AGENDA R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council Meeting

 

TUESDAY 13 FEBRUARY 2018

 

6.30pm

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 

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.  

 

 

   PRECIS

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          Moment of Quiet Contemplation

 

6          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                       PAGE

Minutes of 21 November 2017 Council Meeting                                                              5

Minutes of 12 December 2017 Council Meeting                                                            28

7          Mayoral Minutes

 

Nil at the time of printing.

8          Staff Reports

 

ITEM                                                                                                                                       PAGE

 

C0218 Item 1      Affordable Housing Submission to Explanation of Intended Effect for State Environmental Planning Policy No. 70                                                       46

C0218 Item 2      Planning Proposal for 114-140 Parramatta Road/Ormond Street/Gower Street/Tideswell Street/Liverpool Road, Ashfield                                                                  64

C0218 Item 3      Shade Sails in Playgrounds                                                                      273

C0218 Item 4      Investment Report as at 30 November 2017                                            276

C0218 Item 5      Investment Report as at 31 December 2017                                            307

C0218 Item 6      Tabling of Pecuniary Interest Returns of Councillors                               337

C0218 Item 7      Business excluded from the Council Agenda of 12 December 2017      338

C0218 Item 8      Councillor Support Staff                                                                            339

9          Rescission Motions

 

ITEM                                                                                                                                       PAGE

 

C0218 Item 9      Notice of Motion to Rescind: Item 4 Post Exhibition Report - Sydenham Station Creative Hub Planning Proposal                                                                              349

10        Notices of Motion

 

ITEM                                                                                                                                       PAGE

 

C0218 Item 10    Notice of Motion: Upgrade and Beautification of Haberfield Main Street / Shopping Village     350

C0218 Item 11    Notice of Motion: Trees Policy                                                                  352

C0218 Item 12    Notice of Motion: Ferris Lane Annandale Green Space                           353

C0218 Item 13    Notice of Motion: Ted Floyd Way                                                             358

C0218 Item 14    Notice of Motion: Recognising January 26 as a day of Invasion, Mourning and Survival     360


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 

Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 21 November 2017

 

Meeting commenced at  6.36 pm

 

 

Present:

Darcy Byrne

Julie Passas

Marghanita Da Cruz Mark Drury

Lucille McKenna OAM

Colin Hesse

Sam Iskandar

Pauline Lockie

Victor Macri

Rochelle Porteous

Vittoria Raciti

John Stamolis

Louise Steer

Anna York
Rik Hart

Peter Gainsford

Mayor

Deputy Mayor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor (6.38pm)

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Interim General Manager

Deputy General Manager Assets and Environment

Michael Tzimoulas

Deputy General Manager Chief Financial and Administration Officer

John Warburton

Tanya Whitmarsh

Deputy General Manager Community and Engagement

Group Manager Governance

Gill Dawson

Simon Lowe

Ian Naylor

Katherine Paixao

A/Group Manager Strategic

Strategic Transport Planner

Manager Civic and Executive Support

Business Paper Coordinator (Minute Taker)

 

 

APOLOGIES:

   

Motion (Da Cruz/Kiat)

 

That Council accept apologies for lateness from Councillor Porteous.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:  

 

Motion: (Byrne/McKenna)

 

That the following Disclosures of Interest be received and noted.

 

 

1.    Councillors Macri and Iskandar declared a significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 7 and Item 31 - 466-480 New Canterbury Road, 26-38 Hercules Street, Dulwich Hill -  Planning Proposal and Matters Being Reported to the Sydney Central Planning Panel for Determination, as they are members of the Sydney Central Planning Panel and may be required to determine this matter; and

 

2.    Councillor Hesse declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 7 - 466-480 New Canterbury Road, 26-38 Hercules Street, Dulwich Hill - Planning Proposal, as his mother owns a property opposite the site.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                                  Cr Porteous

 

Councillor Porteous entered the meeting at 6.38 pm.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

Motion: McKenna OAM/Drury

 

1.    That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 24 October 2017 be confirmed as a correct record, subject to the following changes:

 

a.    The deletion of the words ‘Leave of absence granted’ from the apologies;

b.    Recording Councillor Drury voting against amendment in Item 25 – Making the Inner West a Leader in Renewable energy

 

2.    That the Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 31 October 2017 be confirmed as a correct record, subject to the following changes:

 

a.    The deletion of the words ‘Leave of absence granted’ from the apologies;

b.    Recording Councillor Raciti voting against the Motion for point 3e in Item 2 - Local Government NSW Annual Conference.

 

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

C1117 Item 32    Mayoral Minute: Letter of Condolence to the Family of Malcolm Young

Motion: (Byrne)

 

THAT Council write a letter of condolence to the family of Malcolm Young, expressing our sadness at his passing and commending the contribution he made to the inner west community and music worldwide.

 

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

 

C1117 Item 30    Mayoral Minute: Bulk Transfer of Nominated General Staff

MOTION: (Byrne)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Complete the bulk transfer of the permanent positions within Footpaths, Roads, Traffic and Storm water; Trees, Parks, and Sports fields; Mechanical Services; Resource Recovery; Children and Family Services; Community Operations; and Recreational and Aquatics  which have not yet been finalised through the organisational restructure. Notice of the awarding of these positions should be forwarded to all affected staff urgently to allow them to have certainty about the security of their employment prior to the end of 2017;

2.   Adopt a policy of allowing all employees of the Inner West Council to have the five year employment protection, from the date of the amalgamation, as was provided for the officers of the former Leichhardt Council. Furthermore, that efficiency savings identified through the restructure are to be achieved through natural attrition;

3.   Ask the General Manager to complete further harmonisation of employee conditions and service standards through consensus and collaboration between General Manager and Human Resources Group Manager, the officers of the Council and their industrial representatives; and

4.   Produce a report summarising the previous best practices of Ashfield, Marrickville and Leichhardt Councils and the local government sector, in relation to equal opportunity employment practices. This should include consideration of gender equity and women leadership programs, apprenticeships and proactive approaches to attracting, retaining and developing Indigenous people and people with disability.

5.   Receive a report at the February ordinary meeting on the implementation of the resolutions.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

Procedural Motion - Item 8 Victoria Road Precinct Planning Proposal

Motion: (Macri/Passas)

 

THAT Council defer Item 8 in order for Councillors to be briefed on the matter.

 

 

Motion Carried

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

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

 

 

 

Suspension of Standing Orders:

 Motion: (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT Items 2, 5, 7, 10, 20, 24, 26 and 27 be brought forward.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1117 Item 2      Draft Code of Meeting Practice

Motion (Drury/Macri)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.    Adopt the Draft Code of Meeting Practice shown as Attachment 1 subject to the following amendments:

 

a.    Delete reference to Public Forum from Clause 1.5 (1) a  - Order of Business;

b.    Rename Clause 2.8 –Public Forum – Addressing Council ;

c.    Delete Clause 2.8 (2) and replace with:

·                             “Those people referred to in Clause 2.8.1 may address council before                                   debate on an item that they have given notice they wish to speak on in                      accordance with Clause 2.8.5. Council shall permit a maximum of three                  speakers for and three speakers against per item of business.”

d.    Delete the note at the end of Clause 6.1.5;

e.    Introduce a moment of quiet contemplation in the order of business prior to the consideration of reports;

f.     That Clause  2.12 (3) be amended to state that Councillors are allowed to speak for 3 minutes.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Motion Carried

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

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

 

 

Foreshadowed Motion (Porteous)

 

THAT:

 

1.    Council defers the decision to change the Code of Meeting practice until the new model Code of Meeting practice is released by the OLG ;

2.    Until that time Council continue to use the Leichhardt Code of Meeting practice; and

3.    From February 2018 Council meets twice a month.

 

This Foreshadow Motion lapsed.

Amendment (Stamolis/Lockie)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.    Adopt the Draft Code of Meeting Practice shown as Attachment 1 subject to the following amendments:

 

 

a.    Remove Clause 2.3.(1) the words “Shall stand when speaking”;

 

Motion Lost

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

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

 

b.    That Clause 2.12 (3) be amended to state that Councillors are allowed to speak for 3 minutes.

 

Motion Carried

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

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

 

As this amendment was carried, it was included in the Primary Motion.

 

c.    Remove Clause 5.1(2c) “Councillors should not have to specify the source of funding for their motions”.

 

Motion Lost

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

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

 

 

C1117 Item 5      Amendments to Inner West DCP 2016

Motion: (McKenna OAM/Drury)

 

THAT:

 

1.         Council note the contents of the report;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

b.    That a briefing be prepared on the heritage controls of the former Council areas.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

Councillors Iskandar and Marci left the Meeting at 8:52 pm and took no part in the discussion or voting on Item 7 as they had declared an a significant, non-pecuniary interest.

 

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

 Motion: (Drury/Stamolis)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.       Receive and note this report;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

5.         Council reiterates our view that the maximum building height be no greater than     5-6 storeys alongside Dulwich Grove light rail station, and that any planning        proposal on the subject land should seek to protect Dulwich Hill public school            from overshadowing and privacy impacts.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar and Macri

 

 

Amendment (Porteous)

 

THAT:

1.    The Councillors appoint an appropriately qualified consultant to prepare a Councillors’ submission to the planning proposal which puts particular focus on issues of concern to the community and the Councillors regarding this planning proposal.

2.    Councillors be consulted on which issues they want included in this submission.

 

This Foreshadowed Motion lapsed.

 

 

Councillors Macri and Iskandar returned to the Meeting at 8:58 pm.

 

 

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

Motion:     (Drury/Hesse)

 

THAT:

 

 

1.    Council does not accept that the case for the Sydney Metro has been adequately made. Our community is not prepared to accept the disruption that would be caused by this project, that we are not convinced will benefit our community or Sydney as a whole;

 

2.    Futhermore we request the council staff amend the report prior to submitting it, in order to;

 

a.    Make clear that one of the cumulative impacts which has not been addressed in the EIS is the impact of additional pressure being placed on the Bankstown line, while it is at reduced capacity from 2019 to 2024, due to additional housing being forced on communities by the Sydenham to Bankstown urban renewal strategy;

 

b.    Make clear that the cumulative impact of current development under the 2011 LEP  and existing new housing needs  be taken into consideration;

 

c.    Stress community concern regarding traffic impacts both during general construction and shutdown periods, including the potential for rat-running in local streets;

 

d.    Call for the individual Temporary Transport Plans to be exhibited before any rail line shutdown period; and

 

e.    Request a specific amount of money to control parking impacts.

 

3.    Should the state government persist with this project then the Inner West Council advises that if the government does not want to create more chaos then it should place an embargo on planning “upzonings” in the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor (SBURC) until after the proposed completion of the of the Metro Line.

 

              Failing this the government should arrange for a detailed assessment of the            cumulative impacts of private construction due to the SBURC and public                           infrastructure construction for the Metro rail line be undertaken and exhibited,          before any approval is given for the Metro line, given that this assessment is            not included in the EIS; and

 

4.    Council receives and notes the report and formally submits the attached submission to the Department of Planning and Environment.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

Amendment (Da Cruz/Porteous)

 

 

THAT Council:

 

1.    Amend the plans to incorporate shade in the form of structures, trees and vegetation around pedestrian pathways; and

 

2.    Incorporate water management systems to replenish soil moisture levels.

 

Motion Lost

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

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

 

Councillor Drury left the Meeting at 9:26 pm.

Councillor Drury returned to the Meeting at 9:35 pm.

 

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

Motion: (Porteous/Steer)

 

THAT Council’s resolution of C0417 Item 14 Cottages at 9 and 11 Marion Street Leichhardt at the April 2017 Ordinary Meeting be rescinded.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Crs Byrne, Drury, Iskandar, Macri, McKenna OAM and York

Motion: (Porteous/Steer)

THAT a report be brought to the February 2018 Ordinary meeting on the opportunity, costs and timeline for conversion of cottages 9 and 11 Marion St to a community purpose. The consideration on what that community purpose that should be to include: a Community Centre for Leichhardt Youth; artist studios and art gallery/cultural space; a general community space, housing for low income housing or other appropriate community uses.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

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

Motion:     (Byrne/York)

 

1.         Investigate and report to the February ordinary meeting on:

 

a.   Possible amendments to planning controls which would increase the allowable floor space for tasting on site within micro-breweries to the level of 40% of the gross floor area or 400 square metres, whichever is the lesser, as adopted by the former Ashfield Council; and

 

b.   Options for updating and refining the definition of ancillary use for tasting rooms, within microbreweries, to provide greater certainty for proponents about the meaning and limits of ancillary use. This should be produced in consultation with local microbrewery operators.

 

2.         Consult with the Inner West Brewers Association and consider in the context of                 the 2018/19 Budget the following initiatives:

 

a.   Establishing or supporting an annual Inner West Craft Beer Festival, in conjunction with local breweries, pubs and small bars, with the aim of making it one of the premier craft beer festivals in Australia; and

 

b.   Working with local microbreweries, tourism operators and government agencies to promote brewery trails and tours as a tourist attraction in the Inner West local government area.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Cr Passas

 

 

Councillor Passas left the Meeting at 10:27 pm.

 

 

C1117 Item 26    Notice of Motion: WestConnex Noise Issues

Motion:     (Lockie/Hesse)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Write urgently to the Premier, Minister for WestConnex and Minister for Planning to:

a.   Express major concern about the unacceptable noise impacts of construction works in St Peters, Haberfield and Ashfield, where residents have faced weeks of night works on top of daily construction noise;

b.   Demand that night works should not take place on an ongoing basis, as has been happening in recent weeks;

c.   Insist that if night work is unavoidable, affected residents must be offered alternative accommodation or other meaningful noise mitigation measures, even if night works do not take place on consecutive nights, and regardless of whether they have been classified as “sensitive receivers” by WestConnex contractors;

d.   Demand that WestConnex contractors act immediately to deliver their at-property noise treatment obligations as outlined in the WestConnex The New M5 Construction Noise and Vibration Plan (October 2016).

 

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                                  Cr Passas

 

Councillor Passas returned to the Meeting at 10:40 pm.

 

 

 

 

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

Motion:     (Stamolis/Lockie)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Consider options for broader community attendance at its committees;

2.   Consider local sub-committees of Council Committees which would enable greater local engagement as well as greater accessibility to meetings; and

3.   Consider establishing sub-committees as part of the new Committee framework  to address specific community priorities (such as Climate Change, Bicycle Use, Heritage and Sports Participation). 

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

 

Motion: (Byrne/Stamolis)

 

THAT the following Items be moved en bloc and the recommendations contained in the reports be adopted: Items 3, 9, 13, 14, 17, 25 and 28.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1117 Item 3      Audited Financial Reports as at 30 June 2017

Motion:     (Byrne/Stamolis)

 

THAT:

 

1.       Receives and notes the report; and

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

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

C1117 Item 9      Greenway shared path through Arlington Grove development

Motion:     (Byrne/Stamolis)

 

1.   Pursuant to section 55(3)(i) of the Act, the Council resolves that a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders for the provision of a shared path through the Arlington Grove Development, to a suitable standard for use as the Greenway shared path, due to the following extenuating circumstances:

 

a.   The land in question is owned by the developer of the Arlington Grove development.

b.   Council has no entitlement other than with the permission of the developer to enter the land and construct the shared path.

c.   Accordingly, the developer is the only party with whom the contract can be struck. An open tender process is of no utility in such circumstances.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1117 Item 13    Dockless Bike Share Schemes

Motion:     (Byrne/Stamolis)

 

THAT Council receives and notes the report.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

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

Motion:     (Byrne/Stamolis)

THAT Council:

 

1.   Approve the fee waiver applications submitted by regular annual hirers for use of Council venues and facilities in 2018 as listed in Attachment 1;

 

2.   Note this a continuation of practice at the former Leichhardt Council; and

 

3.    Note that Council Officers will be undertaking a review of Fees & Charges and policies for fee waiver and concessions with a view to consistency, equity and transparency across the Inner West LGA.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1117 Item 17    Investment Report as at 31 October 2017

Motion:     (Byrne/Stamolis)

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

 

 

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

Motion:     (Byrne/Stamolis)

 

THAT Council submit a motion to the Local Government Association Conference calling on the NSW Government to:

 

1.   Develop legislation to allow local councils to follow the NSW Chief Medical Officer’s advice and phase out Wood Heaters;

 

2.   Introduce effective education and incentive program commensurate with the $8 billion health cost of residential wood heating pollution in NSW that will create widespread understanding of the benefits of switching to non-pollution heating; and

 

 

3.   Provide effective powers for councils to take action against unhealthy levels of wood smoke pollution, including local exceedances of National PM2.5 Air Quality Standards.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1117 Item 28    Notice of Motion: Cabcharge for Councillors

Motion:     (Byrne/Stamolis)

 

THAT in the interests of public accountability, transparency and safety, the Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy be amended to include cabcharge cards to those Councillors who request this.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Motion: (Byrne/Stamolis)

 

THAT Items 1, 4, 6, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 31 be brought forward for consideration and dealt with at this time.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1117 Item 1      Councillor Support Staff

Motion:     (Stamolis/Hesse)

 

THAT a Councillor briefing be held in early 2018 to consider all options for Councillor support.

 

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

The Mayor, Councillor Byrne left the Meeting at 11:07 pm.

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Passas Assumed the Chair.

 

 

Procedural Motion: (Raciti/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT an extension of time be granted to deal with the confidential item – Item 29

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                                  Cr Byrne

Reports with Confidential Information

C1117 Item 29    General Manager's Contract of Employment

Motion: Passas/Stamolis

 

THAT Council moves into closed session to deal with this matter as the information contained in CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENTS 1 of this report are classified as confidential under the provisions of Section 10A (2) (a) of the Local Government Act 1993  for the following reasons:

 

a.   personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors);

 

And in accordance with Sections 10A (4) of the Local Government Act 1993, that the Chairperson allow members of the public to make representations as to whether this part of the meeting should be closed.

 

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Passas moved into closed session at 11.07pm to allow Council to consider items of business containing confidential information. Members of the public were asked to leave the Chamber.

 

The Mayor, Councillor Byrne returned to the Meeting at 11:12 pm as assumed the Chair.

 

Motion:     (Drury/Stamolis)

 

THAT Council return to open session to read out the recommendations from the Closed Session.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

The Mayor read out to the Meeting the recommendation from the Closed Session of Council.

Motion:     (Drury/Hesse)

 

THAT Item 29 – General Manager’s Contract of Employment be deferred for consideration at the next Ordinary Council Meeting.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Meeting was adjourned at 11.55pm.

 

The Following Items will be considered at the next Ordinary Council Meeting on 12 December 2017, Items 4, 6, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 23. Item 31 will not be considered at the next Council Meeting as it related to a decision of the Sydney Central Panel to be held on 28 November 2017.

 

 

The meeting was resumed on 12 December 2017 at 6.34 pm

 

Present:

Darcy Byrne

Julie Passas

Marghanita Da Cruz Mark Drury

Lucille McKenna OAM

Colin Hesse

Sam Iskandar

Pauline Lockie

Victor Macri

Rochelle Porteous

Vittoria Raciti

Louise Steer

Anna York
Rik Hart

Peter Gainsford

Mayor

Deputy Mayor (10.02pm)

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor (7.17pm)

Councillor

Councillor

Interim General Manager

Deputy General Manager Assets and Environment

John Warburton

Deputy General Manager Community and Engagement

Nellette Kettle

 

Group Manager Civic and Executive Support, Integration, Customer Service and Business Excellence

Joe Strati

David Birds

Gill Dawson

Kendall Banfield

Harjeet Atwal

Wal Petschler

Ian Naylor

Katherine Paixao

Group Manager Legal

Group Manager Strategic Planning

Manager Strategy and Policy

Manager WestConnex Unit

Manager Planning Operations

Group Manager Footpaths, Roads, Traffic and Stormwater

Manager Civic and Executive Support

Business Paper Coordinator (Minute Taker)

 

APOLOGIES

Motion (Macri/Lockie)

That apologies from Councillor Stamolis and lateness from Councillors Raciti and Passas be accepted.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:   Nil

 

 

Suspension of Standing Orders (Byrne/Macri)

 

THAT Items 4 and 21 be brought forward and dealt with at this time.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

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

Motion (York/Byrne)

 

THAT Council:


1.         Note:


a. The existing Sydenham Creative Hub proposal has been endorsed repeatedly        by the former Marrickville Council and the NSW Department of Planning;

 

b. The large body of work that has been dedicated to the development of the          policy for the Sydenham Station Creative Hub involving input from a wide range of stakeholders over a substantial period of time, and the          careful consideration of the development of that policy by the former Marrickville Council;

 

c. The independent support for the policy from academic and planning
experts including the City Futures Research Centre, Professor Peter Phibbs and SGS Economics in their 2014 Study of Marrickville Employment lands;


d. The very large proportion of submissions received during the consultation              process in support of the existing proposal; and

 

         e. The original intent of the Sydenham Creative Hub proposal, which was     
to protect current industrial uses in the precinct, by adapting our planning Instruments to ensure emerging additional artistic and creative uses are permitted, as a means of securing the vibrancy and visitation to the area.

2.           Defer consideration of the matter pending further investigation into options to achieve the original intent of the proposal, by further specifying and limiting new uses, including potentially;


a. Removing office space from the list of permissible uses;


b. A narrower focus on live performance and artistic uses to operate after          
   existing businesses hours;


c. Further limiting the scope for small bars and restaurants;


d. Mandating a review period for the proposed controls following adoption;   and


e. Further measures to mitigate the perceived risks identified in the most        recent SGS report.

 

Motion Lost

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, McKenna OAM and York

Against Motion:          Crs Da Cruz, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, Porteous, Raciti and Steer

 

 

Foreshadowed Motion (Porteous/ Da Cruz)

 

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.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Crs Byrne, Drury, Iskandar, McKenna OAM and York

 

 

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

Motion:     (Kiat/Steer)

 

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.

 

 

Motion Lost

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

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

 

 

Foreshadowed Motion (Byrne/Drury)

 

THAT Council hold a briefing session for Councillors on Councils adopted policies on affordable housing  and the body of research which has been undertaken to support it.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Motion (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

That standing orders be resumed.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

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

Motion (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.    Adopt a position of opposition to the rezoning proposed, based on the objections submitted previously by Council officers;

 

2.    Note that the NSW Government Greater Sydney Commission and the Planning Panel have failed to undertake community consultation prior to progressing the proposal to this stage; and

 

3.    Write to the above mentioned agencies seeking that any further consideration of the proposal be deferred until proper community notification and consultation has taken place.

 

Motion Carried

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

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

 

Foreshadowed Motion (Porteous/Da Cruz)

 

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;

 

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

 

5.         The failure of Council to respond appropriately within the required timeframe to     the Dept of Planning and Environment and therefore to lose the option to take on           the role of consent authority and the failure to provide accurate and timely     information to Councillors regarding this matter be referred to the Audit and Risk        Committee for investigation and a report. 

 

This Foreshadowed Motion lapsed.

 

 

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

Motion (McKenna OAM/Lockie)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.       Receives and notes this report including the draft submission (Attachment 1); and

 

2.       Endorses the submission.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

C1117 Item 12            Draft Future Transport Strategy 2056 - Council Submission

 

Motion (York/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT:

 

1.       This report be received and noted;

 

2.       Council endorse the draft submission included in this report and that it be lodged as such with Transport for NSW/RMS;

 

3.       The study proposed for Parramatta Road should be extended to include Strathfield;

 

4.       The strategy should include clearly defined mode share targets;

 

5.         To ensure equitable access throughout the Sydney Region it is essential that          public transport is owned and operated by the State Government;

 

6.         The strategy should include fully integrated, frequent, high speed public      transport links to regional/rural centres;

 

7.         To encourage reduced travel demand there should be an integrated and on-            going alignment between the geographic distribution of job placement and       residential developments, with transport infrastructure provision;

 

8.         There should be detailed examination of the likely impacts of the conversion of       inner Sydney service industries and warehousing to residential and commercial     uses. This should particularly address theincreased travel demand created as     higher rental rates force such industries to more remote locations;

 

9.         The current three cities policy ignores the previous five centres approach and         also proposes the creation of a city around the Western Sydney Airport (the “Aerotropolis”) at the expense of other parts of western and south-western        Sydney (eg Penrith, Liverpool and Campbelltown). World-wide experience
            shows that airports are not suitable anchors for cities as they are clearly      
            incompatible with residential development and tend to only attract air freight  
            and air travel related industries;

 

10.       Consideration should be given to the provision of demand management tools         including comprehensive road pricing, parking pricing strategies, congestion   pricing and removal of station user levies on the T8 airport rail line;

 

11.       Provision should be made for the funding of separated cycleways and   
            pedestrian paths within the budget of all major road projects;

 

12.     Transparency of all infrastructure funding (including toll collection) should be ensured; and

 

13.    A Councillor briefing be held on GETS and the impact of bus privatisation,                 including removal of bus stops in the Inner West.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

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

 

Motion (Macri/Lockie)

 

THAT:

 

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

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

 

 

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

 

Motion (McKenna OAM/Byrne)

 

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 subject to amending the recommendation of Item 13 of the 2 November 2017 Meeting to:

 

 

THAT Council:

 

1.    Install a resident parking scheme “2p 8am-10pm Mon-Fri, Permit holders excepted, area A1” on the west side of Edith Street, Leichhardt (South of Marion Street); and

2.    Limit the number of permits per eligible households to a maximum of 2 residential permits only.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Crs Passas and Raciti

Absent:                         Crs Drury and Porteous

 

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

9.54pm - The Mayor, Clr Byrne adjourned the meeting for a short recess.

10.02pm – The Mayor, Clr Byrne resumed the meeting.

 

Councillor Passas entered the meeting at 10.02pm

Councillors Drury and Porteous left the Meeting at 10.02 pm.

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

 

Motion (McKenna OAM/Byrne)

 

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 subject to amending the recommendation of Item 13 of the 2 November 2017 Meeting to:

 

 

THAT Council:

 

3.    Install a resident parking scheme “2p 8am-10pm Mon-Fri, Permit holders excepted, area A1” on the west side of Edith Street, Leichhardt (South of Marion Street); and

4.    Limit the number of permits per eligible households to a maximum of 2 residential permits only.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Crs Passas and Raciti

Absent:                         Crs Drury and Porteous

 

 

Councillors Drury and Porteous returned to meeting at 10.07pm.

Councillors Passas and Raciti left the meeting at 10.08pm.

 

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

Motion:     (Byrne/Macri)

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Crs Passas and Raciti

 

Councillors Passas and Raciti returned to the meeting at 10.15pm.

 

 

C1117 Item 19    Pensioner Rebates

Motion (Passas/Drury)

 

THAT:

 

1.       Council receive and note the report; and

 

2.       Council 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.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

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

Motion:     (Kiat/Steer)

 

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).

 

Councillor Kiat withdrew his Motion.

 

Foreshadowed Motion (Byrne/Passas)

 

THAT Council note that the Council already well advanced in commissioning a detailed childcare needs analysis to be reported in mid-2018.

 

This Foreshadowed Motion lapsed.

 

 

C1117 Item 23    Notice of Motion: Rainbow Tunnel

Motion:     (York/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.      Notes that:


a.The pedestrian underpass tunnel at Phillip St Enmore is maintained by         Sydney Trains with regular painting, and is the site of frequent graffiti and    tagging; and


b.Sydney Trains maintains the tunnel regularly as a graffiti ‘hot-spot’ and       have    advised Council that if the rainbow mural is reinstated, Council would    also need to take on responsibility for regular maintenance of the tunnel, at     a cost to Council.

 

2.      Write to Sydney Trains to request Council’s preference, on behalf of the community, that the rainbow be reinstated and maintained, in recognition of the marriage equality campaign and YES vote which was supported     by residents in the area, and celebrated by the rainbow mural;

3.       Note that, should Sydney Trains decline this request, Council staff investigate alternative options for a mural in support of marriage    equality, preferably in the nearby area; and

 

4.      Write to Sydney Trains about the graffiti along the Railway Crescent wall at   
         Lewisham and request that it be repainted.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

Meeting closed at 12.06 am.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 12 December 2017

 

Meeting commenced at 6.34 pm

 

Present:

Darcy Byrne

Julie Passas

Marghanita Da Cruz Mark Drury

Lucille McKenna OAM

Colin Hesse

Sam Iskandar

Pauline Lockie

Victor Macri

Rochelle Porteous

Vittoria Raciti

Louise Steer

Anna York
Rik Hart

Peter Gainsford

Mayor

Deputy Mayor (10.02pm)

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor (7.17pm)

Councillor

Councillor

Interim General Manager

Deputy General Manager Assets and Environment

John Warburton

Deputy General Manager Community and Engagement

Nellette Kettle

 

Group Manager Civic and Executive Support, Integration, Customer Service and Business Excellence

Joe Strati

David Birds

Gill Dawson

Kendall Banfield

Harjeet Atwal

Wal Petschler

Ian Naylor

Katherine Paixao

Group Manager Legal

Group Manager Strategic Planning

Manager Strategy and Policy

Manager WestConnex Unit

Manager Planning Operations

Group Manager Footpaths, Roads, Traffic and Stormwater

Manager Civic and Executive Support

Business Paper Coordinator (Minute Taker)

 

APOLOGIES:    

 

Motion (Macri/Lockie)

 

That apologies from Clr Stamolis and lateness from Clrs Raciti and Passas be accepted.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

 

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:  

 

Clr Raciti declared a significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 24 Lambert Oval Lease, as her husband is the president of the football club.

 

Motion (Passas/Byrne)

 

That the Declaration of Interest be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

C1217 Item 31    Mayoral Minute: Confirmation of 100 Days Waiver of Fee Hire For Same Sex Marriage

Motion: (Byrne)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Congratulate LGBTIQ Australians on attaining a historic achievement through the legislating of marriage equality;

2.   Note that the federal electorate of Grayndler, encompassing most of the Inner West Council local government area, achieved the highest turn out of any electorate in NSW in the postal survey on same sex marriage;

3.   Note the significant advance the passing of this legislation represents for human rights and inclusivity in Australia and recommit ourselves to upholding the principles of freedom from discrimination and respectful treatment of all Australians regardless of their sexual preference, gender, ethnicity or social background;

4.   Write to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, Government Leader in the Senate George Brandis and Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Penny Wong and other relevant party leaders, congratulating them on the successful enactment of the Same Sex Marriage Bill; and

5.   As per previous resolutions, make Council facilities available, free of hire fees for 100 days to all same sex weddings and extend this offer to couples previously married overseas who wish to hold a recommitment ceremony. The period of the fee waiver is to begin from 9 January 2018, the earliest date on which same sex marriages can take place.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

 

C1217 Item 27    Mayoral Minute: Letter of Condolence to the Family of Lester Bostock

Motion:  (Byrne)

 

THAT Council writes a letter of condolence to the family of Lester Bostock, expressing our sadness at his passing and commending the contribution he made to the inner west community and the Australian Aboriginal community.

 

 

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C1217 Item 28            Mayoral Minute: Letter of Condolence to the Family of Gail Clifford

 

Motion:  (Byrne)

 

THAT Council write a letter of condolence to the family of Gail Clifford, expressing our sadness at her passing and commending the contribution she made to the Friends of Maliana support activities in Timor Leste and to Leichhardt Council

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

Councillor Drury requested that an Urgency Motion be considered to express condolences on the passing of Kerry McNally.

 

Urgency Motion (Drury/Byrne)

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

The Mayor declared that this motion was urgent.

 

Urgency Motion (Drury/Byrne) – Condolences to the family of Kerry McNally

 

THAT Council send a letter of condolence to the family of Kerry McNally.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

C1217 Item 29    Mayoral Minute: Recreation and Wellbeing Opportunities for Welcome Centre Clients

Motion: (Byrne)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Dedicate free places within the learn to swim programs at Leichhardt Park Aquatic Centre to 0-5 year olds attending Callan Park Refugee Welcome Centre, with numbers to be determined after confirming interest from Welcome Centre clients;

2.   Provide water safety support and advice to parents attending the lessons with their children; and

3.   Investigate provision of additional health and recreation programs to attendees through Council’s recreation partners and networks.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

C1217 Item 30    Mayoral Minute: Endorsement of Bike Share Guidelines

Motion:  (Byrne)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.         Approve the draft bike share guidelines, noting minor revisions may occur subject to liaison with operators and neighboring councils;

2.         Approve an initial short term review period of three months to evaluate how well the operators have adhered to the guidelines;

3.         Write to all bike share businesses currently operating in the inner west local government areas to confirm the guidelines and the review period;

4.         Note that there is potential for the guidelines to develop into a more formal arrangement should the initial review period indicate such an approach is required;

5.         In partnership with the Inner City councils investigate the potential for a fee or levy system whereby operators contribute to bike infrastructure;

6.         Request that the Group Manager Legal to report back to Council following discussion with City of Sydney, Randwick, Waverly, Woollahra and Canada Bay Councils to clarify the legal framework under which bike share companies operate, and the legal powers available to councils with regards to regulating bike share companies and their operations; and

7.         Write to the State Government to request that it agrees to implement the guidelines on state land and to give further consideration to a state-wide approach.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

Motion (Byrne/Iskandar)

 

That Council move into Committee of the Whole in the Council Committee Room.

 

Motion Lost

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

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

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

7.01pm - The Mayor, Clr Byrne adjourned the meeting for a short recess.

7.17pm – The Mayor, Clr Byrne resumed the meeting.

 

Clr Raciti entered the meeting at 7.17pm

 

Motion (Byrne/Macri)

 

THAT the following Items be moved en bloc and the recommendations contained in

the reports be adopted: Items 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20 and 21.

 

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

C1217 Item 5      Post exhibition outcomes - Annandale North Neighbourhood Movement Plan

Motion:     (Byrne/Macri)

 

THAT Council adopt the Annandale North Neighbourhood Movement Plan shown attached as Attachment 1 to this report.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1217 Item 6      Open Inner West 2017-18 Program for Endorsement

Motion:     (Byrne/Macri)

 

THAT:

 

1.         The report be received and noted;

 

2.         Council note the festival dates for 2017-18; and

 

3.         Council endorse funding the 15 applications as outlined in Attachment 1. Successful Grant Recipients 2017-18, totalling $61,180 for the OIW 2017-18 grants Program.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

C1217 Item 12    Comparative Service Levels Pre and Post Merger

Motion:     (Byrne/Macri)

 

THAT Council receive and note this report of comparative service levels pre and post-merger.

 

 

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

C1217 Item 13    Reporting of Code of Conduct Statistics

Motion:     (Byrne/Macri)

 

THAT Council receives and notes this report.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

C1217 Item 14    Notice of Motion: Tempe Station Access

Motion:     (Byrne/Macri)

 

THAT Council writes to the NSW Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Mr Andrew Constance, calling on the NSW Government and Sydney Trains to:

 

Immediately construct an at level footpath from number four platform at Tempe Railway Station to Griffiths Street Tempe so as to improve access to Tempe Railway Station.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

C1217 Item 15    Notice of Motion: New Timetable

Motion:     (Byrne/Macri)

 

THAT Council writes to the NSW Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Mr Andrew Constance, calling on the NSW Government and Sydney Trains to:

Immediately review the new T3 Bankstown Rail timetable to restore the long-standing rail link between Marrickville and St Peters during peak periods.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

C1217 Item 18    Notice of Motion: Investigating Feasibility of an Inner West Council Solar Farm

Motion:     (Byrne/Macri)

 

THAT the General Manager, investigate the requirements for a feasibility study into:

 

a)   The business case for Inner West Council to invest in a solar farm to offset Council’s electricity consumption across facilities and operations; and

 

b)   Options to share investment and return / savings with the community, including direct community investment and / or savings passed on through rates discounts.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1217 Item 20    Notice of Motion: Support for Balmain Para Rowing Group

Motion:     (Byrne/Macri)

 

THAT Council writes to the Office of Environment and Heritage seeking permission for the Balmain Para Rowing Group to use Palm Court Ward A as the site for their new rowing facility.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

C1217 Item 21    Notice of Motion: Arts and Music Inquiry

Motion:     (Byrne/Macri)

 

THAT Council make a submission to the Inquiry into the Music and Arts Economy in New South Wales.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Suspension of Standing Orders (Byrne/ Macri)

 

THAT the following items be brought forward and dealt with at this time: Items 3, 8, 11, 16 and 25.

 

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

C1217 Item 3      Support for Make Renting Fair Campaign and Sydney Alliance's Affordable Rental Housing Campaign

Motion     (Drury/Byrne)

 

1.            THAT Council:

2.             

1.         Actively join the:

3.         

(a)  NSW Make Renting Fair campaign; and

4.                        (b) Sydney Alliance’s affordable renting housing campaign.

5.             

6.            2. Publicise our participation in these campaigns.

 

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C1217 Item 8      Local Participatory Democracy at Inner West

Motion: (McKenna OAM/Byrne)

 

THAT:

 

1.      This item be deferred to a Councillor Briefing in February 2018;

2.      The briefing include further information on how Council will engage with:

 

a.    Multicultural communities;

b.    Access committees and business committees and other committees that may be determined by Council;

c.    Faith based communities;

d.    strategic reference groups on research including a process for policy matters to be referred to the SRGs by resolution of Council and recommendations to be reported back;

e.    Seniors; and

f.     Members of former facilities committees.

 

3.      The Strategic Reference Groups continue in the interim;

 

4.      The briefing be widened to include an overview and assessment of all Committees that were up and functioning as part of the democratic structure of the 3 councils - Leichhardt, Ashfield and Marrickville up until they were forcibly amalgamated in May 2016. These Committees include but are not limited to the Access Committees, Youth and Senior Councils, Environment and Recreation, Heritage and Bicycle Committees.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Councillor Raciti left the Meeting at 9.28 pm.

 

C1217 Item 11    WestConnex Update Report

Motion: (Lockie/Hesse)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.       Receives and notes this report;

 

2.       Writes to Sydney Motorway Corporation (SMC) in relation to M4 East residual lands and the Urban Design & Landscape Plan (UDLP) Updated Appendix F: Noise barrier location sub-plan seeking:

(a)     confirmation that residents of Walker Avenue, Haberfield and immediate surrounds prefer Roads & Maritime (RMS)-owned dwellings at 18 & 20 Walker Avenue be put to residential rather than community use;

(b)     a cash contribution for upgrading of Council community facilities in the Haberfield town centre in lieu of ownership or use of dwellings for community purposes, if it is confirmed that local residents prefer residential use of these dwellings;

(c)     a commitment to early provision of operational traffic noise barriers or other noise amelioration to properties on the eastern side of Wattle Street / Dobroyd Parade between Ramsay and Waratah Streets and to properties at 14 to 24 Wattle Street, Haberfield to protect residents against construction noise. 

 

3.       Writes to RMS to:

(a)          express opposition to any impact by WestConnex Stage 3 (M4-M5 Link) on any park or other publicly-accessible open space area;

(b)          refuse concurrence to proposed compulsory acquisition for WestConnex of            parcels of land at: Buruwan Park, North Annandale; intersection of        Johnston Street and The Crescent, North Annandale; and King George Park    at intersection of Victoria Road and Byrnes Street, Rozelle; and

(c)          seek alternative design solutions that result in there being no impact on the    abovementioned parks and open space areas.

 

4.       Writes to RMS and SMC (New M5) stating it does not support occupation of a further two netball courts at Tempe Reserve (taking the number of courts occupied from three to five), acknowledging that RMS can use its powers under the Roads Act to take this action;

 

5.       Writes to the Minister for Roads expressing its opposition to the Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link project as part of its overall position of opposing inner-Sydney motorways and preference for public transport options.

 

6.       Provide $800 in funding for a community anti-WestConnex protest that was held along Victoria Road, Rozelle on the morning of 12 December 2017.                               

 

  1. Officers recommendation 2 C) that Council: Seek a commitment to early provision of noise barriers or noise amelioration to properties on the eastern side of Wattle Street/Dobroyd Parade between Ramsey and Waratah Street; AND

 

  1. That Council seek same early provision of operation noise barriers, or other noise amelioration to include:

 

a.      All properties along the western side of Wattle Street, Haberfield                                between Parramatta Road and Ramsey Street (not just 12-24 Wattle                   Street, ending at Ash             Lane), - and all on the Western Side of (Wattle                 Street/ Dobroyd Parade).

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Cr Raciti

 

 

Councillor Raciti returned to the Meeting at 9.30 pm.

 

C1217 Item 16    Notice of Motion: Bikes Inner West Council

Motion:     (Drury/Hesse)

 

THAT in order to progress the expansion of the Inner West Bike Route Network Council:

 

1.       Establish a Bicycle Working Group with Councillors, local bicycle groups and interested community members;

 

2.       Nominate a staff member to be a project manager for bike  projects;

 

3.       Work out a better way of balancing the competing needs of our road network;

 

4.       Establish a budget for bike projects for the next three years; and

 

5.       Appoint an Inner West Bicycle Coalition representative on the IWC Traffic Committee.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Motion (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

That standing orders be resumed.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

Councillor Passas entered the meeting at 10.02pm

 

C1217 Item 1      Draft Greater Sydney Region Plan and Revised Draft Eastern City District Plan - Greater Sydney Commission

Motion (McKenna OAM/Byrne)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.       Receive and note the Report;

 

2.       Adopts the proposed responses in this Report;

 

3.       Prepare a submission to the Greater Sydney Commission based on the contents of this Report;

 

4.         Write to Google seeking a meeting to discuss Google’s previous proposal to           establish their headquarters at the White Bay Power Station site with the aim of        overcoming the accessibility and public transport deficiencies which resulted in   the deferral of those plans; and

 

5.         Make reference to questions on how this plan is going to be funded to achieve        the desired outcomes of the plan.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

Amendment (Da Cruz/Kiat)

 

THAT Council:



  1. Remove references to Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy and extending the Camperdown-Ultimo Biomedical hub from the submission;

  2. Amend Response 12 into two separate responses - one in relation to the Refugee Welcome Centre in Callan Park and the other in relation to the Aboriginal Communities. The later should be drafted in conjunction with the appropriate staff in council;

  3. The submission needs to include the following items which have been overlooked in the Plans:

 

    1. The transition to distributed energy generation and supply in particular in    relation to private local photovoltaic solar energy generation and the necessary infrastructure to for example support urban community solar farms;

 

    1. Improving the amenity for passengers at bus stops by providing better pedestrian access, reducing air and noise pollution, providing shade from sun, shelter from rain and information such as bus routes and timetables   both digitally and at the bus stop;

 

    1. Reducing noise pollution from aircraft and motor vehicles on homes, schools, restaurants, cafes and public open spaces including footpaths;

 

    1. The expansion and provision of frequent rail services and inter-region high speed rail services;

 

    1. On Pg 13 - with regard to schools and childcare - these need to be accessible by good pedestrian, cycling and public transport infrastructure;

 

    1. Either define an additional glossary or use the Greater Sydney Commission’s glossary to define Public/Open/Green spaces and Public/Mass/Active Transport;

 

    1. Transition to electric buses - including the necessary infrastructure for recharging;

    2. Public Transport and night time pedestrian amenity play a vital role in the night time economy to enable workers and patrons to get to and from venues; and

 

    1. With regard to the cruise terminals, particularly the one at White Bay, shore             power is required.

Motion Lost

For Motion:                 Crs Da Cruz, Hesse, Kiat, Porteous and Steer

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

 

C1217 Item 2      Review of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards and State Environmental Planning Policy (Miscellaneous Consent Provisions) 2007

Motion (Byrne/Drury)

 

THAT:

 

1.       The report be received and noted; and

 

2.       Council endorse the draft submission in ATTACHMENT 1 to this report to be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

 

C1217 Item 4  Permitting dogs in Pubs in the Inner West

 

Motion (Byrne/Drury)

 

THAT Council:

 

  1. Publicly exhibit a proposed amendment to the 2017/2018 Fees and Charges to provide for full fee waivers for Development Applications (and associated modifications), footpath use applications and any lease fees associated with establishment of new low-impact ‘Dog-Welcome Zones’ (only) in outdoor areas such as footpath dining, courtyards or beer gardens, where a premises does not currently have such an area;

 

  1. Provide a further report to Council outlining the outcomes of the application fee waiver public exhibition process at its completion; and

 

  1. Publishes a plain English Comprehensive guide to Commercial Footpath Occupation on its website to encourage and assist businesses to apply for licenses to occupy and enliven these public spaces without negatively impacting pedestrian amenity. The guide is to include Council’s policy(s), scale of occupation, application fees, lease charges, relevant legislation and other requirements that the businesses need to comply with including Food Safety, Licensing, Work Place Health and Safety, Public Liability and Pedestrian Amenity.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:                    Crs Da Cruz and Porteous

 

 

Foreshadowed Motion (Da Cruz/Porteous)

 

THAT:

 

1.         There be no fee waivers; and

 

2.         Council publishes a plain English Comprehensive guide to Commercial Footpath Occupation on its website to encourage and assist businesses to apply for licenses to occupy and enliven these public spaces without negatively impacting pedestrian amenity. The guide is to include Council’s policy(s), scale of occupation, application fees, lease charges, relevant legislation and other requirements that the businesses need to comply with including Food Safety, Licensing, Work Place Health and Safety, Public Liability and Pedestrian Amenity.

 

This Foreshadowed Motion lapsed.

 

 

C1217 Item 7      Schedule of Ordinary Council Meetings for 2018

Motion     (Drury/Macri)

7.             

8.            THAT:

9.             

1.         Council hold Ordinary Council Meetings for 2018 at the Ashfield Service Centre commencing at 6.30pm on the dates shown in the Meeting Schedule in the report, and publish these dates on Council’s Website; and

10.           

2.         The General Manager in consultation with the Mayor consider holding Council Meetings other venues in the Council area if there is a significant reason.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Crs Hesse, Kiat, Lockie and Porteous

 

Amendment (Hesse/Steer)

 

THAT Council build a new Council Chambers at the Petersham Service Centre and move Council meetings to Petersham once this is complete.

 

 

 

 

Motion Lost

For Motion:                 Crs Da Cruz, Hesse, Kiat, Porteous and Steer

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

 

 

Foreshadowed Motion (Porteous/Da Cruz)

 

THAT the Meeting Schedule of dates and times as outlined in the report be adopted, however in order to enable community members to be able to attend at least some Council Meetings which are accessible to them over the calendar year the location of Council Meetings be shared  across the 3 council areas of Leichhardt, Ashfield and Marrickville either in the relevant Council Chambers or town halls. 

 

This Foreshadow Motion lapsed.

 

 

Motion: (McKenna OAM/ Macri)

 

THAT the meeting be extended for a further 30 Minutes.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Councillor Macri left the Meeting at 11:03 pm.

 

C1217 Item 9      Quarterly Budget Review Statement at 30 September 2017

Motion: (Drury/McKenna)

 

THAT:

 

1.   The report be received and noted; and

 

2.   Council approves the budget adjustments required.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                                  Cr Macri

 

Councillor Macri returned to the Meeting at 11:06 pm.

 

C1217 Item 10    Inner West Council Brand Development

Motion: (McKenna OAM/Byrne)

 

THAT Council:

 

  1. Establish a panel of nine people (membership to include nominated Councillors and the Mayor, Council officers and relevant community members identified collaboratively by those Councillors and Council officers) to determine the specifications for a public logo design competition;

Nominated Councillors:

  1. Include in the specifications for the logo design competition elements reflective of the past, present and future of the local community’s character;
  2. Will, through the committee, identify appropriate levels of funding for the competition, including prize money; and
  3. Requests a further report to be brought back to Council, following the conclusion of the design competition, outlining the specifications for the branding process.

Motion Lost

For Motion:                 Crs Byrne, Drury, Iskandar, McKenna OAM and York

Against Motion:          Crs Da Cruz, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, Passas, Porteous, Raciti and Steer

 

 

Foreshadowed Motion (Macri/Porteous)

 

THAT Council defer this item for 6 months.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Crs Byrne and Drury

 

 

 

 

C1217 Item 17    Notice of Motion: Use of Infrastructure SEPP

Motion:     (Porteous/Da Cruz)

 

THAT where council needs development approval for development on substantial development on publically owned land or property it must not use the Infrastructure SEPP to achieve this. The Infrastructure SEPP does not allow for adequate public scrutiny and community consultation. Instead all of Council’s development proposals on publically owned land must be assessed through a full development application process. 

 

Motion Lost

For Motion:                 Crs Da Cruz, Hesse, Kiat, Porteous and Steer

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

 

 

C1217 Item 19    Notice of Motion: Shade Sails

Motion:     (Byrne/Drury)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.            Officers report on the suitability and rank the priority of the following playgrounds for installation of shade sails, to be considered in the preparation of the 2018/19 Budget:

 

Chester Street Annandale

Hearn Street Leichhardt

Marr Reserve Leichhardt

O’Connor Reserve Rozelle

Cary Street Leichhardt

Ann Cashman Reserve Balmain

Lambert Park Leichhardt

War Memorial Park Leichhardt

Elkington Park Balmain

Bridgewater Rozelle

Orange Grove Lilyfield

Gray Street Annandale

North Street Leichhardt

Mort Bay Birchgrove

Gladstone Park Balmain

36 Battalion Park Leichhardt

 

2.            Have a review of all playgrounds in the LGA for the prioritisation of the installation of shade sails in preparation for the 2018/19 budget.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

 

Motion: (Drury/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT the meeting be extended for a further 30 Minutes.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

Motion (Passas/Raciti)

 

That Council move into Confidential session to consider Items of business containing Confidential Information.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Members of the public were asked to leave the Chamber.

 

 

Motion: (Drury/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT Council return to open session to read out the recommendations from the

Closed Session.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

The Mayor read out to the Meeting the recommendation from the Closed Session of

Council.

 

 

Reports with Confidential Information

 

C1217 Item 23    General Manager's Contract of Employment

Motion (McKenna OAM/Iskandar)

 

THAT Council extends the General Manager’s current contract of employment for a period of twelve (12) months on the same remuneration package. All other terms and conditions will be in accordance with the Office of Local Government Standard Contract of Employment for General Managers of Local Councils in New South Wales.  In relation to Schedule A – Council Policies, the following will apply:- all Inner West Council policies that apply to all staff, including IWC Leaseback Motor Vehicle policy.   

 

Motion Carried

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

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

 

 

Clr Raciti left the meeting as she had declared a pecuniary interest in Item 24 and did not vote or participate in discussion of the matter.

 

C1217 Item 24    Lambert Oval Lease

Motion (McKenna OAM/Iskandar)

 

THAT:

“A.    Council agrees to vary the existing lease with APIA Leichhardt Tigers Football Club Inc (“APIA”) so as to achieve the following outcomes:

1.     The term of the initial lease is extended by 6 months (ie. to 31 March 2020);

2.     The date for payment of sinking fund payments is varied to 31 March each         year (including 31 March 2020 and any March within a hold over or                     renewal lease period); and

3.     APIA is to pay Council $22,500 upon the date the lease comes to an end             (whether that end date occurs during an initial period, a hold over period or        a renewal period) to reflect the additional 6 months use permitted under              paragraph 1 above and the payment deferral permitted by paragraph 2.

B.     The General Manager is authorised to negotiate the variation to the lease to                implement the above.

Item A3 is intended to ensure that Council is no worse off as a result of the payment deferral.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Cr Raciti

 

C1217 Item 25    Request for Information on the Process for Initiating a Public Inquiry and Holding a Plebiscite

Motion   (McKenna OAM/Iskandar)

 

11.          THAT Council provide a public statement about the legal advice on the process for initiating a public inquiry and holding a plebiscite on de-amalgamation.

 

Motion Carried

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

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

Absent:                                  Cr Raciti

 

 

 

C1217 Item 26    Legal Advice on Challenges to Westconnex

Motion: (McKenna OAM/Iskandar)

 

THAT Council receive and note this report.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                                  Cr Raciti

 

 

Meeting closed 12.06am

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 

Item No:         C0218 Item 1

Subject:         Affordable Housing Submission to Explanation of Intended Effect for State Environmental Planning Policy No. 70            

Prepared By:     Katie Miles - Strategic Planner  

Authorised By:  David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning

 

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement of the attached submission to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) supporting a proposed amendment to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 70 - Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes) (SEPP 70) to include the Inner West local government area (LGA) in SEPP 70.  It also advises on the next steps to be taken to utilise the amendment to help secure more affordable housing.

 

The inclusion of Inner West Council in SEPP 70 is supported as it will provide a legal mechanism to enable Council to require affordable housing contributions in association with development enabled by Planning Proposals that amend Local Environmental Plans (LEPs).

 

Council had previously written to DPE seeking inclusion in SEPP 70 and submitted supporting evidence on the need for affordable housing in Council’s area. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

 

1.       Support the inclusion of the Inner West LGA in SEPP 70;

 

2.       Endorse Council's Strategic Planning Group to work with the DPE to develop proposals for affordable housing contribution schemes under SEPP 70 to implement Council’s Affordable Housing Policy;

 

3.       Endorse Council's Strategic Planning Group to require affordable housing contribution schemes to support Planning Proposals to amend relevant LEPs in accordance with the aims of Council’s Affordable Housing Policy; 

 

4.       Request that the DPE provides guidance to councils on the process and information requirements to be addressed in preparing an affordable housing contribution scheme; and

 

5.       Request Council's Strategic Planning Group to report back to Council on discussions with DPE on the implementation of Council’s Affordable Housing Policy and the potential need for changes to the Policy to optimise the outcomes that can be achieved utilising SEPP 70.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

On 15 December 2017, the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) announced proposed changes to the State Environmental Planning Policy No 70 – Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes) (SEPP 70) governing affordable rental housing. The proposal involves expanding the provisions of the SEPP 70 to include Inner West Council and City of Canada Bay, City of Ryde, Northern Beaches and Randwick City Councils.

 

The amendment to SEPP 70 to include Council was on exhibition until 31 January 2018. Council's officers requested an extension to this deadline to allow for the proposal to be discussed at Council's meeting on 13 February 2018. DPE requested that a draft submission be submitted by 31 January 2018 and that the outcome of the consideration of the submission by Council be confirmed after the 13 February 2018 meeting.  Accordingly a draft submission that is consistent with the recommendations in this report has been submitted to DPE and forms ATTACHMENT 1.

 

This report describes the proposed changes to SEPP 70 and the next steps required to utilise the proposed changes to help implement Council's Affordable Housing Policy.

 

The following earlier Council resolutions relate to matters considered in the report.  

 

Council Meeting Date

Council Resolution No

Affordable housing resolution

28/03/2017

C0317

In relation to the adoption of the Inner West Affordable Housing Policy, the Administrator:

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

24/10/2017

C1017

In relation to the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor Strategy Submission, that Council:

·      Requests the NSW Minister for Planning agrees to provide SEPP 70 for affordable housing in line with the Inner West Affordable Housing Policy.

21/11/2017

C1117

In relation to a notice of motion by Councillors Kiat and Steer, Council resolved:

·      That Council hold a briefing session for Councillors on Councils adopted policies on affordable housing and the body of research which has been undertaken to support it.

 

 

Proposed Amendment to SEPP 70 and the Explanation of Intended Effect

The proposal to expand the provisions of SEPP 70 to apply to the Inner West Council LGA is welcomed and responds directly to a request from Council to be included. Inclusion in SEPP 70 will provide a legal mechanism to enable Council to require affordable housing contributions in association with the many Planning Proposals coming forward.  Currently Council is only able to require affordable housing contributions in association with Planning Proposals and development applications by way of voluntary planning agreements (VPAs).

 

Section 94F(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) only allows conditions requiring affordable housing contributions to be applied to a development application under that section if a State environmental planning policy identifies that there is a need for affordable housing within the area.  The proposed amendment to SEPP 70 will satisfy that requirement for Council.  SEPP 70 will then enable Council to introduce affordable housing contributions schemes, implemented through Planning Proposals that amend the existing Council LEPs, that require the imposition of a condition of consent to collect affordable housing contributions or dedication of affordable housing at the development assessment stage (under Part 4 of the EP&A Act).

 

The submission made by Council to justify inclusion in SEPP 70 relied on information on local need for affordable housing derived from Council’s Affordable Housing Policy and Background Paper.  The exhibited DPE Explanation of Intended Effect on the proposed amendment notes this information, supports Council’s analysis and as a result proposes inclusion in SEPP 70.

It is important to note that the inclusion of Council in SEPP 70 will not give statutory force to Council’s Affordable Housing Policy but it will provide an important new tool that Council can use to seek to secure affordable housing in association with new Planning Proposals.  It will also enable Council to prepare its own Planning Proposals to apply requirements for affordable housing to development proposals.  This will make affordable housing requirements associated with new development proposals clear to landowners, residents, construction and the real estate industry early in the planning and development process.

 

The amendment of SEPP 70 will allow the listed councils to prepare affordable housing contribution schemes for defined precincts, areas or developments associated with increased density and higher development yield because of the initial zoning of a site, or the rezoning of a site within their local government area.

 

Lack of Guidance on the Implementation of SEPP 70 Provisions

 

The Explanation of Intended Effect (EIE) and other exhibition material do not provide any details of the requirements for the content of an affordable housing contribution scheme or potential associated draft model LEP clause(s). 

 

The associated exhibition material indicates that proposed affordable housing contribution rates should not impact on the supply of general housing but no details are given on how this should be assessed, for example with requirements for feasibility assessment modelling.   Guidance on a common approach to the assessment of this issue, including the accepted methodology for financial analysis and the consideration of its results, would assist in this regard and would help limit the extent of costly feasibility analyses that Councils may otherwise need to commission to support proposed schemes.

 

It is also unclear how Councils can apply affordable housing contribution schemes to wider areas in advance of the approval of Planning Proposals that later set the detailed parameters for new development.

 

It is considered that the Department should be requested to provide guidance on the matters raised above to assist Councils seeking to introduce affordable housing contributions schemes.  As Council is currently facing a large number of Planning Proposals from which it is important to seek affordable housing contributions, it is proposed that Council offers to work with DPE on finalising supporting guidance, including considering a potential standard tool for financial feasibility assessment of individual development proposals.

 

Implementing the Inner West Council Affordable Housing Policy Utilising SEPP 70

Council adopted its Affordable Housing Policy in March 2017. The Policy requires 15% of all total gross floor area (residential or commercial, if it is a mixed use development) to be transferred to Council as affordable rental housing units for any residential development approved through the process of rezoning that has 20 or more dwellings or with a gross floor area larger than 1,700m2. The Policy applies to all land subject to re-zoning for residential or mixed use purposes across the LGA and is not limited to any specific area. 

 

Council’s Policy also supports an affordable housing target of 30% of affordable units on State Government owned land.

 

It is proposed that Council utilises the opportunity presented by inclusion in SEPP 70 to secure affordable housing in accordance with the Policy.  To apply its Affordable Housing Policy under SEPP 70, the Council will need to prepare a Planning Proposal to:

a)  establish specific affordable housing contribution schemes; and

b) insert appropriate provisions in the three current LEPs for contributions to be required in accordance with an approved dedications (or contributions) scheme.

Council will also need to prepare an affordable housing contribution scheme to support each new Planning Proposal where contributions for affordable housing will be required. The schemes will be assessed by the DPE and approved by the Minister for Planning as part of the consideration of an associated Planning Proposal that will introduce the schemes. 

 

Council officers have met with representatives of the DPE to discuss issues arising from the proposed inclusion in SEPP 70.  The discussions highlighted the DPE concern that affordable housing contribution schemes will need to demonstrate that the proposed affordable housing contributions rate will not impact on supply of general housing.  This will need to take into account consideration of other potential development costs such as State Infrastructure Contributions (SICs), Local Infrastructure Contributions (Section 94 Contribution Plans) and other public benefit requirements.  DPE identified particular concerns about how Council’s Affordable Housing Policy addresses this issue.  It is proposed to discuss these concerns with DPE and report back to Council on any potential need for changes to the Policy to optimise the outcomes that can be achieved under SEPP 70.  

 

Affordable housing contribution schemes under SEPP 70 can only be implemented through a Planning Proposal to amend the relevant LEP.  The Strategic Planning Group is best placed to prepare and implement affordable housing contribution schemes as development feasibility is often assessed as part of reviews to the Local Environment Plan, Development Control Plan and Section 94 Developer Contribution Plans.

 

Council should note that there are likely to be considerable costs incurred in preparing affordable housing contribution schemes and associated Planning Proposal documents and no funds have been allocated for the implementation of Council’s Affordable Housing Policy through LEP amendments. However for proponent-led Planning Proposals (rezoning applications) the cost can be borne largely by the proponent.  The Council led component can be considered as part of the allocation of funds for the LEPs review in the budget for 2018/19. 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil at this stage, however there is currently no budget for the implementation of the Affordable Housing Policy.

 

It is expected that there will be a cost to prepare affordable housing contribution schemes and associated LEP amendments to help implement the Affordable Housing Policy.  This will be considered as part of the allocation of funds for the LEPs review in the budget for 2018/19.  It will also be the subject of discussions with DPE when that will seek to identify the requirements for affordable housing contribution schemes in detail.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Not applicable.

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council endorse the attached submission that requests the DPE expedites changes to SEPP 70 to include Council in SEPP 70.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Inner West Draft Council Submission SEPP 70

2.

DPE SEPP 70 Explanation of Intended Effects

3.

DPE SEPP 70 Frequently Asked Questions

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 

Item No:         C0218 Item 2

Subject:         Planning Proposal for 114-140 Parramatta Road/Ormond Street/Gower Street/Tideswell Street/Liverpool Road, Ashfield           

Prepared By:     Con Colot - Senior Strategic Planner & Projects 

Authorised By:  David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning

 

SUMMARY

Council has received a Planning Proposal seeking to make major amendments to the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013 for Land Use zoning, Maximum Height of Buildings and Maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standards as described in the report.

 

The proposal was put on preliminary community consultation in accordance with the policy of the former Ashfield Council, so that Council may take submissions into consideration upfront as part of the process of determining whether to support the Planning Proposal.

 

345 submissions have been received including 310 objections. A Strategic Merit assessment has been carried out against the “Planning Proposal Guidelines” prepared by the Department of Planning and Environment and it is considered the Proposal fails that test. It is also significantly inconsistent with the Ashfield Urban Planning Strategy 2010 and recommendations of the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy. The Proposal should not be supported.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.       Council not support the Planning Proposal for the reasons given in the report, including that:

 

a)      It fails the Strategic Merit test of the Planning Proposal Guidelines pursuant to Section 55(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act;

b)      It is inconsistent with the local council strategy being the Ashfield Urban Planning Strategy 2010;

c)      It is inconsistent with the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy and the recommended Land Use Zoning and Maximum Height of Buildings and Maximum Floor Space Ratio standards, and outside the staging period for development for 2016-2023;

d)      A significant part of the affected land is outside the Frame Area of the Implementation Plan of the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy for redevelopment of land, and is not part of any local strategy;

e)      It is inconsistent with Section 117 Direction – Clause 7.3 (4), in that it does not comply with the recommendations of the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy, and has not produced a “better outcome” pursuant to Section 117 Direction 7.3 (5);

f)       It will lead to a substantial loss of employment and urban services generating land;

g)       It will lead to a substantial adverse impact on the character of the local area due to its significantly excessive height and density, and will have an adverse social impact as demonstrated by the significant amount of objections to the proposal; and

h)       Support of the application would cause an adverse precedent and be contrary to the orderly development of land and the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

2.       Should the proponent request a Rezoning Review by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment, delegation is given to the Group Manager of Strategic Planning to lodge a submission to the review process in accordance with this report and Council’s resolution.

 

 

 

 

1.0     OVERVIEW OF REPORT

 

Council has a received a Planning Proposal application (Attachment 1) for the block bounded by Parramatta Road, Ormond Street, Gower Street, Liverpool Road and Tideswell Street for the area shown in grey shading in Figure 1 below seeking to make amendments to the Ashfield LEP 2013 for Land Use zoning, Maximum Height of Buildings and Maximum FSR development standards.

 

 

 

Figure 1 - Land affected by Planning Proposal is shown in grey shading

 

 

Figure 1.1 - Depictions of potential site layout and resulting building forms from Design Concept

 

The Proposal comprises many properties with varying proposed Maximum Height of Building development standards and Maximum FSR development standards, which are described in more precise detail below in Part 2.1. The Proposal essentially seeks to amend the planning controls applying to the entire site as summarised in the table below:

 

Table 1 – Proposed amendments to Ashfield LEP 2013

 

Existing

Proposed

Land Use Zoning

 

B6 - Enterprise Zone for properties along Parramatta Road.

 

 

R3 - Medium Density Residential for properties off Ormond Street, Gower Street, Liverpool Road and Tideswell Street.

Land Use Zoning

 

Retain B6 Enterprise Zone for properties along Parramatta Road, and add a “shop top housing” land use.

 

Replace R3 zone, with R1 General Residential zone for properties off Ormond Street, Gower Street, Liverpool Road and Tideswell Street, and

add new R1 Land Use table in the Ashfield LEP 2013.

 

Maximum Building Height

 

15m (4 commercial storeys) for properties along Parramatta Road zoned B6.

 

12.5m (3 storeys) for properties zoned R3 off Ormond Street, Gower Street, Liverpool Road and Tideswell Street.

Maximum Building Height

 

Heights varying between 34m (10 storeys), 44m (13 storeys), 55m (16 storeys) along Parramatta Road.

 

Heights varying between 12.5m (3 storeys), 14m (4 storeys) and 31m (9 storeys) – for land zoned R1 for properties off Ormond Street, Gower Street, Liverpool Road and Tideswell Street 

 

Some properties will retain a 12.5m height.

 

Refer to maps in Part 2 of this report.

 

 

Maximum Floor Space Ratio

 

2.0:1 for properties along Parramatta Road zoned B6.

 

 

0.7:1 for properties zoned R3 for properties off Ormond Street, Gower Street, Liverpool Road and Tideswell Street.

Maximum Floor Space Ratio

 

FSR varying between 2.8:1 to 4.2:1 along Parramatta Road.

 

 

FSR varying between 0.7:1 to 2.3:1 for properties off Ormond Street, Gower Street, Liverpool Road and Tideswell Street

 

Some properties will remain at 0.7:1.

 

Refer to maps in Part 2 below.

 

The application was lodged on 16 October 2017. It has been put on preliminary community consultation in accordance with the policy of the former Ashfield Council, so that Council may take submissions into consideration upfront as part of the process of determining whether to support the Planning Proposal.

 

There have been 345 submissions, including 310 submissions objecting to the proposal, 14 submissions in support of the proposal subject to changes, and 11 submissions of support which are summarised in Part 3 of the report.

 

The submissions raise many concerns and these include that the development standards are extremely excessive in building scale, generating a large amount of proposed dwellings and resulting population density; the proposed building heights will adversely change the character of the area; the proposal is inconsistent with the Ashfield Council Urban Planning Strategy 2010 and community vision for the area, and is inconsistent with the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy (PRCUTS).

 

Arguments put forward by the applicant in support of the Planning Proposal include that it complies with various State Plans on the basis that it will provide additional housing near public transport and services (such as shopping areas) and that it benefits from WestConnex infrastructure, it produces a “better outcome” to the PRCUTS (pursuant to Clause 7.3, 4, of the Section 117 Direction). It argues that the PRCUTS recommendations for Land Use Zoning, Maximum Height of Buildings and Maximum FSR are not feasible for encouraging new development.

 

A Strategic Merit assessment against the “Planning Proposal Guidelines” criterion is provided in Part 5.0 - Table 1 of this report, and the applicant’s arguments for justifying the Proposal are not agreed with and are considered to fail the relevant criterion. This includes that the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with various State Plans for retaining “employment and local services” noting there has already been a considerable loss of land due to the WestConnex project; it is inconsistent with a local strategy (Ashfield Urban Planning Strategy 2010) and community vision for the area; does not comply with the PRCUTS recommendations: is “out of sequence” with the PRCUTS and fails to produce a better outcome pursuant to Section 117 Direction 7.3.

 

It is concluded that Council should not support the application. It is considered that it is premature to be reconsidering the land uses and development standards for the affected land, noting that the PRCUTS proposes that any such review should be carried out post 2023 and up to 2050. 

 

2.0       DESCRIPTION OF PLANNING PROPOSAL

 

The application was lodged on 16 October 2017 and affects the land shown in Part 1.0 Figure 1 of this report which contains many properties with different ownerships, and seeks amendments to the Ashfield LEP 2013 as explained in more detail below in Part 2.1.

 

“Ozzy States” is the applicant, and according to Council records owns 126 -128 Parramatta Road, and 8 Tideswell Street, Ashfield. Procedurally, the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act allows the lodgement of a Planning Proposal without the requirement to obtain owners consent. Council is then required to assess and determine whether it wishes to support the application (refer to Part 7 of this report for more detail on the processes). 

 

2.1       Description of amendments

 

The Planning Proposals seeks to make the following amendments to the Ashfield LEP 2013.

 


 

Proposed Land Use Zoning

 

Existing

Proposed

 

B6 - Enterprise Zone for properties along Parramatta Road.

 

 

R3 - Medium Density Residential for properties off Ormond Street, Gower Street, Liverpool Road and Tideswell Street.

 

Retain B6 Enterprise Zone for properties along Parramatta Road, and add a “shop top housing” land use.

 

Replace R3 zone with R1 General Residential zone, add new R1 Land Use table in the Ashfield LEP 2013 as follows: 

 

“Attached dwellings; Boarding Houses, Centre based child care facilities; Community facilities; Dwelling houses; Group homes; Hostels; Multi dwelling housing; Neighbourhood shops; Places of public worship; Residential flat buildings; Respite day care centres; Semi-detached dwellings : Seniors housing ; Shop Top housing” .

 

Refer to maps in Figure 2b below.

 

“Shop top housing” is defined as “means one or more dwellings located above ground floor retail premises or business premises”. A “business premises” can include such uses as commercial premises (offices), banks, post offices, hairdressers, dry cleaners, travel agencies or the like. “Retail premises” are prohibited in the B6 Enterprise Zone of the Ashfield LEP 2013, this in order to prohibit further “permit food and drink” premises such as takeaway food outlets as part of the policy of the former Ashfield Council.

 

“Shop top housing” permits apartments and has the potential to enable a predominantly residential use of buildings above a ground level storey “business use”.

 

Proposed Maximum Height of Building

 

Existing

Proposed

15m (4 commercial storeys) for properties along Parramatta Road zoned B6.

 

 

12.5m (3 storeys) for properties zoned R3 off Ormond Street, Gower Street, Liverpool Road and Tideswell Street.

Heights varying between 34m (10 storeys), 45m (13 storeys) and 55m (16 storeys) along Parramatta Road zoned B6.

 

Heights varying between 12.5m (3 storeys), 14m (4 storeys) and 31m (9 storeys) – for properties zoned R1 off Ormond Street, Gower Street, Liverpool Road and Tideswell Street.

 

Refer to Maps in Figure 3b below.

 


 

Proposed Maximum Floor Space Ratio

 

Existing

Proposed

2.0:1 for properties along Parramatta Road zoned B6.

 

 

0.7:1 for properties zoned R3 for properties off Ormond Street, Gower Street, Liverpool Road and Tideswell Street.

FSR varying between 2.8:1 to 4.2:1 for properties along Parramatta Road zoned B6.

 

 

FSR varying between 0.7:1 to 2.3:1 for properties zoned R1 off Ormond Street, Gower Street, Liverpool Road and Tideswell Street.

 

Refer to Maps in Figure 4b below.

 

The applicant’s “justification” for the above is provided in Part 6.3 of the Planning Proposal (Attachment 1).

 

The Council officer assessment pursuant to the “Planning Proposal Guidelines” (which are a matter for consideration under Part 55(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act) is provided in Part 4 of this report. This includes an assessment relative to various current State Government Plans and Council’s “Ashfield Urban Planning Strategy 2010”. It also includes an assessment relative to Section 117 Direction 7.3 and the recommendations of the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy (PRCUTS).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R3

 

R3 - Medium Density Residential Zone, B6- Enterprise Zone

 

Figure 2 a - Existing Ashfield LEP 2013 Land Use Zoning Map

 

 

 

 

 

R1 –General Residential Zone, B6- Enterprise Zone

 

Figure 2b - Proposed Ashfield LEP 2013 Land Use Zoning Map

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 1

 

M = 12.5m, O1 = 15m

 

Figure 3a – Existing Ashfield LEP Maximum Height of Buildings Map

 

 

 

 

 

M = 12.5m, N1 = 14m, U = 31m, V = 35m, W= 44m, X = 55m

 

Figure 3b - Proposed Maximum Height of Buildings Map

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H = 0.7:1, T1 = 2.0:1

 

Figure 4 a - Existing Ashfield LEP Maximum Floor Space Ratio Map

 

 

 

 

H = 0.7:1, T1 = 2.0:1, U1 = 2.8:1, W = 4.2:1,

 

Figure 4b - Proposed Maximum Floor Space Ratio Map

 

 

 

 

3.0  LOCAL CONTEXT AND EXISTING PLANNING STRATEGIES

 

 

Figure 5 - Aerial view. Affected land is within red boundary.

 

3.1       Existing Land Uses Within Affected Land

 

Existing land uses include:

 

·        Buildings along Parramatta Road including a two storey furniture shop, appliance repairs, Hungarian Catholic Community Organisation, residential flat buildings and dwelling houses.

·        Buildings in Tideswell Street consist of dwelling houses and two storey residential flat buildings, and take away food premises.

·        Buildings along the north eastern side of Gower Street consist of dwelling houses and two storey residential flat buildings.

·        Buildings along Ormond Street include the two storey furniture shop fronting Parramatta Road and dwelling houses including Heritage Items at 51, 53, 55, 57, 59 Ormond Street.

·        Buildings along Liverpool Road consist of a mixture of residential flat buildings and dwelling houses.

 

3.2       Local Context

 

Directly to the north along Parramatta Road there are two storey residential flat buildings, commercial properties and dwellings houses. Behind this is the Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area.

 

To the south and east is a mixture of single storey dwelling houses and three to four storey residential flat buildings, and Explorers Park.

 

To the east is the Ashfield Park.

 

The corner of Liverpool and Parramatta Road is a major traffic intersection, carrying approx. 27,000 vehicles per day along Liverpool Road, and 35,000 vehicles per day along Parramatta Road. Nearby (200 metres) to the west on Parramatta Road are the WestConnex portals (under construction) and when completed there will likely be a substantial amount of traffic wishing to use the Liverpool Road intersection to access those portals. More detail on this is given in Part 6.1 of this report under Council’s Traffic Engineer’s comments.

 

3.3     Description of key parts - Ashfield LEP 2013 and Ashfield Urban Planning Strategy 2010, PRCUTS and State Plans

 

There are various “plans” which contain town planning rationale that are relevant to consideration of the Planning Proposal, which are assessed in Part 5.0 in Table 3 of this report as part of the “Strategic Merit” test. Given that there are numerous Plans, it is necessary to give an overview of the salient (key) issues contained in those Plans below.

 

 

Ashfield LEP 2013 and Ashfield Urban Planning Strategy 2010

 

For the land along Parramatta Road as (illustrated in Figure 2a above) - the Ashfield LEP 2013 applies the following:

 

·        Land Use Zone - B6 Enterprise Zone,

·        Maximum Height of Buildings - 15m

·        Maximum Floor Space Ratio - 2.0:1

 

The rationale for the zoning resulted from the Ashfield Urban Planning Strategy 2010 (A Thriving Place to do Business- Part 6.2), and that the corridor along Parramatta Road should be a B6 Enterprise Zone to provide for employment and urban services as it has historically has done so given its location. This is also a long term strategy. There has been significant takeup and demand sought for such land uses as explained below. 

 

The Strategy acknowledged that there are already high levels of residential flat developments (transit oriented development) between Parramatta Road and the Inner West railway line, which would benefit from having an employment zone in close vicinity (approximately 60% of the former Ashfield LGA comprises residential flat buildings). Former Ashfield Council had ensured that it had met already its “1997 -2017” housing targets and the new Ashfield LEP demonstrated it was capable of meeting the new required targets for 2031 (which the Department of Planning and Environment agreed with). 

 

Long established R2 Low Density Zone residential areas, and Heritage Conservation Areas, either side of the Enterprise Corridor were to be retained and protected for the benefit of the community, including maintaining their character and protected from the visual impacts of any new development along the road by restricting maximum building height.

 

The above Strategy and LEP development included a lengthy and comprehensive community consultation process between the period of 2010 to 2012. Maximum building heights and FSR were carefully constructed to be sympathetic to characteristics of adjacent residential land uses, with the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) later funding a Development Control Plan (DCP) for the Parramatta Road Zone strip which is now contained in the Inner West DCP 2016.

 

Land to the south of the B6 Strip off Gower, Ormond and Tideswell Street is as follows:

 

·        Land Use Zone – R3 Medium Density

·        Maximum Height of Buildings - 12.5m

·        Maximum FSR – 0.7:1 

 

The rationale for this resulted from a translation of the zoning and standards of the Ashfield LEP 1985, which at the time had a Residential 2(b) zoning which reflected townhouse type development, and as explained above, that the character of those residential areas was to be retained.

 

Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy (PRCUTS)

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6 – Frame area of PRCUTS

 

Land affected by the PRCUTS is within the red boundary. The land outside the frame area is not the subject of any current State Government or Local Council Strategy requiring amendments to the current Ashfield LEP 2013.

 

The front portion of the land along Parramatta Road, currently zoned B6 Enterprise Zone, is affected by the PRCUTS. This document was finalised after Urban Growth NSW (State Government department) sought the participation of local Councils (this included a Memorandum of Understanding with the former Ashfield Council), and conducted extensive consultation between 2013 and 2016. The PRCUTS documents were also the subject of two public consultations.

 

Urban Growth NSW agreed with the longstanding position of the former Ashfield Council (as contained in the Ashfield Urban Planning Strategy 2010 and in the various former Ashfield Council submissions on the PRCUTS) to retain an Enterprise Zone along Parramatta Road for job retention and creation, and to generally maintain the maximum heights found in the Ashfield LEP 2013 (south side) given the sensitive (as described in the PRCUTS) adjacent low rise residential areas.

 

The PRCUTS (in the Planning and Design Guidelines) recommends the following for the affected land within the frame area as reflected in its maps:

 

·        Land Use Zoning - B6 Enterprise Zone

·        Max Height of Buildings - Up to 16m (equivalent of three to four commercial building storeys)

·        Maximum Floor Space Ratio - Up to 2.2:1. 

 

PRCUTS Development staging: The land included in the Planning Proposal along Parramatta Road (within the Frame Area - refer to Figure 6) is not part of any “sequencing” (development) required for the period 2016 - 2023. It instead is required to occur at a future period between 2036 - 2050, a long term development objective. Nevertheless the land use zoning and development standards of the Ashfield LEP 2013 already closely align with the PRCUTS recommendations.

 

 

 

Figure 7 – Extract of PRCUTS Planning and Design Guidelines

 

 

Note - there are typographical errors on pg 214 Planning and Design Guide of PRCUTS that refer to the land between Iron Cove Creek (Dobroyd Parade) to Hawthorne Canal as B5 Business Development – which is an error, since it is clearly shown as B6 Enterprise zone on the map. The strip is clearly intended for business uses noting that in the separate PRCUTS Strategy document map it is shown as an Enterprise and Business zone (pg 106). The preceding exhibited June 2016 draft PRCUTS version shows this strip as solely a B6 Enterprise zone.

 

The PRCUTS Planning and Design guidelines in addition to compliance with Maximum Building Height, has various ancillary controls requiring lower transitionary heights when a site is adjacent or nearby “sensitive areas” such as low rise housing.

 

WestConnex

 

The areas along Parramatta Road, mainly between Frederick Street and Liverpool Road have been impacted by the WestConnex proposal, with approx. 13% of the B6 Enterprise Zone land lost for employment and urban services. The former Ashfield Council made a lengthy submission in 2015 opposing the proposal, and was successful in having the roadway portals moved to the west so as to not have the northern part of the Ashfield Park removed for roadway widening.

 

The final PRCUTS November 2016 did not address the “intervention impacts” of WestConnex, and so this “impact matter” is yet to be adequately analysed and resolved for affected and nearby land along Parramatta Road, including additional traffic impacts and understanding externalities and appropriate land uses. It is evident this would require a future holistic and lengthy detailed town planning study covering the entire length of the road between Battle Bridge/Hawthorne Parade and Croydon Road.

 

Various State Plans

 

The following Plans are matter for consideration when assessing Planning Proposals under s55 of the EPA Act:

 

·        “A Plan for Growing Sydney” 2014 and its update draft “Towards our Greater Sydney 2056” Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) November 2017

 

·        Draft “Metropolis of Three Cities” October 2017

 

·        Draft “Eastern City District Plan Regional Plan” October 2017

 

The need to maintain land supply for employment and urban services is given strong emphasis in the 2017 documents. These objectives do not conflict with the Ashfield Urban Planning Strategy 2010, or PRCUTS.

 

Examples of takeup of commercial (“enterprise”) building types along the Ashfield part of the corridor include 84-90 Parramatta Road and 12-28 Parramatta Road (see below) which have substantial three storey commercial buildings constructed relatively recently, providing high levels of employment. Other examples include long established commercial premises between corner of Liverpool Road and Battle Bridge.

 

Examples of commercial building demand include approvals for a substantial supermarket on the corner of Bland Street and Parramatta Road, and approval sought for a private hospital on the corner of Walker Avenue, with progress on these have been deferred pending the completion of the WestConnex. This commercial demand phenomenon is taking advantage of larger sites that can take larger building footprints, which is a different situation to that found to the east of Battle Bridge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Figure 8 - 12-28 Parramatta Road

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Figure 9 - 84-90 Parramatta Road

 

 

4.0 PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION AND PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

 

Preliminary upfront community consultation was carried out in accordance with the policy of the former Ashfield Council. This action also aligns with “A guide to preparing local environmental plans” prepared by DPE, Part 5.5.2 – Community Consultation - which states that “depending on the nature of the proposal, a Relevant Planning Authority may consider that it is appropriate to seek the general views of the community to assist in further defining the intent of the planning proposal prior to submitting it to gateway.”

 

The Planning Proposal was notified between November 2017 and 30 January 2018. A notice was placed in the local newspaper, letters sent to property owners within a half kilometre radius, and exhibited material placed on Council’s Have Your Say webpage and hard copies provided at the Ashfield Service Centre, Ashfield Library, and Haberfield Library.

 

1,700 people viewed the documents on Council’s webpage.

 

There were 345 submissions received as follows:

 

·        11 submissions in support of the proposal.

 

·        14 submissions supporting the proposal subject to changes, refer to Table 2 below for a summary of comments.

 

·        310 submissions objecting to the proposal, refer to Table 2 below for a summary of comments made. Those objecting included people living on properties within the land affected by the Planning Proposal, living opposite the land or in close vicinity including in adjacent streets in Ashfield, in Haberfield and Summer Hill.

 

 

Table 2 - Submissions

 

Issues raised

Officer Response

 

Support subject to changes

Support providing buildings are lowered in height, with requests ranging reduced in height to 4 storeys, to no higher than 9 storeys.

 

Support if development potential is reduced to 200 dwellings.

 

Support if there are no driveways off Parramatta Road.

Refer to Part 5.0 of the report below for more detail, including the proposed heights and the strategic merit of the proposal.

 

Objections

 

Proposal is an overdevelopment, being excessive in building height and FSR, not in keeping with the existing building scale and will have an adverse visual impact on surrounding areas.

 

It is agreed that the proposed heights are excessive. Refer to Part 4.0 of this report below for more detail.

 

Excessive amount of dwellings and residents who will use local streets as rat runs, and create a loss of on-street parking.

 

The area cannot cope with additional population and use of public transport is at a capacity and roads are congested.

 

There is inadequate infrastructure for new residents, including available student places in local schools.

The proposal has the potential to generate approximately 515 dwellings, approximately 1,000 occupants, and approximately 750 cars. There will likely be more use of local streets, more people using existing open space and local schools. Refer to Part 4.0 for assessment of the strategic merit of the proposal relative to Council’s existing strategy (Ashfield Urban Planning Strategy 2010). 

 

Traffic impacts on local roads is a consideration. Any resultant future buildings will need to provide onsite carparking, but there will also likely be an affect for on street parking availability. Refer to Part 5.1 of this report under Council’s Traffic Engineers comments for more detail.

 

Proposal will adversely change the character of the area, such as has occurred at the McGill Street/Lewisham precinct.

 

WestConnex has already made the area worse.

It is agreed the proposal’s heights will change the scale and character of the area, and the impacts of WestConnex need to be taken into consideration. This is examined in more detail in Part 4.0 of this report.

Proposal does not follow the recommendations of the PRCUTS, which was arrived at after length community consultation and Ashfield Council involvement.

It is agreed the proposal does not follow the recommendations of the PRCUTS. Refer to Part 4.0 for more detail.

 

Proposal disregards the Ashfield LEP 2013 and Ashfield Urban Planning Strategy 2010 which were developed with the input of the community, and the Enterprise Zone B6 zone should be retained.

The proposal does not accord with the Ashfield LEP and Ashfield Urban Planning Strategy. Refer to Part 4.0 of this report for more detail.

 

Support of the proposal will create a precedent for other land owners along Parramatta Road.

If the Proposal, which does not follow any of the parameters of existing “plans” and strategies, was to be implemented, this would likely create a new precedent.

 

Apartment buildings should be much lower.

 

Apartments should be a maximum of 6 storeys high

It is agreed the proposed heights are excessive, refer to Part 4.0 of this report for more detail.

 

There are property owners who have not signed the authority to lodge planning proposal forms.

 

 

All property owners should give consent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Allegation that the property owner authorisations submitted by the applicant contains signatures not produced by property owners.

Procedurally, the EP& A Act allows the lodgement of a Planning Proposal without the requirement to obtain owners consent. Council is then required to assess and determine whether it wishes to support the application.

 

The application purports that it has obtained the approval of land owners to lodge the application, however several property owners have submitted to Council that they have not given such an approval, and so for precautionary purposes this should not be relied on as demonstrating substantial land owner support for the submission

 

Some property owners affected by the proposal, have objected to the proposal.

 

This matter has been referred to the Ashfield Police as required by local government protocol.

 

 

There is inadequate open space in the local area.

 

 

Proposal would have an adverse impact on the use of Ashfield Park, and buildings will overlook and dominate the park. Ashfield Park is a “family oriented” one and should not be a congested place.

 

Presently in this area there is approximately 50 % of the required open space. This has been confirmed by various studies, including by earlier drafts of the PRCUTS and the Government Architect open space studies, as well former Ashfield Council planning data.

 

The proposal has the potential to generate approximately 515 dwellings and so approximately 1,000 occupants and so there will likely be more use of the park.  Refer to Part 5.2 – Parks Manager comments - for more detail.

 

 

Buildings depicted in the Design Concept have an unattractive appearance which is austere and “cookie cutter”, and give a “faceless feeling”, which is unsympathetic and alien to the area.

The Planning Proposal relates to an amendment to the Ashfield LEP 2013, it is not a development application putting forward building design for approval. An illustrative architectural proposal is provided in the “Design Concept”, (Attachment 2) and comments on its qualities are provided in Part 4.0 of this report.

 

Adverse impact on Heritage item houses in Ormond Street.

It is not proposed to remove the heritage listings. Refer to Council Heritage Adviser comments in Part 6.3. 

 

Heritage item houses in Ormond Street will be unreasonably shadowed.

 

Buildings should be reduced in height to enable adequate levels of sun to Explorers Park.

It is agreed that houses will be overshadowed in winter up until midday.

 

 

Explorers Park will be affected in winter by afternoon overshadowing.

 

Submission from local residents and the Haberfield Association.

 

 

There will be an adverse affect on Haberfield. “Haberfield is a heritage suburb, gaining its character from its leafy green aspect and having a modern tower overlooking our heritage properties in such close proximity  will affect the environment, visual aspect and general heritage nature of the area”.

The proposed building heights, up to 16 storeys, placed contextually within a low rise environment will have a large and alien visual impact and be highly perceptible from Haberfield, and other residential areas, and this is a significant matter for consideration. Refer to Part 5.0 of this report for more detail, and Heritage adviser comments in Part 6.3.

 

Residents within apartments along main roads will have poor amenity due to exposure to traffic noise, and this would be a “planning, urban design and amenity disaster”.

It is agreed that residents in such exposed apartments will have poor amenity. Refer to Part 4.0 of this report for more detail. Any such apartments should have “special” designs” such as dual aspect apartment (two orientation including to a “quite side”), adequate building setbacks, and deep soil planting for tall trees to ameliorate the impacts. This will affect building massing and so the extent of floor space ratio that can be accommodated. 

 

Residents living in houses within the affected site will be adversely affected by the new buildings, including during construction stages.

It is likely that in a future development scenario that development would occur in a piecemeal way with construction occurring on consolidated sites large enough to take buildings, but much smaller than that depicted in the Design Concept document, and so people residing in existing houses would be affected. This matter is discussed in more detail in Part 4.0 of this report which examines the practicalities of the Design Concept.

 

A supermarket should be provided to accommodate the needs of future residents.

As the proposal has the capacity to generate 515 dwellings and approximately 1,000 occupants, such a facility may be beneficial.

 

Shops or businesses along Parramatta Road will not be successful.

Businesses along Parramatta Road are considered viable as currently demonstrated by existing premises.

 

There should be a green setback along Parramatta Road to provide a wide green verge between Explorers Park and Ashfield Park, and bike path provided.

This would be a design matter and part of a future Development Control Plan guideline. The Design Concept diagrams show a green setback and this could accommodate a bike path.

 

The architectural proposal does not incorporate adequate sustainability features, such community gardens, playgrounds, and reduced energy consumption for buildings use, “cross flow” apartments, clothes drying areas, and wide  tree canopy.

 

Future buildings will increase the heat island effect and adverse cause wind tunnels.

 

This application seeks an amendment to the Ashfield LEP 2013 and is not a development application. Detailed design matters such as compliance with environmental standards contained in BASIX and communal open space requirements of SEPP 65 – Apartment Design Guide are examined at Development Application stage. Energy provisions of the Building Code of Australia are examined at Construction Certificate stage.

 

 

The Design Concept’s proposals for communal open space is assessed in Part 4.0 of this report including the adequacy of the area of communal open space relative to potential population.

 

 

Provision of building setbacks to enable wide verges for substantial wide canopy street planting would be addressed in a Development Control Plan.

 

There has been inadequate notification of the Planning Proposal.

The Proposal was notified in in accordance with the policy of the former Ashfield Council. A notice of the exhibition of the Proposal was placed in the Inner West Courier, in excess of 3,000 letters were sent to property owners within a half kilometre radius, and the exhibition was for an extended period between November 2017 until 30 January 2018. There have been a large number of submissions.

 

A petition from the “Hungarian Catholic Community of NSW”, at 120 Parramatta Road, with 60 signatures objecting to the proposal.

 

The organisation has a 50 year history, the site is an iconic one for its members and has cultural significance, and there is no intention of moving.

 

This is noted.

T

5.0     Assessment of Planning Proposal – Strategic Merit Test – “Planning Proposal Guidelines”

 

Council is required to determine whether to support the Application (see Part 7 below regarding the Planning Proposal assessment process). In assessing the Planning Proposal it is Council’s responsibility to ensure there is adequate content and “justification” as required in      “Planning Proposal – A Guide to preparing Planning Proposal Guidelines” August 2016 prepared by DPE, and whether this warrants Council’s support of the application. There are numerous “gatepost” matters to consider and the following provides an assessment of this.

 

Table 3 – Planning Proposal Guidelines Assessment

 

Part 1  Objectives and intended outcomes and explanation of provisions

 

 

Guideline Requirements

Officer Comments

2.1

 

Requires a concise statement setting out the objective or intended outcomes.

The descriptive statement given in the Planning Proposal in Part 6.1 of Attachment 1 is satisfactory. Refer to report above in Part 2.1 for a description of the requested amendments.

 

 


 

Part 2  Explanation of provisions

 

 

Guideline Requirements

Officer Comments

2.2

Requires an explanation of the land use zones and development standards sought to be amended.

The Proposal adequately describes and provides adequate mapping for the following land use zones and development standards amendment:

 

(i)    Permit “shop top housing” over the lots fronting Parramatta Road currently zoned B6 – Enterprise Corridor.

(ii)   Rezone the land currently zoned R3 - Medium Density Residential to R1 - General Residential.

(iii)   To increase the maximum building heights for specific properties – ranging from 14m, 31m, 35m, 44m and 55m, and maintain some properties at 12.5m.

(iv)  To increase the maximum floor space ratios for specific properties - ranging from 2.3:1, 2.8:1 and 4.2:1, and maintain some properties at 0.7:1.

 

 

Part 3  Justification

 

The numbering in the left column follows that found in the Guidelines.

 

 

Guideline Requirements

Officer Comments

2.3

Part 3 requires adequate justification documentation to be provided for the specific land use and development standards proposed to the LEP.

 

It states :

 

The overriding principles that guide the preparation is the impact the planning proposal will have.

 

It is not necessary to address a question if it is not considered relevant to the planning proposal. In such cases the reason why it is not relevant should be briefly explained.

 

The level of justification should sufficient to allow a Gateway determination to be made with the confidence that the LEP can be finalised within the time frame period.

 

Diagrams are provided that suggest that building envelopes/massing diagrams should be provided that reflect the proposed maximum heights and maximum FSR. In addition Question 3b (second column) below requires an explanation on how proposals relate to existing and future land uses.

The applications justification is contained in Part 6.3 of Attachment 1 which has a table setting out the response to each of the Strategic merit test questions, which is assessed below.

 

A Design Concept document (Attachment 2) has been provided to demonstrate building massing and site layout.  This is commented on in response to Questions 3 and 6 below within this section of the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.3.1 Questions to consider when demonstrating the justification

 

 

Guideline Requirements

Officer Comments

Section A – Need for Planning Proposal

Q1

Is the planning proposal a result of any strategic study or report?

The Proposal states:

 

“The Planning Proposal is not the result of a strategic study or report prepared by Council but is consistent with State Government Strategies as detailed in section 3 of the (Planning Proposal) report”.

 

Officer Comments:

 

The Proposal is not part of any strategic study or report, and therefore fails this criterion.

 

Part 3 of the submitted Planning Proposal (Attachment 1) instead makes reference to the particular parts of various State Government Plans and Council Officer’s comment is given on this below within this section of the report.

 

.

 

Q2

 

Is the planning proposal the best means of achieving the objectives        or intended outcomes, or is there a better way?

 

 

 

The Proposal states:

 

“Yes. A Planning proposal amending the land zoning inclusion of additional permitted use, amending permitted height of buildings and floor space ratio are the only means of achieving the objectives and intended outcomes.”

 

 

Officer Comments:

 

This question is somewhat of a tautology since it is circular and asks the proponent to confirm that what is being sought is reflected in the form the amendments will be made in an LEP. The response to other relevant Questions below examines whether the actual “intended outcomes”, being the land use zonings and development standards,  are supportable.

 

Section B – Relationship to Strategic Planning Framework

Q3

Is the planning proposal consistent with the objectives and actions of the applicable regional, sub regional or district plan or strategy (including any exhibited draft plans or strategies)?

Officer Comments:

 

A proponent is required to address the assessment criteria under Questions 3(a) and 3(b) (left column), refer below.

Q3 a

Does the proposal have strategic merit ? Is it:

 

 

 

Consistent with a the relevant District Plan within the Greater Sydney region, or corridor/precinct plans applying to the site, including any draft regional, district or corridor/precinct plans released for public comment

 

 

The Proposal states:

 

The applicants detailed response to this question is not contained in its  part dealing with compliance with the Planning Proposal guidelines in  Part 6.3 (Attachment 1), it is instead included in a separate preceding part called “Context”. 

 

The proposal in its Part 3 Context (Attachment 1) provides commentary on selective parts of the numerous Plans produced by the State Government on the following:

 

·   A Plan for Growing Sydney (December 2014)

 

·   Toward our Greater Sydney 2056 (GSC - November 2017)

 

·   Draft Eastern City District Plan (GSC - November 2017)

 

·   Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy 2016, Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Implementation Plan 2016, Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Planning and Design Guidelines.

 

It does not comment on “A metropolis for three cities” - GSC - Draft Regional Plan (November 2016). 

 

The above voluminous State plans have numerous objectives and principles. The proposal focuses on making reference to the principles concerning provision of more housing near places with public transport and local shopping precincts, and the proposal implicitly argues this is the overriding pre-eminent consideration for supporting a Planning Proposal. For example it states :

 

(pg 24) “It is argued that this proposal will support the provision of housing within a locality that is a defined renewal corridor that is receiving investment from Government, that is accessible to transport, jobs and social infrastructure”

 

(pg 25) “the subject site will benefit from major infrastructure investment including WestConnex, is accessible by light rail, is within 30 minutes to jobs and services, is within walking distance of centres, schools and health facilities. Furthermore the proposal enables a feasible development proposal that will provide a range of dwelling sizes and meet market demand”.

 

For the PRCUTS the Proposal essentially argues (pg 35) the following “the Implementation Plan clearly states that the Strategy will be implemented through planning proposals prepared by land owners or developers, comprehensive local environmental plans review undertaken by councils, and State Environmental Planning Policies for future Priority Precincts. The Proposal seeks to follow the implementation plan by initiating a planning proposal”. The  documentation in its Part 3 goes on to quote selective parts of the voluminous PRCUTS document .

 

Officer Comments:

 

The Planning Proposal’s commentary in its Part 3 (Attachment 1) which is not a direct response to the Planning Proposal Guidelines Strategic Merit Questions is narrowly selective and does not list all the relevant Objectives and Principles contained in the above State Plans and Draft Plans and explain whether they are relevant. In particular it ignores particular objectives and principles pertaining to retention of employment and urban services land. It disregards the objectives of the PRCUTS Planning and Design Guidelines and also various axiomatic urban design criterion which include having a sympathetic building scale and transitionary heights where there are adjacent “sensitive areas” such as low rise housing.

 

As a result of WestConnex there has been a 13% loss of employment generating land (approx. 1,200 jobs less based on lost floorspace) on B6 Enterprise zone land. The proposal has the potential to reduce this further. Currently the B6 zoning on the affected land pursuant to potential floorspace has potential for approx. 350 jobs (14,600sqm  generated as part of an FSR of 2:1 over 3 storeys). The addition of a shop top housing use in the Enterprise Zone will likely lead to a predominantly residential use - as development will likely seek the most profitable outcome, and only a small amount of ground level located commercial use is required to enable “shop top housing”.

 

The PRCUTS Strategic Actions also recommends provision of 5-10 % affordable housing on any “uplift”. Despite this, no voluntary planning agreement, or inclusionary LEP clauses requiring this provision have been put forward by the applicant.

 

Consideration of the adequacy of the strategic merits of the Planning Proposal requires assessment of key criterion not adequately presented in the Planning Proposal. In particular :

 

The State Plans, whether existing or in draft form, require the retention of employment and urban services land. This includes :

 

·   “A Plan for Growing Sydney” 2014, “Delivering this plan a bold direction”, establishes a nexus with the Subregional planning including achieving employment objectives.

 

·   Draft “A metropolis of three cities” (Regional Plan- GSC November 2017), Directions for Productivity”, Objective 23 – Industrial and urban services land is planned, protected and a managed. It is advised that Sydney has 2-3 years of serviced land supply. Objective 24 - “Economic sectors are targeted for success”, lists various job/professions as growth industries many of which are permissible in the B6 Enterprise zone.

 

·   Draft “Eastern City District Plan” (GSC November 2017) - Productivity, Planning Priority E12- Protecting industrial and urban services land.  

 

The State Plans also leave planning for medium density housing for a local Council to determine (e.g. Draft Eastern City District Plan- Planning Priority E5 –pg 40). There is no wholesale direction for a Relevant Planning Authority to leave the future town planning of its areas to upzoning for high rise residential development based on very simplistic criterion of vicinity to public transport and shopping areas. There is no direction in the State Plans for a Relevant Planning Authority to dispense with considerations of a local Council strategy and community input, and to disregard whether future development will be sympathetic to local context and character. This which would not be justifiable town planning practice and contrary to DPE circular- “Respecting and enhancing local character”. In this regard land uses between and around Tideswell Street and Gower Street are already zoned R3 Medium Density Residential and there is no current local Strategy to reconsider this.

 

Consideration of the PRCUTS is brought into play by Section 117 Direction 7.3 (as explained in more detail in Question 6 below), the PRCUTS provides clear parameters for land use zoning and development standards (FSR and Height) which the proposal does not comply with. The Section 117 Direction also provides clear procedures for assessing the merits of proposals where they do not comply with the recommendations PRCUTS which the proposal has not followed – see Question 6 below. Also the PRUTS does not include the land to the rear of Parramatta Road properties between Tideswell Street and Gower Street (as identified in Figure 6 above).

 

It is considered the Proposal fails the criterion for this question.

 

 

Consistent with a relevant local council strategy that has been endorsed by the Department (3a- continued)

 

The Proposal states: 

 

That it is consistent with the Ashfield Urban Planning Strategy 2010.

 

Officer Comments :

 

The proposal is not consistent with the Ashfield Urban Planning Strategy 2010. The Ashfield Urban Planning Strategy 2010 was approved by the DPE, it was a requirement for approval of the exhibition on the draft Ashfield LEP 2012, and developed in close consultation with the community overs several years. The Strategy explicitly (part 6.2) shows a B6 Enterprise Zone along Parramatta Road with no residential component (see explanation in Part 3 of this report) for job retention or creation, and retention of R3 zones and heritage items in Ormond Street.

 

The addition of a shop top housing use in the B6 Enterprise Zone will likely lead to a predominantly residential use - as it follows that development will likely seek the most profitable outcome, and only a small amount of ground level commercial use is required to enable “shop top housing”. Excluding residential use in the B6 Enterprise Zone ensures that all available commercial floorspace is utilised and the building design and construction is carried out in a functional way which facilitates such a use, such as providing high floor to ceiling heights, servicing areas, vehicular entry and exists points and various other functional aspects of commercial building design.

 

Responding to a change in circumstances, such as the investment in new infrastructure or changing demographic trends that have not been recognised by existing planning controls. 3(a) continued.

The Proposal states:

 

No comment is given.

 

Officer Comments:

 

There is no response.

 

There will be a presumption against a rezoning review request that seeks to amend LEP controls that are less than 5 years old, unless the proposal can clearly justify that it meets the Strategic Merit Test. 3(a) continued.

 

The Proposal states:

 

No comment is given.

 

Officer Comments:

 

The Proposal fails this criterion which has been in place since July 2016.   The Ashfield LEP was gazetted in December 2013, and is less than 5 years old.

 

In addition, the DPE is aware that Council will be seeking to produce a new LEP, and a result of the Council amalgamations in 2016, is not in a position to have completed a new LEP by December 2018, and it is not reasonable to entertain “jumping the gun” on this.

 

It is considered the Proposal fails the criterion for this question.

 

Q3b

Does the proposal have strategic merit with regard to the following :

 

 

 

 

The natural environment

 

The Proposal states:

 

No comment is given.

 

Officer Comments :

 

There are no anticipated affects on the natural environment, the proposal being in a “brownfield site” location.

 

The existing uses, approved uses, and likely future uses of land in vicinity of the proposal.

 

The Proposal states:

 

No comments are given. A response is instead given to Question 6 below, which deals with the PRCUTS where the applicant states that the architectural outcomes will produce a superior result to that found in the PRCUTS for surrounding land.

 

Officer Comments:

 

It is considered the proposal does not have site specific merit with regard to impacts on approved adjacent land use and in close vicinity to the proposal, and the likely future use of land in the vicinity, for the reasons given in more detail in the response to Question 6 below. This includes that it is evident that the building scale of 55m (16 storeys) along Parramatta Road, is up to 4 times the height recommended in the PRCUTS, is significantly incompatible and alien to the existing one to three storey building scale, character and building typology of surrounding and nearby areas and the nearby single storey scale of the Haberfield Conservation Area. It is evident the proposed building heights will have a large visual impact, including up to 1.0 km away as demonstrated by the Visual Catchment diagram.

 

 

The services and infrastructure that are or will be available to meet the demand arising from the proposal and any proposed financial arrangement for infrastructure provision

 

The Proposal states:

 

No comment is given.

 

Officer Comments:

 

There are high residential densities between Parramatta Road and the Inner West Railway line. Noting this, there is a 50% shortfall in open space, as verified by the earlier draft 2015 PRCUTS documents and the 2015 Government Architects office open space study. Up to potentially 515 dwellings will naturally increase demand on Ashfield Park and Explorers Park (refer to comments from Council’s Park’s officer under Part 6.2 of this report) with no other significantly large parks being within 800m.

Q4

Is the proposal consistent with a council’s local strategy or other local strategic

plan?

The Proposal states:

 

States that it is consistent with the Ashfield Urban Planning Strategy 2010.

 

Officer Comments:

 

This is a repeat of Question 3 (a) and has been responded to above. The Proposal is not consistent Ashfield Urban Planning Strategy 2010.

 

In addition, the Proposal does not address Council’s Affordable Rental Housing Policy. There is no draft Voluntary Planning Agreement put forward. This is despite the PRCUTS Strategic Action requiring provision of 5-10 percent affordable housing on any uplift.

 

The Proposal fails this criterion.

Q5

Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP).

 

SEPPs relevant to the Planning Proposal must be identified and the relationship of the Planning proposal with those SEPPs discussed.

The Proposal states:

 

States the following applies: SEPP 32 –Urban Consolidation, SEPP 65, SEPP 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, SEPP Affordable Rental Housing 2009, SEPP Basix 2004, SEPP Infrastructure 2007.

 

Officer Comments:

 

SEPP 32

 

This has been repealed.

 

 

SEPP 55

 

This will require investigations to occur at Development Application stage.

 

SEPP 65

 

In the future, should a residential use be permissible in the B6 zone and proposed R1 Zone SEPP 65 would apply when assessing development applications.

 

At this point in time it does not follow that there needs to be compliance demonstrated with all of the design principles SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide (160 pages), for a proposal that has excessive development standards of FSR and Height which cannot be supported for the reasons given in this report. However the provision of ground level communal open space is relevant for the “Landscape” and “Amenity” Principles of SEPP 65, which the proposal fails to provide realistic minimum areas for (refer to comments on the Design Proposal and its efficacy under Question 6 below).

 

SEPP Affordable Rental Housing 2009

 

This is of marginal affectation at DA stage, and does not automatically lead to provision of affordable housing.

 

SEPP Basix 2004

 

In the future, should a residential use be permissible, this SEPP would apply when assessing development applications.

 

SEPP Infrastructure 2007

 

This SEPP will apply when assessing development applications, but it has provisions that affect land use along Parramatta Road due to Clause 101 (2a) of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 states:

 

“the consent authority must not grant consent to the development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied that

 

(a)  Where practicable, vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road”.

 

This functional traffic access matter has not been adequately addressed in the Planning Proposal and its Design Concept for the reasons explained below in Question 6 below and in the Traffic Comments in Part 5 below of this report. It is considered that there are several development options for the site, including development occurring on smaller parcels of land, and these would be different to what is depicted and have distinctive and different traffic and servicing impacts affecting Parramatta Road to that portrayed.

 

 

Amenity for residents on a main road (Parramatta Road and Liverpool Road) will also need to be considered if the proposal was progressed in accordance with the SEPP.

 

Q6

Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions (s. 117 directions)?

 

Each planning proposal must identify which, if any, section 117 Directions are relevant to the proposal and whether the proposal is consistent is consistent with that direction. Where the proposal in inconsistent…, those inconsistencies must be specifically explained and justified in the planning proposal.

Proposal states the following are the applicable Directions.

 

1 Employment and Resources

 

The Proposal states:

 

It is compliant with this direction.

 

Officer Comments:

 

It is considered the proposal is not compliant with protecting employment land. Application of a “shop top housing” land use in the B6 zone along Parramatta Road will likely lead to a majority of the FSR and floorspace being utilised for a residential use, with only a small amount of ground level “business use” floor space required for ‘shop top housing’. 

 

The affected B6 zoned land currently has capacity (Ashfield LEP 2013) for approximately 14,600 sqm of commercial floor space (FSR of 2:1), equating to approx. 350 jobs. A shop top housing development has potential to lose a significant portion of this in the event that there is a small provision of commercial use at ground level. In the event that only the ground level was used for employment and urbans services, it is also possible that the building layout will not be capable or flexible enough to accommodate functional considerations for an Enterprise Zone uses, such as for a commercial building or light industrial building or appliance repairs. Also to note is that there has also been a loss of approximately 13% of B6 zoned land due to the construction of WestConnex roadways. 

 

2 Environment and Heritage

 

The Proposal states:

 

It is compliant with this direction.

 

Officer Comments:

 

No changes are proposed to the Heritage Item listings at 51-59 Ormond Street in the Ashfield LEP 2013. Whilst only illustrative and not certain, it is noted that the Design Concept (see Attachment 2) illustrates a future development application proposal could propose that the back garden area of the properties are converted to a large central communal open space use for the future 515 dwelling residents. However this would compromise the cultural significance of those heritage items - refer to Council’s Heritage adviser’s comments in Part 6.3 of this report. 

 

3 Housing, Infrastructure and Urban Development

 

The Proposal states:

 

It is compliant with this direction.

 

 

Officer Comments:

 

The Proposal does not contravene this Direction.

 

4 Hazard and Risk

 

The Proposal states:

 

It is compliant with this direction.

 

Officer Comments:

 

The Proposal does not contravene this Direction.

 

5 Regional Planning

 

The Proposal states:

 

It is compliant with this direction.

 

Officer Comments:

 

As explained in responses above, it considered that the proposal does not comply with the State Plans requirement retaining employment and urban services land.

 

6 Local Plan Making

 

The Proposal states:

 

It is compliant with this direction.

 

Officer Comments:

 

The Proposal does not contravene this Direction.

 

7 Metropolitan Plan Making

 

7.1 – Regional Strategy

 

The Proposal states:

 

It is compliant with this direction and a “Plan for Growing Sydney” 2014 and providing more housing. 

 

Officer Comments:

 

A “Plan for Growing Sydney” is a generalist document and it is evident that it delegates to “Draft Plans” for more detail, which require retention of employment and urban services land. This plan has also been updated by draft “Toward our Greater Sydney 2056” (GSC – November  2017), and this implicitly recognises the need for retention of employment and local services land given the other draft plans, and states that planning for the medium density housing areas are to be left to local Councils to determine.

 

 

 

7.3 Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy.

 

The Proposal States:

 

“It is considered to be consistent with the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy” (pg 64). In Part 1 of the Planning Proposal (Attachment 1) it instead essentially states that the Strategy is faulty and that the type of development recommended will not result, and that the proposed land use and maximum Building Height and FSR will provide a better result, due to proximity to public transport and vicinity to the Ashfield Town Centre, and based on the building outcomes of the Design Concept site layout and architectural portrayal.

 

Officer Comments:

 

Compliance with this direction must be assessed with regard to the following clauses of the Direction.

 

It is evident that the proposal is inconsistent with the Direction 7.3, (4) which includes that :

 

(b) be consistent with the Strategic Actions within the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy  

 

(c) be consistent with the Parramatta Road Corridor Planning and Design Guidelines Planning and Design Guidelines

 

(d) be consistent with the staging and other identified thresholds for land use change identified in the Implementation Plan 2016-2023.

 

The northern side of the block within the proposal is clearly contrary to the PRCUTS recommended non - residential Enterprise Zone land use, development standards and maximum height - to a significant extent (refer to Part 3 of this report). It is outside the timing /staging for 2016 -2023, with development of the land required by 2050. The southern part of the block is outside the “frame area” boundary of the Strategy (as shown in Figure 2 above).

 

Where proposals do not meet the requirements of the PRCUTS they may choose to address the following part of the Direction.

 

Clause (5) states that “a Planning Proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if the relevant planning authority can satisfy the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment that the planning proposal is :

 

(a)  Consistent with the out of sequence Checklist in the Parramatta Road Corridor Implementation Plan 2016-2023 (November  2016), or

 

(b)  Justified by a study prepared in support of the planning proposal that clearly demonstrates better outcomes are delivered than identified in Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy  (November 2016) and  Parramatta Road Corridor Implementation Plan 2016-2023 (November  2016), or

 

(c)  Of minor significance”

 

No submission has been made relative to the 5(a) clause. Nevertheless an assessment in Attachment 6 shows if such a submission had been made it would fail to comply with the requirements of the “Out of Sequence checklist” of the PRCUTS “Implementation Guidelines”. This procedurally firstly  requires the process of submitting what is called a “Preliminary Planning Proposal Application”, having carried out community consultation, and a produced a detailed response to each of the Out of Sequence criterion.  This includes that a Proposal must adhere to the Land Use zoning and Maximum Heights and FSR in the PRCUTS, and produce a precinct wide traffic study.

 

It therefore follows that the proposal relies on clause 5(b) above, and claims in its Part 1 that it achieves better outcomes than the PRCUTS are based on the “Design Concept” Portrayal. This is not agreed with for the reasons given below in the assessment of the “Design Concept”.  These include that the portrayal of how the site would be arranged is not realistic for the purpose of assessment of the Proposal  and should not be relied on, that development would likely occur in smaller parcels with different arrangements of buildings and open space, and that the Design Concept does not produce a better outcome since it creates numerous adverse impacts including a considerably excessive building scale up to four times the current recommended heights and large visual impacts, unlikely provision of adequate open space, disregards local built form context  and would create a  significant change of character for the area. 

 

It is evident that the proposal is inconsistent with the Section 117 direction 7.3. It has failed to properly tailor the application and necessary justification commentary to the relevant parts of the Direction 7.3. Examination of the proposal’s land use zonings and development standards clearly are substantially and extraordinarily beyond the recommendations and objectives, of the PRCUTS and so fail clause 7.4 Clause 4 (b). It is would be an extraordinary situation that a Relevant Planning Authority could dispense with the PRCUTS recommendations which was developed between 2013 and 2016 following numerous iterations with Council (former Ashfield Memorandum of understanding) and community input.

 

It is considered that the Proposal has not produced a better outcomes to that found in the PRCUTS and so fails clause 7.3, Clause 5 (b).

 

 

 


Assessment of Design Concept

 

Question 6 – Section 117 Direction – Clause 7.3 (4) (b) - states

 

(d)  Justified by a study prepared in support of the planning proposal that clearly demonstrates better outcomes are delivered than identified in Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy (November 2016) and Parramatta Road Corridor Implementation Plan 2016-2023 (November 2016)

 

The Planning Proposal states that it considers the proposal will be a better outcome than the recommendations of the PRUTS, by relying on the building and development outcomes of the “Design Concept”. In response to this, the following comments are provided on key aspects of the site layout and architectural portrayal.

 

 

“Design Concept” documentation (Attachment 2) has been submitted showing general arrangement of site layout, apartment layouts, and three dimensional depictions, with buildings ranging in height from 55m (16 storeys) to 31m (13 storeys) along Parramatta Road, and heights up to 31m (9 storeys) on the north side of Gower Streets. Refer to below extracts of Design Concept. This is reliant on two large site consolidations and two large carparks as illustrated below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Design Concept treats the site as an independent “stand alone” one, in that it does not follow a normal urban design paradigm for making a new proposal relate to and be sympathetic to adjacent and nearby existing building typologies and an area’s characteristics. It instead models its own building proposals independent of impacts on surrounding areas. No building sections have been produced showing the proposed building height relationships to nearby affected areas, such as low rise residential areas, and so extent of spatial affectation. No detailed three dimensional depictions have been provided for existing buildings in adjacent and nearby areas. Implicitly, the Design Concept’s reasoning is that because the land is on Parramatta Road and within vicinity of a train stations and bus routes, that this warrants the extent of tall building heights and high FSR sought.

 

Officer Comments:

 

It is not agreed that the above “locational concept” is a sound or superior town planning criterion which justifies high rise development, and such simplistic grounds would open up a precedent for all land in such circumstances – which is contrary to the EPA Act objectives and the orderly development of land, and to the Design and Heritage objectives of the newly amended EPA Act, and DPE circulars. This is also contrary to the urban design objectives of the PRCUTS – Planning and Design guidelines for retaining character.

 

Site Layout and building and open space arrangement

 

The site layout depiction is contingent on the land being developed in totality in two large stages being the block north of Tideswell Street and the block south of Tideswell Street. For example the drawings above shows the development being dependent on two large separate carparking areas, with the heritage item houses having their rear gardens transformed into a communal open space area for the entire development.

 

Approx 30% of the land is provided for communal open space, including setback along Ormond Street and Parramatta Road. Half of that is to be located in the areas found in the back gardens of houses in Ormond Street which are Heritage items.

 

Officer Comments:

 

Depiction of a development scenario where the entire 19,959sqm (2 hectare) site is developed in two stages is extremely idealistic and not of adequate or relevant value in assessing the proposal. This is because there is no certainty that this staging can be guaranteed, since it would require one or two parties to have acquired all the land parcels, obtained approvals, and proceeded to construction. Such staging cannot be enforced in an LEP, or in a DCP (providing simply guidelines), and should not be relied as demonstrating likely outcomes as future development will naturally seek the most realistic and feasible outcomes. One instead needs to take into account realistic spatial town planning basics, and that a site layout can eventuate in a substantially different way if one takes into consideration the following:

 

It is likely that development /construction will happen in a piecemeal fashion, on various smaller lots capable of taking new buildings, and this scenario has not been illustrated. It is evident that there can be development of individual properties where they are technically large enough for construction and provision of basement carparking (achievable with a minimum width of 25 metres). Those sites would have their floor plans arranged in way where they can be individually serviced – noting that the Infrastructure SEPP does not permit access of Parramatta Road, and so access would be required off Tideswell Street. The properties would have to be arranged in a way which provides within their own site provision of 25% of communal open space. One cannot instead rely on provision of communal open space on a land allotment separate to a development site as portrayed in the Design Concept. In the Design Concept it is purported that houses which are actually Heritage Items will be acquired and their back gardens turned into communal open space for the entire block which is not considered realistic.

 

The Apartment Design Guide of SEPP 65 provides guidelines for the provision of communal open space, and requires 25-30 % of the site to provide this. The proposal provides approx. 30 percent, however this is dependent on the use of areas currently containing the back gardens of heritage item house which constitutes 13% of site communal open space. Use of the back of heritage item houses is not a supportable outcome. Addressing this to provide other places for communal open space would lead to smaller building footprints and substantially lower levels of floor space ratio as compared to that being sought.

 

Height of building and visual impacts - sites along Parramatta Road

 

Officer Comments:

 

It is evident that the part along Parramatta Road which has building between 13 and 16 storeys is up to four times the height recommended in the PRCUTS and Ashfield LEP 2013. This is clearly inconsistent with various considerations in PRCUTS – Planning and Design Guidelines, which limit height to 16m and include various written objectives for having a lower transitionary building scales adjacent “sensitive areas” - which is an urban design axiom which is disregarded by the Design Concept.

 

It is evident the proposed heights will have a large visual impact, up to 1.0km away as demonstrated by the Visual Impact map in Attachment 8. The building scale of 55m (16 storeys) and 44m (13 storeys) along Parramatta Road, is evidently significantly incompatible and alien to the existing building scale, character and building typology of surrounding and nearby areas, and to the nearby Haberfield Conservation Area. This visual impact is implicitly disregarded and considered as irrelevant- which is not a sound urban design and community principle. This self-referential urban design reasoning does not provide justification for disregarding the area’s existing character, typology and building scale. It is evident that the juxtaposition of this very high  built form has no ameliorating factors such as a large separation distance to adjoining areas that would overcome its scale impacts, such as being “towers in wide expanses of parkland”, or “towers placed next to existing towers”. 

 

There has also been considerable effort on the depiction and rendering of buildings as justification for the proposal, and the proposal states in response to Question 8 of the Planning Proposal Guidelines: “Streetscape and character are to be managed/mitigated through high standards of architectural designs”.  

 

However it is evident that architectural style does not have a superior bearing or replace the cognitive impacts of building scale for affected people. Also, at a future Development Application stage there is no certainty the Design Concept portrayal will be pursued. It is noted that the building portrayal is an illustrative one, with the style idiom being of basic geometric shapes and abstract relationships, and this is not a traditional one using established architectural canons and requiring particularly compositional relationships between building parts. Depending on what one means by “design excellence”, this style idiom does not equate to a situation that would necessarily set new superior architectural standards and overcome its visual impacts.  Notwithstanding matters of building scale, this simple style idiom is in strong contrast to the traditional architectural character of nearby places such as those found in nearby heritage conservation areas and the other streetscapes of Ashfield, on which it will have a dominant visual  and cognitive impact.

 

Sites behind Parramatta Road strip and between Gower Street

 

Officer Comments:

 

This area currently consists of a mixture of one storey houses and two storey residential flat buildings, includes houses that are heritage item houses in Ormond Street, and it has distinct dormitory low rise residential character.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Figure 10- Heritage Items in Ormond Street

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Figure 11- Houses and residential flat buildings at Ormond Street

 

The proposal seeks to apply a R1 General Residential zoning, and to increase building height in parts of Gower Street from 12.5 m (three storeys) to 31m (U – nine storeys). Again, conceptually the implicit justification for this is that the site can be treated as standalone architectural composition, and that compositionally the 9 storeys is justifiable as a lower height counterbalance to the 13 and 16 storeys buildings on the Parramatta Road strip. This self-referential urban design reasoning does not provide justification for disregarding the area’s existing character, typology and building scale. As stated in the various State Government plans, including the Draft Eastern District Plan-E5, appropriate land use zonings and development standards are a matter for Councils in consultation with the community to determine. 

 

Amenity

 

Noting the plans are simply illustrative- a large percentage of the apartments that would be along Parramatta Road are shown with layouts that would be directly exposed to the high levels of noise from Parramatta Road- resulting in very poor amenity for residents. A different apartment layout to that shown would be required to address this such as cross - through apartments, and that would affect how the buildings would be arranged and the acceptable total FSR. Such guidelines are found in the Inner West (Ashfield part) DCP 2016 for the Ashfield East and Ashfield West areas.

 

As explained above, if one discounted the use of the rear gardens of heritage item houses, there is a large shortfall of communal open space provided with approximately half what is required being provided. 

 

Shadowing

 

There will be large amounts of winter overshadowing for areas and properties to the rear of the tall buildings, including where their communal open space will be, for significant periods in winter, as demonstrated in the Design Concept shadow diagrams. Explorers Park will be overshadowed in winter after 11am. A different built form would be required to be “sculpted” to give adequate winter solar access to those places.

 

Conclusion

 

It is not considered that the Design Proposal has produced a better outcome that those in the PRCUTS Planning and Design Guidelines.

 

 

Q7

Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely affected as a result of the proposal?

The Proposal states :

 

No.

 

Officer Comments:

 

This is agreed with, the land is already occupied by buildings.

Q8

Are there any other likely environmental effects as a result of the planning proposal and how are they proposed to be managed?

The Proposal states: 

 

“The primary causes for potential impacts are visual /streetscape impacts arising from a proposal that will be transformative to the existing character. Other impacts relate to traffic and additional demand for public services and utilities. It is argued the impacts are not unacceptable and can be appropriately managed.

 

Streetscape and character are to be managed/mitigated through high standards of architectural designs. A site specific DCP could also be prepared in consultation with Council and other stakeholders. The Introduction of mixed use development into the locality is necessarily to enable urban renewal of the Parramatta Road Corridor.

 

Preliminary Traffic Impact is considered acceptable and with the road improvement suggested would be beneficial to the subject site and also the broader community”.

 

Officer Comments:

 

It is evident that in town planning terms that the visual and cognitive impacts for local resident impacts from an up to 16 storey building (55 metres) within a low rise scale areas can be overcome by the design of a building – and “its architectural dressing”.  The above statement instead disregards normal urban design criterion that building scale being sympathetic to context.  Also, no Visual Impact study has been produced and the proposal will be visible up to 1 km away.

 

The proposal fails this criterion. 

 

Q9

How has the planning proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects?

The Proposal states:

 

The social and economic impacts of this proposal are significantly positive as it will facilitate additional supply and choice of housing within a highly accessible location. The development as proposed will also act as a catalyst to the urban renewal to the urban renewal of the Parramatta Road Corridor. The proposal will enable the development of a large site with a high standard of amenity and deliver a high quality mixed use product which promotes heathy and sustainable living.

 

Officer Comments:

 

There have been a large number of objections have been received. No affordable housing is being proposed.

 

There has not been any economic analysis submitted as to why it can be justified that there should be a substantial reduction of part of 14,600sqm of employment floorspace as  a result of potential abandonment of non-residential floorspace generated under the B6 zone (FSR of 2:1 - 14,600sqm - 365 jobs) over three levels. Availability of employment and urban services land is a long term necessity for local and regional users and this is acknowledged in the various State Plans.

 

The Proposal fails this criterion.

 

Q10

Is there adequate public infrastructure for the planning proposal?

The Proposal states:

 

There is adequate infrastructure.

 

Officer Comment:

 

Currently there is a 50% shortfall in open space for local residents. Any review of the land for up to 515 additional dwellings must therefore carefully balance the open space needs of new residents against this.

 

Q11

What are the views of State and Commonwealth authorities consulted in accordance with the gateway determination?

 

The Planning Proposal should nominate the state and Commonwealth agencies to be consulted and outline the particular land uses or site conditions which have triggered the need for the referral. The proposed agency consultation will be confirmed with the Gateway determination.

The Proposal states:

 

Consultation with other public authorities or the wider community has not commenced yet.

 

 

 

 

Officer Comments:

 

The Proposal has not nominated the particular authorities required to be notified. The following is noted:

 

 

Parramatta Road is a classified road, and so the Roads and Maritime Services will need to be notified, refer to Traffic engineers comments below in Part 6. The RMS also has responsibility for overseeing the impacts of WestConnex.

 

The PRUTS intends to have Transport for NSW implement a fast bus route along Parramatta Road and so the proposal will require a referral.

 

 

Department of Education referral is required and school capacity needs to be confirmed.

 

 

 

 

2.4 Mapping

 

Maps reflecting land use and development standards are to be submitted.

The Proposed submission:

 

Maps have been submitted.

 

 

Officer Comments:

 

Adequate maps have been provided that describe what the proposal is seeking, and are commented on in Part 2 of the report.

 

2.5 Community Consultation

 

An indication of the period of community consultation is required.

Officer Comments:

 

If the Proposal was to receive Gateway determination it is considered that the Proposal should be formally exhibited for a minimum of 28 days in accordance with the Inner West DCP 2016 (former Ashfield Council area).

 

2.6 Project Timeline

 

An indication of the Project timeline is required.

Officer Comments:

 

The Gateway Determination will determine the maximum timeline, and so it is premature to state actual milestones. The Planning Proposal provides the necessary timeline table.

 

 

6.0       REFERRALS

 

6.1       Traffic impacts and Traffic Engineer’s Comments

 

There are numerous matters to consider with regard to the upzoning of the entire block, provision of 515 dwellings, and 3,315 sqm of ground level commercial space with regard to traffic generation, and functional servicing requirements for various building uses. These include:

 

·        The site is approx. 200 m from the WestConnex portals on Parramatta Road, and adjacent a major intersection at Liverpool Road that will provide the primary means of access to the portals. When the M4 East motorway is completed there will evidently be large amounts of westbound traffic using this part Parramatta Road and Liverpool Road to access the portals. Ground level commercial uses will require substantial areas for servicing requirements, such as deliveries and waste collection to enable their operation to be viable. This will have an impact on vehicular entry and exit and servicing for sites along Parramatta Road which will require access from the rear off Tideswell Street.

 

·        Noting that Parramatta Road is a major arterial road, which carries a high volume of traffic, where traffic movement efficiency is of great importance, the Roads and Maritime Services has various document guidelines that require side street or rear lane access in order to reduce congestion delays and reduce crashes. This evident matter is reinforced in the PRCUTS, and in the following State Environmental Planning Policy : Clause 101 (2a) of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 states:

 

“the consent authority must not grant consent to the development on land that has a frontage

 to a classified road unless it is satisfied that

(b)     Where practicable , vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the

          classified road”

 

·        The PRUTS recommends fast bus routes along Parramatta Road utilising “super-bustops” similar to those that exist at Broadway. This will affect front building setbacks and the amount of land that needs to be potentially resumed.

 

·        There will be “on street” locations for stopped garbage trucks required for the collection waste (garbage and recycling) for the 515 dwellings, and these must be in places which do not impact resident and street amenity.

 

·        The potential additional 515 dwellings will generate high occupancy rates and carparking with potential for high amounts of cars seeking “rat runs” through nearby local streets, such to avoid traffic congestion on the Liverpool Road intersection. This will include along streets bounding Ashfield Park.

 

·        The Design Concept assumes that the land will be developed in only two large stages being the block north of Tideswell Street and the block south of Tideswell Street. There is no certainty for this, since it would require one party to have acquired all the land parcels, obtained approvals, and proceeded to construction. It is likely that development/construction will happen in a piecemeal fashion, on smaller lots capable of taking new buildings.

 

·        The Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy as part of the “Out of Sequence” checklist, requires detailed traffic impact studies to be provided upfront where proposal are not in accordance with the recommended development staging, as this proposal is.

 

Noting the above, Council’s Traffic Engineer has advised that:

 

“The current traffic report does not adequately address all the matters arising from the potential traffic generation impacts and site servicing requirements. The report assumes that the land will be developed in to large stages as shown in the Design Concept which is not realistic. The report leaves addressing the above matters to a future stage and states (pg 15) that more detailed design and traffic impact assessment will be required at the DA stage which is not acceptable”.

 

6.2     Parks Planning and Engagement Comments

 

A consideration for accounting for the amount of new residents, being potentially up to 1,000 people (using a 2 person occupancy rate), is the use of existing open space. Due to the high amount of flat buildings in this part of Ashfield, open space provision is at 50 percent of the required standard.

 

Council’s Parks Planning and Engagement Manager has advised:

 

“Ashfield Park is a district level park which is greatly valued by the community as one of the earliest parks to be created in Sydney. The Park has been a place for celebration, marking significant local and national events and a place for memorialising the contributions of local people. It is a destination park that provides multiple uses including passive and active recreation, informal sporting opportunities, socialising and play for children. The Park has also become the focal point of community activities over recent years for event such as jazz concerts and Carnival of Cultures. Because of its central location it is a highly valued site for community events (this may not sit well with apartment owners).

 

Due to its large size, multiple uses and diverse activities “presently” coexist without impacting on the enjoyment and amenity of other users. There is one sporting field in the park which is carefully managed. In terms of organised sporting use this facility is at capacity. In the weekends use of the park as a whole is very high given its central location and the lack of open space in this area of the LGA.

 

Explorers Park is a neighbourhood park facility which caters for local neighbourhood needs.  The park is maintained to a high standard and caters for informal recreational use. The Park is poorly sited next to Parramatta Road and as such use is not extensive”.

 

6.3     Heritage Adviser Comments

 

Council’s Heritage adviser’s (Ashfield LGA specialist) comments are contained in Attachment 7 and he has strong objections to the proposal as causing an adverse impact on the Heritage Items in Ormond Street and Haberfield Conservation Area, including the following:

 

In my opinion, quite simply put, the core premise of this proposal that development of the scale and bulk proposed will not adversely affect its context is profoundly wrong. While the heritage items upon the site will be at risk of trivialised retention and placed in wholly inappropriate contexts and settings, the monumental and elephantine planning disaster that would be consequent would be the complete and utter visual domination of the Haberfield Conservation Area – a single storey, Model Garden Suburb of arguably international significance”.

 

6.4     Urban Ecology Comments

 

Council’s Urban Ecology Coordinator recommends that any future development proposal should ensure there is a “biolink” (eg trees for wildlife) through the land between Ashfield Park to Explorers Park so as to connect to any future “biolink” which carries through to the east to the “GreenWay” along Hawthorne Canal. There should be open space areas for water urban sensitive design (ground level stormwater filtering) and deep soil planting for wide tree canopy planting or pedestrian shading and heat mitigation.

7.0     Council Affordable Housing Policy

 

This has been in place since March 2017, and requires the provision of affordable housing for any uplift, by provision of a Voluntary Planning Agreement offer. No such offer has been made by the applicants. The provision of affordable housing is also a Strategic Action of the PRCUTS.

 

8.0     NEXT PROCEURAL STEPS FOR PLANNING PROPOSAL

 

To date, Council received the Planning Proposal application on the 16 October 2017 and has carried out a preliminary community consultation. 

 

Procedurally Council is now required to determine whether to support, or otherwise, the Planning Proposal application, and will note the officer’s recommendation. The following should also be noted as it affects the former Ashfield Council LGA:

 

Ashfield LEP 2013 and Council delegation for being RPA

 

Council needs to be aware of the delegation granted to the former Ashfield Council, for the land affected by the Ashfield LEP 2013, who had delegation from the DPE to be able to act as the “Relevant Planning Authority” for the making of Planning Proposals, but only on the following terms:

 

·        In November 2012 the Minister for NSW Planning & Infrastructure delegated certain powers to Council to make and determine an LEP amendment. This enables Council to exercise the Minister’s Plan making functions after “Gateway Determination” stage (i.e. to draft and make the LEP in addition to the standard steps). The delegations operate when Council requests NSW Planning and Environment to issue a ‘Written Authorisation to Exercise Delegation” (called the Authorisation). This Authorisation can be issued to Inner West Council as part of the “Gateway Determination”.  The delegation was subsequently granted to Ashfield Council. However this delegation does not cover large scale Planning Proposals. 

 

·        The previous Ashfield Council previously resolved to use the above delegation on the proviso that the General Manager is the person who exercises the delegation only with prior approval from Council for each specific Planning Proposal. This requires a report to be made to the Council and for Council to have resolved this for each specific Planning Proposal.

 

Next steps in the Process

 

Council is required to determine whether or not to support the Planning Proposal.

 

Scenario where Council supports application.

 

If Council resolves to support and proceed with the Planning Proposal the next steps are to:

 

·        refer the application to the DPE. 

 

·        either request to make Council the Relevant Planning Authority, or instead request that the DPE be the Relevant Planning Authority.

 

After Gateway Determination (which may or not be positive) by the DPE the “Relevant Planning Authority” will be responsible for processing the application including putting it on formal public exhibition and ensuring that the requirements of the Gateway Determination are followed.

 

Scenario where Council does not support application.

 

If Council resolves not to support the Proposal, it would simply need to advise the applicant of this.

 

If Council resolves not to support the application, or at the expiration of 3 months from the lodgement of the application, the applicant may choose to seek that the Department of Planning and Environment review the Planning Proposal and determine whether to support it and request a Gateway Determination to proceed to exhibition stages. If a Gateway Determination is issued the Department would be the Relevant Planning Authority, unless Council agrees to being the Relevant Planning Authority.

 

9.0     FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Nil.

 

10.0 OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

 

 

11.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Public exhibition was carried out between 14 November 2017 until 30 January 2018 with 345 submissions received.  Refer to Part 3 of the Report.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Planning Proposal was put on preliminary public exhibition so that Council may take community feedback into consideration when determining whether or not to proceed with the Planning Proposal. There is significant community opposition with a large amount of submissions having been received, with 310 submissions objecting to the proposal. 

 

It is considered that the proposal fails the Strategic Merit test as indicated in this Planning Report, and fails most of its “question criterion” found in the Planning Proposal Guidelines. The Proposal is also contrary to State Plans that require meaningful retention of employment and services land, and that leave the planning of medium density areas for Councils and local communities to determine. It is contrary to the Ashfield Urban Planning Strategy 2010 agreed with the community. It is evident the proposal is inconsistent with the PRCUTS recommendations for Land Use Zoning and Maximum Height of Buildings and Maximum Floor Space Ratio, and is “out of sequence” with the staging of future development.  It instead contends that pursuant to Section 117 Direction 7.3 (5) that it produces a better outcome and this is not agreed with for the reasons stated in the report. 

 

The proposal would instead result in adverse impacts on the existing and nearby community and built environment, and the loss of a substantial amount of potential employment and urban services land along Parramatta Road. Support for such a proposal would also not be in the public interest, would cause a precedent, and non-compliance with the PRCUTS and Section 117 directions challenges the EPA Act planning system procedures and objectives, including the orderly development of land.

 

It is premature to be reconsidering the land uses and development standards for the affected land, noting that the PRCUTS proposes that any such review and staging should be carried out post 2023 and up to 2050.  A review would, in the future, require a detailed and holistic town planning study as part of the development of a new Inner West LEP undertaken by Council, taking into consideration the impacts of the intervention of the WestConnex portals, a local council strategy which includes community participation and addresses all relevant considerations, the PRCUTS recommendations for public transport along Parramatta Road and provision of fast bus lanes, and how sites would be realistically be able to function in this unique context.

 

The Proposal should not be supported.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Planning Proposal

2.

Planning Proposal Design Concept

3.

Planning Proposal Landscape Plan

4.

Planning Proposal Traffic and Parking report.

5.

Planning Proposal Heritage Report

6.

Out of Sequence Checklist

7.

Council Heritage Adviser

8.

Visual Impact Diagram

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 

Item No:         C0218 Item 3

Subject:         Shade Sails in Playgrounds           

Prepared By:     Cathy Edwards-Davis - Group Manager Trees, Parks and Sports Fields  

Authorised By:  Elizabeth Richardson – A/Deputy General Manager Assets and Environment

 

SUMMARY

To respond to the Council Reolution of 12 December 2017 requesting staff to prioritise the installation of shade sails in playgrounds.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT subject to the adoption of the budget, Council install shade sails in 2018/2019 at the following playgrounds:

 

-     Campbell Street, Balmain;

-     College Street, Balmain;

-     J.F. Laxton Reserve, Union Street, Dulwich Hill;

-     Marr Reserve, Cary Street, Leichhardt;

-     Nestor Park, Hearn Street, Leichhardt;

-     O’Connor Reserve, Rozelle;

-     Pine Square, Leichhardt; and

-     William Street, Ashfield.

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

At the Council meeting on the 12 December 2017, the following was resolved:

 

THAT Council:

 

1.         Officers report on the suitability and rank the priority of the following playgrounds for installation of shade sails, to be considered in the preparation of the 2018/19 Budget:

 

Chester Street Annandale

Hearn Street Leichhardt

Marr Reserve Leichhardt

O’Connor Reserve Rozelle

Cary Street Leichhardt

Ann Cashman Reserve Balmain

Lambert Park Leichhardt

War Memorial Park Leichhardt

Elkington Park Balmain

Bridgewater Rozelle

Orange Grove Lilyfield

Gray Street Annandale

North Street Leichhardt

Mort Bay Birchgrove

Gladstone Park Balmain

36 Battalion Park Leichhardt

 

2.         Have a review of all playgrounds in the LGA for the prioritisation of the installation of shade sails in preparation for the 2018/19 budget.

 

 

The following comments are made regarding the nominated playgrounds:

 

Proposed Location

Comments

Douglas Grant Memorial Park, Chester Street, Annandale

New trees have been planted for shade.  There is an existing shade sail. The “rocket ship” is uncovered.  However, any shade sail over this piece of equipment would have to be very high.  It would then overshadow the neighbor and it is therefore not recommended.

Nestor Park, Hearn Street, Leichhardt

This is a new playground. Agreed, this playground requires a shade sail.  Funding recommended for 2018/2019.

Marr Reserve, Cary Street,  Leichhardt

Natural shade already available from trees. Suitable for shade sail.  Funding recommended for 2018/2019.

O’Connor Reserve, Rozelle

There is an existing shade sail.  Suitable for additional shade sail.  Funding recommended for 2018/2019.

Ann Cashman Reserve, Balmain

Natural shade already available from trees. A shade sail is not needed.

Lambert Park, Leichhardt

Natural shade already available from trees. A shade sail is not needed.

War Memorial Park, Leichhardt

Natural shade already available from trees. A shade sail is not needed.

Elkington Park, Balmain

Natural shade already available from trees. A shade sail is not needed.

Bridgewater, Rozelle

Complete.  A shade sail has been installed.

Orange Grove, Lilyfield

Complete.  A shade sail has been installed.

Gray Street, Annandale

Complete.  A shade sail has been installed.

North Street, Leichhardt

This location was reviewed for 2017/2018 shade sail program.  The location was found not suitable for shade sails as the sails would cause overshadowing of house on southern side.

Mort Bay, Birchgrove

There is an existing shade sail.  The shade sail was repaired as part of the 2017/2018 program.

Gladstone Park, Balmain

Complete. A shade sail was installed as part of the  2017/2018 program.

36 Battalion Park, Leichhardt

Complete. A shade sail was installed as part of the  2017/2018 program.

 

In addition to the above nominated shade sails, staff have identified the need for shade sails at the following locations:

 

Proposed Location

Comments

J.F. Laxton Reserve, Union Street, Dulwich Hill

Whilst undertaking inspections at this park, this playground was identified as requiring a shade sail.

William Street, Ashfield

An adjacent developer has removed a number of trees, which has reduced shade in this location.  Council has received resident requests for a shade sail at this playground.

 


 

Shade Sail Program

 

The draft capital works budget includes the following funding for shade sails:

 

Project

2018/2019

2019/2020

Shade sail program (Leichhardt s94)

400,000

90,000

Shade sail program

30,000

150,000

Minor Parks – Shade sails

70,000

0

 

The shade sails funded from the Leichhardt Developer Contributions Plan Open Space and Recreation (s94) must be located within the former Leichhardt LGA.  The other funding may be spent throughout the LGA.

 

The draft budget is subject to public exhibition and adopted by Council.

 

In 2018/2019, it is recommended that the following shade sails be installed:

 

·    Campbell Street, Balmain 

·    College Street, Balmain 

·    J.F. Laxton Reserve, Union Street, Dulwich Hill

·    Marr Reserve, Cary Street, Leichhardt

·    Nestor Park, Hearn Street, Leichhardt

·    O’Connor Reserve, Rozelle

·    Pine Square, Leichhardt

·    William Street, Ashfield

 

The above projects will be subject to further detailed design investigation.

 

It is recommended that part of the shade sail program funding in 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 be utilised for the development of a Shade Sail Program Strategy which will be developed in conjunction with a Playground Program Strategy for the LGA.  Both Strategies will also be informed by the Recreation Needs Study: A Healthier Inner West.  The Shade Sail and Playground Strategies will ensure that these two important programs are delivered to meet the prioritised needs of the community and that they inform each other, such that shade sails, if needed, are delivered in conjunction with any new playgrounds.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The shade sail program has been identified in the draft capital works budget for 2018/2019 and future financial years.  The funding implications are outlined in the report.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 

Item No:         C0218 Item 4

Subject:         Investment Report as at 30 November 2017           

Prepared By:     Brendhan Barry - Manager Financial Services  

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

 

SUMMARY

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

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

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

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The Investment Holdings report (Attachment 1) for the period ending 30 November 2017 reflects Council’s holding in various investment categories these are listed in the table below. Council’s portfolio size has remained at $218m of which 87% was rated A rated or above.

 

 


 


 

Council’s annualised return of continues to exceed the bank bill index benchmark. The period ending 30 November 2017, the portfolio for Inner West Council had a One-Month Portfolio Investment Return (2.83%) was above the UBSWA Bank Bill Index Benchmark (1.71%).

 

Council has a well-diversified portfolio with 87% of the portfolio spread among the top three credit rating categories (A long term / A2 short term and higher).

 


 

Council has a well-diversified portfolio invested among a range of term deposits and

floating rate notes from highly rated Australian ADIs.   The graph above shows Council’s individual institution exposure compared with the investment policy limits.

 

The graph above demonstrates the term to maturity for Council’s investments compared to Council’s approved investment policy limits.

 


 

Environmental Commitments

The graph above illustrates the gap between yields received from Fossil Fuel versus Non Fossil Fuel Investments.  The Big 4 banks (which comprise the FF investments) continue to provide a higher interest rate yield in the current economic environment within Council’s investment portfolio.

 

Council’s holdings in Non-Fossil investments were $170.3m with the relative total portfolio percentage increasing slightly to 80% in Non-Fossil investments. The attachments to this report summarise all investments held by Council and interest returns for periods ending 30 November 2017.

 

 

 

The Current Market value is required to be accounted for by the accounting. The Current Market Value is a likely outcome if Council were to consider recalling the investment prior to its due date.

 

All investments made for the month of November 2017 have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, Local Government Regulations and the Inner West Council Investment Policy.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

IWC Nov17 summary

2.

IWC Nov17

3.

IWC Economic and Investment Portfolio Commentary Nov 17

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 

Item No:         C0218 Item 5

Subject:         Investment Report as at 31 December 2017           

Prepared By:     Brendhan Barry - Manager Financial Services  

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

 

SUMMARY

In accordance with the requirements of clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council is provided with a listing of all investments made pursuant to section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993 and reported for period ending 31 December 2017.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

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

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The Investment Holdings report (Attachment 1) for the period ending 31 December 2017 reflects Council’s holding in various investment categories these are listed in the table below. Council’s portfolio size sits at $210m of which 86% was rated A rated or above.

 


 

 


 

 

Council’s annualised return of continues to exceed the bank bill index benchmark. The period ending 31 December 2017, the portfolio for Inner West Council had a One-Month Portfolio Investment Return (2.80%) was above the UBSWA Bank Bill Index Benchmark (1.70%).

 

Council has a well-diversified portfolio with 86% of the portfolio spread among the top three credit rating categories (A long term / A2 short term and higher).

 


 

Council has a well-diversified portfolio invested among a range of term deposits and

floating rate notes from highly rated Australian ADIs.   The graph above shows Council’s individual institution exposure compared with the investment policy limits.

 

The graph above demonstrates the term to maturity for Council’s investments compared to Council’s approved investment policy limits.


 

Environmental Commitments

The graph above illustrates the gap between yields received from Fossil Fuel versus Non Fossil Fuel Investments.  The Big 4 banks (which comprise the FF investments) continue to provide a higher interest rate yield in the current economic environment within Council’s investment portfolio.

 

 

Council’s holdings in Non-Fossil investments were $168.3m with the relative total portfolio percentage of 80% in Non-Fossil investments. The attachments to this report summarise all investments held by Council and interest returns for periods ending 31 December 2017.

 

 

 


 

The Current Market value is required to be accounted for by the accounting. The Current Market Value is a likely outcome if Council were to consider recalling the investment prior to its due date.

 

All investments made for the month of December 2017 have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, Local Government Regulations and the Inner West Council Investment Policy.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

IWC Dec17 - summary

2.

IWC Dec17

3.

IWC Economic and Investment Portfolio Commentary Dec 17

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 

Item No:         C0218 Item 6

Subject:         Tabling of Pecuniary Interest Returns of Councillors  

Prepared By:     Ian Naylor - Manager Civic and Executive Support  

Authorised By:  Nellette Kettle - Group Manager Integration Customer Service & Business Excellence

 

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to table Pecuniary Interest Returns of Councillors elected in September 2017 in accordance with the requirements of Section 450A of the Local Government Act.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council note the tabling of Pecuniary Interest Returns of Councillors elected in September 2017.

 

 

BACKGROUND

Councillors are required to lodge a return of pecuniary interests with the General Manager

on an annual basis. Section 449(1) of the Local Government Act 1993 requires Councillors to complete and lodge their first return within three months of being elected. 

 

Section 450A(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1993 requires these returns to be tabled at the first Council Meeting after the last day for lodgement which was 16 December 2017. All returns for Councillors were submitted by the required lodgement date and are tabled at this Meeting to fulfil the requirements of the legislation.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

 

CONCLUSION

Nil.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 

Item No:         C0218 Item 7

Subject:         Business excluded from the Council Agenda of 12 December 2017           

Prepared By:     Ian Naylor - Manager Civic and Executive Support  

Authorised By:  Nellette Kettle - Group Manager Integration Customer Service & Business Excellence

 

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to advise that an item of business was excluded by the General Manager from the Council Agenda for the Meeting on 12 December 2017. Clause 240(2) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires this to be reported to the next Ordinary Council Meeting.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

An item of business was excluded from the Agenda of 12 December 2017, as the General Manager considered the inclusion of the business would be unlawful. The General Manager determined that implementation of the business proposed would be unlawful as it would deny procedural fairness with respect to an investigative process. Clause 240(2) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 as shown below, requires this matter to be reported to the next meeting of Council without giving any details of the item of business.

 

Clause 240(2) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 states;

 

“The general manager must not include in the agenda for a meeting of the council any business of which due notice has been given if, in the opinion of the general manager, the business is (or the implementation of the business would be) unlawful. The general manager must report (without giving details of the item of business) any such exclusion to the next meeting of the council”.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

 

CONCLUSION

Nil.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.  


Temporary IWC visual_cyanblack-long

Council Meeting

21 November 2017

 

 

Item No:         C0218 Item 8

Subject:         Councillor Support Staff  

Prepared By:     Ian Naylor - Manager Civic and Executive Support  

Authorised By:  Nellette Kettle - Group Manager Integration Customer Service & Business Excellence

 


 

SUMMARY

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

Do not delete this line


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

  1. Council consider support requirements for Councillors to effectively undertake their civic role and alter the organisational structure so as to create up to 6 new positions to function as support staff for Councillors;

 

  1. The General Manager carry out any necessary Staff Consultative Committee process for the creation of the positions and any future recruitment process;

 

  1. The  Manager, Civic and Executive Support consult with each Councillor to determine what their requirements are so as to inform any future recruitment process on how many of the newly created positions need to be filled;

 

  1. the Code of Conduct be amended as follows:

 

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

 

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

 

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

Do not delete this line


 

 

BACKGROUND

At the Council Meeting on 21 November, Council considered a report on the appointment of support staff for Councillors and resolved to defer the matter to a briefing. A briefing was held for Councillors on 1 February 2018 to detail the proposal to appoint support staff and give  Councillors an opportunity to discuss how the support staff would operate.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Appropriate Number of Support Staff

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The City of Sydney has implemented a similar system of support for Councillors. Council staff have sought advice from the City of Sydney on position descriptions and the salary range for Councillor support staff. The salary cost for support staff is approximately $72,000 per support person and there would be a fitout cost of approximately $10,000 per support person to provide offices for support staff including computer and telephone equipment. Funding for these positions can be provided within the next quarterly budget review. At such time, Councillors will need to assess how the positions are to be funded having regard to any budgetary constraints.

 

System of Oversight and Management

 

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

 

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

 

 

Code of Conduct

 

The Model Code of Conduct issued by the Office of Local Government states that Councillors cannot direct staff in the conduct of their work, except through the General Manager. As the relationship between a Councillor and their support staff will require some level of direction in terms of the work to be undertaken an amendment to the Code of Conduct is required. It is recommended that Council’s Code of Conduct be amended to reflect the same changed made by the City of Sydney in March 2017 to allow councillors to direct their support staff. There is no requirement for Council to publicly exhibit this change. It is important that any change to the Code of Conduct is not inconsistent with the existing provisions of clause 6.2 as an inconsistency will result in the change being unenforceable (section 440(4) of the Act).

 

Selection Criteria

 

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

 

Essential

 

Desirable

 

 

The following limitations will be imposed:

 

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

o   submit Councillor Requests on behalf of Councillors/residents,

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

o   respond to correspondence,

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

o   manage reimbursement for legitimate Councillor expenses

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

 

CONCLUSION

Nil.

Do not delete this line


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1 Position Description for Councillor Support Staff

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Temporary IWC visual_cyanblack-long

POSITION DESCRIPTION

 

Position Title

Councillor Support Officer

Directorate

General Manager

Section / Location 

TBA

Responsible to

Civic and Executive Support Manager and allocated Councillors

Position Supervises

Direct: Nil

Indirect: Nil

Position No.

TBA

Remuneration

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

 

Allowances

Nil

Status and Hours

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

Explanatory Note:

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

 

Legislative requirements

 

Local Government Act

Date reviewed: November 2017

Reviewed by: Group Manager Human Resources

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

POSITION PURPOSE

 

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

 

SELECTION CRITERIA

 

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

 

Essential Criteria:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

·       

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Desirable Criteria

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

 

2.   Advanced word processing and database skills.

 

3.   Tertiary qualifications.

 

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

 

 

 

KEY DUTIES, ACCOUNTABILITIES & RESPONSIBILITIES:

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

KEY RELATIONSHIPS:

 

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

 

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


WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY RESPONSIBILITY STATEMENT

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

 

LEVEL 6

 

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

 

Responsibilities

Performance Measures

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

·         Conformance to WH&S policy and procedures

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

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

·         Use of SWMS and Standard operating procedures

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

·         Training records

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

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

·         Hazard identification reports

 

 

 

·         Workplace inspection reports

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

·         PPE maintenance records

 

·         Knowledge and use of Standard operating procedures

 

·         Working in accordance with relevant competency standards

 

·         Training records.

 

·         Supervisor site inspection records

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

·         Attendance at training sessions

 

 

 

 

 

Applicant Declaration

 

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

 

Signature:                                                                                                                              Date:          /          /

 

 


 


Item No:         C0218 Item 9

Subject:         Notice of Motion to Rescind: Item 4 Post Exhibition Report - Sydenham Station Creative Hub Planning Proposal           

From:             Councillors The Mayor, Darcy Byrne, Anna York, Mark Drury, Lucille McKenna OAM and Sam Iskandar   

 

Motion:

 

THAT Council Rescind the resolution of 12 December 2017, regarding Item 4 of the 21 November 2017 Ordinary Council Meeting, ‘Post Exhibition report – Sydenham Station Creative Hub Planning Proposal’. Should the rescission motion be carried, we seek to move the following motion:-

 

THAT Council:


1.       Note:


a.       The existing Sydenham Creative Hub proposal has been endorsed repeatedly

           by the former Marrickville Council and the NSW Department of Planning;

 

b.      The large body of work that has been dedicated to the development of the 

          policy  for the Sydenham Station Creative Hub involving input from a wide range           of  stakeholders over a substantial period of time, and the careful consideration           of the development of that policy by the former Marrickville Council;


c.       The independent support for the policy from academic and planning experts        
           including the City Futures Research Centre, Professor Peter Phibbs and SGS       
           Economics in their 2014 Study of Marrickville Employment lands;


d.      The very large proportion of submissions received during the consultation         
         process in support of the existing proposal; and


e.       The original intent of the Sydenham Creative Hub proposal, which was to protect        current industrial uses in the precinct, by adapting our planning Instruments to                    ensure emerging additional artistic and creative uses are permitted, as a means                   of securing the vibrancy and visitation to the area.

2.       Defer consideration of the matter pending further investigation into options to           achieve the original intent of the proposal, by further specifying and limiting new          uses, including potentially;


a.       Removing office space from the list of permissible uses;


b.      A narrower focus on live performance and artistic uses to operate after

         existing businesses hours;


c.       Further limiting the scope for small bars and restaurants;


d.      Mandating a review period for the proposed controls following adoption; and


e.       Further measures to mitigate the perceived risks identified in the most recent    
          SGS report

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 

Item No:         C0218 Item 10

Subject:         Notice of Motion: Upgrade and Beautification of Haberfield Main Street / SHopping Village           

From:             Councillor Vittoria Raciti and Deputy Mayor, Councillor Julie Passas  

 

 

Motion:

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council develop a holistic strategy for the Haberfield town centre including public domain master planning, streetscape improvements and economic sustainability; and

 

2.   Officers provide a report in March 2018 outlining process, timelines and indicative costs for the development and implementation of the strategy.

 

Background

 

After years of neglect it is now time for the Inner West Council to ensure that the Haberfield community, receives the attention of this Council.

 

I move a motion with a strong expectation that my fellow Councillors, will support the upgrading and beautification, of the Haberfield Main Street/Shopping Village.

Haberfield has no vibe, no dynamic, lacks charm, so bland, abandoned looking and desperately needs a lift.

 

For years Haberfield’s main street and shopping village has been totally neglected, whilst other neighbouring suburbs, have been upgraded, beautified and today enjoy a flourishing, vibrant and busy local neighbourhood shopping strip. Due to years of neglect, Haberfield’s Main strip/Shopping Village has become totally neglected, and in the absence of the local IGA, and some hard-working small businesses, it would be a virtual ghost town. It is for this reason that I propose this motion, with a view to allocate an initial $100,000, for an upgrading and beautification program to add weight, to my respectful submission to my fellow Councillors. Haberfield today has half the shops either For Sale, For Lease or about to close their business down, or many months in rental arrears.

 

Most businesses in Haberfield are struggling. Some small owners today have in recent years closed down after a major shop upgrade, then the business failed, and yet again a further attempt was made, the business changed to another concept, a further upgrade, and still resulted in business closure.

 

The Chinese Restaurant at the corner of Dalhousie St and Ramsay St, which opened less than 12 months ago, at considerable expense, closed their doors, just last week.

The former Haberfield Post office site in Dalhousie St, Haberfield has been empty for a “life-time”, and remains empty. The current premises to which the Post Office moved to, had been closed for a large number of years (maybe up to 4 years) for whatever reason, The following premises in Haberfield are either closed, again for whatever reason, with no business trading from them – just simply – closed doors!

 

70 Dalhousie St – Florist - current owner states she will give it a go for another 12 months, and then will have to cease trading.

 

62 Dalhousie St – Former wedding shop closed down 3 months ago.

 

64 Dalhousie St – Former Thai restaurant – closed.

 

71 Dalhousie St – Former post office – remains empty.

 

80 Dalhousie St – Former Commonwealth Bank site. Empty for more than approximately 3 years.

 

104 Ramsay St – Has had a multitude of failed businesses over the past 12 years or so. Currently empty, and has been for the past 11 months.

 

115 Ramsay St – Empty over 4 years.

 

129 Ramsay St – Chocolate Shop closed down due to poor customer flow in the suburb.

 

171 Ramsay St – Empty.

 

125 Ramsay St – Bendigo Bank pulled out the ATM due to lack of use.

 

191 Ramsey St– 12 shops with no passing trade, this small centre opened in 2008, it has always been half empty, as is the case today.

 

With the utmost respect, nothing less than a Concord upgrade/beautification will suffice. Concord flourished once the main street was implemented and has continued to do so.

 

As a community, we need to take pride in our appearance and delivery of amenities to the ratepayers. They will also share in the benefit of these community projects and the pride it instils in the community, so they will spend more time in the area that they live in as well as attracting new visitors to the area.

 

Officer’s Comments:

 

Comment from Group Manager Recreation and Aquatics and Group Manager Strategic Planning

 

Preparation of the report will take approximately 30 staff hours, being an estimated $2,000 funded from existing staff budgets.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 

Item No:         C0218 Item 11

Subject:         Notice of Motion: Trees Policy           

From:             Councillors Deputy Mayor, Julie Passas, Vittoria Raciti and Victor Macri   

 

 

Motion:

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Call on the State Government to amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment   Act to allow Council to review decisions made by staff on tree matters;

 

2.   Urgently review the DCP controls on trees relating to issues arising around damage to residents and properties and the financial burden to residents of tree retention ie. The requirement to obtain engineers and arborist reports; and

 

3.   Consider funding this work as part of the next quarterly budget review in 2017/18 or as part of the budget considerations for 2018/19.

 

 

 

Officer’s Comments:

 

Comment from Group Manager Trees, Parks and Sports Fields:

 

Point 2 of the motion would require additional resources as this work is not programmed. The cost of engaging consultants to urgently undertake Point 2 would be $24,800.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 

Item No:         C0218 Item 12

Subject:         Notice of Motion: Ferris Lane Annandale Green Space           

From:             Councillor Marghanita Da Cruz   

 

 

Motion:

 

THAT Council Staff bring back a report on the conversion of Ferris Lane to a Park incorporating  a community garden, rain capture and flood mitigation elements.

 

 

Background

 

Ferris Lane is located in the North Western Part of Annandale. This part of Annandale has no green or community spaces.

 

Ferris Lane has been blocked off to vehicles for sometime now as evidenced by the historical white wooden fencing.

 

The area is flood prone and Sydney Water has identified the need to expand the capacity of the pipes containing White’s Creek and two tributaries in the vicinity including one which runs under Ferris Lane. 

 

Local resident Cathy O’Donnel has mobilized her local community into transforming this laneway from one where rubbish was dumped and the walls were graffitied to a welcoming community green space. Cathy has made several unsuccessful applications for community grants to fund the landscaping and provide a tap to water the garden. 

 

Cathy’s work in the laneway has been embraced by the local community and a petition to improve this open space already has 428 signatures. Water is currently provided by an adjoining property owner.

 

Rain Gardens and other elements to manage rain and storm water were included in a design in the grant application which is attached.

 

 

Officer’s Comments:

 

Comment from Group Manager Trees, Parks and Sports Fields:

The preparation of this report will take approximately 8 hours. This will delay the preparation of the IWC Sporting Ground Allocation Policy.

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Ferris Lane Proposal

2.

Ferris Lane Proposal - Photos

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 

Item No:         C0218 Item 13

Subject:         Notice of Motion: Ted Floyd Way           

From:             Councillor Marghanita Da Cruz   

 

 

Motion:

 

THAT:-

 

1.   Council name the path through the White’s Creek wetlands in Lilyfield, "Ted Floyd Way".

 

2.   The budgetary implications of this resolution be considered at the next quarterly budget review.

 

Background

 

Ted Floyd was a resident of Coulon Street Rozelle for over 40 years.

Around 1986, Ted was invited to be a member of the Leichhardt Council Transport Committee.

There he raised concerns about pollution from cars and advocated for pedestrian safety. As a

result of his advocacy, 40km speed limits were introduced on the Balmain Peninsula.

In the 1990s, Ted took his advocacy to the Environment and Planning Committee meetings.

Working for Friends of the Earth, Ted produced pamphlets on Solar Hot Water and passive solar design. In 1994, Ted's strong advocacy helped Leichhardt Council to mandate Solar hotwater, natural ventilation and passive solar design for new buildings in planning instrument DCP17. These policies were a first in Australia (and the world) and had to overcome opposition from Energy providers Sydney Electricity & AGL.

Ted was proudest of his part in the creation of White's Creek Wetlands in 2002. Ted identified the Sydney Water owned site and then championed the project through organisational and community resistance. Though the original purpose of the wetlands was to remove pollutants and nutrients from storm water running off the streets, Ted believed it could also play a very important role in education and community awareness of our natural environment. The wetlands are now home to Turtles and Frogs.

Ted embraced any and every way to communicate his ideas, including the printed word, art, poetry, websites, blogs, journal articles, letters to the editor, emails to council and government officers and to members of parliament and ministers.

Ted's words on transpiration and evapotranspiration by trees was picked up in Wikipedia and translated into Thai, Telagu, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and possibly other languages.

There are two more recent contributions, Ted made to our community:

- Successfully advocated for the removal of advertising panels from the bus shelters on  Victoria Road to improve pedestrian safety, and

- As a Soil Scientist he critically reviewed the soil contamination report for the orchard in  Whites Creek Valley to pin point contamination for capping and so  increasing the land available to plant trees.

Ted passed in hospital after being found injured on a footpath in Rozelle in 2017.

 

This motion has the support of Ted’s sister Robyn Floyd, Annandale Resident, David Lawrence and Friends of White’s Creek’s Gillian Leahy.

 

 

Officer’s Comments:

 

Comment from Group Manager Trees, Parks and Sports Fields:

The implementation of this motion will require preparing a submission to the Geographical Names Board and associated consultation and will take approximately 14 hours of staff time and if approved $5,000 for signage. This will delay the preparation of the IWC Sporting Ground Allocation Policy.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Council Meeting

13 February 2018

 

Item No:         C0218 Item 14

Subject:         Notice of Motion: Recognising January 26 as a day of Invasion, Mourning and Survival            

From:             Councillor Tom Kiat   

 

 

Motion:

 

THAT:

 

1.   Acknowledge that January 26 marks the beginning of the British invasion of the lands of First Nations people, and in particular that of the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation, and oppression of First Nations people, and is therefore not an appropriate date for an inclusive national celebration;

 

2.   Acknowledge that First Nations people never ceded sovereignty of their land and have continuously cared for their country for over 60,000 years as the world's oldest living culture;

 

3.   Acknowledge the first Day of Mourning was held 80 years ago on January 26, 1938, being the 150th anniversary of the British invasion. The day was attended by Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous supporters in protest of the national holiday and the callous treatment of Aboriginal people and the date continues to be commemorated annually as a Day of Mourning or Invasion Day;

 

4.   Support the Change the Date campaign and advocate to the Federal Government to change the date on which Australia Day is commemorated, consistent with the resolution passed by the National General Assembly of Local Government in June 2017;

 

5.   Cease holding an “Australia Day” event on January 26 from 2019, and cease referring to the January 26 public holiday as “Australia Day” in its communications; and

 

6.   Provide a report to Councillors by May 2018, based on consultation with local First Nations people considering:

a)   Whether and how Council could host or fund a commemoration of January 26 led by First Nations people;

b)   How Council can continue to annually recognise community service in the Inner West through its Citizen of the Year awards;

c)   Whether and how Council can appropriately hold an annual event to commemorate Australia as a nation.

 

7.   The budgetary implications of this resolution be considered at the next quarterly budget review or as part of the 2018/19 budget considerations, with input from the relevant Council officers.

 

 

 

Background

 

The Report sitting behind the Uluru Statement from the Heart declares that:

 

Australia was not a settlement and it was not a discovery. It was an invasion... Now is an opportunity for the First Nations to tell the truth about history in our own voices and from our own point of view.17 And for mainstream Australians to hear those voices and to reconsider what they know and understand about their nation’s history. This will be challenging, but the truth about invasion needs to be told.

 

On 18 January of this year, the Guardian reported comments from peak First Nations bodies regarding the celebration of Australia Day on January 26:

 

-     Reconciliation Australia chief executive Karen Mundine: “asking Indigenous people to celebrate on January 26 is like asking them to dance on their ancestors’ graves”

-     National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples  co-chair Rod Little: “There are 364 other days that would be more suitable for reconciliation, provided our history is understood and respected.”

-     Healing Foundation CEO Richard Weston: “It is impossible to celebrate when it brings to mind the deep hurt borne by our ancestors and how that suffering continues to impact today.”

 

Last year we asked our own ATSI advisory group to comment on this issue. They stated that January 26 is not an appropriate date to celebrate Australia Day.

 

I spoke to Mr Nathan Moran, CEO of the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council which covers all of the Inner West and beyond. He said “The arrival of the First Fleet and the raising of the Flag of Great Britain at Sydney Cove by Governor Phillip is a date of significance, but for MLALC it’s not a day for National celebration;” and, “We will always refer to January 26 as “Day of Mourning”, Invasion Day or Survival Day.”

 

I also spoke with Mr Ken Canning, one of the organisers of Sydney’s Invasion Day rally and the first Indigenous graduate of UTS. He said: “If we are ever going to walk together as a nation, the full and true history must be and should be told. What better way than to commence by recognising that for First Nations Peoples, January 26 is the beginning of the attempted genocide of over 500 different Tribal Nations in what is now called Australia. To have people out celebrating in a nation-wide party is purely an insult to Our Peoples and continues to reinforce the inaccuracies of the history of this country.”

 

Council currently celebrates January 26 as “Australia Day” with a festival at Enmore Park including amusement rides, live music, a citizenship ceremony, Citizen of the Year awards, and fireworks.

 

Finding a new way for Council to commemorate January 26 is not going to solve the serious ongoing injustices faced by First Nations people in our LGA. However it is a good step toward listening to First Nations voicing speaking about historic and ongoing oppression, and an important way to communicate to the broader community the truth about this nation’s history. By consulting with and listening to the First Nations community in the Inner West, we will work toward establishing a new commemoration for January 26 based on truth, justice and inclusion.

 

 

Officers Comment:

 

Comment from Group Manager Communication, Engagement and Events and Group Manager Community Services and Culture:

 

The cost of holding an event of Australia Day is approximately $85,000 which will be a cost saving if Point 5 of the motion is supported.

 

The cost savings in Point 5 of the motion would need to be utilised to fund the events described in Point 6 of the Motion.

 

The consultation referred to in Point 6 of the Motion would require funding of $10,000 to engage an external consultant to conduct the consultation as Council does not have the specialist skills required to undertake this.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.