AGENDA R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aDJOURNED Council Meeting FROM 21 NOVEMBER

 

TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY 12 DECEMBER 2017

 

6.30pm

 


Header Logo

Extraordinary Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

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

 

Members of the public must register by 2pm of the day of the Meeting to speak at Council Meetings. If you wish to register to speak 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.

 

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. This time limit applies, no matter how many items are addressed by the speaker;

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

·         only 3 speakers for and against an Agenda Item are allowed.

 

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. At the Ashfield Council Chambers there is a hearing loop service available to assist persons with a hearing impairment. If you have any other access or disability related participation needs and wish to know more, call 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.  

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF ITEMS

 

 

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

 

  

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          Staff Reports

 

ITEM                                                                                                                                       PAGE

 

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

C1117 Item 6      469-483 Balmain Road, Lilyfield - Planning Proposal                                 89

C1117 Item 11    Council Submission to Review of Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000                                                                                                           213

C1117 Item 12    Draft Future Transport Strategy 2056 - Council Submission                   223

C1117 Item 15    Naming of new lane between Grove and Alfred Streets, and perpendicular to Albion and Rolfe lanes, St Peters                                                                               255

C1117 Item 16    Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 2 November 2017  and Extra-Ordinary Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 3 November 2017                            259

C1117 Item 18    Targeting a Non Fossil Fuel Investment Portfolio for Inner West Council 289

C1117 Item 19    Pensioner Rebates                                                                                    304

 

6          Notices of Motion

ITEM                                                                                                                                       PAGE

 

C1117 Item 21    Notice of Motion: Affordable housing for the Inner West                         307

C1117 Item 22    Notice of Motion: Ensuring an Affordable, Quality Early Education and Childcare Place for Every Child                                                                                          309

C1117 Item 23    Notice of Motion: Rainbow Tunnel                                                            310      


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 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 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.

18.       Council requests that an Inner Sydney Main Street Improvements Program be established, with State agencies and relevant Councils working together to examine opportunities for public transport, active transport streetscape and public domain improvements. Such a program should include relevant section of the following streets from the Inner West LGA:

·          Addison Road, Petersham;

·          Darling Street, Rozelle & Balmain;

·          Enmore Road, Enmore;

·          Illawarra Road, Marrickville;

·          Johnston Street, Annandale;

·          King Street, Newton;

·          Liverpool Road, Ashfield;

·          Marion Street ,Leichhardt ;

·          Marrickville Road, Marrickville;

·          New Canterbury Road, Dulwich Hill;

·          Norton Street, Leichhardt;

·          Old Canterbury Road, Lewisham;

·          Ramsay Street, Haberfield;

·          Stanmore Road, Stanmore;

·          Sydney Road Marrickville/Sydney;

·          Sydenham Road, Sydenham/Marrickville;

·          Unwins Bridge Road, St Peters

·          Victoria road, Marrickville.

 

19.       While Future Transport indicates a desire to construct active transport infrastructure no specific details are provided. Of particular note is an absence of reference to the Inner Sydney Regional Bike Plan which has been unanimously adopted by all inner Sydney Councils and supported by both TfNSW and RMS. Consequently, Council requests that the Inner Sydney Regional Bike Plan specifically be included in the 0-10 year timeframe.

20.       Noting that Future Transport includes the Sydney Metro – City & Southwest project it is requested that the revised strategy also refer to completion of the associated South-West GreenWay active transport and environmental corridor.

21.       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.

22.       In examining potential for additional cruise ship capacity (0-10 year Initiative for Investigation) Council requests that the long term suitability of the existing White Bay Cruise Passenger Terminal be examined, particularly in relation to its impacts on residents of Balmain and Pyrmont and the likelihood that increasing proportions of cruise ships will be too tall to obtain clear passage under the Harbour Bridge.

23.       Council specifically requests that the following additional projects be included in the 0-10 year timeframe:

a.         the reinstatement of Glebe Island Bridge as an active transport link between Rozelle and Pyrmont;

b.         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 );

c.         provision of a light rail spur line between the Inner West Light Rail and White Bay (Power Station and Cruise Passenger Terminal Site);

d.         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

e.         development of north-south connectivity between the various heavy rail lines (including metro lines) through enhancement of both the public and active transport networks;

f.          the 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.

24.       Connectivity should be provided between the existing Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and the proposed Western Sydney Airport;

25.       In order to encourage greater use of public transport for travel to and from Sydney Airport (particularly for workers) existing fare penalties associated with the airport railway station access fees should be removed;

26.       In relation to emerging technologies it is requested that the revised strategy should provide guiding principles for appropriate land use-transport responses to ensure reduced private car dependency for all travel. In this respect attention should be given to:

a.         Development of new road hierarchies to accommodate autonomous vehicles and an increased proportion of fleet being devoted to shared vehicles;

b.         Working closely with local councils to develop appropriate land use responses, and built forms that recognise the need to be adaptable.  Noting that recent studies show a strong correlation between reduced on-site parking and reduced car ownership, these responses could include, but should not be limited to, consideration of:

i.          Placing ‘caps” on parking provision in specific areas including DCPs that set maximum  rather than minimum standards for on-site parking provision;

ii.          Provision of car-free developments;

iii.         Accessibility-based parking provision (with lower parking provision in areas well served by public transport);

iv.        Use of disengaged and disassociated parking to assist in moving toward a less car dependent development pattern (disassociated parking has parking spaces on separate titles from dwellings and/or businesses, while disengaged parking locates all parking for a specific precinct on specifically suitable sites – eg not necessarily directly adjoining dwellings and businesses);

v.         Built form which recognises the transient nature of some uses, consequently lending itself more readily to adaptive re-use (eg disengaged parking stations should be designed a manner which permits them to be incrementally re-used as parking becomes less necessary).

c.         As part of the MaaS approach; mode transfer systems that provide comprehensive coordination between connecting modes should be investigated. Systems are currently available that analyse, in real-time, origin and destination information associated with mode or service transfers and have the ability to “hold” connecting vehicles in order to ensure a convenient and optimised transfer experience for passengers. Such systems can examine the number of people requiring a transfer and weight that against the likely transfer penalty should the connection be missed. This can either be a real-time responsive system where passengers are required to identify their proposed destination or can be based on data previously collected regarding transfer demand and tolerance.

d.         Investigations should be carried out into emerging technologies which could be retrofitted to existing infrastructure in order to minimise their impacts (eg use of low noise road surfaces, acoustic barrier applications which absorb/convert pollutants, road surfaces which use tyre friction to generate electricity, induction charging plates embedded in road surfaces and parking lanes/areas, use of soft surfaces and landscaping to minimise heat island effect).

27.       It is requested that the revised strategy also include a detailed commitment to comprehensive community consultation for each new project and that all projects be subject to transparent processes of assessment. These processes should include detailed business cases which examine all costs to the community; including public health, environmental impacts, heritage considerations, social isolation, traffic and construction impacts.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Comments from other staff members have been incorporated in the submission.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Not applicable.

 

CONCLUSION

While Future Transport moves toward a more reasonable approach to long term transport planning it is considered that it the revised strategy and infrastructure plans should include:

·          A higher level of integration with proposed land use plans and urban redevelopment proposals;

·          Specific targets for reduced private car dependency;

·          Addition focus on public transport projects in the 1-10 year timeframe;

·          Increased emphasis on consultation with the community and local councils;

·          Increased north-south connectivity between transit services;

·          Greater emphasis on active transport;

·          Greater emphasis on

·          The numerous specific initiatives raised in Council’s submission points.

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Attachment 1 - Executive Summary - Future Transport Strategy

2.

Attachment 2 - Executive Summary - Greater Sydney Services and Infrastructure Plan

3.

Attachment 3 - Overview of specific proposals

  


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 15

Subject:         Naming of new lane between Grove and Alfred Streets, and perpendicular to Albion and Rolfe lanes, St Peters 

Prepared By:     Ranji Nadarajah - Senior Civil Engineer Investigation and Design 

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

 

SUMMARY

This report deals with the naming of a new lane between Grove and Alfred Streets, and perpendicular to Albion and Rolfe lanes, St Peters. At the Council meeting on 27 June 2017, Council selected “Dangura Lane” as its preferred naming option and resolved to undertake public exhibition of the preferred name.

 

Following the required period of public exhibition, this report recommends that Council proceed with the naming proposal.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The unnamed lane running between Grove and Alfred Streets,  and perpendicular to Albion and Rolfe lanes, St Peters be named Dangura Lane;

 

2.   A suitable notice be published in the NSW Government Gazette and local newspaper;

 

3.   The relevant statutory bodies and emergency services be notified; and

 

4.   Persons who made submissions and landowners and residents whose property adjoins the lane be notified of Council’s determination.

 

 

BACKGROUND

As a result of the redevelopment of 63 Grove Street, St Peters and its subdivision into 34 properties, a new lane was created running between Rolfe Lane and Albion Lane as shown in Attachment 1.

 

Representatives of the developer initially made submissions to Council for the naming of the newly created lane as “Lata Lane” in memory of Zois Prillis, one of the developers of these properties, who passed away before the development work was completed. “Lata” is a small village in Greece from which Zois family originated.

 

Council’s History Services advised that the naming of this lane as “Lata Lane” was appropriate from a historical perspective, particularly given the historical connection of the municipality with Greek migration.

 

A report recommending naming this lane as “Lata Lane” was presented to the former Marrickville Council’s Infrastructure, Planning and Environmental Services Committee in 2015. Council deferred action and resolved to review its Road Naming policy and confirmed its commitment to:

 

 

1          Naming roads to recognise the traditional Aboriginal custodians and the contribution of Aboriginal Australians to the Marrickville local government area. This includes through the potential use of Aboriginal language names or the recognition of significant Aboriginal historical figures or events;

 

2          Recognising important historical figures who lived in or contributed to the Marrickville local government area through the naming of local roads, noting that this should not be limited to historical landowners but where possible include others who have made significant contribution to Marrickville’s social and political history.

 

Though the name “Lata Lane” was proposed, particularly given the historical connection of the municipality with Greek migration, the possibility of naming this lane with a suitable Aboriginal name was also investigated in line with the former Marrickville Council’s revised Road Naming Policy. Aboriginal words were selected from Jakelin Troy’s Sydney Language document reflecting the history of the arts in the area and endorsed by the Marrickville Aboriginal Consultative Committee. The Aboriginal word “Dangura” meaning “to dance” was selected and endorsed by Council at its meeting on 27 June 2017, for public exhibition.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The public exhibition period concluded on 20 October 2017. Seven (7) submissions from five (5) residences were received as summarised below:

 

Comments by respondents

 

A resident of Mary St, St Peters suggested this lane should be named ‘Lata Lane’ to reflect the diverse history of the area and the many waves of migration that helped build the area.

 

 

Two residents from a property in Grove St requested Council to name this lane ‘Lata Lane’. One of the residents, who was one of the original partners of this development, mentioned that Mr Zois Prillis was instrumental to the rezoning of the site from industrial to residential use. He also mentioned that Mr Zois Prillis worked with Council in relation to the layout and design of the terraces to achieve this result. Unfortunately Mr Zois Prillis died before the development completed. They suggested the name ‘Lata Lane’ in honour of Mr Zois Prillis. Lata is a small village in Greece where Mr Zois Prilis left as a young man and came to Australia. Mr Zois Prillis was well known in the Marrickville area for over 40 years. Both residents mentioned that they would love to see the name ‘Lata Lane to honor his hard work and his family’s wishes.

 

Two residents from a property in Grove St requested Council  name this lane ‘Lata Lane’. These residents knew Mr Zois Prillis who was well known to Marrickville Council and to businesses throughout Marrickville. Mr Zois Prillis passed away before he could see the finished development. If it wasn't for him, Grove St would be full of trucks, noise, industrial machinery etc. Both residents requested council name this lane ‘Lata Lane’ in memory of the founder of this development.

 

A resident of Alfred St did not support the Council’s preferred name ‘Dangura Lane’. The resident mentioned Council asks residents to comment on the preferred name and then makes their own decision. This resident asks Council to select a European name to match with surrounding street names like Alfred, Grove, Sutherland, Rolfe, Mary and Albion.

 

 

A resident of Grove St did not support the Council’s proposed name ‘Dangura Lane’ The resident supports ‘Lata Lane’ and mentioned that the name ‘Lata Lane’ is mostly appropriate for this local area.

 

 

Of 34 properties bordering the lane, responses were received from 4 properties (6 residents) and a resident of Mary Street. Responses expressed strong support for “Lata Lane” in recognition of Mr Zois Prillis, one of the developers of the site, and in line with European names in surrounding streets.

 

The former Marrickville Council had expressed a desire to introduce Aboriginal language into the naming of public places in recognition of the traditional Aboriginal custodians and the contribution of Aboriginal Australians to the former Marrickville local government area. The recommendation to proceed with the name “Dangura” is based on this understanding by staff. Similarly, in this vein, “Daburi” meaning “to paint” was recently adopted for another newly created lane in St Peters.

 

The Geographical Names Board (GNB) has raised no objections to naming the unnamed lane either ‘Dangura Lane’ or ‘Lata Lane’.  Services authorities were also notified of the proposals through the automated GNB online system and no objections have been received. Accordingly Council is free to choose either name and proceed to gazetting of its preferred option.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The cost associated with naming this unnamed lane arise from the cost of advertising in local papers, placing a notice in the Government Gazette and installation of street name signs.  The estimated cost is approximately $1,500 which can be funded from the Operating Budget.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The proposal was publicly exhibited as follows:

 

·    letters advising of the proposal to name the lane Dangura Lane were distributed to all nearby and adjoining property owners and residents in in Grove Street, Alfred Street and Unwins Bridge Road;

·    Advertisements were placed in the Inner West Courier (12/9/2017) and Inner west times (20/9/2017); and

·    Information was placed on Council’s Your Say Marrickville website.

·    GNB and relevant statutory authorities were notified via the GNB online system.

 

The public exhibition period ended on 20 October 2017. In total, seven (7) written submissions from five (5) residences were received.

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Locality Plan

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

Item No:         C1117 Item 16

Subject:         Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 2 November 2017  and Extra-Ordinary Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 3 November 2017   

Prepared By:     George Tsaprounis - Coordinator Traffic Engineering Services  

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

 

SUMMARY

The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 2 November 2017 and the minutes of the Extra-Ordinary Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 3 November 2017 are presented for Council consideration.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 2 November 2017 and the Minutes of the Extra-Ordinary Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 3 November 2017 be received and the recommendations be adopted.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The Inner West Council Local Traffic Committee met on 2 November 2017 at Petersham. The minutes of the November meeting are shown at ATTACHMENT 1. An extra-ordinary Local Traffic Committee meeting was held on 3 November 2017 via email. The minutes of the extra-ordinary Local Traffic Committee meeting are shown at ATTACHMENT 2.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Projects proposed for implementation in 2017/18 are funded within existing budget allocations.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Specific projects have undergone public consultation as indicated in the respective reports to

the Traffic Committee. Members of the public attended the meeting to address the Committee

on specific items.

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting on 2 November 2017

2.

Minutes of the Extra-Ordinary Local Traffic Committee on 3 November 2017

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

 

Minutes of Local Traffic Committee Meeting

Held at Petersham Service Centre, 2-14 Fisher Street, Petersham

 

Meeting commenced at  10am

 

 

 

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.

 

COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT

 

Clr Marghanita Da Cruz

Councillor – Leichhardt Ward (Chair)

Mr Bill Holliday

Representative for Jamie Parker MP, Member for Balmain

Sgt Dan Chilvers

NSW Police – Leichhardt

Mr Ryan Horne

Roads and Maritime Services

 

 

OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE

 

 

Mr Peter Whitney

State Transit Authority

Mr Wal Petschler

IWC’s Group Manager, Roads, Traffic and Stormwater

Mr George Tsaprounis

IWC’s Coordinator, Traffic Engineering Services

Mr Boris Muha

IWC’s Traffic Projects Engineer

Mr Emilio Andari

IWC’s Traffic Engineer

Mr Manod Wickramasinghe

IWC’s Traffic & Planning Engineer

Mr David Yu

IWC’s Traffic Engineer

Ms Christina Ip

IWC’s Administration Assistant

 

 

VISITORS

 

 

 

Ms Judy Platt

Item 13

Mr Angus McInnes

Item 13

Mr Will Platt

Item 13

Ms Lesley Wilson

Item 14

 

 

APOLOGIES:    

 

 

 

Ms Jo Haylen MP

Member for Summer Hill

Ms Sarina Foulstone

Representative for Jo Haylen MP, Member for Summer Hill

SC Anthony Kenny

NSW Police – Newtown

Sgt John Micallef

NSW Police – Ashfield

Clr Julie Passas

Deputy Mayor – Ashfield Ward

Mr John Stephens

IWC’s Traffic & Transport Services Manager

 

 

 

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:   Nil.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

The Local Traffic Committee recommendations of its meeting held on 3 August 2017 and 7 September 2017 were adopted at Council’s Extraordinary Meeting held on 12 October 2017, with the exception of Items 1 and 6 of the August Traffic Committee minutes and Item 16 of the September Traffic Committee minutes, where Council resolved as follows:

 

·    Item 1 (Local Route 16 - Addison Road) of the August Traffic Committee minutes has been deferred and that interested Councillors and community representatives be invited to attend an onsite meeting;

 

·    Item 6 (Marrickville Road, Marrickville – Temporary Full Road Closures For Dulwich Hill Village Fair) of the August Traffic Committee minutes has been approved by RMS;

 

·    Item 16 (Traffic Calming, Intersection of Croydon Road and Church Street) of the September Traffic Committee minutes has been deferred and that interested Councillors and community representatives be invited to attend an onsite meeting. 

 

The Local Traffic Committee recommendations of its meeting held on 5 October 2017 were adopted at Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on 24 October 2017.

 

MATTERS ARISING FROM COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION OF MINUTES

 

Nil.

 

T1117 Item 1      ANTHONY STREET, CROYDON - ANNUAL ROAD OCCUPANCY   (CHRISTMAS STREET PARTY) ON SATURDAY 16 DECEMBER 2017

SUMMARY

 

Council seeks the support of the committee for a temporary full road closure of Anthony Street, Croydon, between Croydon Road and Etonville Parade, to be supported in order to conduct an annual Christmas Street party on Saturday, 16 December 2017 as recommended below.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

Support be provided for the temporary full road closure of Anthony Street, Croydon, between Croydon Road and Etonville Parade, to conduct an annual Christmas Street Party on the Saturday 16 December 2017, from 4.00pm - 9.00pm, subject to the following conditions:

 

1. The organiser is responsible to erect the signs and barricades in accordance of the Traffic Control Plan (TCP) attached, and arrange the management of the closure with RMS accredited traffic controllers.

 

2. Council Rangers be requested to oversee the event to assure that the traffic control arrangements are correctly in place.

 

3. The event would only entail the placement of tables and chairs upon the public footway or street, and be covered under Council (Casual Hire) insurance.

 

4. A clear passage of at least 4.0m must be provided for emergency vehicle access as required by Police.

 

5. The organiser is to arrange waste bins for litter control and make the area neat and tidy prior to the re-opening of the road.

 

6. The organiser is to arrange the dismantling of the temporary signs and barricades, and place the material in a designated area for Council to pick up after the completion of the event; and

7. The organiser is responsible for notifying the residents in the area at least one week prior to the event

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

Support be provided for the temporary full road closure of Anthony Street, Croydon, between Croydon Road and Etonville Parade, to conduct an annual Christmas Street Party on the Saturday 16 December 2017, from 4.00pm - 9.00pm, subject to the following conditions:

 

1. The organiser is responsible to erect the signs and barricades in accordance of the Traffic Control Plan (TCP) attached, and arrange the management of the closure with RMS accredited traffic controllers.

 

2. Council Rangers be requested to oversee the event to assure that the traffic control arrangements are correctly in place.

 

3. The event would only entail the placement of tables and chairs upon the public footway or street, and be covered under Council (Casual Hire) insurance.

 

4. A clear passage of at least 4.0m must be provided for emergency vehicle access as required by Police.

 

5. The organiser is to arrange waste bins for litter control and make the area neat and tidy prior to the re-opening of the road.

 

6. The organiser is to arrange the dismantling of the temporary signs and barricades, and place the material in a designated area for Council to pick up after the completion of the event; and

 

7. The organiser is responsible for notifying the residents in the area at least one week prior to the event

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

T1117 Item 2      RED LION STREET, ROZELLE, ROAD OCCUPANCY.

SUMMARY

 

This report seeks approval for the temporary road closure of Red Lion Street, Rozelle to

facilitate the annual ‘Christmas Street Party’ event that has been successfully conducted since 2009.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.   The temporary road closure of Red Lion Street between Darling Street and Evans Street, Rozelle on Saturday, 9th December 2017 between 4.00pm and 11.00pm be supported, subject to the following conditions:

 

a.   That an unencumbered passage minimum 4.0m wide be available for emergency vehicles through the closed section of Red Lion Street, Rozelle.

b.   The occupation of the road carriageway must not occur until the road has been physically closed.

c.   That the organiser be advised to arrange accredited traffic controllers to manage the road closure.

d.   That the applicant notifies all affected businesses, residents and other occupants of the temporary road closure prior to the event.  Any concerns or requirements in relation to the road closure raised by business proprietors, residents and other occupants must be resolved or accommodated. The notification shall involve at the minimum an information letterbox drop distributed one week prior to the commencement of the event.  The proposed information, distribution area and period must be submitted to Council’s Traffic section for approval two weeks before the event.

e.   That the supported Traffic Control Plan (TCP) be implemented at the applicant’s expense.

f.    That the Fire Brigade (Balmain) be notified of the intended closure by the applicant.

g.   That the applicant provide and erect barricades and signs, in accordance with the current Australian Standard AS 1742.3: Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads.  As a minimum the following must be erected at both ends of the road closure area:

i.    Barrier Boards

ii.    ‘Road Closed’ (T2-4) signs

iii.   ‘Detour’ (T5-1) signs

i.    That the applicant be advised Council provides barricades and ‘Road Closed’ signs free or at minimum cost.  The applicant is required to arrange delivery by Council at cost, or arrange pickup from and return to Council’s Depot at no cost. Any non-standard signs may be provided at cost. 

j.    That the areas to be used for the activities must be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the satisfaction of Council’s Group Manager Roads & Stormwater, or else the applicant will be required to reimburse Council for any extraordinary cleaning costs.

k.   That the conduct of any activities or use of any equipment required in conjunction with the road occupancy and temporary road closure not results in any ‘offensive noise’ as defined by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

l.    That a copy of the Council approval be available on site for inspection by relevant authorities.

m.  That Council reserves the right to cancel the approval at any time.

n.   That the applicant complies with any reasonable directive from Council Officers and NSW Police; and

 

2.         That the applicant be advised of the Committee’s recommendation. 

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The temporary road closure of Red Lion Street between Darling Street and Evans Street, Rozelle on Saturday, 9th December 2017 between 4.00pm and 11.00pm be supported, subject to the following conditions:

 

a.   That an unencumbered passage minimum 4.0m wide be available for emergency vehicles through the closed section of Red Lion Street, Rozelle.

b.   The occupation of the road carriageway must not occur until the road has been physically closed.

c.   That the organiser be advised to arrange accredited traffic controllers to manage the road closure.

d.   That the applicant notifies all affected businesses, residents and other occupants of the temporary road closure prior to the event.  Any concerns or requirements in relation to the road closure raised by business proprietors, residents and other occupants must be resolved or accommodated. The notification shall involve at the minimum an information letterbox drop distributed one week prior to the commencement of the event.  The proposed information, distribution area and period must be submitted to Council’s Traffic section for approval two weeks before the event.

e.   That the supported Traffic Control Plan (TCP) be implemented at the applicant’s expense.

f.    That the Fire Brigade (Balmain) be notified of the intended closure by the applicant.

g.   That the applicant provide and erect barricades and signs, in accordance with the current Australian Standard AS 1742.3: Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads.  As a minimum the following must be erected at both ends of the road closure area:

i.    Barrier Boards

ii.    ‘Road Closed’ (T2-4) signs

iii.   ‘Detour’ (T5-1) signs

i.    That the applicant be advised Council provides barricades and ‘Road Closed’ signs free or at minimum cost.  The applicant is required to arrange delivery by Council at cost, or arrange pickup from and return to Council’s Depot at no cost. Any non-standard signs may be provided at cost. 

j.    That the areas to be used for the activities must be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the satisfaction of Council’s Group Manager Roads & Stormwater, or else the applicant will be required to reimburse Council for any extraordinary cleaning costs.

k.   That the conduct of any activities or use of any equipment required in conjunction with the road occupancy and temporary road closure not results in any ‘offensive noise’ as defined by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

l.    That a copy of the Council approval be available on site for inspection by relevant authorities.

m.  That Council reserves the right to cancel the approval at any time.

n.   That the applicant complies with any reasonable directive from Council Officers and NSW Police; and

 

2.         That the applicant be advised of the Committee’s recommendation. 

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

T1117 Item 3      SHORT STREET, BALMAIN – ROAD OCCUPANCY (BALMAIN WARD/BALMAIN ELECTORATE/LEICHHARDT LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Council has received an application from a resident of Short Street, Balmain to conduct a

Christmas street party in Short Street between Spring Street and Curtis Road. This is an

annual event.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.   The temporary road closure of Short Street between Spring Street and Curtis Road, Balmain on Saturday, 16th December 2017 between 6.00pm and 11.30pm be supported, subject to the following conditions:

 

a.   That an unencumbered passage minimum 4.0m wide be available for emergency vehicles through the closed section of Short Street, Balmain.

b.   The occupation of the road carriageway must not occur until the road has been physically closed.

c.   That the organiser be advised to arrange accredited traffic controllers to manage the road closure.

d.   That the applicant notifies all affected businesses, residents and other occupants of the temporary road closure prior to the event.  Any concerns or requirements in relation to the road closure raised by business proprietors, residents and other occupants must be resolved or accommodated. The notification shall involve at the minimum an information letterbox drop distributed one week prior to the commencement of the event.  The proposed information, distribution area and period must be submitted to Council’s Traffic section for approval two weeks before the event.

e.   That the supported Traffic Control Plan (TCP) be implemented at the applicant’s expense.

f.    That the Fire Brigade (Balmain) be notified of the intended closure by the applicant.

g.   That the applicant provide and erect barricades and signs, in accordance with the current Australian Standard AS 1742.3: Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads.  As a minimum the following must be erected at both ends of the road closure area:

i.    Barrier Boards

ii.    ‘Road Closed’ (T2-4) signs

iii.   ‘Detour’ (T5-1) signs

i.    That the applicant be advised Council provides barricades and ‘Road Closed’ signs free or at minimum cost.  The applicant is required to arrange delivery by Council at cost, or arrange pickup from and return to Council’s Depot at no cost. Any non-standard signs may be provided at cost. 

j.    That the areas to be used for the activities must be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the satisfaction of Council’s Group Manager Roads & Stormwater, or else the applicant will be required to reimburse Council for any extraordinary cleaning costs.

k.   That the conduct of any activities or use of any equipment required in conjunction with the road occupancy and temporary road closure not results in any ‘offensive noise’ as defined by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

l.    That a copy of the Council approval be available on site for inspection by relevant authorities.

m.  That Council reserves the right to cancel the approval at any time.

n.   That the applicant complies with any reasonable directive from Council Officers and NSW Police; and

 

2.   That the applicant be advised of the Committee’s recommendation. 

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The temporary road closure of Short Street between Spring Street and Curtis Road, Balmain on Saturday, 16th December 2017 between 6.00pm and 11.30pm be supported, subject to the following conditions:

 

a.   That an unencumbered passage minimum 4.0m wide be available for emergency vehicles through the closed section of Short Street, Balmain.

b.   The occupation of the road carriageway must not occur until the road has been physically closed.

c.   That the organiser be advised to arrange accredited traffic controllers to manage the road closure.

d.   That the applicant notifies all affected businesses, residents and other occupants of the temporary road closure prior to the event.  Any concerns or requirements in relation to the road closure raised by business proprietors, residents and other occupants must be resolved or accommodated. The notification shall involve at the minimum an information letterbox drop distributed one week prior to the commencement of the event.  The proposed information, distribution area and period must be submitted to Council’s Traffic section for approval two weeks before the event.

e.   That the supported Traffic Control Plan (TCP) be implemented at the applicant’s expense.

f.    That the Fire Brigade (Balmain) be notified of the intended closure by the applicant.

g.   That the applicant provide and erect barricades and signs, in accordance with the current Australian Standard AS 1742.3: Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads.  As a minimum the following must be erected at both ends of the road closure area:

i.    Barrier Boards

ii.    ‘Road Closed’ (T2-4) signs

iii.   ‘Detour’ (T5-1) signs

i.    That the applicant be advised Council provides barricades and ‘Road Closed’ signs free or at minimum cost.  The applicant is required to arrange delivery by Council at cost, or arrange pickup from and return to Council’s Depot at no cost. Any non-standard signs may be provided at cost. 

j.    That the areas to be used for the activities must be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the satisfaction of Council’s Group Manager Roads & Stormwater, or else the applicant will be required to reimburse Council for any extraordinary cleaning costs.

k.   That the conduct of any activities or use of any equipment required in conjunction with the road occupancy and temporary road closure not results in any ‘offensive noise’ as defined by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

l.    That a copy of the Council approval be available on site for inspection by relevant authorities.

m.  That Council reserves the right to cancel the approval at any time.

n.   That the applicant complies with any reasonable directive from Council Officers and NSW Police; and

 

2.   That the applicant be advised of the Committee’s recommendation. 

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

T1117 Item 4      DAY STREET, MARRICKVILLE – TEMPORARY FULL ROAD CLOSURE FOR STREET PARTY (MARRICKVILLE WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)

SUMMARY

 

An application has been received from a resident for the temporary full road closure of Day

Street, between Hampden Avenue and Mansion Street, Marrickville (for a period of two and a

half hours on Sunday 28 January 2018) in order to hold a street party.

 

It is recommended that the proposed temporary road closure be approved, subject to the

conditions outlined in this report.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

The proposed full road closure of Day Street, Marrickville (between Hampden Avenue and Mansion Street) on Sunday 28 January 2018 between 4:30pm and 7:00pm be APPROVED, to hold a street party, subject to the following conditions;

 

1.   The temporary full road closure be advertised in the local newspaper for a period of 28 days in advance of the proposed closure;

 

2.   A 4-metre wide emergency vehicle access must be maintained through the closed road areas during the course of the event;

 

3.   The applicant is to set out the road closure as per the attached typical Traffic Control Plan (TCP);

 

4.   Notice of the proposed closure be forwarded to the NSW Police, the NSW Fire Brigades, the NSW Ambulance Services and the Transport Management Centre (TMC);

 

5.   All affected residents and businesses shall be notified in writing of the proposed temporary road closure at least 7 days in advance of the closure with the applicant making reasonable provision for residents;

 

6.   Vehicular and pedestrian access for residents to their off-street car parking spaces be maintained where possible during the road closure; and

 

7.   The applicant is to comply with all conditions of Council’s Street Party Guidelines.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

The proposed full road closure of Day Street, Marrickville (between Hampden Avenue and Mansion Street) on Sunday 28 January 2018 between 4:30pm and 7:00pm be APPROVED, to hold a street party, subject to the following conditions;

 

1.   The temporary full road closure be advertised in the local newspaper for a period of 28 days in advance of the proposed closure;

 

2.   A 4-metre wide emergency vehicle access must be maintained through the closed road areas during the course of the event;

 

3.   The applicant is to set out the road closure as per the attached typical Traffic Control Plan (TCP);

 

4.   Notice of the proposed closure be forwarded to the NSW Police, the NSW Fire Brigades, the NSW Ambulance Services and the Transport Management Centre (TMC);

 

5.   All affected residents and businesses shall be notified in writing of the proposed temporary road closure at least 7 days in advance of the closure with the applicant making reasonable provision for residents;

 

6.   Vehicular and pedestrian access for residents to their off-street car parking spaces be maintained where possible during the road closure; and

 

7.   The applicant is to comply with all conditions of Council’s Street Party Guidelines.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

T1117 Item 5      KINGSTON LANE, CAMPERDOWN – TEMPORARY FULL ROAD CLOSURE FOR STREET PARTY (STANMORE WARD/NEWTOWN ELECTORATE/NEWTOWN LAC)

SUMMARY

 

An application has been received from a resident for the temporary full road closure of

Kingston Lane, between Salisbury Road and Marmion Street, Camperdown (for a period of

four hours on Saturday 2 December 2017) in order to hold a street party.

 

It is recommended that the proposed temporary road closure be approved, subject to the

conditions outlined in this report.

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

The proposed full road closure of Kingston Lane, Camperdown (between Salisbury Road and Marmion Street) on Saturday 2 December 2017 between 3:00pm and 7:00pm be APPROVED, to hold a street party, subject to the following conditions;

 

1.   The temporary full road closure be advertised in the local newspaper for a period of 28 days in advance of the proposed closure;

 

2.   A 4-metre wide emergency vehicle access must be maintained through the closed road areas during the course of the event;

 

3.   The applicant is to set out the road closure as per the attached typical Traffic Control Plan (TCP);

 

4.   Notice of the proposed closure be forwarded to the NSW Police, the NSW Fire Brigades, the NSW Ambulance Services and the Transport Management Centre (TMC);

 

5.   All affected residents and businesses shall be notified in writing of the proposed temporary road closure at least 7 days in advance of the closure with the applicant making reasonable provision for residents;

 

6.   Vehicular and pedestrian access for residents to their off-street car parking spaces be maintained where possible during the road closure; and

 

7.   The applicant is to comply with all conditions of Council’s Street Party Guidelines.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

The proposed full road closure of Kingston Lane, Camperdown (between Salisbury Road and Marmion Street) on Saturday 2 December 2017 between 3:00pm and 7:00pm be APPROVED, to hold a street party, subject to the following conditions;

 

1.   The temporary full road closure be advertised in the local newspaper for a period of 28 days in advance of the proposed closure;

 

2.   A 4-metre wide emergency vehicle access must be maintained through the closed road areas during the course of the event;

 

3.   The applicant is to set out the road closure as per the attached typical Traffic Control Plan (TCP);

 

4.   Notice of the proposed closure be forwarded to the NSW Police, the NSW Fire Brigades, the NSW Ambulance Services and the Transport Management Centre (TMC);

 

5.   All affected residents and businesses shall be notified in writing of the proposed temporary road closure at least 7 days in advance of the closure with the applicant making reasonable provision for residents;

 

6.   Vehicular and pedestrian access for residents to their off-street car parking spaces be maintained where possible during the road closure; and

 

7.   The applicant is to comply with all conditions of Council’s Street Party Guidelines.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

T1117 Item 6      CONSTITUTION ROAD, DULWICH HILL - PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND UPGRADE DESIGN PLAN
(ASHFIELD WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)

SUMMARY

 

A detailed design plan has been finalised for the proposed traffic calming improvements in

Constitution Road, Dulwich Hill, at its intersection with Williams Parade, as part of the Dulwich Hill North LATM study implementation. The proposal to upgrade the existing pedestrian refuge islands and associated signs will improve pedestrian safety at this location.

 

Consultation was undertaken with the registered sporting clubs to the adjacent field at

Arlington Oval, regarding the proposal. A summary of the consultation results are presented in this report for consideration. It is recommended that the proposed detailed design plan be

approved.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the design of the upgrade to the existing pedestrian refuge islands with associated signs in Constitution Road, Dulwich Hill, at the intersection with Williams Parade (as per design plan No. 6154) be APPROVED.

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the design of the upgrade to the existing pedestrian refuge islands with associated signs in Constitution Road, Dulwich Hill, at the intersection with Williams Parade (as per  design plan No. 6154) be APPROVED.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

T1117 Item 7      ADDISON ROAD, PETERSHAM – PROPOSED RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING & KERB EXTENSIONS DESIGN PLAN (STANMORE WARD/NEWTOWN & SUMMER HILL ELECTORATES/MARRICKVILLE LAC)

SUMMARY

 

A detailed design plan has been finalised for the proposal to upgrade the existing at-grade

pedestrian crossing in Addison Road, Petersham at its intersection with Coronation Avenue

as part of the NSW Government’s Pedestrian Infrastructure Safety Around Schools Program

and as part of the Henson LATM study implementation. The proposal to upgrade the existing

at-grade pedestrian crossing to a new raised pedestrian crossing with kerb extensions and

associated signs and line markings will improve pedestrian safety and traffic conditions at this location.

 

Consultation was undertaken with owners and occupiers of properties adjacent to Addison

Road, Albert Street and Coronation Avenue, regarding the proposal. A summary of the

consultation results are presented in this report for consideration. It is recommended that the

proposed detailed design plan be approved.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the design of the raised pedestrian crossing with new kerb extensions and associated signs and line markings in Addison Road, Petersham, at the intersection of Coronation Avenue (as per design plan No. 6111) be APPROVED.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the design of the raised pedestrian crossing with new kerb extensions and associated signs and line markings in Addison Road, Petersham, at the intersection of Coronation Avenue (as per design plan No. 6111) be APPROVED.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

T1117 Item 8      VICTORIA ROAD, MARRICKVILLE – PROPOSED RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING WITH MEDIAN ISLAND & KERB EXTENSION DESIGN PLAN (MARRICKVILLE WARD/NEWTOWN ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)

SUMMARY

 

A detailed design plan has been finalised for the proposal to upgrade the existing at-grade

pedestrian crossing in Victoria Road, Marrickville at its intersection with Edgeware Road as

part of the NSW Government’s Pedestrian Infrastructure Safety Around Schools Program and as part of the Marrickville East LATM study implementation. The proposal to upgrade the

existing at-grade pedestrian crossing to a new raised pedestrian crossing with a median

island and kerb extensions and associated signs and line markings will improve pedestrian

safety and traffic conditions at this location.

 

Consultation was undertaken with owners and occupiers of properties adjacent to Victoria

Road and Edgeware Road, regarding the proposal. A summary of the consultation results are presented in this report for consideration. It is recommended that the proposed detailed design plan be approved.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the design of the raised pedestrian crossing with a median island and kerb extensions and associated signs and line markings in Victoria Road, Marrickville, at the intersection of Edgeware Road (as per design plan No. 6185) be APPROVED.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

The RMS representative expressed concern with the width of the proposed raised pedestrian crossing and the two traffic lanes on the departure of the proposed crossing and approach to Edgeware Road intersection. It was stated that this arrangement would potentially allow for a two lane approach to the proposed pedestrian crossing. The RMS representative suggested the design incorporate a kerb extension or kerb blister on approach to the crossing to reduce the road width.

 

Council Officers advised that the design will be revised to incorporate the suggested kerb blister treatment,  whilst also considering other issues on its placement such as drainage and turning movements out of Empire Lane.

 

It was agreed that a revised plan be distributed to Committee members via email for comment and support. The revised final design will then be submitted to Council for consideration.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the design of the raised pedestrian crossing in Victoria Road, Marrickville, at the intersection of Edgeware Road (as per design plan No. 6185) be revised to incorporate a kerb blister on the northbound approach to the raised pedestrian crossing to reduce the width of the crossing.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

T1117 Item 9      WINDSOR ROAD, DULWICH HILL - PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND DESIGN PLAN (ASHFIELD WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)

SUMMARY

 

A detailed design plan has been finalised for the proposed traffic calming improvements in

Windsor Road, Dulwich Hill, near its intersection with Weston Street and Rosedale Street, as

part of the Dulwich Hill North LATM study implementation. The proposal for a pedestrian

refuge island and associated signs and line markings will improve pedestrian safety and traffic conditions at this location.

 

Consultation was undertaken with owners and occupiers of properties adjacent to Windsor

Road, regarding the proposal. A summary of the consultation results are presented in this

report for consideration. It is recommended that the proposed detailed design plan be

approved.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the design of the pedestrian refuge island with associated signs and line markings in Windsor Road, Dulwich Hill, near its intersection with Weston Street and Rosedale Street (as per design plan No. 6146) be APPROVED.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the design of the pedestrian refuge island with associated signs and line markings in Windsor Road, Dulwich Hill, near its intersection with Weston Street and Rosedale Street (as per design plan No. 6146) be APPROVED.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

T1117 Item 10    MINOR TRAFFIC FACILITIES (LEICHHARDT & BALMAIN WARDS/BALMAIN & SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/ LEICHHARDT & ASHFIELD LAC)

SUMMARY

 

This report deals with minor traffic facility applications received by Inner West Council,

Leichhardt and Ashfield and includes ‘Disabled Parking’ applications.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.   The 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone in front of No.37 Tebbutt Street, Leichhardt is removed as it is no longer required.

2.   The Committee endorses the removal of the 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone in front of No.10 John Street, Ashfield as it was no longer required.

3.   A 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone is installed in Glover Street on the side boundary of No.31 Perry Street, Lilyfield extending north from the existing garden bed; and

4.   A 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone is installed in Elswick Street in front of No.53 Elswick Street, Leichhardt, subject to a copy of the applicants Mobility Parking Scheme being provided to Council

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone in front of No.37 Tebbutt Street, Leichhardt is removed as it is no longer required.

2.   The Committee endorses the removal of the 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone in front of No.10 John Street, Ashfield as it was no longer required.

3.   A 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone is installed in Glover Street on the side boundary of No.31 Perry Street, Lilyfield extending north from the existing garden bed; and

4.   A 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone is installed in Elswick Street in front of No.53 Elswick Street, Leichhardt, subject to a copy of the applicants Mobility Parking Scheme being provided to Council

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

T1117 Item 11    NORTON STREET, LEICHHARDT – PART-TIME LOADING ZONE  (LEICHHARDT WARD/BALMAIN ELECTORATE/LEICHHARDT LAC)

SUMMARY

Council has received a request to change the existing 1/4P parking restriction in front of 294-

298 Norton Street, Leichhardt to a ‘Loading Zone’ to facilitate deliveries for local businesses in the area.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT a 6m ‘Loading Zone 8am-5pm Mon-Sat’ be installed on the western side of Norton Street, Leichhardt (adjacent to No. 294-298 Norton Street) replacing the existing ‘1/4P’ zone in order to better facilitate deliveries for local businesses.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT a 6m ‘Loading Zone 8am-5pm Mon-Sat’ be installed on the western side of Norton Street, Leichhardt (adjacent to No. 294-298 Norton Street) replacing the existing ‘1/4P’ zone in order to better facilitate deliveries for local businesses.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

T1117 Item 12    SMITH STREET, SUMMER HILL - PROPOSAL FOR 15 MIN PARKING ZONE (ASHFIELD WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTRORATE/ASHFIELD LAC)

SUMMARY

Council has received representations from a resident to consider establishing a 15 min parking zone adjacent to the new Post Office in Smith Street, Summer Hill.

 

The proposed 15 min parking restrictions are considered adequate for the short term parking

needs of both the Post Office and the surrounding businesses.

 

It is recommended that establishment of one parking space limited to 15 minutes parking

adjacent to the new Summer Hill Post Office, at 93 Smith Street, Summer Hill be approved to

assist the new post office and other surrounding businesses.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT a parking zone of one space (6 m length) , signposted “P 15 min, 8.30am-6.00pm Mon-Fri, 8.30am-12.30pm Sat” be approved to replace the existing 1 P restriction, on the northern side of Smith Street, Summer Hill, adjacent to No. 95 Smith Street, Summer Hill.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT a parking zone of one space (6 m length) , signposted “P 15 min, 8.30am-6.00pm Mon-Fri, 8.30am-12.30pm Sat” be approved to replace the existing 1 P restriction, on the northern side of Smith Street, Summer Hill, adjacent to No. 95 Smith Street, Summer Hill.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

T1117 Item 13    EDITH STREET, LEICHHARDT – RESIDENT PARKING SCHEME (LEICHHARDT WARD/BALMAIN ELECTORATE/LEICHHARDT LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Council has received correspondence from a number of residents of Edith Street (south of

Marion Street), raising concerns regarding increased parking demands generated by

residents, commuters, and employees/patrons of businesses in Marion Street.

 

This report provides the result of a resident parking scheme investigation in Edith Street,

Leichhardt.

 

Officer’s Recommendation:

 

THAT the proposed Resident Parking Scheme in Edith Street (South of Marion Street) not be supported at the present time due to less than 50% support received from the consulted residents.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Public speakers: Ms Judy Platt, Mr Will Platt, Mr Angus McInnes, residents of Edith Street (attended at 10.03am)

 

Ms Platt expressed her support for a Resident Parking Scheme in Edith Street and stated the following:

 

·    Density in the area has increased in the last 10 years due to new development which has caused problems with parking and safety in Edith Street.

·    A number of options were investigated by Council since the issues were first raised in 2012 and it was decided that a Residential Parking Scheme was the best option.

·    Council’s policy assumes that residents who did not respond to the survey are against a Resident Parking Scheme. However, residents that did not respond may not necessarily be against a Scheme.

 

Mr McInnes noted that:

 

·    there is an inconsistency with the operating times of a Resident Parking Scheme.

·    the survey to residents only referenced one timeframe for both sides of the street whilst the report indicated two timeframes.

·    the current policy assumes that no response means opposition to a Scheme.

 

(Ms Platt, Mr Platt and Mr McInnes left at 10.13am)

 

The current policy of the former Leichhardt LGA requires a 50% resident support rate from the area consulted in order to support a Resident Parking Scheme.

 

Committee members discussed as a compromise whether one side of the street could be treated with a Resident Parking Scheme as a trial. Council Officers advised that if a Scheme were to be implemented on one side of the street only, it would be recommended that the Scheme operate from ‘8am-10pm, Mon-Fri’ due to the street’s proximity to restaurants.

 

Council Officers advised that a review of the Resident Parking policies from the former Leichhardt, Ashfield and Marrickville Councils is planned for 2018 to create one policy for the Inner West.

 

Given the high parking occupancy levels in Edith Street, Committee members agreed to defer the item to provide the opportunity for residents to elicit additional support for a Resident Parking Scheme to meet Council’s current policy.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the matter be deferred for the receipt of additional support for a Resident Parking Scheme in Edith Street to meet Council’s policy.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

T1117 Item 14    ELSWICK STREET, LEICHHARDT – RESIDENT PARKING SCHEME (LEICHHARDT WARD/BALMAIN ELECTORATE/LEICHHARDT LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Council has received correspondence from a number of residents of Elswick Street, raising

concerns regarding increased parking demands generated by long stay parking from non-residents and commuters.

 

This report provides the results of a residential parking scheme investigation in Elswick Street, Leichhardt.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the proposed Resident Parking Scheme in Elswick Street not be supported at the present time due to less than 50% support received from the consulted residents.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Public speaker: Ms Lesley Wilson (attended at 10.24am)

 

Ms Wilson stated that she supports a Resident Parking Scheme in Elswick Street and made the following comments:

 

·    This is the second time Council has proposed a Resident Parking Scheme in the street. The first time failed as less than 50% of residents indicated support and it has failed again for the same reason.

·    More than 50% of responses received were in favour of the Scheme. However, Council assumes that those who did not respond are opposed to implementing a Scheme.

·    She often has to park in Macaulay Street and Carlisle Street as parking in Elswick Street is often occupied by non-residents, which puts her at risk of fines as both those streets have timed parking.

 

(Ms Wilson left at 10.33am)

 

The current policy of the former Leichhardt LGA requires a support rate of 50% of residents surveyed in order to support introduction of a new Resident Parking Scheme.

 

Given the high parking occupancy levels in Elswick Street, Committee members agreed to defer the item to provide the opportunity for residents to elicit additional support for a Resident Parking Scheme to meet Council’s current policy.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the matter be deferred for the receipt of additional support for a Resident Parking Scheme in Elswick Street to meet Council’s policy.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

T1117 Item 15    STATION STREET, PETERSHAM – REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY ‘NO PARKING COUNCIL VEHICLES EXCEPTED’ RESTRICTIONS (STANMORE WARD/NEWTOWN ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Council’s Parks Capital Works section is requesting a temporary ‘No Parking’ zone in Station

Street, Petersham to accommodate the Magic Yellow Bus community service at Petersham

Park. The purpose of this proposal is to maintain the community service while there is

upgrade works occurring at Petersham Park.

 

It is recommended that the temporary ‘No Parking’ restrictions be installed in Station Street,

Petersham to provide clear access for the Magic Yellow Bus community service adjacent to

Petersham Park.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the installation of ‘No Parking Monday 9:00am-12:30pm Council Vehicles Excepted’ restrictions (total of 12 metres in length) on the western side of Station Street, Petersham, adjacent to Petersham Park (directly opposite property no. 67A & 67B Station Street, Petersham), for a period of up to two (2) months, be APPROVED.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the installation of ‘No Parking Monday 9:00am-12:30pm Council Vehicles Excepted’ restrictions (total of 12 metres in length) on the western side of Station Street, Petersham, adjacent to Petersham Park (directly opposite property no. 67A & 67B Station Street, Petersham), for a period of up to two (2) months, be APPROVED.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

T1117 Item 16    MORTON AVENUE (LANE) LEWISHAM PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF 'NO PARKING' AND 'NO STOPPING' RESTRICTIONS (STANMORE WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Following representations from residents, Council is proposing to implement ‘No Parking’ and

‘No Stopping’ restrictions in Morton Avenue, (laneway section) Lewisham. The proposed

restrictions would optimise parking for residents in the laneway by allowing for access to offstreet parking in the laneway whilst also maintaining as much on-street parking as possible.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.   ’10m No Stopping’ (both sides) in Morton Avenue (laneway section) at Frazer Street be APPROVED

2.   ’10m No Stopping’ (both sides) in Morton Avenue  at the intersection with Morton Avenue be APPROVED

3.   ‘No Parking’ for a length of 25m on the eastern side of Morton Avenue (laneway section) from the end of the proposed 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone to the property boundary at the rear of 49 Morton Avenue be APPROVED

4.   ‘No Parking’ for a length of 30m on the western side of Morton Avenue (laneway section) from the end of the proposed ‘10m ‘No Stopping’ zone to the property boundary at the rear of 45 Frazer Street be APPROVED

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   ’10m No Stopping’ (both sides) in Morton Avenue (laneway section) at Frazer Street be APPROVED

2.   ’10m No Stopping’ (both sides) in Morton Avenue  at the intersection with Morton Avenue be APPROVED

3.   ‘No Parking’ for a length of 25m on the eastern side of Morton Avenue (laneway section) from the end of the proposed 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone to the property boundary at the rear of 49 Morton Avenue be APPROVED

4.   ‘No Parking’ for a length of 30m on the western side of Morton Avenue (laneway section) from the end of the proposed ‘10m ‘No Stopping’ zone to the property boundary at the rear of 45 Frazer Street be APPROVED

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

T1117 Item 17    FRAMPTON LANE, MARRICKVILLE - PROPOSED 'NO PARKING' RESTRICITONS (STANMORE WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Following representations from residents, Council is proposing to implement ‘No Parking’ and

‘No Stopping’ restrictions in a section of Frampton Lane, Marrickville. The proposed

restrictions would optimise parking for residents in the area and allow for access to off-street

parking in the laneway as well as ensuring safety for line of sight at the intersections.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.   Conversion of ‘unrestricted’ parking to 10m ‘No Stopping’ (both sides) in Frampton Lane at Frampton Avenue be APPROVED

2.   Conversion of ‘unrestricted’ parking to ‘No Parking’ on the northern side of Frampton Avenue at the rear of property nos. 116 to 120 Sydenham Road inclusive be APPROVED

3.   Conversion of ‘unrestricted’ parking to ‘No Parking’ on the southern side of Frampton Avenue opposite the rear of property nos 116-120 Sydenham Road be APPROVED

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   Conversion of ‘unrestricted’ parking to 10m ‘No Stopping’ (both sides) in Frampton Lane at Frampton Avenue be APPROVED

2.   Conversion of ‘unrestricted’ parking to ‘No Parking’ on the northern side of Frampton Avenue at the rear of property nos. 116 to 120 Sydenham Road inclusive be APPROVED

3.   Conversion of ‘unrestricted’ parking to ‘No Parking’ on the southern side of Frampton Avenue opposite the rear of property nos 116-120 Sydenham Road be APPROVED

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T1117 Item 18    REQUESTS FOR MOBILITY PARKING SPACES
(MARRICKVILLE, STANMORE & ASHFIELD WARDS/SUMMER HILL& NEWTOWN ELECTORATES / MARRICKVILLE & NEWTOWN LACS)

SUMMARY

 

A number of requests have been received from residents for the provision of dedicated

mobility parking space outside their residence. It is recommended that the following 'Mobility

Parking' spaces be approved as the applicants current medical conditions warrants the

provision of the space and they have constrained or no off-street parking opportunities.

 

Officer’s Recommendation:

 

THAT:

 

1.       southern side of Lewisham Street, Dulwich Hill in front of property no. 25 Lewisham Street, Dulwich Hill;

2.       northern side of Charles Street, Marrickville in front of property no. 65 Charles Street, Marrickville;

3.       eastern side of Lincoln Street, Dulwich Hill in front of property no. 20 Lincoln Street, Dulwich Hill;

4.       eastern side of Wardell Road, Marrickville adjacent to property no. 2A George Street , Marrickville;

5.       northern side of Addison Road, Marrickville in front of property no.227 Addison Road, Marrickville;

6.       northern side of Camden Street, Enmore in front of property no. 67 Camden Street, Enmore;

be APPROVED as a ‘mobility parking’ space, subject to:

a)      the operation of the dedicated parking space be valid for twelve (12) months from the date of installation;

b)      the applicant advising Council of any changes in circumstances affecting the need for the special parking space; and

c)      the applicant is requested to furnish a medical certificate and current mobility permit justifying the need for the mobility parking space for its continuation after each 12 months period.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.       southern side of Lewisham Street, Dulwich Hill in front of property no. 25 Lewisham Street, Dulwich Hill;

2.       northern side of Charles Street, Marrickville in front of property no. 65 Charles Street, Marrickville;

3.       eastern side of Lincoln Street, Dulwich Hill in front of property no. 20 Lincoln Street, Dulwich Hill;

4.       eastern side of Wardell Road, Marrickville adjacent to property no. 2A George Street , Marrickville;

5.       northern side of Addison Road, Marrickville in front of property no.227 Addison Road, Marrickville;

6.       northern side of Camden Street, Enmore in front of property no. 67 Camden Street, Enmore;

be APPROVED as a ‘mobility parking’ space, subject to:

a)      the operation of the dedicated parking space be valid for twelve (12) months from the date of installation;

b)      the applicant advising Council of any changes in circumstances affecting the need for the special parking space; and

c)      the applicant is requested to furnish a medical certificate and current mobility permit justifying the need for the mobility parking space for its continuation after each 12 months period.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

T1117 Item 19    REQUEST FOR ‘WORKS ZONE’ ADJACENT TO CONSTRUCTIONSITES
(MARRICKVILLE WARD/ HEFFRON & SUMMER HILL ELECTORATES / NEWTOWN&MARRICKVILLELACS)

SUMMARY

 

A number of requests have been received from builders for the provision of 'Works Zone' to

facilitate construction deliveries and permit the parking of construction vehicles during loading and unloading activities.

 

It is recommended that the 'Works Zone' be approved for the construction works subject to

Council fees and charges.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.   the installation of a ‘Works Zone 7AM-5.30PM Mon-Sat’ (total of 10 meters in length) on the eastern side of Church Street infront of property no. 148 Church  Street, St Peters be APPROVED for a period of twelve (12) months, for the proposed construction works; and

2.   the installation of a ‘Works Zone 7AM-5.30PM Mon-Sat’ (total of 25 metres in length) on the southern side of Arthur Street infront of property no. 2-8 Arthur  Street, Marrickville be APPROVED for a period of twelve (12) months, for the proposed construction works; and

3.   the costs of the supply, installation and removal of the signs and ‘Works Zone’ fees in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges are to be borne by the applicants.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

 

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   the installation of a ‘Works Zone 7AM-5.30PM Mon-Sat’ (total of 10 meters in length) on the eastern side of Church Street infront of property no. 148 Church  Street, St Peters be APPROVED for a period of twelve (12) months, for the proposed construction works; and

2.   the installation of a ‘Works Zone 7AM-5.30PM Mon-Sat’ (total of 25 metres in length) on the southern side of Arthur Street infront of property no. 2-8 Arthur  Street, Marrickville be APPROVED for a period of twelve (12) months, for the proposed construction works; and

3.   the costs of the supply, installation and removal of the signs and ‘Works Zone’ fees in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges are to be borne by the applicants.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

T1117 Item 20    SHEPHERD STREET, MARRICKVILLE – PROPOSED ANGLE PARKING RESTRICTIONS DESIGN PLAN & CONSULTATION RESULTS (MARRICKVILLE WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)

SUMMARY

 

A detailed design plan has been finalised for the proposal to introduce a section of 90 degree

angle parking in Shepherd Street, Marrickville, between property no. 6 Shepherd Street and

property no. 34 Shepherd Street, as part of the Henson LATM study implementation. The

proposal to introduce a section of 90 degree angle parking in Shepherd Street, Marrickville

with associated signs and line markings will provide additional on-street parking opportunities

and improve traffic conditions at this location.

 

Consultation was undertaken with owners and occupiers of properties adjacent to Addison

Road, Albert Street and Coronation Avenue, regarding the proposal. A summary of the

consultation results are presented in this report for consideration. It is recommended that the

installation of 90 degree angle parking on the western side of Shepherd Street, Marrickville,

between property no. 6 Shepherd Street and property no. 34 Shepherd Street, with associated signs and line markings not be approved, as there was a majority of responses opposing to the proposal from affected properties within the street. It is also recommended that an investigation for a permit parking scheme be undertaken in Shepherd Street, Marrickville.

 

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.  The design of the 90 degree angle parking on the western side of Shepherd Street, Marrickville, between property no. 6 Shepherd Street and property no. 34 Shepherd Street, with associated signs and line markings (as per design plan No. 6187) NOT be approved; and

 

2.  An investigation for a permit parking scheme be undertaken in Shepherd Street, Marrickville.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.  The design of the 90 degree angle parking on the western side of Shepherd Street, Marrickville, between property no. 6 Shepherd Street and property no. 34 Shepherd Street, with associated signs and line markings (as per design plan No. 6187) NOT be approved; and

 

2.  An investigation for a permit parking scheme be undertaken in Shepherd Street, Marrickville.

 

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

T1117 Item 21    LOCAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2018

SUMMARY

 

The proposed schedule of the Local Traffic Committee meetings has been prepared for the

2018 calendar year. It is recommended that the proposed meeting schedule be received and

noted.

 

Officer’s Recommendation:

 

THAT the proposed schedule of meetings of the Local Traffic Committee for the 2018 calendar year be received and noted.

 

DISCUSSION

 

An amendment was proposed to hold Local Traffic Committee meetings on the first Tuesday of the month for the 2018 calendar year (excluding January).

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s revised proposal. Council Officers advised that the revised schedule will be provided to Committee members.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT meetings of the Local Traffic Committee for the 2018 calendar year be held on the first Tuesday of each month (excluding January).

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

Late Item            UNNAMED LANEWAY BETWEEN MAY STREET AND THE BOULEVARDE, LILYFIELD -  ANNUAL ROAD OCCUPANCY (STREET PARTY)

(LEICHHARDT WARD/BALMAIN ELECTORATE/LEICHHARDT LAC)

 

 

Prepared By:             Manod Wickramasinghe – Traffic and Parking Engineer

 

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

 

SUMMARY

 

This report seeks approval for the temporary road closure of the Unnamed Laneway between May Street and The Boulevarde, Lilyfield to facilitate an annual ‘Christmas Street Party’ event (4pm-10pm) on Saturday, 23rd December 2017.

 

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.   The temporary road closure of the Unnamed Laneway between May Street and The Boulevarde, Lilyfield (section at the rear of Nos.355-367 Balmain Road) on Saturday, 23rd December 2017 between 4.00pm and 10.00pm be supported, subject to the following conditions:

 

a.   That an unencumbered passage minimum 3.0m wide be available for emergency vehicles through the closed section of the laneway.

b.   The occupation of the road carriageway must not occur until the road has been physically closed.

c.   That the organiser be advised to arrange accredited traffic controllers to manage the road closure.

d.   That the applicant notifies all affected businesses, residents and other occupants of the temporary road closure prior to the event. Any concerns or requirements in relation to the road closure raised by business proprietors, residents and other occupants must be resolved or accommodated. The notification shall involve at the minimum an information letterbox drop distributed one week prior to the commencement of the event. The proposed information, distribution area and period must be submitted to Council’s Traffic section for approval two weeks before the event.

e.   That the supported Traffic Control Plan (TCP) be implemented at the applicant’s expense.

f.    That the Fire and Rescue NSW (Leichhardt) be notified of the intended closure by the applicant.

g.   That the applicant provide and erect barricades and signs, in accordance with the current Australian Standard AS 1742.3: Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads. As a minimum the following must be erected at both ends of the road closure area:

 

i.    Barrier Boards

ii.    ‘Road Closed’ (T2-4) signs

iii.   ‘Detour’ (T5-1) signs

 

h.   That the applicant be advised Council provides barricades and ‘Road Closed’ signs free or at minimum cost. The applicant is required to arrange delivery by Council at cost, or arrange pickup from and return to Council’s Depot at no cost. Any non-standard signs may be provided at cost.

i.    That the areas to be used for the activities must be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the satisfaction of Council’s Group Manager Roads & Stormwater, or else the applicant will be required to reimburse Council for any extraordinary cleaning costs.

j.    That the conduct of any activities or use of any equipment required in conjunction with the road occupancy and temporary road closure not results in any ‘offensive noise’ as defined by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

k.   That a copy of the Council approval be available on site for inspection by relevant authorities.

l.    That Council reserves the right to cancel the approval at any time.

m.  That the applicant complies with any reasonable directive from Council Officers and NSW Police.

 

2. That the applicant be advised of the Committee’s recommendation.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Council has received an application for approval of a street party in the Unnamed Laneway between May Street and The Boulevarde, Lilyfield (section at the rear of Nos.355-367 Balmain Road).

 

The street party is proposed to be held on Saturday, 23rd December 2017 between 4.00pm and 10.00pm. The applicant is seeking permission for a temporary full road closure the unnamed laneway.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The Street Party Co-ordinator will bear all costs associated with the road closure.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

 

The Traffic Control Plan for the closure is as follows:

 

 

According to the RMS ‘Guide to Traffic and Transport Management for Special Events’ (Version 3.4) a small street party is considered as a ‘Class 3’ event.

 

Council encourages properly conducted neighbourhood street parties as a means of building community spirit and improving neighbourhood security. Fees for road occupancy are waived by Council for small community street parties.

 

Where the following conditions apply, organisers are only required to obtain approval for a street party involving a temporary road closure:

·    the party is to be held outdoors for fewer than 100 people

·    no temporary structures or jumping castles are to be erected,

·    participants are to bring their own food and drinks, and food and drink are not for sale

·    there will be no performers or amplified music involved

 

For approved street parties, Council will provide barricades and ‘Road Closed’ signs free or at minimum cost. Any non-standard signs may be provided at cost. The Street Party Co-ordinator will need to arrange delivery by Council at cost, or arrange pickup from and return to Council’s Depot at no cost.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

 

The proposed temporary full-road closure is currently advertised in the local newspaper for a period of 28 days.

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is recommended that the temporary closure of the Unnamed Laneway between May Street and The Boulevarde, Lilyfield (section at the rear of Nos.355-367 Balmain Road) on Saturday, 23rd December 2017 between 4.00pm and 10.00pm be supported subject to the conditions listed in the recommendation.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The temporary road closure of the Unnamed Laneway between May Street and The Boulevarde, Lilyfield (section at the rear of Nos.355-367 Balmain Road) on Saturday, 23rd December 2017 between 4.00pm and 10.00pm be supported, subject to the following conditions:

 

a.   That an unencumbered passage minimum 3.0m wide be available for emergency vehicles through the closed section of the laneway.

b.   The occupation of the road carriageway must not occur until the road has been physically closed.

c.   That the organiser be advised to arrange accredited traffic controllers to manage the road closure.

d.   That the applicant notifies all affected businesses, residents and other occupants of the temporary road closure prior to the event. Any concerns or requirements in relation to the road closure raised by business proprietors, residents and other occupants must be resolved or accommodated. The notification shall involve at the minimum an information letterbox drop distributed one week prior to the commencement of the event. The proposed information, distribution area and period must be submitted to Council’s Traffic section for approval two weeks before the event.

e.   That the supported Traffic Control Plan (TCP) be implemented at the applicant’s expense.

f.    That the Fire and Rescue NSW (Leichhardt) be notified of the intended closure by the applicant.

g.   That the applicant provide and erect barricades and signs, in accordance with the current Australian Standard AS 1742.3: Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads. As a minimum the following must be erected at both ends of the road closure area:

 

i.    Barrier Boards

ii.    ‘Road Closed’ (T2-4) signs

iii.   ‘Detour’ (T5-1) signs

 

h.   That the applicant be advised Council provides barricades and ‘Road Closed’ signs free or at minimum cost. The applicant is required to arrange delivery by Council at cost, or arrange pickup from and return to Council’s Depot at no cost. Any non-standard signs may be provided at cost.

i.    That the areas to be used for the activities must be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the satisfaction of Council’s Group Manager Roads & Stormwater, or else the applicant will be required to reimburse Council for any extraordinary cleaning costs.

j.    That the conduct of any activities or use of any equipment required in conjunction with the road occupancy and temporary road closure not results in any ‘offensive noise’ as defined by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

k.   That a copy of the Council approval be available on site for inspection by relevant authorities.

l.    That Council reserves the right to cancel the approval at any time.

m.  That the applicant complies with any reasonable directive from Council Officers and NSW Police.

 

2. That the applicant be advised of the Committee’s recommendation.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

The RMS representative provided an update on the upgrade to the pedestrian crossing in Frederick Street, Ashfield. The Committee members were advised that the design plan is being finalised and community consultation will start in late January 2018 with construction to be completed by the end of 2017/18 financial year. RMS will provide a copy of the final plan.

 

Meeting closed at  11am.


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

 

Minutes of Extra-Ordinary Local Traffic Committee Meeting

Held on Friday 3 November 2017 via Email

 

COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES

 

Clr Marghanita Da Cruz

Councillor – Leichhardt Ward (Chair)

Ms Cathy Peters

Representative for Jenny Leong MP, Member for Newtown

SC Stephen Flanagan

NSW Police – Marrickville

Mr Ryan Horne

Roads and Maritime Services

 

 

 

 

T1117 Item 8      VICTORIA ROAD, MARRICKVILLE – PROPOSED RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING WITH MEDIAN ISLAND & KERB EXTENSION DESIGN PLAN (MARRICKVILLE WARD/NEWTOWN ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Following the Inner West Council Local Traffic Committee held on 2 November 2017, a revised design plan (see attached revised design plan No. 6185_A) for Item 8 Victoria Road, Marrickville – Proposed Pedestrian Crossing with Median Island & Kerb Extension Design Plan of the 2 November 2017 Local Traffic Committee Agenda was distributed to Committee members via email for comment and support. The comments from the Committee members are presented below.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the revised design of the raised pedestrian crossing with a median island and kerb extensions and associated signs and line markings in Victoria Road, Marrickville, at the intersection of Edgeware Road (as per revised design plan No. 6185_A) be APPROVED.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Based on Committee member feedback, the following issues were further investigated:

 

1.    The relocation of the ‘pedestrian crossing’ sign on the western side of Victoria Road, (northbound) closer to kerb line to improve its visibility – Plan amended accordingly; and

 

2.    An amendment to the proposed median island and kerb and gutter alignment on the eastern side of Victoria Road (southbound) was investigated to reduce the lane width; however, turning movements from vehicles on Edgeware Road into Victoria Road were affected and therefore a reduction to the lane width was not feasible.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the revised design of the raised pedestrian crossing with a median island and kerb extensions and associated signs and line markings in Victoria Road, Marrickville, at the intersection of Edgeware Road (as per revised design plan No. 6185_A) be APPROVED.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

Meeting closed at 5pm Tuesday, 7 November 2017.

 

 

 

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

Item No:         C1117 Item 18

Subject:         Targeting a Non Fossil Fuel Investment Portfolio for Inner West Council  

Prepared By:     Brendhan Barry - Manager Financial Services  

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

 

SUMMARY

This report provides a review of Council’s aim of achieving 100% exposure to non-fossil fuel aligned investments, including changes to Council’s investment risk profile, estimated expected returns and the prudent transition to a non-fossil fuel investment.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

In May 2017, the Inner West Council adopted an investment policy that targeted 70% portfolio investment in non fossil fuel (NFF) aligned approved deposit institutions by June 2018.  The risk parameters included within the policy were aligned to achieving a target of 70% in NFF institutions.

The 70% NFF investment mix was achieved well in advance of the June 2018 target timeframe, consequently the Inner West Council is seeking to target a 100% NFF investment portfolio.

To achieve this target a number of factors must be considered:

1.   The ability to achieve 100% NFF investment within the current approved investment policy risk parameters (credit rating and individual institution limits) allow for a target of 100%;

 

2.   Timeframe required to achieve 100% without requiring the Inner West Council to break investments and forgo interest in the process.

 

Investment Policy Risk Limits

A review of the current investment policy limits has determined that, while achievable under current policy limits, reaching 100% non-FF portfolio would be aided by allowing higher exposure to lower rated institutions, both individually and as a whole, within Council’s investment policy. 

 

The circled area below in Council’s Total Credit Exposure table shows the remaining 21% of which should be re-invested with NFF aligned banks.  As the individual investments that make up the $40m gradually mature their proceeds can be distributed to non-FF aligned banks in the top two categories as represented by the green arrows and still be within Council’s current investment policy limits (grey bars):

 

As the chart indicates, providing at least a small amount of the FF maturities get reinvested into the top credit rating category (achievable by using Suncorp) the balance can go into A-2 rated banks to reach a 100% non-FF investment portfolio.  However, Council may not be able to secure the most attractive returns available at the time, instead having to opt for lower interest returns to ensure policy limit compliance.

 

Alternatively, should Council wish to maintain interest revenue at current (or higher levels) then an increase of the allowable limits for BBB long term and A2 short term exposures will likely be required.  The current investment policy limits are:

Overall Portfolio

ADI Portfolio Credit Limits/Ratings

Long Term

Short Term

Maximum

AAA

A-1+

100%

AA

A-1

100%

A

A-2

70%

BBB

N/A

20%

Unrated

Unrated

10%

Specific Ministerial Approved Forms of Investment

NSW Treasury Corp Deposits and TCorpIM Funds

100%

 

Individual Institution

ADI Portfolio Credit Limits/Ratings

Long Term

Short Term

Maximum

AAA

A-1+

45%

AA

A-1

30%

A

A-2

20%

BBB

N/A

10%

Unrated

Unrated

5%

NSW Treasury Corp Deposits and TCorp IM Funds

11am, Term Deposits or Bonds

35%

TCorpIM Cash Fund

35%

TCorpIM Strategic Cash Fund

20%

 

A total portfolio allowance of 100% among A2 short term rated ADIs (from 70% circled above) and at least 30% with any individual ADI (from 20% circled above) would likely be sufficient to give Council room under policy limits to reach 100% with non-FF aligned investments.

With the expected increase in market rates and the additional margin available from lower rated non-FF aligned banks, it is expected Council’s average term deposit yield will be in the 2.80-90% range over the next 12-18 months.

 

Timeframe

Complying with global banking regulations, banks no longer allow for the early withdrawal of term deposits without significant interest rate penalty.   Therefore, a redistribution of the proceeds from existing fossil fuel bank deposits as they mature will continue to be the recommended course of action. 

Based on the current investment portfolio, it is estimated that by the end of May 2019 Council can achieve a 100% non-FF investment portfolio when the last existing FF bank term deposit is scheduled to mature.

 

 

 

Investment Options

 

As Council progresses to 100% NFF investment portfolio, a review of the mix between term deposits and bank issued bonds (floating rate notes) will need to be carefully considered.  The 4 major banks (which are FF aligned) occasionally issue socially focused bonds (eg ANZ “Green” Bond).  These are the only avenue for Council to utilize investment in the 4 major banks while still maintain a 100% NFF portfolio.  It is important to note that these are rare and will need to coincide with when Council is looking to invest cash.  The last 3 issues of socially focused bonds:

 

March 2017: CBA Climate Bond

June 2016: WBC Climate Bond

June 2015: ANZ Green Bond

 

 

Summary

 

·    Inner West Council has taken a leading role within the local government industry in targeting a non-FF aligned investment portfolio.  Council is able to show firm results since making the pledge to give preference to non-FF aligned banks.

 

·    Current policy limits were put in place with a target of 70% non-FF. While it is possible to reach 100% non-FF under the existing limits, Council may not be able to secure the most attractive returns available at the time, instead having to opt for less optimal alternatives to ensure policy limit compliance.

 

·    As part of the next Investment Policy review, the allowable limits for the BBB long term and A2 short term exposures is recommended to be increased to assist in achieving a 100% non-FF aligned portfolio.

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

IWC Targeting full non-FF v2

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

 

 

9 November 2017

 

 

Mr Pav Kuzmanovski

Group Manager Finance

Inner West Council

2-4 Fisher Street

Petersham, NSW 2049

 

Dear Pav,

 

Targeting a 100% non-Fossil Fuel Investment Portfolio

·                     As requested, please find attached a review of considerations for Council’s aim of achieving 100% exposure to non-fossil fuel aligned investments, including recommendations for future changes to Council’s Investment Policy limits.  

·                     This is intended as a working document whose parts can be cut & pasted by you as required (left in Word for that reason).    

·                     Please call me on 0414 611 827 with any questions.

·                     Yours sincerely,

Erik

 

·                     Erik Gates

Director

 

 


 


Table of Contents

 

Background – Targeting a 100% non-Fossil Fuel portfolio. 3

Change to Council’s Risk Profile. 4

Prudent Transition to 100% non-Fossil Fuel 6

Estimated Expected Returns. 9

Summary. 11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Background – Targeting a 100% non-Fossil Fuel portfolio

In May 2017, Inner West Council adopted a target of 70% of its investment portfolio to be in non-fossil fuel (non-FF) aligned banks by June 2019.  

 

 

Inner West Council has taken a leading role in the divestment from fossil fuel (FF) aligned banks showing firm results since making the pledge to give preference to non-FF aligned banks. 

 

The chart below shows Council’s total monthly portfolio (grey bars; left hand scale) overlayed by the percentage exposure to non-FF aligned banks (blue line; right hand scale).  Since May Council’s non-FF aligned exposure has sharply increased from below 60% to nearly 80%:

 

                    

                            

 

 

The 70% target was achieved within three months and Council is now considering a full divestment from FF aligned banks. 

 

A fully non-FF aligned investment portfolio would put Inner West Council in a category of its own within local government: from just giving “preference” to actually mandating non-FF aligned banks investments.  

 

This review considers changes to Council’s investment risk profile, estimated expected returns and the prudent transition to a non-FF investment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Change to Council’s Risk Profile

As part of the investment strategy review in May 2017, Council adopted an updated Investment Policy which was aimed at allowing for a greater exposure to non-FF ADIs (Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions which include banks, credit unions and building societies regulated by APRA).

 

A primary change to the policy was the allowance for a greater exposure to lower rated ADIs.  Non-FF ADIs are predominately in lower credit rating categories than the larger FF aligned ADIs such as the Australian four major banks.

 

While the four majors have long-term credit ratings in the AA category, the vast majority of non-FF ADIs have long term ratings in the BBB category.  Standard and Poor’s Credit Rating Agency’s category definitions are as follows:

 

          

 

 

 

While Council’s investment policy now allows for a total of only 20% in BBB long term rated investments, most banks in this category have short-term credit ratings of A2, which apply to deposits of less than 1 year.  Council is able to invest up to 70% of its total portfolio in banks with short term ratings of A2.  The rating categories of the majority of non-FF banks, and Council’s limits to them, are circled in green below:

 

Total portfolio limits:

        

 

No more than 20% may be invested with any single A2 rated bank, thereby requiring a diversified selection of ADIs within the portfolio:

 

Individual bank limits:

         

 

While the credit rating framework provides sound risk management structure for a 70% non-FF portfolio, the allowable limits for the BBB long term and A2 short term exposures will likely need to be increased to assist in achieving a 100% non-FF aligned portfolio.

 

A total portfolio allowance of 100% among A2 short term rated ADIs and at least 30% with any individual ADI would likely be sufficient to give Council room under policy limits to reach 100% with non-FF aligned investments.

 

 


 

 

Prudent Transition to 100% non-Fossil Fuel

Council has acknowledged the importance of making a prudent transition toward a 100% non-FF investment portfolio. 

 

Complying with global banking regulations, banks no longer allow for the early withdrawal of term deposits without significant interest rate penalty.   Therefore, a redistribution of the proceeds from existing FF bank deposits as they mature will continue to be the recommended course of action. 

 

The table below shows Council’s current maturity schedule for FF aligned investments:

                           

            

 

Based on the current investment portfolio, by May 2018 approximately 90% of Council’s investment portfolio will be non-FF aligned, providing all reinvestments are distributed among non-FF banks. Likewise, it is estimated that by the end of May 2019 Council can achieve a 100% non-FF investment portfolio when the last existing FF bank term deposit is scheduled to mature.

 

While achievable under current policy limits, reaching 100% non-FF portfolio would be aided by allowing higher exposure to lower rated institutions, both individually and as a whole, within Council’s investment policy. 

 

The circled area below in Council’s Total Credit Exposure table shows the remaining 21% of which remains invested with FF aligned banks.  As the individual investments that make up the $40m gradually mature their proceeds can be distributed to non-FF aligned banks in the top two categories as represented by the green arrows and still be within Council’s current investment policy limits (grey bars):

 

      

 

 

As the chart indicates, providing at least a small amount of the FF maturities get reinvested into the top credit rating category (achievable by using Suncorp) the balance can go into A-2 rated banks to reach a 100% non-FF investment portfolio. 

 

Current policy limits were put in place with a target of 70% non-FF. While it is possible to reach 100% non-FF under the existing limits, Council may not be able to secure the most attractive returns available at the time, instead having to opt for less optimal alternatives to ensure policy limit compliance. 

 


 

By way of example, the graph below shows Council’s current exposures with each bank (green bars = non-FF banks) versus policy limits (grey).  Council is near its limit with Bank of Queensland, Bendigo and ME Bank, the non-FF banks that currently offer the best rates:

             

      

 

 

Consequently, under the current policy limits, proceeds of maturing FF deposits (CBA, NAB & Westpac) will have to be directed to banks which may not be offering rates comparable to Bank of Queensland, Bendigo and ME Bank.

 

At Council’s next Investment Policy review, it is recommended to increase the total A2 short-term limit to 100% and individual A2 rated bank exposure to 30%, represented by the blue line above.  This will help Council invest more with the non-FF banks that historically offer better rates. 

 

The blue arrows on the chart above show the additional allowance for Bank of Queensland, Bendigo and ME Bank if exposure to A2 rated banks were increased to 30% each. 

 

 

Estimated Expected Returns

 

Lower rated investments typically provide investors with a higher rate of return as compensation for taking on higher perceived risk. However, since the global financial crisis, interest rates on term deposits from Australian banks have had little correlation with the banks’ credit ratings.  Over the past several years, term deposit rates from NAB and CBA/Bankwest (FF aligned banks) have been inline with or exceeded those from the lower rated non-FF banks. 

 

This anomaly is slowly reverting to the norm. Current term deposit rates show that the average 3-12 month rates from widely utilised non-FF banks exceed the average FF aligned banks by approximately 0.05 – 0.15%: 

                    

             

 

Compared to term deposits, margins offered on bank issued bonds better reflect the underlying investment risk of the banks.  The table below shows how much more margin BBB rated banks (typically non-FF) pay on floating rate notes (bonds) versus the AA- rated 4 majors:

 

                   

 

Council has a well diversified portfolio of longer dated bank issued bonds from non-FF banks.  In moving toward a 100% non-FF portfolio it is recommended that more of these bonds are utilised as opportunities arise, providing Council’s cash flow allows. These have historically provided Council with higher returns on its non-FF exposures versus term deposits from the same bank for the same maturity.

 

Another non-FF investment option are socially focused bonds, like Council’s ANZ “Green” Bond, which the 4 majors occasionally issue.  The funds raised by these bond issues are earmarked for sustainable projects. Investors are not directly exposed to the success of the underlying projects and the bonds rank equal to other senior bonds issued by the bank.  Consequently, the margins on these types of bonds are in line with those shown on the previous chart for AA- banks.  These will continue to be considered for Council’s portfolio as they come to market.

 

Council’s actual returns over the past year have been well above the average FF and non-FF term deposits due to selective exposure to higher yielding deposits and the inclusion of Council’s bond holdings. Based on historical margins and forward rate expectations, the chart below shows the projected return of Council’s portfolio (blue dotted line) over the next 3 years: 

 

 

As Council’s remaining FF investments mature over the next 18 months, a diversified allocation of non-FF term deposits, bonds and 4-major issued sustainable bonds will be recommended. 

 

Projecting this strategy forward and adjusting for the expected increase in market rates, it is estimated that the average yield of Council’s portfolio may be in the 3.15% area by May 2019 when the portfolio hits 100% non-FF and as much as 3.40% by the following year. 

 

The table below shows the estimated returns of the portfolio under various allocation scenarios, including keeping the current weighting unchanged:

 

 

Summary

·    Inner West Council has taken a leading role within the local government industry in targeting a non-FF aligned investment portfolio.  Council is able to show firm results since making the pledge to give preference to non-FF aligned banks. 

 

·    A 70% non-FF target was achieved within three months as maturity proceeds from existing FF deposits were reinvested in non-FF banks. Now Council is considering a 100% non-FF investment portfolio. 

 

·    Current policy limits were put in place with a target of 70% non-FF. While it is possible to reach 100% non-FF under the existing limits, Council may not be able to secure the most attractive returns available at the time, instead having to opt for less optimal alternatives to ensure policy limit compliance.

 

·    As part of the next Investment Policy review, the allowable limits for the BBB long term and A2 short term exposures is recommended to be increased to assist in achieving a 100% non-FF aligned portfolio.

 

·    Projecting Council’s current investment allocation strategy forward and adjusting for the expected increase in market rates, it is estimated that the average yield of Council’s portfolio may be in the 3.15% area by May 2019 when the portfolio hits 100% non-FF and as much as 3.40% by the following year.

 

 

 

 

Disclaimer:  The statements and opinions contained in this report are based on currently prevailing conditions in financial markets and are so contained in good faith and in the belief that such statements and opinion are not false or misleading.  In preparing this report, Prudential Investment Services Corp has relied upon information which it believes to be reliable and accurate.  Prudential Investment Services Corp believes that this report and the opinions expressed in this report are accurate, but no warranty of accuracy or reliability is given.  Prudential Investment Services Corp does not warrant that its investigation has revealed all of the matters which a more extensive examination might disclose.  This report may not be reproduced, transmitted, or made available either in part or in whole to any third party without the prior written consent of Prudential Investment Services Corp.  AFS Licence No. 468145.

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

Item No:         C1117 Item 19

Subject:         Pensioner Rebates  

Prepared By:     Brendhan Barry - Manager Financial Services  

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

 

SUMMARY

This report provides Council with summary information on Pensioner rebates and a plan for Council to harmonise its pensioner rebates for the 2018/19 financial year.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

 

1.         Receive and note the report; and

 

2.         Officers prepare the 2018/19 Domestic Waste Management Charge (as a part of the 2018/19 budget process) based on the former Leichhardt voluntary pensioner rebate model.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

At the October 2017 Extraordinary Council meeting, a Notice of Motion requesting information on voluntary pensioner rebates relating to rates. The report also requested a plan to harmonise pensioner rebates. This report provides Council with information of the existing Council rebates relating to rates.    

 

DISCUSSION

Currently, the three former Council’s offer varying voluntary pensioner rebates. They are as follows:

 

-     Former Ashfield ($75) available to all eligible pensioners (including Stormwater);

-     Former Leichhardt (DWM and Stormwater charge). To be eligible must be a resident ratepayer for ten years or more. Rebate is applied to Domestic Waste Service charge;

-     Former Marrickville ($92.70) available to all eligible pensioners (including Stormwater).

 

The pensioner rebate scheme of the former Leichhardt Council is financially the most generous.  If Council resolves to increase the Voluntary Pensioner rebate in line with the former Leichhardt approach, this will see a net increase of $1.9 million of rebates in the form of reduced domestic waste management charges.

 

 

Of the 5829 pensioners in Ashfield and Marrickville, 83% have lived in the area more than 10 years and would be eligible for the rebate.  This would mean that they would receive a rebate of $536.50 (former Marrickville) and $350.40 (former Ashfield).

 

The rebate will need to be recovered as a part of the domestic waste management charge. The average increase to non-pensioners in their domestic waste charge would be an increase between $23 (Ashfield) and $46 (Marrickville) based on the individual 2017/18 Domestic Waste Management charges.

 

For Pensioners who do not meet the tenure criteria, Council will need to determine whether they continue to grandfather the legacy provisions of the former Ashfield ($75) and Marrickville ($92.70) until such time as pensioners attain 10 years resident status.  This will result in a grandfathered rebate totalling $86K per annum.

 

It is recommended that any policy to harmonise voluntary pensioner rebates be included as a part of the 2018/19 Domestic Waste Management Charge and begin from July 1, 2018.   

 

If Council resolves to harmonise voluntary pensioner rebates to the former Leichhardt model, the DWM charge for non-pensioner residents will increase (as mentioned above) to recover $2.3M of gross pensioner rebates (for former Marrickville and Ashfield residents).

 

Consequently, $419K of legacy voluntary pensioner rebate savings will occur as 83% are proposed to be funded via the above DWM levy.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

$419K annual savings for Council, however, $2.3M increased DWM levy to fund harmonized voluntary pensioner rebate.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Not applicable

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Pensioner rebate Summary

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

Item No:         C1117 Item 21

Subject:         Notice of Motion: Affordable housing for the Inner West  

From               Councillor Tom Kiat   

 

 

Motion:

 

THAT:

 

1.    The General Manager in consultation with the Housing Affordability Strategic Reference Group provide Council a strategic report for the consideration of the community and Councillors (Report);

 

2.    The Report present options on how Council in collaboration with local communities, state and federal governments, and/or non-government organisations, will identify appropriate sites and properties in the LGA for development as affordable housing projects;

 

3.    The Report assess the viability of Council identifying and developing affordable housing projects in partnership with relevant stakeholders and community partners;

 

4.    The Report present options on how Council can create an Empty Dwellings Levy, by which Council would raise funds for affordable housing projects and increase rental supply by imposing a levy on residential properties left empty for an extended period (e.g. by tripling rates on properties left empty for at least 12 months);

 

5.    The Report identify where funds generated by Council’s affordable housing projects are directed, and present options as to how such funds can be set aside for spending within Council’s affordable housing portfolio;

 

6.   The Report present options on how Council will work toward the following affordable housing targets at 5 and 10 year periods:

 

a.   30% of all new housing stock in new developments to be affordable housing;

b.   50% of all Crown or Council land that is zoned residential to be affordable housing; and

c.   10% of total housing stock to be affordable housing.

 

7.    The Report should reflect the wide diversity of needs when it comes to housing, including with reference to the life cycle of residents; and

 

8.   The Report should include assessment of the current strategic and staff resources available to deliver identified potential affordable housing initiatives.

 

 

Background

 

A report be provided to Council to identify options for Council's strategic direction in this area based on identified targets and priorities.

 

During the Administration period the Council adopted an Affordable Housing policy based on the detailed work of the Housing Officer and consultants engaged by Council. This work produced a report which showed that the market would provide almost no affordable housing (ie no more than 30% of median household income spent on rent/repayments) in the Inner West.

 

The existing policy focuses on options for Council to acquire affordable housing units as part of new, large residential developments. At present, the tool available to Council is the voluntary planning agreement, which requires the developer to voluntarily provide Council affordable housing units. Council is in the process of negotiation with the Department of Planning to gain access to a planning tool which would allow Council to require certain developments to provide a small percentage of affordable housing.

 

These are each useful tools for Council to expand the amount of affordable housing in the Inner West. However there are other tools available that Council should investigate:

 

·      Almost 10% of dwellings in the Inner West were empty according to the most recent Census data. Council should investigate how it could encourage these to be put to market and build affordable housing fund through a levy imposed on dwellings left empty for an extended period.

·      Council should work with communities, community housing providers, and/or other stakeholders to consider appropriate sites and properties for development as affordable housing projects.

·      Council should identify best practice policies and tools in municipal/city governments nationally and internationally for possible adaptation in the Inner West.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

Item No:         C1117 Item 22

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

From:             Councillor Tom Kiat   

 

 

Motion:

 

THAT:

 

1.   The General Manager provide Council an early education and childcare (EEC) strategic report (Report) for the consideration of the community and Councillors;

2.   The Report include an analysis of current and projected EEC supply and demand for Council residents;

3.   The analysis of current and projected EEC supply to include assessment of cost, location, service type, and number of places. This analysis should include a breakdown by operator type (ie Council, community and private); and

4.   The analysis of current and projected EEC demand to include assessment of number and type of places required, accessibility and affordability issues, preferred location of services, and community preference by operator type (ie Council, community or private).

 

Background

 

The relevant officer to prepare a strategic report on the supply and demand for early education and childcare within the LGA for Council.

 

Ensuring accessibility to affordable, quality early education and childcare (EEC) is recognised by our community as a key responsibility of Council. There has been no comprehensive supply/demand analysis for the amalgamated Council, with the most recent analysis the 2013 report commissioned by Leichhardt Council. That report found that parents wanted more affordable and Council or community operated services within walking distance from their home.  An up to date, comprehensive needs analysis for the entire LGA is necessary in order that Council can set its strategic direction in this important area of service.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Extraordinary Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

Item No:         C1117 Item 23

Subject:         Notice of Motion: Rainbow Tunnel  

From:             Councillor, Anna York   

 

 

Motion:

 

THAT the pedestrian underpass at Phillip St Enmore be repainted and maintained by Council in rainbow colours, in recognition of those in our community who led and supported the marriage equality campaign, and the many residents who decorated their homes and workplaces in support of marriage equality.

 

 

Background

 

The pedestrian underpass tunnel at Phillip St Enmore is maintained by Council with regular painting, and is the site of graffiti and tagging.

 

The tunnel was painted in the colours of the rainbow flag by local community members in September in support of the marriage equality campaign.

 

The rainbow tunnel was well-received by local residents who embraced both the look and the message of the rainbow flag colours in the underpass.

 

In late October, the rainbow was re-painted white as part of Council’s regular anti-graffiti maintenance.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.