AGENDA R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council Meeting

 

TUESDAY 21 NOVEMBER 2017

 

6.30pm

 


Live Streaming of Council Meeting

 

In the spirit of open, accessible and transparent government, this meeting of the Inner West Council is being streamed live on Council’s website. By speaking at a Council meeting, members of the public agree to being recorded and must ensure their speech to the Council is respectful and use appropriate language. A person who uses defamatory, discriminatory or offensive language may be exposed to liability for which Council takes no responsibility. Any part of this meeting that is held in closed session will not be recorded

 

Pre-Registration to Speak at Council Meetings

 

Council is encouraging members of the public to pre-register their interest to speak at Council Meetings as the Meeting venues have a maximum number they can hold. Members of the public can pre-register up until 2pm of the day of the Meeting. If you wish to register your interest please fill in a Register to Speak Form, available from the Inner West Council website, including:

·      your name;

·      contact details;

·      item on the Agenda you wish to speak to; and

·      whether you are for or against the recommendation in the agenda.

 

What happens after I submit the form?

Your request will then be added to a list that is shown to the Chairperson on the night of the meeting.

 

Are there any rules for speaking at a Council Meeting?

The following rules apply when addressing a Council meeting:

·      keep your address to the point, the time allowed for each speaker is limited to three minutes with one extension of not more than three minutes with the approval of the Council. This time limit applies, no matter how many items are addressed by the speaker;

·      when addressing the Meeting you must speak to the Chairperson;

·      the Chairperson may curtail public participation where the information being presented is considered repetitive or irrelevant.

 

Where Items are deferred, Council reserves the right to defer speakers until that Item is heard on the next occasion.

 

Accessibility

Inner West Council is committed to ensuring people with a disability have equal opportunity to take part in Council and Committee Meetings. If you have any access or disability related participation needs and wish to know more ring 9392 5657.

 

Persons in the public gallery are advised that under the Local Government Act 1993, a person may NOT tape record a Council meeting without the permission of Council.

 

Any persons found recording without authority will be expelled from the meeting.

 

“Record” includes the use of any form of audio, video and still camera equipment or mobile phone capable of recording speech.

 

An audio recording of this meeting will be taken for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the minutes.  

 

 

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF ITEMS

 

 

The following provides a summary of the items to be considered at the meeting.

 

  

1          Acknowledgement of Country

 

2          Apologies

 

3          Notice of Webcasting

 

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

 

5          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                       PAGE

Minutes of 24 October 2017 Council Meeting                                                                  6

Minutes of 31 October 2017 Extraordinary Council Meeting                                         22

 

 

6          Mayoral Minutes

 

7          Staff Reports

 

ITEM                                                                                                                                       PAGE

C1117 Item 1      Councillor Support Staff                                                                              38

C1117 Item 2      Draft Code of Meeting Practice                                                                  46

C1117 Item 3      Audited Financial Reports as at 30 June 2017                                           95

C1117 Item 4      Post Exhibition Report - Sydenham Station Creative Hub Planning Proposal      189

C1117 Item 5      Amendments to Inner West DCP 2016                                                    274

C1117 Item 6      469-483 Balmain Road, Lilyfield - Planning Proposal                               322

C1117 Item 7      466-480 New Canterbury Road, 26-38 Hercules Street, Dulwich Hill - Planning Proposal     447

C1117 Item 8      Victoria Road Precinct Planning Proposal                                                482

C1117 Item 9      Greenway shared path through Arlington Grove development                561

C1117 Item 10    Sydney Metro (Sydenham to Bankstown) EIS Submission                     565

C1117 Item 11    Council Submission to Review of Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000                                                                                                           600

C1117 Item 12    Draft Future Transport Strategy 2056 - Council Submission                   610

C1117 Item 13    Dockless Bike Share Schemes                                                                642

C1117 Item 14    Fee Waiver Applications in relation to community use of Council facilities in 2018     644

C1117 Item 15    Naming of new lane between Grove and Alfred Streets, and perpendicular to Albion and Rolfe lanes, St Peters                                                                               658

C1117 Item 16    Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 2 November 2017  and Extra-Ordinary Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 3 November 2017                            662

C1117 Item 17    Investment Report as at 31 October 2017                                                693

C1117 Item 18    Targeting a Non Fossil Fuel Investment Portfolio for Inner West Council 726

C1117 Item 19    Pensioner Rebates                                                                                    741

 

Rescission Motions

ITEM                                                                                                                                       PAGE

C1117 Item 20    Notice of Motion to Rescind: Cottages at 9 and 11 Marion Street Leichhardt      744

Notice of Motions

ITEM                                                                                                                                    PAGE #

C1117 Item 21    Notice of Motion: Affordable housing for the Inner West                           33

C1117 Item 22    Notice of Motion: Ensuring an Affordable, Quality Early Education and Childcare Place for Every Child                                                                                            33

C1117 Item 23    Notice of Motion: Rainbow Tunnel                                                            749

C1117 Item 24    Notice of Motion: Boosting the micro-brewing sector in the Inner West  750

C1117 Item 25    Notice of Motion: Urgent Action needed to improving Air Quality            751

C1117 Item 26    Notice of Motion: WestConnex Noise Issues                                           752

C1117 Item 27    Notice of Motion: Investigation into New Council Committees                754

C1117 Item 28    Notice of Motion: Cabcharge for Councillors                                           756

 

Reports with Confidential Information

 

Reports appearing in this section of the Business Paper are confidential in their entirety or contain confidential information in attachments.

 

The confidential information has been circulated separately.

 

ITEM                                                                                                                                                 

C1117 Item 29    General Manager's Contract of Employment   


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 24 October 2017

 

Meeting commenced at     6.32 pm

 

Present:

Darcy Byrne

Julie Passas

Marghanita Da Cruz Mark Drury

Colin Hesse

Tom Kiat

Pauline Lockie

Lucille McKenna OAM

Victor Macri

Rochelle Porteous

Vittoria Raciti

John Stamolis

Louise Steer

Anna York
Rik Hart

Peter Gainsford

Mayor

Deputy Mayor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Interim General Manager

Deputy General Manager Assets and Environment

John Warburton

Tanya Whitmarsh

Deputy General Manager Community and Engagement

Group Manager Governance

Gill Dawson

A/Group Manager Strategic Planning

Wal Petchler

Pav Kuzmanovski

Ian Naylor

Kendall Banfield

Group Manager Footpath, Roads, Traffic and Stormwater

Group Manager Finance

Manager Civic and Executive Support

Manager WestConnex Unit

 

APOLOGIES:

 

Motion (Macri/Passas)

 

That apologies from Councillor Iskandar be accepted and leave of absence granted. 

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:  

 

Councillor Lockie, declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 23 Notice of Motion: Reversing OSHC Fee Increases, as her family pays for use of this service.

 

Councillor Drury declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 19 Traffic Committee Minutes as he lives in Heighway Avenue, Ashfield which is subject of a report in the Minutes.

 

Councillor Macri, declared a significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 19, as he is a member of the Sydney Central Planning Panel, who may consider approving significant development applications that are discussed in the Traffic Committee 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 Mayor 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.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

Moved: (Councillor Byrne/ Councillor Kiat)

 

1. That the Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 3 October be confirmed as a correct record.

2. That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 12 October 2017 be confirmed as a correct record, subject to:

(a) amending resolution 1 in Item 34 - Mayoral Minute: Welcoming Same Sex Marriage In Council Facilities, to clarify the intention of the resolution as follows;

“1. Authorise the waiver of fee hire of Council Halls, parks and Community Centres

for any same sex couple wishing to marry in the 100 days following legislation of same sex marriage”

 

(b) recording Councillor Passas voting against Item 32.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Carried Unanimously

 

 

Motion: (McKenna OAM/Steer)

 

That the meeting conclude at or before 11pm.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Drury, Hesse, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Raciti, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Crs Da Cruz, Kiat, Porteous and Stamolis

 

Foreshadowed Motion: (Porteous/

 

That the meeting seek to conclude by 11pm, but continue to deal with all matters the public have indicated they wish to speak to.

 

The Foreshadowed Motion lapsed.

 

C1017 Item 40    Mayoral Minute: Promoting Consistent Opportunities for King Street Businesses and Arts Practitioners

Mayoral Minute     (Byrne)

 

That Council:

 

1.   Provide an in principal commitment to partnering with the City of Sydney to harmonise regulation along King Street as soon as practicably achievable.

2.   Meet with the City of Sydney to discuss and gain deeper understanding of their proposed amendments to Late Night Trading on King Street.

3.   Investigate amendments to Inner West Council’s relevant planning controls in order to allow late night trading on King Street.

4.   Seek cooperation from the City of Sydney in investigating amendments to each Council’s planning controls in order to allow small scale arts and cultural activities, in restaurants, cafes, retail shop fronts and other main street premises on King Street, without the requirement of development consent.

5.   Support the establishment of a King Street Regulation Working Group by the Newtown Precinct Business Association, and commit to engaging with the group in meaningful consultation.

6.   Convene, in conjunction with the Newtown Precinct Business Association, the first meeting of the Newtown Regulatory Working Group to outline the scope of the group and its parameters  and set an agenda and desired outcomes.

7.   Invite to the scoping meeting the following representatives

Inner West Council

City of Sydney

Jenny Leong, State Member for Newtown

The Hon Anthony Albanese MP, Federal Member for Grayndler

The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP, Federal Member for Sydney

Roads and Maritime Services

Other relevant State Government agencies

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

Motion:     (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

That Items 25 and 29 be brought forward and considered at this time.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1017 Item 25    Notice of Motion: Making the Inner West a leader in renewable energy

Motion:     (York/Kiat)

 

That Council:

1.   Take immediate steps to sign up the Inner West Council to the Cities Power Partnership at the earliest opportunity (noting the next in-take will be in October 2017) – with a focus on pledging actions focused on solar and renewables leadership.

2.   Receive a report/s through the General Manager on how the Inner Council will:

a.   Commit to Priorities and Key Actions as required under the Partnership (noting the preferred focus on action focused on solar and renewables leadership)

b.   Make the Inner West Council 100% carbon neutral by the earliest possible date, while balancing immediate actions with the need for more impactful, longer term solutions

c.   Achieve 100% divestment from fossil fuel aligned investments at the earliest possible date, based on a financially responsible pathway

d.   Make the Inner West Council a leader in Solar photovoltaic (PV) energy by:

o   Ensuring all new Council-owned developments are fitted with Solar PV cells.

o   Working towards the retrofitting of all Council-owned buildings with appropriately sized Solar PV cells – potentially through a bulk tendering process – where possible.

e.   Establish an Office of Renewable Energy Innovation (REI) to make the Inner West community a leader in renewable energy innovation by:

o   Setting targets and timeframes for the take up of renewable energy and energy conservation solutions, including benchmarks for new developments.

o   Leading the investigation into our best options for adopting solar and renewable energy in our area.

o   Helping drive community renewables ownership by supporting community energy organisations in the Inner West.

o   Providing support to help residents and commercial property managers install/manage solar technology – including investigating models where upfront solar PV panels and installation costs are covered or reduced for participants, as in Darebin Council’s Solar Savers program – with a goal for the installation of cost-saving Solar PV cells on all eligible roofs.

o   Providing a brokerage service to help organisations looking to invest in community energy projects to identify potential partners with suitable roof space.

o   Investigating the viability of transitioning the Inner West Council vehicle fleet to an electric fleet.

o   Prioritising a solar innovation pilot run by REI, which may include a Council/Commercial Solar Power Purchase Agreement, investment in a regional solar farm partnership, and/or a local solar farm pilot. 

3.   That this report/s form the basis of an integrated climate and renewables strategy for the Inner West Council, under which actions under the Partnership and the focus of the new Office of Renewable Energy Innovation are aligned:

a.   Noting that Priorities and Agreed Actions under the Partnership are required to be agreed within 6 months of signing onto the partnership, and should both leverage and reflect a broader IWC climate and renewables strategy

 

b.   That before the agreement of these priorities and actions under the Partnership, Councillors should receive a briefing prior to the end of 2017 from Council staff on current climate and renewable actions underway across Council, and options and financial implications for an integrated climate & renewables strategy touching on the elements listed above.

 

c.   That Council’s Environment Strategic Reference Group also be consulted in the drafting of this report/s and recommendations

 

4.         That Council develop a 3 year Community Engagement strategy to promote             greater community awareness of renewal energy options and benefits of        renewable energy in their community

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Amendment: (Stamolis/Passas)

 

That Council develop a 3 year Community Engagement strategy to promote greater community awareness of renewal energy options and benefits of renewable energy in their community.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis and Steer

Against Motion:          Crs Byrne, McKenna OAM and York

 

The AMENDMENT was incorporated as party of the Primary Motion.

 

C1017 Item 29    Notice of Motion: Council to Enter Cities Power Partnership with the Climate Council and Prepare Report

Councillor Kiat withdrew this motion.

 

Motion:

Motion (Byrne/York)

That Items 1, 19, 20, 21, 27, 32, 37, 39, be brought forward for consideration and dealt with at this time.

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 


 

C1017 Item 1      FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 JUNE 2017

Motion:     (Drury/McKenna OAM)

 

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.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Councillor Macri left the Meeting at 8:00 pm as he had declared a conflict of interest in Item 19, did not participate in discussion and did not vote.

 

C1017 Item 19    LOCAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 5 OCTOBER 2017

Motion:     (Stamolis/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 5 October 2017 be received and the recommendations be adopted.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Councillor Macri

 

Councillor Macri returned to the Meeting 8:32pm.

 

Councillors Passas and Raciti left the Meeting 8.40pm.

 

C1017 Item 20    FINAL SUBMISSION ON WESTCONNEX M4-M5 LINK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Motion:     (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Receives and note the final submission; and

 

2.   Provides the following comments to the Department of Planning & Environment as an addendum to the submission;

 

(a)  That the Submission include a requirement that says that any changes to the design subsequent to the approval (should it be approved) must be brought back for public comment.

(b)  That the status of the Rozelle Underground Interchange be included in the submission.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Crs Raciti and Passas

 

Councllors Passas and Raciti returned to the Meeting at 8.45pm.

 

C1017 Item 21    SYDENHAM TO BANKSTOWN URBAN RENEWAL CORRIDOR STRATEGY SUBMISSION

Motion: Drury/Hesse

 

1. That Council calls on the NSW Minister for Planning to abandon the Sydenham to Bankstown Strategy and allow the Inner West Council to do the town planning along the corridor in consultation with our community.

 

2. That Council thanks the Department of Planning for the opportunity to respond to the Sydenham to Bankstown Strategy.  We attach the following amended Inner West Council submission with local community groups submissions as attachments.

 

3. That Council notes that there is considerable community anger about the potential effect of the implementation of the Strategy on inner West communities.

 

4. That Council is concerned about that the Strategy imposes unwanted and inappropriate major changes to density and scale, largely destroys the historic character and fabric of our low-scale suburbs and includes a lack of transition between high, medium and low density and existing single dwelling areas. In addition, its dwelling targets are simply too big to accommodate existing constraints in our suburbs such as small lots, existing affordable and contributory housing and valuable and diminishing employment land. Council is also concerned that this plan does not provide sufficient protection for our current amenity, built form heritage and there is an inadequate assessment of traffic and parking impacts.

 

5. That Council notes with concern that new housing construction is planned at a time when our community is also likely to be experiencing significant traffic and noise impacts, and reduced transport capacity, as a result of the proposed construction of the Metro line. Council lacks confidence that the planning for the necessary infrastructure to support the increased populations proposed has occurred. The plan does not provide for the community infrastructure needed including open space, playing fields, schools, hospitals and child-care centres. We also note a lack of a clear affordable housing plan and the loss of lands for employment and our thriving arts community.

 

6. Specifically, Council requests that the NSW Minister for Planning;

• abandon the Sydenham to Bankstown Strategy and allow the Inner West Council the opportunity to complete a revised LEP which considers all existing and proposed development, including beyond the Sydenham to Bankstown Corridor;

• provides the Inner west Council will additional funding to complete the LEP

• commits to not impose Section 117 directions until a new LEP is in place;

• restricts the ability of proponents of rezoning applications to rely on the Strategy in draft form and in particular the proposed rezoning of Carrington Road Marrickville; and

• agrees to provide SEPP 70 for affordable housing in line with the Inner West Affordable Housing Policy

 

7. In line with the considered views of our community the Council requires that the General Manger amend the submission before submitting it to indicate that:

 

• Council does not accept increased density inconsistent of the MLEP based on the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor

 

• the block bounded by Hercules, Consett and Terrace Rd be returned to a single dwelling area, in line with the 2015 Marrickville Council submission and in light of advice from officers that the block contains potential heritage areas and items.

 

• the intensity of development around this block needs to be reduced , in particular the Parade be also returned to a single dwelling area and that the height of development is significantly reduced on Hercules St East to ensure a harmonious interface with Hercules St West.”

 

• that building height alongside Dulwich Hill light rail station should not be increased, and that any planning proposal should seek to protect Dulwich Hill public school from overshadowing and privacy impacts,

 

• just because the Council submission does not indicate disagreement with development any street is not to read as support

 

• we do not support compulsory property resumptions

 

8. Further we require the General Manger to have the submission stress that we are extremely concerned about the potential highly disruptive cumulative traffic, noise and other impacts from both private construction for new housing and the proposed construction of the new Metro line, along with the reduced commuter rail capacity, between 2019 and 2024 and request that this issue is thoroughly investigated by the NSW Government before the strategy is finalised.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1017 Item 32    Notice of Motion: The Return of Local Democracy to the Inner West

Motion:     (Porteous/Stamolis)

 

THAT:

1. Council commits to the restoration of local democracy to the Inner West as a matter of urgency.

2. A report be brought to the December Ordinary Council Meeting on how local democracy can be restored to the Inner West as soon as possible. This report to include the following:

      a.         Legal advice on what options are available for council to instigate a new public inquiry into the de-amalgamation of the 3 councils;

      b.         The process, timing and costs for conducting a plebiscite for each of the 3 council areas – Leichhardt, Ashfield and Marrickville asking whether they want to remain amalgamated or choose to de-amalgamated;

      c.         Proposals for the urgent re-establishment of local and specialist committees and advisory groups;

      d.         Proposals which enable a localised (possibly ward-based rather than a one size fits all) approach to all council’s decision-making; and

      e.         Proposals which will ensure excellent and meaningful consultation with the community.

3. That Council record its unwillingness to fund and hold a plebiscite on de-amalgamation when it is not binding and the result holds no legal standing

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Porteous, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Crs Passas and Raciti

 

Amendment (Byrne/Passas)

 

That Council record its unwillingness to fund and hold a plebiscite on de-amalgamation when it is not binding and the result holds no legal standing

 

Motion Tied

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Drury, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Raciti and York

Against Motion:          Crs Da Cruz, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Porteous, Stamolis and Steer

 

The Chairperson used his Casting Vote and the AMENDMENT was  Carried and incorporated into the Primary Motion.

 

C1017 Item 37    Notice of Motion: Public Facilities

Motion:     (Passas/Drury)

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council withdraw the current DA application for the Summer Hill Car Park and construct a new toilet on the location of the current facility.  

 

2.   Council write to the Minster for Transport requesting that the section of Brown Street be dedicated as public road as a matter of urgency so a public toilet can be built in the Ashfield CBD.

 

3.   An audit of all Council owned public conveniences in the Inner West Council area be conducted as soon as practicable, to ensure they meet current public health, safety and convenience requirements

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Amendment:  (Kiat/Porteous)

 

Insert at end of item 3, “and are accessible for persons with a disability and gender diverse individuals.”

 

Motion Tied

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Drury, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Raciti and York

Against Motion:          Crs Da Cruz, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Porteous, Stamolis and Steer

 

The Chairperson used his Casting Vote and the AMENDMENT was  Lost.

 

C1017 Item 39    Notice of Motion to Rescind: Purchase of Corflutes to Express Opposition to WestConnex

Motion:     (Passas/Raciti)

 

That Resolution 5 of Item 1 from 12 October Ordinary Council Meeting be rescinded.

 

Motion Lost

For Motion:                 Crs Macri, Passas and Raciti

Against Motion:          Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, McKenna OAM, Porteous, Stamolis, Steer and York

 

Motion:

Motion (Drury/McKenna OAM)

 

That the Meeting be extended by 15 minutes.

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Motion: (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

That the following Items be brought forward and moved en bloc and the recommendations contained in the reports be adopted: Items 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1017 Item 3      2017/18 Budget and 2018/19 Budget Process.

Motion: (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT Council receive and note 2017/18 Budget and 2018/19 Budget Process.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 


 

C1017 Item 5      Panel of Code of Conduct Reviewers

Motion: (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT Council appoint as its Code of Code of Reviewer Panel for a period of 4 years (expiring on 21 September 2021) the following:

 

Name

Organisation

 

 

Phil O’Toole

Centium Group Pty Ltd

Peter Moroney

Nemesis Consultancy Group Pty Ltd

John Renshaw / Kelvin Kenney

O’Connor Marsden & Associates Pty Ltd

Wayne Gilbert

PKF Forensic and Risk Services Pty Ltd

Monica Kelly

Prevention Partners

Kath Roach

SINC Solutions

Rob Ryan

Strategic Risk Solutions

Kathryn Thane

Train Reaction Pty Ltd

Council’s Internal Ombudsman*

Internal Ombudsman Service

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1017 Item 6      Investment Report as at 31 July 2017

Motion: (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1017 Item 7      Investment Report as at 31 August 2017

Motion: (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1017 Item 8      Investment Report as at 30 September 2017

Motion: (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1017 Item 9      Tabling of Pecuniary Interest Returns of Designated Staff for the Return Period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017

Motion: (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT Council note the tabling of Pecuniary Interest Returns of Designated Staff for the return period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1017 Item 11    CALLAN PARK WATERFRONT DRIVE SPORTING FIELD UPGRADE

Motion: (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT Council receive and note this report.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1017 Item 13    Outcomes from the evaluation of a trial off leash area at HJ Mahoney Reserve, Marrickville.

Motion: (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT:

 

1.         The trial dog off leash area at HJ Mahoney Reserve be made permanent;

 

2.         That appropriate works including signage and relevant infrastructure are undertaken in the 2017/18 program of upgrades to dog off leash areas;

 

3.         All residents who have provided feedback during the trial and evaluation process are notified of Council’s decision; and

 

4.         The condition of the playing surface at HJ Mahoney Reserve continues to be monitored to assess the need for additional maintenance resource.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1017 Item 15    Fee Waiver Requests for Leichhardt Park Aquatic Centre and Dawn Fraser Baths 2017 - 2018

Motion: (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT Council approve the fee waiver applications submitted by regular hirers of the Leichhardt Park Aquatic Centre and Dawn Fraser Baths during 2017 – 2018, as detailed in Attachment 1.

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1017 Item 16    The Metropolitan Orchestra Fee Waiver Request for 2018

Motion: (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Approve the fee waiver for The Metropolitan Orchestra for the 2018 calendar year; and 

2.   Advise The Metropolitan Orchestra that changes in the fee waiver policy will be considered by Council in the near future as part of the development of the Community Grants and Resourcing Policy for integrated fees and charges for the Inner West Council. 

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1017 Item 17    Options Paper: Short-term Holiday Letting in NSW including Airbnb

Motion: (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.            Receive and note this report and attachments;

 

2.            Forward a submission to the Department of Planning and Environment requesting that a framework be drafted detailing how the regulation of short-term holiday letting is to be administered including:

 

a.            the Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan (LEP) legislation be         amended to include a new land use definition for ‘short term rental                accommodation’ with set parameters concerning the potential adverse         impacts of activities connected with that use allowing for compliance                     certification and enforcement action where required;

b.           the requirement for either a complying development certificate or                   development application to allow for compliance to be assessed and               conditions of approval enforced depending on the parameters set by the     Department of Planning in future legislation;

c.            a registration/licencing system should be developed and implemented by     a government agency for all properties which fall within the parameters of       the new legislation to allow for ongoing monitoring;

d.           amendments to NSW strata laws be drafted giving owners corporation’s      powers to manage and respond where there is no compliance with                         certification, consent or registration requirements allowing strata               corporations to take a greater role and see less recurrence of adverse                        impacts.    

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1017 Item 18    Deputy Mayor Annual Fee

Motion: (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT Council determine an annual fee of $10,000 for the Deputy Mayor, in addition to the adopted Councillor Fee.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

 

Meeting closed at  11.05 pm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Public Speakers:

 

 

Item #

 

Speaker                     

Suburb

Item 25:

Gavin Gilchrist

Dominic Case

Annandale

Rozelle

Item 19:           

Kenneth Moxham

Catherine Stewart

Stephanie Ward

Jacinta Green

Anne Picot

Anne Bickford

Tempe

Tempe

Tempe

St Peters

St Peters

Lilyfield

Item 20:

Richard Dudley-Smith

Annandale

Item 21:

Heather Davie

Peter Manning

Gareth Figg

Peter Olive

Scott Winstone

Anne Picot

Marrickville

Dulwich Hill

Dulwich Hill

Marrickville

Dulwich Hill

St Peters

 

Item 32:

Andy Graham

Michelle Hacking

Anne Picot     

Richard Dudley-Smith           

Rose Gates

Leichhardt

Rozelle

St Peters

Annandale

Leichhardt

Item 37:

Kerrie Bush                            

Summer Hill

Item 39:

Rhea Liebmann

Richard Dudley-Smith

Marrickville

Annandale

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on the 24th day of October, 2017 were confirmed as a correct record on this 21st day of November 2017.

 

 

..............................................

CHAIRPERSON


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

 

Minutes of Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 31 October 2017

 

Meeting commenced at  6.32pm

 

 

Present:

Darcy Byrne

Julie Passas

Marghanita Da Cruz Mark Drury

Lucille McKenna OAM

Colin Hesse

Sam Iskandar

Pauline Lockie

Victor Macri

Rochelle Porteous

Vittoria Raciti

John Stamolis

Louise Steer

Anna York
Rik Hart

Peter Gainsford

Mayor

Deputy Mayor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor (6.50pm)

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Interim General Manager

Deputy General Manager Assets and Environment

Michael Tzimoulas

Deputy General Manager Chief Financial and Administration Officer

John Warburton

Tanya Whitmarsh

Deputy General Manager Community and Engagement

Group Manager Governance

Erla Ronan

Ian Naylor

Katherine Paixao

Group Manager Community Services and Culture

Manager Civic and Executive Support

Business Paper Coordinator (Minute Taker)

 

ApologIES:

Motion (Hesse/Da Cruz)

That apologies from Clr Kiat be accepted and leave of absence granted.

 

Carried Unanimously

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Motion:     (Passas/Hesse)

 

That apologies from Clr Raciti for lateness be accepted.

 

Carried Unanimously

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

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 Mayor 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.

 

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:  

 

Councillor Lockie, declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 7 Notice of Motion: Reversing OSHC Fee Increases, as her family pays for use of this service.

 

Motion (Byrne/York)

 

That the Declaration of Interest be received and noted.

 

Carried Unanimously

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Suspension of Standing Orders (Byrne/Stamolis)

 

That Item 9 be brought forward to be dealt with at this time.

Carried Unanimously

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Councillor Raciti entered the Meeting at 6.50pm

 

C1017 Item 9      Notice of Motion: Pride in the Inner West

Motion:     (York/Byrne)

 

THAT Council staff provide a report through the General Manager to Council on how the Inner West Council can:

 

1.       Support the work of the Inner West LGBTIQ Forum and strengthen its activities by dedicating an LGBTIQ Community Engagement Officer;

 

2.       Identifying options to provide a Council facility for the purpose of establishing a Pride Centre in the Inner West, including options for potential funding partner/s to support the Centre;

 

3.       Lobby the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras to keep Fair Day at Camperdown Memorial Rest Park;

 

4.       Update Council forms to reflect the 2013 guidelines on the recognition of sex and gender;

 

5.       Commission a gateway mural at a prime location reinforcing the Inner West as a safe, positive and friendly community;

 

6.       Establish an awards scheme to recognise LGBTIQ-friendly businesses in each ward; and

 

7.       Work towards making all Council facilities inclusive, accessible and LGBTIQ safe spaces, including training staff.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, McKenna OAM, Porteous, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Crs Macri, Passas and Raciti

 

 

Resumption of Standing Orders (Hesse/McKenna OAM)

 

That Standing Orders be resumed.

 

Carried Unanimously

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Councillor Passas left the Meeting at 7:28 pm.

Councillor Passas returned to the Meeting at 7:31 pm.

 

C1017 Item 19    Mayoral Minute: Appointment of Councillor Support Staff

Motion:     (Byrne)

 

THAT a report for administrative assistance for Councillors be prepared and consider the following:

 

a.   Appropriate number of Councillor support staff and the ratio of support staff to Councillors;

b.   Costs and funding associated with providing this assistance;

c.   An appropriate system of oversight and management of staff; and

d.   Selection criteria.

 

Carried Unanimously

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Councillor Passas left the Meeting at 7:40 pm.

 

C1017 Item 1      Administrator's End of Term Report

Motion: (McKenna OAM/Macri)

 

THAT

 

  1. Council received and note the Administrator’s End of Term Report.

 

  1. The Mayor write to the Administrator and thank him for the work undertaken during the period of administration and particularly his support for the community under siege from WestConnex.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Drury, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Raciti, Stamolis and York

Against Motion:          Crs Da Cruz, Hesse, Porteous and Steer

Absent:                        Clr Passas

 

Foreshadowed Motion     (Porteous)

 

This Council rejects the Administrator’s end at term report as an inaccurate record of the real costs and poor community outcomes of 16 months of forced amalgamation under an Administrator.

 

The Foreshadowed Motion lapsed.

 

Councillor Passas returned to the Meeting at 8:00 pm.

C1017 Item 2      Local Government NSW Annual Conference

Motion (Lockie/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Nominate Councillors Porteous, Steer, Da Cruz, Hesse, Lockie, Byrne, Drury, Iskandar, Stamolis, York and McKenna OAM to attend the 2017 Local Government NSW Conference; and

 

2.   Determine their 10 voting delegates for the Conference to be Councillors Porteous, Steer, Da Cruz, Hesse, Lockie, Byrne, Drury, Stamolis, York and McKenna OAM;

 

Carried Unanimously

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

3.   The following motions be put forward to the Conference for debate.

 

(a) That LGNSW lobbies the Australian and NSW State Governments to incorporate air drying of laundry, with associated access to sunlight and air circulation, into the building code for all dwellings.

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, McKenna OAM, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Crs Macri and Passas

(b) That NABERS Energy Rating and BASIX be extended to include operational cost of dwellings including base charges for electricity, gas and water, pro-rata cost of strata management fees, operating lifts, swimming pools and other shared facilities.

Carried Unanimously

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

(c)That the Local Government Association recognise the Social, Health and Economic importance of Walking. That the local government association form a Walkability Task Force/Committee to work with Councils to include Walkability as a performance indicator.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, McKenna OAM, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Crs Macri and Passas

(d) That NSW Local Government’s policy on amalgamations includes the requirement that where an amalgamation with one or more councils is proposed there be a binding referendum in each council area asking voters if they want their council to be amalgamated or not. In order for an amalgamation to go ahead, each council area would need to achieve a majority vote in favour of the amalgamation.  

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Cr Passas

(e) That the NSW Local Government advocate strongly to the Premier and the Minister for Local Government the need to ensure that the capped IPART rate increases never fall below wage increase rates and CPI again. Acknowledging as well that NSW Local Government already has a policy of non-support for rate pegging.

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Cr Passas

 

(f) That a full review of Councillor (and Mayoral) allowance be conducted to reflect and address:

  • Recognised remuneration benchmarks
  • NSW public sector remuneration
  • Actual Councillor workloads
  • The level of decision making required by Councillors
  • The impact of Local Government Reform
  • Allowances received in other states
  • The ability for people to participate in Local Government due to the very low remuneration offered

Carried Unanimously

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Matter Arising - Death of Binni Kirkbright-Burney (Macri/Byrne)

 

Motion:     (Macri/Byrne)

 

THAT:

  1. The Inner West Council express its deep sadness at the passing of Linda  Burney’s beloved only son Binni; and

2      That the Mayor send a letter of condolence to Linda Burney and family on behalf of Council.

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1017 Item 3      2017/18 Inner West Council Grants Program

Motion: (York/Hesse)

 

THAT:

 

  1. Council approve the funding recommendations for the Inner West Council grants program 2017/18 contained in Attachment 1;
  2. Council receive a further report on the criteria and process for the grants program and any proposed changes to the criteria for future grant programs.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, McKenna OAM, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Crs Macri and Passas

 

Foreshadowed Motion: (Passas/Raciti)

 

THAT the 2017/18 Inner West Council Grants Program be deferred.

 

The Foreshadowed Motion lapsed.

 

C1017 Item 4      Councillor Representation on Committees

Motion: (Byrne/Passas)

 

THAT Councillor representation on Council and External Committees be as follows:-

 

Name of Committee

Councillor Representation

Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee

Councillors McKenna OAM and Steer.

 

(During discussion of this item Councillors voted on representation between Councillors McKenna OAM, Passas and Steer and Councillors McKenna OAM and Steer received the most number of votes and were determined to be the Councillor representatives).

Flood Management Advisory Committee

Councillors McKenna OAM, Hesse and Da Cruz.

Local Traffic Committee

 

Councillor Passas with Councillor Da Cruz as an alternate.

Sydenham to Bankstown Working Group

Councillors Drury and Hesse.

ClubGrants

The Mayor, Councillor Byrne and Councillor Porteous.

 

Cooks River Alliance Board

The Mayor, Councillor Byrne and Councillor Hesse as an alternate.

Eastern Region Local

Government Region of

Aboriginal & Torres Strait

Islander Forum (ERLGATSIF)

Councillor Da Cruz.

Greenway Steering

Committee

 

Councillors York, Lockie and Kiat.


NSW Public

Libraries Association

Councillor  Lockie and Councillor Steer as an alternate.

Parramatta River

Catchment Group

Councillor Drury and Councillor Da Cruz as an alternate.

Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC)

The Mayor, Councillor Byrne and Councillor Porteous and Councillors McKenna OAM and Stamolis as alternates.

Sydney Airport

Community

Forum

The Mayor, Councillor Byrne.

Sydney Central Planning Panel

The representation be deferred for consideration in the November Council Meeting.

Sydney Coastal

Council Group

Councillors Porteous and Hesse.

 

Carried Unanimously

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1017 Item 5      MERGER IMPLEMENTATION COSTS

Motion:     (Hesse/Lockie)

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

Carried Unanimously

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1017 Item 6      Notice of Motion: Inner West Waterways

Motion:     (McKenna OAM/Drury)

 

THAT Council:-

 

  1. Calls on the General Manger to bring back a report for practical steps that would lead to working with the Parramatta River Catchment Group to create a safe swim site in the Inner West Council part of the Parramatta river, Implementing Stormwater pollution traps, gross pollutant traps and Water Sensitive Urban Design on all stormwater drains in the local government area and what additional support to the Inner West Council could propose for the next action plan of Cooks River Alliance that would result in measurable improvements.

 

  1. The report to include costings for the main works and whether these are already in Councils forward planning

 

Carried Unanimously

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Councillor Pauline Lockie left the Meeting at 9:25 pm as she had declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 7.

 

 

C1017 Item 7      Notice of Motion: Reversing OSHC fee increases

Motion:     (York/Steer)

 

THAT:

 

1.   The General Manager provide a report on the evidence it has used to justify this fee increase, including evidence that it will in fact deter parents from late pick up; and

 

2.   In the meantime while this report is prepared and considered by Council, that these fee increases immediately revert to the previous 2016/17 rate at Stanmore Public School and other impacted schools.

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, McKenna OAM, Porteous, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Crs Macri, Passas and Raciti

Absent:                        Councillor Lockie

 

 

Councillor Lockie returned to the Meeting at 9:33 pm.

 

Councillors York and Steer left the Meeting at 9:37 pm.

 

Councillors York and Steer returned to the Meeting at 9:43 pm.

 

 

C1017 Item 8      Notice of Motion: UNWINDING THE UNELECTED COUNCIL'S BAN ON DOGS IN PUBS

Motion:     (Byrne/Drury)

 

THAT Council:

1.    Produce a report which will investigate allowing access to dogs in pubs across the Inner West Council area. The report will address:

a)         Explaining the reasons for and the process that resulted in the ban being implemented and hotels systematically being threatened with fines if they were found to have dogs on their premises;

 

b)        Identifying the past mechanisms through which statutory food safety and WHS requirements have been upheld by Council officers without implementing a blanket ban; and

 

c)         Exploring options for how complaints about dogs in pubs could be resolved through mitigation rather than litigation of punitive action from Council.

2.    Consult with relevant hotel owners, licensees and managers about how the ban on dogs has affected their business and to identify practical measures that could maintain food safety standards without banning dogs from pubs. The results of this consultation are to be reported back to Council;

 

3.    That the report includes further information on the Companion Animal Amendment (Dining Areas) Bill 2017 moved in NSW Parliament by Jamie Parker MP; and

 

4.    That the Mayor write to all State MPs asking them to support legislation that comes to parliament which will enable people to bring their dogs into pubs.

Carried Unanimously

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

Councillors Iskandar and Macri left the Meeting at 9:50 pm.

 

Councillor Iskandar returned to the Meeting at 9:59 pm.

 

Councillor Passas left the Meeting at 10:00 pm.

Councillor Passas returned to the Meeting at 10:09 pm.

 

C1017 Item 10    Notice of Motion: A Healthier Inner West

Motion:     (Drury/Steer)

 

THAT for the February 2018 meeting the General Manager provide reports on how Council can:

 

1.   Invest $65 million over the next 3 years in sporting fields, parks, playgrounds and pools to deliver the highest-quality facilities for local families and clubs and that this be informed by the results of the Inner West Council Recreation Needs Study;

 

2.   Establish an Inner West Office of Sport to provide assistance to clubs and transform the Council’s relationship with sporting clubs from one based on ground hire only into a strategic partnership to improve the health and wellbeing of our community;

 

3.   Work with clubs to identify bold targets for increasing the participation of women and girls across all sports and implement ways of increasing participation from people from lower socio-economic backgrounds;

 

4.   Establish new netball courts, of which there are too few, and the first hockey field in the Inner West Council area; and

 

5.    Provide for longer tenure on home grounds to allow clubs and Council to jointly apply for state and federal grants to upgrade sporting fields and to have a revised booking field system that acknowledges clubs have longer lead times in preparation for seasons.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Councillor Macri

Councillor Stamolis left the Meeting at 10:09 pm.

 

Councillor Stamolis returned to the Meeting at 10:11 pm.

 

Councillor Macri returned to the Meeting at 10:16 pm.

 

Councillor Raciti left the Meeting at 10:20 pm.

 

Councillor Raciti returned to the Meeting at 10:30 pm.

 

C1017 Item 11    Notice of Motion: Supporting our Creative Communities

Motion:     (York/Steer)

 

THAT the General Manager provide reports on how Council can:

 

1.   Bring Vivid Sydney to the Inner West

Including a proposal to Destination NSW to bring the Vivid Sydney Festival to into key main streets and iconic locations throughout the Inner West.

 

2.                  Establish a Live Music Development Fund

 

Proposed as an initial $200,000 live music fund to encourage artists and venues to put on more gigs at existing live music venues, as well as         establish new venues throughout the Inner West.

 

3.   Bring arts and live music to the shop fronts, former factories, cafes and office blocks of the Inner West

Including options on reforms that will allow non-residential buildings to be used as a small scale arts and live music spaces, without the need for a development application to be submitted.

 

4.   Make the Inner West Sydney’s street art capital

Including recommendations to invest an additional $500,000 in new street art to extend the Perfect Match program across the entire inner west, and remove the restrictions homeowners and businesses face if they want to decorate their premises with murals, and options to decorate garbage and recycling trucks and other Council vehicles with murals and positive social messages about harmony, respect and diversity. Options for the expansion of Council’s support for the public art also include two dimension art, three dimension art, and digital art should also be considered.

 

In addition, the report should include a recommendation on the creation of an Inner West Council Art prize, potentially by reinstating the budget of the former Marrickville Council’s contemporary Art prize, as well as options for the curation and venues for the prize.

5.         Expand the artist in residence program across the Inner West

Including options to set aside five properties as temporary residencies and five spaces as temporary work spaces across the local government area to be made available to visual artists, sculptors, and writers.

6.   In addition to the elements above to be addressed in the requested report from Council staff, Council also expresses its in principle commitment the transformation of the industrial area between Sydenham Station and Victoria Road in Marrickville into a vibrant live music and arts precinct, and further notes the threat to live music and the creative arts in Victoria Road to Sydenham Station area posed by Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Porteous, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Crs Passas and Raciti

 

C1017 Item 12    Notice of Motion: Pensioner Rebates

Motion:     (Passas/Raciti)

 

THAT:

 

1. The General Manager produce a report to the next Ordinary Meeting of Council outlining the financial impact of increasing the voluntary pensioner rebate (relating to rates) for eligible pensioners of $200 per annum;

 

2. The report also includes a plan to harmonise pensioner rebates across the Inner West Council area for eligible pensioners starting 1 July 2018; and

3. The Mayor makes representations to the Premier the Hon. Gladys Berejiklian MP requesting that the State Government contribution towards Councils Pensioner Rates rebate be increased to reflect the consumer price index increases that have occurred since the last State Government review of its contribution.

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Amendment (Stamolis/Porteous)

 

Amend point 1 of the Motion to read: The General Manager produce a report to the next Ordinary Meeting of Council outlining the financial impact of increasing the voluntary pensioner rebate (relating to rates) for eligible pensioners by $200 per annum;

 

Amendment Lost

For Amendment:        Crs Da Cruz, Hesse, Lockie, Porteous, Stamolis and Steer

Against Amendment: Crs Byrne, Drury, Iskandar, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Raciti and York

 

Councillor Passas left the Meeting at 10:45 pm.

 

C1017 Item 13    Notice of Motion: General Manager’s Performance Review

Motion:     (Porteous/Byrne)

 

THAT:

1. Council establish a General Manager Performance Review Panel, to be chaired by the Mayor.

2. Council formally resolves that Councillors Byrne, York, Porteous, Stamolis and Raciti form the Panel.

3. That the Panel meet to establish a process for the assessment of the General Manager’s performance with the assistance of the Group Manager Human Resources as soon as possible.

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Councillor Passas

 

 

C1017 Item 14    Notice of Motion: INNER WEST COUNCIL ART PRIZE

 

Councillor Steer withdrew this motion.

 

C1017 Item 15    Notice of Motion: Affordable housing for the Inner West

This matter was deferred till the next Ordinary Council Meeting.

 

C1017 Item 16    Notice of Motion: Ensuring an Affordable, Quality Early Education and Childcare Place for Every Child

This matter was deferred till the next Ordinary Council Meeting.

 

C1017 Item 17    Notice of Motion: Aboriginal Names for Inner West Council Wards

Motion:     (McKenna OAM/Stamolis)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Refer this notice of motion to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Strategic Reference Group for their input and comment.

 

  1. Following the comment from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Strategic Reference Group advice be sought from the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Councillor Passas

 

Matter Arising (Stamolis/ Steer)

 

THAT the Inner West Council website should display aboriginal motifs or artworks more prominently and these be consulted with the ATSI SRG.

 

Motion Carried

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Councillor Passas

 

 C1017 Item 18   Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee

Motion:     (Drury/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Adopt the Charter of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee shown as Attachment 1; and

 

2.   Adopt the Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee of 7 September 2017.

 

Carried Unanimously

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Councillor Passas

 

 

Councillor Porteous moved the following Urgency Motion:

Urgency Motion: (Porteous/

Supporting Workers’ Rights and Industrial Action

THAT Council notes that:

a.      The Federal government is slashing Sunday and public holiday penalty rates

b.      These cuts could affect over 700,000 workers in hospitality, retail, fast food and pharmacy who could lose up to $6,000 a year

c.       While most council workers are currently protected under the State Local Government Award, once benefits are lost in one industry then this can become a pattern which sees rights lost across all industries

d.      Many working people depend on penalty rates to pay their bills and make ends meet, penalty rates are a fair and equitable recognition work being done during unsociable hours

THAT Council:

a.       Supports Unions NSW National Day of Action planned for November 16th with Council’s social and traditional media communications

b.      Stands with Inner West Council residents who deserve to have their penalty rates legislated and protected

c.       Believes that the decent working conditions in the Local Government sector must be protected and should be available to working people in all industries

d.      Calls on the Federal Parliament to legislate to return penalty rates to all workers

e.      Supports the rights of workers and unions to take collective action to protect their industrial rights and working conditions

 

The Mayor declared the matter not urgent and ruled it out of order.

 

 

Councillor Porteous moved the following Urgency Motion:

 

 

Urgency Motion: (Porteous/

 

1. That the following item be rescinded:

 

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.

 

4. That following rescission of the above item, a report be brought to the December 2017 Ordinary meeting on the opportunity for conversion of cottages 9 and 11 Marion St to a Community Centre for Leichhardt Youth.

 

 

 

The Mayor declared the matter not urgent and ruled it out of order.

 

 

Meeting closed at 10.53 pm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Public Speakers:

 

 

Item #

 

Speaker                     

Suburb

Item 9:

Ralph Cerminara

Rita Machaalani

Matt Howard

Rene Holmes

Jack Begbie

Loti Misa

 

Marrickville

Marrickville

Marrickville

Ashfield

Ashfield

Croydon

Item 1:

 

 

Item 2:

 

 

Item 3:

 

 

Item 4:

 

 

Item 5:

                                   

 

Item 6:

Rene Holmes

Ashfield

Item 7:

 

 

Item 8:

 

 

Item 10:

 

 

Item 11:

 

 

Item 12:

 

 

Item 13:

 

 

Item 14:

 

 

Item 15:

 

 

Item 16:

 

 

Item 17:

 

 

Item 18:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of Council held on the 31st day of October, 2017 were confirmed as a correct record on this 21st day of November 2017.

 

 

..............................................

CHAIRPERSON

Item No:         C1117 Item 1

Subject:         Councillor Support Staff 

Prepared By:     Ian Naylor - Manager Civic and Executive Support 

Authorised By:  Tanya Whitmarsh - Group Manager Governance

 

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to outline the number, costs and process for appointing support staff for Councillors and recommend that Council begin the process of recruitment of up to 6 support staff for Councillors.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Alter the organisational structure so as to create 6 new positions to function as support staff for Councillors and 2 additional positions for the Mayor’s office;

 

2.   Carry out any necessary Staff Consultative Committee process for the creation of the positions and any future recruitment process;

 

3.   Consult with each Councillor to determine what their requirements are so as to inform any future recruitment process on how many of the newly created positions need to be filled;

 

4.   Amend the Code of Conduct as follows:

 

a. The obligation under clauses 6.2(a) and 6.2(b) is subject to the following exceptions:

 

i. the Mayor may, pursuant to, and in accordance with, any specific authorisation and/or rules provided by the General Manager for the purposes of this clause, direct or influence council staff that are employed by council to work in the Office of the Mayor as specified in a relevant position description; and

 

ii. a Councillor may, pursuant to, and in accordance with, any specific authorisation and/or rules provided by the General Manager for the purposes of this clause, direct or influence council staff that are employed by Council to work in the office of the councillor who is giving the direction or influence.

 

 

BACKGROUND

At the Extraordinary Council Meeting on 31 October 2017, Council considered a Mayoral Minute on the appointment of support staff for Councillors and resolved to receive a further report that outlined the number, costs and process for appointing support staff for Councillors.

The purpose of this report is to provide advice and information to Councillors on how such staffing might function should Councillors consider the creation of such positions to be appropriate.

 

Councillors should also be aware of limitations that exist with respect to any support staff that may ostensibly be reporting to them. Under the Local Government Act 1993, the power to direct staff rests with the General Manager (section 335(i)). This power is reflected in clause 6.2 of the Code of Conduct which prohibits a Councillor from directing staff. In order for Councillors to be able to direct support staff lawfully, they must do so in accordance with an overarching direction from the General Manager that effectively authorises the Councillor’s direction.

 

There are rules and limitations that will be imposed by the General Manager to ensure that support staff operate  in accordance with their fundamental status as Council staff. In other words, the role of support staff will be to perform Council business insofar as that business aligns with the role and responsibilities of Councillors. It would not be the role of support staff to assist Councillors in their personal or political roles save where those roles intersect with Council business.

 

Appropriate Number of Support Staff

 

With the election of the new Inner West Council, we now have 15 councillors representing approximately 12,400 residents each and make decisions on an LGA 3 times as big as previously. This is a significant increase from the previous Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils, where the ratio of Councillors to residents was as follows:

 

·    Ashfield: 1 councillor for every 3,708 residents;

·    Leichhardt: 1 councillor for every 4,845 residents; and

·    Marrickville: 1 councillor for every 6,807 residents.

 

With this increased level of representation and potential demands on Councillors, support staff may be necessary to assist the Mayor and Councillors in performing their civic duties and responding to requests and correspondence from the constituents they represent.

The tasks that a support staff could undertake for Councillors is to submit Councillor Requests on behalf or residents, assist in gathering baseline information for Councillors to develop policy positions, respond to correspondence, councillor diary management, manage reimbursement for legitimate Councillor expenses and request/access public information on projects, plans, budgets and work programs. Councillors will play a key role in providing direction to staff in undertaking these duties including being part of the recruitment process subject to the rules mentioned above and explained further below. A generic position description for the roles is shown as Attachment 1.

 

The City of Sydney provide one support staff person per councillor to assist them in performing their civic duties as well as six support staff for the Office of the Mayor. Given the increase in workload for Inner West Councillors, Council staff have reviewed the role of the support staff in comparison to the scope and scale of the support staff for the City of Sydney and believe 0.4 support staff per Councillor whilst arbitrary is comparable, being the equivalent of 2 days support per week. If all 15 councillors were provided with this support it would equate to 6 Councillor Support staff. Council staff will consult with each Councillor to determine if they require support staff.

 

With regards to the Mayor’s Office, Council staff have reviewed the role of the Mayoral media and policy staff for the City of Sydney, given the scope and scale of these roles staff believe providing 2 media and policy staff for the Inner West Mayoral Office is comparable.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The City of Sydney has implemented a similar system of support for the Mayor and Councillors. Council staff have sought advice from the City of Sydney on position descriptions and the salary range for Mayoral and Councillor support staff. The salary cost for support staff is approximately $72,000 per support person plus the cost of fitting out offices for support staff and providing them with computers and equipment. Funding for these positions can be provided within the next quarterly budget review. At such time, Councillors will need to assess how the positions are to be funded having regard to any budgetary constraints.

 

System of Oversight and Management

 

Staff from the City of Sydney have advised that it is important to have a strong framework for oversight and management of the support staff to ensure the work they conduct is in line with their role described above. It is also important to manage issues that can arise as per any industrial relations framework (such as bullying, harassment and other work, health and safety issues).

 

The following measures will be put in place to maintain a strong framework of oversight and management:-

 

·    Councillor Support Staff will have the same rights of access as Councillors to council information, resources, interaction with Council staff and submitting Councillor Requests. In other words, support staff will not be permitted to contact staff below Group Manager level or direct Council staff.

·    Councillor Support staff will be accommodated within a council building independent and separated from the Administration of the Council.

·    Councillor Support Staff will be given resources to undertake their role but operate on a standalone computer system with no access to Council’s network or internal systems.

·    The General Manager will approve a generic position description for all support staff and they will be appointed as a council staff member on contract for the term of the council plus a 3 month handover period. The position description will clearly outline what the staff are permitted and not permitted to do having regard to the fact they are ultimately Council staff.

·    Councillors will be involved in the recruitment of support staff but the ultimate decision rests with the General Manager.

·    Councillor Support staff will be provided with staff induction, training and performance management like other council staff. Specific training and guidance will be given on interaction with staff, Code of Conduct and not using Council resources for political purposes outside the scope of local government.

·    The Civic and Executive Support Manager will supervise, provide advice and manage the Councillor support staff and relationship between councillors and the support staff.

 

Code of Conduct

 

The Model Code of Conduct issued by the Office of Local Government states that Councillors cannot direct staff in the conduct of their work, except through the General Manager. As the relationship between a Councillor and their support staff will require some level of direction in terms of the work to be undertaken an amendment to the Code of Conduct is required. It is recommended that Council’s Code of Conduct be amended to reflect the same changed made by the City of Sydney in March this year to allow councillors to direct their support staff. There is no requirement for Council to publicly exhibit this change. It is important that any change to the Code of Conduct is not inconsistent with the existing provisions of clause 6.2 as an inconsistency will result in the change being unenforceable (section 440(4) of the Act).

 

Selection Criteria

 

The following selection criteria is proposed to be included in the position descriptions based on a review of the City of Sydney position descriptions:-

 

Essential

 

·    High level secretarial or administrative experience.

·    High level of administrative and organisational ability.

·    Experience and high level skill in dealing with people at executive and representative level.

·    Ability to work cooperatively in a team environment and meet deadlines.

·    Excellent oral communication skills, including excellent telephone manner and customer service skills.

·    A clear and concise written communication style.

·    Computer experience, including advanced word processing and database skills.

·    Maturity, flexibility, discretion and judgement and the ability to represent the Councillor to a wide range of individuals and organisations.

·    Demonstrate a commitment to Equal Employment Opportunity, Work, Health and Safety and Cultural Diversity principles.

 

Desirable

 

·    Tertiary qualifications would be highly regarded

·    Research skills and /or experience with policy development or analysis

 

The following limitations will be imposed:

 

·    Councillor support staff are to provide the following services to Councillors:

submit Councillor Requests on behalf of Councillors/residents,

assist in gathering baseline information for Councillors to develop policy positions,

respond to correspondence,

councillor diary management insofar as the diary matters relate to Council business,

manage reimbursement for legitimate Councillor expenses

request/access public information on projects, plans, budgets and work programs

any other services authorised by the General Manager or the General Manager’s delegate.

·    Councillor support staff are not to assist Councillors with matters personal to the Councillor.

·    Councillor support staff are not to assist Councillors in matters of a political nature save where those matters fall under the permitted items above.

 

Councillor support staff will be required to immediately report to the General Manager any conduct that the staff members considers to be in breach of the Code of Conduct including, without limitation, directions given by a Councillor that fall outside the permitted actions identified above.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

 

CONCLUSION

Nil.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Position Description for Councillor Support Staff

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

POSITION DESCRIPTION

 

Position Title

Councillor Support Officer

Directorate

General Manager

Section / Location 

TBA

Responsible to

Civic and Executive Support Manager and allocated Councillors

Position Supervises

Direct: Nil

Indirect: Nil

Position No.

TBA

Remuneration

$54,616 pa. - $66,782 pa

 

Allowances

Nil

Status and Hours

Temporary full-time position based on a 35 hour week, after-hours work may be required.

Explanatory Note:

Conditions subject to change in accordance with any adopted Inner West Council Industrial instrument.

 

Legislative requirements

 

Local Government Act

Date reviewed: November 2017

Reviewed by: Group Manager Human Resources

 

 

The Inner West Council was formed on Thursday 12 May 2016 as a result of the amalgamation of Ashfield, Leichhardt & Marrickville Councils by the NSW State Government through the Local Government Proclamation 2016 (Council Amalgamations).  The new Council has a population of 185,000 people and covers an area of 36 sq km and employs 1,250 people.

 

The Inner West Council operates across the areas previously governed by the former Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils.  All Inner West Council employees may be transferred to any of these areas to allow sustained productivity and opportunities for skills growth.

 

POSITION PURPOSE

 

To provide Councillors with high quality, accurate, timely and professional executive support and to ensure effective communication, administration and co-ordination with the Mayor, Councillors, Residents  under the guidance of the Civic and Executive Support Manager

 

SELECTION CRITERIA

 

The Inner West Council has a strong commitment to the principles of EEO, WHS and Sustainability. We value excellence, customer focus, creativity, collaboration, integrity and respect. All employees are expected to demonstrate commitment to these principles in performing their respective roles. In addition to these, the following criteria outline those that are relevant to this specific position.

 

Essential Criteria:

1.  Certificate level qualification or equivalent in office/business administration and/or equivalent industry experience.

 

2.  Excellent skills in using office computer applications and the ability to adopt new technology 

 

3.  Well-developed administrative, organisational and problem solving skills with a capacity to undertake research

 

4.  Excellent written and verbal communication skills including excellent telephone manner and customer service skills to respectfully handle enquiries and resolve or refer complaints

 

5.  Strong interpersonal, tact, diplomacy, liaison and negotiation abilities including the ability to build and maintain respectful relationships with staff at all levels and with external entities including executive and representative level

 

6.  Ability to work cooperatively in a team environment, under pressure and organise priorities to meet deadlines.

 

7.  Demonstrated ability to deal with information with high sensitivity and confidentiality

 

8.  Maturity, flexibility, discretion and judgement and the ability to represent the Councillor to a wide range of individuals and organisations.

 

9.  Understanding of local government functions, issues and local government political structure

 

10.Demonstrate a commitment to Equal Employment Opportunity, Work, Health and Safety and Cultural Diversity principles.

 

Desirable Criteria

1.  Current NSW Driver’s Licence (minimum Class C)

 

2.  Advanced word processing and database skills.

 

3.  Tertiary qualifications.

 

4.  Demonstrated research skills and/or experience with policy development or analysis.

 

 

KEY DUTIES, ACCOUNTABILITIES & RESPONSIBILITIES:

 

1.   Manage the daily activities of the Councilors office and provide top level professional executive and a full range of secretarial assistance to the Councillor.

 

2.   Develop and maintain effective systems and procedures to maintain smooth, organised and efficient operations of the Councillor’s office including receiving, administration and distribution of files, correspondence and other documents

3.   Professional telephone reception and manage a high volume of telephone calls for the Councillor and where appropriate, personally handle enquiries and problems compassionately, effectively, accurately and in a timely manner, to maintain a high degree of confidence in the Councillor’s office.

 

4.   Coordinate the Councillor’s busy diary by ensuring appropriate timing for meetings, Planning and scheduling meetings and appointments,  that appropriate people attend meetings and that the Councillor is provided with papers, files and relevant information with enough time to read and consider prior to scheduled meetings.

 

5.   Maintain effective correspondence and records management processes and coordinate, prioritise and monitor correspondence including  submitting Councillor Requests on behalf or residents  for the Councillor and identify matters which require immediate attention.

 

6.   Assist in attending to and addressing or referring complaints to the appropriate person within Council, or appropriate organisation if the matter is outside of Council’s jurisdiction

 

7.   Assist in gathering collating, summarising and synthesising baseline information for

Councillors to develop policy positions, for Councillors. Research and prepare draft correspondence and reports for the Councillor when required.

 

8.   Liaise closely with the Civic and Executive Support Manager and members of the Leadership Group to follow up specific issues and / or correspondence.

 

9.   Request/access public information on projects, plans, budgets and work programs.

 

10. Coordinating stationery orders, work functions, catering, conference attendance, and travel arrangements when necessary and manage reimbursement for legitimate Councilor expenses

 

11. Maintain the highest ethical standards, exercise discretion, maintain confidentiality of sensitive issues handled within the Office and ensure no work of a political nature outside the scope of local government is undertaken. Any breaches of Council’s Code of Conduct, legislation or other Council policies are to be reported immediately to the Civic and Executive Support Manager.

 

12. Ensure no Council resources (both labour and materials) are used to support any political campaigns.

 

13. Ensure confidentiality when dealing with a range of complex and sensitive matters and act with a high degree of maturity, judgement and discretion at all times.

 

14. Liaise effectively with the Mayor, other Councillors, Councillors’ staff, the Civic and Executive Support Manager, members of the Leadership Group, community members and external organisations to ensure productive and highly cooperative relationships are maintained.

 

15. Undertake any other duties as directed by the Councillors. These duties must not include any personal matters or political matters outside the scope of local government.

 

16. Ensure compliance with legislative and Council policy requirements and standards in the areas of Equal Employment Opportunity and Work, Health and Safety and Rehabilitation and Records management.

 

17. Comply with and keep abreast of any relevant legislation, codes and policies, applicable to the performance of the duties of this position.

 

KEY RELATIONSHIPS:

 

1.   Internal: You have regular contact with the Mayor, other Councillors, Councillors’ staff, the Civic and Executive Support Manager, members of the Leadership Group, community members and external organisations to ensure productive and highly cooperative relationships are maintained. You will also liaise with other Councillor Support Officer and the Mayors staff

 

2.   External: You will also communicate at times with community organisations, local authorities and agencies, Members of Parliament, government departments, residents, and consultants.


WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY RESPONSIBILITY STATEMENT

EMPLOYEES WITH NO STAFF REPORTING TO THEM AND/OR NO MAJOR PROJECT RESPONSIBILITY

 

LEVEL 6

 

Level 6 staff are required to perform their duties in accordance with their job description and safe working practices.  It is the responsibility of each staff member to ensure that they comply with Work Health & Safety legislation as well as Council policies, procedures and safe work practices and that their actions do not subject any person to risk. The responsibility of this position requires:

 

Responsibilities

Performance Measures

·      Ensuring all work is performed in accordance with requirements of the Health and Safety policy, procedure and legislation

·      Conformance to WH&S policy and procedures

·      Knowledge of, and use of Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) and Standard operating procedures

·      Taking reasonable care for their own Health and Safety as well as that of others

·      Use of SWMS and Standard operating procedures

·      Having an understanding of the Health and Safety requirements associated with their employment

·      Training records

·      Reporting all identified hazards, accidents/incidents and near misses to their manager/supervisor

·      Ensure all potential or actual areas of danger within the workplace are immediately made safe, repaired and reported to the appropriate person/s as soon as possible;

·      Hazard identification reports

 

 

 

·      Workplace inspection reports

·      Using and maintaining all safety equipment and personal protective equipment (PPE) in accordance with relevant standards.

·      PPE maintenance records

 

·      Knowledge and use of Standard operating procedures

 

·      Working in accordance with relevant competency standards

 

·      Training records.

 

·      Supervisor site inspection records

·      Knowledge of  WH&S and related legislation within scope of job description

·      Attendance at training sessions

 

 

 

 

 

Applicant Declaration

 

I,                                                                      have read and understood the position description for the Councillor Support Officer as detailed in this document.

 

Signature:                                                                                                                              Date:          /          /

 

 

 



Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

Item No:         C1117 Item 2

Subject:         Draft Code of Meeting Practice         

Prepared By:     Ian Naylor - Manager Civic and Executive Support  

Authorised By:  Tanya Whitmarsh - Group Manager Governance

 

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to adopt a new Code of Meeting Practice for the Inner West Council. The draft Code was publicly exhibited in June 2017 and this report proposes further amendments to the Code after a briefing on the Code was held with the Councillors on 7 November.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

 

1.       Give consideration to the options for the Public Forum.

 

2.       Adopt the Draft Code of Meeting Practice shown as Attachment 1 and amend the section on the Public Forum to include the recommended option;

 

3.       Publish the Code of Meeting Practice on its website;

 

4.       Communicate the changes to the Code of Meeting Practice through its website, social media, newsletters, advertisements in the Inner West Courier and with a public notice in Council’s Libraries and Facilities; and

 

5.       Write to the persons who made submissions during the exhibition period and notify them of Council’s Decision.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The Local Government (Council Amalgamations) Proclamation 2016 that led to the creation of Inner West Council specified that the former Leichhardt Council Code of Meeting Practice to be the initial Code of Meeting Practice (“Code”) for Council.  In the 18 months since proclamation, Council has established a number of new meeting practices to improve the openness and transparency of its decision making.  A new Draft Code was developed to reflect these new meeting practices as well as identify additional better practice meeting protocols operating across NSW local government. 

 

The Draft Code included changes to the Order of Business, the Public Forum element, Duration of Meetings, Motions, Webcasting and Acts of Disorder.

 

The Office of Local Government has also announced that a Model Code of Meeting Practice for all NSW councils will be released in the coming months.  However, rather than wait for the release of this Model Code the Council should adopt a new Code to reflect and improve on current meeting practice.  

 

At the Council Meeting of 23 May 2017, the Administrator considered a report on the Draft Code and resolved to publicly exhibit the Draft Code for 28 days for comment.  It was exhibited from 31 May till 17 July 2017 and supplemented with advice about two options for consideration in relation to the management of the Public Forum element of Council meetings.  Option 1 was to allocate 60 minutes at the start of the Council Meeting to allow the public to speak to items on the agenda.  Option 2 was to continue the current practice to allow anyone to speak on any item listed on the agenda.  Council received nine submissions - two in favour of Option 1 and seven in favour of Option 2.  The submissions did not offer comment on any other aspects of the Code.

 

 

STAFF COMMENTS

 

Since the public exhibition of the Draft Code, officers have undertaken a further review of current meeting practices to identify ways in which Council Meetings may be run more efficiently.  This review has included discussions with the Executive Team and Leadership Team and feedback from Councillors on a briefing provided to them on 7 November 2017.  As a result of these considerations, further amendments have been made to the Draft Code.  These further amendments are highlighted in red in the Draft Code in Attachment 1 to this report.  The major changes to the Code are as follows. 

 

Meeting Schedule

 

Subsequent to the election of the new Council in September 2017, four Council Meetings were held in October 2017 to deal with a host of matters referred to the Council both by officers and Councillors. These October meetings collectively ran for a total of more than 20 hours.  In order to have sufficient meeting time to deal with all the business referred to Council, it is recommended that the Draft Code be amended from holding one ordinary meeting of Council per month to holding such meetings on 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of each month, except for January where the Council is in recess and only on 2nd Tuesday in December.

 

Duration of Meetings

 

The Draft Code specifies a standard meeting commencement time of 6.30pm.  It also indicates that meetings are to conclude by 11pm or at the conclusion of an item being discussed at 11pm, provided that the matter can be dealt with by 11.10pm.  A widespread review of other Sydney metropolitan councils shows that a conclusion time of between 10pm and 11pm has been adopted as better practice.  To routinely extend meetings well beyond 11pm significantly increases the risk of poor decision making dogged by fatigue.

 

Community Engagement

 

Council officers routinely facilitate broad community engagement as part of facilitating sound decision making.  Depending on the issue/s this would include direct consultation with the community, in some cases supplemented by work of third party specialists, gathering statistically valid data and other information from a balanced range of sources via proven and reliable methods.  Considerable professional knowledge and experience is reflected in the subsequent analysis of information by officers and specialists that may assist them.  Such work represents a substantial investment of time and resources befitting the need for well informed decision making.

 

Council’s community engagement framework is modelled on the application of international best practices established by the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2).  Adherence to the IAP2 framework is central the review of every issue impacting residents that comes before Council.  Application of this framework provides an equitable approach to hearing each voice that needs to be heard and respected through thoughtful and balanced reports to the Council.

 

Public Forum - issues

 

The principal purpose of public access to Council Meetings is to facilitate openness and transparency in decision making.   A Public Forum element in meetings permits members of the public to address council on any issue of concern.  However the Public Forum should not be viewed as a primary vehicle for community consultation.  Strong messages delivered by passionate and articulate speakers just prior to deliberation on a matter can carry extra weight and decision making is often based on the most recent evidence provided.  This can significantly discount the value of data and other evidence presented in reports and it has the potential to disenfranchise hundreds if not thousands of members of the community who have previously been consulted.  Such an approach to analysis is not consistent with good governance and could lead to poor decisions being made.

 

During the public exhibition period, nine submissions were received on the Draft Code - each submission only commented on the Public Forum aspect.  The current Code places no limit on public speakers and permits any person to speak on any agenda item for 3 minutes (or more if the Council agrees to extensions time to speak longer).  At the two Ordinary Council Meetings held in October 2017 an average of 24 people spoke about items listed on the agenda for that meeting – this consumed more than 90 minutes of meeting time in each instance.

 

Council convened a total of four meetings during the month of October 2017 to consider 66 reports and it sat for more than 20 hours while doing so.  In order to complete the Council business within two meetings per month of no more than 4.5 hours each, Council will need to ensure that the meetings are run far more efficiently for Councillors to have sufficient time ot properly consider the reports listed on the agenda.

 

It is common practice in NSW local government to require members of the public wishing to speak at a Council Meeting to register prior to the meeting for this purpose.  This was the practice of the former Ashfield and Marrickville Councils and was similarly adopted by the Administrator for Inner West Council Meetings from July 2016 to July 2017.  This registration process permits the generation of a list of speakers for the Chair prior to the meeting – it greatly aids in managing an orderly and efficient process for speakers to make their representations to Council.

 

Some councils reserve a block of time at the beginning of each meeting to allow members of the public to speak.  A key advantage of conducting a Public Forum in this way is that it helps Councillors to better focus on hearing without the distractions of chopping and changing between public speakers, debating officer recommendations and finalizing decisions.  The smoother process for calling up speakers offers far greater certainty to speakers about when they need to be available to speak and it eliminates the exhausting need for them to monitor other items of business (sometimes for several hours) before they finally ‘get their turn’ to be heard. 

 

Holding the Public Forum at the start of the meeting serves to counter the negative perception that limitless opportunities to speak confers an unfair advantage on people who fail to avail themselves of purpose designed engagement opportunities beforehand.  Similarly it reduces the temptation for people to engage in repetitious commentary, attempt to debate rather than inform, critique other speakers rather than focus on the core issues, or waste time attempting to revisit Q&A discussions that have already been thoroughly aired at other forums.

 

The Inner West Council represents over 185,000 residents.  The Code of the former Leichhardt Council struggles to sustain a public participation element that previously tested reasonable time limits of Council meetings for a much smaller constituency.  There is a compelling need to streamline meetings in ways that offer reasonable Public Forum opportunities at two meetings per month without compromising time needed by Councillors to consider the matters listed.  Council officers are of the view that the Public Forum should be limited to no more than 60 minutes at the commencement of the meeting and that the public register to speak at the Council Meetings.  Assuming that speakers will continue to be permitted to speak for at least 3 minutes, the Public Forum would be limited to the first 20 persons who register. This allows the Council 3.5 hours to discuss items listed on the agenda for each meeting.

 

As detailed above, Council has embraced a community engagement framework based on international best practice to consult with the community prior to a report being prepared for consideration by Council. This framework facilitates effective decision making and good governance and the Public Forum should not be a mechanism for further consultation and open discussion on the merits of the decision.  If public participation at a Council meeting extends beyond 60 minutes Councillors are unlikely to have enough time to properly consider all matters listed on the agenda.  The considerable trouble and expense of conducting Extraordinary Meetings should be reserved for matters of urgency rather than completion of unfinished business of ordinary meetings of Council.

 

 

Options for the Public Forum

 

1. Public Forum is held at the commencement of the meeting for up to 60 minutes.  People who wish to speak to register by 2pm on the day of the meeting and the first 20 registered speakers may speak.  (Recommended option)

 

2. The public speak to agenda Items as they are discussed during the Meeting.  All speakers are to register to speak by 2pm on the day of the meeting.  A maximum of 3 Speakers for and 3 speakers against recommendations is permitted.

 

3. The public speak to agenda items as they are discussed during the meeting.  All speakers are to register to speak by 2pm on the day of the meeting.  Speakers may register to speak on any item on the agenda.

 

Webcasting

 

Inner West Council commenced webcasting its Council meetings in December 2016.  The Draft Code includes provisions about webcasting.  This includes announcement of advice that members of the public wishing 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.

 

Motions

 

The Draft Code includes a provision that all motions that propose the spending of funds must identify the source of funding for that spending.  It is proposed that the Draft Code that was exhibited be amended, to give authority to the General Manager to defer any notice of motion that does not identify the source of funding to support it and that this motion not be included in a Council agenda until the Councillor who submitted the motion identifies a suitable funding source.  This additional requirement is to ensure Council remains financially sustainable and does not commit to spending outside of the adopted budget and other funding sources.

 

The Draft Code states that a notice of motion is to be submitted by 10am on the Monday 8 days prior to a Council meeting so as to allow sufficient time agenda publication and distribution a week prior to the meeting.  Any Motion that proposes the spending of funds that has not been programmed in the budget must identify the source of funding for that spending.

 

Where the General Manager considers a motion has legal, strategic, financial or policy implications which need to be taken into account, the General Manager may; (i) provide advice that the matter be deferred pending a report from officers; (ii) provide an officers comment with a Notice of Motion on the business paper; or (iii) a recommendation with a Notice of Motion on the business paper that the matter be deferred pending a report from officers.  If, in the opinion of the General Manager, a report needs to be presented to Council to assist Councillors with consideration of the Notice of Motion, and if time permits, the General Manager may include a report in the business paper.

 

Order of Business

 

It is proposed that the Order of Business as exhibited in the Draft Code be amended to be as follows;

 

1.   Acknowledgement of Country

2.   Apologies

3.   Disclosures of Pecuniary and Conflicts of Interest

4.   Notice of Webcasting

5.   Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meetings

6.   Public Forum

7.   Mayoral Minutes

8.   Items Resolved by Exception

9.   Reports to Council

10. Reports to Council Committee (If Required)

11. Notices of Motion

12. Notice of Rescission (If Required) Questions on Notice (if Required)

13. Matters to Be Considered in Closed Session Reports of Resolutions Passed in Closed Session Close

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The Draft Code was placed on public exhibition and Council received 9 submissions. It is recommended to advise those persons who made a submission of the Council decision..

 

CONCLUSION

Nil.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Draft Code of Meeting Practice

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

Item No:         C1117 Item 3

Subject:         Audited Financial Reports as at 30 June 2017  

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 inform Council that the 2017 audited financial reports for the Inner West Council have been placed on public exhibition in accordance with legislative requirement. Council is required to endorse the financial reports after being placed on public exhibition.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.       Receives and notes the report; and

2.       Receives the final audited reports for the Inner West Council for the reporting period ending 30 June 2017 (ATTACHMENT 1).

 

BACKGROUND

 

At the October 2017 Council meeting, the financial reports for the Inner West Council were presented for signature. The reports were subsequently placed on public exhibition once the auditor’s reports were received.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Section 418 provides that as soon as practicable after Council receives a copy of the auditor's reports:

(a)  It must fix a date for the meeting at which it proposes to present its audited financial reports, together with the auditor's reports, to the public; and

 

(b) it must give public notice of the date so fixed.

 

Section 418 also provides that the date fixed for the meeting must be at least 7 days after the date on which the notice is given but not more than five weeks after the auditor's reports are given to Council.

An advertisement was placed in the Inner West Courier’s City and West Editions on 14 November 2017 advising that the audited financial reports will be tabled to Council on 21 November 2017 offering members of the public to make comment on the financial reports. The electronic copies of the financial reports were available to members of the public on Council’s website from 30 October 2017 while printed copies of the financial reports were exhibited publicly at the Inner West Council Service Centres at Ashfield, Leichhardt and Petersham from 6 November 2017. 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

N/A

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

 

Members of the public have had the opportunity to comment on the financial reports of each respective branch during the public exhibition period. To date, no responses have been received.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Annual Financial Statements 16/17 - Inner West Council

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

Item No:         C1117 Item 4

Subject:         Post Exhibition Report - Sydenham Station Creative Hub Planning Proposal 

Prepared By:     Kieren Lawson - Student Town Planner 

Authorised By:  Gill Dawson - Group Manager Strategic Planning

 

SUMMARY

This report concerns the public exhibition of a planning proposal to amend Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 to support the establishment of the ‘Sydenham Station Creative Hub’ to operate as an entertainment and employment precinct, where live music venues, small bars, restaurants and cafes thrive alongside traditional and creative industries.

 

The planning proposal was publicly exhibited in accordance with the Gateway determination from 16 June 2017 to 14 July 2017. A total of 109 submissions were received in response to the exhibition of the planning proposal, of which approximately 75% (82 submissions) were in support of the proposal without amendment, approximately 17% (19 submissions) in support of the proposal subject to amendments and approximately 7% (8 submissions) opposed to the proposal. Whilst there was underlying support from the wider community for an entertainment and employment space in the area, there was opposition from a number of direct stakeholders.

 

The Gateway determination issued by the Department of Environment and Planning for the planning proposal gave conditional approval for the planning proposal to proceed to public exhibition. One of those conditions required the planning proposal to be updated to include an economic impact assessment”.

 

The Sydenham Creative Hub (SCH): Economic impact analysis report, prepared by SGS Economics & Planning dated June 2017 raised significant concerns with the planning proposal, in relation to the economic impacts of the creative hub proposal on the existing business operations, in relation to certain additional permitted uses proposed in the area and issues generally in relation to size of the industrial zoned area to which the planning proposal related.

 

The report recommended (in part) that “If the target industries are introduced in the SCH as additional permitted uses, these uses should be concentrated in a specific area of the SCH. This would assist in reducing the impact of these uses and protecting the remainder of the precinct. Containment in a specific area will also help to mitigate any uncertainty over the continuing function of the rest of the precinct. If hospitality uses are introduced, it is considered that Marrickville Road (particularly the western end) is the most appropriate location for these businesses.”

 

The studies and consultation highlight the need for amendments to be made to the planning proposal to satisfy professional recommendations and community feedback. In light of the above it is considered that the planning proposal should not proceed in its current form.

 

To balance the concerns raised, changes need to be made to the planning proposal to delete the additional proposed use business and office premises relating to creative purposes’ and to reduce the size of the area to which the other proposed additional permitted uses “small bars, restaurants and cafes would apply.

 

In this regard it is recommended that the area be limited to properties fronting Marrickville Road between Railway Parade and Sydney Street and the 2 properties fronting Railway Parade between Marrickville Road and Buckley Lane (the properties 21-71 Marrickville Road and 101-103 Railway Parade, Marrickville respectively).

 

Under the Department’s Guide to preparing local environmental plans if “a RPA varies its proposal following the initial Gateway determination, it must inform the Minister, GSC or delegate, who may issue a revised Gateway determination, depending on the nature of the variations.” (page 21)

 

The recommended changes to the planning proposal would result in a different intended outcome. The Department advised that it would not be necessary to seek a revised Gateway Determination but Council (as the RPA) would be required to consult with the Department in accordance with Section 58 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

The report recommends that Council amend the planning proposal as follows:

 

i.          Confine the land to which the planning proposal relates to the properties fronting Marrickville Road, Marrickville between Railway Parade and Sydney Street and the 2 properties fronting Railway Parade between Marrickville Road and Buckley Lane (the properties 21-71 Marrickville Road and 101-103 Railway Parade, Marrickville respectively); and

ii.          Limit the additional permitted uses on such land to “restaurant or café”, and “small bars”.

 

As the recommended changes would result in a different intended outcome than the original planning proposal that was exhibited, it is also recommended that the planning proposal, as amended, be placed on public exhibition for community consultation.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.       Council amend the planning proposal as follows:

 

i.    Confine the land to which the planning proposal relates to the properties fronting Marrickville Road, Marrickville between Railway Parade and Sydney Street and the 2 properties fronting Railway Parade between Marrickville Road and Buckley Lane (being the properties 21-71 Marrickville Road and 101-103 Railway Parade, Marrickville respectively); and

ii.   Limit the additional permitted uses on such land to “cafes, restaurants and small bars”.

 

2.       The Department of Planning and Environment be advised accordingly and Council request a 6 month extension of time to finalise the LEP; and

 

3.       The amended planning proposal be publically exhibited and a further report be prepared for Council’s consideration following the conclusion of the community consultation.

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

For approximately the last three years, Council has been progressing the vision for the Sydenham Station creative hub - an entertainment and employment space where live music venues, small bars, restaurants and cafes thrive alongside traditional and creative industries.

 

At its meeting of 2 September 2014 the former Marrickville Council resolved to:

·    “give in-principle support to the development of a long term vision for revitalization of the industrial lands adjacent Sydenham Station for traditional industry, creative industry and business with a potential night economy; and

·    consider preparing a Planning Proposal to implement the vision for the precinct when the findings of the Marrickville Employment Lands Study Review and Future Cities Program are completed.”

 

The former Marrickville Council considered an update report on the project at its 15 August 2015 meeting and resolved to endorse the recommended action plan and allocate funding to progress the preliminary actions.

 

A further report on the matter was last considered at the Council meeting on 25 October 2016. A copy of that report is attached as ATTACHMENT 1.

 

In dealing with that report the Administrator determined (in part) that Council:

 

3.        Prepares a planning proposal for the Sydenham Station creative hub precinct and             submits it to the Department of Planning & Environment for Gateway determination             subject to Areas A & B as shown on the map at Attachment 2 being combined into one          area to allow small bars, restaurants, cafes and creative uses as specified in Clause            6.12 of MELP 2011 to be permitted within the existing IN1 General Industrial zone; and

4.         Prepares and places on public exhibition with the planning proposal an economic study    and strategy for a Development Control Plan (DCP) for the precinct should the           planning proposal receive Gateway approval.  The DCP to include (among other      things) a creative industries policy, licensed premises controls and plans for public   domain improvements.”

 

A Planning Proposal for the Sydenham Station creative hub precinct was prepared in accordance with the above resolution.

 

Gateway Determination

 

The planning proposal was forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment on 9 November 2016 for gateway determination.

 

A Gateway determination for the proposal, giving conditional approval for the planning proposal to proceed to public exhibition, was issued by the Department on 12 January 2017 (Department Ref: PP 2016 IWEST 001_00). A copy of the Gateway Determination is attached at ATTACHMENT 2.

 

One of the conditions of the Gateway Determination was a requirement for the planning proposal to be updated to include an economic impact assessment” (condition 1(f)).

 

Economic Impact Assessment

 

SGC Economics & Planning were engaged by Council to prepare an economic impact assessment report for the Sydenham Creative Hub (SCH). A copy is attached at ATTACHMENT 3.

 

The Sydenham Creative Hub: Economic impact analysis report dated June 2017 concluded that:

 

“Based on the research undertaken as part of this study and the analysis and impacts detailed within this report, three recommendations have been formed.

 

Council should not introduce additional permitted uses in the SCH

 

This is due to a number of reasons:

 

-     The precinct is functioning well, being in high demand and having a low vacancy rate. Industrial lands are still valuable and are required to support the local population and local businesses. There is a shortage of industrial land in inner Sydney and the SCH is a highly active industrial area. Manufacturing is not in decline, but rather employment in manufacturing is expected to increase over the long term in SCH and the broader Sydenham-Marrickville industrial area.

 

-     There does not appear to be a strong reason to introduce hospitality or commercial uses within the SCH and there are risks associated with doing so. There is a risk that introducing the targeted industries would have an adverse impact on the precinct’s role and function and impacting particularly on the urban manufacturers (creative industrial uses) which Council is seeking to promote. Including additional permissible uses is not considered to be an appropriate land use response to support an evolving industrial precinct.

 

-     Business premises and/or office premises which will be used for a creative purpose are already permissible in IN2 Light Industrial and B7 Business Zones in the Marrickville LEP and therefore these businesses could be accommodated in other industrial precincts as well as more broadly all commercial areas where business and office premises are permissible.

 

If the target industries are introduced in the SCH as additional permitted uses, these uses should be concentrated in a specific area of the SCH. This would assist in reducing the impact of these uses and protecting the remainder of the precinct. Containment in a specific area will also help to mitigate any uncertainty over the continuing function of the rest of the precinct. If hospitality uses are introduced, it is considered that Marrickville Road (particularly the western end) is the most appropriate location for these businesses.

 

Council should solidify its vision for the SCH and provide clarification around the zoning and the types of land uses it would like to promote in the SCH

 

Uncertainty around the land use zoning and controls for the SCH, as well as more broadly a range of proposals to rezone industrial lands across inner Sydney, is considered to have been driving speculative property banking.

 

A clear vision will:

 

-     provide certainty to local businesses that they will be able to continue to operate within the precinct and give them the confidence to invest in the precinct.

 

-     assist in avoiding developer speculation and manage expectations around rezonings.

 

It is recommended that the vision clearly states that the IN1 General Industrial zone will be retained and identifies the uses which are permissible and Council would like to encourage.

 

Council should review the controls and allowable uses for Marrickville and Illawarra Roads and look for opportunities to encourage creative commercial uses in this centre

 

The existing Marrickville Road and Illawarra Road local centre is considered to be an appropriate location for retail and commercial uses. While these uses are currently permissible, it would be beneficial to review the existing controls and identify how business or office premises which are used for a creative purpose could be better facilitated. Any new residential developments could incorporate first floor commercial above ground floor retail. This would also assist in supporting the existing retail uses and support the growth of this centre. Parking and access will be an issue and solutions to address this should also be considered as part of a review of the controls.” (pages 42-43)

 

Public Exhibition

 

The updated planning proposal was publicly exhibited in accordance with the Gateway Determination from 16 June 2017 to 14 July 2017.

 

A total of 109 submissions were received. Details of those submissions are discussed later in this report under the heading “Public Consultation”.

 

DISCUSSION

 

A number of concerns have been raised with the planning proposal in its current form. The three key planning issues of concern relate to the following matters:

 

a.         The size of the precinct;

b.         Compatibility of uses; and

c.         Uncertainty of future land uses in precinct

 

Those key planning issues are discussed below:

 

a.       Size of the Precinct

 

Safety and accessibility

 

The planning proposal and additional permitted uses are likely to lead to an increase in pedestrian activity within the SCH precinct. The area carries a substantial volume of traffic along Railway Parade, Marrickville Road, Buckley Street and Sydenham Road, with heavy vehicles and industrial movements distinctive of the precinct’s movement network. Increased pedestrian movements along paths, driveways and crossings across both local and classified roads pose significant safety concerns generated from the proposed additional permissible uses. A number of safety concerns were raised as part of additional entertainment uses in the precinct and have been raised in the social impact assessment (SIA), public consultation and economic impact assessment (EIA). In summary, the safety and accessibility concerns relate to:

 

·    A lack of pedestrian crossing points along Sydenham Road, a classified road and regional freight route;

·    Increased risk between vehicles and people with an increase in pedestrian activity across industrial driveways that are in constant use by existing industrial businesses; and

·    Increased likelihood of intoxication and anti-social behavior in areas of potentially hazardous industrial activity.

 

The recommended changes to the proposal seek to make improvements to pedestrian and active transport links between Sydenham Station and nearby retail and residential areas of Marrickville. Public domain, traffic improvements and infrastructure upgrades as part of the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor Strategy will improve the condition along the eastern portion of Marrickville Road and Railway Parade. However pedestrian and traffic movement issues throughout the remainder of the Sydenham industrial area would essentially remain unchanged.

 

Protection of industrial lands

 

The 2014 Marrickville Employment Lands Strategy (MELS) Review explains that within the former Marrickville Local Government Area (LGA), demand for traditional industrial land is declining, but Marrickville is well positioned to accommodate increasing demand from newer more contemporary creative industries. These can be broadly classified as population-serving industry, urban manufacturers, Central Business District (CBD) backroom operations and creative industries.  With diminishing industrial stocks in the City of Sydney and City of Botany Bay, Marrickville’s industrial areas may also experience greater demand from industries that have been displaced from those areas. A key challenge for Council is to allow its employment locations to respond to industry trends and meet the requirements of business operators. To achieve this, flexibility is needed – in the design of buildings and the planning policy framework. This can be achieved by increasing the flexibility of industrial zones by increasing the range of permissible uses in designated locations. The recommended changes to the original planning proposal, as detailed in this report, aims to support creative and traditional industrial uses whilst providing increased flexibility for entertainment uses through additional uses such as small bars, cafes and restaurants in a designated area within the precinct.

 

The protection of industrial lands is further advised in A Plan for Growing Sydney (APfGS) (2014) under Action 1.9.2 Support Key Industrial Precincts with Appropriate Planning Controls and Productivity Action 5 Develop better understanding of the value and operation of employment and urban services land in the Draft Central District Plan (dCDP) (2016). Those actions emphasize the importance of employment and urban services land to Greater Sydney’s productivity, particularly those located in close proximity to the Sydney CBD in the southern sub-region. The SCH proposal is situated within the significant industry cluster of creative-manufacturing industries in Marrickville and Sydenham and works towards supporting their contribution to the national economy, aided by their close proximity to key economic infrastructure at Port Botany, the Airport and the CBD.

 

The previous Council report (ATTACHMENT 1) included an assessment of the SCH proposal against the Industrial Lands Strategic Assessment Checklist. Council staff developed a set of employment land rezoning principles to guide future rezoning proposals in light of the strong interest in rezoning industrial land in the former Marrickville Council area. An assessment of the proposal in relation to those principles was included in the October 2016 Council report. Further amendments to the proposal towards preserving large agglomerations of industrial land to avoid industrial fragmentation strengthen Principles 7 and 8 relating to the preservation of large industrial sites and reduced fragmentation of these areas.

 

Though the newly-permitted creative industries could potentially occupy large IN1 General Industrial sites, however it is envisaged the new creative industries would naturally seek smaller sites.

 

At the time of preparation of this report, there was a total of 177 hectares of IN1 General Industrial zoned land across the Inner West Council area, all which is located in the former Marrickville LGA. Council’s Statement of Vision and Priorities (2017) includes provisions towards retaining diversity of industrial lands and employment generating use (Priority 1) and supporting innovation and creative industries (Priority 6). To further safeguard employment lands in the Inner West LGA, this report recommends that the area to which the SCH planning proposal relates be reduced in size from the 20 hectares originally proposed to approximately1.9 hectares. That change to the SCH planning proposal aims to support these priorities but also supplement intentions towards social vitality, creativity and quality of life (Priority 3) and delivering vibrant night-time economies in main streets and town centres (Priority 6).

 

Property Values

 

Development speculation and potential land use rezoning in Inner Sydney have continually contributed to a loss of affordability for industrial/manufacturing businesses across Inner Sydney. Sydenham-Marrickville is recognized as the last major mixed industrial precinct in Inner Sydney and occupation in the precinct is in high demand. The MELPS 2014 Review identified a 6% vacancy rate for industrial properties within the precinct, with this rate lowering as a result of industrial relocations of businesses from ex-industrial lands in the City of Sydney (i.e. Alexandria, Zetland, Waterloo, Rosebery, Mascot) to the precinct. Industrial property values in Sydney’s southern submarket have significantly increased in value over recent years and are significantly more expensive compared to other industrial submarkets in Sydney, with average land values in the area approximately $1,625 per sqm (see page 19, EIA). This property value speculation occurs as a result of increased scarcity of heavy industrial precincts in inner Sydney and ‘banking land’ tactics by developers in hope for residential development potential (see page 25, EIA). The recommended changes to the planning proposal, aim to support a creative, industrial and entertainment precinct that minimizes speculation of land prices, prioritized affordable land use options for all lower-middle income sectors, particularly manufacturing and hospitality. The recommended changes aim to strike a balance to protect industrial lands as well as providing an opportunity for small bars, cafes and restaurants in part of the precinct where employment and entertainment uses may thrive alongside creative and traditional industries.

 

In this regard it is recommended that the SCH area be limited to properties fronting Marrickville Road between Railway Parade and Sydney Street and the 2 properties fronting Railway Parade between Marrickville Road and Buckley Lane (the properties 21-71 Marrickville Road and 101-103 Railway Parade, Marrickville respectively).

 

The report recommends a revised area for the SCH precinct to only allow for those additional permitted uses on IN1 General Industrial zoned properties (identified as A on Figure 1).

 

Recommended change to Sydenham Station Creative Hub area

 

Figure 1: Recommended area for the proposed

Sydenham Station Creative Hub

 

Justification for a reduction in the size of the SCH precinct is as follows:

 

·    Mitigate traffic movement conflicts in the industrial area surrounding congestion, parking, operating hours between industrial use movements and pedestrians. This further protects the operational viability of those industrial uses with increased pedestrian traffic volumes focused towards the Marrickville Road part of the area;

·    Reduced displacement and reduced land price speculation of existing industrial tenants in the area;

·    Concentrates additional permitted uses and associated night-time activity along the Marrickville Road portion of the precinct. Concentrating potential new uses in this area is likely to strengthen the active transport link between Sydenham Station and Marrickville Commercial Precinct and improve safety for patrons in the area; and

·    The proposed additional permitted uses will respond and interrelate with the draft public domain upgrades in the Marrickville Road East Streetscape Improvement Master Plan.

 

b.      Compatibility of Uses

 

Business and office premises in industrial zones

 

Concerns were raised regarding whether introducing ‘business and/or office premises’ were appropriate additional permissible uses for the SCH planning proposal. In October 2016, Council resolved to retain the existing IN1 – General Industrial zoning for the SCH in response to concerns raised during the 2016 public consultation. The basis of that decision Council was to protect higher-impact industrial uses such as smash repairers, supporting their continued operation in the long term, even though they would benefit from existing use rights if the zoning changed (see October 2016 Council Report, page 9). The exhibited planning proposal includes business and/or office premises relating to creative purposes as an additional permissible use, with ‘creative purposing’ assessed to the satisfaction of Council at the development application stage. Further assessment of that additional permitted use found that maintaining creative purposing would be difficult to control because of circumstances beyond Council’s control. State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (Codes SEPP) permits a ‘change of use’ application under Exempt Development in Part 2, Division 1, Subdivision 10A – Change of use of premises and/or in Complying Development in Part 5, Division 1, Subdivision 2 – Change of use of premises. Those clauses of the Codes SEPP allow business and/or office premises uses to change to non-creative ‘Column 2’ uses without the need for Council approval. This ‘change of use’ pathway may result in uses within the precinct that are inconsistent with the employment and entertainment uses desired as part of the planning proposal. Business and office premises used for a creative purpose are permissible with consent in the IN2 Light Industrial and B7 Business Park zones under Marrickville LEP and therefore could be accommodated in other industrial precincts in the Inner West LGA. Excluding “creative purposing” from the planning proposal would also be consistent with the recommendations of the EIA (see page 4).

 

The revised SCH planning proposal recommends that business and/or office premises be removed as additional permitted uses from the planning proposal. The emergence of conventional business or office uses in the precinct would change the character of the Sydenham and Marrickville industrial area, displacing existing uses and change market perceptions of the areas. This would in turn lead to higher rents for light industrial uses and displace those uses from these critical industrial sites. This in turn would result in the closure of businesses that require proximity to supply chains and markets and that depend on those interconnections.

 

Compatibility with building stock

 

The quality of the existing building stock in the SCH precinct has been identified as poor quality and would require notable reinvestment to meet commercial occupancy standards. The EIA also highlights that existing building stock in the precinct is considered to be of poor quality and would require reinvestment to meet commercial use standards required to meet occupation requirements by Council and/or under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) (see page 23, EIA).

 

The development feasibility of providing those additional uses in the existing building stock would need to be carefully examined on a case by case basis. Potential proponents wishing to utilize additional permissible uses in the precinct would need to proceed with caution and carefully consider their development feasibility options in accordance with the potential building upgrades required before occupation.

 

Discouraging ‘creative servicing’ uses

 

Potential for losses to manufacturing jobs in the existing precinct was a significant concern raised as part of the planning proposal. The EIA included discussion relating to the creative precinct with employment estimates comparing 2016 figures with a base case, scenario 1 and scenario 2 for the site (see page 25-28, EIA).

 

Scenario 1 is characterised as an evolving creative precinct with growing employment in professional services, media and telecommunications, while still containing a significant proportion of employment in traditional industrial uses (e.g. Mascot-Green Square and Central to Eveleigh).

 

Scenario 2 is characterised as a mature creative precinct with a concentration of professional and technology services, media and telecommunications, as well as accommodation and food services (e.g. Surry Hills and Ultimo/Pyrmont).

 

 

Figure 2:         Forecast changes in employment under planning proposal scenarios (see page 39, EIA)

 

Figure 2 reveals a significant increase in professional services (albeit approved for ‘creative purposes’) in the precinct with expected losses in manufacturing and construction jobs. This potential increase in ‘creative servicing’ uses facilitated by business and/or office premises is likely to see significant displacement of manufacturing and construction jobs. This may lead to:

 

·    A loss in local GDP output (see page 39, EIA),

·    Dislodgement of lower-middle income workers in the local area,

·    Entrench supply chain inefficiencies between existing industrial uses utilized for ‘CBD backroom’ operations (see page 41, EIA).

 

The 2014 MELS Review advocated under Action 1.3: prevent the spread of retailing and services into the Marrickville-Sydenham precinct. The importance of protecting those creative production uses is highlighted in the Australian Research Council's August 2017 report Made in Marrickville. Trends show that international best practice in urban planning and policy making that focuses on deepening relationships between creative industries and urban manufacturing are connected to future urban growth, investment, city marketing and employment generation (see page 6, Made in Marrickville). Those existing traditional industrial and creative production uses invigorate the Inner West’s successful place branding and need to be protected to ensure the social and economic vitality of the area. Made in Marrickville highlights the risks of displacing those uses through conversion of spaces to commercial, shop front and retail purposes, with accompanying escalating rents (see page 62).

 

In response to those concerns, this report recommends that the planning proposal be amended with a reduction in the size of the precinct and removal of business and/or office premises from the additional permitted uses. The recommended changes to the planning proposal aim to balance community and stakeholder positions, protect traditional manufacturing, support creative production uses in a collaborative entertainment and already highly functioning employment precinct.

 

The EIA provided details relating to financial turnover of retail floor space and estimated turnover to provide insight into the appropriateness of small bars, cafes and restaurants. As part of the EIA’s impact testing, it found that up to 20 hospitality businesses could be accommodated without undue impact on nearby commercial precincts such as Marrickville Town Centre and Marrickville Metro. Whilst the EIA does not recommend introducing additional hospitality floor space in the precinct, the planning proposal recommends that the provision of additional hospitality and night time entertainment uses in existing IN1 General Industrial zoned land along Marrickville Road will improve connectivity between Sydenham Station and nearby commercial precincts. The proposed public domain and traffic changes proposed under the Marrickville Road East Streetscape Improvements Master Plan will provide improved safety and through an active link for the additional uses proposed to be permitted (“cafes, restaurants and small bars”) in the reduced precinct.

 

Live Music Permissibility

 

Substantial community backing for the SCH supported improvements to the precinct to encourage night-time activity and a local late night economy within the local Inner West area. Community consultation indicated support for night time entertainment and live music in the precinct, and provided comments that included:

·    Turning the precinct into an entertainment hub to offer a destination for artists and creative;

·    Offer a destination for more entertainment, artists, creative activities; and

·    Allowing a new entertainment/arts precinct where live music thrives through late night bands and parties adjacent to creative industries would have nominal amenity impacts given its located away from residential areas.

 

Existing zoning provisions under MLEP 2011 that apply to land within the SCH already provide opportunities for creative industries, live music venues and ancillary night-time uses and a number of such uses are located in the precinct.

 

The EIA notes that any demand for commercial uses such as small bars, cafés and restaurants could be accommodated within existing retail areas adjacent to SCH such as Marrickville Metro Shopping Centre or Marrickville Town Centre.

 

Whilst the small bars, cafes and restaurants are uses permissible with Council consent on the Marrickville Metro Shopping Centre site and on land within the Marrickville Town Centre zoned B2 Local Centre it is considered that allowing such uses on a small section of the SCH would not unreasonably impact on the viability of those areas. It is also considered that permitting such uses on a selected part of the precinct as recommended would help to support the night time entertainment and live music in the precinct.

 

Recommended solution

 

The additional permitted uses originally proposed in the planning proposal for the SCH precinct have been reviewed. In view of the circumstances and for the reasons detailed in this report it is recommended that the additional uses to be permitted, in the reduced precinct, should be limited to small bars and restaurants and cafes only.

 

The amendments to Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 to effect the recommended changes are as follows:

 

i.        Insert the following additional matters in Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses of MLEP 2011 reading as follows:

 

Use of certain land at Marrickville, known as the Sydenham Station Creative Hub

 

(1)   This clause applies to land coloured blue and identified as “K” on the Key Sites Map.

(2)   Development for the purposes of small bars, and restaurants and cafes are permitted with consent.

 

ii.       That the properties known as 21-71 Marrickville Road and 101-103 Railway Parade, Marrickville be identified as “K” on Key Sites Map KYS_004.

 

Figure 3 shows the proposed amendment to the Key Sites Map:

 

Figure 3: Proposed Key Sites Map amendment

for amended Sydenham Station Creative Hub planning proposal

 

Justification for proceeding with the additional permitted uses “small bars, restaurants and cafes” but not proceeding with the additional permitted uses of “business and office premises relating to creative purposes” is as follows:

·    To ensure that the proposed additional uses permitted in the creative hub remain focused on entertainment and employment uses for industrial, creative and entertainment purposes.

·    The deletion of the previously proposed additional permitted uses of ‘business and office premises’ is in response to concerns raised, and aims to protect existing industrial zoned land and support creative and traditional industrial uses.

·    The inclusion of small bars, restaurants and cafes as additional permitted uses on certain existing IN1 General Industrial zoned land aim to facilitate the provision of an active night time link between Sydenham Station and Marrickville Town Centre.

 

c.       Uncertainty of Future Land Uses in Precinct

 

Draft State Government Plans

 

The report on the original planning proposal was considered by Council before the release of the Greater Sydney Commissions’ draft Central District Plan (dCDP). The planning proposal has been reviewed against the provisions of the dCDP.

 

The dCDP aims to provide flexibility in land uses for creative industries, providing affordable space for creative hubs and enhancing urban synergies through Productivity Action 5 Develop better understanding of the value and operation of employment and urban services land (see page 4, dCDP). The dCDP encourages councils to take a ‘precautionary approach’ to the conversion of employment and urban services land. Another focus of the Plan is improving 30-minute access to jobs and services across the district and Greater Sydney area.

 

A number of changes to the original planning proposal are recommended as detailed in this report.

 

A revised precinct size and removal of business and office premises as an additional permitted use aims to safeguard local jobs and businesses relating to traditional and creative industries and lower-middle income earners. Displacement of these uses to other regions in Sydney as a result of land price speculation and rezoning would act contrary to the priorities of the dCDP and would inflict social and economic costs to the local area.

 

The creative hub planning proposal is located within the Sydenham Station Precinct under the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor Strategy. In June 2017, the Department of Planning and Environment released the revised draft strategy in response to the community engagement completed during 2015-16. The revised strategy recognizes:

 

·    The need to protect Sydenham’s unique creative character and its employment opportunities,

·    The risk of rezoning and potential loss of creative industries and artist spaces in the area,

·    The retention of the industrial warehouse building stock that contribute to the character of the area,

·    The importance of protecting local employment including small businesses, creative industries and independent businesses,

·    The need for connectivity through active transport links between the precinct and surrounding areas, and

·    The potential for improvements to the streetscape and public realm to enhance livability.

 

The revised draft plan identifies the subject land as part of the Sydenham Enterprise Area. The draft plan recognizes the need to protect the creative hub site from rezoning on the basis that it provides valuable industrial and employment uses in close proximity to the Sydney CBD, Sydney Airport and Port Botany. The proposed rezoning of industrial land as suggested in the revised draft strategy will significantly reduce the industrial land supply in the sub region and the ability to meet future demand for industrial land activity and employment targets, failing to address this question in the industrial lands strategic assessment checklist.

 

It is considered that the provision of the additional uses proposed to be permitted in a select part of the SCH as recommended in this report, will provide balanced support for the vision of the Sydenham Station precinct under the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Corridor Strategy, focused on industrial enterprise and public domain renewal. It is considered that confining the SCH to the eastern portion of Marrickville Road, as recommended in this report, is a balanced approach which sufficiently protects industrial zoned lands but also provides connectivity for active transport links and supports improvements to streetscape and public realm to enhance livability.

 

Depending on the final outcome of the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor Council may wish to review the extent of the area of the SCH proposed to include properties along Railway Parade to the proposed entryway of Sydenham Station under the final Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Corridor strategy.

 

Nearby rezoning of industrial lands

 

The cumulative loss of industrial land will result in a deficit of industrial land in the Inner West LGA, and limit the scope for existing industrial enterprises in the area to grow and adapt. The loss of industrial floor space in nearby industrial precincts would mean that many existing uses would find it impractical to relocate to western Sydney and will cease trading or leave the region altogether. This would result in losses of industrial jobs, unique award winning businesses, specialist experience, world class creative enterprises and talent that cannot be offset by short term jobs in construction or longer term low value retail and leisure employment. Industrial zoned land in the Inner West LGA is under increasing threat to rezone them to retail and residential uses. Such rezonings have the potential to have long term growth and productivity implications.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Given the scope of changes relating to the size of the precinct and the recommended reduction in the additional uses proposed to be permitted in the precinct, it is considered that the amended planning proposal should be placed on exhibition for community consultation.

 

Funding would be required to facilitate the public exhibition of the amended proposal.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Feedback was sought from Council’s public domain planning team with regards to the SCH planning proposal. The SCH planning proposal will be supported by streetscape improvements proposed as part of the Marrickville Road East Streetscape Master Plan. Comments relating to the SCH proposal and impacts for the Streetscape Improvements Plan are included below:

 

Marrickville Road East Streetscape Improvements Plan

 

The Marrickville Road East Master Plan is occurring concurrently with the Sydenham Station Creative Hub Project.  The brief for the master plan has been to support existing uses, while planning for future development and increased pedestrian and bicycle activity particularly from the Marrickville Town Centre to the Sydenham Station area.

 

The former Marrickville Council adopted an updated Our Place, Our Vision – Marrickville Community Strategic Plan (CSP) with a vision that articulated the desired character of public spaces as:

 

“In 2023, Marrickville has innovative urban planning that protects the character and heritage of the area. Public spaces are enticing, clean and well maintained, lively and accessible, with a street life that connects the community and welcomes visitors. Industrial areas remain an important part of the local community, while high technology, creative and eco-enterprises thrive.”

 

The Master Plan aims to fulfil this vision along Marrickville Road East with the project undertaking extensive community and business engagement. The Master Plan responds to the results of that engagement.  The Plan includes elements including the following:

 

·    Provision of traffic calming measures along the street, to provide a safe street environment for users;

·    Planting of additional shade trees and general greening of the street;

·    Provision of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure including seating, bicycle lanes and bike racks;

·    Provision of additional and safer pedestrian crossings;

·    Upgrading and improvement to pedestrian pavements; and

·    Provision of better pedestrian lighting along the street.

 

The project is in the final draft stages with staff across Council disciplines reviewing the proposals.  The project is also being reviewed to ensure it meets operational and safety needs.  The next steps for the project include issuing the draft master plan to the Traffic Committee for approval, seeking Council endorsement for the plans and a final round of community and business engagement through a public exhibition process.  The timeframes for the master plan project finalization are not dependent on the Sydenham Station Creative Hub project.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The planning proposal was updated in accordance with the Gateway Determination conditions prior to community consultation. The updated planning proposal and associated documentation were placed on public exhibition from 16 June 2017 to 14 July 2017. The exhibition included:

 

a)   An updated planning proposal for Sydenham Creative Hub,

b)   A copy of the Gateway Determination,

c)   Maps of the precinct including existing and proposed key sites maps and proposed  land zoning map,

d)   Social Impact Assessment,

e)   Economic Impact Assessment,

f)    Proposed Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 amendments to Part 6.5 Creative Industries and Part 9.43 Sydney Steel Precinct,

g)   Council reports on the project from August 2015 and October 2016,

h)   Draft Creative Industries Policy for the precinct, and

i)    Draft Opportunities and Constraints of public domain improvements.

 

Consultation

 

Direct consultation was also completed with a number of stakeholders including:

 

·    Submitters to preliminary engagement on the project,

·    Business operators and landowners within the precinct and peripheral area,

·    Non-landowner residents within the precinct and peripheral area,

·    Patrons of venues, artists and performers, commuters and customers of businesses in the precinct, and

·    Government agencies listed in the gateway determination.

 

Responses to the consultation were categorized with regards to their level of support for the proposal. Council received 109 submissions in total and are summarized in the table below.

 

Table 1: Summary of Consultation submissions

Submission Category

Total received

Number with comments

Number without comments

Supportive without amendment

82

40

42

Supportive with changes to additional permitted uses within the IN1 General Industrial zoning

2

1

1

Supportive with changes to the boundaries of the precinct

3

3

0

Supportive with other changes

14

10

4

Not supportive

8

8

0

TOTAL

109

62

47

 

Those who indicated support of the proposal in its current form made comments on improving the amenity and safety of the public domain, support for night time activity in the precinct, opportunities for live music, improved of pedestrian safety and steady protection of existing industries and new uses. Many of the responses received in support of the current proposal did not include detailed comments or their reasons for support. Much of the feedback received that was supportive without amendment was from members of the public who resided outside of the area.

 

Feedback that challenged the current form of the Sydenham Creative Hub proposal requesting further changes or were not supportive of the proposal generally provided substantive reasoning for their stance, with a significant number of those submitters being based within the precinct, or in close proximity of the precinct. Council completed a series of information sessions with a number of those stakeholders in August-September 2016, however a number of their concerns remain unresolved by the proposal.

 

Submissions that were not supportive or requested further changes raised concerns relating to:

 

·    Whether the size and boundaries of the creative hub were suitable for the additional permitted uses proposed;

·    Traffic and safety concerns within the precinct (particularly around Sydenham Road) due to the heavy industrial related vehicle movements, pedestrian activity, parking availability and expanse of driveways and hardstand spaces;

·    Conflicting activities within the precinct (particularly at night) between factory and freight industrial uses and potential pedestrian safety related issues for local bar and restaurant consumers who may be intoxicated;

·    Loss of industrial space, employment lands and GDP output if existing industrial uses are competing for space with retail and business premises;

·    Uncertainty of vision for the precinct before the release of revised draft (and finalization) of the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Corridor Strategy; and

·    Displacement of traditional industrial uses in close proximity to Sydney Airport and Port Botany due to speculation of industrial land uses.

 

CONCLUSION

The appropriateness of the additional uses proposed to be permitted in the SCH and the extent of the area of the SCH were reviewed following the conclusion of the community consultation and the release of other strategic planning documents and reports.

 

The studies and consultation highlight the need for amendments to be made to the planning proposal to satisfy professional recommendations and community feedback. In light of the above it is considered that the planning proposal should not proceed in its current form.

 

To balance the concerns raised, changes need to be made to the planning proposal to delete the additional proposed use business and office premises relating to creative purposes’ and to reduce the size of the area to which the other proposed additional permitted uses “small bars, restaurants and cafes would apply.

 

In this regard it is recommended that the area be limited to properties fronting Marrickville Road between Railway Parade and Sydney Street and the 2 properties fronting Railway Parade between Marrickville Road and Buckley Lane (the properties 21-71 Marrickville Road and 101-103 Railway Parade, Marrickville respectively).

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Council Report - October 2016

2.

Gateway Determination - January 2017

3.

Sydenham Creative Hub: Economic Impact Analysis

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

Item No:         C1117 Item 5

Subject:         Amendments to Inner West DCP 2016 

Prepared By:     Con Colot - Senior Strategic Planner & Projects 

Authorised By:  Gill Dawson - Group Manager Strategic Planning

 

SUMMARY

This report advises on the public exhibition of amendments to “Comprehensive Inner West DCP 216 for Ashbury, Ashfield, Croydon, Croydon Park, Haberfield, Hurlstone Park and Summer Hill”. It recommends that Council endorse the amendments and give public notice of the adoption of the DCP amendments. 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.         Council note the contents of the report;

 

2.         The General Manager be authorised to make minor clerical amendments to the DCP amendments which do not change the content and intent of the document;

 

3.         In accordance with Part 3, Clause 21 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Regulation 2000, Council endorse and give public notice of the adoption of the amendments to Inner West Comprehensive DCP for Ashbury, Ashfield, Croydon, Croydon Park, Haberfield, Hurlstone Park and Summer Hill as shown at Attachment 1; and

 

4.         Council provide the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment a copy of the DCP amendments pursuant to Part 3, Clause 25 AB of EPA Act Regulation 2000.

 

 

 

 

1.0       Background

 

Council considered proposed amendments to the “Comprehensive Inner West DCP 216 for Ashbury, Ashfield, Croydon, Croydon Park, Haberfield, Hurlstone Park and Summer Hill”

(DCP 2016) and resolved on 25 July 2017 as follows:

 

1          Council support the amendments to the “Comprehensive Inner West DCP 2016 Ashbury, Ashfield, Croydon, Croydon Park, Haberfield, Hurlstone Park and Summer Hill” as indicated in this report and found in Attachment 1 for public exhibition;

 

2          Council place the draft amendments and supporting documents on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Act and Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (the Regulation) ;

 

3        The Interim General Manager be authorised to make minor amendments to the Draft DCP content as required for its exhibition that do not result in an significant policy changes, and

 

4        A post exhibition report be submitted for Council’s consideration.

 

 

“DCP 2016 “ applies to the area defined by the Ashfield LEP 2013, comprising of  the former Ashfield LGA.

 

Amendments to Draft DCP 2016 are contained in Attachment 1 and an overview is given in Part 2 below.  The documents  contain various explanatory notes and shaded parts that will be removed in the final version DCP document. 

 

2.0 Description of Amendments to “DCP 2016”

 

As advised in the report to Council on 25 July 2017 (Attachment 2) the amendments pertain to the following:

 

2.1          Section 1 Preliminary – Part B Notification and Advertising.

 

This part of the DCP 2016 makes several references to “Major Development Applications” and “Minor Development Applications”. The following definitions, which were previously contained in Ashfield DCP 2007, were omitted from the Inner West DCP 2016 and are required to be inserted in “Part B” of DCP 2016. 

 

Major Development Application: A major development application is defined as any of the following:

 

a)  the erection of new multi-unit residential development (i.e. townhouses, residential flat buildings, dual-occupancies).

b)  a home industry, hospital, place of public worship, public building, boarding house, child-care centre, professional consulting room, open space or educational establishment within a Residential R2 or R3 zone.

c)  total demolition of a heritage listed item, or a building, work, relic, tree or place within a heritage conservation area.

d)  partial demolition of a heritage listed item, or a building, work, relic or place within a heritage conservation area where such work involves the removal of more than 50% of the original fabric of the item, building, work relic or place or the removal of any portion of the original fabric (except where re-tuckpointing or pointing of the original masonry is involved) of the front façade of the item, building, work or relic.

e)  total demolition of a non-heritage listed building other than outbuildings or where approval for a new replacement building has already been given.

f)   the use of a building or land referred to in the LEP 2013 (ie where an application is made to carry out prohibited use on the basis that an incentive is needed for heritage conservation).

g)  other development which, in the opinion of Council, may have a major impact on the surrounding amenity, heritage conservation or character, particularly major new commercial or public buildings.

h)  subdivision not involving minor boundary adjustments (refer Clause 11(d)).

 

 

Minor Development Application: a development application which does not meet the criteria applicable to a ‘major’ application.

 

 

2.2       Chapter A – Adding reference to the Stormwater Management Policy

 

It is necessary to reference Stormwater Management Guidelines in a DCP. For example, the “Codes - State Environmental Planning Policy” for “Complying Development” and its part “3A.32 Drainage“ requires compliance with a Council DCP for stormwater disposal. This has been requested by the Council’s Stormwater Engineer, and is being done as an interim measure until a new Inner West wide Stormwater Management Code can be prepared and implemented in 2018.

 

The amendment exhibited therefore simply makes reference in “Section 2- Chapter A – Miscellaneous” to the “Ashfield – Stormwater Management Policy” as currently found in the Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013. This has been a longstanding code/policy used by Council’s engineers for the former Ashfield Council area.

 

 

2.3       Chapter E 1 – Heritage Conservation Area

 

There is typographical error for the semi-detached house at 12 Oak Street, Ashfield (contained within the Federal Fyle Conservation Area) which is shown as having a Ranking of “1” in the Character Statements, and as confirmed by Council’s Heritage adviser, the ranking should be a “2”.

 

 

2.4       Section 2, Chapter A - proposed new Part D- 2 Ashfield East

 

The location of the “Ashfield East” area is shown on the map below within the red outline. This area has amendments to the Land Use Zoning, Maximum Building Height and Maximum Floor Space Ratio maps which were gazetted on 11 November 2016 for Ashfield LEP 2013 - Amendment No 3. This created a B4 Mixed Use Zone and permits up to 5 storey mixed use developments. It was not possible at that time to add content for the “Ashfield East” area into the Inner West DCP 2016 since the DCP was adopted on 6 December 2016 by Council, and the “Ashfield East” DCP amendments had not  been  publicly exhibited.

 

 

Figure 1 – Extract Ashfield LEP 2013 – Zoning Map. “Ashfield East” area is within the red boundary.

 

Draft Part D-2 is necessary to have in place to provide DCP controls for the “Ashfield East” area. It has been laid out to follow the structure of Inner West DCP 2016, which is divided into columns for “Performance Criteria” and corresponding “Design Solutions”. It covers various key or place specific issues including:  

 

-    ensuring that the front presentation along Liverpool Road has deep soil planting areas for establishment of tall trees and responding to the Ashfield Council Public Domain Plan 2014

-    there is a consistent building setback along Liverpool Road, with an adequate front building setback provided to accommodate space for large tree planting and their canopies, and so have a “green” foreground setting

-    apartment internal room layout design will be in a form that mitigates noise impacts from Liverpool road – for “healthy living”

-    adequately sized communal open space areas are provided and in positions which receive adequate winter solar access by having lowered buildings heights in key locations

-    defines maximum number of storeys which complies with the maximum height restrictions of the Ashfield LEP 2013

-    incorporates the Road and Maritime Services requirements (submitted with the previous Planning Proposal to upzone the land ) which limits the extent of vehicular access to the development sites from Liverpool Road

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.5 Section 2 Chapter D – proposed new Part 12 – 55 to 63 Smith Street, Summer Hill

 

Draft Part 12 was also included in the exhibition as a result of the Council resolution in 27 June  2017 shown below. This was as part of considering a report for the gazettal of the amendment to the Ashfield LEP 2013 for 55 – 63 Smith Street (to allow more employment uses), and this report included the draft DCP which provides site specific guidelines to address concerns raised by people making submissions on the LEP amendment.  The Council resolution was as follows:

 

5.    Site specific Draft Development Control Plan contained in Attachment 5 be incorporated into the exhibition of future amendments to the “Inner West Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2016 Ashbury, Ashfield, Croydon, Croydon Park, Haberfield, Hurlstone Park and Summer Hill”.

 

Key provisions of Draft D - 12 are:

 

-     any future development application for any of the various separate building occupancies on the site will need to document the building operations for the entire site to ensure that the requirements of a DCP 2016 are holistically met, such as car parking and servicing. 

-     no nuisance caused to adjacent residential properties, including controlling hours of operation, and noise attenuation.

-     locating employee car parking on site.

-     locating vehicular deliveries on site.

-     provision on site of waste storage areas.

-     improvement of the current building appearance and enhancement of the historic streetscape which is adjacent Heritage Conservation Areas.

 

 

3.0       Public Exhibition of draft amendments to DCP 2016.

 

3.1 Exhibition Actions

 

In accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act the following mandatory procedures were carried out:

 

-    the Draft DCP 2016 amendments were placed on public exhibition for a minimum 28 days from Tuesday 5 September 2017 until Tuesday 3 October 2017. 

 

-    an advertisement placed in the local newspaper, including advising of the places, dates, and times for inspection and making written submissions on the draft amendments, and information on Council’s “ Your Say” webpage.

 

-    paper copies of the Draft DCP provided at Ashfield Customer Service counter plus ancillary documents, including current DCP 2016, and Ashfield LEP 2013. 

 

In addition to the above, the following was carried out:

 

-    Council’s “Your Say Inner West” web page highlighted the draft DCP 2016 exhibition, provided a link to the amendments, and maintained a record of visitations to the website. 

 

3.2          Response to amendments to DCP 2016.

 

Pursuant to Section 21 of the EPA Regulation, Clause 21, Council is required to consider submissions made on the Draft Comprehensive DCP exhibition, as part of determining whether to adopt the amendments.

 

On Council’s “Your Say” webpage, there were 75 visitations and 61 downloads of DCP content during the exhibition period, with no submissions made. No separate written submissions were received by Council.

 

The absence of written submissions can likely be attributed  to affected members of the public already having been familiar with the “Ashfield East” and 55- 63 Smith Street DCP parts since they were exhibited in working draft form  with the previous LEP amendments pertaining to those sites. Also, the other remaining DCP amendments are minor in nature. 

 

4.0          Procedures for bringing the Draft Amendment to DCP 2016 into force.

 

Pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Regulations 2000, Part 3- Development Control Plans, the following procedures must be carried out to bring the amendments to DCP 2016 into force: 

 

-      Council must resolve to approve the plan

 

-      Notice is given in the local newspaper within 28 days of Council’s resolution, declaring that Council has adopted the DCP amendments.

 

-      A copy of the amended DCP 2016 must be given to the “Secretary” of the State Department of Planning and Environment

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Refer to Part 3 of this report.

 

CONCLUSION

The Draft Comprehensive DCP for Ashbury, Ashfield, Croydon, Croydon Park, Haberfield, Hurlstone Park and Summer Hill (DCP 2016) as found in Attachment 1 has completed its public exhibition, with no submissions or objections received.

 

It is now necessary for Council to resolve to adopt the amendments to DCP 2016 for the reasons stated in the report, which upon notification in the local newspaper will bring them into force under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as a “matter for consideration” under Section 79C  when dealing with Development Applications. 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Attachment 1- Draft DCP Amendments

2.

Attachment 2- 25 July 17 Council report

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

Item No:         C1117 Item 6

Subject:         469-483 Balmain Road, Lilyfield - Planning Proposal   

Prepared By:     Svetlana Kotevska - Executive Strategic Planner 

Authorised By:  Gill Dawson - Group Manager Strategic Planning

 

SUMMARY

The Roche Group Pty Ltd requested a Rezoning Review for a Planning Proposal with the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) to amend Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2013 to add an additional permitted use for residential accommodation to the IN2 - Light Industrial zoning of the site at 469 – 483 Balmain Road, Lilyfield. The Planning Proposal also seeks to introduce new development standards for building heights up to 6 storeys with a Floor Space Ratio of 2.54:1. The Planning Proposal would retain 6,000sqm of light industrial floor space and provide 142 apartments.

 

The Rezoning Review was considered by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel (the Panel) on the 12 October 2017 who determined that the Planning Proposal should proceed to Gateway subject to a number of concerns being considered including land use conflicts between industrial and residential uses and the rationale for the proposed building height and Floor Space Ratio. The Panel has invited Council to be the Relevant Planning Authority (RPA) for this proposal and has requested that Council advise in writing within 42 days of its letter if it would like to be the Relevant Planning Authority (RPA) for this matter.

 

It is recommended that Council resolve to accept the role of RPA and advises the Panel accordingly. The role of RPA will enable Council to manage the Gateway process more closely and better influence the final outcomes of the Planning Proposal.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

 

1.       Receive and note this report;

 

2.       Accepts the role of Relevant Planning Authority for the Planning Proposal at 469 – 483 Balmain Road, Lilyfield;

 

3.       Request the Department of Planning and Environment delegate to Council the Plan Making functions to make the LEP amendment; and

 

4.       Submits the Proponent’s Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The site is 6,823sqm and provides large floor plates for an existing furniture warehouse (Sounds Like Home), an aluminum door/window manufacturer, an import business as well as artist studios, photography and jewellery businesses. The industrial floor space supports valuable urban services for the local population and businesses and accommodates 26 employees and 50 artists.

 

The Planning Proposal was submitted to Council on the 16 December 2016 requesting the following amendments to LLEP 2013

·        rezoning from IN2 – Light Industrial to B4 - Mixed Use;

·        increasing the Floor Space Ratio from 1:1 to 2.3:1 (170 residential units); and

·        a range of building heights from 15 metres to 31 metres in several 1 to 9 storey buildings.

 

An amended Planning Proposal was submitted on the 21 June 2017, refer to ATTACHMENT 1 for:

·        retention of the IN2 - Light Industrial zoning;

·        6,000sqm of flexible employment industrial/office floor space including 400sqm for art studios and an 80sqm neighbourhood shop;

·        an additional permitted use for residential accommodation through a local provision;

·        an increase of building heights up to 6 storeys across the site;

·        an increase in Floor Space Ratio from 1:1 to 2.54:1;

·        residential gross floor area of 11,325sqm facilitating 142 apartments;

·        185 car parking spaces; and

·        provision of 5% affordable housing.

 

On 25 August 2017 Council received notification that a Rezoning Review application for the Planning Proposal had been submitted to the DPE and that Council had 21 days to respond. Council made a submission dated 15 September 2017 to the DPE including an assessment of the merits of the Planning Proposal, refer to ATTACHMENT 2.

 

A detailed timeline of the current Planning Proposal and two previous 2005 and 2012 Planning Proposals lodged for this site is provided at ATTACHMENT 3.  

 

On 12 October 2017, the Panel considered the Planning Proposal and found it demonstrated both strategic and site specific merit and should proceed to Gateway, refer to Panels letter and record of decision at ATTACHMENT 4 and ATTACHMENT 5. The Panel required the further exploration of the compatibility of use between industrial and residential uses. The Panel also recommended that the delegate amend the planning proposal to:

 

1.       “Include a provision that enables residential development to occur on the site subject to meeting objectives which include but are not limited to:

 

a. retain the viability of industrial uses on the site; and

b. no detrimental impact on the uses (current or future) on the adjoining IN2 zoned land.

 

2.       Ensure a rationale for the height, floor space ratio, and building massing and modulation for the site is prepared and exhibited with the planning proposal.

 

3.       Ensure mechanisms are provided for creative employment space.

 

4.       Retain the two buildings on the site which have historical importance.

 

5.       A site specific development control plan is prepared in accordance with clause 6.14 Development control plans for certain development of Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013.”

 

Subsequent to the above, Council received a letter on 16 October 2017 inviting Council to be the RPA for this planning proposal and to advise the Planning Panel Secretariat of its decision within 42 days, refer to ATTACHMENT 4.

RATIONAL FOR WHY COUNCIL SHOULD BE THE RELEVANT PLANNING AUTHORITY

 

The RPA can play a more active role in influencing the final outcome for this Proposal. The RPA can negotiate on behalf of the community to improve the final design and development standards. It can also reference the planning principles for the site established during the 2007 community consultation.

 

If Council is not the RPA the Panel will be the RPA and it cannot be a party to a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA). Council as RPA can reach a VPA for community benefits such as affordable housing, protection of historical buildings, retention of creative artist studio spaces, creation of a pedestrian through site link and a 5 Green Star rated sustainable development.

 

If Council is not the RPA and the DPE is nominated as the RPA, there is a risk that DPE may not amend the Planning Proposal or negotiate with the proponent to address any concerns raised during community consultation, as was the case with the Lords Road Planning proposal. This is considered an unacceptable risk.

 

This report recommends submitting the Proponent’s June 2017 Planning Proposal for a Gateway Determination and at the same time setting out the issues with the Proposal that should be addressed by the Gateway process. These issues are summarised below.

 

The role of RPA will not compromise Council’s ability to support or not support the Planning Proposal.

 

Key Issues with the planning proposal

An assessment of the proposal against relevant strategic policies and on its merits has been undertaken. This is detailed in Council submission to the DPE dated 15 September 2017 (refer to ATTACHMENT 2).  In brief the key issues are:

 

·    Land Use Conflicts

·    Height, FSR and bulk and scale

·    Creative Artists studio space

 

(i)      Land Use Conflicts

 

The Planning Proposal has not satisfactorily addressed how the proposed design and operation of the development would integrate industrial and residential uses to avoid land use conflicts. The concern is that the proposed 6,000sqm of industrial floor space could not be readily used for industrial activities because of inherent potential conflicts with the occupants of the proposed residential apartments. The residential accommodation could also hinder the role and function of the wider industrial precinct that currently supports 23 businesses. This concern of Council Officers was also shared by the Panel who stated:

 

“The Panel supports the protection of the existing amount of industrial floor space (min. 6,000sqm) on the site and any residential use of the site must be designed to ensure the viability of this industrial use”.

 

Retention of this zone and 6,000sqm light industrial floor space in one of the few remaining light industrial land precincts in the former Leichhardt LGA would however ensure that there was no net loss of industrial floor space. The site is almost 40% of the Balmain Road industrial precinct and future uses of the site will have an impact on the role and function of the remainder of the area. It is critical that potential land use conflicts are avoided and minimised.

 

If a favourable Gateway Determination is issued it should therefore address access, operating hours, uses and separation, noise, amenity and impact on the broader industrial precinct.

 

(ii)      Urban design, height, FSR and bulk and scale

 

A detailed urban design report and concept plans accompanied by a site specific Development Control Plan that meets the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Residential Flat Design Code (SEPP 65) and the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) are required to determine compatibility with the character and residential amenity of the area and whether the proposed development standards of height and FSR are acceptable.

 

The Proposal’s height, bulk and scale and the FSR of 2.54:1 are incompatible with the low density character of the area, adjacent Local and State Heritage Items and heritage significant buildings on site.

 

(iii)     Creative Artists studio space

 

The proposed 400m² of art studio space is insufficient given that currently part of the site accommodates 50 artists and has consent for 1,200sqm of studio space. This 400m² needs to be increased to support the creative uses on site and to be consistent with State and Local policies that aim to protect arts and culture.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The proponent has paid the Council’s Stage 1 - Planning Proposal fee and the SGS peer review already completed. The proponent must also pay for any further Council’s peer reviews of new supporting studies or additional independent studies should these be deemed necessary.

 

The Proponent has also submitted an offer to enter into a VPA. The revised VPA offer will be the subject of evaluation and negotiation with the proponent. The final terms of the offer can be finalised after a Gateway determination and prior to the final determination of the Planning Proposal. Matters for consideration could include affordable housing, public domain improvements, sustainability initiatives, retention of affordable artist studios and protection of the significant heritage character buildings.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

No public consultation has been undertaken to date.

 

Statutory public consultation processes will be undertaken at the next stage in the assessment of the planning proposal. This process would be administered by Council whether it accepts the RPA role or not.

 

Council’s standard community engagement framework includes exhibition for at least 28 days with notification:

 

·        on the Inner West Council Your Say website

·        in the Inner West Courier

·        in writing to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby properties

 

The outcomes of the public authority consultation and public exhibition would be reported to Council.

 

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council write to the Panel and accept the role of RPA to give it more influence over the Planning Proposal and final design and planning outcomes, seek delegation of the plan making function and submit the proponent’s Planning Proposal request.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Planning Proposal With Addendum : 469 - 483 Balmain Road, Lilyfield

2.

Letter to Department of Planning and Environment Councils submission on Rezoning Review request

3.

History and timeline of Current and Previous Planning Proposals for this Site

4.

Letter from Panel to Council advising of Panel decision

5.

Record of Panels Decision 12 October 2017

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

HISTORY

The landowners Roche Group Pty Ltd have submitted two previous Planning Proposals to rezone the site to a mixed use zone with residential development as outlined in the Table below.

 

Previous Planning Proposals

August 2005

Planning Committee meeting considered a report where the Proponent’s consultants proposed three (3) options for the site:

1.   retain the industrial zoning, retrofit the existing building with FSR of 2.9:1

2.   rezoning for residential

3.   rezoning for mixed use at FSR of 2.6:1 with buildings between 5 to 7 storeys and total GFA of 17,751sqm

The Planning Committee (PC05/41) resolved that the report be received and noted; precinct and local area briefings and a separate Councillor briefing be organised prior to any endorsement regarding the usage of the site and the applicant is to fund a public briefing and notification. Further, the ordinary Council meeting resolved (373/05) that:

·  Council does not intend to rezone this site

·  Staff advise Roche Group the owners that the concept plans for a mixed use development which would require rezoning would not be given in principle approval

·  Council develop strategic planning guidelines for the precinct

·  Council in consultation with residents, businesses and landholders develops planning guidelines for the site to inform a DA to Council

·  Council conduct a public meeting to inform the planning guidelines

The community response to the public meeting was reported to the November 2005 Planning Committee meeting (PC05/67) noting no rezoning was supported and the site should be heritage listed and artists’ studios retained. It was resolved that Council establish a resident reference group to work in detail with Council to establish planning guidelines

14 June  2007

A report to Councils Planning Committee for the former bakery site (DA00/0511) set planning and development principles for the site following community consultation with a resident reference group. Council adopted 9 design principles which any new proposal would need to respond to before it would consider any proposed changes to existing industrial zoned land. This included Principle 2 – Land Use “Any future development must maintain or increase employment for industrial purposes” and Principle 7 – site/block permeability. A heritage assessment and character study had also been prepared dated July 2006

3 July 2012

Council considered a report on a new Planning Proposal to rezone the site from industrial to a B2 – Local Centre business zone including 4200m² for employment (retail and business) and 89 residential units. The Proposal was based on an indicative concept design informed by the 9 design principles from 2007 and had an FSR of 2:1, through site links east-west and north-south. Council resolved to defer consideration of Proposal until Leichhardt Employment and Economic Development Plan would be adopted in 2013

 

Current Planning Proposal – timeline

15 August 2016

Pre-Planning Proposal submission meeting with Council officers regarding the specialist reports that would be required to support a rezoning request

September 2016

Pre lodgement draft Planning Proposal accompanied by an Economic Impact Assessment and urban design report submitted on behalf of the owner Roche Group Pty Ltd

14 October 2016

Councils response raised 18 points of concern and questions particularly regarding the loss of industrial land and the proponents Economic Impact Assessment

4 Nov 2016

The proponent submitted a partial response to Councils queries

9 December 2016

Council letter reiterated most of the initial concerns and requested additional information including survey plans and architectural drawings (indicative floor plans, apartment design layouts)

16 December 2016

Planning Proposal formally lodged after meeting with Council officers and an undertaking by proponent to provide additional supporting information before Christmas 2016

14 February 2017

Additional information requested by Council submitted including further economic justification, concept design diagrams and details addressing the strategic policy context

21 Feb 2017

Design diagrams, elevations and details of compliance with the Apartment Design Guide submitted

22 March 2017

Social Impact Assessment submitted to Council

29 March 2017

Voluntary Planning Agreement letter of offer submitted to Council

 

17 May 2017

Meeting between Council officers, Roche Group and their design and planning consultants

26 May 2017

Proponents submitted an outline of a revised concept Planning Proposal

 

6 June 2017

Council letter in response to the new concept Planning Proposal outlined the need to retain the IN2 industrial zone and floor space, in principle height of no more than 6 storeys, provide greater setbacks and information to be updated in a revised Planning Proposal

21 June 2017

Proponents submitted a revised Planning Proposal Economic Impact Assessment, Transport assessment, supplementary urban design concept block plans, VPA offer and a supporting letter

25 June 2017

Proponent submitted revised Planning Proposal document

22 August 2017

Proponent submitted a request for a Rezoning Review with the Department of Planning and Environment

25 August

2017

Letter to Council from the Department of Planning and Environment advising of the Proponents Rezoning Review request and requiring a submission within 21 days

15 September

2017

Council wrote to the Department of Planning and Environment outlining its concerns with the Planning Proposal and recommending it is rejected

12 October

2017

Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel (the Panel) met with Council, the Proponent and Department of Planning staff on the 12 October 2017 and determined that the Planning Proposal should proceed to gateway subject to conditions.

16 October

2017

Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel (the Panel) letter to Council inviting Council to be the Relevant Planning Authority (RPA) for this proposal (refer to Attachment 2) and advising that a Planning Proposal would need to be submitted 42 days after nominating to be the RPA.

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

Item No:         C1117 Item 7

Subject:         466-480 New Canterbury Road, 26-38 Hercules Street, Dulwich Hill - Planning Proposal 

 

Prepared By:     Harjeet Atwal - Planning Operations Manager 

Authorised By:  Gill Dawson - Group Manager Strategic Planning

 

SUMMARY

Angus Developments Pty Ltd requested a Rezoning Review for a Planning Proposal with the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) to amend Marrickville Local Environmental Plan (MLEP) 2011 to rezone land from IN2 - Light Industrial at 466 - 480 New Canterbury Road and 26 - 38 Hercules Street, Dulwich Hill to permit residential, employment and open space. The planning proposal also seeks new development standards for building height and Floor Space Ratio.

 

The Rezoning Review was considered by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel (the Panel) on the 12 October 2017 who determined that the Planning Proposal should proceed to Gateway as the proposal demonstrated both strategic and site specific merit. The Panel has invited Council to be the Relevant Planning Authority (RPA) for this proposal and has requested that Council advise in writing within 42 days of its letter if it would like to be the Relevant Planning Authority (RPA) for this matter.

 

It is recommended that Council resolve to accept the role of RPA and advises the Panel accordingly. The role of RPA will enable Council to manage and influence the outcomes of the Planning Proposal as well as the process including community consultation. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

 

1.       Receive and note this report;

 

2.       Accepts the role of Relevant Planning Authority for the Planning Proposal at 466-480 New Canterbury Road & 26-38 Hercules Street, Dulwich Hill;

 

3.       Request the Department of Planning and Environment delegate to Council the Plan Making functions to make the LEP amendment; and

 

4.       Submits the Proponent’s Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

On 27 July 2016, Council received a Planning Proposal to amend the MLEP 2011 by:

 

·        Amending the zoning from IN2 Light Industrial to RE1 Public Recreation for the proposed public open space link along the western edge of the site and public open space pocket park on the south-eastern corner of the site, and to B5 Business Development for the remaining land;

·        Including a Clause 22 in Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses of MLEP 2011 to permit residential flat buildings throughout the B5 Business Development zone, and neighbourhood shops limited to the north-western corner of the site;

·        Amending the height of building (HoB) development standard from no height identified to a mixture of 20 metres, 23 metres and 32 metres, and retaining no HoB control for the area relating to the proposed open spaces and the church; and

·        Amending the floor space ratio (FSR) development standard from 0.95:1 FSR to a mixture of 2.2:1, 3.0:1 and 3.3:1 for the mixed use component, 1.2:1 for the church, and no FSR identified for the proposed public open space pocket park on the south-eastern corner of the site.

 

These changes would enable approximately 156 units and 4 commercial/retail tenancies and the following built form and open space development:

 

·        A built form generally massed to the site edges and provision of a shared central communal open space courtyard;

·        5 storey mixed use development along New Canterbury Road, with retention of the 4 x 2 storey shop facades near Kintore Street corner and ground floor non-residential use (with retail limited to the north-western corner of the site);

·        8 storey, part 9 storey for a minor part fronting Hercules Street, ‘landmark’ mixed use building massed to the western side of the site adjacent to the light rail/GreenWay corridor, but setback 6 to 8 metres, and setback a minimum of 7.5 metres from the New Canterbury Road boundary;

·        5 storey residential flat building in the central part of Kintore Street side of the site;

·        5 storey, part 6 storey for a minor part fronting Hercules Street, residential flat building in the central part of Hercules Street fronting side of the site;

·        Retention and alteration of the Greek Orthodox Church of the Holy Unmercenaries at 28 Hercules Street;

·        Public open spaces, consisting of a pocket park on the corner of Hercules and Kintore Street and a strip of land adjacent to the light rail corridor connecting Hercules Street and New Canterbury Road; and

·        Basement car park accommodating 29 spaces, with entrance off the middle of the Kintore Street frontage and an additional basement car park accommodating 137 spaces, with entrance off the middle of the Hercules Street frontage.

 

The Planning Proposal was considered by the Administrator at the 25 July 2017 Council meeting as Item No. C0717 Item 12. The Council report prepared by Council Officers, refer to ATTACHMENT 1 considered at the Council meeting recommended R4 High Density Residential zone for land fronting Hercules Street, RE2 Public Recreation zone for 28 Hercules Street and any of the land proposed to be zoned RE1 Public Recreation should Council agree not to take ownership and recommended modifications to HOB development standards with corresponding changes to FSR development standards.

 

The Administrator resolved at the Council meeting that Council defer consideration of the Planning Proposal until the final Sydenham to Bankstown Corridor Urban Renewal Strategy was adopted and this position be conveyed to the DPE for its consideration in relation to any Rezoning Review Application.

 

On 14 August 2017, the proponent lodged a Rezoning Review Application with the DPE. The proposal lodged was the same as the proponent’s proposal considered at the 25 July 2017 Council meeting.

 

On 12 October 2017, the Panel considered the Planning Proposal and found it demonstrated both strategic and site specific merit and should proceed to Gateway. The Panel also recommended that the delegate amend the planning proposal to:

 

1.       “Incorporate Inner West Council’s staff recommendations detailed in its report on the planning proposal to the Council meeting of 25 July 2017 (Item CO717 Item 12).

 

2.       Ensure an active street frontage to New Canterbury Road;

 

3.       Create opportunities for the retention of existing and new employment uses on the site;

 

4.       Provide a through site link that supports Council’s Greenway Strategy;

 

5.       Include a flexible provision enabling the variation of different zoning height and floor space ratio mapping controls across the site by up to 1 metre horizontally; and

 

6.       The 1 metre variation not apply to the open space.”

 

Subsequent to the above, Council received a letter on 16 October 2017 (note – The Panel’s letter incorrectly dates the letter as 16 November 2017) inviting Council to be the RPA for this planning proposal and to advise the Planning Panel Secretariat of its decision within 42 days. Refer to ATTACHMENT 2 and ATTACHMENT 3 for Panel’s record of decision and letter. 

 

RATIONALE FOR COUNCIL AS THE RELEVANT PLANNING AUTHORITY

While the former Inner West Council Administrator resolved to defer consideration of the Planning Proposal pending a final Sydenham to Bankstown Corridor Urban Renewal Strategy, it was recommended by Council Officers that the Planning Proposal proceed to Gateway determination subject to various changes to the zoning, HOB and FSR developments standards. 

 

The Sydenham to Bankstown Corridor Urban Renewal Strategy was recently re-exhibited and is not final. The land uses and densities have not changed for the subject land between the 2 exhibited draft documents which indicate an 8 storey form for purely residential development next to the Dulwich Hill light rail station and near to the Dulwich Hill public school.

 

At the 24 October 2017 Council meeting Item No. C1017 Item 21 – Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor Strategy Submission was considered. Council resolved that there should be a maximum building height of 5-6 storeys alongside Dulwich Hill light rail station, and that any Planning Proposal on the subject land should seek to protect Dulwich Hill public school from overshadowing and privacy impacts.  

 

To ensure Council maintains an active role in influencing the final outcome on the site it is recommended that Council accept the RPA role for this matter.  As RPA Council will have greater ability to negotiate on behalf of the community in seeking to achieve the best possible outcome on the site.

 

Council Officers have worked collaboratively with the proponent to achieve a better design and community benefit which are detailed in the Council report of 25 July 2017. This continuity of Council knowledge and input should be leveraged to ensure high quality urban design and public domain outcomes.

 

If the DPE is nominated as the RPA, we risk a situation similar to the Lords Road Planning Proposal where the DPE did not amend the Planning Proposal or negotiate to address concerns raised during community consultation.

 

Council may also miss the opportunity for a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) as was the case with Lords Road. Likely community benefits are affordable housing, open space provision and embellishment, retention of historical buildings and creation of a pedestrian through site link.

 

This report recommends submitting the Proponent’s Planning Proposal for a Gateway Determination and recommending amendments in accordance with Council’s Officers report considered at the 25 July 2017 Council meeting. It is noted as RPA, Council can only submit the Planning Proposal that the Proponent lodged with the Rezoning Review application to Gateway.

 

Consequently, the role of RPA will not compromise Council’s ability to support or not support the Planning Proposal.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The Proponent has submitted an offer to enter into a VPA. The revised VPA offer will be the subject of evaluation and negotiation with the proponent.

 

The final terms of the offer can be finalised after a Gateway Determination and prior to the final determination of the Planning Proposal. Matters for consideration could include affordable housing, open space provision and public domain improvements.

 

With Council as the RPA there will be a greater capacity to negotiate positive benefits for the community.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

No public consultation has been undertaken to date.

 

Statutory public consultation processes will be undertaken at the next stage in the assessment of the planning proposal. This process would be administered by Council whether it accepts the RPA role or not.

 

Council’s standard community engagement framework includes exhibition for at least 28 days with notification:

 

·        on the Inner West Council Your Say website

·        in the Inner West Courier

·        in writing to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby properties

 

The outcomes of the public authority consultation and public exhibition would be reported to Council.

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council write to the Planning Panel Secretariat and accept the role of RPA to give it more influence over the Planning Proposal and final design and planning outcomes, seek delegation of the plan making function and submit the proponent’s Planning Proposal request.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Item No. C0717 Item 12 - Council Officer Report for Planning Proposal considered at 25 July 2017 Council Meeting

2.

Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel Record of Decision

3.

Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel Letter to Council Inviting to be RPA

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

Item No:         C1117 Item 8

Subject:         Victoria Road Precinct Planning Proposal  

Prepared By:     Peter Wotton - Strategic Planning Projects Coordinator  

Authorised By:  Gill Dawson - Group Manager Strategic Planning

 

SUMMARY

Council officers have received advice from officers from the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) that the gazettal of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Amendment No. 14) relating to the Victoria Road Precinct in Marrickville is imminent.

 

Council officers were provided a copy of the draft written instrument amendment and accompanying mapping amendments from the DPE and were given less than one week to provide comments back to the DPE.

 

The planning proposal has clearly not been amended to address the matters raised in the report considered by the Inner West Council’s Administrator at the Council meeting held on 27 June 2017 and it is understood that matters raised in the Roads and Maritime Services’ objection to the proposal are yet to be resolved.

 

The draft amendment proposed by the DPE is essentially leaving the assessment of the appropriateness of the subject planning proposal to a later stage. The draft amendment lacks certainty for controlling future development in the Victoria Road Precinct and effectively leaves the determination of fundamental impacts, such as upgrading of road networks, transport connections, traffic, amenity, heritage, etc. of the planning proposal to a later date. Such an approach is considered totally irresponsible and would not lead to good planning outcomes.

 

Apart from the issues raised above, the draft amendment has serious funding and resourcing implications for the Inner West Council. With such serious implications, and the fact that proposal has not been amended to address the issues previously raised by the Council, the report recommends, a number of actions, including that the DPE defer finalisation of the draft amendment for the Victoria Road Precinct and convene an urgent meeting with the Inner West Council.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The Department of Planning and Environment be advised that:

 

i.          Council is strongly opposed to the proposed draft amendment as it essentially leaves the assessment of the appropriateness of the subject planning proposal to a later stage, including the determination of many fundamental and substantive matters;

ii.         The draft amendment lacks certainty for controlling future development in the Victoria Road Precinct and would not lead to good planning outcomes; and

iii.        Council contends that the gazettal of the draft amendment would be totally irresponsible and a clear dereliction of the Department of Planning and Environment’s duties and responsibilities and contrary to the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in that it would not encourage:

 

a)   the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land”; or

b)   the provision of land for public purposes”; or

c)   the provision and co-ordination of community services and facilities”; or

d)   the provision and maintenance of affordable housing

in the Victoria Road Precinct.

 

2.   Council request the Department of Planning and Environment defer finalisation of the draft amendment to Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 for the Victoria Road Precinct and convene an urgent meeting with the Inner West Council as the draft amendment has serious funding and resourcing implications for the Council;

 

3.   If the planning proposal is to proceed as currently proposed Council seek funding from the Department of Planning and Environment for the preparation of a development control plan it is required to prepare for the area under proposed draft amendment Clause 6.17 (3);

 

4.   If the planning proposal is to proceed Council seek funding from the Department of Planning and Environment for the preparation of a Section 94/94A Contributions Plan for the Victoria Road Precinct;

 

5.   The Department of Planning and Environment be advised that if the planning proposal is to be gazetted Council insists that the amendment does not come into effect until the required DCP and Section 94/94A Contributions Plan for the Victoria Road Precinct have been prepared;

 

6.   In light of the decision to rezone a significant amount of industrial zoned land in the Marrickville-Sydenham Industrial precinct, which in other Gateway Determination Reports, the Department of Planning and Environment has stated is strategically significant industrial land, and current planning proposals in the Council area which seek to rezone industrial areas to permit other forms of development (including residential), the Department of Planning and Environment be requested to clarify the approach to be taken for planning proposals relating to the conversion of industrial and urban services land; and

 

7.   That the Department of Planning and Environment be requested to provide a copy of their Post Gateway Assessment report on the planning proposal to assist Council in advising the community of the outcome of the planning proposal.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Victoria Road Precinct planning proposal relates to approximately half the area of Precinct 47 as defined under Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (MDCP 2011) and includes nearly 18 hectares of land.

 

Precinct 47 is an irregular shape and is generally bounded by:

 

·      Addison Road

·      Fitzroy Street

·      Sydenham Road

·      Shepherd and Farr Streets.

 

The following diagram shows Precinct 47 under MDCP 2011 (outlined with red dotted line) and the area within the precinct to which the planning proposal relates (outlined with thick black line):

 

 

The land forms part of the Sydenham/Marrickville industrial lands and the majority of the land proposed to be rezoned in the planning proposal is currently zoned IN1 General Industrial under Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (MLEP 2011).

 

The planning proposal seeks to rezone the industrial zoned land to a mix of:

 

·    R3 Medium Density Residential – land on the western side of Farr Street;

·    R4 High Density Residential – being the majority of the block bounded by Victoria Road, Sydenham Road, Farr Street and Marrickville Public School;

·    B4 Mixed Use – land on the eastern and western sides of Victoria Road near the intersection with Sydenham Road; and

·    B5 Business Development for all other land to which the planning proposal relates.

 

A report on the Planning Proposal was last considered by Council on 27 June 2017 (C0617 Item 5). A copy of that report is attached as ATTACHMENT 1.

 

In dealing with the matter Council’s Administrator determined that:

 

“Council forwards the Victoria Road Planning Proposal to the Minister for Planning indicating its support for the Proposal subject to:

 

1.   resolution of matters the subject of an unresolved objection from the Roads and Maritime Service;

2.   there is to be no change to the existing IN1 – General Industrial zoning on the south eastern side of Victoria Road. This land forms part of the core Sydenham / Marrickville Industrial Area and should be preserved in line with the recommendations of the Marrickville Employment Lands Study and subsequent Review. Council will further consider its position subject to review of the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor Strategy;

3.   with the exception of the properties on the north western side of Farr Street to be zoned R3 – Medium Density Residential, no properties in the precinct are to be zoned residential; the Danias Timbers Site / Timber Yards Sub-precinct to be zoned B4 – Mixed Use (along Victoria Road and Sydenham Road) and B7 – Business Park (for the remainder of the sub-precinct) with an appropriate mix of employment and residential uses to be provided via site specific provision. The remainder of the precinct northwest of Victoria Road and north of Chalder Street to be zoned B5 – Business Development;

4.   any intersection upgrade works necessitated by the planning proposal cannot require the acquisition of parts of Wicks Park or properties outside the area covered by the planning proposal;

5.   the planning proposal must adequately deal with infrastructure planning, funding and delivery (including any required property acquisitions) in consultation with Council;

6.   the planning proposal must reflect the urban design and built form recommendations provided by Rod Simpson and Council’s Architectural Excellence Panel;

7.   affordable housing being provided in accordance with the requirements of the Inner West Council Affordable Housing Policy;

8.   the planning proposal cannot result in the loss of any existing areas of public open space and adequate new additional areas of public open space must be provided to service the new resident and worker population (e.g. an expansion and embellishment of Wicks Park);

9.   the planning proposal must provide suitable mechanisms to deliver the new laneways and road connections required to service the rezoning and stated vision for the Victoria Road corridor; and

10. the planning proposal must adequately deal with identified potential heritage.”

 

DISCUSSION

 

Council officers have received advice from officers from the DPE that the gazettal of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Amendment No. 14) relating to the Victoria Road Precinct in Marrickville is imminent.

 

Officers were provided a copy of the draft written instrument amendment and accompanying mapping amendments from the DPE and were given less than one week to provide comments back to the DPE.

 

A copy of the draft written instrument provided to Council officers is attached as ATTACHMENT 2.

 

Council officers provided comments back to the DPE on 7 November 2017. A copy of those comments are attached as ATTACHMENT 3.

 

The planning proposal has clearly not being amended to address the matters raised in the report considered by the Inner West Council’s Administrator at the Council meeting held on 27 June 2017 and it is understood that matters raised in the Roads and Maritime Services’ objection to the proposal are yet to be resolved.

 

The draft amendment includes a provision requiring a development control plan (DCP) to be prepared for the land that provides for a number of matters. In doing so it is contended that the draft amendment lacks certainty for controlling future development in the Victoria Road Precinct and effectively leaves the determination of fundamental impacts, such as upgrading of road networks, transport connections, traffic, amenity, heritage, etc. of the planning proposal to a later date. The draft amendment essentially locks in increased heights and densities (FSR and HOB controls) on the assumption that a DCP will be capable of being formulated to address matters including:

 

“(d)    the management and mitigation of the impacts of the development on the amenity of the neighbourhood, and

(e)     the impacts of the development on the surrounding residential areas,”

Proposed Clause 6.17 (3)

 

It is contended that it would not be possible for a DCP to be formulated to address matters such as the impacts of a “development on the amenity of the neighbourhood” when a local environmental plan (LEP) has already locked in increased heights and density for that land. For example, the LEP Height of Building control proposed for the land immediately to the north of Wicks Park is RL 49. A height of building control of RL 49 would permit a building up to 14 storeys in height. If that height was locked in the LEP it is contended that it would be impossible to formulate a DCP control that could address the impacts of a development of 14 storeys on the amenity of the park. The building heights proposed for the land immediately to the north of Wicks Park would result in significant overshadowing of the park reducing the amenity of this important area of public open space.

 

The draft amendment proposed by the DPE is essentially leaving the assessment of the appropriateness of the subject planning proposal to a later stage. Such an approach is considered totally irresponsible and would not lead to good planning outcomes especially considering that the HOB controls proposed to be locked of RL49 and RL 50 are considerably higher than the height of building controls that currently apply to any land under MLEP 2011.

 

As stated in the comments provided back to the DPE (ATTACHMENT 3), it is contended that such an approach is contrary to the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in that it would not encourage “the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land” or “the provision of land for public purposes” in the Victoria Road Precinct.

 

Under the draft amendment, the DCP is meant to deal with a number of matters that may require land dedication – i.e. upgrade of road networks, creating connections, managing amenity impacts (drainage/flooding issues etc). DCPs are not a legitimate means by which land dedications can take place – especially since DCPs are ultimately policies that need not be followed and since Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EPA) Act and the jurisprudence around that section make it abundantly clear that a contributions plan is required before land dedications may take place. In addition, Section 94 is financially problematic for Council as the full cost of infrastructure can never be recouped through a Section 94 Plan. The costs associated with the preparation of both a DCP and Section 94 plan could be considerable (in excess of $300,000) if there is need to also prepare background studies (drainage, traffic, urban design). 

 

Once the rezoning takes place, Council’s chance to use a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) to comprehensively address public infrastructure is lost. The Council will then be left with piecemeal development and the difficulty of asking first cabs off the rank to pay for infrastructure that future applicants should also contribute to.

 

One of the critical concerns is that the draft amendment does not identify any land for the provision of the necessary public infrastructure, services and amenities required for the redevelopment of the area. Nor does it include measures relating to the funding responsibilities and associated funding mechanisms to deliver the necessary infrastructure including provisions relating to the acquisition of land for infrastructure purposes and measures as to how the proponent and developers will be required to contribute to Council and State government agency costs of delivering the necessary open space, drainage upgrades, public domain improvements, community infrastructure, public and active transport, utilities and services needed by a very large development of this nature, on land that is in multiple ownership.

 

Land required for public purposes, whether it be for State public infrastructure or local public infrastructure, should be identified on the relevant LEP Land Reservation Acquisition Map. The draft amendment does not identify any land for any public purposes.

 

It is normal practice that land identified for public purposes on LEP Land Reservation Acquisition Maps does not have floor space ratio or height of building on the respective LEP Floor Space Ratio Map or Height of Building Map.

 

Preparation of Development Control Plan and Section 94/94A Contributions Plan for the Victoria Road, Precinct

 

The draft amendment, as currently proposed, requires the preparation of a DCP.

 

Clause 6.17 (3) of the draft amendment states that “Development consent must not be granted for development on land to which this clause applies unless a development control plan that provides ……has been prepared for the land….”

 

Clause 74D of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act contains provisions relating to “Development control plans required or authorised by environmental planning instruments

 

Sub clause 74D (5) states:

 

“(5)      If the relevant planning authority refuses to make a development control plan submitted to it under this section (or delays by more than 60 days to make a decision on whether to make the plan):

(a)        the owners may make a development application despite the requirement of the environmental planning instrument concerned for the preparation of a development control plan, or

(b)        the Minister may act in the place of the relevant planning authority to make the plan (with or without modification), but only if the environmental planning instrument concerned authorises the Minister to do so.”

 

The DPE has confirmed that the Inner West Council is the relevant planning authority responsible for the preparation and making of that DCP.

 

As discussed previously Council would also need to prepare a Section 94/94A Contributions Plan for the Victoria Road Precinct. The current Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan does not envisage this area being rezoned and developed for land uses other than industrial purposes. The planning proposal will require works associated with traffic, drainage and open space within and outside the Victoria Road Precinct. In order to prepare a Section 94/94A Contributions Plan addressing all the relevant works various studies are required to be undertaken by Council to inform the Section 94/94A Contributions Plan.

 

The preparation of those documents would have serious funding and resourcing issues for Council.

 

The Inner West Council is currently experiencing an unprecedented level of strategic planning activities including major strategic projects such as WestConnex, the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy, the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor Strategy, the Bays Precinct as well as many large scale infill developments.  There are currently 36 private planning proposals at various stages with Council with numerous other planning proposals on the horizon, not to mention the preparation and delivery of a new LEP and DCP for the Inner West Local Government Area (LGA). It is also a time when the DPE have placed a number of strategic planning policies and plans on exhibition for community consultation.

 

Council’s existing Strategic Planning resources are already stretched beyond capacity and do not have any capacity to prepare the necessary DCP and Section 94/94A Contributions Plan required for the Victoria Road Precinct, especially in the time frame specified in Section 74D (5) of the Act.

 

Under the draft amendment, the DPE is essentially leaving the assessment of the appropriateness of the subject planning proposal to a later stage. If the DPE considers that approach would encourage “the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land” or “the provision of land for public purposes” it is considered only reasonable and appropriate that the DPE fund the cost of preparing the necessary DCP and Section 94/94A Contributions Plan for the Victoria Road Precinct.

 

If the DPE is to gazette the draft amendment, it is considered crucial from a planning perspective that the required DCP and Contributions Plan for the Victoria Road Precinct be in force before the LEP amendment comes into effect.

 

Implications for other Planning Proposals

 

(i).        Conversion of industrial and urban services land

 

The Inner West Council has a number of planning proposals which are currently being assessed which seek to rezone currently zoned industrial land to permit other forms of development (e.g. land in the Carrington Road Industrial Precinct).

 

The planning proposal relates to a significant amount of land which is currently zoned industrial and which forms part of the Marrickville-Sydenham Industrial precinct. That precinct is the largest industrial precinct in the Inner West LGA.

 

Council’s recent industrial lands studies did not envisage such a significant loss of industrial zoned land that recent Planning Proposals, including the subject proposal, have sought. It is also noted that the 2015 Hill PDA Industrial Precinct Review, prepared for the NSW Department of Planning to inform the Greater Sydney Commissions Draft Central District Plan, does not support or justify any loss of industrial/employment land that is shown to be healthy in the Marrickville-Sydenham industrial precinct.

 

Like former draft District Plans, the recently released draft Eastern City District Plan encourages councils to take a ‘precautionary approach’ to the conversion of industrial and urban services land and this recommendation is of particular importance to the Inner West LGA.

 

In light of the above it is considered that approval of the planning proposal, as submitted, would bring into question the ‘precautionary approach’ to the conversion of employment and urban services land encouraged under the draft District Plan. It is contended that such an approval would start to undermine the integrity of that approach.

 

It is also noted that a recent DPE Gateway Determination Report dated 3 October 2017 on a Planning Proposal (PP_2017_IWEST_010_00) for the properties 67 Mary Street, 73-83 Mary Street, 50-52 Edith Street and 43 Roberts Street, St Peters stated that the Sydenham/Marrickville industrial lands are strategically significant.

 

As there are a number of planning proposals in the Council area which are currently being assessed which seek to rezone currently zoned industrial zoned areas to permit other forms of development (including residential), and in light of statement in the Gateway Determination Report referred to above, clarification should be sought from the DPE as to the approach to be taken for planning proposals relating to the conversion of industrial and urban services land.

 

(ii).       Affordable rental housing

 

The Inner West Council also has a number of planning proposals under consideration where Council is seeking to ensure that adequate affordable rental housing is provided.

 

The proponent’s Planning Proposal included the provision of affordable rental housing, albeit to a lesser extent than the requirements of the Inner West Council Affordable Housing Policy.

 

The draft amendment does not include any requirement for the provision of affordable housing within the Victoria Road Precinct. It is not known why an affordable rental housing provision is not included in the draft amendment.

 

Part of the proponent’s planning proposal were changes to the planning controls for the area to permit approximately 1,100 dwellings in the Victoria Road Precinct. Under the draft amendment there is not a provision requiring a single one of those dwellings to be affordable.

 

To not include a provision for affordable rental housing in the draft amendment is incomprehensible, especially considering that the proponent’s planning proposal included an affordable housing provision.

 

One of the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act is to encourage “the provision and maintenance of affordable housing”. To not include a provision for affordable rental housing in the draft amendment would be contrary to the above object and would not in the public interest.

 

It is imperative that a requirement for the provision of affordable rental housing be included in the LEP controls for the Victoria Road Precinct.

 

The DPE has not provided any reason or justification as to why the draft amendment does not include an affordable rental housing provision.

 

It may be that the DPE considers that an affordable rental housing provision could not be included because the Inner West LGA is not a local government area listed in State Environmental Planning Policy No. 70 – Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes) as a local government area where there is a need for affordable housing.

 

If the only reason why the draft amendment does not include an affordable rental housing provision is because of SEPP 70, as the proponent’s Planning Proposal included the provision of affordable housing, it is considered more than reasonable that as part of the determination of the Planning Proposal that State Environmental Planning Policy No. 70 – Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes) be amended to list the Victoria Road Precinct, (as identified as “K” on the proposed Key Sites Maps), as an area where there is a need for affordable housing and make relevant amendments to MLEP 2011.

 

Approval of the planning proposal, without any requirement for affordable rental housing, would set an undesirable precedent and weaken the Council’s position on other planning proposals where it is seeking to ensure that adequate affordable rental housing is provided.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

As detailed above the preparation of the DCP and Section 94/94A Contributions Plan will have resourcing or budget implications.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Because of the limited time frame it was not possible to seek comments from all other sections of Council.

 

It is noted that the preparation of the required DCP and Section 94/94A Contributions Plan will require input from relevant sections of Council.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The planning proposal was quite controversial and subject to much community interest. Council will need to advise the community of the outcome of the planning proposal. Because of the community interest in the proposal the outcome of the planning proposal is likely to be heavily scrutinised by the community.

 

To assist Council in advising the community of the outcome of the planning proposal a copy of the DPE’s Post Gateway Assessment report on the planning proposal should be requested.

 

CONCLUSION

As detailed in this report the planning proposal has clearly not being amended to address the matters raised in the report considered by the Inner West Council’s Administrator at the Council meeting held on 27 June 2017 and it is understood that matters raised in the Roads and Maritime Services’ objection to the proposal are still yet to be resolved.

 

For the reasons detailed in this report, it is recommended that the DPE be advised that:

 

i.          Council is strongly opposed to the proposed draft amendment as it essentially leaves the assessment of the appropriateness of the subject planning proposal to a later stage, including the determination of many fundamental and substantive matters.

ii.          The draft amendment lacks certainty for controlling future development in the Victoria Road Precinct and would not lead to good planning outcomes.

iii.         Council contends that the gazettal of the draft amendment would be totally irresponsible and a clear dereliction of the Department of Planning and Environment’s duties and responsibilities and contrary to the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in that it would not encourage:

a)   the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land”; or

b)   the provision of land for public purposes”; or

c)   the provision and co-ordination of community services and facilities”; or

d)   the provision and maintenance of affordable housing

in the Victoria Road Precinct.

 

As detailed in the report, the draft amendment has serious funding and resourcing implications for the Inner West Council. With such serious implications, and the fact that proposal has not been amended to address the issues previously raised by the Council, it is recommended that Council request the DPE to defer finalisation of the draft amendment for the Victoria Road Precinct and convene an urgent meeting with the Inner West Council.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Council report on Victoria Road Precinct Planning Proposal (Council Meeting 27 June 2017)

2.

Department's Draft Amendment - MLEP 2011 (Amendment No. 14) Victoria Road Precinct

3.

Council officers' response to Department's Draft Amendment

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

Item No:         C1117 Item 9

Subject:         Greenway shared path through Arlington Grove development 

Prepared By:     Ryan Hawken - Project Manager Greenway Delivery 

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

 

SUMMARY

A shared path through the Arlington Grove development site is the preferred route for the Greenway. In order to ensure such a path is delivered, Council must engage and contract with the developer of the site. The value of the contract will exceed the tender threshold. A tender is inappropriate given that there is only one party with whom the contract can be struck. An exemption is sought from the tender process.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

1.   Pursuant to section 55(3)(i) of the Act, the Council resolves that a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders for the provision of a shared path through the Arlington Grove Development, to a suitable standard for use as the Greenway shared path, due to the following extenuating circumstances:

a.   The land in question is owned by the developer of the Arlington Grove development.

b.   Council has no entitlement other than with the permission of the developer to enter the land and construct the shared path.

c.   Accordingly, the developer is the only party with whom the contract can be struck. An open tender process is of no utility in such circumstances.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Issue

Failure to reach an agreement with the Arlington Grove Developer on the provision of a suitable shared path link through the Arlington Grove development in a timely fashion will force Council to adopt an alternate option as access to the Arlington Grove development site will not be available after the completion of construction.

 

Alternate options will either require routing the path through Johnson Park and existing bush care sites, which would be deeply unpopular, or through the rail corridor which would cost Council in excess of $600,000.

 

Greenway route options

There are three possible options for the Greenway shared path between Constitution Road and Davis Street (see figure below):

·    Option 1: On the eastern side of light rail through the Arlington Grove and Hill Street developments and then through Hoskins Park

·    Option 2: On the western side of light rail through Johnson Park and the light rail corridor

·    Option 3: Within the light rail corridor on the eastern side

 

Option 1: The option on the eastern side of light rail corridor would traverse through the Arlington Grove and 1A Hill Street developments and then require construction of a new path in the light rail corridor and through Hoskins Park. The proposed shared path through the developments would be owned and managed by the developments but have an easement for public access over the path.

 

Option 2: The option on the western side of the light rail corridor would traverse Johnston Park and then require construction of a new path in the light rail corridor on the western side. Whilst there is a suitable existing path in Johnson Park, it also a very popular park and conflicts between cyclists and park users, and specifically small children in the playground adjacent the path, are likely to occur. The western side of the light rail corridor also contains two established bush care sites which have been in place for over 10 years and are well supported by the local community. Routing the path through the existing bush care site would be deeply unpopular.

 

Option 3: The option within the rail corridor would be located on the eastern side of the rails. This option would require relocation of a high voltage electricity cable and signaling equipment associated with the light rail and construction of a new path in the corridor and then through Hoskins Park. The feasibility of relocation of a high voltage electricity cable and signaling equipment has not been assessed but combined with the path works is likely to cost in excess of $600,000. This would require approval from Sydney Trains and night works and track shut downs to achieve. Access would be required through a small portion of the Arlington Grove development.

 

Preferred Option

 

At the time of the Arlington Grove development approval in 2013 the Greenway shared path was envisaged to be located on the western side of the light rail corridor. Accordingly, negotiations did not take place at the time with the developer to facilitate the shared path through the site.

 

The original development approval for the Arlington Grove development required a 2.5m wide path with no balustrades or lighting. The proposed path is aligned adjacent the light rail corridor in a 6m set back which also contains a large storm water culvert, storm water treatment rain gardens and deep soil landscaping.

 

To be suitable for use as the primary Greenway path (particularly having regard to applicable Australian standards), it is considered that a minimum path width of 3.0m with suitable balustrades and lighting is required. To be acceptable to all parties the path needs to be elevated and cantilevered over the storm water culvert and storm water treatment rain gardens.

 

The additional width of the path, which will require larger foundations, piers and bearers, and the balustrades, represent a significant extra expense which the developer will not bear. Based on preliminary quotes from the developer, to upgrade from the 2.5m path to a 3.0m elevated path with balustrades is likely to cost in the order of $250,000, pending detailed design.

 

The developer will shortly seek formal approval to undertake the works to facilitate the preferred option from Council and Sydney Water. Failure to reach an agreement with the developer in a timely fashion will force Council to adopt one of the other options as access to the land for construction will not be available after the completion of construction of the development.

 

The land in question, 6-26 Grove Street, Dulwich Hill, is currently owned by Galileo Arlington Grove Nominee Pty Limited, and is being developed by Ceerose Pty Ltd. A strata plan for the land was deposited in August 2017 in preparation for sale of the apartments.

 

Procurement of Preferred Option

The Arlington Grove development is currently under construction and the developer, as owner of the land, is the only party who can undertake the works on the land.

 

Due to these extenuating circumstances there is no point in Council undertaking a regular tender process. Rather, Council must contract with the developer and will do so if Council resolves as per the recommendation in this report.

 

It is proposed that Council’s Legal team will negotiate an appropriate contract for the upgrade of the path through the Arlington Grove development to a suitable standard for use as the Greenway shared path and require the Developer to modify the deposited plan to show an easement for public access across the full width of the modified alignment of the path.

 

To ensure reasonable costs to Council, separable quotes will be sought from the sub-contractor responsible for the works prior to entering into the contract. The separable quotes will enable the cost differential to be established between the path required under the approval and that required for use as the Greenway shared path.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Funding required to construct the path to a suitable standard are estimated to be in the order of $250,000 excluding GST. Funds would be from within existing project budgets.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

Item No:         C1117 Item 10

Subject:         Sydney Metro (Sydenham to Bankstown) EIS Submission 

Prepared By:     Simon Lowe - Strategic Transport Planner 

Authorised By:  Gill Dawson - Group Manager Strategic Planning

 

SUMMARY

An Environmental Impact Statement for Sydney Metro (Sydenham to Bankstown) is currently on public exhibition.  This report provides an outline of the project and attaches a draft submission on the EIS, to be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council receives and notes the report and formally submits the attached submission to the Department of Planning and Environment

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Sydney Metro is a new public transport system for Sydney, providing 66 kilometres of metro rail line and 31 metro stations.  It consists of Sydney Metro Northwest and Sydney Metro City & Southwest.  Sydney Metro Northwest (between Rouse Hill and Chatswood) is currently under construction and services will start in the first half of 2019.  Sydney Metro City & Southwest (between Chatswood and Bankstown) will extend the system through the CBD and on toward Bankstown – this will include a new crossing beneath Sydney Harbour, new stations in the lower North Shore and CBD and the upgrade of existing stations from Sydenham to Bankstown.

 

Sydney Metro City & Southwest comprises two core components:

-     Chatswood to Sydenham – planning approval was received in January 2017, with construction activities now commencing.

-     Sydenham to Bankstown – which is the subject of the Environmental Impact Statement currently on exhibition.

 

The Sydenham to Bankstown project involves upgrading 10 existing stations west of Sydenham (Marrickville to Bankstown inclusive), and upgrading a 13 kilometre long section of the T3 Bankstown Line, between west of Sydenham Station and west of Bankstown Station.  The line upgrade aims to provide a better, more convenient, and safer public transport system by delivering: stations that are accessible to everyone; buildings and facilities for all transport modes that meet the needs of a growing population; interchanges that support an integrated transport network and allow seamless transfers between different modes.

 

Over the next 15 years, NSW will require infrastructure to support 40% more train trips. Sydney’s current suburban rail system can reliably carry 24,000 people an hour per line.  Sydney Metro, together with signalling and infrastructure upgrades across the existing Sydney rail network, will increase the capacity of train services entering the CBD – from about 120 services an hour today, up to 200 services beyond 2024.  This is an increase of up to 60% across the network to meet demand.  Sydney Metro will have a long-term target capacity of about 40,000 customers per hour in each direction, similar to other metro systems worldwide.

 

Council’s draft submission on the Sydney Metro (Sydenham to Bankstown) EIS incorporates a wide range of issues that are of relevance to the Inner West LGA and is at ATTACHMENT 1.

 

Particular concern is raised with regard to the following:

-     Significant threat to biodiversity and trees

-     Lack of detailed flooding assessment

-     Loss and/or degradation of significant heritage items

-     Lack of comprehensive cumulative impact assessment with the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor Strategy

-     Increased pressure on local road networks as a result of construction traffic and temporary transport

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Extensive internal consultation on the EIS has taken place prior to and during the EIS exhibition and a wide range of commentary from across Council is included in the draft EIS submission.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Sydney Metro has undertaken public consultation during the EIS exhibition period.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Draft Submission on Sydney Metro EIS

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

Item No:         C1117 Item 11

Subject:         Council Submission to Review of Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 

Prepared By:     Katie Miles - Strategic Planner 

Authorised By:  Gill Dawson - Group Manager Strategic Planning

 

SUMMARY

The NSW Department of Planning & Environment (the Department) are conducting a review of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (the Regulations). The review follows proposed changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) that provides the overarching framework for the NSW Planning System. The Regulations supports the day-to-day requirements of this system. Council's submission (attached) will inform the preparation of a draft Regulation which is expected to be released by the Department in 2018.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

 

1.       Receives and notes this report including the draft submission (Attachment 1); and

2.       Endorses the submission and send to the Department of Planning and Environment by 24 November 2017. 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (the Regulations) describe key operational provisions for the NSW Planning System, as it relates to:

·    Planning instruments, including requirements and procedures for planning proposals and procedures for making and amending development control plans.

·    Procedures relating to development applications for local development and complying development certificates;

·    Existing uses and designated development;

·    Requirements for environmental assessment and Part 5 of the Act and applications for State Significant Development (SSD);

·    Environmental impact statements (requirements that apply to designated development, state significant infrastructure, and certain other activities under Part 5 of the Act);

·    Building regulation and subdivision certification, including provisions for construction certificates, occupation certificates and subdivision certificates, as well as fire safety and Building Code of Australia (BCA) matters;

·    Fees and charges, including for development applications and building certificates, as well as other planning services;

·    Development contributions, including the preparation of contribution plans; and 

·    Planning certificates which provide information about land.

 

The Department's objectives of the Regulations review are to:

·    Reduce administrative burden and increase procedural efficiency;

·    Standardise and consolidate provisions governing the administration of the planning system;

·    Update definitions and preliminary provisions in Part 1 of the Regulations.

·    Remove redundant provisions;

·    Update the numbering and names of parts, divisions, sections and schedules;

·    Refine some terms and definitions to clarity policy intent; and 

·    Update provisions to reflect advancements in technology, innovation, and communications methods, and the NSW Planning Portal, which provides online access to planning information tools and services.

 

The remainder of this report will discuss opportunities to improve the Regulation's functionality as it relates to the Inner West Council. It should be noted that the Department have not released details on the proposed amendments at this stage, and have only released a discussion paper upon which to comment. As such the issues raised in this report are broad in nature, the intent is to highlight these issues to the Department so that they can analysis and investigate the issues prior to the released of the Draft Regulation Amendments in 2018.

 

REPORT

The intent of this section is to highlight opportunities and concerns as they relate to the Regulations. The following sections broadly discuss inefficiencies or problematic sections of the Regulations for the Department to further investigate and address.

 

1. Local Environmental Plans

The Department's Issues Paper discusses the possibility of inserting a time limitation for councils to assess Planning Proposals once lodged. This would be similar to time limitations placed on assessing and reporting development applications. It is noted that in the DPE's Planning Circular PS 16-004 published on 30 August 2016 already refers to a 90 day period that Council must provide its response to the proponent of a Planning Proposal Application.

 

Since the Planning Circular was published Council officers have endeavored to assess and report Planning Proposals within this timeframe with moderate success. Small site-specific or moderately sized Planning Proposals are generally able to be addressed within the 90 day timeframe. However, the advent of the State Government Urban Renewal Strategies endorsed by Section 117 Ministerial Directions has generated a surge of large Planning Proposals, some encompassing whole precincts or proposed developments exceeding 20-30 storeys in height. The 90 day timeframe for assessing and reporting these types of Planning Proposals is often insufficient.

 

The Urban Renewal Strategies require that comprehensive reviews are undertaken of Council's Local Environmental Plans (LEP), Development Control Plans (DCPs) and Section 94 Developer Contribution Plans, and that multiple public and private agencies are consulted as part of the preparation of any Planning Proposals. The 90 day limitation is an unreasonable timeframe to conduct these initial referrals, preliminary assessment, peer-review of documents, and the initial report to Council for determination. To ameliorate such issues, the Department should consider the following recommendations:

i.    Establish categories that scale the type and size of Planning Proposals with the view of establishing appropriate assessment and reporting timeframes. This is similar to the approach taken in Part 6 of the Regulations to determine the assessment timeframes of development applications by the type and scale of the proposed development. Additional allowances should be made for Planning Proposals occurring in Urban Renewal Corridors given the complexity of the assessment process prior to comprehensive reviews of the relevant LEP/DCP/Section 94 Plan.

 

ii.    Similar provisions regarding 'stop the clock', ability to request additional information, and details regarding the extension or modification of Planning Proposals should be outlined in the Regulations. This would be a similar approach to that currently described for development applications under Part 6 of the Regulations, in particular sections 51-56, 58-64, 95, 106-110, 112-113A, 123B-123F, and 123G and 123I. 

 

iii.   Consider inserting mandatory regulations for requiring Pre-Planning Proposal meetings for Proponent-led Planning Proposals (or rezoning applications). At present, Council conducts Pre-Planning Proposal meetings as part of providing planning services to the public. The process is generally viewed constructively as initial concerns can be raised and mitigated prior to the formal lodgment. This can have flow-on advantages for assessment and referral processes, and likewise council is able to prepare for additional resources if the project requires it. Notwithstanding, there are many instances where councils have no knowledge of proposals until they are formally lodged, and this process generally leads to increased assessment timeframes or inadequate resourcing to fully assess the initial Planning Proposal.

 

2. Development Control Plans

As a general comment there are largely no problems with the existing provisions of Part 3 of the Regulations.

 

3. Development Assessment Regulation

The following recommendations are made to the regulatory functions of development assessment under Part 6 of the Regulations:

i.    There are numerous environmental planning instruments (EPIs) that describe different public exhibition requirements for different types of development. The review should consider consolidating and simplify these public exhibition requirements into the Regulations.

 

ii.    Council supports the simplification of Clauses 100 and 101; however, notes that the Department's suggestion to include the detail of the reasons for the determination would seemingly undermine the “simplification” objective. The reasons for the determination are detailed in the relevant assessment report which is made publicly available. Accordingly, the suggestion to include the reasons for determination in the notice is considered unnecessary.

 

iii.   The review should seek to enable notices to be sent via email (if given) to remove administrative burdens of mailing consents.

 

iv.  The State Government initiative to reduce assessment timeframes could be assisted if the Department considered inserting mandatory provision for lodging Pre-Development Application for major developments and any development occurring in areas identified as Urban Renewal Corridors endorsed by a Section 117 Ministerial Direction.

 

v.   Additionally, Schedule 1 should be reviewed so that the Regulations require a higher level of quality information to be prepared as part of the Development Applications. This would be a reasonable response to enable ease and clarity of assessment for consent authorities as considerable time can be spent on deciphering plans or correcting errors on plans (particularly regarding scaling/architectural details). The Department may wish to consider establishing a 'guideline DA template' to replace or complement Schedule 1.    

4. Fees & Charges

To meet the costs of providing various planning services to applicants, consent authorities charge fees which are set out in the Regulations (Part 15 describes fees for development applications, building occupation, construction, and subdivision certificates, planning certificates, or review of decision to review a refusal determination). It is acknowledge that in most circumstances, these fees and charges have not been reviewed in 5+ years or addressed in an ad hoc manner as successive amendments are made to the Act regarding particular development types.

 

In recognition of the costs associated with implementing and resourcing new planning legislation, new procedures, new types of development activities, the natural attrition of service costs over time, and that the type and scale of development activity varies across NSW, the fees should be reviewed taking account of the reals costs of processing applications. The current cost setting is inappropriate for areas undergoing significant changes. It is recommended the Department investigate creating a more flexible and responsible approach to fees and charges that may examine annual rate-pegging or creating exemptions for areas undergoing significant change that require additional resourcing.   

 

Additionally, The Department should refrain from determining policies regarding fees and charges for Pre-Planning Proposals, Planning Proposals and Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPAs). This acknowledges that there are different levels of resourcing, development types/scales, and varied levels of development activity across NSW. It would be inappropriate to impose a one-size-fits-all approach on this issue.  

 

5. Development Contributions

The regulations describe sections includes Section 94, 94A and Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPAs). Currently, the Regulation does not require consideration of the Secretary’s VPA Practice Notes however the Department's review would change this to make consideration of such guidelines mandatory. To avoid negative outcomes and to ensure public benefit objectives are met, the Department should undertake further consultation with councils regarding the application and functionality of the Secretary's Practice Notes for VPAs to assess its efficiency in existing contexts prior to making such considerations mandatory. 

 

The Department is also suggesting removing the need for councils to have hard copies of all planning agreements available for public inspection at Council offices, and to instead upload copies of the planning agreements to the NSW Gov’t Planning Portal. Council supports this proposal as it would remove an unnecessary administrative burden.

 

It is strongly recommended that the Department review and investigate implementation costs and procedures associated with the establishment and/or amendment of Section 94, 94A and VPAs Policy. There is a varied array of infrastructure costs, development activity, and envisioned growth across NSW, and as such any State Government policy approach to VPAs is not likely to appropriately outline all local costs/issues and may set unreasonable expectations on stakeholders. Additionally, the Department should be mindful that the State Government endorsed Urban Renewal Corridors heavily depend on the VPA framework to delivery infrastructure costs not currently encompassed by existing Section 94 & 94A framework and (yet to be established) SIC levies. Development along the Urban Renewal Corridors in the Inner West is currently subject to a high-degree of uncertainty as an 'interim' approach is needed until comprehensive planning reviews can be undertaken.

 

It is recommended that the Department afford some degree of flexibility to address locally-specific issues in their review of the Regulations, noting a staged approach to implementing changes may be warranted.

6. Planning Certificates

The contents of Planning Certificates are detailed in Schedule 4 of the Regulations which seek to condense an array of planning information from numerous statutes. Recent State Government reforms have changed numerous elements of this section via the public exhibition and implementation of legislative reforms and amendments to existing State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs). Subsequently, Council is in a constant state of monitoring to update the relevant sections of the Planning Certificates given its legal status to ensure compliance.

 

The following recommendations are made in regard to this section:

i.    The Department should seek to establish a notification process to alert councils of changes to S149 Planning Certificates prior to the changes coming into effect;

 

ii.    Consider establishing a general template for Planning Certificates to remove complexities, however acknowledge that some degree of flexibility will be needed to address locally-specific issues and legacy areas, such as the remaining Regional Environmental Plans.

 

iii.   Where applicable, State Infrastructure Contribution levies should be identified similar to the existing provisions relating to Section 94 and 94A contribution plans;

 

iv.  Hard copy planning certificates should be replaced by an online system through NSW Planning Portal, and ensure that 'check-points' are incorporated to ensure that the correct information is provided. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

 

CONCLUSION

The Regulations review provides an opportunity to highlight some long-standing inefficiencies and concerns to be investigated by the Department. As outlined in this report, emphasis has been placed on providing flexibility to the Urban Renewal Precincts, as a 'one-size-fits-all' approach is unlikely to deliver positive outcomes. It is noted that Council will have another opportunity to comment on the review in 2018.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Draft Submission to Regulations Review

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

Item No:         C1117 Item 12

Subject:         Draft Future Transport Strategy 2056 - Council Submission 

Prepared By:             Gunika Singh - Strategic Planner and Ken Welsh - Transport Planner 

Authorised By:  Gill Dawson - Group Manager Strategic Planning

 

SUMMARY

This report provides Council’s submission on the recently released Draft Future Transport Strategy 2056 and associated plans. 

 

The Strategy is part of a package of plans produced by the State Government including:

·          Draft Future Transport Strategy 2056;

·          Draft Greater Sydney Services and Infrastructure Plan;

·          Draft Regional Services and Infrastructure Plan;

·          Draft Tourism and Transport Plan;

·          Draft Road Safety Plan.

 

This report provides Council with a brief summary of Draft Future Transport Strategy 2056 and the Draft Greater Sydney Services and Infrastructure Plan.  It also provides a draft submission for Council’s endorsement prior to lodging with Transport for NSW/RMS

 

While the new transport strategy recognises the importance of public transport in the post 10 year time frame it continues to pursue commitment to urban motorways in the 1-10 year period.

 

Key issues likely to impact on the Inner West Council include:

·          A lack of alignment between the Greater Sydney Commission draft Sydney Region Plan and Transport for NSW draft Future Transport Strategy 2056;

·          Focus on urban motorways in the 1-10 year committed projects, leading to increased traffic volumes and greater reliance on private vehicles as a primary mode of travel;

·          Absence of reference to upgrading of Sydney’s ferry fleet and increasing the number of ferry wharves;

·          Lack of recognition to the need for greater north-south connectivity through sustainable transport improvements;

·          Absence of commitment and prioritisation of additional major public transport improvements in the immediate term;

·          Limited commitment to funding for active transport in the immediate term;

·          Limited reference to connectivity between the existing Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and the proposed Western Sydney Airport; and

·          Absence of reference to the need to enhance local connections to Sydney Airport, particularly in relation to existing fare penalties associated with the airport railway station access fees.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.         This report be received and noted; and

2.         Council endorse the draft submission included in this report and that it be lodged as such with Transport for NSW/RMS.

 

 

BACKGROUND

On October 2017 the State Government released a package Future Transport Plans and Strategies under the heading “Future Transport 2056”. This package is the next stage of the State’s long term transport master planning process. The Government is requesting public feedback by 3 December 2017.

 

Copies of the executive summary of the Draft Future Transport Strategy 2056 and Draft Greater Sydney Services and Infrastructure Plan are included as attachments to this report (Attachment - 1 & 2).

 

A separate report will be prepared for council; summarising the Greater Sydney Commission’s Regional Plan and providing a draft submission of Council’s consideration.

 

Future Transport is an update of the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan (2012) and has been prepared in concert with the draft Greater Sydney Commission’s Region Plan, Infrastructure NSW’s State Infrastructure Strategy, and the Department of Planning and Environment’s regional plans, to provide an integrated vision for the state through until 2056.

 

To reflect the interrelationship of land use, transport, infrastructure and community development the Future Transport package comprises three key documents (Figure 1):

 

·     Draft Future Transport Strategy 2056;

·     Draft Greater Sydney Services and Infrastructure Plan; and

·     Draft Regional Services and Infrastructure Plan.

The package also includes a series of supporting plans including Draft Tourism and Transport Plan and Draft Road Safety Plan.

 

 

 

Figure 1 - Suite of Draft Future Transport 2056 documents

 

Future Transport attempts to coordinate travel responses to the multiple land use strategies currently underway, however some conflict appear to occur as many of the transport projects committed to were announced in advance of the land use strategies. Additionally, Future Transport’s attempts at integration with the land use strategies results in multiple references to the creation of more sustainable, liveable cities. However, the establishment of numerous motorway and road capacity improvement projects is considered counter to the creation of a sustainable, liveable city.

 

Future Transport has been designed to respond to land use propositions in the Greater Sydney Commission’s Regional Plan; being based on a Metropolis of Three Cities (Figure 2).

 

Additionally, this vision for Greater Sydney proposes the 30 Minute City; a city which provides people with access to key services and facilities (such as education, jobs and services) within 30 minutes by public transport regardless of where they live. This requires a transport structure that can ensure people can reach their nearest Metropolitan and Strategic Centres within 30 minutes, 7 days a week.

 

The 30 Minute City concept has been based on research that indicates that if people are required to travel more than 90 minutes a day, it impacts on quality of life and the liveability of a city.

 

The two components identified for a 30 minute city are:

·          Connecting people in each of the three cities with jobs and essential services in their nearest Metropolitan City Centre.

·          Connecting residents in each of the five districts to one of their Strategic Centres by public and active transport, giving people 30 minute access to local jobs, goods and services. Strategic Centres are major centres for transport, health and education.

 

In order to make this work, each City must contain multiple Strategic Centres, providing local economies and providing jobs and services close to where people live.

 

 

 

Figure 2 – Vision for Greater Sydney as a metropolis for three cities

 

This Council Report has been prepared specifically in response to the actions relating to Sydney Region, as identified in the Draft Future Transport Strategy 2056 (The Strategy) and Draft Greater Sydney Services and Infrastructure Plan (The Plan).  Particular focus has been provided on the Inner West Council LGA to assist in informing Council’s proposed submission (included later in this report), noting that it is a high level strategy.

 

 

Consultation on the Future Transport Technology Road Map (2016)

At the end of 2016 the Future Transport Technology Road Map was released for public comment.  Subsequently, based on this feedback and on-going research, the Draft Future Transport Strategy 2056 was prepared.

 

The Draft Future Transport package has been jointly prepared by Transport for NSW (TfNSW) and Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) to inform future transport decisions and to influence land use planning for NSW over the next 40 years. It attempts to identify emerging technology that will influence travel behaviour across the State and to assist in developing more liveable, sustainable cities through an iterative process of land use and transport development.

 

During the preparation of Future Transport some 5,000 people responded to online surveys, and more than 40,000 people were involved in digital or face-to-face consultations. A total of 27 engagement sessions were held across the state involving councils, business associations and community groups.

 

 

Draft Future Transport Strategy

The Strategy’s vision is built on six outcomes:

 

·                                                A Customer Focus;

·                                                Successful Places;

·                                                A Growing Economy;

·                                                Safety and Performance;

·                                                Accessible Services; and

·                                                Financial and Environmental Sustainability.

 

It then provides a structured discussion which explores the likely future for the following:

 

·          Customers;

·          Mobility;

·          Services;

·          Networks;

·          Sustainability;

·          Approach to planning; and

·          Monitoring and Review (including measures of success).

 

In an effort to meet these outcomes, for the Sydney Region, the Strategy proposes broad approaches which include:

 

·          Continued support for several urban motorways including WestConnex, Western Harbour Tunnel/Beaches Link and F6 Extension;

·          Sydney Metro and light rail projects (currently under construction or being planned);

·          Increased use of smartphone/platform technology – ticketing, real-time information, active transport routing advice, direct access to network-wide Mobility as a Service  (MaaS) rather than individual service providers – including demand responsive transport solutions;

·          Encouragement of amenable local living environments with high levels of connectivity to multiple centres (eg Sydney will become a combination of the Eastern Harbour City, Central River City and Western Parkland City as well as the Western Sydney Airport and Badgery’s  Creek Aerotropolis). The transport/land use focus will be to foster 30 minutes cities (cities with a commute time of 30 minutes or less);

·          Use of the Safe Systems Approach for road safety; targeting a near trauma free transport network by improving roads, speeds, vehicles and people (behaviour);

·          Customer choice; ensuring market-driven access to transport, whether private, public or share vehicles (including potential for autonomous share vehicles and demand responsive transport systems);

·          Enhanced physical accessibility for all bus stops and railway stations in the Sydney Region;

·          Support for more environmentally sustainable travel by moving people from private vehicles to more sustainable transport modes and encouraging increased uptake of electric vehicles.

 

Examples of specific initiatives foreshadowed in the draft strategy include:

·          Emerging Technologies

o    Introduction of automated metro systems (currently planned and/or under construction);

o    Recognition of the likelihood of increased uptake of autonomous/driverless vehicles (private, public or shared) providing enhanced mobility and reduced road trauma;

o    The need to ensure airspace controls which provide for guided and autonomous drones to deliver small freight items; and

o    Use of alternative fuels to benefit the environment.

 

·          Future Services

o    Use of technology to create a MaaS service model where all modes and all payment options are fully integrated with seamless service and seamless transfer, providing a fully personalised travel experience;

o    Customer led services where on-going monitoring of customer behaviour (and focus group surveys etc) will lead to modifications in service provision and structure; and

o    Recognition of increased reliance on virtual shopping.

 

Draft Greater Sydney Services and Infrastructure Plan

The Plan has been designed to link closely with the Strategy. Proposals and timeframes for both documents appear identical; however The Strategy provides a greater level of detail, particularly in relation to the public transport/mass transit network.

Examples of key proposals, provided with more detail, within the Plan include:

·          Working with Councils to:

o    develop  city-wide parking guidelines;

o    Implement Movement & Place Framework and Road Space Allocation Policy to enhance local liveability;

·          Introduction of a framework for the management of assisted mobility devices;

·          Management mechanisms to facility safety and efficiency associated with Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAV);

·          Development of a Last Mile Freight Policy;

·          Implementation of Mobility as a Service (Maas) model in collaboration with industry, where private operators can sell integrated, multi-modal, end-to-end journeys to customers;

·          More convenient interchanges to encourage public transport use. This includes making interchanges more attractive and providing more services, such as retail outlets;

·          Trial of artificial intelligence applications to improve network management and/or customer service.

 

Overview of specific proposals

Both documents group actions into 4, timeframe-based, categories:

·          0-10 years already committed (Figure - 1, Attachment - 3);

·          0-10 years for further investigation (Figure - 2, Attachment - 3);

·          10-20 years for further investigation (Figure - 3, Attachment - 3);

·          20+ years for further investigation (Figure - 4, Attachment - 3).

 

 

Specific Tangible Initiatives Proposed

In summary, Sydney’s 0-10 year timeframe includes the following committed projects (projects specifically relevant to Inner West Council are highlighted):

·          WestConnex Motorway;

·          Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link Rail (subject to final business case);

·          F6 Motorway Extension Stage 1 – WestConnex to Kogarah  (subject to final business case);

·          Sydney Metro West (subject to final business case);

·          Sydney Metro – City & Southwest

·          Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 2 subject to final business case);

·          Bus priority infrastructure program;

·          Improvements to Sydney’s active transport network;

·          Safer Roads Program CBD & SE Light Rail;

·          Sydney’s road-based “pinch point program”;

·          Sydney Metro Rail (subject to final business case);

·          Sydney Airport road upgrades;

·          Sydney Metro Northwest;

·          B-Line buses (northern beaches);

·          M4 Smart Motorway Project;

·          Sydney Growth Trains”

·          Bus replacement program;

·          Western Sydney Growth Roads Project;

·          As well as on-going improvements to bus stops, railway stations and ferry wharves.

 

Additional projects to be investigated for Sydney during the 0-10 year timeframe include the following proposals projects specifically relevant to Inner West Council are highlighted):

·          Victoria Road public transport improvements;

·          Parramatta Road public transport improvements;

·          Additional cruise ship capacity;

·          Upgrading of Port Botany access (road and rail);

·          General capacity and reliability upgrades for Sydney’s rail and bus network;

·          F6 Motorway Extension Stage 2 –Kogarah to Loftus;

·          Rollout of electric vehicle charging points;

·          General enhancements to Sydney’s active transport network.

·          Southern Sydney Freight Line;

·          Improved access to Western Sydney Airport/Badgery’s Creek Aerotopolis (road and rail);

·          Suburban train improvements to Macarthur Area;

·          Northern Sydney Freight Corridor;

·          Rail fleet replacement program;

·          Metropolitan Interchange Program (rail);

·          Smart Motorways/Smart Roads Programs;

 

Outside the 0-10 year timeframe there are no further urban motorways proposed, however western Sydney will be provided with significant road improvements, particularly targeting the Western Sydney Airport and its associated Aerotopolis (eg M12 Motorway). The 10+ year timeframe places significant emphasis on investigations into longer term public transport improvements, however no detail is provided regarding funding for these studies or the projects themselves. The Strategies funding statements focus on the need to develop more sustainable and equitable transport funding and to explore alternative/third party funding sources.

 

Additionally, The Strategy states that:

In some instances, the role for government will be to get out of the way and allow the market to deliver services. This may be the case where demand for services is high or where the private sector is better equipped to meet customer needs.

The Strategy highlights the need for further investigation of numerous opportunities (referred to in the Plan) in the longer term (10-20+ years) including:

·          Light rail to the Bays Precinct;

·          Light rail extension to Maroubra Junction;

·          A mass transit link to the southeast (CBD to Botany/Maroubra);

·          Mass transit links between Epping, Parramatta and Kogarah;

·          Turn Up and Go (public transport) services on trunk corridors in metropolitan areas – including city-to-city and centre-to-centre corridors;

·          Flexible or on-demand services – to support trunk services.

·          Completion of active transport networks to and within centres;

·          Increased availability of autonomous vehicles particularly in the form of shared vehicles and taxi-type services;

·          Demand responsive bus services;

·          Creation of more integrated, personalised travel solutions (MaaS) through the application of technology;

·          Potential use of drones for parcel delivery.

Consideration

Transport technology is changing on a daily basis and the prescription of a 40 year horizon means that much of the information in Future Transport includes broad statements with only limited data provided as evidence to support any potential decisions. Consequently, Future Transport proposes nearly 100 issues/initiatives for Future Investigation and few if any specific proposals; other than those already committed to.

 

There are numerous references to integration and coordination between the various land use and transport strategies, including the need to create sustainable liveable cities. However it appears that many of the committed 1-10 year projects focus on providing increased capacity for private car use (including construction of urban motorways), which runs counter to the creation of sustainable, liveable cities.  Additionally, many projects were committed to prior to the release of the various land sue and urban redevelopment strategies.

 

Further, while Future Transport is part of a package of plans which include land use initiatives, there is only limited evidence that the transport projects identified are in direct response to specific land use initiatives. While this relationship may occur it is considered that it should be made more apparent in both documents. Consequently it is considered that the interrelationship between the documents is unclear.

 

Key actions proposed in the 0-10 year timeframe are projects that have already been committed to by the State Government. A second group of projects is proposed in the 0-10 year timeframe; however all of these are subject to further investigation and may nor may not proceed.

 

A major improvement in Future Transport; when compared to the State’s Government’s NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan 2012, is Future Transport’s greater focus on public transport and technology in the medium to longer term

 

While Future Transport continues to pursue WestConnex, Western Harbour Tunnel/Beaches Link and F6 Extension no additional urban motorway project are apparent once these have been completed. With the exception of improvements to assist accessibility in Western Sydney/ Badgery’s Creek (e.g. the M12 Motorway) projects in the 10+ year timeframes appear to be predominantly related to public transport.

 

Future Transport’s medium to long-term vision for public transport is clearly and illustrated in Figures 3 and 4.

 

Similarly, proposed active transport, road and freight networks have been shown for each timeframe.

Further, attention given to longer term public transport/mass transit can be seen in additional detail such as setting of frequency targets to achieve 30 minute cities (Shown in Figure 5).

 

Figure 3 – Greater Sydney Mass Transit Network 2017 (existing and committed 1-10 years)

 

 

 

Figure 4 – Greater Sydney Mass Transit Network 2036

 

 

Figure 5 – Proposed service frequencies to support the 30 Minute City

Ultimately, it is disappointing that the Future Transport continues to pursue urban motorways in the 0-10 year timeframe and that no new public transport projects are guaranteed in this decade. It is, however, considered that the renewed emphasis on public transport in its second decade is a significant improvement over the State’s previous long term transport plan. Early prioritization of public transport is essential to ensure the creation of a truly loveable and sustainable city.

Concern is, however, expressed that:

·          Many of the projects proposed are subject to future investigation and may not proceed;

·          No clear funding mechanisms have been identified for such projects, or even for the associated investigative studies, and

·          It is uncertain whether any mechanisms are available to ensure that future governments, regardless of party, would proceed with these longer term projects.

 

With the exception of a brief reference to the upgrading of existing ferry wharves, Future Transport generally ignores the significance of ferries as a future transport mode.  It is considered essential that recognition be given to the importance of Sydney’s waterways as a travel corridor and that an on-going program be established to upgrade the ferry fleet and establish new wharves.

 

Specific initiatives requiring greater attention include:

·          Public transport improvements for Parramatta Road (including detailed consideration of Council’s Guided Electric Transit/Track-free Tram proposal);

·          Public transport improvements for Victoria Road;

·          Sydenham – Bankstown Metro (including the proposed east-west greenway);

·          Connectivity between the existing Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and the proposed Western Sydney Airport;

·          Enhanced usability of public transport to Sydney Airport, particularly in relation to existing station access fees;

·          Light rail access to the Bays Precinct (including access to White Bay)

·          Reinstatement of Glebe Island Bridge as an active transport link between Rozelle and Pyrmont;

·          The City West Cycle Link - a separated cycleway connecting the Greenway/Bay Run to a reinstated Glebe Island Bridge, running within the light rail corridor (and possibly within the proposed Rozelle Rail Yards Linear Park );

·          Enhancement of the Greenway (active transport and environmental corridor between Iron Cove and the Cooks River) through the development of an active transport feeder route network

·          Development of north-south connectivity between the various heavy rail lines (including metro lines) through enhancement of both the public and active transport networks;

·          Establishment of an efficient, transparent road pricing regime which encourages through-traffic to use major routes in preference to local streets and/or other routes with sensitive frontage uses such as shopping centres, aged care facilities, schools and parks and residential areas.

 

Additionally, it is essential that local councils and communities be included in each individual project’s community consultation process.

 

 


 

Council‘s Proposed Draft Submission

 

It is proposed that Council's submission contains the following:

1.         Council commends the State Government for preparing a Draft Future Transport Strategy and associated plan, and its efforts to envisage a likely future for transport in New South Wales, particularly the Sydney Region. Council also appreciates Future Transport’s recognition of the need to ensure an integrated approach to transport, land use, infrastructure and community development as the most critical step in achieving a more liveable, sustainable city.

 

a.         Council strongly supports the State’s appreciation of the need to improve public and active transport and is keen to assist in developing a modern, efficient network for inner Sydney.

 

b.         Further, Council recognises the inherent difficulty in trying to predict future transport technology with a 40 year horizon and provides this submission in recognition of the magnitude of this task.

 

c.         However, based on community feedback provided during the Future Transport Roadmap exhibition; Council anticipated, at least for the 0-10 year timeframe, a stronger commitment to initiating community consultation on a series specifically significant, city-shaping, sustainable transport enhancements.

2.         In addressing the need to create sustainable, liveable cities (as referenced in Future Transport and the associated land use strategies) the revised strategy should provide a prioritisation of projects to assist in refining their timeframes. It is requested that this prioritisation reflect the urgent need for improved public and active transport in preference to encouragement of increased private car dependency, particularly for inner Sydney. Additionally, it is essential that new technology leading to better coordinated, more effective mode choices should be embraced.

3.         Council supports Future Transport’s encouragement of public and active transport for Sydney’s future however it expresses its disappointment in the State’s continued pursuit of urban motorways that have already been proposed (but not built), most notably the Western Harbour Tunnel, Beaches Link and F6 extension.

4.         In recognition of the value of many of the medium - long term public transport proposals Council requests that formal mechanisms, supported by treasury guarantees, be established to ensure that realistic, publicly transparent studies be carried out to investigate the benefits of these projects.

5.         Council recognises the need for a limited number of location specific road improvements, particularly in less densely populated areas, but requests that these be supported by significant public transport improvements and that all relevant factors be taken into consideration when developing each project’s business case.  Issues for consideration should include long term environmental, public health, community well-being costs/benefits, as well as potential for road capacity upgrades to both induce additional private car travel and leach patronage for public transport.

6.         Inclusion of the 30 Minute City concept is supported, however it is requested that Future Transport also include reference to the creation of 10 Minute Walkable Neighbourhoods. This concept proposes that creation of walkable neighbourhoods enhance:

·          Liveability;

·          Public health;

·          Social connectivity;

·          Community well-being.

7.         It is requested that Future Transport provide increased detail on how the 30 Minute City will be achieved.

8.         To ensure the vitality of the Greater Sydney Region it will be essential to ensure seamless ease of travel between the three, consequently it is requested that Future Transport set travel time targets for connectivity between the cities.

9.         In recognition that the proposed Western Sydney Airport will be a regional attractor, access from the Eastern Harbour City and existing Sydney Airport should be affordable, efficient and convenient.

10.       Reduced trauma is highlighted as a key target in Future Transport; however this is considered to conflict with targets that are linked to increased vehicle speeds (noting that increased speed generally relates to increased severity of crashes). Council considers that safety should be paramount in any transport plan and consequently requests that detailed investigations be carried out to ensure that vehicle speeds are managed in a manner which does not have the potential to increase crash severity. In order to improve overall road safety, Council requests that Future Transport, propose:

a.         A reduction of speed limits in residential streets and areas of high pedestrian activity to 30 kph;

b.         Less restrictive design policies for Shared Zones, permitting the establishment of safe affordable implementation of shared zones in appropriate locations.

11.       When examining the viability, or otherwise, of public and active transport projects; it is inappropriate to simply establish a standard Return on Investments (RoI). In such an examination it is essential that the “big picture” benefits of such projects be considered.  It is essential that business cases for public and active transport projects include consideration of long term environmental benefits, public health, community well-being, social inclusion and connectivity, as well as catalytic effects in encouraging urban revitalisation.

12.       In response to Future Transport’s highlighting of the importance of developing a more sustainable transport system, Council requests that the revised strategy provide a commitment to ensuring that  there is no longer a reliance on increased surface road traffic capacity particularly for streets with sensitive frontage uses such as shopping centres, aged care facilities, schools, parks and residential areas.

13.       While Council recognises the difficulty in developing an interactive, iterative approach to the simultaneous provision of transformative land uses and transport, it is concerned that there is insufficient interaction between the Greater Sydney Commission's planning, Urban Growth’s redevelopment proposals (particularly noting the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy and Sydenham to Bankstown Redevelopment Strategy) and transport initiatives proposed in The Strategy and Plan.

14.       While Future Transport does recognise the significance of public transport in the medium to long terms it is considered that this should be supported by a clear set of targets to encourage a move away from the existing car centric city. This could be included as a set of policies, developed in close consultation with local councils, directly fostering reduced car dependence particularly in association with significant major planning proposals around the Sydney Metro upgrades where an increase in density is being justified due to these metro rail links. Such policies could include significant reductions to car parking, as well as provision of State government incentives (including financial) to reduce car dependence.

15.       The proposed F6 extension analysis should consider its impact on the connectivity of the green grid and biodiversity, particularly given that significant environmental restoration and regeneration efforts have gone into restoring bushland and habitat for fish and other endangered ecological communities, in the corridor reserved for the F6 Extension, especially in the Bayside Council area.

16.       It is requested that, as proposed project investigations proceed, local councils and the community be comprehensively involved in the development of proposals particularly in relation to proposals for public transport improvements to Victoria Road and Parramatta Road.

Should the M4 – M5 link and Iron Cove Link both proceed, Parramatta and Victoria Roads have potential to experience reduced demand and hence spare capacity. It is considered essential that this spare capacity be dedicated to active and sustainable transport, as well as streetscape and public domain improvements, before it is taken up by additional private vehicles responding to free-flowing traffic (induced demand).

Consequently, Council requests that these proposed studies be broadened to include active transport and streetscape/public domain improvements in addition to public transport and that they be expedited to ensure that all plans are in place prior to the completion of WestConnex (should the M4-M5 Link proceed).

17.       Of particular significance to Council is the opportunity to provide a contemporary, attractive and highly sustainable public transport solution to cater for the likely increase in demand for travel along the Parramatta Road corridor. Approval conditions for Stage 1 of WestConnex include a requirement for provision of two lanes of Parramatta Road for public transport (one lane in either direction) between Burwood and the City.

In response to this condition, and the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy (PRUTS), Inner West and Canada Bay Council's jointly produced the Parramatta Road Public Transport Opportunities Study in March 2017.  This study identified potential for a Guided Electric Transit System (GETs) along the corridor and proposed detailed investigations into the feasibility of providing the GETs.

The GETs would use a number of emerging technologies (including rapid charge electric power plants driving all wheels of the vehicle, relatively narrow gauge vehicles, Wi-Fi communication between traffic signals and vehicles to provide instantaneous prioritisation and optical guidance - which could ultimately be retrofitted with autonomous control when appropriate). These vehicles would be designed as a contemporary centre-running service to act as a catalyst for both the increased public transport uptake and enhanced public confidence essential to ensure the desired population densities envisaged by the PRUTS.

The GETs project is specifically proposed to provide support for the land use, public domain and community development initiatives designed by Urban Growth, GSC and Department of Planning. The GETs offers greater capacity than a comparable bus system, while its slimmer design (combined with optical guidance/lane assistance) requires narrower lanes than centre running light rail.  Further, the GETs offers an electrically powered/clean transport solution, envisaged as a highly desirable form of transport in The Strategy; one that embraces many of the key elements of the Future Transport Strategy 2056.

If vehicles were to be designed specifically for an Australian environment metro style seating could be used, with doors on either side, thus permitting vehicles to run kerbside in suburban areas with centre running on trunk routes. Centre running has been proposed for Parramatta Road to permit kerbside parking outside peak periods in support of active frontage uses.

Consequently, Council requests that TfNSW include detailed investigation (in the 1-10 year timeframe) of the development of a GETs pilot program for Parramatta Road; which would have the potential to be expanded across Sydney's trunk network. This study should be expedited to ensure that all plans are in place before the opening of WestConnex Stage 1.