|
|
Council Meeting
24 October 2017
|
Item No: C1017
Item 1
Subject: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30
JUNE 2017
File Ref: 17/4718
Prepared By: Pav
Kuzmanovski - Group Manager Finance
Authorised By: Michael
Tzimoulas - Deputy General Manager Chief Financial and Administration Officer
|
SUMMARY
The 2016/17 Financial
Statements have been audited by the Audit Office and will present on the
conduct of the audit for the Inner West Council. A copy of the statements
will be circulated prior to the Meeting.
This report outlines
Council’s financial performance and position for the period ending 30
June 2017 against industry indicators.
|
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT:
1. Receives
and notes the report.
2. Endorses
the Financial Statements to be placed on public exhibition with a view of
tabling the final report at the November 2017 Council meeting.
|
BACKGROUND
Council is
required to prepare Financial Statements in accordance with the Local
Government Act and Regulations, Local Government Code of Accounting Practice
and Australian Accounting Standards. At its September meeting, Council resolved
to release its statements for audit. The financial reporting period for the
2016/17 Financial Statements is 13 May 2016 to 30 June 2017.
The audit is now complete and the
2016/17 Financial Statements are required (by legislation) to be endorsed by
Council and then placed on public exhibition. A copy of the statements will be
circulated prior to the Meeting.
DISCUSSION
The 2016/17 Financial Statements
are the first set of financial reports for the Inner West Council. Below is a
summary of the financial information by reporting area.
Income Statement and Balance
Sheet
Council’s
Income Statement for the year discloses that the net Operating Result from
Continuing Operations was a surplus $57.6m. The surplus is primarily attributed
the following:
- One Off State Government
merger grants of $25m ($15 Stronger Community Fund and $10m Merger
Implementation Fund) which were minimally expended in the 2016/17 financial
year. It is forecast that these grant will be expended in the 2017/18 and
2018/19 financial years.
- Developer Contributions
totalling $27.6m which have been allocated to fund future capital works. Of the
$27.6m received this year, Council received 4 affordable housing units, open
space and public domain upgrades totalling $9.6m.
As these are the first combined
Inner West financial statements the transfer of the assets and liabilities from
the individual constituent Councils resulted in a net gain on amalgamation of
$2.2 billion on the 13 May 2016. This item is a specific result of the
amalgamation and in line with Accounting Standards and Local Government Code of
Accounting Practice.
Council conducted a valuation of
assets as at the 13th May, 2016 and a final valuation as at 30th
June, 2017. This enabled Council to transfer the assets in a consistent
manner and resulted in the recognition of other comprehensive income of $56m
net.
Council’s Balance Sheet
discloses net assets of $2.3 billion, primarily made up of Infrastructure
related assets of $2.16 billion. A breakdown of infrastructure assets can be
found in the capital schedule known as note 9a.
Council’s cash position
sees it hold $205m in cash and investments. The following is a breakdown by
Reserve.
|
Reserve
|
Amount ($M)
|
|
Externally Restricted - S94
Develop Contributions
|
$58
|
|
Externally Restricted -
Unexpended Grants
|
$25
|
|
Domestic Waste
|
$17
|
|
Externally Restricted - Other
Externally Restricted
|
$6
|
|
Internally Restricted -
Employee Leave Entitlement
|
$33
|
|
Internally Restricted –
Deposits and Bonds
|
$12
|
|
Internally Restricted –
Other
|
$4
|
|
Working Funds
|
$50
|
|
Total
|
$205
|
As a part of this process,
Council’s has fully funded its Employee Leave Entitlement (previously
only partly funded – approximately 50%).
The tabled working funds have
been fully allocated to fund capital renewal works in the coming financial
years. Any additional initiatives that are incorporated into either the 2017/18
or 2018/19 budget (through a Council resolution) will need to either identify a
new revenue source, financial saving or reduction in expenditure to fund the
proposed initiative.
Local
Government Industry Indicators
The Local
Government indicators (summarised below) are determined by in the Code of
Accounting practice. The indicators allow for inter council comparisons to be
consistently made across the local government sector. The indicators are as
follows:
Operating Performance Ratio
The purpose of the Operating
Performance Ratio is to measure Council’s achievement of containing
operating expenses within operating revenue
Council’s operating
performance ratio was 4.42% which is above the benchmark of zero. This was
primarily driven by the $10m Merger Implementation Fund grants received from
the State Government which will primarily be spent in the 2017/18 financial
year. The ratio excluding the $10m Merger Implementation funds is 0.66%.
Own Source Operating Revenue Ratio
The purpose of this ratio is to measure
fiscal flexibility. The ratio highlights the degree of reliance on external
funding sources such as operating grants & contributions.
Council's Own Source Operating
Revenue ratio is above the benchmark of 60% which means that it has a low
reliance on grants to fund operating expenditure. This indicator assists when
developing the budget to ensure that ongoing operations are funded from
sustainable funding sources.
Unrestricted Current Ratio
The purpose of this ratio is to
assess the adequacy of working capital and its ability to satisfy obligations
in the short term for the unrestricted activities of Council.
Council's Unrestricted Current
ratio is above the benchmark of 1.5. This benchmark will be used in the
development in Council’s Long Term Financial Plan to ensure that Council
is financially sustainable and able to meet its ongoing short term financial
obligations (Payroll and Creditors).
Debt Service Coverage Ratio
This ratio measures the
availability of operating cash to service debt including interest, principal
and lease payments.
Council's Debt Service ratio is above
the benchmark of 2 and is capable of servicing its existing loan obligations as
they are secured against rates income and factored into the budget. The ratio
excluding the $25m in State Government merger grants (Merger Implementation of
$10m and Stronger Community of $15m) is 2.41.
Rates, Annual Charges,
Interest and Extra Charges Outstanding percentage
The ratio helps assess the impact
of uncollected rates and annual charges on Council's liquidity and the adequacy
of recovery efforts.
Council's Outstanding Rates and
Annual Charges ratio exceeds the benchmark of 5%. Council will continue with
its debt recovery actions for the 2017/18 financial year noting that no debt
recovery action is taken against eligible pensioners.
Cash Expense Cover Ratio
This liquidity ratio indicates
the number of months a Council can continue paying for its immediate expenses
without additional cash inflow.
Council's Cash Expense Cover
ratio is above the benchmark of 3. This will begin to diminish in the 2017/18
financial year as working funds are used to address Council’s
infrastructure backlog. The ratio excluding the $25m in State Government merger
grants (Merger Implementation of $10m and Stronger Community of $15m) is 7.39.
Council has exceeded benchmark in
all of its financial indicators for this financial period. These will continue
to be monitored throughout the 2017/18 financial year.
Council Infrastructure
Industry Indicators
Council's Infrastructure asset
indicators (found in Special Schedule 7) are a summary of Council’s
infrastructure conditions for the financial year. Special Schedule 7 is not
audited by the Audit Office in 2016/17.
A summary of the indicators show
that Council is spending more on its renewals than it is depreciating but still
has a backlog of approximately $63m that needs to be addressed. Working funds
have been allocated over the current 4 year capital programs to address this
backlog. However, the infrastructure backlog of $63m exceeds the total working
funds available to Council of $50m and some working funds will be required to
fund any new resolutions of Council that are not currently budgeted.
These indicators will be reviewed
on an ongoing basis and will be included in the Long term Financial Plans and
Asset Management Plans.
Next Steps
To ensure compliance with
legislation the following steps need to occur:
- Council endorses the financial reports and
signs the accounts (24 October 2017);
- Council receives the Audit report from the
Audit Office to be incorporated in the Financial Statements and then submitted
to the Office of Local Government by 31 October 2017;
- Council places it Financial Statements on
public exhibition for public comment;
- Council endorses the final report at its
November meeting noting any comments from the public exhibition period.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no net financial
implications of this report. It is noted that general funds have been allocated
to fund Council’s infrastructure shortfall over the next four years.
The Audit, Risk and Improvement
Committee have had a briefing with Audit Office and Council officers to discuss
the conduct of the audit and Council’s financial position.
OTHER
STAFF COMMENTS
Nil
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS
|
1.⇩
|
2016/17 Fianncial Statements
|
|
2.⇩
|
Letter from Chairperson of Audit, Risk and Improvement
Committee
|
|
|
Council Meeting
24 October 2017
|
Item No: C1017
Item 21
Subject: SYDENHAM TO BANKSTOWN URBAN RENEWAL CORRIDOR
STRATEGY SUBMISSION
File Ref: 17/4718
Prepared By: Peter
Failes - Urban Design Planner and Peter Wotton - Strategic Planning Projects
Coordinator
Authorised By: Gill Dawson
– Acting Group Manager Strategic Planning
|
SUMMARY
This report concerns the
revised draft Strategy for the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor
released in June 2017 by the State Government for community consultation.
A report on the revised draft
strategy was considered by Council at its 12 October 2017 meeting (ATTACHMENT
1).
Council
officers have reconsidered the original report and draft
submission in relation to the points referred to in Part 2 of Council’s
resolution.
Officers have prepared a revised
draft submission for Council’s consideration and that submission is
attached as ATTACHMENT 2.
The report recommends that
Council endorse the revised draft submission.
|
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT:
1. The report be received and
noted.
2. Council endorse the revised
draft submission at ATTACHMENT 2, to be lodged with the Department of
Planning and Environment.
|
BACKGROUND
The Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor Strategy (the Strategy) is a 20 year (to 2036) State
Government plan which established a strategic planning framework for urban
renewal growth along the new Sydney Metro rail system. Within the Inner West local
government area (LGA), the Strategy applies to the Sydenham Railway Precinct,
Marrickville Railway Precinct and the Dulwich Hill Railway Precinct.
The Strategy will allow increased residential densities and
building heights to reach the targets set for additional homes and jobs in
these three precincts.
The revised draft Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal
Corridor Strategy (revised draft Strategy) was released for public comments in
June 2017.
Council officers carried out a
detailed assessment of the revised draft Strategy and identified a number of
issues and concerns and prepared a draft submission for Council’s
consideration.
A report on the revised draft Strategy, including Council
officers’ draft submission, was considered by Council as C1017 Item 2 at
its meeting on 12 October 2017. A copy of that report is attached as ATTACHMENT
1.
In dealing with the matter
Council resolved:
“1. That the report
be received and noted.
2. That Council
requests the officers reconsider aspects of their report that are not in tune
with community expectations including:
a) Revisit
the Save Dully submission in its entirety but focusing on returning a number of
blocks to single dwelling areas and reduce development intensity in other
areas, including in streets such as Constitution Road, Hercules Street, Terrace
Road, The Parade, School Parade, Riverside Crescent and Ewart Street/Ewart
Lane;
b) Strongly
advocating on behalf of areas excised from the 2015 strategy and retained as
single dwelling areas;
c) Arguing
that heritage reviews take place before any proposed rezonings;
d) Raising
the issue of this strategy having the potential to removing existing blocks
with relatively low cost rental housing;
e) Stress
that that any development plans for Dulwich Hill and for the broader corridor
establish a greater level of open space per head of population than the current
inadequate level;
f) Further
stressing that a fully funded infrastructure plan for Dulwich Hill which
outlines how school, health and other infrastructure will be provided alongside
a population growth in our suburb;
g) Amend
a number of the strategy’s proposed public domain initiatives, in
particular to remove the reference for new vehicular roads;
h) That
the draft submission’s reference to resumptions of properties around Tom
Kenny Reserve, Marrickville West, be removed;
i) That
the council examines the potential for heritage protection in areas excised
from the strategy but have been previously recognised by the council as having
extremely high and contributory streetscape value, such as Macarthur Parade
North;
j) Given
the clear flaws and inadequacies in the draft Sydenham to Bankstown Strategy,
the council calls on the NSW Government to hand over strategic planning control
in suburbs currently impacted by this strategy;
k) Give
far more emphasise early in submission to clear statement that the: Planned
zoning in several areas is too high, and inadequate transition from low density
(single dwellings) to medium high rise and high rise, creating shadowing, loss
of privacy, and building physically dominate and detract from appearance of
streetscape. As an example, 8 storeys next to single storey along west
Carrington Road; Marking a transition edge/ hatching is not a solution;
l) (Council
draft submission doesn’t make these points specifically or prominently
enough; needs stronger language and firmer recommendations; it does recommend 5
storeys west Carrington with hatching – needs to be stronger. Note
Council revised map still has west Carrington coloured red, needs to be
changed);
m) Transition
gradually from low density to low rise and then to medium rise across whole
area (again, west Carrington as example);
n) Need
to retain important streetscapes as low density/ single dwellings to retain
significant character and heritage, e.g. Grove Street;
o) Say
specifically that low rise must be no more than 3 storeys, even if within 500
metres of a railway station;
p) Create
new playing fields and put these on zoning maps, e.g. area bounded by
Richardson Crescent, Carrington Road, Renwick Street;
q) Create
new open space and put on map, e.g. area east Carrington Road between Warren
Road and Ruby Street, as per earlier maps;
r) Retain
significant industrial zoned land (IN1 and IN2) on East and West Carrington
Road, Myrtle Street and east end Renwick Street;
s) Marrickville
currently has a good supply of commercial space under residential, and
difficulty in leasing much of it, so don’t need large new supply;
t) Create
bicycle path along railway boundary between Tempe and Marrickville stations
(south and west of railway);
u) Recommend
that the Carrington precinct east of Carrington Road, although subject to
separate planning proposal, be zoned as 5 storeys on average and colour map
accordingly (Inner districts of Paris are typically 5 storeys, providing
significant housing density incorporated with many public spaces, parks and
good public transport);
v) Say
specifically that density of 30 storeys in Carrington precinct cannot be
handled by local streets, parking and other infrastructure;
w) Say
specifically that buildings immediately east of Carrington Road should be no
more than 5 storeys (it’s not clear from existing documents what is
proposed there);
x) Raise
concern of flooding Carrington Road/ current industrial areas;
y) Pedestrian
access/ bridge needed over Richardson Crescent;
z) Stronger
emphasis on need for car parking required in all developments;
aa) Specifically
mention where heritage buildings and character of streetscapes will be
destroyed by revised Marrickville Plan. e.g. Heritage cottages Schwebel Street;
inconsistency that Leofrene Street noted as potential heritage value in
heritage section, but rezoned to 5/8 storey;
bb) Specific
point - need to preserve heritage Palm trees along Carrington Road;
cc) Marrickville
is being asked to add 6,000 new units plus 1,200 along Victoria Road. At 2.2
people per dwelling that is nearly 16K extra people, and it will probably
happen in 5 years, not 20. Marrickville suburb has about 24K people now, so
that is a 67% increase in a short time, an unfair share to be imposing on a
small suburb;
dd) Marrickville
Plan needs to identify the number of increased residents planned for suburb of
Marrickville, and how that number is calculated;
ee) No
rezoning for Marrickville until adequate studies are completed – eg on
overshadowing and topography, traffic and parking impact, impact on employment,
heritage; and
ff) The inclusion in
the draft submission of community feedback summary on pages 20—22 of this
Item 2 before presentation of the final submission.
3. That the
Final Submission be presented to the Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 October.
4. That Council
establish a working group to deal with issues arising from the State
Government's Metro Project and the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor
(SBURC):
a) The Working Group
shall, as a priority and by the latest within three months from its first
meeting, present a draft plan to Council for a campaign in relation to SBURC,
which may include a request for funding to be allocated for the Working Group;
b) The Working Group
consist of two councillors and up to 10 nominated members of the community.
Preference will be given to members of existing community groups concerned with
these State Government initiatives (Save Marrickville South, Save Dully,
Marrickville Resident Action Group and the Sydenham to Bankstown Alliance);
c) The working group
will be co-ordinated by a senior staff member, have access to staff members
with expertise in transport, planning and community and government relations
and it should be appropriately resourced. The working group will select a
councillor as chair from its members at the first meeting.
5. That Council
invite local community action groups to provide their submissions to Council
for inclusion in Council’s submission.
6. That Council
state its opposition to the sell off of the Sydenham-Bankstown Rail Line as
part of the Sydney Metro privatisation project.”
DISCUSSION
Council officers
have reconsidered the original report and draft
submission in relation to the points referred to in Part 2 of Council’s
resolution above and the following comments are provided in relation to the
matters raised in points a) to ff) inclusive.
In relation to
those points the following comments are provided:
Point a) Revisit
the Save Dully submission in its entirety but focusing on returning a number of
blocks to single dwelling areas and reduce development intensity in other
areas, including in streets such as Constitution Road, Hercules Street, Terrace
Road, The Parade, School Parade, Riverside Crescent and Ewart Street/Ewart
Lane;
Comment:
The Save Dully submission has been considered and what is
proposed in the draft submission reflects the what the Council officers
considers appropriate, balancing support for development uplift of areas where
it is considered there is strategic merit with recommended removal or
reductions considering matters such as heritage value of groups of existing
buildings and whether development at the proposed heights would be achievable considering
urban design criteria, including evaluation against SEPP 65 and the Apartment
Design Guide. In some cases the areas are already zoned for apartments and/or
the height indicated on the Land Use Plan or as recommended in the Council Recommended Amendments plan is the same or not much
greater than the current height under MLEP 2011.
For Denison Road and Constitution Road it is predominantly
recommended to remove the uplift and return to single dwelling housing. On the
New Canterbury Road side the height recommended is similar to the current
height under MLEP 2011 or existing buildings. The triangular block between
Ewart Street and Ewart Lane is recommended to be reduced to 5 storeys.
For Hercules Street, Terrace Road and The Parade this area
has now been addressed in Part 11 Precinct Reviews (Section 11.3 Dulwich Hill
Station Precinct, Hercules Street, Terrace Road and The Parade) in the revised
draft submission. The officers view is that while the area has strategic merit,
this area needs to be re-evaluated after the recommended comprehensive heritage
study is undertaken which should then inform consideration of appropriate land
use controls for this area and elsewhere to ensure that any new planning
controls respect the existing built environment and any identified heritage
significance.
The western part of School Parade is already zoned for 3-5
storey apartments only 4 additional houses are affected, which all appear to
have had fabric alterations, reducing their heritage value, but needs to be
confirmed by the recommended comprehensive heritage study.
For Riverside Crescent, part of this area has been evaluated
in a heritage study. While there are some good examples of intact Federation
and Interwar period housing, many houses have had major fabric alterations,
significantly reducing their heritage value. The uplift on Riverside Crescent
enables consolidation of an area largely already zoned for apartments. This
requires further assessment through the comprehensive heritage study
recommended but currently Council supports the uplift of this area.
Point b) Strongly
advocating on behalf of areas excised from the 2015 strategy and retained as
single dwelling areas;
Comment:
The introduction
to Part 1 Summary in the draft submission acknowledges the areas that have been
removed from the 2015 strategy and retained as single dwelling areas.
Point c) Arguing
that heritage reviews take place before any proposed rezonings;
Comment:
This issue has
been covered in Part 6 of Council’s submission. This has been added as a
key issue and concern and a clear recommendation in Part 1 Summary.
Point d) Raising
the issue of this strategy having the potential to removing existing blocks
with relatively low cost rental housing;
Comment:
This matter has
been included in general in Part 7.9 of Part 7 of the submission that addresses
Affordable Housing – that there has been considerable displacement of
historic populations through ongoing gentrification and non-replacement of affordable
and lower cost housing. Also in Part 11 Precinct Reviews, the height
(relating to density) of some areas (Schwebel Street and North of New
Canterbury Road and the Light Rail corridor) are recommended to be lowered in
part to reduce the likelihood of the loss of the existing more affordable
apartment housing in the short to medium term to be replaced with more expensive
new housing.
Affordable
housing was identified as one of Council’s key issues and concerns in
Part 1 Summary. However the key issue and concerns identified did not
specifically refer to the loss of existing low cost rental housing. To give
greater emphasis it has been reworded to include this and a clear
recommendation is now also included.
Point e) Stress
that that any development plans for Dulwich Hill and for the broader corridor
establish a greater level of open space per head of population than the current
inadequate level;
Comment:
There is currently a lack of
quality green open space in the former Marrickville Local Government Area and
this deficiency was highlighted in the Recreation User Needs Research carried
out in 2012.
To achieve the
resolution of increasing or at least maintaining the level of open space per
head of population for Dulwich Hill and enabling areas that do not have access
to local open space within 400 m will require acquisition. Given the
high land values in the Inner West Council Area and the $20k cap on Section 94
Contributions, it is difficult for Council to purchase land to support the open
space requirements generated by the increased resident and worker population
sought that would be envisaged by this Strategy. This is dicussed in Part 3.2, Part 5 and Part 11 of the submission.
Point f) Further
stressing that a fully funded infrastructure plan for Dulwich Hill which
outlines how school, health and other infrastructure will be provided alongside
a population growth in our suburb;
Comment:
The deficiency
of the revised draft Strategy to adequate plan, fund and implement all the
required infrastructure has been addressed and further emphasised in Part 3
Infrastructure and Funding and is included as a key issue and concern in Part 1
Summary, which now incorporates the words “fully funded” and a
clear recommendation.
Point g) Amend
a number of the strategy’s proposed public domain initiatives, in
particular to remove the reference for new vehicular roads;
Comment:
In reference to
new vehicular roads, in the Marrickville Precinct, the potential path
identified to the west of Carrington Road generally adjacent to the canal would
not be appropriate as a new vehicular road and has been noted in the Part 11 of
the submission to reference this link to only be identified as a pedestrian
connection.
In regards to
the link adjacent to the light rail corridor behind Hercules Street there would
be merit in providing this as a minor public shared
zone street to make the GreenWay corridor feel more public, activated and safe,
incorporating some units directly addressing the public shared zone street and
the GreenWay corridor. Given the timing, a separate GreenWay missing links path
would most likely be constructed through the light rail corridor at an earlier
stage. Whereas such a public shared zone street would evolve as development
occurs. As a shared zone street it is envisaged it would primarily be to
provide space for people to use it as a recreational resource like children
riding bikes, skates, sitting and chatting in adjoining seating / congregating
areas maybe adjoining WSUD features or community garden etc., and would only
serve a few cars providing a frontage and visitor parking relating to those
units fronting the street, with the design not necessitating it’s use for
access to basements. The creation of site specific DCP master plan controls
would ensure the design achieved this outcome as raised above.
Point h) That
the draft submission’s reference to resumptions of properties around Tom
Kenny Reserve, Marrickville West, be removed;
Comment:
It has been
identified that there is a need for more open space in this area. To achieve
the minimum of 3000 sqm as recommended in the Guidelines for the development
of good public space included in the Marrickville recreation Needs Study
2011 it wouldn’t be able to be achieved without land acquisition.
Point i) That
the council examines the potential for heritage protection in areas excised
from the strategy but have been previously recognised by the council as having
extremely high and contributory streetscape value, such as Macarthur Parade
North;
Comment:
This matter has
been addressed under point c above.
Point j) Given
the clear flaws and inadequacies in the draft Sydenham to Bankstown Strategy,
the council calls on the NSW Government to hand over strategic planning control
in suburbs currently impacted by this strategy;
Comment:
While it is not
considered practical for Council to take over the strategic planning for the
Precincts falling within the Inner West Council LGA, at this late stage in the
process, there is opportunity for Council to further consider and substantiate
what are the appropriate land use controls as a result of strategic planning
work undertaken in preparation of a comprehensive LEP and DCP for the Inner
West Council LGA or when considering private initiated planning proposals.
Point k) Give
far more emphasise early in submission to clear statement that the Planned
zoning in several areas is too high, and inadequate transition from low density
(single dwellings) to medium high rise and high rise, creating shadowing, loss
of privacy, and building physically dominate and detract from appearance of
streetscape. As an example, 8 storeys next to single storey along west
Carrington Road; Marking a transition edge/ hatching is not a solution;
Comment:
To give greater
emphasise to this point, this matter has been incorporated as part of the key
issues and concerns in Part 1 Summary and the inclusion of a clear
recommendation.
Point l) (Council
draft submission doesn’t make these points specifically or prominently
enough; needs stronger language and firmer recommendations; it does recommend 5
storeys west Carrington with hatching – needs to be stronger. Note
Council revised map still has west Carrington coloured red, needs to be
changed);
Comment:
This matter has
been discussed under Point l. In regards to Carrington Road and other areas
where it is recommended to amend the Land use Plan, the amendments are
indicated on the Council Recommended Amendments plan as height in storeys as an
overlay over the revised Land Use Plan shown in the revised draft Strategy, so
the two can be considered together and finer nuancing of height can be
identified.
Point m) Transition
gradually from low density to low rise and then to medium rise across whole
area (again, west Carrington as example);
Comment:
The recommended
heights on the western side of Carrington Road, if the preferred outcome of
retaining the existing light industrial zone does not occur, has been
reconsidered. It is now recommended to lower the blocks at the southern end of
Carrington Road that adjoin single dwelling housing to 5 storeys for the part
of the blocks fronting Carrington Road and 3 storeys at the rear that adjoins
single dwelling housing, which has been amended on the Council Recommended
Amendments plan in the revised draft submission.
Point n) Need
to retain important streetscapes as low density/ single dwellings to retain
significant character and heritage, e.g. Grove Street;
Comment:
The areas
previously identified for low density on the Council Recommended Amendments
plan in the draft submission continue to be recommended as such. It is noted
however that a general submission issue and specific amendment mark-up is
recommended for all areas within the Marrickville Precinct located within 500m
of the Marrickville Station, that the low rise housing be limited to 3 storeys
(instead of the allowed 4 storeys), which could be combined with more
restrictive FSR controls at the LEP stage, to ensure any new infill development
can sensitively integrate with existing single dwelling housing. Based on past
experience and value of properties, these areas are likely to experience only
limited redevelopment.
Point o) Say
specifically that low rise must be no more than 3 storeys, even if within 500
metres of a railway station;
Comment:
This matter has
already been addressed in the submission and discussed under point n above.
Point p) Create
new playing fields and put these on zoning maps, e.g. area bounded by
Richardson Crescent, Carrington Road, Renwick Street;
Comment:
The submission
recommends that the area currently the subject of a planning proposal to the
east of Carrington Road be hatched blue reflecting other properties that are
subject to the determination of Planning Proposal. It is considered appropriate
that all matters relating to this planning proposal, including the provision of
open space and active transport links, should be dealt with comprehensively
though the planning proposal process rather than pre-empting certain aspects.
Point q) Create
new open space and put on map, e.g. area east Carrington Road;
Comment:
The submission
and Council Recommended Amendments plan recommends locations for new open space
in various forms, dedications as part of developments; opportunities for open
space in government land and required amalgamation. Other opportunities and
matters relating to open space have been addressed under point e. In terms of
East Carrington Road, this has been address under point p above.
Point r) Retain
significant industrial zoned land (IN1 and IN2) on East and West Carrington
Road, Myrtle Street and east end Renwick Street;
Comment:
This matter has
already been addressed in the submission under Part 2 Strategic Context and
Part 4 Employment Land, Business and Economic Impact, in Part 11 Precinct
Reviews it is specifically stated that the rezoning of employment land for
residential is not supported and these areas are marked-up on the Council Recommended Amendments plan for removal. This matter
is also raised as a key issue and concern in Part 1 Summary, which now
incorporates a clear recommendation for the removal of these land use changes
from the Land Use Plan.
Point s) Marrickville
currently has a good supply of commercial space under residential, and
difficulty in leasing much of it, so don’t need large new supply;
Comment:
There is limited
new commercial space proposed in the Strategy. The main new area proposed is
along New Canterbury Road which is recommended to remove and change to pure
residential.
Point t) Create
bicycle path along railway boundary between Tempe and Marrickville stations
(south and west of railway);
Comment:
This matter has
been addressed under point p above.
Point u) Recommend
that the Carrington precinct east of Carrington Road, although subject to
separate planning proposal, be zoned as 5 storeys on average and colour map
accordingly (Inner districts of Paris are typically 5 storeys, providing
significant housing density incorporated with many public spaces, parks and
good public transport);
Comment:
This matter has
been addressed under point p.
Point v) Say
specifically that density of 30 storeys in Carrington precinct cannot be
handled by local streets, parking and other infrastructure;
Comment:
This matter has
been addressed under point p above. Regarding 30 storeys, it is noted that,
while interim consultation material indicated potentially up to 25 storeys in
the East Carrington Road area (appearing on the Urban Design Peer Review
Recommendations plan by Conybeare Morrison), the actual Land Use Plan in the
revised draft Strategy identifies only up to 8 storeys. Going forward this
matter needs to be considered under the assessment of the East Carrington Road Planning
Proposal.
Point w) Say
specifically that buildings immediately east of Carrington Road should be no
more than 5 storeys (it’s not clear from existing documents what is
proposed there);
Comment:
This matter has
been addressed under point p.
Point x) Raise
concern of flooding Carrington Road/ current industrial areas;
Comment:
This matter has
been addressed in Part 2 Strategic Context (Section 2.6, 117 Directions,
Direction 4.3 Flood Prone Land) and in Part 3 (Section 3.3 Street, Traffic,
Parking and Stormwater Infrastructure) of the revised draft Submission.
Adequate flood studies are required for the Carrington Road Precinct, which
will be required to be address by the East Carrington Road Planning Proposal
currently being assessed.
Point y) Pedestrian
access/ bridge needed over Richardson Crescent;
Comment:
This matter has
been addressed under point p above, considered a detail matter that will be
addressed as part of the Planning Proposal for East Carrington Road.
Point z) Stronger
emphasis on need for car parking required in all developments;
Comment:
The matter of
car parking has been raised in Part 5 Transport (Section 5.1.3 Creating a
Sustainable Future) and Part 8 Environment. The revised draft Strategy does not
provide any policy direction relating to car parking, compared to the
Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy that establishes innovative
approaches. The detail policy around car parking will be addressed as part of
the preparation of the consolidated Inner West Council LEP and DCP.
Point aa) Specifically
mention where heritage buildings and character of streetscapes will be
destroyed by revised Marrickville Plan. e.g. Heritage cottages Schwebel Street;
inconsistency that Leofrene Street noted as potential heritage value in
heritage section, but rezoned to 5/8 storey;
Comment:
This matter has
been addressed in Part 11 Precinct Reviews (Section 11.2 Marrickville Station
Precinct, Schwebel Street (southern side) and Leofrene Avenue, Riverdale Avenue
and Charlotte Avenue). The heritage value of this area and implications for
development is required to be considered as part of the in a comprehensive
heritage study now recommended to be undertaken for the whole precinct of each
precinct in the Sydenham to Bankstown Corridor prior to the finalisation of the
Strategy.
Point bb) Specific point -
need to preserve heritage Palm trees along Carrington Road;
Comment:
Schedule 5
Environmental heritage of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 currently
lists the canary island palms as part of the heritage item listing of Item 168
“Select industrial facades and Canary Island Palms” at 10
and 47 Carrington Road. As part of a Heritage Study review known as
Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Amendment No. 10) the listing of
the item is proposed to be amended including the deletion of the trees.
Point cc) Marrickville is
being asked to add 6,000 new units plus 1,200 along Victoria Road. At 2.2
people per dwelling that is nearly 16K extra people, and it will probably
happen in 5 years, not 20. Marrickville suburb has about 24K people now, so
that is a 67% increase in a short time, an unfair share to be imposing on a
small suburb;
Comment:
Given the
extensive area having uplift, especially in the Marrickville Precinct,
development would not realistically occur over 5, it is likely that the higher
density areas would be more attractive and be developed earlier. However, the
extent of development in some areas, especially Marrickville Precinct and the
need for a staging plan has been addressed in the revised draft submission and
incorporated into a clear recommendation.
Point dd) Marrickville Plan
needs to identify the number of increased residents planned for suburb of
Marrickville, and how that number is calculated;
Comment:
This matter has
been raised as a key issue and concern, which now incorporates a clear
recommendation that the State Government make transparent the methodology used
for the calculation of forecast dwelling and employment numbers resulting from the Strategy.
Point ee) No rezoning for
Marrickville until adequate studies are completed – eg on overshadowing
and topography, traffic and parking impact, impact on employment, heritage; and
Comment:
The lack of or
inadequacy of studies supporting the Strategy has been raised throughout the
submission, and is now included as a key issue and concern, which
incorporates a clear recommendation that the State Government make transparent
the methodology used for the calculation of forecast dwelling
and employment numbers resulting from the Strategy.
Point ff) The
inclusion in the draft submission of community feedback summary on pages
20—22 of this Item 2 before presentation of the final submission.
Comment:
The summary of
the concerns raised in the community feedback to the revised draft
Strategy detailed in the report considered by Council at its
meeting on 12 October 2017 have been included as an attachment to the revised
draft submission.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Sydenham to Bankstown
Urban Renewal Corridor Strategy is a NSW Government project.
In dealing with the report on the
revised draft Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor Strategy at its
meeting on 12 October 2017 Council resolved to “establish a working
group to deal with issues arising from the State Government's Metro Project and
the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor (SBURC)” (refer to
Part 4 of the Council’s resolution). The establishment of that working
group would have resourcing and budget implications.
OTHER
STAFF COMMENTS
The
comments from other staff have been incorporated into the revised draft
strategy as discussed in the previous report to the 12 October 2017 Council
meeting.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
As detailed in the previous
report the DPE is responsible for the public exhibition of the revised draft
Strategy for the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor Strategy. The
revised draft Strategy was released for
public comments in June 2017. The exhibition period closed on 3 September 2017.
Part 5 of the Council resolution reads:
5. That
Council invite local community action groups to provide their submissions to
Council for inclusion in Council’s submission.
CONCLUSION
Whilst a number of amendments
have been made from the initial draft Strategy, which will have a positive
local impact including the retention of high quality character areas, Council
continues to have concerns with a number of other matters contained within the
revised draft Strategy.
Council officers have carried out
a detailed assessment of the revised draft strategy and have identified a
number of issues and concerns. Officers have recommended that a number of
amendments be made to the revised draft Strategy to address those concerns and
issues.
Officers have prepared a draft
submission for Council’s consideration and that submission is attached as
ATTACHMENT 2.
The
three key community action group submissions will be included with
Council’s submission.
ATTACHMENTS
|
1.⇩
|
Attachment 1 - Item 2 from Council Meeting 12 October 2017
|
|
2.⇩
|
Attachment 2 - Revised Draft Submission on Sydenham to
Bankstown revised draft Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor Strategy
|
