Agenda of Council Meeting - 14 August 2018

Council Meeting

14 August 2018

Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 24 July 2018

Meeting commenced at 7.16 pm

Present:
Darcy Byrne Julie Passas Marghanita Da Cruz Mark Drury Lucille McKenna OAM 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 (7.44pm) Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor (7.44pm) Councillor Councillor Councillor General Manager Deputy General Manager Assets and Environment
Michael Tzimoulas	Deputy General Manager Chief Financial and Administration Officer
John Warburton	Deputy General Manager Community and Engagement
Nellette Kettle Wal Petschler Cathy Edwards-Davis David Birds Joe Strati Erla Ronan Brooke Martin Ian Naylor Katherine Paixao	Group Manager Civic and Executive Support, Integration, Customer Service and Business Excellence Group Manager Roads & Stormwater Group Manager Trees, Parks and Sports Fields Group Manager Strategic Planning Group Manager Legal Services Group Manager Community Services and Culture Group Manager Properties, Major Building Projects and Facilities Manager Civic and Executive Support Business Paper Coordinator (Minute Taker)

APOLOGIES:

Motion: (Macri/Iskandar)

THAT apologies from Clr Hesse and lateness from Clrs Passas and Raciti be accepted.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:

Clr Passas declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 6 Planning Proposal at 2-6 Cavill Avenue Ashfield as her cousin lives in Cavill Avenue Ashfield.

Motion: (Byrne/Macri)

THAT Council receive and note the declarations of interest.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Motion: (Porteous/Stamolis)

THAT the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 26 June 2018 and Extraordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 3 July 2018 be confirmed as a correct record.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion : (Da Cruz/Porteous)

THAT Council bring forward Items 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 26 to be dealt with at this time.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

C0718 Item 3 Henson Park - Proposed Development

Motion: (Byrne/Macri)

THAT Council:

Take the lead role in preparing a joint application with Newtown Jets, NSW AFL and the Sydney Swans to the Greater Sydney Sports Facility Fund for the Henson Park Proposed Development, noting that for projects worth more than $1 million a 25 percent financial co-contribution of the grant amount requested will be required;
Receive a further report on the Maintenance of the Ground and any additional investment that may be needed to maintain the ground at the standard required for the Intrust Super Premiership competition;
Adopt an objective of having a NSW Sydney Swans Women’s AFL team (W League) and any future Cronulla Sharks NRL Women’s Premiership team, playing games at Henson Park;
Seek further clarification about the not-for-profit status of the Newtown Jets, the NSW AFL and the Sydney Swans as pertains to the tender process;
Investigate the condition of the hill particularly the one opposite the grandstand due to the degraded of the grass surface and to come up with options how to treated; and
Seek further licence arrangements to amend or replace the existing licence agreement for non-exclusive seasonal matches and training during winter be negotiated in accordance with Council’s Sports Ground Allocation Policy, to maximise community benefit including for informal and casual use.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Councillors Passas and Raciti entered the Meeting at 7:44 pm.

Councillor Passas left the meeting at 7.50pm as she had declared a non-pecuniary, non-significant conflict of interest in the following item and did not participate in discussion or voting.

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

Motion: (Kiat/Drury)

THAT Council defer consideration of the developer’s Planning Proposal for 2-6 Cavill Avenue Ashfield pending investigation of appropriate legal mechanisms by which Council can secure affordable housing as part of the anticipated affordable housing contribution.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Crs Macri and Raciti

Absent: Cr Passas

Foreshadowed Motion (Macri)

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.

This Foreshadowed Motion Lapsed.

Councillor Passas returned to the Meeting at 7:58 pm.

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

Motion: (Byrne/Passas)

THAT the matter be deferred pending a meeting with interested councillors, Department of Planning, the Proponent and Council Officers. With the matter to be reported back to council within 1 month.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Councillors Passas and Raciti retired from the Meeting at 8:04 pm.

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

Motion: (Byrne/Macri)

THAT the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 3 July 2018 be received and the recommendations be adopted subject to staff reviewing the proposal to remove parking spaces in Item 19 Nowranie Lane Summer Hill – Proposed ‘No parking’ restrictions.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

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

Motion: (Drury/Steer)

THAT:

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

2. Council suggest the State Government build new rail services to suburbs that don’t currently have them rather than converting existing commuter rail services from one rail mode to another rail mode;

3. Council point out to the Department of Planning that simply reiterating the reasons for the project in the “Preferred Infrastructure Report” has, surprisingly, has not changed our minds;

4. Given the appalling record of the State Government in managing infrastructure we also fear there will be a construction blowout;

5. Council adopts the report with the following amendments. First sentence of first paragraph and replace with:

“Inner West Council does not believe that the case for the Sydney Metro Sydenham to Bankstown has been adequately made and we oppose the Sydenham to Bankstown Corridor Strategy. The Council on 24 October 2017 called on the NSW Government to abandon the strategy, given concerns about impacts on local character and heritage and existing affordable housing and lack of provision of community and State infrastructure.”;

· Delete “Additionally” from the second line of the first paragraph;

· Amend third paragraph to commence with:

“If the NSW Government is determined to press ahead with the strategy, in the face of council and community opposition, then the cumulative impacts of the Metro and the strategy need to be more adequately addressed”;

· In relation to parking management -include the requirement for the Project to fund a Parking Management Plan, along with the subsequent implementation of any recommendations of this plan, to manage parking impacts from the project’s construction and operation;

· In relation to vegetation and biodiversity - include “Council expresses extreme concern over the loss of 503 trees and requests 2 for 1 replacements of any trees lost as a result of the project”;

· In relation to stormwater – “Council expresses concern that the flooding, drainage and stormwater assessment provided in the EIS was inadequate and it is considered that the proposed revised mitigation measures are insufficient. Consequently, Council requests that comprehensive stormwater modelling should be conducted to provide an evidence-based assessment of all issues and that Council Officers be consulted prior to finalising any mitigation measures”;

· In relation to disabled access between carriages and platforms – “While Council Officers recognise that a straightening of platforms would provide the most reliable accessibility. It is accepted that the proposed active and passive gap- filling mechanisms should provide DDA compliance with a lower level of disruption to passengers and nearby residents”

6. Council thanks the staff for the preparation of the report;

7. Delete the last 2 sentences of the conclusion of the report and replace with:

“Where the Sydney metro builds brand new rail lines to suburbs that don’t currently have them it represents an improvement to Sydney’s mass transit network. Where it converts existing heavy rail lines to metro it is failing to expand Sydney’s rail network, thus preventing a shift toward sustainable travel from private car dependency.”

8. Council forward a copy of the resolution to Canterbury-Bankstown Council.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Cr Macri

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

C0718 Item 20 Notice of Motion: Supporting Community Refugee Sponsorship Program

Motion: (Kiat/Byrne)

THAT Council support an expanded and improved Community Sponsorship Program (CSP) for refugee resettlement in Australia by:

1. Writing to the Local Federal Member, and the relevant Minister and Shadow Minister, supporting the CSP and calling for its improvement so that the Program:

a. Does not take places from others in need;

b. Provides adequate support and services;

c. Limits the costs on sponsors;

d. Allows community, family and businesses to act as sponsors; and

e. Creates more places for people in need of protection to settle in Australia.

2. Communicating with the Community Refugee Sponsorship Initiative to seek information on how council can partner to support their work.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

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

Motion: (Byrne/Stamolis)

THAT Council:

1. Write to Peter Shergold requesting a meeting to discuss future expansion of the Callan Park Refugee Welcome Centre;

2. Liaise with local vacation care providers and sports clubs to identify School Holiday programs places for clients of the Refugee Welcome centre;

3. Liaise with the Police Citizens Youth Club at the Debbie and Abbey Borgia Community Recreation Centre regarding the possibility of recreation programs for clients of the centre;

4. Install signage on the corner of Wharf Road and Perry Street, and at the Refugee Welcome Centre, advising of the Centre’s location; and

5. Build on community acceptance and integration by publicising and promoting the great results being achieved by the centre, including the clients who are set to train as life guards following learn to swim and water safety lessons provided for by the Leichhardt Park Aquatic Centre.

Approve building 504 to be made available for wider community use - when not used by the refugee centre - by listing it on Council’s website under either Community Centres or Room, Hall and Other Venues.

Prepare a report detailing its existing policies, programs and services in relation to refugees and for the policies and programs to be adopted by the Inner West Council.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

C0718 Item 23 Notice of Motion: City West Cycle Link

Motion: (Kiat/Drury)

THAT Council:

1. Note its support for the City West Cycle Link concept;

2. Notes that there may be an opportunity for the project to be delivered by the WestConnex project; and

3. Seek a meeting with the RMS Project Director WestConnex and the City of Sydney to discuss the opportunity to deliver the City West Cycle Link, with the outcome to be reported back to Council.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Cr Stamolis

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

Amendment (Stamolis)

THAT Council:

1. Note its support for the City West Cycle Link concept; and

2. Seek a meeting with the RMS and the City of Sydney to discuss the opportunity to deliver the City West Cycle Link, with the outcome to be reported back to Council.

This amendment lapsed for want of a seconder.

C0718 Item 24 Notice of Motion: Advocacy against the Cuts to Income Support for People Seeking Asylum Living in the Community

Motion: (Da Cruz/York)

THAT:

1. Council writes to the Prime Minister and to the Federal Minister of Home Affairs asking the Federal Government to reverse cuts to the Status Resolution Support Services (SRSS) program and highlighting the unfair and devastating impact of these cuts on people seeking asylum and the Inner West community’s disagreement with these cuts;

2. Council writes to the Premier of New South Wales asking her to make representation to both the Prime Minister and the Federal Minister of Home Affairs to highlight the devastating impact of these cuts on the NSW community and to reverse the cuts;

3. Members of Parliaments for the seats of Balmain, Heffron, Newtown, Strathfield, Summer Hill and Grayndler; New South Wales Senators; and Members of the NSW Legislative Council are informed of Council’s position;

4. Other NSW Councils are contacted seeking their support for joint advocacy on this issue;

5. Council publicises practical way members of the Inner West Community can work with the Asylum Seekers Centre in Newtown to support people seeking asylum – see attached document;

6. Council considers practical ways of supporting people seeking asylum; and

7. Council works with the Asylum Seekers Centre in Newtown to organise a civic leaders meetings with community leaders in the Inner West. The meeting will discuss ways the community can collectively address the challenges lying ahead for people seeking asylum.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

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

Motion: (Stamolis/Steer)

THAT Council to seek an independent assessment of its new practice of having all registered people speak at the commencement of Council meetings. This should include: assessing the effectiveness of the new practice in supporting high quality decision-making by Councillors and to compare the effectiveness of the new practice against the previous approach.

Motion Lost

For Motion: Crs Lockie, Stamolis and Steer

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

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

Resumption of Standing Orders

Motion: (Porteous/York)

THAT Standing Orders be resumed.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

Motion: (York/McKenna OAM)

THAT the Items 4 and 5 be brought forward and moved en bloc and the recommendations contained in the reports 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

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

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

Motion: (York/McKenna OAM)

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.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

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

Motion: (York/McKenna OAM)

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.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

C0718 Item 1 Improving Community Safety in the Inner West

Motion: (Steer/Da Cruz)

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 Memorial Rest 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 establishment of a community safety forum held twice a year.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

Amendment (Stamolis)

THAT:

1. Council conduct an audit of areas which have safety measures such as CCTV, lighting improvements or other measures; and

2. A report be brought back to Council detailing the areas where these safety measures currently exist and other areas currently in investigation.

This amendment lapsed for want of a seconder.

Amendment (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

THAT the words ‘community safety committee’ in point 3 be replaced with the words ‘community safety forum held twice a year’.

Motion Carried

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

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

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

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

ADJOURNMENT

9.51pm - The Mayor, Clr Byrne adjourned the meeting for a short recess.

10.10pm– The Mayor, Clr Byrne resumed the meeting.

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

Motion: (McKenna OAM/Macri)

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.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Kiat, Passas, Porteous and Raciti

Councillors Kiat and Porteous re-entered the Meeting at 10:13 pm.

C0718 Item 9 WestConnex Air Quality & Noise Concerns

Motion: (York/Byrne)

THAT:

1. A new “Air quality, pollution, environmental and traffic impacts” fund is considered at the next quarterly review, with a view to allocating $250,000 to the fund; and

2. Council notes the efforts of the community to organise citizen-run air quality monitoring around various Westconnex construction sites, such as the project being instigated by the Haberfield P&C, and writes to the University of Wollongong Clean Air and Urban Landscapes Hub, Sydney University, UTS, ANSTO and the Centre for Air Pollution, Energy & Health Research (CAR) inviting their partnership and seeking advice on how Council can work with the Haberfield P&C and others to implement this monitoring and analyse and share the results.

3. Writes to the NSW Minister for the Environment and Minister for Health to request that:

Specific staff and other resources are allocated within the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and NSW Health to:

i. Further analyse and explain clearly to the broader community all issues, including complex technical matters, that arise from meetings of the WestConnex Air Quality Community Consultative Committee (AQCCC);

ii. Review on a regular (preferably daily) basis the air quality monitoring data being produced by WestConnex air quality monitors; investigate and report publicly on any exceedances; and recommend and/or require any additional measures that may be required to mitigate health impacts from air pollution;

iii. Explain why air quality monitoring data for the WestConnex Stage 1 (M4 East) now being posted on EPA’s public website and previous readings taken from the WestConnex monitor at St Peters Public School has at times showed exceedences of some air pollution standards, and the health implications of these exceedences;

iv. Investigate the health impacts caused by construction noise, particularly night works, on residents impacted by WestConnex, including noise caused by any utilities works in these areas;

v. Undertake a comprehensive study into the health impacts of WestConnex, including both construction and operational health impacts.

The Ministers and relevant staff meet with Council to discuss an implementation program for the above, and the ongoing air quality and noise issues our residents are experiencing as a result of WestConnex.

4. Look into the boundary fences at Wattle Street and any affected properties near the WestConnex; and

5. Write a letter to the NSW Premier and WestConnex stating that construction will be ongoing until 2023 at the very least they should offer to pay council rates for the affected properties so to compensate for the impacts on the residents.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

Amendment (Lockie/Stamolis)

THAT Council Employs an officer with suitable expertise in air quality and/or environmental health to advocate for residents on WestConnex and other matters should EPA and NSW Health fail to act, with funding to be identified and prioritised in the next quarterly review if surplus is available.

Motion Tied

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

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

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

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

Matter Arising - Parliamentary Inquiry into WestConnex

Motion: (Porteous/Kiat)

THAT Council:

1. Provides information on the Council website to residents regarding the Parliamentary Inquiry key issues, how to make a submission and key issues that could be included in a submission;

2. Use e-news, social media and the Inner West Council page in the Inner West Courier to inform residents about the upcoming Parliamentary Inquiry and how they can make a submission; and

3. Runs a public workshop on how to make a submission providing information on some of the key issues that can be included in a submission.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

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

Motion: (Macri/Stamolis)

THAT:

1. Council enter into the Voluntary Planning Agreement for 101-103 Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield provided in ATTACHMENT 1; and

2. A draft Voluntary Planning Agreement Policy be reported back to Council no later by October 2018.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

Amendment (Porteous/Steer)

THAT:

1. The Voluntary Planning Agreement for 101-103 Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield should have a monetary payment of $500,000 for affordable housing; and

Motion Lost

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

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

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

2. The staff bring proposed Voluntary Planning Agreements to councillor briefings before they come to a Council meeting so councillors can provide input.

Motion Tied

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

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

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

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

Amendment (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

THAT a draft Voluntary Planning Agreement Policy be reported back to Council no later by October 2018.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

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

Matter Arising – Affordable Housing Fund

Motion: (Kiat/Drury)

THAT Council receive further advice on how cash obtained for the purpose of Council affordable housing could be managed under an affordable housing fund in accordance with Council’s Affordable Housing Policy.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Cr Macri

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

C0718 Item 11 Voluntary Planning Agreement - Petersham RSL

Motion: (Macri/McKenna OAM)

THAT Council enter into the Voluntary Planning Agreement for Petersham RSL sites 1, 2 and 3 provided in ATTACHMENT 1

Motion Carried

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

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

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

Foreshadowed Motion (Steer/Da Cruz)

THAT Council:

1. Renegotiate the VPA proposal with Council’s position as 25% of the 360 units to be transferred to Council to be managed as public affordable housing; and

2. Investigate an affordable housing contribution scheme for the site to mandate affordable housing contributions under section 7.32 of the EPA Act in accordance with Council’s inclusion in State Environment Planning Policy No. 70 (Affordable Housing Revised Schemes).

This Foreshadowed Motion Lapsed.

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

Motion: (McKenna OAM/Byrne)

THAT Council:

1. Note the community engagement undertaken to explore suitable projects for $2.5m funding from Sydney Motorways Corporation for community projects in Haberfield.

2. Approve the $2.5m funding be allocated to the following priorities identified in the community engagement

a. Significantly upgrading the Haberfield Centre comprising community rooms, library and garden

b. Refurbishing the Mervyn Fletcher Hall including landscaping upgrade

3. Note that these projects align with the requirements of WestConnex M4 East identified in the enclosed Draft Heads of Agreement and

a. approve these projects proceeding; and

b. approve signing of the Heads of Agreement.

4. Approve that Council staff proceed with the concept design (initial proposals), design development, cost plan, DA submission and construction for an expanded upgrade of the Haberfield Centre and Mervyn Fletcher Hall in accordance with the Heads of Agreement

The design concept include options for converting one of the available rooms to be made use of as a theatre and musical rehearsal space.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

Confidential Session

Motion: (Drury/Kiat)

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

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

Members of the public were asked to leave the Chamber.

Motion: (McKenna OAM/Da Cruz)

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

Closed Session.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

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

Council.

Reports with Confidential Information

C0718 Item 27 General Manager's Performance Agreement

Motion: (McKenna OAM/Da Cruz)

THAT:

The General Manager’s performance agreement be reported back to the General Manager’s Performance Review Panel with the amendments to the agreement as discussed in confidential session; and

Council receive a report in relation to the recruitment process to appoint a General Manager to the next Ordinary Council Meeting.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Passas and Raciti

Meeting closed at 11.06pm

The following Items will be considered at the next Ordinary Council Meeting on 14 August 2018: Items 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22 and 25

Public Speakers:

Item #	Speaker	Suburb
Item 3:	Stuart McCarthy	Marrickville (Newtown Jets)
Item 6:	Andrew Duggan	Sydney
Item 12:	Heather Davie	Marrickville
Item 20:	Praveena Gunaratnam	Marrickville
Item 21:	Cynthia Nadai	Lilyfield
Item 23:	Colin Jones	Summer Hill
Item 24:	Frances Rush Kobi Shetty	Newtown Lilyfield
Item 26:	Cynthia Nadai Michele Hacking	Lilyfield Rozelle

Item No: C0818(1) Item 1

Subject: Mayoral Minute: Marion Street Carpark

From: The Mayor, Councillor Darcy Byrne

Motion:

THAT:

1. Council be provided with a report outlining potential improvements to the Marion Street car park to:

a. Increase space availability for use during school drop off and pick up at Leichhardt Public School;

b. Facilitate greater opportunities for utilisation by the public;

2. The Report include a review of staff parking permit arrangements; and

3. The report on potential improvements to the Marion Street car park be brought back to Council within three months.

Background

Earlier this year Council opened the extension of the Marion Street Car Park, which made 22 new parking spaces available for the public.

I have been contacted by many residents complaining that a high proportion of these spaces are not available for the general public throughout the day as they are being used by Council vehicles with all day permits.

Council officers have confirmed that 160 staff parking permits have been issued to Leichhardt Service Centre staff, which allows them to park in the Marion Street car park all day.

With the bulk of Council operational vehicles located at the Leichhardt Service Centre, demand for staff parking is high.

Whist there is undeniably a need for Council officers to have access to parking, we need to strike a balance that ensures that the new parking spaces are of significant benefit for the public, not only after hours, but during Monday-Friday shopping hours as well.

In terms of maximizing public benefit from the parking spaces in the Marion Street car park, there is also an ongoing need for short term parking spaces for parents dropping off and picking up children from Leichhardt Public School. With approximately 600 students at the school, demand for drop off spaces is high.

Officer’s Comments:

Comment from Group Manager Roads & Stormwater:

Estimated cost to undertake investigations and report proposed changes through traffic committee, including occupancy surveys and staff time is approximately $3,000.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Council Meeting

14 August 2018

Item No: C0818(1) Item 4

Subject: Draft Grants and Fee Scale Policy

Council at its meeting on 24 July 2018 deferred this item to the meeting to be held on 14 August 2018.

Prepared By: Simon Watts - Social and Cultural Planning Manager

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

SUMMARY

The Grant and Fee Scale Policy outlines integrated, transparent and equitable processes to govern the allocation of grants and fee scales for Council venues and town halls. The policy aligns Council’s investment in the community with the strategic directions in the Community

Strategic Plan, Our Inner West 2036. The Grants and Fee Scale Policy (Attachment 1) provides an overarching grants policy for the IWC Grants Guidelines, as well as providing consistent fee scales across Council’s venues and town halls. This report recommends Council's adoption of the policy.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Notes the Grant and Fee Scale Policy public exhibition has concluded and adopts the policy with the following inclusion:

· local disadvantaged groups be considered for greater access of Council venues and town halls.

2. Implement the Grant and Fee Scale Policy from 1 July 2018, and applies to all bookings for Council venues scheduled for use from 1 January 2019.

BACKGROUND

Community resourcing through grants and affordable venues is integral to enabling the community to contribute to delivering enhanced wellbeing, creativity and sustainability in the Inner West. The former Councils of Ashfield, Marrickville and Leichhardt had differing policies regarding the ways they provide community resourcing in the form of grants and fee scales that apply to for venue hire. This Policy addresses the inconsistencies and confusion for residents and staff which have resulted from the lack of a single Inner West policy.

Context

Council recognises that innovation and best practice comes from supporting new and emerging ideas. Investing in the community’s ingenuity, strengths, and capabilities provides expanded opportunities for community and cultural development; promotion of wellbeing and social inclusion; and environmental improvement. Council’s grants and scaled fee structures support community groups to help deliver the Community Strategic Plan.

The Local Government Act 1993 provides the legislative context for Council’s Grants and Fee Scale Policy. Section 356 of the Act allows Councils to grant financial assistance to persons for the purpose of exercising its functions (with specific requirements for public notice in some circumstances where private gain is a factor); and Section 610 E allows Councils to waive or reduce fees if it is satisfied that there is a category of hardship or any other category Council determines warrants waived or reduced fees.

Guiding principles

The following principles underpin the Grants and Fee Scale Policy:

· Consistency: consistent processes governing applications for grants, and applications to book venues

· Transparency: clear eligibility criteria and decision-making

· Social justice: allocating and pricing community resources in order to promote social inclusion, and address disadvantage, equity, access, participation and rights.

Strategic Reference

The Grants and Fee Scale Policy is designed to ensure the allocation of resources aligns with Council’s community strategic directions, in particular:

· Strategic Direction 1: An ecologically sustainable Inner West

· Strategic Direction 2: Unique, liveable, networked neighbourhoods

· Strategic Direction 3: Creative communities and strong economy

· Strategic Direction 4: Caring, happy and healthy communities

· Strategic Direction 5: Progressive local leadership

Policy Implementation

Grants Guidelines for the five grant programs including program aims; selection and eligibility criteria; reporting requirements are outlined in Attachment 1 (Appendix 1). Guidelines for determining access to scaled fee subsidies for community venues and town halls are contained in Attachment 1 (Appendix 2).

Council resolved (C0418) on 24 April 2018:

THAT:

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

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

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

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

5. Council allocate $10,000 each year from the annual Community Wellbeing Grant budget to fund the new small grant stream.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The following represents an estimate of possible impacts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Community Operations will need to assess community groups applying for fee subsidies based on the group's eligibility and status, level of fees charged to its members and types of activities being undertaken.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The Draft Grant and Fee Scale Policy was placed on 28 days public exhibition through Council's Your Say engagement process from 23 May until 20 June. Council's previous grant applicants and venue hirers were notified and invited to comment on the policy. The survey results show that 10 respondents completed the questionnaire. Of these 10 respondents, 4 (or 40%) of respondents accept the policy without changes; 5 (or 50%) of respondents accept the policy with changes and 1 (or 10%) do not accept the policy.

Respondent's comment:

1. I would not have been able to teach meditation to more than 2000 people in the Inner West Municipality without the support of a reduced fee. Anonymous 5/25/2018 12:22 PM

Council's comment:

Community Operations advise that most respondents are concerned that they may be disadvantaged due to the group charging a fee to participate. Under the new policy, groups will need to be assessed based on their eligibility status and level of fees charged.

Respondent's comment:

2. I would like it to say that public health organisations get 100% subsidy i.e. get venues for free. Anonymous 5/26/2018 12:09 PM

Council's comment:

Respondent's comment:

3. On behalf of The Polly's Club, we would find the reduced or nil fee for the hire of Marrickville Town Hall of great benefit to the continuation of our club. In continuous operation since 1964, the club has been using Marrickville Town Hall for our 5 social dances per year since 2000 and has forged strong ties with local council. We provide a safe and friendly environment where people can be themselves, dance, socialise and be entertained at an affordable price. This format has allowed us to be Australia's longest running LGBTIQ social group, celebrating 55 years in 2019. The biggest threat to our continued existence is operating costs. A reduced or nil fee for Marrickville Town Hall hire will greatly assist in ensuring our continued operation and ability to provide the inner west community with a cheap, safe and friendly social event where they can connect with others and assist in the raising of funds for The Polly's Club charity grants program. This program allows us to donate funds to charities focused on men’s health, women’s health, youth health, mental health and animal welfare at every dance. Regards, David Haynes, President The Polly's Club. Anonymous 5/29/2018 10:00 AM

Council's comment:

Community Operations advise that not-for-profit target groups that charge to attend an activity are not eligible for a fee subsidy and would receive a community rate (at a rate of 50%).

Respondent's comment:

4. Some NFP community groups I work with to run the Open Inner West Festival charge a fee of $5 entry fee at their events to assist them in covering their costs to hold large scale cultural festivals for the community. A fee of 50% (that they would be eligible for) would still be a significant fee for hire of the large Town Halls where these events take place. Would there be scope to raise this entry fee to $15? LSmith 6/08/2018 11:11 AM

Council's comment:

Community Operations advise that groups organising activities through Open Inner West Festival charge a cost to participants as part of the festival. This may impact on groups' ability to hold their event as they rely on the small charge to offset costs. This would need to be assessed based on each group's eligibility status and level of fees charged.

Respondent's comment:

5. It's great to see grants for the interpretation of heritage and history. Although the Inner West Council area doesn't have many community museums, it does encompass the Sydney Bus Museum and a number of historical societies which have object collections. I am a little confused by the need for the projects to be linked to the Library's collection. The arbitrary parameters of what one body has managed to collect should exclude a group with a wider, or better, collection from accessing funding for projects that help interpret the inner west's history for the public. I hope that this grant is publicised widely to the groups in the Council area with object collections and that there are training sessions, or advice given on how to approach an application. Anonymous 6/14/2018 06:21 PM

Council's comment:

Community History and Heritage Coordinator advises that the Community History & Heritage Grants are promoted to the wider groups in the council area. These grants are designed to primarily build up the content of the Library and History collections for access by current and future generations. The Grants are designed to be mutually beneficial to the Local History of the area for example if the Sydney Bus Museum or a group holds an object collection the kind of grant application that would be accepted would be the digitisation of the object, or the cataloguing of the collection or a publication that showcased the collection providing online access to the public.

Respondent's comment:

6. Dear Officer, We are a non-profit-making community organization serving people over the age of 55. All staff are volunteers, but we are proud of it. We don't have any funding support. It is already very difficult. If we cannot afford the venue fee, would you tell me please, how we will continue our activities. Thank you. Anonymous 6/18/2018 11:06 AM

Council's comment:

Respondent's comment:

7. Local NFP sporting clubs are a major group providing healthy living and recreation services within our community. The Proposed New IWC Fee Scale Policy doesn't identify sporting clubs as examples in the Fee Subsidy categories. Community-based NFP sporting clubs should sit in the 100% Fee Subsidy category, yet the final criteria of the Activity Type, "and Where there is evidence that payment of a fee for venue use will prevent the activity occurring" may see sporting clubs losing 50% of the fee subsidy. The very nature of community sporting clubs in the IWC is that few, if any, have club houses and they do not have easy access to meeting areas. These clubs are required to hold AGMs, parent information evenings, coach and manager information sessions and other activity-related information sessions; they should not be penalised receiving the 100% subsidy simply because these sessions are a necessity and must occur. IWC should be supporting these community sports clubs by providing a 100% subsidy to community meeting spaces. Anonymous 6/19/2018 10:20 AM

Council comment:

Community Operations advises that local not-for-profit sporting clubs are concerned may not be eligible for a fee subsidy. Their applications will need to be assessed based on their eligibility status and level of fees charged to their members.

Parks Planning and Engagement notes Council’s key role in proving a diverse range of community facilities. The provision of community facilities like all other Council services needs to be balanced against the many needs of the community and the vast range of services that Council provides. Consequently the extent of Council’s involvement in delivering any service needs to take into account Council’s legal obligations and an analysis of the social and economic benefits, community need and relevant community trends. Parks Planning and Engagement feels that sporting clubs should contribute towards the cost of hiring facilities which Council maintains. Noting that a vast number of sporting clubs are non-for-profit organisations a social inclusion discount could be assessed by Council based on their eligibility status and level of fees charged to its members.

Respondent's comment:

8. I am making this submission on behalf of Leichhardt Swimming Club. The Club receives a fee subsidy from the Council each summer season which enables us to use the swimming pool at LPAC on Saturday mornings from 7:30 am until 10 am without having to pay for lane hire. There seems to be no facility in the grants and fee scale policy for a continuation of this subsidy. The Club caters for approximately 150 children in the inner west area providing opportunities to improve their swimming and compete at area and state levels. Should we be required to start paying for lane hire the Club would cease to function as it is a non-profit organization relying on donations to pay for trophies and ongoing operation costs. This subsidy provision needs to be included in the policy. Anonymous 6/20/2018 08:41 PM

Council comment:

It is noted that Council's aquatic and recreation centres and parks are out of scope of this policy and will be reviewed as part of a separate project in 2018/19. The fees and charges for sporting grounds will be reviewed during 2018/19 with a view to making changes from 2019/20.

The Policy needs to be amended (Appendix 2 on page 45 of the document) to read:

Venues available for casual and annual hire include community and neighbourhood centres; meeting/activity rooms and are defined in Table 2.

Respondent's comment:

9. I am writing to you as Treasurer of the AL-ANON Wednesday evening meeting at the Rozelle Senior Citizens Hall in Darling St., and request that you consider us for a lower or nominal rent. We are a community group that supports and assists families with alcohol and associated problems. These groups are often referred to by local medical practitioners and psychologists and are of particular value to low income people as cost is coin donation only or less if people can't afford. As such we provide a valuable and freely available resource for the community and support existing health structures with their patient load. Given that many of the members may be on pensions or be of low income etc we request a lower rent structure. We are aware that some of the other Al Anon groups in the council area make donations of literature and books to women's refuges and local libraries in lieu of rent. We have a meeting that lasts 90 mins but currently charged for 2 hours, with a group coming in straight after we leave. Please consider for rent reduction or nominal payment, with thanks Liz R

Council comment:

Community Operations advises that local support groups are concerned about being disadvantaged however under the new policy local support groups will be eligible for a fee subsidy.

Respondent's comment:

10. We are particularly keen to apply for grants for new projects under your Community Grants Program, and to encourage our community partners to apply for grants for joint projects which will be based at ARCCO. One of the issues in the past has been that if the projects aren’t fully funded then the cost of the facility rental for projects is usually shifted onto Addison Road. Because Addison Road relies on rental income to be able to deliver services and programs this cost shifting undermines our ability to support projects in other ways, or commit to supporting future projects. It would be great if Council staff could be mindful of this when assessing future grant applications that include a ’facility rental’ component at ARRCO. Another way might be to quarantine some funds available to be distributed as grants, specifically to support facility rental for projects. Sometimes this is the only support community groups need to make a project viable, and a small grants program, say up to $1,500 per application, might be a way around this.

Council comment:

Council receives many grant applications each year requesting more funding than is available. Applicants are encouraged in Grant Guidelines and at Information Sessions and Grant Writing Workshops to talk with the Grants Team to discuss their projects to assist with their grant submissions.

The Grant Guidelines provide an explanation and example of a budget proposal. Application forms request project costs in the budget section of the grant proposal and questions on the viability of the project are asked. If this information is provided then this perspective is transparent in the Council assessment process and therefore can be taken into consideration.

CONCLUSION

Strategic Plan, Our Inner West 2036. This report recommends Council's adoption of the policy.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Attach 1 Grants and Fee Scale Policy 090518

Council Meeting

14 August 2018

INNER WEST COUNCIL

EEO MANAGEMENT PLAN 2018 - 2022

INTRODUCTION

Inner West Council recognises its responsibilities under Local Government Act 1993 (Section 344 and 345) in relation to:-

(a) Eliminating and ensuring the absence of discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, sex, marital or domestic status and disability in councils, and

(b) Promoting equal employment opportunity for women, members of racial minorities and persons with disabilities in councils.

Inner West Council will provide a workplace environment that is free of harassment, discrimination, bullying and vilification and provides equal employment opportunities for current and prospective employees. Equal employment opportunity is good management practice which promotes a harmonious and productive workplace, and enhances Council’s efficiency and service delivery.

Our Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Management Plan outlines:-

a. Devising of practices and programs by which the abovementioned principles are to be achieved:

b. Communication of this plan and programs

c. Collection and recording of appropriate information

d. Review of human resource practices including recruitment and selection, staff development, promotion and transfer opportunities and conditions of service

e. Setting of goals or targets where reasonably determined

f. Evaluation of programs

g. Revision and amendments to this Plan as appropriate

The EEO Management Plan will ensure that all staff and job applicants are treated equitably by setting out actions that will drive Council’s human resource management practices, from all aspects of the employee life-cycle including recruitment through to development and capability building, to operate under EEO principles and actively promote merit based decisions.

In developing this plan and determining realistic activities for a recently amalgamated Council, consideration was given to the former Councils’ EEO Management Plans, the legislative requirements attached to transferred staff and employment protections extended by Inner West Council resolution.

The plan should be read in conjunction with Council’s supporting strategies including but not limited to Council’s Workforce Management Plan, Inclusion Action Plan and Code of Conduct. The EEO Management Plan objectives are aligned to strategies and actions of the Workforce Management Plan but are targeted to EEO outcomes.

RESPONSIBILITIES

The General Manager has the overall responsibility for monitoring the effectiveness of the EEO Management Plan. All management levels also have direct responsibility to ensure the implementation and communication of EEO and all staff must also accept their personal involvement in the practical application of this plan.

OBJECTIVES OF THE EEO PLAN

The EEO Management Plan 2018- 2022 supports the delivery of the Workforce Management Plan. The objectives are to:-

· Develop new Inner West Council HR recruitment, selection, development and career progression protocols and practices that support EEO principles

· Raise awareness at all levels of EEO responsibilities and obligations

· Enhance and grow diversity in the workplace whilst maintaining legislative compliance

· Create a workplace that is free of bullying, harassment, victimisation and discrimination

The action plan below identifies the strategies and actions of the EEO Management Plan for the newly amalgamated Inner West Council and corresponding key performance indicators considering the former Councils’ EEO Management Plans as part of the integration process. The key strategies cover:

1. Development of Human Resource Management Protocols

2. Communication and Awareness

3. Implementation and Evaluation

4. EEO Target Groups

EEO ACTION PLAN

OBJECTIVE 1 – HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS

Ensure Council HR protocols and processes comply with EEO principles

OBJECTIVE

RESPONSIBILITY

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

TARGET DATE

Council HR protocols and practices are developed and regularly updated to comply with EEO principles

Group Manager Human Resources

Former Council HR protocols and practices are reviewed and IWC HR Protocols and practices are developed as required and conform to EEO principles

No justified complaints received regarding and EEO

June 2018 and Ongoing

Recruitment and selection protocols, processes and activities comply with EEO principles

Group Manager Human Resources/ Talent Management Manager

All talent acquisition activity complies with EEO principles

Position descriptions are developed, and regularly reviewed, to ensure EEO compliance

EEO responsibilities are included in all job descriptions

Selection Panel to have at least one representative/s of the same sex as the candidates being interviewed where practicable

Review and revise content and improve Job Information Packages and advertising mediums to remove unnecessary barriers.

Ongoing

Ensure all appointments, promotions, transfers and higher duties opportunities are based on merit and meet legislative requirements

All manager levels

Appropriate HR staff on all interview panels to ensure legislative compliance and apply the vacancy management protocols within the amalgamated Council’s staff protection periods

IWC Staff Selection / Recruitment Panel training including EEO responsibilities is developed

Ongoing

March 2019

Ensure that staff capability development complies with EEO principles

All managerial levels

Development of a new performance review framework that includes individual development plans for staff

All staff have a personal development plan to support and provide equal access to learning and development

Continue to encourage uptake of ongoing education among employees without formal qualifications, and support through study support protocols.

Roll-out of new Performance framework for 2018- 2019 performance period (Indoor pilot) with individual development plans to be established for each staff member, then ongoing.

Continue roll-out for all IWC Council employees through industrial consultation with outdoor staff and unions to ensure equity of processes for all as part of the industrial harmonisation in 2019

Study support ongoing

Ensure all levels of management are aware of and actively implement EEO principles in their activities

All managerial levels

Position descriptions for managerial/supervisory roles include knowledge and understanding of EEO principles as an essential criteria

EEO principles application is evaluated within mandatory corporate obligations in new the performance review framework

No justified complaints regarding opportunities and unfair access to development

Ongoing

2018-2019 period (for Indoor pilot) and Ongoing

Ongoing

IWC has flexible working practices included as part of our employee benefits offering

Group Manager Human Resources regarding development/and

All Group Managers regarding application

Development and review of flexible work practices conducted as part of the IWC employee value proposition in consultation with staff and unions

Flexible working arrangements are considered on a case by case basis within the scope of operational needs and merit

June 2019

Ongoing

Disputes arising from EEO related issues are handled in accordance with relevant HR protocols and procedures and settled within the operational work area

All Deputy General Managers, Group Managers and Managers

Updated IWC Grievance Protocol and workplace grievances promptly resolved at workplace level

October 2018 and Ongoing

OBJECTIVE 2 – COMMUNICATION AND AWARENESS

All staff understand EEO principles and their responsibilities and apply these consistently in the workplace in relation to EEO. IWC employer brand is as an EEO employer and an Employer of Choice

OBJECTIVE	RESPONSIBILITY	PERFORMANCE INDICATOR	TARGET DATE
IWC has a new EEO Management Plan implemented	Human Resources and all managers	Develop the IWC EEO Management Plan Launch of IWC EEO Management Plan including communication/ education for all staff including:- document availability on the Intranet and access provided to outdoor staff Review and amend EEO Management Plan as appropriate	August 2018 September 2018 Every 2 years
Ensure management and staff understand EEO principles and their responsibilities in relation to the EEO Management Plan and its implementation	General Manager/ Group Manager Human Resources/ Leadership Team and all staff	EEO Awareness training conducted for new starters and refresher training available for all staff Resources and adequate funds allocated to training, equipment and initiatives to implement the EEO plan EEO Management Plan is placed on the Intranet and other communication channels and is accessible to all staff Supervisor/ Manager Training program implemented including Disability awareness education IWC Grievance Protocol developed for all staff and education/communication rolled-out	June 2018 and Ongoing Ongoing September 2018 December 2018 December 2018
EEO information is easily accessible to all staff and prospective employees	Human Resources	EEO information is available through various means e.g. Council’s intranet, website, workplace noticeboards	September 2018
Promote Council as an EEO employer in our employer brand	Human Resources	EEO statements are included in all job advertisements and EEO information is available on Council’s website	September 2018 and ongoing
Ensure employees are aware of Council’s no tolerance position on discrimination, bullying, harassment, and vilification	All management levels and staff Group Manager Human Resources and managers	All new staff to complete induction with learning on EEO and Bullying and Harassment All current staff complete refresher learning on EEO and Bullying and Harassment Regular reviews of anti-bullying and harassment protocol and provide updates for staff	New Induction commenced April 2018 and Ongoing Ongoing, refresher training on a bi-annual basis Ongoing
IWC partners with relevant EEO group providers to deliver specific training needs as appropriate	Human Resources	Partnership established with Job Access (National Disability Recruitment Coordinator) and National Relay Service (NRS) :- Rollout of Disability Awareness Training Partnership provides for access to Disability Employment Services for distribution of job adverts	March 2018 Customer service staff NRS education provided by March 2018 Targeted Managers/ supervisor awareness training by Nov 2018 All staff awareness training conducted bi-annually commencing Nov 2018 Commence in 2019 financial year

OBJECTIVE 3 – IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION

EEO Management Plan is successfully implemented, evaluated and periodically reviewed

OBJECTIVE

RESPONSIBILITY

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

TARGET DATE

IWC has benchmarked EEO data to ensure ongoing monitoring and compliance

Group Manager Human Resources/ Talent Management Manager

Executive and Leadership Team

EEO data collated from the former Council’s systems

Voluntary IWC EEO Survey conducted to benchmark current status

Regular reporting to the Executive and the Leadership Team on workforce Data and trends once IWC benchmark established

Targeted actions developed where appropriate, based on current EEO data, within legislative requirement opportunities to ensure proportional representation e.g. increase skill and progression opportunities for women in senior leadership roles

March 2018

September 2018

Ongoing

IWC meets legislative requirements for conduct and reporting of EEO Management Plan activities

General Manager/ Deputy General Managers and all management levels

Group Manager Human Resources/Talent Manager

EEO data and activities analysed for annual report

Annual review of EEO Management Plan activities reported within Council’s Annual Report

July 2018 and ongoing

September 2018

Recruitment and selection processes audited and reviewed to enhance EEO compliance

Group Manager Human Resources/Talent Manager

Independent audit conducted by DNRC:-

Audit improvements to be implemented where practicable

August 2018

March 2019

OBJECTIVE 4 – EEO TARGET GROUPS

Council’s aim is to have its workforce reflective of the community; a workplace free from bullying, harassment and discrimination and will monitor its workforce diversity to try to represent those in the broader community

OBJECTIVE	RESPONSIBILITY	PERFORMANCE INDICATOR	TARGET DATE
Council has a zero tolerance for bullying, harassment , victimisation and discrimination within its diverse workforce	All Managers and Staff	Values and Behaviours are measured as part of the staff performance framework Opportunities for employment, training and development, secondments, and higher duties for all staff , including members of EEO target groups, are identified in Individual Development Plans to upskill current staff and remove barriers for progression Leadership Development program rolled out to all managers to upskill current staff and remove barriers for progression	September 2019 September 2019 and ongoing December 2017 and ongoing
IWC Council has identified activities/programs for EEO Target Groups to enable a diverse and supported workforce	Group Manager HR and all Group Managers	Affirmative action strategies include the targeted employment of apprentices and trainees; including Traineeship for an Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander and person identifying as having a disability Affirmative action strategies include the targeted employment of EEO target groups e.g. LGBTI and ATSI, to identified positions within the organisation structure where appropriate Promote understanding of diversity-related issues through participation/ support of designated activities thematic days e.g. NAIDOC; RUOK Day; International Women’s Day Ensure ATSI staff are aware of their entitlement to cultural leave under the Local Government (State) Award to attend NAIDOC activities Conduct disability awareness and cultural awareness education sessions for managers, supervisors and staff.	June 2018 - Apprenticeship Offerings February 2019 – Traineeship Offerings Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing
IWC Council is recognised as an EEO Employer of Choice in its brand		Continuing from the former Councils Bronze Award Gender Equity Status:- Implement initiatives and programs that support Council’s bid for Silver status in the 50/50 Vision Councils for Gender Equity Program Continuing support of LGBTI community though the use of external partnerships IWC HR Protocols and practices enable family friendly working conditions, e.g. flexible working, parental leave entitlements, where operational needs are met.	Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing

EEO ENQUIRIES AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURE

If an employee has an enquiry about an EEO issue, they should contact in the first instance:

• Their Supervisor who will seek advice from their Senior HR Business Partner or their Senior HR Business Partner if the matter involves their current supervisor

If an employee has a complaint relating to EEO, this may be raised in accordance with the grievance process under the Local Government (State) Award. Council’s goal is to resolve issues in-house wherever possible. A member of Council staff can seek the assistance of a relevant external support person or agency if they feel that their complaint has not been adequately addressed.

Council Meeting

14 August 2018

Item No: C0818(1) Item 9

Subject: Local Environmental Plan - Funding Offer from Department of Planning and Environment

Prepared By: David Milliken - Manager Urban Strategy

Authorised By: David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

One of Council’s major projects is the preparation of a consolidated Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan. The recently adopted budget included four years of funding to complete the project, and it was expected completion of the final LEP will take approximately 3½ years.

The Department of Planning and Environment has subsequently offered Council funding support of $2.5m on condition that it completes the project by 30 June 2020 and delivers outcomes aligned with the requirements of the Greater Sydney Commission’s Eastern City District Plan. This would be around 15 months faster than otherwise scheduled.

This report discusses the risks and issues associated with the funding offer, including the associated changes in project scope, and recommends that Council should accept the offer and enter into a funding agreement, but should also write to the Minister for Planning requesting a further year within which to complete the project, whilst committing to work to meet the two years project timeframe.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Accepts the offer of $2.5m funding towards the preparation of the Inner West Council Local Environmental Plan within two years; and

2. Writes to the Minister for Planning requesting a further year within which to complete the project, whilst committing to work to meet the currently proposed two years project timeframe, for the reasons identified in the report.

BACKGROUND

One of Council’s current major projects is the preparation of a consolidated Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP) for the Inner West Council area. Funding has been identified by Council to complete the project over four financial years, and work on the project commenced on 1 July 2018.

The following outcomes from the project have been identified:

· A contemporary, adaptable local planning framework that is consistent with the state planning framework and reflects the desired outcomes of the Community Strategic Plan;

· A clear vision for the future growth of the area, importantly including an appropriate response to major changing local circumstances;

· Setting the planning objectives for the Inner West for next 20+ years;

· Aligning supporting strategies for the former Council local government areas (LGAs) on:

o Housing;

o Integrated Transport;

o Economic, Employment and Retail;

· Taking a local approach to regional issues:

o Population growth in locally appropriate areas taking note of local considerations, particularly the Parramatta Road and Sydenham to Bankstown growth corridors;

o Finer grained assessment of heritage and urban design issues in all precincts;

o Maintaining and boosting local jobs and local industrial areas;

· Focus on outcomes that are locally important including:

o High quality design of new development;

o Affordable housing;

o Creative industries;

o Night time economy;

o Open spaces, vegetation and urban greenery;

o Supporting local businesses and activity;

o Sustainable transport;

o New developments providing appropriate community and infrastructure contributions;

· Consolidating the three LEPs and DCPs into a single LEP and DCP;

· Ensuring the DCPs are reviewed to align with the LEP; and

· Concurrent exhibition of the Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS), LEP and DCP with extensive consultation across three years to ensure an engaged community.

The relevant initiatives for this project are included in the Community Strategic Plan and Delivery Program 2018-22 as follows:

Strategic Direction	Outcome	CSP Strategy	Initiative
Unique, liveable, networked neighbourhoods	2.1 Development is designed for sustainability and makes life better	2.1.1 Pursue integrated planning and urban design across public and private spaces to suit community, and local environment needs	Prepare a Local Strategic Planning Statement
			Prepare an Inner West Council Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP)
		2.1.2 Identify and pursue innovative and creative solutions to complex urban planning and transport issues	Prepare the Inner West Integrated Transport Strategy
	2.6 People are walking, cycling and moving around Inner West with ease	2.6.1 Deliver integrated networks and infrastructure for transport and active-travel

In March 2018 the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) released the final Eastern City District Plan to supplement the Greater Sydney Region Plan. The updated Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires Sydney councils to align their LEPs with the District Plan within three years.

For the Inner West LGA, this alignment will include the following major considerations:

· Ensuring the protection of industrial zoned land;

· Implementing growth in the Sydenham to Bankstown corridor through the LEP;

· Implementing growth in the Parramatta Road corridor through the LEP;

· Working with stakeholders to implement the Camperdown-Ultimo Health and Education Precinct; and

· Implementing the Greenway.

On 22 May 2018 the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) wrote to Council to offer funding support of up to $2.5m in order to achieve alignment of Council’s LEPs with the District Plan within two years by 30 June 2020.

On 27 July 2018 the DPE wrote to Council agreeing to Council leading the planning for relevant parts of the Sydenham to Bankstown Corridor as part of the LEP review process. Whilst this is a good outcome for Council, it places further pressure on the schedule as planning for this corridor is complicated and requires significant work to complete. Staff have identified significant risks in seeking to complete this to an adequate standard within two years.

STAFF COMMENTS

Whilst potential funding assistance to complete projects as complex and important as the LEP is welcomed, there is concern that delivery within the two-year timeframe is extremely ambitious and subject to a range of risks, many of which are outside of Council’s control.

The DPE is primarily concerned with implementing the District Plan through the LEP and appears less concerned with outcomes important to Council such as consolidation of the three former Council LEPs into one, addressing local issues that do not affect the major District Plan deliverables, and work to prepare a comprehensive DCP that supports the new LEP.

Should Council decide to accept the funding offer, the schedule and scope for the delivery of the LEP project would need to be adjusted accordingly. This includes:

· Completing the LEP in line with the DPE requirements by mid-2020, and then undertaking other tasks, such as key aspects of consolidation after that;

· The additional funding will support additional resources up to mid-2020 to enable the completion of more tasks in the first two years.

In addition, Council’s newly established role in leading the planning for the Sydenham to Bankstown corridor significantly adds to the project scope. This work needs to commence in the very near future in order to feed into the LEP project at the appropriate time.

The following sections discuss the impacts on the project from a project management perspective in terms of schedule, funding and scope.

Schedule

The current project plan for the consolidated LEP and DCP includes ten tasks to complete within four years and produce the deliverables identified in the project plan:

Year	Task
2018/19	1. Preliminaries
	2. DCP Alignment
	3. Evidence Based Studies
	4. Local Strategic Planning Statement
2019/20	5. Locality Based Studies
	6. Local Environmental Plan
2020/21	7. Development Control Plan
	8. Gateway
2021/22	9. Exhibition
	10. Finalisation and Review

The DPE has released its version of a project plan, to be completed in two years, as follows (see also Attachment 1):

	Task	Comment
2018/19	1. LEP review	Task required by DPE, not included in current Council Project Plan but able to be accommodated.
	2. Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement · Undertake studies · Prepare and exhibit draft LSPS	Similar to task 3 in current Council project plan
2019/20	3. Finalise Local Strategic Planning Statement · Review submissions · Implementation options · Finalise LSPS	This will likely take 4-6 months from the close of exhibition of the draft LSPS so is likely to be completed around Nov/Dec 2019.
	4. Gateway · Prepare LEP and planning proposal · Gateway determination	The DPE project plan moves quickly from LSPS to Gateway and there is a significant risk it provides insufficient time to prepare the provisions/controls in the new LEP, consolidate the three LEPs, consider all local issues and prepare DCP provisions to support the LEP. Council’s project plan will be altered to move some of these tasks earlier supported by the additional funding, however there remains a significant schedule/timing risk at this point.
	5. Exhibition · Prepare material · Exhibit planning proposal · Finalise planning proposal	This would need to occur in early 2020 in order to submit the LEP by mid-2020. The schedule/timing risk outlined above under (4) would impact on the date that exhibition would occur.
	6. Submission	The mid-2020 date has been endorsed by Cabinet.

It is noted that the first year of the two project plans are quite similar, in that completing the LSPS and undertaking (evidence base) studies are the priority for that year.

However, the following year of the DPE project plan includes all of the work Council previously intended to do over the following three financial years. The DPE project plan anticipates exhibition in March 2020, whereas the current Council project plan anticipates exhibition in mid-2021. Major differences between the current Council project plan and that proposed by the DPE include:

· The DPE plan does not consider early work Council is currently undertaking to align some DCP provisions that are quite different across the three former Council DCPs, such as the notifications policy;

· The DPE plan provides much less time to undertake locality based studies, which is how the fine grain detailed planning to support the LEP and DCP would be determined, in particular in the Sydenham to Bankstown and Parramatta Road corridors;

· The DPE plan does not fully consider Step 6 of Council’s plan, which is the preparation of provisions/controls for the LEP (converting the LSPS into LEP provisions), and where the consolidation of the three LEPs would occur, there appears to be insufficient time in the DPE schedule to complete these tasks;

· The DPE plan does not provide for preparing a supporting DCP; and

· The DPE Plan only considers the statutory 28 days formal public exhibition period.

The proposed schedule, due to its standardised ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach for all councils, by its nature underestimates the amount of work required for the Parramatta Road and Sydenham to Bankstown corridors, where significant effort and consultation will be necessary to prepare provisions for the LEP and the supporting DCP. By the welcome handing back of the planning for the Sydenham to Bankstown corridor to Council the DPE has added more work to the already constrained schedule. It is proposed to discuss the implications of this with DPE at a forthcoming meeting on planning for the corridor to identify how DPE can provide support to expedite this work.

It is also noted that the standard DPE project plan does not consider locally important matters such as affordable housing, design quality or creative industries. It also does not provide for time to prepare a consolidated LEP for the entire Council. This is also due to the standard nature of the plan which is applied to all councils, and does not consider the additional challenges faced by amalgamated councils, as for Inner West Council the three existing former council LEPs are substantially different in the detail behind them and require significant work to align them.

If Council accepts the funding agreement, the current Council project plan will need to be refined to better reflect the DPE project plan. The additional funding could be used to support certain tasks starting earlier, such as:

· Work on the Sydenham to Bankstown corridor starting in the very near future in order to feed into the LEP prior to it being submitted for Gateway;

· Work on the consolidation of the LEPs could begin in September 2018; and

· Work on a supporting DCP could also begin before the end of 2018.

However, the schedule is still very ambitious and carries significant risk of slippage towards the end of 2019.

Funding

The $2.5m funding offer is a maximum funding amount, where the DPE will fund works and resources towards achieving an LEP aligned with the District Plan by 30 June 2020. There is no guarantee of funding provision after this date if the schedule slips.

The State does not pay GST contributions and the agreement would require Council to continue an allocation up to $250,000 over the two years.

Council’s current budget includes a total of $4.709m over four years to complete the consolidated LEP and DCP, as follows:

	18/19	19/20	20/21	21/22	Total
Current Project Costs	$1,113,000	$700,000	$194,000	$125,000	$2,132,000
Current Staff Costs	$635,000	$651,000	$667,000	$624,000	$2,577,000
Current Total Cost	$1,748,000	$1,351,000	$861,000	$749,000	$4,709,000

The DPE has prepared a funding agreement which includes the following milestones and payments:

· $250,000 upon signing of the funding agreement (immediately);

· $500,000 upon DPE approval of project plan (short term);

· $625,000 upon exhibition of draft LSPS (~June 2019);

· $625,000 upon submission of LEP for Gateway approval; and

· $500,000 upon submission to the Secretary of the final LEP, no later than 30 June 2020.

Assuming that the DPE timeframe can be satisfied, the likely maximum funding would be:

	18/19	19/20	20/21	21/22	total
DPE Funding	$1,375,000*	$1,125,000^#	Nil	Nil	$2,500,000

* assumes LSPS is advertised before 30 June 2019.

^#assumes all tasks completed before 30 June 2019.

The change to the schedule and scope would mean that Council would undertake additional tasks over the first two years of the project, importantly including much more work associated with the Sydenham to Bankstown corridor.

	18/19	19/20	20/21	21/22	Total
Current Project Costs	$1,113,000	$700,000	$194,000	$125,000	$2,132,000
Current Staff Costs	$635,000	$651,000	$667,000	$624,000	$2,577,000
New costs to accelerate program	$1,375,000	$1,125,000	Nil	Nil	$2,500,000
Current Total Cost	$3,123,000	$2,476,000	$861,000	$749,000	$7,209,000

	18/19	19/20	20/21	21/22	total
IWC Funding	$1,748,000	$1,351,000	$861,000	$749,000	$4,709,000
DPE Funding	$1,375,000*	$1,125,000^#	Nil	Nil	$2,500,000
Total Funding	$1,351,000	$861,000	$749,000	$7,209,000	$7,209,000

* assumes LSPS is advertised before 30 June 2019.

^#assumes all tasks completed before 30 June 2019.

It is anticipated that the much of the additional funding provided by the DPE would be required to complete the accelerated program. In particular, additional resources are likely to need to be identified to undertake the detailed planning for the Sydenham to Bankstown corridor, and providing for additional resources to begin consolidating the LEPs and preparing DCPs earlier than originally considered.

At the end of each budget period expenditure would be drawn down from the DPE allocation first, followed by the Council budget allocation. Any funds not spent from Council’s allocation would either be carried forward, or returned as project savings. It is also considered a prudent risk-management strategy to maintain the budget allocations for the project in 2020/21 and 2021/22 as, at this stage, there is a significant risk that the ambitious schedule set by DPE may not be met and some tasks will be completed once the LEP has been submitted, such as finalising the DCP.

Scope

Acceptance of the funding agreement would provide access to staff resources within the DPE to assist with the project, however at this stage there is little clarity as to what this may entail. The two year schedule remains an extremely ambitious timeframe in any event, and requires significant adjustment of the project scope in order to meet the DPE deliverable in the time required.

The changes to the scope as a result of accepting the DEP funding would include:

· Work on the Sydenham to Bankstown corridor starting in the very near future in order to feed into the LEP prior to be submitted for Gateway;

· Work on the consolidation of the LEPs would begin in September 2018;

· Work on a supporting DCP would also begin before the end of 2018; and

· Some tasks not critical for the final submission of the LEP would occur following submission, such as the finalisation of the DCP.

Risks Associated With Accepting the Funding Agreement

The following is a summary of the risks to meeting the agreement requirements should Council decide to accept the funding agreement:

· The Local Strategic Planning Framework must be exhibited by 30 June 2019 in order to secure the associated funding in that financial year. This is a tight timeframe but achievable if there are no major delays.

· There is a significant risk that the milestones for the second year of the DPE funding will not be achieved in the time required. Should the LEP not be submitted for Gateway by 30 June 2020 there is a financial risk of $625,000. The final draft LEP must also be submitted to the Secretary of DPE by 30 June 2020 to receive the final payment of $500,000. Given the amount of work required to prepare LEP provisions for the Sydenham to Bankstown and Parramatta Road corridors, and the need to undertake exhibition in that year, there is a very high risk that these timeframes may not be met. There is no guarantee of funding post June 2020.

· There is no contingency allowance time in the schedule, so unexpected issues such as key staff and/or consultant changes or changing requirements from DPE and the like, would have a direct impact on the schedule;

· LEPs for all priority Councils would be submitted to DPE at the same time, and there is a risk that DPE would not be able to process them in the time required;

· There is a shortage of planning staff and consultant resources in NSW and there may be risks of engaging and retaining suitable staff and consultants and keeping on schedule;

· The DPE project plan does not provide for the preparation of a DCP, this still needs to be done as the existence of a LEP without a complementary DCP would be a poor planning outcome and would have the potential to delay development outcomes;

· Whilst the funding agreement does provide for DPE staff resources it is unclear at this stage how this will assist, and past experience has shown that securing these resources can sometimes prove difficult; and

· There is a lack of clarity of the DPE’s monitoring and approval role, and little information as to what penalties might or might not exist if the schedule is not met.

In this respect it is noted that the funding offer does have provision for variations but at this stage discussions with DPE staff have indicated that no particular circumstances have been identified where these may be agreed. Nonetheless it is notable that many of the risks identified in this report are outside of Council’s control and should they arise it would seem reasonable to seek to agree appropriate variations to the schedule with DPE. There are also no penalty provisions that appear to apply that would enable seeking the return of staged payments already made.

Options

1. If Council decides to accept the funding offer, staff will revisit the project plan to adjust the scope accordingly, as outlined in this report. Council would be accepting the funding with an understanding of the associated risks with such an ambitious schedule. In the event that the project is completed under Council’s budget, project savings would be returned to Council. The extent of potential savings will become clear as the project progresses.

2. Should Council decide not to accept the funding offer, then the LEP project will continue in line with the current project plan and budget, noting that Council is required to complete the LEP in three years in any event. Council would be required to fully fund the project directly.

3. Council could write to the Minister and the DPE accepting the offer but noting the project risks that arise due to Council’s particular circumstances, and whilst committing to work to meet the currently proposed two years project timeframe, requesting more time to complete the LEP for the following reasons:

· Consolidating the LEPs into a single LEP is important in order to build a consistent vision for the future of the Inner West and to reduce the inefficiencies of continuing to operate three different planning frameworks;

· The work required to prepare a LEP that includes appropriate provisions for the Sydenham to Bankstown and Parramatta Road corridors is significant, and there is a high risk this may not be completed in the scheduled time together with all of the other tasks associated with this project without the allocation of further support to Council;

· The geographic size of the Council and complexity of the planning issues it faces requires appropriate resources and time to consider these issues adequately;

· The Inner West community will only support updating the planning framework through extensive, ongoing and detailed consultation, not just a statutory 28 days exhibition period; and

· An additional year would more realistically enable a consolidated LEP to be prepared that aligns with the District Plan, includes fully planned appropriate provisions for the corridors, considers important local matters, and is supported by a DCP that is fully complementary to the consolidated LEP. This would be a good outcome for Council, for the State, and would reduce the risks associated with a constrained timeframe.

Recommendation

It is recommended that Council accepts the offer but also writes to the Minister requesting a further year within which to complete the project, whilst committing to work to meet the currently proposed two years project timeframe, for the reasons outlined above.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The immediate financial implications are nil as the LEP/DCP project is identified within Council’s current budget allocations. However the offer of funding provides for additional work necessary to be completed in FY2018/19 and FY2019/20 in order to achieve an LEP within two years. This may result in budget savings and may also help meet new costs to Council that may potentially arise due to Council’s new role leading planning for the Sydenham to Bankstown corridor.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil for this report, although the project itself will include extensive public consultation.

CONCLUSION

While the offer of additional funding is welcomed there are significant risks associated with accepting the funding proposal and seeking to complete the project in a shortened timeframe. Notwithstanding this the additional funding would allow Council to complete the LEP in line with the DPE’s goals and also complete locally important tasks such as consolidating the three LEPs. In order to help manage the schedule risks, it is recommended that Council accepts the offer but also writes to the Minister requesting a further year within which to complete the project, whilst committing to work to meet the currently proposed two years project timeframe.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Timeline for accelerated LEP review and update

Council Meeting

14 August 2018

SUBMISSION FROM INNER WEST COUNCIL

TO THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE

OF THE NSW LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FOR THE INQUIRY INTO THE IMPACT

OF THE WESTCONNEX PROJECT

DRAFT - AUGUST 2018

Contents

Introduction. 1

Council’s concerns about the strategic justification. 4

Summary of Council’s concerns about local impacts. 8

Council’s concerns about construction impacts. 10

Council’s concerns about air quality impacts. 16

Council’s concerns about health impacts. 20

Council’s concerns about operational traffic impacts. 23

Council’s concerns about impacts on public transport 26

Council’s concerns about impacts on active transport 29

Council’s concerns about land use & property impacts. 30

Council’s concerns about social & economic impacts. 31

Council’s concerns about urban design & visual amenity impacts. 33

Council’s concerns about other impacts. 35

References. 37

Attachments

1. Notes from five public meetings Convened by Inner West Council in late 2017 and early 2018 to discuss WestConnex construction and operational issues

2. SGS Economics & Planning (2016) WestConnex Business Case Review, for former Leichhardt Council & City of Sydney

Introduction

As Council has been calling for an inquiry into WestConnex for some time, it follows that Council welcomes this inquiry and appreciates the opportunity for input. It is noted from the terms of reference that the inquiry will have a focus on strategic and economic aspects of WestConnex. These aspects include the business case, benefit-cost analysis, governance structure of the organisations involved, compulsory acquisitions and relationship to other motorway projects.

Whilst it is appropriate that these strategic aspects are examined, Council is concerned that these terms do not include health impacts on residents from the construction and operation of the project. In the absence of such a term, Council has proceeded in this submission to raise these and other pertinent issues under the term “any other related matter”. In any event, Council is of the view that it is not possible for this inquiry to properly assess the benefits and costs of the project without considering the way it continues to impose health costs on the community from its construction and operation.

This submission draws on Council’s October 2017 submission on the Stage 3 EIS, which itself drew on former Ashfield, Leichardt and Marrickville Council’s submissions on EISs for Stages 1 and 2. This is appropriate as most of the issues raised in these submissions remain pertinent. In drawing on these EIS submissions, this submission raises strategic issues, process issues, current construction issues based on experiences with Stages 1 and 2, forthcoming construction issues for Stage 3 and forthcoming operational issues for all three stages of WestConnex, as well as the proposed Western Harbour Tunnel (WHT).

This submission also draws on Council’s experience with engaging with the community over WestConnex from 2015 onwards through a variety of means, including:

· Council meetings;

· meetings of Council’s WestConnex Community Liaison Forum (WCLF);

· meetings of the NSW Government’s WestConnex Community Reference Group (WCRG);

· a public meeting in late 2017 to discuss the Stage 3 EIS;

· a set of five public meetings in late 2017 and early 2018 to discuss Stage 3 construction issues (notes from these meetings are at Attachment 1);

· a drop-in meeting to discuss operational traffic issues in late 2017;

· various less formal meetings between staff and affected residents and resident groups; and

· various meetings between Council staff, project staff (SMC and its contractors) and staff from relevant NSW Government agencies, predominantly Roads & Maritime Services (RMS), the Department of Planning & Environment (DP&E) and the Environment Protection Authority (EPA).

At its 24 July 2018 meeting, Council resolved to:

· provide information on the Council website to residents regarding the inquiry’s key issues, how to make a submission and key issues that could be included in a submission;

· use e-news, social media and the Inner West Council page in the Inner West Courier to inform residents about the inquiry and how they can make a submission; and

· convene a public workshop on how to make a submission providing information on some of the key issues that can be included in a submission.

The abovementioned public workshop was held on 16 August 2018 to assist the community by providing information on Council’s key issues to help community members to draft their own submissions. It was also designed to allow Council staff to hear the community issues so they could be incorporated into Council’s submission.

Inner West Council and the three former councils that make up Inner West Council have strongly opposed WestConnex since planning of this project began. Council would prefer that no part of the project had been planned or constructed, and the substantial funding for the project had been directed to public transport, active transport and other demand-management (traffic reduction) options.

Council has also raised concerns about the multitude of local impacts from the project - environmental, health, traffic, transport, construction and economic impacts, as well as lack of adherence to good planning and management practice. These concerns are outlined in this submission and will continue to be communicated in all of Council’s submissions and other dealings with regard to WestConnex.

At meetings on 21 September and 3 and 12 October 2017, the then newly-elected Inner West Council discussed a number of WestConnex matters and resolved (among other things) that “Inner West Council formally adopts a position of continued opposition in the strongest terms to the WestConnex project, both approved and future stages including stage 3, consistent with the opposition of the former councils of Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville.”

Council’s position of opposition to WestConnex is consistent with its 2016 independent survey of Inner West Council residents on a number of issues, including WestConnex. The survey found that almost 60% of respondents were opposed to WestConnex.

Whilst Council has continued to express its position of opposition in all its dealings over WestConnex, it has also continued to work with the Inner West community, relevant NSW Government agencies and project contractors to ensure the extensive negative impacts from the project are minimised and community benefits are maximised wherever they arise.

At the abovementioned 2017 meetings, Council had also resolved “That Council commits to writing to all members of State Parliament seeking their support for a full inquiry into WestConnex and that the EIS for Stage 3 not proceed until the inquiry is concluded.”

Subsequently, Council’s October 2017 submission on the WestConnex Stage 3 EIS included a request that “Prior to any further consideration of the Stage 3 EIS, an inquiry should be held into all parts of WestConnex examining issues with the project’s business case, flawed Stage 3 EIS and unacceptable construction and operational impacts. Findings of the inquiry to determine whether Stage 3 should proceed and to recommend improvements to Stages 1 and 2 in relation to its design, conditions of approval and environmental licensing to reduce currently unacceptable impacts.”

Council stated at that time that the inquiry’s main task would be to investigate the business case for the project to identify flaws in the process of evaluating the project at the highest level, and to determine whether Stage 3 (as currently designed) represents the best outcome compared with other transport and demand-management options. Whilst Council considers it relevant that the inquiry’s terms of reference include strategic and financial aspects of the project (including the business case) Council is also keen to see that the inquiry investigates other less strategic but equally important issues.

In particular, the inquiry must investigate the full range of issues from construction impacts that have been encountered to date from Stages 1 and 2 as well as future operational traffic impacts from the entire project. In doing so, it is anticipated that the inquiry’s findings would lead to immediate improvements to the design details and construction practices of Stages 1 and 2. The primary immediate aim would be to reduce the currently unacceptable impacts being suffered by the Haberfield-Ashfield and St Peters communities. This would require a number of retrospective actions, including modifications to Stage 1 and 2 conditions of approval and environmental licenses.

The inquiry should note that Council had in its Stage 3 EIS submission also requested, prior to determination of Stage 3, “an independent health study of Haberfield-Ashfield and St Peters residents affected by Stage 1 and 2 construction sites. Study to be overseen by NSW Heath and used to inform any Stage 3 conditions of approval.” Although Stage 3 has been approved without such a study, this inquiry provides a much-needed opportunity to ensure health impacts are duly assessed.

Throughout the planning process for all stages of WestConnex, Council has raised a number of issues about process flaws. These flaws have signalled to the community that community engagement has been rushed and tokenistic. In summary, these are:

· exhibitions occurring during school holiday periods and over the Christmas / New Year period – an example of the latter is exhibition of the Stage 2 EIS from was undertaken almost entirely over the Christmas / New Year period;

· the short period (nine working days) between the close of exhibition of the Stage 3 concept design and commencement of exhibition of the EIS could not have possibly allowed the issues raised by the former document to influence the latter;

· a 60-day EIS exhibition period for a very large and complex project like WestConnex does not allow for proper consideration of issues by councils and the community - though extensions have been sought, they have not been granted;

· lack of detail and clarity in EISs on key issues, particularly for Stage 3; and

· no public exhibition of Submissions and Preferred Infrastructure Reports, even though Council had requested this for Stage 3 – essential to allow the community to comment on further changes to the project after approval. In its submission on the Stage 3 EIS, Council’s had expressed concerns about the complex designs of the Rozelle Interchange and Iron Cove Link (i.e. Stage 3(b)) and the difficulties that would be involved construction of that part of the project. The fact that the NSW Government has not been able to readily procure a contractor for Stage 3(b) is evidence of the difficulties involved. This raises the possibility of significant design changes to Stage 3(b) prior to construction commencing, including the possibility that some parts of the interchange may be above-ground with an increased environmental impact. It also adds weight to Council’s argument elsewhere in this submission about the need for community input into design changes, although Council expects a new EIS would be prepared if these changes were significant.

Council’s concerns about the strategic justification

Council believes WestConnex is not justified at a strategic level on economic and environmental grounds. It represents a poor transport option compared to public transport and demand management alternatives. It will have profound negative impacts on the liveability and urban form in the Inner West and wider metropolitan region. Nor is the project justified at a local level due to the severe and widespread local impacts that continue to be suffered by the Inner West community.

The project is not consistent with key NSW Government planning and transport policies and does not meet some of its own original aims. Costs have been underestimated and benefits overestimated. Of particular concern to Council is lack of accounting for the significant health costs imposed on communities and the equity impacts of tolls.

As Council has repeatedly argued, public transport, active transport, demand management, location-specific road improvements and other transport options that can reduce traffic and consolidate development are needed to move Sydney toward a more liveable and economically efficient transit-oriented urban form. This kind of urban form allows the majority of the city’s inhabitants to access most jobs, services and recreational opportunities by means other than private car.

Creation of a transit-oriented urban form is increasingly necessary for a city’s economic performance, as liveability and transport efficiency are increasingly pre-requisites for the ‘new economy’. Knowledge-based corporations and their workers seek mixed, densely-developed urban areas that facilitate face-to-face interaction and are liveable, affordable and well-served by public transport.

It has been proven around the world that the most cost-effective means of reducing traffic is to continue to increase the extent and quality of public transport, supported by active transport, demand-management and transit-oriented development. In large cities such as Sydney, rail speed and reliability can be the most significant factor determining road speed and reliability. Increasing road capacity to solve traffic congestion has been proven to be self-defeating and ultimately futile.

The economic future of Sydney depends on its ability to compete with other large cities nationally and around the world to attract activity in the new economy, with the key measure for success being quality of public transport. Google’s 2017 decision to withdraw its interest in establishing a corporate headquarters in the Bays Precinct due to lack of public transport access to the site highlights the importance of quality public transport in securing Sydney’s economic future.

WestConnex will contribute to the opposite – reduced patronage of public transport with corresponding declines in reliability and quality, induced traffic, urban sprawl, polluted air, compromised neighbourhoods, declining public health and an inefficient, costly transport system that will drain the city’s economy. While other major cities around the world have abandoned large-scale inner-urban motorway construction, the NSW Government continues to push forward with this outdated road-based solution to Sydney’s traffic problems.

Most of the views expressed in this submission on the strategic aspects of WestConnex are not unique to Inner West Council – they are the views of the former councils that now make up Inner West Council, the City of Sydney and numerous planning/transport professionals and residents of Inner West Council and the wider inner-Sydney area. These views have also been expressed by some individuals and organisations in other parts of Sydney, including Western Sydney.

Council is also concerned about the equity impacts of WestConnex, where the toll burden will fall primarily on lower-income earners in western Sydney. This is becoming an issue for western Sydney councils and their communities – not only through the direct impact of the tolls, but through revenue indirectly lost to western Sydney businesses, increased costs of living and a consequent decline in economic activity.

Through induced traffic, WestConnex will undermine the NSW Government’s own efforts to create transit-oriented development in other parts of Sydney, such as that proposed within along the Parramatta Road and Sydenham to Bankstown corridors.

It is well recognised that the provision of on-site parking contributes significantly to the cost of housing and the cost of doing business. Consequently, by encouraging increased reliance on private vehicles and increasing the need for development to provide parking, WestConnex undermines policies that promote affordable housing and business viability. Increasing pressures for kerbside parking also makes it difficult for Council to reclaim kerbside space for much-needed street improvements such as widened footpaths, bicycle lanes and street trees and gardens.

WestConnex will also undermine several of the NSW Government’s own transport and planning policies, including the 2014 Metropolitan Strategy, the 2016 draft Central Subregional District Plan and 2016 Future Transport Technology Roadmap. The latter strategy foresees a number of changes around technology, demographics and rates of car ownership that threaten to undermine the value of WestConnex in the longer-term. By increasing vehicular traffic, WestConnex also undermines the NSW Government’s active transport plans and policies, such as the 2013 Sydney City Centre Access Strategy and 2013 Sydney’s Cycling Future.

Council is concerned that WestConnex, as a motorway-only transport option, fails to meet some of its own objectives. Key failures include:

· the likelihood that surface traffic will not be reduced in the long-term due to mode-shifting and associated induced traffic;

· the project will not lead to the rejuvenation of Parramatta Road as originally planned;

· there will be worsening of congestion on already congested roads such as Victoria Road at the Iron Cove Bridge and City West Link Road at Anzac Bridge;

· there will not be connectivity to Sydney Airport and Port Botany as originally planned; and

· the project will bring only limited benefits for heavy vehicles.

Council continues to be seriously concerned about the flawed processes for the evaluation of this project. In 2015 and 2016 submissions from the former councils that now make up Inner West Council on WestConnex Stages 1 and 2, particular concerns were raised the poor business case for the project.

In particular, there has been no serious evaluation of the chosen motorway-only option against combinations of other transport options that would have been more effective in allowing the project to meet its own objectives at a lower cost. It is apparent from the project’s business case that the motorway-only option was chosen at the beginning of the planning process and the business case drafted to support this.

As part of the development of submissions by former Leichhardt and City of Sydney Councils Stage 2 (New M5) in 2016, SGS Economics and Planning was commissioned by both councils to undertake review of the WestConnex business case. The SGS review report is at Attachment 2. Though the review was undertaken in 2016, all of its findings remain relevant.

In summary, the SGS review’s findings are:

· WestConnex does not align with the NSW Government’s Metropolitan Strategy (‘A Plan for Growing Sydney’, December 2014) or reflect Sydney’s changing employment, land-use and transport needs. It could be added that WestConnex also does not align with the Greater Sydney Commission’s 2016 Draft Central District Plan;

· whilst WestConnex will be the largest continuous motorway in Australia and will influence land use and transport patterns over half of Sydney, its purpose and the challenges it is trying to address are unclear;

· the NSW Government’s Metropolitan Strategy sets out a multi-centre strategy, focused on making it easier for Sydney residents to move between their homes, jobs and the centres where they shop, study and play. The plan highlights the transformation of western Sydney centres (Parramatta, Penrith, Liverpool and the Campbelltown-Macarthur region) through growth and investment. WestConnex does not align with the Metropolitan Strategy and squanders limited infrastructure funding that is needed for effective transport solutions for western Sydney;

· WestConnex will not deliver for western Sydney, taxpayers or the travelling public. Sydney’s travel and employment patterns are changing and motorways focused on the inner city do not align with current travel needs, let alone the emerging needs for the future of Sydney;

· the stated freight and urban renewal justifications for WestConnex are outdated or unsubstantiated.

· the first original rationale of freight connections to Sydney’s gateways of Port Botany and Sydney Airport are no longer a core part of the project, and WestConnex does not take into account the second airport at Badgerys Creek;

· the Federal Government’s commitment to the construction of a second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek was made after WestConnex was announced and its business case completed. The announcement of the second airport itself is sufficient to warrant a review into the merits of WestConnex;

· by the time WestConnex links to Sydney’s existing airport in 2023, planes will be arriving at Sydney’s new international airport at Badgerys Creek. When WestConnex finally links to industrial areas in Mascot, most of the area’s freight industry and manufacturing jobs will have relocated to the light industrial centres of Eastern Creek, the Broader Western Sydney Employment Area and south-west Sydney;

· alternative freight infrastructure is already being delivered, including the Port Botany Rail Freight upgrade and the Moore bank Intermodal terminal. These projects will increase capacity to move freight to and from Port Botany by rail. WestConnex will duplicate the M5 East motorway without clear benefits for freight transport;

· the second original rationale of urban renewal on Parramatta Road is uncertain, as congestion is likely to continue to undermine amenity along Parramatta Road. No traffic forecasts have been released to justify how this busy road will become any safer, healthier or more liveable, compared with a ‘do nothing’ scenario. Parramatta Road remains in need of the only real solution to congestion—high quality public transport;

· WestConnex won’t increase western Sydney residents’ access to jobs and economic development;

· only a small proportion of workers from western Sydney commute to inner Sydney. Of those that do need to commute to inner Sydney, 90% rely on public transport. Increasingly, commuters are facing crush conditions on the CityRail network approaching both Parramatta and central Sydney. WestConnex will divert funding to a project that will not ease pressure on rail services and which does not serve western Sydney’s major employment centres;

· Western Sydney needs more jobs close to where people live, and better transport within and to the key centres of Liverpool, Parramatta, Penrith and Campbelltown-Macarthur;

· industrial areas near Mascot are rapidly becoming commercial and residential, and manufacturing jobs have largely moved to Western Sydney;

· WestConnex will cost taxpayers $11.5 billion (2016 figure) – in direct Government funding and the payment of user tolls for decades, including the introduction of new tolls on roads that are not currently tolled. It is residents of western Sydney who are most likely to be short-changed, with toll and parking costs of up to $48 predicted for a single trip. That’s $240 per week for a commuter who has no reliable access to public transport alternatives;

· alternative projects could deliver more effectively on stated NSW Government objectives, including public transport projects focused on Western Sydney.

· extending the North West Rail Link through the Sydney CBD to Liverpool, Sydney Rapid Transit (SRT) would connect the North West and South West to jobs, unlocking critical capacity across the rail network;

· similarly, the Western Sydney Rapid Transit (WSRT) would link Western Sydney to the Sydney CBD via the Parramatta Road Corridor, serving important centres such as Parramatta, Sydney Olympic Park and Strathfield and supporting the renewal of Parramatta Road could also be created;

· concern that the project has not been subject to proper governance and independent assurance are supported. The Auditor-General’s Report (WestConnex: Assurance to Government, 18 December 2014) raised serious concerns around the process undertaken to date and the adequacy of the project in terms of governance and independent assurance. The report found that the Government failed to implement its own Major Projects Assurance Framework;

· the NSW Auditor-General’s Report found that the preliminary business case submitted for a Gateway review had many deficiencies and fell well short of the standard required for such a document. The subsequent business case put to Government still included deficiencies; and

· significant questions remain about the WestConnex project’s capacity to achieve its stated aims and meet Sydney’s transport challenges.

The SGS review explained that the NSW Auditor General had been critical of the project. Since the SGS review, the Australian Auditor General has also reviewed the WestConnex business case and in February 2017 released a report on its findings. These were critical of many aspects of the project’s funding and approvals process. They found the project had a poor business case that did not adequately consider alternative transport options, had lacked strategic oversight of its funding/approval process and appeared to be rushed to implementation.

Council is of the view that the economic case for all stages of WestConnex is flawed, with the costs far outweighing the benefits. Even if the case for WestConnex could be boosted through enhanced connectivity with other motorways such as the Western Harbour Tunnel, the Beaches Link and F6 Extension (which is doubted), there is no business case, firm timeline or funding commitment to these other projects. Even the Sydney Gateway Project, which would provide a critical link to Sydney Airport / Port Botany, has been separated from WestConnex and will be assessed separately.

It would appear the project’s benefits have been overestimated and its costs underestimated. As is discussed elsewhere in this submission, Council doubts the timesaving benefits of the project - and even if realised, whether they are of sufficient magnitude to be of any real value to motorists. The financial opportunity cost of WestConnex is high and rising - but of particular concern to Council are the substantial unaccounted health costs inflicted on Inner West residents through the many and varied construction and operational impacts of the project.

Summary of Council’s concerns about local impacts

Council’s comments on EISs for all three stages included comments and recommendations designed to ensure that appropriate conditions of approval and licensing conditions were applied and best-practice management practices implemented to protect the Inner West community against a range of negative construction and operational impacts. The comments and recommendations were also designed to ensure that all opportunities for positive outcomes from the project were seized wherever possible.

Council is keen to ensure that lessons from Stages 1 and 2 are learned so that conditions of approval are strengthened, construction practices improved and incidences of non-compliance reduced. It is imperative that current poor practices for Stages 1 and 2 are not repeated, and that residents affected by Stage 3 are not subject to the same intolerable impacts as those affected by Stages 1 and 2.

Whether or not Stage 3 had proceeded, Council had requested that a retrospective review of conditions of approval and licensing conditions for Stages 1 and 2 be undertaken to ensure:

· adoption of best practice;

· rectification of flaws in existing conditions of approval and environmental licenses; and

· long-term impacts (particularly those associated with operational traffic) resulting from the absence of Stage 3 be addressed and rectified prior to the opening of Stages 1 and 2.

In summary Council’s local impact issues from construction and operation of WestConnex are:

· air quality impacts from ventilation facilities and increased surface traffic;

· the full range of construction impacts, including construction noise and vibration, dust and contaminants, truck movements, employee parking demands – from all construction sites;

· particular concerns about residents suffering health issues from cumulative construction impacts and continuation of impacts at Haberfield-Ashfield and St Peters - many of these affected residents have already endured significant impacts from the construction of Stages 1 and 2 and will now be subject to an extension (and possibly amplification) of these impacts;

· particular concerns about noise, safety and amenity impacts from construction truck movements and ad-hoc stabling of trucks on streets;

· operational traffic impacts around the Haberfield, Rozelle and St Peters interchanges - with long-term consequences for residential amenity, pedestrian/cyclist safety and parking demand - and the need to protect affected streets from this traffic;

· particular concerns about operational traffic impacts on the Anzac Bridge and The Crescent / Johnston Street due to traffic increases on already congested roads and roads that are within residential or shopping areas;

· need for a stronger commitment to reducing surface road capacity and implementing streetscape and public transport improvements wherever traffic is reduced by WestConnex – in particular, along Victoria Road and Parramatta Road;

· social and economic impacts of all compulsory acquisitions, including a number of dwellings in Haberfield-Ashfield, dwellings along Campbell Street, St Peters, dwellings and businesses along Victoria Road at Rozelle, businesses adjacent to the Rozelle Rail Yards (RRY) site and businesses along Parramatta Road and Bridge Road at Annandale-Camperdown;

· risk of damage to buildings as a result of construction vibration and settling caused by tunnel-induced groundwater movements and need for independent verification of damage;

· need for full delivery of the St Peters Interchange (SPI) and RRY site recreation areas, Haberfield Gardens and other residual lands to Council at no cost, with all landscaping, paths and facilities constructed by the proponent according to final designs which have been the subject of a comprehensive community consultation program;

· concerns that construction of WestConnex Stage 3 and the Western Harbour Tunnel (if built) have compromised rights-of-way through the RRY site for future a future light rail link to White Bay;

· impacts from the of clean-up of the RRY site on heritage and biodiversity – concerns about lack of consideration of retention of rail heritage features in-situ and staging of site clearing to minimise biodiversity impacts;

· the need to improve the design of the RRY recreation area to limit the extent of motorway service areas, create more usable areas of open space and improve walk/cycle connectivity;

· Council’s strong objection to deletion of Buruwan Park for the widening and realignment of The Crescent at North Annandale; and

· the need to address a range of other local issues raised by Council staff, community groups and members of the community through redesign and/or management plans within conditions of approval.

Council’s concerns about construction impacts

WestConnex will not only continue to impose devastating construction impacts on residents and business operators around multiple construction sites, but also indirect impacts on the wider Inner West community from the disruption these construction activities create across the region. The direct impacts have been mostly felt to date around Stage 1 construction sites at Haberfield-Ashfield (since 2015) and around Stage 2 construction sites at St Peters (since 2016). For Stage 3, these impacts will continue to be felt in Haberfield-Ashfield and St Peters, and will be felt in new areas in Lilyfield, Annandale and Rozelle.

A raft of additional activities that are not core to the project will also continue to be undertaken in areas outside construction sites and along tunnel alignments, including geotechnical investigations and relocation of utilities. This has added to the problem of cumulative impacts, discussed further in this submission. Whilst most of the facilities will be temporary, some will be permanent - raising further concerns about on-going, longer-term impacts.

All of these construction sites are within the Inner West Council area, with the exception of the Campbell Road construction site (within the SPI site), which crosses the boundary between the Inner West and City of Sydney Council areas. The Bridge Road construction site at Annandale-Camperdown and construction sites at the RRY site and Rozelle Bay are close to Inner West Council’s border with the City of Sydney. The Northcote Street construction site is within reasonable proximity to the border between the Inner West and Canada Bay council areas.

Stage 3 is proposed to be constructed in two stages:

· Stage 3(a) – construction of the mainline tunnel from Haberfield-Ashfield to St Peters to start in 2018 and be open to traffic in 2022; and

· Stage 3(b) – construction of the Rozelle Interchange and Iron Cove Link to start in late 2018 and be open to traffic in 2023.

Building the project in two stages would allow for the Stage 3(a) mainline tunnels to operate independently (initially with two lanes in each direction) prior to the completion of Stage 3(b). As a result of Stage 3 being constructed in two parts, the length of the construction period and commencement/conclusion times of the sites will vary. Council has been concerned to ensure that the two-stage construction of Stage 3 does not in itself increase or extend construction or operational impacts on residents.

As mentioned above, Council is keen to ensure the numerous shortcomings from Stages 1 and 2 in relation to management of construction impacts not be repeated for Stage 3. Council has repeatedly argued that lessons learned must result in appropriate design changes, stronger conditions of approval, improved management regimes and a more generous and considerate attitude toward affected residents. Mitigation measures should not benefits to some residents at the expense of others.

Stage 3 construction sites at or near the existing Stage 1 and 2 construction sites at Haberfield-Ashfield and St Peters raise particular concerns, as Haberfield-Ashfield residents have already endured significant impacts from these earlier stages. Some Haberfield-Ashfield and St Peters residents had anticipated that construction impacts would draw to a close as Stage 1 moves to completion, but have been distressed to learn that impacts will continue for Stage 3 – extending three years of impacts for a further three (or more) years. Though construction is often referred to as “temporary”, a continuous construction period of five, six or more years does not feel like a temporary impact to affected residents.

Council is particularly concerned about extended construction impacts on residents near construction sites at Northcote Street at Haberfield and Campbell Street at St Peters (area near Crown Street and Barwon Park Road). At every opportunity, Council has argued that these residents be well protected by noise and dust mitigation measures. Council is also concerned that should the WHT proceed, residents in parts of Lilyfield and Rozelle near the WHT construction site within the RRY site would also experience an extended period of impacts.

For Haberfield-Ashfield, Council has been particularly concerned about construction and operational impacts on residents along Wattle Street. This includes five dwellings at 14 to 24 Wattle Street who have already suffering years of construction impacts but will also suffer operational impacts due to their exposure to traffic noise. Council seeks mitigation of these impacts to the satisfaction of all affected residents.

Residents’ endurance of extended impacts raises serious health concerns, and Council has repeatedly called on the NSW Government to undertake a health study. Council has also called on key NSW Government agencies DP&E, EPA and NSW Health to investigate construction-related health issues and work collaboratively to ensure they are addressed in EISs, construction management plans, conditions of approval, environmental licenses and construction monitoring and complaints procedures.

The experience of Inner West residents and business operators living day-to-day with impact from Stages 1 and 2 has proved that construction activities have had profound negative impacts – not only on individuals, but whole neighbourhoods. Even where construction activities comply with the project’s conditions of approval and environmental licenses, residents of Haberfield-Ashfield and St Peters have complained about the impacts being intolerable.

The most pressing of these impacts has been noise from night-works, as residents continue to suffer health problems related to stress and sleep deprivation. The impacts have been particularly acute when night-works are undertaken over a long period without residents being given adequate respite. In many instances, residents in this position have not been offered alternative accommodation or other suitable mitigation, so have endured impacts over a long period with resulting health problems.

Council has been concerned that extended working hours and night-works have been driven by imperatives to keep roads open to traffic during the day and by incentives for contractors to complete project milestones on time. This has been without sufficient regard for affected residents.

Though Council and residents are repeatedly reassured by the proponent that tunnelling is not likely to create significant noise or vibration impacts, and only for a short period, Haberfield-Ashfield and St Peters residents already affected by general construction noise have also complained about tunnelling vibration impacts. In areas above underground interchanges and near portals, tunnel depths will be shallower, increasing the risk of operational noise and vibration impacts. Vibration from construction, ground settlement and possibly operation also puts all properties above and in the vicinity of WestConnex tunnels at risk of cracking.

Under-reporting of health issues is likely, as residents speak of “complaint fatigue” – where they feel their repeated complaints have not resulted in positive responses. Residents eventually stop complaining and endure the impacts in silence. For some, language has been a barrier to making complaints, and under-reporting has resulted from complaints not being officially registered, e.g. verbal complaints being made to project construction staff rather than official complaints channels.

The response by SMC and its contractors on health issues created by Stage 1 and 2 constructions has not been adequate, nor has the response from NSW Government agencies responsible for compliance and the health and well-being of Sydney’s residents – DP&E, EPA and NSW Health.

Experience with Stages 1 and 2 has shown that cumulative construction impacts have been a major issue for residents. These have arisen primarily from a vast range of utility relocation works (necessitated by WestConnex) being undertaken at the same time as project works or during periods when residents might otherwise enjoy respite. Whilst core project works are ‘contestable’ in that they must comply with the project’s conditions of approval, the utilities works are ‘non-contestable’ as they are formally not part of the project and are instead regulated by environmental licenses.

In addition to utilities works, geotechnical investigation works for various stages of WestConnex have added to the cumulative impact problem. These works are permitted by the NSW Roads Act and are non-contestable. There have been instances in Haberfield-Ashfield and St Peters residents have complained about intolerable impacts from project works, utilities works and geotechnical investigation works being undertaken simultaneously.

The cumulative impact problem has been further exacerbated by works and other activities not at all related to WestConnex. These have included Metro Rail works, emergency and routine utilities works, Council road and footway maintenance works, construction of buildings on private property and ambient noise from road traffic and aircraft – the latter being a particular issue for St Peters residents. In 2017 for example, Campbell Street residents at St Peters endured impacts from emergency night-time repairs by Sydney Water to ageing water supply infrastructure. Though not related to WestConnex, this had a significant impact on residents already fatigued by WestConnex works.

The effectiveness of enforcement has been hampered by the fact that contestable works are enforced by the DP&E (responsible for monitoring conditions of approval) whilst non-contestable works are enforced by EPA through specific environmental licenses or generic legislation such as the NSW Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. The splitting of these functions has meant that complaints handling has been complex and not as effective as it might have been if a single agency was responsible for enforcement. In most instances residents have not been able to distinguish between contestable and non-contestable works (nor should they be expected to) so have unwittingly not followed correct complaints procedures.

A further construction issue for Stages 1 and 2 has been lack of NSW Government compliance resources for this very large, high-impact project. Responding to advocacy by Council on this matter in early-mid 2016, the DP&E created a full-time WestConnex compliance officer position, and that officer has been working from Council offices part-time. This has been welcomed, but Council has needed to argue to the DP&E that this is not sufficient. Council is pleased that DP&E has recently devoted additional compliance resources to this project.

Council has also been concerned that the compliance resources within EPA have also not been adequate, and that there has not been sufficient input from other relevant agencies – particularly NSW Health – in minimising the impacts on residents described above.

A further cumulative construction impact issue has been overlapping of noise envelopes from project works from several construction areas – a particular issue for Haberfield-Ashfield residents living between a number of work sites. It would appear the conditions of approval have considered the impacts of each work site in isolation without considering how noise, vibration and other impacts add together to become intolerable. For Stage 3, this is likely to be an important issue for Rozelle, Lilyfield, and North Annandale due to the number of construction activities that would be underway across multiple sites.

The cumulative impact issue has been exacerbated by works that may have breached conditions of approval, such as works extending slightly beyond approved hours - or where breaches are not clear due to imprecisely worded conditions of approval. An example of the latter issue is idling of trucks in residential streets. In addressing this issue, it has not been clear that from conditions of approval that this activity has in fact constituted a breach, even though this has had a major impact on residents.

There have been instances where there has been an apparent lack of willingness by SMC and/or project contractors to undertake best practice (beyond simple compliance) and deal with residents with a spirit of generosity in addressing cumulative impact issues. Council is particularly concerned that this lack of generosity may be the result of an inadequate funding available to assist affected residents through measures such as voluntary acquisition and provision of alternative accommodation.

Since construction of Stages 1 and 2 began, Haberfield-Ashfield and St Peters residents have continued to complain about kerbside parking pressures created by WestConnex construction. Whilst SMC and its contractors has made some effort to address parking issues through actions such as creation of dedicated car parks, Haberfield-Ashfield residents have expressed their dismay that some of these car parks have been unused, being located away from construction sites. There have been no penalties to discourage parking in residential streets or incentives to encourage parking in facilities provided by the project. It is apparent to Council that conditions of approval for Stages 1 and 2 related to parking are vague, unenforceable and ultimately ineffective.

A more comprehensive approach to street closures is needed, as Haberfield/Ashfield residents have experienced many seemingly ad-hoc road closures and diversions implemented at short notice, with several of these having major implications for local residents and businesses. A blanket speed limit reduction around all construction sites of 30 or 40kph is also warranted to minimise road safety risks, particularly on streets with residential and school uses.

Residents have complained about inadequate lead times between notices being issued and the commencement of works. There have been instances where residents have been notified by leaflet distribution, but the notice has not been posted on the SMC website, leading to the situation where residents express their concerns to Council about forthcoming works to be told that Council has no knowledge of the matter. Council has repeatedly advocated to SMC the importance of all notices being posted on SMC’s website in a timely manner so that Council and the wider community is kept informed.

Council is aware of the processes that have been established to co-ordinate WestConnex construction activities between councils, State agencies, SMC and project contractors. However, Council’s experiences with Stages 1 and 2 show there is much room for improvement. For example, Council has received several reports from Haberfield-Ashfield and St Peters residents of inconsistent information being disseminated by SMC and its contractors and inconsistent responses to complaints. In relation to project-related roadway changes such as the closure of Ramsay Street at Haberfield, there have been reports of inaccurate signage and Sydney Buses drivers being unaware of changes.

Council has received many reports about project trucks departing from routes defined by conditions of approval and travelling along local residential streets – with resultant noise and traffic safety impacts. In some instances, project trucks have been reported travelling past and parking near primary schools in Haberfield (in breach of conditions) creating a traffic safety hazard. Simple measures to improve enforcement include easy-to-read identification numbers on project trucks and employment of a dedicated traffic-monitoring officer for the project.

Lack of marshaling arrangements has led to circling of trucks around Haberfield-Ashfield streets and queuing of trucks on Parramatta Road at Haberfield-Ashfield as drivers await clearance to enter construction sites. This has raised noise and traffic safety issues. Council is aware that DP&E compliance staff have taken formal enforcement action on these queuing issues.

For Stage 3, the recent addition of truck marshalling and employee parking areas at White Bay – known as the White Bay Civil Site (C11) – is welcomed in general terms as it will provide these services without direct impacts on local residents and businesses. Importantly, it would avert use of streets for marshalling, which has been a major issue for Stage 1. The car park will assist with minimising parking demands on surrounding local streets.

In the main, trucks would use main roads to/from the White Bay site – predominantly James Craig Road and City West Link Road, so there would not be a significant direct noise impact on residents near these roads. However, Council is concerned about the traffic congestion and road safety impacts of spoil trucks using all roads, including main roads. There would also be a cumulative truck traffic impact from other projects that would use the White Bay site and surrounding roads. These projects include WHT spoil handling facility, multi-user facility and concrete batching plant.

Council is also concerned about trucks using residential streets to travel between marshaling areas and construction sites. For Stage 3, Council has expressed its concerns about trucks using Johnston Street (southbound from White Bay) to access the Bridge Road site. The high frequency of truck movements, coupled with sensitive uses along Johnston Street (schools, residential areas and local shops) would result in amenity impacts and road safety risks.

For all construction sites, there is the potential for truck conflicts with other motor vehicles and bicycles on any road, and conflicts with pedestrians at pedestrian crossing and wherever trucks cross footpaths. Risks of these conflicts are at their greatest during the morning peak traffic periods and school travel periods. Working hours should be designed to avoid peak traffic periods, particularly where school travel safety issues are raised.

Council’s traffic management staff that have been involved in traffic & transport liaison groups for WestConnex Stages 1 and 2 have sought increased involvement by Council. These staff have recommended to relevant conditions for the Sydney Metro (rail) project as a guide.

Truck access to the Bridge Road construction site would be from the City-bound kerbside lane of Parramatta Road. Vehicles would enter via a new temporary driveway, travel in an anti-clockwise direction via an internal access road and exit the site onto Pyrmont Bridge Road via a new temporary signalised intersection. Despite the fact that minimal modifications to the existing road network would be needed, Council has concerns about walk/cycle diversions around site entry/exit points and potential conflicts between project trucks, buses, cyclists and pedestrians wherever trucks cross the paths of these other road users.

Experience with construction trucks accessing Haberfield-Ashfield sites from Parramatta Road has shown that issues with on-site management can result in empty trucks travelling slowly in the kerbside lane when the loading area is already occupied, to avoid being sent around the block. This inhibits traffic flow in the kerbside lane, delaying buses and compelling some drivers to make hazardous manoeuvres at short notice.

The Bridge Road site has no suitable ‘go-around’ route as the left turn from Mallet Street to Pyrmont Bridge Road and the left turn from Pyrmont Bridge Road to Parramatta Road cannot be negotiated by spoil trucks. Layton and Barr Streets are too narrow to accommodate left turns, and large vehicles also cannot negotiate the left turn from Parramatta Road to Ross Street and Glebe Point Road is unsuitable for heavy vehicles. In any event, it is not appropriate for project trucks to be travelling on those roads for amenity reasons.

Though the site is surrounded primarily by commercial uses, there is the potential for noise, dust and other impacts on nearby sensitive uses, i.e. five dwellings located at 67 to 77 Pyrmont Bridge Road and the Bridge Road school at 127 Parramatta Road directly opposite the site. There is also the potential for site activities to negatively affect sensitive commercial and healthcare uses, e.g. dust impacts on brewery adjacent to the site. Careful site management and physical buffering will be needed to protect these sensitive uses.

Construction at the Campbell Road site at St Peters involves continued use of part of the SPI site, which raises concerns for Council about on-going impacts on nearby dwellings on the northern side of Campbell Street and the southern end of Barwon Park Road and Crown Street, St Peters. This is particularly as residents in this location have endured impacts from Stage 2. Noise and dust buffering will continue to be needed to protect these dwellings.

Cumulative impact issues are raised for Council from the four construction sites proposed in the Rozelle-Lilyfield-Annandale area. These are the Rozelle civil & tunnel site, The Crescent Civil site, the Victoria Road civil site and the Iron Cove Link civil site - required to support construction of the Rozelle Interchange and Iron Cove Link. Cumulative impacts are likely to be an issue as these sites are within close proximity to each other and are surrounded by densely-developed residential areas, schools and other sensitive uses.

The Victoria Road site raises concerns about noise, dust, traffic and parking impacts on densely-developed residential areas surrounding the site. Numerous single-storey dwellings on the western side would be located directly adjacent to the site, and whilst these could be protected by noise barriers, multi-storey dwellings on the eastern side of the site could not be protected in this way due to the rising topography.

Council is also concerned that temporary and permanent closures of streets between Victoria Road and King George Park would create access difficulties for residents and park users. Proposed temporary walk-cycle path diversions are a further concern given proximity of this site to the Bay Run path and the high volume of pedestrian and cyclist traffic that use footpaths along this part of Victoria Road.

For Stage 3, Council had raised concerns that at the EIS stage of the process, only probable construction methodologies were shown, giving contractors flexibility to later refine their methodology when appointed. Council as also concerned that the Stage 3 EIS lacked detail about consultation over construction impacts and proposes organisational framework identifying who is responsible for various actions and how local residents will be consulted throughout the construction period.

Council’s concerns about air quality impacts

A WestConnex issue of particular concern to the community is air quality impacts - at both the construction and operational phases of the project.

At a strategic level, Council’s preference for public transport is in-part based on the air quality benefits of public transport over motorways. Council accepts that due to technological advances per-vehicle emissions have declined in recent years, but remains concerned about additional traffic generated by WestConnex will negate these technology-related air quality reductions.

Council continues to argue that high-occupancy public transport (supported by transit-oriented development) is the most effective way to achieve travel emission reductions on a per-passenger-kilometre basis. It is acknowledged that currently a proportion of power generated for public transport is from non-renewable sources, but it should be a national and State goal for the longer-term that public transport be powered from renewable sources.

It is noted from the EIS that Sydney’s air quality is considered good by world standards. This is not disputed, but the NSW Government’s stated commitment to improving air quality by reducing emissions from vehicles along with other sources is disputed. This is because WestConnex will inevitably create further traffic growth across Sydney, and with more vehicles will come more emissions.

Though vehicle emissions is predominantly an operational issue, emissions from construction vehicles is an issue nonetheless. Council has been aware of complaints from the community about emissions from diesel generators within construction sites and construction trucks idling within close proximity to residential areas, schools or preschools. Reducing the idling of trucks also has noise-reduction benefits.

The main air quality issue at the construction stage is dust emissions from construction sites. Even though air quality management plans have been implemented for all stages of WestConnex, there have been many complaints from Haberfield-Ashfield and St Peters residents about dust. Council has raised the need for best-practice monitoring systems to be implemented, and monitoring should be undertaken in both indoor and outdoor environments.

Induced demand created by WestConnex - i.e. car trips that happen purely as a consequence of the motorway being built - is anticipated to be 45,000 additional car trips per day. Induced traffic is likely to increase congestion (and create roadside air pollution hot-spot) around WestConnex, including Iron Cove Bridge, Anzac Bridge and Canal Road at St Peters. This would likely outweigh improvements achieved by improved traffic flows on the motorway itself.

RMS had argued in its Stage 3 EIS that the contribution of car exhaust to total air pollution at the Sydney-metropolitan scale is minor at only 0.75%, with solid fuel burning the largest contributor at 50.6%. However Council had pointed out that the EIS has omitted other non-exhaust particulates emitted by vehicles (5.5%), light duty diesel exhaust (2.2%), industrial vehicles and equipment (1.4%), which would bring total vehicle emissions to almost 10%.

Even if this was considered to be a low proportion of the total, the EIS conceded that PM_2.5vehicle emissions can have a health impact at any level, as can the cumulative impacts of all emissions. The point about emissions having a health impact at any level has been made widely by a number of stakeholders, including Australian university research institutes. Governments should therefore be acting to reduce all types of emissions from all sectors. For transport, the long-term goal would be zero emissions from high-occupancy public transport powered by renewables.

In planning for WestConnex, RMS has acknowledged that in the future a proportion of the national vehicle fleet will be all-electric. This would have a positive impact on local emissions, but Council is sceptical that there will be noticeable proportion of these vehicles in Australia in the near future. The average age of cars in Australia is around 10 years - consequently it will take quite some time for the fleet to turn over, and it is not known if this has been factored into WestConnex air quality modelling. As far as Council is aware, there are no proactive State or national policies to encourage electric vehicles.

Electric vehicles would in the near future be predominantly powered from coal-fired electricity, so there would be emissions, albeit not in Sydney. Further, motorways encourage greater car use through induced traffic, which acts to increase emissions overall. For electric vehicles to be effective in significantly reducing emissions, they would need to be powered by renewables.

It must also be recognised that even if at some point in the future almost all vehicles are electric, there will still be emissions from brakes and tyres and excessive traffic will continue to create problems of congestion, road safety risks, compromised liveability and poor land use / transport integration. Nonetheless Council believes State and Federal action is warranted to encourage electric vehicles to reduce emissions.

RMS has explained that surface road emissions would be reduced wherever vehicles are within WestConnex tunnels. Council disputes RMS’s claim that this improves Sydney’s air quality, as these same emissions emerge at ventilation facilities. Council also disputes RMS’s claim that vent facility emissions would not have a significant local impact as pollutants are dispersed into the regional air-shed. Disputes aside, Council is concerned about any contribution to air pollution at both the local and regional level.

It is not acceptable to Council that vent facility emissions are unfiltered as is proposed for all stages of WestConnex - even if compliance with regional air quality standards can be achieved. RMS points out that filtration is not cost-effective compared to reducing emissions at the source (i.e. the vehicle), it reduces the dispersal of emissions by slowing the velocity of air emerging from the facility and is not currently applied (or proposed to be applied) to any motorway tunnel in Sydney. Notwithstanding, Council believes that absence of filtration means that health costs will be imposed on the community. This further highlights the need for a review of the project’s benefit-cost analysis.

Council has particular concerns about local impacts from the vent facilities. Examples are:

· emissions from the large Parramatta Road vent facility at Haberfield would affect Haberfield Primary School, emissions from the two facilities at the St Peters would affect St Peters Primary School and emissions from the Victoria Road / Terry Street facility would affect Rozelle Primary School and Sydney Secondary College Balmain, with Parents’ and Citizens’ Associations (P&Cs) from these schools raising concerns;

· the height of the St Peters ventilation facilities has been limited by Sydney Airport’s Obstacle Limitation Surface, so reduced dispersal can be expected from these facilities;

· at St Peters, dispersal of ventilation facility emissions would be further affected by turbulence from passing aircraft; and

· some residential areas and schools in Rozelle and Lilyfield would be located above the level of the Iron Cove and RRY site vent facilities, further increasing impacts.

RMS has argued that unfiltered emissions from WestConnex vent facilities complies with national air quality standards. Even if this is the case, Council sees the need to review these standards to ensure they a bringing about improved air quality in Australia’s cities in the long-term.

Above it was mentioned that Council is also concerned about increased roadside emissions from induced traffic from WestConnex. Of particular concern are the following locations:

· Victoria Road from the Iron Cove Link tunnel portal at Rozelle through to Drummoyne;

· Anzac Bridge and Western Distributor; and

· Canal Road and Gardeners Road in the Mascot-Alexandria area.

Although most of the impacts at these locations are (respectively) within the Canada Bay, City of Sydney and Bayside Council areas, they are close to the Inner West, and impacts on the Inner West are likely to be increased because of local weather effects, such as wind – a point that has not been noted by RMS. Council is concerned about emission impacts on all residential areas and other sensitive uses regardless of whether they are within Council’s boundaries.

Roadside emission impacts along the Anzac Bridge and Western Distributor are of particular concern as they will affect the substantial future residential and commercial development planned for the Bays Precinct. It may be appropriate that the density of Bays Precinct development be reduced to account for WestConnex emission impacts. A further concern is the impact on the existing area of high density residential (apartment) development on the southern side of Gardeners Road at Mascot, within the Bayside Council area.

Council believes RMS has not given roadside air quality impacts sufficient prominence in its WestConnex air quality assessments. Council had noted in responding to WestConnex EISs that an assessment of worst-case surface road emissions around WestConnex ramps and interchanges (all technically part of the project) had not been included.

RMS has given assurances that WestConnex will include a state-of-the-art tunnel longitudinal ventilation system. However experience with existing tunnels such as the M5 has shown that it is inherently difficult to achieve clean air within any road tunnel. Cars and trucks are enclosed, so offer some protection from in-tunnel emission - but this is not the case for motorcycles. There will always be some tunnel users that are sensitive to pollutants at any level, e.g. asthmatics.

Though the journey through WestConnex tunnels would for most last for a relatively short period, there will be regular users of these tunnels that will be affected by pollutants over a long period. There will also be times when congestion slows traffic, increasing emissions and keeping motorists within the tunnel for a longer period, increasing their exposure to pollutants. RMS has not confirmed whether there will be an alternative in-tunnel ventilation system should the main system fail, or if there is a fire or similar emergency in the tunnel. Council notes that these issues generally do not apply to rail tunnels as there are no operational in-tunnel emissions.

In-tunnel emissions within the Rozelle Interchange raise particular concerns due to steep grades. As grades increase, so do emissions - an issue relevant to the existing M5 East tunnels. Council has also been concerned that in-tunnel emission standards used in the planning of WestConnex – considered by RMS to be 'best practice' for NSW – are not sufficiently stringent compared to in-tunnel standards used internationally.

Council will continue to argue that air quality monitoring at childcare centres, schools and aged housing facilities is a priority, and the community is kept fully informed of the results of air quality monitoring established for all stages of WestConnex, including Stage 3. Council is represented on the Air Quality Community Consultative Committee (AQCCC) for Stages 1 and 2, so is aware the air quality monitoring stations are being established to monitor operational emissions.

Through this committee, Council will continue to argue that monitoring of sensitive land uses be prioritised. Council will also continue to argue for the real-time online display of all air quality monitoring data, as is now occurring for WestConnex Stage 1. Council also seeks a clearer explanation of the implications of this data on community health.

At its 24 July 2018 meeting, Council considered a report entitled WestConnex Air Quality & Noise Concerns and made a number of resolutions. In summary, the resolutions are:

1. Council to consider a new “air quality, pollution, environmental and traffic impacts” fund at the next quarterly budget review;

2. Council notes the efforts of the community to organise citizen-run air quality monitoring around various WestConnex construction sites and writes to relevant university research institutes inviting their partnership and seeking advice on how Council can work with the community to implement this monitoring and analyse and share the results.

3. Council writes to the NSW Minister for the Environment and Minister for Health to request that staff and other resources are allocated within EPA and NSW Health to:

· further analyse and explain clearly to the broader community all issues, including complex technical matters, that arise from meetings of the WestConnex Air Quality Community Consultative Committee (AQCCC);

· review on a regular basis the air quality monitoring data being produced by WestConnex air quality monitors, investigate and report publicly on any exceedances and recommend and/or require any additional measures that may be required to mitigate health impacts from air pollution;

· explain why air quality monitoring data for the WestConnex Stage 1 now being posted on EPA’s public website and previous readings taken from the WestConnex monitor at St Peters Public School has at times showed exceedances of some air pollution standards, and the health implications of these exceedances;

· investigate the health impacts caused by construction noise, particularly night works, on residents impacted by WestConnex, including noise caused by any utilities works in these areas; and

· undertake a comprehensive study into the health impacts of WestConnex, including both construction and operational health impacts.

Council has raised technical issues about air quality modelling in WestConnex EISs. The first issue is the modelling and assessment methodology used in the EIS varies from the NSW approved methods in a number of ways – for example, choice of dispersion model, the method used to construct the meteorological input file and the method used to calculate NO₂ concentrations.

The second issue is the potential for flawed assumptions in the EIS’s traffic modelling compromising the air quality modelling, leading to an inaccurate assessment of air impacts overall. The model incorporates main roads only, ignoring emissions from regional and local roads. It is appropriate that these lower-order roads be included in the assessment as several of these are expected to experience increased traffic as a result of the project.

A third issue is that only emissions from ventilation facilities were considered, not roadside emissions. No mitigation measures or air quality monitoring have been proposed for areas that would be affected by surface road emissions.

There has been lack of consideration of the impact of topography, buildings and other structures in the vicinity of the vent facilities on the dispersal of emissions, which could be significant. This adds to Council’s abovementioned concerns about dwellings and schools being located above the level of the of the RRY and Iron Cove vent facilities because of topography.

Council’s concerns about health impacts

Numerous studies worldwide indicate that the construction of urban motorways contributes to private car dependency. In turn, this increased dependency - with an estimated induced demand of 45,000 additional vehicle trips per day created by WestConnex - contributes to reduced human and community health through:

· reduced air quality, potentially leading to increased incidence of respiratory illness;

· sleep disturbance due to construction activity and increased traffic noise, potentially contributing to stress levels of local residents, reduced immune response, increased personal irritability, reduced concentration span, increased levels of hyperactivity in children;

· psychological distress created by uncertainty of future circumstances including property acquisitions and property value fluctuations; and

· reduced use of active transport, where there is direct access to a car in comparison to walking to a railway station or bus stop – potentially leading to increased obesity and corresponding increases in diabetes and cardiovascular illness.

While many of the physiological impacts are more prevalent in communities with larger proportions of vulnerable populations, including frail, aged and children, the psychological impacts may affect all groups. Of particular relevance, in relation to increased stress are young families who may experience the compounding effects of financial stress (due to property value fluctuations), long work hours combined with sleep disturbance when at home and concern over the well-being of their children.

Experience to date from Stages 1 and 2 proves Council’s concerns about the human health impacts from WestConnex construction are based on residents’ lived experiences since construction of WestConnex began. As mentioned above, the key health impact has been stress and sleep deprivation from night-works, and cumulative construction impacts have been a major contributor to health problems. Haberfield-Ashfield residents located between a number of WestConnex work sites report they are regularly affected by noise even during (so-called) respite periods. One Haberfield resident has said: “when one worksite stops, another one starts”.

Affected residents report to Council their despair at these impacts, frustrations with the complaints processes and consequently a “loss of faith in the democratic process”. Many believe that community consultation processes for the project are cursory and not genuine. Residents also despair at the blighted appearance of their neighbourhood whilst works are progressing. They complain of fatigue from the constant interruptions to their peace of mind from construction noise and vibration, and the psychological impact of project trucks and employees “invading” their neighbourhoods.

Residents report “extraordinary amounts of dust” in their neighbourhoods. Dust, along with diesel emissions from construction vehicles and generators, has adverse health impacts on all affected residents, but this is particularly so for young and elderly people, where it more readily affects heart, vascular and lung health. Noise also adversely affects heart and vascular health as well as affecting cognitive functions. The health impact study requested by Council in this submission will need to investigate these impacts, integrating health data from schools, local doctors and other sources to monitor the health impact of project - at both construction and operational stages.

Beyond health impacts, the dust creates a need for constant cleaning of windows and interior surfaces. Residents also report their concerns about inadequate and seemingly ad-hoc dust mitigation measures, and see a clear need to improve dust monitoring and compliance enforcement.

From Council staff discussions with affected residents, the project has affected their psychological health and has heightened their general sense of insecurity. The constantly changing work schedules, changes to traffic arrangements and cumulative noise impacts has led to constant disruptions to the day-to-day lives of residents. For Haberfield-Ashfield and St Peters residents, the impacts from years of construction are showing in the form of fatigue and poor health. Continuation of these impacts for Stage 3 would have a devastating health impact these residents.

At the operational stage, induced traffic from WestConnex will contribute to reduced air quality. Council is of the view that any reduction in air quality is unacceptable and will contribute to reductions in the quality of human health. By the same argument, any increase in dust, noise and other impacts from the project will have adverse health impacts.

Numerous studies have examined the impacts of various pollutants on human health. In general terms, human health impacts associated with WestConnex fall into the following categories: particulate matter emissions (particulates); gaseous chemical emissions (e.g. NO₂); dust emissions; the mental or psychological impacts of noise; and the psychological impacts of behavioural disruption, sometimes leading to social isolation.

In 2015 the Woolcock Institute of Medical Research examined the health impacts of emission sources, types and levels of particulates in air pollution in ambient air in NSW. It stated that while ambient levels of particulates in urban NSW are low by world standards, evidence suggests that exposure to levels of particulates that currently exist in NSW will have measureable adverse impacts on health. This is particularly the case for vulnerable people such as individuals with chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, the elderly, and children. Reductions in particulates in air pollution in NSW are likely to result in health benefits, particularly for these most vulnerable groups.

The review’s main findings are:

· all particulates, regardless of source, should be considered detrimental to health;

· there is considerable evidence of adverse health impacts linked to exposure to particulates from combustion-related emissions, including coal-fired power stations, on-road vehicles, diesel exhaust, more so than other particulate sources;

· there is evidence that fine particles (PM_2.5) are more detrimental to health and have a wider range of health effects than larger particles - however, larger inhalable particles are not benign, and it has been demonstrated that coarse particles (PM_10-2.5) have detrimental health impacts and that these health impacts differ from those associated with smaller particles; and

· there is no evidence of a threshold level of ambient PM_2.5, below which further reductions in concentrations will not provide additional population health benefits.

The study states that increases in ambient PM_{2.5 and} PM₁₀ are associated with increases in mortality and increases in cardiovascular and respiratory morbidity. Exposure to PM from combustion-related sources (coal -fired power stations, on-road vehicles, diesel exhaust) is associated with impacts on cardiovascular and respiratory health. There is thus sufficient evidence to indicate that particulates from on-road vehicles will increase risk of mortality, as well as cardiovascular and respiratory morbidity.

A 2014 study by Munzel et al Cardiovascular effects of environmental noise exposure published in the European Heart Journal found that long-term noise exposure may lead to cardiovascular problems, and night-time noise was particularly of concern. A 2013 study by Harding et al The cost of hypertension-related ill-health attributable to environmental noise published in the Noise Health Journal found that on-going exposure to high levels of environmental noise has the potential to influence community levels of dementia, stroke and heart attack.

A 2013 study by Tiesler et al Exposure to road traffic noise and children's behavioural problems and sleep disturbance published in the Environmental Research Journal indicates that a sample of over 850 10-year-old children living near busy roads in Germany presented with behavioural problems at greater levels than similar children living on quieter streets. These behavioural problems included hyperactivity, inattentiveness and anxiousness.

Council has advocated elsewhere in this submission that a health study, overseen by Health NSW, be undertaken prior to any determination which involves collection of data on the current health status of residents affected by Stages 1 and 2 at Haberfield-Ashfield and St Peters. This should involve of the NSW Department of Education for the collection of data on the health of school children. The study should also collect baseline health data on all areas affected by Stage 3.

This study would examine the full range of health issues and impacts, including:

· construction air quality impacts – predominantly dust from construction sites and construction truck vehicle diesel emissions;

· operational air quality impacts (predicted) – surface impacts, i.e. areas where WestConnex has increased surface traffic and hence vehicle emissions, and predicted ventilation stack impacts, i.e. areas affected by emissions from stacks;

· cumulative air quality impacts, where WestConnex emissions are added to emissions from a range of other sources across the Sydney metropolitan area, e.g. general vehicle emissions and bushfires;

· the range of actual health impacts encountered to date from construction air emissions from WestConnex Stages 1 & 2, including the incidence of asthma in school children near construction sites;

· health impacts from construction air quality impacts likely to be encountered from Stage 3, based on actual impacts from Stages 1 & 2;

· construction noise/vibration impacts – predominantly noise/vibration from a range of WestConnex tunnelling, surface activities on construction sites and construction trucks on route to/from sites;

· operational noise/vibration impacts (predicted) – predominantly noise/vibration from increased levels of traffic resulting from WestConnex on residential streets, but also including noise/vibration from motorway operation facilities such as fans within ventilation stacks;

· cumulative noise/vibration impacts, where WestConnex-related noise is added to noise/vibration from a range of other sources, such as project-related utility relocations, construction of other public/private projects and general traffic and aircraft noise;

· the range of actual health impacts encountered to date from construction noise/vibration from WestConnex Stages 1 & 2, with a focus on the health effects of sleep deprivation caused by out-of-hours construction noise; and

· health impacts from construction noise/vibration impacts likely to be encountered from Stage 3, based on actual impacts from Stages 1 & 2.

Several other studies indicate broader impacts of traffic and construction noise on human health. A 2007 book by Professor Deepak Prasher of University College London Noise and its effects explains that even if people are habituated to on-going noise, the impacts of exposure can detrimentally affect human physiology, including endocrine, immune and cardiovascular systems.

A 2014 paper by Tzivian et al Effect of long-term outdoor air pollution and noise on cognitive and psychological functions in adults in the International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health found that on-going noise exposure contributes toward cognitive development in children, cognitive and psychological functions in adults which includes stress, aggravated depression, public conflict, loss of concentration and general exhaustion.

Other studies acknowledge that particulate emissions from on-road motor vehicles (diesel and non-diesel) represent only a relatively small proportion of the ambient particulate levels, but caution that any exposure to fine or coarse particulates has the potential to negatively influence human health.

It follows that WestConnex will make a major contribution to individual and community health problems through noise, vehicle and dust emissions and social disruption during construction and operational stages. These health costs have not been included in any of the economic analysis associated with the project’s business case, nor have they been adequately assessed in EISs.

Beyond the abovementioned construction impacts, there have been short and long-term impacts on the psychological health and well-being on individuals from loss of friends and community members when residential properties in the St Peters, Haberfield-Ashfield and Rozelle area were compulsory acquired and individuals, households and families were lost to the community.

Residents of Haberfield/Ashfield tell of neighbours forced out of their homes not being able to rent or purchase equivalent homes within the area and becoming “refugees” in Sydney. This has long-term impacts the lives of individuals and families, with greatest the impacts usually felt by migrant families. The loss of attachment to a sense of place has been profound for both acquired residents and those left behind.

For Stage 3, this is currently the experience for residents whose homes are being compulsorily acquired along Victoria Road. It is also the experience of businesses being acquired at Haberfield, Leichhardt, Annandale/Camperdown, Lilyfield (next to the RRY site) and along Victoria Road at Rozelle. It is likely this impact will widen as voluntary acquisitions are also implemented around other construction sites.

Council’s concerns about operational traffic impacts

Council has had a long-standing concerns about existing high levels of traffic through inner-Sydney and is further concerned about increased traffic from WestConnex. As is evident from the discussion of strategic traffic/transport issues above, induced traffic is a major issue for Council.

The WestConnex business case indicates that an increase of some 45,000 extra car trips per day, which is approximately 0.4% of the estimated total regional traffic in 2031, is likely to be induced, i.e. trips that have occurred because of WestConnex. This may underestimate the real situation - but in any event it represents a significant increase in traffic and illustrates the sensitivity of forecasts for regional traffic growth.

Council is sceptical that the stated travel time reduction benefits of WestConnex are accurate – they are most likely overstated. Analysis of the network-wide (motorway and other roads combined) distance travelled and time taken provided in the Stage 3 EIS indicates that in 2033 the do minimum scenario is estimated to result in an average individual vehicle speed of 25.3kph, while the cumulative scenario from multiple planned projects (including Stage 3) is estimated result in an average individual vehicle speed of 26.4kph. This is noting that today’s average speed across the total network is 33.8kph.

If these projections are correct, each individual driver using Sydney’s road network will only experience an increased travel speed of 1.1kph (a negligible benefit) and their average speed will be 7.5kph slower than today’s network-wide average. It appears the time saving benefits of WestConnex have been overestimated and the costs have been underestimated, particularly when the health costs of communities affected by the project have been largely ignored. Consequently the project’s benefit-cost analysis must be questioned.

Further to this, there has been no assessment of public transport and demand management improvements that could be initiated to achieve that same congestion reductions and travel time savings. Council is particularly concerned about the likelihood of mode shifting from walking, cycling and public transport to private cars. This not only leads to increased traffic, but also undermines the viability of public transport through reduced patronage. It is counter to numerous local, State and Federal government policies that all aim to reduce private car use and promote walking, cycling and use of public transport as part of the creation of a liveable city.

At the local scale, Council is concerned about WestConnex-related traffic growth along residential streets in the Inner West Council area - particularly those around the Haberfield, Rozelle and St Peters interchanges. For Stage 3, much of that concern focuses on streets around the Rozelle Interchange.

Council is concerned that should Stage 3 proceed with entry/exit points from the Rozelle Interchange considerable additional traffic will spill onto the already congested Anzac Bridge and other significant streets such as The Crescent and Johnston Street. Additional traffic would continue onto other connecting streets further afield (including Ross Street, Glebe).

Even though Johnston Street is classified as a State Road, it is essentially a residential street that also includes two schools, two churches, a number of community facilities and the Annandale local shopping centre. Increased traffic is anticipated on this street, but road capacity would need to be reduced accommodate a separated cycleway, as has been proposed by Council. Such as cycleway is feasible as two of the four traffic lanes could readily be converted to bicycle lanes. Council sees this cycleway as an imperative to mitigate against WestConnex-related traffic impacts.

Of particular concern is that on streets like these and wherever there is additional traffic, RMS may consider road widening (or clearway extensions) to accommodate the additional traffic - similar to what is now underway for Stage 2 at Campbell Street/Road, St Peters and Euston Road, Alexandra. Reconfiguring these roads in this way is always at the expense of neighbourhood liveability, residential amenity, business vitality and safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

Council is developing a strategy to identify and traffic-calm other local roads that may be affected by additional traffic from WestConnex. The Crescent, Johnston Street, Waratah Street, Dalhousie Street, Street Ramsay Street and other adjoining streets are being examined as part of this strategy.

Council is concerned that ‘rat-running’ will occur as motorists either seek to avoid WestConnex tolls or where WestConnex has missing links - for example, when Stage 1 opens but there is no direct connection to destinations such as Sydney Airport. This would result in significant and potentially permanent adverse impacts on the amenity of Inner West residential neighbourhoods.

Conditions of approval for WestConnex Stages 1 and 2 acknowledge the need for monitoring and treatment of affected roads around WestConnex. For example, Stage 1 Condition E36 and Stage 2 Condition E40 requires the preparation of a Road Network Performance Review Plan which includes assessing the impacts of WestConnex on local roads.

Development of the plan would not however commence until 12 months after the project is operational, potentially condemning residents to a period of traffic impacts before any remedial action is contemplated. Council considers this to be unacceptable, arguing that impacts should be projected through traffic modelling, and other prediction techniques and remediation measures put in place to avoid the impacts before they occur.

As a result, Council has commissioned its own traffic modelling, using the ‘Zenith’ model, which can apply to local roads. RMS is assisting Council with information from its WestConnex Road Traffic Model (WRTM), which applies to main roads. Scenarios modelled include: base case 2011; base case 2021; project case 2021 – WestConnex Stages 1 & 2; project case 2031 – WestConnex Stages 1 & 2; and project case 2031 – WestConnex Stages 1, 2 & 3.

The modelling has guided the development of Council’s WestConnex Local Area Improvement Strategy (LAIS). The LAIS uses the above traffic model to identify streets that are likely to be affected by increased traffic and proposes precinct-wide treatments to protect and improve these streets.

The treatments are based on three typologies:

· Typology 1: integrated traffic calming, e.g. slow points, thresholds, tadpoles, traffic islands/refuges and raised platforms;

· Typology 2: intersection modifications, e.g. roundabouts, T-treatments, Give Way and Stop signs/prioritisation; and

· Typology 3: traffic diversions, e.g. diagonal, partial and full road closures.

The treatments are indicative and will require further investigation and community engagement before final draft schemes can be considered.

The LAIS study includes a strategic framework and cost estimates for traffic management, streetscape and water-sensitive urban design (WSUD) improvements for the following five precincts:

· Precinct 1: Ashfield $3.7M;

· Precinct 2: Haberfield $9.1M;

· Precinct 3: Leichhardt West $5.7M;

· Precinct 4: Johnston Street $6.6M;

· Precinct 5: St Peters $2.2M; and

· TOTAL all five precincts $27.4M.

At its 8 May 2018 meeting, Council considered a report on the LAIS and resolved to write to RMS seeking funding for the LAIS works. Council has argued that RMS funding is justified as WestConnex has created the need for these works. Subject to funding, the LAIS would be implemented in a similar way that all of Council’s Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) schemes are implemented, involving local community consultation, detailed design, approval and implementation.

One of the few benefits from WestConnex is the opportunity to reduce traffic capacity and make a range of surface improvements - including public transport improvements - wherever WestConnex reduces surface traffic. For Stage 3, the main opportunity is to improve Victoria Road at Rozelle – possible because of surface traffic reductions brought about by the Iron Cove Link. There is also an opportunity to make improvements to Parramatta Road, created by all stages of WestConnex.

RMS has resisted traffic capacity reductions on main roads, even where traffic levels have been reduced. Council seeks to avoid a situation where increased road capacity below-ground has not resulted in captured capacity (i.e. use of spare capacity for public and active transport and public domain improvements) above-ground. In particular, Council seeks assurance from SMC and the NSW Government that reduced traffic capacity along Victoria Road and Parramatta Road will result increased capacity for public and active transport.

Though Council has not yet been able to confidently conclude that WestConnex will reduce traffic on Parramatta Road (for its full length through the Inner West Council area), it will continue to advocate traffic capacity capture and high-capacity public transport along that corridor. One of the public transport options Council has been investigating for Parramatta Road is Guided Electric Transit, with a view to improving public transport and revitalising the corridor.

Although one of the main original justifications for the WestConnex was to take airport and port related heavy vehicles off the surface roads, there is little evidence that this project aim remains valid. As indicated in the EIS, relatively few heavy vehicles in 2031 are likely to have a desire line between the eastern end of the M4 and the airport and port.

Further, the project now delivers vehicles at the surface at St Peters, some 5km by road from the airport and some 15km by road from Port Botany, thus requiring the construction of the Sydney Gateway an additional project (not part of WestConnex) to gain access to the airport/port. It is also not known how sensitive heavy vehicle users will be to tolling regimes or the if it is likely that reduced surface road congestion to attract heavy vehicles back to these streets.

Council’s concerns about impacts on public transport

As is discussed elsewhere in this submission, the WestConnex business case indicates that the increased road capacity created by the project will encourage in the order of 45,000 additional car trips per day (induced traffic) in the Sydney region. The business case does not state whether these trips are new trips, a conversion from existing public transport trips or a combination of both.

Even if it is conservatively assumed that one-quarter of these trips are converted from public transport, around 11,250 trips per day, or over 4 million trips per year, will move away from public transport. Conservatively assuming these trips cost the minimum rate of $3.46 (peak) and $2.42 (off-peak), with 20% as peak-period trips, WestConnex could reduce public transport revenue by more than $11M per year.

It could be argued that the removal of trips from crowded public transport would be beneficial to some degree, but the WestConnex business case does not show any evidence of this. Further, increasing public transport capacity by adding to rolling stock and improving co-ordination of the network would provide significantly greater spare capacity than the removal of 11,250 trips from public transport each day.

Over the past decade Council and various public transport advocacy groups have argued that the former freight rail corridor between the RRY site and White Bay should be preserved for future light rail. In 2012 transport advocacy group EcoTransit published its Sydney Light Rail Orbital – White Bay Green Link proposal. This proposal shows a link from Lilyfield and Rozelle Bay Stops to Balmain via White Bay. Whilst former Leichhardt Council had expressed reservations about some aspects of this proposal, Council supported the proposed extension of the Inner West Light Rail to White Bay using the former freight rail corridor.

Council has subsequently argued the need to preserve the former freight-rail corridor at meetings and in submissions to the NSW Government on projects/plans such as WestConnex and the Bays Precinct. Working groups for the Bays Precinct have indicated general support for investigations into the light rail to White Bay. The NSW Government has also referred to the possibility of light rail to White Bay and the Bays Precinct in its Draft Greater Sydney Services and Infrastructure Plan/Future Transport 2056. Sydney Motorway Corporation (SMC) and Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) have also recognised the potential for this light rail link in its Submissions and Preferred Infrastructure Report (M4-M5 Link).

Despite these indications of support from the NSW Government, it is apparent that approved designs for the WestConnex Rozelle Interchange and associated RRY linear park have compromised opportunities for a light rail link between the Lilyfield Light Rail Stop at Catherine Street and White Bay. This is because the placement of motorway operation buildings, motorway portals and drainage infrastructure make it difficult to identify an unimpeded light rail corridor. Even if a suitable corridor could be identified, significant structural works would be needed - for example, the link would require construction of the light rail track length-wise over major drainage channels. This would result in added costs that could make the extension prohibitively expensive.

As the Sydney West Metro alignment and depths are yet to be finalised it is not possible to definitively assess the likely impacts of WestConnex on its alignment. In its submissions on WestConnex Stage 3, Council has argued that WestConnex should not affect the alignment of the Sydney Metro West or negatively affect it in any way. Verbal assurances have been given by WestConnex and Sydney Metro West project staff that the alignments of both projects are being co-ordinated and WestConnex will not preclude Sydney Metro West.

Further, the WestConnex Stage 3 Submissions & Preferred Infrastructure Report states: “Insufficient information is available at this time regarding the alignment of the proposed Sydney West Metro rail tunnels to determine whether there is any conflict of alignment (vertical and horizontal) with the M4-M5 Link project. Consultation has occurred and will continue to be undertaken with Transport for NSW regarding the potential interface of the two projects as the preliminary design for the Sydney West Metro project is developed. If required, adjustments to horizontal and vertical alignments of the tunnels can be made during the detailed design phase.”

Even if the Sydney Metro West is not precluded by WestConnex, Council is concerned that its optimum alignment may be compromised – for example, the extent of tunnelling for the WestConnex Rozelle Interchange may force Metro tunnels to a depth that limits opportunities to create Metro stations within the Inner West Council area.

Five bus services run along Victoria Road, Rozelle, and all will be affected by congestion from WestConnex construction vehicles. They will also be potentially affected by operational elements of WestConnex.

The Iron Cove Link tunnel component of WestConnex Stage 3 has the potential to significantly reduce traffic on Victoria Road between the Iron Cove Bridge and Anzac Bridge. The NSW Government has proposed a public transport study be undertaken for Victoria Road, and it is assumed this study would identify long-term improvements to public transport in this corridor. The opportunity to capitalise on reduced volumes on Victoria Road at Rozelle by improving public transport and by providing a separated cycleway should be taken.

However projected construction traffic associated with the concurrent construction of WestConnex, the Bays Precinct and Western Harbour Tunnel is likely to result in over 3,000 additional truck movement/day through the intersection of James Craig Road and The Crescent. Delays at this intersection have the potential to result in traffic queues along The Crescent, Victoria Road and Anzac Bridge, all of which cater for Sydney Buses services. As this congestion has the potential to remain for 5 years or more, Council is concerned that it will hamper opportunities to enhance public transport in the near future.

Eight bus services run along Parramatta Road between Leichhardt and Camperdown, and as is the case for Victoria Road, all will be affected by congestion from WestConnex construction vehicles. They will also be potentially affected by operational elements of WestConnex.

Of particular concern to Council is the impact on Parramatta Road bus services of construction trucks accessing the Bridge Road mid-tunnel construction dive-site. Trucks will approach the site City-bound from the northern kerbside lane, which is currently a bus lane. This will affect the reliability of buses by forcing them to either mix with construction traffic or merge into the other traffic lanes.

Sections of Parramatta Road are anticipated to experience reduced traffic volumes, and the Draft Greater Sydney Services and Infrastructure Plan/Future Transport 2056 highlights the opportunity to prepare a public transport study for Parramatta Road. The conditions of approval for the M4 East also include the provision of two permanent 24/7 lanes for public transport, one in each direction. Additionally, Inner West and Canada Bay Councils’ Parramatta Road Public Transport Opportunities Study identified both the opportunity to consider centre-running Guided Electric Transit (‘GETs’ or ‘track-free trams’) for Parramatta Road, and the need to capture released capacity on Parramatta Road immediately WestConnex is completed.

For the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy to proceed it is essential the following actions are undertaken:

· traffic volumes are reduced;

· public transport is significantly improved;

· kerbside parking (at least outside peak periods) is retained;

· urban amenity and public domain improvements are introduced concurrently with the completion of WestConnex.

Without the co-ordinated introduction these actions, the revitalisation of the Parramatta Road Corridor (including revitalisation of selected side streets) will not likely be achieved. Additionally, as WestConnex may generate additional traffic on some streets crossing Parramatta Road bus services, there is a possibility that congestion and associated delays may reduce the reliability of these services.

Council’s concerns about impacts on active transport

As Council always strives to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, the active transport strategies associated with WestConnex EISs have been welcomed. Council has however been concerned that construction of WestConnex will continue to create safety issues for pedestrians and cyclists.

Council is also concerned about operational impacts - that by increasing traffic in the Inner West, through induced traffic, the project would result in an overall deterioration of conditions for walking and cycling in the longer-term. The extra traffic also makes it more difficult for Council to reclaim traffic lanes for dedicated bicycle lanes, particularly on State and Regional roads, where they are usually most needed.

Council is keen to ensure the creation of the RRY recreation area results in significantly improved walk/cycle connectivity across this site. Council notes that north-south connectivity has been poor in the past due to lack of any public access to or through the derelict site, although some of these movements have been possible along a limited number of public roads that cross the site, such as Balmain Road and Catherine Street.

The wide and heavily-trafficked City West Link Road (and the inaccessible RRY site itself) have traditionally been a barrier to north-south connectivity. On either side of the RRY site, east-west movements have been possible along reasonably direct local streets such as Lilyfield Road, Railway Parade and Brenan Street, even though the City West Link Road is not available to pedestrians and cyclists. Creation of the RRY recreation area represents an important opportunity to improve this situation.

Though Council has supported the walk/cycle routes proposed, it is apparent further work is needed to ensure routes follow walk/cycle desire lines and are designed to a high standard. Council’s main concerns at this stage are the need for a greater number of north-south walk/cycle connections, that walk/cycle bridges be constructed to a higher standard than shown and that the proposed land bridge from Buruwan Park does not negatively affect the park or active transport links across The Crescent to Federal and Jubilee parks and the shared foreshore path network.

The two connections shown are welcomed, but a third (and possibly fourth) connection is warranted to ensure maximum connectivity. In the draft RRY site recreation area masterplan, only one of the two bridges shown is a ‘land bridge’ – the other is a minimum-width bridge without landscaping. All bridges should be designed and constructed as land bridges to ensure the crossing of City West Link Road is as attractive and safe as possible. The added cost is warranted as the RRY recreation area is expected to generate considerable walk/cycle traffic. Prioritising walk/cycle access is also important to minimise the need to access the site by car, reducing the need to provide for parking within or near the site.

It is important that walk/cycle connections to and through the RRY site are integrated into the regional walk/cycle network defined by various active transport plans of the NSW Government and relevant councils.

Capacity capture opportunities on streets likely to experience reduced traffic from WestConnex (discussed above) should provide the ability to enhance connectivity to existing networks and desired future networks. These networks are defined in Council’s bicycle plans and in the City of Sydney’s Inner Sydney Regional Bike Network. A key route to address is the City West Cycle Link, which would run along the Inner West light rail corridor between The GreenWay / Bay Run and Anzac Bridge / Glebe Island Bridge.

A reinstated Glebe Island Bridge, a heritage-listed RMS asset, would be part of the wider GreenWay / Bays Precinct active transport network. Additionally the new (fenced-off) section of James Craig Road, an extension between White Bay and Glebe Island, would be part of a future public/active transport corridor to the City and Pyrmont from Balmain via the Glebe Island Bridge.

The project’s active transport strategy should also consider standards set by Council for the GreenWay – developed as part of Council’s GreenWay ‘missing links’ strategy. This includes standards for landscaping using locally indigenous species, bike path widths, signage, lighting, public domain and street furniture for the Greenway missing links strategy. Paths should also incorporate public art wherever possible and commission works by local artists.

Post-construction, there must be sufficient space at this location for a flat path to run on the southwest edge of the proposed slip-lane from Railway Parade to connect with The Crescent footpath. The project also provides an opportunity to widen the road shoulder or provide a dedicated bicycle path under the railway viaduct for cyclists using The Crescent.

Council’s concerns about land use & property impacts

Compulsory acquisition of homes and businesses at Haberfield-Ashfield and St Peters for Stages 1 and 2 has devastated the lives of many individuals, families, households and business operators and their employees. To make matters worse, some property owners have claimed the compensation they received was not sufficient to enable them to purchase equivalent properties within their neighbourhoods. Affected residents and business owners have reported their sense that acquisition processes are being poorly treated by RMS in negotiations over their properties.

The Victoria Road acquisitions involve a number of businesses, and businesses are also being acquired in the Gordon Street industrial area at Lilyfield adjacent to the RRY site, in the block bounded by Parramatta Road, Pyrmont Bridge Road and Mallet Street at Annandale and at 199 Parramatta Rd, Haberfield (Muirs Holden). Many of these businesses are well-established, so their relocation (or disappearance) will have a major impact their owners and employees. Loss of these businesses also raises concerns for Council about loss of employment lands in the Inner West.

In May 2018 Council was pleased to learn that the NSW Supreme Court had upheld Desane's legal challenge of the proposed compulsory acquisition by Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) of its Rozelle commercial property. The Desane property is located within a commercial/industrial area on the northern side of the RRY site. Council is also pleased that private timber merchant Swadlings and crane hire firm Gillespies, which have properties neighbouring Desane's in Rozelle, are also considering negotiating higher compensation payments than what the RMS has offered to acquire their land for WestConnex Stage 3(b). This provides further evidence of RMS not acting responsibly in its actions to acquire properties.

Recently a RMS spokesperson confirmed that a total 427 properties are required to support the construction of all stages of WestConnex. Of these 427 properties, 111 were yet to be acquired. Given these figures, the cost of properties required is likely to exceed $1.5 billion. Council considers that the cumulative negative impacts of the project are aggravated by the high financial cost of these acquisitions.

Numerous difficulties experienced by residents who have been served with property acquisition notices have exposed cumulative negative experiences ranging from under-valuation of homes to disruption of community life. Many households reported that they were financially disadvantaged by the acquisition process and as a result has moved away from their local communities and support networks. This exodus represents a significant loss to the communities concerned.

Council has requested the continued review of compulsory acquisition processes by the NSW Government with a view to greater fairness for affected property owners. Council has also requested similar improvements to voluntary acquisition procedures.

Whilst Council welcomed the dedication of residual WestConnex lands to the community and for open space, it would prefer this to occur without WestConnex. Council expressed an expectation that these residual lands will be delivered to Council for its ownership at no cost, and all landscaping, paths and other facilities are constructed by the NSW Government according to approved designs. Council has also sought maintenance funding and involvement of the community in plans of management for these areas. These lands should be unburdened by contamination or any immediate need for maintenance.

Council is also keen to ensure that construction and handover of the RRY and SPI site recreation areas and other residual lands is not delayed by construction of other projects, such as the proposed WHT. The community deserves the benefits of the residual land open space areas as soon as possible and does not want to see land vacant for years awaiting use as a construction zone for another future project.

Whilst Council would in general terms prefer all WestConnex residual lands be devoted to community use rather than sold for commercial gain, the possible exception is the Pyrmont Bridge Road site. This site would be appropriately be returned to a ‘biomedical hub’ use in keeping with the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy. Notwithstanding, it is important that surrounding communities who have suffered the negative impacts of WestConnex derive benefit from these lands.

Council seeks ownership of useful public space and facilities only. It does not want to own and maintain useless or problematic residual areas created by WestConnex that are difficult to access and are blighted by motorway traffic. RMS should retain ownership of problematic areas.

For all stages of WestConnex, all properties within 50m of the outer edge of underground tunnels would be offered a property condition survey before construction with a follow up survey for the property after construction. This is to ensure there is a record of the property’s condition before and after construction. If there is any damage attributed to the project, it would be repaired at no cost to the property owner.

Residents have raised issues with the WestConnex dilapidation reporting process, required conditions of approval to be carried out by the proponent. Residents have cited a lack of independence, a perception of conflict-of-interest and a lack of trust in the proponent, and some residents have not been satisfied with the proponent’s decision where the cause of damage has been disputed. Some community members have also doubted that the ‘affected area’, where the offer of report applies, is sufficiently broad. As a result, Council has offered to carry out independent dilapidation reports at no cost to property owners.

Council’s concerns about social & economic impacts

As is the case elsewhere in this submission, the discussion of social impacts draws on Council staff’s discussions of issues with residents affected by WestConnex Stages 1 and 2. Inclusion of the main points from this dialogue is in Council’s view critical to ensure lessons are learned from Stages 1 and 2 should Stage 3 proceed.

Council’s recent discussions with a group of Haberfield public housing tenants revealed they were suffering severe impact from the construction of Stage 1. They reported serious impacts on their health and well-being as a result of noise, vibration and dust, that the complaints system was inefficient and ineffective and they felt frustration when dealing with this system, which added to the stress in their lives.

There has not been sufficient consideration of alternative designs that would reduce the project’s adverse impacts on residents. There is concern that all stages of WestConnex will continue to reduce local connectivity and reduced ability for some to participate in community activities.

WestConnex will continue to have a major impact on parks and other publicly-accessible areas of open space across the Inner West. Examples of parks already affected (temporarily) by Stages 1 and 2 are Reg Coady Reserve (Haberfield), Tempe Reserve and Simpson Park (St Peters). Council has expressed its strong objection to the proposed permanent removal of Buruwan Park (North Annandale) and impact on King George Park (Rozelle) as part of the implementation of Stage 3.

In stating this objection, Council acknowledges that some parks, such as Buruwan Park are owned by the NSW Government, not Council. Council also acknowledges that new areas of open space will be created by the project, such as the RRY and SPI site recreation areas. Notwithstanding, views all publicly-accessible open space as valuable, regardless of ownership – particularly as the Inner West has traditionally been under-supplied with open space.

WestConnex could also have an impact on areas that include public art – for example, a mural in Buruwan Park, and the Guerrilla Gardeners Troll under the Johnston Street Bridge. Council has argued that these items be protected. The project will result in increased areas of concrete walls, access ramps and related infrastructure which may create new opportunities for public art, but also a need for graffiti management.

The strategic economic impacts of WestConnex have been discussed above. These include the impact of the financial and opportunity cost of the project and the equity impact of tolls. At a local level, Council is disappointed that the WestConnex proponent views the negative impact on local businesses as minor. From Council’s recent experience with the impact of Stage 1 on Haberfield businesses, this was far from minor.

WestConnex Stages 1 & 2 have imposed a number of negative impacts on businesses which have failed to be identified and assessed in the EIS. These impacts include reduced accessibility for customers, staff and deliveries to business premises due to road closures/diversions, changes in public transport services and loss of parking as construction vehicles occupy spaces side streets. This has been the most critical issue, particularly in shopping centres such as Haberfield.

In addition, the quality of business operations has been reduced from vibration disturbance and noise and air pollution. There has been an impact on the brand image of businesses because of reduced visibility created by obstruction of views by construction materials and reductions in passing traffic. An example of the latter issue is the drop in business in the Haberfield shopping centre due to the temporary closure of Ramsay Street.

For businesses with outdoor trading and dining, there has been decreased amenity for customers due to construction noise and increased traffic on some local roads where drivers avoid construction areas. There has been increased likelihood that newly-established businesses will fail due to combinations of the above pressures.

Of all the impacts listed above, it is the changes to road access, public transport and parking that has had the largest impact on businesses. This is because most customers (not just the businesses) cannot adjust to change in environment brought about through road closures, changes to public transport and parking in project work zones.

From Council’s experience with Stages 1 and 2, there is a need to improving directional signage related to road closures, diversions and modifications in areas around shopping centres and other business clusters. Signs should clearly outline to businesses and the public the changes to road access points into business villages and centres, providing drivers with detailed directions into and around business villages. Signage should direct people to temporary bus stops locations, and this should be in large print and in languages additional to English. Open For Business signs are also helpful.

The parking demand impact of the project on local businesses is reduced wherever off-street parking is provided for project employees. In developing parking management plans, the proponent should consult with local businesses and business chambers. Other ideas include Council has suggested include installation of bicycle lanes to encourage visitation to businesses, reduce vehicle speed limits and implement traffic calming (even if temporary) to enhance the footway environment at shopping strips.

In its submission on the Stage 3 EIS, Council had requested a dedicated full-time business manager, fully funded by the project, to implement the business management plan and to assist affected businesses on a day-to-day basis. This manager would work closely with Council and local businesses. This manager would require access to funding to enable actions to be implemented, such as marketing campaigns to boost awareness of affected centres. Without this, responsibility for this kind of assistance to local businesses would fall on Council, as has been the case for Stages 1 and 2.

The possibility that clearways on roads through commercial centres could be created or extended is a major concern for the many mainstreet businesses in the Inner West, as even minor changes can have a profound negative impact on these centres. The considerable opposition to any extension of clearways on King Street, Newtown provides a good example of the concerns of businesses and communities to this threat. Road widenings, such as that being undertaken currently on Euston Road, Alexandria are a further threat.

Council has repeatedly requested that there be no new road widenings, clearways or extensions of clearways on streets around WestConnex. It has also been explained that Council seeks to implement, public and active transport improvements, traffic calming and amenity improvements on streets where traffic has been increased or reduced by WestConnex.

Council’s concerns about urban design & visual amenity impacts

The following comments focus on the RRY recreation area, given this is the main site that will be returned to public use from Stage 3. Though there is limited information within the EIS on urban design details for this site, Council expects that should the project proceed there will be opportunities for Council and the community to participate in the development of an urban design plan for the site. Hence comments in this submission are offered as initial comments only.

Council recognises there the need for open space and community facilities across the Inner West. Some areas have traditionally had a shortfall, and demand will increase into the future as the population increases through redevelopment. This is particularly the case for the RRY site, where densely-developed residential areas around the site have traditionally suffered a shortfall of open space, and future development at the Bays Precinct will bring substantial new development.

Council sees the need for a clear ‘recreational needs’ basis for the use of the area with reference to Council’s Recreation & Open Space Needs Study. As is the case for the St Peters Interchange recreation area, Council is keen to boost the supply of much-needed active recreation areas. From the concepts in the EIS, there appears more opportunity to provide active recreational facilities.

Considerations in the design of residual lands include roadside or ventilation facility air quality impacts, walk/cycle desire lines, links to the wider network of paths and open spaces, safety-by-design, equity of access, aesthetics and public art. It is expected that should the project proceed, Council and the community will be involved the design of the RRY recreation area and other Stage 3 residual lands through development and implementation of urban design and residual lands plans, mandated by conditions of approval.

Given the RRY site is isolated by a number of barriers including roads, cliffs and the light rail line, active uses on the site (including evening uses) would provide security benefits from surveillance and enhance the community’s enjoyment of this facility. This could include night-time sports and youth-focused outdoor and indoor recreation facilities.

Being a former creek-line, management of stormwater on the RRY site is a major task. All stormwater facilities should be integrated and where appropriate featured, with Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) implemented. Wetlands (as proposed) are supported and these should be integrated into landscaping, not fenced. Use of concrete culverts should be minimised. Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage should also be featured in landscape designs for the RRY recreation area.

The other area of importance for urban design is the area along Victoria Road near the Iron Cove Bridge that will be improved as a result residual lands from road widening and significant traffic reductions from the Iron Cove Link tunnel. As with all residual lands from WestConnex, Council wishes to avoid the creation of useless pieces of open space that could create safety or security issues.

Active edges to this strip of land through developments (business, residential or community uses) that front onto this space are needed to enhance security. This is preferred to the space being framed by blank side noise barriers or rear dwelling fences, although Council acknowledges there will be a need for some noise buffering. Being next to Victoria Road, indoor community uses may be appropriate as well as open spaces.

Council is also keen to maximise walk/cycle connectivity to/from all adjoining streets and Easton Park connecting to the new areas. There are many opportunities to do this on the northern site, but the City West Link Road is a barrier on the southern side and there will be reliance on three proposed bridge connections - two over City West Link Road and one over The Crescent. Three access points provided by these bridges is considered sufficient, as they are reasonably evenly spaced across the length of the RRY site.

It is also important that the existing walk/cycle connections over Victoria Road to the Anzac Bridge, to White Bay and to the Rozelle and Balmain area be improved by the project. Providing both ramp and stair links to the eastern and western sides of Victoria Road are also important.

Council is disappointed at the number and extent of motorway support facilities planned for the RRY site. This was not so apparent in the Concept Design, but the EIS shows that these facilities would occupy a fair proportion of the site, break up useable areas and create a sense of clutter. With careful design and consolidation of these facilities, it should be possible to accommodate these facilities without hindering free movement open vistas around the site.

The proposed 20-30m tall ventilation facilities within the RRY recreation area near The Crescent will inevitably be a major visual intrusion. The extent of this intrusion should be minimised, noting that any reduction in the height of this facility would reduce its ability to disperse emissions. Similarly, the proposed facility at Victoria Road near Terry Street is located in a visually prominent position, and consideration should be given to an alternative facility design which would be less prominent and would be unlikely to direct its plume toward adjacent sensitive uses.

A further visual impact issue Council has encountered in relation to Stage 1 is the erection of large standard directional signs and variable message signs. This has been a particularly important issue for Haberfield as this suburb is a Heritage Conservation Area. Council has argued that if they are to be erected, then the number, size, height and bulk should be minimised and they should be located to avoid sensitive locations.

Council recognises there are RMS standards for these signs, but has sought exemption from these standards to reduce their size and minimise visual impacts. Council has also sought to ensure sign footings do not obstruct to walk/cycle paths of travel on footways. These points should be considered for any signs proposed in relation to Stage 3.

Council’s concerns about other impacts

Council has raised concerns about that extensive soil and groundwater contamination has been previously found throughout the entire RRY site due to past contaminating activities from its former railway uses. Council is aware that contamination is being managed by an environmental management plan, and should works reveal any unexpected finds relating to contamination Council should be notified.

For the RRY and SPI sites, Council and the community have been particularly concerned about disturbance of asbestos within the surface soils on the site. Council notes the proponent will continue to monitor airborne asbestos, and its disposal will be guided by appropriate management plans. Council recommends the proponent keeps Council and surrounding residents informed of the results of asbestos monitoring and any asbestos issues as they are encountered.

Project EISs have all proposed that designs will be prepared with recognition to the various flood management plans and policies currently in place. Council however is not convinced that the many critical issues associated with flooding and drainage have adequately been addressed.

Council recognises the potential for impacts on the adjacent stormwater network, particularly during construction; noting that excess stormwater created by the tunnel should not be diverted into the existing stormwater system. Council has requested that stormwater, ground water and drainage monitoring should be operational prior to commencement of construction (establishing a hydraulic baseline) and should continue from that onward including a systematic review and rectification program.

In addition to run-off issues, there is potential for elevated soil salinity and induced water table changes resulting from both tunnelling activities (during construction) and the long term presence of deep tunnels. Such impacts could include impacts on local aquifers, potential for an elevated water table and redirection of groundwater flows. Comprehensive floodplain assessments and hydraulic modelling should be supported by a series of appropriate mitigation measures to ensure that no property (private or public) shall be disadvantaged or adversely affected.

Council has sought consideration of the project’s impact on Sydney Water’s Iron Cove Creek renewal proposal at Haberfield / Five Dock and whether the combined Stage 1 and Stage 3 will delay its implementation or cause adverse impacts on this waterway.

Potential impacts from groundwater withdrawal induced settlement on properties has raised concern for Council, and this has not been adequately addressed in EISs. The EISs do not prescribe responsibility for a construction-settlement monitoring program, but imply this may sit with the construction contractor, which would be a conflict of interest.

The studies undertaken for the Stage 3 EIS predict ground water withdrawal, which will permanently affect ground water levels at the end of construction up to 500m either side of the tunnel alignment and up to 1.4km over the longer-term in some areas. This modelling predicts that at the end of construction, steep localised cones of depression will develop beneath Newtown and St Peters within the Ashfield Shale.

The risk of ground movement from groundwater drawdown is lessened where tunnelling is more than 35m deep. However, some tunnelling in areas near portal and underground interchanges will be far shallower than this. Steep gradients are likely to cause greater differential settlement with potential damage to buildings in the area. Localised modelling is possible, but Council notes that has been deferred to be undertaken by the construction contractor. As this modelling has not been undertaken at the EIS stage, there is no information about which properties may be subject to potential exceedances of settlement criteria.

Concerns are also raised about the potential for saline water intrusion into the foreshore areas due to depletion of groundwater table along the proposed tunnels. The impact of sea level rise on this has not been addressed adequately in the EIS.

The key site affected by the project that raises biodiversity issues for Council is the RRY site. There are other smaller areas where biodiversity would be affected, but the principles that need to be applied to manage biodiversity within the RRY site can be applied to these other areas.

In its December 2016 submission on for the surface clean-up of the RRY site, Council had raised a number of site-specific issues including minimisation of biodiversity impacts. Council staff discussed these issues at a meeting with relevant project staff during the REF exhibition and at a June 2017 site visit. Although Council is satisfied that SMC is aware of these issues, concerns remain that they have not been resolved to Council’s satisfaction.

The main concern is that there has not been sufficient consideration of how works can be staged to minimise impacts on fauna, particularly native reptiles and birds. In order to retain fauna on-site, it is critical that a minimum area of habitat be retained at each stage of the clean-up and other works on the RRY site. Council seeks reassurance that this can and will be achieved.

The RRY site contains the most extensive areas of native small bird habitat in the area. The plant species that make up this habitat are for the most part exotic weed species. It is a common practice in inner urban areas to preserve these habitats regardless of the fact that they are weedy. Preservation of this habitat should, where possible, be a priority in the flora and fauna management plan for the site.

The RRY site is recognised regionally as an important biodiversity corridor, i.e. the Greenway. Loss of species from the RRY site would undoubtedly compromise the biodiversity conservation outcomes Council expects for the Greenway. The project will also need to consider impacts on species listed as vulnerable according to NSW Government legislation.

Regarding rail heritage, Council was informed at the time the RRY site REF was being assessed that the significant rail heritage items would be re-used, i.e. integrated into the landscaping of the RRY recreation area. Council agrees there is a role for re-use but had argued that some of the more significant items be retained in-situ so the site’s rail heritage more accurately interpreted by future users of the recreation area. The proponent has not agreed to the retention of rail heritage item in-situ.

Regarding hazard and risk, it is a concern to Council that WestConnex EISs have not considered development of plans for situations such as traffic crashes, ventilation disruptions and tunnel fires.

Council has been disappointed that there has not been sufficient consideration of the project’s impact on climate change – there has only been consideration of how climate change will affect the project. Consequently, the assessment of environmental (and climate change risk) simply indicates that the likelihood of the project being placed at risk by the environment is “low”. Further, there has not been any consideration of the ‘heat island’ impacts of road surfaces, ventilation facility surfaces, ventilation plumes and heat from additional traffic induced by WestConnex - engine heat, road surface friction etc. Council sees a need to soften surface of vents both visually and to reduce the heat island effect.

References

Beca Australia (2017) WestConnex Stage 3 (M4-M5 Link) EIS Review – for Inner West Council

Former Ashfield Council (2015) Submission on WestConnex Stage 1 (M4 East)

Former Leichhardt Council (2016) Submission on WestConnex Stage 2 (New M5)

Former Leichhardt Council (date unknown) GreenWay Revegetation & Bushcare Plan

Former Leichhardt Council (date unknown) Leichhardt Native Revegetation & Biodiversity Management Plan

Former Marrickville Council (2016) Submission on WestConnex Stage 2 (New M5)

Harding et al (2013) The cost of hypertension-related ill-health attributable to environmental noise, Noise Health Journal

Munzel et al (2014) Cardiovascular effects of environmental noise exposure, European Heart Journal

Prasher D (2007) Noise and its effects, Wiley London

RMS (2014) Advisory Committee on Tunnel Air Quality - TP09: Evolution of road tunnels in Sydney

Saunders (2008) Avian Biodiversity Monitoring & Bird Habitat Management within the Leichhardt LGA

SGS Economics & Planning (2016) WestConnex Business Case Review, for former Leichhardt Council & City of Sydney

Tiesler et al (2013) Exposure to road traffic noise and children's behavioural problems and sleep disturbance, Environmental Research Journal

Tzivian et al (2014) Effect of long-term outdoor air pollution and noise on cognitive and psychological functions in adults, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health

Woolcock Institute of Medical Research Centre for Air Quality and Health Research & Evaluation (2015) Review of the health impacts of emission sources, types and levels of particulate matter air pollution in ambient air in NSW for NSW EPA

Council Meeting

14 August 2018

Item No: C0818(1) Item 11

Subject: GreenWay Master Plan

Prepared By: Ryan Hawken - Project Manager Greenway Delivery

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

SUMMARY

The draft GreenWay Master Plan: Cooks to Cove Greenway was placed on public exhibition from 25 May to 25 June 2018. This report provides a summary of the methods and outcomes of the public exhibition and community engagement process and presents the final

GreenWay Master Plan: Cooks to Cove GreenWay for adoption.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the GreenWay Master Plan: Cooks to Cove GreenWay be adopted.

BACKGROUND

The draft GreenWay Master Plan was presented to Council at its 22 May 2018 meeting. Council resolved to place the draft GreenWay Master Plan on public exhibition and for the results of the public exhibition and community engagement process to be presented to Council along with a final master plan for adoption. At the same meeting Council also resolved to exhibit a submission from IWEG and this was included with the master plan documentation.

The draft Master Plan was subsequently exhibited from 25 May 2018 to 25 June 2018. Comments were sought from the community, Council staff and key agencies including Transport for NSW, Sydney Trains, Roads and Maritime Services, Sydney Water and the light rail operator Transdev.

The results of the public exhibition showed broad support for the draft GreenWay Master Plan. Further details of the public exhibition process and community engagement are provided in the Public Consultation section below.

Based on the feedback from the community, agencies and staff, minor amendments to the master plan have been made. The final draft GreenWay Master Plan: Cooks to Cove Greenway is presented for adoption.

Due to the size of the master plan, it has been distributed separately in hard copy to Councillors and can be viewed on Council’s website on the following page: https://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/environment/projects-and-programs/greenway

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The draft master plan proposes around $57.8m of works over the next 10 to 15 years. Existing funding is available to deliver around $27.8m of works between 2018/19 and 2021/22.

At this point in time, the remaining $30.0m unfunded works will not be delivered unless additional funding is allocated through Council’s Asset Management planning and capital budget process or provided through grants. Council staff will continue to apply and lobby for state and federal grants for currently unfunded works.

It is intended that an operational management plan be developed separately in 2018/19 to detail recurrent expenditure associated with the GreenWay, including delivery of GreenWay programs and maintenance. This is outside the scope of the GreenWay Master Plan and this Council report.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Comments on the draft plan were sought from staff across Council including Trees, Parks and Sports Fields; Environment and Sustainability; Strategic Planning; Aquatics and Recreation; Community Services and Culture; Properties, Major Projects and Facilities; and Footpaths, Roads, Traffic and Stormwater. Comments received from staff have informed the preparation of the final draft master plan.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Engagement Process

The draft GreenWay Master Plan was presented to Council at its 22 May 2018 meeting. Council resolved to place the draft GreenWay Master Plan on public exhibition. The draft Master Plan was subsequently exhibited from 25 May 2018 to 25 June 2018.

The draft plan was exhibited on Council’s consultation website, “Your Say Inner West”. Hard copies of the draft master plan were also made available at Ashfield, Leichhardt and Petersham Service Centres and at Dulwich Hill, Haberfield and Marrickville Libraries

Exhibition of the draft plan was advertised on Council’s consultation website, “Your Say Inner West”, a newsletter was delivered to all properties within 400m of the Greenway, around 12,000 properties, and posters advertising the exhibition were also put up along the corridor in parks and at light rail stops. The draft plan exhibition was also promoted on social media through Council’s Facebook and Twitter accounts.

Comments on the draft master plan were sought through the Your Say Inner West website and also through an interactive online map. Comments were anonymous but users were asked to provide their suburb. Email or written comments were also accepted.

The Your Say Inner West website contained a survey asking “Do you support the GreenWay Master Plan?” and users were asked to nominate either ,“Yes”, “Yes in principle but with changes outline below”, or “No”. Users then had the option to leave written comments directly and/or attach submissions.

The social pinpoint site contained an interactive map of the master plan. Community members, stakeholders and anyone else with an interest in the project could add feedback on the draft master plan to the interactive map by zooming in to an area of interest and dropping a pin to make a comment. Users were able to use themed pins to make comments on specific aspects of the master plan. The pins were aligned with the four main themes of the draft master plan: walking and riding, ecology, recreation, and arts and culture. Users could also give “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” to other users comments.

Engagement Response

The Your Say Inner West consultation website was visited over 4200 times during the exhibition period. This included:

· 3269 Aware users who viewed the site

· 757 Informed users who downloaded a document or multiple pages

· 206 Engaged users who participated in the survey

The video prepared to promote the exhibition received over 3,000 views on Facebook and YouTube.

Around 700 responses were provided through all engagement platforms. Including:

· 206 responses through your say inner west, of which 148 provided written responses

· 480 written responses through the social pinpoint interactive map

· 7 written responses received directly via email

Responses were overwhelmingly received from residents within the Inner West area and specifically along the GreenWay corridor. The most comments were received from residents in Dulwich Hill (33%), Summer Hill (13%), Haberfield (12%), Marrickville (6%), Leichhardt (5%), Lewisham (5%), Hurlstone Park (5%), Ashfield (4%) and Earlwood (4%).

Engagement Results

The results of the Your Say Inner West survey showed broad support for the draft plan with 92% of responses either supporting the draft plan or supporting the plan with changes. Only 8% of responses did not support the plan.

Of the 206 responses through your say inner west, 148 provided written responses. In addition to this 480 written responses were received through the social pinpoint interactive map and 7 written responses received directly via email.

All written submissions from all engagement platforms, and related responses from Council officers, are provided on Council’s website

(https://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/environment/projects-and-programs/greenway).
All submissions have had personal information redacted.

The written responses overwhelming focused on the theme of walking and cycling (55% of written responses), followed by ecology and recreation (16% of written responses each) and arts and culture (2% of written responses). The remaining responses were general in nature or on multiple themes (11% of written responses).

Out of all the written submissions a number of key issues emerged. These are discussed in detail below, on a precinct by precinct basis along with any changes made to the draft GreenWay Master Plan.

Issues raised which are outside the scope of the master plan have not been discussed below. These included:

· Support for the Greenway south-west, which is anticipated to be delivered by the Sydenham to Bankstown Metro project.

· Support for the proposed City West Cycle Link from the northern end of the Greenway to Anzac bridge.

· Support for better walking and cycling links between Lewisham West light rail stop and Lewisham town centre and station.

· Opposition to a path between Waterside Crescent and Lang Road, which is a project being delivered by Canterbury Bankstown Council.

WHOLE OF GREENWAY ISSUES

Greenway: Estimated user numbers of the Greenway path and path design

A 3.5m wide path has generally been recommended for the main Greenway path. A large number of submissions suggested a separated path may be more appropriate.

The recommendation is based on current and future user number estimates and the constraints present in the corridor. A 3.5m wide path meets national and state guidelines for the path type and estimated user numbers.

There are two permanent RMS bike traffic counters on the Greenway at Gadigal reserve and Richard Murden Reserve. This data is supplemented through annual ‘Super Sunday’ and ‘Super Tuesday’ counts.

Based on available data around 250 people (including walkers, riders, runners, dog walkers etc.) currently use any given section of the Greenway path each day, with higher numbers of users in active parks. Once the path is completed in 2021 this is likely to increase significantly to around 600 to 900 people per day, with higher numbers of users in active parks. User numbers will continue to increase over time. The path width and design must be selected appropriately as it would be prohibitively expensive to retrofit a wider path at a later date.

The path design must also consider the many uses the wide range of community needs which the Greenway corridor seeks to support along its entire length and the inherent constraints of the corridor. The Greenway corridor is typically narrow; between Old Canterbury Road and Davis Street a path does not fit in the corridor at all and between Parramatta Road and Longport Street a 3.5m path is not physically possible for the entire length; in other sections the ecology of the corridor or open space would be significantly impacted.

Accordingly, the selection of the path type needs to be pragmatic, considering future user numbers, other uses along the corridor and inherent constraints. A 3.5m path is recommended based on these multiple considerations.

Recommendation: No change to master plan. A 3.5m wide path is recommended for the main Greenway path. Local factors to be considered during further design stages.

Greenway: Greenway shared path safety

A large number of submissions flagged the need for measures to make the path safe for all users.

Path safety is a combination of path design and behaviour. Research in NSW for RMS (http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/downloads/rta_ped_bicycle_report_2010.pdf) suggests that safety risks on shared paths are perceived rather than real. And while the great majority of users feel safe using shared paths, it should be recognised that the user experience for certain groups, particularly the elderly, can be different.

To ensure safe and comfortable use, shared paths must be designed appropriately. The design of the Greenway shared path will need to consider a range of factors including path type, width and user volumes; path gradient, alignment and sightlines; lighting; and path surface, pavement markings and signage. For user safety and legibility, changing between separated and shared paths should be minimised.

Shared paths are intended to be designed for a 20km/h speed for cyclists, noting cyclists generally travel at speeds around 15km/h to 25km/h, compared to 10 to 15km/h for runners and 5 to 10km/h for walkers. For walkers aged over 65, this is typically reduced to 3km/h.

While a 3.5m wide shared path is recommend along the length of the route, consideration of local factors will be essential. For instance in active parks, a wider path with pavement markings and signage may be considered. In other areas significant infrastructure or trees may prevent a 3.5m width be achieved for short sections. This will be considered on a case by case basis during design.

As more people ride in Sydney, mutual respect between people walking and riding on shared paths is more important than ever. Behavioural factors, can be influenced by good design but also through specific user education programs. Council has previously undertaken Share the Path programs in coordination with City of Sydney to help improve shared path behaviour of both riders and walkers. Although outside the scope of the master plan such a program should be considered for the Greenway once it is completed.

Recommendation: No change to master plan. Path design to be considered during further design stages.

Greenway: Development adjacent to the Greenway

As noted in the master plan, the GreenWay corridor is located in an area of significant population growth and urban consolidation. Notably this includes the Greenway intersecting with the Sydenham to Bankstown corridor at Dulwich Hill and the Parramatta Road corridor at Taverners Hill.

The viability of the GreenWay as an ecological and active transport corridor, and the function and amenity it provides, is partly dependent on the adjacent built form. A number of submissions identified that as the corridor develops it is important that development is sympathetic to the Greenway and enhances the corridor rather than detracts from it. To this end a section providing guiding principles for development adjacent to the GreenWay has been included in the final master plan.

It should be noted that these guidelines are not binding. Consideration should also be given to undertaking an urban design study for the corridor and to use the guidelines to inform specific provisions in Council’s statutory planning instruments to ensure sympathetic development along the GreenWay.

Recommendation: Amend the master plan to include a section providing guidelines for development adjacent to the GreenWay.

HAWTHORNE PRECINCT

The master plan for the Hawthorne Precinct was broadly supported. This included:

· Strong support for a wider shared path through Hawthorne Reserve

· Strong support for improvements to shared path connections and sight lines

· Strong support for improvements to the Marion Street crossing

· Strong support for bank naturalisation and potential wildlife islands

· Support for increased tree planting and canopy cover

· Support to retain and improve dog off-leash area

Note that Council has previously resolved to construct three new netball courts and associated infrastructure in the north of Richard Murden Reserve and this decision has been reflected in the master plan.

In addition to the above, the below issues were raised:

Hawthorne Precinct: Crossing Darley Road near Allen Street

Darley Road sits on the eastern boundary of the GreenWay corridor, north of Marion Street to the city west link. Darley Road is a state road, managed by RMS, with over 15,000 vehicles using it per day. The construction of the light rail, and specifically the Hawthorne Light Rail Stop, has created a point to cross the light rail corridor and also created a destination in itself.

Leichhardt residents wanting to access the light rail or Greenway are required to cross Darley Road. Currently there is a pedestrian refuge at Lyall Street and a narrow splitter island at the round-about at Allen Street, which would not meet modern standards. A large number of submissions have indicated that residents find Darley Road difficult and unsafe to cross. Traffic speeds and pedestrian safety on Darley Road has a long history stretching back to 2009.

Council has previously written to RMS requesting they investigate a crossing on Darley Road near Allen Street. RMS have since undertaken to complete investigations and have indicated they intend to complete the design of a new crossing in the coming year.

Recommendation: Amend the Hawthorne Canal precinct plan to include a note to work with the RMS to provide a safe crossing point across Darley Road near Allen Street.

Hawthorne Precinct: Learn-to-ride area

A number of submissions suggested including a learn-to-ride area in the Hawthorne Precinct, in either Richard Murden Reserve or Hawthorne Reserve. These parks currently provide for a range of recreational uses and available open space is limited.

The netball courts in Richard Murden Reserve, south of Waratah Street, are currently used for netball training on weeknights in the winter season from March to September.

Outside of training times these are used informally for a range of ball sports and as an informal learn-to-ride area. It is proposed to reinforce this informal use by providing a painted learn-to-ride circuit on the existing netball courts, so as not to obscure netball line markings, and facilitate use outside netball training times. This is in keeping with the movement towards multipurpose and flexible design identified in the Recreation Needs Study.

In combination with tree plantings, utilizing the courts as a learn-to-ride area would add interest and provide shade to the existing expanse of asphalt. The learn-to-ride area would be suitably located close to the proposed kiosk, amenities and playground.

Recommendation: Amend the Hawthorne Canal precinct plan to include a learn-to-ride circuit integrated with the existing netball courts.

Hawthorne Precinct: Marion Street grade separated crossing

The master plan proposes relocation of the existing traffic signals at Marion Street to be on the desire line of the GreenWay and narrowing the crossing to three traffic lanes to facilitate shared paths on either side. Whilst this proposal received broad support, a large number of submissions were in favour of installing a grade separated crossing of Marion Street and specifically an overpass.

While an overpass at the location is feasible, it would require 90m long ramps on both approaches and long spans to bridge the Hawthorne Canal and Marion Street. This would make it a very expensive option, in the order of $3 million. It would also likely impact on the large fig trees south of Marion Street and impose on the amenity of the southern end of Richard Murden Reserve. The route options assessment report has been amended to include an overpass as a long term, low priority option.

Note also an underpass at this location isn’t considered feasible due to levels and the adjacent Hawthorne Canal.

Recommendation: No change to the master plan. Amend the route options assessment to include an overpass as a long term option.

GADIGAL PRECINCT

The master plan for the Gadigal Precinct was broadly supported. This included:

· Strong support for the tunnel under Longport Street

· Strong support for the underpass below Parramatta Road

· Strong support for an upgraded shared path and lighting through Gadigal Reserve

· Strong support to retain and enhance understorey from Marion to Parramatta Road

· Support for the informal bush track from Beeson to Hathern Street

· Mixed response to the dog off leash area relocation (refer below)

· Mixed response to nature play in Gadigal Reserve (refer below)

In addition to the above, the below issues were raised:

Gadigal Precinct: Lords Road pedestrian bridge upgrades

The Lords Road tunnel currently provides a convenient link from Lords Road in Leichhardt, under the light rail to the Greenway and Lord Street in Haberfield. There is an existing 1.5m wide pedestrian bridge over the Hawthorne Canal from the GreenWay to Lord Street on the western side of the light rail.

A number of submissions identified the need for a wider bridge and better connections to the streets at either side to improve accessibility and facilitate use as a shared path.

It is recommended this could be done at marginal additional cost at, or at least closer to, the end of the existing bridges serviceable life, estimated to be around 2040.

Recommendation: Amend the Gadigal Precinct plan to include the Lord Street pedestrian bridge upgrade and associated upgrades to connecting paths as a long term option.

Gadigal Precinct: Dog off leash area relocation

Gadigal Reserve currently includes a bush care site and a dog off leash area bisected by the Hawthorne Canal and the Greenway shared path.

The master plan proposes relocation of the existing dog park in Gadigal Reserve to new open space at Lewisham West. The proposal received a mixed response, with some submissions in favour and some against. The main concerns raised in the submissions were that the proposed dog park would be smaller and was ill-suited, being near to newly constructed apartments, and that the existing off leash area was highly valued by the community for its natural setting.

The existing off leash area has no vehicular access, contains unusable steep areas, and is heavily shaded in parts. This makes it difficult to access and maintain. As a consequence the surface is predominantly uneven dirt. The site is also quite isolated with no lighting and only one entrance, which could feel unsafe especially of an evening.

The proposed dog off leash area in Lewisham West will be a comparable size as the existing one in Gadigal Reserve, with more useable space. The proposed dog off leash area will also be fully fenced, and have good passive surveillance. Importantly is will also be easier to access, enabling better maintenance.

Relocating the dog park also provides an opportunity for good ecological outcomes for Gadigal Reserve which supports threatened species. It would be difficult to achieve the same ecological outcomes without relocating the dog off leash area.

Recommendation: No change to the master plan.

Gadigal Precinct: Nature Play in Gadigal Reserve

Connecting to nature, and specifically nature and adventure play, have been identified in the Recreation Needs Study as a key need (Theme 5: Connections to Nature). Gadigal Reserve currently includes a number of interesting structures which invite informal adventure play.

A number of submissions raised concerns regarding formalizing adventure and nature play within an established bush care area due to the impact this could have on existing bush care areas. Based on the feedback received it is suggested that, in lieu of the adventure play on the western side, the proposed nature play area be moved to the eastern side of Gadigal Reserve. This could be complemented by a small picnic area for use by families and groups of bush care volunteers to enjoy the Reserve.

Recommendation: Amend the Gadigal Precinct plan to include a small nature play and picnic area on the eastern side of Gadigal Reserve, in lieu of the western side.

MILLS PRECINCT

The master plan for the Mills Precinct was broadly supported. This included:

· Strong support for traffic signals at Old Canterbury Road and the closure of Weston Street to traffic at Old Canterbury Road

· Support for a new community garden at Lewisham West

· Support for heritage interpretation at Lewisham West

· Mixed response to the dog off leash area relocation (refer above)

· Opposition to Weston Street slow point (refer below)

Note that Council has previously resolved to close Weston Street to traffic at Old Canterbury Road and this decision has been reflected in the master plan.

In addition to the above, the below issues were raised:

Mills Precinct: Old Canterbury Road grade separated crossing

The master plan proposes new traffic signals at the intersection of Old Canterbury Road, Edward Street and Weston Street, with the closure of Weston Street to traffic at Old Canterbury Road. This approach was recently endorsed by Council. The proposed traffic signals will provide a safe and accessible crossing point for pedestrians and cyclists.

Whilst this proposal received broad support, a large number of submissions were in favour of installing a grade separated crossing of Old Canterbury Road, and specifically an underpass.

The master plan proposes an underpass below Old Canterbury Road as a long term option. An underpass would be an expensive option and has been afforded a lower priority relative to other road crossings where there is no accessible and/or safe crossing.

Recommendation: No change to master plan.

Mills Precinct: Weston Street slow point

The master plan proposes a raised threshold and single lane slow point at the bend in Weston Street to reduce traffic speeds. A number of submissions raised concerns relating to the potential for vehicle and cycle conflicts through the single lane slow point.

The intent of the slow point is to encourage caution and slow vehicle speeds along the bike boulevard around the bend where the sight distance is less than along the straight sections. The master plan has removed reference to the ‘single lane’ slow point. The details of the slow point will be considered during further design stages.

Recommendation: Design of slow point to be considered during further design stages.

DULWICH HILL PARKS PRECINCT

The master plan for the Mills Precinct was broadly supported. This included:

· Strong support for the underpass below New Canterbury Road

· Strong support for the level crossing between Hill Street and Terry Road

· Mixed response to the main path alignment along western side of light rail (refer below)

· Mixed response for rest stops between Constitution Road and New Canterbury Road (refer below)

· Opposition to the path from Hoskins Park to Hill Street (refer below)

In addition to the above, the below issues were raised:

Parks Precinct: Main Path alignment

The master plan proposes a shared path from Davis Street to Constitution Road through the Waratah Mills on the western side of the light rail, linking to two proposed tunnels on the western side of the light rail, under Davis Street in the north and Constitution Road in the south.

Whilst the majority of submissions supported a western alignment, a number of submissions raised concerns over impacts on the Waratah Mills apartment complex, impacts on the bush care sites and/or impacts on Johnson Park. A number of submissions queried why an eastern alignment through the recently completed Arlington Grove development wasn’t suitable for the Greenway.

The master plan looked at a range of routes in the Route Options Assessment report. The Options assessment considered a range of factors in coming to a recommendation. This included all the issues raised in the submissions, including resident amenity, security and privacy, impacts on ecology and impacts on local places, as well as route connectivity, and accessibility and amenity of the path users.

The recommendation was based on a robust assessment of possible options and the wide range of community needs which the Greenway corridor seeks to support along its entire length. The western alignment was assessed to have a number of significant advantages over an eastern alignment. It is considered to be the safest and most accessible route, with good connections to local places and less impact on residents than an eastern alignment. It is acknowledged that it will have significant impacts on existing bush care sites.

An eastern alignment was not preferred due to impacts on Hoskins Park, safety concerns with light rail users and future café patrons and connectivity and road crossings to the north and the south where the path must be on the western side. Windsor Road was not preferred as it has high volumes of traffic, is not wide enough to accommodate a separated cycle path, and cannot safely link into Johnson Park without property acquisition.

Johnson Park is a popular park which already has a wide path through it suitable for use as the GreenWay path. The GreenWay master plan proposes modification to the playground and surrounds as part of wider works in Johnson Park to avoid conflicts between the path and playground users.

Future planning and design by Council staff will seek to minimise the impacts from construction of this section of the Greenway. The master plan proposes offsetting impacted bush care areas locally adjacent to Johnson Park.

Recommendation: No change to master plan.

Parks Precinct: Path from Hoskins Park to Hill Street

The master plan proposes a tertiary path from Hill Street to Pigott Street, through a part of the Pigott Street bush care site. This was based on feedback from the community wanting a safe, off road connection between Hoskins Park and Johnsons Park. This is an important track for connectivity and would link to the grade crossing across the light rail tracks between Hill Street and Terry Road the path provided through the Andrews Meats and Arlington Grove sites to and Hoskins Park.

It’s acknowledged that construction of the path will have significant impacts on the existing Pigott Street bush care site. The master plan proposes offsetting impacted bush care areas locally adjacent to the Andrew Meats site.

Recommendation: No change to master plan.

Parks Precinct: Rest stops

Rest stops are proposed at intervals along the Greenway path, typically at 200m intervals to allow users to stop and rest. These have typically been located in existing open spaces and comprise seating and bike racks, and, where easily accessible bubblers, bins and bike servicing equipment.

Between Constitution Road and Hercules Street, for a length of 750m, there are no existing open spaces and thus rest stops are required to be in the light rail corridor adjacent to residential properties.

A number of submissions raised concerns relating to the use of the rest stops and specifically resident amenity, security and privacy.

To provide a path that is suitable for all ages and abilities, where at all possible the path has been designed to be fully accessible and rest stops are required to compliment this accessibility. It is envisaged rest stops will provide brief respite for a few path users at a time. Rest stop locations will be refined during further design and will seek to position and design them to minimise impacts on nearby residents.

Recommendation: No change to master plan. Rest stop location and design to be considered during further design stages.

DULWICH GROVE PRECINCT

The master plan for the Dulwich Grove Precinct was broadly supported. This included:

· Strong support for shared path through the light rail corridor between Hercules Street and Jack Shanahan Park

· Support for revegetation through the light rail corridor between Hercules Street and Jack Shanahan Park

· Support for the level crossing between Blackwood Avenue and the new open space behind Hercules Street.

· Opposition to acquisition of property (see below)

In addition to the above, the below issues were raised:

Dulwich Grove Precinct: Acquisition of property

South of Hercules Street the Greenway path must be on the western side due to space constraints on the eastern side. Immediately south of Hercules Street on the western side the light rail corridor is also very narrow for a very short section. To provide a connection from Hercules Street into the light rail corridor, acquisition of a portion or all of 43 Hercules Street may be required.

Further design will determine if a portion or all of 43 Hercules Street is in fact required to provide a link from Hercules Street into the proposed park in the light rail corridor.

Understandably there is concern from the residents of 43 Hercules Street and their community about the impact on their quality of life if the acquisition was to proceed. Council officers have previously met with affected residents.

Council will seek to reach a solution that does not require acquisition but the light rail corridor here is very narrow and so this may be required, noting an eastern alignment or on-road alignment isn’t feasible.

Recommendation: No change to master plan.

Dulwich Grove Precinct: Hercules Street grade separated crossing

The master plan proposes upgrading the existing pedestrian crossing across Hercules Street. This would entail upgrade and widening of the existing pedestrian crossing to facilitate cyclists and wider shared paths or separated paths on either side of Hercules Street, resulting in loss of 3 to 6 car spaces.

Whilst this proposal received support, a large number of submissions were in favour of installing a grade separated crossing of Hercules Street, and specifically an underpass.

The master plan proposes an underpass below Hercules Street as a long term option. An underpass would be an expensive option and has been afforded a lower priority relative to other road crossings where there is no accessible and/or safe crossing.

Recommendation: No change to master plan.

COOKS RIVER

Planning for the golf course will be determined as part of the separate Golf Course Master Planning process, which has just commenced, and planning for Ewen Park and south of Cooks River will be determined by Canterbury Bankstown Council as part of ongoing discussions.

The master plan for the Cooks River Precinct was broadly supported. This included:

· Strong support for naturalisation of the Cooks River and a riparian zone

· Strong support to maintain Tennyson Street Playground as is

· Strong support to upgrade Lang Road foot bridge

· Strong support for a shared path around Wills Ground and an underpass below Wardell Road bridge

· Support for safety improvements to Wardell Road bridge, noting widening isn’t feasible

· Strong support to upgrade Ewen Park including a learn-to-ride area

· Mixed response on different path routes through/around the golf course (see below)

· Mixed response on Left turn into Riverside Crescent from Wardell Road (see below)

In addition to the above, the below issues were raised:

Cooks River Precinct: Path routes through and around the golf course

Planning for the area between Ness Ave and the Cooks River is dependent on planning for the Marrickville Golf Course and Ewen Park. A master planning process for the golf course has just commenced and will take place over the coming months. Because of this the draft GreenWay Master Plan proposed potential options through or around the golf course. Feedback from the community will be considered as part of the golf course and Ewen Park planning process.

There were numerous responses received on the potential path routes proposed through or around the golf course. The responses highlighted a diversity of opinions and there was no consensus.

Planning for the Marrickville Golf Course will be determined as part of the separate Golf Course Master Planning process. Planning for Ewen Park and south of Cooks River will be determined by Canterbury Bankstown Council as part of ongoing discussions.

Recommendation: No change to master plan.

Cooks River Precinct: Left turn into Riverside Crescent from Wardell Road

The master plan proposes a left turn ban into Riverside Crescent from Wardell Road for north bound traffic. The intent of the left turn ban is to eliminate traffic rat running through Tennyson Street and Ness Ave and reduce traffic volumes and speeds along the proposed Greenway route.

The proposal received a mixed response, with some residents supporting the ban citing traffic volumes and speeds and some residents opposing the ban citing access being cut off from their properties.

While the ban would result in a minor increase in travel time for some residents of the precinct, who would need to enter via Ewart Street, this is considered to be relatively minor and would only affect some residents when coming from one of four directions.

The impact on the existing traffic signals at the intersection of Wardell Road and Ewart Street will be considered during further design including potential performance improvements.

Recommendation: No change to master plan. Further traffic studies to be completed during further design including impact on Wardell Road /Ewart Street intersection and possible improvements

CONCLUSION

The results of the public exhibition showed broad support for the draft GreenWay Master Plan. The results of the Your Say Inner West survey showed 92% of responses either supported the draft plan or supported the plan with changes.

Based on the feedback from the community, agencies and staff, minor amendments to the master plan have been implemented.

The final draft GreenWay Master Plan: Cooks to Cove Greenway is presented for adoption.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Council Meeting

14 August 2018

Outdoor Fitness Station Submissions

Gladstone Park

Date	Support /Non Support	Submission
4/6/2018	Non support	This is such a ridiculous idea to take up this beautiful uncluttered green space with an outdoor Gym. We already have the enclosed paved basketball style area for kids and adults and also the kids play area with rides and climbing apparatus. There are also swings at the other side of the park as well. I was happy for this to be updated but we do not need another area in the park for a Gym. Who is driving this? The green space already there is wonderful for families for picnics, and for running around freely. You the Inner West Council have got it wrong. We do not need specified areas outside for gym equipment. It’s like you are behaving in a ‘big brother’ capacity directing us to do what you think is good for us. The park is wonderful as it is, providing areas under the lovely palm trees to sit in the shade and meditate or talk in small groups and just ‘be’. My frustration at the thought you would be doing this knows no bounds. Leave the park as it is.
4/6/2018	Support	Re this initiative, I think it a fantastic idea and completely support it.
5/6/2018	Non Support	I received this in the post today. I find the way this notification positions your consultation with residents, as misleading and deceptive. This notice implies that residents are happy with the new proposal (including the hospital and the organisers of the jazz festival). I can assure you this is not the case and this proposal doesn’t take into consideration anything that is important to this community. I will be taking this up with local counsellors. Why this council is persisting with this proposal is beyond me. Gladstone Park is a place for families to come together, not a place for gym equipment to lay idle and unused. This equipment doesn’t even look like fitness equipment to me...Strong Medicine, according to their website, is a centre that focuses on rehabilitation for geriatric and chronic disease. Hardly a fitness station for the community which is what you have labelled this as. This doesn’t sound like a proposal for the greater community at all. There are other ways in which rate payer dollars could be put to better use surely. I would like to see the letters of support you actually have for this proposal, including one from the Balmain hospital itself.
5/6/2018	Non support	I received notice that council are considering an outdoor fitness gym in Gladstone Park. This is such a small park I dislike the idea that more parklands will be taken up with equipment. With the lawn bowls and clubhouse, school, children’s play area, basketball court and swings all taking up space I think this proposal will provide even less room for families and individuals to just enjoy and relax on the grass and have a picnic or just sit and read. I note comment that the layout will be as compact as possible but from the layout plan, it appears to take up a large section of the park. I appreciate a select few will enjoy the exercise equipment but surely if people wish to exercise they could utilise the existing gyms in the area, who suffer from not enough trade. There is a gym opposite Gladstone Park, one down nearly opposite Sorry Street in Palmer Street, one in Robert Street as well as the YMCA gym near the Post Office. I could continue with other local gyms but I think I have made my point. I think the Park is well utilised and what land space is available, should be left as is. I certainly do not support this project. If Council are serious about locating an outside gym perhaps they should look at Mort Bay Park where there is more space.
6/6/2018	Non Support	I just wanted to email to say that I do not support the proposal to take away green space from Gladstone Park for a fitness area. I am sure there are other parts of the park (like next to the basketball court) which could be utilized and will not take away green space. We use this space regularly for picnics and for the kids to run and kick balls. There is very limited green space in Balmain. I would hope this could be reassessed and a better location found in the near vicinity.
6/6/2018	Non support	I have recently read a concerning facebook post in our Balmain Rozelle Mums and Dads group. It talks about the grassy area close to the hospital area being dug up and replaced with a fitness station. This makes no sense to me as this area is used a lot by locals, including my family and my mother's group. Also, this is where the local school kids run around during their breaks, and it's such a beautiful area. If a fitness station does need to be put into the park, there are other areas which are more appropriate eg next to the basketball courts, or near the swings at the back of the lawn bowls club. My understanding is that the GM of Balmain Hospital has said they don't need or want this fitness station, and won't be using it, so it doesn't need to be located next to it. Like so many parts of the Inner West, Balmain is being more and more built up. This means less green spaces for residents (children and adults) to run around and play in. Surely in the current climate of an obesity epidemic in Australia, we want to encourage people running around and playing, not just building a fitness station on a well used and loved grassy area. It is unlikely that as many people will use the fitness station c.f those using the grassy area for recreation. Please reconsider allowing this fitness station to go ahead in this area, and consult with our local community before such a beautiful area is destroyed. I would like to have my objection to the fitness station be noted. Thanks for taking the time to read my email,
5/6/2018	Support	just wanted to lend my support to the proposal - appears to be a very good idea and use of the land.
6/6/2018	Non Support	I'd like to object to the lack of community consultation about the use of such a large area of grass at Gladstone park for a fitness area using an artificial surface. I'd also like to object to the location as this is much needed public grassy public for locals and school children. The area between the basketball court and the play equipment is much more suitable as the grass doesn't grow there.
6/6/2018	Support	I'm not usually one to write in around these things, bit I feel I should in this case. I've been a user of these outdoor gyms in many locations, inner city and outer suburbs near to my family, and I think they're great. It's a good opportunity to finish a run there and do some strength work and it encourages the younger people to see others working out. My daughter's school have stated they don't utilise the are much (Balmain Public School). I would have to say this also applies to weekends, and before and after school when I do drop off. It's rare to see anyone in that spot, as people mainly picnic in the front areas. I fully support the initiative, and look forward to it's development.
6/6/2018	Non Support	As a long-term resident of Balmain, including someone who regularly uses Gladstone Park for recreation with my family, I hereby object to the Council's plan to use valuable space in Gladstone Park for fitness equipment for the main reasons set out below: 1. There are 800 primary school students who use Gladstone Park for recess, lunch and other activities. Neither Father John Therry or Balmain Public have private areas to allow their students to run around. This encroaches on their space in an already very crowded peninsula, where most often than not, these kids do not have backyards at home. 2. Gladstone Park is a meeting place for all on the Peninsula, and home to many community events, including Jazz in the Park. The fitness park would inhibit these community events. 3. That space is very popular as it has grass and shade - it is popular with mothers' groups, picnic goers and workers on their lunch break. 4. The swing in the kids' playground in Gladstone Park has been broken for weeks. Why has that not been fixed and priority given to spending money on playground equipment? 5. Balmain is NOT Bondi. Let's keep Balmain unique. 6. Although announced as a collaboration with Balmain Hospital, I understand that the Hospital will NOT be using the fitness equipment for their patients. Which is strange because it appears that the Council have developed the stattion with the Centre for STRONG Medicine - a geriatric practice for patients with chronic disease. In addition, interested to see how this could be relevant for an area with extremely high numbers of families with young children. 7. Grateful for your confirmation that you have appropriately complied with your obligations with respect to community engagement on this project. From what I have heard, work had already commenced in early May without any community consultation. Please protect the grassy areas and open space of Gladstone Park in line with the 2000 "Plan of Management for Gladstone Park".
6/6/2018	Non support	I am writing to oppose the positioning of the works being proposed to Gladstone Park to build an outdoor gym. The council’s proposed location would have a big impact on the current usage of the green space in the park by the primary school children and also by the locals who patronise the park for picnics and gatherings during the day. It is a prime part of the park that receives lovely sunshine and it would be a great loss green space for the park. There are several other areas better suited to such a plan within the park, such as the bitumen area between the basketball courts and the playground, or the area behind the bowls club, next to the swings. I live on Bradford street, just behind Gladstone Park, and I use the park almost every day. I’ve met my mother’s group there many times and also take my children to roam in the sunshine there, particularly in winter when the rest of the park is in shade. Please reconsider the necessity of placing the outdoor gym in this particular area. It doesn’t seem the most optimal place to me, and I would hate to see the green space become minimised when there are other solutions available.
5/6/2018	Support	With regards to your announcement to build the Gladstone Park Fitness and Outdoor Wellness Gym. I think this is a good idea in principal but I think the design of the exercise equipment could be improved. I often drive past the equipment located at Wentworth Park, Ultimo and frequently see it being used. I think the proposal at Gladstone Park should be more in line with what is there and the depiction of the proposed equipment looks to be half children's play equipment, half exercise equipment. I would like to request that you consider the following equipment for inclusion: a multi-level chin up bar, a handstand wall, parallel bars (for dips), push up bars, resistance hooks, ply box jump, wall ball and a stretch station. Refer to the Park Fit Australia website. These are practical, enduring and highly functional equipment that can be used by people at all levels of strength and fitness. If the purpose for this equipment is for fitness and to be an outdoor gym then it should be tailored for that outcome. There is already a children's play equipment on the other side of the park, so duplication should be avoided. I am not affiliated with Park fit, nor am I a personal trainer. But I do keep active and don't see the gym equipment as its currently proposed something that I would use. I hope you take this on board.
4/6/2018	Support	I saw the note from IWC re. outdoor fitness area in Gladstone Park. Whilst I think the idea is good in theory, I do wonder: - whether the placement is in the right spot and - what thinking has taken place in terms of other priorities for the park. Park priorities: It seems to me that public space is at a premium in our area and there is high demand for playgrounds, sporting grounds (grass areas, tennis courts, handball courts etc) and areas to run around, dog exercise areas. There is also high demand for use of parks for birthday parties and social events. I've seen on a number of occasions things boiling over in park areas (like Mort Bay) and at places like Punch Park tennis courts where people get irritated over who has the 'right' to use the area. It also strikes me that there are a lot of older kids in Balmain now and there really isn't spaces for them (skateboard park, challenging playground equipment etc). So having considered that, I wonder if this is the best use of Gladstone Park. I'd be happier for this to go ahead if I knew there was also thought and planning put into working out how we get more spaces for other groups in the community. Placement in Gladstone Park: Is this really the right spot for it? It seems to be smack bag in the middle of a fairly large open area (even if it is under the tree area). I would have thought it might make more sense to put it over near the swing area - as this seems to be a bit of an un-utilised area of the park. As you know, the school kids use the park a lot and I expect with growth rates at both schools, there will be further demand for use of the park for the school. I also can't see with Jazz in the park and other events, how this wouldn't clash with the areas where staging and other stalls etc are established. It just doesn't seem like the right spot. The other thing I wonder is what consultation has happened with the schools. Given they use the park quite a lot, can the outdoor gym also accommodate needs of school kids? I understand it will be a good resource for the hospital and its rehab patients....but in all likelihood it will attract a lot of students - who hang out in the park before and after school (I imagine it'll be out of bounds during school hours). So when you say the design is on exercises to promote strength, balance and physical function....I assume it is not just for 'adults' to use. So whilst I support the project in theory, I would like to see more from IWC about how it will meet demand for things like more court space, more equipment/resources for older kids and more sporting grounds. Best regards,
4/6/2018	Non support	I have many concerns and objections to the abovementioned project. Firstly I don't believe there has been enough consultation with the community about the proposed works. We live directly opposite the park and of course would be very interested in any proposals involving the park, however only this week did we receive a flyer in the mailbox that outlined the exact location of the gym and the type of equipment that would be installed. Considering the notifications required for house renovations under the DA process it amazes me that council can do something like this without the full notification procedure and a consultation. Also I would be interested in the limitations the heritage and conservation aspects of the park put on this proposal, as we are renovating opposite and have so many restrictions put on us as to what we are allowed to do because this part of Balmain is a conservation area. As far as I understand Gladstone Park has a rich history of over 140 years and is a heritage site. I struggle to understand how this development can be in keeping of such a site. For this to be done to suit everyone in the community I would like a public meeting on site to be undertaken and to invite locals from the area, hospital, neighbouring schools and the Gladstone park bowling club. I live at--------------, Balmain which is opposite the proposed site of the outdoor gym. We have lived there since 2011, so approximately seven and a half years. We have two children and regularly use Gladstone Park. The reasons I object to the installation of an outdoor gym is as follows: - the park is small and highly utilised by the community. On week days two local schools located on the Eastern side of Gladstone park use the park as their play grounds and alternate time slots to allow this. The park is also used during the week by many local mothers' groups, people with children and all sorts of combinations for a grassy place that is unstructured and allows people to undertake the activities they wish whether it be having a picnic under the trees, kicking a ball around or walking the dog. On weekends while there are no school children, the park is always busy with people heading there to enjoy the grassy space, including holding birthday parties and meeting friends and family in the park. - the location chosen is a terrible location for the gym. In summer this is a very popular spot for people to set up and have picnics in the shade and I think the outdoor gym would ruin the look of the park with awful equipment set up on artificial turf right off the main path going West to East through the park. I’m not a huge supporter of the gym as I don't know how well it will be used, but surely there is a better spot out of the way that it could be moved to if it's needed at all. - Many families and groups of children like to kick or throw a ball in this part of the park as it is a clear space and has grass compared to other parts of the park. I think having this outdoor gym would impinge on the free space that is currently well used by residents and visitors to Balmain.
7/6/2018	Support	I recently received advice from Council regarding funds allocation for the Gladstone Park Fitness Station. I am eagerly awaiting its completion, can you tell me when this is planned. There are currently no fitness stations within walking distance from home.
7/6/2018	Non Support	Council should reconsider the location of the Exercise Station in Gladstone Park The proposed fitness station will not be used by the Balmain Hospital and should be relocated elsewhere. It does not need to be near the hospital as has been suggested in our discussions, correspondence and the flyer sent to local residents.As a resident of 20 years i have watched the changing use of Gladstone Park and with growing concern as the green space, is diminished. The proposed exercise station further reduces the remaining little open green space trees with grass , by 230 m2 and impacts on all the current users, the visual amenity and the heritage values of the Gladstone Park. There is only 45% of green space remaining in Gladstone Park , areas of shade trees with grass , the rest is mulched areas ,playgrounds ,multipurpose court and the Bowling Club The proposed fitness station site is within the central grove of shade trees with grass underneath, in the middle of the open grassed area of the park . These shaded areas are critical to the village green character of park and are used by many in the community providing flexible spaces for informal gathering , seating on grass, running of children, casual games picnics etc. The POM for Gladstone Park does not mention a Fitness station.
11/6/2018	Non Support	Just writing to suppose the fitness equipment in the park. This park is used by kids, families and community and is one of our great parks that will be ruined by this equipment. If you must do it put it closer to the kids area near the loo block or the side near the swings not in the middle section. I hope this is reconsidered
8/6/2018	Non Support	I am writing to you to formally object to the proposed fitness station in Gladstone Park. I want you to note that I am not against the idea of a fitness station in Gladstone Park, I do however object to the location of the station. I would like to know how many residents were notified, and object to the quality of the 'public notice' which is attached to a signpost in the park - See attached photo I am also questioning the legitimacy of the announcement and intention of taking into consideration any community feedback that you receive, since surveyors were on site yesterday (7 June) marking out. The proposed location is entirely inappropriate for the following reasons: 1. The proposed location intrudes on the existing village green - one of the few open grassed spaces in our inner-city suburb. 2. The proposal contradicts the objectives of the Plan of Management for Gladstone Park. 3. Local school children (around 800 students across 2 schools) use this area for recess, lunch and classes. 4. It is in the location of the Jazz in the Park festival stage. 5. It is the most popular area in the park for picnic goers, mother’s groups, lunchtime workers due to the fact that there is both grass and shade. 6. Although announced as a collaboration with Balmain Hospital, the Hospital will NOT be using the fitness equipment for any of their patients. 7. Promoted as a fitness station for the whole community, the Council have developed the station with the Centre for STRONG Medicine – a geriatric practice for patients with chronic disease. You refer to the resolution at the Council Meeting on the 26^th April 2016 where (in a long list of projects) $150,000 of Developer Funds be put towards a fitness station at Gladstone Park. The minutes clearly state that there should be a public exhibition of each project and community consultation. Work commenced in early May without any community consultation, however it was stopped until a ‘proper consultation’ was conducted. The Plan of Management for Gladstone Park developed in 2000 clearly outlines the importance of maintaining and protecting the grassed areas and open space of Gladstone Park. There is no mention of the need for a fitness station anywhere in the document. The Council Landscape Architect communicated to me that the Events Department had been notified of the proposal and had approved the location of the fitness station, however I called the Events Coordinator responsible for Jazz in the Park, who stated that neither had happened. Council are promoting the fitness station as a collaboration with Balmain Hospital. I have spoken to the General Manager for the Hospital who confirms that the hospital was approached by Council to provide an opinion about rehab equipment for a fitness station. The Hospital was not aware of any of the specifics of any proposal relating to a fitness station in Gladstone Park, let alone a preferred location within the Park. Council insist that the fitness station be located in close proximity to the Hospital, however the General Manager has confirmed that Balmain Hospital have no need for the station and will not be using the equipment in Gladstone Park with any patients from the Hospital. I question the suitability of the equipment since it has been developed in collaboration with a geriatric practice for patients with chronic disease. The announcement states that the design has been configured after receiving feedback from residents. This statement implies that residents are happy with the proposal, however Council has completely disregarded the comments that residents have made to relocate the station to are more suitable site within Gladstone Park. There are many other more suitable locations for the fitness station in Gladstone Park that do not take away open space from the village green including the area beside the swings, the corner of the park closest to the crossing near the Hospital, and areas around the basketball court. The most appropriate space would be the current bitumen area between the basketball court and the children’s play equipment.This location has no current use and addresses all of Council’s criteria of accessibility, proximity to the Hospital, provision of plenty of natural shade, visibility and heritage considerations. Most importantly, this location would not have any impact on the open grass areas, school groups, community events and informal use.
12^th June 2018.	Support	Thanks for your response, I understand there is some resident opposition to the Gladstone Park fitness station. I have recently bought a house in Balmain & soon noticed the absence of a fitness station within walking distance. We haven’t as yet built a network of similarly minded fellow residents for lobbying purposes. But the case for an adult fitness station should be self evident. Gladstone Park caters very well for children’s facilities which is great. Also has great passive recreation space. A vitally important adult community need is for health & fitness, facilities for which are absent in the park or nearby. For seniors such as me, an adequate level of fitness & maintenance of strength are vital ingredients of a long & healthy life. Once the fitness station is established it will develop a community of residents who use it, a good community social benefit. Whilst commercial Pilates/ yoga premises are nearby these are formalised & are quite expensive to use. Thank you for your consideration,
16/6/2018	Non Support	I have reviewed details provided by Inner West Council regarding the Gladstone Park fitness area and I strongly object to the proposed location. Currently Gladstone Park has an abundance of community assets and further intrusion will impact the park’s character and usable green space. Existing facilities in the park include two children’s play areas, a basketball court and bowling club. These already play a significant but sufficient role for the community. I feel any further extension of manmade infrastructure would produce an undesirable green space ratio In addition the actual proposed location of the fitness area would impact an area of green space which is highly utilised by community members and is a popular recreational space for people wanting to chill out in a park, mother’s groups and picnic goers. Given Australia’s high UV rating removing the park's last useable shaded space would either move people out into the open at the risk of high sun exposure in summer or push people away from the park because there is no suitable space With regard to health and wellbeing, I agree the Balmain-Rozelle community are a very health conscious bunch, but I believe the community is already significantly catered to by existing local facilities. I have also conversed with Balmain Hospital and their feedback to me is that the fitness area would receive very limited patronage from them due to the age and health situation of in patients. I am available to meet onsite or speak over the phone if required, but as a community member of twenty-five years I urge you to reconsider the proposal.
20/6/2018	Non Support	The fitness station will be located on the grassy green on the Booth Street side of Gladstone Park between Darling Street and Balmain Hospital near the memorial tree. Around 250 square metres of grass will be replaced with a synthetic surface, new path and equipment, with an overall footprint 26 x 14.5m in the middle of the grassy green. The proposed location is entirely inappropriate for the following reasons: 1. The proposed location intrudes on the existing village green - one of the few open grassed spaces in our inner-city suburb. 2. The proposal contradicts the objectives of the Plan of Management for Gladstone Park. 3. Local school children (around 800 students across 2 schools) use this area for recess, lunch and classes. 4. It is in the location of the Jazz in the Park festival stage. 5. It is the most popular area in the park for picnic goers, mother’s groups, lunchtime workers due to the fact that there is both grass and shade. 6. Although announced as a collaboration with Balmain Hospital, the Hospital will NOT be using the fitness equipment for any of their patients. 7. Promoted as a fitness station for the whole community, the Council have developed the station with the Centre for STRONG Medicine – a geriatric practice for patients with chronic disease. Council refer to the resolution at the Council Meeting on the 26^th April 2016 where (in a long list of projects) $150,000 of Developer Funds be put towards a fitness station at Gladstone Park. The minutes clearly state that there should be a public exhibition of each project and community consultation. Work on site had commenced in early May without any community consultation, it was stopped until a ‘proper consultation’ was conducted. The Plan of Management for Gladstone Park developed in 2000 clearly outlines the importance of maintaining and protecting the grassed areas and open space of Gladstone Park. There is no mention of the need for a fitness station anywhere in the document. The Council Landscape Architect communicated that the Events Department had been notified of the proposal and had approved the location of the fitness station, however the Events Coordinator responsible for Jazz in the Park stated that neither had happened. Council are promoting the fitness station as a collaboration with Balmain Hospital. The General Manager for the Hospital has stated that they were approached by Council to provide an opinion about rehab equipment for a fitness station. The Hospital was not aware of any of the specifics of any proposal relating to a fitness station in Gladstone Park.Council insist that the fitness station be located in close proximity to the Hospital, however the General Manager has confirmed that Balmain Hospital have no need for the station and will not be using the equipment in Gladstone Park with any patients from the Hospital. The announcement states that the design has been configured after receiving feedback from residents. As residents we were not asked for any feedback on the proposal. However this statement implies that residents are happy with the proposal, however Council have completely disregarded pleas to relocate the station to a more suitable site within Gladstone Park. There are many other more suitable locations for the fitness station in Gladstone Park that do not take away open space from the village green including the area beside the swings, the corner of the park closest to the crossing near the Hospital, and areas around the basketball court. The most appropriate space would be the current bitumen area between the basketball court and the children’s play equipment. This location has no current use and addresses all of Council’s criteria of accessibility, proximity to the Hospital, provision of plenty of natural shade, visibility and heritage considerations. Most importantly, this location would not have any impact on the open grass areas, school groups, community events and informal use.
20/6/2018	Non Support	It was with some concern that I was notified of plans to install exercise equipment in a location close to the Balmain Hospital in Gladstone Park. Whilst I think exercise equipment would be a fantastic addition to the recreational offer in Balmain, I feel that this location is unsuitable. This will be utilising precious green space where the more activity based usage (playground equipment, basketball court) within the park is more on the Eaton Street side of the park. I believe the exercise equipment would be better located where it has been difficult to grow grass, closer to the activity zoned space (near the playground, or even near the swingset behind the Bowling Club). Even the sporting usage at Birchgrove oval or Mort Bay Park would be better locations than the currently proposed site. Please reconsider this ill-advised planning decision, for the benefit of those that wish to continue to enjoy the green space of Gladstone Park.
21/6/2018	Support	What a fantastic initiative!!! Thank you Inner West Council. My preference would be to locate it next to the children’s playground. The proposed location will detract from the natural aesthetics of the surrounding area.
3/7/2018	Support	We are Balmain ratepayers, live a block from Gladstone Park, and are writing to fully endorse the outdoor gym proposal. Please proceed!
6/7/2018	Support	Dear Council, I strongly support this proposed fitness & wellbeing outdoor gym. Indeed it will be the only one of its type within walking distance of my Balmain home. As mentioned previously, children are well catered for in Gladstone Park, now it’s time for adult facilities. The gym will nicely complement specialist commercial Pilates/ yoga centres nearby, but offer a different service. With adult health, fitness & maintenance of sufficient muscle strength in seniors being vital community health concerns - the new outdoor gym will be a very important community facility. I think the gym will be supported by a growing group of adult residents, all keen to promote their good health & wellness longevity. Thanks Council for building this gym.
12/7/2018	Non Support	The proposal is giving public property (a section of Gladstone Park) to a private operator. If the hospital think it is a good thing then let them have it within the hospital grounds. If the council think fitness centres are a good thing then they can tell the company to rent one of the local empty shops in Darling Street. This sort of stuff is not just confined to Balmain. At the council a few weeks ago there was also a proposal by council to have a fitness centre in a park in Ashfield. We want to keep our green spaces green not rent them out to the highest bidder.
13/7/2018	Non Support	I strongly oppose this installation on the following grounds: 1. The wider community has not been consulted. Gladstone is a significant park in our area much used by the whole community and many visitors, for example the number of concerts and community events that have been held there. 2. It is possibly the oldest established park in Balmain and there has been no heritage report presented to assess the impact of this fitness station. 3. In my viewing of the plan, which was a scan of the flyer circulated only to nearby residents (I couldn't find anything on council's website) it seems that it consumes the outline of the original bandstand!!! I could be wrong as I don't have good internet access to try and google the site and as I said there's nothing on councils website. It also consumes about 250square metres of the park. In other parts of Balmain this would almost be a small park. 4. There needs to be more information and consultation - will the hospital own it? Will IWC own it? According to the flyer it seems that it will be for public use! If this is the case there will be active people doing laps all around the park to access the equipment. It sounds like an open air gym to me!!! Gladstone Park has always been a passive recreational area to have a coffee or enjoy a picnic and should remain such. My concern is preservation of this historic park for such use.
14/7/2018	Non Support	I am writing to object to the proposed Gladstone Park Fitness and Wellbeing Outdoor Gym. I am currently a Balmain resident and home owner and was previously a resident in Haberfield. The installation of outdoor fitness facilities on Hawthorne Parade in Haberfield undermined the green area, has been under-utilised and poses a danger to children, including my own, who have attempted to use this equipment. The facilities next to King George’s Oval tend to be used substantially by personal trainers early in the morning (between 5.30 and 7am). I often use the Bay Run at this time and consistently see the facilities being used for commercial purposes. Gladstone Park is a very popular area for families and school children. The fitness facilities will inhibit their use of the park for sports, games, picnics and birthday parties. The enclosed area proposed (where there is a circle of bricks) is especially popular for after-school activities. At a time when childhood obesity is on the rise, curbing grass areas for children (in preference for facilities most likely to be used by private fitness providers) does not make sense. Children need space to run around, kick balls, do cart wheels and have fun. They do not need facilities that pose a risk to their safety. As an active adult, I also find that this would not help my fitness. The park is great for exercise: running, yoga stretches, pushups, tricep dips, situps etc etc. If one wanted to use equipment there is a wealth of gyms in Balmain: Evolution, Orange Theory, F45, Affordable Fitness, Spectrum, Everyday Fitness; and this doesn’t include the smaller studios such as Bare Vitality, Body Ethos, KX Pilates etc. For people with health conditions, there are subsidies to use gyms. I am someone who suffers from osteopenia so I benefit from these subsidies. I have spoken with the hospital and they said that they have not been privy to discussions about the facilities and do not have a need. If there is a need by hospital patients, there should be properly supervised and suited physiotherapy equipment within the hospital or adjacent buildings. Gladstone Park is a unique green space. It is used by mother’s groups, musical events, farm displays, school lunch and recess breaks and sports activites and for families and children to run around and enjoy. It is a cornerstone of Balmain life and one of its most beautiful features. Please don’t install a fitness facility that will compromise this asset. If the council wants to do more for local fitness, I would recommend that it runs programs (including in Gladstone Park) that may include walking or running groups, toddler activities, post and prenatal aerobics, school-age gymnastics programs, etc. We need to build community sports and activities as part of our culture and in the interests of our health and wellbeing. This is the role of councils, and certainly consistent with council promises.
13/7/2018	Non Support	I am writing yet again to express my total objection to the proposed Outdoor Gym in Spindler’s Park. After raising this matter at Council I was surprised to see that this proposal had not been totally rejected on the grounds that it was a totally ill thought out proposal and that the location was totally inappropriate for all the reasons that were stated on the night and in my and others submissions. Since receiving the revised flyer I have spoken to numerous people in the surrounding area, the majority of whom live in Nelson St but some also from Taylor St, and Rose St. Not one single person I have spoken to is supportive of this proposal, all have been totally against it. All have strongly wanted to retain as much green space as possible and definitely not see any more infrastructure placed in the park and especially not in almost the last bit of green space remaining that is not utilised for some particular activity. I also particularly asked women who I spoke to if they would use the equipment and if they would feel happy exercising there - they all said that they would not on both counts. That being the case I am left wondering who in the community actually supports this development. Obviously there will be some - but how many I wonder. I would be happy to take a wager that if all local residents were forced to state whether they were for or against this development an overwhelming majority would be against. If that is the case, which I feel confident it is, then why is this being pushed forward. If it is the case that this development does go ahead this would definitely be a case of the Council dictating to the residents, ‘This is what you are going to have - like it or not.’ If that is to be the Council attitude then one would have to ask, why that is so? I have also looked at the necessity for this infrastructure and I can find no single reason for it. This area is overrun with Gyms, Exercise facilities, Yoga facilities and Pilates facilities. Below is a list of exercise establishments all of which would be within 800 metres of Spindler’s Park: 1 Boxing Works - the Tramsheds 2 PCYC Minogue Cres 3 The Yoga Factory 1 Booth St 4 Powerhouse Pilates 1/36 Taylor St 5 F45 Training Annandale 1/19 Booth St 6 Fitness Factory 6/21 Chester St 7 Bear Strength N Fitness 106 Pyrmont Bridge Rd 8 Anytime Fitness 112-118 Parramatta Rd 9 My Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Team 119-125 Parramatta Rd 10 Sydney Strength Training B2/1 Cahill St 11 Sydney Pole 106 Pyrmont Bridge Rd 12 Hipe Athletic 84/86 Parramatta Rd 13 Hard Rock Camperdown Bootcamp 23 Fowler St 14 Evolution Pilates 4/63 Johnston St 15 Samadhi Yoga 24 Lyons Rd I expect that there may well be more. I do know that there are also Yoga classes at the Commons in Camperdown Park. There is also the sort of outdoor Gym Equipment there that this proposal is about. I went to have a look at the Camperdown Park area on a Saturday morning. There was a football match going on on the oval, a Yoga class had just finished at the Commons. The Commons was packed with people having coffees and breakfasts. All other areas of park green space was being heavily used with people relaxing with friends, most eating snacks or drinks, a good number with dogs. I walked around the whole area and was especially interested to see the Outdoor Gym Equipment area. Interestingly this was the only area that was hardly being used - there were just two small children of about 8 years old playing on it! This sort of Gym Equipment is also located at Wentworth Park where it takes up a very small area of a very large open green space but even here it is tucked into the lee of a building and when I visited there once again no one was using the equipment. I can see absolutely no reason for this development to go ahead especially in this tiny park. If it does go ahead I can only surmise that there must be some sort of Political agenda at play that is pushing this through against Community wishes.

Smith, Hogan and Spindlers Parks

Date	Support /Non Support	Submission
4/6/2018	Support	We fully support this amazing project.
4/6/2018	Support	Hi as you’ve invited some feedback on this proposal. Love the idea.
4/6/2018	Non Support	Thank you for your notice in my letterbox of the 'proposed' works however the work has already started and is now on hold as residents contacted council to advise that they have not even been consulted - please advise why no consultation was conducted i oppose development in the tiny spindlers park/reserve as this is one of just a few spaces where it is possible to put out a picnic blanket and relax or lay on the grass and read (as many do) without potentially getting hit by a cricket or soccer ball or a dog chasing a ball or disturbed by other sporting activities that occur in other parts of the johnstons creek valley parks - we need to retain some open green space without concrete and metal structures surely rather than this 'proposed' structure council should be seeking opportunities with sydney council on their plans to naturalise the banks of johnstons creek will you please advise what the total budget is and confirm that the proposal involves $0 from council as stated in the 26apr16 information which said costs come from the s94 contributions reserve information mentions classes for how to use the equipment - would you please advise where those classes were to be held and who would be running them and if there would be a cost or would be free and run by the new sport officer position that is on hold now can you please confirm that no commercial activity will take place in this facility your notice said "following a council resolution in 2016" however councillors did not approve the plan but only endorsed it for exhibition (i didnt see any notices and i live opposite it) so i request the meeting date where the works were approved please please advise the meeting date that this issue will go before councillors for consideration
7/6/2018	Support	I support the fitness station in its proposed location. In my experience this is an area that people walk past rather than linger in. The location is close to the shared path, rather than jammed up against the planted areas and has a compact layout. I would also be happy if, responding to feedback from Nelson St residents closer to it, council moved it to the flat open area immediately north of the aqueduct. In some ways this location is preferable but I am aware that Sydney Water's access requirements may preclude that option. I would not favour a re-siting south of the aqueduct as this is regularly a very busy space with leisure activities especially on weekends and its low elevation is often waterlogged after rain. I would like to offer a comment about the proposed planting scheme. The reserve already has a number of tall canopy trees, a mix of casuarinas and eucalypts. Together with the predominantly mown grass ground surface, this is ideal habitat for noisy miners which are territorial birds and behave in an aggressive manner against any small birds in the area. Rather than add more eucalypts, large angophoras and Brachychiton acerifolius, I suggest Melaleuca stypheloides (or similar) and Angophora hispida, both small attractive Sydney species with attractive flowers. These would enhance the existing areas of tall shrubs-smaller trees and increase the structural complexity overall, thereby increasing the habitat values of the reserve.
	Non support	Proposed Fitness Area in Spindler’s Park Annandale. I oppose this development as do my wife and daughter. We live at …………. Annandale. We have lived here since 1992. We have seen a marked change in the Park since that time. When we arrived here there was a toilet block in the park and the park was in a poor condition. The toilet block was used as a drug dealing and male pick up joint. Within a week of us moving in we were broken and had numerous items stolen. This was the experience of numerous people in the street at the time caused by those involved in drug deals in the majority of cases. Leichhardt council then revamped the park knocking down the toilet block and the frequent break ins stopped and the park grew into a pleasant area. Shortly after the revamp people began to either visited the park for a picnic or on nice summer evenings set up tables and chairs for dinners with friends in the park. However the areas where this sort of activity was most favoured has been reducing over the years for various reasons. 1. The children playground used to consist of an old slide and one other piece of equipment surrounded by grass. When this was replaced and the new playground established, whilst this was a great improvement it did mean that the new children playground which now covers a large area really took over the whole of that area of the park and negated it’s use for other activities. 2. There are definitely many more dogs using the park than in the past. Perhaps there are many more dogs living in the area than previously. The area mainly favoured by dog owners is the area with the cricket strip down the middle of it. Unfortunately more dogs has meant more dog poo that is not collected, most people do the right thing but unfortunately some do not. In the early 2000s I used to be involved in having my children’s parties in that area and often lending a hand at other friends parties for their children. I would be hesitant to do that today because of the increased use of that area by dog owners. 3. The large fig tree by the viaduct means that the area below it is unusable for use by the public; it is also the area council off loads wood chip mulch. So this is another area that can’t really be used. 4. The path through the park used to be very modest but that has been upgraded and substantially widened to incorporate a cycleway which has lead to the loss of more park green space. 5. The cycleway and pathway is being used much more now that the Tramsheds is in operation, so this is also leading to added pressure on the green areas. 6. It seems that the community wasn’t consulted very widely on the suitability of this area for the fitness area before a decision was made to implement it. I have spoken to several people in Nelson street in the area from the viaduct to the Crescent, none of them were aware that this was being considered before they saw the plan in their letterbox. 7. It is likely that the equipment of a Fitness Area will attract vandalism at night and will probably be used inappropriately. If that proves to be the case and equipment is left in a broken condition then it will quickly fall out of use from those who would be using it responsibly. 8. Is this a project that the community in this area is in great need of? I don’t believe it is. There are numerous gyms and exercise facilities in the area that people can sign up to. There is even an exercise area similar to what is being proposed for this location in Camperdown Park. 9. I do consider this a waste of council money. I would far sooner see that money used for the maintenance of the park. Maintenance has deteriorated markedly since the Council Amalgamation. There are now numerous places where the park railing is broken down and as with other places there are numerous broken down abandoned community bicycles. When the park was renovated in the early 1990s along with many other areas the idea was that we were reestablishing the environment, trying to bring back the natural environment and eco systems that had been almost totally destroyed in the past, it was about planting trees and vegetation and about getting rid of concrete from these green link corridor areas. That has been very beneficial for people and the environment in our inner city areas; I feel it is most important that that thought pattern is maintained, especially in the light of the appalling carnage that the Westconnex project will cause in our local area if Stage 3 is allowed to go ahead.
7/6/2018	Support	This email is in support of the proposed gym in spindlers Park. It would be a great assest to Annandale. Anything that encourages people to get outdoors and exercise should be encouraged, in its location on a core recreation through way makes perfect sense. Great initiative, I look forward to using it, get on with it!
7/6/2018	Support	I am emailing in response to a flier asking for feedback on whether we have any concerns regarding the new outdoor gym. We have no concerns regarding the project per se, but do have concerns regarding potential problems with nearby parking, especially in Nelson Lane. This relates to a problem that we have had for a long time, that I raised with Leichhardt council in the past, but without success. Our property is …………, and we have a garage that backs onto Nelson Lane at a short distance from the site from the gym. Nelson Lane is quite narrow and so is the width of our garage. So if a car is parked, even legally, on the opposite side of the lane, it is impossible to drive our car in or out of our garage. At present there are signs opposite our garage door that states that parking is not allowed between 8 am and 6 pm, Monday to Friday. But that has not helped much. Firstly, frequently vehicles do not obey those rules, and except for when we had contacted the council on a few occasions, there has been no enforcement of the rules. Secondly, we have the view that we should have the legal right to have access to our garage at all times. We are grandparents, and one of our 3 year old grandchildren has had severe asthma and also potentially life threatening anaphylactic reactions to certain common foods. (She was, in fact, needed to taken admitted to be suddenly admitted for a serious asthma attack to a hospital early this week.) Since both parents are employed, the grandchildren are frequently in our care. We would like to be confident that, if such an emergency did occur while in our care, we would be able to immediately drive them to the nearest hospital. Which we could not be able to do if our car is trapped in our garage. It is reasonable to anticipate that, when the nearby Gym is operating, the parking situation in Nelson Lane will worsen, as will our problem with access to our garage. It would help significantly if the signs apposite the entrance to our garage were changed to not allow parking at any time, and not in any day of the week. That would allow us to place large and obvious signs on our garage door asking motorists not to park opposite. In the past we did take the initiative and place signs on the door asking motorists not to park opposite, as well as some tape and witches hats in that area. But we were told by a ranger that these should be removed, and threatened with a $200 fine if that were not done soon. Given that our problem of access to our garage is likely to worsen with the opening of the gym, we would ask that this issue be raised again, and hopefully, the signs be changed to not allow parking at any time. Following our earlier unsuccessful communication with Leichhardt Council on this problem, we did consider pursuing legal action on this, as the initial advice given to us was that parking rules determined by council should ensure access to private properties at all times, so long as the entrances to the properties were legal. We did not continue with this because of the cost and inconvenience. Instead we have been forced into the habit of parking the car in Nelson Street instead of using our garage. I assume, this is not a solution that Council would prefer. If matters regarding parking is not within your job description, I would very much appreciate it if you could bring this to the attention of the appropriate people. I would also appreciate it if you could reply to my email on any progress on this matter.
10/6/2018	Support	I am writing because we have been invited (by flyer) to give feedback on the above park which is close to our house. We live and own ……………….Annandale. We are not opposed to the 'Wellbeing gym' being developed but our concern is to be sure that the current 'off-leash' status of the park is not changed. That thoroughfare is used by literally hundreds of dog owners a day to walk their dogs. Dog owners of the 'Inner- West' and 'City of Sydney' already face undue harassment for having safe dogs off leash in public places. This walkway is one of the few places that one can walk ta dog for extended periods without being required to put the dog on a lead. It would be a shame if this was changed, and also very unpopular. Thank you for considering this submission that this area not become an on-lead area with the development of the 'wellbeing gym'
13/7/2018	Non Support	We are writing to you, once again, to lodge our further strident objection, as we did on 16^th February this year, to the location of the proposed new outdoor fitness area (the Fitness Area) in Spindler Park Annandale, directly behind our property at --------------- In addition to the reasons for our objection already outlined to you in our submission of 16^th February 2018, we wish to emphasise the following five (5) reasons for our objection, as follows: 1. Of primary importance, the location of the Fitness Area will be directly across Nelson Lane and within twenty (20) metres and thus in easy earshot of our Council approved third (occupied) bedroom above our garage. People will and do, begin exercising and will be talking, laughing and calling to each other, as early as sunrise (0540 AEDT) in summer, which noise, being only 20 metres away, will wake those who are sleeping in our third bedroom. Any noise, at all, sufficient to wake neighbours is not allowed, under the POEO (Noise Control)Regulation 2017, before 7am Monday to Saturday and not at all on Sunday. Council will not be able to prevent people using the Fitness Area from sunrise to 7am each day, including Sunday. 2. Of further importance, Council, with NSW Police have a joint statutory responsibility, under the POEO (noise Control) Regulation 2017, to “generally regulate any neighbourhood noise which can disturb sleep, cause irritation and undermine community goodwill” (wording from NSW Governments Noise Control website). The positioning of the Fitness Area directly behind 279 Nelson Street, in earshot of people sleeping there, is therefore at odds with Councils statutory responsibility under the POEO (Noise Control) Regulation 2017 to “regulate noise which can disturb sleep”. 3. Of equal importance, the positioning of the Fitness Area in Spindler Park is also completely at odds with Council’s proposal and resolution (C0217 Item 3) to expand the Annandale Conservation Area to include the eastern side of Nelson Street, Nelson Lane and Spindler Park because the Fitness Area will ( in Councils own wording of its resolution CO217 Item 3) ”not preserve the characteristics which reflect the heritage significance of the existing (grassed, passive area of the park) which contribute to the landform and history of Annandale (by that grassed area being) demolished.” 4. The natural, green, passive, open space in the park, will be replaced by an active, artificial Fitness Area. 5. However there is a perfectly suitable area to locate the Fitness Area, being at the southern end of Spindler Park , adjacent to the dead end of Taylor Street, alongside the existing children’s play equipment, which is sufficiently away from any residences. Of significance, being located there, the artificial Fitness Area will blend well with the existing artificial children’s play equipment and therefore not detract from the heritage characteristics of significance found in the northern end of Spindler Park. In addition we have read and completely endorse the objections of; -The Riley Family (Bryan, Alice, Jarvis and Calder) of 287 Nelson Street, Annandale -Annemarie and Tony Stapleton of 273 Nelson Street Annandale. -Damien Prentice of 252 Nelson Street, Annandale; and -the twenty ( 20) signatories from nine(9) Nelson Street properties in the petition of objection to the Fitness Area lodged with you by Mr Bryan Riley of 287 Nelson Street Annandale on 11^th June 2018. We sincerely trust that our sensible, well founded objection assists in Council resolving not to proceed with the proposed site of the Fitness Area in Spindler Park.
8/6/2018	Support	I’m writing to share my support for the proposed outdoor gym in Spindlers Park in Annandale. It is great to see Inner West Council investing in facilities that City of Sydney have provided for residents for some time, and will really improve the amenity of our parks. Parks are to be enjoyed, and many people enjoy parks in different ways. Just as people walk their dogs and do yoga or personal training in the park, others would love to be able to do a workout at the end of a walk, or incorporate a solid workout into their daily routine. The entire parks system in Annandale & Glebe have many spaces for many activities - dog walking, playgrounds, BBQs, water views, picnic areas etc. But there isn’t a gym and it feels like this is a really useful and wanted addition to the area. A gym is not compulsory, just as a sports oval doesn’t mean you have to play cricket each time you walk past. But without the gym facilities, some of the residents that do want to use them are missing out. I see the location proposed as a good use of space. It is not a particularly high-use area of grass that is being taken up, as the area is closer to the road and the park is narrower at that point, so serves mainly as a thoroughfare. Having spent many hours in gym in my life, I don’t see gym activities generating noise or disruption to other park users. Perhaps some other future considerations for council could include a water bubbler in the area, and a broader consideration for public toilet facilities in Spindler Park. There are currently no toilets in the Spindler Park area - neither at the playground or further down towards the proposed gym. These would absolutely benefit every user of the park and brings Spindler Park up to the standard of other parks on the City of Sydney side also. My recommendation and support absolutely go towards the development of the outdoor gym. And if it can be completed through the winter months, it will be the perfect place to launch into the pre-summer gym routine as the morning start to lighten up and the weather warms up again. Don’t hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss.
13/6/2018	Non Support	I wish to object to the construction of the proposed adult fitness area in Spindlers Park Annandale. I am a long term resident at …………………….and our house backs onto Nelson Lane with a garage on the lane. Reasons for my objection are: 1. Fitness centre may mean increased parking in lane and this stops us from using our garage as cars parked opposite garage means we cannot get our car in or out of garage. We regularly mind a grandchild with medical issues and we need access to our garage especially in an emergency. 2. Loss of open space - keep open space as open space. 3. Possible use of area at night by loiterers increasing noise and safety in area. This park area actually feels safe and I use it at night to return home through the park from light rail. I value safety in area and don't want to feel unsafe if "undesirables" are hooning at back of our house. Our bedrooms are at back of our house and noise would interfere with sleep. Whilst I understand the objectives of the fitness area for health benefits I feel this the the wrong location and it is better not to proceed and spend council funds more appropriately.
14/6/2018	Non Support	I wish to object to the placement of the Fitness area as currently partially built in Spindlers Park. I note I do not object to a Fitness facility per say – just the placement as it currently sits. Disappointingly this project proceeded without proper community consult. That emails to Darcy Byrne regarding the development remain unanswered. That the council advised Councillor Stamolis that no complaints had been received. This is clearly incorrect given that Council responded to my correspondence. My Family and I are of the view that the development in Spindlers Park should Not proceed in its current location: · Whilst not a direct intrusion on our amenity. It clearly is a potential sound intrusion to those that back directly onto the park and current designated build site. Loss of open space and amenity in the narrowest area of the parkland. · Is currently a designated Off Leash area and the development sits within this designated zone. · There has been no research published to justify the cost to build. · No safeguards are in place to limit Fitness organisations using the equipment for work out sessions.
16/6/2018	Non Support	I live at …………., Annandale and use the adjacent parklands frequently. My wife and I are not in favour of the proposed out door gym development. Its current presence divides the slip of parkland bounded by Nelson Lane and the very well used multi-use pathway. It thereby makes each part less visually attractive. Also it may encourage groups to 'take over' zones temporarily for their private use. We fear that the completed development may do the same. If any such facility is warranted, and I assume that demand has been assessed by usage surveys of other such facilities in the LG area, I question whether a grouped arrangement is preferable to one which places the various appliances in a sequential order, eg. along the edge of the open space, as close as practicable to the laneway. I am also concerned that the area, in its proposed form, may become a gathering point for non-exercisers at odd hours, resulting in noise, litter and the need for additional lighting in the future. Finally, I admit that my view is biased by my age which will make it highly unlikely that I will ever use the facility.
18/6/2018	Non Support	I oppose this development as do my wife and daughter. We live at …………………..Annandale. We have lived here since 1992. We have seen a marked change in the Park since that time. When we arrived here there was a toilet block in the park and the park was in a poor condition. The toilet block was used as a drug dealing and male pick up joint. Within a week of us moving in we were broken and had numerous items stolen. This was the experience of numerous people in the street at the time caused by those involved in drug deals in the majority of cases. Leichhardt council then revamped the park knocking down the toilet block and the frequent break ins stopped and the park grew into a pleasant area. Shortly after the revamp people began to either visited the park for a picnic or on nice summer evenings set up tables and chairs for dinners with friends in the park. However the areas where this sort of activity was most favoured has been reducing over the years for various reasons. 1. The children playground used to consist of an old slide and one other piece of equipment surrounded by grass. When this was replaced and the new playground established, whilst this was a great improvement it did mean that the new children playground which now covers a large area really took over the whole of that area of the park and negated it’s use for other activities. 2. There are definitely many more dogs using the park than in the past. Perhaps there are many more dogs living in the area than previously. The area mainly favoured by dog owners is the area with the cricket strip down the middle of it. Unfortunately more dogs has meant more dog poo that is not collected, most people do the right thing but unfortunately some do not. In the early 2000s I used to be involved in having my children’s parties in that area and often lending a hand at other friends parties for their children. I would be hesitant to do that today because of the increased use of that area by dog owners. 3. The large fig tree by the viaduct means that the area below it is unusable for use by the public; it is also the area council off loads wood chip mulch. So this is another area that can’t really be used. 4. The path through the park used to be very modest but that has been upgraded and substantially widened to incorporate a cycleway which has lead to the loss of more park green space. 5. The cycleway and pathway is being used much more now that the Tramsheds is in operation, so this is also leading to added pressure on the green areas. 6. It seems that the community wasn’t consulted very widely on the suitability of this area for the fitness area before a decision was made to implement it. I have spoken to several people in Nelson street in the area from the viaduct to the Crescent, none of them were aware that this was being considered before they saw the plan in their letterbox. 7. It is likely that the equipment of a Fitness Area will attract vandalism at night and will probably be used inappropriately. If that proves to be the case and equipment is left in a broken condition then it will quickly fall out of use from those who would be using it responsibly. 8. Is this a project that the community in this area is in great need of? I don’t believe it is. There are numerous gyms and exercise facilities in the area that people can sign up to. There is even an exercise area similar to what is being proposed for this location in Camperdown Park. 9. I do consider this a waste of council money. I would far sooner see that money used for the maintenance of the park. Maintenance has deteriorated markedly since the Council Amalgamation. There are now numerous places where the park railing is broken down and as with other places there are numerous broken down abandoned community bicycles. When the park was renovated in the early 1990s along with many other areas the idea was that we were reestablishing the environment, trying to bring back the natural environment and eco systems that had been almost totally destroyed in the past, it was about planting trees and vegetation and about getting rid of concrete from these green link corridor areas. That has been very beneficial for people and the environment in our inner city areas; I feel it is most important that that thought pattern is maintained, especially in the light of the appalling carnage that the Westconnex project will cause in our local area if Stage 3 is allowed to go ahead.
21/6/2018	Non Support	I want to add my voice in opposition to the proposed Fitness Area in Spindler’s Park. I first became aware of the proposed Fitness Area on a walk and saw the area was cordoned off and a small sign regarding fitness equipment installation. It has been customary for council to notify people in the area before going ahead with a project. I was disappointed with not receiving notification for a decision to populate open space with more structure. Splindler’s Park is quite a small park and it is a poor idea to build on more of the unstructured area. In the past few years it has been impacted on by a increased size of the Children’s Playground, a basketball hoop, formalising a footpath and then widening it for a bike path. The old cricket pitch was and still is often used by families, so the first quiet space next to these, the Council now suggests to turn into another facility. Please just leave some open space in the park for sitting, contemplating and watchingin what is also a very well used dogs off-leash area.
6/7/2018	Non support	My comments are: · Is there a need for this outdoor gym? There are a number of gyms in the local area (Glebe PCYC, Boxing Works at the Tramsheds, Anytime Fitness, F45, Camperdown Fitness etc) and that this money may be better spent elsewhere. · How is the long term maintenance and management of this gym going to be managed? Equipment exposed to the elements will deteriorate quickly over time and who will maintain this equipment? · There is a lot of usage in the park area with walkers, dog walkers, joggers and bike riders. With this large amount of traffic how is the use of the gym going to be monitored, especially with it being accessible 24*7. · Has any consideration been given to safety issues with the possibilities of people injuring themselves by not using the equipment correctly and especially the possibility of young children being around the equipment. · This may encourage the use of the equipment by outdoor training groups, the concern would be increased parking in Nelson Lane, which has been an on-going issue with the Council. Thank for your consideration of these comments. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
4/8/2018	Non Support	I wish to object to the placement of the Fitness area as currently partially built in Spindlers Park. I note I do not object to a Fitness facility per say – just the placement as it currently sits. Disappointingly this project proceeded without proper community consult. My Family and I are of the view that the development in Spindlers Park should Not proceed in its current location: · Whilst not a direct intrusion on our amenity. It clearly is a potential sound intrusion to those that back directly onto the park and current designated build site. · Loss of open space and amenity in the narrowest area of the parkland. · Is currently a designated Off Leash area and the development sits within this designated zone. · There has been no research published to justify the cost to build. · No safeguards are in place to limit Fitness organisations using the equipment for work out sessions.
8/7/2018	Support	Hello We live ………………….Annandale and are just emailing to let you know we support the out door gym at Smith, Hogan & spindlers park. Thank you

Council Meeting

14 August 2018

Item No: C0818(1) Item 13

Subject: Sporting Grounds Allocation Policy - Discussion Paper

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

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

SUMMARY

This report provides information on the principles outlined in the Sporting Grounds Allocation Policy – Discussion Paper. The report also summarises the feedback received from local Sporting Clubs and Associations on the Discussion Paper, which will be utilised to inform the drafting of the Policy.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The principles, transparent, equitable and consistent, for the Sporting Grounds Allocation Policy, as outlined in the Discussion Paper be adopted by Council;

2. Council draft a Sporting Grounds Allocation Policy taking into consideration the feedback received from the clubs on the Discussion Paper;

3. The draft Sporting Grounds Allocation Policy specify that staff will continue to make the allocation determinations; and

4. The draft Sporting Grounds Allocation Policy be reported to Council prior to being placed on public exhibition.

BACKGROUND

At the Council meeting on the 27 February 2018 it was resolved (in part):

That Council prepare a draft sporting field allocation policy. That the principles to be applied for the allocations of the sporting field be consulted with the sporting clubs, brought to a councilor briefing then brought to Council for council adoption. That following exhibition of the proposed allocation the final allocation also be brought to council for adoption. Allocation for all clubs should be made transparently available following the adoption of the policy.

The purpose of the Sporting Grounds Allocations Policy is to contribute to a Healthier Inner West by encouraging active sports participation. The Policy will also establish eligibility and the selection criteria by which the use of sporting grounds are allocated by Council.

The objective of the Discussion Paper was to provide further information on the principles which will inform the development of the Sporting Grounds Allocation Policy. It also raised questions to which Council requested comments and feedback from the sporting clubs

The following background information and statistics highlight the issues which need to be addressed and managed by the Sporting Grounds Allocation Policy.

· The Inner West has 28 sporting grounds.

· In the winter season, within the sporting grounds, there are 38 senior fields and five junior fields.

· In the summer season, within the sporting grounds, there are 29 senior fields and one junior field.

· There are 46 clubs currently utilising sporting grounds for seasonal sport.

· Ideally, the sporting grounds should have a total maximum capacity of 1,047 hours per week, this is an average of 29.1 hours per sporting ground.

· Currently, across the Inner West, the sporting grounds are used for a total of 1176 hours per week in winter. This is an average of 32.7 hours per week.

· This means that the sporting grounds are currently being utilised at an average 112% of their capacity. That is, they are already being over-utilised.

· Ideally, the sporting grounds would be rested for three weeks between the summer and winter season and for three weeks between the winter and summer season.

· Council currently rests the sporting grounds for one week between the summer and winter season and for one week between the winter and summer season.

· All sporting grounds must be rested for one day per week (generally Mondays).

Principles

Principles will form the foundation for the development of the Sporting Grounds Allocation Policy. These principles were presented to the Sports Forum on the 9 April 2018 where it was generally agreed by those present that they were appropriate. The principles include:

· Transparent

· Equitable

· Consistent

The principles are outlined in greater detail in the Discussion Paper, which is attached.

Feedback from the Sporting Clubs

The Sporting Grounds Allocation Policy Discussion Paper was emailed to all sporting clubs currently utilising sporting grounds in the Inner West on the 14 May 2018. The clubs were requested to provide feedback on the Discussion Paper by the 25 June 2018.

A workshop was held with the clubs on the 18 June 2018. 19 sporting club representatives attended the workshop. The notes taken at the workshop are attached.

Six written submissions were received from the clubs. These submissions are attached.

The key feedback and issues raised by the sporting clubs are summarised as follows:

Summarised comments from clubs	Council staff response
The principle of capital contributions for longer tenure needs to be carefully worked as you don’t want to be seen to be buying access to the detriment of other organisations or community groups.	It is proposed that the Policy will provide longer tenure and/ or reduced fees for clubs who provide a capital contribution. However, it is proposed that there will be conditions and limitations placed around this. Further, it is proposed that there will be other weighted criteria which will prioritise other factors such as historical access to the grounds, diversity of sports and clubs with increased participation of minority groups.
How to balance how damage from one season affects the ground use going into another season. Does the “damaging party” have their season reduced?	It is proposed that the Policy will have penalties for (deliberate) breaches.
Would like to see overuse and shifting allocations to reduce wear and damage included in the policy.	One of the Principles of the Policy is that the sporting grounds are managed to maximise long term usage (minimise over-use).
Appropriate penalties for breaches include: fines; loss of privileges; fees moved up from subsidised to commercial level for the remainder of the season.	It is proposed that the Policy will have penalties for breaches.
First grade facilities should be managed separately. This includes: Pratten Park, Henson Park, Leichhardt Oval and Petersham Park. These locations require specialised maintenance.	One of the Principles of the Policy is that the sporting grounds are managed to maximise long term usage (minimise over-use). Different maintenance programs are already in place for Council’s high profile parks.
To a degree the club has reached a threshold in size dictated by the availability of fields for training and games. Some clubs may not exercise such self-regulation and this could disadvantage those who do.	It is proposed that the Policy will allow clubs to request greater access (locations, times) to sporting grounds. However, there will be caps on the amount of this increase from year to year. Individual Parent Associations also have a role to play in monitoring club numbers to ensure equity and fairness in competition formats and also to work in partnership with Council and sporting clubs to ensure seasonal longevity of sporting grounds for competition formats.
The policy should address circumstances in which a club uses both council and other fields so that its total access to fields is appropriate to its needs.	This would be difficult for Council to monitor and it would rely on accurate self-reporting from the clubs. Council is unlikely to meet the entire needs of all clubs. Sporting grounds are a limited resource and as such the objective is to manage them in a transparent, equitable and consistent manner.
The intention to continue priority to clubs with the majority of members in the IWC is welcomed. This should be refined so allocations match suburbs as much as possible. This will improve accessibility/ reduce travel.	Agreed. Where possible, this should be taken into consideration.
The proposal of increased tenure or reduced fees in return for capital contributions by clubs requires careful consideration for all its ramifications if it is to be equitable.	It is proposed that the Policy will provide longer tenure and/ or reduced fees for clubs who provide a capital contribution. However, it is proposed that there will be conditions and limitations placed around this. Further, it is proposed that there will be other weighted criteria which will prioritise other factors such as historical access to the grounds, diversity of sports and clubs with increased participation of minority groups.
Fees are kept as low as possible to encourage participation. Any fee increase would necessarily be passed on to players.	This Policy seeks to manage the allocation of sporting grounds. The harmonisation of fees and charges will be a second stage process, to be carried out in 2018/2019. Clubs will be engaged through this process. It is likely that any changes in fees and charges will be modified over a period of some years.
Any increase in the resting period between seasons should be shared equally between summer and winter sports.	Agreed.
The resting of fields would cut into pre-season training because the season is set by the association not the clubs.	Noted. Pre-season training will be considered in the Policy.
If Council wishes to extend the inter-season resting time it may be possible to retract use from a field or two as training usage generally phases in, and games phase out toward the end of the season.	Noted. The definition of the seasons will be considered in the Policy. Sharing by agreement will be encouraged.
Additional fields could be considered at Marrickville and Fort Street High Schools and Wilkins Public Schools. Arrangements similar to those successfully used for Sydney Secondary College might be appropriate.	Agreed. The draft Recreation Needs Study: A Healthier Inner West confirms the shortfall in sporting grounds. Council staff will investigate opportunities to increase the number of sporting grounds available to the community, including possible partnerships with local schools.
Improvements to fields would be welcomed.	Noted. This will be considered as part of the Long Term Financial Plan and the ten year capital works program.
Flexibility in starting times and lighting for weekend games would be welcomed.	Generally in residential areas weekend games are permitted from 8am to 6pm. Lighting is generally only utilised for training during the week. One of the principles outlined in the Discussion Paper is the need to manage to sporting grounds to maximise long term usage (minimise over-use).
The permissibility of hosting neutral games and finals is not clear. This should be clarified.	Agreed. This will be clarified in the Policy.
Capital contributions made by clubs over the past 5 years should be taken into account when determining increased tenure and reduced fees.	This is a new Policy. As such any proposed increase in tenure/ reduction in fees will be for future works.
Existing long term leases should be disclosed and the basis for those leases being agreed.	Lease/ licence details such as the organisation and length of the contract can be disclosed. Other details may be confidential.
Historical claims to grounds needs to reflect substantial usage within modern times.	It is proposed that there will be multiple weighted criteria which will allow the prioritisation of Allocations. The weighted criteria will be based on the principles outlined in the Discussion Paper.
Focus on utilisation of fields; sports with high, audited participation rates must be given preference.	It is proposed that there will be multiple weighted criteria which will allow the prioritisation of Allocations. The weighted criteria will be based on the principles outlined in the Discussion Paper.
Recognition of the community’s changing preferences for playing certain sports all year round should be a consideration.	It is proposed that there will be multiple weighted criteria which will allow the prioritisation of Allocations. The weighted criteria will be based on the principles outlined in the Discussion Paper. Traditional “winter” and “summer” sports will be given consideration.
Changeover dates between seasons should give consideration to actual usage patterns. Seek to share usage during the shoulder seasons via agreement.	Noted. The definition of the seasons will be considered in the Policy. Sharing by agreement will be encouraged.
Easter shut-down should be limited to Thursday-Monday.	The definition of the seasons will be considered in the Policy. Rest periods will be determined at the start of the season and notified to Clubs. As Easter moves each year, the Easter shutdown will need to be considered on a year by year basis.
Any breaches of the policy are properly documented so the individuals involved can be readily identified and penalties imposed directly.	It is proposed that the Policy will have penalties for breaches.
Further disclosure of the process for harmonising fees must be provided to the club prior to any change in fees. There must be transparency with the fees.	This Policy seeks to manage the allocation of sporting grounds. The harmonisation of fees and charges will be a second stage process, to be carried out in 2018/2019. Clubs will be engaged through this process. It is likely that any changes in fees and charges will be modified over a period of some years.
The draft Allocations Policy should be released directly to the clubs at the same time it is presented to Council, prior to it going on public exhibition.	The draft Policy will be printed on the Council meeting agenda and available on the Council’s website in advance of the Council meeting.
Need to assess the appropriate weighting to be applied for the specific allocation criteria to be used in the policy.	It is proposed that there will be multiple weighted criteria which will allow the prioritisation of Allocations. The weighted criteria will be based on the principles outlined in the Discussion Paper.
The weighted criteria should be subject to review on a regular basis.	All Council Policies are subject to periodic review.
Capital contributions should not be used as a criteria for the allocation of grounds.	It is proposed that the Policy will provide longer tenure and/ or reduced fees for clubs who provide a capital contribution. However, it is proposed that there will be conditions and limitations placed around this. Further, it is proposed that there will be other weighted criteria which will prioritise other factors such as historical access to the grounds, diversity of sports and clubs with increased participation of minority groups.
Supportive in principle that capital contributions increase tenure and/ or reduce hiring fees. IWC should not accept capital contributions from a sporting club that preclude or reduce the access of the sporting grounds to other sporting clubs.	It is proposed that the Policy will provide longer tenure and/ or reduced fees for clubs who provide a capital contribution. However, it is proposed that there will be conditions and limitations placed around this. Further, it is proposed that there will be other weighted criteria which will prioritise other factors such as historical access to the grounds, diversity of sports and clubs with increased participation of minority groups. Agreed. The acceptance of any capital contribution will need to consider the suitability of these works and the needs of all park users.
Capital contributions should only be accepted on an unconditional basis and should not lead to facilities that preclude or reduce other users from utilising these facilities.	It is proposed that the Policy will provide longer tenure and/ or reduced fees for clubs who provide a capital contribution. However, it is proposed that there will be conditions and limitations placed around this. Further, it is proposed that there will be other weighted criteria which will prioritise other factors such as historical access to the grounds, diversity of sports and clubs with increased participation of minority groups. Agreed. The acceptance of any capital contribution will need to consider the suitability of these works and the needs of all park users.
The policy should factor in the cyclical nature of sport participation. Medium term participation should be used rather than year-on-year changes.	It is proposed that there will be multiple weighted criteria which will allow the prioritisation of Allocations. The weighted criteria will be based on the principles outlined in the Discussion Paper.
The policy should weight historical access materially higher than other criteria.	It is proposed that there will be multiple weighted criteria which will allow the prioritisation of Allocations. The weighted criteria will be based on the principles outlined in the Discussion Paper.
Consideration should be given to the impact of different sports on the grounds. The setting of hiring charges should consider maintenance costs.	All active sports impact on the sporting grounds, and require greater maintenance than passive recreation. This Policy seeks to manage the allocation of sporting grounds. The harmonisation of fees and charges will be a second stage process, to be carried out in 2018/2019. Clubs will be engaged through this process. It is likely that any changes in fees and charges will be modified over a period of some years.
Delays in availability of grounds due to high maintenance requirements from some sports should be reflected in the access allocation.	All active sports impact on the sporting grounds, and require greater maintenance than passive recreation.
The policy should provide for an appeals process where there are major disputes to allocations.	Agreed. The Policy will include an appeals process.
Consequences for the repeated breach of policy should be developed and disclosed.	It is proposed that the Policy will have penalties for breaches.
Consequences for braches may include: Reduction in access to sporting grounds Higher future fees and charges Temporarily assigned a low priority for ground allocation.	It is proposed that the Policy will have penalties for breaches.
There is a risk that clubs will “over bid” for grounds so there should be an ability to “return” allocated grounds. Alternatively clubs should be allowed to sub-lease grounds.	Agreed. Council would request that Clubs “return” grounds which they are not utilising. Council will not allow the sub-leasing of grounds. Council needs to ensure that grounds are being utilised in accordance with Policy and that the park users have appropriate public liability insurance.
Consideration needs to be given to the draw and overlaps between the summer/ winter season. Encourage codes to work together.	Noted. The definition of the seasons will be considered in the Policy. Sharing by agreement will be encouraged.
Further clarification is needed on how it is proposed to harmonise the fees and charges.	This Policy seeks to manage the allocation of sporting grounds. The harmonisation of fees and charges will be a second stage process, to be carried out in 2018/2019. Clubs will be engaged through this process. It is likely that any changes in fees and charges will be modified over a period of some years.
Consider having a person who acts as an advisory person/ community advocate for the clubs.	Council has considered a report for an Office of Sport Coordinator (staff member), who could perform this role. Council has deferred consideration of this matter. It is understood the Northern Beaches have a volunteer (community member) who performs this role. Council is happy to liaise with such a person, should someone be willing to volunteer for this role.
Regardless of who determines the allocations, there needs to be a transparent and equitable formula for decision makings.	Agreed. It is proposed that there will be multiple weighted criteria which will allow the prioritisation of Allocations. The weighted criteria will be based on the principles outlined in the Discussion Paper. These weighted criteria will be outlined clearly within the published Policy.
The allocation formulas need to consider club numbers.	It is proposed that there will be multiple weighted criteria which will allow the prioritisation of Allocations. The weighted criteria will be based on the principles outlined in the Discussion Paper.
Private school use of grounds needs to be reviewed.	Private schools will be subject to the Policy and the weighted criteria process.
Fees need to be uniform across the board.	This Policy seeks to manage the allocation of sporting grounds. The harmonisation of fees and charges will be a second stage process, to be carried out in 2018/2019. Clubs will be engaged through this process. It is likely that any changes in fees and charges will be modified over a period of some years.
Training areas should have minimum numbers. Some codes have a whole ground for training compared with others who have multiple teams training on the same ground.	Council will adopt a program of regular spot checks on sporting grounds to ensure that approved allocations, including actual training numbers compared with allocated numbers, are being adhered to. It is proposed that the Policy will have penalties for breaches.
Put club numbers up on the website.	Agreed. It is intended to publish the seasonal allocations on Council’s website.
Further clarification is needed on how the weighted criteria will be calculated.	Agreed. It is proposed that there will be multiple weighted criteria which will allow the prioritisation of Allocations. The weighted criteria will be based on the principles outlined in the Discussion Paper. These weighted criteria will be outlined clearly within the published Policy.

Allocation Process

The Discussion Paper outlined a number of options for determination of the seasonal sporting ground allocations, including:

· Staff determination (the existing methodology)

· Allocation committee determination

· Association determination

· Council determination

The feedback from different clubs/ associations with regards to the allocation process is varied. The feedback is summarised as follows:

Allocation Option	Supported By
Staff determination (the existing methodology)	4 x Clubs 1 x Club (training only)
Allocation committee determination	1 x Club 1 x Club (as part of an Appeals process only)
Association determination	1 x Association 1 x Club 1 x Club (games only)
Council determination	Nil

As demonstrated by the table above, there was a lack of consensus on the allocation determination. Further, there was limited demonstrated demand for changing the current process. Given this, it is recommended that staff continue to make the allocation determination.

In relation to the allocation timing, a number of clubs mentioned that they would like the winter allocations to be brought forward. This will be considered in the drafting of the Policy.

Where to From Here?

The following diagram illustrates the process to develop the Sporting Grounds Allocation Policy.

We are here

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Staff resources have been allocated to the preparation and administration of this Policy as part of their annual action plan.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

The draft Sporting Grounds Allocation Policy, when prepared, will be distributed for staff comments.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The sporting clubs have been consulted, as outlined in the report. The draft Sporting Grounds Allocation Policy is intended to be placed on public exhibition.

CONCLUSION

In general, the Clubs and Associations have indicated that they support the principles (Transparent, Equitable, Consistent) outlined in the Discussion Paper.

Council has received feedback from the Clubs and Associations which will help in the drafting of the Allocations Policy. The draft Policy will be reported back to Council, prior to public exhibition.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Sporting Grounds Allocation Policy - Discussion Paper
2.⇩	Sporting Grounds Allocation Policy - Discussion Paper - Workshop Notes 18 June 2018
3.⇩	Sporting Grounds Allocation Policy - Discussion Paper - Submissions Received

[1] Difference between the daily loss figures quoted are due to differing sources. $400,000 per day is derived from the net profit figures reported for the second half of 2017, $385,000 from the 2016/17 annual report. This shows that the amount is rising, not falling. Net profit is the term used by the NSW government to mean losses by gamblers. It is the amount between the sums originally wagered, less wins and jackpots, and the amount gamblers retain. It is not the same as turnover, which includes amounts wagered from wins during play.

1.⇩	Draft Multicultural Policy
2.⇩	Multicultural Services and Policy Stocktake Attachment Two
3.⇩	Draft Engagement Plan Attachment Three
4.⇩	Draft Multicultural Action Plan 2018-2020 Attachment Four

Title	Multicultural policy
Summary	To provide policy guidance on supporting people form multicultural backgrounds and celebrating cultural diversity in the Inner West of Sydney
Background	At the time of the 2016 Census, the Inner West Council area had a population of 182,037. Of these 62,228 or 34% were born overseas and 51,597 (28%) spoke a language other than English at home. Inner West Council resolved to develop new initiatives in Multicultural policy on 24 April 2018. This policy is to ensure equity of access to council services and to ensure the voices of people from non-English speaking backgrounds are heard in Council’s decision-making. It seeks to promote Council celebration of its unique and diverse communities.
Policy Type	Council
Relevant Strategic Plan Objective	Links to Community Strategic Plan, Strategic Direction 4: Caring, healthy communities. Particularly 4.1 Everyone feels welcome and connected to the community. The indicator for the outcome is: Satisfaction with programs and support for newly arrived and migrant communities.
Relevant Council References	This policy is informed by the draft Social and Cultural Planning Framework. The policy builds on the approach of Marrickville Cultural Action Plan 2016-2020. The policy supersedes the former plans: Strengthening Marrickville's Migrant Communities: a Local Action Plan 2010-2015 and Marrickville’s Cultural Diversity Action Plan (2003). Citizen and stakeholder engagement will be delivered through the Community Engagement Framework 2017.
Main Legislative Or Regulatory Reference	Multicultural NSW Act 2000 and its principles
Applicable Delegation Of Authority	As per delegations register
Other External References	Multicultural Policies and Services Program (Multicultural NSW) and the statutory framework Multicultural Planning of NSW Government Agencies
Attachments	NA
Record Notes	External
Version Control	See last page

Engagement Overview
Project Description Explain your project to the community.	To engage with citizens of the Inner West and other relevant stakeholders on a policy for supporting and celebrating cultural diversity in the Inner West of Sydney
Engagement Purpose What do you want to achieve by engaging the community / stakeholders?	To involve citizens in developing the policy
Engagement Goals Outline specific goals for the engagement.	To ensure that the concerns and aspirations of people from diverse backgrounds are directly reflected in guiding access to Council services and policies. Secondly, the engagement seeks to ensure that people from diverse backgrounds are celebrated and acknowledged, and that they participate in local decision making, including in design of councils services and policies.
Project Manager/s	Simon Watts
Project Sponsor	Erla Ronan
TRIM reference Note the trim container and sub-container for community engagement (Email records to set this up).

Engagement Program and Methods
Engagement Stage - when the community can have input	Enter stage number and name. Use a separate column for each stage of the engagement.	Stage1	Stage 2 (if required)	Stage 3 (if required
Objectives	Detail what you are aiming to achieve from the engagement in this stage.	Exhibition of draft policy
Timeline	Outline the timeline for each stage including key dates/deadlines	28 days from 25 July 2018.
Communication Plan	Outline how you will promote your engagement..	Social media, press and email communication to key stakeholders
Engagement methods	Outline how you will obtain community/ stakeholder input.	Via Your say Inner West
Next steps	Outline what you need to do at the end of the stage to feed back to stakeholders.	Publish on Council website and promote via social media, press and email communication to key stakeholders
Evaluation	Outline how you will evaluate this stage.	Number of citizens who participate in engagement

	Communication and Engagement Evaluation
	Evaluation should consider the process as well as the outcomes.
	What worked well?
	How could this process have been improved?
	Was the process implemented as planned? If not, what was changed and why?
	How effective was this community engagement process in achieving the objectives?
	How did input from the community / stakeholders contribute to or influence the outcome?
	Stage objectives and measurements
	Outline the overal engagement goals plus objectives for each stage then evaluate how well they were met.
	Engagement Goals	Measurements / analysis
	● To engage citizens in the content of the policy ● To engage citizens in identifying barriers to access and inclusion in services for people form diverse backgrounds
	Stage 1 -
	● To ● To
	Stage 2 -
	● To ● To
	Stage 3 -
	● To

Council	Service Standard
Bayside	“up to 20 business days”
Burwood	“20 working days”
Canada Bay	“up to 20 business days”
Canterbury-Bankstown	“may take approximately 21 days”
City of Sydney	“We aim to respond to requests within 10 working days. However, response times will vary depending on the current levels of demand on our services and the type of information being requested.”
Georges River	“Requests will be processed in a timely manner and as soon as practical. Turnaround times will also depend on the volume of information sought and whether documents need to be retrieved from archives.”

Council	Service Standard
Blacktown	“within 20 working days”
Camden	“applications generally take 20 working days to finalise”
Campbelltown	“a minimum of 20 working days from receipt of a completed form for a response. This time frame is dependent on current workload and accessibility of the information being sought.”
Central Coast	Current processing time is “minimum of 4 weeks”
City of Parramatta	“This process may take up to 4 weeks to obtain certain documents under informal access. Some of the documents listed on the form are available within a week while others are stored offsite and may take longer to access.”
Cumberland	Within 20 working days after receipt of the application
Lane Cove	“within 7 days of receipt”
Liverpool	“up to 20 working days to complete”
Penrith	“up to 20 business days”
Randwick Council	“requests are generally processed within five (5) working days, however, depending upon the availability and/or location of the information requested, some requests may take longer
Strathfield	website states applicants will be “notified within 15 working days” ie what information will be available to the applicant upon retrieval of the requested files
Sutherland	“20 business days”
Waverley	“up to 20 business days”
Wollongong	“up to 10 working days”
Woollahra	Will “respond within 10 working days” to acknowledge the request and to advise action taken to date in response to the request

1.⇩	IWC Agency Information Guide
2.⇩	Revised Public Access to Information held by Council Policy

1.⇩	Draft Council Submission to Parliamentary Inquiry
2.⇩	Terms of Reference - Parliamentary Inquiry
3.⇩	Notes from five meetings regarding WCX impacts
4.⇩	SGS WestConnex business case review

1.⇩	Gladstone Park Fitness Station Design and Location
2.⇩	Smith Hogan and Spindlers Park Fitness Station Design and Location
3.⇩	Notification Letters
4.⇩	Community Submissions

1.⇩	Post exhibition report and Council minutes - 24 April 2018 - 17 Marion Street, Leichhardt
2.⇩	Parliamentary Counsel Final Opinion - LLEP 2013 Amendment No. 16

Property	Reason for referral:
Balmain Backpackers - 673 Darling St Rozelle	The modification of the fire safety system where thermal detection is in place of smoke detection in some areas of the premises.

Property	Key Requirement
Balmain Backpackers - 673 Darling St Rozelle	Inspection of premises has been carried out by Council and a Notice of Intention to Serve an Order Under Schedule 5 of the EPAA is to be issued on the owner of premises.

Duration of MOU
Commencement Date
Service NSW Details
Address	Level 20, 2-24 Rawson Place, Sydney NSW 2000
ABN	37 552 837 401
Service NSW Representative	Executive Director, EtdB – Kylie De Courteney
Phone	02 8059 2359
Email	kylie.decourteney@service.nsw.gov.au
[COUNCIL NAME] Details
Address
ABN
Council Representative
Phone
Email

1.⇩	Letter to Ms Tamara Regan
2.⇩	Letter to Mr James Macpherson from Mark Coure MP

Office of Liquor and Gaming: Gaming Machine Report for Inner West LGA
Type of Venue	Profit	Pokies	Venues	Profit / day
Clubs (1/7/17 - 30/11/17)	$30,333,487	1,138	17	$198,258
Hotels (1/7/17 - 31/12/17)	$43,225,682	933	57	$234,922
Total	$73,559,169	2,071	74	$433,180