Agenda of Extraordinary Council Meeting

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 February 2019

PRECIS

1 Acknowledgement of Country

2 Apologies

3 Notice of Webcasting

4 Disclosures of Interest (Section 451 of the Local Government Act
and Council’s Code of Conduct)

5 Moment of Quiet Contemplation

6 Mayoral Minutes

Nil at the time of printing.

7 Condolence Motions

Nil at the time of printing.

8 Staff Reports

ITEM PAGE #

C0219 Item 1 Code of Conduct Complaints Statistic Report 25

C0219 Item 2 Change in Parking Meter Operational Hours in the side streets of Leichhardt, Rozelle and Balmain 28

C0219 Item 3 Multicultural Policy Implementation 85

C0219 Item 4 Portuguese Community Collaboration Protocols 89

C0219 Item 5 Gambling Harm Minimisation 97

C0219 Item 6 Birchgrove Wharf - Accessibility Options through Yurulbin Park 101

C0219 Item 7 Amendment to Ashfield LEP 2013 - Heritage Conservation Clauses 276

C0219 Item 8 Victoria Road Precinct, Marrickville - Draft Developer Contributions Plan Update 299

C0219 Item 9 Harmonising Inner West Council Awards Programs 304

C0219 Item 10 Appointment of Consultant as Developer Contributions Specialist 317

C0219 Item 11 Model Code of Meeting Practice 320

C0219 Item 12 Fee Waiver for use of Aquatic Centres 370

C0219 Item 13 Mandatory reporting of Fire Safety Reports referred to Council from Fire and Rescue NSW 374

C0219 Item 14 Statement of Business Ethics 385

C0219 Item 15 Resource Recovery Operations Review 394

C0219 Item 16 Brief Report of Best Practice Food Recycling 396

9 Notices of Motion

ITEM PAGE #

C0219 Item 17 Notice of Motion: Norton Street Footpath and Stormwater Works 402

C0219 Item 18 Notice of Motion: 12 Month Trial of Regulatory Staff being On Call, After Busieness Hours 403

C0219 Item 19 Notice of Motion: Impacts of Multi-Dwelling Development upon on-street parking 405

C0219 Item 20 Notice of Motion: Open Space Funding 406

C0219 Item 21 Notice of Motion: Grants Program 408

C0219 Item 22 Notice of Motion: Former Haberfield Army Reserve Depot 410

C0219 Item 23 Notice of Motion: Acknowledgement of NSW Government’s ‘Cooler Classrooms Fund' 415

C0219 Item 24 Notice of Motion: Changes to 444 and 445 Bus Services Affecting Balmain Peninsula 417

C0219 Item 25 Notice of Motion: Stormwater Drain Maintenance 419

C0219 Item 26 Notice of Motion: De-Amalgamation 446

C0219 Item 27 Notice of Motion: Tree and Street Sweeping Issue 447

C0219 Item 28 Notice of Motion: Alcohol Free Zone 448

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 February 2019

Item No: C0219 Item 1

Subject: Code of Conduct Complaints Statistic Report

Prepared By: Suellen Bullock - Internal Ombudsman

Authorised By: Rik Hart - Interim General Manager

SUMMARY

To provide Council with a report on Model Code of Conduct Complaint Statistics as required by the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council receive and note the report on the statistical data about Code of Conduct complaints relating to Councillors and the General Manager, and, that as required by the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW, a statistical report has been provided to the Office of Local Government for the 12 months ending 31 August 2018.

BACKGROUND

Part 12 of the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW requires that Council’s Complaints Coordinator must report annually to the Council and to the Office of Local Government on a range of complaint statistics within three months of the end of each September. The prescribed annual reporting period is from 01 September to 31 August each year. The Internal Ombudsman, Suellen Bullock, and Assistant Internal Ombudsman, Rodney O’Donahue, are Complaints Coordinators for Inner West Council. Under the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW, the requisite reporting relates to complaints about Councillors and the General Manager only, and not about other Council staff.

REPORT

As required by the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW, the following information is provided to Council and has also been provided to the Office of Local Government for the reporting period of 01 September 2017 to 31 August 2018.

a) the total number of Code of Conduct complaints made about Councillors and the General Manager under the Code of Conduct in the year to September

There were ten (10) Code of Conduct complaints made against Councillors and no Code of Conduct complaints against the General Manager. It is important to note that two different complainants each made complaints about three individual Councillors and the conduct reviewer made a different determination in relation to each of the Councillors, the subject of the complaints. Advice from the Office of Local Government’s Performance Team is that in circumstances where there was one complainant complaining about, for example, three different Councillors, with different preliminary assessment outcomes being determined by the conduct reviewer, then this should be considered to be three separate Code of Conduct complaints.

b) the number of Code of Conduct complaints referred to a conduct reviewer

There were eight (8) Code of Conduct complaints referred to a conduct reviewer for preliminary assessment. There were an additional two (2) complaints which were not referred to a conduct reviewer but were resolved by alternative means at the outset by the General Manager.

c) the number of Code of Conduct complaints finalised by a conduct reviewer at the preliminary assessment stage and the outcome of those complaints

There were five (5) Code of Conduct complaints finalised at the preliminary assessment stage. Of these five (5) complaints, the conduct reviewer determined that three (3) complaints resulted in a determination that no action be taken. Two (2) complaints were resolved by the conduct reviewer dealing with them by alternative and appropriate means including informal discussion and explanation.

d) the number of Code of Conduct complaints investigated by a conduct reviewer

During the reporting period, one (1) complaint has been referred for a formal investigation following a preliminary assessment. This investigation is ongoing at the time of reporting.

e) the number of Code of Conduct complaints investigated by a conduct review committee

There have been no Code of Conduct complaints referred to or investigated by a conduct review committee.

f) without identifying particular matters, the outcome of Code of Conduct complaints investigated by a conduct reviewer or conduct review committee under these procedures

As there have been no matters investigated by a conduct reviewer or a conduct review committee, there are no outcomes to report.

g) the number of matters reviewed by the Division and, without identifying particular matters, the outcome of the reviews

As a result of preliminary assessments by a conduct reviewer, two complaints were referred to the Division for consideration. At the time of reporting, no outcome has been advised by the Division.

h) The total cost of dealing with Code of Conduct complaints made about Councillors and the general manager in the year to September, including staff costs.

The total cost of dealing with Code of Conduct complaints is $18,139.00.

Confidentiality

Clause 13.1 of the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW requires that information about Code of Conduct complaints and their management and investigation, is to be treated as confidential and is not to be publicly disclosed except as may be otherwise specifically required or permitted under the Procedures.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

CONCLUSION

As required, the statistical data has been reported to Council and also submitted to the Office of Local Government. By providing this report, Council is notifying publicly the number, type, cost and progress on Code of Conduct complaints relating to Councillors and the General Manager.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 February 2019

Item No: C0219 Item 2

Subject: Change in Parking Meter Operational Hours in the side streets of Leichhardt, Rozelle and Balmain

Council at its meeting on 11 December 2018 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 12 February 2019.

Prepared By: Manod Wickramasinghe - Coordinator – Traffic and Parking Services

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

SUMMARY

Council at its meeting held 11 September 2018, considered a report on the results of the investigation into altering the parking meter operational hours and introducing 30min free parking into the side streets of Balmain, Rozelle and Leichhardt and requested that further analysis on the consultation be undertaken, and a further report investigating limiting the 30 minute free parking and turning off parking meters at 7.00pm to side street spaces in sections abutting businesses being brought back to Council.

This report recommends that parking meters in side streets not be switched off between 7pm and 10pm, due to:

· Lack of resident support due to displacement of resident parking

· Potential for motorist confusion due to changes in paid parking hours within a single street with paid parking occurring further away from the main street

· Further decreases in parking turnover in side streets

It is also recommended that the 30 minute free parking not be extended into the side streets to limit shopper parking in residential side streets throughout operating hours of the parking meters. However, in order to provide consistency in the free parking tickets issued, it is recommended that the existing 15 minute parking ticket zones (11 parking meters) be converted to 30 minute free parking zones.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. This report be received and noted; and

2. Existing 15 minute free parking zones (11 parking meters) be converted to 30 minute free parking zones.

BACKGROUND

At its meeting held 12 October 2017, Council committed to a policy of turning off parking meters in the former Leichhardt Municipality at 7pm and requested a detailed report on the policy’s cost, funding and implementation. At the Council meeting held 13 March 2018, Council resolved that the parking meters on the mainstreets within the former Leichhardt Municipality would be turned off at 7pm and to engage with the community on switching the side street parking meters off at 7pm in addition to extending the 30 minute free parking to the side streets.

Community engagement was completed on this proposal and showed that 61% of respondents supported turning off side street meters at 7:00pm and 69% of respondents supported extending 30 minute free parking to the meters in the side streets. However, it was clear from the comments received that the objections are primarily from residents who are concerned that switching the meters off at 7pm and introducing 30 minute free parking tickets to the side streets would increase demand for parking in the residential areas and displace resident parking.

The results of the investigation including community consultation results were reported to the Council Meeting held Tuesday, 11 September 2018. Council subsequently resolved:

THAT:

1. Council defer this matter to allow Council officers to investigate limiting 30 minute free parking and turning off parking meters at 7.00pm to side street spaces and abutting businesses; and

2. Further information be provided on the breakdown of submissions from residents of relevant side streets.

Side street spaces adjacent to businesses

The sections of side streets adjacent/abutting businesses in Balmain, Rozelle and Leichhardt have been identified and are shown on the following three plans.

Identified sections of side streets adjacent to businesses in Balmain

Identified sections of side streets adjacent to businesses in Rozelle

Identified sections of side streets adjacent to businesses in Leichhardt

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

In the 2018/19 financial year, Council budgeted to receive $3,896,000 revenue from its parking meter management strategies following the reduction in operating hours of main street parking meters in Leichhardt, Balmain and Rozelle.

a) Turning off parking meters at 7pm (in sections of side streets adjacent to businesses)

The potential revenue losses associated with proposed meter changes have been estimated by analysing individual parking meter transactions and parking related infringement notices over a 3-month period and extrapolating potential losses over a year.

The modelling previously presented to the March 2018 Council Meeting has been updated to only consider meters in the identified sections of side streets adjacent to businesses and is shown in the following table.

	Side Streets
Estimated Meter Revenue	$116,000
Potential Lost Fine Revenue	$26,000
Total	$142,000

A one-time additional cost of approximately $8,000 would be required to re-program parking meters, change tariff labels, supply and install new signage.

This matter would also require Traffic Committee approval to alter regulatory signage in the side streets.

b) Extension of 30 minute free parking into the side streets

The potential parking meter revenue loss of extending 30-minute free tickets into the identified sections of side streets has been estimated by analysing short term parking transactions in side-streets over a 3-month period and extrapolating potential losses over a year.

Based on current usage this modelling indicates that introducing 30 minute free parking into the side streets is expected to result in a parking meter revenue loss of approximately $64,000. This potential loss will increase if motorist behaviour changes to make further use of the free parking.

Previous study into the introduction of 30 minute free parking into the main-streets indicated there was no overall decrease in the number of meter related fines in 2012/13. This may have resulted as a consequence of increased enforcement consistent with the findings of the previous parking study which identified that enforcement needed to be increased in all areas to ensure parking compliance. Approximately 75% of fines issued were for ‘not displaying a ticket’.

A one-time additional cost of approximately $7,000 will be required to re-program parking meters, change tariff labels and alter signage.

Subsequently, the total per annum cost of implementing the proposed amendments of both switching off the side street meters at 7pm and extending the 30 minute free tickets into sections of side streets adjacent to businesses is estimated at $206,000.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Parking Meter Strategy

Parking meters in the former Leichhardt Municipality are located in the Leichhardt, Rozelle and Balmain town centres and were originally installed in 2001 to better manage the high demand for, and utilisation of, parking in each business area. The parking meters formed part of Council’s parking management strategy with objectives to:

· Ensure on-street parking turnover

· Provide improved access to on-street car parking for business customers

· Discourage illegal / overstay parking

· Discourage commuter parking

· Encourage the use of public transport.

A number of nearby Councils in Sydney operate parking meter schemes including; City of Sydney, Waverley, North Sydney and Woollahra.

This approach recognised:

· There is generally a shortfall of car parking for the current mix of businesses.

· There is very limited capacity to increase off street car parking.

· Staff parking took up valuable parking spaces within the Town Centre parking schemes. However in recent years, the number of business permits issued has been reduced following the introduction of a fee and more strict limits.

· Balmain, Rozelle and Leichhardt are desirable places to visit that need an Integrated Transport Plan that focuses on a wide range of transport options, not just reliance and promotion of the motor car.

Current Parking Meter Operation

Existing hours of operation of the parking meters in the main streets of Leichhardt, Rozelle and Balmain now span from 8.00am to 7.00pm, 7 days per week. Parking on the main-streets requires a motorist to display a paid or a 30-minute free ticket. There are 70 main street parking meters in Leichhardt, Rozelle and Balmain.

Existing hours of operation of the parking meters in the side streets of Leichhardt, Rozelle and Balmain span from 8.00am to 10.00pm, 7 days per week. Parking on the side streets requires a motorist to display a paid ticket, 15-minute free ticket (only operating for 11 parking meters in locations adjacent to the mainstreets) or valid parking permit. There are 214 side street parking meters in Leichhardt, Rozelle and Balmain. Residents in the metered side streets are eligible for parking permits which provide preferential parking by exempting them from parking meter payments and time limits on the parking control signs.

Council introduced 30 minute free, ticketed parking along the main-streets of these suburbs to allow for short term parking to access businesses. This initiative has been popular and usage of the 30 minute free ticketed parking continues to increase. Between 2013 and 2017, the issue of paid parking tickets on main-streets has decreased from approximately 25,000 tickets per month to 19,000 whilst free parking tickets has increased from 80,000 to 112,500 tickets per month. The 30 minute parking represents 86% of parking tickets currently issued on main-streets.

Parking Management Impacts

(a) Turning Side Street Parking Meters off from 7pm-10pm in sections adjacent to businesses

Advantages include:

· Allows additional free parking for resident visitors without requiring use of visitor parking permits

· Allows additional free parking for shoppers on the side-streets for night-trade businesses

Disadvantages include:

· Meter revenue loss is estimated at $116,000 pa based on current user behaviour and is likely to also affect fine related revenue by $26,000 pa.

· Proposal will encourage shopper parking in side streets and this will potentially displace resident parking.

· Creates inconsistency amongst side street parking meter restrictions which may lead to motorist confusion and resulting infringement notices.

· A motorist can currently obtain a parking ticket from any meter in the street. When a parking meter experiences a technical issue, this allows a motorist to obtain a ticket from an adjacent meter. Without this functionality, it is likely that a motorist may assume parking meters are not working if they attempt payment from a meter within a zone with ticket parking finishing at 7pm, although the motorist parked outside this zone in an area restricted to 10pm.

(b) Extension of 30 minute free tickets to sections of side streets adjacent to businesses

Parking meters which issue 30 minute free parking tickets are limited to the mainstreets of Leichhardt, Rozelle and Balmain. There are also 11 parking meters in commercially zoned side streets adjacent to the mainstreet which issue 15 minute parking tickets. Extending the 30 minute free parking tickets to encompass all parking meters would have a number of advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages include:

· Allows short term parking for resident visitors without requiring use of visitor parking permits

· Allows short term parking for shoppers on the side-streets

· 30 minute free parking on the mainstreets has previously been shown to reduce the average length of stay for each vehicle from 51 mins (for 2P areas) to 41 mins.

Disadvantages include:

· Meter revenue loss is estimated at $64,000 based on current user behaviour and may also affect fine related revenue

· Proposal will encourage shopper parking in side streets and this will potentially displace resident parking.

· Creates inconsistency amongst side street parking meters in the former Leichhardt LGA

Parking Study

In order to assess whether the existing parking meter fee is deterring motorists from parking in the shopping precincts, a parking study was undertaken in November 2017 to assess the usage of metered parking spaces in the shopping precincts of Leichhardt, Rozelle and Balmain.

The following graphs outline the parking occupancy rates in side streets of Leichhardt, Rozelle and Balmain on a Friday and Saturday night in ticket parking areas.

The graphs from the current parking survey shows that parking occupancy in the side streets of Leichhardt and Balmain are very high. It should be noted that Rozelle has only a small number of businesses which operate at night which is reflected in lower occupancy rates compared to Balmain and Leichhardt.

There is still a strong evening demand for parking within each of the shopping centres and this needs to continue to be managed through effective parking management strategies.

Altering the operational hours of any of the existing parking meters in the side streets to shut off from 7pm will likely reduce parking turnover near the mainstreets as motorists would be able to park for free from 7pm to 8am the following day. Noting the side streets are predominantly residential, this may then displace resident parking.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Council previously engaged the local community on parking meter changes in Leichhardt, Balmain and Rozelle side streets.

The engagement was promoted through:

· Letter distributed to residences in Balmain, Leichhardt, Rozelle, Balmain East, Birchgrove, Lilyfield, Annandale and Haberfield (total 27,300).

· Letter distributed to businesses in Norton Street, Leichhardt and Darling Street, Balmain and Rozelle (total 1,200).

· Letter to Leichhardt/Annandale Business Chamber and Balmain/Rozelle Chamber

· Media release, social media

· Council’s column in the Inner West Courier

· Council’s enews and Your Say Inner West enews

The engagement was open from 3 April to 20 May 2018 and a total of 338 surveys responses were received.

A detailed Engagement Outcomes Report is included in Attachment 1.

A majority of respondents supported turning off meters at 7:00pm (61% of respondents) and a majority also supported extending 30 minute free parking (69% of respondents) to the meters in the side streets.

Further analysis of the detailed comments provided by respondents indicated that at least 109 of the 338 comments (32%) were from residents in the affected side streets of Balmain, Rozelle and Leichhardt. Of these submissions, only 10% supported switching off parking meters at 7pm in the side streets and 28% supported extending 30min free parking into the side streets. These results are shown in the following graphs.

Residents in the metered side streets are eligible for parking permits which provide preferential parking by exempting them from parking meter payments and time limits on the parking control signs.

These residents have commented that parking levels in the side streets are already at capacity and by removing the ticket parking restrictions at 7pm, residents would have to compete with visitors/shoppers for the remaining parking spaces.

Those who support the proposal mainly believe it will support local business, bring in visitors and help revitalise the main streets. The two local business chambers made submissions of support which are also shown in Attachment 1.

It should be noted that although the current investigation limits changes to the sections of side streets adjacent to businesses, there will still be an impact on resident parking in the side streets.

CONCLUSION

Based on the investigation and consultation outcomes three options are presented.

· Option A – Retain existing metered parking restrictions in Leichhardt, Rozelle and Balmain and alter existing 15 minute free parking zones (11 parking meters) into 30 minute free parking zones.

· Option B – Modify operational hours of parking meters in the side streets of Leichhardt, Rozelle and Balmain adjacent to businesses to switch off at 7pm to match the current operating hours of the main street parking meters and alter existing 15 minute free parking zones (11 parking meters) into 30 minute free parking zones.

· Option C - Modify operational hours of all parking meters in the side streets of Leichhardt, Rozelle and Balmain to switch off at 7pm to match the current operating hours of the main street parking meters and alter existing 15 minute free parking zones (11 parking meters) into 30 minute free parking zones.

It should be noted that Traffic Committee review would be required for Council’s referred option.

Although the community engagement showed that the majority of respondents supported turning off side street meters at 7:00pm and extending 30 minute free parking to the meters in the side streets, further analysis has shown that directly affected residents in the side streets do not support the changes due to the increased demand for parking in the residential areas and subsequent displacement of resident parking. Although Option B limits the impact to sections of side streets adjacent to businesses, there will still be an impact on resident parking in the side streets.

From a parking management standpoint it is difficult to justify paid parking in side streets after 7pm whilst it remains free in the adjoining main streets. It is however acknowledged that restricting only sections of side streets may cause further confusion to motorists and could result in motorists being fined for not paying the meter.

It is also acknowledged that the change in main street meter operating hours was a significant change and the resulting disruption to parking turnover is still being assessed with a further report outlining the outcomes of the review to be presented to Council in 2019.

It is therefore recommended that parking meters in side streets not be switched off between 7pm and 10pm, and that 30 minute free parking tickets not be extended into the side streets adjacent to businesses due to:

· Lack of resident support due to displacement of resident parking

· Potential for motorist confusion due to changes in paid parking hours within a single street with paid parking occurring further away from the main street

· Further decreases in parking turnover in side streets

However, in order to provide consistency in the free parking tickets issued, it is recommended that the existing 15 minute parking ticket zones (11 parking meters) be converted to 30 minute free parking zones.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Engagement Outcomes Report - Parking Meters Changes - June 2018

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 February 2019

Item No: C0219 Item 3

Subject: Multicultural Policy Implementation

Council at its meeting on 11 December 2018 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 12 February 2019.

Prepared By: Simon Watts - Social and Cultural Planning Manager

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

SUMMARY

On 13 November 2018 Council approved the Multicultural Policy and requested further advice on whether or not the proposed position Multicultural Policy Project Officer could be funded as full time. Noting funds of $113,000 have been allocated to implement the policy on an ongoing basis, this report recommends a staged implementation with additional resources in the first six months to gain momentum.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Endorse the proposed Community-led Celebration Day Grant Guidelines for exhibition;

2. Approve:

a. Recruiting a Multicultural Policy Project Officer position four days per week as a permanent position; and

b. Allocating funds for an additional day per week until 30 June 2019 to give traction to policy implementation.

BACKGROUND

C1118(1) Item 3 Multicultural Policy

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; and

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

to community relationship.

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.

4. A report be brought back at the December 2018 Ordinary Council meeting on

funding the multicultural project officer as a full time position; and

5. A report be brought back in 12 months on a review of the achievements of the

Multicultural Project Officer.

This report addresses items 2 b. and 4 above.

Draft Community-led Celebration Day Grant Guidelines (Multicultural Communities) are proposed for Council approval (Attachment One).

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Council is advised that to increase the proposed four day per week Multicultural Policy Project Officer up to five days per week would cost an additional $16,800 per annum. This funding is available in 2018/19 due to under expenditure in the Multicultural Policy allocation, however no additional funding for a fifth day is available beyond 30 June 2019.

CONCLUSION

Implementing the Multicultural Policy is a priority project. The first six months of the position needs to achieve significant new outcomes. It is therefore proposed that Council recruit a Multicultural Policy Project Officer position four days per week as a permanent position; and allocate funds for an additional day per week until 30 June 2019 to give traction to policy implementation.

This approach enables Council to achieve significant outcomes, including delivering the Community-led Celebration Day Grants, in 2018/19.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Community-led Celebration Day Grant Guidelines

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 February 2019

Item No: C0219 Item 4

Subject: Portuguese Community Collaboration Protocols

Council at its meeting on 11 December 2018 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 12 February 2019.

Prepared By: Simon Watts - Social and Cultural Planning Manager

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

SUMMARY

On 27 February 2018 Council agreed to enter a collaboration protocol between the Portuguese Republic, the Sydney Portuguese Community Club and the Sydney Madeira Club (Attachment One). Council is now asked to approve the next phase of this work, agreeing on specific projects to create to give effect to this collaboration intent.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Receive and Note this report;

2. Agree to explore further:

a. The potential community health and wellbeing initiatives that might better meet the needs of people of Portuguese backgrounds;

b. Potential renaming of Audley Street Petersham between New Canterbury Road and Trafalgar Streets to a name with greater cultural significance to the Portuguese community;

c. Explore the potential for street art created by Portuguese artists; and

d. Further liaison with Roads and Maritime about inclusion of Portuguese elements in the Petersham Station access improvements.

BACKGROUND

Inner West Council has provided long-standing support to the Portuguese communities in the city. Council affirms the socio-cultural and economic contribution of the Portuguese community in Petersham and the broader city.

Petersham is referred to as Little Portugal and has been the geographic heart of Portuguese-Australian culture in Sydney since the 1960’s. Council is investing in the Petersham Public Domain Master Plan and this will guide incorporation of Portuguese art and design elements in future works. This is an opportunity to integrate the local Portuguese community in a way that enhances design outcomes and build strong connections to the local community.

These collaboration projects are proposed to be a further development in planning and working in cooperation to strengthen the existing ties and implement new means of cooperation for the benefit of the Portuguese community in Sydney.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

These projects will be undertaken within existing Council resources and plans.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Collaborative engagement with Portuguese community representatives has led to the identification of the following issue for further work:

· Community health and wellbeing initiatives that might better meet the needs of people of Portuguese backgrounds

· The potential renaming of Audley Street Petersham between New Canterbury Road and Trafalgar Streets to a name with greater cultural significance to the Portuguese community

· Explore the potential for street art created by Portuguese artists, potentially traditional stone art or more contemporary artistic expressions by younger Portuguese artists

· Further liaison with Roads and Maritime about inclusion of Portuguese elements in the Petersham Station access improvements.

CONCLUSION

Council is requested to note the advice and to endorse further work on developing these projects.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Portuguese Community Collaboration Protocol 2018

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 February 2019

Item No: C0219 Item 5

Subject: Gambling Harm Minimisation

Council at its meeting on 11 December 2018 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 12 February 2019.

Prepared By: Simon Watts - Social and Cultural Planning Manager

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

SUMMARY

To report back on the Gambling Harm Minimisation Mayoral forum and the proposed features of a Gambling Harm Minimisation Compact for 2019.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council :

1. Note the outcomes of the Gambling Harm Minimisation Mayoral forum; and

2. Approves negotiating an Inner West Gambling Harm Minimisation Compact based on the following points:

a. Engaging a high profile ambassador for promoting harm reduction

b. Improved training for staff in venues provided by the industry

c. Targeted support from Office of Responsible Gambling.

BACKGROUND

Notice of Motion (C0818 (1) Item 35) Gambling Harm Minimisation:

THAT Council:

Convene an Inner West Gambling harm minimisation round table with representatives from the Alliance for Gambling Reform, experts in gambling harm minimisation, local clubs and pubs, other interested organisations and Councillors. The aim of the round table would be to discuss making a local gambling compact with local strategies we as a community could agree on to reduce the problem gambling and assist those who experience this problem.

A Gambling Harm Minimisation Mayoral forum was held on 7 November 2018 with key stakeholders from the Alliance for Gambling Reform, local hotels and clubs, Clubs NSW, Australian Hotels Association, Bet Safe, a leading academic, and Council officers. Participants outlined a range of perspectives on the issue of gambling harm minimisation. Participants discussed three elements that might be included in a compact and committed to further work on these options. This report provides a brief summary of key issues from the meeting and a potential approach for a compact for 2019.

INTRODUCTION

Gambling is a lawful activity and Australians are the world’s most prolific gamblers.

The most popular form of gambling is the purchase of a lottery ticket – almost 30 % of Australians reported spending money on lottery games, like Powerball or Oz Lotto, in a typical month. Just 8% of Australians report spending money on poker machines, 6 % on the horses and 3% on other sports betting. Last year Australians lost nearly $24 billion to gaming, more than half on poker machines at pubs and clubs across the country. 39% of Australians aged 18 years or older are estimated to engage in at least some form of gambling activity on a regular (at least monthly) basis.

8 per cent of Australian adults report some form of adverse consequence from gambling including almost 60 per cent of this group, for example, report at least sometimes betting more than they can afford to lose, and almost 40 per cent admitted to at least sometimes thinking they might have a gambling problem. 200,000 Australians are problem gamblers.

Men, Indigenous Australians, people with lower levels of educational attainment, and unemployed job seekers are all more likely to be problem gamblers.

Gambling with machines in Australia is generally declining in terms of numbers participating, except in NSW, where modest increases are being experienced. The single biggest decline in machine gambling is attributed to the ban on smoking in licensed venues, explaining directly renovations to hotels to enable outside smoking area, often with gambling machines.

Losses on machine gambling are generally declining Australia wide, including in NSW, although NSW is still the highest nationally. The amount lost per poker gambler (in pubs and clubs) in both NSW and Victoria is around $3,500 per year, or around $65 per week. The ACT sits at around $3,000 per gambler per year, followed by the NT and Tasmania at around $1,500 per year. To put this in some perspective, the average Australian adult spent $1,245 on electricity and gas in 2014-15.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED IN THE MAYORAL FORUM

The following key issues were raised during the Mayoral Forum:

· Every staff member who works in gaming is required to undergo responsible conduct of gambling course. This aims to develop the skills to offer gambling in a responsible way, and comply with state regulation.

· Every club and pub required to have responsible gambling program. Activities include self-exclusion, immediate 24 hour phone gambling counselling and support.

· Clubs and pubs make a significant contribution to the economy of the Inner West.

· There has been an approximate 70% reduction of gaming floor space in hotels in the Inner West since 2001. State average over that time is 10% reduction

· There are 92,000 poker machines in NSW outside of casinos

· Inner West clubs rank 19 of 103 for poker machine losses, and 18 of 103 for number of machines

· Inner West pubs rank 7th for poker machine losses and 2nd for number of machines.

· Although the total number of machines is decreasing, the losses are increasing.

· Losses in last 12 months in Inner West have increased 12 %

· Clubs are doing very well, their losses are falling

· There's no one single solution, gambling is very complex problem

· Pathways into counselling are critical

· Harm minimisation requires a better conversation about gambling in the public domain. There is too much victim blaming. The blame is often placed on the gambler experiencing harm, not the industry providing the machines.

· Local government is not the consent authority for gaming machines

POTENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A GAMBLING HARM MINIMISATION COMPACT

There was broad agreement at the forum of the importance of reducing stigma associated with those who are experiencing gabling harm, of raising awareness of the issue and of encouraging people to seek support with gambling issues early.

There was considerable discussion of what actually works to reduce harm. It was argued that there was there was a role for venue management to support staff to be proactive and engage with gamblers, exploring sign of emotional distress in a non-judgmental manner and refer people for support as appropriate. It was argued that there are elements of corporate social responsibility and customer service that might be argued to be behind such a renewed approach.

There was also an appetite for exploring the following elements:

1. High profile ambassador promoting harm reduction

ClubsNSW have developed a campaign that Nathan Hindmarsh leads as the ambassador. The tag line is: If it's not fun anymore, it's ok to ask for help. Mr Hindmarsh speaks to groups about his personal experience with gambling, how he got help, about looking after mates, and not being afraid to own up to needing help. ClubsNSW can deploy the campaign in the Inner West perhaps in conjunction with school or sports events, along with council.

2. Improved training for staff in venues

A new training package is being developed at the University of Sydney for venue staff. It aims to ensure that staff are well trained not just to identify signs of gambling harm, and to learn skills on how to interact with customers in a non-judgemental way. The onus is placed on corporate responsibility where venue operators shift the focus away from the issue of problem gambling to customer service. Current training imparts competency for gambling and teaches the signs to look at for, but doesn't give skills to respond.

3. Targeted support from Office of Responsible Gambling

The Office of Responsible Gambling has funded programs from multiple service providers across the Inner West. They are open to discussions about targeting to areas of emerging need.

CONTEXT

The most pervasive gambling method is poker machines (electronic gambling machines). The Inner West has two clubs and two hotels in the list of 100 most profitable NSW venues by gambling machine revenue. Overall poker machine numbers in the Inner West are much lower than other areas, particularly compared to the City of Sydney.

In the six months 1 December 2017 to 31 May 2018 the Inner West had 1,126 gambling machines at 17 clubs. These machines made a net profit of $28.8 million, attracting tax of $5.9 million. In the same period, the Inner West had 916 gambling machines at 56 hotels. These machines made a net profit of $40.3 million.

The role of the NSW Government and councils

In NSW, poker machines are regulated by the Government through the Office of Responsible Gambling. Section 209(3) of the NSW Gaming Machines Act 2001 prohibits Councils considering gambling in social and economic impact assessments. This provides a statutory limit on the direct influence local councils have on the number of EGMs and their associated impact in the community. Fairfield City Council is the only LGA with an EGM harm minimisation policy, although Northern Beaches is working intensively on the issue, and has released a draft EGM Harm Management Strategy for public comment. Fairfield has the largest number of poker machines of any LGA and records the biggest gambling losses in NSW (and Australia).

The Office of Responsible Gambling funds and provides a range of programs to minimise gambling harm. The Responsible Gambling Fund is funded by a levy on the Star Casino and allocates around $18 million per annum for such initiatives. The Office leads on a number of issues including:

· Gambling related signage (in seven community languages)

· Player information brochures

· Self-exclusion schemes

· Displaying clocks

· Gaming machine advertising

· Locating gaming machines and jackpot displays

· Cheques and cash-dispensing facilities

· Player reward schemes and promotional prises

· Gambling inducements

· Responsible Conduct of Gambling Training (renewal required every five years)

· Investigation of any possible misconduct, mismanagement of funds and assets

· Investigation of complaints and breaches.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil additional. Council staff will assist in the development of a compact.

CONCLUSION

This report provides feedback on the Gambling Harm Minimisation Mayoral forum and the proposed features of a Gambling Harm Minimisation Compact for 2019.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 February 2019

Item No: C0219 Item 6

Subject: Birchgrove Wharf - Accessibility Options through Yurulbin Park

Council at its meeting on 11 December 2018 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 12 February 2019.

Prepared By: Aaron Callaghan - Parks Planning and Engagement Manager

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

SUMMARY

Transport for NSW have developed options to address equal access provision to Birchgrove Wharf, through Yurulbin Park. The positive and negative attributes of the options are discussed within the report.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Advise Transport for NSW that it supports Option 3 as the preferred option for equal access to Birchgrove Wharf, through Yurulbin Park;

2. Requests that Transport for NSW engage Bruce Mackenzie and Associates to provide comments on the detailed design for improved accessibility and provide input into the landscaping design works for Yurulbin Park; and

3. Request that Transport for NSW reconsider the option of relocating the ferry wharf to Miklouho-Maclay Park, Grove Street, Birchgrove, should the accessibility project to Birchgrove Wharf not proceed within five years.

BACKGROUND

An award winning designed park, Yurulbin Reserve was designed by Bruce Mackenzie and Associates, landscape architects, and developed between 1972 and 1977. Bruce Mackenzie also designed the park at Illoura Point in 1970. Both parks were seminal works that demonstrated two main philosophies that would become dominant in Australian landscape architecture during the period. One was a design which was focused on creating an environment in sympathy with its natural origins using Australian native plants. The other sought to create an escape from urban pressures.

The park, originally known as Long Nose Point Park, like Illoura Reserve, incorporates a sequence of spaces, and uses natural stone elements and outcrops. The hand hewn sandstone path, the slipway, concrete walls and heavy timber elements incorporated into the design also remain as a reminder of its former commercial use. The design received the 1982 merit award of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects. In 1994 the name of the point and park was changed to “Yurulbin Point” to reflect the Aboriginal heritage of the area.

Transport for NSW (TfNSW) operates a ferry wharf at the base of the park as part of the F8 ferry route between Cockatoo Island and Circular Quay. This route operates 23 times a day Monday to Friday in each direction, 17 to 18 times a day on Saturday in each direction, and 12 to 13 times a day on Sunday and on public holidays in each direction. Patronage for Birchgrove Wharf in the financial year 16/17 was approximately 65 customers per day. A new pontoon ferry wharf, constructed by TfNSW was opened on the 24 April 2018.

Of the 32 wharves in the Sydney Ferries Network, Birchgrove Wharf is one of 10 that is not accessible. The Human Rights Commission has ruled that Transport for NSW as a provider of public transport infrastructure, has an obligation to ensure that there is a continuous accessible path of travel linking the nearest public street to the wharf. This is consistent with the requirements of clause 7 of AS1428.2 (1992).

Discussions on the provision of equal access at Yurulbin Reserve have been ongoing for a number of years. Detailed design options from TfNSW have recently been received following a ruling from the Human Rights Commission requiring TfNSW to resolve with Council an agreeable access plan within six months. This ruling was handed down in May of 2018. A copy of this ruling is provided as Attachment 2.

During the planning and construction period associated with the new wharf, discussions were initiated by TfNSW on options for equal access from the new ferry wharf to Louisa Road at the top of the park. At the outset of the discussions in 2015, prior to the new wharf build, Council officers recommended that a more suitable and /or supplementary site for the Ferry wharf would be that of the Miklouho- Maclay Park at the end of Grove Street in Birchgrove. This location would have made more practical sense as DDA compliant access can be easily achieved and importantly the site is also serviced by the 441 bus (site highlighted in Fig 1.0). This option was not supported by TfNSW due the additional travel time component that this would place on the existing ferry timetable. Council officers still believe that this is an option worth exploring further especially if Yurulbin Reserve is alienated as a construction site for the Western Harbour Tunnel.

Fig 1.0 –Yurulbin Reserve, Birchgrove Oval and Miklouho- Maclay Park

Equitable Access Options in Yurulbin Reserve

Access to the wharf is solely via a worn set of stairs, comprised of a mix of concrete steps and steps hand hewn from the sandstone bedrock. Improvement of the stairs is included with all options. Seven options, featuring a combination of lifts and graded paths for wheeled access have been considered by TfNSW and presented to Council. Attachment 1 highlights the options which have been recommended for consideration by Council. All of the options presented have impacts on the park.

All of the options presented will have impacts on the character and amenity of the park as well as its design within the landscape, which was a core principal in its design intent. At the park’s inception and design in the 1970’s accessibility was not a key design criteria. In this respect it is noted that Council is committed to achieving equal access in all of its parks where this is technically possible.

Council has an obligation to provide equity of access to the park regardless of the time or period of when it was constructed. Both TfNSW and Council have a legal compliance issue to address triggered by the wharf upgrade. Council needs to recognise in considering any design improvements for access, that both access to the ferry wharf and the park are considered in an integrated manner. These issues can’t be considered in isolation. In undertaking design considerations it is critical that the landscape qualities of the park are recognised and that the proposed access improvements provide the least impact on these qualities.

Preferred Options

Attachment 1 outlines the potential options for the site. TfNSW is promoting Option 7 as their preferred solution.

With respect to the current options presented, Council staff have two differing views. Both options provide access to the foreshore however access to the whole park is not achievable due to the differing gradients and landscape topography.

The option preferred by TfNSW (Option 7) is also supported by Council’s Community and Cultural Services team. This option includes a lift facility and an elevated path option which also leads from the top of the park to the mid lawn area. Option 7 is supported by Community and Cultural Services staff as it provides ease of inclusive access and would open up much of the bottom of the park for those with mobility impairments. This option has a larger footprint impact on the park and also impacts upon its original design intent.

It is noted that the option with the least impact on the park is that of Option 6. This option includes an inclinator car, which provides for direct accessible access to the ferry wharf. However, it does not provide access to any other part of the park. The design could be modified at the middle landing point to provide future access to the central section of the park.

The option preferred by Council’s Parks Planning and Engagement team is that of Option 3. This option provides improved access to the central area of the park as well as the ferry wharf and foreshore. In addition, it could be modified in future years to provide additional access to the park. Some realignment of the existing access to the bottom of the park will be required for maintenance vehicles.

Whichever design is recommended and supported by Council it is strongly advocated that the original park designer is engaged by TfNSW on landscape form treatments. It is critical that the original design intent of the park is not completely lost through the modification of the park through built form.

Potential Construction of Western Harbour Tunnel

In July 2018, RMS released a reference design for the proposed Western Harbour Tunnel. Should this project proceed it is likely to include a tunneled section under Balmain/Birchgrove linking to submerged, prefabricated sections under Sydney Harbor between Birchgrove and Waverton.

The reference design includes use of Yurulbin Point as a construction site providing the interface between the submerged prefabricated and the tunneled sections of the project. This activity is likely to include:

· Relocation of the existing ferry wharf to permit construction of a temporary cofferdam (to provide interface between the ‘dry” and “wet” sections of the project);

· Establishment of a temporary tunneling site and barge mooring in the harbour to the south of Yurulbin Park;

· Temporary use of Yurulbin Park for activities ancillary to the tunnel’s construction.

The project’s current timeline anticipates exhibition of the Environmental Impact Statement early in 2019 with potential completion of the project within 5 years of project approval.

The decision by the Australian Human Rights Commission requires Council and Transport for NSW to reach agreement on the design option for providing access at Birchgrove Wharf. However, should the ferry services be terminated for several years due to the proposed tunnel construction operations, it may be more economic, and better serve commuters needs, to permanently relocate the new pontoon wharf to Mikloho-Maclay Park.

Upon the end of occupation of Yurulbin Point for tunnel works, restoration of Yurulbin Park will be necessary. The restoration design should include consideration of suitable access to facilitate inclusive use of the park. Council may also consider installing a small public pontoon to provide access to water taxis, private vessels and other on-water recreation similar to the provision at our other foreshore parks.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The cost of the proposed access improvements will be met by TfNSW.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Council’s Community and Cultural Services team have been involved in discussions with TfNSW.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

There has been nil community engagement to date from TfNSW on the proposals. It is anticipated that once Council has its own preferred position, then TfNSW will undertake community engagement on a preferred option moving forward.

CONCLUSION

The option advocated by TfNSW and also support by Council’s Community and Cultural Services Division is that of the Option 7. This option includes a lift facility and an elevated path option which also leads from the top of the park through to the foreshore. Option 7 has a larger footprint impact on the park and also impacts upon its original design intent.

Council’s Parks Planning and Engagement team recommends that Council support Option 3. This option will provide for improved access to the central area of the park as well as the ferry wharf. The option has the least impact on the original design intent and could be modified in future years to provide additional access to the park

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Options for access to Birchgrove Wharf, through Yurulbin Park
2.⇩	Ruling from the Human Rights Commission requiring TfNSW to Provide an Access Plan

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 February 2019

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 February 2019

Item No: C0219 Item 7

Subject: Amendment to Ashfield LEP 2013 - Heritage Conservation Clauses

Council at its meeting on 11 December 2018 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 12 February 2019.

Prepared By: Con Colot - Senior Strategic Planner & Projects

Authorised By: David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

This report seeks Council approval to carry out “housekeeping amendments” to the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan (ALEP) 2013 to delete an exempt development clause in Schedule 2 which applies to external building works within Heritage Conservation Areas and to Heritage Items. This is in order to resolve misinterpretation of the clause and prevent potential adverse work being carried without Council approval to these places which is incompatible with their heritage significance. The existing clause 5.10 of ALEP 2013 will be able to be continued to be used for carrying out minor work without requiring development consent.

Given the proposed amendment to the ALEP 2013 it is also proposed to make an amendment to subdivision clause 4.1A to ensure Heritage Items have an allotment configuration which is consistent with their heritage significance by having the required open space curtilage setting and lot size.

The report proposes Council forwards the Planning Proposal for the above to the Department of Planning and Environment and seeks delegation to become the Planning Proposal Authority for the making of the ALEP 2013 amendments.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1 The attached Planning Proposal for amendments to the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013, Schedule 2 - Exempt Development as indicated in the report be forwarded to the Minister for Planning for a Gateway Determination in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;

2 The Department of Planning and Environment be requested to delegate the plan making functions for the Planning Proposal to Council to be made the Planning Proposal Authority;

3 Following receipt of a Gateway Determination, the Planning Proposal in the form required and supporting documentation be placed on public exhibition by Council for a minimum of 28 days and public authorities be consulted in accordance with the Determination; and

4 A report be presented to Council on completion of the public exhibition which will address submissions received.

BACKGROUND

Before the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013 (ALEP) the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 required development consent for all external alterations to buildings and sites within Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs) and to Heritage Items (HIs). For very simple works the Ashfield LEP 1985 contained a clause that enabled Council to issue letters to building owners permitting such work to be carried out without requiring development consent - such as painting or minor repairs.

The exhibition of the draft ALEP, as part of the strategy of the former Ashfield Council, included an “exempt development” clause for minor alterations to external parts of buildings in HCAs and HIs. Exempt development allows work to be carried out without development approval by Council. This was in the context that there were 30 new HCAs being proposed, many additional HIs, and this initiative responded to community concerns that newly affected building owners should be able to carry out “minor work” without delay.

The Council drafted and exhibited ALEP exempt development clause is contained in Attachment 1. It had been carefully worded to ensure that it strictly applied to “minor work” and adequately described such work. For example: painting already approved painted surfaces with the same colour (e.g. fences), replacing gutters with the same type and colour, making repairs to existing rendered surfaces by reinstating what was already there, or making repairs to building components such as windows or paving or fences.

However without prior feedback or notice being given to the former Ashfield Council the ALEP 2013 was gazetted in December 2013 with the exempt development clause having been significantly redrafted by Parliamentary Counsel. This resulted in the deletion of the key restrictions and limitations contained in the exhibited Council version for minor alterations that would have fully protected the significance of those places. The following clause was included in the LEP in Schedule 2 that allows exempt development to exteriors of buildings within Heritage Conservation Areas and Heritage Items where they are classed as “minor alterations”:

ALEP 2013

Exempt Development, Schedule 2:

Minor alterations (external) to buildings comprising heritage items or in a heritage conservation area

Must only involve one or more of the following:

(a) painting, plastering or cement rendering,

(b) the repair or replacement of a non-structural wall or roof cladding,

(c) the replacement or maintenance of downpipes or roof guttering,

(d) other non-structural alterations involving plumbing, electrical works, attaching fittings, restoration and decorative work.

In January 2014 Council officers contacted the Department of Planning of Environment (DPE) and highlighted problems with the wording imposed in the LEP and the potential ambiguous interpretation given the removal of the of the Council version of the description of the works and reliance on the term “minor”.

DPE responded they would not correct this and that Council should advise the public that it only applied to “minor development” as loosely defined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 at the time, and for Council officers to determine what “minor development” constituted on a case by case basis. This was noted but for cautionary reasons the former Ashfield Council Planning and Environment Department insisted in the majority of cases that development applications be lodged, with the Council policy being not to charge any development application fee.

Former Ashfield Council was aware of the need to amend the ALEP 2013 to address the situation. To partly address this until such time as there was an ALEP amendment, provisions were put in the Inner West Development Control Plan 2016 (process commenced earlier in 2015 and applies to Ashfield area) in Part E1 – 1.4 to provide a definition of “minor development”, however this does not provide certainty for this process. As a result of the Council amalgamation in May 2016 the ALEP amendment has been included on the list of projects to undertake. It has also has been highlighted by Development Assessment and Regulatory Services that the ALEP amendment is required to ensure there is certainty and clear rules about what the procedures are for carrying out minor alterations without development consent, and to avoid legal disputes.

Significantly an alternate current pathway exists to enable minor alterations by property owners without a Development Application which is in Clause 5.10 of the ALEP 2013 described below.

Need for Planning Proposal

Deletion of Schedule 2 - Exempt Development clause applying to HCAs and HIs

Noting the very sensitive nature of HCAs and HIs it is necessary to ensure there is no misinterpretation or misapplication of the ALEP 2013 exemption clause, and that external alterations are carried out appropriately in accordance with the necessary heritage conservation design details. It is therefore proposed that the above “exempt development” clause be deleted from the Ashfield LEP 2013. In place of this Council will be able to continue to assist property owners to carry out minor work alterations by utilising the provisions of Clause 5.10 (3) of the Ashfield LEP 2013 as explained below.

Clause 5.10 (3) of the Ashfield LEP 2013 below enables property owners to seek an exemption from any requirements for a development application and approval by submitting a letter (or email) to Council with supporting material. As explained earlier this was a previous practise of the former Ashfield Council. For example if there was a historic fence or parts of a building that needed to be repainted or to have repair work, a property owner would submit a short descriptive letter and photograph indicating the colour. Council would then simply respond by letter (or email) that the described work was satisfactory and did not require approval.

ALEP 2013

5.10 Heritage conservation

(3) When consent not required

However, development consent under this clause is not required if:

(a) the applicant has notified the consent authority of the proposed development and the consent authority has advised the applicant in writing before any work is carried out that it is satisfied that the proposed development:

(i) is of a minor nature or is for the maintenance of the heritage item, Aboriginal object, Aboriginal place of heritage significance or archaeological site or a building, work, relic, tree or place within the heritage conservation area, and

(ii) would not adversely affect the heritage significance of the heritage item, Aboriginal object, Aboriginal place, archaeological site or heritage conservation area

To assist with the use and implementation of the above clause it is recommended Council develops a policy that provides clear guidance on procedures, the “minor work” it applies to, acceptable design criteria and documentation standards. This policy should be produced in collaboration with Council’s Heritage Adviser. Use and reference of numerous Ashfield area specific documents will also be able to be relied on, such as main street paint schemes for existing town centres, architectural detailing for houses and particular building styles and building components (fences, gates, verandahs etc). Council officers would also provide a report and draft policy document for Council’s consideration.

Council should also note that it has resolved (July 2017) to pursue a nomination proposal to list the Haberfield Conservation Area as a pre-eminent example of the Garden Suburb on the State Heritage Register. In this context it is important that the above ALEP 2013 clause anomalies be addressed to demonstrate that adequate controls are in place as this will be one of the considerations by the Office and Environment and Heritage for the listing.

Heritage Items and appropriate lot size

Clause 4.1A of the Ashfield LEP 2013 below was an initiative of the former Ashfield Council to increase housing supply and choice by enabling torrens title subdivision of house lots to permit semi-detached houses (i.e. one house attached to the other with a common wall), such as 500 sqm house lots divided into two lots. This was to occur within approx. 200 m of the train line so as to be within close vicinity to public transport with those locations being on “Area 1” on the Ashfield LEP 2013 Lot Size map. It was not intended that Clause 4.1A apply to HCAs or HIs.

The Ashfield LEP 2013 contains a significant omission in Clause 4.1A (below) with this clause not containing a prohibition on Heritage Item properties being able to have small lot torrens title subdivision for detached houses down to 200 sqm. Many of the HIs affected in “Area 1” are in zones where detached housing is not permissible, e.g. being parks or schools. However there are some properties in “Area 1” where the land use zoning permits detached housing. For HIs small lot subdivision cannot be consistent with the heritage significance of their site. HIs need to have the required open space curtilage setting, lot size and lot boundary position in relation to the heritage item building.

Council should use this Ashfield LEP 2013 amendment opportunity to correct this situation by adding reference to a heritage item in clause (2) below as indicated in bold underline. This would make it fully consistent with established Heritage Conservation practice.

4.1A Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot size for certain residential development

(1) The objective of this clause is to encourage housing diversity without adversely affecting residential amenity.

(2) Despite clause 4.1 (3), development consent may be granted to the subdivision of land identified as “Area 1” on the Lot Size Map that is not within a heritage conservation area, and that is not a heritage item, if:

(a) each lot resulting from the subdivision will be at least 200 square metres, and

(b) a semi-detached dwelling is or will be located on each lot, and

(c) each lot will have a minimum street frontage of 7 metres.

(3) Despite clause 4.1 (3), development consent may be granted to the subdivision of land identified as “Area 2” on the Lot Size Map if:

(a) each lot resulting from the subdivision will be used for the purpose of a dwelling house, and

(b) each lot resulting from the subdivision will be at least 174 square metres, but will not exceed 450 square metres, and

(c) the total number of lots on that land will not exceed 11.

A Planning Proposal document for the above is contained in Attachment 2 to enable Council to proceed with the LEP amendments.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Council’s long standing Heritage adviser for the former Ashfield Council area has been heavily involved in development assessments, has been consulted and advises he supports the amendments. Council’s General Counsel has been consulted in the preparation of this proposal.

The General Manager has determined that pursuant to the Local Planning Panel Directions – Planning Proposals that the LEP amendment is of minor significance - as contained in Attachment 3 and procedurally this enables Council to seek a Gateway Determination.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Not applicable at this stage. Public consultation will occur after Gateway Determination.

CONCLUSION

Ashfield LEP 2013 should delete in Schedule 2 - Exempt Development, the clause - “Minor alterations (external) to buildings comprising heritage items or in a heritage conservation area” as recommended in the report in order to adequately protect the heritage significance of those places.

Council should develop a policy document outlining which works can be carried without Council approval in accordance with Clause 5.10 (3) of the Ashfield LEP and procedures for this to assist property owners to make minor external alterations without development consent. This policy document should be produced in collaboration with Council’s heritage adviser. Council officers should then provide a report and draft document for Council’s approval.

Clause 4.1A (2) of the Ashfield LEP 2013 should be amended to delete reference to Heritage Items having small lot torrens title subdivision as indicated in the report.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Draft ALEP 2012 Exempt Development Clause
2.⇩	Planning Proposal
3.⇩	General Manager Declaration

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 February 2019

Item No: C0219 Item 8

Subject: Victoria Road Precinct, Marrickville - Draft Developer Contributions Plan Update

Council at its meeting on 11 December 2018 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 12 February 2019.

Prepared By: David Milliken - Manager Urban Strategy

Authorised By: David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

The Victoria Road Planning Proposal was approved by the gazettal of an amendment to the Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (MLEP 2011) on 1 December 2017. The draft Victoria Road Precinct Development Control Plan was publicly exhibited between 8 May 2018 to 5 June 2018 and adopted by Council, as exhibited, at its meeting of 28 August 2018 (“DCP”).

Staff have been working on two key documents concurrently:

1. A Contributions Plan (CP) for the precinct, which is now largely complete. The draft CP focuses on what public facilities are required to be implemented within the Victoria Road Precinct – Precinct 47 (P47) of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 to ensure that the increased development can function in a practical, safe manner, in conjunction with an increase in active transport open-space links and how contributions to their funding can be collected.

2. Amendments to the DCP to address issues raised with Council at the date the DCP was adopted and to cater for the infrastructure matters identified in the CP process.

The most critical public infrastructure needs identified for the up-zoned areas of P47 are works associated with flooding and stormwater management and traffic and transport facilities. Expert studies have been carried out to identify the extent of these works which are initially estimated to be likely to cost in the region of $27 million (at current construction costs).

Once the advice is obtained and considered, the DCP amendment and CP will be finalised to take the outcomes of the advice into account and will then be reported to Council. It is anticipated that this will occur in early 2019.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The report be received and noted; and

2. A further report on the Victoria Road Developer Contributions Plan together with an updated Draft DCP be brought to Council following the consideration of further legal advice, at the earliest possible opportunity in 2019.

BACKGROUND

The Victoria Road Planning Proposal was approved by the gazettal of an amendment to the Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (MLEP 2011) on 1 December 2017.

The draft Victoria Road Precinct Development Control Plan (DCP) was publicly exhibited between 8 May 2018 to 5 June 2018. The draft DCP was subsequently adopted by Council, as exhibited, at its meeting of 28 August 2018.

A Contributions Plan (CP) is needed for the precinct to provide a mechanism for the recovery of the costs to Council of the provision of local infrastructure improvements required by the development that was permitted by the rezoning through the MLEP amendment.

The CP will focus on what public facilities are required to be implemented within the Victoria Road Precinct – Precinct 47 (P47) of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 to ensure that the increased development can function in a practical, safe manner, in conjunction with an increase in active transport open-space links and how contributions to their funding can be collected.

When the CP has been exhibited and subsequently approved by Council its requirements will be applied to any development applications that are determined after its approval.

At the time of preparing this report the only significant development application that had been submitted for the precinct was the Rich Street proposal for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of commercial development containing a range of creative light industries, office premises and food and drink premises, commercial operation with associated car parking. Council’s Development Assessment team are working with the applicant and referral bodies to resolve various issues such as building design, traffic and flooding prior to finalising the assessment of the application which will be determined by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel.

Any further major development applications that are lodged with Council for this precinct are anticipated to have a determination time frame of at least six months depending on the complexity and the requirements to obtain concurrence from state government bodies.

2. COMMENT

Developer Contributions Plan

The preparation of a draft CP has been largely completed. In finalising the draft CP and the associated DCP amendment, Council’s General Counsel has identified that there may be both practical and financial issues associated with land dedications that will be required to deliver the public infrastructure identified in the CP. External advice is being sought to consider these implications. When the advice has been obtained and considered the CP and DCP will be finalised to take the outcomes of the advice into account.

A considerable body of research work had been prepared since 2012, by the range of consultants engaged by the planning proposal proponent (Danias Holdings Pty Ltd.) for P47. These studies revealed that the most critical infrastructure needs for the precinct are:

· Flooding and stormwater management; and

· Traffic and transport facilities provision.

Utilising funds from the current Marrickville Developer Contributions Plan (which are to be repaid from subsequent Victoria Road Precinct contributions) the following consultants were engaged to investigate the critical infrastructure needs for P47:

· Flooding and stormwater management – Cardno (Water Infrastructure Engineers), who recently completed, for Inner West Council, the latest Marrickville Valley Flood Risk Management Study and Plan.

· Traffic and transport Infrastructure – Cardno (Traffic and Transport Engineers).

The nature of these studies demanded a detailed, ongoing assessment of the expected development permitted under the Local Environmental Plan (as amended) and the recently adopted Victoria Road Precinct Development Control Plan.

To deliver the identified traffic and transport infrastructure items, some land dedications will be required to be made to Council to undertake a significant proportion of these works. The work carried out shows that approximately $11 million of public traffic and transport infrastructure works are required to be implemented to ensure that the increased permitted development within P47 can be absorbed without the existing level of service within the road network of P47 being worsened. To achieve these land dedications, amalgamation and staging plans are also required to be implemented within the Victoria Road Precinct Contributions Plan and these requirements should also form part of the corresponding Victoria Road Precinct Development Control Plan.

As noted earlier, in finalising the draft CP Council’s General Counsel has identified that there may be both practical and financial issues associated with land dedications that will be required to deliver the public infrastructure identified in the CP. External advice is being sought to help consider these implications. When the advice has been obtained and considered the CP will be finalised, together with an updated Development Control Plan.

The work carried out also shows that approximately $16 million of water infrastructure works are deemed necessary by the consultant water engineers to manipulate the flooding and stormwater environment within P47 so that it is suitable for the now permitted increased intensification of development.

As it currently stands, under the draft Contributions Plan being finalised the majority of the increased contribution costs associated with public traffic and transport infrastructure works will arise from future non-residential developments within the precinct, because these uses generate significantly more traffic that residential uses. Stormwater works costs will be apportioned more equally between residential and non-residential land uses relating to the increased amount of activity arising from those uses.

Affordable Housing

At its meeting of 30 October 2018, in relation to the issue of the delivery of Affordable Housing within the precinct, Inner West Council resolved: that Council develop a scope of works and appoint a suitable consultant to provide financial feasibility analysis to support the consideration of a generic model approach to affordable housing contribution schemes for precincts that are to be considered for rezoning before the new Council-wide LEP is gazetted, to support Council in its negotiations on VPAs and to support the development of the approach to be taken to SEPP 70 schemes in the new Council-wide LEP (Resolution No. C1018(2) Item 13.)

Accordingly, it is not intended to address the affordable housing needs of the precinct within the current draft CP. This is in the process of being progressed as a separate matter in accordance with the abovementioned Council resolution.

Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 Requirements

In terms of the delivery of new public infrastructure for the now permitted increased development within Precinct 47 (P47) the local environmental plan amendment that implemented the zoning changes within P47 that gives rise to the increase in development in the area, added new clauses 6.17 and 6.18 to Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. The gazettal of the MLEP amendment has resulted in a situation where all land is zoned for development, rather than leaving appropriate land areas zoned for roads and parks.

Clause 6.17 requires the preparation of a Development Control Plan (DCP) for the up-zoned land in P47, prior to any development consent being granted. This has been completed, although a number of refinements will be proposed to ensure it aligns completely with the CP, and to include certain proposed modifications that were not adopted following its previous exhibition.

Clause 6.18 was also inserted which requires satisfactory arrangements to be made with the State regarding public infrastructure, specifically road widenings and an intersection upgrade at the junction of Victoria Road and Sydenham Road.

At the time of writing this report, a representative of the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE), responsible for infrastructure contributions and agreements advised that DPE has been in discussions with the proponent for the LEP amendment (Danias Holdings Pty Ltd) with respect to a voluntary Planning Agreement relating to satisfying the requirements of Clause 6.18.

The contents of that draft Planning Agreement between Transport for NSW (TfNSW); Roads and Maritime Services (RMS); the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE); and Danias Holdings, have been consistently monitored by Council staff to ensure that the contents of the draft CP for the Victoria Road Precinct, dovetails with that arrangement (e.g. does not duplicate those developer contributions).

At this stage, Council staff have been advised by the DPE staff that for the draft Planning Agreement …

“…We are currently proposing for the developer to provide the intersection upgrade as follows:

· Provision of a left-turn slip lane from Sydenham Road (west) to Victoria Road (north); and

· Provision of a 90m right-turn bay along Victoria Road (north).”

The contents of this likely imminent Planning Agreement have been taken into account in the drafting of the CP.

Victoria Road Development Control Plan – Revisions

A number of revisions to the DCP will also be proposed as a result of:

· Revisions to the DCP to ensure it aligns with the CP; and

· Changes recommended to Council following exhibition but not adopted.

As a result of investigations undertaken during the preparation of the draft CP, a number of revisions will be proposed for the DCP to ensure both the DCP and the CP are aligned with each other.

At its meeting of 28 August 2018 Council adopted the Victoria Road amendments to the Marrickville Development Control Plan as exhibited. The officer recommendation to Council included a number of recommended modifications that were not adopted. The proposed revisions to the DCP also provide an opportunity to include those recommended changes that were not adopted previously.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

When the CP has been exhibited for a minimum of 28 days and subsequently approved by Council its requirements will be applied to any development applications that are determined after its approval. A CP is needed for the precinct to provide a mechanism for the recovery of the costs to Council of the provision of local infrastructure improvements required by the development that was permitted by the rezoning through the MLEP amendment.

The technical studies carried out to support the CP indicate that approximately $16 million of water infrastructure works and approximately $11 million of public traffic and transport infrastructure works are necessary. This represents a total additional investment for required public infrastructure works within P47 of approximately $27 million.

As the report notes, legal advice is being obtained on the practical and financial issues associated with land dedications that will be required to deliver the public infrastructure identified in the CP. When this has been obtained and considered the CP requirements and DCP changes will be finalised to take the outcomes of the advice into account.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

When the draft CP has been finalised early in 2019, a report will be brought to Council recommending it be placed on exhibition, with proposed revisions to the DCP.

CONCLUSION

Work on the preparation of a Contributions Plan (CP) for the precinct, is now largely complete. The draft CP focuses on what public facilities are required to be implemented within the Victoria Road Precinct – Precinct 47 (P47) of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 to ensure that the increased development can function in a practical, safe manner, in conjunction with an increase in active transport open-space links and how contributions to their funding can be collected.

The most critical public infrastructure needs identified for the up-zoned areas of P47 are works associated with flooding and stormwater management and traffic and transport facilities. Expert studies have been carried out to identify the extent of these works which are initially estimated to be likely to cost broadly in the region of approximately $27 million to construct (at current construction costs).

In finalising the draft CP and DCP amendment, Council’s General Counsel has identified that there may be both practical and financial issues associated with land dedications that will be required to deliver the public infrastructure identified in the CP. External advice is being sought to consider these implications. Once the advice is obtained and considered, the draft CP and DCP amendment will be finalised to take the outcomes of the advice into account and will then be reported to Council for consideration for public exhibition early in 2019.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 February 2019

Item No: C0219 Item 9

Subject: Harmonising Inner West Council Awards Programs

Council at its meeting on 11 December 2018 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 12 February 2019.

Prepared By: Bernadette Selfe - Business Relations Coordinator and Duncan Gilchrist - Manager Economic Development

Authorised By: David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to respond to Council Resolution C0318 Item 14 Mayoral Minute: Harmonising Inner West Council Awards Programs 13 March 2018 which requested:

1. Council review the current arrangements for Awards program, including the Business Environment Awards Program, the Inner West Business Awards and the Marrickville Business Association Awards.

2. Council officers produce a report on options for harmonising our Awards Program, while upholding the existing character of local awards and Council’s capacity to hold and judge such a program.

3. The report includes evaluation of categories such as, but not limited to: a. Ethical Business; b. LGBTIQ Friendly Business; c. Multicultural Business d. Sustainable Business; e. Accessible Business.

The Inner West Council has a comprehensive awards program that enables Council to be aligned with key national campaigns that recognise achievements of businesses, residents and citizens. All of these have a specific target market or purpose and reflect our diverse community.

Council staff have reviewed the current awards program and additional categories and at this stage recommend pursuing a Social Enterprise Award (renamed from Ethical). An Accessible Business Award has already been introduced.

As part of Council’s ongoing commitment to continuous improvement, staff will actively evaluate the awards program annually in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, adequacy and appropriateness and during engagement on the development of the economic development strategy. This will assist in ensuring that the range of awards on offer meets community expectations by reflecting our diversity through having awards that are recognised by residents as a coveted form of recognition and represent value for money.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Note the current awards program has been reviewed;

2. Request Precedent Productions include a Social Enterprise Award as one of its categories in the Inner West Business Awards; and

3. Examine opportunities to promote ACON’s Welcome Here initiative across the LGA.

BACKGROUND

The matters requested in the Mayoral Minute are addressed below:

1. Council review the current arrangements for Awards program, including the

Business Environment Awards Program, the Inner West Business Awards and

the Marrickville Business Association Awards.

The current operational arrangements for the Business Environment Awards Program, Inner West Local Business Awards and the Marrickville Business Association Awards are as follows:

Inner West Council Business Environment Awards

These awards recognise the achievements of local businesses and organisations operating in the Inner West local government area. The awards are open to businesses and not-for-profit organisations working to have a positive environmental impact through their operations. The awards are conducted and resourced in-house by the Environment and Sustainability team. Judging is assessed by council staff and external judges with expertise in the relevant sector. The awards event is normally attended by 70-80 representatives. There is a formal welcome by the Mayor or delegate and a keynote address by a sustainability specialist. The event offers local businesses an opportunity to network with one another and the sustainability specialists. Current budget is circa $10,000 per annum. More information is provided in Attachment 1 for this and other current awards.

The Business Environment Awards are currently scheduled to be run in 2019. A review of the urban sustainability program, including the Business Environment Awards, is in process and may require adjustment to current programs to accommodate new projects. This will be reported to Council in 2019 with the Draft Climate and Renewables Strategy.

Inner West Local Business Awards

These awards are owned and operated by Precedent Productions and cover a wider area than the Inner West Council local government area. The awards recognise outstanding business performance and customer service.

The former Ashfield and Leichhardt Councils supported these awards as they enabled the Councils to be associated with a recognised brand with a good marketing campaign. The Economic Development Unit coordinates Council’s participation in the awards which includes provision of $5,000 for the awards.

The awards evening has around 500 attendees with a speaking and award presentation by the Mayor or delegate. There were 284 finalists in the 2018 Inner West Local Business Awards of which 147 came from the Inner West LGA. As these awards are not run by Council there is a limited capacity to add additional categories. It is proposed to continue to support the Inner West Local Business Awards.

Marrickville Business Association Awards

These awards were run by the Marrickville Business Association and supported by the former Marrickville Council. The awards recognised length of service and special contributions made by businesses located in the former Marrickville LGA with no specific categories and no “winners” just “recipients”. The Marrickville Business Association Awards have not been held since the council merger.

2. Council officers produce a report on options for harmonising our Awards

Program, while upholding the existing character of local awards and

Council’s capacity to hold and judge such a program

To inform the recommendations in this report, Council officers from the Environment and Sustainability Group, Community Services and Culture Group and the IWC Events Team and Economic Development Unit formed a working group to examine how the current awards program could be harmonised. This Group held a number of meetings and undertook a review of currents awards that examined the aim and objective of the current awards program, costs, numbers of applications received, and if the awards could be combined with another Council awards event. A detailed table of the findings from this review is at Attachment 1.

The working group also examined the potential new award categories and along with the analysis of the existing awards advises the following:

The Inner West Council currently has a comprehensive awards program that enables Council to be aligned with key national campaigns that recognise achievements of businesses, residents and citizens. All these awards have a specific target market or purpose and are held throughout the year as outlined in the table below.

Table A - Current IWC Award Program

Award	Managed by	Held	Linked to
Citizen of the Year Awards	Events Team	January	Australia Day Celebrations
Volunteers Awards	Community Services & Culture	May	Volunteers Week
Built Environment Awards	Events Team	May	Marrickville Medal for Conservation, Sustainable Building Awards & Urban Photography Competition.
Inner West Local Business Awards	Economic Development Unit	June	Is part of Precedent Productions Awards Program
Business Environment Awards program	Environment & Sustainability team	November	Environment Program Funding
International Women’s Day Honour Roll	Community Services & Culture	March	International Women’s Day
Pauline McLeod Award for Reconciliation	Community Services & Culture	May	Reconciliation Week

The distinct nature of each of the awards and their relationships to different services of Council supports each event’s continued operation. Staff examined options for combining the Business Environment Awards Program and the Inner West Local Business Awards into one award program as their target audience is local businesses. However, this option is not supported as the Business Environment Awards Program is tied to the Environmental Sustainability program objectives and does not lend itself to include traditional business categories such as “Best Hairdresser or Outstanding Cafe”, with the focus solely being around environmental practices. Any additional business categories would change the whole focus of these awards away from environmental practices to a business event.

Council had an agreement with Precedent Productions to support the 2018 Inner West Local Business Awards. As referred to in Section 3 below a category for accessible business was included in the 2018 Inner West Local Business Awards which were held in June 2018.

3. The report include evaluation of categories such as, but not limited to:

a. Ethical Business

b. LGBTIQ Friendly Business

c. Multicultural Business

d. Sustainable Business

e. Accessible Business

Staff have evaluated the potential new categories and advise the following:

A. Ethical Business

Ethical Business Awards exist elsewhere and are open to purpose-driven businesses that deliver innovative work with a positive social, environmental or economic impact, either locally or internationally.

With more consumers curious about where their products are coming from and the desire for social purpose becoming much stronger, the need for ethical practices is at the forefront of the consumer’s conscience now more so than ever before.

Ethical Business Awards are an important way to recognise leading social enterprises and support them to continue their positive work into the future.

Some excellent examples of social enterprises in the Inner West include:

· the Social Outfit (an independently-accredited, ethical trading social enterprise that provides employment and training in the fashion industry to people from refugee and new migrant communities in clothing production, retail, design and marketing);

· Lentil as Anything (assists members of the community who volunteer for a meal, to learn hospitality skills, or improve their social or language skills. The under-employed, the homeless, refugees and the disenfranchised are all given an equal opportunity to gain skills and help their fellow humans at Lentil As Anything); and

· the Fairtrade Emporium (supporting artisans who are marginalised, they can assist people in making a difference for themselves and their communities).

A Social Enterprise Award could be well received by the Inner West community. Council officers will approach Precedent Productions about the possibility of including a category for Social Enterprise in their annual business awards.

B. LGBTIQ Friendly Business

The Business Environment Awards, Community Partnership category allows recognition of businesses that take leadership on community and social issues through environmental projects, which could include partnering with LGBTIQ communities.

Council officers from the Community Services and Culture Group advise that the AIDS Council of NSW (ACON) is leading an initiative in this area with their Welcome Here project.

The Welcome Here project involves a comprehensive accredited process where business or organisations demonstrate their commitment to, and actively promote, pride, diversity and inclusion within their business. The introduction of an Inner West specific LGBTIQ Friendly Business category is not supported at this stage given the active pursuit of this through ACON.

The Inner West LGA has a good reputation as a place where people value and respect each other’s languages, abilities, sexual orientations, traditions and lifestyles. Council will continue to be a strong advocate for the LGBTIQ community and examine opportunities to promote ACON’s Welcome Here initiative. Below is the adopted image for the sticker.

C. Multicultural Business

In 2016 34% of the Inner West Council population was born overseas and out of that about 28% of people spoke a language other than English at home.

When examining the cultural backgrounds of winners and finalists from local business awards from the last five years over 90% were multicultural business operators.

When testing this concept for an award with some local multicultural business owners, Council officers found multicultural business owners regarded themselves as already achieving recognition as successful local businesses in their own right. Some of their comments are provided below.

· Our diversity alone is reason to not have an award under that title. Furthermore, businesses enter in order to win on merit, which for any business is more worth than the one being proposed.

· Proud to be a finalists or winners of an award that represents outstanding success as a business not our cultural background.

· Do not support multicultural business award as business excellence is not a cultural thing and should be inclusive of whoever you are. The Inner West Local Business Awards are enough and inclusive of everyone.

While the intention of a potential multicultural business award is well founded, on initial consideration it appears that a group of members of the Inner West the business community may not favour such a program due to the long established multicultural nature of the Inner West. As a result it is proposed to give further consideration to the issue in the context of Council’s recently endorsed Multicultural Policy, and through wider business community engagement during the development of the Economic Development Strategy in 2019.

D. Sustainable Business

The Business Environment Award recognises the achievements of local businesses and organisations operating in the Inner West local government area. The awards are open to businesses and not-for-profit organisations working to have a positive environmental impact through their operations. Award categories are based on the key operational areas of waste, water and energy, for which support and advice has been available to businesses through council and other environmental programs.

The awards function as a recognition event for businesses that have worked with council in order to achieve environmental targets. Over time, categories have been changed to respond to reflect Council’s own priorities and commitments and emerging focus areas in the local business community. For example, Beyond Our Four Walls reflects whole systems thinking in business sustainability, and Council's own corporate sustainable procurement commitments.

The Business Environment Award includes seven award categories:

1. Energy Smart – for energy efficiency of gas and electricity and renewable energy

2. Water Saver – for water efficiency, rainwater tanks and water sensitive urban design

3. Rethink Waste – for avoiding, reducing, reusing and recycling waste

4. Beyond our Four Walls – for influencing supply and disposal chains for sustainable outcomes

5. Community Partnership – for partnership with community to solve environmental issues

6. Sustainable Innovation – for exploring new and creative solutions to sustainability solutions

7. Sustainability Leadership – for actions over a range of initiatives with a holistic view

Nominations in each category are reviewed and assessed by council staff and external judges with expertise in the relevant sector.

Council’s Sustainability Group is currently aligning its work program and available resources to respond to Council resolutions on climate and renewables. This will include making recommendations about whether to continue running the sustainable business awards.

E. Accessible Business

An Inner West Council Accessible Business Award was included in the 2018 Inner West Local Business Awards. It should be noted that no applications were received resulting in Council staff nominating businesses for this award. The Community Services and Culture Unit will review the access award to ensure that in 2019 it better aligns with Inner West Council’s Inclusion Access Plan.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The current award cost is $15,000 per annum comprising $10,000 for the Business Environment Award and $5,000 for Inner West Local Business Awards (Precedent Productions). These are financial contributions which do not take into consideration internal resource costs.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Council’s Environment and Sustainability Group, Community Services and Culture Group and the IWC Events Team and Economic Development Unit have assisted in the preparation of this report.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

CONCLUSION

Council has a range of award ceremonies conducted throughout the year that recognise the achievements of our businesses, residents and citizens. The current awards program has a specific target market that serves as a tool to recognise achievements in their fields that reflects our diverse community including LGBTQI, enhancing accessibility and encouraging sustainable business practices and social enterprise.

Staff have examined options for combining the Business Environment Awards Program and the Inner West Local Business into one award program targeting local businesses. This option is not supported as the Business Environment Awards are tied to Council’s Environmental Sustainability program objectives focusing on sound environmental practices which would be marginalised if combined with a general business award which is run by an independent body, over which Council has no control, across a number of local government areas.

In relation to potential additional categories, at this stage staff recommend pursuing a Social Enterprise Award (renamed from Ethical). An Accessible Business Award has already been introduced.

Staff will continue to monitor the awards program to ensure that they are consistent with our core values and are achieving their aims and objectives. Consultation and engagement with businesses during the development of a new Economic Development Strategy in 2019 will also provide an opportunity for Council to gain further feedback from local businesses and continue to consider the development of the business award program.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Inner West Council Awards Program Details

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 February 2019

Item No: C0219 Item 10

Subject: Appointment of Consultant as Developer Contributions Specialist

Council at its meeting on 11 December 2018 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 12 February 2019.

Prepared By: David Milliken - Manager Urban Strategy

Authorised By: David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

The Inner West Council is undertaking a major project to prepare a Consolidated Local Environmental Plan (LEP), a Development Control Plan (DCP) and a Developer Contributions s7.11 Plan (CP) for the entire local government area. This report recommends authority is given for the appointment of a contractor to fulfil the role of Developer Contributions Specialist to ensure the progression of the s7.11 Contributions Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT in accordance with Section 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993, Council delegate the authority to the General Manager to execute a contract for 2 years with a suitably qualified person to carry out the work required for the provision of a s7.11 Contributions Plan by reason of extenuating circumstances under Section 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993, including:

a. Calling for tenders in this instance would not provide a satisfactory result to Council as the market has already been tested using a procurement process and seeking bids from temporary labour hire providers on Council prescribed panels, resulting in higher costs than engaging a consultant directly; and

b. There is a significant shortage of suitable consultants able to undertake these works and calling for a tender in this instance will only delay the process.

BACKGROUND

The CP has been unable to commence due to the resourcing level of the team. Despite two standard recruitment processes and an extensive search of agency contacts, it has not been possible to secure a suitably qualified resource for the team. This is due to the highly specialised nature of the skills and experience necessary, the high demand for planners in NSW generally, and contributions planners in particular, and the highly competitive nature of the market for planners currently.

Delays associated with commencing the CP present a significant financial risk to Council. Should the LEP be gazetted with no CP in place, Council will have no ability to claim contributions towards infrastructure as part of the land use planning framework. This situation specifically would lead to a financial risk, potentially in the region of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Therefore it is essential that a suitably qualified professional be engaged to ensure this project commences with minimal further delay.

The Local Government Tendering Act 1993 – Section 55 requires that Council publically call for tenders for contracts that are above $150,000.00 unless the contract can be sourced from a prescribed entity as outlined in the Act. However, Section 55 (i) states;

“a contract where, because of extenuating circumstances, remoteness of locality or the unavailability of competitive or reliable tenderers, a council decides by resolution (which state the reason for the decision) that a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders.”

In this instance, Council has demonstrated that calling for suitably qualified candidates using a prescribed entity (such as a recruitment firm) has not provided Council with the expertise or associated costs that would provide Council with the best value for money.

Calling for tenders in this instance, would not provide a satisfactory result to Council as the market has already been tested via a quotation process and there is a lack of consultants suitably qualified to progress the work outlined in this report. However it has been identified that a suitable consultant appears to be capable of being appointed.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications for this appointment, as sufficient funds exist within the existing budget for the Strategic Planning Group.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Procurement Assessment

Two standard recruitment processes have been undertaken prior to taking a procurement approach to this resource:

· In March-April 2018 Council undertook recruitment for a Developer Contributions Planner. A single candidate was interviewed and considered for engagement, however reference checks did not support formalising the recruitment and offering a contract;

· In July-August 2018 Council re-advertised the role as a Developer Contributions Specialist with an increased salary and more attractive conditions. Three applications were received however only one was suitable for interview. That candidate interviewed well but withdrew their application before a contract was offered.

Following this an extensive search with the assistance of recruitment specialists was undertaken. Through this process a candidate has been identified who meets Council’s requirements. Given the two-year project length to develop and implement a consolidated contributions plan for the Inner West Council, it is recommended the contract be for two years up to a maximum cost of $307,200 + GST (2 years x annual rate).

However, as the cost of engaging the consultant is above the tender limit of $150,000, a resolution of Council is sought, as per section 55(i) of the Local Government Tendering Act 1993, to negotiate with this candidate without the need to go through a further procurement process by a formal tender. This can be achieved by Council resolving that there are extenuating circumstances as three procurement processes have already been undertaken to fill this position.

The Local Government Tendering Act 1993 provides for the engagement of consultants in these extenuating circumstances. Whilst not a regular approach, the current market for planning professionals and the importance of this work, requires the use of the provisions contained within the Act to procure the contractor necessary.

This report has been prepared in consultation with, and with input from, the Governance and Procurement service units of Council.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Not applicable.

CONCLUSION

Given the difficulty in attracting a suitably qualified Development Contributions Specialist due to the highly specialised nature of the skills required and experience required, the high demand for planners in NSW, the highly competitive nature of the market for planners currently, and the financial risks to Council should the Contributions Plan not proceed in line with the Consolidated LEP and DCP Project, it is recommended that Council resolve that extenuating circumstances exist for the procurement of these services without a full tender, and delegate the appointment of a suitable qualified consultant to the General Manager.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 February 2019

Item No: C0219 Item 11

Subject: Model Code of Meeting Practice

Council at its meeting on 11 December 2018 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 12 February 2019.

Prepared By: Ian Naylor - Manager Civic and Executive Support

Authorised By: Nellette Kettle - Group Manager Integration Customer Service & Business Excellence

SUMMARY

The Minister for Local Government issued the new Model Code of Meeting Practice (Model Code) for all NSW councils on 16 November. The purpose of this report is to detail the new provisions recommended by the State Government and place a Draft Code of Meeting Practice on public exhibition in early 2019.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The Draft Code of Meeting Practice shown as Attachment 1 be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days from 29 January; and

2. Council receive a further report outlining the submissions received during the exhibition period.

BACKGROUND

The new Model Code for all NSW councils was released by the Minister for Local Government on 16 November. The Office of Local Government has advised that all NSW councils will need to adopt a new Code of Meeting Practice based on the Model Code within 6 months. As Council was intending to review it’s Code of Meeting Practice it is timely to consider the new Model Code and place a new Draft Code of Meeting Practice on exhibition in early 2019.

The new Model Code contains mandatory provisions that all NSW Councils must adopt and a number of non-mandatory provisions that are considered best practice for meeting procedure. The non-mandatory provisions are shown in red in Attachment 1.

This report highlights the provisions of the new Model Code that are different to our current Code as well as suggestions from staff to improve the efficiency of meetings. Council may supplement the Model Code with additional provisions as long as these provisions are not inconsistent with the mandatory provisions of this Model Code. Provisions of Council’s Draft Code that supplement the Model Code or provide additional requirements are shown in blue in Attachment 1. The provisions of Council’s current Code which aren’t included in the Model Code have been incorporated into the Draft Code of Meeting Practice shown as Attachment 1.

Please note that all references to Committees of Council in the Code of Meeting Practice refer to a committee consisting only of councillors and does not refer to advisory committees or working parties.

Notices of Motions and Mayoral Minutes

The new Model Code includes non-mandatory provisions relating to identifying funding sources for motions and Mayoral Minutes that request new works and/or services. However, the provisions in our current Code (Clause 3.12) are much stronger and require Councillors to identify a funding source otherwise the motion can be ruled out of order. It is recommended that the current provisions be retained.

Councillor Briefings

The new Model Code contains non-mandatory provisions (Clauses 3.31-3.35) relating to Councillor briefings. These provisions were also included in our current Code with the exception of a new clause which states that the General Manager or staff nominee chair these briefings. As these provisions are non-mandatory Council can amend who presides at these briefings.

Public Forum

The new Model Code contains non-mandatory provisions (Clauses 4.1-4.23) relating to the Public Forum. The provisions state that Public forums should not be held as part of a council or committee meeting. Council or committee meetings should be reserved for decision-making by the council or committee of council. Clause 4.1 states that the Public Forum be held prior to each ordinary meeting of the Council. It is recommended that the Public Forum commence at 6.30pm with the Ordinary Council Meeting commencing at 7pm. If the Public Forum takes longer than 30 minutes, the Chairperson could open and adjourn the Meeting till the conclusion of the Public Forum.

Clause 4.4 also places limits on the number of items that a person may register to speak on. In the Draft Code the limit has been set to three agenda items but Council may determine another number.

Cancelling Ordinary Meetings

The new Model Code contains non-mandatory provisions (Clauses 5.13-5.14) relating to the cancelling of ordinary meetings, where it is apparent that the meeting won’t have a quorum, or where the safety of councillors, staff and public is at risk due to a natural disaster. The Mayor may, in consultation with the general manager and, as far as is practicable, with each councillor, cancel the meeting. Where a meeting is cancelled, notice of the cancellation must be published on the council’s website and in such other manner that the council is satisfied is likely to bring notice of the cancellation to the attention of as many people as possible.

Modes of Address

The new Model Code contains non-mandatory provisions (Clauses 7.1-7.4) relating to how the Mayor, Councillors and staff are to be addressed.

Questions by Councillors during Ordinary Council Meetings

To facilitate efficient Council Meetings and ensure Council has sufficient time to complete all business on the agenda, Council staff recommend that additional wording be inserted into the Draft Code regarding questions by Councillors. The wording at Clause 9.18 states;

“All questions asked by Councillors will be included in the time permitted for them to speak for or against an agenda item. To facilitate efficient meetings Councillors can raise questions directly with the Leadership Team prior to the Meeting”.

An alternative to this clause could be to limit the number of questions that can be asked to two (2) questions per Agenda item.

Duration of Speeches

The New Model Code includes a provision that the Council may resolve to shorten the duration of speeches to expedite the consideration of business at a meeting.

Expulsion from Meetings

The new Model Code provides non-mandatory provisions relating to expelling persons from Council or Committee meetings. It is recommended that Clause 15.14 be included in our Draft Code that gives the Chairperson the authority to expel persons (other than Councillors) from Council or Committee Meetings for engaging in or having engaged in disorderly conduct at the meeting. Councillors may only be expelled by resolution of the council or the committee of the council.

A new mandatory provision of the Model Code requires that where a councillor or a member of the public is expelled from a meeting, the expulsion and the name of the person expelled, if known, are to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

Use of Mobile Phones and Other Devices

A new mandatory provision of the Model Code requires Councillors, council staff and members of the public to ensure that mobile phones are turned to silent during meetings of the council and committees of the council. The Model Code has also been updated to prohibit the use of live stream or an audio recorder, video camera, mobile phone or any other device to make a recording of the proceedings of a meeting of the council or a committee of the council without the prior authorisation of the council or the committee.

Recommitting Resolutions to Correct an Error

The new Model Code provides non-mandatory provisions relating to recommitting resolutions to correct an error, ambiguity or voting record. The new provisions state that the Chairperson must not grant leave to recommit a resolution, unless they are satisfied that the proposed alternative wording of the resolution would not alter the substance of the resolution previously adopted at the meeting.

Matters Arising

The new Model Code has no provisions that allow for councils to move matters arising to agenda items. The Model Code states that business cannot be considered by Council unless notice of that business has been given or a motion is moved to consider the business as a matter of urgency.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

CONCLUSION

Nil.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Draft Code of Meeting Practice

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 February 2019

Item No: C0219 Item 12

Subject: Fee Waiver for use of Aquatic Centres

Council at its meeting on 11 December 2018 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 12 February 2019.

Prepared By: Simon Duck - Aquatic Facilities Manager

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

SUMMARY

This report seeks approval of community requests for reduced fees and fee waivers for the use of Leichhardt Park Aquatic Centre and Dawn Fraser Baths during 2018 - 2019.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Approve the fee waiver applications submitted by regular hirers of the Leichhardt Park Aquatic Centre and Dawn Fraser Baths during 2018 – 2019, as detailed in Attachment 1; and

2. Note the trial and additional request for use of Leichhardt Park Aquatic Centre between 8.00pm-9.00pm by Balmain UTS Waterpolo club for water polo training.

BACKGROUND

The former Leichhardt Council has historically granted reduced fees and fee waivers for a number of Council facilities to eligible applicants. The fee waiver policy and wording is outlined in the annual fees and charges and is as follows:

“Reduced fees and fee waivers can be applied to the fees outlined in accordance with the reduced Fees and Fee Waiver Guidelines which determine eligibility and selection criteria for reduced fees”:

· Community rate - 50% of applicable fee

· Support Group rate -20% of applicable fee

· Fee Waiver - No charge

In line with the information available in the fees and charges, further information can be found on page 28 of the former Leichhardt Council’s Community Grants and Resources policy adopted by Council June 2012.

The program aims to support community groups with limited income to provide programs and activities for the benefit of the local community and their members. The program facilitates community partnerships to achieve strategic outcomes and objectives as outlined in Council’s strategic plans. The program is administered under the former Leichhardt Council’s Grants and Community Resourcing Policy and priority is given to projects that are aligned with Council’s strategic objectives and meet community needs or aspirations.

Previously, Council has approved fee waivers for community clubs that participate in aquatic based activities on an ongoing basis at Leichhardt Park Aquatic Centre (LPAC) and Dawn Fraser Baths (DFB).

Fee waivers for the use of LPAC and DFB for 2017-18, by the regular hirers was approved at Council’s Ordinary Council Meeting In October 2017.

As this is a period of transition for Council, it is requested to continue with existing practice for 2018- 2019 and review rates as part of the organisational review fees and charges and relevant policies for fee waivers and concessions with a view to consistency, equity and transparency across the LGA.

The Leichhardt Swimming Club, Balmain Amateur Swimming Club, Balmain Water Polo Club (incorporated as the Balmain Amateur Swimming, Lifesaving and Water Polo Club) and Balmain Kool Kats winter swimming club have been using both the LPAC and DFB since the facilities were opened.

Leichhardt Swimming Club, Balmain Amateur Swimming Club, Balmain Water Polo Club and Balmain Kool Kats winter swimming club have requested fee waivers and historical use for the financial year 2018-2019 for pool hire only, the entry fee as per the Council's Fees and Charges are paid by all three user groups. Recommendations for fee waivers and fee reductions are presented in ATTACHMENT 1.

Additional request 2018/2019

A limited additional request for the use of LPAC outside of regular public swim hours by Balmain Water Polo Club.

Due to the closure of Ashfield Pool for Rebuild, Balmain UTS Water Polo has limited options for pool space for water polo training. A trial has been requested and agreed for use of Leichhardt Park Aquatic Centre between 8.00pm-9.00pm by Balmain UTS Waterpolo club for training purposes. This has been granted as a trial under promotional activity and will cease its initial limited term in December.

Traditionally LPAC pools close to the public at 8.00pm to allow for pool close down, cleaning and patrons to leave the centre. The Gym facilities remain open until 9.00pm to cater for late night users of the LPAC Gym.

This trial period will allow pool operations staff to assess any operational and staffing issues to and evaluate the success of the program whether a permanent arrangement should be considered. An additional Pool lifeguard will remain on site to oversee the water polo activity for safety requirements.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Under general operations, the total value of the fee waivers requested is $152,447 for the 2018-2019 detailed in ATTACHMENT 1.

Given the attendance attached to these activities, Council receives entry fees and many users carry facility memberships. An estimated average income of $41,573 is assumed to be generated as a result of this access.

The requested additional use by BWPC for the trial period has an estimated supplementary labour cost of approximately $578. This expense is estimated to be recovered in additional attendance revenue during this program, delivering a cost neutral result for council.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Community clubs that have applied for fee waivers will be advised of Council’s decision.

CONCLUSION

Based on historical use, the listed hirers wish to continue their past practice of requesting and being granted, fee waivers to LPAC and DFB.

As a result of limited available water space in the LGA due to the closure of AAC, the BWP club have been granted a promotional trial period of access with a view to formalizing a request for further access for the remainder of the 2018-2019 financial year. It is anticipated that this request will be tabled to Council as early as possible in 2019.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Summary of Application Details

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 February 2019

Item No: C0219 Item 13

Subject: Mandatory reporting of Fire Safety Reports referred to Council from Fire and Rescue NSW

Council at its meeting on 11 December 2018 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 12 February 2019.

Prepared By: Michael Kountourogianis - Senior Fire Safety Officer

Authorised By: Harjeet Atwal - Group Manager Development Assessment and Regulatory Services

SUMMARY

This report provides mandatory notification to Council under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPAA) of correspondence regarding fire safety concerns received from Fire & Rescue NSW. Following a review of the correspondence and a site inspection by Council’s Fire Safety Team, this report seeks Council to note the exercise of Authorised Officer powers under EPAA to require upgrades of the buildings to the satisfaction of Council’s Fire Safety Team in order to:

§ Improve the provisions for fire safety at the premises;

§ Improve the provision of fire safety awareness;

§ Improve the adequacy of the premises to prevent fire;

§ Improve the adequacy of the premises to suppress fire or prevent the spread of fire;

and

§ Improve the safety of persons in the event of fire.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Note the correspondence provided by Fire and Rescue NSW for development on land known as the Garden Lodge Sydney, located at 17-23 Parramatta Road Haberfield (Attachment 1);

2. Endorse the Councils Officers use of statutory powers (and discretion as appropriate) under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to require upgrades to the building to the satisfaction of Council's Fire Safety Team in order to:

a. improve the provisions for fire safety at the premises;

b. improve the provision of fire safety awareness;

c. improve the adequacy of the premises to prevent fire;

d. improve the adequacy of the premises to suppress fire or prevent the spread of fire, and

e. Improve the safety of persons in the event of fire.

BACKGROUND

In accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPAA), Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) has referred the attached letter (Attachment 1) to Council detailing a number of concerns with the fire safety measures and fire safety procedures for this property in the Inner West Council area.

Owners of buildings such as backpackers accommodation, assembly buildings, commercial premises, residential flat buildings etc., have a legal obligation to ensure that all fire safety measures installed on the premises are, at all times, maintained and working to their relevant standard of performance for the safety of the buildings occupiers or users – whether the building is occupied or not. This is done through the installation of fire safety measures compliant with the National Construction Code (Building Code of Australia - BCA) or an alternative solution endorsed by a qualified Fire Engineer.

A fire safety measure is any aspect of construction, piece of equipment or strategy, that are required to enhance the safety of people within the building in the event of a fire. These fire safety measures can vary significantly depending on the age of the building, its design and its use. The determination of the appropriate fire safety measure is guided through the deemed to satisfy provisions / functional statements of the Building Code of Australia or through Alternative Solutions designed and developed by Fire Engineers and Accredited Certifiers (registered with the NSW Building Professionals Board).

FRNSW and Council’s Fire Safety Team have undertaken inspections of all premises referred and have determined appropriate actions required by property owners in order to:

· improve the provisions for fire safety at the premises;

· improve the provision of fire safety awareness;

· improve the adequacy of the premises to prevent fire;

· improve the adequacy of the premises to suppress fire or prevent the spread of fire; and

· improve the safety of persons in the event of fire.

As the premises are on private land, any required upgrades are able to be undertaken through the issuing of orders under EPAA, thereby allowing the works to be undertaken without the necessity for the lodgment of a Development Application. After all solutions are implemented and a Fire Safety Certificate is issued the building is listed on Council’s Fire Safety Register and Annual Fire Safety Inspections are required to be undertake in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

This annual inspection is to ensure that:

i. All fire safety measures are inspected by a competent fire safety practitioner to ensure they are maintained to the appropriate Standard of Performance

ii. Fire Safety Statements are maintained in the approved form and are displayed in a clearly visible position and available for viewing by Fire and Rescue NSW or Council Authorised Officer.

FIRE SAFTEY MEASURES/PROCEDURE ASSESSMENT

In accordance with the provisions of the EPAA, FRNSW has referred correspondence to Council detailing a number of concerns with fire safety measures and fire safety procedures associated with development on land at:

Property

Reason for referral:

Garden Lodge Sydney

17-23 Parramatta Road, Haberfield

1. Essential Fire Safety Measures not being maintained.

2. Access & Egress non – compliances.

3. General Issues

4. Annual Fire Safety Statement is not current and up to date.

In response, Council’s Fire Safety Team undertook an inspection of the premises as per the table below:

Property

Reason for referral:

Garden Lodge Sydney

17-23 Parramatta Road, Haberfield

Inspection of the premises has been carried out by Council and a Development Control Order has been served under Schedule 5 of the EPAA on the owner of the premises.

Following a review of the correspondence and site inspection, Council’s Fire Safety Officers, under delegated authority have issued an Order on the property owners in accordance with the EPAA.

After all fire safety solutions are implemented a Fire Safety Certificate is to be submitted to Council. This is to ensure that the new/enhanced fire safety measures for the building are included on Council’s Fire Safety Register and that annual inspections and Annual Fire Safety Statements are undertaken and submitted to Council to ensure:

i. All fire safety measures are inspected by a competent fire safety practitioner to ensure they are maintained to the appropriate Standard of Performance.

ii. Fire Safety Statements are maintained in the approved form and displayed in a prominent location within the building and available for viewing by Fire and Rescue NSW personnel or Council Officers.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil

CONCLUSION

The letter from Fire and Rescue NSW has identified a number of fire safety matters that are required to be addressed. Following an inspection, Council’s Fire Safety Officer has issued a Order requiring various audits and upgrades to the building be undertaken.

These requirements will promote adequate fire safety awareness in the building. These works are able to be undertaken in accordance with State Planning provisions through the issuing of Orders under EPAA without the need to obtain a Development Application.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Letter from Fire and Rescue NSW regarding Garden Lodge Sydney - 17-23 Parramatta Road Haberfield

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 February 2019

Item No: C0219 Item 15

Subject: Resource Recovery Operations Review

Council at its meeting on 11 December 2018 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 12 February 2019.

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

Authorised By: Rik Hart - Interim General Manager

SUMMARY

operational service delivery areas in order to develop a consistent service delivery model across all Service Areas and ensure that Council’s services are being provided in the most effective and efficient manner possible. The review has identified a number of actions that can be taken to harmonise services across the IWC which will bring the cultures of the operational areas together, enhance Council’s ability to maintain a high quality and responsive service and that significant savings can be made by providing an evening collection service to the South (Marrickville) Service Area.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. An evening domestic waste collection service be introduced in the former Marrickville LGA; and

2. A comprehensive communications plan to affected residents be developed and implemented well in advance of the change.

BACKGROUND

Operations Review

In late 2017, a review was commenced of Council’s operational service delivery areas including:

· Resource Recovery services;

· Civil Maintenance;

· Parks and Sportsfield operations; and

· Streetscape and Landscape Maintenance.

The objectives of the review are to:

a) Develop a consistent service delivery and operational model across the Inner West; and

b) Ensure Council’s services are being provided in the most effective and efficient manner possible, and represent value for the ratepayer.

A consultant was engaged to undertake the review and has been working closely with staff and management over the last 12 months. The scope of this work includes reviewing and assessing the performance of Council’s current service delivery against industry best-practice; developing service level agreements and performance measures for each service; and development of a 10 year plant replacement strategy.

Where the review identifies key service delivery changes, these will be presented to Council for consideration. At this stage, the only matters expected to be presented to Council for consideration are:

· Resource Recovery - Evening Waste Collection -presented in this paper

· Resource Recovery – Redesign of the Clean-Up Service as part of the development of the Zero Waste Strategy and Transition Plan – expected April/May 2019

· Streetscape Maintenance – Verge Mowing – (winter service standard/former Ashfield LGA service) – expected February/March 2019

Resource Recovery Services

The preliminary findings of the review of Resource Recovery Services has identified a potential significant capital saving of $1.5 million by moving Council’s South (Marrickville) Service Area, to a double-shift arrangement, in the same manner that the current North (Leichhardt) Service Area is currently provided. This saving is generated by optimising the use of the Resource Recovery compacters, valued at approximately $300,000 each, through a morning and night shift and reducing the number of vehicles in the fleet. The initial model suggests that Council can reduce the Resource Recovery Services fleet by up to five (5) vehicles. Additional ongoing savings of $220,000 per annum are also potentially made through reduced maintenance costs of these vehicles.

These savings will be critical in offsetting the potentially significant additional costs associated with any expanded Resource Recovery service e.g. organics, as we develop the common service as part of the Zero Waste Strategy and Transition Plan.

Discussions on a new, common, Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA) for staff in this area have also commenced. In order to progress these important discussions, in-principle support from Council for the introduction of an evening shift is sought.

In broad terms, this means around 65% of the households in the South (Marrickville) Service Area will have their bins collected in the morning, the other 35% in the afternoon/evening. It is considered that an evening collection service can be introduced with minimal disruption to the community. At this stage, no change to the day of bin collection is proposed. Rather, the time of that bin collection will alter to the evening. The exception would be a small area where the Monday morning collection would become a Sunday evening collection service.

A comprehensive communications plan would be developed and implemented well in advance of the change. The expected commencement of an evening collection would be July 2019.

As such, it is recommended that an evening bin collection service be introduced in the South (Marrickville) Service Area.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

As outlined above, the estimated savings from introducing an evening collection service are $1,500,000 in capital (fleet) savings and approximately $220,000 in operational expenditure from the maintenance of the fleet.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

A comprehensive communications plan to affected residents would be developed and implemented well in advance of the change to the evening collection service.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 February 2019

Item No: C0219 Item 16

Subject: Brief Report of Best Practice Food Recycling

Council at its meeting on 11 December 2018 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 12 February 2019.

Prepared By: Jan Orton - Group Manager Sustainability and Environment

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

SUMMARY

At the Council meeting of 30 October 2018 Council resolved that officers:

Prepare a brief summary of best practice food recycling services provided across the local government sector, including links to any service reviews that have been conducted by councils or other organisations of these services. This should include reference to NSW Councils that have implemented, or are rolling out, a universal food recycling service. The summary should be limited in scope so as to allow it to be reported to Council in December 2018.

This report provides a brief summary of food recycling for Councillors information.

Officers are well aware of the opportunities, challenges and barriers to food recycling in metropolitan Sydney and have taken many of these matters into account when redesigning the organics services for Inner West Council. These issues were raised in the report to Council on 30 October 2018. Best practice food recycling is being investigated in considerably more detail as part of the redesign of the food and garden organics service

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. Council note the Brief Report on food recycling;

2. Council note all best practice options are already being included in the development and redesign of the organics services (outlined in the Zero Waste Strategy and Transition Plan report on the 30 October 2018); and

3. Council note organics processing is the subject of a CONFIDENTIAL REPORT to Council at its 11 December 2018 meeting.

BACKGROUND

At the meeting of the 30 October 2018 Council considered a report on the development of a Zero Waste Strategy and Transition Plan. This report outlined the approach to redesigning all Council services including the organics services.

At the 30 October 2018 meeting Council resolved that officers:

This report provides a brief summary of food recycling for Councillors information. A more comprehensive review of best practice food recycling is currently underway as part of the redesign of the food and garden organics service.

Officers are already well aware of the opportunities, challenges and barriers to food recycling in metropolitan Sydney and have taken many of these matters into account when redesigning the organics services for Inner West Council. The report presented to Council on 30 October highlighted the challenges in providing a food organics service which were:

Challenges of providing a food organics service:

· Is effective in its diversion of material from landfill – many options are low grade compost outputs suitable only for mine site rehabilitation or landfill cover

· Is acceptable to the community with respect to frequency of the service, cost, impact on space for bins, its convenience and ease of use

· As close as possible to cost neutral – organics processing can be up to $100 per tonne more costly than landfill

· Able to be accommodated by processing contracts in the Sydney region, the current greenwaste tender process will identify where facilities are and what impacts processing at those facilities will have on current collection methods, costs etc.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Summary Report - Best Practice Food Recycling

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 February 2019

Item No: C0219 Item 18

Subject: Notice of Motion: 12 Month Trial of Regulatory Staff being On Call, After Busieness Hours

Council at its meeting on 11 December 2018 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 12 February 2019.

From: Deputy Mayor, Councillor Victor Macri

Motion:

THAT Council receives a report on a 12 month trial of Regulatory Staff being available on call, after business hours.

Background

Due to the number of after hour complaints I and other Councillors have been receiving the lack of a call out facility has been highlighted to me. Contacting a call center does not give residents satisfaction or action on their issue.

I believe that Council can run this trial within existing budgets as many call outs would result in fines being issued in relation to parking, obstruction, illegal operations and out of hours work which impact the amenity of the residents.

Officer’s Comments:

Comment from Group Manager Development Assessment & Regulatory Services:

Council’s Regulatory Services includes the Environmental Health and Building Team and Parking and Ranger Services Team. The Parking and Rangers Services are currently on call after business hours for emergencies.

Council’s Ranger Services have the following core hours:

· Monday – Friday 6.00am to 6.30pm

· Saturday – Sunday 7.50am to 4.30pm

The core hours outlined above gives Ranger Services the ability to investigate problematic construction sites prior to and after the standard hours of operation permitted by a development consent.

Outside the above core hours the staff are available on call for emergencies only in accordance with the Local Government State Award 2017 section 19(c)(i) which states the following:

'For the purposes of this Award, an employee shall be deemed to be on-call if required by the employer to be available for duty outside of ordinary hours at all times in order to attend emergency and/or breakdown work and/or supervise the call-out of other employees'.

In accordance with the above requirement Council’s emergency calls are as follows:

· Dog Attacks - where the dog is still present and posing a public safety risk or requires seizing due to an insecure property

· Major Pollution Incidents

· 'General' Public Safety Risks

General public nuisance (such as after-hours works, operative consent breaches etc) are not responded to as they do not fall into the category of an emergency.

Council’s Parking Services have the following core hours

· Monday-Friday 5.20am to 10.30pm

· Saturday to Sunday 7.50am to 10.30pm

Parking requests/complaints are responded to between 6.00am to 9.00pm Monday to Friday.

If Council are considering responding to non-emergency requests after hours, the following would need to occur to facilitate the request:

· Consultation and re-negotiation with staff on current Enterprise Bargaining Agreements (EBA) and position descriptions. Please note: the former EBA negotiation took 18 months before reaching agreement with staff.

· Re-configuring the structure to accommodate greater amount of staff resources to cover the after hour non-emergency requests.

· Increase in the budget to accommodate the after-hour payments to staff.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 February 2019

Item No: C0219 Item 25

Subject: Notice of Motion: Stormwater Drain Maintenance

Council at its meeting on 11 December 2018 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 12 February 2019.

From: Deputy Mayor, Councillor Victor Macri

Motion:

THAT Council receive a report on how to improve the maintenance of Stormwater Pits to avoid flooding of properties noting that:

1. Stormwater is the responsibility of Council;

2. Street trees and the impacts of these trees on the stormwater system through droppings are also the responsibility of Council;

3. If Council continues to ignore this issue it will leave itself liable to potential claims and damages. As Council has been put on notice by the community, through the tabling of this motion;

4. The report must recommend solutions, if need be through the increase of maintenance resources or improved tree infrastructure management strategies; and

5. This report must be submitted to Council prior to the consideration of the year 2019 budget, as it will have ramifications in relation to program funding.

Background

I am addressing the issues that have been brought to my attention by local residents after they feel their concerns have not been dealt with by Council. I believe this to be a core function of Council and it is the reason I have brought forward this motion. I am concerned with the direction that Council has taken by not addressing the needs of the community. I have attached a number of images to illustrate the extent of the issue at hand and the cost of ignoring community concerns. It should also be noted that the maintenance of essential infrastructure was one of the major reasons for Council amalgamations.

Officer’s Comments:

Comment from Group Manager Footpaths, Road, Traffic and Stormwater:

Street sweeping operations are currently funded to meet pre-amalgamation service standards.

Currently an increase in this service could only be funded from a reduction in other services or service levels. A significant review of Council’s operational and maintenance services is currently being undertaken, and is well advanced, to guide the efficient harmonisation and integration of service delivery of the three former council operations. This includes the street sweeping operations. The outcome of this service review will guide policy development on maintenance service levels.

It should also be noted that the capacity of the piped drainage system generally is such that it will often be subject to surcharging creating overland flows in high intensity rainfall events.

Comment from Group Manager Trees, Parks and Sports Fields:

Council currently operates a proactive and reactive street tree maintenance program which prioritises works in accordance with risk. While pruning trees may a have a slight impact of the volume of leaf drop generated it is not generally a reason to prune trees.

Council will be undertaking a LGA wide audit of all Council owned trees within the next 6- 8 months. This audit with facilitate a detailed review of service level requirements and potential operational short falls.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Photos of David Street
2.⇩	Photos of Faversham Street
3.⇩	Photo of Illawarra Road

1.⇩	Community comments together with Council's response
2.⇩	Statement of Business Ethics