Agenda of Council Meeting - 13 November 2018

Council Meeting

13 November 2018

Item No: C1118(1) Item 1

Subject: Banners, Flags and Temporary Signage Policy

Prepared By: Laura Stevens - Group Manager Communications, Engagement and Events

Authorised By: John Warburton - Deputy General Manager Community and Engagement

SUMMARY

Banner, flags and temporary signage are valuable tools to achieve Inner West Council’s objectives of communicating and celebrating with our community.

It is essential that Council has a policy in place outlining the management of banners, flags and temporary signage in the Inner West local government area to ensure their appropriate use.

This policy provides appropriate guidelines for the effective management of banners, street flags and temporary signage across the local government area.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Adopt the Banners, Flags and Temporary Signage Policy subject to an appropriate budgetary source being identified to fund the required $166,000; and

2. Rescind the legacy Flag Flying Policy of the former Leichhardt Council as this new policy replaces it.

BACKGROUND

A Council resolution, Better use of banners, on 27 February, called for a policy for the new Inner West Council to be developed:

THAT Council prepare a banner policy or guidelines to better use banners in order to communicate with our community, to inform our community and to celebrate with our community. A short report should be prepared by Council to consider policy change and/or more efficient use of banner space.

At the Extraordinary Council Meeting on 3 July, Council resolved to endorse the draft banners, flags and temporary signage policy for public exhibition, with outcomes reported back to Council.

Council also resolved that prior to public exhibition, the policy be amended:

1. To emphasise that one of the purposes of the policy is to support community

organisations to have access to banners, flags and temporary signage, for

communication and promotion of their activities;

2. Redraft section 7 to include the following intended effect:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

requirements to be followed. This approval may be general in nature, mindful of the level of OHS risk.”

Please refer to Attachment 2: Banners, Flags and Temporary Signage Policy for the updated policy including the above amendments.

It should be noted that Section 7, Part d has been further amended from ‘Council should receive a quarterly report identifying which organisations accessed the service and the cost of same in terms of fees waived and banner production costs paid by Council’ to ‘Council should receive a quarterly update via the local democracy report identifying which organisations accessed the service and the cost of same in terms of fees waived and banner production costs paid by Council’ to enable more efficient use of time at Council meetings.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

It should be noted that the amendment resolved by Council at its 3 July meeting – fees for placing the banners, signs, flags are waived for local NFP community groups, with consideration of covering all or part of the cost of banner production – is unfunded and has significant cost implications for Council.

It is estimated that if Council’s banner and flag sites were fully booked throughout the year (based on banners/flags changed once a month at every available location), the cost to Council would be up to $166,560 annually. This does not include the cost of banner production, which can be up to several hundred dollars per banner.

A significant proportion of this work is due to out of hours labour and height access requirements. For example, banner labour rates range from $65.65 per hour on a weekday to $131.30 on weekends and $164.13 on public holidays. Street level banners are provided at business hours rates, while flags and height access banners allow for after-hours installation.

Any banner bookings requiring the hire of height access equipment would require a budget bid or the reduction of service levels elsewhere in order to fund these.

Therefore in order to implement this policy with the 3 July amendments council would have to identify a funding source. It would be prudent in the first year to allocate a budget of $166k in the first year and then revise down if demand is less.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Include comments from other staff here.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

PUBLIC EXHIBITION: COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND OFFICER RESPONSE

Following a one month public exhibition period, the policy has been further updated to reflect community feedback prior to being considered and adopted by Council.

Community comments	Council officer response
No banner locations in Annandale or Camperdown	Council has added an additional banner site, Moore Street Bridge on the border of Annandale and Lilyfield
Six weeks’ lead time is unreasonable given the nature of some quick community responses required – 10 days much better	Six weeks has been identified by Council officers as the required timeframe for design, approval, production, booking and installation
Some community organisations will already have banners to reuse and should not be restricted to standard sizes or colours	Colours are not restricted, however standard sizes are required to ensure they fit the space and enable safe installation at the site
Importantly – does this apply to election material, e.g. posters placed in dangerous pedestrian intersections by aspiring mayors in March 2018, and who will justly and evenly enforce?	Electoral material, including posters, is governed by the NSW Electoral Act 2017. Further information is provided by the NSW Electoral Commission: http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/candidates_and_parties/electoral_material/posters This information has been added to Section 6 of the policy.
I am responding on behalf of the Inner West Council LGBTIQA+ Working Group. We reviewed the draft policy and appreciate the acknowledgement of the importance of flying the Rainbow flag during Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras season. We thank Council for the opportunity to give feedback on the policy and provide structure for the protocols around flying flags. We would like to thank council for support to the LGBTIQA+ community through flying the Rainbow flag, and look forward to this ongoing collaboration and celebration into the future	Noted – in line with Council’s values and strategic priorities, we value all members of our diverse community including the LGBTIQA+ community
I work along Darling Street Balmain and I am glad to read that there will be in place a mechanism for old banners to be removed within 2 days of the event happening. May I also suggest that there may be local artists or creative types that might be able to convert the banners into tote bags, library bags, pencil cases, make up bags etc. I have seen this successfully done with banner material at Northern Beaches Council and the products sold or given away at Council events. Especially handy when single use plastic bags have been recalled	Wording in Section 5 of the policy has been amended to encourage reuse in the first instance rather than listing it as an option. “Other organisations which can reuse” banners has also been included to encapsulate local organisations and artists
There should be mention of a policy of removing non council banners, etc. placed on council property	This is addressed in Section 7 of the policy
Also, there should be some documentation regarding the development of more flagpoles, etc.	This feedback has been passed on to the relevant Council officers for consideration in future
Page 2 – IWC doesn't have a current "graffiti policy", it is currently under review. Reference in this policy should refer to that, i.e. "Unconsolidated Legacy Graffiti Management Policy as at July 2018"	References to Council’s ‘graffiti policy’ have been amended to ‘draft graffiti policy’
Page 8 – change all references to "Occupational Health and Safety" to "Work Health and Safety", and "OHS" to WHS" in accordance with NSW legislative changes from 2011	These references have been changed accordingly in the policy and relevant legislation included
Page 9 – IWC doesn't have a current "graffiti policy", which "also outlines Council’s authority to potentially prosecute companies or individuals under the Graffiti Control Act 2008." - Council Enforcement Officers are not authorised to prosecute companies or individuals under that Act. NSW Police are authorised for the purposes of that Act. Consult with Legal for confirmation	As above, references to Council’s ‘graffiti policy’ have been amended to ‘draft graffiti policy’. Reference to potential prosecution has been removed from the policy
This looks great and very clear for those who actually apply for permission to put up temporary signage. What about those who put up signage and then do not remove it after the event? For example, there was a sign put near the Leichhardt Bus Depot a few months ago calling for a public gathering to oppose the sale of the government bus service in Sydney that existed for over 100 years. It deserved to be put there and called attention to something local residents care about. Someone put up the sign and then it stayed there rotting on the railings for months afterwards. Is there a protocol for removing this debris as it becomes very unsightly and is another form of littering once the purpose for the communication is no longer necessary. Please address this responsibility for cleaning up after wards in your policy when people do not formally apply for permission in the first place so the council cannot enforce them to do it or serve them a penalty when they leave it there.	An additional paragraph has been added to Section 7 of the policy: As per internal banner, flag and signage bookings, community signage should be taken down promptly, within two days of an event being held. Council reserves the right to remove community banners, flags and signage that are have been left up for longer than approved.

Please refer to Attachment 1: Engagement outcomes report for further information on promotion, results, key themes/changes/concerns and responses in full.

CONCLUSION

Nil.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Engagement outcomes report - draft Banners, Flags and Temporary Signage Policy
2.⇩	Banners, Flags and Temporary Signage Policy
3.⇩	Former Leichhardt Council Flag Flying Policy

Council Meeting

13 November 2018

Item No: C1118(1) Item 3

Subject: Multicultural Policy

Prepared By: Simon Watts - Social and Cultural Planning Manager

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

SUMMARY

On 21 August 2018 Inner West Council endorsed the draft Multicultural Policy and Action Plan 2018-2020 for public exhibition. A revised Multicultural Policy and Multicultural program priorities are proposed for adoption (Attachments One and Two). This policy is to ensure equity of access to Council services, to ensure the voices of people from multicultural backgrounds are heard in Council’s decision-making and that Council advocates for the needs of people from multicultural communities. Council aspires to create social inclusion for people from diverse backgrounds: particularly for children and young people, older people and people with disability, and particularly in employment, health care, and aged care.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Endorse the Multicultural Policy;

2. Reallocate $113,000 in 2018/19 and subsequent financial years within the Community Services and Culture Group to deliver the Multicultural program priorities:

a. Employing a part time Multicultural Policy Project Officer ($84,000 per annum);

b. Developing and delivering a multicultural small grants program enabling community-lead celebrations of culture $29,000

c. Initiating the Multicultural Advisory Committee commencing 29 November 2018;

d. Initiating the Inter-Faith Reference Group commencing first quarter 2019

e. Continuing translation of key Council documents into community languages as required;

f. Developing the framework and protocols supporting community to community relationships;

g. Identifying a prospective Chinese city with which to form a community to community relationship; and

3. Note that the following Multicultural program priorities are not recommended to proceed in 2018/19 and are unfunded:

a. Additional investment in expanding Lunar New Year celebrations

b. Investment in an anti-racism film competition and festival.

BACKGROUND

Notice of Motion (C0818 Item 1) Multicultural Policy

THAT Council:

1. Receive and note the stocktake of activities across Inner West Council which

support cultural groups in our multicultural community;

2. Receive and note a report back on potential additional multicultural initiatives;

3. Endorse the draft Multicultural Policy for public exhibition;

4. Endorse the community engagement plan and the action plan 2018-2020

contained in the report;

5. Amend the draft action plan 2018 - 2020 to include the following:

a. Council will re-establish the community to community relationships listed in

point 6 with the inclusion of Maliana in East Timor. These relationship will

be initiated after an assessment of the willingness of the other parties to

recommence the previous agreements and the capacity for the community

links to be reactivated;

b. New criteria for the establishment of new community to community

relationships, with a requirement for demonstrated, existing cultural, social

links between overseas communities and communities within the Inner

West; and

c. Council seek advice from Chinese community organisations about a

Chinese city that a relationship can be established with.

6. Write to Multicultural NSW seeking advice about best practice for local

government support for ageing culturally and linguistically diverse communities;

7. Assist in establishing a quarterly ethnic community organisations interagency to

encourage information sharing and cooperation; and

8. Work with the economic development unit on this policy to harness the

multiculturalism within our business communities.

More than one third of the population of the Inner West is from multicultural backgrounds, 66,228 people were born overseas, and 51,597 speak a language other than English at home. Council recognises that the engagement with multicultural communities and their expressions of culture and faith enrich our whole community and build inclusion across the city.

This policy seeks to ensure that people from diverse backgrounds participate in local decision making, including in design of Council’s services and policies; access and are supported by Council services and policies; and that people from diverse backgrounds are celebrated and acknowledged across our communities in the Inner West. Overall, this policy seeks to ensure that residents of the Inner West from diverse backgrounds achieve equitable social and economic participation.

Council is deeply engaged in service provision to people from multicultural backgrounds, through specifically designed and tailored services, and through service provision provided for the whole community.

New initiatives for people from multicultural backgrounds are supported by community engagement on the Policy. These initiatives include new celebrations for Lunar New Year, creation of an anti-racism film festival, a new inter-faith reference group, new approaches to translation and interpretation for residents who use community languages, and expanded community to community relationships for specific groups.

Council officers discussed the needs of older people from multicultural backgrounds with Multicultural NSW. Following their advice, Council has engaged with the seniors policy area of the Department of Family and Community Services, and these officers, along with Council of the Ageing NSW will support Council in development of a Well-being Strategy for the city in 2018/19.

Council has an existing multicultural forum with more than 50 organisational participants. This forum will be reviewed to ensure that all ethnic community organisations in the city have the opportunity to participate. As Council’s new Economic Development Strategy is developed through 2019, the opportunities for economic participation by multicultural businesses will be included.

The Policy supersedes earlier Council plans and policies of the former Ashfield Council: Local Ethnic Affairs Policy 1998 and Culturally Diverse Society Principles Policy 1997.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Finance confirms the $113,000 required for the implementation of the Multicultural Policy for current (2018/19) and for future financial years is available from reallocating resources within the Community Services and Culture Group.

A dedicated Multicultural Policy project officer would be required. The cost for a four day per week position would be $84,000 per annum.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Council officers provided input on the draft policy and action plan. These are summarized in the table below:

Issue	Response
Further demographic analysis required for policy implementation	To be undertaken within the Community Services and Culture division in 2018
Deeper engagement across the city with existing organisations and services working with multicultural communities	Through 2018/19 to support the development of a Well-being Strategy for the city
Deeper exploration of the role Council needs to play in multicultural policy	Options to be explored through 2018/19 to support the development of a Well-being Strategy for the city
More comprehensive stock take of council policies and services for multicultural community	To be undertaken within the Community Services and Culture division in 2018

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Public engagement on the draft policy and action plan was promoted through:

• Media release and social media on Facebook

• Council’s column in the Inner West Courier

• Council’s enews and Your Say Inner West enews

• Multicultural NSW email newsletter (8,000 recipients).

The engagement was open from 24 August – 21 September 2018. Council also held two public forums on 12 and 18 September 2018, attended by 15 people. A detailed report on the engagement is at Attachment Three.

The following table summarises key policy issues raised in the engagement, and provides brief responses:

Issue	Response
Love the idea!! Film Festival is a great idea! Please include Hindi language	This initiative is unfunded, and costs of expanding the programs are detailed in Attachment 2.
More commitment to newly arrived communities and services	Council provides extensive support for Refugees and Asylum Seekers, and has specific programs for newly arrived communities. Additional support will be explored during the pilot period.
Expand the Lunar New Year celebrations in Marrickville	This initiative is unfunded, and costs of expanding the programs are detailed in Attachment 2.
Indian civic reception	Applications from community organisations will be sought via a multicultural small grants program enabling community-lead celebrations of culture
Re the interfaith committee. Why are you linking faith to multiculturalism and politics? Culture based on religion is concerning as religion can be used to preference views which exclude people	There was significant support for diverse representation on the interfaith reference group, including for the participation of women and secular leaders.
Diwali function	Applications from community organisations will be sought via a multicultural small grants program enabling community-lead celebrations of culture
Recreation and sporting clubs can assist in bring community groups together to improve social cohesion and celebrate diversity	Options to be explored through 2018/19 in the development of a Well-being Strategy for the city
Needs measurable outcomes and funding for multicultural NGOs and groups to express and celebrate their cultures	The Council grant programs utilise a funding agreement that defines outcomes, and grant recipients report on their results at the end of the project. In addition to the existing Grants program, this can be achieved via a multicultural small grants program enabling community-lead celebrations of culture
The policy needs a lot of work, in my view	The policy has been redrafted, following feedback in the engagement
Council’s community to community relationship need clearer policy guidelines	Council resolved on 21 August 2018 to proceed with the community to community initiative, and the guidelines for these relationships will be finalised following the appointment of the proposed Multicultural Policy Project Officer
I don't believe the policy captures a community development aspect	Implementation of the Policy and program by the proposed Multicultural Policy Project Officer position will be aligned with Council’s strengths-based community development methodology
I am concerned that new expenditure is being proposed while the council has not and is not adequately providing services and performing essential maintenance, particularly on the proposed film festival	The proposed policy and action plan have received overwhelming support in the engagement, and the Officer's recommendations propose reallocation of existing funds.
The purpose is too narrow. Multicultural Policy must be expansive into the future to be inclusive of more than 'needs' and 'aspirations'	Comment is noted, and it is recognised this policy sits within Council's established policy commitment to equity, access, participation and rights, in the Community Strategic Plan. Council’s role is distinct from that of Commonwealth and State governments.
I would also suggest that faith be added to “Council recognises that the engagement with multicultural communities and their expressions of culture and faith enrich our whole community and build inclusion across the city.”	Noted, and included in the policy at point 7.
Why are you wasting our money on this divisive nonsense?	Noted.
Input must be invited in making the draft itself, not after it is developed.	Noted, and as detailed in this report, extensive community engagement has occurred.
Don’t put council money into supporting religion of any type	Noted, and the proposal is to facilitate interfaith dialogue.
We also need to focus on supporting the community in their endeavours to learn/improve English	Noted. Options for better promotion of existing programs will be explored.
I am strongly opposed to expanding C2C relationships	Noted. Council resolved on 21 August 2018 to proceed with the community to community initiative, and the guidelines for these relationships will be finalised following the appointment of the proposed Multicultural Policy Project Officer
The policy document should strongly state the positive relational values of multiculturalism	The policy has been redrafted
We strongly recommend consultations be held with community, and with this multicultural interagency	Engagement will continue through 2018/19 through Council's Multicultural Advisory Committee and the wider local democracy initiatives.
An ageing population	With the Department of Family and Community Services (NSW) and the Department of Social Services (Commonwealth), options for improving policy and services for older people in multicultural communities will be explored through 2018/19
Isolation and the elderly Isolation and families	Council is currently undertaking well-being research across the city, recognising the critical importance of social participation and connectedness in building and maintaining well-being. This research will bring leading practice to the design of Council’s forthcoming Wellbeing Strategy for the city
Cultural engagement	Council maintains an extensive investment in events and arts and cultural activities throughout the year, and across the city.
Council must be inclusive of all diversity and it must value the diversity of its own workforce	Council has developed an employment strategy which has a focus on building diversity in its workforce
Participants were very pleased with the proposed expansion of community celebrations for local community groups, they argued that community harmony and understanding is built from shared celebration and understanding	Noted. The Officer Recommendations propose the development and delivery of community-lead celebrations of culture.

CONCLUSION

Responding to the needs of people from diverse backgrounds includes improving the manner in which Council services and programs are designed to meet specific needs along with timely and effective advocacy. The proposed Multicultural Policy and Multicultural program priorities formalises a new approach for Council in meeting this requirement.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Multicultural Policy
2.⇩	Multicultural program priorities
3.⇩	Engagement Outcomes Report
4.⇩	Social Media Outcomes Report
5.⇩	Local Ethnic Affairs Policy Ashfield
6.⇩	Culturally Diverse Society Principles Ashfield

Council Meeting

13 November 2018

Item No: C1118(1) Item 4

Subject: Lilyfield Road Cycleway

Prepared By: Predrag Gudelj - Project Manager

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

SUMMARY

At its meeting of 9^th October 2018 Council requested a report concerning the Lilyfield Road Cycleway project providing “an update on the outcomes of the initial public meetings at which alternate proposals were initially presented to the community and a summary of expenditure to date on the project.”

Public engagement was undertaken over three phases for the project, between May 2016 and February 2018, to inform the community and key stakeholders about the project and gather feedback on the concept designs. Feedback through these engagements informed the next stage of design development.

The project has been funded by Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council receive and note the report.

BACKGROUND

Lilyfield Road was identified in the Inner Sydney Regional Bike Plan and former Leichhardt Council’s Bike Plan as a route to be upgraded to a separated, two way cycleway. The identified route extended approximately 2.7 km between Canal Road and Victoria Road.

In May 2015 Leichhardt Council received a funding offer from RMS of up to $500,000, under its 2015/16 Active Transport Program, for the design of Lilyfield Road (Iron Cove to Anzac Bridge) Cycleway.

Council invited tenders via the Local Government Procurement - Professional Consultancy Services vendor panel in November 2015. The brief called for the design of a separated cycleway along the entire length of Lilyfield Road from Hawthorn Canal to Victoria Rd.

The submission from GHDWoodhead was accepted in December 2015.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Expenditure to date for the project totals $528,162 (gst excl) covering predominately consultancy expenses to GHD as well as other project related costs. Variations to the original contract price occurred as a result of changes and additions to the original project scope as the project development progressed. These included additional public engagement activities, project redesigns, parking analyses, traffic study and modelling and preparation of Traffic Management Plan for RMS approval.

Ongoing funding of the project since its inception has been provided by RMS though annual grants under its Active Transport Program. RMS funding up to $300,000 has been allocated for the 2018/19 financial year to progress design review and development.

Subject to detail design, estimated construction costs, are likely to be in excess of $4 million.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Council undertook community engagement through three phases of project development, between May 2016 and February 2018, to inform the community about the project and gather feedback on proposals. Feedback during each phase of engagement informed the next stage of design development with revisions being made to the designs where possible to accommodate feedback received.

Phase One: May – October 2016

o Objective: To determine preferred route from two design options and gain feedback to inform the development of the draft concept plan.

o Design options:

§ Option 1 – A two-way, separated cycleway on the northern side of Lilyfield Road between Victoria Road and the Hawthorne Canal.

§ Option 2a - A two-way, separated cycleway on the southern side of Lilyfield Road between Victoria Road and Hawthorne Canal.

§ Option 2b - A two-way, separated cycleway on the southern side of Lilyfield Road between Victoria Road and Hawthorne Canal with some kerb indentation near Lilyfield Light Rail Stop.

o Promotion:

§ 1500 Flyers distributed to local residents and business and bicycle groups

§ Project page on www.yoursayinnerwest.com.au

o Engagement activities:

§ Community workshop was held at Leichhardt Town Hall on 7 June 2016,

§ Intercept surveys on Lilyfield Road were held on two occasions (25^th and 29^th June 2016).

§ Online feedback on www.yoursayinnerwest.com.au and via an interactive map

§ Email, telephone and website forwarded to GHD.

o Outcomes

272 comments were received throughout the Phase One engagement. The comments were received predominantly via the community email, ‘social pinpoint’ engagement tool and the information sessions. Feedback received covered:

· Potential parking loss

· Southern side of road preferred by majority of respondents

· Safety on bi-directional cycleway, especially on hills

· Reduction in speed limit to 40 km/h to improve safety for all

· Consideration of different routes including the railway corridor, City West Link

· Support for the project – more families taking up cycling, safer for current bike riders and contribute to a better connected network.

Phase Two: November 2016 – June 2017

o Objective: To Gain stakeholder and community feedback on the draft concept plan.

o Draft Concept Plan

Based on feedback received in Phase One, a preferred concept design was developed as a hybrid of option 1 and 2b. Elements included:

· cycleway proposed on the northern side of Lilyfield Road from Canal Road to just west of Balmain Road,

· Crossing Lilyfield Road and continue to Victoria Road on the southern side of the street.

· Section between Gordon Street and Victoria Road proposed to be one way eastbound to retain parking.

· Kerb indentation proposed on the southern side of Lilyfield Road between Balmain Road and Justin street to retain commuter parking near the Light Rail;

o Engagement activities:

· Community information session was held at Leichhardt Town Hall on 29 November 2016.

· Feedback via email, telephone and website forwarded to GHD.

o Promotion:

· 1500 Flyers distributed to local residents and business and bicycle groups

· Project page on www.yoursayinnerwest.com.au

· Emails sent to persons registered on project contact database.

o Outcomes

318 comments were received throughout the Phase Two engagement predominantly from the community email and the information session. Feedback received covered:

· Potential parking loss:

· Safety concerns

· Re-route buses off Lilyfield Road

· Change Norton Street to Balmain Road to one way to accommodate cycle path and on-street parking

· Increase travel time from proposed one way section between Gordon Street and Victoria Road.

· The community needs to be engaged more widely

· Support for the project – will be well used, facilitate more environmentally friendly ways of commuting, increase safety.

Phase Three: November 2017 – February 2018

o Objective: Gain community and stakeholder feedback on the revised concept plan.

o Revised concept plan:

Based on the feedback from Phase Two, a revised concept plan was developed which provided an additional eastbound one-way section in Lilyfield Road between Norton Street and Balmain Road. This retained parking in this section which was the primary concern during Phase Two of the consultation. In addition, the bicycle crossing point was moved from west of Balmain Road to east of Balmain Road and the removal of the slip lane from Mary Street into Lilyfield Road was proposed as an option to increase parking supply. Prior to exhibiting revised plans traffic modelling was undertaken and “in principle” support for the one-way options on Lilyfield Rd was sought from RMS.

o Promotion:

· Flyer distributed to a local residents and business and bicycle groups.

· Project page on www.yoursayinnerwest.com.au

· Three editions of Council’s e-news

· Two editions of Your Say Inner West e-news

· Council’s page in the Inner West Courier

· Council’s Facebook page

· Press release

· Emails sent to persons registered on project contact database.

· Information signage placed along the route.

o Engagement activities:

· Two community sessions were held at Orange Grove Public School (9 and 12 December 2017)

· Online feedback through www.yoursayinnerwest.com.au and an interactive map.

· Email, telephone and website to GHD.

o Outcomes

1583 comments were received throughout the Phase Three engagement predominantly from ‘Have Your Say’ feedback, ‘Social Pinpoint’ engagement tool and community email.

The main themes raised by residents during the latest exhibition period related to:

· Safety impacts of cycleway

· Traffic and potential for creation of ‘rat-runs’.

· One way sections potentially affecting travel time and congestion.

· Loss of parking issues

· Consideration of alternative routes

Subsequently Council adopted March 2018 Traffic Committee recommendation:

THAT:

1. In recognition of the level of objection to the project in its current form, the project not proceed to detailed design at this time;

2. A revised concept plan be developed for the Lilyfield Road Separated Cycleway (Route EW09) following investigation into the following options:

a. Investigation of an amendment to the proposed one-way restriction on Lilyfield Road between Gordon Street to Victoria Road from eastbound to westbound traffic.

b. Investigation of further treatments to discourage ‘rat-running’.

c. Investigation of opportunities to relocate bicycle crossing to the signalised crossing of Balmain Road and Lilyfield Road.

d. Investigation of opportunities to increase parking supply.

e. Investigation of opportunities to retain left turn slip lane from Mary Street into Lilyfield Road.

f. Investigation of options to allow cyclists to enter mixed traffic treatment in the westbound direction from Mary Street to Canal Road whilst retaining the bidirectional bicycle treatment in this section.

g. Investigation of increasing width of cycle path where possible to 3.0m.

3. Alternative routes which address the issues raised during consultation be considered.

In addition Council required a public meeting to inform changes that should be incorporated in the redesign and to look at possibility of using the Rozelle goods yards for the cycleway.

The public meeting was held on 29 May 2018 at Sydney Secondary College - Leichhardt Campus and 60 residents attended. A presentation was given of the strategic overview of the project to date and alternate route options were presented by the Inner West Bicycle Coalition. Attendees participated in public forum for questions and comments.

Current Status

The project was re-nominated for RMS grant funding as part of the 2018/19 NSW Government’s Active Transport Program. Confirmation of a grant offer of up to $300,000 was received in October to progress design development this financial year. A tender process will be undertaken to engage a consultant to undertake design development and implement Council’s resolution.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Council Meeting

13 November 2018

Item No: C1118(1) Item 5

Subject: Proposed Amendments to the NSW Planning System - Short Term Rental Accommodation

Prepared By: Peter Wotton - Strategic Planning Projects Coordinator

Authorised By: David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

The NSW Department of Planning and Environment has released an Explanation of Intended Effect - Short-term Rental Accommodation Planning Framework (EIE). The EIE is on exhibition until 16 November 2018 and outlines proposed amendments to planning rules for short term rental accommodation.

The Department “is calling for feedback on proposed amendments to planning rules in order to provide for short-term rental accommodation (STRA) in NSW. STRA was formerly known as short-term holiday letting.

The proposed amendments will introduce state-wide planning rules, including a new land use definition, exempt and complying development pathways and building safety standards. The state-wide planning rules are part of a recently announced NSW Government framework for STRA, which also includes an industry-wide mandatory Code of Conduct and changes to strata legislation.”

The material on the Department’s website states (in part) “The Department of Planning and Environment welcomes feedback, but notes that the state-wide permissibility of STRA and number of days in which it can take place are a policy position which has been endorsed by Government.”

The proposed amendments include “The introduction of exempt and complying development criteria for STRA which will include a maximum number of days that a STRA can operate in a calendar year” which for the Inner West LGA, and all other Councils in Greater Sydney, the maximum number of days set under the proposed amendments is 365 days per year with the “Host present on site overnight” and 180 days per year with the “Host not present”.

Council officers have prepared a submission for Council’s consideration that supports changes to clarify planning regulations for STRA but raises a number of concerns in relation to the proposed changes detailed in the EIE as follows:

i. While Council supports the introduction of a new land use definition in the Standard Instrument for this form of accommodation, it raises concerns with the proposed definition of the term contained in the EIE,

ii. The EIE does not clarify the permissibility of short term rental accommodation (STRA),

iii. The EIE is not clear what the proposed changes to the Standard Instrument Order are to “make it clear that STRA will be permissible in zones in which dwellings are permissible”,

iv. The proposed new term STRA and the proposed amendment of the term “tourist and visitor accommodation” do not make it clear whether or not certain types of “tourist and visitor accommodation”, in particular “serviced apartments”, are a form of “short-term rental accommodation”,

v. The proposed definition of STRA in the EIE needs to be amended and renamed,

vi. While Council agrees that certain types of existing dwellings should be excluded from the new term, it recommends that additional types of existing dwellings, than those identified in the EIE, need to be “excluded from STRA use to ensure they continue to meet their intended purpose”,

vii. The proposed changes to the planning system do not “strike” an appropriate “balance between the availability of properties for long-term and short-term rental market in metropolitan areas”,

viii. Changes to the planning system that permit STRA for up to 180 days per year (with the “Host not present”) have the potential to detrimentally impact on the supply of dwellings available for long term rental by removing many of those dwellings from the long-term rental market and driving up residential rents and impacting on housing affordability in areas of Greater Sydney, particularly in areas where “there is a need for affordable housing” and the demand for “short-term rental accommodation” is high. The Inner West LGA is one of those areas,

ix. The “number of days” policy position endorsed by Government in relation to STRA conflicts with other policy positions endorsed by the Government, in particular affordable housing. It is strongly recommended that the “number of days” in which STRA can take place under the proposed amendments be given further consideration, especially in areas where the Government’s own policies “identify that there is a need for affordable housing” in that local government area,

x. The development approval pathways detailed in the EIE need to be amended to address the issues identified in the attached submission, and

xi. There is a need for the State Government to provide alternative dispute resolutions and mediation options to manage tensions and civil matters between residents, visitors and short-term rental accommodation owners. If such pathways are not clearly defined by the State Government councils will be overburdened by compliance and enforcement issues arising from complaints that are more appropriately interpreted as civil matters than planning and development issues.

The submission includes a number of suggested changes to help address some of the issues identified including a revised definition of the new term, a suggested change to the definition of “serviced apartment” and a Standard Instrument draft model clause for the new term.

The submission prepared for Council’s consideration is ATTACHED as ATTACHMENT 1.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The report be noted; and

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

BACKGROUND

Council considered a report on Options Paper: Short-term Holiday Letting in NSW (July 2017) at its meeting on 24 October 2017 (Item 17 C1017). In dealing with the matter Council resolved:

“THAT Council:

1. Receive and note this report and attachments;

2. Forward a submission to the Department of Planning and Environment requesting that a framework be drafted detailing how the regulation of short-term holiday letting is to be administered including:

a. the Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan (LEP) legislation be amended to include a new land use definition for ‘short term rental accommodation’ with set parameters concerning the potential adverse impacts of activities connected with that use allowing for compliance certification and enforcement action where required;

b. the requirement for either a complying development certificate or development application to allow for compliance to be assessed and conditions of approval enforced depending on the parameters set by the Department of Planning in future legislation;

c. a registration/licencing system should be developed and implemented by a government agency for all properties which fall within the parameters of the new legislation to allow for ongoing monitoring;

d. amendments to NSW strata laws be drafted giving owners corporation’s powers to manage and respond where there is no compliance with certification, consent or registration requirements allowing strata corporations to take a greater role and see less recurrence of adverse impacts.”

EXPLANATION OF INTENDED EFFECT – SHORT TERM RENTAL ACCOMMODATION PLANNING FRAMEWORK

The Department of Planning and Environment has released an Explanation of Intended Effect - Short-term Rental Accommodation Planning Framework (EIE). The EIE outlines proposed amendments to planning rules for short term rental accommodation.

The Executive Summary contained within the EIE notes that:

“The submissions, received in response to the Options Paper, have helped inform a whole of Government policy for the regulation of STRA in NSW. On 5 June 2018, the NSW Government announced a framework that strikes a balance between supporting the economic value of the industry and managing impacts on the community. The framework includes state-wide planning controls and a mandatory Code of Conduct for online accommodation platforms, letting agents, hosts and guests, which will address impacts like noise levels, disruptive guests and effects on shared neighbourhood amenities. The framework will be implemented through amendments to planning instruments, and strata and Fair Trading legislation.”

The EIE provides the following summary of the amendments proposed:

“The Department of Planning and Environment is proposing amendments to introduce the state-wide planning framework for STRA. Proposed amendments include:

· The introduction of a land use definition and permissibility for 'short-term rental accommodation' (STRA);

· The introduction of exempt and complying development criteria for STRA which will include a maximum number of days that a STRA can operate in a calendar year;

· Allowing councils outside Greater Sydney to set the number of days that a dwelling can be used for STRA without development consent or with a complying development certificate, to no lower than 180 days per year, to meet the demands of their communities; and

· The introduction of minimum fire safety and evacuation requirements for premises used for STRA.” (page 5)

The proposed changes seek to:

· “clarify the permissibility of STRA

· provide consistency and certainty for the industry and community

· enable STRA to occur in appropriate locations

· provide for the safety of those using STRA

· strike a balance between the availability of properties for long-term and the short-term rental market in metropolitan areas

· enable councils in regional areas to respond to local needs and

· mitigate impacts of STRA on communities.” (page 9)

A copy of the Department’s Explanation of Intended Effect is ATTACHMENT 2.

DISCUSSION

The proposed amendments include the introduction of a new land use definition in the Standard Instrument of the term “Short-term rental accommodation” (STRA).

Under the EIE “It is proposed to define STRA as:

“The commercial use of an existing dwelling, either wholly or partially, for the purposes of short-term accommodation, but does not include tourist and visitor accommodation.” (page 9)

Whilst the introduction of a new land use definition in the Standard Instrument for this form of accommodation is supported, it is contended that the definition proposed in the EIE has a number of fundamental flaws in that it does not clearly differentiate the proposed new land use type from other existing defined terms in the Standard Instrument. As a consequence the proposed new land use definition term is likely to cause confusion and create interpretation issues for the Standard Instrument defined terms. Issues associated with the proposed new term and a suggested revised definition of the term are detailed in the submission prepared for Council’s consideration as ATTACHMENT 1.

The EIE states “It is proposed that some forms of residential accommodation, such as boarding houses, seniors housing and group homes, will be excluded from STRA use to ensure they continue to meet their intended purpose. STRA will also be excluded from ‘affordable rental housing’ approved under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARHSEPP) and State Environmental Planning Policy No. 70 Affordable Housing (SEPP 70), as these policies are aimed at increasing affordable rental housing for long term residential use.” (page 10)

It is agreed that certain types of existing dwellings should be excluded from the new term but it is considered that additional types of existing dwellings, than those identified in the EIE, need to be “excluded from STRA use to ensure they continue to meet their intended purpose”. For example, a dwelling that is an ancillary use, subordinate or subservient to the dominant purpose, including a dwelling that is a caretaker’s residence or temporary worker’s accommodation. Other existing dwellings are also recommended to be excluded. The additional existing dwelling types recommended to be “excluded from STRA use” and the reasons for those additional exclusions are detailed in ATTACHMENT 1.

Table 2: Summary of proposed changes on page 15 of the EIE details the following proposed changes to the Standard Instrument Order:

Whilst the proposed changes to the definitions are detailed in the EIE, it does not provide a clear understanding as to what the proposed changes to the Standard Instrument Order are to “make it clear that STRA will be permissible in zones in which dwellings are permissible”. For example:

i. Are changes proposed to Land Use Tables to permit “short-term rental accommodation” in those zones where dwellings are permissible under the environmental planning instrument applying to the land, or

ii. Are existing provisions contained within the Land Use Tables of environmental planning instruments proposed to be overridden by the inclusion of a clause (or subzone) inserted into environmental planning instruments that permits “short term rental accommodation” in existing dwellings.

The concerns relating to the permissibility issue are detailed in ATTACHMENT 1.

The EIE sets exempt and complying development criteria for short term rental accommodation which will include a maximum number of days that accommodation can operate in a calendar year. The maximum number of days proposed are detailed in Table 1 Development pathways available to STRA in state planning framework. A copy of that table is reproduced here:

As the Inner West LGA does not contain any properties identified as being “bushfire prone land” the approval pathway for all development for STRA in the Inner West LGA would be as “Exempt development” under the development pathways detailed in Table 1 of the EIE.

Under the Exempt development provisions, with the “Host present on site overnight” the period for STRA use would be all year round, and with the “Host not present” the period for STRA use as exempt development would be limited to a total of 180 days per year. It is understood that the intention of the EIE is to not permit STRA for more than 180 days per year where a host is not present in Greater Sydney. This is confirmed by the statement in the EIE that “As this is an endorsed state-wide policy, it is proposed that no variations or development application pathways will be available to undertake STRA above these number of day limits”. Therefore for a dwelling in the IWC area to be used for STRA for more than 180 days a year under the proposed scheme it would appear that this would need to be considered as a proposal for tourist and visitor accommodation and could only be carried out where that use is permissible. Tourist and visitor accommodation is not currently permissible in the Residential zones in the IWC area.

A key criteria for the proposed exempt and complying development approval pathways for short term rental accommodation is based on whether a “host” is present or not present when the accommodation is being rented out.

Concern is raised with the use of the word “host” in the “Criteria” section of the above table. The use of that word, an undefined word/term in the Standard Instrument, has potential adverse implications/interpretation issues for the application of the proposed amendments.

The Macquarie Dictionary defines the word “host” to mean “someone who entertains guests in his or her home or elsewhere”. The words “or elsewhere” in the definition would mean that a person who entertains guests in short term rental accommodation would be a “host” regardless as to whether the dwelling used to provide that accommodation on a commercial basis was “his or her home”. That person could be interpreted under the definition as a short-term resident themselves and could therefore undermine the whole understood intention of the host being a long term resident of the dwelling.

As a result it is considered that it is important that the EIE scheme confirms that the “host” is the principal resident of the dwelling under the development pathways detailed in Table 1. This issue is considered in more detail in ATTACHMENT 1.

Council’s previous submission on the Department’s Options Paper: Short-term Holiday Letting in NSW (July 2017) raised a number of issues including a “Limit on the length of stay” and “Limit the number of days per year”. In relation to limiting the number of days per year the report noted that:

“Placing a limit on the total days per year that a dwelling can be made available attempts to limit the adverse impacts of the short-term holiday letting land use to a defined period and therefore retain the primary use as a long-term residential dwelling.

There are risks with this approach. If the number of days allowed per year is set too high, the income generated through holiday letting may compromise the need for long-term residential use the rest of the year, potentially resulting in lower occupancy for long periods with ongoing effects upon social cohesion and social services including schooling and health facilities. Conversely a restrictive limit on allowable letting days could stifle demand for short-term holiday letting dwellings.

The increasing number of nights spent in short-term holiday rentals has the potential to significantly impact upon the business of traditional accommodation operators such as hotels including job provision and ongoing investment / operation. This would occur to an even higher degree during busy periods for operators such as Airbnb, for example during the approximately 90 days of school holidays each year in NSW.”

The proposed amendments detailed in the EIE do not specifically set a limit on the length of each stay. The proposed amendments do limit the total number of days that certain dwellings can be used for short term rental accommodation. The number of days set under the proposed amendments is a one size fits all limit of a maximum of 180 days when “Host not present” where the property is located in Greater Sydney. A maximum limit of 180 days for the Inner West LGA has the potential to detrimentally impact on the supply of dwellings available for long term rental.

The following comments are provided in relation to the periods specified in Table 1 above.

No concerns are raised in principle to the use of certain existing dwellings for the purposes of “short-term rental accommodation” when the permanent resident(s) of that dwelling is present when the dwelling is used for such purposes. Such usage is in accordance with the statement made in the EIE that “the indicative definition is intended to enable the use of a dwelling for STRA short term rental accommodation as a part of its residential use”. Owner occupied dwellings do not form part of the long-term rental market and as such their usage for short-term rental accommodation would not impact on the availability of long-term rental market.

The situation is not the same in the case where the dwelling used for short-term rental accommodation is not the principal place of residence of the owner. The usage of such dwellings for short-term rental accommodation, if not appropriately restricted, has the potential to detrimentally impact on the supply of dwellings available for long term rental. It is contended that “short-term rental accommodation” of existing dwellings may remove many of those dwellings from the long-term rental market and drive up residential rents and impact on housing affordability in areas of Greater Sydney particularly where the demand for “short-term rental accommodation” is high.

The impacts of “short-term rental accommodation” on the long-term rental market are going to impact the most in areas where the demand for “short-term rental accommodation” is high. To have a one size fits all standard is considered inappropriate and an ill-advised housing strategy not in the best long term planning interests for many local government areas.

A number of Council areas have been identified, under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 70 – Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes), as a local government area within the Greater Metropolitan Region where “there is a need for affordable housing”. It is considered that the local government areas identified in the SEPP are also areas where the demand for “short-term rental accommodation” is high. The Inner West LGA is one of those areas identified.

An article titled “When Tourists Move In: How Should Urban Planners Respond to Airbnb?”, by Nicole Gurran and Peter Phipps, was published early last year in The Journal of the American Planning Association (5 January 2017). The article focused on Sydney “which has experienced both rapidly rising housing costs and exponential growth in Airbnb listings since 2011.” The analysis contained within the article applied to greater Sydney overall and a subset of five municipalities in the Sydney metropolitan area including Leichhardt and Marrickville.

One of the issues presented in the article was “Do Airbnb Rentals Reduce the Supply of Permanent Rental Accommodations?” The article’s response to that question included the following comments:

“Sydney’s equilibrium rental vacancy rate is approximately 3%, while the metropolitan-wide rental vacancy rate at the time of this analysis was 1.9% as a result of strong population growth. We calculate that the number of dwellings removed from the permanent rental market in the region amounts to about half of Sydney’s current rental vacancy rate based on the Inside Airbnb data on frequently available listings. We find that Airbnb listings do concentrate in popular tourist areas such as Waverley and the city of Sydney. In Waverley, the number of whole dwellings frequently available on Airbnb is more than three times the vacancy rate in the locality. This suggests that Airbnb rentals have a sizeable impact on the availability of permanent rental housing in the Waverley local government area with consequent pressure on rents. In the city of Sydney, a total of 1,268 properties, equivalent to 144% of the city’s vacant rental stock, are available for holiday rental via Airbnb, a figure we would also expect to substantially affect rental availability and costs. In Leichardt and Marrickville, the percentages are lower but not inconsiderable at 69% and 44% of the vacant rental stock, respectively. However, the number of Airbnb listings in Parramatta is much smaller, likely reflecting the area’s distance from visitor attractions. Airbnb does not now affect Parramatta’s local housing market, even though Parramatta’s frequently available homes are controlled by landlords with multiple listings.”

A period of 180 days per year sets a balance strongly on the side of the “short-term rental accommodation” market and not the long term rental market. The housing market in Greater Sydney is recognised as one of one of the least affordable in the world. At a time when housing affordability has been identified as a key challenge in Greater Sydney the proposed changes to the planning system should strike a balance firmly in favour of the long-term rental market, not the “short-term rental accommodation” market.

In relation to the number of days per year that STRA can take place the material on the Department’s website states (in part) that the “number of days in which it can take place are a policy position which has been endorsed by Government.”

It is considered that the “number of days” policy position endorsed by Government in relation to STRA has potential to conflict with other policy positions endorsed by the Government, in particular affordable housing. It is recommended that the “number of days” in which STRA can take place under the proposed amendments be given further consideration, especially in areas where the Government’s own policies “identify that there is a need for affordable housing” in that local government area, such as the IWC area.

Further discussion concerning this issue is detailed in ATTACHMENT 1.

The EIE details additional elements of the Government Policy including details of a Mandatory Code of Conduct and changes to strata legislation. The EIE Details those elements as follows:

“4.4.1 Mandatory Code of Conduct

A new mandatory Code of Conduct for online platforms, managing agents, hosts and guests will be developed by DFSI (Department of Finance, Services and Innovation) in consultation with industry and relevant stakeholders. This Code will include provisions to resolve complaints about STRA, including anti-social behaviour, that is readily accessible to hosts, guests and impacted third parties, such as neighbours. DFSI oversight of the Code, as well as enforcement powers in relation to implementation by industry and platforms, will provide direct levers to ensure that the proposed measures are implemented effectively.”

Comment:

The EIE states that the Mandatory Code of Conduct “will be developed”. It is considered imperative that the Mandatory Code of Conduct be adopted before any proposed changes to the planning system relating to “short-term rental accommodation” come into effect. As relevant stakeholders Councils should be consulted in the preparation of the Mandatory Code of Conduct. It is also considered imperative that the operation of the “short-term rental accommodation” must comply at all times with the Mandatory Code of Conduct be made a development criteria for such accommodation.

Additional elements of the Government policy include an amendment, Fair Trading Amendment (Short-term Rental Accommodation) Act 2018 No 41, to the Fair Trading Act 1987 No. 68. Section 54B (1) of that amendment includes a provision setting the legal framework for codes of conduct which reads as follows:

“54B Declaration of code of conduct applying to short-term rental accommodation industry participants

(1) The regulations may declare that a code of conduct specified or referred to in the regulations is a code of conduct applying to short-term rental accommodation industry participants.

(2) Without limiting the matters for or in respect of which a code of conduct may make provision, a code of conduct may:

(a) set out the rights and obligations of short-term rental accommodation industry participants, and

(b) provide for the administration of the code by a specified person or body, and

(c) provide for the registration of residential premises used for the purposes of short-term rental accommodation arrangements and for the registration system to include details about when residential premises are used for those purposes, and

(d) provide for warnings to be given to short-term rental accommodation industry participants who contravene the code, and

(e) require the provision of information or reports to the Secretary relating to the short-term rental accommodation industry and the operation of the code, and

(f) provide for the resolution of disputes and complaints concerning the conduct of short-term rental accommodation industry participants, and

(g) authorise the keeping of a register (the exclusion register) containing the details of short-term rental accommodation industry participants who have failed to comply with the code, and

(h) regulate or restrict access to the exclusion register, and

(i) prohibit or restrict persons whose details are listed on the exclusion register from entering into, or participating in, short-term rental accommodation arrangements.”

STRA in strata buildings

“4.4.2 STRA in strata settings

As part of whole of Government framework, the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 will be amended to allow owners’ corporations (by a 75% majority vote) to make a by-law that prohibits the use of a lot for STRA where the lot is not the principal place of residence of the owner or tenant. However, if the lot is the principal place of residence for the owner or tenant, a by-law cannot prevent the lot being used for STRA. If the host does not own the property, they will be required to obtain owner permission to undertake STRA. A Bill enabling this change to be made was passed by NSW Parliament on 14 August 2018.”

The amendment to the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 No 50 reads as follows:

“137A Short-term rental accommodation

(1) A by-law made by a special resolution of an owners corporation may prohibit a lot being used for the purposes of a short-term rental accommodation arrangement if the lot is not the principal place of residence of the person who, pursuant to the arrangement, is giving another person the right to occupy the lot.

(2) A by-law has no force or effect to the extent to which it purports to prevent a lot being used for the purposes of a short-term rental accommodation arrangement if the lot is the principal place of residence of the person who, pursuant to the arrangement, is giving another person the right to occupy the lot.

(3) In this section, short-term rental accommodation arrangement has the same meaning as in section 54A of the Fair Trading Act 1987.”

Comment:

To make it clear and avoid misunderstanding it is recommended that a development criteria be included for “short-term rental accommodation” that in Strata Schemes, the development must comply with the requirements of Section 137A of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015.

Other matter/issues

A number of concerns are raised in relation to other aspects of the changes to the planning system for “short-term rental accommodation” proposed in the EIE. Those concerns are detailed in ATTACHMENT 1.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil at this stage, but additional enforcement and compliance resourcing burdens may well arise as a result of the implementation of the proposed new STRA land use arising from public complaints being made to Council. This may result in the need for additional resources for complaint handling and enforcement action/monitoring in relation to STRA business operations.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Other members from Council’s Strategic Planning Group and Council’s Affordable Housing Policy Leader were consulted in the preparation of this report.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

CONCLUSION

While supportive of the need for change to the way the planning system addresses “short-term rental accommodation”, the report (and attached submission), outline concerns about the proposed changes to the planning system detailed in the Explanation of Intended Effect Short-term Rental Accommodation Planning Framework released by the Department of Planning and Environment.

Making changes to the planning system to enable the use of the existing dwellings for “short-term rental accommodation” is complex and challenging particularly in the introduction of a new land use definition in the Standard Instrument for this form of accommodation which differentiates the new term from existing defined terms in the Standard Instrument.

For the reasons detailed in the attached submission, it is considered that the proposed new land use definition of the accommodation type term does not follow well practiced legal drafting practices and principles or clearly differentiate the new land use type from other existing defined terms in the Standard Instrument. As a consequence the proposed new land use definition term is likely to cause confusion and create interpretation issues for the Standard Instrument defined terms as detailed in the attached submission and make implementation and monitoring of the use very difficult.

One of the fundamental concerns raised in relation to the proposed amendments to the planning system is the number of days per year that STRA can take place. Changes to the planning system that permit STRA for up to 180 days per year (with the “Host not present”) have the potential to detrimentally impact on the supply of dwellings available for long term rental by removing many of those dwellings from the long-term rental market and driving up residential rents and impacting on housing affordability in areas of Greater Sydney, particularly in areas where “there is a need for affordable housing” and the demand for “short-term rental accommodation” is high. The Inner West LGA is one of those areas.

It is recommended that the “number of days” in which STRA can take place under the proposed amendments be given further consideration, especially in areas where the Government’s own policies “identify that there is a need for affordable housing” in that local government area.

A number of other concerns are raised in relation to some of the proposed amendments to planning rules for short term rental accommodation outlined in the EIE.

The attached submission includes a number of suggested changes to help address some of the issues identified including a revised definition of the new term, a suggested change to the definition of “serviced apartment” and a Standard Instrument draft model clause for the new term.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Draft Submission for Council's consideration - Short-term Rental Accommodation Planning Framework
2.⇩	Explanation of Intended Effect - Short Term Rental Accommodation Framework

Council Meeting

13 November 2018

Item No: C1118(1) Item 6

Subject: Sydney Airport Preliminary Draft Master Plan 2039 - Council Submission

Prepared By: Gunika Singh - Strategic Planner and Ken Welsh - Transport Planner

Authorised By: David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

This report has been prepared to provide Council with an overview of the Sydney Airport Preliminary Draft Master Plan 2039 and to outline Council’s proposed submission on the Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Forward the attached submission to Sydney Airport Corporation in response its exhibition of the Preliminary Draft Master Plan 2039 for Sydney Airport;

2. Endorse that the attached submission that:

· supports the Preliminary Draft Master Plan’s objectives relating to safety, security, environmental protection and enhanced sustainability;

· requests that the existing curfews and caps continued to be maintained and that any future pressure to modify these should result in such flights being accommodated at Western Sydney Airport;

· proposes increased emphasis on sustainable transport; and

· requests clarification on aspects of aircraft noise projections.

3. Write to the NSW Minister for Transport requesting that station access fees be removed from both of the airports heavy rail stations and that new bus routes be established to connect Sydney Airport with key areas, such as Sutherland Shire, Bayside and Georges River Council areas (key home locations of airport employees), Newtown, St Peters and Marrickville centres (nearby nodes and residential centres).

BACKGROUND

Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL), under the direction of the Federal Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development has prepared a Preliminary Draft Master Plan 2039 (PDMP) for Sydney Airport. This master plan is a 20-year strategic land use plan, which includes an airport environment strategy, a five-year ground transport plan, and a series of development concepts for the Airport over the next 20 years.

The PDMP has been prepared subsequent to a community consultation process which included:

· Discussions and briefings with community and government stakeholders;

· Community updates in local newspapers circulating across the Sydney metropolitan area;

· A series of community open days in suburbs near the Airport;

· Information brochures letter box drops to households in the vicinity of the Airport;

· Establishment of a digital engagement program including social media and interactive mapping.

The plan has been placed on exhibition for public comment until Friday 20 November 2018.

Additionally, in recognition of concerns raised previously and during consultation, the PDMP has been based on:

· No change to the airport operational curfew;

· No change to the aircraft movement caps;

· No change to existing noise sharing arrangements;

· No change to flight paths or runways.

This PDMP is the first to consider the relationship between Sydney Airport and the Western Sydney Airport (which will open in 2026). While the detailed interrelationship between the two airports is not clearly annunciated in the PDMP, it is likely that:

· Sydney Airport will function as the dominant international airport, also catering for domestic travel, some regional travel and limited dedicated freight (noting that approx.. 80% of freight is currently carried in the hold of passenger aircraft rather than on dedicated freight aircraft);

· Sydney Airport curfews and caps will remain;

· Western Sydney Airport will attract some domestic, regional flights and international flights;

· As Western Sydney Airport will not have a curfew it will also attract a large proportion of dedicated freight traffic, as well has flights with desired operating times that conflict with Sydney Airport’s curfew period.

Overview of Preliminary Draft Master Plan 2039

Master planning for Sydney Airport is an ongoing process with each 20 year master plan being reviewed every five years. The current PDMP is designed to replace the existing Master Plan 2033.

This PDMP predicts that, by 2039, Sydney Airport will cater for:

· 65.6 million passengers (52% international/48% domestic);

· 408,260 aircraft movements; and

· 1,000,000 tonnes of freight.

In summary, to cater for the predicted growth, the PDMP proposes:

· Retention of the existing T1 as a solely international precinct;

· Integrated (international/domestic) operations in T2 and T3;

· Construction of several “satellite pier” areas (boarding/disembarkation areas remote from the existing terminal buildings);

· Reconfiguration of existing general aviation facilities;

· Reconfiguration of existing airport ancillary facilities;

· Further improvement to surface road access;

· Measures to reduce the Airport’s carbon footprint (including increased use of solar power);

· Increased recycling;

· Continued implementation of the wetlands enhancement program.

The PDMP also includes reference to the proposed Sydney Gateway Project (SGP), to improve surface road access to, from and around the Airport. The SGP comprises:

· a surface motorway connection between the WestConnex St Peter’s Interchange and Sydney Airport;

· Duplication of the freight rail line between Mascot and Port Botany.

This project is currently in its preliminary design phase and will not be the subject of a comprehensive community consultation program until a draft reference design is available (anticipated in early 2019).

Objectives

The PDMP has 11 Objectives:

· Enhance safety and security for all users of the Airport;

· Consider the community impact in all planning, development and operational activities;

· Enhanced experience of all passengers and airport users;

· Continue to improve ground access to, from and past the Airport;

· Continue to improve environmental performance at the Airport;

· Further embed sustainability into airport decision-making;

· Improve efficiency of the Airport;

· Provide adaptable and flexible plans to accommodate aviation growth;

· Maximise the capacity of the Airport to meet demand within existing operational constraints;

· Stimulate leisure and business travel to generate benefits and value for the economy;

· Create an airport that is able to compete internationally to capture aviation demand.

Air traffic forecasts

Total air passenger numbers are forecast to increase by 51%, from 43.3 million in 2017 to 65.6 million in 2039 and it is envisaged that Sydney Airport will remain the predominant airport for international flights. Consequently, international passengers are forecast to be the main driver of growth at Sydney Airport, being forecast to nearly double (from 16 million in 2017 to 31.5 million in 2039). The implication of this is a likely increase in the proportion of mid-sized international aircraft using the Airport. In relation to this the PDMP envisages:

· a reduction in the proportion of small-medium sized domestic aircraft (eg 737s);

· a greater proportion of 777, A340 and 787 aircraft (mid-sized international aircraft);

· a reduced proportion of A380 (very large aircraft).

Further, Sydney Airport’s international travel will grow faster than its domestic travel, increases in the total number of aircraft movements are expected to be significantly lower than growth in passenger numbers (17% growth in aircraft movements compared to a 51% increase in passenger numbers).

Total freight at Sydney Airport is forecast to grow by 58 percent to one million tonnes in 2039, noting that even if the Western Sydney Airport caters for the majority of dedicated freight aircraft approximately 80% of all air freight is carried in the hold of passenger aircraft. Consequently, freight handling will continue to be a major function at Sydney Airport (with implications for the surrounding road network).

While Council recognises the importance of a viable airport, particularly in terms of its economic contribution to Sydney, NSW and Australia as a whole, it is also considered essential that a balance be achieved between operational efficiency and impact on the local community. The recently adopted ANEF 2039 included in the PDMP shows pockets of increased noise in several areas. This expansion of the Airport’s noise footprint is of concern to Council, as is the inability of the Airport to meet the prescribed noise sharing targets.

While the theoretical capacity of Sydney Airport is 100 aircraft movements/hour, a “cap” of 80 movements per hour is prescribed in legislation and adhered to by various flight scheduling/slot management processes.

Under existing conditions the Airport generally operates at around 60 movements/hour (excluding “super peak” occasions such as school vacations and public holidays). The PDMP predicts a total of 408,260 aircraft movements/year; equating to an average of 68 movements per hour. The likely implication of this is that, by 2039, peak periods will be at or near capacity (80 movements per hour) with off-peak times operating at rates approaching the current peak rates. Consequently concern is expressed regarding:

· Increased frequency of flights and the possible consequence that the Airport’s Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) noise sharing targets may not be able to be met;

· The increased noise footprint shown in ANEF 2039;

· Potential for various lobby groups to use the increased frequency of flights to argue for increases in the existing movement caps and/or a reduction in the curfew hours.

The noise footprint (ANEF 2039) included in the PDMP predicts that some areas will experience increased aircraft noise (see latter section of this report). These noise increased are predicted to occur with the Airport continuing to operate within its prescribed curfew and caps. Should the curfew and/or caps be altered it is likely that local communities would experience increased aircraft noise.

Consequently, Council should insist that the curfews and caps continued to be maintained (as per the current PDMP) and that any future pressure to modify these should result in such flights being accommodated at Western Sydney Airport.

Airport Development Plan

Sydney Airport has traditionally been divided into 6 operational sectors (shown in Figure 1). The PDMP provides a 20 year Airport Development Plan to guide future land use and operational patterns within the airport perimeter.

The Airport Development Plan operational strategies include:

· Continued development of capacity in the T1;

· Expanded capacity in the North-East Sector to create a T2/T3 Integrated Operations Precinct to provide for combined international, domestic and regional passenger services;

· Apron and stand infrastructure;

· Satellite pier development;

· Airside terminal and satellite pier connections;

· General aviation facilities relocation;

· Aircraft maintenance facilities;

· Aviation support infrastructure;

· Air traffic control tower;

· Ground transport and utilities improvements;

· Air freight facilities.

Figure 1 – Airport Sectors

Commercial Development Plan

While the Airport Development Plan largely focusses on activities directly associated with aviation, several pockets of land remain available for business activity, short-term land uses, essential utilities and environmental conservation. Business activities and short-term land uses generally fall within the remit of a commercial development plan.

In summary, the plan includes potential for:

· The North West Sector to accommodate demand for up to 120,000m² of floor space for hotel and office commercial development;

· A 430 room hotel (already approved) at Ninth Street to be developed together with a multi-storey Ground Transport Interchange in the North East Sector;

· Additional hotels ranging between 200 and 900 rooms within the North-West and North-East Sectors;

· Up to 70,000m² of freight, logistics and industrial developments in the South-East Sector;

· Up to 150,000m² of freight, logistics and industrial developments in the Northern Lands Sector;

· Employment levels at Sydney Airport to increase by approximately 6,000 jobs (to a total of nearly of 36,000 jobs by 2023).

Ground transport

The PDMP provides a 5 Year Ground Transport Plan and a 20 Year Ground Transport Strategy. The Strategy looks further into the future and includes consideration of adjacent future motorway projects (such as the F6 Extension and Sydney Gateway) as well as the need for improved public and active transport.

This plan builds on key elements of the Airport’s previous Ground Transport Plan by proposing the following:

· Terminal 1:

o Construction of a new integrated multi-storey car park/pick-up-drop-off facility;

o Improved pedestrian and vehicle access to the terminals from the car parks;

o Site specific intersection upgrades;

o Roadway reconfiguration for improved network performance.

· Terminal 2/3:

o Construction of the (already approved) Ground Transport Interchange;

o Improved pedestrian access from carparks to passenger terminals;

o Improvements to the entry and exit routes of the precinct.

o Public transport - Sydney Airport proposes to continue to advocate for additional train and bus services to and from the Airport including increased capacity on the airport rail line;

· Active transport:

o Providing and improving active transport infrastructure in the Airport’s passenger terminal precincts;

o Creating efficient pedestrian and bicycle linkages internally and connections to surrounding urban development;

o Reducing the physical barriers for pedestrians within the landside areas of the Airport;

o Improving active transport connections to public transport;

o Reducing dependence on single occupant transport for travel, by promoting active travel within the community and the use of public transport.

Environment and sustainability

Sydney Airport has been pursuing the following high level objectives for many years:

· Reduction of carbon footprint;

· Resilience to climate change;

· Conservation of items of natural, indigenous and heritage value;

· Protection of environmentally significant areas.

As an addendum to the PDMP the Airport has produced a 5 Year Environmental Strategy (2019-2024).

Key environmental and sustainability aspects being pursued by the Airport include:

· Use of electric vehicles (six electric buses have already been introduced running between the Blu Emu Car Park and terminals);

· Upgrading of terminal and apron lighting systems (to more energy efficient systems);

· Investment in on-site solar power;

· Encouragement of quieter a more fuel-efficient next-generation aircraft;

· Enhanced background noise and air quality monitoring systems;

· Expansion of its recycled water treatment plant and other water-saving initiatives;

· Encouragement of active and sustainable transport connections to and from the Airport;

· Achievement of a four-star communities rating;

· Protection of buffer zones between aviation activity and environmentally sensitive areas

· Enhancement of existing management plans for storm water quality, biodiversity and wetlands.

Noise

The scope of the PDMP does not include aircraft noise outside the airport perimeter; however the PDMP does include reference to the new Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) for Sydney Airport. ANEF 2039 was finalised prior to publication of the PDMP.

Similar to the PDMP 2039, ANEF 2039 is the first to include consideration of the opening of Western Sydney Airport (Badgery’s Creek). A comparison of new and previous ANEFs (2033 and 2039) is shown in Figure 2 of this report.

In summary, the new ANEF footprint indicates:

· several small pockets of slightly reduced noise impact in Sutherland Shire and Bayside Council’s areas;

· slightly increased noise impacts in several parts of the Inner West, Bayside, Randwick and Lane Cove LGAs;

· the largest areas of change noted, over land, are extensions of the ANEF 20 (noise level) footprint over Lilyfield/Rozelle, Roseberry and Botany.

It should be noted that the majority of extended noise footprint areas relate to the ANEF 20 and ANEF 25 categories (lower level noise impacts), however it is considered that any increased footprint requires explanation.

In a briefing of Councilors, presented by SACL on 16 October 2018, it was indicated that the projected changes in the ANEF were largely the result of:

· anticipated increased growth in the proportion of international flights using Sydney Airport (resulting in a corresponding increase in the proportion of mid-sized international aircraft being used);

· an increased number of aircraft movements; as airline fleet mixes adapt to changing travel demands;

· rebalancing of the use of the two parallel runways to better accommodate growth in air traffic.

Figure 2 – Comparision of 2033 ANEF& 2039 ANEF

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

OTHER STAFF COMMENT

The attached submission was compiled based on feedback from the following teams:

· Strategic Planning:

o Strategy & Policy Planning;

o Planning Operations;

o Urban & Corporate Strategy;

o Infrastructure Planning;

o Strategic Transport Planning;

· Footpaths, Roads, Traffic & Stormwater:

o Road Access;

o Traffic & Transport Services;

· Environment & Sustainability:

o Urban Ecology;

o Urban Sustainability.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

SACL has carried out its own community consultation process during the preparation and exhibition of the PDMP.

CONCLUSION

The PDMP provides the basis for a world-class airport with on-going enhancement of its accessibility, sustainability and operational efficiency; however this operational efficiency is largely focused on the Airport’s ability to cater for increased travel demand.

In response to the PDMP Council requests:

· that the existing curfews and caps continued to be maintained and that any future pressure to modify these should result in such flights being accommodated at Western Sydney Airport;

· further consideration of the Master Plan’s ability to accommodate existing noise sharing targets;

· provision of an explanation regarding variations between ANEF 2033 and ANEF 2039;

· an overall transport strategy (more detailed than the plans currently provided), which contains:

o a detailed active transport plan;

o initiatives to enhance public transport mode share, including:

- commitment to pursuing negotiations with the State Government to remove the current station access fees for both of the Airport’s heavy rail stations;

- commitment to pursue negotiations with the State Government to secure new bus services to the Airport, particularly aimed at encouraging airport employees to travel by public transport;

- provision of bus priority measures in and around the Airport;

o improved interoperability between Sydney Airport and (the future) Western Sydney Airport to reduce impacts on the Inner Sydney community;

o improved methods to handle predicted increased freight demand, with only limited reliance on use of the adjacent road network;

· augmentation of existing initiatives to ensure increased sustainability and environmental protection of environmentally sensitive areas in and around the airport;

· opportunities to use technological solutions, such as Ground-Based Augmentation (navigation) Systems (GBAS) to manage aircraft movements in a manner which reduces noise impacts on the community of Inner Sydney suburbs;

· a proposal that the Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (and other Australian airport operators), Federal Government, airlines, aircraft manufacturers and relevant interest groups work together to establish a new, more relevant criteria for the assessment of future aircraft noise and that this process includes extensive community consultation;

· a proposal to encourage legislative reform that would provide the Sydney Airport Corporation Limited with the ability to apply and enforce conditions on tenants which will assist in supporting the PDMP’s sustainability goals. Such conditions should include, but not be limited to, workplace travel plans, renewable energy usage, waste water re-use and sustainability targets.

While the PDMP provides many valuable initiatives, and builds on the work already commenced by the Airport, Council’s submission (Attachment 1) provides requests for greater detail on several aspects of the PDMP prior to its finalisation.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Sydney Airport PDMP 2039 Submission

Council Meeting

13 November 2018

Item No: C1118(1) Item 7

Subject: Future of White Bay Cruise Ship Terminal Bus Service

Prepared By: Bernadette Selfe - Business Relations Coordinator

Authorised By: David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to respond to Council Resolution C1018(1) Item 10 Notice of Motion - Future of White Bay Cruise Ship Terminal Bus dated 9 October 2018 which required staff to:

1. Provide an update on the status and effectiveness of the minibus service to the White Bay Cruise Ship Terminal

2. Detail the costs to Council of the minibus service since it commenced

3. Widely consult with the Chamber and businesses in Balmain and Rozelle about any future use of the funds used for the bus.

In 2016, Council entered into a two year funding agreement with the Port Authority NSW that aimed to capture the economic potential of the White Bay Cruise Terminal as a tourism asset for Balmain Peninsula by providing a free bus service for passengers from the cruise terminal to Balmain and Rozelle villages. This agreement ended in March 2018. The program evaluation showed that the project was tracking very short of the anticipated $1.4m per year return and showed no sign of achieving that return. Based on the evaluation Council declined an offer to extend the new agreement with the Port Authority. The total cost to Council to deliver the program over two years was $75,000. Council provided one off funding for this initiative which ceased in the 2017-18 financial year.

Representatives from the Balmain Rozelle Chamber were consulted about the project and where made aware that the funds associated with the bus service were only for a two year period. As a result there are no funds available in the 2018-19 budget for related initiatives. However staff from the Economic Development Unit are in discussions with the Balmain Rozelle Chamber to examine other possible promotional initiatives for the area.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council notes the information outlined in this report.

BACKGROUND

In 2015, the former Leichhardt Council and the Port Authority NSW entered into a two year agreement to develop, promote and capture the economic potential of the White Bay Cruise Terminal as a tourism asset for Balmain and Rozelle villages. This project provided a free bus service for passengers from the cruise terminal to Balmain and Rozelle. This agreement ended in March 2018.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION RAISED IN THE NOTICE OF MOTION

1. Provide an update on the status and effectiveness of the minibus service to the White Bay Cruise Ship Terminal

Council undertook an evaluation that showed the initiative did not justify Council’s continued financial investment in this project. It was estimated by a consultant when the project was developed that the initiative would generate around a $1.4m per year return into the local economy over a four year period. This figure was based on an average passenger spend of $120 for a self-guided tour and $45 for crew arriving at the White Bay Terminal.

Based on the figures for 2016/17 and in Table 1 below, it is estimated that in the two years that the program operated the Balmain and Rozelle economy received the following passenger spend:

· 2016/17 (21 ships) - $70,560 (5.04% of the anticipated target $1.4m return)

· 2017/18 (34 ships) - $117,600 (8.4% of the anticipated target $1.4m return).

Table 1. Number of passengers using the bus service 2017/18

Date	30 Nov	5 Dec	20 Dec	21 Dec	23 Dec	3 Jan	17 Jan	20 Jan	23 Jan
No.	0	10	31	146	49	6	35	75	7

Date	25 Jan	5 Feb	6 Feb	8 Feb	10 Feb	11 Feb	12 Feb	13 Feb	14 Feb
No.	41	32	23	0	16	27	14	20	3

Date	15 Feb	16 Feb	17 Feb	18 Feb	19 Feb	20 Feb	21 Feb	22 Feb	23 Feb
No.	3	5	16	4	2	10	130	26	74

Date	24 Feb	27 Feb	4 March	6 March	11 March	17 March	28 March
No.	8	0	11	17	13	16	5

The estimated amount of income received by the local businesses that can be attributed to cruise ship visitors (figures obtained from talking to the businesses in Balmain/Rozelle) represents in 2016/17 only 5.04% of the anticipated final $1.4m return and in 2017/18 around 8.4% of the anticipated final $1.4m return.

These figures are much lower than the staged growth targets for those years of $650,940 for 2016/17 (only 10.8% achieved) and $928,500 for 2017/18 (only 12.6% achieved). Furthermore the increase from 2016/17 to 2017/18 does not relate to a greater take up by the passengers on each ship but rather an increase in the number of ships from 21 to 34. The evidence appears to indicate that iconic attractions such as the Opera House, Harbor Bridge, Darling Harbour, Kings Wharf and the retail shopping opportunities in Sydney City appear to be more attractive to passengers.

Feedback from businesses has been mixed. In 2016/17 businesses reported good sales from cruise ship customers and noticed an increase in foot traffic. In 2017/18 businesses reported that they were very busy but not sure why, and had not noticed an increase in sales from cruise passengers. Some businesses were not aware of the service, despite Council staff hand delivering information about the program. Shops where business owners are present were aware of the service while shops managed by staff were less likely to be aware of the service.

Representatives from the Balmain and Rozelle Chamber have advised that they believe numbers were down on the previous year. They attribute this to passengers bypassing the villages to go to Balmain East Wharf to get to Circular Quay. The Port Authority NSW disputes this, as the Captain Cook Ferry service is located next to the terminal and is a quicker option for passengers to get into Sydney city.

Council staff have reviewed the shuttle service and confirm that approximately 50% of the morning passengers were using the service to go the wharf to make their way into Sydney. However, in the afternoon passengers and crew were using the service to go shopping in Balmain - Rozelle. This was a concern as the aim of the shuttle is to transfer passengers from the terminal to the Darling Street precincts of Rozelle and Balmain and not as an alternative means of transport into Sydney City.

2. Detail the costs to Council of the minibus service since it commenced

Council provided one off funding for this initiative for two years ending in 2017-18. The cost to deliver the program was $75,000 a year which was shared equally between the Port Authority NSW and Council at $37,500 each per year. Funds were used to run two shuttle buses from 8.30am to 5.30pm from White Bay to Balmain/Rozelle. There was also the cost to Council of one staff member attending quarterly meetings, and around 4 hours a week during cruise season (approximately $3,100).

3. Widely consult with the Chamber and businesses in Balmain and Rozelle about any future use of the funds used for the bus

As noted earlier in this report, Council provided one off funding for this initiative which has now ceased. There are no funds allocated for this project in 2018-19 and therefore no funds available to use on related initiatives in the area. Representatives from the Balmain Rozelle Chamber were consulted about this project and were made aware that the funds associated with the bus service were only for a two year period. However staff from the Economic Development Unit are in discussions with the Balmain Rozelle Chamber to examine other possible promotional initiatives for the area for consideration.

Council’s Economic Development Unit continues to promote and market the local economy to drive awareness, visitation and local spend to businesses, including in Balmain and Rozelle. The Economic Development Unit, as part of its strategic planning, is developing an Economic Development Strategy which will help to optimise the economic potential of the key sectors and locations across the Inner West LGA and is also liaising with the local chamber on the Strategy.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Staff contacted the local business chamber for their feedback on the project to help inform this report.

CONCLUSION

The program evaluation showed that the project was tracking very short of the anticipated $1.4m per year return. The two year funding agreement between Council and the Port Authority NSW ended in March 2018. Based on the evaluation Council declined to enter into a new agreement with the Port Authority and there are no remaining funds that were allocated to the project that are available for use on other projects.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Council Meeting

13 November 2018

Item No: C1118(1) Item 13

Subject: Panel Member Appointment - Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel (SECPP)

Prepared By: Harjeet Atwal - Group Manager Development Assessment & Regulatory Services

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

SUMMARY

Sydney Planning Panels were established in November 2016, to replace the Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPPs) which operated throughout NSW since July 2009. The relevant Sydney Planning Panel for Inner West Council is the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel (SECPP). In November 2016, Council re-appointed the representatives of the former 3 Councils. In February 2018 Council resolved to go review its representatives and go through an expression of interest (EOI) process to nominate its representatives for an expanded panel. The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the outcomes of the EOI to appoint representatives for SECPP.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council appoint the nominated candidates from the EOI process as Council representatives on the SECPP for an expanded panel.

BACKGROUND

Sydney Planning Panels (SPPs) were established in November 2016, to replace the JRPPs which operated throughout NSW since July 2009.

The Inner West lies within the SECPP area, together with Bayside, Burwood, Canada Bay, Randwick, Strathfield, Waverley and Woollahra Councils.

The Sydney Planning Panels comprise of five members:

· The Chair (Currently Carl Scully)

· 2 state appointed representatives (Currently Dr John Roseth and Sue Francis)

· 2 council appointed representatives

In November 2016, Council re-appointed the representatives of the former 3 Councils:

Ashfield (former LGA)

Leichhardt (former LGA)

Marrickville (Former LGA)

Monica Wangmann

Edward Cassidy

Brian McDonald

Deborah Laidlaw

Jacinta Reid (Alternate)

Sam Iskandar

Victor Macri

Rosana Tyler (Alternate)

The former Ashfield and Marrickville Councils chose to have Councillors as the representatives to the then JRPP’s. Leichhardt Council has previously used staff and Councillors on the Panel, however changed to the use of expert planning, architecture and legal consultants when amendments were made to the Panel’s Code of Conduct in 2013.

It is noted that there is no limit on the amount of representative in the pool for Council appointed representatives on the SECPP. It is a matter for Council to nominate who it wishes to act its representatives on the SECPP.

At the 27 February 2018 Council Meeting Council considered a report (see ATTACHMENT 1) seeking the review of the existing Council representatives on the SECPP. Council resolved the following:

“THAT:

1. Council re-nominate its existing representatives for the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel with existing rates of remuneration;

2. Council seek expression of interest from Councillors, former councillors, community representatives and persons with relevant expertise and local knowledge; and

3. Following the EOI process a report be brought back to council for Council to nominate its representatives for an expanded panel.”

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the outcomes of the EOI to appoint representatives for SECPP.

EXPRESSION OF INTEREST SELECTION PROCESS

The EOI process seeking nominees for SECPP Council representatives was advertised between 12 April 2018 to 27 April 2018. Council received 24 applicants from the following fields planning, architecture, heritage, the environment, urban design, traffic and transport, and engineering.

The EOI selection process and preferred candidates are outlines in the confidential report in ATTACHMENT 2.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Councils determine the fees they pay their panel members. The Minister has provided guidance to all councils on appropriate rates of remuneration for travel and subsistence allowances for their members.

Each council is responsible for making payments to its panel members when they attend planning panel meetings.

It is proposed that payment for expert members be at the rate of $2200 per application considered. This is the current remuneration rate that Council provide to the panel experts attendance at the Inner West Local Planning Panel. It is proposed that fees for current and former Councillors remain as existing.

These fees for service can be accommodated within Council’s existing budget.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil

CONCLUSION

There is no limit on the amount of representative in the pool for Council appointed representatives on the SECPP. It is a matter for Council to nominate who it wishes to act its representatives on the SECPP.

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the outcomes of the EOI to appoint representatives for SECPP.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Council Report - 27 February 2018 - SECPP Panel Member Appointment
2.	Confidential Report - Expression Of Interest For Panel Member Appointment For SECPP - Confidential

Council Meeting

13 November 2018

Item No: C1118(1) Item 14

Subject: Ashfield Aquatic Centre Construction Tender Recommendation

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

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

SUMMARY

Inner West Council is undertaking a much needed major redevelopment of the Ashfield Aquatic Centre. The community was asked to help create a vision for the redevelopment, engaging centre users, clubs and the wider community during May and June 2017. These outcomes informed the redevelopment design. A comprehensive two stage tender process has been undertaken including an Expression of Interest (EOI) and Select Request For Tender (RFT). The Tender Assessment Panel has reviewed the tender proposals and this report provides a recommendation to Council for endorsement.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. Council moves into closed session to deal with this matter as the information contained in CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENTS 1,2, 3 and 4 of this report are classified as confidential under the provisions of Section 10A (2) d (ii) of the Local Government Act 1993 for the following reasons:

a) d (ii) commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council;

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

2. The recommendation provided in Confidential Attachment No.1 be adopted.

BACKGROUND

Inner West Council is undertaking a much needed major redevelopment of the Ashfield Aquatic Centre. After 55 years in operation and over 11.5 million visitors passing through its gates, the much loved facility closed its doors earlier this year.

The pool was closed in order to undertake the necessary investigations and preparatory work required as part of the redevelopment. Ongoing occupational health and safety issues as a result of ageing infrastructure including broken tiles, sewerage blockages, lack of ventilation in the indoor pool area and plant room and structural issues also meant that the ageing facility was no longer safe to use.

Since the pool closed, an enormous amount of work has been undertaken to prepare the site for redevelopment. The pools have been emptied to allow for additional geotechnical and other investigative work which couldn’t be undertaken whist the facility operated was a crucial part of the tender process.

Photo of 50m pool after water drained

The community was asked to help create a vision for the redevelopment, engaging centre users, clubs and the wider community during May and June 2017. These outcomes informed the redevelopment design.

Council endorsed the scope, design, capital budget, funding proposal and operating model for the Centre earlier this year: meeting minutes about Ashfield Aquatic Centre redevelopment

A comprehensive two stage tender process has been undertaken including an Expression of Interest (EOI) and Select Request For Tender (RFT). The pre-qualified contractors were invited to provide a proposal to undertake the head construction contract for the redevelopment of Ashfield Aquatic Centre. The Tender Assessment Panel has reviewed the tender proposals and provides a recommendation to Council for endorsement.

The attached report provides a recommendation on the tender, budget and timeline for the redevelopment of the site into a new state-of-the-art mix of contemporary facilities.

The redevelopment of the Ashfield Aquatic Centre (AAC) includes the following works:

· Demolition of existing 50m pool, water polo pool, existing change facilities, grandstand and plant areas;

· Rebuilding a new 50m pool with accessible ramp and split boom;

· Rebuilding a new water polo pool;

· Building a new children leisure pool;

· The design of a new two story entry building to accommodate new entry, cafe, change areas, crèche, staff facilities and retail space;

· New 1000m2 gym on level 2 of the new entry building;

· Upgrade and connection of new entry building to the existing pool hall and indoor pools

· New sauna, steam and spa attached to the existing pool hall building;

· New plant room to service the new pools and new building;

· Alterations to the existing western grandstand to create community green space and covered seating;

· New landscaping and green wall to the children leisure pool;

· New landscaped areas and terraces to the external pools;

· Amendments to the Frederick Street car park and extension of the Bastable Street car park to increase the parking spaces required for the new development;

· Upgrade of the pool hall roof to connect with one single roof over the existing Pool Hall;

· All new services associated with the new pool, and upgrade services to the existing pool hall; and

· Replacement of fencing between Pool Site and Bastable Street carpark, and Frederick Street carpark.

· Movable floor to the outdoor program pool.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

An assessment of financial implications is provided with the attachments to this report.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil

ATTACHMENTS

1.	Tender Evaluation - Report to Council - Confidential
2.	Tender Assessment Panel Report - Confidential
3.	Quantity Surveyor Tender Assessment Report - Confidential
4.	Independent Probity Advisor Tender Assessment Report - Confidential

1.⇩	Engagement outcomes report - Draft Sponsorship Policy
2.⇩	Inner West Council Sponsorship Policy
3.⇩	Sponsorship Policy - Former Leichhardt
4.⇩	Sponsorship Policy - Former Marrickville
5.⇩	Sponsorship Policy - Former Ashfield

1.	Sydney Metro PAN Construction Lease Sydenham Part Burrows Lot 5 - Confidential
2.	Attachment 1 Confidential Council Report - Confidential