AGENDA R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council Meeting

                            

    TUESDAY 24 JULY 2018

 

6.30pm

 


Council Meeting

24 July 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:

 

Are there any rules for speaking at a Council Meeting?

The following rules apply when addressing a Council meeting:

 

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.  

 

 

   


Council Meeting

24 July 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 26 June 2018 Council Meeting                                                                       5

Minutes of 3 July 2018 Extraordinary Council Meeting                                                 22

7          Mayoral Minutes

 

Nil at the time of printing.

8          Staff Reports

 

ITEM                                                                                                                                      Page

 

C0718 Item 1      Improving Community Safety in the Inner West                                        33

C0718 Item 2      Operational Land Classification  for Arlington Grove, Dulwich Hill Affordable units (x 2) 39

C0718 Item 3      Henson Park - Proposed Development                                                      42

C0718 Item 4      Amendment No. 14 to Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 - 101 -103 Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield                                                                                              47

C0718 Item 5      Post Exhibition Report - Review of Planning Proposal and Development Control Plan Amendment Fees                                                                                        73

C0718 Item 6      Planning Proposal at 2-6 Cavill Avenue Ashfield                                        76

C0718 Item 7      Victoria Road Precinct, Marrickville - Development Control Plan Amendment    259

C0718 Item 8      Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 3 July 2018                             352

C0718 Item 9      WestConnex Air Quality & Noise Concerns                                             392

C0718 Item 10    Voluntary Planning Agreement - 101-103 Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield           399

C0718 Item 11    Voluntary Planning Agreement - Petersham RSL                                    415

C0718 Item 12    Sydney Metro - Sydenham to Bankstown Upgrade- Council Submission on Preferred Infrastructure Report                                                                                 447

C0718 Item 13    Draft Heads of Agreement with WCX M4 PT Pty Ltd for Community Facilities in Haberfield                                                                                                  456

C0718 Item 14    Multicultural Policy                                                                                    482

C0718 Item 15    Draft Grants and Fee Scale Policy                                                           509

C0718 Item 16    Revised Public Access to Information held by Council Policy                 564

C0718 Item 17    Delegations to Legal Services Staff regarding Appeals from Inner West Planning Panel     603

C0718 Item 18    EEO Management Plan 2018 - 2022                                                        605

9          Notices of Motion

 

ITEM                                                                                                                                    Page

 

C0718 Item 19    Notice of Motion: King George Park, Rozelle – Additional Facilities        620

C0718 Item 20    Notice of Motion: Supporting community refugee sponsorship program 622

C0718 Item 21    Notice of Motion: Expanding Refugee Centre support services              624

C0718 Item 22    Notice of Motion: Principles of Co-operation Agreement with 'Metro'     626

C0718 Item 23    Notice of Motion: City West Cycle Link                                                    628

C0718 Item 24    Notice of Motion: Advocacy against the cuts to income support for people seeking asylum living in the community                                                                 629

C0718 Item 25    Notice of Motion: Register of Voluntary Planning Agreements                634

C0718 Item 26    Notice of Motion: Review of Upfront Speaking at Council Meetings       648

10        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                                                                                                                                                 

 

C0718 Item 27    General Manager's Performance Agreement

 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 

 

Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 26 June 2018

 

Meeting commenced at 6.37pm

 

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

Vittoria Raciti

John Stamolis

Louise Steer

Anna York
Rik Hart

Elizabeth Richardson

Mayor

Deputy Mayor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

General Manager

Deputy General Manager Assets and Environment

Michael Tzimoulas

Deputy General Manager Chief Financial and Administration Officer

Pav Kuzmanovski

Wal Petschler

Cathy Edwards-Davis

Laura Stevens

Annette Morgan

Adam Vine

Group Manager Finance

Group Manager Footpaths, Roads, Traffic and Stormwater

Group Manager Parks, Trees and Sportsfields

Group Manager Communication, Engagement and Events

Group Manager Children and Family Services

Executive Manager Enterprise Risk Policy and Risk Services

Ian Naylor

Darcie Huisman

Manager Civic and Executive Support

Business Paper Support Officer (Minute Taker)

  

APOLOGIES:  Nil

 

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:  

 

Clr Raciti declared a non-pecuniary, non-significant interest in relation to item 15 as she lives in Hawthorn Parade, Haberfield. 

Motion: (Passas/Da Cruz)

 

THAT Council receive and note the disclosures of interest.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Cr Porteous

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

Motion (Stamolis/Raciti)

 

  1. THAT the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 22 May 2018 be confirmed.
  2. THAT the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 12 June 2018 be confirmed.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Cr Porteous

 

Suspension of Standing Orders

 

Motion: (Byrne/Passas)

 

THAT Standing Orders be suspended to hear from the registered speakers.

 

Motion Carried

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

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

Absent:                        Cr Porteous

 

Clr Porteous entered the meeting at 6.43pm

 

Resumption of Standing Orders

 

Motion: (Byrne/Passas)

 

THAT Standing Orders be resumed.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C0618 Item 29    Mayoral Minute: Support for South Sea Islander Community

Motion: (Byrne)

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council flies the Flag of the Australian South Sea Islands annually on 25 August;

2.   Officers liaise with the Australian South Sea Islanders Secretariat to investigate the inclusion of a Australian South Sea Islander mural as part of the Perfect Match program in 2019; and

3.   On provision of Australian South Sea Islanders (Port Jackson) (ASSIPJ) Historical academic advisory panel completed information resources, Council makes these resources available at Council libraries.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

 

 

 

C0618 Item 30    Mayoral Minute: Campaigning Against Cuts to Public Library Funding

Motion: (Byrne)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Make representation to the local State Members, in relation to the need for additional funding from the NSW State Government for the provision of public library services; and

2.   Write to the Hon Don Harwin, Minister for the Arts and the Hon Walt Secord, Shadow Minister for the Arts, calling for bi-partisan support for the provision of a significant increase in state funding for NSW public libraries, supported by a sustainable future funding model.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C0618 Item 31    Mayoral Minute: Sydney Metro - Sydenham To Bankstown - Preferred Infrastructure Report          

 

Motion: (Byrne) 

 

THAT Council writes to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure requesting that the exhibition period be extended by four weeks until 15 August.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C0618 Item 1      Proposed New SSROC Governance Structure

Motion: (Porteous/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT Council rejects the proposed new SSROC Governance Structure and endorse instead the current governance structure.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Crs Passas and Raciti

 

C0618 Item 2      2017/18 Third Quarter Budget Review

Motion: (Drury/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT:

 

1.   The report be received and noted; and

 

2.   Council approves the budget adjustments required.

 

 

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C0618 Item 3      Council Recess

Motion: (McKenna OAM/Porteous)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.      Schedule a recess from 9-20 July and not hold any meetings or briefings in that period;

 

2.      Notify the public of the recess; and

 

3.      Schedule a recess in to the adopted meeting schedule in future years.

 

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Crs Macri, Passas, Raciti and Stamolis

 

 

C0618 Item 4      Adoption of IWC Integrated, Planning and Reporting suite of documents.

Motion: (Drury/Byrne)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.    Endorse the revised Inner West Community Strategic Plan Our Inner West  2036;

 

2.    Adopt the revised Inner West Council Delivery Program 2018-2022, Operational Plan and Budget FY2018/19 and Fees and Charges FY2018/19;

 

3.    Adopt the Draft Resourcing Strategy and supporting plans being:

 

-       Long Term Financial Plan

-       Workforce Plan

-       Information and Communication Technology Plan

-       Asset Management Strategy

-       Stormwater Asset Management Plan

-       Parks and Sportsfields Asset Management Plan

-       Transport Asset Management Plan

-       Properties Asset Management Plan

 

4.    Approve for public exhibition the Draft Asset Management Policy with a separate report back to Council;

 

  1. Make and levy the Rates and Charges for 2018/19 as contained in the Operational Plan in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993;

 

  1. Adopts the Business – Airport rate as the basis for determining equivalent rate payments;

  2. Adopts the rate of 7.5% as the interest rate to apply on outstanding rates, in accordance with section 566(3) of the Local Government Act 1993; and

 

  1. Include in its 4 year capital works program, upgrade works for Alex Trevillion Plaza with a view to commence planning and scoping in the 2018/19 financial year and construction in the 2019/20 financial year funded by developer contributions.

 

Motion Carried

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

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

 

The Mayor ruled that points 3 and 4 of the Foreshadowed Motion could not be moved as amendments to the Primary Motion.

 

Motion of Dissent: (Kiat/Hesse)

 

Cr Kiat moved a motion of dissent in the ruling of the Mayor.

 

Motion Lost

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

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

 

The Mayor’s ruling was upheld.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

The Mayor, Clr Byrne adjourned the meeting for a short recess at 8.36pm.

The Mayor, Clr Byrne resumed the meeting at 8.46pm.

 

Foreshadowed Motion: (Porteous)

 

THAT Council:

  1. Endorse the revised Inner West Community Strategic Plan Our Inner West 2036;

 

  1. Put on Exhibition for at least 28 days the Draft Resourcing Strategy and supporting plans being:

a) Long Term Financial Plan

b) Workforce Plan

c) Information and Communication Technology Plan

d) Asset management Strategy

e) Stormwater asset management Plan

f) Parks and Sportsfields Asset Management Plan

g) Transport Asset Management Plan

h) Properties Asset Management Plan

i) Asset Management Policy

Provide briefings to Councillors on these plans and policies and report them back to council following exhibition for endorsement;

  1. Adopt the revised Inner West Delivery Program 2018-2022; Operational Plan and Budget FY2018/19 and Fees and Charges  FY2018/19 with the following amendments:

a)    Reinstate the $5,500,000 removed from the 2018/19 budget in Corporate Support Services – Employee Costs;

b)    Add $150,000 for a comprehensive health report on the current and future health impacts of WestConnex on Inner West residents;

c)    Add $150,000 for additional consultancy work on WestConnex issues;

d)    Add $100,000 for FTE.6 air pollution monitoring officer for 12 month term;

e)    Remove $250,000 from the Mayor’s Unit staffing costs and reallocate staff and these funds to other parts of the organization; 

f)     Defer the Traffic and Parking Needs Assessment works ($250,000 budgeted) to the 2019/20 financial year; and

g)    That the Child and Family Services budget for 2018/19 reflect the income and expenditure associated with opening the new Steele Park and Leichhardt Park centres (to be operated by Council) and service as usual operation of Globe Preschool, Leichhardt Children’s Centre and the May Murray centre, noting that Council has made no decision to change the existing level of service or the planned new services.

  1. That Councillors receive a briefing on the accounting allocation of Corporate Support Services costs (“Overhead charges”) to Children and Family Services, with proposals to improve the accuracy of true cost accounting in this service unit; and

 

  1. A report be brought to a September council meeting outlining exactly the proposals from each Group Manager which will enable them to make $5,500,000 in “savings” . That these “saving proposals go out for exhibition for 28 days and then be considered for endorsement by council. Should the “savings’ be successfully endorsed by council they should then be reincorporated into the 2018/19 budget at the next Quarterly review.

 

This Foreshadowed Motion Lapsed

 

Amendment (Passas/Raciti)

 

THAT Councillors Passas and Raciti oppose the following items in the proposed budget: the addition of 900 new trees and allocation of $100,000 for a Pride Centre.

 

Motion Lost

For Motion:                 Crs Passas and Raciti

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

 

Amendment: (Da Cruz/Steer)

 

THAT Council start the process to transfer the agreement between the Metropolitan Land Council with Leichhardt Council to Inner West Council and allocate funding for Welcome to Country and Acknowledgements of Country for 10 events at the Metropolitan Land Council Rate approximately $3500. Money to be found in next quarterly review.

 

Clr Da Cruz withdrew this Amendment.

 

C0618 Item 5      Branding

Motion: (McKenna OAM/York)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.    Adopt option 1 in the report with as much of the project as possible being managed in house;

 

2.    Support the establishment of a panel of nine people (membership to include nominated Councillors and the Mayor, Council officers and relevant community members identified collaboratively by those Councillors and Council officers) to determine selection criteria and briefing for the expressions of interest and final decision making criteria, and oversee the broad engagement strategy to involve the community in decision-making for the final visual identity;

 

3.    Commence rollout of the new brand/logo across the local government area once the above steps have been completed;

 

4.    Consider asking the community to design our logo;

 

5.    Consider inviting prominent members of the community be on the decision panel or full Council;

 

6.    Consider putting alternative options for logos on Councils website for a community vote;

 

7.    Consider asking its community if it would like to continue with the name ‘Inner West Council’ or choose from other options; and

 

8.    Consider that the winning designer receive $20,000 and the top ten designers receive $1000 each. 

 

Motion Carried

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

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

 

Foreshadowed Motion: (Porteous)

 

 THAT Council notes:

 

  1. That further rebranding of council, council having already undergone a total rebranding following the forced amalgamation of the 3 councils - Ashfield, Marrickville and Leichhardt in 2016/17 will mean council incurring significant costs and reallocation of resources;

 

  1. That there are many items of higher priority than a further rebranding of council; and

 

  1. That council therefore does not proceed with the implementation of a new brand, visual identity and logo. 

 

This Foreshadowed Motion lapsed

 

Motion: (Byrne/Stamolis)

 

THAT items 6 and 20 be considered in conjunction.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C0618 Item 6      Event Invitation and Speaking Policy

Motion: (York/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT Council adopt the event invitation and speaking policy with the following amendments:

           

  1. A Council-approved public meeting (whether or not jointly convened) is the responsibility of Council and should uphold the fundamentals of community engagement and inclusiveness;

 

  1. Council-approved public meetings must allow for Councillors (at minimum ward Councillors) to speak. Length of meeting must not be used as a reason to exclude Councillor participation;

 

  1. The Chair or MC of a Council-approved public meeting should, in the first instance, be the Mayor. Otherwise, consultation with Councillors should take place to select the Chair or MC;

 

  1. Any existing position of Council should be reinforced by the Chair or MC;

 

  1. Council must protect public meetings from being, or appearing to be, party political;

 

  1. Councillors (at minimum ward Councillors) should be invited to have input on the content of Council-approved public meetings and to contact and work with community groups if the meeting is a joint meeting;

 

  1. Council should ensure that key action groups are contacted and advised of the public meetings;

 

  1. Identify significant events in the annual calendar where the Metropolitan Land Council will be invited to do a welcome to country – there should be at least two a year. Perhaps the Mayoral election and one major festival;

 

  1. Identify events at which an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elder will be invited to do an acknowledgement of country. Create a register and issue an invitation to register, preference given to residents of the LGA;

 

  1. Identify events where council's Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Staff will be invited to perform the acknowledgement of country;

 

  1. Provide guidance for others to do acknowledgment of country at the start of meetings etc;

 

  1. Provide guidance on when it is appropriate to include a smoking ceremony in an event;

 

  1. Support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Businesses & Artists by purchasing services such as catering, gifts and cultural training;

 

  1. Clarify identification of the boundary between the gadigal and wangal lands within the EORA nation and use of the appropriate term in the acknowledgement of country;

 

  1. Note that every speaker should not do an acknowledgement; and

 

  1. Publish the policy on its website and intranet.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Amendment: (Stamolis/Hesse)

 

THAT the following amendments be made to the policy:

 

1.    A Council-approved public meeting (whether or not jointly convened) is the responsibility of Council and should uphold the fundamentals of community engagement and inclusiveness;

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

As the Motion was carried, it was incorporated into the Primary Motion.

 

2.    Council-approved public meetings must allow for Councillors (at minimum ward Councillors) to speak.  Length of meeting must not be used as a reason to exclude Councillor participation;

 

Motion Carried

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

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

 

As the Motion was carried, it was incorporated into the Primary Motion.

 

3.    The Chair or MC of a Council-approved public meeting should, in the first instance, be the Mayor. Otherwise, consultation with Councillors should take place to select the Chair or MC;

 

Motion Carried

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

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

 

As the Motion was carried, it was incorporated into the Primary Motion.

 

4.    Any existing position of Council should be reinforced by the Chair or MC;

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

As the Motion was carried, it was incorporated into the Primary Motion.

 

5.    Council-approved public meetings should include Q&A.  Length of meeting should not be used as a reason to exclude or limit community participation;

 

Motion Lost

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

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

 

6.    Council must protect public meetings from being, or appearing to be, party political; and

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

As the Motion was carried, it was incorporated into the Primary Motion.

 

7.    Councillors (at minimum ward Councillors) should be invited to have input on the content of Council-approved public meetings and to contact and work with community groups if the meeting is a joint meeting; and

 

Motion Carried

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

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

 

As the Motion was carried, it was incorporated into the Primary Motion.

 

8.    Council should ensure that key action groups are contacted and advised of the public meetings. 

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Crs Passas and Raciti

 

As the Motion was carried, it was incorporated into the Primary Motion.

 

Amendment: (Da Cruz/Porteous)

 

THAT Council:

 

  1. Identify significant events in the annual calendar where the Metropolitan Land Council will be invited to do a welcome to country – there should be at least two a year. Perhaps the Mayoral election and one major festival;

 

  1. Identify events at which an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elder will be invited to do an acknowledgement of country. Create a register and issue an invitation to register with preference given to residents of the LGA;

 

  1. Identify events where council's Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Staff will be invited to perform the acknowledgement of country;

 

  1. Provide guidance for others to do acknowledgment of country at the start of meetings etc;

 

  1. Provide guidance on when it is appropriate to include a smoking ceremony in an event;

 

  1. Support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Businesses and Artists by purchasing services such as catering, gifts and cultural training;

 

  1. Clarify identification of the boundary between the gadigal and wangal lands within the EORA nation and use of the appropriate term in the acknowledgement of country; and

 

  1. Note that every speaker should not do an acknowledgement.

 

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

As the Amendment was carried it was incorporated into the Primary Motion.

 

The Mayor ruled the following Motion out of order.

 

Foreshadowed Motion: (Porteous/Kiat)

 

That the Event Invitation and Speaking Policy be deferred in order to consider the incorporation of some or all of the protocols as listed in Item 20: Protocols for Council-Approved Public Meetings (Moved by Cr Stamolis) and be brought back to a future Council Meeting.

 

Suspension of Standing Orders

 

Motion: (Porteous/Passas)

 

THAT Council bring forward items 8, 9 16 and 22.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C0618 Item 8      Options for Council's two new Early Childhood Education and Care services

Motion: (York/Iskandar)

 

  1. THAT the report be deferred for further consideration by Council, pending:

h)             

a)    Correspondence being written from Council to the NSW Department of Education putting on record Council’s strong opposition to the planned closure of Globe Wilkins pre-school, and seeking the Department’s advice on potential alternative locations for Globe Wilkins pre-school;

i)  

b)    Further advice from Council staff on the overhead costs included in the report, including a breakdown of costs between overheads directly incurred by childcare centres, and general administrative overheads;

j)  

c)    Further engagement with staff, parents and families at the potentially impacted centres; and

 

  1. That  Council proceeds with the planned in-house council operation of the two new centres, Leichhardt Park and Steel Park, as long day care centres.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Crs Macri, Passas and Raciti

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

The Mayor, Clr Byrne adjourned the meeting for a short recess at 10.32pm.

The Mayor, Clr Byrne resumed the meeting at 10.39.

 

C0618 Item 9      Old Canterbury Rd & Edward St, Dulwich Hill - Proposed Intersection Signalisation Concept Designs

Motion: (Drury/Kiat)

 

THAT the recommendation of the Local Traffic Committee for Item LTC0518 Item 2, Old Canterbury Rd, Dulwich Hill – Proposed Traffic Signals Concept Design Plans, be adopted.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:                    Crs Macri, Passas, Raciti and Stamolis

Foreshadowed motion: (Passas/Stamolis)

 

THAT the matter be deferred and the NRMA and RMS be contacted to review the proposal.

 

This Foreshadowed Motion lapsed.

 

Foreshadowed motion: (Macri)

 

That Council adopt option 2 as detailed in the report.

 

This Foreshadowed Motion lapsed.

C0618 Item 16    Notice of Motion to Rescind: C0518 Item 27 Balmain Telstra Building and Public Square Project - 22 May 2018

Motion: (Porteous/Stamolis)

 

THAT Council’s resolution of C0518 Item 27 Balmain Telstra Building and Public Square Project be rescinded.

 

Motion Carried

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

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

 

Motion: (Porteous/Stamolis)

 

THAT:

  1. A full report on the upgrade of the Dawn Fraser pool and the significant increase    in funding required be brought to the next available council meeting. The report to include:

·    An outline of the works planned;

·    A breakdown of estimated costs;

·    A full explanation as to why costs have more than doubled;

·    An assessment of which works are urgent and which are not; and

·    A proposed timeline for the works.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

  1. A report on the funding proposal options available for council to fund in full the Balmain Public Square heritage project Option A (C0518 Item 27 22/0518) and the full upgrade works at the Dawn Fraser Pool heritage project as required with revised costings. The report to include but not be limited by:

 

·    A loan to meet additional costs for both projects.

·    Identification of other available funding sources.

·    A review of capital works and the updated timelines and delivery schedules.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Cr Macri

 

  1. That Council supports in principle completing the Dawn Fraser Pool heritage project refurbishment and the Balmain Public Square heritage project Option A.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:                    Crs Macri, Passas and Raciti

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extension of Time

 

Motion: (Drury/Hesse)

THAT the meeting be extended for 15 minutes.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Clr Raciti left the meeting 11.01pm

 

C0618 Item 22    Notice of Motion: Gladstone Park, Balmain and Spindlers, Smith and Hogan Parks, Annandale Outdoor Fitness Areas

Motion: (Porteous/Da Cruz)

 

THAT:

 

  1. Council as soon as possible, organise onsite public meetings (or if onsite is not possible in a nearby council venue) to discuss with local residents and stakeholders, including local schools, churches and, in the case Gladstone Park, also Balmain Hospital the location of the Outdoor Fitness Stations and the installation proposed;

 

Motion Lost

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

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

 

  1. An end date for submissions on these fitness stations be communicated to the surrounding communities and all stakeholders; and

 

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

 

  1. The final determination on the location of the Outdoor Fitness Stations in Gladstone Park and Spindlers, Smith and Hogan Parks be brought to a Council meeting with a report on submissions received.  

 

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

 

Foreshadowed Motion: (Stamolis/

 

That the Inner West Council prepare a Fitness station policy and that Gladstone Park and Spindler Park be removed from any further assessment for fitness stations given the level of resident opposition, the existing high demand and use of these parks and the need to retain the limited open green space in these parks.

 

This Foreshadowed Motion Lapsed.

 

Cr Passas left the meeting at 11.15pm.

 

Extension of Time

 

Motion: (Drury/Steer)

 

THAT the meeting be extended to 11.25pm

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

Confidential Session

 

Motion: (Drury/Hesse)

 

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

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

Members of the public were asked to leave the Chamber.

 

Extension of Time

 

Motion: (Drury/Macri)

 

THAT the meeting be extended to 11.30pm

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Motion: (Drury/McKenna OAM)

 

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

Closed Session.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

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

Council.

 

 

Reports with Confidential Information

 

C0618 Item 28    Tender T 14-18 - Internal Audit Services

Motion: (Drury/York)

 

THAT the recommendations contained within the CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 1 (Tender Evaluation Report) be adopted.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Abstained:                   Cr Hesse

 

Meeting closed at 11.26pm.

 

The following Items will be considered at the Extraordinary Council Meeting on 3 July 2018; Item 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25 and 26.

 

 

 Public Speakers:

 

 

Item #

 

Speaker                     

Suburb

Item 29:

Emedla Davis                                                

Pyrmont

Item 4:

Colin Jones

Summer Hill

Item 8:

Annabel Prince

Susanna Conti

Shae Phuong

Marrickville

Marrickville

Marrickville

Item 9:

Bruce Ashley

Adrian Webster

Alex Lofts

Dulwich Hill

Dulwich Hill

Summer Hill

Item 16:

Fergus Fricke

Michele Hacking

Birchgrove

Rozelle

Item 22:

Dione Fague

Bryan Riley

Richard Dudley-Smith

Keith Kerr

Balmain

Annandale

Annandale

Annandale

 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 

 

Minutes of Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 3 July 2018

 

Meeting commenced at 6.35pm

 

 

Present:

Darcy Byrne

Julie Passas

Marghanita Da Cruz Mark Drury

Lucille McKenna OAM

Colin Hesse

Sam Iskandar

Tom Kiat

Victor Macri

Rochelle Porteous

John Stamolis

Louise Steer

Anna York
Rik Hart

Elizabeth Richardson

Mayor

Deputy Mayor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor (6.42pm)

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

General Manager

Deputy General Manager Assets and Environment

John Warburton

Deputy General Manager Community and Engagement

John Stephens

Cathy Edwards-Davis

Joe Strati

Ian Naylor

Katherine Paixao

Traffic and Transport Services Manager

Group Manager Trees, Parks and Sports Fields

Group Manager Legal Services

Manager Civic and Executive Support

Business Paper Coordinator (Minute Taker)

 

 

APOLOGIES:    

 

Motion: (Passas/Hesse)

 

THAT leave of absence be granted for Clr Lockie, apologies for Clr Raciti and apologies for lateness from Clr McKenna OAM be accepted.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:          Nil

 

Suspension of Standing Orders

 

Motion : (Passas/Hesse)

 

THAT Council Suspend Standing Orders to allow a member of the public to address the Council Meeting on an issue not on the agenda for 3 minutes.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Councillor McKenna OAM entered the Meeting at 6:42 pm.

Resumption of Standing Orders

 

Motion: (Passas/York)

 


THAT Standing Orders be resumed.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C0718 Item 1      Banners, Flags and Temporary Signage Policy

Motion: (Stamolis/Kiat)

 

·                    THAT prior to public exhibition, the policy be amended:

1.     To emphasise that one of the purposes of the policy is to support community organisations to have access to banners, flags and temporary signage, for communication and promotion of their activities;

2.    Redraft section 7 to include the following intended effect

a.     The banner, flags and signs are a service of council to the community and are appropriately used by local not-for-profit & community organisations. 

b.     The Communications team will allocate sites as per calendar availability. 

c.     Fees for placing the banners, signs, flags are waived for local NFP community groups, with consideration of covering all or part of the cost of banner production.

d.     Council should receive a quarterly report identifying which organisations accessed the service and the cost of same in terms of fees waived and banner production costs paid by Council.  

e.     Business use of the banner, sign, or flag service will be by Council resolution only. 

3.    To alter the requirement in section 3 for approval for placing banners/signs at sites  
not listed in the policy. Suggested wording:

a.     Delete: “Banners and signs may not be placed sites that are not listed above without prior written approval from the Group Manager Communications, Engagement and Events.”

b.     Insert: “Council officers placing banners or signs at sites not listed above should obtain approval to do so from their Service Unit Group Manager. The Group Manager Communication, Engagement and Events should be notified, and advice should be sought if there is a risk of visual pollution or conflicting banners/signage in a locality.”

 

4.    To alter the requirement in section 4 for approval for banner design. Suggested
  wording:

a.    Delete: “Banner design must be approved by Inner West Council Communications team prior to production to ensure it meets Council’s brand guidelines. Approval is required for all designs, even if banners and temporary signage have been used previously.”

b.    Insert: “Prior to submitting banner design to the Communications team, Council staff should consider relevant guidelines as issued by the Communications team and seek advice and assistance as required.”

5.     To clarify the OHS requirement in section 6, in relation to banners/signs at sites
 where no height equipment is required. Suggested wording: 

a.     After: “To minimise risks to staff and the general public, only approved Council staff may hang banners, flags and temporary signage.” Insert: “Group Managers should communicate with their staff regarding approval to place banners or signs, in which locations, and the OHS requirements to be followed. This approval may be general in nature, mindful of the level of OHS risk.”

6.     Delete section 9.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:                    Cr Passas

 

C0718 Item 2      Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 5 June 2018

Motion: (Drury/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 5 June 2018 be received and the recommendations be adopted.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:                    Nil

 

C0718 Item 3      Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy

Motion: (Kiat)

 

THAT prior to exhibition, the policy be amended to clarify that as well as membership to professional bodies, the Professional Development budget (total $5000) includes relevant paper or electronic subscription services (e.g. newspapers, newsletters, journals, circulars). 

o   Suggested wording: insert new clause between 6.25 and 6.26 “6.26 Subscription services may be covered where they provide access to information and analysis that are relevant to a Councillor’s civic duties. Eligible subscription services may include, but are not limited to, paper or electronic access to newspapers, newsletters, journals or circulars.”

 

The Mayor ruled this motion out of order, as Council has previously rescinded the substance of this motion at the Council Meeting on 24 April 2018 and Section 372(5) of the Local Government Act requires that there be a 3 month period before a previously rescinded motion can be put again.

 

Motion: (Byrne/Stamolis)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.       Amend Clause 8.5 of the Policy to remove the requirement to have a resolution of Council to approve a request for reimbursement of legal expenses prior to incurring these expenses;

 

2.       Place the Amended Policy on public exhibition for 28 days;

 

3.       Receive a further report on any submissions received during the public exhibition period;

 

4.       Remove the provision for overseas travel from the Policy;

 

5.         Combine the 2 categories; Professional development and conferences and seminars to provide $6000 per councillor per year;

 

6.         Consolidate the carers expenses to $45,000 to be used across all councillors as      needed; and

 

7.         To provide a quarterly update of total actual expenditure versus facilities      budget.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Cr Passas

 

Amendment (Passas/Stamolis) 

 

THAT the legal assistance (section 8) of the Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy be reviewed by an independent legal firm.

 

Motion Lost

For Motion:                 Crs Hesse, Passas, Porteous, Stamolis and Steer

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

 

Amendment (Stamolis/Hesse)

 

THAT Council:

 

  1. Combine the 2 categories Professional development and conferences and seminars to provide $6000 per councillor per year;

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

As the amendment was carried, it was included as part of the primary motion.

 

  1. Consolidate the carers expenses to $45,000 to be used across all councillors as needed; and

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Abstained:                   Cr York

 

As the amendment was carried, it was included as part of the primary motion.

 

  1. To provide a quarterly update of total actual expenditure versus facilities budget.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Cr McKenna OAM

 

As the amendment was carried, it was included as part of the primary motion.

 

Amendment (Hesse/Passas)

 

THAT Council remove the provision for overseas travel from the Policy.

 

Motion Carried

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

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

 

As the amendment was carried, it was included as part of the primary motion.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

7.39pm - The Mayor, Clr Byrne adjourned the meeting for a short recess.

7.44pm– The Mayor, Clr Byrne resumed the meeting.

 

Councillors Da Cruz, Hesse and Iskandar re-entered to the Meeting at 7:46 pm.

 

C0718 Item 4      Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Determination for 2018-19

Motion: (McKenna OAM/Da Cruz)

 

THAT:

 

1.    The remuneration for the Mayor and Councillor Fees for the Inner West Council be     set at the maximum rates set by the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal.

 

2.    Council write to the Minister of Local Government, the Office of Local Government     and the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal regarding concerns and inconsistencies with Councillor remuneration.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Cr Passas

 

Councillor Passas re-entered to the Meeting at 7:52 pm.

C0718 Item 5      Delegations to the General Manager - Contracts

Motion: (York/Drury)

 


THAT:

 

1.    The information be received and noted and that Council delegate to the General Manager power to enter into contracts up to $1,500,000; and

 

2.    Information on tenders issued and awarded under delegations by the General Manager be reported to Council for information only at the next possible council meeting.

 

Motion Carried

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

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

 

Amendment (Porteous/Stamolis)

 

THAT point 1 be replaced with “the information be received and noted and that Council delegate to the General Manager power to enter into contracts for tenders be up to $500,000”

 

Motion Lost

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

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

 

Foreshadowed Motion (Kiat)

 

THAT Council delegate to the General Manager the power to enter into contracts except those for which Council must invite tenders as per the Local Government Act.

 

This Foreshadowed Motion lapsed. 

 

C0718 Item 6      Investment Report as at 31 May 2018

Motion: (Drury/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:                    Nil

 

C0718 Item 7      Notice of Motion to Rescind: C0518 Item 1 Richard Murden Reserve - Provision of Three Netball Courts - 22 May 2018 Council Meeting

Motion: (Macri/Passas)

 

THAT the resolution of the 22 May 2018 Council Meeting with respect to Item 1 Richard Murden Reserve - Provision of Three Netball Courts, be rescinded.

 

Motion Lost

For Motion:                 Crs Macri and Passas

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

 

C0718 Item 8      Notice of Motion: Heritage Pub Protections

Motion: (Byrne/Stamolis)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Provide information on which pubs in the Inner West Council local government area have heritage protection and which do not;

2.   Identify a program for an investigation into which pubs in the area have the highest architectural, historical and social heritage and are most in need of further heritage protection; and

3.   Liaise with architectural schools and departments to enquire whether they would be interested in carrying out pro bono heritage assessments as a study of this niche area of Sydney history.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C0718 Item 9      Notice of Motion: Street Libraries

Motion: (York/Steer)

 

THAT a response be prepared for Council’s consideration regarding Council’s potential to support street libraries across the Inner West.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:                    Cr Passas

 

C0718 Item 10    Notice of Motion: Ann Cashman Reserve 30 year Commemoration

Motion: (Porteous/Byrne)

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council installs a new plaque with, if possible, a photo of Mayor Ann Cashman at the Ann Cashman Reserve, Balmain;

 

2.   The unveiling of the new plaque take place together with a tree planting and a community BBQ to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the Ann Cashman Reserve close to the September anniversary date; and 

 

3.   The funds for the above be identified in the next quarterly budget review.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Cr Passas

 

C0718 Item 11    Notice of Motion: Increase in Court Appeals since Merger

Motion: (Stamolis/Byrne)

 

THAT:

 

  1. Council report on the increase in appeals to the Land and Environment Court since the Council merger.  The report should identify the reasons for the increase (as well as the potential for further increase), the additional costs and resources impacting on Council and it should address ways to best respond to the increase in appeals; and

 

  1. The Inner West Planning Panel be required to report to Council every 6 months to identify any policy issues.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C0718 Item 12    Notice of Motion: Expand Waste Booking Services

Motion: (Passas/Byrne)

 

THAT Council provide advice on options for assisting residents without access to  vehicles to be able to make use of e-waste and chemical disposal service. This should include an assessment of the most cost effective model and any external organisations can assist with the coordination of the service.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C0718 Item 13    Notice of Motion: Reopening Balmain West Ferry Wharf

Motion: (Byrne/Stamolis)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Write to the Premier of NSW and the Minister for Transport requesting that, in recognition of the potential isolation of the Balmain Peninsula due to the construction of WestConnex and other nearby State Government projects, as well as growing travel demand associated with new residents now moving into the former Nutrimetics site, they instruct Sydney Ferries to immediately reintroduce regular ferry services to Balmain West/Elliott Street; and

2.   Write to Sydney Ferries and Transport for NSW requesting that, in recognition of the potential isolation of the Balmain Peninsula due to the construction of WestConnex and other nearby State Government projects, as well as growing travel demand associated with new residents now moving into the former Nutrimetics site, they instruct Sydney Ferries to immediately reintroduce regular ferry services to Balmain West/Elliott Street.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

 

 

 

C0718 Item 14    Notice of Motion: Supporting the Welcome Choir

Motion: (Byrne/Hesse)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Requests the Group Manager of Community and Cultural Services to report on how a partnership between Council and the Welcome Choir could operate to assist the Choir to expand across the Inner West Local Government Area;

2.   Officers advise the Welcome Choir of the Community Grants Program currently open for application and invite Choir representatives to Grants Information and Assistance sessions; and

3.   Promote participation in the Welcome Choir to the Inner West community through all regular Council communications channels including community development networks

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C0718 Item 15    Notice of Motion: Improving Cyclist and Pedestrian safety on State Roads in the Inner West LGA.

Motion: (Da Cruz/Hesse)

 

THAT:

 

1.    The Mayor write to NSW Minister for Roads and Maritime Services noting the

          announcement of funding to increase liveability and safety in urban                                  communities through infrastructure safety upgrades for pedestrians, cyclists                 and other road users and requesting improvements on State Roads through                          Residential, Educational, Child Care, Recreational and High Pedestrian Activity               locations in the Inner West LGA;

 

            In particular a reduction in the motor vehicle speeds and improvements in                     pedestrian and cyclist safety including the reduction of motor vehicle speeds                 on State Roads in the LGA in particular the following:

 

a)   The City West Link;

 

b)   James Street/Darley Road; at Norton Street; at Balmain Road and Catherine Street and the Crescent on City West Link;

 

c)   Victoria Road and in particular at the crossings at Robert Street, Evans Street and Darling Street, Rozelle;

 

d)   James St, Darley Road, Foster and Tebbutt Street, Leichhardt including safe crossing points;

 

e)   Liverpool Road from Elizabeth Street to Frederick Street, Ashfield;

 

f)    Frederick Street, Ashfield;

 

g)   Johnston Street, Annandale in particular at Parramatta Road, Booth Street, the Crescent, Annandale Public, Annandale North Public School and Collins Street;

h)   The Crescent, Annandale including intersection with City West Link and Johnston Street;

 

i)    The major public transport corridor on Parramatta Road from Mallet Street, Annandale to Croydon Road, Croydon; and

 

2.   Further that the General Manager request the RMS to carry out an audit of roadside noise and air pollution at the above locations.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Councillors Macri and Passas retired from the Meeting at 9:06 pm.

 

Councillor Porteous requested that the meeting consider an Urgency Motion with regards to  Real Bodies: The Exhibition.

 

Motion: (Porteous/Steer)

 

THAT the motion be considered as a matter of urgency.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Crs Macri and Passas

 

The Mayor declared this matter was urgent.

 

Urgency Motion - Real Bodies: The Exhibition

 

Motion: (Porteous/Steer)

 

THAT:

 

  1. Council does not run an excursion to Real Bodies: The Exhibition as a part of the school holidays activities program and, if possible, an alternative excursion be offered in its place; and

 

  1. The Mayor urgently write to the Federal Minister for the Arts requesting that he require the exhibitors to provide valid documentation to prove the bodies origins and consent from the deceased and their family members.

 

Motion Lost

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

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

Absent:                        Crs Macri and Passas

 

 

 

Meeting closed at 9.25 pm.

 

 

 

 

 

Public Speakers:

 

 

Item #

 

Speaker                     

Suburb

Urgency Motion

Emmy Pfister

Carlingford

 

 

 

 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 

Item No:         C0718 Item 1

Subject:         Improving Community Safety in the Inner West           

Prepared By:     Ingrid de Meyer - Coordinator Community Development and Matthew Balane - Community Projects Officer 

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

 

SUMMARY

The Council meeting on 24 April 2018 (C0418 Item 28) requested a report with respect to community safety. This report presents how the Inner West Council strives to create safer community spaces/public domain for the community; this is supported through a number of measures from environmental approaches to crime prevention and social approaches. Multiple sections of Council are involved in the delivery of safety initiatives with an educational and preventative approach to crime prevention as well as utilising placemaking principles to activate public spaces.

 

Similarly, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles are embedded in the planning and assessment process to ensure any developments factor these principles in the design to lessen or prevent the incidence of crime. This report proposes Council host a twice- yearly Strategic Community Safety Forum.

  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Notes the current work to address Community Safety through the delivery of community safety initiatives and projects;

 

2.   Note that Council staff are actively working with Police and the community in known hotspots (i.e. Camperdown Park, Salmon Park Playground and Darrell Jackson Gardens); and

 

3.   Continue working with key partners to investigate and research strategic approaches addressing community safety including a Local Safety Forum to be hosted by Council twice per year. 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Council resolved (C0418 Item 28):

THAT:

 

1. Council makes creating safer community spaces for people to gather at night time a high priority of council by supporting measures that encourage open, free and accessible spaces that are well integrated and connected with surrounding land uses and transport options; and

 

2. In line with this, a report be brought to Council within the next 2 months which provides an overview of the work currently being carried out by Inner West Council into improving community safety on both public and private lands and property across the LGA. That this report include, how community safety is being integrated into council’s planning controls; what audits have been done in the three councils of Leichhardt, Ashfield and Marrickville on identifying high risk places and what has been done about putting in place action plans to address identified risk areas; what staff resources are currently allocated to improving community safety and what other measures are currently being taken by Council to promote community safety, and what further measures are needed to ensure that Inner West residents can enjoy open, free and accessible spaces at night. The report should also include consideration on the setting up of a Community Safety Committee for the Inner West Council with members to include the police, relevant council staff members, Councillors and community stakeholders.

 

CRIME STATISTICS: SUMMARY

 

Inner West Council comprises the Police Area Commands (PAC) of Leichhardt PAC, Burwood PAC (formerly Ashfield and Burwood Local Area Commands), and the Inner West PAC (formerly Marrickville and Newtown Local Area Command). Statistics collected from the Bureau of Crime and Statistics (BOSCAR) between 2007 and 2017, suggests that crime occurring around Outdoor / Public Places have remained steady or decreased.

 

For instance, non-domestic violence related assault (within the Leichhardt PAC), has seen a 42 per cent decrease, similarly Burwood PAC had seen a 25 per cent decrease in non-domestic violence related assault. In addition, the two most prevalent types of offences committed within outdoor / public places were non-domestic violence related assault and possession and / or use of cannabis. Both types of offences occurred mainly on footpaths, and roads and streets, however taking place sporadically between 3pm and 12am.

 

CURRENT LITERATURE

 

Local Government plays an important role in the prevention of crime, particularly working alongside the community to address issues around community safety. The research suggests that community safety is a multi-faceted issue, in which a holistic approach is necessary in addressing crime.

 

Garner (2015) suggests an effective approach in addressing community safety is through collaboration, leadership, use of research and evaluation, a focus on outcomes, capacity, community engagement, and a coordinated approach across sectors and agencies. Working to prevent and address crime can vary in each scenario and it is important that programs, interventions and technologies operating to prevent crime are tailored to each case.

 

There are a number of crime prevention approaches which aim to reduce crime and strengthen communities. These include Environmental approaches to Crime Prevention and Social approaches to Crime Prevention (Garner, 2015).

 

Environmental approaches to crime prevention

 

This approach addresses factors in the physical environment or situation that create opportunities for crime (Safer By Design, 2018). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is an approach to deter criminal behavior through environmental design, whereby strategies rely upon the ability to influence offender decisions that precede criminal acts by affecting the built, social and administrative environment (Safer By Design, 2018).

 

CPTED is an approach which is adopted by local Councils to improve natural surveillance and to alleviate a given space for community use. There are a number of examples where this approach is used to address a lack of natural surveillance, which had contributed to an increase in antisocial behavior, property damage and graffiti (Parliamentary Secretary for Justice, 2015; Case Study: Reclaiming Memorial Park in Drouin, 2016).

 

Social approaches to crime prevention

This approach addresses factors that influence the likelihood of people becoming involved in crime  and develops mitigation or management through capacity building, community partnerships, collaboration and educational programs. This coordinated approach works across multiple stakeholders, which aims for community members and community agencies to work in partnership. Some examples include Movies in the Park (Why Community-Based Crime Prevention Works, 2012), Music Festivals (Parliamentary Secretary for Justice, 2015; Case Study: Reclaiming Memorial Park in Drouin, 2016), preventative programs (Glebe Youth Service, 2018) and neighbourhood watch.

 

COUNCIL INITIATIVES ADDRESSING COMMUNITY SAFETY

 

Community Wellbeing: Community programs and initiatives 

 

Inner West Council Community Wellbeing Unit has developed two crime prevention plans aligned with funding footprints covering former Marrickville and Ashfield LGA’s. These two plans have enabled Council to apply and receive funding from the NSW Department of Justice to deliver two projects that reduce incidences of ‘Steal from Dwelling’ and ‘Break and enter Dwelling’ in the local government area. The project includes a number of strategies, Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) audits by Police, subsidised locks for audited dwellings, a home security Expo and the production and distribution of a DIY Home Security Kit.  

 

In accordance with the Inner West Council’s Community Strategic Plan, staff work towards collective wellbeing, prioritising inclusion, diversity, social justice, social cohesion, connected neighbourhoods and community engagement. The Community Wellbeing Unit are involved /coordinate a number of community based initiatives / committees that promote participation, equity and access, and collective wellbeing. External and internal stakeholders are actively engaged from community-based services, Police as well as community members. These include initiatives such as the:

 

·    Aged Service Interagency

·    Community Safety Precincts Committees (Leichardt LAC, Inner West LAC, and Burwood LAC)

·    Inner West Council Crime Prevention Project

·    Inner West Disability Forum

·    Inner West Youth Alliance

·    Leichhardt Marrickville Domestic Violence Liaison Committee

·    Liquor Accord (Leichardt, Marrickville)

·    LGBTIQ working group

·    Marrickville Community Drug Action Team

·    Preventative and educational workshops engaging with targeted groups from the community (i.e. seniors, young people, etc.)

·    Speak Out campaign

·    White Ribbon Day

 

A number of issues and priorities are raised at various levels within these projects and committees, and a collaborative approach is embedded to ensure community needs are being met.

 

 

Homelessness

 

Council’s homelessness Policy and associated strategies and actions aims to reduce the numbers of people sleeping rough in the Inner West. Council’s collaborative approach to homelessness includes supporting the Ashfield and Newtown Multi-Agency outreach teams. Assisting these people to move away from the dangers of sleeping rough into the safety of their own accommodation is one important way of improving community safety in the Inner West.

 

 

Community Forums: Child Safety

 

Council had hosted a Child Safety Workshop with a focus on Aquatic Facilities across the Sydney region, representatives included officers from - Randwick, Canterbury Bankstown, Willoughby, Burwood, Northern Beaches, Ryde, Campbelltown etc. As a result the Aquatic and Recreation Institute (ARI) intend to seek funding for projects which may include the development of training modules that can be provided to Aquatics Centres and Staff.

 

Living Arts: Placemaking and activation

 

Placemaking activates community participation in the creative design of civic spaces, which builds on community strengths to create a sense of belonging and ownership. Council works extensively with artists and creatives to express their diverse stories, explore local heritage, express identity, create inspiration and enhance their environments. Some examples of placemaking projects  which have bene successful in  significantly reducing illegal tagging and anti-social behavior include:

 

·    Birrung Art Space

·    Hawthorn Canal Mosaic Mural

·    Hay Street Car Park

·    Perfect Match

·    Off Broadway Precinct.

 

Planning and Assessments

 

In accordance to the Crime Prevention Legislative Guidelines under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (Safer By Design, 2018), Inner West Council acknowledges and implements these guidelines in assessing development applications to address safety and security to users and the community.  For instance, if a development presents a crime risk, the guidelines can be used to require modification of the development to minimise the risk of crime.

 

The consolidated Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan project, currently underway within the Strategic Planning Group, will be developed with CPTED principles in mind when it comes to design standards for buildings and the function of the public realm

 

In addition, Master Planning work undertaken by the Public Domain Planning team, incorporate Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles into the planning, design and management of public spaces.

 

Safety: Parks

 

There are 279 Parks in the Inner West Local Government Area. Council’s Trees, Parks and Sporting Fields team is working on a number of community safety initiatives in parks which are largely focused on addressing issues around antisocial behaviour. The key areas include Camperdown Memorial Park (Newtown), Salmon Playground (Newtown), Fleming Playground (Newtown) and O’Dea Reserve (Camperdown). 

 

An officer’s report will be prepared to highlight community safety issues and outcomes at Salmon Playground. An additional officers report is being prepared for Council’s consideration in relation to serious problems associated with anti-social behaviour issues at Camperdown Memorial Rest Park and Fleming Street Playground.  Local residents and the Newtown Area Command have been working closely with Council on options for addressing antisocial behaviour in these parks.  A report will be completed in late June and present ted to Council in early July in this regard.

 

Safety: Animals

 

Inner West Council now has its own specialised Companion Animal Services (CAS) Team. There are currently over 27,000 cats and 33,000 dogs listed on the NSW Companion Animals Register residing within the Inner West Council area. The Companion Animal Services team educates pet owners, prospective owners and the wider community about responsible pet ownership.  Companion Animal Officers regularly patrol parks, playgrounds and sporting fields and investigate reports of dog attacks to ensure a safe, harmonious and cohesive community.

 

The Newtown Vibe Roundtable - 4 per year

The Newtown Vibe was established by Newtown Neighborhood Centre in response to lock out laws. The group includes members of the local community, business people, elected representatives, and organisations. The group discuss community concerns which also include safety. Council staff attend meeting which are held 4 times per year or on a needs basis.

 

Resident Action Groups - as needed

Camperdown Rest Memorial Park is a resident action place based group, which is convened with key players (residents, Council staff and Police). There has been a CPTED safety audit in this park which was undertaken by Police approximately two years ago.

 

Community Safety Committee

A number of Local Councils implement and administrate Community Safety Committees, such as Canterbury Bankstown Council, Woollahra Council, Northern Beaches Council, and Fairfield City Council.  The role of their committees is to provide strategic advice to Council, to encourage community collaboration and networking, to address safety issues and information sharing. Representation on these committees vary from Police, community agencies, community members, Chamber of Commerce etc.

 

A coordinated and informed approach is required in the implementation of a Community Safety Committee which is either directed through Council’s Community Strategic Plan or a Community Safety Plan. To ascertain the delivery of a Community Safety Committee it is important that a whole of community approach is adopted, and further investigation and planning is invested.

 

Officer Comment:

The community safety agenda is broad and council staff currently participate in or lead, crime specific and safety–specific forums and committees. Recognising the broad scope, and changing landscape, it is considered appropriate for Council to not duplicate existing committees and processes. However, Council can add value through an integrated and holistic approach, working with key stakeholders in focused forums giving in depth consideration of issues impacting on community safety through collaborative whole of agency wide responses. 

 

Local Safety Forums

Council can deliver two local Safety Forums per year. This will build on existing Safety Precinct Committee work and is an opportunity for NSW Police and Council to work in partnership to inform the community of current safety issues relevant to their ward and provide a forum to raise their concerns (Canterbury Bankstown, 2018; Engage Victoria, 2018). The forums will provide a key mechanism for consultations on our Strategic plans and policies, as well to plan initiatives. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

In preparation of this report other sections of Council were consulted which included; Parks, Aquatics, Public Domain, Strategic Planning and Urban Strategy, Community Services, Arts and Culture. 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

 

CONCLUSION

The recommendations of this report aim to inform Council that staff actively work with Police and the community to address community safety, and will continue to utilise an evidence-based approach to crime prevention.

 

REFERENCES

 

Canterbury Bankstown (2018). Local Safety Forums. Available at:

https://www.cbcity.nsw.gov.au/community/safety/safety-programs-initiatives/local-safety-forums

 

Community Crime Prevention (2016). Case Study: Reclaiming Memorial Park in Drouin.

Available at: https://www.crimeprevention.vic.gov.au/resources/urban-design-and-crime/case-study-reclaiming-memorial-park-in-drouin


Crime Prevention Ottawa (2012). Why Community-Based Crime Prevention Works. Available

at: http://s540406496.onlinehome.us/cpl2014/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Crime-

Prevention-Ottawa_AFTER.pdf 

 

Garner, C. (2015). Some findings from an Australian local crime prevention case study. Crime

Prevention and Community Safety. 17(2), pp.71-87

Glebe Youth Service (2018). After Dark. Available at: https://glebeyouth.org.au/home/what-we-

do/after-dark/ 

Engage Victoria (2018). Wyndham Community Safety Network. Available at:

https://engage.vic.gov.au/communitysafetynetworks/wyndham-community-safety-network


NSW Police Public (2018). Safer By Design. Available at:

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/safety_and_prevention/policing_in_the_community/safer_by_design

 

Parliamentary Secretary for Justice (2018). Community Crime Prevention Program. Available

at: http://youthlaw.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Community-Crime-Prevention-Program-Review-3.pdf

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 

Item No:         C0718 Item 2

Subject:         Operational Land Classification  for Arlington Grove, Dulwich Hill Affordable units (x 2)            

Prepared By:     Caroline Tunney - Property Officer  

Authorised By:  Brooke Martin - Group Manager Properties, Major Building Projects and Facilities

 

SUMMARY

On 8 May 2018, the Inner West Council acquired Land (“The Land”) lots 8 and 47, 6-26 Grove Street and 60-64 Constitution Road, Dulwich Hill as a result of a Voluntary Planning Agreement. In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, it is recommended that the land be classified as “operational land”.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council classifies land at Lot 8 and 47, 6-26 Grove Street and 60-64 Constitution Road, Dulwich Hill as operational land for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

BACKGROUND

On 8 May 2018, the Inner West Council acquired lots 8 and 47, 6-26 Grove Street and 60-64 Constitution Road, Dulwich Hill under a strata scheme as a result of a Voluntary Planning Agreement. The two units will be managed as affordable housing. The units include 1 x 1 bedroom unit and 1 x studio unit. The units are located within the Arlington Grove Development, 6 Grove Street, Dulwich Hill.

 

Figure 1: Location map

 

Under Chapter 6, Part 2, Division 1 of the Local Government Act 1993, the Land must be classified as either community or operational land.

 

A community land classification is usually applied to land that is  reserved for a public purpose (particularly open space land) as it comes with a number of management consequences under the Act (including plans of management, restrictions on the granting of leases/licenses/easements, disposal of land). A community land classification is not considered appropriate for the Grove St Dulwich Hill Land considering the proposed use as affordable housing units (which requires more flexible management) and is within a strata scheme.

 

A Council resolution within 3 months of acquisition (i.e. by 7 August 2018) is required for the Land classification of operational.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil provided that the land is classified operational. Otherwise, there will be some cost associated with managing the land as community land including the preparation of a plan of management.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The public consultation notification was published on Your Say Inner West and IWC social media from 24 May 2018 to 23 June 2018. During the exhibition period, Council's Your Say Inner West website received the following response:

 

·    No. of visitors who viewed the page - 162

·    No. of visitors who clicked the page to download documents - 10

·    No. of visitors who engaged and made an online submission - 5

 

Submission

Three submissions highlighted their support for more affordable housing in the Inner West.

RESPONSE

 

This matter is not part of the scope to classify the land as operational.

No change to the exhibited document is recommended.

Submission

One submission inquired whether Council intended to dedicate community land for the development of affordable housing.

 

 

RESPONSE

Council officer has advised the applicant the affordable units were acquired through a VPA.

 

No change to the exhibited document is recommended.

 

Submission

One submission stated whilst they appreciate the need for affordable housing Dulwich Hill does not need any more development.

RESPONSE

This matter is not part of the scope to classify the land as operational.

No change to the exhibited document is recommended.

 

CONCLUSION

Council classifies land at Lot 8 and 47, 6-26 Grove Street and 60-64 Constitution Road, Dulwich Hill as operational land for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 

Item No:         C0718 Item 3

Subject:         Henson Park - Proposed Development           

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

Authorised By:  Elizabeth Richardson - Deputy General Manager Assets and Environment

 

SUMMARY

Council has received a proposal from Newtown Jets, Sydney Swans and AFL NSW/ ACT to redevelop the grandstand at Henson Park, Marrickville.  The report outlines some of the details of the proposal.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The report be received and noted; and

 

2.   Council staff continue to discuss the proposed development with Newtown Jets, Sydney Swans and AFL NSW/ ACT as outlined in the report.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Council has received a proposal from Newtown Jets, Sydney Swans and AFL NSW/ACT to redevelop the grandstand at Henson Park, Marrickville.

 

At its meeting on the 27 February 2018, Council resolved that:

 

Officers provide a report to Councillors on the status of the proposed Henson Park upgrade and the potential partnership between Council, the Newtown Jets and Sydney Swans.

 

The proposal seeks to make alterations and additions to the rear of the existing grandstand building at Henson Park to improve the existing sporting facilities.  The works include:

 

·    Storage, reconfigure existing change rooms (basement);

·    New change rooms, amenities (ground floor);

·    New gym, office, meeting room, players lounge (first floor);

·    Lift access to all floors.

 

The value of the works is approximately $4 million, subject to further detailed design and estimates.

 

Currently, the grandstand and amenities areas are not accessible by people who are less mobile or in a wheelchair. One of the key community benefits of the proposal is that a lift will enable access and movement throughout the building and also into the covered spectator area of the grandstand.

 

The existing change rooms are in less that optimal condition and they are subject to occasional flooding.  The change room facilities would be improved substantially.

 

The Clubs have advised that the siting of the proposed building to the rear of the existing grandstand has been planned to minimise any perceived visual or social impact on the surrounding residents. By siting the new massing to the rear of the existing grandstand it will not create unreasonable overshadowing, privacy or visual bulk concerns for the surrounding land uses. Furthermore, the proposal to the rear of the existing grandstand is a positive utilisation of available space which is currently underutilised. It will also ensure that the movement of people within the RE1 zone including passive recreation activities such as  walking and dog walking is unaffected by the proposal.

 

Should the development proceed, in recognition of the substantial $4 million capital commitment invested by the Clubs, they are requesting a long term lease of the grandstand and a licence over the sporting ground.  Henson Park is classified as community land.  S46A(3) of the Local Government Act requires leases of community land greater than five years to be via tender unless to a not-for-profit organisation.  If the lease is going to be greater than 21 years up to the maximum of 30 years, then it will require the Minister for Local Government approval. 

 

Council has existing agreements with Newtown Jets and AFL (separately) for a non-exclusive seasonal licence for match play and training during the winter season at Henson Park for a period of 8 years commencing the 1 April 2017.

 

Should the proposal proceed, the expiry date for the lease of the grandstand and the licence over the sporting ground should be aligned.

 

 

Image 1: Photomontage of the proposed redevelopment

 

 

Alternative Options

 

The Clubs have investigated alternative options for the creation of new change rooms of sufficient size to accommodate elite AFL football and rugby league.  This would entail a freestanding complex. Two locations were investigated, one to the immediate north east of the King George V Grandstand that integrated the existing canteen, public toilets and viewing tower and the other in the carpark to the south of the ground abutting the terrace seating. These options were dismissed for the following reasons:

 

Integrated with existing canteen, toilets and tower option – this elevated location requires an unacceptably steep access to the ground and disrupts the public circulation that circles the ground, an intrinsic attraction of Henson Park. It is too disruptive to one of the preferred, existing seating areas, needing to be cut into the hill to cope with required levels.

 

South carpark option – there were 2 issues with this isolated location. It is too far away from grandstand crowds, coaches boxes and officials and the incremental costs of servicing the building with power, water, sewerage and drainage were prohibitive.

 

History of Henson Park

 

Henson Park was a former brick pit.  It was officially opened as a park in 1933.

 

The Newtown Rugby League Football Club was formed in 1908.  Since 1936, Henson Park has been their home ground.  The Newtown Jets compete in the NSW Cup competition and draw large crowds for home games.

 

The King George V Memorial Grandstand was completed in 1937.

 

Henson Park also hosts AFL matches, including the annual Community Cup charity match.

 

In 2017, both Newtown Jets and AFL contributed $75,000 each for the upgrading of the sporting ground lights.  In recognition of this capital contribution, they were given an eight year licence, as stated above.

 

Pre-DA Advice

 

A pre-development application was lodged by Newtown Jets and AFL in January 2017.  The key issues identified, which would need to be addressed in any future DA include the following:

 

·    Parking and access

·    Heritage conservation

·    Potential contamination

·    Provision of compliant car parking and stormwater design, in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards

·    Equity of access and mobility

·    Access to be maintained to the concourse

·    Construction management plan

 

Recreation Needs Study

 

Council is researching the current and future recreation needs of the Inner West Council area.  This study will inform the development of Council policy and strategy to address existing needs and forecast for additional population and increasing densities as a result of new development.  Council defines recreation as a broad spectrum ranging from unstructured activities like picnics, walking the dog and playing in parks to organised sport and everything in between.  Further information on this project is available on Council’s website:

https://www.yoursayinnerwest.com.au/recreation-needs-study-my-urban-playground-inner-west

 

The draft Recreation Needs Study: A Healthier Inner West is on public exhibition.  It does not specifically identify the need to redevelop the grandstand at Henson Park.

 

 

 

 

Plan of Management

 

The Henson Park Plan of Management, adopted 19 February 2002, allows for the proposed development to proceed. It is noted that this document is 16 years old and is due for review.

 

Offer from Newtown Jets & AFL

 

To date, Council staff have had “in principle” conversations only with Newtown Jets and AFL.  No detailed information has been provided to Council on any offer and/or proposed commercial arrangements for the proposed development and lease/ licence.

 

Currently, the grandstand and amenities areas are not accessible by people who are less mobile or in a wheelchair. One of the key community benefits of the proposal is that a lift will enable access and movement throughout the building and also into the covered spectator area of the grandstand.

 

The existing change rooms are in less that optimal condition and they are subject to occasional flooding.  The change room facilities would be improved substantially.

 

Approval Process and Funding

 

Henson Park is classified as community land.  S46A(3) of the Local Government Act 1993 states that a lease or licence for a term exceeding 5 years may be granted only by tender, unless it is granted to a non-profit organisation. 

 

Following Tender, Council may grant a lease up to 21 years.  If the lease is going to be greater than 21 years, up to the maximum of 30 years, then it will require approval from the Minister for Local Government.

 

Should Council determine to go to Tender, staff would develop the tender specification, commercial terms which would be acceptable to Council and the assessment criteria for determining the preferred tenderer.  The Tender would be publically advertised and it would allow other Clubs/ organisations to submit a proposal for the redevelopment of the grandstand at Henson Park. 

 

Council’s Properties, Major Building Projects and Facilities Group have undertaken an audit of all of Council’s buildings.  The audit identifies that Henson Park Grandstand building requires $466,000 to be spent on renewal within the next 10 years. The draft prioritisation which is based on risk, condition, and current Long Term Financial Plan places this in the year 2025.  The scope includes works to the external fabric, services (electrical/fire/mechanical/water), interior finishes, handrails. An annual maintenance allowance of $50,000 has been recommended.

 

The scoreboard building identifies that $124,000 is required to be spent on renewal in the next 10 years. The draft prioritisation which is based on risk, condition, and current Long term financial plan places this in the year 2020.

 

The proposed new redevelopment works are not identified in the ten year Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) or Asset Management Plans.  Newtown Jets and AFL have been advised of this, and they are investigating opportunities for grant funding.

 

Any advertised Tender would outline the proposed commercial terms. It is recommended that Council does not commit capital investment to the project, and that a cost neutral outcome is pursued.  That is, the lease arrangements would ensure that all outgoings including ongoing maintenance and utilities are covered. 

 

It should be noted that the proposed asset upgrade would result in a substantial long term increase in depreciation and maintenance costs to Council, after the 21 year lease period expired.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Considerable staff time would be required to progress with the proposal to redevelop the grandstand at Henson Park.  The commercial terms of the Tender, should it proceed, would be reported to Council as part of the tender assessment.

 

The proposed asset upgrade would result in a substantial long term increase in depreciation and maintenance costs to Council, after the 21 year lease period expired.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

This report was prepared in consultation with staff from Properties, Major Projects and Building Facilities and Legal Services.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

It is not proposed to undertake public consultation at this time.  Should this proposal proceed, public consultation will occur as part of any future Development Application.

 

CONCLUSION

Newtown Jets, Sydney Swans and AFL NSW/ ACT have proposed a substantial redevelopment to the grandstand at Henson Park, Marrickville. 

 

It is recommended that Council staff continue to progress the discussions with the Clubs.  These discussions should be on the basis that if Council were to proceed to open Tender:

 

1.   Council would not commit a capital contribution to the project; and

2.   The lease would require all outgoings, including ongoing maintenance and utilities to be paid for by the lessee for the term of the lease.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 

Item No:         C0718 Item 4

Subject:         Amendment No. 14 to Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 - 101 -103 Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield           

Prepared By:     Gunika Singh - Strategic Planner 

Authorised By:  David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning

 

SUMMARY

This report relates to a draft amendment to Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2013 for 101 - 103 Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield which seeks to increase the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 0.5:1 to 1:1, introduce a new height control of RL 35.73 equivalent to 5 storeys, and permit 'restaurants or cafes' and 'take away food and drink premises' on the ground floor.

 

The post-exhibition outcomes of the Planning Proposal were reported to Council on 25 July 2017 and it was determined by the Administrator that a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) should be drafted and exhibited; and a request be submitted to Parliamentary Counsel to draft an amendment to LLEP 2013 in support of the Planning Proposal. This report provides an update on the progress of the VPA and the Planning Proposal following receipt of an Opinion from Parliamentary Counsel's Office and seeks Council's endorsement to make the plan.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council resolve to make the amendment to Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 for 101 - 103 Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield.

 

2.   Council delegate the plan making function for the above amendment to the Group Manager Strategic Planning.

 

3.   The Plan, once made, be forwarded to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment for publication.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

At its meeting on 25 July 2017, Council considered a report (Attachment 1) on the community consultation outcomes of the Planning Proposal for 101 - 103 Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield.

 

The Administrator determined (C07/17 Item 13) that Council:

 

1.   Receive and note this report;

 

2.   Complete the drafting of a voluntary planning instrument in consultation with the Proponent and exhibit the Agreement in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979;

 

3.   Subject to resolution 2 above, request that an amendment to Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 be drafted by Parliamentary Counsel in support of this Planning Proposal that seeks an FSR of 1:1 and 'restaurants or cafes' and 'takeaway food and drink premises' up to 50 sqm on the ground floor as additional permitted uses on the land; and

 

4.   Include a height of building control that states the maximum height of development is 5 storeys or RL 35.73 to the top of the lift overruns.

 

The intent of the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 Amendment 14 is to increase the FSR of site from 0.5:1 to 1:1, introduce a maximum building height of RL 35.73 to the top of lift overruns (5 storeys) and allow certain additional permitted uses on the land including 'restaurants or cafes' and 'takeaway food and drink premises'.

 

 

REPORT

 

The drafting of the Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) has now been completed. The draft VPA was exhibited between 8 May 2018 and 5 June 2018. The VPA relates to a monetary payment of $250,000 to be allocated to affordable housing in the council area. The post exhibition outcomes of the VPA will be reported to Council on 24 July 2018.

 

On 1 May 2018, a request was sent to Parliamentary Counsel's Office (PCO) that an amendment to LLEP 2013 be drafted to reflect the Planning Proposal for 101 - 103 Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield in accordance with Council's 25 July 2017 resolution.

 

On 15 June 2018, Council received an Opinion from PCO that the plan can be legally made (Attachment - 2).

 

The draft plan is accompanied by amendments to the Floor Space Ratio (FSR), Height of Building (HOB) and Key Sites (KYS) maps of LLEP 2013. Consistent with the exhibited Planning Proposal, the draft LLEP maps:

 

·    Amend the FSR of the site from 0.5:1 to 1:1;

·    Introduce a Height of Building control of RL 35.73; and

·    Identify the site as Key Sites within the proposed Additional Local Provision clause.

 

MAKING OF THE PLAN

 

The Gateway Determination issued on 18 January 2017 delegated Council to exercise the functions of the Minister for Planning under section 3.36 (previously s59) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in relation to the subject Planning Proposal to make this local environmental plan amendment.

 

It is recommended that Council delegate responsibility to the Group Manager Strategic Planning to make the LLEP 2013 Amendment No. 14. The Plan will come into effect the day it is published on the NSW legislation website.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The Planning Proposal was exhibited for 35 days from Tuesday 11 April 2017 until Tuesday 23 May 2017. The post exhibition outcomes report (Attachment 1) was considered by Council on 25 July 2017 which recommended the support of the Planning Proposal as mentioned in the above resolution (C0717 Item 13).

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council resolve to make the amendment to LLEP 2013 as drafted and delegate this function to the Group Manager Strategic Planning. Once made, the Plan will be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment with a request that it be published.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Post exhibition outcomes report 25 July 2017 - 101 - 103 Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield

2.

Parliamentary Counsel Final Opinion - LLEP Amendment No. 14

  


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 


 


 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 

Item No:         C0718 Item 5

Subject:         Post Exhibition Report - Review of Planning Proposal and Development Control Plan Amendment Fees           

Prepared By:     Leah Chiswick - Executive Strategic Planner  

Authorised By:  David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning

 

SUMMARY

This report advises Council of the outcomes of public consultation on proposed changes to the planning proposal and development control plan (DCP) amendment fee structure and seeks adoption of the exhibited fees.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

 

1.       Adopt the exhibited fees for planning proposals and development control plans amendments in accordance with the provisions of Local Government Act 1993; and

 

2.       Amend the Fees and Charges FY2018/19 to reflect the new fee structure.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

At its meeting of 24 April 2018, Council considered a report on fees associated with proponent led planning proposals and DCP amendments. The report followed a review which aimed to ensure that Council’s costs in the assessment and processing of proposals are covered. The review considered the fees charged by surrounding and similar sized councils in the Sydney metro area as well as incentivising pre-planning proposals to improve the quality and merit of planning proposals received. Council resolved as follows:

 

THAT:

 

1.    Council place on public exhibition with the 2018/19 Draft Fees and Charges; and

2.    A post-exhibition report be presented to Council discussing any submissions received.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The proposed changes to the fee structure were placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days from 15 May 2018 to 12 June 2018. The consultation was undertaken in accordance with Sections 610F and 705 of the Local Government Act 1993 and Council's Community Engagement framework.

 

Notification of the community consultation included:

 

·     Public notice in the local newspaper (Inner West Courier) on Tuesday 15 May 2018;

·     Advertisement on Council's Your Say Inner West webpage throughout the consultation period.

 

No submissions were received during the public exhibition period.

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The fee increases proposed for planning proposals and DCP amendments will ensure that the costs associated with their assessment and processing are covered.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council adopt the fee structure as advertised and attached to this report (Attachment 1) and amend the Inner West Council Schedule of Fees and Charges 2018/19 accordingly.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Exhibited Fees - Planning Proposals and DCP Amendments

  


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 

2018/19 Planning Proposal and DCP Amendment Fees

PREPARATION OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN AMENDMENTS

Pre Planning Proposal Consultation (mandatory for all applications)

Minor LEP Amendment

$2,500

Major LEP Amendment

$5,000

Complex LEP Amendment

$7,000

Precinct LEP Amendment

$12,000

Additional meetings

25% of original fee

Planning Proposals

Minor LEP Amendment e.g. adding or removing a heritage item, adding or removing a use that does not require complex assessment

$18,000

Major LEP Amendment e.g. FSR and height amendments

$60,000

Complex LEP Amendment e.g. change of zoning or matters that involve significant consideration of economic, environmental and transport issues

$100,000

Precinct LEP Amendment e.g. similar to a complex LEP amendment but where the proposal relates to multiple lots

$150,000

Amended Planning Proposal

25% of fee for Minor Planning Proposals

50% of fee for Major, Complex and Precinct Planning Proposals

Refund where withdrawn prior to the Planning Proposal being reported to Council

Maximum 50% of Planning Proposal fee. At discretion of Council officers.

Amendments to Development Control Plans (lodged in conjunction with a Planning Proposal or in isolation)

Minor DCP Amendment

$7,000

Major DCP Amendment

$20,000

Complex DCP Amendment

$35,000

Precinct DCP Amendment

$55,000

Refund where withdrawn prior to being reported to Council

Maximum 50% of DCP amendment fee. At discretion of Council officers.

Advertisement and notification of LEP and DCP amendments

Advertising

$3,000

Notification

$2.00 per property notified

Public Hearing

Public Hearing if required. Cost recovery to Council.

At cost

Additional costs and expenses

For all LEP and DCP amendments any additional costs and expenses incurred by Council in undertaking studies, peer reviews, referral to panels (Inner West Planning Panel and Architectural Excellence Panel) and other matters are to be paid at cost

At cost

 

 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 

Item No:         C0718 Item 6

Subject:         Planning Proposal at 2-6 Cavill Avenue Ashfield           

Prepared By:     Con Colot - Senior Strategic Planner & Projects 

Authorised By:  David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning

 

SUMMARY

This proposal relates to a large and unique site on the western side of the Ashfield Town Centre, containing two five storey office buildings in a landscaped setting, and comprises several allotments with a B4 Mixed Use zoning, and two small lots with a R2 Low Density Residential Zoning.  

 

Council previously considered a report on 25 July 2017 on the preliminary exhibition stage of the Planning Proposal when the Administrator supported the application and sought Gateway Determination to become the Planning Proposal Authority. This was subsequently granted. This report advises Council on the outcomes of the community consultation stage carried out in March/April 2018.

 

The Planning Proposal seeks to make amendments to the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013, and associated amendment to the Inner West Development Control Plan 2016. For the part of the land zoned B4 Mixed Use the Planning Proposal seeks to increase the Maximum Floor Space Ratio from 2.0:1 to 3.0:1 to bring this in line with other sites in the Ashfield Town Centre. It also seeks to apply a 7m height (2 storey) bonus to the site, which would be in addition to the existing 23m Maximum Building Height, and will require 25 % Affordable Housing in the “uplift” under the Ashfield LEP 2013.  This would be the same requirement as for other sites in the Ashfield Town Centre.

 

Also sought is a site specific LEP clause to clarify that the roadway use of two smaller lots zoned R2 fronting “The Avenue” includes vehicular access to the larger 2-6 Cavill Avenue part zoned B4, and other amendments to specific clauses in the Ashfield LEP 2013.

 

The report recommends that Council support the Planning Proposal and progress it to the final stages for the making of amendments to the Ashfield LEP 2013. It also recommends that the proposed Draft site specific Development Control Plan amendment be adopted subject to the amendments identified in the report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.        Council support and finalise to gazettal stage the Planning Proposal PP_2017_IWEST_012_00 for 2-6 Cavill Avenue Ashfield to amend the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013 as indicated in the report;

 

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

 

3.       Following completion of (2) above, Council instruct the Department of Planning and Environment to notify the plan;

 

4.       Council authorise the General Manager to finalise the LEP amendments using the delegation granted by the Gateway Determination, and to finalise the amendments to the site specific Development Control Plan as indicated in the report;

 

5.       Council adopt the site specific amendments for 2-6 Cavill Avenue, Ashfield to the “Inner West Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2016 for Ashbury, Ashfield, Croydon, Croydon Park, Haberfield, Hurlstone Park and Summer Hill” as recommended in the report, and:

 

(i)     Carry out the procedures under the Environmental Planning and Assessment  Act 1979 for making the amendment to  the Development Control Plan, and

 

(ii)    Place an advertisement in the local newspaper advising that Council has adopted the amendments to the Development Control Plan, which will come into force in the event and at the time Planning Proposal PP_2017_IWEST_012_00 LEP amendment is published on the Legislation website.

 

1.0       BACKGROUND

 

Council is the Relevant Planning Proposal Authority for the Planning Proposal at 2-6 Cavill Avenue described in Part 3 below. This means Council may determine whether to make the amendments proposed to the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan (Ashfield LEP) and carry out remaining statutory procedures to bring into force.

 

The applicant for the Planning Proposal is the current site owner. The existing office buildings are occupied by the Department of Family and Community Services.

 

The Planning Proposal and Draft site specific Development Control Plan (Draft DCP) amendment was put on formal public exhibition between 13 March 2018 until 10 April 2018. There were 20 submissions received and these are commented on in Part 5 of this report for Council’s consideration as required under the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EPA) Act 1979.

 

The Planning Proposal (PP_2017_IWEST_012_00) affects the site in Figure 1 and seeks several amendments to the Ashfield LEP 2013 as summarised below, and which are described in detail including with diagrams in Part 3 of this report.

 

·    Add clause 9  in Schedule 1 of the Ashfield LEP 2013 to clarify that the  roadways use on two lots in  The Avenue that comprise part of the site may provide access to the larger B4 zone site at 2 – 6 Cavill Avenue  Ashfield.

·    Increase the maximum floor space ratio from 2:1 to 3:1 on the larger part of the site zoned B4 – Mixed Use.

·    Apply “Area 1 boundary” to the Height of Building Map on the larger part of the site zoned B4 – Mixed Use. This enables a 7m height bonus for residential flat buildings and shop top housing developments providing affordable housing is included in the development.

·    Implement a site specific exemption to Clause 4.3(2A) and Clause 4.3B(3) of the Ashfield LEP 2013 which will then allow for  a greater number of habitable storeys within the maximum building height. 

 

Figure 1 Site Location - in grey shading, and aerial view.

 

As put forward by the applicant (and explained in more detail in Attachment 2 – Planning Proposal) the basic rationale and justification for the Planning Proposal is that there is a likelihood that the two existing 5 storey office buildings which contain a State Government Department will be vacated in the near future, there is a declining long term market for commercial tenants of the type required for large buildings in the Ashfield Town Centre, and  that therefore there should be development standards that make the continued use or redevelopment of the site viable so that the two existing 5 storey buildings are not left vacant or derelict. Also that it is equitable to have same development standards as the majority of other sites in the Ashfield Town Centre.

 

Previous Council resolution

 

This proposal was initially put on upfront community consultation in accordance with the policy of the former Ashfield Council in 2017. Council then considered a report on the application on July 2017 (Attachment 9). This provided considerable background information including the current use of site and surrounding uses, and so this information is not repeated in this report.

 

Council resolved in July 2017 to support the Proposal and seek Gateway Determination for Council to become the Planning Proposal Authority for the making of the LEP amendment.  Council’s resolution stated:

 

1/4     Support the Planning Proposal subject to amendments outlined in the report.

2/4     Forward the Planning Proposal to the Minister of Planning for a Gateway. Determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, and seek that Council use its delegated plan making functions to be the Relevant Planning Authority for the processing of the Planning Proposal.

3/4     Authorise the General Manager to be Council’s delegate and “the Authorisation” to be the Relevant Planning Authority for the processing of the Planning Proposal.

4/4     Develop a site specific Draft Development Control Plan as outlined in the report once the Gateway approval is received and exhibit the draft DCP concurrently with the Planning Proposal.

 

 

 

 

2.0       GATEWAY DETERMINATION

 

Gateway Determination (Attachment 1) was issued on 6 Oct 2017 by the State Department of Planning and Environment, and Council were made the Planning Proposal Authority.

 

The Determination required:

 

-     The proposal to be exhibited for a minimum of 28 days.

-     Consultation with Roads and Maritime Services and Sydney Trains.

-     The Proposal updated “to resolve the permissibility of access to development permitted in the B4 Mixed Use zone across the two access handles which are zoned R2 Low Density Residential and connect the site to The Avenue”.

 

The Planning Proposal documents were subsequently updated to respond to the Planning Proposal guidelines and Council recommendations as outlined in the report to Council on July 2017, and to reflect the Draft State Plans in place at the time of exhibition. Deferral was requested to consider a submission by the applicant for the contents of a Draft site specific Development Control Plan (Draft DCP). An in-house Council Draft DCP was produced reflecting the recommendations of the Council report of July 2017. The proposal was thereafter put on formal public exhibition (community consultation) which is commented on in Part 5 below.

 

3.0     DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PLANNING PROPOSAL AMENDMENTS TO THE ASHFIELD LEP 2013 AS EXHIBITED 

 

3.1       Amendment to land use zoning for lots at The Avenue

 

As instructed by the Gateway Determination, the application seeks that the properties within the red boundary in The Avenue shown in Figure 2 below zoned R2 and for which the current zoning permits a “roadway” land use, have the following clause applied in Schedule 9 of the Ashfield LEP 2013.

 

9. Use of certain land at 2-6 Cavill Avenue, Ashfield

 

(1)          This clause applies to 2-6 Cavill Avenue, Ashfield and relates to Lot 17 in DP 168456, and part of Lot 101 in DP 234926.

 

(2)          Access (private or otherwise) to development for the purposes of Commercial premises; Residential accommodation; Community facilities; Function centre; Health services facility; Centre-based child care; Educational establishments; Entertainment facilities; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Recreation facilities; Registered clubs; and Car parking, are permitted with development consent.

 

This is in order to ensure traffic access is maintained from The Avenue for any new development onto the main site at 2-6 Cavill Avenue zoned B4.

 

 

R2 indicates R2 – Low Density Residential

B4 indicates B4 – Mixed Use

 

Figure 2 – Extract Ashfield LEP 2013 – Land Use Zoning Map. 

Red boundary indicates the properties affected by the proposed clause located off The Avenue.

 

Officer comment:

 

The applicant advises in the Planning Proposal that resolution of this issue is required due to a precedent set by a past Land and Environment Court case concerning a site in another Council area. Whilst the laneways zoned R2 are presently used for access to the existing commercial building, and roadways are permissible in the R2 Zone, the decision of the Court might prevent use of the “roadway” land use in the R2 zone to an adjacent B4 zone commercial site for any new major development. Given this issue, and the Gateway Determination instruction, it is agreed this amendment should be supported.

 

3.2       Amendment to Maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Map.

 

The application seeks to apply a 3.0: 1 Maximum FSR development standard on the land zoned B4 – Mixed use as indicated in Figure 3 below, and as shown in the actual proposed LEP A3 tile LEP map in Attachment 4.  This would be the same as that in the majority of sites in the Ashfield Town Centre zoned B4.

 

 

 

Existing Floor Space Ratio Map

 

Site is shown as Code T- maximum FSR 2.0:1

 

 

Proposed Floor Space Ratio Map

 

Site is shown as Code V – Maximum FSR 3.0:1.

 

 

Figure 3 - Existing and proposed Maximum Floor Space Ratio Map

 

Officer Comments:

 

This proposed FSR would be the same as that in the majority of sites in the Ashfield Town Centre zoned B4- Mixed Use, and will accommodate  the existing Maximum Building Height of 23m and 7m height bonus being sought as discussed below, and should be supported. The Draft DCP will provide guidelines for the extra building height as discussed in Part 4 of this report.

 

 

3.3       Amendment to Maximum Height of Buildings (MBH) Map.

 

The application seeks to apply “Area 1” delineated by a blue boundary to the MBH LEP  Map as shown in Figure 4 below, and as proposed in the actual LEP map in Attachment 4. This identifies an area which gives a 7 m height bonus (equivalent of two storeys) pursuant to Clause 4.3 A (3) of the Ashfield LEP 2013.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Existing Height of Buildings Map

 

Site is shown as Code S - maximum Height 23m

 

 

 

 

Proposed Height of Buildings Map

 

Site is kept as Code S- maximum Height 23m , and in addition has “Area 1” and blue boundary applied

 

 

Figure 4 - Existing and proposed Height of Buildings Map

 

Officer Comments:

 

Council (former Ashfield) provided a 7 m height bonus in the Ashfield LEP 2013 as part of its housing strategy, on the proviso there would be community benefit provided being the equivalent of 25 percent affordable housing (of the two storeys) as stipulated by

clause 4.3 A (3). This 7 m height bonus has been applied to the majority of sites zoned B4 in the Ashfield Town Centre. Council in 25 July 2017 agreed with the town planner’s report (Attachment 9) that  for consistency this pre – existing “Ashfield Housing Strategy” should be applied to the site since it would yield approx. 18 Affordable Housing apartments (mix of one and two bedrooms), and was already a compulsory legislated requirement in the Ashfield LEP 2013 and also that the Planning Proposal application was lodged in December 2016, prior to  that Council’s Affordable Housing Policy coming into effect on March 2017,  which has the status of being  a “policy” subject to negotiation on the amount of affordable housing to be provided.

 

For 2-6 Cavill Avenue use of the 7 m height bonus would generate approximately 18 “affordable apartments” (mix of one and two bedrooms of varying sizes). This is implemented by conditions of approval applied to any development consent requiring that the dwellings be transferred to a community housing provider, by having a “restriction on the  use of the land” placed on the land title.

 

The existing Ashfield LEP in its clause objective 4.3 (1) (c) states that there must be a transition in height between different areas, such as when adjacent a R2 Low Density Zone. This is given more detail in the proposed Draft DCP discussed in Part 4 of this report which will require a 20 m western boundary setback for the additional 7m height, to adjacent properties zoned R2 Low Density off The Avenue.

 

Given the above, application of “Area 1” (7m bonus) to the site should be supported as it intrinsically linked to the increase in FSR from 2:1 to 3:1, additional building bulk impacts can be managed with the draft DCP,  and there will provision of affordable housing.

 

 

3.4       Amendment to Clause 4.3 (2A) in the Ashfield LEP 2013, that affects the use of the uppermost part –roof zone- of the building.

 

Existing clause

Proposed additional clause

Clause 4.3 states as follows  :

 

4.3   Height of buildings

 

(1)  The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

(a)  to achieve high quality built form for all buildings,

(b)  to maintain satisfactory sky exposure and daylight to existing buildings, to the sides and rear of taller buildings and to public areas, including parks, streets and lanes,

(c)  to provide a transition in built form and land use intensity between different areas having particular regard to the transition between heritage items and other buildings,

(d)  to maintain satisfactory solar access to existing buildings and public areas.

 

(2)  The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map.

 

(2A)  If a building is located on land in Zone B4 Mixed Use, any part of the building that is within 3 metres of the height limit set by subclause (2) must not include any area that forms part of the gross floor area of the building and must not be reasonably capable of modification to include such an area.

 

 

 

Add as part of  existing clause (2A) :

 

(a)        Notwithstanding this provision, development consent may be granted for development at 2-6 Cavill Avenue , Ashfield in accordance with subclause 2, if Council has considered the relevant objectives.

 

 

Clause 4.3 is present in the LEP to address the technical limitations of the standard definition of Building Height, and is applied to  the Ashfield Town Centre to further restrict  the height of buildings to reflect the number of acceptable storeys - similar to having a maximum ceiling height control. Its purpose is to technically take account of a rooftop area which is not a habitable storey, which includes evident necessary structures such as  protruding  lift motor and plant rooms up to 3.5 m high. It also enables roof top communal open space and its ancillary structures such as enclosed stairs and pergolas/shade structures. Such smaller sites in a town centre are not able to have 25 percent resident communal open space at ground level, and so it follows it is necessary to provide this on the roof top.

 

The application wishes to remove the affectation of sub clause Part (2A) for the subject  site by adding clause (a) shown in bold above. This is in order to permit an extra storey for apartments, which will enable a total of 9 storeys (23m plus 7m bonus= 30m) on the site. The proposal essentially argues that the justification for this:

 

-     The site is in a different context to those of the rest of the town centre, since it is a large site, this situation enables the option of a predominantly residential use of the site with provision of 25 percent communal open space at ground level, and includes achieving various ground level “green landscaped” areas.

 

-     That any new buildings will have very large empty roof areas, and so it is reasonable to allow within that roof top area some building (habitable floorspace).

 

-     In the above context the maximum number of storeys should not be restricted to 8 storeys within a maximum height of 30 m as a consequence of not allowing any habitable floor areas within 3m of the maximum height.

 

-     Assessment of an appropriate upper level built form can be made against the existing objectives of clause 4.3.

 

Officer comments:

 

The site area for the part zoned B4 is 7,766 sqm. This is approx. five times the size of a site recently constructed at 270 Liverpool Road for an eight storey building. In this situation it is evident that buildings can be arranged in a way where there can be substantial provision of ground level open space and protection of existing trees. The Draft DCP in Attachment 7 provides guidelines for this. This amendment should be supported.

 

 

3.5       Amendment to clause 4.3B of the Ashfield LEP –‘street wall height”.

 

Existing clause

Proposed additional clause

4.3B   Ashfield town centre—maximum height for street frontages on certain land

 

(1)  The objective of this clause is to apply a maximum height for primary street frontages on certain land in Ashfield town centre.

 

(2)  This clause applies to land identified as “Area 1” on the Height of Buildings Map.

 

(3)  Despite clauses 4.3 (2) and 4.3A (3), the maximum height of that part of a building that has an entrance or lobby on the ground floor facing Liverpool Road, Norton or Hercules Streets or Markham Place, Ashfield (a primary street frontage) is 12 metres for a distance of 12 metres from the primary street frontage away from the road.

 

Add after Sub Clause (3):

 

(a) Notwithstanding this provision, development consent may be granted for development at 2-6 Cavill Avenue, Ashfield in accordance with subclause (2), if Council is satisfied that this achieves an appropriate design outcome having regard to surrounding development.

 

 

The proposal essentially argues that requiring such a control along Liverpool Road for this site is was never intended by Council and is inappropriate. 

 

Officer Comments:

 

Clause 4.3B is included in the LEP in order to maintain a lower scale building along the principal older roads in the Ashfield Town Centre and so continue the established typology of the place which typically has 10-11 metre high buildings and provides a responsive “human scale”. Council would be aware of buildings that have been already constructed that illustrate this urban design scale principle, with taller 8 storey buildings placed to the rear and having a 12 metre setback.  This objective was not intended for the subject site which has modern 5 storey commercial buildings with substantial front setbacks from site boundaries, with a landscaped setting, and only has a small part of its frontage along Liverpool Road. It is agreed the proposed clause should be added to the LEP to remove the existing affectation.

 

4.0     AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE INNER WEST DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2016 FOR ASHBURY, ASHFIELD, CROYDON, CROYDON PARK, HABERFIELD, HURLSTONE PARK AND SUMMER HILL (INNER WEST DCP 2016) 

 

Council resolved that a site specific  Draft Development Control Plan amendment (Draft DCP) containing ancillary guidelines (Attachment 7) be added to the “Inner West DCP 2016” (Ashfield) in order to ensure the existing positive characteristics of the site are continued and there is a satisfactory relationship with adjacent sites (refer to previous report in Attachment 9). This is necessary because the site is a unique type in the town centre being: 

 

-     Large site being approx. 7,965 sqm, which can result in buildings which have a different built form type and site layout arrangement to that found on smaller sites and so this requires particular design controls.

-     Has a garden setting, including with numerous perimeter large tree planting, which contributes to the townscape and environmental qualities of the centre, and this spatial contribution should be retained.

-     Adjacent lower rise residential areas in The Avenue will be impacted by additional building heights, and so there needs to be a setback transition for any additional storeys.

-     Currently provides an informal pedestrian link along its north side between  Heighway Avenue, The Avenue, through to Cavill Avenue and the town centre, which should be maintained.

-     Contains apartments at 8 Cavill Avenue in close proximity to the northern boundary of the site, whose privacy and amenity must be addressed.

-     There are several development options under the existing B4 zoning which should be addressed by having guidelines.

-     Has particular vehicular entry and exit points, and also internal site servicing lanes including for deliveries and waste collection which should be maintained to ensure local streets and the public domain are not impacted.

 

The Draft DCP also sets out the “Desirable Qualities” for the site, in accordance with to State Environmental Planning Policy no 65 (SEPP 65)- the Context Principle, which is a local matter for Council to determine.

 

If Council resolves to support the Planning Proposal it is recommended that Council adopt the draft DCP amendment as follows:

 

-     Amendments are made as indicated in the Council officer recommendations in Attachment 8 (DCP submission review) of this report, and Part 5 of this report (response to submissions) as shown underlined.

-     Carry out procedures under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act for amendment of the “Inner West DCP 2016”.

-     Place an advertisement in the local newspaper within 28 days of Council’s resolution, advising that the amendments come into force upon gazettal of this LEP amendment.

-     DCP advises that it will apply to any Development Application for major development lodged both prior to and after LEP gazettal of this amendment.   

 

 

 

5.0       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

 

The Planning Proposal was notified between 13 March 2018 and 10 April 2018, in the way required by “A guide to preparing local environmental plans”, part 5.5.2 Community Consultation. This included a notice and its required content placed in the local newspaper, letters sent to adjacent and nearby property owners, and details placed on Council’s “Have Your Say” webpage where submissions could be made electronically. 

 

There were 198 visitations to Council’s “Have Your Say” website. Two submissions supporting the application were received. Thirteen submissions objected to the proposal. There were also five late submissions (due to problems with letter delivery from Australia Post to a particular adjacent property) objecting to the proposal. It is Council policy that copies of submissions will not be made publicly available, issues raised in submissions are instead summarised below.

 

Table 1 – Submission comments

 

Support for Proposal

 

 

Officer Comments

Proposal will provide 18 affordable dwellings.

It is the case that the proposed additional two storeys will be required to provide 25 percent of the floorspace as affordable housing under the Ashfield LEP 2013, equating to approx. 18 dwellings (mix of one and two bed apartments).

 

Objections to Proposal

 

Inadequate Justification and documentation

 

Officer Response

The proposal will simply provide more apartments replacing the existing office spaces, and this in itself does not provide not provide adequate justification for the Planning Proposal.

 

In accordance with the Planning Proposal Guidelines adequate justification has been provided.  This was examined in the report to Council of July 2017 in Attachment 9, verified by the issuing of a Gateway Determination, and demonstrated in the content of the updated Planning Proposal.

 

The zoning of the land already permits a standalone residential flat building, and the site owner seeks to have the same development standards/opportunities that apply to the rest of the Ashfield Town Centre.

 

The proposal will also provide affordable housing.

Proposal does not state the height of the existing buildings, this is required in order to understand the impacts from additional heights, and such information should be provided in order to understand the impacts.

 

There was no requirement from the Gateway Determination to provide a supporting Design Concept to illustrate existing building heights.

 

Figure 5 below shows the existing building heights, and new height plane proposed. Draft DCP (Attachment 7) has particular guidelines to minimize impacts on adjacent properties in The Avenue by requiring a significant setback to the upper storeys of buildings as explained below.

 

 

Figure 5 - Comparative Building Heights

 

The Apartment Design Guide (referenced in SEPP 65) provides guidelines for building setbacks to adjacent place such as Low Density Residential R2 zones.  Such setback include :  a minimum of 9 metres for up to 4 storeys, then 12 metres for up to 8 storeys, and then 15 m for 9 storeys. This would result in the envelope shown in red as notated. In accordance with  the SEPP 65 –Context Principle, and Council stating the “Desired Character”, proposed DS 12.2 of the Draft DCP requires a greater upper level setback (in green) for the additional 7m height, to ensure that additional visual impacts to The Avenue are minimized. The upper building parts would be contained within an actual effective recessive 45 degree (approx.) plane established by the edge of the existing 5 storey commercial buildings.

 

Not in accordance with Council Strategy

Officer Response

Proposal will provide more housing than that planned for in the Ashfield Urban Planning Strategy 2010, with 1000 new resident and there is a lack of public open space to cater for this.  Disregard Council policy for building height transition. “I understood you couldn’t have high rise buildings near a medium density area’. 

 

Use of the site for predominantly residential use is consistent with the dwelling projections in the town centre.

 

The Ashfield Town Centre has capacity for around 1100 new dwellings as identified in the Ashfield Urban Strategy 2010. Since 2010 there have been approvals for around 500 dwellings with approx. 260 dwellings completed and the remaining under construction. In round figures, the site utilizing the existing FSR of 2:1 is capable of producing around 160 apartments (assuming 100 sqm each). The additional FSR of 1:1 is capable of producing around 80 apartments (assuming 100 sqm each). If ground level commercial uses were proposed there would be fewer apartments.

 

The current DCP controls lead to a maximum of 6 storeys which generally reflect the existing buildings on site. The Ashfield Town Centre Strategy 2008 requires that there be lower transitionary building heights around the perimeter of the area where they are near lower residential areas. This is also a stated objective in Clause 4.3(1) of the Ashfield LEP 2013. With regard to the additional building heights,  the Draft DCP provides guidelines that any additional storeys above 6 storeys must have a substantial 20 m setback to properties in The Avenue to maintain this principle.

 

A future development proposal will be capable of providing 25 percent ground level communal open space.

 

There are nearby parks within walking distance at Bill Peters Reserve and Pratten Park, and Ashfield Pool is within walking distance. There are also open space improvements being constructed in the town centre which will create distinct and scenic walking paths, and new civic spaces in The Esplanade for new residents, as part of Council’s Ashfield Public Domain Strategy 2016. 

 

 

 

Loss of employment floorspace

 

Officer Response

There will be a significant loss of employment, and a loss of such commercial office space. There will also result in people having to travel longer distances to travel to work adding to traffic congestion.

 

 

The applicant has provided a Strategic Economic Assessment report (Attachment 3). This explains :

 

-     This notes that the B4 -Mixed Use Land Zoning already permits stand alone residential flat development. Such a development has resulted at 164 Liverpool Road Ashfield which had a substantial 6 storey commercial building converted to apartments.

 

 

-     There are adequate regional employment areas within close vicinity and transport access of the Ashfield Town Centre, and that its more likely that demand for large standalone commercial building (apart from Sydney City) will occur in Strategic Centres such as Burwood and Parramatta.

 

Council’s Economic Development Manager agrees the Planning Proposal will not result in an adverse local economic impact.

 

The Site owner has also explained that there is no certainty that in the event the two very large commercial buildings are vacated by the present Government departments, that he will be able to find new tenants for these buildings.

 

Inadequate Affordable Housing

 

Officer Response

Local employment floorspace should not be replaced by more housing, including affordable housing. Affordable housing should instead be provided as social (public) housing by the State Government.

The B4 -Mixed Use Land Zoning already permits stand alone residential flat development.

 

Council’s LEP planning controls cannot influence the State Governments policy for providing social (public) housing.

 

The existing Ashfield LEP 2013 controls already require the site owner to provide approx. 18 affordable housing apartments, and so there is no community benefit created. 

 

The existing Ashfield LEP provisions for this site do not require affordable housing. This Proposal will enable application of Clause 4.3A (3) of the LEP which requires the equivalent of 25 percent of the floorspace of the additional storeys to be provided as affordable housing. This is enforced at Development Application stage by applying development consent conditions that require transfer of those dwellings to a community housing provider. This proposal is likely to generate the equivalent of 18 x one or two bedroom affordable apartments.

Proposal does not comply with Council’s Affordable Housing Policy March 2017.

 

The Proposal was submitted in Dec 2016.

 

The Proposal addresses the former Ashfield Council Strategy which uses an inclusionary clause principle and this results in high yields of affordable housing. This is found in the Ashfield Urban Planning Strategy 2010, under its Housing Objectives (4.2, 03). This was implemented in the Ashfield LEP 2013 by having clause 4.3(A) (3) (b) for development in the Ashfield Town Centre. This requires 25 percent affordable housing in order to obtain a 2 storey bonus (e.g. no prior VPA  negotiations are required). This clause has had efficacy with several recent 8 storey development in the town centre being reliant on using 4.3(A) (3) (b) for obtaining approval for an extra two storeys. It is enforced via conditions of development consent. 

 

The site owners state in the Planning Proposal they are agreeable to having clause 4.3(A) (3) (b) apply to their site and so contribute to Council’s affordable housing supply.

 

Also to note is that under the EPA Act 1979 is that a DCP cannot be more onerous than development standards of the Ashfield LEP 2013 which already provide for affordable housing. This principle would apply to a non statutory policy document.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adverse Traffic generation, inadequate parking

 

Officer comments

Additional vehicles using the laneways and The Avenue will make the street more dangerous.

The current commercial and office use of the site already uses properties off The Avenue as laneways for entry and exit from the site, and this has been occurring since the middle 1980s. Council cannot prohibit this.

 

Traffic vehicular access will be assessed under a future Development Application to ensure safe entry and exit.

There will be a loss of onstreet parking in the Avenue. 

 

Council (former Ashfield LGA) has implemented a resident parking scheme. This has determined that the west side of the Avenue has a two hour parking limit, except for resident permit holders. The east side has no parking restrictions, and members of the public are already able to park in this location irrespective of what occurs at the 2-6 Cavill Avenue site. This includes numerous people who work or use the adjacent town centre.

 

Traffic report instructs that the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)  guidelines be used  which means there would be 50 fewer carparking spaces, the Council Ashfield DCP requirements should be used instead which require higher levels of parking.

 

The amount of carparking provision is a matter for assessment at development application stage.  For the residential apartment component of any future development, the carparking rates stipulated in the Apartment Design Guide (via State Environmental Planning Policy no 65) are the minimum legally required, and they reference the RMS guidelines. Any non- residential component, such as commercial offices or retail space, will be required to comply with Council’s “Inner West DCP 2016” (for former Ashfield LGA). 

 

The traffic report is inadequate. Traffic impacts on adjacent and local streets have not been adequately documented.  It discusses traffic movements during peak hours only, but does not discuss difference in traffic movements between the existing commercial premises and the proposed residential development. It states that traffic numbers from the existing commercial operation are the same as the proposed development, and there has not been any data on actual traffic generation from the development.

The Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), who oversee impacts on main roads, raised no objection to the report and traffic impacts. This was likely due to the site presently having three entry and exit streets, at Cavill Avenue, Thomas Street, and The Avenue.

 

Both the RMS and Council’s Traffic engineers have advised that at a future development application stage for major redevelopment of the site that a detailed traffic assessment report will be required to be provided. This includes that existing and anticipated intersection performance for the adjacent intersections must be modelled, including Thomas Street/The Avenue, Thomas Street/Liverpool Road, and Liverpool Road/Cavill Avenue, and a traffic management plan put in place. It is recommended this be added to the Draft DCP as underlined.

The internal laneways off The Avenue are too narrow for continual 24 hour usage, and use of the laneways after business hours should not be allowed due to the noise nuisance this creates for adjacent residents.

 

The site already uses the laneways for entry and exit. The laneway between the properties 7 and 9 the Avenue is approx. 3.6 wide. This is satisfactory for one way movement, which is how the laneway currently operates and which prohibits pedestrian use. The laneway (north side) adjacent 15 the Avenue is 4.2 wide (contained within a 7.9 wide lot which has an area set aside for large trees). This laneway is satisfactory for one way movement, and also caters for pedestrian movement between The Avenue and Cavil Avenue and beyond to the town centre and railway station.

 

Noting the above, Council’s Traffic engineers have recommended that any future development be encouraged to have the majority of traffic movements occur off Cavill Avenue and Thomas Street. Also that large vehicles such as garbage and recycling trucks should only use for site access Cavill Avenue and Thomas Street. This is relevant since any future predominantly residential development will have owners pay rates for and be reliant on use of large Council vehicles, whereas at present the commercial offices are able to be serviced by private company vehicles.

 

It is recommended the above be addressed  by adding to the Draft DCP the following as underlined:

 

A traffic management plan shall  be submitted with a development application and include the following:

 

-     - Vehicle entry and exit from the site is to maximise use of Cavill Avenue and Thomas Streets.

 

-     - Large vehicles such as delivery vehicles and waste and recycling trucks must only use Cavill Avenue and Thomas Street as entry and exit points.

 

-     - The site’s internal laneway on the lot adjacent 15 the Avenue is to be designed to be a shared way between pedestrians and vehicles, with minimal traffic movements, in order to maintain an existing pedestrian route through the site between The Avenue and Cavill Avenue.

 

-     - Consideration given to restricting laneway use of The Avenue to after business hours

There should be limited retail provided on the site in order to minimise use of local residential streets by service vehicles and ancillary vehicles.

 

Retail uses are already permissible on the site. Any traffic impacts, such as the points of entry and exit from the site, would be examined with any future development application for redevelopment of the site, and avoid use of The Avenue.

Adverse amenity for neighbouring properties

 

Officer comments

Residential development will have a 24 hour movement of vehicles through the existing access laneways. These are adjacent residential properties and the impacts of 24 hour movement to these properties has not been considered, including headlights and noise. There are current restrictions on the use of the laneways, as indicated by the signage in the laneway which limits access and this should be continued.

 

The current office use of the site already uses properties off The Avenue as laneways for entry and exit from the site, and this has been occurring since the 1980s. Council cannot prohibit this. There is also no such signage.

 

Refer above, where it is recommended that additional clauses be added to the Draft DCP to minimize use of the laneways, by having more reliance on Cavil Avenue and Thomas Street.  Such matters would be assessed and negotiated at development application stage, including the possibility of placing laneway restrictions after business hours via conditions of consent.

Additional building heights will adversely impact residences in the Avenue who are already affected by overshadowing.

 

The planning proposal’s size, height and massing will have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the properties immediately adjacent to the subject site and the surrounding area, including an overbearing visual impact, overlooking and loss of privacy. 

 

 

The western part of the site already contains 5 storey commercial buildings with glass facades that overlook residential properties in The Avenue and cause shadowing up until around noon in winter.  There will not be any additional overshadowing from new development after 12 noon in winter to properties in The Avenue because they are located to the west of the site.

 

Additional building height and bulk impacts above the existing buildings will be minimized by the Draft DCP (Attachment 7) - Design Criteria no 12.2  and requires that within 20 metres of the western boundary with properties in The Avenue that there is no height increase above the height established by existing building (see Figure 5 above).  This aligns with the Strategy of the former Ashfield Council (2008) to have a transitional height on the perimeter of the town centre, and the Building Heights objective of Clause 4.3(1)(2) of the Ashfield LEP 2013.

 

The Draft DCP also requires a 3 metre wide deep soil zone be provided along the western boundary to establish tall tree planting for privacy.

 

Existing apartments at 8 Cavill Avenue which are located along the boundary with 2-6 Avenue and setback approx 2 metres, will be affected by overshadowing, loss of privacy, and noise, removal of existing trees, and will be overwhelmed by the scale of new buildings. Any new buildings should be setback 9 metres from the boundary. This will also affect the economic viability for apartment owners who rent out this apartments.

 

The development site is to the south of 8 Cavill Avenue, and since new buildings will be located to the south of the existing flats there will not be any winter overshadowing from new buildings for the period 9am to 3pm.

 

Any new apartment buildings up to eight storeys will be required to be setback a minimum of 9 metres from the boundary under the Apartment Design Guide   which is a development assessment consideration under SEPP 65. This will mean that south facing apartments at 8 Cavill Avenue (already without winter solar access) will maintain their summer solar access during morning and afternoon periods as is currently the case.

 

Draft DCP Design Criterion and its Map 9 stipulates there should be a minimum 3 metre wide deep soil planting zone to establish a permanent and dense tree buffer zone to provide privacy along the boundary with 8 Cavill Avenue. 

 

However, there is also a possibility that other buildings and a driveway might be proposed within the 9 metre setback. To address this it is recommended that an additional clause should be added to the Draft DCP as follows: .

 

Any buildings along the northern portion alongside 8 Cavill Avenue of the site must :

 

-     where affected by State Environmental Planning Policy no 65 comply with the minimum separation distance stipulated in the Apartment Design Guide for apartment buildings , and

-     all other structures shall ensure there is an adequate separation distance that provides adequate amenity for apartments at 8 Cavill Avenue, including an attractive outlook with landscaping, and

-     any driveway or carparking area along the northern part of the site shall have noise mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts for apartments at 8 Cavill Avenue including use of noise attenuating walls.

 

 

 

Poor spatial impact and urban design outcomes

 

Officer comments

The size and potential built form of the proposal is incompatible and out of character with surrounding low rise typology of commercial buildings in the town centre, houses and low rise apartments, and the existing landscape character of the site.

 

There are already 5-6 storey buildings on the site. The 8 -9 storey built form being sought on the main part of the site is comparable with the maximum 8 storey height in the other parts of the Ashfield Town Centre. The additional 9th storey can be entertained due to the large resultant roof plate and with the Draft DCP requiring a 3 metre upper level setback.

 

As explained above, the Draft DCP contains Design Criteria which requires that within 20 m of the western boundary with properties in The Avenue there is no height increase above the height established by existing 5- 6 storey commercial building. Additional storeys will therefore be recessed, being further distant in the visual background.

 

The Draft DCP also requires a 3 metre wide deep soil zone be provided along the western boundary to establish tall tree planting, retention of existing large trees on the site, provision of a gardens setting for the site (as currently exists) along Thomas Street, Liverpool Road, and Cavill Avenue.

The maximum FSR should remain at 2:1, in order to be more compatible with buildings in surrounding streets.

 

The proposal is compatible with new development in the town centre, which has a lower podium height and  then  rear 8 storey buildings, which is achieving a FSR of around 3.5:1 per site.

High rise development will not enhance the built character and diversity of the Ashfield, but will instead result in a bland, dense urban streetscape.

 

The Proposed Maximum FSR of 3:1 can be accommodated on the site with 8-9 storey buildings, within a garden setting (due to the large site area) and provides for the minimum building separation distances required by the Apartment Design Guide. The quality of any future building design will be assessed at Development Application stage by Council’s Architectural Excellence Panel.

 

Impacts on town centre

 

Officer comments

There is inadequate infrastructure, trains are at capacity. This area is already suffering from impacts of overdevelopment and resulting frequent traffic congestion and parking constraints, loss of onstreet parking, and the proposal will exacerbate these issues. 

 

 

Referrals were made to Sydney Trains and the Roads and Maritime Services. Their comments are in Attachment 6 and no objection was received by Council. The site is well located in terms of public transport, the various services found in the town centre, and proximity to local schools and hospitals.

 

Various complaints concerning places in the Ashfield Town Centre being unclean and littered with rubbish, that the existing Ashfield Town Centre shopping centre should be improved.

 

This Planning Proposal will not influence these issues since they are external to the site.

 

Construction stages and damage to buildings

 

Officer comments

Potential structural damage of adjacent properties resulting from future construction.

 

The laneways should not be used by any construction vehicles/trucks.

 

This matter can be addressed at future Development Application stage.

 

Content of the Draft Site specific Development Control Plan (Draft DCP).

Officer comments

 

A submission was received from the Planning Proposal applicants.

 

They generally support the provision of the Draft DCP, but object to particular parts, as indicated in Attachment 8. This included that particular clause be deleted which seek upper level building setbacks, seek retention of significant trees, and seek building setbacks to provide landscaped front gardens.

 

 

 

These are examined in detail in Attachment 8, where it is recommended that some minor fine tuning amendments be made, but that the majority the Draft DCP content remain in order to maintain its integrity and objectives as resolved by Council in July 2017 and to address concerns raised by submissions, including having transitionary upper level building heights, protection of existing large trees, and maintaining a garden landscaped setting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.0       STATE AGENCY RESPONSES

 

In accordance with the Gateway Determination the following referrals were made and responses received.

 

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)

 

Comments were received from RMS on 12 May 2018 at Attachment 6. They raised no objection to this particular Planning Proposal.

 

They also advise that any future Planning Proposal seeking major rezonings and “development uplift” should be required to carry out a traffic impact study.

 

Sydney Trains

 

Comments were received from Sydney Trains on 22 March 2018:  They advised:

 

“Given the land is between the rail corridor and the proposed road extension associated with The Avenue, Sydney Train’s only consideration is that the applicant is made aware of the Department of Planning & Environment-Development near Busy Roads and rail Corridors Interim Guide and that no works on RailCorp owner lands is to be undertaken without obtaining written approval from Sydney Trains (as delegated authority), for future works”.

 

The above guide applies at a future Development Application Stage, the Planning Proposal does not pertain to RailCorp owner lands.

 

7.0       OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

 

Traffic Engineer

 

Council’s Traffic engineer raised no objections to the Planning Proposal, and noted the Draft DCP has clauses pertaining to traffic access and internal servicing. They requested that traffic access be predominantly from Cavill Avenue and Thomas Street, and Part 5 of this report (response to submissions) recommends such a clause be added to the Draft DCP. They noted that at future development application stage for a major redevelopment of the site that a detailed traffic report will be required, and such a clause will be placed in the Draft DCP. 

 

Waste Collection and Servicing

 

Council’s Senior Resource Recovery Officer noted that any future major development will need to address servicing of the site for waste collection. Such requirements have been placed in the Draft DCP as exhibited.

 

Urban Ecology

 

Council’s Urban Ecology Manager in relation to matters affecting the Draft DCP content, supports Councils resolution to maintain a landscape setting on the site, protect existing trees and habitat, and so contribute to the mitigation of the “heat island effect” and maintain existing biodiversity.

 

Economic Development Manager

 

Council’s Economic Development Manager agrees with the findings of the Strategic Economic Assessment Report (Attachment 3), and that use of the site for mostly residential flat buildings will not have an adverse local economic impact to existing retail areas and service providers in the town centre. It was agreed that there will be good transport access to regional employment areas within close vicinity of the Ashfield Town Centre which will compensate for loss of employment resulting from the commercial buildings being vacated.

 

8.0     EVALUATION OF SUBMISSIONS AND NEXT STATUTORY STEPS

 

Pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and procedures in the “LEP making guidelines”, Council as the Planning Proposal Authority  is required to consider submissions made during the Community Consultation Process. These have been commented on in Part 5 of this report. It is considered the submissions have not raised issues that would warrant the Planning Proposal not being progressed by Council. This is providing the Draft DCP is adopted by Council to address the concerns raised by submitters (e.g. amenity and controlling building bulk), and to address site specific design matters explained in Part 4 (e.g. maintaining a garden setting contribution to the town centre and protection of trees).

 

Adequate Explanation and Justification pursuant to Part 3.33 of the EPA Act, and the criterion in the “Planning Proposal Guidelines”, has been provided by the Planning Proposal in Attachment 2.

 

It is considered that Council should finalise the LEP amendment as described in Part 3 of this report and have it gazetted. The following steps are required to be completed.

 

 Legal Drafting of LEP amendment by Parliamentary Counsel

 

Council officers will forward the Planning Proposal to the State Government’s Parliamentary Counsel (“the legal branch”). Parliamentary Counsel will check that the statutory procedures carried out to date and the content of the Planning Proposal in order to ensure there are no drafting errors.

 

 

Council makes the Draft LEP

 

Once Council receives the Parliamentary Counsel opinion that the plan may be legally made, Council will be able to send an instruction (together with various ancillary documents) to the Department of Planning and Environment requiring that the amendment be placed on the legislation website. This will require the General Manager to be authorised to sign the relevant documents. The amended version of the Ashfield LEP 2013 will come into effect on the date of its publication on the website.

 

The DCP amendment comes into effect when the LEP amendments is gazetted. This needs to be stated in the newspaper advertisement Council places in the local newspaper advising of the DCP amendment adoption. It is also necessary so that Council updates and change the various amendments to the actual Inner West DCP document at the correct point in time.

 

 

Council LEP (plan-making) delegation (former Ashfield LGA)

 

In November 2012 the then Minister for NSW Planning & Infrastructure delegated certain powers to Council to make and determine an LEP amendment. This gives Council the power to exercise the Minister’s Plan making functions after “Gateway Determination” stage, and to draft and make the LEP amendments should Council resolve to do so.

 

The previous Ashfield Council resolved to allow the General Manager to use the above delegation only when prior approval is given from Council on specific applications, such as after considering a report on a Planning Proposal. 

 

In the event Council agrees with the recommendations of this report, Council is required to authorize the General Manager to finalise and gazette the LEP amendments. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The Planning Proposal and the resultant development uplift does not raise any financial implications for Council. 

 

Detailed assessment of new uses will be undertaken at future development application for any major new redevelopment.

 

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the “Guide to preparing local environmental plans” this report has considered the submissions made during the Community Consultation Process. Concerns raised by adjacent property owners regarding amenity impacts and other matters have been discussed in Part 5 of this report. These will be addressed by the Site Specific Development Control Plan as discussed in this report. No objections were raised by the Roads and Maritime Services and Sydney Trains.

Council should support the Planning Proposal pertaining to the various amendments to the Ashfield LEP 2013 identified in Part 3 of this report, including applying a 7m height bonus to the existing Maximum Building Height, having a 3.0:1 Maximum Floor Space Ratio, as currently applies to the majority of other sites in the Ashfield Town Centre.

The proposed Site Specific Development Control Plan and ancillary amendments to the “Inner West DCP 2016” should be adopted by Council as recommended in Part 4 of this report.  This will provide guidelines for retaining the existing desirable qualities of the site and its contribution to the town centre including its green landscaped setting and retention of large significant trees.

Council should now progress the Planning Proposal to the final stages, including referral to Parliamentary Counsel, and thereafter give the State Department of Planning and Environment an instruction to have the amendments gazetted.  To enable this Council is procedurally required to resolve to continue to give the General Manager delegation to complete this process.

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Gateway Determination

2.

Planning Proposal

3.

Appended Reports to Planning Proposal

4.

Proposed Floor Space Ratio Map

5.

Proposed Maximum Height of Buildings Map

6.

State Agency Submissions

7.

Site Specific DCP

8.

Response to submission Draft DCP

9.

Report To Council July 2017

  


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 


 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 


 


 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 

Item No:         C0718 Item 7

Subject:         Victoria Road Precinct, Marrickville - Development Control Plan Amendment           

Prepared By:     Strategic Planning Group

Authorised By:  David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning

 

SUMMARY

The Victoria Road Planning Proposal was approved by the gazettal of an amendment to the Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (MLEP 2011) on 1 December 2017. Council is now required to consider associated amendments to Part 9.47 Victoria Road Precinct Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (draft Victoria Road DCP), which was initially drafted by the proponent of the Victoria Road Planning Proposal, (Ethos Urban/Danias Holdings Pty Ltd), in order to support the amended LEP.

 

The draft Victoria Road DCP was publicly exhibited from 8 May 2018 to 5 June 2018 and 49 submissions were received. This report provides a review of the feedback from the public exhibition. The exhibition of the DCP raised several issues that have required amendments to be recommended to the DCP in order that it can be finalised. These issues are detailed in the report and include matters relating to road improvement works, transport connections, protection of heritage items, building design impacts and controls, drainage and flood risks.

 

A key matter highlighted in finalising the DCP has been the need to establish a clear and robust mechanism to secure the provision of infrastructure upgrades needed to support the development of the precinct, in particular drainage, traffic and transport improvements and open space requirements, before the DCP is finalised. This is because when the DCP has been approved development applications can then be approved for the area, and if a suitable mechanism is not in place to deliver the infrastructure upgrades Council could be liable for part of the cost associated with the provision of these unbudgeted works, which preliminary work indicates could cost in the region of $50 million. The usual mechanism to ensure the provision of the upgrades through development contributions is the associated new Section 7.11 (formerly Section 94) Contributions Plan on which work is under way. It is anticipated it will take approximately six months to finalise the plan and it is recommended that the DCP is not finalised until the Section 7.11 Contributions Plan is approved.

 

At this stage, based on advice received internally, it is considered, given the requirements of Clause 6.17 of the LEP, that the approval of development applications must be deferred until the DCP is adopted. This is even so with the Rich Street precinct development application (DA) despite the proponent having offered to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) which could have the effect of assisting with the provision of required infrastructure for the precinct. Council is seeking further legal advice on this matter to determine whether there may be a mechanism to facilitate approval of the Rich Street DA prior to the ultimate adoption of the DCP.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The draft amendment to Part 9.47 Victoria Road Precinct Development Control Plan be prepared in accordance with the recommendations listed in Tables 1 - 3 (Attachment 1) of this report and recommendations provided by the Department of Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) and Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) (Attachment 8);

 

2.   The final draft amendment to Part 9.47 Victoria Road Precinct Development Control Plan be reported back to Council for consideration for approval in conjunction with the Section 7.11 Contributions Plan that is currently being prepared to support infrastructure delivery required for the precinct.

 

 

BACKGROUND

The Victoria Road Planning Proposal was approved by the gazettal of an amendment to the Marrickville Local Environmental 2011 Plan (MLEP 2011) on 1 December 2017 (refer to Attachment 3 for the gazettal determination letter). The Victoria Road Planning Proposal re-zoned areas of IN1 General Industrial land to R3- Medium Density, R4 – High Density, B4 – Mixed Use and B5 – Business Development zones. These zones enable a range of built forms including residential flat buildings, commercial retail/office premises and mixed residential/commercial uses, enabling a potential increase of 1,100 dwellings in the precinct.

 

 

Image 1: Map indicating the area encompassed by the Victoria Road Precinct Planning Proposal (outlined in black) that forms part of Precinct 47 (identified in red dash) as defined under Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

 

New Clause 6.17 was inserted into the MLEP which requires the preparation of a Development Control Plan (DCP) for the land prior to any development consent being granted addressing the following matters:

 

“(a)  the upgrading of road networks and intersections on the land and surrounding areas,

(b)  transport connections on the land and within surrounding areas (including the layout of laneways, bicycle routes and other connections),

(c)  the protection of items and areas of heritage significance,

(d)  the management and mitigation of the impact of existing industrial development in the surrounding areas on the amenity of proposed residential development on the land,

(e)  the impacts of the development on the surrounding residential and industrial areas and the amenity of the neighbourhood,

(f)  the mitigation of aircraft noise (including through building design and the use of appropriate building materials),

(g)  the management of drainage and flood risks,

(h)  a network of active and passive recreation areas,

(i)  the protection of public open spaces (including from overshadowing).

 

Clause 6.18 was also inserted which requires satisfactory arrangements to be made with the State Government regarding public infrastructure, most specifically some widening at the intersection of Victoria and Sydenham Roads.

 

The current zoning map of the MLEP 2011 for the precinct is below.

 

 

The current height of buildings map of the Marrickville LEP in the precinct is below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council is now considering associated amendments to the Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (MDCP 2011) to meet the requirements of Clause 6.17 of the MLEP.

 

Council at its meeting on 24 April 2018 (C0418 Item 12) considered a report on exhibiting the draft Victoria Road DCP. A copy of that report is attached as Attachment 4.

 

In dealing with the matter Council resolved:

 

“THAT:

 

1.   The shadowing diagrams for Wicks Park within this report be included in the draft Victoria Road Precinct (Precinct 47) amendment to the Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 at Attachment 1;

2.   Council resolves to publicly exhibit the draft Victoria Road Precinct (Precinct 47) amendment to the Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (April 2018 version) at Attachment 1; and

3.   The post exhibition report be reported back to Council no later than the first ordinary meeting in June.

 

The draft Victoria Road DCP was publicly exhibited from 08 May 2018 to 05 June 2018. A total of 49 submissions were received in response to the exhibition. The Community Engagement Report can be found in Attachment 2. The public submissions have raised some substantive issues that warrant modifications to the draft Victoria Road DCP and these are identified and described in this report.

 

During the public exhibition period, Council consulted with key external agencies such as Sydney Airports Corporation Limited (SACL) and the Department of Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) and with key internal referral bodies such as the Architectural Excellence Panel (AEP), and Engineering and Heritage sections of Council to provide further input into the content and structure of the Victoria Road DCP.

 

 

 

 

KEY PLANNING ISSUES

 

As detailed in the background section of this report, the Victoria Road DCP seeks to address key considerations under Clause 6.17 of MLEP 2011 in order that it can be adopted by Council. An assessment of the outstanding issues of the Victoria Road DCP arising from the public exhibition and further analysis in relation to these key considerations is provided below.

 

“(a)  the upgrading of road networks and intersections on the land and surrounding areas”

 

Intersection of Sydenham Road and Victoria Road

 

Clause 6.18 of MLEP 2011 requires the dedication of land and finances to support upgrades of state and regional roads. Sydenham Road is a classified (State) road that traverses through the precinct, and any required upgrades to this road are managed by the state agency, RMS.

 

During the assessment of the Victoria Road Planning Proposal, one of the key issues identified by Council’s traffic consultant was the need to upgrade the intersection of Victoria Road and Sydenham Road to mitigate the additional traffic generation resulting from the redevelopment associated with the planning proposal. The proponent was advised that a likely future upgrade of the Victoria Road/Sydenham Road intersection with additional turning lanes is required in accordance with the diagram below:

 


Figure 1: Required Upgrade on the intersection of Sydenham Road and Victoria Road

 

RMS has verbally advised Council that there is no objection to the DCP, subject to the recommended modifications raised in their referral being addressed (Attachment 8). The referral was received at the time of finalising this report and Council Officers will require time to review the RMS and TfNSW recommendations in conjunction with the recommendations made by Council’s engineers (Attachment 1) and undertake the appropriate amendments to the DCP as deemed appropriate before it is formally adopted.

 

Other Road Upgrades

 

Council’s Development Engineers have considered that land on certain streets within the precinct; particularly Brompton Street, Chalder Street and Chalder Lane, should be widened to improve traffic movements and ensure pedestrian safety and efficiency, particularly on the roads (Chalder Street and Chalder Lane) adjacent to Marrickville Public School. The road/footpath widening may impact on items recommended for heritage listing, as discussed in section 1(c) of this report.

 

Officer Recommendations:

 

The recommendations made by RMS and TfNSW (Attachment 8) should be reviewed in conjunction with the Engineering recommendations in Attachment 1, and modifications to the DCP be undertaken as deemed appropriate, before the formal adoption of the DCP.

 

Other Road Upgrades

 

It is recommended that a further analysis is undertaken with Council Heritage Advisors and Engineers to resolve footpath/road widening on items for potential heritage listing and exploration of alternative solutions before formal adoption of the DCP.

 

“(b) transport connections on the land and within surrounding areas (including the layout of laneways, bicycle routes and other connections)”

 

Laneways

 

Laneways shown on the associated DCP are supported, however the DCP should limit the number of intersections along Victoria Road by consolidating access points and diverting vehicular access in new shared zones from Victoria Road to other laneways/existing streets to ameliorate impacts to traffic/pedestrian safety.

 

Additional pedestrian links and shared zones are recommended to improve pedestrian legibility, connectivity and safety throughout the precinct in accordance with Table 1(11), Attachment 1.

 

Bicycle Routes

 

The DCP identifies local on-road cycling routes through the precinct and indicates the intention to incorporate safe and legible cycle routes. The DCP lacks detail on the appropriate cycling infrastructure treatments and enhancements on the identified bicycle routes and does not detail the wider bicycle network in the areas just outside the precinct borders (such as Addison Road) to demonstrate the wider context of the cycling network in the Local Government Area (LGA).

 

Public Transport Connections

 

Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) has raised concerns in their previous comments on the Victoria Road Planning Proposal about the impacts of additional traffic and access points on Victoria Road on the operational safety/efficiency bus routes and bus stops. At the date of finalising this report, comments from TfNSW had just been received (Attachment 8). Recommendations are made in the TfNSW referral (Attachment 8) which should be reviewed in conjunction with Engineering Comments in Attachment 1 and any appropriate modifications be undertaken before formal adoption of the DCP.

 

Pedestrian Connections through Wicks Park

 

There is no pedestrian through-site link identified adjacent to the northern boundary of Wicks Park in the identified Wicks Park Sub-Precinct to link new development with the park.

 

 

 

 

 

Officer Recommendations:

 

Laneways

 

Adopt the recommended action in Table 1(11), Attachment 1 requiring additional shared zones and alternate vehicle movements in new shared zones and laneways away from Victoria Road.

 

Bicycle Routes

 

The DCP should identify cycling infrastructure treatments and enhancements on the identified bicycle routes in accordance with Table 1(12), Attachment 1.

 

Public Transport Connections

 

Review recommendations made by RMS/TfNSW in their referral (Attachment 8) in conjunction with Council’s Engineering comments (Attachment 1), and any appropriate modifications be undertaken to the DCP, before its formal adoption by Council.

 

Pedestrian Connections through Wicks Park

 

The DCP should provide for the construction of a 3m wide public footpath set back zone along the built edges of Wicks Park to ensure proper integration with the park.

 

“(c) the protection of items and areas of heritage significance”

 

There are no heritage conservation areas in the Victoria Road Precinct. However, there are two items of local heritage significance under MLEP 2011:

 

·    14 Rich Street – Industrial Façade (Item No. I117 ); and

·    65 Shepherds Street – Sims Metal Factory including interiors (Item No. I118).

 

Council’s Heritage Advisor has undertaken a precinct-wide study to determine any additional items to be considered for heritage listing. The study can be viewed in Attachment 5. In summary, the following additional items are recommended for heritage listing:

 

·    Edward Bentley & Sons Twine Mill complex (former) in Hans Place /Chalder Avenue. The whole complex not the facades should be listed including the brick facades and entrances to Faverhsam Street, Hans Place and Chalder Avenue, the sawtooth roofed sections.

·    Blyton Terrace, 171-177 Victoria Road.

·    Semi-Detached housing at 47-49 Chalder Street.

·    Metropolitan Knitting Mills (former, now Kennards) 64 Chapel Street including the lane to the rear.

·    Suess Bakery (former) 169 Victoria Road.

·    Stormwater Channel, part of the Marrickville Swamp Drainage Scheme (as a S170 listing).

·    The Factory Theatre, 105 Victoria Road, including the lane from Brompton Street.

·    Tin Sheds, Brompton Street (formerly the Triangle Foundry & P P King Machinery Merchant) (11-13 Brompton Street).

·    Welby Terrace, 2-22 Smith Street including interiors.

·    Wicks Park (former Brick Pitt) including the substation, site of the wartime zig zag air raid trenches and landscaping.

 

Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act), the statutory protection of items of heritage significance is undertaken when formally listed in an LEP, not a DCP. The process of heritage listing of the above sites under MLEP 2011 is a separate process to the review and adoption of this DCP and will be undertaken at a future stage.

 

A number of items for potential heritage listing are located in areas that are zoned ‘SP2- Local Road’ for road widening on Victoria Road or are located in areas to be identified for foot path/road widening by Council’s Engineers and the DCP. The feasibility of such heritage listings on sites to be impacted by road widening/extensions, is required to be examined and alternative solutions explored with the heritage advisor and engineers before the DCP is formally adopted.

 

After undertaking the above review and finalising the list of potential items of heritage, the DCP should acknowledge the contributory value of these historical items and require further heritage studies when undertaking re-development as part of a Development Application with a view to encourage their retention/adaptive re-use as part of the redevelopment of those sites.

 

Officer Recommendation:

 

It is recommended that Council resolves the conflict between engineering requirements for road/footpath widening and potential items of heritage listing before the DCP is formally adopted. The final list of potential heritage items will be updated in the DCP on this basis (if required) upon the final recommendation for the Victoria Road DCP.

 

A control should be added to the heritage section of the DCP requiring a full heritage and fabric assessment of any re-development on items to be considered for heritage listing in accordance with the final listing, including any recommendations to mitigate impacts to potential heritage items. This process can acknowledge the contributory value of these historical items and require further heritage studies when undertaking re-development as part of a Development Application with a view to encourage their retention/adaptive re-use as part of the redevelopment of those sites. If necessary, consideration can also be given to actually exhibiting an amendment to the LEP concerning heritage items at the same time as the DCP is reported to Council.

 

“(d)   the management and mitigation of the impact of existing industrial development in the surrounding areas on the amenity of proposed residential development on the land”

 

The mitigation of the impacts of existing industrial development on new residential development is addressed in the following two manners:

 

·    The new residential and mixed-use zones in the precinct are buffered by less ‘intrusive’ zones in relation to industrial activity [B5 – Business Development, R2- Low Density Residential and SP2 – Educational Establishment zones under MLEP 2011 (see map below)] The residential zones are therefore less likely to be impacted by  general industrial zones; and

 

Part 6.2 Industrial/Residential Interface of MDCP 2011 contains provisions to protect residential amenity adjacent to industrial land.

 

 


Figure 2: New residential/mixed-use R4. R3 and B4 zones are buffered by R2, B5 and SP2 zones, mitigating impacts from nearby heavier industrial (IN1 zones).

 

Officer Recommendation:

 

It is considered that Clause 6.17(d) of MLEP 2011 in relation to the management and mitigation of industrial development with the amenity of residential zones is satisfactorily addressed and no further modification to the draft Victoria Road DCP is recommended.

 

“(e)      The impacts of the development on the surrounding residential and industrial areas and the amenity of the neighbourhood”


The DCP proposes tall residential/mixed-use building block structures (7 – 14 storeys) within close proximity to each other in the Timber Yards Sub-Precinct and Wicks Park Sub-Precinct. It is unclear whether the proposed tall block structures can conform to Apartment Design Guide (ADG) requirements under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment in relation to building separation (18 – 24 metres for 5+ storeys) for solar access, outlook and privacy.  It is also uncertain whether proposed building blocks can be of a building depth (12 metres to 18 metres) in accordance with the ADG to provide adequate natural ventilation and solar amenity in accordance with the ADG.

 

The application was referred to the Architectural Excellence Panel (AEP) who also raised the above issues. A full analysis of these issues can be viewed in Table 1(3 - 5), Attachment 1. While the applicant has provided indicative building block structures for the Timber Yards Precinct (see Attachment 7), the DCP should provide more certainty for design clarity around building blocks to ensure adequate ventilation and solar amenity within new development in the precinct.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:


It is recommended that the residential and mixed-use building blocks and separation distances between adjoining buildings should be dimensioned in the DCP in the R3, R4 and B4 zones in the precinct under MLEP 2011 to ensure building blocks conform to ADG requirements for building depth and separation in accordance with Table 1(3-5), Attachment 1.

 

The AEP also recommends increasing building separation between 2 x taller 14 storey building elements in the Timber Yards Sub-Precinct and provide a public park between these buildings to improve the open space provisions in the precinct (to be discussed in further detail later in this report). This solution is not supported for the reasons stated in Part 2(h) of this report. 

 

“(f)    the mitigation of aircraft noise (including through building design and the use of appropriate building materials)”

 

The Victoria Road DCP contains a comprehensive list of objectives, controls and design guidelines under Parts 9.47.11, 9.47.12 and Schedule 1 to mitigate aircraft noise. The DCP was referred to Sydney Airports Corporation Limited (SACL) which was satisfied with the noise attenuation measures provided in the DCP, subject to further information to be included in community notice boards about aircraft movements in the precinct [see Table 3(1), Schedule 1].

 

Officer Recommendation:

 

It is considered that Clause 6.17(f) of MLEP 2011 in relation to the mitigation of development from aircraft noise is satisfactorily addressed and no further modification to the draft Victoria Road DCP is recommended to address the above matter.

 

“(g)  the management of drainage and flood risks”

 

The Victoria Road DCP was referred to Council’s Engineering section who stated that the DCP lacks clarity in detailing the required storm water infrastructure upgrades in the precinct. It is a concern that the proposal will increase flood risk in the LGA by intensification of development without provision of suitable flood mitigation measures to reduce flooding.

 

N.B: For a comprehensive analysis of the flooding issues, view Table 1(9), Attachment 1.

 

Officer Recommendation:

 

In order to adequately manage stormwater drainage and flood risk as required by Clause 6.17 3(g) of MLEP 2011 the following controls should be implemented included in the DCP:

 

·    All Council or Sydney Water stormwater drainage systems shall be upgraded to a 1 in 20 year capacity.

·    1 in 100 year overland flow paths shall be provided over all Council or Sydney Water stormwater drainage systems.

·    All existing blocked overland flow paths shall be opened.

 

A Section 7.11 Contributions Plan is being developed to further investigate required works and costing to develop an area–wide scheme to reduce potential flooding to acceptable levels for medium to high density residential development through a wider upgraded trunk drainage system for the locality. The plan shall provide more detailing regarding stormwater infrastructure. The risk associated with adopting the Victoria Road DCP prior to the establishment of a Section 7.11 Contributions Plan, is that Council may be unable to legally acquire private land (or require associated easements) or a suitable financial contribution to works required to provide associated stormwater infrastructure under a development application without giving rise to financial compensation which would potentially result in significant adverse resourcing and financial burdens to Council.

 

A full list of comments and recommendations in relation to storm water/flooding can be viewed in Table 1(9), Attachment 1.

 

 

“(h) a network of active and passive recreation areas”

 

The Victoria Road DCP proposes two publically accessible open spaces adjoining Farr Street in the Timber Yards Sub-Precinct and a ‘privately owned publically accessible’ park on Rich Street (referred to as ‘pocket parks’ in the DCP document. The application was referred to the AEP who made the following comments:

 

·    Opportunity exists to increase building separation between two taller buildings (14 storeys) in the Timber Yards Sub-Precinct and provide a public open space between them to improve apartment amenity and public open space in the precinct [refer to Table 1(2), Schedule 1]; and

·    Proposed Rich Street park would benefit from direct access and physical connection to the public street network, for example the park should have public street access along at least two sides of the park to ensure the park is perceived by people as a public place and not a ‘privatised’ or semi-public place.

 

The AEP recommendations will not be adopted for the reasons listed in Table 1(3)(6), Attachment 1. The reasons include the fact that a park in the Timber Yards precinct, to be bounded by a 14 storey building to the north (as per the AEP recommendation), is likely to be overshadowed for the majority of the daytime period.

 

The Rich Street Park is designed to be communal open space for the Rich Street Precinct, not as public open space, and re-locating it will result in design feasibility issues for future development. Council’s Trees and Parks section has stated their preference for the ‘pocket parks’ to be privately maintained and publically accessible. The ownership of land for the pocket parks will be resolved outside this DCP process.

 

Officer Recommendation:

 

It is recommended that all publically accessible open spaces should be dimensioned for clarity.

 

A comprehensive list of the comments and recommended solutions for the publically accessible open spaces can be viewed in Table 1(3)(6), Attachment 1.

 

“(i)  the protection of public open spaces (including from overshadowing)

 

The previous Council report (24 April 2018 – See Attachment 4) commented that the extent of shadowing of Wicks Park has been significantly reduced under the latest version of the MDCP amendment. Afternoon shadowing in winter has been almost eliminated, midday winter shadowing has been reduced, and morning winter shadowing is similar to initially proposed. This latest level of shadowing is considered much more acceptable than initially proposed.

 

Officer Recommendation:

 

To provide more certainty and clarity at the Development Application (DA) stage, it is recommended that the building blocks in the Wicks Park Sub-Precinct be dimensioned (including the building separation distances between them) to ensure that the buildings protect solar access to Wicks Park [see full solution in Table 1(4), Attachment 1 for further detail].

 

OTHER PLANNING MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

 

a)   Discrepancies between height and FSR

 

The gazettal of the Victoria Road Planning Proposal under MLEP 2011 established height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) maps for the precinct. It is noted that the relationship of height and FSR on sites has not been thoroughly tested as part of this process as a number of sites are unlikely to achieve maximum heights under MLEP 2011 due to a lower FSR on the site. For example, a number of sites in the B5 Business Development zones have an FSR of 2:1 and a 23 metre (roughly 5 - 6 storeys) height limit, while other sites have a maximum height limit of 20 metres (roughly 5 storeys) with an FSR of 1:1. It is unlikely that development can achieve the maximum height limits with the maximum FSRs on some sites.

 

The draft Victoria Road DCP provides a Height of Building map (based on the Height of Building Map under MLEP 2011) with suggested building blocks. A number of building heights in the precinct will encourage a large exceedance in FSR development standards (some sites are roughly tested as 200%). It is imperative that a DCP document does not create scenarios that are contrary to the development standards under MLEP 2011. The DCP document should act as a ‘guide’ that communicates realistic building envelopes scenarios based on height and FSR. The DCP should not encourage exceedance in development standards.

 

Officer Recommendation:

 

It is recommended that the building blocks/height of buildings map in the draft Victoria Road DCP and Sections be revised to ensure suggested building heights are not exceeding the FSR development standards and provide a range rather than a fixed building height, e.g. ‘2 – 4 storeys’ rather than ‘6 storeys’.

 

A control shall be included in Part 9.47.6.4 Building Heights of the DCP which states the following:

 

Where a proposed development maximises the LEP floor space ratio for the site but does not achieve the maximum indicative building height set out in Figure 16, the LEP floor space ratio control shall prevail.”

 

b)   Site Amalgamation

 

Achieving height and FSR development standards

 

There are a number of narrow, smaller sites in the precinct where only maximum height and FSR development standards can be achieved through larger site amalgamations.

 

A DCP can address the above discrepancies by requiring site amalgamation. Site amalgamation requires smaller building blocks to be amalgamated for re-development, which can make it more achievable for height and FSRs to be reached with development by ‘distributing’ floor space across a larger site. It can provide building block and height scenarios that intend to achieve certain heights and FSRs and create an environment where it is viable for land owners to dedicate land for public infrastructure under a corresponding Section 7.11 Plan of the precinct. Adopting the DCP in its current form without a site amalgamation provision is likely to result in landowners, particularly with small parcels of land, being unfairly impacted by required land dedication for roads and footpaths without receiving any financial incentive to undertake such works. It is therefore important that a site amalgamation provision be undertaken to ensure land owners can fairly and equitably dedicate land for public infrastructure.

Amenity

 

The precinct contains a mixture of narrow, wide and deep lots. It makes it difficult to ensure sites can achieve good amenity (through building depth) and infrastructure (such as basement parking) without indicative site amalgamations.

 

Split zonings

 

The zoning map under MLEP 2011 identifies different zonings that do not follow the cadastral pattern of the site boundaries in the precinct. Split zonings on certain sites may be problematic in relation to design feasibility/efficiency for buildings. See picture below as an example of split zonings between sites in the precinct (as circled in black). A site amalgamation provision can address this issue by directing development to be provided on land with the same zoning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isolated Sites

There is also a risk that smaller sites will be isolated during re-development given there is no site amalgamation provision to ameliorate this risk within the Marrickville LEP.

                 

Officer Recommendation:

 

The following actions be undertaken:

 

·    Create a site amalgamation map of the DCP specifying an indicative minimum lot size and frontage, providing a range that reflects different block structures in the sub-precincts. The site amalgamation map and Section 7.11 Contributions Plan should be created in conjunction with each other to ensure dedication of private land  for public infrastructure can be legally and equitably achieved in the precinct without private land owners being unfairly burdened (financially) by land dedications during re-development;

·    The site amalgamation section should include a control that allotments must not result in any adjoining sites being isolated to the extent that it is not possible for development to occur in accordance with the urban design vision for the Master Plan Area.

 

A full list of the comments and recommendations in relation to site amalgamation is provided in Table 1(1), Attachment 1.

 

c)   Sydney Water Canal north of Rich Street

 

The canal corridor north of Rich Street should be activated as a pedestrian thoroughfare and incorporate Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Principles and public domain improvements.

 

Officer Recommendation:

 

Incorporate a separate DCP section providing WSUD objectives and controls for the canal corridor north of Rich Street as part of the movement network in the DCP to encourage its activation, subject to meeting any requirements by Sydney Water [refer to Table 1(7), Schedule 1].

 

 

 

 

d)   Visual Privacy for Marrickville Public School

 

Concern was raised in public submissions about overlooking impacts to Victoria Road Public School from new development. While Part 2.7 of MDCP 2011 contains privacy objectives and controls for residential development, it does not address visual privacy of schools.

 

The setback map in the DCP (Figure 17, Page 29) recommends a 6 metre setback to the school from residential development on the Timber Yards Precinct. This setback should be increased to 9 metres to provide further visual privacy between the school and future residential development.

 

Officer Recommendation:

 

Add an objective and control in Part 9.47.9.2 Building form and Design of the DCP which requires developments to minimise overlooking onto Marrickville Public School [in accordance with Table 1(14), Schedule 1]. The setback map should be amended to increase the minimum required setback of 9 metres to the school from residential development in the Timber Yards Precinct (south of the school).

 

e)   Waste

 

Council’s Waste Resource Recovery Team has recommended the provision of a separate waste section in the DCP targeting the precinct to maximise resource separation and recovery in accordance with current best practice standards.

Officer Recommendation:

 

It is recommended that a separate section be added to the DCP and re-formatted in accordance with the DCP structure to incorporate the waste management objectives and controls in the precinct (See Attachment 6).

 

f)    Minor/Administrative Matters and Errors

 

The Victoria Road DCP contains objectives and controls that can be further clarified, refined and modified to ensure consistency with Inner West Council’s overall planning objectives controls, processes and development standards. The DCP also contains written and mapping errors and inconsistencies that require corrections. A full list of the minor/administrative matters can be viewed in Table 2, Attachment 1.

 

Officer Recommendation:

 

The minor/administrative matters and errors are resolved in accordance with the recommended actins listed in Table 2, Attachment 1.

 

PUBLIC CONSULATION

 

The Victoria Road DCP was exhibited from 8 May 2018 to 5 June 2018. As part of that community engagement process, letters were sent to the individual property owners and occupiers of the affected land within the Victoria Road Precinct. Over 3,500 letters were sent out advising of the public exhibition of the proposed amendment. The draft Victoria Road DCP was exhibited on Council’s Your Say Inner West Website, the portal to review the exhibition material and the Local Newspaper.

 

A total of 49 submissions were received in response to the community engagement. The outcome of the exhibition was:

 

·    Supportive without amendment (16%)

·    Supportive with amendments (37%)

·    Not Supportive (45%)

·    Out of scope of the DCP (2%)

 

A copy of the community engagement report can be found in Attachment 2, including an analysis of the public submissions and Council’s response to these submissions. In essence, a number of public submissions raised concerns that warrant revisions to the DCP to address those concerns, while other parts of the DCP are considered satisfactory in relation to other objections and recommendations made by the public. A number of these issues have generally been reviewed earlier in this report.

 

Submissions were also received from agencies including RMS and TfNSW as referred to earlier in this report. A submission was also received from Sydney Airports Corporation Limited (SACL) stating that SACL is generally supportive of the DCP in relation to protection of airspace over the precinct and noise attenuation guidelines. SACL provided further information to be included in information packs for residential development in the precinct in accordance with Table 3(1) of Attachment 1.

 

SECTION 7.11 CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN

(Formerly Section 94 Contributions Plan)

 

Clause 6.17 of MLEP 2011 requires the DCP to address, for the entire precinct, infrastructure in the form of road network upgrades, transport connections, drainage and recreation areas required to support the increased expected worker and resident population in the precinct. For critical infrastructure to be provided for the precinct, funding and land dedication (captured from re-development of land) mechanisms must be established.

 

The planning system in NSW does not permit Council to require land to be dedicated to Council unless there is a Section 7.11 Contributions Plan (formerly Section 94 Contribution Plans), pursuant to the Environmental EP&A Act, in place that identifies required funding and land dedications. While the draft Victoria Road DCP document identifies areas to be provided for potential publically accessible parks and footpath/road upgrades, the DCP cannot require land dedication as it is only considered a ‘guideline’ under Clause 3.43 of the EP&A Act.

 

The current Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan does not envisage this area being rezoned and developed for land uses other than industrial purposes. Whilst it allows for some contributions to be collected for development in the precinct these cannot be applied to the new works required as a result of the recent upzoning of the precinct and must be applied to the works already identified in that Plan.

 

Therefore if the draft Victoria Road DCP is approved prior to a new Section 7.11 Contributions Plan being in place there will be no mechanism for Council to secure the required funding and land dedications and Council would then have to provide this infrastructure at its own cost, as development applications could be approved without the necessary associated infrastructure delivery mechanism. Importantly, there would also be a strong risk that the land dedications required could not be achieved. These matters have not been budgeted for or otherwise allowed for and thus Council could be at risk of being required to provide services currently broadly estimated at in the potential order of $50 million if a plan with suitable mechanisms is not in place.

 

Work is currently being carried out on a suitable Section 7.11 Contributions Plan addressing all the relevant works, and as part of this work various studies are required to be undertaken by Council. This work involves identifying in detail the critical infrastructure required for the precinct and the associated financial requirements and land dedications required for its delivery. Consequently it is recommended that the final draft DCP not be reported to Council for consideration for approval until the associated Section 7.11 Contributions Plan has been finalised for consideration for approval.

 

It is important that infrastructure works and required land dedications are clearly defined and established rather than this be done on an ad hoc basis so that each site is developed to efficiently and equitably manage infrastructure delivery in accordance with staging plans which identify the timing, cost and trigger points for the delivery of infrastructure upgrades.

 

Council would be aware that there is a current development application for the Rich Street area of the precinct under consideration. Given Clause 6.17 of the LEP, it is considered that the DA cannot be approved until the DCP is made.

 

Council staff have considered potential options to enable the determination of that, and other development applications, prior to the DCP/Section 7.11 Contributions Plan being finalised. External legal advice is being sought in this regard. Staff will also continue to work with the proponent for the Rich Street proposal to see if another solution can be found.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

As noted in this report, there would be a financial risk to Council if it approves the draft DCP before an associated Section 7.11 Contributions Plan is approved that includes suitable mechanisms to legally necessary financial contributions and land dedications for public infrastructure upgrades such as road widening, stormwater infrastructure and publically accessible open spaces. While it is not possible without a detailed infrastructure analysis to provide a detailed estimate of the potential monetary loss, the monetary loss could be in the order of approximately $50 million based on an initial estimate of the infrastructure needs in the precinct. 

 

CONCLUSION

The exhibition of the DCP raised several issues that have required amendments to be recommended to the DCP in order that it can be finalised. These issues are detailed in the report and include matters relating to road improvement works, transport connections, protection of heritage items, building design impacts and controls, drainage and flood risks.

 

A key matter highlighted in finalising the DCP has been the need to establish a clear and robust mechanism to secure the provision of infrastructure upgrades needed to support the development of the precinct, in particular drainage, traffic and transport improvements and open space requirements, before the DCP is finalised. This is because when the DCP has been approved development applications can then be approved for the area, and if a suitable mechanism is not in place to deliver the infrastructure upgrades Council would be liable for the provision of these unbudgeted works, which preliminary work indicates could cost in the region of $50 million. The usual mechanism to ensure the provision of the upgrades through development contributions is the associated new Section 7.11 (formerly Section 94) Contributions Plan on which work is under way. It is anticipated it will take approximately six months to finalise the plan and it is recommended that the DCP is not finalised until the Section 7.11 Contributions Plan is approved.

 

At this stage, based on advice received internally, it is considered, given the requirements of clause 6.17 of the LEP, that the approval of development applications must be deferred until the DCP is adopted. This is even so with the Rich Street precinct DA despite the proponent having offered to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) which could have the effect of assisting with the provision of required infrastructure for the precinct. Council is seeking further external legal advice on this matter to determine whether there may be a mechanism to facilitate approval of the Rich Street DA prior to the ultimate adoption of the DCP. Staff will also continue to work with the Rich Street DA proponent in this regard.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Victoria Road DCP Recommended Amendments

2.

Victoria Road DCP Submissions Analysis

3.

Determination Notice of LEP Amendment

4.

Council Report Recommending Public Exhibition of draft Victoria Road DCP 24 April 2018

5.

Heritage Study - Victora Road Precinct (28 May 2018)

6.

Waste Resource Recovery Objectives and Controls

7.

Timberyards Building Seperation

8.

Referal from RMS and TfNSW

  


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 


 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 

Item No:         C0718 Item 8

Subject:         Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 3 July 2018  

Prepared By:     John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager  

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

 

SUMMARY

The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 3 July 2018 are presented for Council consideration.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

THAT the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 3 July 2018 be received and the recommendations be adopted.

 

 

 

 

ITEMS BY WARD

 

Ward

Item

Page Number

Leichhardt

LTC0718 Item 4         

Emma Street and Hill Street, Leichhardt - Proposed Intersection Treatment (Leichhardt Ward / Balmain Electorate / Leichhardt LAC)

Page 5

Leichhardt

LTC0718 Item 5         

Proposed Temporary Road Closure to Hold Bay Run Event on Sunday, 5 August 2018. (Leichhardt Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichardt LAC)

Page 6

Leichhardt

LTC0718 Item 24       

Ash Lane, Cove Street, Northcote Street and Wolseley Street, Haberfield-Resident Parking Scheme. (Leichhardt Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Ashfield LAC)

Page 31

Leichhardt

LTC0718 Item 25       

Walker Avenue, Allum Street, Alt Street, Denman Avenue, Bland   Street and Yasmar Avenue, Haberfield - Resident Parking Scheme. (Leichhardt Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Ashfield LAC)

Page 31

Ashfield

LTC0718 Item 7         

Marrickville Road, Marrickville – Temporary full Road Closures for Dulwich Hill Village Fair on Sunday 16 SEPTEMBER 2018  (ASHFIELD WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)

Page 9

Ashfield

LTC0718 Item 11       

Lackey Street and Smith Street, Summer Hill - Temporary Road Closures For the Annual 'Summer Hill Neighbourhood Festa' on Sunday 7 October 2018. (Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Ashfield LAC)

Page 18

Ashfield

LTC0718 Item 18    

Watson Avenue, Croydon Park - Request for One Hour (1P) Parking Restriction

Page 25

Ashfield

LTC0718 Item 19    

Nowranie Lane, Summer Hill - Proposed 'No Parking' Restrictions    (ASHFIELD WARD/ SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/ ASHFIELD LAC)

Page 25

Ashfield

LTC0718 Item 23    

Grosvenor Crescent, Summer Hill - Placement of 'No Stopping' Restrictions, Summer Hill. (Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Ashfield LAC)

Page 30

Ashfield

LTC0718 Item 27

Australian Air Force Cadets Annual Street Procession through Ashfield on Sunday 5 August 2018

Page 33

Ashfield

LTC0718 Item 30    

Frederick Street, Ashfield - Pedestrian Crossing Upgrade

Page 34

Ashfield

LTC0718 Item 31    

Proposed Woolworths site in Ashfield

Page 34

Balmain

LTC0718 Item 1         

Palmer Street and Donnelly Street, Balmain - Installation of Dividing (barrier) Lines (Balmain Ward / Balmain Electorate / Leichhardt LAC)

Page 2

Balmain

LTC0718 Item 2         

Beattie Street and Mullens Street, Balmain - Proposed Raised Pedestrian (Zebra) Crossing

Page 3

Balmain

LTC0718 Item 3         

Smith Street at Mansfield Street, Rozelle - Proposed Garden Beds (Balmain Ward / Balmain Electorate / Leichhardt LAC)

Page 4

Balmain

LTC0718 Item 6         

Smith Street, Annandale - Proposed Temporary Road Closure for 2018 Footprints ECO Festival on Sunday 26 August 2018 (Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt Ward LAC)

Page 8

Balmain

LTC0718 Item 12       

Chapman Lane (rear of Nos. 127 to 133 Annandale Street), Annandale - Proposed Extension of "No Parking" zone (Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

Page 20

Balmain

LTC0718 Item 13       

Nelson Lane (Opp. Nos. 195 to 207A Nelson Street), Annandale -     Extension of 'No Parking' zone (Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

Page 21

Balmain

LTC0718 Item 20       

Maida Street, Lilyfield - Proposed 'Motor Bike Only' Zone (Balmain Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC)

Page 26

Stanmore

LTC0718 Item 9         

Pearl Lane, Newtown – Proposed Statutory ‘No Stopping’ Restrictions South of Holmwood Street (Stanmore Ward/  Newtown Electorate / Marrickville LAC)

Page 14

Stanmore

LTC0718 Item 15       

Marian Lane, Enmore - Proposed 'No Parking' Restrictions (Stanmore Ward/Newtown Electorate/Inner West LAC)

Page 23

Stanmore

LTC0718 Item 16       

Hopetoun Lane, Camperdown - Proposed 'No Parking' Restrictions (Stanmore Ward/Newtown Electorate/Inner West LAC)

Page 23

Stanmore

LTC0718 Item 17       

McGill Street, Lewisham - Proposed 'No Stopping' Restrictions (Stanmore Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Inner West LAC)

Page 24

Marrickville

LTC0718 Item 8         

Marrickville Road, Marrickville – Temporary Full Road Closures For Marrickville Festival On Sunday 21 October 2018 (MARRICKVILLE WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)

Page 11

Marrickville

LTC0718 Item 10       

Applebee Street, St Peters - Temporary Road Closure to Carry Out Sewer Works. (Marrickville Ward/ Heffron Electorate/Newtown LAC)

Page 15

Marrickville

LTC0718 Item 14       

Silver Lane - Proposed 'No Parking' Restrictions (Marrickville Ward/Electorate/Inner West LAC)

Page 22

Marrickville

 

LTC0718 Item 26       

Holbeach Avenue, Tempe – Temporary Full Road Closures for MS Sydney to the Gong Bike Ride on Sunday 4 November 2018 (Marrickville Ward/Heffron Electorate/Newtown LAC)

Page 32

Marrickville

LTC0718 Item 29    

Proposed Bunnings Warehouse in Tempe

Page 34

All Wards

 

LTC0718 Item 21    

Minor Traffic Facilities (All Wards / All Electorates / All LACs)

Page 27

All Wards

LTC0718 Item 22    

Railway Avenue, Stanmore; Darley Road, Leichhardt , Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield and Frederick Street, Ashfield - ‘No Parking 7am-7pm – Motor Vehicles under 4.5t GVM Excepted’ (All Ward / All Electorates / All LACs)

Page 28

All Wards

LTC0718 Item 28    

Sydney Buses representation

Page 34

All Wards

LTC0718 Item 32    

Recording of voting in LTC minutes

Page 35

All Wards

LTC0718 Item 33    

NSW Police LTC membership and voting

Page 35

All Wards

LTC0718 Item 34    

File format of LTC agenda

Page 35

 

BACKGROUND

Meeting of the Inner West Council Local Traffic Committee was held on 3 July 2018 at Petersham. The minutes of the July meeting are shown at ATTACHMENT 1.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Projects proposed for implementation in 2018/19 are funded within existing budget allocations.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

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

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

on specific items.

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 3 July 2018

  


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 

 

Minutes of Local Traffic Committee Meeting

Held at Council Chambers, Petersham Service Centre on 3 July 2018

 

Meeting commenced at 10.07am

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY BY CHAIRPERSON

 

I acknowledge the Gadigal and Wangal people of the Eora nation on whose country we are meeting today, and their elders past and present.

 

COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT

 

Clr Julie Passas

Chair, Deputy Mayor – Ashfield Ward (Chair)

Mr Bill Holliday

Representative for Jamie Parker MP, Member for Balmain

Mr Chris Woods

Representative for Ron Hoenig MP, Member for Heffron

Ms Sarina Foulstone

Representative for Jo Haylen MP, Member for Summer Hill

Sgt John Micallef

NSW Police – Burwood and Campsie

A/Sgt Charles Buttrose

NSW Police – Glebe

Mr Daryl Ninham

Roads and Maritime Services

 

 

COUNCILLORS AND OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE

 

 

Sgt Trudy Crowther

Burwood Police

SC Germaine Grant

Burwood Police

SC Sam Tohme

NSW Police – Burwood and Campsie

Mr Colin Jones

Inner West Bicycle Coalition

Clr Marghanita Da Cruz

Leichhardt Ward

Mr John Stephens

IWC’s Traffic and Transport Services Manager

Mr George Tsaprounis

IWC’s Coordinator Traffic and Parking Services (South)

Mr Manod Wickramasinghe

IWC’s Coordinator Traffic and Parking Services (North)

Ms Felicia Lau

IWC’s Engineer – Traffic and Parking Services

Mr Boris Muha

IWC’s Engineer – Traffic and Parking Services

Mr David Yu

IWC’s Engineer – Traffic and Parking Services

Ms Jenny Adams

IWC’s Engineer – Traffic and Parking Services

Ms Mary Bailey

IWC’s Parking Planner

Ms Christina Ip

IWC’s Business Administration Officer

 

 

VISITORS

 

 

 

Mr Garth Roche

Item 2

Mr Tim Johansson

Item 3 

Ms Beverley Prunster

Item 12

Mr Russell Steel

Item 13

Ms Judith Martin

Item 13

Mr Bill Woodhead

Item 22

Mr Dorian Zerial

Item 22

Mr Victor Storm

Item 25

 

 

APOLOGIES:    

 

 

 

Ms Jenny Leong MP

Member for Newtown

Ms Cathy Peters

Representative for Jenny Leong MP, Member for Newtown

Mr Wal Petschler

IWC’s Group Manager, Roads, Traffic and Stormwater

 

 

 

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:

 

Nil.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday, 5 June 2018 were confirmed and are awaiting adoption at Council’s Extra-Ordinary meeting to be held on Tuesday, 3 July 2018.

 

 

LTC0718 Item 1 Palmer Street and Donnelly Street, Balmain - Installation of Dividing (barrier) Lines (Balmain Ward / Balmain Electorate / Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Concerns have been raised from several motorists regarding vehicles travelling on the wrong side of the street when approaching the intersection of Donnelly/Palmer/Booth Streets, and traveling eastbound from Palmer Street into Donnelly Street and westbound from Donnelly Street into Palmer Street.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.   5m BB dividing (barrier) lines, including raised reflective pavement markers (RRPM) be provided on Palmer Street, west of Booth Street; and

 

2.   10m BB dividing (barrier) lines, including raised reflective pavement markers (RRPM) be provided on Donnelly Street, east of Booth Street.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The RMS representative questioned the need for the ‘Give Way’ signage and road markings on Donnelly Street with a priority through Booth Street. Council Officers advised that the ‘Give Way’ has been there for some time and was installed due to sight distance issues and speeding through the intersection. The RMS representative stated that RMS supports the proposal; however, it was suggested that the ‘Give Way’ could potentially be removed and the proposed barrier lines on Donnelly Street could continue around the corner and meet with the proposed barrier lines on Palmer Street. Council Officers indicated that they would consider this suggestion in discussion with RMS.

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   5m BB dividing (barrier) lines, including raised reflective pavement markers (RRPM) be provided on Palmer Street, west of Booth Street; and

 

2.   10m BB dividing (barrier) lines, including raised reflective pavement markers (RRPM) be provided on Donnelly Street, east of Booth Street.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0718 Item 2 Beattie Street and Mullens Street, Balmain - Proposed Raised Pedestrian (Zebra) Crossing

SUMMARY

 

Council has received concerns from a number of residents regarding pedestrian safety when crossing Mullens Street, near the intersection Beattie Street, Balmain.  A public meeting was held with concerned residents on 11th April 2018 to discuss the matter with a Mayoral Minute considered at 24th April 2018 Council meeting.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.       A proposed raised pedestrian (zebra) crossing in Mullens Street, Balmain (south of Beattie Street) be supported in principle and a detailed design be prepared, and affected residents be consulted; and

 

2.       A further report, including the detailed design be brought back to the Traffic Committee for consideration.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Public speaker: Mr Garth Roche, resident of Mullens Street, attended at 10.11am

 

Mr Roche made the following comments:

·    He is supportive of the proposed crossing; however, he questioned the relocation of the bus stop and the subsequent loss of 3 parking spaces from the front of his property.

·    His property and neighbouring properties on Mullens Street are reliant on the 3 existing parking spaces proposed for removal as these properties do not have off-street parking.

·    Parking is constrained in the area as the section of Mullens Street between Beattie Street and Roseberry Street is unrestricted and parking spaces are often utilised by commuters who catch the bus to work. This section of Mullens Street should be considered for a Residential Parking Scheme if the proposal to relocate the bus stop and remove 3 parking spaces is approved.

·    Residents have received notification of a proposal for a dedicated car share parking space on Mullens Street. If this proposal for car sharing is supported, it would impact further on the parking situation in the street.

 

(Mr Roche left at 10.21am)

 

Council Officers tabled results of speed counts taken in Mullens Street that were requested by RMS, and further information on public consultation undertaken for the proposed changes in the street (Attachment 1).

 

The representative for the Member for Balmain stated that the pedestrian crossing is proposed to be installed some distance from the pedestrian desire line at the roundabout. Council Officers advised that the hotel on the corner of Beattie Street and Mullens Street has a number of support columns that would obstruct pedestrian sightlines if a pedestrian crossing was to be installed at the roundabout.

 

Clr Da Cruz raised concerns with the lack of pedestrian refuges at the roundabout. The representative for the Member for Balmain stated that he would support a pedestrian refuge on the splitter island. Council Officers advised that refuge islands at the roundabout have been investigated in the past and it was found that there is insufficient space for a refuge due to the narrow width of Mullens Street and the need to meet minimum bus lane widths to accommodate bus routes that operate in the street.

 

Clr Da Cruz requested an additional recommendation be included for the consideration of a Residential Parking Scheme in response to Mr Roche’s concerns.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation with the addition of a recommendation to consider a Residential Parking Scheme for Mullens Street.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   A proposed raised pedestrian (zebra) crossing in Mullens Street, Balmain (south of Beattie Street) be supported in principle and a detailed design be prepared, and affected residents be consulted;

·                      

2.   A Residential Parking Scheme in Mullens Street, Balmain (between Beattie Street and Roseberry Street) be investigated; and

·                      

3.   A further report, including the detailed design be brought back to the Traffic Committee for consideration.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0718 Item 3 Smith Street at Mansfield Street, Rozelle - Proposed Garden Beds (Balmain Ward / Balmain Electorate / Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Council has received concerns regarding vehicles causing building damage to No. 31 Mansfield Street, Rozelle whilst manoeuvring near the corner of Mansfield Street and Smith Street. This has raised concerns for both the structural integrity of the building and pedestrian safety.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.   The proposed garden beds at the intersection of Smith Street and Mansfield Street, Rozelle be supported, as detailed in Attachment 1;

 

2.   That this project be listed for consideration in a forward works program; and

 

3.   Prior to construction of any physical device, an interim treatment of a painted island and road flaps are provided in lieu of the garden beds.

 

DISCUSSION

Public speaker: Mr Tim Johansson, owner of 31 Mansfield Street, attended at 10.26am.

Mr Johansson stated that he supports the recommendation and commented that:

·    In the two years he has resided in No. 31 Mansfield Street, the property has been struck numerous times by light industrial vehicles that stop or park at the ‘No Stopping’ zone on the corner of the street.

·    The road cambers at the corner and drivers of industrial vehicles often do not realise this when navigating the corner and cause damage to the balcony support columns, the floor of the balcony, guttering and downpipes.

·    There are significant repair costs associated with restoring the property to the original heritage condition when it is damaged.

·    The balcony is used as an extension of the property’s living area which is on the first floor of the property and he has concerns for the safety of his family if vehicles can potentially continue to cause structural damage to the balcony.  

·    He is also concerned for the safety of pedestrians who walk along the public footpath under the balcony.

(Mr Johansson left at 10.33am)

Clr Da Cruz noted that there are two drains at the corner of Mansfield Street and Smith Street and requested that water sensitive design be built into the proposed garden beds to ensure the garden beds retain water. Council Officers will pass this request to Council’s Design team for consideration.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The proposed garden beds (incorporating consideration of water sensitive design) at the intersection of Smith Street and Mansfield Street, Rozelle be supported;

 

2.   That this project be listed for consideration in a forward works program; and

 

3.   Prior to construction of any physical device, an interim treatment of a painted island and road flaps are provided in lieu of the garden beds.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0718 Item 4 Emma Street and Hill Street, Leichhardt - Proposed Intersection Treatment (Leichhardt Ward / Balmain Electorate / Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Council has received concerns regarding vehicles causing building damage to No. 42 Emma Street, Leichhardt whilst manoeuvring near the corner of Emma Street and Hill Street, Leichhardt. This has raised concerns for both the structural integrity of the building and pedestrian safety.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.   The proposed garden bed/kerb extension at the intersection of Emma Street and Hill Street, Leichhardt be supported, as detailed in Attachment 1;

 

2.   That this project be listed for consideration in a forward works program; and

 

3.   Prior to construction of any physical device, an interim treatment of a painted island and road flaps are provided in lieu of the garden bed/kerb extension.

 

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The proposed garden bed/kerb extension at the intersection of Emma Street and Hill Street, Leichhardt be supported;

 

2.   That this project be listed for consideration in a forward works program; and

 

3.   Prior to construction of any physical device, an interim treatment of a painted island and road flaps are provided in lieu of the garden bed/kerb extension.

 

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0718 Item 5 Proposed Temporary Road Closure to Hold Bay Run Event on Sunday, 5 August 2018. (Leichhardt Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

The Bay Run Committee has requested approval by the Local Traffic Committee and Council to conduct the annual Bay Run event (its sixteenth year) on Sunday, 5 August 2018.

 

The Bay Run follows the shore line of Iron Cove and is approximately 7km in length. The shared path on the Iron Cove Bridge will form part of the Bay Run.

 

This event will be held between 6.00am to 11.00am on 5 August 2018. The race participation includes approximately:

 

·    1600 runners

·    150 walkers

·    100 runners with dogs

·    600 children (2km)

 

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.   The proposed temporary closure of Maliyawul Street, Lilyfield, north of Le Montage Function Centre on Sunday, 5th August 2018 between 6.00am to 11.00am be supported, subject to the TMP and TCP being approved by RMS;

 

2.   The applicant be advised to contact the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) to seek approval for the proposed temporary closure of Waterfront Drive, between Central Avenue and Military Drive for the event (within Callan Park, Lilyfield);

 

3.   The applicant be requested to implement the RMS approved Traffic Management Plan (TMP) and Traffic Control Plan (TCP) related to the temporary closure of Maliyawul Street and Waterfront Drive, Lilyfield at its own cost;

 

4.   The applicant be requested to arrange a letter box drop to nearby properties, Le Montage, Leichhardt Park and Aquatic Centre, Leichhardt Rowing Club and Balmain Soccer Club (Callan Park) two weeks prior to the event;

 

5.   The event organiser be requested to produce a current Public Liability Insurance Policy with Inner West Council being included as an Interested Party; and

 

6.   Council’s Parks Engagement Officer be advised of the Committee’s recommendation.

 

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The proposed temporary closure of Maliyawul Street, Lilyfield, north of Le Montage Function Centre on Sunday, 5th August 2018 between 6.00am to 11.00am be supported, subject to the TMP and TCP being approved by RMS;

 

2.   The applicant be advised to contact the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) to seek approval for the proposed temporary closure of Waterfront Drive, between Central Avenue and Military Drive for the event (within Callan Park, Lilyfield);

 

3.   The applicant be requested to implement the RMS approved Traffic Management Plan (TMP) and Traffic Control Plan (TCP) related to the temporary closure of Maliyawul Street and Waterfront Drive, Lilyfield at its own cost;

 

4.   The applicant be requested to arrange a letter box drop to nearby properties, Le Montage, Leichhardt Park and Aquatic Centre, Leichhardt Rowing Club and Balmain Soccer Club (Callan Park) two weeks prior to the event;

 

5.   The event organiser be requested to produce a current Public Liability Insurance Policy with Inner West Council being included as an Interested Party; and

 

6.   Council’s Parks Engagement Officer be advised of the Committee’s recommendation.

 

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

LTC0718 Item 6 Smith Street, Annandale - Proposed Temporary Road Closure for 2018 Footprints ECO Festival on Sunday 26 August 2018 (Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt Ward LAC)

SUMMARY

 

The Footprints Eco Festival is an event run by Inner West Council with a focus on environmental sustainability of the local community. The event will focus on delivering information to participants on a variety of environmental topics via talks, workshops and information, and market stalls.

 

The event will be held at Whites Creek Valley Park in Annandale on Sunday, 26 August 2018 between 11:00am and 3:00pm. As part of the event, a TMP and TCP has been submitted for proposed temporary road closures to the road network frontage of the park, between Wisdom Street and Piper Street from 4:00am to 6:00pm on Sunday, 26 August 2018.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.   The TMP and TCP (Attachment 1) for the temporary road closures from 4:00am to 6:00pm on Sunday, 26 August 2018 be supported. The road sections to be closed are:

·    Smith Street, between Piper Street and Gillies Street;

·    Gillies Street, west of Young Street;

·    Gillies Lane, between Gillies Street and Wisdom Street;

·    Wisdom Street, west of Gillies Lane;

 

2.   All residents and businesses in and around the affected areas will be notified in advance (at least two weeks prior to the event) of the temporary internal road closures;

 

3.   A four (4) metre unencumbered passage be available for emergency vehicles through all the closed section of internal roads at all times;

 

4.   All advertising of the event encourage the use of Public Transport;

 

5.   Those additional public transport services, if necessary, be organised in coordination with the STA;

 

6.   All reasonable directions of Police be obeyed if such directions are given;

 

7.   All barricades and signage provision are to be in accordance with Australian Standard AS1742.3-1996: Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads;

 

8.   All traffic controllers must hold RMS certification;

 

9.   The local area Fire & Rescue NSW station be notified of the event details;

 

10. Council’s Manager Resource Recovery Services must be notified of the clean-up arrangements; and

 

11. The conduct of any activities or use of any equipment required in conjunction with the road closures must not result in any “offensive noise” as defined by the Protection of Environment Operations Act, 1997.

 

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The TMP and TCP for the temporary road closures from 4:00am to 6:00pm on Sunday, 26 August 2018 be supported. The road sections to be closed are:

·    Smith Street, between Piper Street and Gillies Street;

·    Gillies Street, west of Young Street;

·    Gillies Lane, between Gillies Street and Wisdom Street;

·    Wisdom Street, west of Gillies Lane;

 

2.   All residents and businesses in and around the affected areas will be notified in advance (at least two weeks prior to the event) of the temporary internal road closures;

 

3.   A four (4) metre unencumbered passage be available for emergency vehicles through all the closed section of internal roads at all times;

 

4.   All advertising of the event encourage the use of Public Transport;

 

5.   Those additional public transport services, if necessary, be organised in coordination with the STA;

 

6.   All reasonable directions of Police be obeyed if such directions are given;

 

7.   All barricades and signage provision are to be in accordance with Australian Standard AS1742.3-1996: Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads;

 

8.   All traffic controllers must hold RMS certification;

 

9.   The local area Fire & Rescue NSW station be notified of the event details;

 

10. Council’s Manager Resource Recovery Services must be notified of the clean-up arrangements; and

 

11. The conduct of any activities or use of any equipment required in conjunction with the road closures must not result in any “offensive noise” as defined by the Protection of Environment Operations Act, 1997.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0718 Item 7 Marrickville Road, Marrickville – Temporary full Road Closures for Dulwich Hill Village Fair on Sunday 16 SEPTEMBER 2018           (ASHFIELD WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)

SUMMARY

 

‘Dulwich Hill Village Fair' is an annual event and this year it will be held on Sunday 16 September 2018. As per previous years the event will necessitate the temporary full road closure of Marrickville Road (between New Canterbury Road and Durham Street), Seaview Street (between Marrickville Road and property no. 24 Seaview Street), Caves Lane, the Seaview Street car park (car park adjacent to Caves Lane), the Loftus Street car park and Durham Lane, Dulwich Hill (between Durham Street and Loftus Street car park).

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the proposed temporary full road closure of Marrickville Road (between New Canterbury Road and Durham Street), Seaview Street (between Marrickville Road and property No. 24 Seaview Street), Caves Lane, the Seaview Street car park (car park adjacent to Caves Lane), the Loftus Street car park and Durham Lane, Dulwich Hill (between Durham Street and Loftus Street car park), on Sunday 16 September 2018 between 3:00am and 8:00pm, for the holding of the annual ‘ Dulwich Hill Village Fair’ (Class 2 event under the RMS Special Events Guide), be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

a.  The temporary road closures be advertised in the local newspaper providing 28 days’ notice for submissions;

 

b.  A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) be submitted to the Roads and Maritime Services for consideration and approval; and a Road Occupancy License application be submitted to the Transport Management Centre.

 

c.  Notice of the proposed event be forwarded to the N.S.W. Police, State Transit Authority, Marrickville Local Area Commander, the NSW Fire Brigades and the NSW Ambulance Services;

 

d.  Advance notification signs for the event be strategically installed at least two (2) weeks prior to the event;

 

e.  'No Parking – Special Event' signs be affixed over all existing parking restriction signage within the area of the festival, on the afternoon of the day prior to the event -  i.e. by Saturday 15 September 2018;

 

f.   A 4-metre wide emergency vehicle access must be maintained through the ‘closed’ road area during the course of the festival;

 

g.  All affected residents and businesses in the closed road area be notified in writing through a letter box drop of surrounding properties at least two (2) weeks prior to event; and

 

h. Adequate vehicular traffic control shall be provided for the protection and convenience of pedestrians and motorists including appropriate signage and flagging.  Workers shall be specially designated for this role (and carry appropriate certificates), as necessary to comply with this condition.  This is to be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1742.3 - Traffic Control Devices for works on roads. 

 

 

DISCUSSION

The RMS representative noted that the report for this item does not include alternate routes from New Canterbury Road to divert traffic and bus routes around the closure of Marrickville Road, and does not include details about prior notification of alternate routes for traffic. The representative advised that these details can be submitted through the TMP for RMS consideration. Council Officers will relay this advice to the applicant.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the proposed temporary full road closure of Marrickville Road (between New Canterbury Road and Durham Street), Seaview Street (between Marrickville Road and property No. 24 Seaview Street), Caves Lane, the Seaview Street car park (car park adjacent to Caves Lane), the Loftus Street car park and Durham Lane, Dulwich Hill (between Durham Street and Loftus Street car park), on Sunday 16 September 2018 between 3:00am and 8:00pm, for the holding of the annual ‘ Dulwich Hill Village Fair’ (Class 2 event under the RMS Special Events Guide), be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

a.  The temporary road closures be advertised in the local newspaper providing 28 days’ notice for submissions;

 

b.  A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) be submitted to the Roads and Maritime Services for consideration and approval; and a Road Occupancy License application be submitted to the Transport Management Centre;  including an alternate route be shown in the TMP for traffic and bikes.

  

c.  Notice of the proposed event be forwarded to the N.S.W. Police, State Transit Authority, Marrickville Local Area Commander, the NSW Fire Brigades and the NSW Ambulance Services;

 

d.  Advance notification signs for the event be strategically installed at least two (2) weeks prior to the event;

 

e.  'No Parking – Special Event' signs be affixed over all existing parking restriction signage within the area of the festival, on the afternoon of the day prior to the event -  i.e. by Saturday 15 September 2018;

 

f.   A 4-metre wide emergency vehicle access must be maintained through the ‘closed’ road area during the course of the festival;

 

g.  All affected residents and businesses in the closed road area be notified in writing through a letter box drop of surrounding properties at least two (2) weeks prior to event; and

 

h. Adequate vehicular traffic control shall be provided for the protection and convenience of pedestrians and motorists including appropriate signage and flagging.  Workers shall be specially designated for this role (and carry appropriate certificates), as necessary to comply with this condition.  This is to be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1742.3 - Traffic Control Devices for works on roads. 

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0718 Item 8 Marrickville Road, Marrickville – Temporary Full Road Closures For Marrickville Festival On Sunday 21 October 2018 (MARRICKVILLE WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)

SUMMARY

 

'Marrickville Festival' is an annual event and this year it will be held on Sunday 21 October 2018. As per previous years the event will necessitate the temporary full road closure of Marrickville Road (between Petersham Road and Victoria Road), Illawarra Road (between Sydenham Road and Petersham Road), Alex Travellion Plaza and the Calvert Street car park in Marrickville. Short sections of Silver Street, Garners Avenue, Gladstone Street and Frampton Avenue where these streets intersect Marrickville Road will also be closed.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.   The proposed temporary full road closure of Marrickville Road (between Petersham Road and Victoria Road), Illawarra Road (between Sydenham Road and Petersham Road), Alex Trevallion Plaza, the Calvert Street car park and short sections of Silver Street, Garners Avenue, Gladstone Street, Calvert Street and Frampton Avenue where these streets intersect Marrickville Road, Marrickville, from 11:00pm on Saturday 20 October 2018 to 12:00am on Monday 22 October 2018, for the holding of the annual 'Marrickville Festival' (Class 2 event under the RMS Special Events Guide), be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

a.  The temporary road closures be advertised in the local newspaper providing 28 days’ notice for submissions;

 

b.  A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) be submitted to the Roads and Maritime Services for consideration and approval; and a Road Occupancy License application be submitted to the Transport Management Centre;

 

c.  Notice of the proposed event be forwarded to the N.S.W. Police, State Transit Authority, Marrickville Local Area Commander, the NSW Fire Brigades and the NSW Ambulance Services;

 

d.  Advance notification signs for the event be strategically installed at least two (2) weeks prior to the event;

 

e.  'No Parking – Special Event' signs be affixed over all existing parking restriction signage within the area of the festival, on the afternoon of the day prior to the event - Saturday 20 October 2018;

 

f.   'No Parking – Special Event' signs be affixed both sides of Petersham Road, Marrickville (between Illawarra Road and Marrickville Road) on the afternoon of the day prior to the event - Saturday 20 October 2018;

 

g.  Traffic Controllers be located on Petersham Road to assist with the movement of the buses;

 

h.  A 4-metre wide emergency vehicle access must be maintained through the ‘closed’ road area during the course of the festival;

 

i.   All affected residents and businesses in the closed road area be notified in writing through a letter box drop of surrounding properties at least two (2) weeks prior to event;

 

j.  Adequate vehicular traffic control shall be provided for the protection and convenience of pedestrians and motorists including appropriate signage and flagging.  Workers shall be specially designated for this role (and carry appropriate certificates), as necessary to comply with this condition.  This is to be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1742.3 - Traffic Control Devices for works on roads; and

 

2.   The existing Alcohol-Free Zone in the vicinity of Marrickville Road be suspended on Sunday 21 October 2018 for the purpose of holding this year’s ‘Marrickville Festival’. 

 

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The proposed temporary full road closure of Marrickville Road (between Petersham Road and Victoria Road), Illawarra Road (between Sydenham Road and Petersham Road), Alex Trevallion Plaza, the Calvert Street car park and short sections of Silver Street, Garners Avenue, Gladstone Street, Calvert Street and Frampton Avenue where these streets intersect Marrickville Road, Marrickville, from 11:00pm on Saturday 20 October 2018 to 12:00am on Monday 22 October 2018, for the holding of the annual 'Marrickville Festival' (Class 2 event under the RMS Special Events Guide), be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

a.  The temporary road closures be advertised in the local newspaper providing 28 days’ notice for submissions;

 

b.  A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) be submitted to the Roads and Maritime Services for consideration and approval; and a Road Occupancy License application be submitted to the Transport Management Centre;

 

c.  Notice of the proposed event be forwarded to the N.S.W. Police, State Transit Authority, Marrickville Local Area Commander, the NSW Fire Brigades and the NSW Ambulance Services;

 

d.  Advance notification signs for the event be strategically installed at least two (2) weeks prior to the event;

 

e.  'No Parking – Special Event' signs be affixed over all existing parking restriction signage within the area of the festival, on the afternoon of the day prior to the event - Saturday 20 October 2018;

 

f.   'No Parking – Special Event' signs be affixed both sides of Petersham Road, Marrickville (between Illawarra Road and Marrickville Road) on the afternoon of the day prior to the event - Saturday 20 October 2018;

 

g.  Traffic Controllers be located on Petersham Road to assist with the movement of the buses;

 

h.  A 4-metre wide emergency vehicle access must be maintained through the ‘closed’ road area during the course of the festival;

 

i.   All affected residents and businesses in the closed road area be notified in writing through a letter box drop of surrounding properties at least two (2) weeks prior to event;

 

j.  Adequate vehicular traffic control shall be provided for the protection and convenience of pedestrians and motorists including appropriate signage and flagging.  Workers shall be specially designated for this role (and carry appropriate certificates), as necessary to comply with this condition.  This is to be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1742.3 - Traffic Control Devices for works on roads; and

 

2.   The existing Alcohol-Free Zone in the vicinity of Marrickville Road be suspended on Sunday 21 October 2018 for the purpose of holding this year’s ‘Marrickville Festival’. 

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0718 Item 9 Pearl Lane, Newtown – Proposed Statutory ‘No Stopping’ Restrictions South of Holmwood Street (Stanmore Ward/  Newtown Electorate / Marrickville LAC)

SUMMARY

 

A resident of Pearl Street, Newtown has raised concerns regarding vehicles being parked opposite to their garage in Pearl Lane, restricting access to their off-street parking facility. It should also be noted that the area opposite the garage access is also located with the statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone from an intersection.

 

It is recommended that the installation of 'No Stopping' restrictions on the eastern side of Pearl Lane for the statutory distance of 10 metres south of its junction with Holmwood Street be approved, to improve vehicular access into off-street parking spaces.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.   The installation of 'No Stopping' restrictions on the eastern side of Pearl Lane for the statutory distance of 10 metres south of its junction with Holmwood Street, Newtown, be APPROVED, to improve vehicular access into off-street parking spaces; and

 

2.   The applicant be advised in terms of this report.

 

DISCUSSION

The representative for the Member for Heffron advised that this item is within the Newtown Electorate, not the Heffron Electorate as stated in the agenda.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The installation of 'No Stopping' restrictions on the eastern side of Pearl Lane for the statutory distance of 10 metres south of its junction with Holmwood Street, Newtown, be APPROVED, to improve vehicular access into off-street parking spaces; and

 

2.   The applicant be advised in terms of this report.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

 

 

LTC0718 Item 10  Applebee Street, St Peters - Temporary Road Closure to Carry Out         Sewer Works. (Marrickville Ward/ Heffron Electorate/Newtown LAC)

SUMMARY

 

An application has been received from GJ Building and Contracting for the temporary full road closure of Applebee Street (between Lackey Street and Hutchinson Street) St Peters periodically between (9:00pm to 5:00am) from Hutchinson Street to Short Street and/or

(7:00am to 5:30pm) from Short Street to Lackey Street for a period of two weeks from 30/7/2018 till 16/8/2018 with a further two weeks of contingency from 17/8/2018 till 31/8/2018  in order to carryout sewer works on Applebee Street, St Peters. It is recommended that the proposed temporary road closure be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in this report.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the proposed  temporary full road closure of Applebee Street (between Lackey Street and Hutchinson Street) St Peters periodically between (9:00pm to 5:00am) from Hutchinson Street to Short Street and/or (7:00am to 5:30pm) from Short Street to Lackey Street for a period of two weeks from 30/7/2018 till 16/8/2018 with a further two weeks of contingency from 17/8/2018 till 31/8/2018  in order to carryout sewer works on Applebee Street, St Peters, subject to the following conditions:

 

a)      A fee of $1,540.60 for the temporary full road closure is payable by the applicant in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges;

b)      The temporary full road closure be advertised in the local newspaper providing 28 days’ notice for submissions, in accordance with the Roads Act;

c)      A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) be submitted by the applicant to the Roads and Maritime Services for consideration and approval;

d)      A Traffic Control Plan (TCP) which has been prepared by a certified Traffic Controller, is to be submitted to Council for review with a copy of the Traffic Controllers certification number attached to the plan, not less than 5 days prior to implementation of closure;

e)      A Road Occupancy License be obtained by the applicant from the Roads and Maritime Services’ Transport Management Centre;

f)       Notice of the proposed closure be forwarded by the applicant to the NSW Police, the NSW Fire Brigades and the NSW Ambulance Services;

g)      Notification signs advising of the proposed road closures and new traffic arrangements to be strategically installed and maintained by the applicant at each end of the street at least 7 days prior to the closure;

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

i)       Vehicular and pedestrian access for residents and businesses to their off-street car parking spaces be maintained where possible whilst site works are in progress;

j)       Adequate vehicular traffic control shall be provided for the protection and convenience of pedestrians and motorists including appropriate signage and flagging. Workers shall be specially designated for this role, as necessary to comply with this condition. This is to be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1742.3 - Traffic Control Devices for works on roads;

k)      The holder of this approval shall indemnify the Council against all claims, damages and costs incurred by, or charges made against, the Council in respect to death or injury to any person or damage in any way arising out of this approval. In this regard, a public liability insurance policy for an amount not less than $20,000,000 for any one occurrence is to be obtained and is to note the Council as an interested party. The holder of this approval shall inform its insurer of the terms of this condition and submit a copy of the insurance policy to the Council prior to commencement of the work the subject of this approval;

l)       The operator of any unit exercising this approval shall have this approval with them and produce it if required along with any other relevant authority approvals granted in the connection with the work;

m)     Mobile cranes, cherry packers or concrete boom pumps shall not stand within the public way for extended periods when not in operation under this approval;

n)      The operation of the mobile crane shall not give rise to an "offensive noise" as defined in the Protection of Environment Operations Act, 1997. Furthermore, vibrations and/or emission of gases that are created during its operations and which are a nuisance, or dangerous to public health are not permitted;

o)      All work is to be carried out in accordance with Work Cover requirements; and

p)      The costs to repair damages, as a result of these works, to Council's footway and roadway areas will be borne by the applicant.

DISCUSSION

The representative for the Member for Heffron submitted the following statement:

“The Member for Heffron recognises the importance of the sewer work on Applebee Street, St Peters but is concerned about the impact of the work on a local community already seriously impacted by the WestConnex project work around the St Peters Triangle.

The proposed works centred on Applebee has the potential to extend for up to 4 weeks from 30 July with closures and controlled access 9-5pm.

He is requesting that every effort be made to minimise the disruption to the local business and residential communities who coexist in the triangle and rely on that access to both live and work.

Notification of residences and local businesses should be a high priority and requests that Council make every effort to respond quickly  to complaints and ensure that all guidelines are followed in the implementation of the work.”

The Committee members agreed to amend the recommendation to state that all affected residents and businesses be notified in writing of the proposed temporary road closure at least 28 days in advance of the closure (part h of the recommendation).

ADDENDUM

Following the meeting, Council officers received a number of concerns raised by residents relating largely to the proposal for the road closure of Applebee Street, between Lackey Street and Hutchinson Street, between the hours of 9.00pm and 5.00am; in particular relating to the noise that would be generated throughout the night and the impact on the nearby residential properties.  It was considered that the road closure could reasonably be limited to a 6.00pm commencement through to 11.00pm, with works being ceased by 10.00pm.

 

This would likely extend the duration of this element of the works; however, there is considered to be sufficient contingency within the 4 week period being sought by the applicant.

 

Subsequently, the proposed amended hours of operation was emailed to the Committee members and was supported by both the Police and RMS representatives via email.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the proposed  temporary full road closure of Applebee Street (between Lackey Street and Hutchinson Street) St Peters periodically between (6:00pm to 11:00pm) from Hutchinson Street to Short Street and/or (7:00am to 5:30pm) from short Street to Lackey Street for a period of two weeks from 30/7/2018 till 16/8/2018 with a further two weeks of contingency from 17/8/2018 till 31/8/2018  in order to carryout sewer works on Applebee Street, St Peters, subject to the following conditions:

 

a)      A fee of $1,540.60 for the temporary full road closure is payable by the applicant in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges;

b)      The temporary full road closure be advertised in the local newspaper providing 28 days’ notice for submissions, in accordance with the Roads Act;

c)      A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) be submitted by the applicant to the Roads and Maritime Services for consideration and approval;

d)      A Traffic Control Plan (TCP) which has been prepared by a certified Traffic Controller, is to be submitted to Council for review with a copy of the Traffic Controllers certification number attached to the plan, not less than 5 days prior to implementation of closure;

e)      A Road Occupancy License be obtained by the applicant from the Roads and Maritime Services’ Transport Management Centre;

f)       Notice of the proposed closure be forwarded by the applicant to the NSW Police, the NSW Fire Brigades and the NSW Ambulance Services;

g)      Notification signs advising of the proposed road closures and new traffic arrangements to be strategically installed and maintained by the applicant at each end of the street at least 7 days prior to the closure;

h)      All affected residents and businesses shall be notified in writing, by the applicant, of the proposed temporary road closure at least 28 days in advance of the closure with the applicant making reasonable provision for residents;

i)       Vehicular and pedestrian access for residents and businesses to their off-street car parking spaces be maintained where possible whilst site works are in progress;

j)       Adequate vehicular traffic control shall be provided for the protection and convenience of pedestrians and motorists including appropriate signage and flagging. Workers shall be specially designated for this role, as necessary to comply with this condition. This is to be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1742.3 - Traffic Control Devices for works on roads;

k)      The holder of this approval shall indemnify the Council against all claims, damages and costs incurred by, or charges made against, the Council in respect to death or injury to any person or damage in any way arising out of this approval. In this regard, a public liability insurance policy for an amount not less than $20,000,000 for any one occurrence is to be obtained and is to note the Council as an interested party. The holder of this approval shall inform its insurer of the terms of this condition and submit a copy of the insurance policy to the Council prior to commencement of the work the subject of this approval;

l)       The operator of any unit exercising this approval shall have this approval with them and produce it if required along with any other relevant authority approvals granted in the connection with the work;

m)     Mobile cranes, cherry packers or concrete boom pumps shall not stand within the public way for extended periods when not in operation under this approval;

n)      The operation of the mobile crane shall not give rise to an "offensive noise" as defined in the Protection of Environment Operations Act, 1997. Furthermore, vibrations and/or emission of gases that are created during its operations and which are a nuisance, or dangerous to public health are not permitted;

o)      All work is to be carried out in accordance with Work Cover requirements; and

p)      The costs to repair damages, as a result of these works, to Council's footway and roadway areas will be borne by the applicant.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0718 Item 11  Lackey Street and Smith Street, Summer Hill - Temporary Road   Closures For the Annual 'Summer Hill Neighbourhood Festa' on          Sunday 7 October 2018. (Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill            Electorate/Ashfield LAC)

SUMMARY

 

In accordance to a Section S68 Development Application 10.2018.93, Council seeks the support of the Committee for the temporary road closures of Lackey Street and Smith Street, Summer Hill for the annual ‘Summer Hill Neighbourhood Feast’ festival on Sunday 7 October 2018, as recommended below.    

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the road closure application for the ‘Summer Hill Neighborhood Feast’ on the Sunday 7 October 2018 be supported, subject to the following conditions:

 

a)   The road closure be restricted to occur from 6.00am and 6.00pm in Lackey Street (between Carlton Crescent and Smith Street), and Smith Street (between Hardie Avenue and Nowraine Street);

 

b)   Hardie Avenue, between Smith Street and Lackey Street be closed at Lackey Street, to allow access only to the Summer Hill carpark; 

 

c)   A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) is submitted to and approved by RMS and an application for a Roads Occupancy License be forwarded to and approved by the Transport Management Centre;

 

d)   Notice of the proposed event is forwarded to the emergency services, i.e. NSW Police, Fire and Rescue NSW and NSW Ambulance Services;

 

e)   A 4 metre wide emergency service access must be maintained through the closed road areas during the course of the event;

 

f)    Council through its ‘Events Management’ will notify/consult with all affected residents and/or businesses in the area, and conduct a letter-box/leaflet drop notifying the local community of the road closure event at least two (2) weeks prior to the event;

 

g)   The temporary road closure be advertised in the local newspaper providing 28 days’ notice for submissions, in accordance with the Roads Act; 

 

h)   Advance notification signs for the event are strategically installed at least one (1) week prior to the event; and

 

i)    Adequate Vehicular traffic control shall be provided for the protection and convenience of pedestrians and motorists including appropriate signage and flagging. Workers shall be specifically designated for this role (and carry appropriate certificates), as necessary to comply with this condition. This is to be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1742.3- Traffic Control Devices for works on roads.   

 

 

DISCUSSION

Clr Passas stated that business owners in Lackey Street have commented that the proposed conclusion of the road closure at 6.00pm is too late and would impact businesses that operate in the evenings. The business owners wish to have the road closures conclude by 5.00pm.

Council Officers will forward the business owners’ request to the Event Manager to see if the road could be re-opened earlier.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the road closure application for the ‘Summer Hill Neighborhood Feast’ on the Sunday 7 October 2018 be supported, subject to the following conditions:

 

a)   The road closure be restricted to occur from 6.00am and 6.00pm in Lackey Street (between Carlton Crescent and Smith Street), and Smith Street (between Hardie Avenue and Nowraine Street);

 

b)   Hardie Avenue, between Smith Street and Lackey Street be closed at Lackey Street, to allow access only to the Summer Hill carpark; 

 

c)   A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) is submitted to and approved by RMS and an application for a Roads Occupancy License be forwarded to and approved by the Transport Management Centre;

 

d)   Notice of the proposed event is forwarded to the emergency services, i.e. NSW Police, Fire and Rescue NSW and NSW Ambulance Services;

 

e)   A 4 metre wide emergency service access must be maintained through the closed road areas during the course of the event;

 

f)    Council through its ‘Events Management’ will notify/consult with all affected residents and/or businesses in the area, and conduct a letter-box/leaflet drop notifying the local community of the road closure event at least two (2) weeks prior to the event;

 

g)   The temporary road closure be advertised in the local newspaper providing 28 days’ notice for submissions, in accordance with the Roads Act; 

 

h)   Advance notification signs for the event are strategically installed at least one (1) week prior to the event; and

 

i)    Adequate Vehicular traffic control shall be provided for the protection and convenience of pedestrians and motorists including appropriate signage and flagging. Workers shall be specifically designated for this role (and carry appropriate certificates), as necessary to comply with this condition. This is to be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1742.3- Traffic Control Devices for works on roads.   

 

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

 LTC0718 Item 12 Chapman Lane (rear of Nos. 127 to 133 Annandale Street),            Annandale - Proposed Extension of "No Parking" zone (Balmain            Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Council has received concerns regarding parking obstructing access to off-street parking in Chapman Lane (rear of Nos.127 to 133 Annandale Street), Annandale

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.   A 7.2m ‘No Parking’ zone be installed on the eastern side of Chapman Lane (opposite the rear of No.127 Annandale Street); and

 

2.   A 10.8m ‘No Parking’ zone be installed on the eastern side of Chapman Lane (opposite the rear of No.133 Annandale Street).

 

 

DISCUSSION

Public speakers: Ms Beverley Prunster, resident of Johnston Street, attended at 10.28am

Ms Prunster objected to the proposed ‘No Parking’ zone on the eastern side of Chapman Lane that would remove the parking space adjacent to her garage that faces the lane and made the following comments:

·    The section of Chapman Lane directly outside her garage does not obstruct any entrances to garages on the opposite side of the lane.

·    Has owned her property since 1993 and has not received any complaints about using the parking space adjacent to her garage.

·    Photos of Chapman Lane were tabled which showed a vehicle parked across the driveway of 133 Annandale Street and blocking access to her garage on the opposite side of Chapman Lane.

·    If the parking is removed from Chapman Lane, tradespeople will not be able to legally park to access properties from the lane and residents will not be able to park in the lane to wash their cars.

·    Her mother has a mobility parking permit and when parking is not available in Johnston Street, she is currently allowed to park in the lane.

·    There is less parking in Annandale Street and Johnston Street than there used to be. Annandale Lodge on Johnston Street converted their on-site parking to units and residents of those units occupy parking spaces in Johnston Street, Annandale Street and Chapman Lane.

·    Requested that the parking space adjacent to the garage of 110 Johnston Street be retained or the residents of the property to be permitted to park in the proposed ‘No Parking’ zone if it is approved.

(Ms Prunster left at 10.33am)

The representative for the Member for Balmain, Clr Da Cruz and Clr Passas requested that Council Officers reconsider part 2 of the recommendation and retain and linemark a parking space if possible. Council Officers indicated that they will further investigate whether the parking space can be retained. However, it was advised that initial investigations found that there is only space to park a small vehicle and that larger vehicles parking in the space would impact on swept paths for residents accessing garages on the opposite side of Chapman Lane.

Clr Da Cruz raised concerns with an ongoing issue with the availability of mobility parking spaces and resident parking in Johnston Street. As Johnston Street is a State road under the jurisdiction of RMS, Clr Da Cruz was advised to discuss the matter with RMS.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   A 7.2m ‘No Parking’ zone be installed on the eastern side of Chapman Lane (opposite the rear of No.127 Annandale Street); and

 

2.   A 10.8m ‘No Parking’ zone be deferred for further consideration on the eastern side of Chapman Lane (opposite the rear of No.133 Annandale Street).

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0718 Item 13 Nelson Lane (Opp. Nos. 195 to 207A Nelson Street), Annandale - Extension of 'No Parking' zone (Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Council has received concerns regarding obstructed driveway access in Nelson Lane opposite the rear boundaries of Nos.195 to 207 Nelson Street, Annandale.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the existing ‘No Parking’ zone on the eastern side of Nelson Lane, Annandale be extended northwards to include the 48m unrestricted parking area opposite the rear boundaries of Nos. 195 to 207A Nelson Street, Annandale.

 

DISCUSSION

Public speakers: Mr Russell Steel and Ms Judith Martin, residents of Nelson Street, attended at 10.35am

Mr Steel objected to the proposed ‘No Parking’ zone and stated that:

·    He has three cars and he and his staff have difficulty finding parking in Nelson Street as the parking is often occupied by workers from the Harold Park development and commuters using public transport to travel to work. The proposal would making parking even more difficult.

·    He has been trying to have a Resident Parking Scheme introduced in Nelson Street to ease parking for residents for years.

·    If there was an RPS in Nelson Street, he still would not support the recommendation for a ‘No Parking’ zone in Nelson Lane.

Ms Martin stated she has a neutral position to the proposal in the lane but has a number of issues and stated that Council’s response to the issues have been ad hoc. Ms Martin made the following comments:

·    In response to complaints from residents who cannot access their garages because of parked vehicles obstructing access, Council’s response has been to signpost ‘No Parking’ outside of the property. This removes parking from residents such as herself who do not have off-street parking which is not made up through the implementation of an RPS as residents who have off-street parking usually do not support an RPS in the street.

·    The road on Nelson Lane is in poor condition and motorists often speed through the lane which is heavily used by cyclists and pedestrians. Council has plans to resheet Nelson Lane this year and she requested Council review and address all the issues in the street during reconstruction instead of installing ad hoc parking restrictions.

Council Officers advised that the former Leichhardt Council had investigated implementing an RPS in the street numerous times and parking occupancy studies have been taken in the area, including Nelson Street. However, there was not enough support from residents for a Resident Parking Scheme.

(Mr Steel and Ms Martin left at 10.51am)

Clr Da Cruz stated that Council should retain as much parking as possible in the lane. Council Officers advised that retaining parking has been considered; however, an onsite investigation showed that vehicles parked in the area proposed for the ‘No Parking’ zone do obstruct access to driveways in Nelson Lane.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the existing ‘No Parking’ zone on the eastern side of Nelson Lane, Annandale be extended northwards to include the 48m unrestricted parking area opposite the rear boundaries of Nos. 195 to 207A Nelson Street, Annandale.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LTC0718 Item 14  Silver Lane - Proposed 'No Parking' Restrictions (Marrickville      Ward/Electorate/Inner West LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Following representations from the community, it is proposed to install ‘No Parking’ in Silver Lane, Marrickville to ensure access to off street parking and vehicular thoroughfare. Public consultation has been carried out regarding the proposal.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT conversion of unrestricted parking to ‘No Parking’ in Silver Lane, Marrickville (eastern side) between existing ‘No Stopping’ at Marrickville Lane and existing ‘No Parking’ at the rear of property No.31 Gladstone Street be approved to allow for access to an off-street parking space.

 

 

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT conversion of unrestricted parking to ‘No Parking’ in Silver Lane, Marrickville (eastern side) between existing ‘No Stopping’ at Marrickville Lane and existing ‘No Parking’ at the rear of property No.31 Gladstone Street be approved to allow for access to an off-street parking space.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0718 Item 15  Marian Lane, Enmore - Proposed 'No Parking' Restrictions           (Stanmore Ward/Newtown Electorate/Inner West LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Following representation from a resident, Council is proposing to restrict parking in a section of Marian Lane, Enmore. All affected properties had been notified of the proposal and no objections have been received. Given the narrowness of the laneway and the difficulty experienced by the resident in accessing off street parking, it is recommended to proceed with the implementation of a section of ‘No Parking’ restriction in the laneway.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the conversion of unrestricted parking to a 5m section of ‘No Parking’ restriction in Marian Lane at the rear of property No. 69 Marian Street (opposite the rear of No. 52 Metropolitan Road, Enmore) be supported to improve access into the property.

 

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the conversion of unrestricted parking to a 5m section of ‘No Parking’ restriction in Marian Lane at the rear of property No. 69 Marian Street (opposite the rear of No. 52 Metropolitan Road, Enmore) be supported to improve access into the property.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0718 Item 16  Hopetoun Lane, Camperdown - Proposed 'No Parking' Restrictions        (Stanmore Ward/Newtown Electorate/Inner West LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Following representation from a resident, Council is proposing to extend a section of ‘No Parking’ in Hopetoun Lane to allow for access to a property that is currently being obstructed by vehicles parking across the gate. There have been no objections received to the proposal through the consultation process.

 

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT conversion of unrestricted parking to ‘No Parking’ in Hopetoun Lane between existing ‘No Parking’ at rear of property no. 49 Hopetoun Street to rear of property no. 45 Hopetoun Street be APPROVED to improve access into the property on the opposite side of the laneway.

 

 

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT conversion of unrestricted parking to ‘No Parking’ in Hopetoun Lane between existing ‘No Parking’ at rear of property no. 49 Hopetoun Street to rear of property no. 45 Hopetoun Street be APPROVED to improve access into the property on the opposite side of the laneway.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0718 Item 17  McGill Street, Lewisham - Proposed 'No Stopping' Restrictions   (Stanmore Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Inner West LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Following community representations Council is proposing to implement a number of restrictions in McGill Street, Lewisham in order to improve safety and access in McGill Street.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT 10m statutory ‘No Stopping’ restriction in McGill Street at Old Canterbury Road (western side); and 10m statutory ‘No Stopping’ restriction in McGill Street at Hudson Street (both sides) be approved to improve safety and access to McGill Street, Lewisham.

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT 10m statutory ‘No Stopping’ restriction in McGill Street at Old Canterbury Road (western side); and 10m statutory ‘No Stopping’ restriction in McGill Street at Hudson Street (both sides) be approved to improve safety and access to McGill Street, Lewisham.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0718 Item 18  Watson Avenue, Croydon Park - Request for One Hour (1P) Parking       Restriction

SUMMARY

 

Council is proposing to introduce a one hour parking limit on the western side of Watson Avenue, Croydon Park to the existing parking spaces in front of the shops at 2-4 Georges River Road, Croydon Park.

 

The following proposal addresses the need to have an appropriate turnover of parking for customers in order to assist the existing businesses in this section of Watson Avenue.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.   The installation of ‘1P, 8.30am-6.00pm M-F., 8.30am-12.30pm Sat.’ in Watson Street, Croydon Park adjacent 2-4 Georges River Road be approved to facilitate a turn over parking for adjacent businesses; and

 

2.   The installation of statutory ‘No Stopping’ sign on the north-western side of Watson Avenue, 10m south of Georges River Road, Croydon Park, be approved;

 

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The installation of ‘1P, 8.30am-6.00pm M-F., 8.30am-12.30pm Sat.’ in Watson Street, Croydon Park adjacent 2-4 Georges River Road be approved to facilitate a turn over parking for adjacent businesses; and

 

2.   The installation of statutory ‘No Stopping’ sign on the north-western side of Watson Avenue, 10m south of Georges River Road, Croydon Park, be approved;

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0718 Item 19  Nowranie Lane, Summer Hill - Proposed 'No Parking' Restrictions           (ASHFIELD WARD/ SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/ ASHFIELD LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Following community representations and site investigations it is proposed to introduce a section of ‘No Parking’ restrictions in Nowranie Lane, Summer Hill. Given the support for the proposal, it is recommended to proceed with the ‘No Parking’ restrictions in order to improve sight lines for turning motorists and increase safety by prohibiting motorists from parking within the specified zone in Nowranie Lane.

 

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the installation of full-time ‘No Parking’ restrictions (33 meters in length) on the western side of Nowranie Lane, between the rear of property no. 2A Nowranie Street (southern boundary), Summer Hill and the rear of property no. 10 Nowranie Street (northern boundary) Summer Hill, be APPROVED, in order to allow for vehicular access on the lane.

 

DISCUSSION

Clr Da Cruz asked about the scope of the consultation and was advised that affected residents in Smith Street, Carrington Street and Nowranie Street (from No.2 – No.12) were sent consultation letters.

Clr Da Cruz advised that she received a complaint from a resident within the consultation area who stated that they did not receive a consultation letter. The resident objects to the proposed ‘No Parking’ zone due to the removal of a parking space. Council Officers advised that a vehicle parked in the space proposed to be converted into ‘No Parking’ obstructs access to the garage of No.5 Carrington Street. It was also advised that there is a Resident Parking Scheme in Nowranie Street and any residents affected by the proposed loss of parking in Nowranie Lane can apply for a parking permit.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the installation of full-time ‘No Parking’ restrictions (33 metres in length) on the western side of Nowranie Lane, between the rear of property No. 2A Nowranie Street (southern boundary), Summer Hill and the rear of property No. 10 Nowranie Street (northern boundary) Summer Hill, be APPROVED, in order to allow for vehicular access on the lane.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

LTC0718 Item 20  Maida Street, Lilyfield - Proposed 'Motor Bike Only' Zone (Balmain          Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Council has received concerns regarding blocked vehicular access to the driveway of No. 32 and No. 34 Maida Street, Lilyfield because of vehicles over-hanging the driveways, when parking against the short section of kerb between the driveways.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT 3m of ‘Motor Bike Only’ parking be installed on the eastern side of Maida Street between the driveways of Nos. 32 and 34 Maida Street, Lilyfield.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Clr Da Cruz asked whether there are road markings that could be installed to indicate that the parking space is specifically for motorbikes to prevent cars using the space. Council Officers advised that motorbike parking is typically only signposted; however, the proposed motorbike parking space can be monitored after implementation to ensure the space is not used by cars.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT 3m of ‘Motor Bike Only’ parking be installed on the eastern side of Maida Street between the driveways of Nos. 32 and 34 Maida Street, Lilyfield.

 

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0718 Item 21       Minor Traffic Facilities (All Wards / All Electorates / All LACs)

SUMMARY

 

This report considers minor traffic facility applications received by Inner West Council, and includes ‘Disabled Parking’ and ‘Works Zone’ requests.

                   

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.   A 20m 'Works Zone 7.00am - 5.30pm Mon-Sat' be installed in front of Nos. 20-22 George Street, Marrickville for 6 months;

 

2.   A 9m ‘Works Zone 7.00am – 5.00pm Mon-Fri, 7.00am – 1.00pm Sat’ be installed in front of No. 14 Reserve Street, Annandale;

 

3.   A 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am - 5.30pm Mon-Sat' be installed in front of No. 41Fisher Street, Petersham for 6 months;

 

4.   A 5.5m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone is installed in Macquarie Terrace in front of No.8A Macquarie Terrace, Balmain;

 

5.   A 5.5 m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone is installed in Joseph Street on the side boundary of No.25 May Street, Lilyfield;

 

6.   A 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in front of property No. 1 Sloane Street, Newtown; and

 

7.   A 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in front of No. 25 Dock Road, Birchgrove (including provision of a kerb ramp).

 

DISCUSSION

The representative for the Member for Summer Hill stated that the proposed ‘Works Zone’ in George Street, Marrickville will be across the road from an aged care facility and asked that Council ensure that access to the facility is not impacted by the ‘Works Zone’. Council Officers advised that the proposed ‘Works Zone’ will not affect access to the aged care facility.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   A 20m 'Works Zone 7.00am - 5.30pm Mon-Sat' be installed in front of Nos. 20-22 George Street, Marrickville for 6 months;

 

2.   A 9m ‘Works Zone 7.00am – 5.00pm Mon-Fri, 7.00am – 1.00pm Sat’ be installed in front of No. 14 Reserve Street, Annandale;

 

3.   A 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am - 5.30pm Mon-Sat' be installed in front of No. 41Fisher Street, Petersham for 6 months;

 

4.   A 5.5m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone is installed in Macquarie Terrace in front of No.8A Macquarie Terrace, Balmain;

 

5.   A 5.5 m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone is installed in Joseph Street on the side boundary of No.25 May Street, Lilyfield;

 

6.   A 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in front of property No. 1 Sloane Street, Newtown; and

 

7.   A 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in front of No. 25 Dock Road, Birchgrove (including provision of a kerb ramp).

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0718 Item 22  Railway Avenue, Stanmore; Darley Road, Leichhardt , Lilyfield Road,      Lilyfield and Frederick Street, Ashfield - ‘No Parking 7am-7pm –    Motor Vehicles under 4.5t GVM Excepted’ (All Ward / All Electorates /   All LACs)

SUMMARY

 

Council at its meeting held on 8 May 2018 considered an item on the regulation and enforcement of long term trailer parking. Council subsequently resolved to develop a signage strategy aimed at implementing ‘No Parking 7AM-7PM – Motor Vehicles under 4.5t GVM Excepted’ restrictions in certain problematic locations.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.   ‘No Parking 7AM-7PM – Motor Vehicles under 4.5t GVM Excepted’ restrictions be installed (replacing unrestricted parking spaces only) on the southern side of Railway Avenue between Liberty Street and approx. 50m west of Surrey Street, Stanmore;

 

2.   ‘No Parking 7AM-7PM – Motor Vehicles under 4.5t GVM Excepted’ restrictions be installed (replacing unrestricted parking spaces only) on the southern side of Lilyfield Road between Denison Street and the Unnamed Laneway running parallel between Justin Street and Lamb Street, Lilyfield, subject to the outcome of the Lilyfield Road Separated Cycleway investigation;

 

3.   A request for the implementation of ‘No Parking 7AM-7PM – Motor Vehicles under 4.5t GVM Excepted’ restrictions on the northern/western side of Darley Road, Leichhardt between Allen Street and Hubert Street  (replacing unrestricted parking spaces only) be forwarded to RMS for approval; and

 

4.   It be noted that trailer parking on Frederick Street, Ashfield has ceased following enforcement of advertising trailers and no action is currently proposed.

 

DISCUSSION

Public speakers: Mr Bill Woodhead and Mr Dorian Zerial attended at 10.35am

Mr Zerial expressed his support for the recommendation and stated that:

·    He would like Council to ensure that when the proposed ‘No Parking’ zone is installed in Railway Avenue, that the owner of the trailers do not move their trailers into Rosevear Street.

·    Parking is already difficult in Rosevear Street with trailers often parked in the street and residents from Salisbury Road, Durham Street and Douglas Street also parking their vehicles in the street.

·    He would like Council to investigate long term trailer parking in Rosevear Street.

Mr Woodhead supports the proposed parking restrictions for Railway Avenue. He stated that the current proliferation of trailer parking would be incompatible with a bicycle lane that is proposed for Railway Avenue as the trailers would protrude into the bicycle lane and pose a safety issue for cyclists.

Clr Passas advised that Council is investigating options to resolve issues around long term trailer parking and that there is a Council Motion to source appropriate land where residents can pay a small fee to park boats and trailers long term with 24 hour access.

(Mr Woodhead and Mr Zerial left at 11.02am)

Council Officers advised that parking in the streets surrounding the proposed ‘No Parking’ zones can be reviewed six months after implementation to identify any overflow issues. Officers also advised that they had received support from five properties and objection from one property (by phone). The objection stated the railway line was the best place to park the trailers and this parking may relocate into residential areas.

The representative for the Inner West Bicycle Coalition stated that it is appropriate to undertake works to install parking restrictions on Lilyfield Road to address the current trailer parking issues rather than waiting for the outcome of the Lilyfield Road Separated Cycleway investigation. Council Officers advised that they will discuss this issue with the representative.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   ‘No Parking 7AM-7PM – Motor Vehicles under 4.5t GVM Excepted’ restrictions be installed (replacing unrestricted parking spaces only) on the southern side of Railway Avenue between Liberty Street and approx. 50m west of Surrey Street, Stanmore;

 

2.   ‘No Parking 7AM-7PM – Motor Vehicles under 4.5t GVM Excepted’ restrictions be installed (replacing unrestricted parking spaces only) on the southern side of Lilyfield Road between Denison Street and the Unnamed Laneway running parallel between Justin Street and Lamb Street, Lilyfield, subject to the outcome of the Lilyfield Road Separated Cycleway investigation;

 

3.   A request for the implementation of ‘No Parking 7AM-7PM – Motor Vehicles under 4.5t GVM Excepted’ restrictions on the northern/western side of Darley Road, Leichhardt between Allen Street and Hubert Street  (replacing unrestricted parking spaces only) be forwarded to RMS for approval; and

 

4.   It be noted that trailer parking on Frederick Street, Ashfield has ceased following enforcement of advertising trailers and no action is currently proposed.

 

5.   Parking in the surrounding streets be reviewed for any overflow trailer parking six months after the ‘No Parking’ signage is installed and be reported back to the Committee.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0718 Item 23  Grosvenor Crescent, Summer Hill - Placement of 'No Stopping'   Restrictions, Summer Hill. (Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill            Electorate/Ashfield LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Council Officers seek endorsement of ‘No Stopping’ restrictions installed on traffic safety grounds along the inside curve section of Grosvenor Crescent, Summer Hill from Carlton Crescent to west of the railway overbridge, Summer Hill.      

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the installation of ‘No Stopping’ along the inside curve of Grosvenor Crescent, Summer Hill, from Carlton Crescent and past the railway overpass to (opposite) the western end of Cadigal Reserve, be endorsed.

 

DISCUSSION

Committee members asked whether there was an option to delineate the parking lane in Grosvenor Crescent by linemarking the lane. Council Officers indicated that it is not safe to park on the inside curve of Grosvenor Crescent which necessitates prohibiting parking along this section. 

Committee members also asked about installing yellow lines along the gutter to indicate ‘No Stopping’ as an alternative to signposting. Council Officers advised that due to the dangerous nature of the curve, signposting the ‘No Stopping’ zone is more appropriate than marking the corner with yellow lines.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the installation of ‘No Stopping’ along the inside curve of Grosvenor Crescent, Summer Hill, from Carlton Crescent and past the railway overpass to (opposite) the western end of Cadigal Reserve, be endorsed.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0718 Item 24  Ash Lane, Cove Street, Northcote Street and Wolseley Street,       Haberfield-Resident Parking Scheme. (Leichhardt Ward/Summer Hill         Electorate/Ashfield LAC)

SUMMARY

 

In response to correspondence from a number of residents of Haberfield regarding parking in streets near the WestConnex construction site in Haberfield, Council has investigated the introduction of  H1 Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) restrictions ‘2P 8.00am-6.00pm Mon-Fri., 8.00am-1.00pm Sat’ in streets bounded and located north of Wattle Street, east of  Parramatta Road and west of Ramsay Street, namely:

·    Ash Lane, between Wolseley Street and Northcote Street;

·    Cove Street, between Dobroyd Parade and Wolseley Street;

·    Wolseley Street, between Parramatta Road and Ramsay Street; and

·    Northcote Street, between Parramatta Road and Ramsay Street.

This report provides the result of the resident parking scheme investigation in Ash Lane, Cove Street, Wolseley Street and Northcote Street, with the recommendation as shown below.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the proposed Resident Parking Scheme in Ash Lane, Cove Street, Northcote Street and Wolseley Street, Haberfield not be supported at the present time due to less than 50% support received from the consulted residents.

 

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the proposed Resident Parking Scheme in Ash Lane, Cove Street, Northcote Street and Wolseley Street, Haberfield not be supported at the present time due to less than 50% support received from the consulted residents.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0718 Item 25  Walker Avenue, Allum Street, Alt Street, Denman Avenue, Bland Street and Yasmar Avenue, Haberfield - Resident Parking Scheme.
   (Leichhardt Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Ashfield LAC)

SUMMARY

 

In response to correspondence from a number of residents of Haberfield regarding parking in streets near the WestConnex construction site in Haberfield, Council has investigated the introduction of H2 Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) restrictions limited ‘2P 8.00am-6.00pm Mon-Fri; 8.00am-1.00pm Sat’ in streets bounded and located south of Wattle Street, east of Parramatta Road, west of Ramsay Street, and north of Yasmar Street (Yasmar Street inclusive). These streets are namely:

·    Allum Street, between Walker Avenue and Alt Street;

·    Alt Street, between Parramatta Road and Ramsay Street;

·    Bland Street, Between Parramatta Road and Ramsay Street;

·    Denman Avenue, between Alt Street and Yasmar Avenue;

·    Walker Avenue, between Parramatta Road and Ramsay Street;and

·    Yasmar Avenue, between Denman Avenue and House No.16 Yasmar Avenue.

This report provides the result of the resident parking scheme investigation in Allum Street, Alt Street, Bland Street, Denman Avenue, Walker Avenue and Yasmar Avenue, with the recommendation as shown below.

 

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the proposed Resident Parking Scheme in Allum Street, Alt Street, Bland Street, Denman Avenue, Walker Avenue and Yasmar Avenue, Haberfield not be supported at the present time due to less than 50% support received from the consulted residents.

 

DISCUSSION

Public speaker: Mr Victor Storm, resident of Bland Street, attended at 11.03am

Mr Storm stated that he supported the recommendation to not implement a Resident Parking Scheme in Bland Street and made the following comments:

·    A Resident Parking Scheme would not address the parking issues which are caused by WestConnex workers utilising parking in the local streets.

·    The Scheme that was proposed during consultation would have only impeded amenity for residents.

·    Parking issues caused by the temporary parking of WestConnex workers should be managed with the project proponents and it was requested that Council support residents on this.

(Mr Storm left at 11.05am)

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the proposed Resident Parking Scheme in Allum Street, Alt Street, Bland Street, Denman Avenue, Walker Avenue and Yasmar Avenue, Haberfield not be supported at the present time due to less than 50% support received from the consulted residents.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0718 Item 26  Holbeach Avenue, Tempe – Temporary Full Road Closures for MS          Sydney to the Gong Bike Ride on Sunday 4 November 2018 (Marrickville Ward/Heffron Electorate/Newtown LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Council has received an application (S68201800006) under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 to use Holbeach Avenue and Tempe Recreation Reserve to hold the annual 'MS Sydney to the Gong Bike Ride' supported by Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Australia on Sunday 4 November 2018. This event will necessitate the temporary full road closure of Holbeach Avenue, Tempe and southbound lane closures on Princes Highway from the car park entrance of IKEA to Cooks River.

 

It is recommended that the comments of the Local Traffic Committee be referred to Council’s Development Assessment Section for consideration in determining the Development Application.

 

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

  

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

LTC0718 Item 27 Australian Air Force Cadets Annual Street Procession through     Ashfield on Sunday 5 August 2018

 

An application has been made by Flight Lieutenant Les Nastevski of the Australian Air Force Cadets requesting the permission for a street procession to be held on Sunday 5 August 2018. The Australian Air Force Cadets, formerly the Air Training Corps, have over the last 60 years conducted its Annual Church parade on the first Sunday in August.

 

Previously, Council supported the Procession conducted over the past number of years and similar conditions are recommended below:

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

 

THAT:

 

The Street Procession to be held on Sunday 5 August 2018 be supported, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The applicant make formal application to the NSW Police Service for its approval, and that the procession be conducted under the control of the NSW Police;

2.   The applicant arrange the appropriate and necessary notification to affected residents and shopkeepers in the area advising of the Procession; and

3.   Sydney Buses be requested to arrange to either hold back or divert bus services in the area.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The NSW Police representative for Burwood and Campsie LAC stated that they are aware of the event and have issued operational orders for it to be under police control.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

The Street Procession to be held on Sunday 5 August 2018 be supported, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The applicant make formal application to the NSW Police Service for its approval, and that the procession be conducted under the control of the NSW Police;

2.   The applicant arrange the appropriate and necessary notification to affected residents and shopkeepers in the area advising of the Procession; and

3.   Sydney Buses be requested to arrange to either hold back or divert bus services in the area.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0718 Item 28    Sydney Buses representation

 

The representative for the Member for Summer Hill enquired about LTC representation for Sydney Buses that was first raised in the May LTC meeting. Council Officers have asked the former representatives, who are now with Transit Systems, to provide contact details of the new representative. Council Officers have not received a response yet and will follow up on the matter.

 

 

LTC0718 Item 29    Proposed Bunnings Warehouse in Tempe

 

Clr Passas asked if there was an update for the proposed Bunnings Warehouse site in Tempe. Clr Passas stated that she received a call from a resident who is concerned that the proposed slip lane from Princes Highway will direct more traffic into residential streets. Council Officers and the RMS representative stated that they will follow up and advise the Committee on the status of the proposal.

 

 

 

 

LTC0718 Item 30    Frederick Street, Ashfield - Pedestrian Crossing Upgrade

 

The RMS representative advised that the bus shelter relocation, signposting, kerb ramps, median, blisters and linemarking for the Frederick Street pedestrian crossing upgrade have been completed. The only outstanding works is the permanent lighting. Temporary lighting is currently operating until permanent lighting is installed.

 

 

LTC0718 Item 31    Proposed Woolworths site in Ashfield

 

The representative for the Inner West Bicycle Coalition asked whether the proposed Woolworths site on the corner of Bland Street and Parramatta Road, Ashfield is proceeding and whether the proposal will be presented again to the LTC for consideration. It was advised that if the project were to proceed and Council was asked to undertake analysis on impacts to traffic in the area, the proposal would be presented to LTC for consideration.

 

LTC0718 Item 32    Recording of voting in LTC minutes

 

Clr Passas requested that the LTC minutes clearly record which Committee members support or object to a proposal and any subsequent discussion.

 

 

LTC0718 Item 33    NSW Police LTC membership and voting

 

Clr Da Cruz asked how the restructure of the NSW Police LAC boundaries affects Committee membership and voting. Council Officers will follow up with the NSW Police representatives and will provide updated information on this issue in the agenda.

 

 

LTC0718 Item 34    File format of LTC agenda

 

Council Officers advised that they have raised the issue of providing the LTC agenda in vector PDF format with Council’s Governance section. The Governance section is working with IT to upgrade software and it is expected that the agenda for the next LTC meeting can be provided in vector PDF.

 

Meeting closed at  12.35pm.


 

ATTACHMENT 1

 

SPEED COUNT

A traffic tube counter was installed in Mullens Street, Balmain (south of Beattie Street) on 18 June 2018 for 7 days. The speed results from the count are summarised below:

- Average speeds of vehicles was 26.4km/h and 33.2km/h in the northbound and southbound directions respectively.

- 85th percentile speeds of vehicles were 32.6km/h and 38.3km/h in the northbound and southbound directions respectively.

These speeds are below the existing 40km/h speed limit in Mullens Street. The installation of a zebra crossing is therefore suitable in this low speed environment and as indicated in the report to this meeting.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

A letter outlining the proposed raised pedestrian (zebra) crossing was mailed out to the affected properties (29 properties) in Mullens Street, Beattie Street and Montague Street, Balmain.

No responses were received.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Council Meeting

24 July 2018

 

Item No:         C0718 Item 9

Subject:         WestConnex Air Quality & Noise Concerns           

Prepared By:     Kendall Banfield - Manager WestConnex Unit 

Authorised By:  David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning

 

SUMMARY

At its 22 May 2018 meeting, Council made several resolutions resulting from its consideration of a report entitled WestConnex Air & Noise Quality Concerns, including seeking urgent advice from staff regarding any expertise and/or further analysis on air quality, noise and/or health impacts that may be required to be engaged/commissioned by Council, in order to effectively advocate on behalf of the Inner West community. The advice was required before Council considers employing an officer with suitable expertise in air quality and/or environmental health for an initial period of at least 12 months, and commissioning a comprehensive and independent report prepared by experts on present and predicted health impacts of WestConnex on Inner West residents.

 

This report addresses that resolution and associated resolutions made at the meeting.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council receives and considers the advice in this report.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

At its 22 May 2018 meeting, Council considered a report entitled WestConnex Air & Noise Quality Concerns and made several resolutions including the following in relation to seeking advice regarding any expertise and/or further analysis on air quality, noise and/or health impacts that may be required to be engaged/commissioned in order to effectively advocate on behalf of the Inner West community:

 

(5) Defer the below points while Council seeks urgent advice from staff regarding any expertise and/or further analysis on air quality, noise and/or health impacts that may be required to be engaged / commissioned by Council, in order to effectively advocate on behalf of the Inner West community. This advice should include information on any forums or other bodies at which specialised expertise may be required (e.g. Air Quality Community Consultation Committee), what form this expertise and/or advice might take; identify funding required to engage/commission this advice, and the potential funding source. This should be reported urgently back to Council for consideration before the end of June.

 

(Points read: Employs an officer with suitable expertise in air quality and/or environmental health for an initial period of at least 12 months to:

·     Represent Council on the Air Quality Community Consultation Committee (AQCCC