AGENDA R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council Meeting

 

TUESDAY 10 APRIL 2018

 

6.30pm

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 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.

 

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.  

 

 

   


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 

 

 

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 27 March 2018 Council Meeting                                                                     5

 

7          Mayoral Minutes

 

Nil at the time of printing.

8          Staff Reports

 

ITEM                                                                                                                                          Page

 

C0418 Item 1      Inner West Council Climate and Renewables Strategy                              19

C0418 Item 2      Improving Inner West Waterways                                                               27

C0418 Item 3      Sydney Motorway Corporation Proposal For Haberfield Community Facilities    43

C0418 Item 4      Grants and Fee Scale Policy                                                                      55

C0418 Item 5      Leichhardt Flood Study and Estuarine Planning Levels Study and Flood Management Advisory Committee meeting held 14 December 2017                             97

C0418 Item 6      Petersham RSL - Planning Proposal and Draft Development Control Plan for 3-7 & 13-17 Regent Street, 287-309 Trafalgar Street and 16-20 Fisher Street, Petersham - Post Exhibition Report                                                                                       146

C0418 Item 7      Planning Proposal - 21 - 35 John Street, Leichhardt                                342

C0418 Item 8      Post Exhibition Report - Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 - Amendment to Part 2.22 Flood Management                                                                 1011

C0418 Item 9      Mandatory Reporting of Fire Safety Reports Referred to Council from Fire & Rescue NSW                                                                                                        1031

C0418 Item 10    Glebe Island Silos Application to Extend Consent for 4 years               1069

C0418 Item 21    Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee Minutes and Charter                1115

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9          Rescission Motions

 

ITEM                                                                                                                                         Page

 

C0418 Item 11    Notice of Motion to Rescind: Item 14 Notice of Motion: Late Registration at Ordinary Council Meetings - 27 March 2018 Council Meeting                              1094

C0418 Item 12    Notice of Motion to Rescind: Item 18 Notice of Motion: Marion Street Cottages - 27 March 2018 Council Meeting                                                                  1095

 

10        Notices of Motion

 

ITEM                                                                                                                                          Page

 

C0418 Item 13    Notice of Motion: Minister’s Award in Local Government                      1096

C0418 Item 14    Notice of Motion: Multicultural Policy                                                     1097

C0418 Item 15    Notice of Motion:Supporting Local Communities to Conserve Heritage 1098

C0418 Item 16    Notice of Motion: Inner West Business Counts 2017                             1101

C0418 Item 17    Notice of Motion: A Musical Instrument Lending Library                        1108

C0418 Item 18    Notice of Motion: Train station upgrades and accessibility in the Inner West        1109

 

11        Questions From Councillors

 

ITEM                                                                                                                                          Page

 

C0418 Item 19    Question on Notice: Staffing Matters                                                      1111

 

12        Reports with Confidential Information

 

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

 

The confidential information has been circulated separately.

 

ITEM                                                                                                                                                 

 

C0418 Item 20    Petersham RSL VPA


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 

 

Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 27 March 2018

 

Meeting commenced at   6.34pm

 

 

Present:

Darcy Byrne

Julie Passas

Marghanita Da Cruz Mark Drury

Lucille McKenna OAM

Colin Hesse

Sam Iskandar

Tom Kiat

Pauline Lockie

Victor Macri

Rochelle Porteous

John Stamolis

Louise Steer

Anna York
Rik Hart

Elizabeth Richardson

Mayor

Deputy Mayor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor (6.36pm)

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

General Manager

A/Deputy General Manager Assets and Environment

Michael Tzimoulas

Deputy General Manager Chief Financial and Administration Officer

John Warburton

Deputy General Manager Community and Engagement

Nellette Kettle

 

David Birds

Wal Petschler

John Stephens

Amanda Buckland

Erla Ronan

Cathy Edwards-Davis

Brooke Martin

Joe Strati

Ian Naylor

Katherine Paixao

Group Manager Civic and Executive Support, Integration,

Customer Service and Business Excellence

Group Manager Strategic Planning

Group Manager Roads & Stormwater

Traffic and Transport Services Manager

Living Arts Manager

Group Manager Community Services and Culture

Group Manager Trees, Parks and Sports Fields

Group Manager Properties, Major Building Projects and Facilities

Group Manager Legal

Manager Civic and Executive Support

Business Paper Coordinator (Minute Taker)

 

APOLOGIES:    

 

Motion: (Byrne/ Hesse)

 

THAT apologies from Clr Raciti and apologies for lateness from Clr Porteous be accepted.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Cr Porteous

 

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:   Nil

 

 

Councillor Porteous entered the meeting 6.36pm.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

Motion: (McKenna OAM/Stamolis)

THAT the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 13 March 2018 be confirmed.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Suspension of Standing Orders

 

Motion: (Byrne/Passas)

 

THAT Council bring forwards Items 11, 19, 20 and 21 to be dealt with at this time.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C0318 Item 11    Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 6 March 2018

Motion: (Byrne/Stamolis)

 

THAT:

 

1.    The Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 6 March 2018 be received and the recommendations be adopted;

 

2.    With reference to Item 18 - Route EW09 (Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield) - Separated Cycleway (Balmain Ward/ Leichhardt LAC/ Balmain Electorate);

 

a)  The public meeting on the Lilyfield cycleway project go ahead as soon as       
      possible and is used to inform consultants GHD of changes that should be 
     incorporated in the redesign; and

 

b) Council seek information about the possibility of using the Rozelle goods  
     yards for the Lilyfield cycleway and report back to council and residents.

 

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

 

C0318 Item 19    Notice of Motion: Adani Coal Mine

Motion: (Hesse/Lockie)

 

THAT Council express its support for the nationwide Stop Adani campaign.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Crs Macri and Passas

 

 

 

Motion: (Hesse/Lockie)

 

THAT Council support the nationwide Stop Adani campaign by hanging 5 Stop Adani banners from Marrickville, Newtown, Ashfield, Balmain, Leichhardt Town Halls and the wording on the banner be 'Coal Kills - Stop Adani'.

 

Motion Tied

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

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

 

The Chairperson used his Casting Vote against the MOTION and the MOTION was lost.

 

Councillor Iskandar retired from the meeting at 7.45pm

 

Councillor McKenna OAM retired from the meeting at 8.04pm

 

C0318 Item 20    Notice of Motion: Impacts of Infrastructure Projects on Annandale

Motion: (Da Cruz/Kiat)

 

THAT Council prepare a document summarising the impacts on  Annandale, Leichhardt, Lilyfield, Rozelle, Balmain, Ashfield and Haberfield information for distribution.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Cr Passas

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar and McKenna OAM

 

THAT Council holds a local public meeting in Annandale to inform the community about the current plans and proposals for major infrastructure projects, and their expected impacts on the health, safety and amenity of people living and working in the local area.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Crs Byrne, Drury, Macri, Passas and York

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar and McKenna OAM

 

C0318 Item 21    Notice of Motion: Committees

Motion: (Hesse/Steer)

 

THAT Council support the reinstatement of the Cooks River  and Environment Committee  run by the former Marrickville Council in the review of the new committee structure.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar and McKenna OAM

 

 

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

8.15pm - The Mayor, Clr Byrne adjourned the meeting for a short recess.

8.37pm – The Mayor, Clr Byrne resumed the meeting.

 

Resumption of Standing Orders

 

Motion: (Stamolis/Da Cruz)

 

THAT Standing Orders be resumed.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar and McKenna OAM

 

C0318 Item 1      A Healthier Inner West

Motion: (Macri/Drury)

 

THAT:

 

1.       Council invest $65 million in park and aquatic capital facilities over the next three years, subject to the development and adoption of the 2018/2019 Budget;

 

2.       Council defer the appointment an Office of Sport Coordinator until after the completion of the Recreation Needs Study;

 

3.       The Recreation & Aquatics Service Unit and Office of Sport Coordinator strategically partner with the sporting clubs and key partners to increase participation of girls, women, people from lower socio economic backgrounds and people with disabilities as informed by the Recreation Needs Study: A Healthier Inner West;

 

4.       Council progress the Recreation Needs Study: A Healthier Inner West to investigate the need and best location for hockey and netball facilities and a hydrotherapy pool; and

 

5.       Council progress the development of the Inner West Sporting Ground Allocation Policy, in consultation with the sporting clubs and that the draft Policy be reported back to Council for adoption.

 

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar and McKenna OAM

 

Councillor Passas retired from the Meeting at 9:00 pm.

 

 

 

 

 

C0318 Item 2      Supporting Our Creative Communities

Motion: (York/Byrne)

 

THAT Council:

 

  1. Note that EDGE Inner West:

 

a)    will optimise existing operational funds allocated to street art and community activation;

 

b)    will also see the development, launch and delivery of the new Inner West    
Contemporary Arts Prize; and

 

c)    includes the expansion of street art & street activation as adopted in October 2017 Notion of Motion.

 

2.    Note that the Community & Engagement Group is currently reviewing Council’s    
major events program and requests that opportunities for alignment with the EDGE activation be considered as part of that review;

 

3.    Staff consider that EDGE be extended to provide activities in all five wards of the Inner West Council; and

 

  1. Staff prepare a detailed budget on allocation of funding for EDGE for Councillor briefing.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

C0318 Item 3      Haberfield Town Centre - Notice of Motion

Motion: (Drury/Macri)

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

C0318 Item 4      Public Advocacy Callan Park

Motion: (Stamolis/Byrne)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.       Note the outcomes of the Callan Park Public meeting held on the 15th February 2018 and the community support for the adoption of the Callan Park Master Plan and Trust model;

 

2.       Formally write to the NSW Government seeking clarification on the extent of the Landscape Structure Plan and request that Government extend any planning framework to include the whole of Callan Park and to encompass the recommendations from Council’s Draft Master Plan and Trust model;

 

3.       Formally seek clarification from the NSW Government on those elements of the 2011 Master Plan which are not supported by Government and the rational for non-support;

 

4.       Formally request that Government include in its Landscape Structure Planning framework a funding model with prioritised key development proposals within the park and consideration of a Community Trust model for the future management of Callan Park; and

 

5.       Request that the development of the Landscape Structure Plan include extensive community engagement.

 

6.         Councillors be provided with a briefing from the office of Environment and Heritage on the Landscape Structure Plan

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

C0318 Item 5      Yeo Park & Gough Reserve, Ashfield - Plan of Management

Motion: (Drury/Kiat)

 

THAT:

 

1.       The draft Yeo Park and Gough Reserve, Ashfield Plan of Management be placed on public exhibition for 28 days; and

 

2.       The draft Yeo Park and Gough Reserve, Ashfield Plan of Management and any community comments received be the subject of a report back to Council.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

Motion: (Hesse/Porteous)

 

That Items 6, 9, and 12 be moved en bloc and the recommendations contained in the reports be adopted.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

 

 

 

C0318 Item 6      Draft Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy and Guidelines (to replace SEPP No. 55 - Remediation of Lands)

Motion: (Hesse/Porteous)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.       Support the proposed Remediation of Land SEPP and Guidelines subject to minor changes being made, as outlined in the submission at Attachment 1, and that the submission be made to the DPE;

 

2.       Endorse that the Inner West Development Control Plans be amended upon the finalisation of the proposed Remediation of Land SEPP to align with the SEPP requirements; and

 

3.       Endorse Council's Strategic Planning Group to review Council's Section 149 Planning Certificate Policy (also known as 10.7 Planning Certificates under the amended EP&A Act 1979) in relation to the issues addressed in the proposed Remediation of Land SEPP and Guidelines.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                                  Crs Iskandar, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

C0318 Item 9      Bulk Transfer of Nominated General Staff Update

Motion: (Hesse/Porteous)

 

 

THAT Council note the update and information contained in the Report.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                                  Crs Iskandar, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

C0318 Item 12    Investment Report as at 28 February 2018

Motion: (Hesse/Porteous)

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                                  Crs Iskandar, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C0318 Item 7      Bangla New Year's Day Festival - Request to Hold Event at Tempe Reserve - Further Report

Motion: (Hesse/Macri)

 

THAT:

 

1.    The report be received and noted;

 

2.    Council immediately engage with the organisers of the festival to seek to address the objections of the police, RMS and Council officers so that the event can return to the Inner West in 2019;

 

3.    Council review and report on other festivals and events which have been hosted in the LGA previously which may be affected by similar logistical problems; and

 

  1. Council receive a briefing or report which details how council can improve engagement with community leaders and organisers of local community events

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

C0318 Item 8      IWC Grants Program: Overview of Criteria and Processes

Motion: (Stamolis/Macri)

 

THAT:

 

1.       The revised 2018/19 Inner West Grant Guidelines are noted; and

 

2.       Each Inner West Grant Program assessment panel includes an external representative.

 

3.       Council provide an outreach service to organisations representing multicultural communities to assist with grant applications

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                                  Crs Iskandar, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

C0318 Item 10    Inner West Council Position on the Cruise Ship Terminal

Motion: (Stamolis/Byrne)

 

THAT in order to address the ongoing health concerns of residents and the major impacts of air and noise pollution from the white bay cruise terminal, council will prioritise the following:

 

  • Call on Federal Government to ban cruise ships from burning bunker fuel in Sydney Harbour, by requiring that the switch to low sulphur (0.1%) fuel before entering the harbour;

 

  • Call of the NSW Government to implement shore power at the white bay cruise terminal to adequately minimise air emissions, given that the cost/benefit study did not examine health costs/benefits;

 

  • Call on the Port Authority of NSW to immediately commence its ‘ three strikes’ policy to capture those ships which are repeatedly breaching the noise level maximums set in the conditions of consent; and

 

  • Call of the NSW Government to ban overnight stays of cruise ships in White Bay, given its proximity to family homes and the intolerable air and noise impacts at night.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                                  Crs Iskandar, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

Amendment (Porteous/Da Cruz)

 

That Council commits in principle to pursuing the installation of an air monitoring unit in the appropriate position to properly capture cruise ship air emissions to monitor sulphur dioxide (SO2) particulate matter less than 2.5 microns diameter (PM2.5) that cost be provided to council and the port authority also be requested to fund this.

 

Motion Lost

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

Against Motion:          Crs Byrne, Drury, Lockie, Macri, Stamolis and York

Absent:                                  Crs Iskandar, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

 C0318 Item 13   Notice of Motion: Planning

Councillor Hesse withdrew this Motion.

 

C0318 Item 14    Notice of Motion: Late Registration at Ordinary Council Meetings

Motion: (Stamolis/Hesse)

 

THAT:

 

1.    At the beginning of each Ordinary Council meeting  the Mayor to remind people in the gallery that they should have registered to speak and to ask for a show of hands for people who forgot to register to speak;

 

2.    The Mayor to consider allowing late registration, in particular, for items where there is no registered speaker and for leaders of community groups;

 

3.    Where the Mayor has invited late registration, the General Manager to provide a supplementary list of speakers, along with item numbers, to the Mayor; and

 

4.    Council to use its website, newsletters, social media and other means to remind people that registration is necessary if they wish to speak at an Ordinary Council Meeting.

 

 

 

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Crs Byrne, Drury, Lockie, Macri and York

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

Foreshadowed Motion (Byrne/Macri)

 

THAT:

 

1.    Council to use its website, newsletters, social media and other means to remind people that registration is necessary if they wish to speak at an Ordinary Council Meeting; and

 

2.    Council conduct a review of the Code of Meeting Practice for housekeeping purposes in June 2018.

 

This Foreshadow Motion lapsed.

 

C0318 Item 15    Notice of Motion: Listing of Policy Documents for Councillors

Motion: (Stamolis/Hesse)

 

THAT:

 

  1. At each Ordinary meeting, a report be provided listing Council policy documents which are being drafted, revised or recently approved.  Brief information about the reasons for redrafting or revising of the policy documents as well as the key changes should be provided;

 

  1. Council implement a Register of Policies on the website (as an HTML webpage not PDF); and

 

  1. The register include links to the policies on Council’s website and when they were adopted.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Crs Byrne, Drury, Lockie, Macri and York

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

C0318 Item 16    Notice of Motion: Minister’s Award in Local Government

Motion: (York/Drury)

 

That this item be deferred.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

C0318 Item 17    Notice of Motion: Councillor Access to Media Services

Motion: (Stamolis/Porteous)

 

THAT Councillors be provided with access to media services that are needed for their work and role as a Councillor.  These include:

 

  • Sydney Morning Herald (week day and weekend);
  • Daily Telegraph; and
  • Courier - Inner West and other regions.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Crs Byrne, Drury, Macri and York

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

Foreshadowed Motion (Kiat)

 

THAT Councillors be provided with access to media and journal services  through the Councillors Expenses and Facilities Policy (within the existing ICT budget)  that are needed for their work. Such as:

 

  • Sydney Morning Herald (week day and weekend);
  • Daily Telegraph; and
  • Courier - Inner West and other regions.

 

This Foreshadowed Motion lapsed.

 

C0318 Item 18    Notice of Motion: Marion Street Cottages

Motion: (Porteous/Da Cruz)

 

THAT:

 

  1. Council conducts an independent legal review of the planning decision to demolish the buildings at 9 and 11 Marion St Leichhardt for the following reasons:

a)    Council notes that Council officers have refused to answer Councillors questions regarding the validity of Council's approval of the demolition of the Marion St cottages under the relevant planning regulations;

b)    Council staff have informed Councillors that no document which records the authorisation of the demolition decision exists;

c)    The review of environmental factors did not take into account the aboriginal art present on the buildings;

  1. Council undertake an independent governance review of Council decision making with regard to the demolition of the cottages at 9 and 11 Marion St Leichhardt for the following reasons:

a)    There is no written record of approval by the Council. Whether the approval was legally valid or not proper governance requires an written authorisation by a person who had the appropriate level of delegated authority and who declared in writing that they had taken into account the matters prescribed by law that had to be considered. 

b)    The Consultants have been provided with limited information on the history of plans for the cottages and are relying on a 2006 Masterplan which has been overridden on many occasions by more recent resolutions of council. They were not, for example, made aware of the fact that Leichhardt Council had allocated into their 2012/2013 budget 2.1 million to retain the cottages and convert them to a community centre for young people. Why was the 2012/13 information not provided to the consultants?

c)    Council staff acted on a 2006 masterplan and ignored later 2012/13 decision which provided a budget to retain the cottages. The review should establish what was the ost recent decision of Council regarding the future of the cottages and if that was complied with by Council staff.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Crs Byrne, Drury, Macri and York

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

C0318 Item 22    Notice of Motion: Multicultural Policy

Motion: (Macri/Byrne)

 

THAT this item be deferred.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

Councillor Porteous requested that the meeting consider an urgency motion with regards to  the Addison Road Community Centre and Greek Atlas Club.

 

Urgency Motion – Addison Road Community Centre and Greek Atlas Club

 

Motion (Porteous/Byrne)

 

THAT the motion be considered as a matter of urgency.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

The Mayor declared this matter was urgent.

 

Motion: (Porteous/Byrne)

 

THAT a report come back to the next Ordinary Council Meeting about the compliance issues for Addison Road Community Centre and Greek Atlas Club with options on how these issues can be rectified.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

 

 

 

 

 

Confidential Session

 

Motion (Drury/Stamolis)

 

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

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

Members of the public were asked to leave the Chamber.

 

Councillor Macri retired from the Meeting at 10:56 pm.

 

Motion: (Hesse/Drury)

 

 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, Kiat, Lockie, Porteous, Stamolis, Steer and York

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar, Macri, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

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

Council.

 

Reports with Confidential Information

 

C0318 Item 24    Balmain Telstra Building and Public Space Project

Motion: (Stamolis/Byrne)

 

THAT Council defer the matter pending a Councillor briefing session and consult with Telstra about the possibility of gaining additional space now which will enable an increase in the area of the civic square. A report to come back to Council which details:

 

  • The increase costs to Council;
  • Any additional costs to Council; and
  • Any changes in timeframes.

 

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Crs Iskandar, Macri, McKenna OAM and Passas

 

Meeting closed at  11.00pm.

 

Public Speakers:

 

 

Item #

 

Speaker                     

Suburb

Item 11:

William Holliday

Lilyfield

Item 19:

Gillian Reffell

Alex Lofts

Summer Hill

Summer Hill

Item 20:

Kelvin Riordan

Elizabeth Rechniewski

Kim Heras

Annandale

Annandale

Annandale

Item 21:

John Butcher

Marrickville

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 

Item No:         C0418 Item 1

Subject:         Inner West Council Climate and Renewables Strategy           

Prepared By:     Jon Stiebel - Urban Sustainability Manager  

Authorised By:  Jan Orton - Group Manager Sustainability and Environment

 

SUMMARY

At the Council meeting 24 October 2017, Council resolved (C1017) to take a number of actions to position the Inner West as a leader in renewables and join the Climate Council Cities Power Partnership.

This report outlines:  

·    the steps to adoption of a Climate and Renewables Strategy

·    an update on implementation of climate and renewable projects already underway

·    the five pledge commitments for consideration by Council, as required by the Cities Power Partnership.

·    recommendations in relation to the SSROC Renewable Energy Power Purchase Agreement

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

 

1.       Note the project outline for the development of a Climate and Renewables Strategy;

 

2.       Adopt the five pledges for the Inner West’s commitment to the Cities Power Partnership outlined in the report;

 

3.       Procure an initial 25% renewable energy through the SSROC Renewable Energy Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) noting the opportunity to scale up over time; and

 

4.       Endorse the General Manager accepting the Recommended Tenderer from the SSROC Renewable Energy Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) RFT process and executing a contract with the Recommended Tenderer.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

At the Council meeting 24 October 2017, Council resolved (C1017) to join the Climate Council Cities Power Partnership (CPP) with a focus on pledging actions focused on solar and renewables leadership.

 

In summary the resolution (C1017) commits Council to:

1.   Join the Cities Power Partnership (CPP) and pledge five actions

2.   Report back on how Council will:

a)   Commit to the Cities Power Partnership pledges

b)   Become 100% carbon neutral

c)   Achieve 100% divestment from fossil fuels

d)   Become a leader in solar photovoltaic energy (PV) by:

§ Installing solar PV on all new Council-owned developments

§ Retrofitting existing Council facilities with PV where viable

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

§ Set time-bound targets for community renewable energy uptake and energy conservation

§ Set renewable energy and energy efficiency benchmarks for new private developments

§ Investigate best options for adopting solar and renewables across the LGA

§ Support local community energy organisations as well as residents and commercial properties to install and manage solar

§ Investigate financial models to support installation of solar

§ Investigate the feasibility of an all-electric vehicle council fleet

§ Solar power purchase agreement, regional solar farm partnership and/or local solar farm pilot to offset residual Council operational energy requirements

3.   Develop an Integrated Climate and Renewables Strategy that aligns actions under the CPP and the REI

4.   Develop a 3 year Community Engagement strategy to promote awareness of renewal energy options and benefits

 

Further, Council resolved on 12 December 2017 (C1217):

 

·    To investigate the feasibility of an Inner West Council Solar Farm and include options to share investment and return savings with the community.

 

Community Strategic Plan – Creating Our Inner West 2036

 

The Inner West community continues to express a high level of interest in sustainability and an expectation that Council will show leadership in this area.

 

The submission from the Environment Strategic Reference Group to the Inner West Community Strategic Plan was for a:

 

Zero emissions community owning its own renewable energy.

 

This is completely aligned with the resolutions from Council and has been included as a long term objective in the Draft Community Strategic Plan – Creating Our Inner West 2036.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

 

REPORT

This report outlines:  

1.   the steps to adoption of a Climate and Renewables Strategy

2.   an update on implementation of climate and renewable projects already underway

3.   the five pledge commitments for consideration by Council, as required by the Cities Power Partnership.

4.   recommendations for Council in relation to the SSROC Renewable Energy Power Purchase Agreement.

 

1.    Climate and Renewables Strategy

Council resolution C1017 seeks as its third major element an Inner West Council Climate and Renewables Strategy (Strategy).

The anticipated timeframe from commencement to adoption of the Strategy is 12-18 months.

Work on the project has commenced and Council continues to align projects including Our Energy Future and Green Living Centre programs. Budget is available in 2018/19 to commence projects such as energy efficiency and solar PV that will be identified in Stage 1.

The project to deliver the integrated Strategy is summarised in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 Project process Integrated Climate and Renewables Strategy

 

Stage 1 – INCEPTION, RESEARCH AND ENGAGEMENT

Quotes for technical assessments and reports have been received and it is expected that consultants will be engaged and on board in April 2018.

Stage 1 Elements:

1.       Communications and Engagement Plan

2.       Inner West Council Corporate: technical investigations and feasibility - prepare report/s on the following:

·    Onsite solutions

i. Council Corporate baseline – carbon emissions and energy profile Assessment of renewable and energy efficiency opportunities with greatest potential to contribute to the 100% carbon neutral/100%renewable targets.

ii. Options for electric/sustainable fleet.

 

·    Offsite solutions - Addressing remaining corporate renewable energy demand including:

I.    The feasibility and initial discussion for a business case for Inner West Council to invest in a solar farm to offset Council’s electricity consumption across facilities and operations;

II.   Opportunities to share investment and return savings with the community/businesses, including direct community investment and / or savings passed on through rates discounts;

III.  Council direct investment/ownership in another type of renewable technology e.g. a wind farm;

IV.  Renewable Energy Power Purchase Agreement (PPA);

V.   Any other viable renewable energy option or business model not included above; and

VI.  NCOS compliant offsetting of scope 3 emissions. 

3.       Inner West Community

·    Greenhouse Gas Emissions Profile

·    Barriers and opportunities to greenhouse gas mitigation and renewable energy

i. Urban planning

ii. Efficiency and Renewables

iii.            Economic incentives

iv.           Community capacity, partnerships

v.            Infrastructure

vi.           Policy & Governance

 

Stage 2 – DEVELOPMENT AND ENGAGEMENT

Stage 2 Elements

·    Review Stage 1 information

·    Develop draft strategies and actions

·    Develop Budget

·    Councillor and stakeholder engagement

·    Draft strategy prepared for exhibition

 

Stage 3 – ADOPTION

Stage 3 Elements:

·    Council resolution to exhibit Draft Climate and Renewables Plan

·    Public Exhibition

·    Review public exhibition submissions

·    Draft strategy amendments

·    Post exhibition Report

·    Adopt Climate and Renewables Strategy

 

2.       Implementation Update

Council staff continue to implement projects aligned to the Draft Community Strategic Plan and Council resolutions while the Strategy is in development including:

·    Our Energy Future

·    Green Living Centre Programs

 

Our Energy Future

Launched in July 2017, Our Energy Future is a SSROC Renewable Energy Master Plan Project. Positive Charge a social enterprise of the Moreland Energy Foundation Ltd (MEFL) has been engaged to deliver the project.  

Our Energy Future (OEF) provides trustworthy, low cost and up-to-date energy saving advice, services and products to households, businesses, schools and community groups. Building on the success of a 2017/18 pilot the OEF program will offer the following services to Inner West residents in 2018/19:

·    The Our Energy Future website and social media channels

·    Residential energy efficiency and solar information

·    The Our Energy Future Energy 1300 Helpline

·    Residential Home Energy Assessment

·    Procurement of trusted suppliers for:

Solar PV (Alternative Technology Association reviewed)

LEDs

Heat Pumps

Draught proofing and insulation

Solar Hot Water

 

There will be a preparing your home for winter campaign and information session commencing in April and a solar PV campaign scheduled for spring.

The latest Inner West Our Energy Future program statistics are:

·    Total number of Inner West Council solar quotes since program launch = 432

·    Total number of solar sales since program launch = 94

·    Conversion rate for solar quotes to sales in Inner West = 20% (industry average 10%)

Green Living Centre

The Green Living Centre started in Newtown in 2003 and has been working with the local community to live more sustainably. The Newtown shop-front closed on 22 December 2017 and the Green Living Centre will be popping up across the inner west in 2018 while a new location in the LGA is established. Green Living Centre staff are running workshops and projects to support the local community including solar workshops.

The Green Living Centre has success with linking potential community energy partners (e.g. Young Henry's Brewery with Pingala Community Energy) and will continue to identify opportunities to link potential community energy partners. The Green Living Centre and the Urban Sustainability team will address the resolution to: Establish an Office of Renewable Energy Innovation.

 

3.       Climate Council Cities Power Partnership Pledge

Council resolved to join the Climate Council’s Cities Power Partnership (CPP) at its meeting of 24 October 2017 (C1017).

Inner West Council was accepted into round two of the CPP which was officially launched on Tuesday 30 January 2018.

Council has until June 2018 to select five key actions from the partnership pledge.

Although broader in scope, the development of the Climate and Renewables Strategy will provide robust data and information and a clear framework for Council to meet its five CPP pledges.

This report recommends that Council pledge the following actions:

Prepare an Inner West Climate and Renewables Strategy with a 100% carbon neutral target for Council

 

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

Install solar PV on Inner West Council buildings

Investigate the best options and support residents and commercial property managers to install and own solar and renewable energy

Implement an urban sustainability community education and behavior change program to drive the shift to renewable energy and efficiency

 

 

4.       SSROC Renewable Energy Power Purchase Agreement (PPA)

All three former inner west councils participated in the eight council SSROC Renewable Energy Master Plan (2013) project.

Inner West Council continues to work with SSROC to implement the master plan. A key action is the joint procurement of renewable energy.

In 2017, SSROC commenced a project for joint procurement of renewable energy via a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). A PPA is a contract between an electricity buyer and an electricity generator.

PPAs are gaining momentum in Australia and driving new investment in renewable energy projects. Organisations are using PPAs as a strategy to reduce exposure to a volatile electricity market, lower costs and meet greenhouse gas emissions targets.

Market testing in October 2017 demonstrated a strong financial case for a renewables PPA. Subsequently SSROC released a Request for Tender (RFT) in November 2017.  SSROC could not accept any of the tenders as they didn’t receive a retail offer with the PPA submissions.

Market sounding meetings were subsequently held with organisations from different sections of the renewable energy market to better inform the process. 

During the market sounding process, SSROC has been able to encourage innovation by getting the market to reconsider their offerings to match the needs and requirements of local government. It was agreed to re-issue the RFT to a selective group of renewable energy providers. This latest RFT was issued on 21 March 2018 and closes 9 April 2018.  

The objective of this PPA tender is to have a contract with a retailer to provide total Council electricity needs from renewable and non-renewable sources from 1 July 2019.

The term of the renewable electricity supply is expected to be 10 years. The non-renewable component has been requested to be a maximum of 3 years to enable successive market testing and repricing of the non-renewables component.

The tender encourages renewable energy projects that can scale up over time, thereby allowing councils to progressively increase their renewables component to meet targets.

There are now eighteen Councils participating in the SSROC PPA project. Each Council has been asked to nominate an initial percentage of their total energy load to be supplied by the 1st PPA, with the majority of Councils opting for 20% (with the option to scale up over time).

 

There are four councils, including Inner West that have indicated interest in procuring a higher percentage of renewables (between 20% and 50%) subject to review of, and agreement with the contract terms and conditions.

 

This report recommends that Inner West Council commence with 25% renewable energy through the SSROC PPA considering the following:

 

·    Council has an existing December 2017 meeting resolution (C1217) to investigate the feasibility of an Inner West Council solar farm. Locking in a high percentage of renewables for 10 years through the PPA may impact the solar farm business case. Quotes have been received to commence the solar farm feasibility study and it is expected the consultant will be engaged in April.

 

·    The tender has been written to allow Councils to scale up their percentage of renewables progressively over time.

 

·    It provides an opportunity to test the PPA approach before scaling up.

 

·    The cost of renewable energy is predicted to reduce over time, meaning subsequent PPA offers may be cheaper.

 

·    Inner West Council can demonstrate leadership by commencing with 25% renewables while developing an evidence based Climate and Renewables Plan outlining the pathway to 100% carbon neutral and renewable.

 

The PPA tender closes 9th April 2018. Evaluation of Best and Final Price will occur up until 23 April. Prices are only held for 48 hours and will require the General Manager to sign off on the contract in the week of the 23 April 2018. This report includes a recommendation to authorise the General Manager to sign the SSROC Power Purchase Agreement.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Council's Group Manager Procurement and Fleet, Group Manager Finance, and Group Manager Properties, Major Projects and Facilities have reviewed the report and agree with the report recommendations.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The Environment Strategic Reference were provided with a briefing paper on this report on 19 March 2018. Staff will be developing a stakeholder communications and engagement plan that will detail how all stakeholders will be engaged throughout the development of the Climate and Renewables Strategy.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 

Item No:         C0418 Item 2

Subject:         Improving Inner West Waterways            

Prepared By:     Jean Brennan - Urban Ecology Manager 

Authorised By:  Jan Orton - Group Manager Sustainability and Environment

 

SUMMARY

This report responds to the C1017 Item 6 Notice of Motion: Inner West Waterways, Council meeting 31 October, 2017.

 

The expectation to have clean and healthy local waterways that are swimmable means Inner West Council will need to focus its efforts on improving the quality of stormwater runoff from its catchments, taking a water-sensitive approach. To support this objective, Inner West Council will be developing urban ecology subcatchment plans for locally appropriate, water sensitive urban design and green infrastructure.

 

This report outlines the work Council has undertaken to date: implementing stormwater treatment works, and working regionally with the Parramatta River Catchment Group to improve the health of Parramatta River and create a swimming site at Callan Park; with the Cooks River Alliance to develop the Cooks River Catchment Coastal Management Plan; and with the Sydney Coastal Councils Group on its plastics and sewer overflow programs. It then makes recommendations for Council’s consideration.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Receive a further report following the endorsement of the Our Living River Masterplan, by the Parramatta River Catchment Group – on  investigations into the Callan Park swim site;

 

2.   Endorses addressing Parramatta River, Cooks River and Sydney Harbour waterway and catchment health through:

a.   developing whole of IWC urban ecology strategic plans with costed programs;

 

b.   preparing subcatchment plans for WSUD and green infrastructure with  areas identified as potential swim sites as a priority;

 

c.   Continuing to work regionally on plans and actions that lead to measurable improvements to water quality and ecological health; and

 

d.   Continuing to partner with research institutions to keep up-to-date with leading thinking and technologies that will help improve waterways and enable safe swimming. 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

This report addresses C1017 Item 6 Notice of Motion: Inner West Waterways, Council meeting 31 October, 2017 that Council:

 

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

 

2.   The report to include costings for the main works and whether these are already in Council’s forward planning.

Community desire, advocacy and institutional ability and willingness to make the Parramatta and Cooks rivers swimmable and ecologically healthy again have been gaining momentum, particularly since the environmental clean-up associated with the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. The catchments of both rivers are highly urbanised and currently under substantial pressure from urban intensification, making stormwater and water pollution a significant factor in addressing ecosystem health, for selecting sites for primary contact, such as swimming, and for other recreational activities. 

Report outline

This report provides:

·    information about water, catchments, and the Inner West’s water cycle to provide the physical context that informs planning and action for improving waterway and catchment health.

·    a discussion about stormwater quality measures through water sensitive urban design (WSUD) and pollutant traps that Council and others are using to protect waterways, the program of capital works and allocated expenditure for WSUD.

·    details of Council has been working with the PRCG to improve the health of Parramatta River and create a swimming site at Callan Park. 

·    details of how the Cooks River Alliance (CRA) is supporting Inner West Council to make measureable improvements on the river’s water quality and ecological health.

·    A summary for Council’s proposed approach to improving local waterways.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

NIL

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Staff from Roads and Stormwater and Parks Capital Works provided information on the forward capital program and GPTs. Parks Planning staff confirmed the information regarding Callan Park swimming site.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Not applicable

 

DISCUSSION

A.  Context – Council Planning and Inner West Water Cycle

1.   Inner West Council planning for waterways

The draft Inner West Community Strategic Plan includes as its first goal:

“An ecologically sustainable Inner West.”

 

The goal has five objectives, including that:

“Inner West is a water sensitive community, with clean, swimmable waterways.”

 

This goal grew out of previous strategic direction from Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville councils, extensive community engagement throughout 2016/17, particularly reflecting the intentions of the Environment Strategic Reference Group of local experts who provided clear direction on their expectations for Council’s environment program.

 

The water sensitive community approach to waterway and catchment management continues the Council’s research-based water management program that was informed by the 16-year partnership with universities (UNSW and Monash University) and the Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities. The goal for a water sensitive Inner West community will be delivered through the following strategies:

1.   Supply water from within Inner West catchments – rainwater and stormwater harvesting

2.   Provide green infrastructure to support increased ecosystem services (shade and cooling, fresh air and clean water) 

3.   Collaborate to make plans, designs and decisions that are water sensitive – including working with community stakeholders on local subcatchment plans, develop water sensitive land use and planning controls

2.   Inner West Local Government Area Water Cycle

 

The Inner West Water Cycle (Figure 1) shows what happens to water entering and leaving the Inner West LGA. It indicates where to direct focus and prioritise infrastructure and community programs for measurable improvements to Parramatta and Cooks rivers. 

Figure 1 Water Cycle of the Inner West LGA

 

The Inner West Water Cycle highlights that:

·      More than twice as much rain falls in the Inner West LGA than is brought in via Sydney Water’s mains to supply the LGA.

·      Most mains water leaves the catchment as sewage via the sewerage system. The treated wastewater is discharged into the Tasman Sea via the Malabar Ocean Outfall.

·      76% of Inner West’s rainfall runs off mainly hard (impervious) surfaces and into drains, carrying pollution to the Cooks River, Parramatta River and Sydney Harbour.

 

 

 

 

 

Impervious surfaces

·      71% of the Inner West is covered with hard surfaces (Figure 2 highlights where stormwater runoff comes from – roofs and roads make up the majority of the hard (impervious) surfaces. The polluted runoff from roads and properties, particularly roofs, mixes in stormwater drainage network.

Figure 2 Proportion of impervious areas with pervious area.

Figure 3 Source of pollution (nutrients and fine sediments) in stormwater.

*Suspended solids are small solid particles that stay in suspension in water.

 

Water quality modelling completed for the IWC identifies the degree of pollution coming from each source by looking at the different types of impervious areas (Figure 3).

·      Roads and roofs combined are the source of 75% on runoff in Inner West LGA.

·      Public roads contribute the largest amount of suspended solids and phosphorous

·      Roofs collect nitrogen and gross pollutants, including organic matter and sediment.

·      Stormwater also collects sewer overflows containing pathogens and heavy metals from vehicles and roads.

 

Water Quality in Parramatta and Cooks rivers

The three main factors affecting the health and water quality of local waterways are: 

1.   Sewer overflows – owned and managed by Sydney Water Corporation 

2.   Sediment contamination – responsibility of various government agencies

3.   Stormwater – Council has most influence; Sydney Water also responsible.

A.            The main physical cause of stormwater runoff is the high and increasing imperviousness of the catchments that causes the high volume and poor quality of stormwater runoff.

Water sensitive approach to management

These factors are best addressed though taking a consistent catchment-wide water sensitive approach that sets measurable targets to:

1.   Reduce overall imperviousness

2.   Slow stormwater runoff

3.   Treat stormwater runoff

These can be achieved through:

a.   planning for green infrastructure and community and stakeholder action at the local subcatchment level (IWC has almost 40 subcatchments) . 

b.   Developing catchment-wide targets for consistent land use and development controls

c.   Working regionally with:

i.    the Parramatta River Catchment Group and the Cooks River Alliance on catchment management plans, identifying swim sites, and pollution reduction initiatives

ii.    Sydney Coastal Councils Group will work with Sydney Water Corporation to address sewer defects and non-compliant connections within the LGA, and other pollution reduction initiatives

d.   Maintain current and develop new research partnerships for Council to keep abreast of leading thinking and technologies the will help improve waterways and enable safe swimming. 

B. Stormwater treatment on stormwater drains in Inner West LGA

1.   Responsibility for Inner West LGA drainage infrastructure

Council is responsible for managing stormwater runoff from the Inner West LGA. However, some stormwater infrastructure is owned by Sydney Water, including sections of pipes, pits, Sydenham Detention Basin and the main stormwater channels draining to Parramatta and Cooks rivers (e.g. Eastern Channel, Hawthorne and Dobroyd canals). Council manages most GPTs, but Sydney Water mainly owns and manages the larger trash racks and traps at the point of entry into the rivers.

2.   Council’s stormwater treatment program

Addressing the ecological health and water quality of the Parramatta and Cooks River to enable recreation (swimming) depends on removing the pollutants from all the stormwater runoff from the Inner West LGA catchments, using the water sensitive urban design (WSUD) approaches, including treating and harvesting stormwater,

 

WSUD approaches include rain gardens (biofiltration), wetlands and ponds (biofiltration and detention), stormwater harvesting (capture and reuse), green roofs and walls (biofiltration), porous paving and depaving (infiltration).  Council’s WSUD works are mainly identified and prioritised through subcatchment planning and included in parks plans of management, and when designing traffic and streetscape upgrades and renewals. They are then prioritised and included in the 10-year capital delivery program.

Inner West Council has installed a number of water sensitive urban design facilities and gross pollutant traps that capture pollutants from stormwater. They are designed to assist Council to achieve its stormwater quality obligations not to discharge pollutants into receiving waterways.

 

Current WSUD in the Inner West

Council has constructed: 

·    30 rain gardens (biofiltration systems) that treat runoff from 34Ha of the LGA

·    2 wetlands – Tempe Wetlands (3 ponds), Whites Creek Wetland (there are also saltmarsh wetlands which are valued more for habitat quality rather than water treatment)

·    11 stormwater harvesting systems using the runoff to irrigate sports fields with plans for others to be constructed when funding becomes available

·    Depaving - Through its footpath replacement and Sustainable Street programs, Council has worked with the community to extend the area of non-concreted verges. 

 

Gross pollutant traps

GPTs are designed to stop gross pollutants (litter, organics and sediments) from entering the stormwater system and waterways, primarily through screening. There is a range of GPT devices at various scales and capital cost. They include the common pollutant traps and baskets seen in stormwater pits, screens, trash racks and the bottom of channels and in-stream litter booms on waterways. They are mainly used in existing drainage systems, either in pipes, at outfalls, or in open channels and sometimes used as ‘pre-treatments’ in WSUD treatment systems.

 

GPTs filter large pollutants (over 2mm). The most common pollutants found in Inner West GPTs are plastic bags, plastic bottles and takeaway food containers. Organic (vegetation) material also makes up a large percentage.

 

In 2016, Council’s 23 GPTs stopped:

·    47.7 tonnes of material going into the Cooks River (organic matter 28.6 tonnes, sediment 15.1 tonnes, litter 4.1 tonnes).

·    44.5 tonnes of material entering Parramatta River.

 

NSW Roads and Maritime Services (Maritime) collects gross pollutants directly from the Parramatta River with more than 3,500 cubic metres of rubbish collected from the Parramatta and Lane Cove Rivers every year. Sydney Water has two litter booms on the Cooks River and one in Muddy Creek, collecting over 1,100 cubic metres of plastic and organic matter per year.

 

A significant amount of gross pollutants from catchments managed by councils still enters waterways by blowing directly into waterways and by direct littering.  GPTs do not deal with micropollutants - pathogens, nutrients and chemical pollutants – that are the main inhibiters to waterway health and recreation, including swimming.

 

Gross pollutants have a relatively expensive capital cost and are an end-of-pipe solution requiring regular maintenance to be effective.

 

Current Capital program for WSUD and GPTs

A prioritised list of stand-alone WSUD projects for the Marrickville service area, identified through subcatchment planning, parks plans of management and precinct masterplans has been developed and is subject to annual review.  The 2016-17 Inner West Council Gross Pollutant Trap Scoping Study includes a recommended list of GPTs, covering the Leichhardt service area, for consideration in the forward capital program.

 

The five-year stormwater capital program (2017/18 – 2022/23) includes WSUD related projects amounting to approximately $3.8 million. These include rain gardens, GPT’s, Blackmore Oval Wetland, and remediation of Dibble Avenue Waterhole in Dulwich Hill.  In addition to such projects, opportunities are pursued during infrastructure design to incorporate WSUD principles where practicable into proposed works.

 

The WSUD related projects in the parks five-year capital program amount to approximately $1.8 million and comprise bioretention, swale, and wetland systems at Steel Park and HJ Mahoney Reserve on the Cooks River foreshore, and priority Greenway WSUD infrastructure such as wetland and creek works at Hercules Street and bioretention systems at Terry Road and Lewisham West. Council is currently partnering with Sydney Water on Waterway Health Improvement Program projects at Hoskins Park and Mackey Park. The subsequent capital program (2023-2025) includes a further $1.4m in WSUD related projects including Marrickville Park sports field upgrade and stormwater harvesting and Camdenville Park Upgrade stormwater harvesting and rain garden. In addition to these projects, park upgrade designs aim to incorporate other WSUD principles such as on-site absorption and permeable paving.

 

New WSUD

New sites for WSUD will be identified through the development of Urban Ecology Subcatchment Planning, and Parks plans of management and prioritised for implementation.

 

Council will continue to seek grant funding to expedite the program. Council will work regionally with the Parramatta River Catchment Group, Cooks River Alliance, and Sydney Coastal Group that may also identify works through the development of catchment management plans and masterplans.

 

C. Creating a safe swim site on the Inner West LGA part of the Parramatta River

 

Background of PRCG

The Inner West Council, previously Leichhardt and Ashfield councils, has been an active member of the Parramatta River Catchment Group (PRCG) since its formation in 2008. With 14 current financial members, the PRCG includes 11 Parramatta River catchment councils as well as Sydney Water, Department of Planning and Environment and NSW Environment Protection Authority. The PRCG provides an overarching strategic and coordination role for the catchment, focusing on activities where catchment-wide efforts will lead to better results than councils and government agencies working individually. 

 

The Our Living River initiative with Masterplan for swim sites

In 2014, the PRCG launched the Our Living River initiative with the purpose of making the Parramatta River a ‘living river’ and the mission of making the river swimmable by 2025.  Inner West Council (previously Leichhardt and Ashfield councils) has provided ongoing support for this initiative since 2012 and has renewed its interests by now having Councillor Drury as the current Chair and Council’s Urban Ecology Manager on its Executive Committee.

 

Council has also worked with the PRCG on joint compliance and education campaigns to reduce pollution of the river including the recent successful Get the Site Right campaign that targets construction sites. Inner West Council was a joint award winner for this campaign in the LGNSW Excellence in the Environment Awards in 2017.

 

To achieve the Our Living River mission, the PRCG has been developing the Parramatta River Masterplan that has objectives to:

·   Improve the health of the river

·   Strategically tackle issues of sewer and stormwater pollution

·   Provide tangible benefits to the local community

·   Provide the best cost-benefit for the community

 

 

Progress of Masterplan development

The objectives are being delivered in two stages:

Ø Stage One - Research and analysis (completed)

Ø Stage Two - Decision Making - swim site prioritisation, community and stakeholder engagement and waterway governance (underway), and economic analysis (scoped and soon to commence).

 

1.   Stage One - Research and analysis

The development of the Masterplan began with the identification of potential new swimming sites. These sites these became the focus of the following research projects:

a)   Water Quality study

b)   Ecological Health study

c)   Swim Site Activation Framework development

d)   Community Research study

 

Initial selection for swimming sites

A total 12 potential new swimming locations across the length of the Parramatta River were shortlisted for assessment as part of the Masterplan, along with the existing 4 swimming sites along the river at Lake Parramatta, Cabarita beach, Chiswick baths and Dawn Fraser Baths (Figure 4).

Figure 4. The 16 potential and existing swimming sites in the Parramatta River Catchment

These sites were shortlisted based on community voting of their favourite swimming site and conversations with foreshore land managers. Callan Park was not initially on the list of voting sites, however, it was the most popular non-listed swimming location added by community members, and the Office of Environment and Heritage specifically requested for it to be added to the shortlist.

 

Water Quality Study

This study determined how to assess water quality for swimming in the Parramatta River by researching:

·    the condition of the river and proposed swim sites and how it changes over time

·    future monitoring needs, including the contaminants to monitor

·    the potential impacts of various options for local and catchment-scale management interventions to improve water quality to enable swimming by 2025.

The study reviewed existing water quality and sediment data to determine the condition of proposed swimming sites for recreational suitability and general ecosystem health. Results indicate that those sites currently open, including Dawn Fraser Pool, are generally suitable for swimming during dry weather. However, following wet weather, bacteria (enterococci) numbers increase, making the sites unsuitable for swimming. This is consistent with Beachwatch recommendations not to swim at river sites within three days of heavy rain.

Sediment contamination has been reported at several sites within the river and many sites are affected by nutrients from sewer overflows and stormwater runoff.

However, while water quality appears to be improving overall as a result of current catchment management measures, the review recommended a targeted monitoring program to fill data gaps and provide better information for future management decisions to make the river swimmable. Requirements for targeted monitoring programs will be indicated in the Masterplan for those sites selected and agreed to be developed by the relevant councils.

 

Modelling of scenarios with different management interventions (targeted sewer overflow management, education, rainwater harvesting and rain gardens) shows that the water quality in the lower Parramatta River, (Inner West LGA) would significantly improve, and new swimming sites could be gained. Except for Lake Parramatta, the upper river is unlikely to allow for natural river swimming by 2025 under current guidelines. Further water quality monitoring and subsequent modelling was recommended, particularly at the lower river sites where natural river swimming appears feasible and will need to occur once sites are selected.

 

Water quality modelling results for Dawn Fraser baths and Callan Park indicate that both sites are likely to be safe for swimming by 2025. Specifically,

 

·    Dawn Fraser Baths, being on the main channel of the Parramatta River, is highly influenced by tidal flushing and dilution, which lowers the concentration of pollution within the water. Thus, water quality at Dawn Fraser is currently very good and predicted to remain this way to 2025.

 

·    Callan Park is at higher risk of poor water quality, as it has less influence from tidal flushing due to its location in Iron Cove. Catchment interventions will have greater benefit in improving water quality at Callan Park, and across the whole of Iron Cove.

Ecological Health Study

The study investigated ecosystem health in the Parramatta River and how it connects to a swimmable river through the identification and management of five community selected iconic animal species. These are the: Bar-tailed godwit, Striped marsh frog, Eastern long-necked turtle, Southern myotis (a type of fishing bat), and the Powerful owl. These animals will be used to indicate water quality and catchment health and the requirements for habitat protection, habitat management and habitat creation in programs to be developed once sites are selected and responsibilities determined.

 

 

Swim Site Activation Framework

Swim site activation is the critical part of the Masterplan. The study provided the framework for activation of potential swim sites along the river by assessing: 1) feasibility, 2) vulnerability, and 3) desirability. The existing Dawn Fraser Pool and a site in Callan Park are being evaluated using this method.

 

1.  Feasibility criteria:

·     Ecological restrictions

·     Boat traffic

·     Water quality

·     Bathymetry – depth and nature of river bed

·     Publicly available land

2.  Vulnerability criteria

This assessment of risks is based on the Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Waters  (Australian Government National Health and Research Council, 2008). It includes water quality, water clarity, river dynamics, river bed physical hazards, river bank and river edge characteristics, and heritage.

The vulnerability assessment takes into account microbial water quality and heavy metal contamination, critical factors in assessing the suitability of human contact with the river due to potential health risks. Exact sources of pollution, including dry weather sewage discharges, are not easily detected and sites initially identified as suitable for primary contact activity, such as swimming, may still be vulnerable to changes in water quality over time, such as during wet weather. The various land uses in the catchment (e.g. industrial, residential, and road reserves), can impact heavily on water quality. For example, sites with sewer overflows or industrial land uses in close proximity to the swim site would have a higher vulnerability for poor water quality due to the local impacts of sewer overflow or industrial discharges.

 

3.  Desirability assessment criteria

Urban form elements affect the overall swim site appeal and the frequency people would visit a location. It is possible to improve a site’s desirability and highlight areas for improvement using these criteria.

·     Access and movement

·     Adjacent open space

·     Natural environment

·     Built form and aesthetics (e.g. places to eat and sit, amenities, retail and events)

·     Governance and implementation for resources to support activation

·     Community demand and support

Given that a number of these criteria are dependent on personal judgement, the PRCG decided to undertake on-site community focus groups with local residents, as well as additional face to face and on-line surveys (totalling 168 surveys), to better understand community perceptions of each site and their current and future desirability to swim at each site. These assessments were then presented to a stakeholder workshop in August 2017, where the sites were further discussed and prioritised.

 

Community Research

The research identified current community behaviour and how it would change with Parramatta River being swimmable; the barriers to people currently swimming in the river; and preferences for activating local swimming sites. This research involved focus groups plus a statistically significant survey of over 1100 people within the catchment spread across the 11 council areas. This research clearly demonstrated that there is a huge appetite for swimming in the Parramatta River, with Inner West residents showing a higher level of interest and use of river pools than the overall catchment population.

The research showed that Inner West residents were:

·    Strong users of pools or baths in the Parramatta River (17% of Inner West residents surveyed said they have used one in the last 12 months compared with 9% of people overall)

·    Very interested in accessing recreational facilities near the proposed swimming areas on the Parramatta River (88% of Inner West residents compared to 82% overall)

·    Very interested in accessing a designated swimming area in the Parramatta River (74% of swimmers in Inner West compared to 68% overall).

 

In relation to the Inner West LGA swimming site, the relevant Stage One outcomes are:

·    The confirmation of the existing Dawn Fraser Pool (Figure 4, site 16) to continue as a swimming site.

·    A new site in Callan Park (Figure 4, site 15) was identified and is being further investigated for swimmability in Stage Two. 

 

2.   Stage Two – Decision Making

The outcomes of Stage One have provided the evidence base to inform decisions on the actions, pathways and targets that will form the final Masterplan to make the Parramatta River swimmable again by 2025.

 

Next Steps

Staff from the Urban Ecology, Trees Parks and Sportsfields, and Recreation and Aquatics teams of Inner West Council will continue to work with the PRCG on the following phases of Stage Two. This will include:

1.  A governance review of water quality, swim site activation and ecological health (almost complete). The review will confirm the current governance structures and provide recommendations for how the Masterplan outcomes can be best delivered.

·    A high level governance workshop (held in late March 2018) will:

-    capture feedback and gain agreement on the Masterplan recommendations

-    determine the actions to be taken and how based on the evidence

-    make recommendations regarding stakeholders, responsibilities and accountabilities which will be included in the Draft Masterplan.

-    identify options for the future overarching governance of the Masterplan

2.  Community and stakeholder engagement to determine the desirability of shortlisted swim sites, including the Callan Park site, and the process to gain agreement and ownership of the actions, pathways and targets of the Masterplan.

3.  Representatives from the PRCG, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, and Council met with consultants in October 2017 to discuss the issues at the Callan park site. This informed the Stakeholder and Community Engagement Report (November 2017) that  was part of the desirability and feasibility assessment of the Callan Park site and its subsequent ranking of 9th by the community in the list of 12 swim sites for site activation as reported in the Activation Framework Report  (December 2017).

4.  The analysis of the overall economic benefits of returning the Parramatta River to swimmable conditions and how this can be best achieved is underway and to be finalised by May, 2018.

5.  Development of a well-supported final Masterplan for the Parramatta River to be implemented by all relevant stakeholders.

·    Draft Masterplan to be finalised by 2 June, 2018, for the PRCG Full Group meeting

·    Public consultation for 6 weeks over June and July

·    Final Masterplan completed by October 2018 to be launched at the Parramatta Riverfest 2018 

Parramatta River Swim sites in the Inner West

1.   Dawn Fraser Pool

Council officers have already commenced the initial work to deliver the $800,000 upgrade of the existing Dawn Fraser Pool that will improve accessibility and restore its 1880s State Heritage listed buildings. Water quality will continue to be monitored and reported via the OEH Beachwatch program (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/beachapp/sydneybulletin.aspx).

 

 

2.   New site in Callan Park

The governance of Callan Park is complex. It is owned by NSW Health, managed by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), and sections of the park are used and maintained by Council. The Office of Environment and Heritage Chief of Staff originally proposed putting Callan Park on the list of proposed swimming sites for the Masterplan. Since then, the OEH has given its support for the PRCG to consider Callan Park as a potential new swimming site in developing the Parramatta River Masterplan.

 

Figure 5. The location of the potential swim site at Callan Park on the Parramatta River Catchment

A range of site-specific work has been undertaken at the Callan Park site (see Figure 5) to date,   using the Swimming Site Activation framework. This includes:

-   High level site vulnerability assessments

-   Site desirability assessments

-   Stakeholder engagement workshop on interventions and site prioritisation

 

Vulnerability assessments

Three sites within Callan Park were assessed for vulnerability:

·    Natural rocky and beach shore area with fringing native vegetation. This area has some potential activation for swimming but would not be able to cater for significant numbers. This could provide a short term option for activating swimming at the Park, with relatively low cost risk management interventions.

·    Sea wall immediately adjacent to open lawn and scattered trees. This area has significant potential for activation for swimming, but would take a larger amount of work to activate the site compared with first site. This could be considered as part of a medium to long term strategy to activate a larger swimming area in the park.

·    Sea wall immediately adjacent to the bay run and Callan Park access road. This area has the least potential for activation without significant additional works to the access road and car parking.

Site desirability assessments

Things the community found desirable about the site included the amount of open space and trees around the site, and the attractiveness of the water to walk alongside. The site received lower scores on measures around how safe it felt from accidents and hazards (this is likely to be due to the number of rocks and oyster shells at the riverside), attractiveness of the water for swimming and ease of access via public transport.

Participants selected land based activities as the activity they would most like to do in the future, which is something the site is already widely utilised for. As the site does not have good access to the water for swimming in many places, it was suggested that a floating pontoon, with a netted pool at the end would be a great way for people to access and swim in the water.

 

Stakeholder workshop

At a stakeholder workshop held in August 2017, stakeholders identified that there may be governance challenges at this site and that any changes would need extensive stakeholder and community engagement. It was also discussed that any changes at the site would need to be sensitive to and conserve the nearby middens. There are issues around access to the water due to lots of oyster shells and the possible hazards in the water.

 

Next steps

Representatives from Council, OEH, and the PRCG continue to meet on-site to work on the pathway for the site’s activation. Next steps for Callan Park are:

·    further engagement with key swim site stakeholders

·    determining roles and responsibilities for site activation and management.

 

D. Support for Inner West Council in the new Cooks River Alliance plans

1.   Background of the Cooks River Alliance 

The Cooks River Alliance (Alliance) was established as regional coordinating body on 3 May 2011, integrating the previous work of the Cooks River Foreshores Working Group and the Cooks River Sustainability Initiative. The current four member councils of Bayside, Canterbury-Bankstown, Inner West, and Strathfield councils represent 88% of the catchment area and are working with communities and other stakeholders to improve the health of the Cooks River and its catchment.

 

Between 2012 and 2017, the Alliance delivered over $2 million in works and projects to increase Alliance councils’ capacity for water sensitive urban design, connecting communities with the River, and sharing Aboriginal people’s cultural values and skills in Caring for Country. It was mainly funded by the Australian Government’s National Landcare Programme grant. Works include revegetation and restoration of the Landing Lights Wetlands in Rockdale and seven rain gardens - two in Marrickville (Scouller Street and Murdoch Park).

Inner West Council (previously Marrickville and Ashfield councils) has been a long-term and active partner in organisations aiming to improve the ecological health and water quality of the Cooks River, including bringing a research focus through the CRC Water Sensitive Cities research in the catchment. It has provided ongoing support on the Executive, with the Mayor of Inner West Council, Councillor Byrne being the current Inner West Council representative on the Management Committee and Council’s Urban Ecology Manager on its Executive Committee.

 

The Cooks River Alliance is proposing a new governance model that invites broader participation from State Government agencies, Sydney Water and the catchment community. 

 

Current work

Cooks River Alliance Strategic Plan

The Alliance is now developing its next four-year strategic plan to 2021, expected to be completed by June 2018. It will include the Alliance mission and strategic priorities with measurable goals for the CRA member councils. Inner West Council has been participating in its development and will work towards ensuring it includes strategies with catchment-wide (stretch) targets for measurable improvements. Key stakeholders, such as the Cooks River Valley Association, are also keen to see and maintain action on the Cooks River and in the catchment. Suggestions include a Cooks Riverkeeper, re-establishing the Cooks River Committee and establishing a ‘Pemulwuy trail’. These suggestions are consistent with the direction with the CRA and Inner West Council and will be covered in the next CRA action plan and relevant Inner West Council strategies for urban ecology, parks, culture and recreation.    

 

Cooks River Catchment Coastal Management Plan

To fulfil the requirements of the new NSW Coastal Management Act 2017 and associated SEPP for member councils, the Alliance is preparing the Cooks River Catchment Coastal Management Plan (CRCCMP) that will take up to four years to complete. The State Government has established a five-stage process for developing coastal management plans and the Alliance has commenced Stage One, the Scoping Study. It is now engaging consultants to prepare the study, expecting it to take nine months.

 

The study will collect information about the catchment, identify issues and opportunities affecting the area now, and those considered likely in the future, and assess the adequacy of existing management arrangements. This includes a review of priorities, triggers for change and current and planned actions. The scope will include a vision, management plan and objectives and for a whole-of-River catchment plan.

 

Stage two will then prepare detailed studies of vulnerabilities and opportunities and review Cooks River and catchment governance, its social, economic, political, cultural and Aboriginal contexts relevant to all Alliance councils.  

 

Through the development of the CRCCMP, the Alliance will Inner West Council have a coastal management plan for the Cooks River that provide eligibility for State Government funding for green infrastructure and other actions to achieve catchment wide targets and enable swimmability in local waterways, in the knowledge that the other catchment land owners and managers are required to do the same. The Alliance will also coordinate advocacy, promotion and resources.   

 

CONCLUSION

Inner West Council has made significant achievements in improving the stormwater runoff from the portions of Parramatta River and Cooks River catchments within the LGA by taking a water sensitive community approach to strategic planning to support green infrastructure including WSUD stormwater treatments and harvesting.  The ability for Council to continue addressing the issues of water quality and ecological health in the waterways and catchments will be sustained through:

 

1.   Planning at a local level through subcatchment plans for green infrastructure and community and stakeholder action. 

2.   Developing catchment-wide targets for consistent land use and development controls

3.   Working regionally with:

a.   the Parramatta River Catchment Group and the Cooks River Alliance on catchment management plans, identifying swim sites, and pollution reduction initiatives

b.   Sydney Coastal Councils Group will work with Sydney Water Corporation to address sewer defects and non-compliant connections within the LGA, and other pollution reduction initiatives

4.   Maintaining current and developing new research partnerships for Council to keep abreast of leading thinking and technologies the will help improve waterways and enable safe swimming. 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 

Item No:         C0418 Item 3

Subject:         Sydney Motorway Corporation Proposal For Haberfield Community Facilities           

Prepared By:     Sue Pym - Social Planning Coordinator 

Authorised By:  Amanda Buckland – A/Group Manager Community Services and Culture

 

SUMMARY

Sydney Motorway Corporation (SMC) wrote to the Mayor on 15 March 2018 requesting that Council prepare a proposal for delivering community facilities in Haberfield, on the basis that SMC would invest $2.5 million towards an appropriate project. Should Council decide to respond to this offer, the funding would provide an opportunity to undertake a more extensive upgrade to the Haberfield Centre than Council’s existing works program allows, and will deliver community benefits in the form of a more accessible, inclusive and inviting community centre..

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council note the correspondence from Sydney Motorway Corporation of 15 March 2018 seeking a proposal from Inner West Council on delivering community facilities in Haberfield;

 

2.   Council note the existing works program provides for renewal works at the Haberfield Centre (Option 1);

 

3.   Council note that an expanded scope of work (Option 2) would deliver significantly enhanced community benefit;

 

4.   Council advise Sydney Motorway Corporation:

a.   Council would be willing to accept $2.5 million to significantly upgrade the Haberfield Centre;

b.   Council would require confirmation in the current financial year that the project has been accepted by the Department of Planning and Environment, and that the funding will therefore be forthcoming;

 

5.   Council staff proceed with the development of a new design development for an expanded upgrade of the Haberfield Centre (Option 2) enabled by the allocation of $2.5 million from Sydney Motorway Corporation;

 

6.   Council note Sydney Motorway Corporation’s commitment to liaise with Inner West Council and Department of Planning and Environment to pursue an amended park design on remaining residual land at Wattle Street/Walker Avenue; and

 

7.   A robust communication and engagement plan is developed for all stages of the project including needs assessment and construction.

 

 

BACKGROUND

1    Sydney Motorway Corporation Proposal

Sydney Motorway Corporation (SMC) wrote to the Mayor on 15 March 2018 requesting that Council prepare a proposal for delivering community facilities in Haberfield, on the basis that SMC would invest $2.5 million towards an appropriate project (Attachment 1).

 

The SMC proposal would be an alternative to their previous plans to develop a community facility utilising the RMS owned properties at 18 and 20 Walker Avenue, Haberfield. As a result of the SMC’s community engagement with the Walker Avenue Neighbourhood Group, and the view of residents that these two properties should be returned to residential use, the SMC correspondence states SMC confirms it will not pursue the use of 18 and 20 Walker Avenue as community facilities including the alteration to the backyards to gain increased park space. This does not impact SMC’s ability to meet its net increase in open space obligation. Furthermore SMC advises these two properties will be reinstated as residential properties. Consequently, SMC has asked for Council advice regarding the best way to invest $2.5 million “to enhance an existing community facility or facilities close to the residents affected by the project”.

 

SMC has advised that their community needs assessment suggested a demand for community meeting spaces in the Haberfield area. SMC has mentioned the significant upgrade of the Haberfield Centre as a possible project, however has indicated they would be open to alternative suitable projects provided community benefits are delivered. Funding for an upgrade of the Haberfield could complement the maintenance and accessibility works that Council currently has scheduled for the Centre in 2017/18 and 2018/19 which are discussed later in this report. Council staff believe that the upgraded Haberfield Community Centre would fall within the catchment of the residents affected by the M4 extension, and the project would therefore meet the SMC’s requirement that the project must enhance a facility close to the residents affected by the project.

 

SMC is required to deliver community facilities in the Haberfield Area in order to comply with their Conditions of Planning Approval through the Department of Planning and Environment. SMC has verbally advised that they would require a Heads of Agreement with Council which would define the obligations of SMC and Council, together with a joint project control group to oversee the project. Council would however be responsible for appointing the project manager and ensuring adherence with budget and timeframes.

 

SMC requires the project to be progressing by the time WestConnex opens, and acknowledges that completion may not be possible until 2020. In addition, SMC would require a plaque to be installed on the community facility at completion. The SMC letter requests that Council provides feedback regarding potential candidate projects it would like to pursue within one month, which means advising them by 12 April 2018.

 

2    What is the Haberfield Centre?

The Haberfield Centre comprises the Haberfield Library and community facilities comprising two large meeting rooms (the ground floor Michael Maher Room and the upstairs Graham Yarroll Room) and an outdoor terrace and garden. It is strategically located in the centre of the Haberfield village in Dalhousie St, and is in close proximity to local shops, cafes, schools and churches. The Haberfield Centre is a significant Haberfield building, which was originally constructed in 1912 as the Haberfield School of Arts in the suburb’s first decade. This original part of the building still houses the large Queensland maple Haberfield Roll of Honour, erected in 1918 to remember those lost from the area during World War[1]. Elements include:

Haberfield Library

Council’s Haberfield Library is a small library serving the local community.

 

Michael Maher Room

Eight groups currently utilse the Michael Maher Room on a regular basis for a range of purposes including musical rehearsals, senior Italian social groups, table tennis, a dementia advisory service and political party branch meetings.  The Haberfield Association meets in this room and maintains their historical collection in a smaller room dedicated for that purpose. The room is currently underutilised and attracts minimal fee revenue (see Attachment 2 for table of existing regular users). A small kitchen is also located adjacent to the Michael Maher Room and is used by groups hiring the facility.

 

Graham Yarroll Room

Council’s Spark Youth Theatre currently has sole use of this room as a dedicated development and rehearsal space for artists. This program involves providing free rehearsal space for artists in exchange for workshops and programs for Spark.  This room currently has minimal utilisation, however the Living Arts have plans to expand partnerships with local performing arts companies to strengthen the artist Xchange program mentioned above.

 

Garden and terrace

This area is informally used by library visitors and includes some raised garden beds. The area is referred to as the Haberfield Community Garden, however does not function as a true community garden as there is currently no local community involvement in its management or maintenance. Council has had an arrangement with an NGO (NEAMI, support organisation for people with complex needs) which allows this group to use the garden once/week. However, the garden is currently not well maintained and consequently the space is not as inviting or well used as it could be.

 

3 Council’s other community centre in Haberfield

 

Council’s other community centre in Haberfield is the Mervyn Fletcher Hall, also in Dalhousie Street, is immediately across the road from the Haberfield Centre. This centre comprises:

·    A community hall at the rear of the property, well used by 12 community groups for a range of activities including bingo, social support activities, dancing, musical rehearsals, singing, church service, bingo, playgroup and yoga. Some of these activities are targeted at specific cultural groups including three senior Italian groups, a Japanese playgroup and two Chinese dancing groups.

·    Ella Centre leased area at the front of the property providing support for people with disabilities

·    Boarded up public toilets, permanently closed due to vandalism and poor location.

This centre is relatively well used despite the fact that it requires significant refurbishment. The roof, front entrance, bathrooms and flooring require attention and the facility has no air-conditioning. A budget allocation of $190,000 has been earmarked in the 2018/19 for some of the refurbishment works required at the Mervyn Fletcher hall.

 

4 What would the offer mean for the Haberfield Centre?

 

Current scope of Works (Option 1)

Council will be improving the accessibility of the Haberfield Centre and Library within its existing works program. The current scope of works includes:

Haberfield Centre and Community Rooms

Roof replacement

Installation of a new lift to provide access to the first floor community room

Replacement and upgrade of the air-conditioning system

A new accessible toilet

Painting of interiors

New community furniture

·    Haberfield Library redesign and refurbishment

Interior painting

Replacement of carpets, shelving and furniture

Improving the layout of the library

Improve signage

 

Current status

The early works of the project include the roof replacement, which was tendered earlier this year. The contract was awarded in March 2018 and the works are scheduled to start in late April 2018 and take 8 weeks to complete.

 

Significant Upgrade Haberfield Community Centre (Option 2)

 

There are a number significant challenges currently constraining the ability of the existing Haberfield Centre to function as a well used and vibrant community centre. These include:

·    The building has poor street presence and it is unclear that it is a community facility;

·    It is not a welcoming space for the general community;

·    Its functionality is impaired by poor layout and design, that in turn limits the ability of multiple users to occupy the space.

An additional investment would enable council and the community to redesign both the internal and external space to optimise public access and use.

 

The design development of all the remaining works has been put on hold at the concept phase as a surplus of budget will increase significantly the scope of works. An addition of $2.5M will allow all of the above works to be undertaken but also:

 

·    General acoustics improvement throughout the library;

·    Acoustic treatment for a small scale music rehearsal space;

·    Better location of the lift (possibly outside the building to maximise the internal spaces);

·    Better lighting through the building;

·    Landscaping/ garden improvements to increase functionality of the north facing courtyard;

·    Better sense of identity and presence to the street;

·    Better entry and general circulation;

·    Spatial hierarchy and interpretation;

·    Better heritage interpretation;

·    The above works will require additional time for the design phase and community engagement. The current scope of works allowed for the project to be completed by 30 June

2019 however a larger project will require a longer timeline and it is anticipated that the project completion will be extended by 9-12 months (June 2020).

 

Comparison of original project (Option 1) versus alternative option (Option 2)

 

Option

Budget

Pros

Cons

1. Proceed as per current project scope

$840K

 

Works completed by June 2019.

Improved accessibility with the inclusion of a lift and accessible toilet

 

 

· Restrictions to the lift location to meet budget;

· A larger space available in the future;

· No landscape improvements;

· No improvement to the building identity and relationship with the street;

· No acoustic improvement;

· Loss of community  space to accommodate the lift

2. Expanded design to improve community centre

$3.34M

($840K+$2.5M)

 

·  Stronger identity and image for the local area;

·  Stronger presence to the street and openness to the community;

·  Better lift location;

·  Better utilisation of the spaces including acoustic treatment for music and theatre;

·  Better garden and landscape;

·  Better outcome in general.

· Project delivery will be delayed by 9-12 months

 

 

 

5 How would the offer benefit the Haberfield Community?

 

 Assessing need

 

Ideally a comprehensive needs based assessment would be undertaken to determine the best way in which this additional resourcing could benefit the Haberfield community. This would include undertaking the audit of community and cultural facilities across the Inner West which will be undertaken later this year in preparation for the development of the Section 94 plan; together with a community engagement program targeted at local Haberfield residents and community groups to identify needs. Given time constraints Council staff have relied on analysing demographic data; bookings data for Council owned venues; discussions with staff across several service units; and existing policies, plans and Council resolutions.

 

 

Haberfield community profile

 

Community stakeholders and organisations such as the Haberfield Association have been strong proponents of the need for community amenities to offset impacts of the M4 extension, which impacts across most of the Haberfield community.

 

The Haberfield demographic profile can be viewed via the Population ID summary based on the 2016 Census data:

 https://profile.id.com.au/inner-west/highlights-2016?WebID=200#.WqcDyysDuXA.email

 

Analysis of the 2016 Census reveals that Haberfield has a higher older population profile than IWC and Greater Sydney. At the other end of the spectrum, Haberfield also has a significant number of school aged children and young people. The stand out cultural characteristic of the Haberfield population is the significant number of Italian residents, with Italian ancestry and those speaking Italian at home being significantly higher than for the Inner West Council area. Further details regarding these population groups is available in Attachment 3.

 

The significant proportion of children, young people and older people in Haberfield suggests that this community will continue to require well designed, managed and maintained multi-purpose facilities. Provision of enhanced community venues in Haberfield will enable Council and community groups to provide a diversity of health and wellbeing activities that are reflective of the needs of these significant population groups. Any investment in community resources should occur with the benefit of genuine consultation with potential users, in particular the significant demographic groups in Haberfield including children, young people, older people and the Italian community. This investment can also make the provision for innovative uses and access by community members to Council facilities, taking direction from Council resolutions.

 

Enabling new activities

 

·  The former Ashfield Council’s Cultural Plan outlines a cultural vision which includes integration of arts and culture into Council’s urban planning and infrastructure developments and improvements. Council resolved to investigate expanding artist spaces in the IWC area (resolution C1017, Item 11). Improved facilities at the Haberfield Centre would be marketed to new potential users such as arts and cultural groups requiring musical and theatrical rehearsal space. Initial discussions suggest there is a demand for increased rehearsal space provided that appropriate acoustic and other factors are incorporated into the planning and design stages of any new development.

·  Improved building layout will enable the lift and accessible toilet to be incorporated into the design without reducing the quality and quantity of community space at the Centre. This will help to ensure that the existing usage and any potential use is not compromised.

·  Significantly improved planning and design of the outdoor space and garden area will enable more community use of this space both as an informal gathering point; public seating area and meeting place.

·  Acoustic treatment will enable increased use of the community rooms for musical and theatrical rehearsals and workshops

·  The improved lift location will enable increased utilisation of the upstairs community room, particularly for people with mobility restrictions.

·  Age-friendly design features can be incorporated into the redevelopment including improved accessibility, seating, more comfortable room temperatures, improved pathways to and around the garden, shade in outdoor spaces, signage and lighting. Such improvements will enable Council to activate the space to deliver health and wellbeing and other programs for seniors.

 

Other benefits of the proposed SMC offer for Haberfield Centre

 

·    Heritage: Given the recent demolition of Federation homes and consequent damage to the suburb’s heritage, it would be appropriate to invest in and reinvigorate this significant local building and suburb, and consult with key stakeholders to reference Haberfield’s history.

·    Multiple use: The building’s combined function of library and community centre and central location means the investment can be shared by a range of user groups and individuals and benefit the residents affected by WestConnex as well as the wider community.

·    Activation and reinvigorating the village: Apart from benefits of increased activation of this underutilised facility, the revitalised centre will improve the interface with the streetscape and garden, thereby enhancing the Haberfield village and potentially benefitting local businesses.

·    Managing demand: Improvements at the Haberfield Centre will potentially alleviate some of the demand for the Mervyn Fletcher Hall Contributing to Council priorities

·    Inclusion Action Plan (IAP): As mentioned above the accessibility improvements will contribute towards the implementation of the IAP.

·    Activation of public places: The practice of former Councils has been to facilitate activation of Council venues and other public places through a range of means including events, programs and affordable venue hire which encourages groups to provide activities in Council’s halls and meeting places.

·    Strengthening communities: Initiatives that improve community wellbeing through community, recreational, and cultural opportunities are encouraged by Council through its grants, policies, facilities, services and programs.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Council has allocated $273,000 in the 2017/18 budget and $840,000 in 2018/2019 is currently funded from Stronger Communities Grants, special rate variation and council revenues.

If your report has resourcing or budget implications above your current allocation of resources or budget, please contact Pav (x2040) or Caroline Bugg (x2043).  Please enter “Nil.” if there are no financial implications.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Include comments from other staff here.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Needs assessment: Despite the time constraints, it is essential that a communication and engagement plan is developed, should Council decide to accept the $2.5 million SMC funding. This will ensure that the improvements made to Council’s community facilities are responding to genuine community needs and deliver broad long- term community benefits. Engagement with current users of the Haberfield Centre and Mervyn Fletcher Hall and potential future users will ensure that any requirements these users may have can be incorporated into the design stage of the project. In addition, it will demonstrate Council’s respect for the community that has had little control over infrastructure projects that have impacted so significantly on the Haberfield community in recent times.

 

Managing construction impacts: A communication and engagement plan has already been developed for the current scope of works outlined earlier as Option 1 in the comparison table (not reliant on SMC funding). This plan would need to be amended if the SMC funding is accepted and Option 2 is pursued.

 

SMC comment regarding community consultation: SMC’s attached letter states that It is anticipated that further community consultation will be scheduled as soon as suitable alternative/s have been identified and deemed appropriate by DP&E.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Letter from SMC, 15 March 2018

2.

Community Profile

3.

Haberfield Centre Hirers

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 

Item No:         C0418 Item 4

Subject:         Grants and Fee Scale Policy           

Prepared By:     Sue Pym - Social Planning Coordinator 

Authorised By:  Erla Ronan - Group Manager Community Services and Culture

 

SUMMARY

The Grants and Fee Scale Policy provides integrated, transparent and equitable processes to govern the allocation of grants and fee scales for Council venues and town halls. The policy aligns Council’s investment in the community with the strategic directions in the Community Strategic Plan, Our Inner West 2036. The attached Grants and Fee Scale Policy (Attachment 1) provides an overarching grants policy for the IWC Grants Guidelines, as well as providing consistent fee scales across Council’s venues and town halls. This report addresses why Council needs an integrated policy; the types of groups and activities accommodated by the proposed fee scale categories; and the potential impacts on regular hirers and Council revenue (powerpoint presentation included in Attachment 2). The policy incorporates Council’s request for policy direction regarding small grants.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council notes the Grants and Fee Scale Policy for the purposes of public exhibition;

 

2.   Once adopted Council implements the Grants and Fee Scale Policy from 1 July 2018, and applies to all bookings for Council venues scheduled for use from 1 Jan 2019;

 

3.   Council trial a quarterly small grants stream component to the Community Wellbeing Grants, effective from 1 July, to be reviewed after 12 months operation;

 

4.   The Community Wellbeing Grant Guidelines be revised to include a new small grant stream (for grants from $200-$500) to ensure these grants are governed in a professional and transparent manner; and

 

5.   Council allocate $2,000 each year from the annual Community Wellbeing Grant budget to fund the new small grant stream.

 

 

BACKGROUND

1.   Annual IWC Grants Program

 

·    The integration of the 14 separate grants programs of the three former Council’s into an Inner West Council (IWC) Grants program occurred in 2017. Consequently an integrated package of grant guidelines was developed for the 2017/18 grant round; budgets from former Councils grants were combined; and staff from across Council worked together in a seamless manner to deliver over $742,847[2] to benefit the Inner West community. Although the guidelines and program delivery was integrated, there was no overarching IWC grant policy to underpin these guidelines.

·    The grants component of the policy sets out the legislative context, principles and rationale behind the funding of groups to provide a range of community benefits. The detail regarding Council’s five grant programs, including their objectives, eligibility, assessment criteria and conditions is contained in the guidelines listed in Appendix 1 of the attached policy. The guidelines for the NSW Government funded Stronger Communities Grants is also included in the Appendix for information only as these grants do not form part of Council’s own grant program: while Council administers the grants the guidelines, criteria, assessment panel membership and ultimate decision making is not determined by Council.

 

2.   Small grants

On 13 March 2018 Council resolved “THAT the General Manager urgently develops a small donations/financial assistance policy with identified funding sources for consideration by Council at the earliest opportunity”.  This resolution was in response to a Notice of Motion regarding the need for a policy to guide Council’s response to ad hoc requests for small community initiatives that may need support before Council’s annual grants are allocated towards the end of each year.

The following considerations have been taken into account in responding to the Council resolution regarding a small donations and financial assistance policy:

·    Council’s annual Grants program, provides over $390,000 each year to assist local initiatives. Some of these are small, as little as $500 in some cases and the upper limit is $7,500 per grant. Applicants for these grants must submit thorough applications and are assessed on merit relative to a range of competing applications. Any new funding scheme for small grants must avoid undermining Council’s annual grant by offering funding which is not subject to a similar application and assessment processes.

·    The aim of any small grant scheme would be to provide a means of assisting groups requiring assistance for small initiatives in cases where the scale and timing of their project is incompatible with either the IWC grant program (which allocates funding in November/December each year) or the Clubs NSW Clubgrant program (which allocates funding from poker machine revenue from five Inner West licensed clubs in July/August each year).

·    Small grant applicants would need to provide reasons why they cannot apply under Council’s annual grant program or Inner West Clubgrants. Organisations should be encouraged to practice sound project planning, including planning ahead to develop local partnerships and applying for grants in a timely manner.

Proposed policy response regarding small grants

 

·    The Environment Grant Program already has a quarterly small grant stream, enabling groups to apply for up to $500 once a year. This model could be built upon to provide small grants to community groups for other purposes.

·    It is proposed that financial assistance could be accommodated through a small grants stream application process, incorporated into, and subject to, the Community Wellbeing Grant Program guidelines.  These guidelines will require applicants to be subject to the same eligibility criteria, conditions and reporting as the annual grants, however will be available on an as needs basis for a pilot period of 12 months.

·    Grants will be for a minimum of $200 and maximum of $500 per applicant per year. It is proposed that the utilisation, effectiveness and value of the small grant stream be reviewed after 12 months of operation, and reported to Council. The small grants provide assistance for community projects and are not designed to support donations and sponsorship requests, which would continue to require a Council resolution.

·    Due to the small size and intermittent nature of applications, recommendations on funding will be submitted to the General Manager or delegate for consideration and approval (in contrast to the more substantial annual IWC Grants that are approved through Council resolution).

·    As these small grants would form part of the IWC Grants Program, information regarding the availability of small grants will be included on the grants page of council’s website.

·    It is proposed $2,000 would be allocated from the annual Community Wellbeing grant budget each year to fund these incidental applications and one-off requests.

·    Applications that have already been successful in receiving an IWC grant, cannot apply for a small grant.

·    The Community Wellbeing Grant Guidelines contained in the attached policy have been amended to incorporate these one-off requests for financial assistance. It is proposed that the small grant scheme commences in the first quarter of 2018/19.

 

3.   Fee Scales guiding concessional rates at Council’s halls and venues

Background to the fee scale policy

There has been no integration of the various fee scales that determine the level of fee subsidy for groups hiring Council’s venues and town halls. Consequently, there is no consistency between the rate of subsidy available to groups across the Council area. This means we currently have the same group paying different rates for the same activity, depending on which former LGA the venue is located within. For example, support groups such as Alcoholic Anonymous receives a 100% subsidy for venues in Ashfield and Marrickville, while in Leichhardt they receive an 80% subsidy. Multicultural dancing groups receive a 100% subsidy in Ashfield; 50% subsidy in Leichhardt and 73% subsidy (depending on booking duration) in Marrickville. Community groups are understandably confused about the varying levels of subsidy that exists across the Council. 

Some initial fee scale integration work was undertaken in 2017 in response to Council’s 6 December 2016 resolution “that Council undertakes a review of fees and charges and relevant policies for fee waivers and concessions with a view to consistency, equity and transparency across the LGA”. A draft policy was considered by the Leadership Group, the Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) and the Local Representation Advisory Committee (LRAC). The LRAC recommendation on 11 April 2017 (L0417, Item 4) was that:

1.   The report be received and noted

2.   The IWC LRAC does not support:

·    The proposal to abolish the full fee waiver category for not for profit groups that help to build the sense of community that is a critical part of the culture and ethos of the inner west

·    The charging of Parents and Citizens and religious groups 50% of the hire rate

·    Charging not for profit groups 100% of the hire rate for fundraising activities.

3.   Council do not charge resident committees or activist groups along the lines of what was consistent with former policies of Councils

4.   A revised Community Resourcing Policy report which includes the issues raised tonight be prepared for the next LRAC meeting.

Benchmarking

The following table indicates the fee scales from a selection of other Councils. It shows the differing rates based on the nature of the organisation. The rates proposed in the new IWC policy provides higher fee subsidies for not for profit groups than is the case with this sample of Councils:

Council

Commercial/private

NFP organisations (percentage of full rate paid)

Other

(percentage of full rate paid)

Burwood

100%

Approx. 70%

Burwood based community and seniors- 23%

Ryde

100%

Funded Community groups pay 50% (majority of their groups fall into this category)

Unfunded community groups pay 10%

Rockdale (now Bayside)

100% category A

Local NFP approx. 50%

Free use for 3 musical groups and seniors groups using senior Citizen centres

Canada Bay

100% category 1

Varies between venues 50% -approximately 80%

 

Canterbury Bankstown

100%

50% ( some variability reflecting different approaches between the 2 former Councils)

 

 

Current IWC fee subsidies

The following table indicates the complexity and inconsistencies of the current fee subsidies as they relate to different categories of hirers across the IWC area:

2017/2018

Ashfield

100% Fee Subsidy for Local NFPs who receive no formal funding (Category 3)

65% Fee Subsidy for Local NFP Groups (Category 2)

50% Fee Subsidy for Not For Profit (NFP) Groups from outside LGA; including church groups (Category 1)

0% Fee Subsidy for Commercial and Private hirers

Marrickville

100% Fee Subsidy for Unincorporated Community Organisations for up to 4 hours/day (Monday-Friday). Any additional use will not receive further subsidy (conditions apply) (Category 5)

100% Fee Subsidy for NFP groups for up to 4 hours/day (Monday-Friday). Any additional use will not receive further subsidy, conditions apply (Category 2)

73-85% Fee Subsidy for Concession  Cardholders at limited venues (Category 4)

73% Fee Subsidy for NFP Groups (that charge participants) for up to 4 hours/day. Any additional use will not receive further subsidy (conditions apply) (Category 3)

0% Fee Subsidy for Commercial and Private hirers (Category 1)

Leichhardt

100% Subsidy activities granted through application process addressing specific policy criteria

80% Fee Subsidy for Support Groups (Support Rate)

50% Fee Subsidy  for NFP groups; sole traders offering affordable community well-being programs (Community Rate)

 0% Fee Subsidy for Commercial and Private hirers

 

Proposed new IWC fee subsidies

The following table outlines the proposed new fee scales to apply consistently across the IWC area. The categories have been simplified into just 3 levels of fee subsidy, based largely on the type of organisation and the nature and affordability of the activity for local residents.

 

 

 

 

 Subsidy

Organisation

Activity Type

Examples

1

100%

•     Incorporated NFP organisation

•     Unincorporated local NFP group

•     Service that enables achievement of specific Community Strategic Plan objective for local residents;  and

•     Where there is evidence that payment of a fee for venue use will prevent the activity from occurring

•     Recognised social support  eg Alcoholics Anonymous, GA, NA., for their weekly meeting,

•     Men’s Group

•     Seniors and cultural social support

•     Play groups

•     Local meetings of registered political organisations

•     Local youth band rehearsals

2

50%

•     Incorporated NFP organisation

•     Unincorporated local NFP group

•     Sole traders with public liability insurance

•     Service that enables achievement of specific Community Strategic Plan objective for local residents;  and

•     A fee over $2  is charged for membership/ participation

•     Offering community focused activities, and discounted access to health care card holders

•     Dance groups

•     Yoga for cancer patients

•     Painting classes

•     U3A

•     P&C fundraiser

•     Charity event with over 50% beneficiaries being local residents

•     Religious institutions (ATO defined)

•     Religious services

•     Weekend church service

3

0%

•     Commercial hirers

•     Private functions

•     Activities where IWC residents comprise less than 50% of participants

•     Activities designed for benefit of the for profit sector

•     Activities that are for the benefit of a private individual or organisation that is not open to the general public

•     Community activities designed to cater for residents of other Council areas

•     Sales conference

•     Birthday parties, weddings

•     Activities of a metropolitan-wide club

 

Anticipated impacts of new IWC fee scale on 126 regular hirers

Proposed Fee Subsidy

Eligible Groups

Impact on Organisations

TOTALS

126

119 Groups benefit or experience no change

7 Groups will be consulted and worked with over 3 years to migrate into model

100% subsidy

87

17 Groups, originally in 80% Fee Subsidy, migrate to 100% Fee Subsidy

2 Groups migrate to 0% Fee Subsidy due to “Majority Participants Outside IWC LGA”

50%

37

5 Groups within the 65% and 73% Fee Subsidy ranges migrate to 50% Fee Subsidy

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The following represents an estimate of possible impacts:

•     Overall the proposed new fee scales aim to be cost neutral to current income

 

•     The 100% subsidy for all support groups will likely result in a decrease in revenue from support groups of $14,500

 

•     It is anticipated that 7 out of the 126 regular hirers will be impacted:

 

If they meet the criteria for 50% subsidy: revenue may increase by approximately $38,000

If they meet criteria for 100% subsidy, revenue may decrease by approximately $74,000

Finance have been consulted around the potential financial impacts of implementing the proposed Fees and Charges Policy. Review will occur in Quarter 3 of the next Financial Year.

If your report has resourcing or budget implications above your current allocation of resources or budget, please contact Pav (x2040) or Caroline Bugg (x2043).  Please enter “Nil.” if there are no financial implications.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Include comments from other staff here.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Staff have met with 7 groups that have been identified as being potentially impacted by the policy. They have outlined in general terms the proposed fee scales, and discussed the proposed phasing in period over 36 months to enable each group to address sustainability issues.

The draft policy will be on public exhibition for one month. During this time, Council staff will continue discussions with affected groups.

 

CONCLUSION

The proposed new IWC Grants and Fee Scale Policy addresses the need for a transparent, consistent and equitable approach to the way Council provides financial and in-kind assistance to community groups to enable them to deliver community benefits.

Start typing the “conclusion” section here.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Draft IWC Grants and Fee Scale Policy

2.

Powerpoint presentation- Briefing on Draft Grants and Fee Scale Policy

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 

Item No:         C0418 Item 5

Subject:         Leichhardt Flood Study and Estuarine Planning Levels Study and Flood Management Advisory Committee meeting held 14 December 2017           

Prepared By:     Christine Phillips - Stormwater and Development Engineer 

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

 

SUMMARY

This report recommends that Council adopts the Leichhardt Flood Study, the Leichhardt Estuarine Planning Levels Study, the Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan, the Marrickville Valley Flood Risk Management Study and Plan and the draft DCP amendments to Appendix E (Water Guidelines) Sections 4 and 5, of the Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013. The draft amendments involve changes to the maps that identify those properties which are designated as flood control lots and foreshore control lots.

 

This report also recommends that Council adopt the Minutes of the Inner West Council Flood Management Advisory Committee meeting held on 14 December 2017, which includes the adoption of the Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan and adoption of the Marrickville Valley Flood Risk Management Study and Plan.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council

 

1.         Adopt the draft amendments to update the Flood Control Lot Maps and the Foreshore Flood Control Lot Maps in Appendix E (Water Guidelines) Sections 4 and 5 of the Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013, in accordance with Clause 21 of the Environmental Planning Assessment Regulation 2000;

 

2.         Place a notice in a local newspaper advising of the commencement of the amendments to Sections 4 and 5 of Leichhardt  Development Control Plan 2013 that incorporate the updated Flood Control Lot  Maps and the Foreshore Flood Control Lot Maps detailed in Part 1 of the recommendation;

 

3.         Adopt the Leichhardt Flood Study – Volume 1 & Volume 2 (Cardno, 2015 & 2014) and Estuarine Planning Levels Study (Cardno, 2010); and

 

4.         Receive the minutes and adopt the recommendations of the Inner West Council Flood Management Advisory Committee held on 14 December 2017, which includes the adoption of the Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan (Cardno, November 2017) and adoption of the Marrickville Valley Flood Risk Management Study and Plan (Cardno, September 2017).

 

 

BACKGROUND

Leichhardt Flood Study and Estuarine Planning Levels Study

In July 2009, Leichhardt Council adopted flood related development controls within its Development Control Plan 2000 (DCP 2000) along with associated Flood Control Lot mapping that identified properties that are affected by flooding. The flood control lot mapping was based on preliminary results of a Council-wide flood study and estuarine planning levels study that were being prepared by specialist consultants for Council.

In 2010, when the draft Leichhardt Flood Study was completed, the mapping was refined, resulting in a number of properties being added or removed. Amendments to the flood control lot mapping were placed on exhibition and there were a number of submissions made by affected property owners. All submissions were reviewed and the draft Flood Study was peer reviewed, resulting in minor amendments to the mapping and Flood Study.

 

The amendments included the removal of 21 properties and the addition of 2 properties to the flood control lot mapping, together with the removal of 2 properties from the foreshore flood control lot mapping. Consequently, the mapping identifies 3,129 properties as being flood affected, of which around 15% are estimated to be subject to flooding above the floor level.

 

At the Council meeting held on 25 November 2014 Council resolved the following:

 

1.   That the proposed amendments to Section 4 – Flood Control Lot Maps and Section 5 – Foreshore Flood Control Lots of Appendix E: Water Guidelines of Development Control Plan 2013 be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 and Council’s Community Engagement Framework.

 

2.   That the revised draft Leichhardt Flood Study be publicly exhibited concurrently with the proposed amendments to the Flood Control Lot Maps in DCP 2013 in accordance with Council’s Community Engagement Framework.

 

3.   That a report be presented to Council at the conclusion of the exhibition period to allow consideration of any submissions received.

 

This report provides the results of the public exhibition in relation to the draft Leichhardt Flood Study, the Estuarine Planning Levels Study and the draft amendments to the Flood Control Lot Maps in the Leichhardt DCP 2013.

 

Inner West Council Flood Management Advisory Committee held on 14 December 2017

A meeting of the Inner West Council Flood Management Advisory Committee was held on 14 December 2017. The Business Paper of this meeting, included as Attachment 3, provides the full details of the matters considered. The Minutes of this meeting, included as Attachment 4, provide a summary of the discussion which occurred at the meeting and provide recommendations to Council for consideration and adoption.

The Committee recommended THAT:

 

a)   Council adopt the Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan dated November 2017.

 

b)   Council adopt the Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan dated September 2017.

 

The Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan (Cardno, November 2017) and the Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan (Cardno, September 2017) are available via the Floodplain Committee page of Council’s website and can be accessed using the following link https://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/council/meetings/committees/flood-management-advisory-committee/flood-management-advisory-committee

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan and the Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan include recommendations for a number of structural management options, such as stormwater drainage upgrades; however they do not present a prescribed schedule for these works. Works will be considered as part of Council’s forward capital works program. Many of the structural management options will cost many millions of dollars to implement. Consequently, implementation of some of the options are reliant on contributions from external sources including Sydney Water, Roads and Maritime Services, financial assistance from the Office of Environment and Heritage under their Floodplain Management Program and through developments undertaken within flood prone land.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Public Exhibition of the Draft DCP Amendments to Appendix E (Water Guidelines) Sections 4 and 5 of the Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 and Public Exhibition of the draft Leichhardt Flood Study and Estuarine Planning Levels Study

 

The Amendments to remove 21 properties and the addition of 2 properties to the flood control lot mapping, together with the removal of 2 properties from the foreshore flood control lot mapping within the Leichhardt Development Control Plan were placed on public exhibition between Tuesday 2 February 2015 and Tuesday 3 March 2015, in accordance with the requirements of clause 18 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (EP&A Regulation).

 

During the exhibition period Council responded to approximately 37 telephone and face to face enquiries in relation to the draft DCP and the identification of flood control lots. A total of 20 written submissions were received from local residents, business owners and a public authority (Sydney Ports) and included additional submissions from some of those who had made submissions in 2010. Of these submissions all raised objections and provided comment on the identification of flood control lots. As part of this process, Council considered the submissions that were received during the exhibition period in 2010, resulting in a total of 56 objections, 15 of which related to properties that were already included on the mapping and were not affected by the proposed amendments.

 

An analysis of the most common issues or groups of issues raised in the submissions is detailed in Attachment 1. Each individual submission from the 2010 and 2015 exhibition periods is summarised and a response provided by Council officers in Attachment 2.

 

An analysis of the nature and extent of flooding was undertaken for each property for which an objection was received by a Review Panel made up of the Manager Parks and Assets and the Team Leader Stormwater & Development from the former Leichhardt Council and the Project Manager and Project Engineer from Cardno.

 

The Panel recommended no further amendments to the proposed Flood Control Lot mapping.

 

A sensitivity analysis was undertaken by Cardno in response to the concerns raised in the peer review. The Leichhardt Flood Study was amended to include a summary of the sensitivity analysis as Section 11.2.1 Peer Review.

 

Residents who made submissions during the 2010 and 2015 exhibition periods were provided with another opportunity during the public exhibition of the draft Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan in 2017 to ask further questions to further improve their understanding of the flooding as it impacts on their properties.

 

Adoption of the Leichhardt Flood Study and the Estuarine Planning Levels Study was postponed during preparation of the Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan when it became evident that a revision of the flood models developed for the Flood Study was needed. The amendments reflected several major upgrades to drainage infrastructure in Balmain as well as confirmation of drainage infrastructure connections, sizes and location that were previously uncertain in Balmain, Rozelle and Lilyfield. The modifications resulted in the addition of a further seven (7) properties to the Flood Control Lot Mapping and the deletion of a further 22 properties from the Flood Control Lot Mapping. These further changes to the Flood Control Lot Mapping were exhibited as part of the exhibition of the draft Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan in 2017.

 

The total amendments to the Flood Control Lot Mapping and Foreshore Flood Control Lot Mapping as a result of both exhibition periods (2015 and 2017) are as follows:

 

·    The addition of a total of 9 properties to the Flood Control Lot Mapping

·    The removal of a total of  43 properties from the Flood Control Lot Mapping

·    The removal of a total of 2 properties from the Foreshore Flood Control Lot Mapping

 

The Leichhardt Flood Study and Estuarine Planning Levels Study are available via links on the Floodplain Committee page of Council’s website and can be accessed using the following link https://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/council/meetings/committees/flood-management-advisory-committee/flood-management-advisory-committee

 

Public Exhibition of the draft Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan

 

The draft Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan was placed on public exhibition for a period of 6 weeks from the 15th of August 2017 to the 29th of September 2017. During the public exhibition period, the community and interested parties reviewed the draft study and plan and submitted comments on the study and plan and its outcomes.

 

Two community information sessions were held during the public exhibition period to present the findings of the study and plan and seek input from the community. The first information session was held on the 29 August 2017 at Leichhardt Town Hall Council Chamber and the second was held on the 30 August 2017 at Balmain Town Hall Meeting Room. A notification of these sessions was placed in the Inner West Courier on 15th and 22nd of August 2017 and on Council’s website. Letters of invitation to attend were extended to owners of all properties identified as Flood Control Lots or Foreshore Flood Control Lots. 

 

Community members were invited to view the study and plan and indicate the extent of their support for both. Community members were also able to provide comment on which options they support, which options they do not support and any matters related to flood mitigations and management that had not been addressed in the study and plan.

 

During the exhibition period the webpage was visited 989 times and project documents were downloaded 866 times. A total of thirty-three submissions were received through the Council’s website.

 

During the exhibition period Council also received approximately 40 queries via telephone. Around 90% of these calls were received within two days of the start of the exhibition period. Most of them were from residents with queries about the purpose of the study, and its impact on their property, if any. Following clarification of their queries by Council, the majority of the callers were in support of the FRMSP. Around three residents disputed the accuracy of the Flood Study which resulted in the inclusion of their property as a flood control lot. These were based on their experience of observing no flooding near their property.

 

Council also received 10 feedback emails during the exhibition period, plus four (4) feedback forms at the community workshops and one (1) feedback form via a submissions box at the Leichhardt Library. Feedback was also received from Council’s Development Advisory Service.

 

Of all the submissions received from the public exhibition (including via emails and telephone), the majority of the interest from residents was for the Hawthorne Canal and Whites Creek options assessment. Options FM1, FM3, and FM13 for Whites Creek received strongest support, endorsing the desirability for implementing these flood mitigation options.

 

Council’s Development Advisory Service raised concerns that several of the Property Modification (PM) options and recommendations do not sufficiently consider protection of the heritage fabric and the built environment. The relevant chapters of the study and plan have been amended to include the following:

 

"It is noted that the there are no flood related provisions in the DCP for development in heritage conservation areas. Given that some of the heritage conservation areas within the study area are flood affected, it is recommended that Council consider provisions of flood related controls in the DCP for development in heritage conservation areas."

 

Council also received several comments from residents whose properties are classified as Flood Control lots. They voiced their concerns and desire for removing their property from the Flood Control Lot maps. Council’s Stormwater and Development Engineer contacted those residents to explain the process for classifying a property as a Flood Control Lot and implications of the classification for them.

 

A summary of submissions received and responses to those submissions are provided in Appendix G of the Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan.

 

Based on the submissions received, any adjustment or further assessment to address issues raised was not warranted. 

 

Public Exhibition of the draft Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan

 

The Draft Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan was placed on public exhibition from 24 July 2017 to 27 August 2017. The plan was made available on Council’s ‘Your Say Inner West’ webpage and the exhibition promoted through Council’s        e-newsletter. Community members were invited to view the plan and indicate the extent of their support for the plan. Community members were also able to provide comment on which options they support, which options they do not support and whether there were any other flood affected areas that had not been addressed in the plan.

 

During the exhibition period, the webpage was visited 201 times and the project documents were downloaded 78 times. Eight submissions were received through the website and one submission was received via email. Six survey submissions were received from residents of Marrickville, with one submission each from residents of St Peters and Dulwich Hill.  Of the eight submissions received four submissions strongly supported the draft plan, three submissions supported the plan, and one submission neither supported nor opposed the plan.

When asked to consider options they supported, half the submissions indicated their support for the options that alleviate flooding on Lawson Avenue. There were no specific options that were not supported, however, two submissions noted that not all options have been covered and raised suggestions for the dredging of Cooks River. Two submissions indicated that their properties were not addressed in the plan and concerns were raised about the flood impacts of new and proposed developments in the catchment.

 

An email submission from the Marrickville Croquet Club raised concerns about the impact to the club grounds as a result of the proposed option of regrading Lawson Avenue to direct flows into the park.

 

A summary of submissions received and responses to those submissions are provided in Appendix F of the Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study. Based on the submissions received, any adjustment or further assessment to address issues raised was not warranted based on the outcomes of the public exhibition.

 

CONCLUSION

Draft DCP Amendments to Appendix E (Water Guidelines) Sections 4 and 5 of the Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 and  Public Exhibition of the draft Leichhardt Flood Study and Estuarine Planning Levels Study

 

The Leichhardt Flood Study and Leichhardt Estuarine Planning Levels Study are a result of a comprehensive analysis of flooding and foreshore inundation using highly sophisticated computer modelling developed in accordance with and jointly funded under the NSW Government’s Floodplain and Estuary Management Programs, respectively.

 

These studies have been utilised to prepare flood control lot mapping based on the guidelines set out in the NSW Government’s Floodplain Development Manual. The mapping is utilised to identify those properties that are subject to flood related development controls in Council’s Leichhardt Development Control Plan (DCP 2013). The Flood Control Lot Mapping is provided in Figures 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 and the Foreshore Flood Control Lot Mapping is provided in Figures 12.4, and 12.5 of Leichhardt Flood Study - Volume 2 (Cardno, 2014) respectively.

 

Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan

The Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan identifies that the proposed emergency response measures should be implemented as the first planned risk management action.

 

The Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan does not recommend a specific works plan for implementation of the property modification and flood modification measures. Instead the Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan identifies a series of structural flood modification measures and property modification measures that have merit for implementation when the opportunity arises. A sound basis is provided from which Council can make decisions about the undertaking of works, making planning decisions and developing response arrangements to reduce the impact of flooding on property and life.

Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan

The Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study examined a range of flood modification, property modification and emergency management options aimed at reducing the likelihood and / or consequences of flooding.

An implementation plan of the recommended management options was developed and is provided in the Executive Summary as well as Chapter 5 of the Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Plan. The implementation plan is based on the preferred options from the Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study. Prioritisation of options has been based on the Multi-Criteria Assessment scores and opportunities for integration with other works.

 

The implementation plan lists the following information relevant to the implementation of the management actions:

·    An estimate of capital costs for each structural action;

·    The multi-criteria assessment scores;

·    The agency or organisation likely to be responsible for the action and/or funding;

·    The priority for implementation (high, medium, or low) as an outcome of the FRMS; and

·    Criteria to consider for implementation.

 

The measures identified in the implementation plan represent a capital outlay of approximately $35.3M over the life of the plan. However, high and medium priority actions have a total cost of approximately $18.5M.

 

Similar to the Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan, works will generally be undertaken when and as funding becomes available, as well as when various opportunities might arise specifically for an option. Notwithstanding this, the non-structural measures can generally be implemented in the short term (approx. 3 years), as they are relatively low in capital expenditure and generally revolve around policy and information; and priority structural measures can generally be considered in the medium term (approx. 20 years), and will be implemented as funding and opportunities arise.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Public Exhibition of the Leichhardt Flood Study 2010 and 2015 - Analysis of Issues Raised

2.

Public Exhibition of the Leichhardt Flood Study 2010 and 2015 - Summary of Submissions and Responses

3.

Business Paper Inner West Council Flood Management Advisory Committee Meeting 14 December 2017

4.

Minutes of the Inner West Council Flood Management Advisory Committee Meeting 14 December 2017

 

The following attachments are available via links on the Floodplain Committee page of Council’s website and can be accessed using the following link https://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/council/meetings/committees/flood-management-advisory-committee/flood-management-advisory-committee

 

5.

Leichhardt Flood Study - Volume 1 (Cardno 2015)

6.

Leichhardt Flood Study - Volume 2 (Cardno, 2014)

7.

Leichhardt Estuarine Planning Levels Study (Cardno, 2010)

8.

Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study (Cardno, November 2017)

9.

Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Plan (Cardno, November 2017)

10.

Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study - Appendix (Cardno, November 2017)

11.

Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study (Cardno, September 2017)

12.

Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study - Appendix (Cardno, September 2017)

13.

Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Plan (Cardno, September 2017)

14.

Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Plan - Appendix (Cardno, September 2017)

 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 

Item No:         C0418 Item 6

Subject:         Petersham RSL - Planning Proposal and Draft Development Control Plan for 3-7 & 13-17 Regent Street, 287-309 Trafalgar Street and 16-20 Fisher Street, Petersham - Post Exhibition Report           

Prepared By:     Colette Goodwin - Consultant Strategic Planner 

Authorised By:  David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning

 

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the outcome of community consultation for a Planning Proposal and associated amendment to Part 9.6 of Marrickville Development Control Plan (MDCP 2011) for 3-7 & 13-17 Regent Street, 287-309 Trafalgar Street and 16-20 Fisher Street, Petersham.

 

This report also advises of referral comments received from various sections of Council and public authorities regarding the Planning Proposal. In view of the community consultation and referral comments received it is recommended that Council proceed to finalise the Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (MLEP 2011) and MDCP 2011 amendment subject to changes.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.       Council amend the Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 at 3-7, 13-17 Regent Street, 287-309 Trafalgar Street and 16-20 Fisher Street, Petersham;

 

2.       Council liaise with the Department of Planning and Environment and Parliamentary Counsel’s Office to draft and finalise the LEP amendment;

 

3.       Council delegate the making of the LEP amendment to the Group Manager Strategic Planning;

 

4.       Following completion of (3) above, request the Department of Planning and Environment to notify the plan;

 

5.       Council finalise a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) and place this on public exhibition prior to the making of the LEP amendment;

 

6.       Council delegate the adoption of the Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (Amendment No. 8) to amend Part 9.6 (Precinct 6) MDCP 2011 in accordance with the exhibited draft and the revised figures and recommendations contained within this report to the Group Manager Strategic Planning;

 

7.       Council request the Proponent to work with Council’s Traffic Engineer to provide detailed information to enable resolution of the exact location of the median strip and to undertake consultation with Sydney Trains in regard to access to their training facility to determine what land may need to be dedicated at 287-309 Trafalgar Street to ensure a left-in/left-out to the new Club without compromising pedestrian safety and road efficiency as part of a future development application for Site 3;

 

8.       Council place a notice in a local newspaper advising of commencement of MDCP 2011 (Amendment No. 8); and

 

9.       Council notify those persons who made a submission in relation to the draft MLEP and Draft MDCP 2011 to inform them of Council’s resolution.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The Petersham RSL Club has been in discussions with Council for a number of years concerning the fragmentation of its operation over the three sites that it currently occupies and its desire to redevelop and relocate all of its facilities (including car parking) to a single consolidated site on the western side of Regent Street in Petersham.

 

The Planning Proposal includes the following properties:

 

Site

Address

Lot/Deposited Plan (DP)

Area

Existing Use

Site 1

3-7 Regent Street

Lot 1, DP 629058

3,028sqm

Petersham RSL Club's registered club premises

Site 2

13-17 Regent Street

Lot 1, DP 830175

1,960sqm

Petersham RSL Club Car Park

Site 3

287-309 Trafalgar Street

Lot 1, DP1208130   Lot 10, DP1004198

4,792sqm

Petersham RSL Club Car Park on 287 Trafalgar Street and vacant site (former factory building demolished) at 297 Trafalgar Street

16-20 Fisher Street

Lots A, B & C, DP 440676

632sqm

3 x 3 storey residential terrace dwellings

Total Area

10,412sqm

 

 

The area to which the Planning Proposal applies is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1 The three sites the subject of the Planning Proposal

 

These three sites are zoned R4 – High Density Residential under MLEP 2011.  A ‘registered club’ is a prohibited form of development in the R4 – High Density Residential zone, however Clause 14 in Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses of MLEP 2011 currently allows a ‘registered club’ to be permitted with consent on the sites known as 3-7 Regent Street, 287 Trafalgar Street and 16-20 Fisher Street, Petersham.

 

On 10 June 2016, Council received a Planning Proposal to amend the controls applying to the three sites to facilitate their redevelopment and the relocation of the Petersham RSL Club.

 

The Planning Proposal seeks to amend MLEP 2011 by:

 

1.       Amending Clause 14 in Schedule 1 of MLEP 2011:

 

(i)      To include the properties at 297-309 Trafalgar Street to allow development for the purposes of a ‘registered club’ to be permissible with Council consent;

(ii)      To remove a ‘registered club’ as an additional permitted use from 16-20 Fisher Street, as a result of these properties no longer being needed for the relocation of the Club.

 

2.       Providing 150 off street car parking spaces for the RSL Club on Site 3 while safeguarding an appropriate floor space ratio by excluding these spaces from being considered to represent ‘gross floor area’.

 

3.       Increasing the Height of Building and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standards by amending the Height of Buildings Map and Floor Space Ratio Map applying to the three sites as set out in Table 1.

 

 

 

 

Site

Address

Height Amendment

Floor Space Ratio Amendment

Existing Use

Site 1

3-7 Regent Street

From 23 metres to 29 metres

No change 2.8:1

Petersham RSL Club premises

Site 2

13-17 Regent Street

From 17 metres to 20 metres

From 1.8:1 to 2.1:1

Petersham RSL Club car park

Site 3

 

287-309 Trafalgar Street

From 20-26 metres to

20-35 metres

From 2.2:1, 2.3:1 and 2.5:1 to 3.4:1

Petersham RSL Club car park and 3 vacant lots (former factory building)

16-20 Fisher Street

3 x 3 storey attached dwellings

Table 1 Proposed heights and FSRs exhibited for the 3 sites

 

The proposed building height and FSR will result in an overall gross floor area (GFA) of approximately 30,489m2. This provides approximately an additional 5,922m2 of floor area over the existing permissible GFA. The club will have a GFA of approximately 3,600m2.

Potentially 356 apartments could be provided across the three sites, a potential 67 dwelling increase over the existing 289 apartments that could be provided.

The Planning Proposal was originally assessed and reported to the Administrator at the 27 June 2017 Council Meeting. Refer to Attachment 1 for the 27 June 2017 Council report. The Administrator supported the Planning Proposal and the submission of the proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for a Gateway determination subject to the following resolution (C0617 Item 11):

 

1.       “Council support the Planning Proposal subject to:

 

(i)      The resident car parking on site to be capped at the rate contained in Part 2.10 of Marrickville Development Control Plan (MDCP) 2011;

(ii)      The proponent must engage an arborist to investigate the opportunities to retain the significant trees located on the corner of Regent Street and Fisher Street (Site 3) and adjust the building envelopes as may be required;

 

2.       Council officers consider the Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) Offer in accordance with Council’s interim VPA Policy;

 

3.       Forward the Planning Proposal to the Minister for Planning for a Gateway determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979;

 

4.       Request that Council be delegated plan making functions in relation to the Planning Proposal; and

 

5.       Resolves to develop site specific planning controls to apply to the future development at 3-7 Regent Street (Site 1); 13-17 Regent Street (Site 2); and 287-309 Trafalgar Street & 16-20 Fisher Street (Site 3), Petersham for inclusion in Part 9.6  (Precinct 6) of MDCP 2011 and that these be publicly exhibited concurrently with the Planning Proposal.”

 

In accordance with the above resolution Council sent the Planning Proposal to the DPE for a Gateway Determination and commenced amendments to Part 9.6 of MDCP 2011 and initiated investigations to retain the 3 trees on the corner of Regent and Fisher Streets, Petersham.

On 11 October 2017, Council received a Gateway Approval Determination subject to conditions from DPE. Refer to Attachment 2 for the Gateway Determination.

 

The Gateway conditions required community consultation with residents and relevant public authorities. Condition No. 1 of the Gateway Determination also required that the Planning Proposal be updated, prior to community consultation, to demonstrate consistency with Section 117 Direction 4.3 - Flood Prone Land and a revised project timeline for the proposal to be completed within 9 months.

 

Following compliance with Condition No. 1 of the Gateway Determination the Planning Proposal and supporting documents were placed on public exhibition from 21 November 2017 to 30 January 2018. In addition, various internal sections of Council and public authorities were consulted during this period.

 

This report details the consultation undertaken and recommends changes to the Planning Proposal and draft MDCP 2011 in accordance with the consultation.

 

INTERNAL COMMENTS

(i)      Architectural Excellence Panel

 

The Architectural Excellence Panel (AEP) reviewed the exhibited Planning Proposal and the amendment to MDCP 2011 and made the following recommendations (Refer to Attachment 3 for detailed AEP comments):

 

Changes to Local Environmental Plan (LEP) standards:

 

The AEP recommended:

 

Site 1

·     Site 1 building height be reduced from the exhibited 29 metres to 26 metres to align with the proposed height in storeys controls within the amended Part 9.6 of MDCP 2011.

 

Council Officer Response

This change is supported, and the Planning Proposal is recommended to be changed accordingly.

 

Please refer to Figure 1 for site identification and Figure 3 for building identification in Site 3.

 

Site 2

·        The exhibited building envelopes and controls for Site 2 were supported by the AEP with no LEP or DCP changes required.

 

Council Officer Response

It is recommended that the exhibited building envelopes and controls for Site 2 be maintained.

 

Site 3 Building A

·        The AEP recommended that Building A addressing Fisher Street be 8-storeys (rather than the exhibited proposal of part 6 and 8 storeys) as this would achieve a simpler built form and better streetscape in relation to existing and future buildings to the west. The additional built form to Fisher Street would also compensate for loss of building envelope as a result of the required setback at the corner of Fisher and Regent Street required to preserve the trees.

·        A change in height from 29 metres and 20 metres to a single overall height of 26 metres (equivalent of 8 storeys) was recommended.

 

 

Site 3 Buildings B & C

·        AEP recommended the Trafalgar Street frontage of Site 3 is changed in height from a single height of 35 metres and divided into two components with heights of 35 metres and 29 metres.

 

Council Officer Response

·        During the assessment/review process of the Planning Proposal it was identified that the 8 storey component of Building A could not be accommodated within a lower 26 metre height limit due to the sloping topography between Fisher Street and Fozzard Lane (laneway located to the rear of Site 3, accessed from Trafalgar Street). As such it was agreed that the retention of the exhibited 29 metres height limit was needed to accommodate the intended 8 storey form.

·        It was also acknowledged that the additional built form in this location would compensate for loss of building envelope as a result of the required setback at the corner of Regent and Fisher Streets to preserve the trees in accordance with the Administrator’s resolution of 27 June 2017 Council meeting.

·        The AEP recommendation to remove the 20 metres height (6 storeys) and maintain an 8 storey form along the Fisher Street frontage is not adopted as the DPE advised that it would require re-exhibition to enable community consultation. Re-exhibition would also add considerably to the agreed project timeline and is not supported at this stage.

·        Given the above, it is recommended that the heights exhibited for Building A be retained, i.e. a 20 metres (6 storeys) height fronting Fisher Street stepping up to a 29 metres height (8 storeys in this case due to site topography) and for Building C stepping down from 35m to a lower height of 29 metres to enable the amendment to the MLEP to proceed.

 

The recommended post exhibition changes are shown in Table 2 and Figure 2 below.

 

 

Existing

Building Height

Exhibited

Building Height

Post Exhibition

Recommended Building Height 

Site 1

3-7 Regent Street, Petersham

23 metres

29 metres

(9 storeys)

26 metres (allows buildings up to 8 storeys in accordance with exhibited Draft MDCP 2011 controls)

 

Site 2

13-17 Regent Street, Petersham

17 metres

20 metres

(6 storeys)

20 metres (unchanged)

 

Site 3

287-309 Trafalgar Street and 16-20 Fisher Street, Petersham

20 (Q), 23 (S) & 26 (T1) metres

20 to 35 metres

20 metres (Q) and 29 metres (T2) to Fisher Street (unchanged – 6 part 8 storeys).

 

Division of the 35 metre frontage to Trafalgar Street into two parts with a reduced height of 29 metres (9 storeys) while retaining 35 metres (11 storeys) to the corner of Trafalgar and Regent Streets.

Table 2 Exhibited and Post Exhibition Amendments to the Height of Buildings LEP Map.

 

 

Existing LEP Height of Building Map MLEP 2011

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibited Height of Buildings Map MLEP 2011

 

Post Exhibition Recommended Height of Buildings Map MLEP 2011

 

Figure 2 Exhibited heights with the proposed new heights post exhibition

 

The reduction in building height for Site 1 and for part of Site 3 will now mirror the height in storeys and massing shown in the proposed building envelope controls within Part 9.6 of Draft MDCP 2011.

With the reduced overall height, the AEP also recommended that small breaches in MLEP heights to accommodate lift overruns and architectural roof features should be resolved at the Development Application (DA) stage and a new control be introduced into the Draft DCP to confirm this policy position.

 

Changes to Draft Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 controls

 

The AEP also recommended changes to the Draft MDCP controls for open space treatment, articulation and building setbacks for Sites 1 and 3 to achieve a better built outcome on the sites and protect the trees at the corner of Regent/Fisher Streets for Site 3. Also, the AEP recommended that the location of the proposed outdoor gaming area for the club on Site 3 shall not front onto the footpaths of Trafalgar and Regent Streets.  Refer to Attachment 3 for the detailed AEP comments.

 

Amended architectural drawings and building envelope diagrams have been prepared in response to the AEP recommendations. The Site 3 amended building envelope diagram generally adopted the AEP recommendations with the exception of the following:

 

·        AEP recommended a minimum width of 11 metres between Building A and Building B across the pocket park. The amended building envelope diagram proposes 13 metres.

·        AEP recommended a minimum pocket park width of 20 metres along Regent Street. The amended building envelope diagram proposes 18 metres.

 

The AEP reviewed the amended information and were satisfied with the changes which are incorporated into Figure 3.

 

The AEP recommendation regarding the location of the outdoor gaming area is considered overly prescriptive and should be flexible depending on residential and pedestrian amenity and be determined during the DA stage. As such the AEP recommendation will not be imposed within the controls of MDCP 2011. However, the activation of Trafalgar Street at different hours of the day is proposed to encourage greater pedestrian activity and surveillance, which creates vitality, safety, security and increased environmental sustainability. In this regard, activation of the club frontage and the provision of an awning will provide visual transparency and direct access between the footpath and the premises.

 

Figure 3 and Figure 4 below are the revised Site 3 building envelope diagrams which are recommended to be placed in the amended Part 9.6 of MDCP 2011.

 

Figure 3 New Site 3 MDCP Building Envelope Figure

 

Figure 4 Site 3 MDCP Building Envelope Section Figures

 

It is recommended that the new post exhibition building height map be adopted as shown in Figure 2 and the DCP be amended in accordance with Figure 3 and Figure 4 with corresponding content updates.

 

The AEP also recommended further controls are included in Part 9.6 of Draft MDCP 2011:

All three sites

·        Control 7 (C7) Articulation: the primary architectural scale of the buildings shall be consistent and street-wall-defining with a strong 2-storey horizontal datum to the façade to promote a generous human scale to the buildings at street level and entries. 

·        Control 5 (C5) Sustainable Buildings and Occupant Amenity: concomitant with the increase in the density there should be an increase in sustainability and amenity by achieving high environmental performance to the buildings by means of water efficiency targets equal to Basix plus 20% and energy efficiency equal to Basix plus 10%. The RSL club or non-residential uses shall achieve a minimum 5 stars NatHERS. 

·        Control 12 (C12) Architectural Expression[1] the architectural expression to the buildings shall be unique and informed by their context, including the selection of self-finished materials that are evident in nearby period buildings or heritage items, and façade intervals and articulation that respond to the fine grain character of existing industrial buildings on the site (approximately 20 metres façade intervals); and [2] the brickwork and trusses of the warehouses to be demolished shall be salvaged and reused as recycled bricks.

·        Control 8 (C8) Domain Interface and Structure: [1] The residential units on the ground level shall have separate mail boxes and direct pedestrian access from the adjacent streets or the pocket park; and [2] Three separate residential lobbies shall be provided to Buildings A, B and C on Site 3 accessed from Trafalgar Street, Regent Street, Fisher Street and the pocket park.

 

It is recommended that the LEP and DCP be amended in accordance with the AEP recommendations above with the exception of the increase in height to Site 3 Fisher Street frontage (Building A) and location of the outdoor gaming area.

 

(ii)      Council’s Development Engineer

 

Council’s Development Engineer reviewed the proposal and the Flood Report prepared by Neil Lowry & Associates, dated 13 November 2017 accompany the Planning Proposal and is satisfied that the proposed floor levels and basement carpark are able to be adequately protected from flooding during a 1 in 100 year storm event. In addition, the proposed re-alignment of Fozzard Lane to remove the low point and proposed new drainage in Regent Street also increase the flood protection of the site during more frequent storms. Detailed flooding analysis will be carried out further during the DA stage.

 

(iii)     Council’s Environmental Services Section

 

Council’s Development Environmental Services Section reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments:

 

Urban Ecology

 

·        The sites are located near the Bandicoot Protection Area (within 100 metres) and an assessment will need to be submitted that considers potential impact during the DA stage especially during demolition and final landscaping.

 

·        To promote sustainability and biodiversity new development must incorporate and maximise local native landscaping (90%), water sensitive urban design and energy efficiency into the plans and designs to improve biodiversity, mitigate urban heat, and use and manage water sustainably.  Such measures required include use of solar panels, vegetated roofs and walls, rainwater and stormwater reuse and will be addressed at DA stage.

 

Contamination

 

A Detailed Site Investigation Plan (Report No. E22913 AA_Rev 0) prepared by EI Australia, dated 9 May 2016 accompanied the Planning Proposal and concluded that widespread contamination was not identified at the sites. However, hot spots exist on Site 2 and Site 3. EI Australia concludes contamination identified on Site 2 and 3 can be remediated after carrying out the following investigations and remedial actions:

 

·        A Hazardous Materials Survey

·        Doing additional investigations to close data gaps

·        Preparing a remedial action plan and waste classification for waste material

·        Providing a validation report to confirm remedial activities are complete

 

EI Australia also concludes that due to site constraints (presence of buildings) soil and groundwater investigations on Site 1 will need to be performed after demolition.

 

Council’s Environmental Services Section has advised that with respect to the requirements to satisfy Clause 6 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Contaminated Lands (SEPP 55), the Planning Proposal has reasonably assessed site contamination. Through the investigation, a number of contamination issues and data gaps have been identified and can be adequately addressed through remediation of the site.

 

Contamination will be considered further at the DA stage. It is recommended that the Proponent initiate the EI Australia recommended investigations and actions prior to the submission of a DA.

 

Waste Management

Council’s Environmental Services team provided the following advice which relates primarily to matters to be considered at the DA stage however it does address concern received from a submitter during community consultation of the Planning Proposal around food waste recycling:

 

·        A Waste Management Plan is required for each building.

·        All three sites should:

o   implement waste avoidance and reuse by providing space for communal composting on site to avoid waste disposed via the kerbside service to landfill. Also creates compost for reuse in garden areas on site.

o   bulky household storage areas are to be identified and collection point for booked collections detailed for each building.

o   residential waste and recycling capacity needs to be considered and adequate space to store and manoeuvre bins within a bin room.

 

The above information is required to be submitted to Council with any DA lodgement.

 

(iv)    Council’s Urban Forest Team

 

The Administrator resolved at the 27 June 2017 Council meeting that:

 

 

“1.     Council support the planning proposal subject to:

(i) …

(ii) The proponent must engage an arborist to investigate the opportunities to retain the significant trees located on the corner of Regent Street and Fisher Street (Site 3) and adjust the building envelopes as may be required;”

 

In accordance with this resolution, an Arborist Report, prepared by The ENTs Tree Consultancy, dated 20 November 2017 was submitted to Council which investigated the opportunities for the retention of the 3 significant trees (identified as Tree 24, 25 and 26 in the Arborist Report) located on the corner of Fisher and Regent Streets on Site 3 and the adjustment of building envelopes as required.

 

The Arborist Report examined all trees across the three sites and recommended the removal of 69 trees of varying sizes and quality to enable future building works to proceed. Of the 69 trees, it was recommended “that all efforts to replace a Spotted Gum tree (identified as Tree 24 in the Arborist Report) should be made within the new landscape plan” prepared by Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects. Such replacement will be done as part of the DA stage. The Arborist Report and the Landscape Design Report are at Attachment 4.

 

The Arborist Report also recommended the retention of 14 trees being Trees 25 and 26 (the two Lemon Scented Gum Trees on corner of Fisher and Regent Streets), 31-39 and 67-69.

 

To ensure the retention of Trees 25 and 26 (Lemon Scented Gums) shown in Figure 5, a 7 metre tree protection radius control is proposed to be added to Part 9.6 of Draft MDCP 2011.

 

 

Figure 5 Lemon Scented Gum Trees (Tree No 25 & 26) at the corner Fisher and Regent Streets on Site 3

 

The tree protection area will substantially retain the canopy of these trees as well as protect the root zone. The tree protection radius and area (in yellow) is shown in Figure 6 and is supported by Council’s Urban Forest Team.

Figure 6 Tree protection area incorporating the 7 metre setback for the 2 Lemon Scented Gums at the corner of Fisher and Regent Streets.

 

The Landscape Design Report prepared by Taylor Brammer, dated 15 December 2017 proposes public domain improvements and footpath/road plantings with 36 new street trees (size and type not specified) and approximately 368 additional plants across the development sites. The details of this work normally would accompany a DA and are important public domain works which should complement the character of the area while fulfilling Council’s sustainability agenda.

 

(v)     Public Domain Planning Team

 

Council’s Public Domain Planning team reviewed the proposal and recommended quality streetscape design with spreading street trees, water sensitive urban design with build outs (kerb blisters) and street furniture to provide an enjoyable walking experience to/from the Petersham Train Station.

 

Council’s Public Domain Planning team reiterated their support for Council input on the public domain quality, which will be achieved by the exhibited planning controls within Part 9.6 of MDCP 2011. 

 

Council’s Traffic Engineering Services

Council’s Traffic Engineers have advised the following:

·        A splay corner shall be provided on Site 3 at the intersection of Trafalgar Street and Regent Street to allow for a slight road widening at this corner. This will provide an improvement for turning vehicles at the intersection, particularly vehicles turning left from Regent Street into Trafalgar Street;

·        Information on routes expected to include heavy (waste service) vehicles to the three sites and potential access points (i.e. are these vehicles expected to enter via the proposed driveway on Trafalgar Street or Fozzard Lane at Site 3) are required. It is preferable to have these types of vehicles enter the site for waste pick-ups.

 

On 9 March 2018 the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) provided Council with comments in relation to the Planning Proposal, refer to the Public Authority Submissions section headed “ii. Roads and Maritime Services” later within this report. Council’s Traffic Engineers reviewed the RMS comments and provided the following comments:

 

·        Point 3 – Left-in/left-out - An examination of the preliminary drawing provided by the Proponent of the existing road widths and the proposed location of the median island to provide only left-in and left-out movements, from Site 3 on Trafalgar Street, was undertaken.

 

The proposal within the preliminary drawing may not work as the traffic lanes are required to be 3.2 metres wide (absolute minimum) and the cycle path along the north will be in the parking lane taking 2.4 metres of road width with a 400mm width for a kerb barrier. Trafalgar Street is 11.9 metres wide and it is acknowledged that the far western end of the site on Trafalgar Street (on the approach to the roundabout intersection) the road widens. However, if a proposed median island is placed in the centre of the road this will also restrict turn movements into the carpark of the Transport for NSW training facility (located opposite to Site 3 along Trafalgar Street). The movements into this carpark may also result in left-in/left-out as it is directly opposite the Club access on the northern side of Trafalgar Street.

 

Transport for NSW staff from this site will need to be advised of the proposal and consider whether the median island will have impacts on their driveway access. If the access to adjacent driveways is satisfied by the property owners with the inclusion of the proposed centre median island, the proposed development site (Petersham RSL) will have to dedicate part of their land to provide enough width within the roadway for the 900mm wide median island while maintaining the current lane widths of the proposed Regional Route 7 design plans. Action: Investigate the option of road widening of Trafalgar Street to accommodate the proposed raised centre median island.

 

·        Point 4 - Right turn ban during peak periods (weekday PM) from Regent Street into New Canterbury Road – Council’s Traffic Engineers raise no objection to this right turn ban. It should be noted that the right turn movements from New Canterbury Road in Regent Street are to be kept open at all times as this provides motorists access into the area north of New Canterbury Road as there is a current full-time right turn restriction from New Canterbury Road in Audley Street (at the traffic signals).

 

·        Point 5 – No Stopping - The RMS states that ‘Trafalgar Street and New Canterbury Road frontages will need to be signposted as “No Stopping”, at no cost to Roads and Maritime and Council, and conditioned as part of any future DAs’.

 

Council’s Traffic Engineers do not support this recommendation without further data from RMS providing more justification for the proposed full-time ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on these roads. Further, clarification is required on the section of the subject roads where the proposed ‘No Stopping’ zones is to be provided. This matter will be dealt with as part of the Traffic Management Plan for the area and considered with the redevelopment.

 

·        All other general comments raised by the RMS are considered to be appropriate and that Council’s Traffic Engineers support the recommendations made by RMS.

 

In relation to Regional Route 7 (RR7) this is an important east-west route between Lewisham and Newtown which links the inner west to Sydney CBD. The NSW Government identified RR7 as a priority route and is funding the development of the upgrade plans.

 

Consultation with the community commenced in 2016 with the final concept plan approved by Council in February 2017.

 

Draft design plans have been developed based on the approved concept plan. These plans provide more detail for constructing the route improvements and are currently on exhibition. An extract from the exhibited design for the route along Trafalgar Street is provided below.

 

 

Public Authority Submissions

 

(i)      Transport for NSW (TfNSW)

 

TfNSW reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments:

 

·        TfNSW notes the proposed traffic control signals at the Trafalgar and Regent Streets intersection and subsequent approved relocation of the bus stop on Trafalgar Street by Council’s Local Traffic Committee. Any future plans for this should consider the safety and amenity of passengers to Petersham Train Station, including Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliance.

·        TfNSW does not currently have funding allocated for an accessibility upgrade of Petersham Train Station. The provision of such an upgrade will continue to be considered as part of the Transport Access Program (TAP) ongoing prioritisation process.

·        TfNSW agrees that the consolidation of access points, particularly on Trafalgar Street will aid pedestrian access and safety.

·        The development site is located within the vicinity of the Sydney Metro City & Southwest Project, and the WestConnex Stage 2 Project. Several construction projects, including those just mentioned could occur at the same time as future development on the site. The cumulative increase in construction vehicle movements from these projects could have the potential to impact on general traffic, bus operations, and the safety of pedestrians and cyclists particularly during commuter peak periods. Any future DA should address these cumulative construction related impacts in consultation with TfNSW (Sydney Coordination Office).

·        TfNSW provided conditions to be imposed on a DA consent for the proposal relating to the preparation of a Construction Pedestrian and Traffic Management Plan (CPTMP).

 

Council’s Strategic Community Project Officer - Access and Inclusion advised that the Planning Proposal may be impacted on by future works by TfNSW in addressing their legislative and compliance responsibilities under the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport (DSAPT) which requires all stations to be accessible by 2022.

 

Access changes therefore to the Petersham train station have potential to change the nature of the intersection and pedestrian/vehicle patterns on Trafalgar Street including bus locations and the Regional Bike Route 7.

 

Council in consultation with Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) has sought to improve the intersection of Regent and Trafalgar Street with the Planning Proposal. At risk is that it will require redesign in the future to align with the railway station’s access compliance needs including as an interchange with buses.

 

Council officers recently held an initial meeting with TfNSW regarding a potential upgrade to Petersham Train Station and the detailed cycle plan is now on exhibition for Regional Route 7. As this was a preliminary meeting further meetings are proposed to align the two projects.

 

Resolution of an upgrade to the station with the Regional Bike Route and works related to the relocation of the Club will take some time to finalise so in order for the Planning Proposal to progress it is recommended that these matters be explored concurrent to the LEP being made and be finalised as part of any DA that is submitted or underway. Notwithstanding, a control to clarify pedestrian movement upgrades to the intersection of Regent and Trafalgar Streets as well as resolution of the median strip along Trafalgar Street, as discussed in this report, are proposed to be included in the final MDCP 2011.

 

(ii)      Roads and Maritime Services

 

On 20 February 2018 RMS provided in principle support for the Planning Proposal subject to the resolution of detail primarily for the upgrade of the intersection of Regent and Trafalgar Streets, Petersham. A response to the matters raised was prepared and forwarded to RMS.

 

A meeting was held on the 8 March 2018 with Council, RMS, DPE and the Proponent to discuss the upgrade of the intersection including the design detail for Regional Bike Route 7 on the northern side of Trafalgar Street. At this meeting it was agreed that a signalised intersection at Regent and Trafalgar Streets was not required and that a median strip in Trafalgar Street needed to fit within the road reserve or land be dedicated from Site 3 to ensure 2 bus capable lanes and a regional bike route, and footpaths on Trafalgar Street could be provided.

 

Subsequently, on 9 March 2018 RMS provided the following revised comments: 

1.       The Proponent does not wish to pursue the signalisation of the intersection of Regent Street and Trafalgar Street proposed in the exhibited Traffic Impact Assessment, dated 11 November 2017. As this is not a requirement of RMS and as the intersection performance of Regent Street and Trafalgar Street will remain at an acceptable level of service as a left-in/left-out configuration, there are no objections to the signalisation not being pursued.

 

2.       In the absence of the above intersection improvement, the Proponent should provide improvements to pedestrian footpath facilities on Trafalgar Street and Regent Street to provide improved links to the bus stops and existing signalised pedestrian crossing on Trafalgar Street to Petersham Train Station.

 

Council may wish to consider requiring the Proponent to upgrade the pedestrian refuge islands on Regent Street and Trafalgar Street as part of any public domain improvement works required under the VPA, DCP and/or by inclusion of conditions on any future DAs.

 

The future development may need to allow a setback (and potentially land dedication to Council) along the Trafalgar Street frontage to ensure adequate footpath widths for future pedestrian demands can be provided and designed in accordance with Austroads requirements.

 

3.       Future vehicular access to Trafalgar Street from Site 3 will be required to be restricted to left-in/left-out. A 900mm raised concrete median on Trafalgar Street will be required in front of the proposed access to physically restrict right turn movements at the access.

 

It is noted that Control C10 of the amended Part 9.6 of MDCP 2011 sets out this requirement, which is supported by RMS. Any land required from the frontage of Site 3 to accommodate the treatment will be required to be dedicated as public road at no cost to Council and RMS.

 

Civil design for the median will need to be provided with any future DA for Site 3. The design will need to be in accordance with Austroads standards and will need to coordinate with Council’s Regional Route 7 bike plans impacting Trafalgar Street. RMS also recommends consultation with Sydney Trains as this may impact their access on the northern side of Trafalgar Street.

 

4.       RMS supports the proposed peak period right turn ban at the intersection of Regent Street onto New Canterbury Road detailed in the addendum traffic statement dated 22 February 2018. In this regard, a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) will need to be prepared and submitted to Council’s Local Traffic Committee for consideration and approval by RMS and Council during the DA stage.

 

5.       Trafalgar Street and New Canterbury Road frontages will need to be signposted as “No Stopping”, at no cost to RMS and Council, and conditioned as part of any future DAs. The Proponent would be required to undertake consultation with any affected residents/landowners in relation to the loss of on-street parking.

 

6.       Council should be satisfied that appropriate funding mechanism/s (such as Section 94 Plan and VPA) are in place to ensure developer contributions are made for local and regional transport infrastructure upgrades required as a result of future growth in the Petersham South precinct.

 

7.       RMS supports Council’s proposal to undertake a broader precinct traffic and transport study to identify future infrastructure needs to support future growth in the precinct.

 

RMS also provided detailed comment on the SIDRA modelling and the concept design submitted for the intersection which needs to be addressed if an intersection upgrade is ever pursued.

 

Based on the above considerations, RMS raised no objection to the Planning Proposal, subject to the above matters being addressed in the finalisation of a suitable funding mechanism and/or DCP (where appropriate) and being addressed in any future DA consent.

 

It is recommended that the advice of the RMS to upgrade the pedestrian crossings at the intersection of Regent and Trafalgar Streets be supported and that the draft MDCP be amended with a new control that ensures sufficient land is made available to accommodate the median strip, bus lanes, regional bike route and footpaths and if not that land be dedicated from the Site 3 frontage to make it work.

 

While the Proponent has provided preliminary diagrams Council’s Traffic Engineers require more detailed work to establish whether or not land dedication is required to ensure a left-in/left-out to the new Club within Site 3. It is recommended that the Proponent work with Council’s Traffic Engineer to provide detailed information to enable resolution of the exact location and width of the median strip without compromising road efficiency and to undertake consultation with Sydney Trains in regard to access to their training facility. 

 

A detailed response to the matters raised by RMS is under the heading “Council’s Traffic Engineering Services” within the Internal Comments section of this report.

 

(iii)     Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL)

 

In relation to the Planning Proposal SACL advised that the proposed heights & locations of the buildings will penetrate Sydney Airport’s prescribed airspace. Under the Federal Legislation - Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996, a development of this nature would be subject to a determination by the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities (DIRDC).

 

Prior to the Council inviting comments, SACL received an application for the intrusion of the proposal into the air space from the Proponent. SACL referred the application to DIRDC for a determination. DIRDC has since issued an approval for the proposal to intrude into the air space.

 

(iv)    Federal Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development and Cities

 

On the 1 March 2018, DIRDC in response to Council’s formal consultation in accordance with the Gateway Determination provided the following email advice:

 

·           Where such a Planning Proposal is in the vicinity of an airport, the relevant airport should be consulted.  Subject to the final building heights, individual developments and any associated cranes may need to be approved under the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996.  This would depend on assessment by Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) of the height and location of any or all penetrations of airspace.

 

·           In the case of particular buildings within the planning area, as discussed, the Department received an application from the Proponent’s consultant in late 2017.  Following assessment by the CASA and Airservices Australia, the Department has approved the proposed controlled activity of constructing 3 buildings. 

 

·           Under Regulation 14(2) the Secretary (or his/her delegate) must approve a proposal unless [it] would interfere with the safety, efficiency or regularity of air transport at the airport concerned.  As CASA and Airservices identified no concerns in relation to safety, efficiency or regularity, the proposal was approved. 

 

·           The approval of these buildings by the Department relates only to matters covered by the Regulations, and in no way seeks to pre-empt any planning process for the particular sites or the broader planning area being carried out by the relevant planning authority under its legislative powers. Nor should it be assumed that any other buildings in the planning area would be approved under the Regulations, as this would require specific advice from CASA and Airservices related to the specific height, location and setting of the buildings.

 

·           The approval was made with conditions under Regulation 14 (3), including that the main building be lit and that the lighting be monitored to ensure any outages are notified to the airport.  The Department has been discussing lighting with Sydney Airport and included conditions seeking to ensure that monitoring continues (and the airport has appropriate contact details if it finds a light is out) when the building is transferred from the Proponent to the final owners/body corporate. 

 

·           Where relevant, planning authorities should also consider the National Airports Safeguarding Framework, in relation to matters such as aircraft noise and wildlife hazards: https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/environmental/airport_safeguarding/nasf/framework_factsheet.aspx

 

(v)     Department of Education (DoE)

 

The DoE reviewed the Planning Proposal and advised that the site is within the catchment zone of Petersham Public School (Primary) and Dulwich High School of Visual Arts and Design.

Based on the 356 dwellings, the DoE calculated the projected student yield would be 19 primary students and 7 secondary students.  DoE considered that this increase would not have a significant impact on the need for school infrastructure at the schools.

(vi)    Sydney Water

 

Sydney Water reviewed the Planning Proposal and provided the following comments:

·           Sydney Water has no objection to the Planning Proposal.

·           Water and wastewater facilities are available within the area.

·           Amplifications or extensions to these mains may be required depending on the size and scale of development.

·           Detailed requirements will be provided when developments are referred to Sydney Water under Section 73 of Sydney Water Act following a DA consent.

(vii)    Ausgrid

No response has been received from Ausgrid however the Proponent has advised that an area wide upgrade to the system is being undertaken and they are in consultation with Ausgrid to provide the land and access.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

In accordance with Council's resolution C0617 Item 11 and Gateway Determination conditions, the Planning Proposal, amendment to MDCP 2011 and supporting documentation were exhibited for 70 days from 21 November 2017 to 30 January 2018. The proposal was put on public exhibition for an extended period due to the Christmas/New Year period. During this period, the material was made available on Council's Your Say website and in the Petersham Customer Service Centre.

 

The public exhibition was notified by way of an advertisement in the Inner West Courier and letters were sent to owners and occupiers in the vicinity of the sites in accordance with statutory requirements.

 

Submission Overview

The public exhibition process generated 181 submissions with the following mix of opinion on the proposal:

 

·    158 submissions supported the Planning Proposal without amendment;

·    7 submissions supported the Planning Proposal with amendment to the exhibited design;

·    14 submissions objected to the Planning Proposal; and

·    2 supporting petitions of 103 signatures were also received using the proforma letters.

 

Submissions supporting the Planning Proposal

158 submissions and 2 petitions were received which supported the Planning Proposal without change. Of the 158 submissions, 137 were one of 3 proforma letters received by Council and 21 were individual submissions.

 

The reasons given for supporting the proposal were:

 

·        It will allow the submission of a DA for a new Club for the community.

·        The club supports the elderly, youth, and individuals with disabilities, people from non-english speaking backgrounds, local schools and charities.

·        A new club will provide a vibrant new gathering place for the community.

·        A great local club that has a long history of supporting the community.

·        Petersham is a wonderful inner city area and there are many developments, recent and about to commence.

·        Members of the club want to see the club remain strong.

·        The development will bring some well needed vibrancy to the area.

·        It is the perfect location near the railway station and Petersham's restaurants.

·        Exciting addition to the community. Good use of space that is currently under used with trains and buses on the doorstep.

·        The proposal will allow the club to more efficiently function as well as better integrate into the community and its environment.

·        It seems a waste of space having open car parks in the inner city. The proposal makes good use of the land, increases the supply of housing and keeps a home for the club.

·        Fantastic idea and will allow even more people to share our beautiful inner west home.

·        The funds raised will also allow for the RSL to further their support for the local community.

 

Submissions supporting the proposal with changes

7 submissions were received which supported the Planning Proposal subject to consideration of height, privacy, overshadowing, traffic and parking. These matters have been incorporated into the key issues table below.

 

Submissions opposing the proposal

Overall 14 submissions opposed the Planning Proposal. The issues identified have been incorporated into the key issues table below.

 

 

Key issues raised in submissions with Council officer response

 

ISSUE #1 – Proposed heights and density; impact on character and amenity/open space

Submissions expressed concern with:

·    Proposed heights and densities are excessive and out of character with the area.

·    The potential adverse impact on the amenity of the community and its unique identity.

·    Overdevelopment of a small area not able to sustain the development.

·    Excessive scale of development and impact on liveability.

·    Pressure on local infrastructure including public transport and schools and lack of supporting infrastructure such as childcare facilities and library.

·    Existing building heights and FSRs on all three sites are sufficient for redevelopment and are more in character with the area than the proposed new controls.

·    The proposed changes will alter the existing environment, amenity and appeal of the area for the local residents and business community.

·    The RSL is opportunistic in using state government urban renewal policy, setting out to pursue self-interest and commercial gain at the expense of environmental and community interests.

·    Construction of buildings of 35 metres in height will dominate the visual and aesthetic environment, diminish light and open space and change the outlook for properties in Fisher Street.

·    Keep 20 metre height for properties in Fisher Street.

·    Cumulative impact of recent applications for boarding house and other development along Fisher Street of large bulky buildings.

·    Need for pedestrian circulation to be retained and supported eg connection along Fozzard Lane to Regent Street.

·    Need for open space as there is little or no open space provided.

·    Lack of areas where the tenants of the new apartments and the established community can congregate and socialise.

·    Concern for the large number of mature trees that are to be removed.

·    Loss of habitat for many native birds, which contribute greatly to the pleasant environment for residents and visitors.

·    Request for the Council to oppose the development of Site 2 and instead, recommend to DPE that it be turned into open space/park to address the imbalance of open space in the area.

 

COUNCIL OFFICER’S RESPONSE

The three sites were zoned as R4 - High Density Residential and the future character largely set in 2011 with the adoption of MLEP 2011. The Planning Proposal seeks an increase in the existing height of buildings and floor space ratio development standards to achieve a higher apartment yield and to relocate the Petersham RSL Club.

The current character of the area is dominated by the RSL Club (2-3 storeys), car parking and housing ranging from single storey dwelling houses to 3 storey residential flat buildings. The telecommunications building and post office are also key elements fronting Audley Street and part of Fisher Street.

The area is characterised by 5 different zones within 2 blocks stretching from B2 Local Centre zone on the corner with Audley Street, R4 - High Density Residential, R1 – General Residential, R2 Low Density Residential opposite a B4 Mixed Use Zone. Figure 7 is an extract of the zones from the MLEP 2011.

Figure 7 Zoning extract from Marrickville LEP 2011

This suite of zones is contributing to an emerging character particularly in Fisher Street of 4 to 6 storey buildings approved in the last 12 months. These approvals include:

·    A 6 storey boarding house containing 48 rooms for lodgers and 3 on-site manager's accommodation rooms with 12 car spaces at 22 Fisher Street, Petersham.

·    A 5 storey building comprising a commercial tenancy on the ground floor with 19 boarding rooms on the upper floors at 41 Fisher Street approved by the Land and Environment Court.

·    A 6 storey mixed use development containing 3 commercial premises on the ground floor and 30 boarding house rooms and 2 managers rooms on the levels above at 37-39 Fisher Street.

 

Trafalgar Street is industrial (light) in character and now comprises vacant land with hoardings on Site 3. The Petersham rail line is directly opposite. Figure 8 is Trafalgar Street looking west from the pedestrian lights at the station entry.

Figure 8 Trafalgar Street, Petersham looking west

 

The redevelopment of the three sites will provide additional housing into the market close to regional transport and with good walking and cycling opportunities (regional bike path under design along Trafalgar Street) to promote healthy living. This is consistent with Objective 10 Greater Housing Supply of A Metropolis of Three Cities - The Greater Sydney Region Plan prepared by the Greater Sydney Commission and released in March 2018.

 

The Planning Proposal is also consistent with the following objectives of the R4 - High Density Residential zone applying to the three sites:

·        To provide for the housing needs of the community within a high density residential environment.

·        To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment.

·        To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

·        To provide for well connected neighbourhoods that support the use of public transport, walking and cycling.

 

The proposed building height and FSR will result in an overall GFA of approximately 30,489m2. This provides approximately an additional 5,922m2 of floor area over the existing permissible GFA. The club will have a GFA of approximately 3,600m2.

Potentially 356 apartments could be provided across the three sites within the proposed controls as detailed below. This is an increase of 67 apartments over the current controls. The following is a breakdown of the proposal including AEP recommended changes in relation to each site:

Site 1

·    Existing FSR 2.8:1 (no change)

·    Increase in height from 23 metres (approx. 7 storeys) to 26 metres (8 storeys) - reduced from 29 metres as per AEP recommendation.

·    Potential density: 108 Apartments

·    GFA: 8,408 m2

 

Site 2

·    Increase in FSR from 1.8:1 to 2.1:1

·    Increase in height from 17 metres (approx. 5 storeys) to 20 metres (approx. 6 storeys)      

·    Potential density: 50 Apartments

·    GFA: 4,032 m2

 

Site 3

·    Increase in FSR from 2.2:1/2.3:1/2.5:1 to 3.4:1

·    Increase in height from 20 - 26 metres (approx. 6 to 8 storeys) to 20 - 35 metres (6 – 11 storeys). Refer to the discussion within this report under the heading “Architectural Excellence Panel” within the Internal Comments section.

·    Potential density: 198/9 apartments

·    GFA: 18,301 m2

 

The proposal results in:

·    A 1 storey increase in height on Site 1 with no change in the FSR;

·    A 1 storey increase in height on Site 2 with an 0.3:1 increase in FSR; and

·    A maximum of 3 storey increase in height on Site 3 with a maximum 1.2:1 increase in FSR.

The proposed height and densities have been generally supported by the AEP subject to improvements in building articulation, urban open space and public domain, view lines and greater separation between buildings. These changes, including a reduction in the height for Site 1 and part of Site 3 have been assessed and are represented in Figure 2 and Table 2 under the heading “Architectural Excellence Panel” of this report.

In accordance with the current controls in Part 9.6 of MDCP 2011, Fozzard Lane will be widened and dedicated to Council. This will improve pedestrian safety and access to properties fronting Fisher Street. However, due to the fall in the land Fozzard Lane will no longer extend to Regent Street and instead an area of publicly accessible open space of approximately 460m2 will be provided.  

Opportunity exists for the public domain along Regent Street to be significantly improved and a gateway entry/focal point established to Petersham Train Station, Trafalgar Street activated and the pedestrian connection linking the train station to the Petersham Town Centre enhanced. These requirements are embedded in the draft MDCP and are matters for consideration for future development.

 

Council’s Culture and Recreation Section are seeking quality streetscape design with spreading street trees, water sensitive urban design at the intersections with build outs (kerb blisters) and street furniture to provide an enjoyable walking experience to / from the station.

These measures along with detailed public domain works should be submitted with a future DA. 

 

 

14 trees including Trees 25, 26 (the two Lemon Scented Gums on corner of Fisher and Regent), Trees 31-39 and Trees 67-69 are to be retained and tree protection specifications have been provided by an Aborist (See ENTS report in Attachment 4).

 

Trees 31-35 to be retained are the large distinct native paperbark trees on Regent Street shown in the photograph below. Improved public domain works and drainage around the base of these trees will assist their longevity and the biodiversity in the area for birdlife. Tree protection is discussed further under the heading “Council’s Urban Forest Team” under Internal Comments section of this report.

 

Figure 9 Paperbarks along Regent Street

 

The size and quality of replacement trees across the sites and within the streetscape will be determined as part of any DA. However, this report also details that 90% are to be native plants.

 

The sites are located within 200 metres of Petersham Train Station and Petersham village. It’s redevelopment at higher densities will contribute to the attainment of Objective 14 of the Regional Plan – integrated land use and transport creates walkable and 30-minute cities.

 

The area is undergoing transformation to a high density residential area and will contribute to the five year, 5,900 dwelling target for the Local Government Area set by the Greater Sydney Commission in the Eastern City District Plan 2018.

 

The dwelling target is based on the District’s dwelling needs and existing opportunities to deliver supply. They include traditional detached and attached houses, apartments and granny flats. The five-year targets that have been set are generally consistent with known housing approvals and construction activity in the LGA.

 

Each council is to develop housing strategies and to provide 6–10 year housing targets. According to the District Plan the housing strategy is to demonstrate capacity for steady housing supply into the medium term.

 

Strong public domain controls and traffic measures are required to ensure the area remains a walkable neighbourhood with trees and birdlife as valued by the community.

 

In terms of existing open space and facilities the area is located within walking distance of Petersham Oval/Park and the Fanny Durack Pool.

In light of the above assessment, the proposed Planning Proposal is considered acceptable in relation to the proposed heights, density and impact on character, amenity and open space.

 

An assessment of traffic and parking is provided below in Issue #2.

 

ISSUE #2– Traffic and parking impacts

Submissions expressed concern with:

·    The impact of the proposed development on traffic and on-street parking and in turn on residents and local businesses.

·    Additional traffic adding pressure to the existing traffic congestion within the road network and significantly affect the livability of the area.

·    Loss of on-street parking and increased difficulty with parking in the area.

·    Petersham Train Station needs to be upgraded before adding more apartments.

·    Traffic assessment report fails to address the serious problems the area has in terms of parking and traffic.

·    The proposal fails to address the additional traffic generated by new development in Leichhardt (intersection of West Street and Parramatta Road) and Summer Hill. Nor has it addressed the Westconnex and the likely increase from drivers seeking to avoid the toll by using alternate route through Petersham as per Council’s studies.

·    The area is bordered by 2 main through roads, Shaw/Crystal Street and Stanmore/Canterbury Road. Both through roads are at capacity during peak periods and at weekends with significant delays being experienced now.

·    The study conducted to measure traffic volumes did not address traffic volumes during weekend periods.  It is during the weekend that most additional traffic will be generated by the proposed development.

·    The loss of car spaces (Site 2) used primarily by railway commuters will put increased pressure on the already scant all day parking that is available in the vicinity. 

·    Additional loss of all day parking and restricted spaces on Regent Street, Fisher Street and northern side of Trafalgar Street to facilitate bus stop relocation.

·    The increase in parking required for visitors and second cars associated with an additional 356 apartments will exacerbate the parking problems already evident around the area of the proposed development.

·    Allowing traffic to turn right from Regent Street (with a new signalised intersection) will enable a rat run to avoid the traffic lights at the Crystal/Shaw Street and Stanmore/Canterbury Road intersection.

·    Parking will inevitably be further reduced by the implementation of further clearways necessitated by oversized developments in the inner west.

·    The outbound traffic flow on page 15 of the traffic impact assessment shows a right turn from New Canterbury Road to Shaw Street for both existing and proposed outbound traffic. This is inaccurate there is no right turn from New Canterbury Road to Shaw Street. Such a basic error must surely call into question the accuracy of the rest of the assessment.

·    The traffic issues and increased congestion will destroy Petersham's village vibe and the size of the community. It will impact the cultural festivals on the street.

·    Request that prior to any further consideration of this proposed re-development, the Inner West Council appoint an independent traffic expert/organisation to conduct, as a matter of urgency, a comprehensive traffic study of the area.  A report on all findings should be submitted to the Inner West Council and made publicly available, and further feedback should be actively sought from residents and ratepayers.

 

COUNCIL OFFICER’S RESPONSE

Traffic assessment

A Traffic Impact Assessment – Precinct Study prepared by Barker Ryan Stewart dated November 2017 accompanied the Planning Proposal and carried out a precinct wide analysis of traffic including key intersections of Crystal Street, Trafalgar Street, Audley Street and New Canterbury Road, Petersham. The area surveyed and intersections are shown in Figure 10 below.

Figure 10 Intersection analysis undertaken by Barker Ryan Stewart for the Traffic Impact Assessment Report, November 2017

The Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) report and SIDRA modelling were referred to the RMS for review and comment.

RMS required additional design details for the proposed upgrade of the intersection at Regent and Trafalgar Streets, Petersham. On 22 February 2018 additional information from Barker Ryan Stewart was provided to RMS.

A meeting was held on the 8 March 2018 with Council, RMS, the DPE and the Proponent to discuss the upgrade of the intersection including the design detail for Regional Bike Route 7 on the northern side of Trafalgar Street which includes the relocation of the two existing bus stops. At this meeting it was agreed that a signalised intersection was not required at Regent and Trafalgar Streets and that the median strip in Trafalgar Street (to permit only left-in/left-out vehicle movement to the Club) needed detail design and if necessary land be dedicated to achieve it.

RMS’s comments have been discussed in detail under the heading “Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)” under the Public Authority Submissions section of this report.

The proposal is expected to increase the total number of apartments on the sites from 289 apartments permissible under the current LEP controls to 356 apartments under the proposed controls, i.e. an increased potential of 67 apartments. The Traffic Impact Assessment estimated that this will result in 45 additional car movements in the morning and no additional movements in the evening (pages 16 & 17 of TIA) compared with the existing traffic and land uses. The report states that the main reason for the comparable number of traffic generated from the three sites is due to the RSL’s reduction in GFA (from 3,868sqm to 3,600sqm) and removal of 3 warehouse/industrial buildings which almost offsets the increase in residential traffic generation using the RMS’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments.

Based on the SIDRA modelling and wider assessment of the traffic movement and volumes by RMS and Council Traffic Engineers coupled with the proposed measures it appears that the transport and traffic impacts arising from development of the 3 sites can be managed.

Concern was also raised about the lack of a weekend analysis and advice sought from RMS who advised that a Saturday count is typically required for retail development and that the Club proposal was not regarded as retail.

Council as part of its strategic work for the new LEP/DCP will be undertaking a broader precinct traffic and transport study to identify future infrastructure needs to support future growth in the precinct. In this regard, a review of Council’s Contributions Plan can be examined to ensure sufficient funds are received for infrastructure upgrades as a result of future growth in the Petersham South Planning Precinct beyond those envisaged when the Plan was done.

The Eastern City District Plan and the Regional Plan both released in March 2018 by the Greater Sydney Commission identify the importance of providing diversity of housing across the housing continuum in Sydney. In this regard, the three sites were rezoned in 2011 for high density residential development close to public transport to meet established housing targets at that time.

All three sites are within 200 metres of Petersham Train Station with links to Sydney and Parramatta Central Business Districts (CBDs). It is anticipated that journey to work trips by public transport will increase given the nexus of the development to both rail and bus services. The sites are well located and with good urban design and public domain improvements have the potential to provide additional housing and liveability outcomes.

Car parking

There are currently 152 car parking spaces available for parking on the Club’s land to accommodate the parking demand generated by the existing Club. This land is used by commuters, workers in nearby administrative or commercial buildings, club patrons and local residents.

 

These car spaces include:

·        27 spaces on Site 1;

·        44 spaces on Site 2; and

·        81 spaces on Site 3.

The Club has advised it requires 150 car spaces to accommodate its new operation and this is comparable with similar sized Clubs (as indicated within the Planning Report, prepared by Andy Ludvik, dated November 2017 & Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Barker Ryan Stewart accompanying the Planning Proposal). In accordance with the requirements of Part 2.10 – Parking of MDCP 2011, Site 1 and 3 are located within Parking Area 1 and car parking requirements for registered clubs is 1 space/6 staff for patrons and staff.  Given this rate only 15 car spaces would be required for the RSL club. An assessment of the number of car spaces and supporting justification was considered in Council Meeting Report 27 June 2017 (Attachment 1). The 150 car spaces were supported as was their exclusion from GFA calculations for the Club.

The redevelopment of the existing car parking areas in Fisher Street and Regent Street to residential development and the relocation of the parking spaces to the Club building on Site 3 will change parking access in the area.

However, all existing car parking areas are owned by the Club and were rezoned to high density residential in 2011. The use of the land for commuter parking on Site 2 (Figure 11) exists through a monthly license between Council and the Club and is not a permanent public car park. On-street parking spaces will be lost along the northern side of Trafalgar Street with the implementation of Regional Bike Route 7. However, on-street parking along Regent and Fisher Streets will remain.

Council recently established a resident car parking scheme for this area which limits on-street parking to 2 hours. Council continuously reviews parking in the area and will monitor the cumulative effect of redevelopment.

Figure 11 Existing all day car park

Council resolution of June 2017 stated that the number of car spaces to be provided with the apartment buildings cannot exceed the number in the MDCP. However, Clause 30 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development sets car parking standards that cannot be used as grounds to refuse development consent:

 

(a)  if the car parking for the building will be equal to, or greater than, the recommended minimum amount of car parking specified in Part 3J of the Apartment Design Guide,

 

Objective 3J-1

Car parking is provided based on proximity to public transport in metropolitan Sydney and centres in regional areas

Design criteria

 

1.           

 

For development in the following locations:

.               on sites that are within 800 metres of a railway station or light rail stop in the Sydney Metropolitan Area; or

.               on land zoned, and sites within 400 metres of land zoned, B3 Commercial Core, B4 Mixed Use or equivalent in a nominated regional centre

 

the minimum car parking requirement for residents and visitors is set out in the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, or the car parking requirement prescribed by the relevant council, whichever is less

The car parking needs for a development must be provided off street

A future DA will need to provide the minimum car parking requirement for residents and visitors as set out in the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, or the car parking requirement prescribed by the MDCP 2011, whichever is less. MDCP 2011 also sets requirements for car share, motor bike and bicycle provisions with development which aid in reducing vehicles on the road.

Access to new RSL Club on Trafalgar Street

Access to a new club was examined by Council’s Traffic Engineers and RMS and Trafalgar Street was determined as suitable subject to:

·    Upgraded pedestrian access to Petersham Train Station and public domain works in the vicinity of the development; and

·    A 900mm medial strip in Trafalgar Street restricting access to the Club car park to left-in/left-out.

These measures formed part of the exhibited MDCP and will be strengthened to respond to RMS advice as part of it being finalised.

Access to the apartment buildings on Site 1 is from Regent Street, Site 2 from Fisher Street and Site 3 from Trafalgar Street.

Petersham Train Station

The rail line is located immediately adjacent to Trafalgar Street. The current Petersham Train Station entry is opposite Regent Street and is in close proximity to the Club. It is anticipated that with an increase in residential population a greater reliance will be placed on the railway for journey to work trips.

As noted earlier in this report an upgrade to the station will need to occur by 2022 if the State Government complies with the time schedule set by the Disability Discrimination Act (DAA).

Council officers recently held an initial meeting with TfNSW regarding a potential upgrade to Petersham Station and the detailed cycle plan now on exhibition for Regional Route 7 with agreement to liaise on the plans for both.

 

 

ISSUE #3 – Potential loss of sunlight and privacy

Submissions expressed concern with:

·    The tall buildings particularly on Regent and Trafalgar Streets of 29 metres & 35 metres will have privacy and overshadowing impacts on the residents of Terminus Street.

·    Bulk and scale of buildings will overshadow the area.

·    The proposed building heights in Trafalgar Street are 3 times that of the current nearby residential flat buildings. 

·    The 3 storey residential buildings provide good amenity, privacy and pedestrian access and new development should provide same.

·    How will the overshadowing effect be taken into consideration?

·    Future development will block views, create visual and acoustic privacy impacts, have building construction impacts, overshadowing impacts and create a shadow zone within the surrounding properties, Fisher Street and adjacent streets.

RESPONSE

Terminus Street, Petersham is located across the railway line north of the subject sites. It is a local road with well-established street trees and small regular blocks of housing facing the rail line and railway buildings. The White Cockatoo Hotel is the tallest building in the immediate area.

Figure 12 Terminus Street looking east and west.

Future development of the three sites is unlikely to result in privacy, shadowing and visual impact of dwellings in Terminus Street and Railway Street (identified as a Heritage Conservation Area) given the distance across the rail corridor to the sites in Fisher and Trafalgar Streets and its northern location.

The Petersham Train Station is a State Heritage Item and any proposed DA in the vicinity must consider their impact on the heritage significance of this group of buildings.

Overshadowing diagrams were provided with the conceptual plans attached to the 27 June 2017 Council report. Additional diagrams were sought in February 2018 to determine overshadowing of Building A, Site 3 on Fisher Street properties. The shadow diagrams demonstrate impact during mid-winter between the 9.00am – 3.00pm as required by MDCP 2011 requirements. These are in Attachment 5. See Figure 1 and 3 for site and building numbers.

Overshadowing from Building A has been assessed for properties opposite at 27 to 37 Fisher Street, Petersham as set out in Table 3.

Property address

Building type

Overshadowing impact of 6 storey stepping up to 8 storey along Fisher Street frontage -Building A  (Site 3) as exhibited

27 Fisher Street

3 storey brick residential flat building with balconies to the corner of Fisher and Regent Streets. 6 dwellings facing Fisher Street

 

9.00am – 10.00am no additional overshadowing from existing.

11.00am – 12.00pm Ground floor windows of 2 dwellings in shadow. Remaining dwelling windows in sunlight.

1.00pm All ground and more than 50% of window panes in first floor level dwellings in shadow. Remaining dwellings in sunlight.

 

2.00pm Unit 1 on ground level, Unit 2 on first floor level and more than 50% of window panes of Unit 3 on second floor level in shadow. 50% of window panes of Unit 4 & 5 in shadow. Unit 6 in sunlight.

 

3.00pm 50% of window panes of Unit 1 on ground level, Unit 2 on first floor level and Unit 3 on second floor level in shadow. Remaining units in sunlight.

 

Note: for the purposes of this report units have been numbered from bottom to top and left (1-3) to right (4-6) of the entry.

31 Fisher Street

Single storey dwelling house currently used as a boarding house

9.00am no additional overshadowing of windows from the existing impacts.

12.00pm- 3.00pm no windows in shadow.

33 Fisher Street

2 storey art deco residential flat building with balconies to the street frontage

9.00am lower ground floor balconies shadowed.

12.00pm – 3.00pm no shadowing impact

 

35 Fisher Street

Masonic Hall

9.00am no additional overshadowing of windows from the existing.

12.00pm no shadowing impact

3.00pm no impact but building affected by overshadowing from existing Telecommunications Building.

37 Fisher Street

Single storey dwelling house

9.00am no shadowing impact to windows

12.00pm no shadowing impact

3.00pm no shadowing impact but building affected by overshadowing from existing Telecommunications Building.

Table 3 Overshadowing part 6 and 8 storey building on Fisher Street Petersham (Building A)

The proposed development of Building A, Site 3 being on the north side of Fisher Street will cast a shadow mid-winter across the street and onto the lower ground floor of several residential buildings as documented in Table 3. This moves off those buildings across the day to achieve a minimum of 2 hours of sunlight in mid-winter as set by the MDCP. Similarly, Site 1 will affect Fisher Street properties north of the intersection with Regent primarily in the afternoon in mid-winter.  Overshadowing impacts will be assessed in detail as part of a future development application however block overshadowing diagrams have been submitted for the three sites and are in Attachment 5.

 

ISSUE – Club operations#4

·    The Petersham RSL currently generates a degree of disruption, particularly at night. Expanding their operation will add to the problem.

·    The RSL’s claims that it will ensure the Club continues “vital contributions it makes to local community life” including $2.1 million through the Club Grants Scheme over the last decade, are inadequate and do not compensate the community for the gross intrusion this proposed development will have on the community:  loss of amenity and ambience, impact on surrounding older style residences, larger volumes of new vehicles, more traffic congestion and concomitant pollution.

·    The Club was recently refurbished and the proposed relocation poorly thought out in terms of noise and traffic from the club and impact on residents into the night.

·    Outdoor club operations such as beer garden or patio restaurant should not be allowed due to the potential noise impacts on residents (both existing and new).

 

RESPONSE

The relocation of the Petersham RSL Club with access only from Trafalgar Street will direct club traffic to this frontage opposite the rail line and away from local residents.

Late night movements including the collection of waste should be examined with any DA for the three sites. It is noted that waste pickup for the new club will be from Trafalgar Street reducing the direct noise source from Regent and Fisher Streets. This could be further improved if it was within the building rather than collection occurring from Fozzard Lane. These details will be resolved when a DA is considered by Council.

 

 

ISSUE – Voluntary Planning Agreement/Section 94 (now Section 7.11) and Affordable Housing #5

·    The Planning Proposal refers to a VPA however there is no draft VPA on exhibition. The Planning Proposal should not proceed unless and until there is a VPA under which there is community benefit.

·    Request that Inner West Council opposes outright the development of Site 2 (Regent Street/New Canterbury Road) and instead, recommend to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment that it be turned into an open space/park.

·    S.94 donations or dedication of Site 2 (owned by the RSL) be provided for open space to address shortfall for existing and future population.

·    The RSL should demonstrate its commitment to the community, particularly those on low and limited incomes, by providing a higher proportion of “affordable” units within this re-development.

·    Depending on the number of dwellings finally approved, that at least 20% of these be compelled to be made available at affordable rents, as a condition of approval.

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE

In response to the uplift in land value through the Marrickville LEP 2011 the Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014 was prepared. This responded to the projected increase in population of 10,974 persons over the 20 year period from 2011 to 2031 (set by DPE), a 13.9% increase in resident population with an estimated additional 4,988 dwellings.

Petersham South Planning Precinct which encompasses the land the subject of this Planning Proposal was identified as an area for increased population and extra facility and services works estimated to meet the needs of the increase in population. The contributions cap of $20,000 however restricts the amount of money Council may receive through contributions for the capital costs of the additional facilities and services that have been assessed as necessary for the additional population.

The Contributions Plan 2014 sets out the apportionment of contributions to be paid toward open space/recreation, community facilities, traffic facilities and road/access dedication.

The Proponent will be required to pay this contribution on development of the land.

Council officers are actively pursuing a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) with the Proponent with the aim of exhibiting it prior to the making of the LEP amendment.

The report to Council on the planning proposal in June 2017 noted that discussions on the VPA indicated that components may involve affordable housing, public car parking spaces and a monetary contribution.

In light of Council’s Affordable Housing Policy (and the Regional Plan), the Proponent has advised they are willing to negotiate with Council as to the public benefits to be provided as part of the final VPA. The Regional Plan 2018 includes Affordable Rental Housing Targets for very low to low-income households in Greater Sydney. However, these targets are generally in the range of 5-10 per cent of new residential floor space and are subject to viability. Further work by the Greater Sydney Commission to support the implementation of the Affordable Rental Housing Targets including consideration of allocation, ownership, management and delivery models is yet to be undertaken.

 

ISSUE – Loss of employment and urban services, need for strategic study #6

 

·    The erosion of light industrial land and buildings in the area reduces local employment and causes residents to travel further to access services.

·    In recent years 4 mechanical and 2 gardening businesses have closed with the loss of over 40 jobs with the sites subsequently redeveloped for high density housing.

·    All these planning proposals claimed to provide ongoing employment opportunities as shop top housing.

·    None of these developments has created any ongoing employment opportunities. In fact, the shops/offices; remain vacant, have been vandalised and are unsightly.

·    opportunity now exists undertake a wider strategic study for the area bounded by Crystal Street, Trafalgar Street, Audley Street and New Canterbury Road and examine its potential for uplift.

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE

The subject land was zoned R4 - High Density Residential under MLEP in 2011 and no shops are proposed at the base of the apartment buildings on Sites 1 and 2. A new Petersham RSL and café if approved will be built on Site 3 with frontage to Trafalgar and Regent Streets.

It is acknowledged that there has been an incremental loss of industrial land in the LGA and with it the urban services the community needs.

Council is to undertake an economic and employment study in the near future to inform the preparation of a single new comprehensive LEP for the LGA.  Petersham like other growth areas in the LGA is experiencing change and wider strategic planning as part of the work for the new LEP will inform future controls for this area.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The June 2017 Council report advised that the Proponent intends to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) with Council. In light of the requirements outlined in Council’s Affordable Housing Policy, the Proponent has advised that they are willing to negotiate with Council as to the public benefits to be provided as part of the final VPA. The value of the public benefits or otherwise of this offer is the subject of current negotiations with the Proponent.

 

The final terms of the VPA offer will need to be exhibited prior to finalising the amendment to MLEP 2011.

 

ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING PROPOSAL & DRAFT MDCP 2011

MLEP

The proposal to increase the height and FSR development standards and relocate the Petersham RSL will enable the provision of approximately an additional 67 dwellings in close proximity to Petersham Train Station and Petersham Village. This will increase the apartment yield from approximately 289 to 356 dwellings and increase housing supply in a walkable neighborhood with good public transport access.

If adopted the Planning Proposal will amend the height of buildings map and FSR map for the MLEP 2011 as follows:

·        Site 1 - 26 metres with no change to the existing FSR

·        Site 2 - 20 metres high with FSR 2.1:1

·        Site 3 - 20 metres, 29 metres and 35 metres with FSR 3.4:1

Community concerns with overdevelopment, bulk and scale, loss of amenity and traffic impacts have been considered. Lower heights have been proposed for Site 1 and Site 3 to ensure the building mass does not exceed the expectations set by the MDCP 2011. Additional controls relating to the preservation of significant trees and the reinstatement of those proposed to be removed are within the draft MDCP.

Improvements to building envelopes, building articulation, size and quality of the urban open space have been clarified and agreed through the updated MDCP figures.

All government agencies and service providers contacted have raised no objection to the proposed MLEP changes. RMS however, advises that Council should be satisfied that appropriate funding mechanism/s (eg Section 94 Plan and VPA) are in place to ensure developer contributions are made for local and regional transport infrastructure upgrades required as a result of future growth in the Petersham South precinct. This will be addressed within Council’s proposed broader precinct traffic and transport study and the new comprehensive LEP.

The planning proposal is consistent with the objectives of the R4 – High Density Residential zone applying to the sites, is strategically located and has planning merit.

MDCP

The following MDCP changes are supported and it is recommended they be incorporated into Part 9.6 of MDCP 2011 and be finalised.

i.    update C7 Articulation: the primary architectural scale of the buildings shall be consistent and street-wall-defining with a strong 2-storey horizontal façade datum to promote a generous human scale to the buildings at street level and entries. 

ii.    include in C5 Sustainable Buildings and Occupant Amenity: an increase in sustainability and amenity by achieving high environmental performance to the buildings by means of water efficiency targets equal to Basix plus 20% and energy efficiency equal to Basix plus 10%. The RSL club or non-residential uses shall achieve a minimum 5 stars NatHERS. 

iii.   a control C12 Architectural Expression be included: 

[a] the architectural expression to the buildings shall be unique and informed by their context, including the selection of self-finished materials that are evident in nearby period buildings or heritage items, and façade intervals and articulation that respond to the fine grain character of existing industrial buildings on the site (approximately 20 metres façade intervals); and

[b] the brickwork and trusses of the warehouses to be demolished shall be salvaged and reused as recycled bricks (note that this was negotiated with the applicant throughout the PP process).

iv.  two controls be included in C8 Domain Interface and Structure stating: [a] The residential units on the Ground Level shall have separate mail boxes and direct pedestrian access from the adjacent streets or the pocket park; and [b] Three separate residential lobbies shall be provided to Buildings A, B and C on Site 3 accessed from Trafalgar Street, Regent Street, Fisher Street and the pocket park.

v.   the building envelope for Site 1 (Figure 6.1b) be updated to include dimensions  and a control to ensure adequate separation between buildings of 5, 7 and 8 storeys – minimum separation shall be  a minimum of 11.0m between non-habitable rooms, minimum of 14.45 metres between habitable and non-habitable rooms and minimum of 18.0m between habitable rooms consistent with SEPP 65.

vi.  To ensure the protection and longevity of the two lemon scented gums on the corner of Regent and Fisher Streets, Petersham no development is to occur within the tree protection area defined in the following figure

vii.  The large paper bark trees on the Regent Street verge are to be protected and new improved street works provided to increase ground water to the root system and enhance their longevity.

viii. A control in C3 Building height be included stating that small breaches in the MLEP 2011 height (in metres) can be considered to accommodate lift overruns and architectural roof features.

ix.  Pedestrian movement, safety and amenity are to be facilitated by an upgrade to the intersection of Regent and Trafalgar Streets, Petersham. The details of such an upgrade are to be submitted with the development application for redevelopment of Sites 1, 2 or 3 which benefit from the Petersham RSL Planning Proposal.

x.    The pedestrian refuge islands on Regent Street and Trafalgar Street are to be upgraded as part of public domain improvement works. The future development may need to allow a setback (and potentially land dedication to Council) along the Trafalgar Street frontage to ensure adequate footpath widths for future pedestrian demands from the ultimate development can be provided and designed in accordance with Austroads requirements.

xi.  To ensure an efficient and functioning road, bike and pedestrian network land dedication from the frontage of Site 3 Trafalgar Street may be required to accommodate the median strip, bus lanes, regional bike route and footpaths.

xii.  Any land required from the Trafalgar site frontage to accommodate the raised concrete median to facilitate a left-in/left-out to the new Club will be required to be dedicated as public road at no cost to Council and Roads and Maritime.

xiii. Civil design for the median will need to be provided with any future DA for Site 3. The design will need to be in accordance with Austroads standards and will need to coordinate with Regional Route 7 bike plans impacting Trafalgar Street. Consultation with Sydney Trains is also required to ensure no impact to their access on the northern side of Trafalgar Street for large vehicles.

xiv. Insert new DCP figures for building envelopes and sections for Site 3 as per this report.

 

CONCLUSION

The proposal to increase the building heights and FSRs at has the potential to generate an additional 67 dwellings over what could be achieved under the current controls. As a comprehensive development across three sites it allows the relocation of the Petersham RSL Club to a new site on the corner of Regent and Trafalgar Streets, Petersham.

Amendments to the height, building setbacks and articulation have been recommended by the AEP. These changes have been reflected in a new height of buildings LEP map and updated DCP figures and written controls.

The response from relevant agencies has been assessed within this report. There are no outstanding agency objections enabling the Planning Proposal to proceed under Council delegation.

Traffic implications have been assessed by Council’s Traffic Engineer and the RMS and a number of measures recommended to the road system and for improved pedestrian safety and amenity.

These measures will restrict traffic for a new RSL Club to left-in/left-out on Trafalgar Street and will be considered in conjunction with the Regional Bike Route 7 on the northern side and relocation of bus stops. It is also proposed to limit vehicle movement turning right from Regent Street onto New Canterbury Road during weekday peak and will be the subject of a future Traffic Management Plan.

DPE advised that Parliamentary Counsel (PC) in drafting a provision for the MLEP will determine the most appropriate way to ensure 150 off street car parking spaces for the RSL Club on Site 3 are not considered to represent ‘gross floor area’.

It is recommended that the planning proposal be approved, the draft MDCP 2011 be finalised and adopted, and the VPA be exhibited prior to the making of the amendment to the MLEP 2011.

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

11 October 2017 Gateway Determination

2.

27 June 2017 Council Report - Petersham RSL Planning Proposal

3.

December 2017 Architectural Excellence Panel Report

4.

Landscape Design Report and ENTs Tree Consultancy Report

5.

Fisher Street, Shadow Study (Building A) and Block Shadow Analysis for 3 Sites

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018

 

Item No:         C0418 Item 7

Subject:         Planning Proposal - 21 - 35 John Street, Leichhardt           

Prepared By:     Gunika Singh - Strategic Planner 

Authorised By:  David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning

 

SUMMARY

A Planning Proposal was submitted to Council on 2 January 2018 by Urbis on behalf of Eurolinx Pty. Ltd. seeking to amend Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 (LLEP) as it applies to 21 - 35 John Street, Leichhardt. The Planning Proposal seeks to rezone the site from Light Industrial (IN2) to Medium Density Residential (R3), increase the floor space ratio to 1.9:1 and introduce a new height control of 24m.

A Strategic Merit assessment has been carried out against the Department of Planning and Environment's "Guidelines to preparing Planning Proposals" and it is considered that the Planning Proposal fails to meet this test. It is also inconsistent with the Greater Sydney Region Plan 2018, Eastern City District Plan 2018 and the recommendations of the Leichhardt Economic and Employment Development Plan and Industrial Lands Study. Consequently, it is recommended that the Planning Proposal should not be supported.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

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

a)         It fails the Strategic Merit Test of the Guidelines for preparing Planning Proposals pursuant to Section 3.33 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;

b)         It is inconsistent with the Greater Sydney Region Plan 2018 and the Eastern City District Plan 2018 in relation to retention of all industrial lands;

c)         It is inconsistent with s.117 Direction 1.1 - Business and Industrial Zones and 7.1 - Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney;

d)         It is inconsistent with the Leichhardt Employment and Economic Development Plan 2013 - 2023 and would result in loss of employment and urban services land;

e)         It is a departure from a consistently held strategic planning position in former Leichhardt to resist rezoning industrial lands for residential purposes;

f)          The proposed built form controls sought through the Planning Proposal are inappropriate due to adverse amenity impacts on the adjoining low density residential area;

g)         Support of this Planning Proposal is likely to result in an adverse precedent and the associated loss of adjoining industrial  sites in the Moore Street South precinct;

h)        In the context of persistent demand for a limited and decreasing supply of industrial land, a rezoning would dilute Council's ability to provide sufficient industrial land to accommodate future needs; and

i)          It is inconsistent with Inner West Council's Affordable Housing Policy (2016) for 15% affordable housing.

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; and

3.         In order to maximise Council's influence over this proposal site, should a Rezoning Review prove successful, Council accepts the role of Planning Proposal Authority (formerly Relevant Planning Authority) should the Department of Planning and Environment invite Council to perform that role.

 

 

BACKGROUND

1.0       OVERVIEW OF PROPOSAL

The Planning Proposal (Attachment 1) submitted to Council by Urbis on behalf of Eurolinx Pty. Ltd. seeks to amend Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 (LLEP) to establish R3 Medium Density controls to facilitate redevelopment of 21 - 35 John Street, Leichhardt. The Planning Proposal is accompanied by a proposed amendment to Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 (LDCP) (Attachment 2) which includes site specific controls for the property.

The key components of the Planning Proposal are:

·    Rezoning the subject site from Light Industrial (IN2) to Medium Density Residential (R3).

·    An uplift in Floor Space Ratio from 1:1 to 1.9:1.

·    Introduction of a new height control of 24m or equivalent eight (8) storeys.

·    Two (2) residential blocks ranging from four (4) storeys to six (6) storeys resulting in approximately 54 residential units.

·    Pedestrian and vehicular site-through link between John Street and Whites Creek Laneway.

·    Basement car parking off John Street and Whites Creek Laneway.

·    A Voluntary Planning Agreement Offer including the provision of 5.5% of total dwellings for affordable housing (approximately 3 units).

2.0       APPLICATION HISTORY

·    27 September 2006 - PREDA/2006/125 - Change of use of existing industrial building to an indoor play centre with associated cafe/take away and fitout and signage - Advice Letter issued.

·    10 January 2017 - Pre-Planning Proposal to rezone the site from Light Industrial to Residential - Advice letter issued dated 10 February 2017 (Attachment 3).

·    29 June 2017 - Subsequent Pre-Planning Proposal to rezone the site from Light Industrial to Residential - Advice letter issued dated 1 August 2017 (Attachment 3).

·    2 January 2018 - Current Planning Proposal lodged by the applicant. Council accepted the Planning Proposal and requested additional information.

·    31 January 2018 - Additional information was lodged including the urban design addendum, tree report and addendum to traffic report.

3.0       SITE CONTEXT

The site 21 - 35 John Street, Leichhardt is located in the Industrial sub area of the Piperston Distinctive Neighbourhood in the Leichhardt Development Control Plan (LDCP) 2013 area. The site is a part of the Moore Street South industrial precinct in Leichhardt (Refer to Figure 1) and 7km from the Sydney CBD.

HILL STREETJOHN STREETALFRED STREETWHITES CREEK LANEMOORE STREET

             Subject site (in red)                            Moore Street South industrial precinct (in blue)      

Figure 1 - Context of the site within Moore Street South precinct

The site area is 2,612 sqm and is made up of Lot 1 DP 611643 and Lot 1 DP 602355. There is a substation easement on the John Street frontage closer to the northern boundary which is owned by Alpha Distribution Ministerial Holding Corporation.

The site has an east-west orientation with a 49m frontage to John Street and 55m curved frontage to Whites Creek Laneway. It slopes down from the highest point on the south west corner along John Street to the south east corner along Whites Creek Laneway by approximately 3m.

The site is occupied by a three storey brick and concrete building with a two-storey office extension facing John Street. The site is used for storage and assembly of homeware goods by the tenant Bathe. The business employs 26 workers and provides approximately 17 car parking spaces along the vehicular driveway on the south of the subject site. The warehouse is over the permissible FSR of 1:1, with large setbacks from the western and southern site boundaries. Nil setbacks exist along the northern and eastern site boundaries (Figure 3).

Figure 2 - John Street looking towards north, subject site to the right.

Figure 3 - Whites Creek lane looking south, subject site to the right.

Development to the south, west and east of the site is characterised by one or two storey residential dwellings. To the north of the site is a one -storey industrial development which has recently been approved for 'Demolition of the existing structures and construction of a new four storey industrial building with ancillary caretakers flat' under Complying Development Certificate CDC/2016/87 dated 20 June 2016.

4.0       PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PLANNING CONTROLS

4.1       Proposed Amendments to Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013

The site is zoned IN2 - Light Industrial under the LLEP. The objectives of this zone are:

·        To provide a wide range of light industrial, warehouse and related land uses.

·        To encourage employment opportunities and to support the viability of centres.

·        To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.

·        To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of workers in the area.

·        To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

·        To retain existing employment uses and foster a range of new industrial uses to meet the needs of the community.

·        To ensure the provision of appropriate infrastructure that supports Leichhardt’s employment opportunities.

·        To retain and encourage waterfront industrial and maritime activities.

·        To provide for certain business and office premises and light industries in the arts, technology, production and design sectors.

The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the LLEP as follows:

·    Amend the Land Zoning Map to rezone the site from IN2 Light Industrial to R3 Medium Density Residential as shown in Figure 4;

·    Amend the Floor Space Ratio map to identify a site-specific Floor Space Ratio of 1.9:1 as shown in Figure 5;

·    Introduce a new site-specific height control of 24m as shown in Figure 6.

Current Zoning

Proposed Zoning

RE1R1IN2

 

 

 

Figure 4 - Zoning under LLEP


 

Current FSR

Proposed FSR

 

 

 

Figure 5 - FSR under LLEP

Current Maximum Building Height

Proposed Maximum Building Height

 

*Note - no height control currently applies to the site

 

 

Figure 6 - Building height under LLEP

 


 

4.2       Proposed Amendments to Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013

The Planning Proposal is supplemented with a request to amend the LDCP. The draft LDCP amendment (Attachment 2) provides site specific development controls for building envelope, bulk and massing, setbacks, street frontage heights, parking etc. Figure 7 below is an extract from the proponent's draft site-specific LDCP indicating proposed building heights and setbacks.

 

Figure 7 - Maximum building heights and setbacks as indicated in the draft site-specific LDCP

 

5.0       REVIEW OF THE PLANNING PROPOSAL AND KEY ISSUES

This section provides an analysis and review of the proposal, including adequacy of the application and key planning issues. The following issues are considered to be of strategic planning importance when reviewing the Proposal and the proponent's justification:

·    Consistency with State Government's strategic planning framework

·    Consistency with Council's  strategic direction and policies

·    Loss of employment and urban services land

·    Appropriateness of medium density residential development

·    Traffic and urban design issues

An analysis has also been undertaken in the context of the State strategic planning framework in particular the Industrial Lands Strategic Assessment Checklist set out under A Plan for Growing Sydney.

5.1       Adequacy Review

Section 3.33 of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) outlines the requirements for planning proposals. The relevant Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) guidelines to determine the adequacy of a planning proposal and its supporting information are:

·    Guide to preparing planning proposals (August 2016)

·    Guide to preparing local environmental plans (April 2013)

The Guide to preparing planning proposals outlines matters that should be included in a planning proposal to satisfy the requirements of the Act. The Proposal has been reviewed against the requirements provisions of the DP&E guidelines and the Act. Therefore this section  is not a merit analysis but a review of the adequacy of the application in response to the information required to address the Guidelines.

It is concluded that overall the application provides adequate information to enable Council to determine whether the proposal should be submitted for a Gateway determination. The strategic merit assessment is provided in the rest of this report from Section 5.2 onwards.

5.2       Justification of the Planning Proposal and Consistency with the Strategic Planning Framework

The following tabulated analysis assesses the adequacy of the supporting information supplied with the Planning Proposal and of whether it meets the aims and objectives of the strategic framework in the 'Guide to preparing planning proposals.'

For a detailed analysis under the guidelines and planning framework, please refer to the Planning Proposal Assessment Checklist in Attachment 5.

Assessment against Planning Proposal Guidelines and Strategic Planning Framework

Part 1 Objectives and intended outcomes

 

Guideline Requirements

2.1

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

 

Officer's Comments:

The Planning Proposal is accompanied by a descriptive statement in Part 6.1 of Attachment 1. Commentary against the proposed and intended objectives is provided below. The proponent's objectives are shown in italics:

·     "Provide a high quality medium density residential development to support the changing medium and long term social and demographic characteristics of the community in the context of the broader regional context."

Comment: The proposal seeks to rezone an industrial site to provide medium density housing in a predominantly low density residential area. The proposed rezoning would in reality allow a high density residential development and result in a loss of jobs and key urban services land.

The current capacity of industrial land in the Inner West LGA is severely constrained and there is a projected shortfall of industrial floorspace in future.

The site is not located in a strategic centre and does not form part of any urban regeneration strategy area. The site is not considered to be an appropriate location for medium or high density residential development given its interface with the low density residential dwellings.

·      "Assist the Inner West Council achieve its goal of providing an additional 5,900 new dwellings in the LGA by 2021, by providing 54 new dwellings, including the dedication of approximately three (3) dwellings to Council for the purpose of affordable rental housing."

Comment: The Eastern City District Plan sets a housing supply target of 5,900 dwellings for Inner West Council between 2016 and 2021. This target is based on the District's dwelling needs and existing opportunities to deliver supply. It is 'generally consistent with known housing approvals and construction activity. These are minimum targets and reflect delivery potential under current planning controls'.

Council can meet its residential target without rezoning key industrial sites. The capacity to do so is in the pipeline with developments that are already approved, rezonings that are in place, the Parramatta Road Transformation Strategy and the normal annual increase in dwellings from small development applications.

The proponent (Attachment 10) provides a summary of future proposed or approved developments in the Inner West LGA with a projected additional supply of 4,915 units from 2016 to 2021. The analysis indicates that Council will not be able to meet the District Plan's target and will be short of 985 dwellings by 2021. The proponent argues that provision of 54 dwellings at the subject site will assist Council in addressing this suggested shortfall. The proponent's analysis is, however, flawed in a number of respects as follows:

Even the proponent's own Residential Needs Analysis Chart 6.6 based on historical DP&E's projected annual population growth and new dwelling completion trends from 2004 to 2026 show dwelling completions exceeding annual population growth from 2013 to 2026.

The proponent's Appendix - A Future Residential Supply included in Economic Impact Assessment (Attachment 10) only covers up to 2020 and shows only 2 developments as being completed in 2020, compared to 21 in 2019 and 29 in 2018. This is a misleading under estimate for 2020.

The suggested shortfall of 985 dwellings against the District Plan's 2021 target of 5,900 is additionally misleading in that Council could reasonably expect to have to the end of 2021 to achieve this target. The proponent's analysis effectively cuts off projected progress in early 2020 with almost another two years to the end of 2021.

The proponent's analysis excludes new dwelling completions that arise from small development consents, which Council estimates will be 525 between 2016 and 2021.

The proponent's analysis also omits several pipeline sites that are already approved or supported by Council which will deliver additional dwellings as shown below in Table 1a. When these 1,399 dwellings and small consents are added to the proponent's projection of 4,915 dwellings, Council is likely to achieve 6,839 completions against the District Plan target of 5,900.

Table 1a - IWC's estimated dwelling yields by 2021

Sites

Dwelling yield

Urbis's claim of future proposed developments in IWC LGA (Attachment 10)

4,915

Victoria Road, Marrickville

500

159 Allen Street, Leichhardt*

56

101 - 103 Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield

14

168 Norton Street, Leichhardt

47

Petersham RSL 287 - 309 Trafalgar Street, Petersham

357

73 Mary Street, Sydenham

180

466 - 480 New Canterbury Road, Dulwich Hill (estimate)

100

120C Old Canterbury Road, Summer Hill

55

2 - 6 Cahill Avenue, Ashfield (additional dwellings)

90

Small infill development consents

525

Total dwelling yield

6,839

It is acknowledged that the residential market, the development industry and the planning system are a dynamic complex that produce an ever-changing level of dwelling completions, that further complicate the previous points highlighting the flaws in proponent's analysis. However, Council's own dwelling projections show 4,441 completions between 2018 and 2021 plus an estimated 2,098 completions in 2016 and 2017 with a total of 6,539 by the end of 2021.

Table 1b- Council's Dwelling Completion Estimated Projections 2016 - 2021

Year

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Total

Dwelling completions

1,048

1,050

981

1,034

1,198

1,228

6,539

This figure is slightly different from the 6,839 in Table 1a because these projections were prepared in mid-2016 and circumstances have already changed.

·      "Providing a logical point of transition between the Moore Street Industrial Precinct to the north, and the residential dwellings to the south of Hill Street."

Comment: The proposed design does not provide an acceptable transition between the industrial buildings to the north and residential dwellings to the south. The surrounding area consists of one or two storey industrial buildings to the north and one or two storey residential dwellings to the south, east and west. The proposal is excessive in bulk and scale, and inconsistent with the proportions and character of adjacent residential buildings. There are also serious concerns about how the proposed rezoning might adversely affect industrial activities on the adjacent site to the north as new residents could complain about impacts from these. This could intensify land-use conflicts and have a knock-on effect on other industrial sites in Moore Street South industrial precinct.

·      "Reduce land use conflicts between the residential uses surrounding the site, and the light industrial uses on the site, which are exacerbated by the inadequate road network immediately surrounding the site which is incompatible with commercial traffic and vehicular typologies."

Comment: Whilst the subject site is located at the fringe of the Moore Street Industrial precinct and has residential uses on three boundaries, its current use does not appear to have caused land use conflicts. A peer review of the proponent's Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) by SGS Economics and Planning has indicated that the subject site is fully tenanted, functioning well and currently economically viable. The current business on the site has been operating successfully for 11 years.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

It is acknowledged that the section of John Street between Styles Street and Hill Street is a narrow carriageway of 7m with on-street parking. However, most of the deliveries to the existing business are via Whites Creek Lane. In addition, contrary to the applicant's claim, the proposed rezoning would not remove the use of John Street by medium-rigid/ small-rigid vehicles and garbage trucks servicing other premises and houses. In the modern e-commerce economy, 54 dwellings would themselves generate truck deliveries using John Street to access the site.

In addition, the existing Light Industrial IN2 zoning only permits relatively low impact industrial uses and urban services which provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of other businesses, residents and workers in the area. While access is considered important for certain types of light industrial uses, access along a wide street is not a critical issue for many urban services that rely on small and medium size vehicles.

·      "Protection and enhancement of the natural environment through the provision of landscaping and various ESD initiatives fronting Whites Creek."

Comment - The proposed concept design provides nil to 1m setbacks with nil deep soil planting opportunities along Whites Creek Laneway with the exception of the north eastern corner. The lack of setbacks and landscaping is considered to be inappropriate to protect or enhance opportunities to create a more natural environment along Whites Creek.

·      Open spaces and landscaping - opening the public domain along the southern edge of the site, providing a variety of public open spaces and landscaped spaces to provide private/ communal open spaces associated with the residential uses on the site.

Comment - A detailed assessment of the urban design scheme has been undertaken which is discussed later in this report. The proposed design will result in an overdevelopment of the site and does not provide adequate landscaping opportunities.

If the Planning Proposal is to proceed further, in principle the east-west link along the southern boundary of the site is supported to improve pedestrian permeability. The purpose/benefit of the proposed east-west vehicular through-site link is unclear. There is also some ambiguity in relation to the public/semi-public/private nature of this link.

·      "Views and View sharing - ensuring views to and from residential dwellings and the site are maintained, while ensuring visual privacy to surrounding residential dwellings."

Comment: The proposal seeks to provide a medium to high density residential development with a maximum height of 24m. Considering an average storey to be 3m, the proposal can accommodate up to 8 storeys on the site. Whilst the proponent's draft DCP suggests a maximum height of 4 and 6 storeys for Building - A and Building - B respectively, Building - B would have the appearance of 8 storeys (including the lift over run - as shown in Figure 8).

Figure 8 - Indicative east elevation

This scale of development would result in adverse impacts on visual privacy and views for the residents of surrounding development.

·      "Solar access and overshadowing - minimising the overshadowing impacts on neighbouring properties and the public domain within the site, and ensuring adequate daylight access to future residential units within the site."

Comment: The proposed development would result in significant overshadowing of the residential dwellings to the south of the site. There are also concerns that Building - B and the communal open space of the proposed development itself would not receive adequate sunlight due to self-overshadowing and overshadowing from the approved redevelopment at No. 37 John Street which has not been modelled in the applicant's solar analysis.

·      "Active transport - providing a through site link across the site to facilitate greater permeability."

Comment: If the planning proposal proceeds further, in principle the east-west link along the southern boundary of the site is supported to improve pedestrian permeability. However, the site link alone is not a sufficiently significant community benefit to justify a rezoning.

The medium to high density proposal is also inconsistent with the objectives of the existing R3 Medium Density Residential Zone under LLEP which are:

·    To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment.

·    To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

·    To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

·    To permit increased residential density in accessible locations so as to maximise public transport patronage and to encourage walking and cycling.

·    To ensure that a high level of residential amenity is achieved and maintained.

The proposed development of FSR 1.9:1 and height (7 - 8 stories) is incompatible with the surrounding low density residential area and will result in adverse amenity impacts on the adjoining properties contrary to the objectives of the zone.

Whilst the Planning Proposal has technically addressed the requirements of the Planning Proposal Guidelines by describing its objectives and intended outcomes, it does not demonstrate sufficient planning merit to justify its objectives and intended outcomes.

Part 2 Explanation of provisions

 

Guideline Requirements

2.2

Requires a more detailed statement of how the objectives or intended outcomes are to be achieved.

 

Officer's comments:

The proposed amendment will be achieved by amending the relevant LEP maps as shown in section 4.1. The proposed LEP amendments are to be read in conjunction with the draft DCP. The DCP is assessed in Section 6.0 of this report.

The proponent has addressed this requirement but the Planning Proposal is not supported for the reasons above and in other sections of this report.

 

Part 3 Justification

 

Guideline Requirements

2.3

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

 

Officer's comments:

The Planning Proposal does not provide satisfactory justification for Council to support the proposal as discussed below.

2.3.1

Questions to consider when demonstrating the justification

Section A - Need for Planning Proposal

Q1

Is the planning proposal part of any strategic study or report?

 

Proponent's response:

"The Planning Proposal is consistent with the relevant strategic planning policies and has specifically been informed by more detailed strategic studies, including Urbis's Economic Impact Assessment, Parking and Traffic consultants' Traffic Impact Assessment, Urbis's Social Impact and Affordable Housing Assessment, JBS&G's Phase 1 Contamination Report, Henry & Hymas's Flood Risk Management Report."

Officer's Comment:

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

The proponent's supporting studies have neither comprehensively nor thoroughly addressed relevant strategic planning policies as demonstrated already in Part - 1 above in respect of housing supply targets in the District Plan and do not justify the need to initiate this LEP amendment.

The Planning Proposal is also inconsistent with the recommendations of former Leichhardt Council's Industrial Lands study which recommended the protection of industrially-zoned precincts for their important employment and service functions. The study recognised Moore Street South as a key precinct due to its locational and operational characteristics, making it important to the Leichhardt area and the broader inner-Sydney region.

The proposed rezoning would result in a loss of jobs and key urban services land which serves local communities and businesses. The current capacity of industrial land in the Inner West LGA is severely constrained. A significant amount of floorspace, totalling 164,500 sqm or 12% of the total supply in the Inner West LGA has been lost to rezonings since 2014. An additional 336,400 sqm (28.8% of the total supply) is at risk from potential rezonings through urban renewal strategies and pipeline planning proposals. There are concerns that the proposed redevelopment will result in loss of industrial land in a key precinct and set an adverse precedent for that precinct.

Q2

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

 

Proponent's response:

"The rezoning and changes to zoning, height and FSR controls proposed in this Planning Proposal are the best means of achieving the objectives of the development. Alternative approaches are considered inadequate for the following reasons:

·    Maintaining the existing controls: The current controls do not permit residential uses.

·    Seeking clause 4.6 variations to the existing standards: The existing zoning prohibits residential uses. Rezoning is required to realise the local and strategic vision to promote housing growth and diversity in the location. In order for the future development to be considered viable, significant variation is required from the existing built form controls."

Officer's response:

As already discussed under Part - 1 of this section, the Planning Proposal does not demonstrate sufficient merit to justify the proponent's objectives and outcomes. The existing zoning and controls should be retained to help maintain the supply of industrial lands in Leichhardt, the Eastern City District and the broader Sydney Metropolitan region.

Section B - Relationship to strategic planning framework

Q3a

Does the proposal have strategic merit? Is it:

i.   

Consistent with the relevant regional plan outside of the Greater Sydney Region, 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.

 

Proponent's response:

The proponent claims compliance with the strategic planning framework in various detailed statements. These claims are dealt with collectively below and in detail in Attachment 5.

Officer's Response:

The Planning Proposal was submitted in January 2018 before the Greater Sydney Region Plan and Eastern City District Plan were adopted in mid-March 2018. This report assesses the Proposal against the final Plans. The two relevant key Region and District Plan issues are loss of industrial land and meeting housing supply targets. Part 1 (2.1) of this section assesses the Proposal against the Eastern District Plan housing supply target and demonstrates that this rezoning is not required to meet this target.

The core Region and District Plan industrial land directions include:

·    Direction 7: Jobs and skills for the city

Objective 23: Industrial and urban services land is planned, retained and managed - The Greater Sydney Region Plan includes the following principle to manage industrial and urban services land for the Eastern City District:

"Retain and Manage - All existing industrial and urban services land should be safeguarded from competing pressures, especially residential and mixed-use zones. This approach retains this land for economic activities required for Greater Sydney's operation, such as urban services. Specifically, these industrial lands are required for economic and employment purposes. Therefore the number of jobs should not be the primary objective rather a mix of economic outcomes that support the city and population."

The Plan also aims to maintain a sufficient supply of industrial and urban services land to keep downward pressure on industrial land values as a shortfall of industrial land could increase land values and reduce the amount of land per capita available for urban services. In addition, the Plan identifies the importance of smaller industrial precincts in the Eastern City District by acknowledging that whilst these may appear to be only a small part of the industrial land supply, they are important for urban services and creative industries.

The site's proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the above principles.

Priority E9: Growing international trade gateways - The existing business imports its products by both sea and air and needs to be close to both Port Botany and the Airport. This type of business relies on proximity to these international gateways.

Priority E11: Growing investment, business opportunities and jobs in strategic centres - In the context of persistent demand and limited and decreasing supply of industrial land, rezoning would dilute Council's ability to provide sufficient industrial land to accommodate future demand and achieve employment growth targets.

Priority E12: Protecting industrial and urban services land -

"Action 51 - Retain and manage industrial and urban services land, in line with the Principles for managing industrial and urban services land in the Eastern City District by safeguarding all industrial zoned land from conversion to residential development, including conversion to mixed use zones. In updating local environmental plans, councils are to conduct a strategic review of industrial land."

The Plan emphasises on the importance of small, inner-city industrial precincts as they have relatively affordable rents and provide high proportions of urban services and jobs for local communities.

The Region Plan Objective 23 and District Plan's Action 51 advocate a "retain and manage" approach for industrial land. The District Plan elaborates on this point with a requirement that Council's pursuing this approach should conduct a strategic review of industrial land as part of updating local environmental plans.

This review will take some time for IWC to complete. In the meantime, a number of methods and existing policies can readily be deployed to assess proposals to rezone industrial land. These include the District Plan Principles for managing industrial land, Council policies, draft policies, and studies such as the Leichhardt Employment and Economic Development Plan and the Leichhardt Industrial Precincts Planning Report and the Industrial Lands Strategic Assessment Checklist from A Plan for Growing Sydney, which was the immediate predecessor of the Greater Sydney Region Plan 2018. The Plan is also still referred to in the Section 117 7.1 Direction Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney.

The checklist is a particularly useful interim policy tool for Council to use to retain and manage industrial land prior to undertaking strategic reviews of industrial land.

This section of the report assesses the Planning Proposal against the Regional and District Plans as a single set of integrated requirements that planning proposals should meet to pass the strategic merit test. To set the context for this assessment, the Proposal is scrutinised against the Industrial Lands Strategic Assessment Checklist.

Other inconsistencies with the Region and District Plans are analysed after the industrial lands assessment.

Industrial Lands Strategic Assessment Checklist

Q1. Is the proposed rezoning consistent with State and/or Council strategies on the future role of industrial lands?

The Planning Proposal is not adequately justified in terms of the industrial lands and urban services objectives and actions of the Greater Sydney Region Plan 2018 or the Eastern City District Plan 2018. These strategies recognise the importance of inner-city industrial precincts and require the protection of industrial zoned land from rezoning to residential or mixed-use.

The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the former Leichhardt Council's Economic and Employment Development Plan (EEDP) and Industrial Lands Study 2014. It is also contrary to the Hill PDA Industrial Precinct Review 2015 prepared for DP&E to inform Greater Sydney Commission's Region and District Plans. It identifies Moore Street South precinct as a healthy industrial precinct.

 

Q2. Is the site:

·    Near or within direct access to key economic infrastructure?

·    Contributing to a significant industry cluster?

The site is located in the Moore Street South precinct approximately 7km from Sydney Airport and 18km from Port Botany. The site is close to the proposed WestConnex interchange and the City West Link designated truck route, so is well-placed to provide industrial functions.

The site is a part of the 5.9ha Moore Street South industrial precinct which has multiple lots and a diverse mix of office-based, industrial and bulky good businesses. Council's 2016 Industrial Precincts Planning Report indicates that it is Leichhardt's most significant industrial precinct as it plays a key role in providing urban services within the broader sub-region. The precinct has also been rated as performing 'above average' in terms of economic output and jobs in the Hill PDA Industrial Precinct Review carried out for DP&E in 2015.

The site is the fifth largest in the precinct with an area of 2,612 sqm which is 4.43% of the precinct area. The applicant has wrongly claimed that the site is 'presently vacant and is occupied by outdated and declining factory facilities'. The site is occupied by a business which has been operating for over 11 years and employs 26 workers, thus contributing to a significant industry cluster.

Q3. How would the proposed rezoning impact the industrial land stocks in the subregion or region and the ability to meet future demand for industrial land activity?

The Greater Sydney Commission's Greater Sydney Region Plan 2018 and Eastern City District Plan 2018 have recognised the importance of industrial lands for urban services, especially the increasing demand of these services with the growing population. These Plans recommend that industrial and urban services land should be protected from conversion to any residential or mixed-use development.

Former Leichhardt Council's Industrial Lands Study 2014 also recommends protection and intensification of industrial sites in the area due to the shortage of industrial land at sub-regional level. As per the study, there is a forecast demand for an additional 63,094 sqm of industrial floorspace in Leichhardt by 2036. SGS's peer review of proponent's EIA has indicated that by 2036, an additional 386,200 sqm of industrial floorspace will be required to meet the demands of industrial services across the Inner West LGA which equates to 19,300 sqm additional industrial floorspace per annum.

SGS's peer review of the proponent's EIA concluded that the current capacity of industrial land in the Inner West LGA is severely constrained. A significant amount of 164,500 sqm floorspace, or 12% of the total supply in the Inner West LGA has been lost to rezonings since 2014. An additional 336,400 sqm (28.8% of the total supply) is at the risk of potential rezonings through urban renewal strategies and pipeline planning proposals.

With a limited supply alongside loss of other key industrial lands in the wider Inner West area including the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Strategy, Sydenham to Bankstown Strategy, Bays Precinct, Victoria Road Precinct, there will be a significant shortfall of industrial lands by 2036.

Consequently, rezoning of this lot from industrial use could exacerbate the industrial land shortfall in the LGA and broader sub-region.

In addition, there are concerns that the introduction of residential uses on the site would create a land use conflict with industrial uses to the north. This would also potentially drive off traditional industrial uses from other sites in the Moore Street precinct. This risk is actually recognised in the applicant's response to Council's Pre-Planning Proposal assessment (Attachment 4) which states that “Council should seek to rezone the land from the subject site to Hill Street to create a clearly delineated separation between residential and industrial uses” (see Figure 1 for location of Hill Street).

There are concerns that should the Planning Proposal succeed, it would trigger a domino effect with similar proposals for medium/high residential infill development in the Moore Street precinct and other traditional industrial areas.

Q4. How would the proposed rezoning impact on the achievement of the subregion/region and LGA employment capacity targets and employment objectives?

The Proposal seeks to rezone the site to purely residential, would not contribute to any employment targets and result in a reduction of jobs.

The proponent claims that the current business employs 15 workers which is below the average employment density. However, the business actually employs 26 people. The proposed rezoning and potential associated loss of the rest of the industrial precinct would jeopardise the ability of Council to meet employment targets and exacerbate the projected shortfall of urban services and industrial land.

Q5. Is there a compelling argument that the industrial land cannot be used for an industrial purpose now or in the foreseeable future and what opportunities may exist to redevelop the land to support new forms of industrial land uses such as high-tech or creative industries?

There is no compelling argument that the industrial land cannot be used for an industrial purpose now or in the future as the site is and has been used for industry for many years. The site is single ownership and has been leased to the same tenant for 11 years.

The site is constrained to some extent by limited accessibility because of the narrowness of John Street. The existing business, however, operates on weekdays between 9 am to 4 pm with most deliveries and dispatches during mid-afternoon. The business primarily uses relatively small medium-rigid vehicles (similar to Coles or Woolworth online shopping delivery trucks) which access/ leave the site via Whites Creek Lane and occasionally, turn right onto John Street to access Moore Street Regional Road. There are approximately 6 truck movements per week (3 in and 3 out) with an average of approximately 1.2 truck movements in a day.

Accessibility is, therefore, not an impediment to this operation. The location of the site on the periphery of the industrial precinct and accessibility do not appear to be significant issues for the tenant or the occupants of adjoining industrial sites on the section of John Street between the site and Hill Street. This is demonstrated by the following points:

·    The subject site has been leased to the same tenant since 2007.

·    The current business owner has confirmed that the site is functioning well and there are no significant issues associated with location or accessibility. Indeed, the business needs an inner city site close to Port Botany and Airport.

·    The adjoining site at No. 37 John Street (with similar levels of accessibility) has recently been approved for a new industrial development under a Complying Development Application. This indicates that there is demand for industrial uses and that the site location/ accessibility do not discourage the industrial uses along this section of John Street.

The current Light Industrial Zoning in the LLEP also permits certain categories of office and creative uses which can be easily accommodated on the subject site. Thus, there is no compelling argument that the industrial land cannot be used for an industrial purpose now or in the foreseeable future.

Q6. Is the site critical to meeting the need for land for an alternative purpose identified in other NSW Government or endorsed council planning strategies?

Part 1 (2.1) of this section conclusively shows that the land does not need to be rezoned to meet the Eastern City District Plan's housing supply targets for the IWC area. No other alternative purposes are relevant and, therefore, the land is not critical for meeting the need for land for an alternative purpose.

Consequently, the Planning Proposal fails to comply with the Industrial Lands Strategic Assessment Checklist and cannot be supported.

In addition to inconsistencies with the industrial land and housing supply target requirements, the Planning Proposal also is inconsistent with the following key objectives of the Greater Sydney Region Plan 2018 and priorities of the Eastern City District Plan 2018:

·    Direction 3: A City for People

Objective 7: Communities are healthy, resilient and socially connected - The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the plan's objective to create walkable places with active street life and because of its proposed overdevelopment of the site will not have human scale.

Objective 9: Greater Sydney celebrates the arts and supports creative industries and innovation - The Planning Proposal will result in loss of industrial land that has the potential to support creative industries under the LLEP Light Industrial IN2 zoning.

·    Direction 4: Housing in the city

Objective 10: Greater housing supply - As discussed before, the proposed rezoning is not required to meet District Plan/ Council's housing targets.

Objective 11: Housing is more diverse and affordable – Even if the Proposal was justified in other respects, it would not provide enough affordable housing to fully comply with Council's Affordable Housing Policy.

Priority E5: Providing housing supply, choice and affordability with access to jobs, services and public transport - The Eastern City District Plan sets a five - year housing target of 5,900 dwellings for the Inner West local government area.

As demonstrated previously in this section under Part 1 (2.1), Council can meet its residential targets without rezoning this industrial site. In addition, the site's location is inappropriate for high density residential housing.

·    Direction 5: A city of great places

Priority E6: Creating and renewing great places and local centres, and respecting the District's heritage - The proposed built form would substantially detract from the prevailing local character with adverse impacts such as overshadowing, overlooking and excessive bulk and scale. These aspects of the Proposal are particularly inconsistent with the following District Plan action:

"Deliver great places by providing fine-grain urban form, high amenity and walkability."

·    Direction 6: A well connected city

Objective 14: A metropolis of three cities - integrated land use and transport creates walkable and 30-minute cities - The subject site is not near any strategic centre and is not well-serviced by existing public transport to fit with the vision of a walkable 30-minute city.

Priority E10: Delivering integrated land use and transport planning and a 30-minute city - The site is not in a walkable catchment (400m or 800m) of any heavy or light rail stop to support this vision.

·    Direction 8: A city in its landscape

Objective 30: Urban tree canopy cover is increased - The Proposal does not provide adequate tree canopy as discussed in the landscaping comments later in this report.

Objective 32: The Green Grid links parks, open spaces, bushland and walking and cycling paths - The Eastern City District Plan identifies the Whites Creek lane route as a 'Green grid opportunity.' The proposed development proposes a 7 to 8 storey building with a nil or minimal setback from Whites Creek Lane that is out of character with the surrounding area, lacks human scale and would intensify the use of Whites Creek Lane by motor vehicles. This would impede Council's vision to realise a green connection/ recreational corridor along Whites Creek Lane.

Priority E14: Protecting and improving the health and enjoyment of Sydney Harbour, and the District's waterways - The proposed design could result in adverse impacts on the existing stormwater channel and future redevelopment of recreational corridor along the laneway.

Priority E17: Increasing urban tree canopy cover and delivering Green Grid connections - As discussed above under objective 32.

 

Consequently, the Planning Proposal fails to comply with Greater Sydney Region Plan 2018 and Eastern City District Plan 2018 and cannot be supported.

 

ii.   

Consistent with a relevant local council strategy that has been endorsed by the Department.

 

There are no relevant local strategies that have been endorsed by the Department and are applicable to the site. The Planning Proposal will, however, be inconsistent with the objectives of LLEP and LDCP and cannot be supported.

iii.  

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

 

In relation to the increasing demand for industrial lands, Greater Sydney Region Plan 2018 and Eastern City District Plan 2018 state that "Demand for industrial and urban services will increase commensurate with population growth". The Planning Proposal does not appropriately respond to the increasing demand for local urban services from a growing population.

The rezoning of site from Industrial to Residential will result in loss of industrial floorspace, displacement of jobs and compromise Council's ability to accommodate urban services to serve its future population.

Q3b

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

i.   

the natural environment (including known significant environmental values, resources or hazards)

 

The site is affected by a significant flooding risk along the Whites Creek boundary. The proposed development is not adequately setback from Whites Creek Lane to mitigate flooding impacts.

Should the Planning Proposal proceed, any future development must respond appropriately to the existing and potentially enhanced environmental value of Whites Creek and associated flooding issues.

ii.   

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

 

As discussed above, the Planning Proposal does not have adequate merit to rezone the site from industrial to residential.

If supported, the proposed development could result in land-use conflict with the adjoining industrial sites to the north of the site. The Planning Proposal will also result in undesirable amenity impacts on the existing residential uses to the west, south and east of the site.

iii.  

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

 

The Planning Proposal will result in an increased density which will place pressure on existing services and infrastructure.

The relative lack of public open space around the site is particularly relevant. The Planning Proposal does little to address open space issues or provide opportunities for new or improved open space. The Proposal relies heavily on internal private open space which is limited in form and function.

Inner West Council's Draft Recreation Needs Study identifies that Leichhardt currently has 10.9 sqm of public open space per person which is already below the recommended benchmark of 11.5 sqm of public open space per person.

The Inner West area is already struggling to meet the minimum requirements of public open space provision per person. With the foreseen increase in population and without the provision of new public open space, the pro-rata availability of public open space is going to decrease significantly to 7.5 sqm per person by 2036. The rezoning of the site would, therefore, worsen the pressure on the capacity of recreational infrastructure.

Q4

Is the planning proposal consistent with a council's strategy or other local strategic plan?

 

Attachment 5 provides a detailed assessment of the Planning Proposal against all relevant Inner West Council and former Leichhardt Council strategies.

In particular, the analysis in Attachment 5 shows that the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with:

·    Inner West Council Statement of Vision and Priorities

Priority 1 - Planning and development

Priority 2 - Transport

Priority 3 - Social vitality, creativity, quality of life

Priority 4 - Sustainability and environment

Priority 6 - Local business and industry

Priority 7 - Advocacy for community

·    Inner West Council Affordable Housing Policy 2016

·    Leichhardt 2025+ Community Strategic Plan

Minimise negative impacts of urban development on the natural, social, economic, physical and historical environment

Promote a high standard of urban design in the public and private domain

Maintain and enhance the character of the urban environment

Facilitate development that encourages walking and cycling, increases use of public transport and reduces dependency on private motor vehicles

Promote affordable, accessible, adaptable and diverse housing types

Support and share innovation and creativity to develop the local economy

Strategically manage the LGA's economic assets for current and future generations

Make living and working in the LGA easier than in competing areas

Protect, restore and enhance our natural environment

Design and retrofit the built environment to protect the natural environment and waterways

·    Leichhardt Integrated Transport Plan

·    Leichhardt Economic and Employment Development Plan

Outcome 3 - Embrace the New Economy

Outcome 4 - Protect and Leverage Economic Assets

Outcome 5 - Make Business and Employment easier

The Leichhardt EEDP builds on the Leichhardt's Employment Lands Study 2014 and SGS's industrial site review methodology by setting out a more detailed analytical approach for the review of proposed rezoning of Employment Lands.

In practical terms, this approach has three key steps:

1.   A coordinated approach to reviewing sites (and where possible concurrent approach) to ensure an LGA wider perspective is maintained particularly in relation to the need for, and suitability of, the sites for various uses both today and in the future;

2.   A consistent approach is achieved by reviewing the sites against the standard criteria outlined below; and

3.   Where sites are found to be surplus to requirements and proposed to be rezoned, their suitability against a range of alternative uses discussed in this Plan is considered. For example, their potential rezoning and use for creative industries, commercial office space or affordable housing.

Step 2 above refers to standard criteria for assessing the suitability of an employment site for rezoning.  In greater detail, this Plan advocates the use of standardised criteria which have been designed to qualify the suitability of sites from a quantitative perspective (i.e. is there enough industrial land to meet current and forecast demand), a qualitative perspective (i.e. does the industrial land have the attributes required by potential tenants) and from the perspective of economic viability (i.e. are industrial uses viable on the land). 

The proponent's Planning Proposal/ Economic Impact Assessment have not addressed the following EEDP criteria for rezonings:

·    Would the rezoning result in insufficient industrial land being available for current and future demand for industrial land in the LGA, at a minimum?

·    Would the rezoning of the site result in fragmentation of a larger industrial precinct or erode the viability of a locally or regionally significant industrial precinct?

·    Would the rezoning be consistent with adopted Council and/or State Government policy regarding the future role and demand for industrial land? What impact would it have on Council's Employment targets?

·    Does the site(s) have characteristics required by light or high tech industrial uses and other uses permitted in the zone/seeking floorspace in the LGA or sub-region (e.g. floor space, access, proximity to economic infrastructure, parking, infrastructure, storage, building configuration and land value)?

·    Would it be economically viable to improve the site to attract new tenants or to adapt to changing industry requirements and to ensure that the land uses on the site address compatibility with surrounding uses?

·    Would the retention of industrial uses on the site result in a positive net benefit to the community as a whole?

The above criteria are similar to the Industrial Lands Strategic Assessment Checklist which has been addressed above. That assessment concludes that the Planning Proposal does not have adequate strategic merit and should not be supported.

Q5

Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable State Environmental Planning Policies?

 

Attachment 5 provides a detailed assessment of the Planning Proposal against all relevant State Environment Planning Policies (SEPPs).

The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with SEPP 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development. The proponent's urban design report investigated the implications of the design quality principles in the SEPP and included an indicative compliance table for the provisions of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), which is considered to be unsatisfactory.

There are concerns that the proposed FSR of 1.9:1 and height of 24m are significantly incompatible with the surrounding low density character of the area. In particular, the proposal is inconsistent with the following design quality principles of SEPP 65:

Principle 1: Context and neighbourhood character

Principle 2: Built form and scale

Principle 3: Density

The proposed development is also contrary to DP&E's recently released circular 'Respecting and enhancing local character' which advocates the importance of character in local areas and neighbourhoods. The proposal is also inconsistent with the minimum setbacks and separation, deep soil zones, visual privacy, solar and daylight access requirements of the ADG.

If the Planning Proposal is supported, the proposed development would result in significant environmental impacts including overshadowing and visual privacy impacts on the surrounding area. The site is not suited to medium to high density residential development. Consequently, the Planning Proposal should not be supported.

Should the Planning Proposal proceed, the proposed concept design must be revised to reduce the bulk and scale to ensure that the any future development complies with the requirements of SEPP 65 and ADG.

Q6

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

 

Attachment 5 provides a detailed assessment of the Planning Proposal against all relevant s117 directions.

In particular, the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with:

Direction 1.1 - Business and Industrial Zones

As outlined in the preceding sections of this report, Council's policy documents, including the EEDP and assessment against the Industrial Lands Strategic Assessment Checklist, Greater Sydney Region Plan 2018 and Eastern City District Plan 2018 do not support the loss of the site as industrial land.

The proponent claims that "the market is defined by low levels of demand and new lease activity, resulting in the development of alternative uses within industrial areas such as hardware retailing, showrooms and self-storage facilities rather than manufacturing and urban support services". This is self-recognition that there is demand for alternative uses including hardware retailing, showrooms and storage premises which are permitted within IN2 Light Industrial Zone. The objective of the LLEP IN2 zone is to facilitate a wide range of light industrial, warehouse and related land uses.

The peer review of the proponent's EIA by SGS has established that there is currently high demand for, and a shortfall of, available industrial land in the South Sydney and North Shore industrial markets (Inner West being located within South Sydney industrial submarket). This is reflected by current high rents and market prices of industrial land.

The proposal is inconsistent with Direction 1.1 and cannot be supported.

Direction 3.1 Residential Zones

The Planning Proposal must adequately justify the rezoning from industrial to residential before considering the need for the proposed alternative use. In this instance, the Planning Proposal has failed to meet the strategic merit test and s117 Direction 1.1 in relation to protection of employment lands.

In addition, the planning controls sought through the proposal including FSR and height would result in excessive overdevelopment. If it proceeded, it would result in a poor design outcome as discussed in detail in the urban design comments. Consequently the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with Clause 4(d) of this direction and cannot be supported.

Direction 4.3 Flood Prone Land

The Proposal does not contravene this direction, but the site is significantly affected by flooding from Whites Creek. The proposal does not provide adequate setbacks along the laneway and the existing stormwater channel. It may potentially be subject to adverse flooding impacts due to the proposed change of levels. Any future development application would have to ensure that flooding issues were addressed appropriately.

Direction 7.1 A Plan for Growing Sydney

The Greater Sydney Region Plan 2018 superseded A Plan for Growing Sydney in March 2018. However, the s117 directions still refer to the latter as a consideration for Metropolitan Planning. A detailed assessment of the Planning Proposal against A Plan for Growing Sydney is provided in Attachment 5.

The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the following directions and objectives of the Plan:

Goal 1: A competitive economy with world-class services and transport

Direction 1.9 : Support priority economic sectors

 

Goal 2: A city of housing choice, with homes that meet our needs and lifestyle

Direction 2.1 : Accelerate housing supply across Sydney

Direction 2.2: Accelerate urban renewal across Sydney - providing homes closer to jobs

Direction 2.3 : Improve housing choice to suit different needs and lifestyles

 

GOAL 4: A sustainable and resilient city that protects the natural environment and has a balanced approach to the use of land and resources

Priority: Identify and protect strategically important industrial zoned land in and near Port Botany precinct.

Priority: Protect Port Botany's function as an international gateway for freight and support port-related land uses and infrastructure in the area around the port.

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?

 

There are no critical known habitat, threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats on the subject site.

A Tree Survey has been submitted as part of the Planning Proposal with an assessment of the health of the existing trees on the site. There are 12 trees of which, five (5) are considered to be medium and high value trees. The study anticipates that an arboricultural impact assessment addressing development or construction impacts will be submitted at the DA stage.

There are concerns that the extent of the proposed development would result in removal of the existing medium and high value trees. Removal of trees can generally be supported subject to replacement planting, but here there is a lack of deep soil provision for replacement trees in the concept design.

Should the Planning Proposal proceed, any future development must provide an adequate deep soil area and replacement tree planting.

Q8

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

 

Notwithstanding the loss of industrial land, a key issue for this proposal is the appropriateness of a medium to high density residential development which will potentially result in significant negative environmental impacts.

A detailed analysis has been undertaken in relation to the environmental considerations of the proposal as detailed below.

Urban Design and Built form

The design concept (Attachment 8) submitted with the Planning Proposal is based on a 'two-parallel buildings' siting strategy which shows a 4 storey building to John Street and 7 - 8 storey building towards Whites Creek Lane (Refer to the Figure 9 below).

Figure 9  Indicative south elevation. Of particular concern is the proposed building height along Whites Creek Lane. The proposed facade does not provide any building transitions.

While the proponent's urban design scheme does a sound analysis of the site context, the proposed design does not respond appropriately to the context as the proposed heights and built form detract from the prevailing local character.

The proposed built form maximises the development potential of the site without putting forward any rationale for the appropriateness of the built form controls including density and building heights. The proposed 7 to 8 storeys building along Whites Creek lane is out of character and would appear as an unexpected, dominant element in the streetscape which would result in undesirable overlooking and overshadowing impacts on the neighbouring properties.

The proposed building massing and bulk does not respond appropriately to the fine grain character and low lying scale of the neighbouring residential development and will create unreasonable amenity impacts on adjoining properties (particularly low scale residential dwellings to the south and east). In addition, the Proposal lacks recognition of human scale and character and would have an excessive visual impact on the surrounding area.

The proposed amendment to the maximum building height (24 metres) is overly scaled and potentially too generous. This height does not directly relate to the different building heights (in storeys) proposed across the site and may inadvertently allow an extra storey (or storeys) to be added to some buildings during detailed design. The final design may result in an 8 storey development which is considered to be a 'High Density Residential development' and not medium density as sought in the proposal.

The proposed amendment to the floor space ratio (1.9:1) also appears too generous, which, as noted above, is out of character with the immediate context and creates overshadowing impacts on sensitive southern neighbours.

Setbacks

·    The proposed setback of 2m from John Street to the 4-storey Building-A is inadequate bearing in mind the surrounding context including the existing 1-2 storey dwelling houses and the narrow width of John Street. There are also concerns regarding the nil setbacks to the substation easement along John Street which may result in adverse impacts on the amenity of future residents. Additionally, the proposed two-storey podium and two-storey element on top, recessed 2.0m from the primary building alignment along John Street, does not create successful architectural proportions or relate well to the adjoining residential buildings.

·    The proposed setback to the southern boundary of the site does not provide adequate separation distance from the low-density residential buildings and is inconsistent with the minimum building separation requirements of the ADG. It is noted that the ADG recommends a minimum separation distance of 6m for building up to 4 storeys and an additional separation distance of 3m when adjacent to a low density residential zone to provide an appropriate transition in scale. Further, the ADG also recommends increasing the building separation distance to step the built form as height increases. The proposed heights and setbacks are considered to be inappropriate as these would result in adverse amenity impacts, visual privacy impacts and overshadowing of the surrounding dwellings (see image below).

Figure 10 Extract from proponent's urban design report showing section through Building B. Blue line indicates the proposed building envelope. Red line indicates the maximum building bulk that site can generate under the proposed controls which is out of proportion with the surrounding context.

·    Concern is also raised regarding the proposed heights and setbacks on the eastern boundary along Whites Creek Laneway. It is noted that the current landform of the site falls by approximately 4m from the west towards east. As a consequence, the proposed scheme appears to be 7 stories (approx. 21m high) when viewed from Whites Creek Lane with an approximately nil to 1m setback. The proposed heights and setbacks are inappropriate as these do not respond to the local character or the desired future character of the area. The reduced setback along Whites Creek laneway makes the building look overbearing and does not provide any opportunities for streetscape vegetation or ground floor private open space.

Figure 11 Indicative south elevation showing the proposed heights of Building A and B

·    Any proposed development along the northern boundary must consider and appropriately respond to the potential redevelopment of the surrounding properties, especially if the sites were to be rezoned to residential as a consequence of the effect of the subject planning proposal.

Interface issues

A key consideration for any redevelopment is how the design interfaces between adjoining buildings and how they relate to the neighbouring buildings and spaces. As outlined above, the design has a poor quality interface between public space and the private realm and is significantly incompatible with the existing building scale, character and typology of the surrounding and nearby areas.

The proposed wall for basement car parking facing Whites Creek Laneway will not provide a good interface to the laneway as it protrudes above ground level by approximately 3m. Leichhardt Council's 2016 Bike Plan identifies White Creek Lane as a recreational shared path and the proposed design fails to activate this laneway.

The proposed design does not take into consideration the future redevelopment of the adjacent site at No. 37 John Street which was approved recently for the construction of a new 4 storey industrial building. Concern is also raised that the proposed change of use of the subject site from industrial to residential will pose a risk to the operation of other industrial sites immediately adjacent to the site up to Hill Street including No. 37 John Street, Leichhardt. The proposal does not include any design measures to mitigate land use conflict between the proposed development and industrial uses to the north.

Overshadowing impact

The proposal would result in significant overshadowing impacts on the private open spaces of the dwellings along the southern boundary. There are also concerns that the Building-B and communal open space of the proposed development would not receive adequate sunlight due to self-overshadowing and overshadowing from the proposed redevelopment at No. 37 John Street which has not been modelled in the proponent's solar analysis.

Public domain

In principle, the east-west link is supported to improve pedestrian permeability. Although the purpose/benefit of the east-west vehicle through-site link to the south is unclear.

Overall, the proposal lacks strategic merit to support an 'intensified' residential use on the subject site considering the surrounding context and location of the subject site, especially in relation to the available public transport options.

Should the Planning Proposal proceed any further, the proposed built form must be revised to respond to the local character/ desired future character of the area. A significant reduction in building height and scale is required to address compatibility issues with the existing character of the local area, visual impact and overshadowing impacts.

The proposed built form would also have to reconsider the building heights, setbacks and density and appropriately step down the built form to integrate with the residential interface, especially on the western, eastern and southern boundaries. The proposed design would have to include design measures to mitigate any potential land use conflict with the existing industrial sites to the north of the site.

Traffic and Transport

To justify the proposed rezoning from Industrial to Medium Density Residential, the applicant claims that the carriageway widths and geometry of John Street, and adjacent streets, are unsuitable for regular use by commercial vehicles. It is noted, however, that the supporting traffic consultant's report accepts that John Street accommodates and would continue to accommodate small and medium sized trucks, as well as Council garbage trucks.

It is also noted that the existing development does not rely on John Street to service the site. It is accessed via the rear of the site from Alfred Street/Whites Creek Lane.

This is confirmed in the Traffic Management Plan prepared and endorsed by the Local Traffic Committee in 2012 which 'Proposed a 'Light thoroughfare' and 4.5 tonne load limit for John street (between Styles Street and Hill Street), Leichhardt' by the use of Whites Creek Lane as an alternative route to resolve any concerns regarding the use of John Street by heavy vehicles.

More recently, Council's Traffic Engineers have again supported access to the existing businesses along this section of John Street from Whites Creek Laneway. A 2018 report to the Traffic Committee recommends the installation of a 'No Stopping' restriction on Whites Creek Lane at the request of the business operator at 21 - 35 John Street. A concern was raised by the owner regarding obstructed traffic flow/manoeuvring space at the intersection of Whites Creek Lane and the unnamed laneway running between Alfred Street and Whites Creek Lane. In order to improve manoeuvrability at this intersection, Council's traffic engineers are proposing to signpost a 15m 'No Stopping' zone on the western side of Whites Creek Lane as shown in the image below.

Figure 12 Extract from Traffic Committee report to propose 'No Stopping Zone' along the laneway. The subject site is to the south.

The proposed changes to traffic conditions will support the operations of existing and future businesses along this section of John Street.

On-site observations have confirmed that the majority of access to the Proposal site is from Whites Creek Lane with only occasional access via John Street. Discussions with the current business owner have also confirmed that the business does not require heavy vehicle access as it mostly uses medium-rigid vehicles for deliveries and services.

In addition, the business owner has confirmed that they have not faced any major access issues in the past. Consequently, the applicant's justification to seek rezoning on traffic and transport grounds is considered invalid.

In relation to the proposed redevelopment and based on existing data it does not appear that the site-specific traffic generation for residential development would result in detrimental impacts on adjacent intersections. However, the proposal would generate an increased number of vehicle movements on the adjacent street network. While the increased traffic is only likely to be equivalent to an increased frequency from 1 car every 4 minutes, to 1 car every 3 minutes, concern is expressed regarding the potential area-wide implications of a cumulative conversion of existing light industrial lands to residential.  Such a cumulative change of circumstance could as increase traffic volumes by 30% (or more) over existing levels.

Concern is also expressed regarding any intensification of the use of Whites Creek Lane by motor vehicles as it is a significant north-south link active transport link. Council's 2016 Bike Plan identifies Whites Creek Lane as a recreational shared path with upgrading of the route proposed within the next 5-7 years, subject to budget priorities.

In response to potential future intensification of pedestrian/cyclist activity in White’s Creek Lane, it is suggested that Council examine opportunities to reduce conflict by providing a shared path along the existing footpath, located on the lane’s western kerbline.

Noise impact

The subject site lies in the ANEF 20 - 25 contour. The proponent has not submitted an Aircraft Noise Intrusion Assessment Report to analyse the noise impacts.

Landscape

There are currently 13 trees on site which equates to approximately 20% of tree canopy coverage. The proposed design does not clearly indicate what vegetation would be retained. However, there are concerns that the proposed development will result in significant removal of existing vegetation without sufficient replacement planting and landscape cover.

The Leichhardt Urban Forest Policy 2013 aims to increase urban forest canopy coverage within private property as well as on public land. In addition, the State Government (through the Draft Urban Tree Canopy Guideline) supports and recommends a minimum canopy coverage of 25% on sites proposed for medium-high density residential development. This target is considered to be appropriate and achievable for this site.

Concern is raised over the lack of deep soil available to meet the above target. Should the Planning Proposal proceed further, design amendments would have to be made to increase the deep soil planting area.

Stormwater management and Flooding

Council's Engineers have undertaken a high level review of the proposal and raised concerns regarding the proposed development. The property is significantly affected by flooding due to its proximity to Whites Creek and there is potential for adverse flooding impacts as a result of the change in building levels.

There are also concerns that the proposed development does not provide adequate setbacks to the Sydney Water stormwater channel located along the Whites Creek Laneway. Should the Planning Proposal proceed, the proposed design would have to be amended in a draft DCP to address all stormwater and flooding issues.

Contamination

The site was previously used for residential purposes until 1970 and then re- developed as the warehouse currently on the site. The proponent's investigation report has identified that there is a potential for soil and groundwater impacts but did not find any significant potential for widespread contamination which would preclude re-zoning of the site or any potential development. Should the Planning Proposal proceed further, a detailed investigation report in accordance with Council's DCP would be required at the DA stage.

Recreational Needs

Inner West Council's Draft Recreation Needs Study identifies that Leichhardt currently has 10.9 sqm of public open space per person which is already below the benchmark 11.5 sqm of open space per person.

With the foreseen increase in population, the availability of public open space is anticipated to potentially decrease significantly to 7.5 sqm per person by 2036. The Planning Proposal does little to address open space provision or provide opportunities for new or improved open space, relying on the existing open space which is already limited. Council's Park Planning and Engagement section have recommended that if the Planning Proposal were to be supported the concept of "Homezone" along Whites Creek Laneway could increase opportunities for public open space.  A "Homezone" is sometimes known as a play street and is designed primarily to meet the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, children and residents and where the speed and dominance of vehicles is limited. This could be negotiated with the applicant at the VPA stage.

Conclusion

Generally, it is considered that the above issues could be resolved through an amendment to the draft DCP or at the DA stage. However, given the broader strategic issues relating to land-use and built form, it is not considered appropriate to investigate these issues further as part of this report.

Q9

Has the planning proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects?

 

Social Impact

Inner West Councils Affordable Housing Policy requires the Proposal to provide 15% affordable housing. Given the proposal's total residential yield of 54 units, the affordable housing contribution required based upon Council’s policy is 8 dwellings. The proposed affordable housing contribution of 5.6% (or 3 X 1 bedroom units) is unsatisfactory and would fail to meet the affordable housing needs of the community. In addition, given that all household types, not just one or two person households, are affected by the affordable housing crisis, the proponent's offer of three 'single' bedroom affordable units is inadequate.

Economic Impact and Loss of Employment Lands

Council engaged SGS Economics and Planning (SGS) to provide a peer review of Urbis's EIA for the proposal. The report (Attachment 6) concluded that:

A significant amount of floorspace has been rezoned since 2014 being a total of 164,500 sqm in the Inner West LGA.

By 2036, an additional 386,200 sqm of industrial floorspace will be required to service the demand of urban services across the LGA.

The capacity of existing industrial land is severely constrained and cannot meet the future demand of industrial land and services.

Potential losses of industrial zoned land will exacerbate this problem, leading to significant shortfalls in supply of industrial floorspace.

Any rezoning of industrial land within the Moore Street South precinct will further increase the deficit of industrial floorspace.

The rezoning of subject site will result in loss of industrial floorspace and displacement of existing jobs.

SGS's peer review used a sequential test to assess whether the proponent's EIA demonstrates sufficient cause for the move away from the site's current use, before it can consider the alternative use is appropriately justified. This involves the following two questions:

Is the site surplus to requirements under existing zoning?

If so, is the proposed land use suitable for the site?

SGS's report concludes that the proposed rezoning does not meet the sequential test. There is a lack of evidence in the proponent's EIA as to why the site is surplus to requirements. The EIA does not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that improving transport connections will allow industrial tenants to locate in other industrial precincts across the Inner West LGA and Greater Sydney. Contrary to the applicant's claim, transport infrastructure improvements are increasing demand for industrial sites in the inner city areas.

In addition, there is insufficient evidence in the Proposal to claim that the industrial role of the site is compromised by a lack of accessibility, visibility or land use conflicts.

The Council Officer's assessment has confirmed that the rezoning of the site will compromise Council's ability to provide urban services in future and achieve employment growth targets, particularly in the light of the recent prospective rezonings of a number of other industrial sites in the Inner West LGA.

The retention of the site as industrial land is vital. It forms part of a key industrial precinct which provides diverse services and supports emerging businesses to meet the needs of the local population.

Q10

Is there adequate public infrastructure for the planning proposal?

 

As outlined above, the Planning Proposal would have an impact on the existing limited supply of open space in the area and is considered to be inadequate in this regard.

Q11

What are the views of State and Commonwealth public authorities consulted in accordance with Gateway Determination?

 

Should the Planning Proposal proceed further, a favourable Gateway determination would identify a full list of public authorities to be consulted as part of the exhibition process.

A Department of Education referral would be required as the capacity of surrounding schools needs to be confirmed. In addition a Sydney Water referral would be required to establish the correct setbacks to the stormwater channel along Whites Creek Laneway.

2.4

Mapping

 

The Planning Proposal is supported with a request to amend the Land zoning, FSR and Height of Building Maps of the LLEP. Given the broader strategic issues and insufficient support for the proposal, the proposed mapping amendment is not supported.

2.5

Community Consultation

 

If the Planning Proposal was to be supported, given a Gateway Determination and Council was the Planning Proposal Authority, it is considered that the Proposal would be formally exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination and Council's Community Engagement Framework.

2.6

Project timeline

 

The Planning Proposal provides the necessary timeline table. The Gateway Determination, if granted, would determine the actual milestones and maximum timeline required to complete the LEP Amendment.

6.0       AMENDMENTS TO LEICHHARDT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2013

Given the recommendations of this report, particularly in relation to strategic planning and land use issues, a detailed consideration of the proposed controls in the Draft DCP has not been undertaken.

The high level assessment of the proposed controls in the draft DCP is synonymous with the assessment undertaken in relation to the environmental impacts of the proposal under Q9 of the strategic merit test. The objectives and desired future character for the site as outlined in the draft DCP are not supported. In addition, there are significant concerns with the proposed building envelope, setbacks, separation distances and heights. The proposed development also results in significant overshadowing and visual privacy impacts.

Consequently, the draft site-specific DCP amendment is not supported. Should the Planning Proposal proceed further, the urban design scheme and draft DCP must be revised to address all the issues outlined in this report and an appropriate design scheme would need to be agreed between Council and the applicant which would subsequently inform draft DCP controls.

7.0       VOLUNTARY PLANNING AGREEMENT (VPA)

Urbis on behalf of Eurolinx Pty. Ltd. has submitted a Public Benefit Offer (Attachment 15) to enter into a VPA for the provision of 3 X 1 bedroom units as affordable housing contribution.

If Council is to enter into negotiations on a potential VPA, the negotiations should seek the provision of:

·    An adequate affordable housing contribution

·    Public domain improvements along Whites Creek Laneway including the opportunity to redesign the laneway as a "Homezone"

·    Green Star 5 star rating for environmental performance

Should the proposal proceed to Gateway determination stage, the VPA would have to be negotiated by Council and exhibited concurrently with the Planning Proposal. Council can only negotiate a VPA relating to the Planning Proposal if it is the Planning Proposal Authority.

8.0       FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The proponent has paid fees for the assessment and preparation of a planning proposal up to the stage of a possible submission to Gateway. An additional fee would be payable to progress the Planning Proposal after a favourable Gateway determination. The proponent would also be responsible for meeting costs associated with revising documentation or studies prior to exhibition as required by a Gateway determination and for the peer review of this material or additional studies should they be deemed necessary.

8.0       PUBLIC CONSULTATION

This single site Planning Proposal in the former Leichhardt LGA is inconsistent with Leichhardt Council policies and draft policies and in accordance with the former Leichhardt Council's practice has not been subject of preliminary community consultation.

Should the Planning Proposal proceed to the Gateway Determination Stage, community consultation would be undertaken in accordance with the conditions of the Gateway Determination and Council's Community Engagement Framework.

9.0       CONCLUSION

The Planning Proposal fails the Strategic Merit test as indicated in this Planning Report, and is contrary to State, District and Council Plans and Policies that require protection of employment and urban services land. In addition, the subject site is not considered to be an appropriate strategic location for medium to high scale density residential development. There are significant concerns that the proposal would result in adverse impacts on the surrounding built environment in terms of height, bulk and scale issues.

It is recommended that Council should not support the Planning Proposal for the site.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Applicant's Planning Proposal - 21 - 35 John Street, Leichhardt

2.

Applicant's draft LDCP amendment - 21 - 35 John Street, Leichhardt

3.

Council's Pre-planning Proposal advice to the applicant - February 2017 and August 2017

4.

Applicant's response to Council in relation to the Pre-Planning Proposal advice

5.

Council's Planning Proposal assessment checklist

6.

SGS Peer review of applicant's Economic Impact Assessment

7.

Applicant's Survey Plan

8.

Applicant's Urban Design Report

9.

Applicant's Industrial Lands Assessment Checklist

10.

Applicant's Economic Impact Assessment

11.

Applicant's Social Impact and Affordable Housing Assessment

12.

Applicant's Parking and Traffic Assessment

13.

Applicant's Preliminary Site Investigation

14.

Applicant's Flood Risk Management Report

15.

Applicant's Public Benefit Offer

16.

Applicant's Draft LEP Mapping

17.

Applicant's Tree Survey

  


Header Logo

Council Meeting

10 April 2018