied on clause 4.6 Variations to FSR standard; and

·      177 (51.45%) residential DAs were approved with FSR variations above 10%

 

There is broad agreement that if the FSRs were more aligned with the existing and desired built form there would be no need for constant variations to these controls and the lack of consistency and clarity that results.

 

 


 

 

ISSUE - Impact of FSR change on subdivision should also be reviewed

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

The proposed FSR change does not envisage any change to subdivision requirements and has been aimed at assessing the existing FSR against existing and approved built form and developing options to best reflect residential dwelling development within the R1 (General Residential). 

All existing planning controls which relate to and protect residential amenity, including heritage conservation, setbacks, overshadowing, privacy, open space, landscaping and urban design, are to remain unchanged and applicable to any new development proposed should the FSR controls be changed. A slight increase in FSR, depending on lot size, does in no way remove the requirement for an applicant to comply with all existing planning controls.  

 

 

ISSUE – Support as long as my FSR increases

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

The Department of Planning and Environment’s Assessment report and subsequent Gateway Determination issuing instructions to Council on the proposed LEP amendment requires that no lot within the former Leichhardt Municipality zoned R1 (General Residential) will have an FSR reduction imposed by the planning proposal and proposed LEP amendment. Council has revised the original planning proposal which adopts Option3 of the Floor Space Ratio Review and will result in no FSR reduction for any R1 zoned property.

 

 

ISSUE - Rozelle (east of Victoria Road) should be the same FSR proposed for Balmain/Birchgrove

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

The rationale for FSR controls that differ between suburbs is similar to that for FSR controls that differ according to different lot size categories. FSR controls in the former Leichhardt Municipality need to vary between suburbs and lot sizes because of the diversity of the area’s built environment. Each suburb has developed its own character for various historical, economic, social and environmental reasons. FSR data reflects the differences with the average approved FSR for residential DAs in various suburbs. Removing differential suburb FSRs to create uniform FSR controls across the Council area could have a negative impact on the built form of the suburbs.

 

 

ISSUE - Basement living areas should be looked at as able to provide internal space without impacting on

              neighbours amenity

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

The gross floor area definition included within the NSW government’s Standard Instrument legislation excludes any basement space for storage, vehicular access, loading areas, garbage and services from exclusion in the floor area calculation. Inclusion of living areas within basement space would need to comply with the Building Code of Australia and all relevant residential development planning controls.    

 

 

ISSUE - Supportive but question whether the proposed change and following increase in hard surface run-off

              with associated impacts on stormwater infrastructure can be mitigated by funding generated from the 

              increase

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

All existing planning controls which relate to residential amenity, including private open space, landscaping and urban design, are to remain unchanged and applicable to any new development proposed should the FSR controls be changed.

Council’s Development Assessment teams take additional impacts of proposed development into consideration when determining all individual DAs and impose conditions of consent where it is required to mitigate these impacts or upgrade existing infrastructure.

 

 


 

 

ISSUE - Proposed change would be improved by taking into consideration differences in urban character, lot

              size and physical boundaries

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

All existing planning controls which relate to residential amenity, including heritage conservation, setbacks, overshadowing, privacy, open space, landscaping and urban design, are to remain unchanged and applicable to any new development proposed should the FSR controls be changed. A slight increase in FSR, depending on lot size, does in no way remove the requirement for an applicant to comply with all existing planning controls. Preparation of development applications and merit-based assessment of those applications, once submitted to Council, allows both parties to work towards an outcome which best reflects the balance between the existing and desired built environment.

 

 

Opposed to the proposed LEP amendment

 

ISSUE - Further loss of open space / gardens / tree removal / recreational space

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 18

RESPONSE

All existing planning controls which relate to and protect residential amenity, including heritage conservation, setbacks, overshadowing, privacy, open space, landscaping and urban design, are to remain unchanged and applicable to any new development proposed. A slight increase in FSR, depending on lot size, does in no way remove the requirement for an applicant to comply with all existing planning controls.

 

 

ISSUE – Change will lead to overdevelopment

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 15

RESPONSE

The FSR Review has found that Option 3 confirms what is already being approved by Council through clause 4.6 variations and therefore best reflects a balance between the existing and desired built form across the suburbs of the former Leichhardt Municipality. The objective of the proposed changes and subsequent LEP amendment, if endorsed, is not to achieve an increase in dwelling numbers, press for higher dwelling projections or see more medium and high density housing developments constructed. It has been to review the existing FSR controls that have been regularly varied using a number of legal mechanisms and ensure they reflect the existing built form for residential dwellings within the R1 (General Residential) zone. All existing planning controls which relate to and protect residential amenity, including heritage conservation, setbacks, overshadowing, privacy, open space, landscaping and urban design, are to remain unchanged and applicable to any new development. A slight increase in FSR, depending on lot size, in no way removes the requirement for an applicant to comply with all existing planning controls.

 

 

ISSUE - No guarantee new controls will be enforced and not varied through the same process they are now

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 14

RESPONSE

There is broad agreement that if the FSRs were more aligned with the existing built form there would be no need for constant variations to these controls and the lack of consistency and clarity that results. There is a fair community expectation that if the proposed FSRs are adopted Council should strictly enforce the new controls for the same reason they are necessary, Option 3 confirms what is already being approved by Council through clause 4.6 variations and therefore best reflects a balance between the existing and desired built form across the suburbs of the former Leichhardt Municipality. Ongoing monitoring of FSR variations will continue to be undertaken by Development Assessments team, allowing Council to review the proposed FSR change to determine its effectiveness. There is a public register of application determined by Council with variations to a development standard available on Council’s website. 

 

All existing planning controls which relate to and protect residential amenity, including heritage conservation, setbacks, overshadowing, privacy, open space, landscaping and urban design, are to remain unchanged and applicable to any new development proposed should the FSR controls be changed.

 

 

ISSUE - Loss of residential amenity (including privacy and air quality)

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 12

RESPONSE

All existing planning controls which relate to and protect residential amenity, including heritage conservation, setbacks, overshadowing, privacy, open space, landscaping and urban design, are to remain unchanged and applicable to any new development proposed should the FSR controls be changed. A slight increase in FSR, depending on lot size, does not remove the requirement for an applicant to comply with all existing planning controls.

 

ISSUE – Density already too high

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 11

RESPONSE

The objective of the proposed changes and subsequent LEP amendment if endorsed is not to achieve an increase in dwelling numbers, press for higher dwelling projections or see more medium and high density housing developments constructed. It has been to review the existing FSR controls that have been regularly varied using a number of legal mechanisms and ensure they reflect the existing built form for residential dwellings within the R1 (General Residential) zone. The FSR Review has found that Option 3 confirms what is already being approved by Council through clause 4.6 variations and therefore best reflects a balance between the existing and desired built form across the suburbs of the former Leichhardt Municipality. All existing planning controls which relate to and protect residential amenity, including heritage conservation, setbacks, overshadowing, privacy, open space, landscaping and urban design, are to remain unchanged and applicable to any new development proposed should the FSR controls be changed.

 

 

ISSUE – Damaging to heritage significance

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 8

RESPONSE

All existing planning controls which relate to and protect residential amenity, including heritage conservation, setbacks, overshadowing, privacy, open space, landscaping and urban design, are to remain unchanged and applicable to any new development proposed should the FSR controls be changed. A slight increase in FSR, depending on lot size, does not remove the requirement for an applicant to comply with all existing planning controls.

 

 

ISSUE - Overshadowing of neighbours (including solar power systems)

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 7

RESPONSE

All existing planning controls which relate to and protect residential amenity, including heritage conservation, setbacks, overshadowing, privacy, open space, landscaping and urban design, are to remain unchanged and applicable to any new development proposed should the FSR controls be changed. A slight increase in FSR, depending on lot size, does not remove the requirement for an applicant to comply with all existing planning controls.

 

 

ISSUE - More traffic congestion / less parking availability

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 6

RESPONSE

The planning proposal does not include any changes to parking requirement controls. The proposed change to FSR controls does not aim to facilitate additional dwellings but better reflect the existing built form. 

 

 

 

ISSUE - Such a major change should not proceed under an Administrator and be delayed until full Council

               elections can be held

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 5

RESPONSE

The FSR Review has been ongoing since 2009 and has been reported to Council on many occasions. The issues which have led to the Review and a range of options produced to address this issue have been the subject of community consultation in August/September 2014, reported back to Council in April 2015. In December 2016 the FSR Review was reported to the Local Representation Advisory Committee (LRAC), which includes former Mayors and Councillors from across the three former Council areas Marrickville, Ashfield and Leichhardt. LRAC recommended that the planning proposal be amended to be consistent with Option 3 of the FSR Review and proceed to public exhibition. The Administrator agreed with this decision. The results of the community consultation shall be reported back to LRAC to inform and allow further discussion amongst the former elected representatives.    

 

 

ISSUE – Loss of neighbourhood character

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 4

RESPONSE

All existing planning controls which relate to and protect residential amenity, including heritage conservation, setbacks, overshadowing, privacy, open space, landscaping and urban design, are to remain unchanged and applicable to any new development proposed should the FSR controls be changed. A slight increase in FSR, depending on lot size, does in no way remove the requirement for an applicant to comply with all existing planning controls.

 

The rationale for FSR controls that differ between suburbs is similar to that for FSR controls that differ according to different lot size categories. FSR controls in the former Leichhardt Municipality need to vary between suburbs and lot sizes because of the diversity of the area’s built environment. Each suburb has developed its own character for various historical, economic, social and environmental reasons.

 

 

ISSUE – Current FSRs are satisfactory

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 4

RESPONSE

The need for the review of the former Leichhardt Council’s FSR controls was identified by both the Department of Planning and Council due to the large number of variations required to the existing numerical standard. This resulted in Leichhardt Municipality having the highest number of variations in NSW. The following FSR review found that the existing FSRs do not reflect in many areas the existing built form and allow for no floor space increases, not even reasonable residential extensions, in many suburbs, particularly older areas on smaller lots.

 

An analysis by Leichhardt Council staff in relation to the 417 residential DAs determined by Council in the 2009/10 financial year found that:

 

·      169 or 41% of residential DAs were determined using clause 4.6 (formerly SEPP 1);

·      154 or 37% of approved residential DAs exceed the FSR standard by 10%; and

·      42 or 10% of approved residential DAs exceed the FSR standard by 60%.

·     

An analysis of approved FSRs from July 2015 to June 2016 showed Council determined 344 residential Das in R1 zones of which:

 

·      199 (57.85%) DAs relied on clause 4.6 Variations to FSR standard; and

·      177 (51.45%) residential DAs were approved with FSR variations above 10%

 

There is broad agreement that if the FSRs were more aligned with the existing and desired built form there would be no need for constant variations to these controls and the lack of consistency and clarity that results.

 

 

ISSUE - 60% increase in FSR for some properties which is not a minor change with low impact

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 4

RESPONSE

One of the four key findings of the review of the existing FSR controls was that the smaller the lot size the higher the FSR of dwellings currently being approved by Council. Subsequent analysis over a number of years has recognised that it is very difficult for smaller lots within the former Leichhardt Municipality to meet the existing FSR controls in Leichhardt LEP 2013. The diverse character, range of building typologies and unique streetscapes and the need to comply with planning controls to protect the amenity of these neighbourhoods and suburbs such as setbacks, private open space, landscaping, privacy and heritage preservation further complicates FSR compliance. Many of the older residential dwellings within the Council area already exceed the current FSR requirements making reasonable extensions impossible if FSR controls were to be strictly enforced. This has resulted in the constant variation of FSR controls. Taking into consideration lot sizes in setting FSR controls which better reflect existing built form would allow current and future owners of residential dwellings in the area slightly more flexibility in designing small extensions while meeting other LEP and DCP planning controls. This outcome has meant the largest percentage increases for FSR proposed are those for the smallest lot bands across all suburbs.

 

 

ISSUE - Increases pressure on existing infrastructure which is already stretched, no change should be made

             until infrastructure deficit is addressed

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 4

RESPONSE

The objective of the proposed changes and subsequent LEP amendment if endorsed is not to achieve an increase in dwelling numbers, press for higher dwelling projections or see more medium and high density housing developments constructed that will add to the cumulative pressure on existing infrastructure. As much as it is able Council continues to work with Urban Growth, the Department of Planning and the NSW government towards ensuring that public infrastructure will be constructed alongside and completed at the same time as any new large scale residential developments which that infrastructure is servicing.     

 

 


 

 

ISSUE - Proposed FSR for small lots (0-149sqm) is too high

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 3

RESPONSE

One of the four key findings of the review of the existing FSR controls was that the smaller the lot size the higher the FSR of dwellings approved by Council. In analysing the average FSR approved for residential DAs across the Council’s suburbs the approved FSR of dwellings on lots 0-300sqm were those which regularly exceeded the existing FSR control.  

The diverse character, range of building typologies, unique streetscapes and the need to comply with planning controls to protect the amenity of these neighbourhoods and suburbs such as setbacks, private open space, landscaping, privacy and heritage preservation further complicates existing FSR compliance. Many of the older residential dwellings within the Council area already exceed the current FSR requirements making reasonable extensions impossible if FSR controls were to be strictly enforced. Taking into consideration lot sizes in setting FSR controls which better reflect existing built form would allow current and future owners of residential dwellings in the area slightly more flexibility in designing small extensions while meeting other LEP and DCP planning controls.      

 

 

ISSUE - Does not address environmental issues arising from the proposed change such as hard surface run-off  

              / heat island effect / poorer air quality

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 3

RESPONSE

All existing planning controls which relate to residential amenity, including heritage conservation, setbacks, overshadowing, privacy, open space, landscaping and urban design, are to remain unchanged and applicable to any new development proposed should the FSR controls be changed. A slight increase in FSR, depending on lot size, does not remove the requirement for an applicant to comply with all existing planning controls. Preparation of development applications and merit-based assessment of those applications once submitted to Council allows both parties to work towards an outcome which best reflects the balance between the existing and desired built environment.

 

 

ISSUE - Increasing residential density in areas subject to large motorway proposals such as WestConnex is not

              appropriate

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 3

RESPONSE

The FSR Review and planning proposal has been ongoing since 2009, long before the WestConnex project. The objective of the proposed changes and subsequent LEP amendment, if endorsed, is not to achieve an increase in dwelling numbers, press for higher dwelling projections or see more medium and high density housing developments constructed. It has been to review the existing FSR controls that have been regularly varied using a number of legal mechanisms and ensure they reflect the existing built form for residential dwellings within the R1 (General Residential) zone. Urban Growth’s Parramatta Road Transformation Strategy and the large increases in residential density proposed as part of that project have different objectives entirely.   

 

 

ISSUE - The sample used by FSR review is too small and it is too long ago

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 2

RESPONSE

The total number of development applications for residential developments received between 2000 and 2008 was approximately 6950. From this a sample of 1080 (16%) randomly selected approved DAs was part of the initial FSR Review. The FSR Review has found that Option 3 confirms what is already being approved by Council through clause 4.6 variations and therefore best reflects a balance between the existing and desired built form across the suburbs of the former Leichhardt Municipality. An analysis of 344 DAs approved FSRs from July 2015 to June 2016 has determined that approximately 46% of DAs which relied upon clause 4.6 variations to FSR were closer to the proposed FSR under Option 3. 33% of DAs approved using the FSR variation were closer to Option 2.

 

 

ISSUE - Favour Option 2 over Option 3 as its purpose was to match built averages

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 2

RESPONSE

The FSR Review has found that Option 3 confirms what is already being approved by Council through clause 4.6 variations and therefore best reflects a balance between the existing and desired built form across the suburbs of the former Leichhardt Municipality. An analysis of approved FSRs from July 2015 to June 2016 has determined that approximately 46% of DAs which relied upon clause 4.6 variations to FSR were closer to the proposed FSR under Option 3. 33% of DAs approved using the FSR variation were closer to Option 2. 

 


 

 

ISSUE - Proposed FSRs are still too low

§  near transport nodes

§  not comparable to other similar inner city suburbs

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 2

RESPONSE

The objective of the proposed changes and subsequent LEP amendment if endorsed is not to achieve an increase in dwelling numbers, press for higher dwelling projections or see more medium and high density housing developments constructed. It has been to review the existing FSR controls that have been regularly varied using a number of legal mechanisms and ensure they reflect the existing built form for residential dwellings within the R1 (General Residential) zone. The Review has found that Option 3 confirms what is already being approved by Council through clause 4.6 variations and therefore best reflects a balance between the existing and desired built form across the suburbs of the former Leichhardt Municipality.

 

 

ISSUE - More focus on quality design to address building bulk and scale

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 2

RESPONSE

All existing planning controls which relate to residential amenity, including heritage conservation, setbacks, overshadowing, privacy, open space, landscaping and urban design, are to remain unchanged and applicable to any new development proposed should the FSR controls be changed. A slight increase in FSR, depending on lot size, does not remove the requirement for an applicant to comply with all existing planning controls. Preparation of development applications and merit-based assessment of those applications once submitted to Council allows both parties to work towards an outcome which best reflects the balance between the existing and desired built environment.

 

 

ISSUE – Unfair to disadvantage larger lots

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 2

RESPONSE

The FSR Review and subsequent analysis over a number of years has recognised that it is very difficult for smaller lots within the former Leichhardt Municipality to meet the existing FSR controls in Leichhardt LEP 2013. The diverse character, range of building typologies and unique streetscapes and the need to comply with planning controls to protect the amenity of these neighbourhoods and suburbs such as setbacks, private open space, landscaping, privacy and heritage preservation further complicates FSR compliance. Many of the older residential dwellings on smaller lots within the Council area already exceed the current FSR requirements making reasonable extensions impossible if FSR controls were to be strictly enforced. This has resulted in the constant variation of FSR controls, subject of Council’s FSR Review. Taking into consideration lot sizes in setting FSR controls which better reflect existing built form would allow current and future owners of residential dwellings in the area slightly more flexibility in designing small extensions while meeting other LEP and DCP planning controls. The FSR Review has determined that for larger lots using the current FSRs there has been less need for variations and less substantial variations when they have occurred. 

 

 

ISSUE - Need for other planning controls to limit development e.g. height of buildings

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 2

RESPONSE

All existing planning controls which relate to residential amenity, including heritage conservation, setbacks, overshadowing, privacy, open space, landscaping and urban design, are to remain unchanged and applicable to any new development proposed should the FSR controls be changed. A slight increase in FSR, depending on lot size, does not remove the requirement for an applicant to comply with all existing planning controls. The current Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 does not include a height limit for the R1 (General Residential) zone. Preparation of development applications and merit-based assessment of those applications once submitted to Council allows both parties to work towards an outcome which best reflects the balance between the existing and desired built environment.

 

 

ISSUE - There should be no reduction in FSR for any property

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

The Department of Planning and Environment’s Assessment report and subsequent Gateway Determination issuing instructions to Council on the proposed LEP amendment requires that no lot within the former Leichhardt Municipality zoned R1 (General Residential) will have an FSR reduction imposed by the planning proposal and proposed LEP amendment. Council has revised the original planning proposal which adopts Option3 of the Floor Space Ratio Review and will result in no FSR reduction for any R1 zoned property. 

 

 

ISSUE – Not enough detail on what clause 4.6 does

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

Clause 4.6 (Exceptions to development standards) is a compulsory clause included within the NSW government’s Local Environmental Plan Standard Instrument legislation. All NSW Councils are required to insert the clause in their adopted LEPs. The objective of the clause is to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards. The issue that arose within the former Leichhardt Municipality is that clause 4.6 (and prior to its inclusion in Leichhardt LEP 2013 the use of State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 1 – Development Standards) was the regularity of its use and the constant variation of the existing FSR controls which have been found not to reflect the existing built form. 

 

 

ISSUE - Only purpose is to reduce number of development applications assessed by Council

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

The purpose of the planning proposal is to amend the FSR controls within Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 to better reflect the existing and desired built form within the Council area. This can be achieved while providing greater consistency and clarity to both existing and future land owners in the Municipality on the size and scale of development permitted within the R1 (General Residential) zone, resulting in a quicker and cheaper assessment process for all involved.

 

 

ISSUE – FSR increases proposed for Lilyfield are too high

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

The rationale for FSR controls that differ between suburbs is similar to that for FSR controls that differ according to different lot size categories. FSR controls in the former Leichhardt Municipality need to vary between suburbs and lot sizes because of the diversity of the area’s built environment. Each suburb has developed its own character for various historical, economic, social and environmental reasons. FSR data reflects the differences with the average approved FSR for residential DAs in various suburbs. For example in Lilyfield for residential DAs on 150-299sqm the average approval was 0.6:1, the current FSR control is 0.5:1. Removing differential suburb FSRs to create uniform FSR controls across the Council area could have a negative impact on the built form of the suburbs.

 

 

ISSUE - 10% increase across all areas would allow for increase without detrimental development

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

The rationale for FSR controls that differ between suburbs is similar to that for FSR controls that differ according to different lot size categories. FSR controls in the former Leichhardt Municipality need to vary between suburbs and lot sizes because of the diversity of the area’s built environment. Each suburb has developed its own character for various historical, economic, social and environmental reasons. FSR data reflects the differences with the average approved FSR for residential DAs in various suburbs. Removing differential suburb FSRs to create uniform FSR controls across the Council area could have a negative impact on the built form of the suburbs. The FSR Review and subsequent analysis over a number of years has recognised that it is very difficult for smaller lots within the former Leichhardt Municipality to meet the existing FSR controls in Leichhardt LEP 2013. Many of the older residential dwellings within the Council area already exceed the current FSR requirements making reasonable extensions impossible if FSR controls were to be strictly enforced. This has resulted in the constant variation of FSR controls. Taking into consideration lot sizes in setting FSR controls which better reflect existing built form would allow current and future owners of residential dwellings in the area slightly more flexibility in designing small extensions while meeting other LEP and DCP planning controls.

 

 

ISSUE - Will make no difference to affordable housing provision

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

The objective of the proposed changes and subsequent LEP amendment is not the provision of affordable housing stock. It has been to review the existing FSR controls and ensure they reflect the existing built form for residential dwellings within the R1 (General Residential) zone. If the proposed amendment proceeds and allows for reasonable housing extensions/additional rooms to existing residential dwellings which comply with consistently applied and transparent Council controls the area may see a slight increase not in dwelling density but population density, as homes are altered to accommodate larger families / extended families / rooms for rent, providing more affordable housing options in residential neighbourhoods.

 

 


 

 

ISSUE - Introduction of subclause introduces more complexity

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

The introduction of the subclause will result in a more detailed and extensive FSR control. However any difficulty this may cause will hopefully be offset by FSR controls in the former Leichhardt Municipality which better reflect the diversity of the area’s built environment, taking into consideration differences in the character of suburbs, historical lot size/subdivision and heritage significance of identified streetscapes. This can be achieved while providing greater consistency and clarity to both existing and future land owners in the Municipality on the size and scale of development permitted within the R1 (General Residential) zone, resulting in a quicker, cheaper and more transparent assessment process for all involved.    

 

 

ISSUE - FSRs should be standardised between Birchgrove / Annandale / Balmain

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

The rationale for FSR controls that differ between suburbs is similar to that for FSR controls that differ according to different lot size categories. FSR controls in the former Leichhardt Municipality need to vary between suburbs and lot sizes because of the diversity of the area’s built environment. Each suburb has developed its own character for various historical, economic, social and environmental reasons. FSR data reflects the differences with the average approved FSR for residential DAs in various suburbs. Removing differential suburb FSRs to create uniform FSR controls across the Council area could have a negative impact on the built form of the suburbs.

 

 

ISSUE - Potentially devalue some properties due to view loss

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

All existing planning controls which relate to residential amenity, including heritage conservation, setbacks, overshadowing, privacy, open space, landscaping and urban design, are to remain unchanged and applicable to any new development proposed should the FSR controls be changed. A slight increase in FSR, depending on lot size, does not remove the requirement for an applicant to comply with all existing planning controls. Preparation of development applications and merit-based assessment of those applications once submitted to Council allows both parties to work towards an outcome which best reflects the balance between the existing and desired built environment.

 

 

ISSUE - No information on how many FSR exemptions are being allowed currently

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

The number of FSR exemptions being allowed using clause 4.6 and prior to that State Environmental Planning Policy 1 (Development Standards) has been reported to Council on numerous occasions since 2009. The detail of previous reports is also summarised in Section A of the planning proposal. An analysis by Leichhardt Council staff in relation to the 417 residential DAs determined by Council in the 2009/10 financial year found that:

 

·      169 or 41% of residential DAs were determined using clause 4.6 (formerly SEPP 1);

·      154 or 37% of approved residential DAs exceed the FSR standard by 10%; and

·      42 or 10% of approved residential DAs exceed the FSR standard by 60%.

·     

An analysis of approved FSRs from July 2015 to June 2016 showed Council determined 344 residential Das in R1 zones of which:

 

·      199 (57.85%) DAs relied on clause 4.6 Variations to FSR standard; and

·      177 (51.45%) residential DAs were approved with FSR variations above 10%

 

 

ISSUE - The proposed FSR is overly generous and not supported by the Review

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

The FSR Review has found that Option 3 confirms what is already being approved by Council through clause 4.6 variations and therefore best reflects a balance between the existing and desired built form across the suburbs of the former Leichhardt Municipality. Option 3 was the favoured outcome resulting from community consultation undertaken in 2015. Option 3 is also supported by Council officers, the Department of Planning and Environment, the co-Chairs of the Leichhardt Independent Planning Panel and the Planning Assessment Commission as the best way to meet the objectives of the Review. 

 

 


 

 

ISSUE - Increased FSR will further diminish small homes / cottages in the Municipality

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

All existing planning controls which relate to residential amenity, including heritage conservation, setbacks, overshadowing, privacy, open space, landscaping and urban design, are to remain unchanged and applicable to any new development proposed should the FSR controls be changed. A slight increase in FSR, depending on lot size, does not remove the requirement for an applicant to comply with all existing planning controls. Preparation of development applications and merit-based assessment of those applications once submitted to Council allows both parties to work towards an outcome which best reflects the balance between the existing and desired built environment.

 

 

ISSUE - Breaching of FSR should only be allowed when no negative impacts on neighbours

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

All existing planning controls which relate to residential amenity, including heritage conservation, setbacks, overshadowing, privacy, open space, landscaping and urban design, are to remain unchanged and applicable to any new development proposed should the FSR controls be changed. A slight increase in FSR, depending on lot size, does not remove the requirement for an applicant to comply with all existing planning controls.

 

 

ISSUE - No mitigating conditions in the Planning Proposal for majority of residents who will be affected by

              larger scale development

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

The FSR Review has found that Option 3 confirms what is already being approved by Council through clause 4.6 variations and therefore best reflects a balance between the existing and desired built form across the suburbs of the former Leichhardt Municipality. All existing planning controls which relate to  residential amenity and are designed to prevent or minimise development impacts, including heritage conservation, setbacks, overshadowing, privacy, open space, landscaping and urban design, are to remain unchanged and applicable to any new development proposed should the FSR controls be changed. A slight increase in FSR, depending on lot size, does not remove the requirement for an applicant to comply with all existing planning controls.

 

 

ISSUE - Council likely to receive a larger number of submissions during DA exhibitions, primarily negative

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

The FSR Review has found that Option 3 confirms what is already being approved by Council through clause 4.6 variations and therefore best reflects a balance between the existing and desired built form across the suburbs of the former Leichhardt Municipality. Through enforcement of the proposed FSRs, if adopted, Council would anticipate that DA proposals received will align closer with the existing built form and therefore would be less likely to receive submissions objecting on that basis.

 

 

ISSUE - Former Leichhardt Municipality has very different character to Marrickville and Ashfield Council areas,

              will the FSR apply across the whole Inner West Council

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

The former Leichhardt Council area does have large areas with recognised and identified heritage significance with diverse character, a range of building typologies and unique streetscapes. The proposed FSRs, if adopted, shall only amend Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 and will only apply to former Leichhardt Council.

 

 

ISSUE - Residents have already been locked out of commenting on DAs sent to the Planning Panel

Number of respondents commented on the issue - 1

RESPONSE

Since the Planning Panel has been introduced local residents have the ability to comment on DAs assessed by the Panel, attend and talk to their submissions at the meeting.    

 

 


 

 

Submissions which neither clearly state support nor object to change to floor space ratios

 

Four (4) submissions have been received which neither state support nor object to the changes proposed in the planning proposal yet make a number of points relevant to the exhibition including:

 

·    The exhibition material is too complicated

·    That using the online tool ‘Have Your Say’ will encourage and make it easier for those supporting the proposed change to FSRs

 

 

CONCLUSION

The FSR Review and the proposed options have been the subject of extensive community consultation over a number of years with the majority of respondents supportive of an increase in FSR, acknowledging and understanding the reason for the proposed changes with Option 3 the most favoured option. 

 

This report has assessed the submissions and concludes that Option 3 will provide a balanced way forward for Council, allowing development applications to be assessed through an efficient, timely and transparent process that best reflects the built form being approved and constructed across all the suburbs of former Leichhardt Municipality.

 

Option 3 has been consistently supported and recommended by Council officers since the community consultation was undertaken in 2015. Option 3 has also been supported by the Leichhardt Independent Planning Panel, the Department of Planning and Environment and the independent Planning Assessment Commission as the most appropriate method to meet the objectives of the FSR Review.

 

It is recommended that Council resolve to request that an amendment to Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 be drafted by Parliamentary Counsel which reflects the exhibited planning proposal, complies with Gateway Determination conditions and is consistent with Option 3 of the Floor Space Ratio Review.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Gateway Determination

2.

Council report December 2016

3.

Exhibited Planning Proposal_Mar 2017

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 

Item No:         C0517 Item 4

Subject:         DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY AND ASSESSMENT PROCESS IMPROVEMENT  

File Ref:         17/4718/48085.17         

Prepared By:     Elizabeth Richardson - Group Manager Development Assessment and Regulatory Services  

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

 

SUMMARY

Inner West Council is in the process of integrating and updating the development assessment systems of the former Leichhardt, Marrickville and Ashfield councils. At the same time, Council is taking steps to improve the development application and assessment process to enhance customer service, including through accelerated Development Application (DA) processing times. The first phase of this initiative emphasises upfront consultation with and education of applicants. Particular focus is on the pre-lodgement, lodgement and post-lodgement steps of the development application process since re-structuring these steps underpins performance improvement overall..

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council adopt the Development Advisory and Assessment Policy shown as Attachment 1.

2.   The Policy be reviewed no later than 12 months from its commencement.

 

 

BACKGROUND

Inner West Council is in the process of integrating the development assessment systems of the former Leichhardt, Marrickville and Ashfield councils to achieve consistency across the local government area. Undertaking this significant task is providing Council with the opportunity to contemporize, update and make provision for innovation within the integrated system. Basic principles such as assessing development applications (DA’s) on their merit, and having regard to the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, will however remain in place.

 

At the same time as systems are being integrated, Council is seeking to improve the development application and assessment process to enhance customer service, including through accelerated Development Application (DA) processing times. The first phase of this initiative focuses on the upfront pre-lodgement, lodgement and post-lodgement steps of the development application process. Re-structuring these steps is essential to achieving performance improvement overall because they underpin the efficiency and effectiveness of every stage of the assessment process. Subsequent work will address the follow-on steps of the development assessment process so that end-to-end process improvements are achieved and the process streamlined overall.

 

Recent analysis of Council’s development assessment process indicates a strong tendency for applications to be submitted incomplete, of a poor quality, or substantially inconsistent with planning controls, requiring multiple requests by Council officers for further information. Across the three former LGA’s approximately 40% of applications are deferred for additional information or amended plans. Such multiple requests both substantially prolong the assessment process, and result in duplication of the assessment task, leading to protracted assessment times that are frustrating for customers as well as staff.


 

 

Table 1 below demonstrates the additional time taken for applications where requests are made for additional information or amended plans:

 

Former LGA

Average DA processing time, no deferrals (‘Stop-the-clock’)

Average DA processing time, with deferrals (‘Stop-the-clock’)

Ashfield

56

64

Leichhardt

64

123

Marrickville

72

131

Source: 2014/2015 Local Development Performance Monitoring Report

 

Simultaneously, in line with the State Government priorities, councils have been set the target of completing 90% of housing approvals in under 40 days. The proposed process improvements enable this by providing greater support in the application process for alterations and additions, new single dwellings and dual occupancy developments. However, applicants for all types of development will be assisted by the process improvements. 

 

Development Assessment Best Practice Guide

 

The Minister for Planning released the “Development Assessment Best Practice Guide” on 21 March 2017. The guide outlines processes and procedures that are being used in some councils already to improve development application (DA) approval times. It focuses on high-level customer service before development application lodgement to create a more efficient assessment process In particular, the Guide emphasises leading practices such as:

 

·          Targeted and effective Pre-DA advice systems;

·          Effective lodgement and triage practices;

·          Notification procedures commensurate with impacts;

·          Corporate accountability for assessment timeframes in the form of Key Performance Indicators; and

·          Delegations that support a consistent, targeted and efficient decision-making process.

 

The draft Development Advisory & Assessment Policy is reflective of the best-practice principles outlined the Guide. Furthermore, as Council continues to integrate the development assessment processes, continual regard to the Guide will be made. This report outlines the proposed process improvements for the upfront development application and assessment steps. A draft policy document has also been prepared to enable delivery of the process improvements.

 

Development Assessment Organisation Structure

 

In consideration of the Policy outlined below it is important to understand that the endorsed structure of the development assessment teams now provides for a specialist development advisory services unit. This team is separate to the development assessment team and will be responsible for all pre-lodgement customer interface, including duty planning, application lodgements and formal Pre-DA advice, together with the education and information materials. Council’s specialist heritage & urban design officers are also within this unit. With this structure Council is now able to provide a service that prioritises pre-lodgement advice.

Proposed Policy

 

Pre-Lodgement

Re-structuring the pre-lodgement step of the DA process is key to performance improvement as this step determines the quality and completeness of applications that are lodged, which in turn influences the efficiency of assessment.


 

 

To this end, Council is proposing greater emphasis on upfront consultation with, and education of, applicants. A dedicated pre-lodgement team is to be established, staffed by skilled planners trained in customer support.

 

The team will provide a range of services:

 

·    Advisory: experienced professional planners based in the dedicated pre-lodgement team will be available to customers for advice regarding applications before they are lodged.

·    Education: Regular free seminars will be conducted to provide information about the development application process and related services. These seminars will be public, however reservations will be required.

·    Guidelines: detailed guides and checklists will be provided online for customers to consider and complete prior to lodgement. Hard copies will also be available at Council.

·    Formal feedback: site-specific advice will be provided for applicants who seek formal, paid pre-lodgement meetings. Detailed written feedback will be provided subsequent to these meetings.

·    Amendments: applicants will have the opportunity to amend applications in their own time following guidance from Council planners, enabling them to lodge complete, final applications.

·    Design advice: experienced officers will be available within the dedicated Development Advisory team to assist when the planning context is complex, requires heritage consideration, or when customers are seeking innovative outcomes.

 

The benefits of the pre-lodgement services include dedicated, skilled customer support, the opportunity to refine applications prior to lodgement and more rapid assessment of lodged DAs that have already benefitted from substantial guidance from Council officers. A harmonised set of formal Pre-DA advice fees will be proposed for the 2017/2018 budget.

 

Lodgement

The application lodgement process will be rigorous as a result of trained lodgement officers accepting complete applications only per checklists provided at the pre-lodgement stage.

 

Customers will be advised at lodgement that amendments to plans are strongly discouraged, and may not be possible, once the assessment process has commenced.

 

Full application fees as calculated by Council are required to be paid at this stage.

 

The benefit of a rigorous and efficient lodgement process will be more rapid and uninterrupted assessment steps, allowing assessment officers to concentrate on the merits of the applications.

 

Post-lodgement

A seamless and efficient process will underpin the quick allocation of applications to a dedicated planning officer.

 

Notification of neighbours will occur simultaneously.

 

Should applications be found to be deficient once assessment has commenced, provision will be made for further information to be provided only where this is minor and can be easily and rapidly submitted. Where major deficiencies are identified, the applicant will be invited to withdraw the application, or the application will be refused.


 

By avoiding delays at and following lodgement, and by limiting requests for further information by Council officers in particular, the assessment process will be streamlined overall.  Limiting requests for further information will minimise the frustration that can currently be experienced by customers during the assessment process.

 

Next steps

Following improvements to the critical upfront steps of the development assessment process, the Development Assessment team will consider and implement improvements to the subsequent steps of the development assessment process so that end-to-end efficiency and effectiveness is achieved.

 

As the remainder of Council’s development assessment systems, processes and procedures become integrated, it is expected that the Policy attached will be developed further.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

It is noted that there may be some financial risk, (predominantly around the time of commencement of the Policy) due to the potential for increased LEC appeals. Staff will continue to monitor budgets and if need, adjustments will be made through quarterly budget review.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The Draft Policy was subject to the following consultation:

·    Verbal Presentation to the Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) on 9 March 2017

·    Verbal Presentation to the Local Representative Advisory Group (LRAC) on 14 March 2017

·    Formal community consultation from the 3 April 2017 - 1 May 2017, notified through a newspaper advertisement and Council’s website.

·    Over 100 key repeat customers were contacted, advised of the draft policy, and invited to attend an information session.

·    An information session with Council’s key regular practitioners, including architects and planning consultants.

 

Eight (8) formal submissions were received in response to the consultation, and the comments are summarised below:

 


Submission

Officer’s Response

Council must educate the members of the public about the importance of using the services of experienced professionals to assist with the development application documentation.

 

Providing hardcopies of planning documents at council is not environmentally friendly. Council should direct the public to access planning documents online.

 

When members of the general public have complex planning enquiries, council should direct them to planners and architects who work on the private sector or require them to submit a pre-DA application

Noted and agreed.

 

 

 

 

Council will continue to provide hard copies of its development policies for the time being.

 

Council will always provide general planning advice to assist the public. However, for more complex matters, Council staff will often recommended that a customer seeks independent expert advice when required.

Commend this policy for emphasising the quality of the professional services being offered in the pre-lodgement stage.

 

Pre-lodgement service must include, when necessary, a site visit by the assessment officer.

 

Would there be a time limit to complete the pre-lodgement advisory service?

Noted.

 

 

 

Noted and agreed. A site visit will typically be undertaken at Pre-DA stage.

Service standards for Pre-DA are yet to be finalised, however, it is expected that a period in the order of 28 days for the completion of the process would be appropriate.

Concerns with current Pre-DA service in terms of timing and ‘fence-sitting approach’

 

 

 

 

Two (2) weeks for further information is unreasonable, especially when expert reports are required to be obtained. Not allowing amended plans to be lodged is entirely unacceptable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good procedures in the policy for complex projects provided they are correctly and professionally assessed. The policy should not be applicable to straight forward applications. A collaborative process should be the focus not one of pedantry and lack of creative input form Council.

 

Has Council assessed the impact of this policy on staffing?

 

 

If adopted a full review of this policy should occur in 12 months.

Noted. The policy proposes a new model of advice delivery, where the aim is provide very clear and definitive advice as to whether an application is ready for lodgement and is acceptable.

The EP&A Act 1979 establishes a framework wherein the lodgement of amended plans is at the discretion of Council. The approach is consistent with the Development Assessment Best Practice Guide. Customers should proceed through a Pre-DA process in order to mitigate the risk of incomplete applications, and clear expectation will be set by Council at this stage in the process.

 

Noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resourcing levels within the development assessment area has been carefully considered.

 

Noted and agreed.

Development applications should not be distributed to affected neighbours until the application has been examined by council and found to be complying with zoning requirements and other applicable regulations.

 

 

The time frames that residents have to respond to commercial or multiple occupancy development DAs should be increased from 14 days to 28. Single dwelling residential developments and modifications that comply with requirements should still have a 14 day feedback period. All affected neighbours should be provided the opportunity to influence decisions on DAs.

The neighbour notification process provides critical input into the assessment process, and is best placed early in the development assessment process.

Council’s DA notification policies are a key matter for integration of the development assessment teams. However, existing adopted policies of the former Councils are to remain unchanged at this time.

The draft document is too vague and provides insufficient direction on the need for Inner West council development to conduct comprehensive assessments of development applications.

 

 

 

Contentious developments require a much broader process for thorough assessment than that envisaged by the draft.

 

The draft policy is intended to a broad statement of policy only. Detail of how Council will implement the policy will be provided through public education materials.

 

It is understood and acknowledged that larger and more contentious development applications will inevitably take longer to process. The principle of seeking upfront advice from Council remains for both, however.

There needs to be timescale guidelines for the pre-approval stage as well as lodgement to ensure that the whole process does not become longer than the current process

 

 

 

Fees for the whole process should not increase overall - may even reduce if the service is more efficient?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sufficient resources need to be available at the pre-approval stage so that this does not become a bottle neck.

 

Service standards for Pre-DA are yet to be finalised, however, it is expected that a period in the order of 28 days for the completion of the process would be appropriate.

 

Fees will be charged in accordance with the adopted Fees & Charges. Pre-DA fees for the ‘housing approvals’ have been subsidised, and are lower than for larger developments. It is also anticipated that customers will have reduced costs on expert consultant reports as result seeking upfront advice.

 

Resourcing levels within the development assessment area has been carefully considered, and flexibility will be provided through the internal organisation structure to ensure resources are balanced.

A front-loaded pre-DA process provides for a consultation period outside the formal DA processing time, which would address the concern of Council to improve their bureaucratic performance.

 

The objectives of reducing processing times and improving customer service are competing objectives.

 

My suggested principles are:

·     Pre-DA consultation with Council should be flexible so that applicants can discuss development proposals at a wide range of design development.

·     It should be an open process to permit the discussion of options. A pre-DA meeting should be a forum for discussion, not a means of Council staff delivering a pre-determined point of view.

·     The pre-DA process should provide for multiple consultation between applicants and Council.

·     The pre-DA process should have short turnaround response times from Council. In this regard, a response should not necessarily be provided in a lengthy letter. Email notes would provide a reasonable document trail and enable issues raised by Council to be addressed and options provided from applicants etc.

·     If a pre-DA process which involved extensive discussion between applicants and Council staff was to be implemented it then seems that the Council staff involved in the pre-DA discussions should also be involved in the assessment of the development application after lodgement. Either that or the staff in the DA assessment team have to be bound by the pre DA discussions, rather than move the goal posts (which often happens).

It is agreed that a Pre-DA process benefits from being flexible and collaborative and should provide consistency, certainty and clarity.

 

The Pre-DA process will become an iterative one, designed to facilitate on-going discussions between Council and customers.

 

The level of information provided at Pre-DA stage will be determined by the customer, not Council. As always however, the better the level of information provided at Pre-DA, the more detailed advice Council can provide.

 

Noted. The provision of timely advice is a key objective of the advice model established by the policy.

 

 

 

Development applications will be assessed by a separate team to the Pre-DA’s. A charter will be established to ensure continuity of advice and decision-making between the teams.

 

 

.

 

 

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this report is to outline a number of strategies that in combination will improve the development application process for Council’s customers in parallel with improvements to and updating of Council’s development assessment systems.

 

Proposed initiatives include:

·    Providing new, skilled, customer-focussed services at the pre-lodgement stage.

·    Offering better and more efficient pre-lodgement, lodgement and post-lodgement processes.

·    Reducing distractions at the assessment phase to streamline the process overall.

·    Facilitating innovation and continuous improvement in applications through the availability of expert advice.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Development Advisory and Assessment Policy

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 

Item No:         C0517 Item 5

Subject:         Post Exhibition Report- Draft Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 Amendment - To delete shop top housing as a use Permitted with Consent in the B7 Business Park zone  

File Ref:         15/4738/45909.17         

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 provisions in Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 relating to development in the B7 Business Park zone.

 

The objectives of the planning proposal are:

 

i.    To protect employment land and support the viability of commercial activities in the B7 Business Park zone;

ii.    To delete “shop top housing” as Permitted with consent from the Land Use Table for the B7 Business Park zone; and

iii.   To address an anomaly in the Land Use Table for the B7 Business Park zone, in that the listing of “shop top housing” as a use Permitted with consent is inconsistent with the objectives of the zone which is to permit limited residential development in conjunction with employment uses such as business and office premises for the purposes of certain art, technology, production and design sectors and not shops.

 

The planning proposal was publicly exhibited in accordance with the Gateway determination from 18 April 2017 to 12 May 2017. As part of the community consultation, letters were sent to the property owners and occupiers of land zoned B7 Business Park. Approximately 350 letters were sent out advising of the public exhibition of the planning proposal.

 

Five submissions were received in response to the exhibition of the planning proposal, one submission 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 meeting on 28 February 2017 Council considered a report which recommended that Council resolve to prepare a draft Planning Proposal to delete “shop top housing” as a permissible use within the B7 Business Park zone.

 

As detailed in that report, the purpose of the planning proposal is to address the consequences of a recent Land and Environment Court decision concerning the application of Council’s planning controls to shop top housing development within the B7 Business Park zone.

 

The Court construed the operation of Clause 6.13 of MLEP 2011 together with the Residential uses in Specified Employment Areas (Live/work) provisions in Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (MDCP) and concluded that the relevant provisions in the MDCP do not apply to shop top housing developments. As a consequence, the limitation on the quantum of residential floor space specified in the B7 Business Park zone only applies to residential flat buildings and dwellings. Shop top housing remains unconstrained in terms of the quantum of commercial floor space.

 

The listing of the term shop top housing as a use permitted with consent in the land use table for the B7 Business Park zone under MLEP 2011 is an anomaly particularly as the main intent of the zone is to permit employment uses such as business and office premises for the purposes of certain art, technology, production and design sectors and not shops.

 

As detailed in the 28 February 2017 report, in order to address the Court’s decision, the planning controls require amendment as a matter of urgency to prohibit shop top housing.

 

In dealing with the matter the Council resolved:

 

THAT:

1.       the report be received and noted;

2.       Council resolves to prepare a Planning Proposal to amend MLEP 2011 to delete “shop top housing” as a permissible use within the B7 Business Park zone and nominate itself as the Relevant Planning Authority;

3.       Council submits the draft Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway determination; and

4.       Council resolves to publicly exhibit the draft Planning Proposal.”

 

Gateway Determination

 

The planning proposal was forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment on 7 March 2017 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 April 2017 (Department Ref: PP 2017 IWEST 006_00). A copy of the Gateway determination is provided at ATTACHMENT 1.

 

Public Exhibition

 

The planning proposal was publicly exhibited in accordance with the Gateway determination from 18 April 2017 to 12 May 2017.

 

As part of that community engagement process letters were sent to the individual property owners and occupiers of land zoned B7 Business Park. Approximately 350 letters were sent out advising of the public exhibition of the planning proposal.


 

 

Five submissions were received in response to the exhibition of the planning proposal, one submission in support of the planning proposal and four submissions which raised concerns with the planning proposal, or elements of the planning proposal.

 

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

 

Submission 1

 

The submitter considers that “Land should be zoned for as many uses as possible. By allowing shop-top housing in the business zone, it allows people to set up offices and run businesses from their homes in a way that is seamless with the business area”….. There must be another way to address the problem that this proposal seeks to address. …... By denying shop-top housing to be built, how will people achieve live-and-work arrangements?”

 

Comment:      The provisions in MLEP 2011 relating to the B7 Business Park zone are unique and have been designed to achieve specific outcomes.

 

The main outcome sought in MLEP 2011 is to allow some types of small scale residential development in the B7 Business Park zone in order to promote live/work creative industries and to revitalise those areas.

 

The listing of the term shop top housing as a use permitted with consent in the land use table for the B7 Business Park zone under MLEP 2011 is an anomaly particularly as the main intent of the zone is to permit employment uses such as business and office premises for the purposes of certain art, technology, production and design sectors and not retail premises.

 

The deletion of “shop top housing” as Permitted with consent from the Land Use Table for the B7 Business Park zone would not preclude development for the purposes of small scale live-work enterprises from being carried out in the B7 Business Park zone. Subject to satisfying the requirements of Clause 6.13 Dwellings and residential flat buildings in Zone B7 Business Park of MLEP 2011, development for those purposes would continue to be permitted with consent.

 

The provisions in MLEP 2011 relating to the B7 Business Park zone are unique when compared to other Council’s environmental planning instruments in terms of what residential accommodation is permitted within the zone. Most other council’s environmental planning instruments that contain land zoned B7 Business Park list “residential accommodation” as “Prohibited” in the Land Use Table for the B7 Business Park zone. Where residential accommodation was permitted in the B7 Business Park zone it was usually limited to a single dwelling.

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013 does not contain land zoned B7 Business Park. Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 includes land zoned B7 Business Park.  Residential accommodation in the B7 Business Park zone under Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 is limited to single dwellings. 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 deletion of “shop top housing” as Permitted with consent from the Land Use Table for the B7 Business Park zone in MLEP 2011 would result in consistency in relation to “shop top housing” in the B7 Business Park zone in the environmental planning instruments that apply to land in the Inner West LGA.

Submission 2

 

The submitter considers that “….. the need for housing far exceeds the need for office premises when increasingly we are using technology to communicate and work instead of the traditional office space. Also large sections of the B7 area are conveniently located next to Sydney Park. If this amendment were to go through I would say that no developer would be willing to re-develop the area as there is simply no demand for office space there and unlikely to be any for many years to come. The area will then remain in the existing run down state and miss the opportunity.”

 

Comment:      Whilst limited residential development is intended for the B7 Business Park zone under the provisions of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 the primary function of the B7 Business Park zone is an employment zone.

 

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 submitter’s concerns are primarily related to land zoned B7 Business Park located in the area referred to as the St Peters Triangle.

 

The following comments are provided in relation to the St Peters Triangle.

 

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, applicable at that time, 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 and Environment 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 3

 

Supports the planning proposal. “I think that this change is a good idea.”

 

Submission 4

The submitter is opposed to the proposed changes “….specifically as they will particularly affect the St Peters Triangle Masterplan (SPTM). The SPTM represents significant investment in considering how residential and commercial development will occur. There are significant parts of the Triangle zoned as B7 with at least 4 - 5 major property developments already passed the DA process. The purpose of the B7 zone in St Peters is to "to create a vital mixed use area that complements and supports its neighbourhood setting while establishing a unique and diverse community." Shop top housing fits within this and there are cases where more than 40% residential is appropriate. I believe removing shoptop housing at this stage will create unequal development rules across St Peters Triangle, with the approved property developments being subject to different provisions to the future or in process developments. I am unsure why the newly unelected IWC is emphasising protecting commercial and business zones.

The purpose of the MLEP 2011 was to create mixed zones. Indeed, St Peters is serviced by public transport (train, bus, future light rail), parks, schools with capacity and walking access to shopping. As such, residential development in this area and shoptop housing makes sense.

 

 

Comment:      The issues raised in the submission are similar to those raised in submission no. 2 above. In addition to the comments made in relation to the previous submission the following additional comments are provided.

 

The following diagram shows the extent of land zoned B7 Business Park in the St Peters Triangle Precinct. The diagram also shows those parts of the precinct where “Mixed Use – Employment and Residential Development” is permitted with consent.

 

 

 

The St Peters Triangle Masterplan controls include provisions that provide for limited residential development in conjunction with permissible active ground floor uses on land zoned B7 Business Park located within the St Peters Triangle Precinct.

 

Submission 5

Submission on behalf of the land owner of the property known as 2C Gladstone Street, Newtown who has lodged a development application to redevelop that property.


 

 

The submission states (in part)  “2C Gladstone Street, Newtown …. is the subject of a development application which comprises a torrens title subdivision of the subject site into 6.5m wide allotments along the Phillip Lane frontage ….. The proposal provides a shop top dwelling on each proposed allotment providing an activated ground floor tenancy on each lot with a single dwelling above. The benefit of this form of development is it being responsive to the “art, technology, production and design sectors” offering a ground floor retail/business premises with a dwelling above. In design and amenity terms, the shop top housing form as opposed to the residential flats above ground floor commercial, offers the opportunity to place the majority of the living rooms on the first floor oriented away from the adjacent low density residential fabric and bedrooms on the upper levels shielded with non-habitable rooms (bathrooms and laundry’s) to minimise visual and acoustic privacy to the single dwellings and provide an appropriate transition where an interface occurs between the zones.

 

The development application is the subject of an appeal to the Land and Environment Court which is listed for hearing on 31 July and 1 August 2017. The planning proposal would serve to render the development prohibited despite the application being prepared and submitted during 2016. This could reasonable be cured by the inclusion of a savings and transition provision, and the purpose of this submission is to request that inclusion.

 

It is noted from the documentation supporting the planning proposal that it has come about as a result of the Land and Environment Court Decision in Environa Studio Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1618. The report to Council to consider amending the Local Environmental Plan was dated 28 February 2017 some three months after the submission of the development application for shoptop housing on the subject site and a retrospective action to prohibit the use would be a denial of natural justice in the absence of a savings and transitional provision which would allow the Court’s assessment of the development application on the subject site.

 

It is noted that the Council’s concern in Environa Studio Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1618 (39 Phillip Street) was that the proposed ground floor retail uses were separately started and tenanted the residential flats above. This is not the case or a cause for concern in the current development application where the ground floor retail/business premises remain on title and an integral part of the dwelling above facilitating the live/work creative industry opportunity sought by the LEP and Council’s strategic vision.”

 

Comment:      The purpose of the planning proposal is to ameliorate adverse planning outcomes that are arising from the current iteration of the planning controls. A savings provision would serve to potentially perpetuate those adverse outcomes for development applications currently with Council or lodged up to the date that the planning proposal is gazetted. Accordingly, it is not considered appropriate to have a savings provision. Whilst this may cause hardship for some landowners, it is noted that the planning controls will still allow for a broad range of development outcomes within the B7 zone including residential dwellings as part of a mixed use development.

 

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 18 April 2017 to 12 May 2017.


 

 

CONCLUSION

Five 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 address an anomaly in the Land Use Table for the B7 Business Park zone, in that the listing of “shop top housing” as a use Permitted with consent is contrary to the main intent of the zone to permit employment uses such as business and office premises for the purposes of certain art, technology, production and design sectors and not shops.

 

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

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 

Item No:         C0517 Item 6

Subject:         Code of Meeting Practice  

File Ref:         16/4718/57632.16         

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

Authorised By:  Tanya Whitmarsh - Group Manager Governance

 

SUMMARY

The Local Government (Council Amalgamations) Proclamation 2016 for the Inner West Council designated that the former Leichhardt Council Code of Meeting Practice to be the Code of Meeting Practice for the Inner West Council. Council staff have undertaken a review of the Code of Meeting Practice and prepared a new Draft that includes current Council Meeting practices, best practice in meeting protocol and measures to improve the openness and transparency of decision making. Both the Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) and Local Representation Advisory Committee (LRAC) have received a presentation on the proposed changes to the Code of Meeting Practice and they have supported Council proceeding with these changes. The Administrator has advised that Council will continue to use the former Leichhardt Code of Meeting Practice during his term of office and the new Code of Meeting Practice will not commence before a new Council is elected.       

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.      The Draft Code of Meeting Practice, as shown attached to the report at ATTACHMENT 1, be placed on public exhibition in accordance with Section 362 of the Local Government Act; and

 

2.      After the conclusion of the public exhibition period, Council receive a further report on submissions received during the public exhibition period.

 

 

BACKGROUND

The Local Government (Council Amalgamations) Proclamation 2016 for the Inner West Council stipulated that the former Leichhardt Council Code of Meeting Practice serve as the Code of Meeting Practice for the Inner West Council. However, since the proclamation, Council has established new meeting practices to ensure safety of staff and the public during Meetings and to facilitate openness and transparency of decision making. The Office of Local Government has also announced that a Model Code of Meeting Practice for NSW councils will be released late in 2017, with a draft for consultation prior to the election.

 

A Code of Meeting Practice is essential for the conduct of effective meetings which is, in turn, an indicator of good governance. Council is obliged to run its meetings fairly and the procedures used should improve decision-making, not personal or political advantage. Councillors are obliged to make sound decisions based on adequate and timely evidence. Sound meeting procedures contribute to good public decision-making and they increase the transparency and accountability to its community.

 

Effective codes are based on core principles of; Integrity, Accountability, Leadership, Openness, Selflessness, Honesty, Impartiality and Respect.

 

The Code of Meeting Practice is an essential document in the governance framework and is being reviewed at this time for the following reasons:- 

 

·    The Code is part of a continuous improvement program that is currently prioritising the review of high impact policies;

·    Ensuring that better practice improvements already in place are reflected in policy documentation;

·    Help to create a strong foundation for getting the newly elected Council off to a great start – we should not have to wait until a Model Code is delivered by the Office of Local Government well after the September 2017 election;

·    Council is a much bigger enterprise than any of its legacy Councils – there is a lot of business to get through so the imperative to ensure that meetings are consistent, orderly and efficient is stronger than ever; and

·    Council wants to encourage behaviour that is fair and respectful for all meeting participants - this is something that can be better facilitated by making improvements to the current Code.

 

15 of the 20 recently merged Councils have already refreshed their Codes of Meeting Practice in the last 12 months, including metropolitan councils such as Canterbury Bankstown, Cumberland and Georges River. Newly formed Councils have been busy reviewing / creating various key policies for their organisations in the lead up to the September 2017 Council elections (not just their Codes of Meeting Practice).

 

The Administrator has advised that Council will continue to use the former Leichhardt Code of Meeting Practice during his term of office and the new Code of Meeting Practice will not commence until a new Council is elected. The new Council may wish to review the Code of Meeting Practice after the publication of a Model Code of Meeting Practice is released later this year.

 

Changes to the Current Code of Meeting Practice

This report highlights the major changes in the new Draft Code of Meeting Practice compared with the requirements of the former Leichhardt Code of Meeting Practice. The new Draft Code of Meeting Practice is shown as Attachment 1.

 

The main areas of change from the current Code of Meeting Practice are in the following areas:-

 

1.   Acts of disorder

2.   Mayoral minutes

3.   Meeting duration

4.   Motions (notice and assessment practices)

5.   Order of business

6.   Public forum component

7.   Webcasting


 

 

1.    Acts of Disorder

 

·    The new Code retains the sanctions for acts of disorder for both Councillors members of the public – consistent with former Leichhardt Council code

·    The Chair may issue clear warnings about acts of disorder, and details of warnings given about Councillor behaviour be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

·    After three (3) warnings to a Councillor the Chair may move a motion seeking an apology, withdrawal of a comment or expulsion of the Councillor from the meeting if they fail to apologise or withdraw a comment –  former Ashfield Council practice further to Section 256  of Local Government (General) Regulation 2005

 

2.    Mayoral Minutes

The Draft Code includes a clause taken from the Office of Local Government’s Meetings Practice Note 16 published in 2009, that Mayoral Minutes should not introduce matters that are routine, not urgent or require research and a lot of consideration before making a decision.

 

3.    Duration of Meetings

The Draft Code includes a commencement time of 6.30pm with the meetings concluding at 11.00pm. The 11:00pm limit is flexible to the extent that completion of discussion of an item already under discussion may extend to no later than 11:10pm. A review of other Sydney metropolitan councils shows that a conclusion time of between 10 and 11pm is best practice.

 

4.    Motions

The Draft Code includes the following improvements to motions to ensure efficient and effective decision making during meetings:-

 

·    All notices of motions to be submitted by 10:00am no later than 8 days before an ordinary meeting of Council.

·    Any motion proposing expenditure not already accounted for in an adopted budget must identify a source of funding for it.

·    Where a motion has legal, strategic, financial or policy implications the General Manager may provide:

 

Ø  advice that the matter be deferred pending a report

Ø  an officer’s comment

Ø  a recommendation (in the case of a Notice of Motion)

 

5.    Public Forum

The new Code establishes a change to the operation of the Public Forum whereby 1 hour is allocated at the beginning of the Council Meeting to hear from registered speakers on items listed on the Council Agenda. This will ensure that Council Meetings have a balance of public participation and sufficient time to allow the Council to focus on policy and strategic decisions. This will retain public participation at a level that exceeds that of comparable Councils (e.g. City of Sydney which does not permit members of the public to address Council and Ryde, Parramatta, Northern Beaches and Cumberland which restrict the Public Forum to 30 minutes or less).


 

The purpose of the Public Forum is to enable key issues or views to be emphasised with the Council and should not be viewed as the only form of community consultation on a matter. Community consultation is undertaken on all projects using Council’s Community Engagement Framework prior to final reports being presented to Council.

 

The Draft Code requires all requests to speak at a meeting be lodged by 12pm on the day of the meeting. The registration process for speaking at a Council Meeting has been in place at the Inner West Council since July last year and is similar to the process many other NSW councils have adopted and is considered best practice. The Chairperson has discretion for any requests not lodged by this time and the Council may restrict the number of speakers addressing each agenda item to facilitate an efficient and timely meeting.

 

6.    Webcasting

Inner West Council commenced webcasting its Council meetings in December 2016. The Draft Code includes provisions about webcasting, that members of the public that wish to speak at meetings accept that their speech will be recorded on the webcast and that Council is not liable for any defamatory comments made by members of the public during meetings that are webcast.

 

 

Both IAG and LRAC at their May meetings received presentations on the proposed changes to the Code of Meeting Practice and endorsed the changes proposed to the above areas of the Code.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Section 362 of the Local Government Act requires that changes to Council’s Code of Meeting Practice be publicly exhibited for 28 days. After the conclusion of the exhibition period a further report will be provided to Council advising of the submissions received during the public exhibition period.

 

CONCLUSION

Council staff have undertaken a review of the Code of Meeting Practice adopted at proclamation and prepared a new Draft that includes current Council Meeting practices, best practice in meeting protocol and measures to improve the openness and transparency of decision making. It is recommended that the amended Code of Meeting Practice be placed on public exhibition in accordance with Section 362 of the Local Government Act.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Draft Code of Meeting Practice

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 

Item No:         C0517 Item 7

Subject:         ATTENDANCE AT THE NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY 18-21 JUNE 2017  

File Ref:         17/4718/45761.17         

Prepared By:     Ian Naylor - Manager Governance and Administration  

Authorised By:  Tanya Whitmarsh - Group Manager Governance

 

SUMMARY

Council has previously adopted resolutions to submit six motions to the Australian Local Government Association’s, National General Assembly to be held in Canberra from 18-21 June 2017. The purpose of this report is to endorse the registration of LRAC member, Frank Breen to attend the conference and speak to the adopted motions at the Conference.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council endorse the registration of LRAC Member Frank Breen to attend the National General Assembly to be held in Canberra from 18-21 June 2017.

 

 

BACKGROUND

At the March Council Meeting, the Administrator resolved to submit six motions to the Australian Local Government Association’s, National General Assembly to be held in Canberra from 18-21 June 2017. As five of the six motions related to coastal management, the Administrator has asked LRAC Member, Frank Breen to attend this conference on Council’s behalf as Frank Breen is Council’s representative on the Sydney Coastal Councils Group who have raised these issues.

 

As the earlybird registration deadline fell in early May (between Council meetings), Frank Breen has been registered for the Conference and in accordance with Council’s Reimbursement of Expenses and Provision of Facilities Policy, the registration is being reported to Council for endorsement.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The cost of registration, accommodation and travel by vehicle is approximately $1800 and there are funds available in the 2016/17 budget to cover this cost.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 

Item No:         C0517 Item 8

Subject:         NSW ABORIGINAL RUGBY LEAGUE KNOCKOUT CARNIVAL (KOORI KNOCKOUT) 

File Ref:         1767/48875.17        

Prepared By:     Deborah Lennis - Aboriginal Programs Officer 

Authorised By: Lynne George – Acting Group Manager Community Services and Culture

 

SUMMARY

Inner West Council has been asked to partner with the Redfern All-Blacks Board to help hold/host the 2017 NSW Aboriginal Rugby League Knockout Carnival (Koori Knockout). The request from the All-Blacks is at ATTACHMENT 1. This partnership will result in significant benefits for our community, both businesses and residents. The Koori Knockout is a smoke and alcohol free event and aligns strongly with Inner West Council’s Draft Statement of Vision and Priorities (Priorities 3, 6, 7 and 8).

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

1.   partners with the Redfern All-Blacks Board to host the 2017 NSW Aboriginal Rugby League Knockout Carnival (Koori Knockout), and enter into a partnership agreement; and

2.   determines to support the 2017 NSW Aboriginal Ruby League Knockout Carnival (Koori Knockout) considerate of any budget implications, including and up to a maximum total contribution of $111,000 (including in-kind support and fee waivers).

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The 2017 NSW Aboriginal Rugby League Knockout Carnival (Koori Knockout) is one of the biggest Indigenous gatherings in Australia. Organisers created the Knockout as an alternative that is more accessible to Indigenous players than the State Rugby League. Koori Knockout draws 130 teams from Aboriginal communities across NSW.  

 

The winning team gains the rights to hold/host the next knockout. As the winners of the 2016 Koori Knockout, the Redfern All Blacks will host the 2017 NSW Aboriginal Rugby League Knockout Carnival (Koori Knockout).

 

Inner West Council hosted the event in 2016 following a resolution of the former Leichhardt Council.  The Council had allocated a total financial contribution of $60,000 (including fee-waivers and in-kind support) to support the delivery of the 2016 event.

 

Whilst the event was considered a great success, with over 20,000 people attending each of the 4 days of the event, it became evident early in the delivery of the event that the event organisers required further Council support to ensure a successful and safe event was to be delivered. This resulted in additional unexpected operational costs to Council, including waste management, staff resources and fencing. These costs have been factored into the financial implications for 2017 (as noted below), should Council determine to support hosting Koori Knockout again this year.


 

 

Council would also undertake to produce a signed partnership agreement between both parties for the successful delivery of this event. It is further noted that Council staff have undertaken a detailed evaluation of the 2016 event and provided the findings and recommendations to Redfern All Blacks to consider for any future event management of the Koori Knockout.

 

The Redfern All Blacks is requesting that Inner West Council provides similar support for the proposed 2017 event. According to the Redfern All Blacks, if Inner West Council is unable to support hosting the event, it is likely it will be hosted by a regional community in NSW. It is the desire of the Redfern All Blacks that, if possible, the event be once again hosted in the Inner West.  The event is held over four (4) days, from 29 September to 2 October 2017 (inclusive), which is over the Labour Day long weekend.

 

The partnership is an excellent opportunity to support social, cultural and political activities, which align with the Inner West Council Statement of Vision and priorities across the following four areas:

·    Priority 3: Social vitality, creativity, quality of life

·    Priority 6: Local business and industry

·    Priority 7: Advocacy, representing our community

·    Priority 8: Local democracy

 

Discussion

Fee waivers and in-kind support provided for the Koori Knockout include:

·    Use of 3 ovals (Leichhardt Oval, Leichhardt 2 & Glover Street Oval) for the 4 days of Knockout, bump-in and bump-out of the event and training for Redfern All-Blacks for a period of 5 weeks prior to the Koori Knockout Carnival ($30,000)

·    Pre-event planning by Council staff (TBC)

·    Assist with event promotion using existing Council mechanisms (in-kind)

 

Costing for assisting with holding this event includes:

·    5 x Council ground staff for 4 days of the event and 1 day pre and 1 day post event ($30,000)

·    Additional toilet amenities ($16,000)

·    Waste collection and extra bins ($20,000)

·    Fencing ($15,000)

 

Sub-total: $81,000

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

This report outlines the anticipated financial costs should Council consider hosting the Koori Knockout for a second year in 2017. The costs are based on Redfern All Blacks having requested that Inner West Council provide similar support as per the 2016 event. It is proposed that Council contributes up to a maximum total of $111,000 to partner and assist the Redfern All-Blacks Board to host the 2017 NSW Aboriginal Rugby League Knockout Carnival (Koori Knockout), with the following breakdown:

           

·    $ 30,000 fee-waiver and in-kind support; and

·    $ 81,000 operational costs


 

 

There is no current allocation in the draft 2017/18 operating budget for Council to host the 2017 NSW Aboriginal Rugby League Knockout Carnival (Koori Knockout).  If the carnival is to proceed, a budget allocation to cover the above-mentioned costs will need to be included in the 2017/18 budget.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

The Group Manager Trees, Parks and Sports Fields and Community Development staff are able to support the event through in-kind support, ensuring appropriate access to sporting fields, scrims, event support and promotion.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil. The findings and recommendations from a detailed evaluation of the 2016 event have been provided to the Redfern All Blacks Board to consider for the event management of the Koori Knockout.

 

CONCLUSION

The proposed partnership between Inner West Council and Redfern All-Blacks Board presents a significant opportunity to take action on practical reconciliation and promote inclusion, equality and participation for visiting peoples, the local community and businesses. As this event is a signature event, Redfern All Blacks is seeking Council’s decision in response to their request to partner with Council as soon as practicable, in order to proceed with the event management.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Letters from Redfern All Blacks to IWC

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 


 

 



Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 

Item No:         C0517 Item 9

Subject:         Inner West Council Grant Program Guidelines        

File Ref:         17/4718/46472.17        

Prepared By:     Sue Pym - Social Planning Coordinator 

Authorised By:  Lynne George – Acting Group Manager Community Services and Culture

 

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval for the Inner West Council (IWC) Grant Program Guidelines which will be applied to the 2017 grant round. These guidelines integrate and consolidate the 14 grant programs from the former Councils into an amalgamated IWC grant program.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council approves the attached Inner West Council Grant Program Guidelines.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

An internal working group was formed in late February 2017 with representatives from across the three council service centres to integrate the 14 separate grant programs from the former Councils into an integrated Inner West Council Grant Program. The five sets of guidelines contained in the attached IWC Grant Program Guidelines will replace all separate grant guidelines from the former Councils, with the exception of major partnership and sponsorship programs which will form part of a later review. The guidelines will apply to grants allocated in the 2017/18 financial year which will be allocated by mid-December 2017 for projects to be conducted during 2018.

 

The five categories of grants include community; arts and culture; environment; recreation and Stronger Communities (representing the state government grant program which will operate for two more years). The grants will be promoted under the banner of the IWC Grants Program with consistent application processes (including use of the Smartygrants online application management system), timeframes, assessment methods and announcements.

 

Council will be provided with funding recommendations for consideration in October 2017, which will enable a major announcement of significant support for local groups to be made in November. The combined pool of funding allocated in 2016/17 for Council’s various grant programs (including Stronger Communities Grants) was approximately $676,000. There have been no changes proposed to alter budget allocations for Council’s grant programs in 2017/18, so it is anticipated that similar levels of funding will be allocated in 2017/18.

 

Staff are currently undertaking community consultation to guide the 2017 funding priorities for Stronger Communities Grants. This consultation responds to Council’s resolution on 25 October 2016 regarding implementation of the 2017 Stronger Communities grants, namely to consult with the community to inform the revision of selection criteria for 2017 grants. The Stronger Communities guidelines will therefore be amended with the addition of a sentence regarding the community preferences identified through this process.

 

Some minor changes recommended by IAG, LRAC and the Leadership Group concerning some of the wording around religious groups, political parties, in-kind contributions and approval processes have been incorporated into the attached Draft IWC Grant Program Guidelines. The assessment criteria for community, arts and culture, recreation and environment grants now also incorporates consideration of benefits to communities adversely affected by WestConnex.

 

The new IWC Grant Program Guidelines will be promoted through local media, Council’s grants page, information sessions and a grant writing workshop. Variation from the former Council’s grant guidelines are minor and it is expected that the IWC Grant program will be well received. The integration of the grants from the Leichhardt and Ashfield service centres in 2017 was very successful and staff will aim to ensure that this final stage of integrating grants across the whole IWC will be as seamless as was the case in 2017.

 

The draft timetable for the 2017 grants program is outlined below. The approval of the guidelines will enable grants to be opened by early July and announced in November 2017.   Any delay in endorsement of the guidelines would require a postponement of grant allocations, possibly until early 2018.

 

Council approval of guidelines

23 May

Grants open

3 July

Applications close

10 August

Grant assessment including Assessment Panels

11 August- 1 October

Preparation of Council report including recommendations from each grant program for allocations

To respective Group Managers by 10 October

Council meeting to determine successful applicants

24 October

Advise successful and unsuccessful applicants

By 1 November

Grant agreements signed and grants allocated through EFT

By 1 December

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The budget for the 2017 grant program will be reflected in the 2017/18 budget, which is currently being finalised. The 2017/18 budget for grants is based on the level of funding allocated in the previous financial year.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

The guidelines have been compiled with input from a grants working group, including representatives from all grant programs across the 3 service centres.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The integrated grant guidelines represent minimal change from the guidelines of the three former Councils. The guidelines have been presented to and supported by IAG and LRAC members.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

IWC 2017 Grant guidelines

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 

Item No:         C0517 Item 10

Subject:         ADOPTION OF DRAFT INCLUSION ACTION PLAN  

File Ref:         14/5529/48615.17         

Prepared By:     Glenn Redmayne - Strategic Community Project Officer Access and Inclusion, Gabrielle Higgins - Community Development Officer Ageing, Disability and Social Inclusion and Julia Phillips - Community Development Worker Seniors and Disability  

Authorised By:  Lynne George – Acting Group Manager Community Services and Culture

 

SUMMARY

The draft Inner West Council Inclusion Action Plan 2017-2021 (IAP) outlines Council's commitment to respecting the rights and improving opportunities for people with a disability of all ages, to participate fully in community life.

 

Council has a legislative obligation under the NSW Disability Inclusion Act 2014 (DIA) to complete a disability inclusion planning process and have an Inclusion Action Plan (IAP) in place by 1 July 2017.  

 

The draft IAP was publicly exhibited in March 2017. The revised document was presented to the Council’s Leadership Team and to the Local Representative Advisory Committee (LRAC) on 9 May 2017.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

1.   adopts the draft IAP and incorporate its strategies and actions in the Council’s Delivery Program and operational plans;

2.   submits the IAP to the State Government by 1 July 2017, as required by the NSW Disability Inclusion Act;

3.   notes that $60,000 from allocated Service Unit budgets will be used to initiate actions in 2017/18 relating to accessibility audits of community facilities and communications; and

4.   develops KPIs for the workforce component of the IAP.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Inclusion happens when every person who wishes to (irrespective of age, ability, gender, religion, sexual preference or cultural heritage) can access and participate fully in all aspects of an activity or service in the same way as any other member of the community can. 

 

The IAP is core business of Council.  The plan consists of actions across the range of activities of Council, community and partners.  It requires going the next step beyond a removal of barriers. Previous action planning focussed on addressing discrimination based on disability and responding to systemic disadvantage as a consequence of a disability. Current legislation and practice recognises that this, while still necessary, is only a foundation to wider issues that people face.  Inclusion planning means that agencies need to be proactive in creating the opportunities that facilitate inclusion, while ensuring their business considers and accommodates everyone.


 

 

The draft IAP is based on extensive review and merging of actions of existing council plans - the former Marrickville Inclusion Action Plan and the former Leichhardt Access Plan, acknowledging Ashfield’s Access Committee actions.  The LGNSW guidelines for merged councils developing action plans were followed in developing the draft IAP.

 

Of the actions in the draft IAP that was exhibited in March 2017, approximately 90% were from approved plans, 8% from former plans were considered completed or no longer relevant, and approximately 2% were new actions.

 

The draft IAP is underpinned by the social model of disability and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) which are the rights based benchmarks for any activity that may involve a person with a disability.

The IAP provides Council with an overarching strategic approach to addressing the complex range of issues raised by the community.  This model will position Council as a leader in accessibility and inclusion. The actions in the plan are presented in a sequential manner; the first action in each outcome area is designed to be the primary and fundamental action that underpins the success of subsequent actions. 

Primarily the plan is designed to guide Council’s Integrated Planning and Reporting framework, which will then deliver the detailed outcomes needed within everyday business. This will ensure it does not duplicate Council’s corporate planning and delivery methods. 

Key actions have been developed to embed access and inclusion into Council’s operations and to monitor progress, notably action  6.1.1 ‘Establish an IAP Coordination Working Group (CWG) with representatives from across Council, responsible for ensuring access and inclusion developments and initiatives are occurring consistently, and in line with existing and newly developed policies and strategies.’  Their role will be to coordinate and integrate the IAP into all existing programs and capture data necessary to monitor and report on the detailed actions within the plan. 

Additionally action 1.1.5 it to ‘ensure there is a process for ongoing and regular input by a specialised and informed group of people with a lived experience of disability to meet regularly and to provide feedback and advice to Council on access and inclusion.’  This group will advise the Coordination Working Group and partner in the monitoring and evaluation of the plan, which is an element required under the NSW Disability Inclusion Act. 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The vast majority of actions outlined in the IAP will be accommodated within existing operational budgets. Actions added or amended following public exhibition require no additional resources. Some initiatives were listed in the draft IAP where resources required were not yet determined. This is to enable Council to scope further work with community input during implementation, in order to source funds from a variety of sources. 

 

A budget of $60,000 will be allocated for the following key actions in 2017/18:

·    $30,000 Action 5.1.1: Conduct accessible communication audit and implement outcomes, allocated from a range of Service Units across Council

·    $30,000   Action 1.1.10: Conduct audit of Council’s Community Facilities for accessibility and inclusion, allocated from the Governance Service Unit budget.


 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

The Council’s Leadership Team has agreed to a budget allocation totalling $60,000 from a range of Service Units across Council for the identified key actions to be undertaken in 2017/18.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Public Exhibition

 

Face-to-face internal consultation was held with key Council staff throughout January to April 2017. During February 2017, presentations were given to each of Council’s Strategic Reference Groups on the draft IAP and the scheduled public exhibition.

 

The community engagement period ran from 1 – 30 March 2017. Opportunities for providing feedback were available by:

·     Responding via YourSay during the exhibition

·     Attending a staffed display at either Ashfield, Leichhardt or Petersham

·     Attending the community workshop

·     Telephoning Council staff.

 

The plan was advertised through:

·     Inner West Council e-news on 9 March 2017

·     Council YourSay section of Inner West Courier 7th and 14th March 2017

·     Inner West Courier during March 2017 advising on the draft IAP and inviting comment through any of the feedback opportunities.

 

Email promotion through relevant IWC databases and contact lists including:

·     Local disability networks including former access committee members

·     Local disability support agencies and peak groups

·     Interested residents and those that had been involved in previous inclusion planning

·     Community services networks including youth, aged services interagencies, community safety and LGBTIQ groups

·     Inner West Disability Forum e-list

·     Strategic Reference Group convenors

·     First Peoples Disability Network and Aboriginal Disability Network NSW.

 

Direct community engagement

Accessibility of communications

The accessibility of communications about the IAP focussed on ensuring it was available in accessible formats and/or allowed meaningful dialogue with people that may have found the document too complex, regardless of format.

 

Strategies included:

·   Development of digital versions of the Plan for people with low vision or blindness using text reading software. These were available in both (accessible) word and pdf.

·   Provision of a summary version that focussed on the plans strategies and actions.

·   Targeted face-to-face facilitated discussion with people with an intellectual or developmental disability, with their support staff.

 

(Note that accessible formats including an easy English version of the plan will be developed for the final plan once adopted.)


 

 

Staffed Displays

Staffed displays where people could attend and talk directly to staff about the plan were held as follows:

 

·   Leichhardt Town Hall Conference Room Monday 13 March 2017

·   Ashfield Service Centre 16 March 2017

·   Petersham Service Centre 21 March 2017.

 

This allowed individual support requirements to be made, enabling better participation and engagement. A community workshop was also held at Ashfield Town Hall on 23 March 2017.

 

Targeted Consultations

Additionally, targeted consultations were undertaken during March 2017 with key service providers in the area, including:

 

·   Hosting an information table at Community A Fair at Addison Road, Marrickville on 1 March 2017

·   Presenting to the Inner West Disability Forum on 16 March 2017

·   Consulting with the Self Advocacy Group at Participate Australia (a disability support agency formerly called FRANS) on Friday 24 March 2017.

 

FEEDBACK RECEIVED

Overall the response to the draft Inclusion Action Plan was positive. Most of the feedback received confirmed actions already included in the plan. Two actions were added and minor amendments were made to several other actions.

The YourSay webpage received 227 visits, the draft IAP was downloaded/viewed 99 times and the summary document was downloaded/viewed 53 times.  The online survey was completed by four individuals, all of whom supported the plan. 

The added communication and participation barriers faced by CALD and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities with disability were raised during the public exhibition. The following actions have been added to ensure a clear focus on addressing these issues:

Additional actions to improve communication and participation by CALD and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities with disability

·    Action 1.2.13: Work with CALD interagencies and leaders on deepening discussion and awareness of disability issues and potentially partner on projects to increase inclusion.

·    Actions 1.2.14: Work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island community elders, leaders and relevant interagencies on awareness of disability issues and supports to increase inclusion. 

A focus on improving employment outcomes for people with a disability

Feedback reinforced the need for more focussed attention on improved employment outcomes for people with a disability, including what Council can do to have a more representative workforce.

The current action 6.4.13 is to ‘Develop benchmarks and targets to work towards Council’s workforce mirroring the demographics of the Inner West community in relation to persons with disability.’


 

 

The IAP has been adjusted so the measure for this action has been amended to read:

 

‘Targets and benchmarks are established by 1 July 2018’; and

‘Targets and benchmarks are met.’

The benchmarks developed will be delivered through the suite of actions in section 6, to address the full range of employment issues that need to be tackled. 

 

CONCLUSION

The IAP positions Council well to respond to state, federal and international obligations and provides direction to all Council undertakings and initiatives. There are also solid foundations established to partner with a number of community organisations on projects and initiatives that will assist Council to achieve the Plan’s objectives.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Draft Inclusion Action Plan

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 

Item No:         C0517 Item 11

Subject:         INNER WEST COUNCIL INVESTMENT POLICY  

File Ref:         16/5386/50178.17         

Prepared By:     Pav Kuzmanovski - Group Manager Finance  

Authorised By:  Michael Tzimoulas - Deputy General Manager Chief Financial and Administration Officer

 

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present a consolidated Investment Policy and outline the key principles of the proposed investment policy.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

 

1.       Receive and notes the report.

2.       Endorses the Inner West Council Investment Policy with a view of reviewing the policy as a part of the June 2018 Investment report.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Inner West Council has continued to operate under the 3 investment policies carried forward from the constituent pre-amalgamation Councils.  As part of the integration into one Inner West Council, it is critical that Council operate under a single investment policy.

 

All 3 pre-amalgamation Investment policies had preservation of investment as their core principle to ensure that funds invested were available to deliver Council’s future operational and capital programs.  Council currently holds approximately $200 million in its investments portfolio.

 

The proposed policy will provide a uniform single investment policy whose basis is ensuring Council funds are invested securely, in accordance with Ministerial order, to ensure that Council minimizes any financial risk exposure.

 

KEY POINTS OF THE DRAFT INVESTMENT POLICY:

 

Key points to note in the proposed investment strategy:

 

·    The format of the enclosed draft policy follows the sample investment policy published by the DLG and includes a comprehensive Risk Management Framework with Credit and Maturity limits for the portfolio.

 

·    The proposed Inner West Council Investment Policy is focused upon achieving the most favorable return available to it at the time whilst having due consideration of risk and security for that investment type and ensuring that its liquidity requirements are being met whilst exercising the power to invest, consideration is to be given to the preservation of capital, liquidity, and the return of investment.


 

 

·    The Inner West Investment Policy will give preference to investing in non-Fossil Fuel investments within the credit and institutional risk parameters specified within the policy with a view to move towards a non-fossil fuel investment portfolio as soon as possible and achieve a 70% non-fossil fuel investment portfolio by 30 June 2018. This target will be reviewed annually as a part of Council’s Investment Policy review;

 

·    Note: in February 2016 Marrickville Council voted to ban any investment in Broadspectrum Ltd (formerly Transfield Services) and Wilson Security, or other companies that profit from detention centres, until their association with detention centres cease.

 

The reference to this has been left in under the Prohibited Investments section of the enclosed draft Policy.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The proposed policy may have an unfavorable impact on Council’s investment income and the proposed policy will allow for Council funds to be invested in relatively higher risk area. This will be monitored and reported to Council within the monthly Investment Report. 

 

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The draft policy was been presented to LRAC in May 2017 for discussion. 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Inner West Council Investment Policy

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 

Item No:         C0517 Item 12

Subject:         Inner West Investments as at 30 April 2017  

File Ref:         16/5386/43806.17         

Prepared By:     Brian Chen - Team Leader Financial Accounting  

Authorised By:  Pav Kuzmanovski - Group Manager Finance

 

SUMMARY

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

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

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

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The Investment Holdings report (Attachment 1) for the periods ending 30 April 2017 and reflects Council’s holding in various investment categories these are listed in the table below. Council’s portfolio size has decreased by $10 million to $204m of which 96% was rated A rated or above. The additional funds Council received during the month have primarily been invested in a CBA Term Deposits due to the higher rate of return in contrast to other investments offered at the time.

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councils holding investment in Non Fossil remained constant at approximately $109m with a relative percentage decrease due to an increase in the CBA Term Deposits.

 

The attachments to this report summarise all investments held by Council and interest returns for periods ending 30 April 2017.

 

The period ending 30 April 2017, the portfolio for Inner West Council had a One-Month Portfolio Investment Return (2.62%) was above the UBSWA Bank Bill Index Benchmark (1.87%). Council has a well-diversified portfolio with 96% of the portfolio spread among the top three credit rating categories (A long term / A2 short term and higher).

 

 

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

 

 

 

Certificate by Responsible Accounting Officer:

 

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

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

IWC Investments April 2017

2.

IWC Monthly Interest April 2017

3.

IWC Economic and Investment Portfolio Commentary Apr 17

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 

Item No:         C0517 Item 13

Subject:         QUARTERLY BUDGET REVIEW STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 31 MARCH 2017  

File Ref:         17/4718/50359.17         

Prepared By:     Pav Kuzmanovski - Group Manager Finance, David Murray - Manager Finance and Myooran Vinayagamoorthy - Chief Financial Officer  

Authorised By:  Michael Tzimoulas - Deputy General Manager Chief Financial and Administration Officer

 

SUMMARY

Clause 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that a quarterly budget review be considered by Council, which shows revised estimates for income and expenditure for the year, indicates whether Council’s financial position is satisfactory and makes recommendations for remedial action where needed.

 

The Quarterly Budget Review Statements (QBRS) are prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting.  This report provides a comprehensive high level overview of Council’s forecast financial position as at 30 June 2017 in accordance with the Code, together with supplementary information.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.         The report be received and noted; and

 

2.         Council approves the budget adjustments required.

 

 

 

 

This report provides an overview of Council’s quarterly financial position as at 31 March 2017.  The QBRS report is prepared in accordance with the Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting.  It includes information on Council’s Operating, Capital and net budget position as at 31 March 2017 and can be found at ATTACHMENT 1.  Information relating to each former Council can be found at ATTACHMENT 2. for the former Ashfield Council, ATTACHMENT 3 for the former Leichhardt Council and ATTACHMENT 4 for the former Marrickville Council.

 

Review of the Operating Budget and Capital Budget

 

The consolidated operating performance of the Inner West Council shows a year to date surplus of $9.8 million against a forecast balanced budget as at 31 March 2017.  The year to date surplus is primarily due to the timing of cash flow and activities with an expected increase in operational expenditure during the fourth quarter.  The forecast budget has been balanced from a 2nd Quarter $3.4m deficit.

 

The capital budget will be continued to be reviewed during the remainder of the year with a number of adjustments made during each of the first, second and third quarters.  Cash flow forecasts of major projects will be monitored to ensure that expenditure is budgeted for in the correct financial year.  March year-to-date capital expenditure totals approximately $45.3 million.


 

 

Major budget adjustments during the quarter included the rephasing of a number of capital projects to match cash flows and budgets, together with a balancing of the revised budget as detailed in the attachments.  All Council resolutions that include financial implications have been included in the March 2017 Quarterly Budget Review Statement.

 

Report by the Responsible Accounting Officer of Council

 

Section 203 (2) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires a report by Council’s responsible accounting officer regarding Council’s financial position at the end of each quarter.

 

The responsible accounting officer is of the opinion that the Quarterly Budget Review Statement for the Inner West Council for the quarter ended 31 March 2017 indicates that Council’s projected financial position at 30 June 2017 will be satisfactory, having regard to the projected estimates of income and expenditure and the original budgeted income and expenditure.

 

Financial Implications

 

The proposed report will have a net impact on Council working funds with a reduction in the forecast deficit from $3.4M to a balanced budget position.

 

Other Staff Comments

 

All relevant staff have been consulted during the budget adjustment process.

 

Public Consultation

 

Nil.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Consolidated Financials

2.

Ashfield Branch

3.

Leichhardt Branch

4.

Marrickville Branch

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

23 May 2017