|
AGENDA R |
Council Meeting
TUESDAY 24 APRIL 2018
6.30pm
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Live Streaming of Council Meeting
In the spirit of open, accessible and transparent government, this meeting of the Inner West Council is being streamed live on Council’s website. By speaking at a Council meeting, members of the public agree to being recorded and must ensure their speech to the Council is respectful and use appropriate language. A person who uses defamatory, discriminatory or offensive language may be exposed to liability for which Council takes no responsibility. Any part of this meeting that is held in closed session will not be recorded
Pre-Registration to Speak at Council Meetings
Members of the public must register by 2pm of the day of the Meeting to speak at Council Meetings. If you wish to register to speak please fill in a Register to Speak Form, available from the Inner West Council website, including:
· your name;
· contact details;
· item on the Agenda you wish to speak to; and
· whether you are for or against the recommendation in the agenda.
Are there any rules for speaking at a Council Meeting?
The following rules apply when addressing a Council meeting:
· keep your address to the point, the time allowed for each speaker is limited to three minutes. This time limit applies, no matter how many items are addressed by the speaker;
· when addressing the Meeting you must speak to the Chairperson;
· only 3 speakers for and against an Agenda Item are allowed.
What happens after I submit the form?
Your request will then be added to a list that is shown to the Chairperson on the night of the meeting.
Where Items are deferred, Council reserves the right to defer speakers until that Item is heard on the next occasion.
Accessibility
Inner West Council is committed to ensuring people with a disability have equal opportunity to take part in Council and Committee Meetings. At the Ashfield Council Chambers there is a hearing loop service available to assist persons with a hearing impairment. If you have any other access or disability related participation needs and wish to know more, call 9392 5657.
Persons in the public gallery are advised that under the Local Government Act 1993, a person may NOT tape record a Council meeting without the permission of Council.
Any persons found recording without authority will be expelled from the meeting.
“Record” includes the use of any form of audio, video and still camera equipment or mobile phone capable of recording speech.
An audio recording of this meeting will be taken for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the minutes.
|
PRECIS |
1 Acknowledgement of Country
2 Apologies
3 Notice of Webcasting
4 Disclosures
of Interest (Section 451 of the Local Government Act
and Council’s Code of Conduct)
5 Moment of Quiet Contemplation
6 Confirmation of Minutes Page
Minutes of 10 April 2018 Council Meeting 5
7 Mayoral Minutes
Nil at the time of printing.
8 Staff Reports
ITEM Page
C0418 Item 1 Public Exhibition of Drafts: Our Inner West 2036 Inner West Community Strategic Plan; Delivery Program 2018-22; Operational Plan and Budget FY2018/19, Fees and Charges FY2018/19 18
C0418 Item 2 Review of Planning Proposal and Development Control Plan Amendment Fees 293
C0418 Item 3 Improving Inner West Waterways 299
C0418 Item 4 Grants and Fee Scale Policy 315
C0418 Item 5 Leichhardt Flood Study and Estuarine Planning Levels Study and Flood Management Advisory Committee meeting held 14 December 2017 357
C0418 Item 6 Post Exhibition Report - Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 - Amendment to Part 2.22 Flood Management 406
C0418 Item 7 Planning Proposal and Draft Development Control Plan - 17 Marion Street, Leichhardt: Community Consultation Outcomes 426
C0418 Item 8 Mandatory Reporting of Fire Safety Reports Referred to Council from Fire & Rescue NSW 501
C0418 Item 9 Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee Minutes and Charter 539
C0418 Item 10 Permitting Dogs in Pubs in the Inner West 551
C0418 Item 11 Proposed change to car parking standards for boarding houses under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 565
C0418 Item 12 Victoria Road Precinct, Marrickville - Development Control Plan Amendment 578
C0418 Item 13 Council Support for WestConnex Dilapidation Reporting 668
C0418 Item 14 Late Collection of Children Fee 673
C0418 Item 15 Intersection Treatment, Croydon Road and Church Street, Croydon. 679
C0418 Item 16 Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 10 April 2018 751
C0418 Item 17 Investment Report as at 31 March 2018 790
9 Rescission Motions
ITEM Page
C0418 Item 18 Notice of Motion to Rescind: Item 17 Notice of Motion: Councillor Access to Media Services - 27 March 2018 Council Meeting 817
C0418 Item 19 Notice of Motion to Rescind: Item 10 - Local Traffic Committee Minutes of 7 December 2017 adopted by Council on 27 February 2018 [Proposed Bus Stop and kerb extended pedestrian crossover facility outside/near No.126 Victoria Street, Ashfield (opposite Cardinal Freeman Retirement Village)] 818
10 Notices of Motion
ITEM Page
C0418 Item 20 Notice of Motion: Minister’s Award in Local Government 819
C0418 Item 21 Notice of Motion: Multicultural Policy 820
C0418 Item 22 Notice of Motion: Inner West Business Counts 2017 822
C0418 Item 23 Notice of Motion: A Musical Instrument Lending Library 830
C0418 Item 24 Notice of Motion: Train station upgrades and accessibility in the Inner West 831
C0418 Item 25 Notice of Motion: Footpath Grass Verge Maintenance 833
C0418 Item 26 Notice of Motion: Wests Tigers Winter Homelessness Sleep Out 834
C0418 Item 27 Notice of Motion: WestConnex and Sydney Harbour Tunnel Public Meeting 836
C0418 Item 28 Notice of Motion: Improving Community Safety in the Inner West 837
C0418 Item 29 Notice of Motion:Salmon Playground, 118 Station Street, Newtown 840
C0418 Item 30 Notice of Motion: Inner West Council Libraries 842
C0418 Item 31 Notice of Motion: Supporting early childhood education and childcare staff in the Inner West 844
11 Questions From Councillors
ITEM Page
C0418 Item 32 Question on Notice: Staffing Matters 845
C0418 Item 33 Question on Notice: Recycling 849
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 10 April 2018
Meeting commenced at 6.37 pm
|
Present: |
|
|
Darcy Byrne Julie Passas Marghanita Da Cruz Mark Drury Lucille McKenna OAM Colin Hesse Tom Kiat Pauline Lockie Victor Macri Rochelle Porteous Vittoria Raciti John Stamolis Louise Steer Anna York Elizabeth Richardson |
Mayor Deputy Mayor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor General Manager Deputy General Manager Assets and Environment |
|
Michael Tzimoulas |
Deputy General Manager Chief Financial and Administration Officer |
|
John Warburton |
Deputy General Manager Community and Engagement |
|
Nellette Kettle
Jon Stiebel Allan Willding Brooke Martin David Birds Ryan Cole
Ian Naylor Katherine Paixao |
Group Manager Civic and Executive Support, Integration, Customer Service and Business Excellence Urban Sustainability Manager A/Group Manager Environment and Sustainability Group Manager Properties, Major Building Projects and Facilities Group Manager Strategic Planning A/Group Manager, Development Assessment & Regulatory Services Manager Civic and Executive Support Business Paper Coordinator (Minute Taker) |
APOLOGIES:
Motion: (Macri/Porteous)
THAT apologies from Clr Iskandar be accepted.
Motion Carried
For Motion: Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York
Against Motion: Nil
DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:
Clrs Lockie and York declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary conflict of interest in Item 6 - Petersham RSL - Planning Proposal and Draft Development Control Plan for 3-7 & 13-17 Regent Street, 287-309 Trafalgar Street and 16-20 Fisher Street, Petersham - Post Exhibition Report and Item 20 – Petersham RSL VPA as they are members of the Petersham RSL Club.
Clr Hesse declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary conflict of interest in Item 22 – Addison Road Community Centre; Greek Atlas Club; and Village Church, Annandale as he does volunteer work on a community radio station that operates out of Addison Road Community Centre.
Motion: (Stamolis/Macri)
THAT Council note the disclosures of interests.
Motion Carried
For Motion: Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York
Against Motion: Nil
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
|
THAT the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 27 March 2018 be confirmed.
Motion Carried For Motion: Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York Against Motion: Nil |
|
|
|
THAT Council bring forward Items 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 22 to be dealt with at this time.
Motion Carried For Motion: Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York Against Motion: Nil |
|
C0418 Item 3 Sydney Motorway Corporation Proposal For Haberfield Community Facilities |
|
THAT Council:
Motion Carried For Motion: Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York Against Motion: Nil
Foreshadowed Motion (Da Cruz/Steer)
THAT Council:
a)
Asking about the status of closing off
Walker Avenue at Parramatta
b) Ask what is proposed for the property at 22 Walker Avenue;
c) To assist SMC to meets its obligations for open space and community facilities in the vicinity of Walker Street at Parramatta Road, Inner West Council proposes:
Option 1. Restorate
Yasmar and its gardens for Community Use and
Option 2. Return 18
& 20 Walker Ave to residential use and transfer
This Foreshadowed Motion lapsed.
Amendment (Kiat/Porteous)
THAT the General Manager urgently write to SMC and RMS in relation to the houses on Walker Ave to be returned to residential use, requesting that ownership of same be transferred to Council for use as affordable rental housing in accordance with Council’s Affordable Housing Policy.
Motion Carried For Motion: Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Porteous, Stamolis, Steer and York Against Motion: Crs Passas and Raciti
As the amendment was carried, it was included as part of the primary motion.
Foreshadowed Motion (Stamolis)
THAT Council:
This Foreshadowed Motion lapsed. |
Councillors Drury, Macri and Passas Left the meeting at 8.58pm
Councillors Drury, Macri and Passas returned to the meeting at 9.02pm
ADJOURNMENT
9.20pm - The Mayor, Clr Byrne adjourned the meeting for a short recess.
9.33pm – The Mayor, Clr Byrne resumed the meeting.
|
|
|
THAT Standing orders be resumed.
Motion Carried For Motion: Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York Against Motion: Nil |
Confidential Session
Motion: (Porteous/Da Cruz)
THAT Council move into Confidential session to consider Items of business containing Confidential Information.
Motion Carried
For Motion: Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York
Against Motion: Nil
Members of the public were asked to leave the Chamber.
Councillor Passas left the Meeting at 11.10pm.
Councillor Passas returned to the Meeting at 11.17pm.
Motion: (Drury/McKenna OAM)
THAT Council return to open session to read out the recommendations from the
Closed Session.
Motion Carried
For Motion: Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York
Against Motion: Nil
The Mayor read out to the Meeting the recommendation from the Closed Session of
Council.
Reports with Confidential Information
|
THAT:
a) 6 Affordable Housing units (3 x 2 bedroom units and 3 x 1 bedroom units) with ownership of the units to be transferred to Inner West Council at the completion of the project; b) 24 public car spaces within the development; and c) a payment of $3.5 million for public domain and community facilities improvements.
2. Placed on public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days; and
3. Reported back to Council after public exhibition.
Motion Carried For Motion: Crs Byrne, Drury, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Raciti and York Against Motion: Crs Da Cruz, Hesse, Kiat, Porteous, Stamolis and Steer |
Items 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 21 were not considered at this meeting and will be listed on the Agenda for 24 April 2018 Council Meeting.
Meeting closed at 11.33 pm.
Public Speakers:
|
Item #
|
Speaker |
Suburb |
|
Item 1: |
Jacqui Mumford Michael Sullings |
Stanmore Marrickville |
|
Item 3: |
Vincent Crow John Lozano |
Haberfield Haberfield |
|
Item 6: |
Danny Fitzgerald Fouad Deiri Andy Ludvik Adrienne Shilling |
Redfern Redfern Redfern Petersham |
|
Item 7: |
Simon Gunasekara |
Sydney |
|
Item 10: |
Belinda Barnett |
Mosman |
|
Item 11: |
John Lozano |
Haberfield |
|
Item 12: |
John Lozano |
Haberfield |
|
Item 15: |
John McPhail |
Bronte |
|
Item 22: |
Rosanna Barbero Veronica Mayson Peter Meldrum Kate Jones Michael Kotis Kay Kotis |
Marrickville Marrickville Marrickville Marrickville Marrickville Marrickville |
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Public Exhibition of Drafts: Our Inner West 2036 Inner West Community Strategic Plan; Delivery Program 2018-22; Operational Plan and Budget FY2018/19, Fees and Charges FY2018/19
Prepared By: Lawrence Hennessy - Manager Corporate Strategy and Communications
Authorised By: Laura Stevens - Group Manager Communications, Engagement and Events
|
SUMMARY This report seeks Council’s approval to publicly exhibit the draft Community Strategic Plan – Our Inner West 2036, the draft Delivery Program 2018-22 Operational Plan and Budget 2018/19 and draft Fees and Charges 2018/19, together with and associated documentation, as required under the Local Government Act 1993 and Local Government (General) Regulation 2005. This report also sets out the consultation and communication processes for these documents. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council adopt Our Inner West 2016, draft Community Strategic Plan, the draft Delivery Program 2018-22, draft Operational Plan and Budget 2018/19 and the draft Fees and Charges 2018/19 be placed on public exhibition, opening 26 April 2018 and closing 25 May 2018. |
BACKGROUND
The State Government has legislated an Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework that allows NSW councils to draw their various plans together, understand how they interact and get maximum leverage from their efforts by planning holistically for the future (see figure 1).
This means Council has an obligation to develop and endorse/adopt the following:
1. Community Strategic Plan (CSP) which identifies at a high level, the main priorities and aspirations of the Inner West community, for the future of the local government area for a period of at least 10 years
2. four year Delivery Program (DP) which details the principal activities to be undertaken by Council to implement strategies established by the CSP
3. one year Operational Plan and Budget which details the initiatives and actions to be engaged in by Council during the year as an annual sub-plan of the DP, and annual budget including fees and charges
With the exception of the CSP, which must be endorsed, the documents must be adopted by Council by 30 June 2018. It is required that these draft documents be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days and that any submissions be considered prior to their final adoption by Council.
It is proposed that submissions
be considered and the documents be adopted at Council’s
26 June meeting. The Resourcing Strategy which includes the Long Term Financial
Plan and Asset Management Plan will also be presented to the June Meeting.
Figure 1: OLG Integrated Planning and Reporting framework
The draft CSP, draft DP 2018-22, draft Operational Plan and Budget 2018/19 and draft Schedule of Fees and Charges are provided as attachments to this report. Please note: the attached draft Fees and Charges document included information for Events and Strategic Planning which has now been superseded by the separate reports prepared for the 24 April Meeting.
Developing the plans
As a recently amalgamated Council there is a requirement to develop a CSP for the Inner West community. The purpose of the plan is to identify the community’s main priorities and aspirations for the future and to plan strategies to achieve them. While this is a long term plan it will be reviewed every four years and rolled forward so remains at least a 10 year horizon.
The CSP is developed and delivered as a partnership between council, state agencies, community groups and individuals. While Council undertakes community engagement for and develops the plan on behalf of the community, it is owned by the Inner West community, and not Council. This is why Council is asked to endorse rather than adopt the CSP due to the vast range of stakeholders involved. It is not Council’s responsibility to deliver every aspect or outcome of the plan. Council’s response to the CSP is outlined in the 4 year Delivery Program and Budget.
Council prepares a new Delivery Program for its elected term every four years. The Delivery Program is reviewed each year along with the preparation of the annual Operational Plan and Budget which serves as an annual sub-plan of the DP. Developing the DP and the Ops Plan and budget was done in extensive consultation with the finance team and each section of Council to define the initiatives and actions that will be delivered in the coming financial year and subsequent years thereafter. This included defining the appropriate key performance indicators that will be used to monitor Council’s progress.
Our Inner West 2036 - the draft Community Strategic Plan
The draft CSP is the result of two stages of engagement:
· Stage 1 focused on identifying the issues, the priorities and drafting a vision statement. This took into account the vision and priorities outlined in the CSPs of the former Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils.
· Stage 2 focused on broad and deep engagement to test and fine tune the vision statement and priorities and include key findings from the 2016 and 2017 Inner West Community Satisfaction Surveys. An internal working group analysed the qualitative and quantative data (see Attachment 2 – Community engagement Strategic Plan - Engagement Outcomes Report).
By the end of the engagement process over 7,000 residents, visitors, community groups, special reference groups businesses, school children and other stakeholders had participated.
The CSP is structured around a guiding principle:
To work together in a way that is creative, caring and just
This reflects the values of the Inner West community, underpins community expectations of how Council will interact with its residents, and is the foundation for all decision-making, actions taken and management of resources.
Within this guiding principle are the interrelated social justice principles of equity, access, participation and rights. Creativity was included based on overwhelming feedback from the engagement that creativity is seen as a key asset that creates the uniqueness of Inner West neighbourhoods and enhances the experience of living and working in Inner West. Caring encapsulates the quadruple bottom line of sustainability that addresses social, ecological, economic and civic leadership issues.
The results of the engagement, underpinned by the guiding principle are reflected in the vision statement:
We are Inner West, land of the Gadigal and Wangal peoples, whose rich cultures, heritage and history we acknowledge and respect. We are defined by our diversity of people, places and ideas. We are an inclusive, vibrant, caring and progressive community where everyone is welcome, people and nature live in harmony, and creativity is a way of life.
It also informed the development of five integrated strategic directions:
Strategic Direction 1 – An ecologically sustainable Inner West
Strategic Direction 2 – Unique,liveable, networked neighbourhoods
Strategic Direction 3 – Creative communities and a strong economy
Strategic Direction 4 – Caring, happy, healthy communities
Strategic Direction 5 – Progressive local leadership
The draft Delivery Program 2018-22 and draft Operational Plan and Budget 2018/19
The draft Inner West Delivery Program is the first and major step in delivering the strategies outlined in the new CSP. It articulates what Council plans to do for the community over the next four years, by what services and major projects and clearly demonstrates the linkages of Council’s work to the CSP’s strategic directions, outcomes and strategies.
The document includes how Council will continue to deliver established services (BAU) and key initiatives or major changes to deliver on the CSP.
The draft Operational Plan and Budget demonstrates what year one of Council’s four year Delivery Program will look like. It provides a detailed list of initiatives and actions that will be undertaken in 2018/19 in order to achieve the commitments outlined in the Delivery Program.
The Operational Plan and Budget is structured to reflect each of Council’s areas of service to the community. In this structure, corporate overheads or internally facing services are displayed as a combined ‘Corporate Support Services’.
Plans for each service area are displayed under the following headings:
|
Key Responsibilities |
Outlines the activities delivered as business as usual for the service area |
|
Key Performance Indicators |
The performance indicators that the service area will use to demonstrate the delivery of their key responsibilities and initiatives |
|
Income and Expenditure
|
An overview of the operating revenue and expenditure for this service area. The service area’s Profit and Loss statements include overhead allocations and internal charges. This is to capture the full cost of the service and the amount of rating revenue used to fund service areas. |
|
Operating Budget |
The service area’s budget allocation for operational activities in 2018/19 |
|
Capital Budget |
The service area’s budget allocation for capital works in 2018/19 |
|
Actions - 2018/19
|
The actions the Service Unit will deliver in 2018/19 to support initiatives in the Delivery Program. Each initiative in the Delivery Program supports a strategy in Our Inner West 2036. This connection is shown. |
The plan also shows:
· Statement of Financial Position as at 30 June 2019
· Budgeted Statement of Cash Flows
· Four Year Capital Program
· Rates 2018/19
· Levies
· Domestic Waste Management Charge 2018/19
· Stormwater Management Services Annual Charges
· Interest on Overdue Rates
· Loan Borrowing
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Costs for the development of the CSP and community engagement is budgeted in the current FY17/18 budget. It is anticipated to be delivered under $50K.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Extensive engagement with residents, visitors, businesses, schools and other stakeholders
was undertaken to direct and develop the CSP. Please see attachment 2 Community Engagement Report for details.
It is proposed that the draft documents be placed on public exhibition from 26 April to 25 May 2018. It is intended that the following methods be used to gather feedback on the draft documents:
· placement of copies of the documents, rating maps, supporting information, hardcopy submission forms and submission boxes in libraries and the foyers of the three Council Administration Centres
· creation of an online submission form on Council’s online engagement hub Your Say Inner West
· placement of the documents, rating maps and supporting information, with a link to Your Say Inner West on the Council website
· distribution of the documents and supporting information to Council’s Strategic Reference Groups and Statutory Committees
It is intended that the following methods be used to communicate that the draft documents are on exhibition:
· placement of advertisement in the Inner West Courier
· promotion in the Mayor’s Message in the Inner West Courier
· preparation and distribution of a special e-newsletter
· preparation and distribution of a special email to stakeholder groups
· preparation and display of posters on Council’s community noticeboards
· placement of information on the Council’s website and on Your Say Inner West
· promotion on Council’s social media platforms
This will provide further opportunity to engage in the development of the draft documents by making submissions during the exhibition period. At the conclusion of the draft plan’s public exhibition, submissions will be assessed and included in the final plan that will be presented to Council 12 June 2018 to endorse on behalf of the community.
This addresses all statutory requirements related to the CSP, DP and Operational Plan and Statement of Revenue Policy under the Local Government Act 1993 and associated regulations.
CONCLUSION
It is a legislated requirement that Council places the draft Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Program, Operational Plan and Budget and draft Fees and Charges on public exhibition for 28 days before Council can endorse/adopt the plans. This report seeks Council’s approval to do so. These documents are itemised as:
· Attachment 1 – Draft CSP Our Inner West 2036
· Attachment 2 – Community Engagement Strategic Plan Engagement Outcomes Report
· Attachment 3 - Draft Delivery Program 2018-2022
· Attachment 4 – Draft Operational Plan and Budget FY2018/19
· Attachment 5 – Draft Fees and Charges FY2018/19
|
1.⇩ |
Draft CSP April 2018 |
|
2.⇩ |
CSP Engagement Report |
|
3.⇩ |
Draft Delivery Program 2018-22 |
|
4.⇩ |
Draft Operational Plan and Budget FY18/19 |
|
5.⇩ |
Draft Fees and Charges FY18-19 |
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Review of Planning Proposal and Development Control Plan Amendment Fees
Prepared By: Leah Chiswick - Executive Strategic Planner
Authorised By: David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning
|
SUMMARY This report proposes to amend the fees charged for amendments to local environmental plans and development control plans. This follows a recent review by Council’s Planning Operations team undertaken to ensure that fees adopted for the 2018/19 financial year adequately cover costs associated with the assessment and processing of amendments. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT:
1. Council place on public exhibition with the 2018/19 Draft Fees and Charges; and
2. A post-exhibition report be presented to Council discussing any submissions received; |
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of 28 February 2017, Council considered a report in relation to a review of fees charged by the three former councils for local environmental plan (LEP) and development control plan (DCP) amendments. The intent of the review was to introduce a consistent fee structure for urban planning functions across the Inner West Council, and to ensure that the costs to Council of assessing and processing planning proposals and DCP amendments were adequately covered by the fees charged.
In determining an appropriate fee structure, there was consideration of the fees charged by the former Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils as well as by other councils. The report proposed the introduction of integrated planning proposal and development control amendment fees into the Inner West Council Fees and Charges 2016/17.
The fee structure was placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days from 7 March 2017 to 4 April 2017. At its meeting of 26 April 2017, the Administrator determined that Council:
1. approves and adopts the integrated Inner West Council planning proposal fee structure in accordance with the provisions of Local Government Act 1993; and
2. makes amendments to the Inner West Council Schedule of Fees and Charges 2016/17 to reflect the new planning proposal fee structure.
The fees inserted into the 2016/17 Schedule were carried over into Inner West Council Fees and Charges 2017/18.
CURRENT REVIEW
In preparation for inclusion in Council’s Fees and Charges 2018/19, fees associated with private proponent led planning proposals and the amendment of DCPs have been given further consideration. The primary intent of the fee structure is to ensure that the costs to Council are covered. The review has given consideration to the fees charged by both surrounding and similar sized councils in the Sydney metro area as well as to further incentivising pre-planning proposals to improve the quality and merit of planning proposals received.
The key changes proposed are:
· Introduction of pre-planning proposal and planning proposal fees for precinct wide proposals. While the Planning Operations Manager would continue to have the discretion to determine the appropriate fee category for a proposal, it is considered that precincts would generally comprise multiple lots or street blocks.
· Increases in the pre-planning proposal fees of between 16% and 25%.
· Replacing staged payment of planning proposal fees with one fee to be paid at lodgement, and fees increased by between 11% and 50%.
· Opportunity for an additional fee (25% of the original fee for minor proposals and 50% for others) to be requested when a planning proposal is amended. This is to cover the costs associated with the assessment of a new suite of documentation.
· Provision for a refund (up to 50%) where a planning proposal and/or DCP amendment is withdrawn prior to being reported to Council. The proportion refunded will be determined by the Planning Operations Manager and will reflect the time and money expended during the assessment of the proposal.
· Clarification that planning proposals requiring a DCP amendment will incur the relevant fee, not only DCP amendments lodged in isolation. Rather than distinguishing between amendments to an existing DCP and preparation of a new site specific DCP, the proposed fee structure differentiates between minor, major, complex and precinct amendments.
· Amendment of the ‘additional costs and expenses’ line to ensure that costs associated with referral to the Inner West Planning Panel and the Architectural Excellence Panel can be recovered.
The current fees associated with the preparation of LEP and DCP amendments are included as Attachment 1. The proposed fees are outlined in Attachment 2, with the changes highlighted.
The table below outlines the numbers of private proponent led pre-planning proposals and planning proposals currently being considered by the Planning Operations team as well as the numbers received in the financial year to date.
|
|
Pre-planning proposals |
Planning proposals |
|
Currently being assessed/progressed |
3 |
15 |
|
Received in the 2017/18 financial year |
8 |
3 |
In addition to the above, there are 6 potential pre-planning proposals that have been the subject of preliminary discussions with Council officers. All of the pre-planning proposals and planning proposals, including those pending, are major or complex. One of the planning proposals currently under assessment would fit the proposed precinct category.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The fee increases proposed for planning proposals and DCP amendments will ensure that the costs associated with their assessment and processing are covered. It is anticipated that they will come into effect at the commencement of the 2018/19 financial year.
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
Nil.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
The proposed fees will be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993. A post exhibition report will be presented to Council discussing the submissions after the exhibition period closes.
CONCLUSION
The fees charged for amendments to LEPs and DCPs have been reviewed and are proposed to be changed. This is to ensure that the fees adopted for the 2018/19 financial year cover costs associated with the assessment and processing of amendments.
|
1.⇩ |
Current Planning Proposal and DCP Amendment Fees |
|
2.⇩ |
Proposed 2018/19 Planning Proposal and DCP Amendment Fees |
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Current Planning Proposal and DCP Amendment Fees
|
PREPARATION OF AMENDMENT TO LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN |
|
|
Pre Planning Proposal Consultation (mandatory for all applications) |
|
|
Minor LEP Amendment |
$2,000 |
|
Major LEP Amendment |
$4,000 |
|
Complex LEP Amendment |
$6,000 |
|
Additional meetings |
25% of original fee |
|
Planning Proposal |
|
|
Minor LEP Amendment |
|
|
Stage – 1 Preparation of a planning proposal and report to Council with recommendations in relation to a minor LEP amendment (e.g. adding or removing a heritage item, adding or removing a use that does not require complex assessment) |
$4000 |
|
Stage – 2 Progress planning proposal subsequent to Gateway Determination |
$8,000 |
|
Major LEP Amendment |
|
|
Stage – 1 Preparation of a planning proposal and report to Council with recommendations in relation to a major LEP amendment (e.g. FSR and height amendments) |
$20,000 |
|
Stage – 2 Progress planning proposal subsequent to Gateway Determination |
$30,000 |
|
Complex LEP Amendment |
|
|
Stage – 1 Preparation of a planning proposal and report to Council with recommendations in relation to a complex LEP amendment (as determined by the Council officers e.g. change of zoning or matters that involve significant consideration of economic, environmental and transport issues) |
$40,000 |
|
Stage – 2 Progress planning proposal subsequent to Gateway Determination |
$50,000 |
|
Additional costs and expenses |
|
|
For all LEP/ DCP amendments (minor, major or complex) any additional costs and expenses incurred by Council in undertaking studies, peer reviews and other matters required in relation to the planning proposal are to be paid at cost |
At cost |
|
Amendments to Development Control Plan |
|
|
Request to amend the DCP |
$5,500 |
|
Preparation of a new site specific DCP |
$15,000 |
|
Advertisement and notification costs |
|
|
Advertising cost for amendments to Environmental Planning Instrument |
$2,500 |
|
Notification costs regarding the amendments to Environmental Planning Instrument |
$1.50 |
|
Public Hearing |
|
|
Public Hearing if required. Cost recovery to Council. |
At cost |
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Proposed 2018/19 Planning Proposal and DCP Amendment Fees
Note – Amended Fees highlighted in yellow below.
|
PREPARATION OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN AMENDMENTS |
|
|
Pre Planning Proposal Consultation (mandatory for all applications) |
|
|
Minor LEP Amendment |
$2,500 |
|
Major LEP Amendment |
$5,000 |
|
Complex LEP Amendment |
$7,000 |
|
Precinct LEP Amendment |
$12,000 |
|
Additional meetings |
25% of original fee |
|
Planning Proposals |
|
|
Minor LEP Amendment e.g. adding or removing a heritage item, adding or removing a use that does not require complex assessment |
$18,000 |
|
Major LEP Amendment e.g. FSR and height amendments |
$60,000 |
|
Complex LEP Amendment e.g. change of zoning or matters that involve significant consideration of economic, environmental and transport issues |
$100,000 |
|
Precinct LEP Amendment e.g. similar to a complex LEP amendment but where the proposal relates to multiple lots |
$150,000 |
|
Amended Planning Proposal |
25% of fee for Minor Planning Proposals 50% of fee for Major, Complex and Precinct Planning Proposals |
|
Refund where withdrawn prior to the Planning Proposal being reported to Council |
Maximum 50% of Planning Proposal fee. At discretion of Council officers. |
|
Amendments to Development Control Plans (lodged in conjunction with a Planning Proposal or in isolation) |
|
|
Minor DCP Amendment |
$7,000 |
|
Major DCP Amendment |
$20,000 |
|
Complex DCP Amendment |
$35,000 |
|
Precinct DCP Amendment |
$55,000 |
|
Refund where withdrawn prior to being reported to Council |
Maximum 50% of DCP amendment fee. At discretion of Council officers. |
|
Advertisement and notification of LEP and DCP amendments |
|
|
Advertising |
$3,000 |
|
Notification |
$2.00 per property notified |
|
Public Hearing |
|
|
Public Hearing if required. Cost recovery to Council. |
At cost |
|
Additional costs and expenses |
|
|
For all LEP and DCP amendments any additional costs and expenses incurred by Council in undertaking studies, peer reviews, referral to panels (Inner West Planning Panel and Architectural Excellence Panel) and other matters are to be paid at cost |
At cost |
Subject: Improving Inner West Waterways
Council at its meeting on 10 April 2018 deferred this item to the meeting to be held on 24 April 2018.
Prepared By: Jean Brennan - Urban Ecology Manager
Authorised By: Jan Orton - Group Manager Sustainability and Environment
|
SUMMARY This report responds to the C1017 Item 6 Notice of Motion: Inner West Waterways, Council meeting 31 October, 2017.
The expectation to have clean and healthy local waterways that are swimmable means Inner West Council will need to focus its efforts on improving the quality of stormwater runoff from its catchments, taking a water-sensitive approach. To support this objective, Inner West Council will be developing urban ecology subcatchment plans for locally appropriate, water sensitive urban design and green infrastructure.
This report outlines the work Council has undertaken to date: implementing stormwater treatment works, and working regionally with the Parramatta River Catchment Group to improve the health of Parramatta River and create a swimming site at Callan Park; with the Cooks River Alliance to develop the Cooks River Catchment Coastal Management Plan; and with the Sydney Coastal Councils Group on its plastics and sewer overflow programs. It then makes recommendations for Council’s consideration. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council:
1. Receive a further report following the endorsement of the Our Living River Masterplan, by the Parramatta River Catchment Group – on investigations into the Callan Park swim site;
2. Endorses addressing Parramatta River, Cooks River and Sydney Harbour waterway and catchment health through:
a. developing whole of IWC urban ecology strategic plans with costed programs;
b. preparing subcatchment plans for WSUD and green infrastructure with areas identified as potential swim sites as a priority;
c. Continuing to work regionally on plans and actions that lead to measurable improvements to water quality and ecological health; and
d. Continuing to partner with research institutions to keep up-to-date with leading thinking and technologies that will help improve waterways and enable safe swimming.
|
BACKGROUND
This report addresses C1017 Item 6 Notice of Motion: Inner West Waterways, Council meeting 31 October, 2017 that Council:
1. Calls on the General Manager to bring back a report for practical steps that would lead to working with the Parramatta River Catchment Group to create a safe swim site in the Inner West Council part of the Parramatta River, implementing stormwater pollution traps, gross pollutant traps and water sensitive urban design on all stormwater drains in the local government area and what additional support to the Inner West Council could propose for the next action plan of Cooks River Alliance that would result in measurable improvements.
2. The report to include costings for the main works and whether these are already in Council’s forward planning.
Community desire, advocacy and institutional ability and willingness to make the Parramatta and Cooks rivers swimmable and ecologically healthy again have been gaining momentum, particularly since the environmental clean-up associated with the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. The catchments of both rivers are highly urbanised and currently under substantial pressure from urban intensification, making stormwater and water pollution a significant factor in addressing ecosystem health, for selecting sites for primary contact, such as swimming, and for other recreational activities.
Report outline
This report provides:
· information about water, catchments, and the Inner West’s water cycle to provide the physical context that informs planning and action for improving waterway and catchment health.
· a discussion about stormwater quality measures through water sensitive urban design (WSUD) and pollutant traps that Council and others are using to protect waterways, the program of capital works and allocated expenditure for WSUD.
· details of Council has been working with the PRCG to improve the health of Parramatta River and create a swimming site at Callan Park.
· details of how the Cooks River Alliance (CRA) is supporting Inner West Council to make measureable improvements on the river’s water quality and ecological health.
· A summary for Council’s proposed approach to improving local waterways.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
NIL
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
Staff from Roads and Stormwater and Parks Capital Works provided information on the forward capital program and GPTs. Parks Planning staff confirmed the information regarding Callan Park swimming site.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Not applicable
DISCUSSION
A. Context – Council Planning and Inner West Water Cycle
1. Inner West Council planning for waterways
The draft Inner West Community Strategic Plan includes as its first goal:
“An ecologically sustainable Inner West.”
The goal has five objectives, including that:
“Inner West is a water sensitive community, with clean, swimmable waterways.”
This goal grew out of previous strategic direction from Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville councils, extensive community engagement throughout 2016/17, particularly reflecting the intentions of the Environment Strategic Reference Group of local experts who provided clear direction on their expectations for Council’s environment program.
The water sensitive community approach to waterway and catchment management continues the Council’s research-based water management program that was informed by the 16-year partnership with universities (UNSW and Monash University) and the Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities. The goal for a water sensitive Inner West community will be delivered through the following strategies:
1. Supply water from within Inner West catchments – rainwater and stormwater harvesting
2. Provide green infrastructure to support increased ecosystem services (shade and cooling, fresh air and clean water)
3. Collaborate to make plans, designs and decisions that are water sensitive – including working with community stakeholders on local subcatchment plans, develop water sensitive land use and planning controls
2. Inner West Local Government Area Water Cycle
The Inner West Water Cycle (Figure 1) shows what happens to water entering and leaving the Inner West LGA. It indicates where to direct focus and prioritise infrastructure and community programs for measurable improvements to Parramatta and Cooks rivers.
Figure 1 Water Cycle of the Inner West LGA
The Inner West Water Cycle highlights that:
· More than twice as much rain falls in the Inner West LGA than is brought in via Sydney Water’s mains to supply the LGA.
· Most mains water leaves the catchment as sewage via the sewerage system. The treated wastewater is discharged into the Tasman Sea via the Malabar Ocean Outfall.
· 76% of Inner West’s rainfall runs off mainly hard (impervious) surfaces and into drains, carrying pollution to the Cooks River, Parramatta River and Sydney Harbour.
Impervious surfaces
· 71% of the Inner West is covered with hard surfaces (Figure 2 highlights where stormwater runoff comes from – roofs and roads make up the majority of the hard (impervious) surfaces. The polluted runoff from roads and properties, particularly roofs, mixes in stormwater drainage network.
Figure 2 Proportion of impervious areas with pervious area.
Figure 3 Source of pollution (nutrients and fine sediments) in stormwater.
*Suspended solids are small solid particles that stay in suspension in water.
Water quality modelling completed for the IWC identifies the degree of pollution coming from each source by looking at the different types of impervious areas (Figure 3).
· Roads and roofs combined are the source of 75% on runoff in Inner West LGA.
· Public roads contribute the largest amount of suspended solids and phosphorous
· Roofs collect nitrogen and gross pollutants, including organic matter and sediment.
· Stormwater also collects sewer overflows containing pathogens and heavy metals from vehicles and roads.
Water Quality in Parramatta and Cooks rivers
The three main factors affecting the health and water quality of local waterways are:
1. Sewer overflows – owned and managed by Sydney Water Corporation
2. Sediment contamination – responsibility of various government agencies
3. Stormwater – Council has most influence; Sydney Water also responsible.
A. The main physical cause of stormwater runoff is the high and increasing imperviousness of the catchments that causes the high volume and poor quality of stormwater runoff.
Water sensitive approach to management
These factors are best addressed though taking a consistent catchment-wide water sensitive approach that sets measurable targets to:
1. Reduce overall imperviousness
2. Slow stormwater runoff
3. Treat stormwater runoff
These can be achieved through:
a. planning for green infrastructure and community and stakeholder action at the local subcatchment level (IWC has almost 40 subcatchments) .
b. Developing catchment-wide targets for consistent land use and development controls
c. Working regionally with:
i. the Parramatta River Catchment Group and the Cooks River Alliance on catchment management plans, identifying swim sites, and pollution reduction initiatives
ii. Sydney Coastal Councils Group will work with Sydney Water Corporation to address sewer defects and non-compliant connections within the LGA, and other pollution reduction initiatives
d. Maintain current and develop new research partnerships for Council to keep abreast of leading thinking and technologies the will help improve waterways and enable safe swimming.
B. Stormwater treatment on stormwater drains in Inner West LGA
1. Responsibility for Inner West LGA drainage infrastructure
Council is responsible for managing stormwater runoff from the Inner West LGA. However, some stormwater infrastructure is owned by Sydney Water, including sections of pipes, pits, Sydenham Detention Basin and the main stormwater channels draining to Parramatta and Cooks rivers (e.g. Eastern Channel, Hawthorne and Dobroyd canals). Council manages most GPTs, but Sydney Water mainly owns and manages the larger trash racks and traps at the point of entry into the rivers.
2. Council’s stormwater treatment program
Addressing the ecological health and water quality of the Parramatta and Cooks River to enable recreation (swimming) depends on removing the pollutants from all the stormwater runoff from the Inner West LGA catchments, using the water sensitive urban design (WSUD) approaches, including treating and harvesting stormwater,
WSUD approaches include rain gardens (biofiltration), wetlands and ponds (biofiltration and detention), stormwater harvesting (capture and reuse), green roofs and walls (biofiltration), porous paving and depaving (infiltration). Council’s WSUD works are mainly identified and prioritised through subcatchment planning and included in parks plans of management, and when designing traffic and streetscape upgrades and renewals. They are then prioritised and included in the 10-year capital delivery program.
Inner West Council has installed a number of water sensitive urban design facilities and gross pollutant traps that capture pollutants from stormwater. They are designed to assist Council to achieve its stormwater quality obligations not to discharge pollutants into receiving waterways.
Current WSUD in the Inner West
Council has constructed:
· 30 rain gardens (biofiltration systems) that treat runoff from 34Ha of the LGA
· 2 wetlands – Tempe Wetlands (3 ponds), Whites Creek Wetland (there are also saltmarsh wetlands which are valued more for habitat quality rather than water treatment)
· 11 stormwater harvesting systems using the runoff to irrigate sports fields with plans for others to be constructed when funding becomes available
· Depaving - Through its footpath replacement and Sustainable Street programs, Council has worked with the community to extend the area of non-concreted verges.
Gross pollutant traps
GPTs are designed to stop gross pollutants (litter, organics and sediments) from entering the stormwater system and waterways, primarily through screening. There is a range of GPT devices at various scales and capital cost. They include the common pollutant traps and baskets seen in stormwater pits, screens, trash racks and the bottom of channels and in-stream litter booms on waterways. They are mainly used in existing drainage systems, either in pipes, at outfalls, or in open channels and sometimes used as ‘pre-treatments’ in WSUD treatment systems.
GPTs filter large pollutants (over 2mm). The most common pollutants found in Inner West GPTs are plastic bags, plastic bottles and takeaway food containers. Organic (vegetation) material also makes up a large percentage.
In 2016, Council’s 23 GPTs stopped:
· 47.7 tonnes of material going into the Cooks River (organic matter 28.6 tonnes, sediment 15.1 tonnes, litter 4.1 tonnes).
· 44.5 tonnes of material entering Parramatta River.
NSW Roads and Maritime Services (Maritime) collects gross pollutants directly from the Parramatta River with more than 3,500 cubic metres of rubbish collected from the Parramatta and Lane Cove Rivers every year. Sydney Water has two litter booms on the Cooks River and one in Muddy Creek, collecting over 1,100 cubic metres of plastic and organic matter per year.
A significant amount of gross pollutants from catchments managed by councils still enters waterways by blowing directly into waterways and by direct littering. GPTs do not deal with micropollutants - pathogens, nutrients and chemical pollutants – that are the main inhibiters to waterway health and recreation, including swimming.
Gross pollutants have a relatively expensive capital cost and are an end-of-pipe solution requiring regular maintenance to be effective.
Current Capital program for WSUD and GPTs
A prioritised list of stand-alone WSUD projects for the Marrickville service area, identified through subcatchment planning, parks plans of management and precinct masterplans has been developed and is subject to annual review. The 2016-17 Inner West Council Gross Pollutant Trap Scoping Study includes a recommended list of GPTs, covering the Leichhardt service area, for consideration in the forward capital program.
The five-year stormwater capital program (2017/18 – 2022/23) includes WSUD related projects amounting to approximately $3.8 million. These include rain gardens, GPT’s, Blackmore Oval Wetland, and remediation of Dibble Avenue Waterhole in Dulwich Hill. In addition to such projects, opportunities are pursued during infrastructure design to incorporate WSUD principles where practicable into proposed works.
The WSUD related projects in the parks five-year capital program amount to approximately $1.8 million and comprise bioretention, swale, and wetland systems at Steel Park and HJ Mahoney Reserve on the Cooks River foreshore, and priority Greenway WSUD infrastructure such as wetland and creek works at Hercules Street and bioretention systems at Terry Road and Lewisham West. Council is currently partnering with Sydney Water on Waterway Health Improvement Program projects at Hoskins Park and Mackey Park. The subsequent capital program (2023-2025) includes a further $1.4m in WSUD related projects including Marrickville Park sports field upgrade and stormwater harvesting and Camdenville Park Upgrade stormwater harvesting and rain garden. In addition to these projects, park upgrade designs aim to incorporate other WSUD principles such as on-site absorption and permeable paving.
New WSUD
New sites for WSUD will be identified through the development of Urban Ecology Subcatchment Planning, and Parks plans of management and prioritised for implementation.
Council will continue to seek grant funding to expedite the program. Council will work regionally with the Parramatta River Catchment Group, Cooks River Alliance, and Sydney Coastal Group that may also identify works through the development of catchment management plans and masterplans.
C. Creating a safe swim site on the Inner West LGA part of the Parramatta River
Background of PRCG
The Inner West Council, previously Leichhardt and Ashfield councils, has been an active member of the Parramatta River Catchment Group (PRCG) since its formation in 2008. With 14 current financial members, the PRCG includes 11 Parramatta River catchment councils as well as Sydney Water, Department of Planning and Environment and NSW Environment Protection Authority. The PRCG provides an overarching strategic and coordination role for the catchment, focusing on activities where catchment-wide efforts will lead to better results than councils and government agencies working individually.
The Our Living River initiative with Masterplan for swim sites
In 2014, the PRCG launched the Our Living River initiative with the purpose of making the Parramatta River a ‘living river’ and the mission of making the river swimmable by 2025. Inner West Council (previously Leichhardt and Ashfield councils) has provided ongoing support for this initiative since 2012 and has renewed its interests by now having Councillor Drury as the current Chair and Council’s Urban Ecology Manager on its Executive Committee.
Council has also worked with the PRCG on joint compliance and education campaigns to reduce pollution of the river including the recent successful Get the Site Right campaign that targets construction sites. Inner West Council was a joint award winner for this campaign in the LGNSW Excellence in the Environment Awards in 2017.
To achieve the Our Living River mission, the PRCG has been developing the Parramatta River Masterplan that has objectives to:
· Improve the health of the river
· Strategically tackle issues of sewer and stormwater pollution
· Provide tangible benefits to the local community
· Provide the best cost-benefit for the community
Progress of Masterplan development
The objectives are being delivered in two stages:
Ø Stage One - Research and analysis (completed)
Ø Stage Two - Decision Making - swim site prioritisation, community and stakeholder engagement and waterway governance (underway), and economic analysis (scoped and soon to commence).
1. Stage One - Research and analysis
The development of the Masterplan began with the identification of potential new swimming sites. These sites these became the focus of the following research projects:
a) Water Quality study
b) Ecological Health study
c) Swim Site Activation Framework development
d) Community Research study
Initial selection for swimming sites
A total 12 potential new swimming locations across the length of the Parramatta River were shortlisted for assessment as part of the Masterplan, along with the existing 4 swimming sites along the river at Lake Parramatta, Cabarita beach, Chiswick baths and Dawn Fraser Baths (Figure 4).
Figure 4. The 16 potential and existing swimming sites in the Parramatta River Catchment
These sites were shortlisted based on community voting of their favourite swimming site and conversations with foreshore land managers. Callan Park was not initially on the list of voting sites, however, it was the most popular non-listed swimming location added by community members, and the Office of Environment and Heritage specifically requested for it to be added to the shortlist.
Water Quality Study
This study determined how to assess water quality for swimming in the Parramatta River by researching:
· the condition of the river and proposed swim sites and how it changes over time
· future monitoring needs, including the contaminants to monitor
· the potential impacts of various options for local and catchment-scale management interventions to improve water quality to enable swimming by 2025.
The study reviewed existing water quality and sediment data to determine the condition of proposed swimming sites for recreational suitability and general ecosystem health. Results indicate that those sites currently open, including Dawn Fraser Pool, are generally suitable for swimming during dry weather. However, following wet weather, bacteria (enterococci) numbers increase, making the sites unsuitable for swimming. This is consistent with Beachwatch recommendations not to swim at river sites within three days of heavy rain.
Sediment contamination has been reported at several sites within the river and many sites are affected by nutrients from sewer overflows and stormwater runoff.
However, while water quality appears to be improving overall as a result of current catchment management measures, the review recommended a targeted monitoring program to fill data gaps and provide better information for future management decisions to make the river swimmable. Requirements for targeted monitoring programs will be indicated in the Masterplan for those sites selected and agreed to be developed by the relevant councils.
Modelling of scenarios with different management interventions (targeted sewer overflow management, education, rainwater harvesting and rain gardens) shows that the water quality in the lower Parramatta River, (Inner West LGA) would significantly improve, and new swimming sites could be gained. Except for Lake Parramatta, the upper river is unlikely to allow for natural river swimming by 2025 under current guidelines. Further water quality monitoring and subsequent modelling was recommended, particularly at the lower river sites where natural river swimming appears feasible and will need to occur once sites are selected.
Water quality modelling results for Dawn Fraser baths and Callan Park indicate that both sites are likely to be safe for swimming by 2025. Specifically,
· Dawn Fraser Baths, being on the main channel of the Parramatta River, is highly influenced by tidal flushing and dilution, which lowers the concentration of pollution within the water. Thus, water quality at Dawn Fraser is currently very good and predicted to remain this way to 2025.
· Callan Park is at higher risk of poor water quality, as it has less influence from tidal flushing due to its location in Iron Cove. Catchment interventions will have greater benefit in improving water quality at Callan Park, and across the whole of Iron Cove.
Ecological Health Study
The study investigated ecosystem health in the Parramatta River and how it connects to a swimmable river through the identification and management of five community selected iconic animal species. These are the: Bar-tailed godwit, Striped marsh frog, Eastern long-necked turtle, Southern myotis (a type of fishing bat), and the Powerful owl. These animals will be used to indicate water quality and catchment health and the requirements for habitat protection, habitat management and habitat creation in programs to be developed once sites are selected and responsibilities determined.
Swim Site Activation Framework
Swim site activation is the critical part of the Masterplan. The study provided the framework for activation of potential swim sites along the river by assessing: 1) feasibility, 2) vulnerability, and 3) desirability. The existing Dawn Fraser Pool and a site in Callan Park are being evaluated using this method.
1. Feasibility criteria:
· Ecological restrictions
· Boat traffic
· Water quality
· Bathymetry – depth and nature of river bed
· Publicly available land
2. Vulnerability criteria
This assessment of risks is based on the Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Waters (Australian Government National Health and Research Council, 2008). It includes water quality, water clarity, river dynamics, river bed physical hazards, river bank and river edge characteristics, and heritage.
The vulnerability assessment takes into account microbial water quality and heavy metal contamination, critical factors in assessing the suitability of human contact with the river due to potential health risks. Exact sources of pollution, including dry weather sewage discharges, are not easily detected and sites initially identified as suitable for primary contact activity, such as swimming, may still be vulnerable to changes in water quality over time, such as during wet weather. The various land uses in the catchment (e.g. industrial, residential, and road reserves), can impact heavily on water quality. For example, sites with sewer overflows or industrial land uses in close proximity to the swim site would have a higher vulnerability for poor water quality due to the local impacts of sewer overflow or industrial discharges.
3. Desirability assessment criteria
Urban form elements affect the overall swim site appeal and the frequency people would visit a location. It is possible to improve a site’s desirability and highlight areas for improvement using these criteria.
· Access and movement
· Adjacent open space
· Natural environment
· Built form and aesthetics (e.g. places to eat and sit, amenities, retail and events)
· Governance and implementation for resources to support activation
· Community demand and support
Given that a number of these criteria are dependent on personal judgement, the PRCG decided to undertake on-site community focus groups with local residents, as well as additional face to face and on-line surveys (totalling 168 surveys), to better understand community perceptions of each site and their current and future desirability to swim at each site. These assessments were then presented to a stakeholder workshop in August 2017, where the sites were further discussed and prioritised.
Community Research
The research identified current community behaviour and how it would change with Parramatta River being swimmable; the barriers to people currently swimming in the river; and preferences for activating local swimming sites. This research involved focus groups plus a statistically significant survey of over 1100 people within the catchment spread across the 11 council areas. This research clearly demonstrated that there is a huge appetite for swimming in the Parramatta River, with Inner West residents showing a higher level of interest and use of river pools than the overall catchment population.
The research showed that Inner West residents were:
· Strong users of pools or baths in the Parramatta River (17% of Inner West residents surveyed said they have used one in the last 12 months compared with 9% of people overall)
· Very interested in accessing recreational facilities near the proposed swimming areas on the Parramatta River (88% of Inner West residents compared to 82% overall)
· Very interested in accessing a designated swimming area in the Parramatta River (74% of swimmers in Inner West compared to 68% overall).
In relation to the Inner West LGA swimming site, the relevant Stage One outcomes are:
· The confirmation of the existing Dawn Fraser Pool (Figure 4, site 16) to continue as a swimming site.
· A new site in Callan Park (Figure 4, site 15) was identified and is being further investigated for swimmability in Stage Two.
2. Stage Two – Decision Making
The outcomes of Stage One have provided the evidence base to inform decisions on the actions, pathways and targets that will form the final Masterplan to make the Parramatta River swimmable again by 2025.
Next Steps
Staff from the Urban Ecology, Trees Parks and Sportsfields, and Recreation and Aquatics teams of Inner West Council will continue to work with the PRCG on the following phases of Stage Two. This will include:
1. A governance review of water quality, swim site activation and ecological health (almost complete). The review will confirm the current governance structures and provide recommendations for how the Masterplan outcomes can be best delivered.
· A high level governance workshop (held in late March 2018) will:
- capture feedback and gain agreement on the Masterplan recommendations
- determine the actions to be taken and how based on the evidence
- make recommendations regarding stakeholders, responsibilities and accountabilities which will be included in the Draft Masterplan.
- identify options for the future overarching governance of the Masterplan
2. Community and stakeholder engagement to determine the desirability of shortlisted swim sites, including the Callan Park site, and the process to gain agreement and ownership of the actions, pathways and targets of the Masterplan.
3. Representatives from the PRCG, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, and Council met with consultants in October 2017 to discuss the issues at the Callan park site. This informed the Stakeholder and Community Engagement Report (November 2017) that was part of the desirability and feasibility assessment of the Callan Park site and its subsequent ranking of 9th by the community in the list of 12 swim sites for site activation as reported in the Activation Framework Report (December 2017).
4. The analysis of the overall economic benefits of returning the Parramatta River to swimmable conditions and how this can be best achieved is underway and to be finalised by May, 2018.
5. Development of a well-supported final Masterplan for the Parramatta River to be implemented by all relevant stakeholders.
· Draft Masterplan to be finalised by 2 June, 2018, for the PRCG Full Group meeting
· Public consultation for 6 weeks over June and July
· Final Masterplan completed by October 2018 to be launched at the Parramatta Riverfest 2018
Parramatta River Swim sites in the Inner West
1. Dawn Fraser Pool
Council officers have already commenced the initial work to deliver the $800,000 upgrade of the existing Dawn Fraser Pool that will improve accessibility and restore its 1880s State Heritage listed buildings. Water quality will continue to be monitored and reported via the OEH Beachwatch program (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/beachapp/sydneybulletin.aspx).
2. New site in Callan Park
The governance of Callan Park is complex. It is owned by NSW Health, managed by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), and sections of the park are used and maintained by Council. The Office of Environment and Heritage Chief of Staff originally proposed putting Callan Park on the list of proposed swimming sites for the Masterplan. Since then, the OEH has given its support for the PRCG to consider Callan Park as a potential new swimming site in developing the Parramatta River Masterplan.
Figure 5. The location of the potential swim site at Callan Park on the Parramatta River Catchment
A range of site-specific work has been undertaken at the Callan Park site (see Figure 5) to date, using the Swimming Site Activation framework. This includes:
- High level site vulnerability assessments
- Site desirability assessments
- Stakeholder engagement workshop on interventions and site prioritisation
Vulnerability assessments
Three sites within Callan Park were assessed for vulnerability:
· Natural rocky and beach shore area with fringing native vegetation. This area has some potential activation for swimming but would not be able to cater for significant numbers. This could provide a short term option for activating swimming at the Park, with relatively low cost risk management interventions.
· Sea wall immediately adjacent to open lawn and scattered trees. This area has significant potential for activation for swimming, but would take a larger amount of work to activate the site compared with first site. This could be considered as part of a medium to long term strategy to activate a larger swimming area in the park.
· Sea wall immediately adjacent to the bay run and Callan Park access road. This area has the least potential for activation without significant additional works to the access road and car parking.
Site desirability assessments
Things the community found desirable about the site included the amount of open space and trees around the site, and the attractiveness of the water to walk alongside. The site received lower scores on measures around how safe it felt from accidents and hazards (this is likely to be due to the number of rocks and oyster shells at the riverside), attractiveness of the water for swimming and ease of access via public transport.
Participants selected land based activities as the activity they would most like to do in the future, which is something the site is already widely utilised for. As the site does not have good access to the water for swimming in many places, it was suggested that a floating pontoon, with a netted pool at the end would be a great way for people to access and swim in the water.
Stakeholder workshop
At a stakeholder workshop held in August 2017, stakeholders identified that there may be governance challenges at this site and that any changes would need extensive stakeholder and community engagement. It was also discussed that any changes at the site would need to be sensitive to and conserve the nearby middens. There are issues around access to the water due to lots of oyster shells and the possible hazards in the water.
Next steps
Representatives from Council, OEH, and the PRCG continue to meet on-site to work on the pathway for the site’s activation. Next steps for Callan Park are:
· further engagement with key swim site stakeholders
· determining roles and responsibilities for site activation and management.
D. Support for Inner West Council in the new Cooks River Alliance plans
1. Background of the Cooks River Alliance
The Cooks River Alliance (Alliance) was established as regional coordinating body on 3 May 2011, integrating the previous work of the Cooks River Foreshores Working Group and the Cooks River Sustainability Initiative. The current four member councils of Bayside, Canterbury-Bankstown, Inner West, and Strathfield councils represent 88% of the catchment area and are working with communities and other stakeholders to improve the health of the Cooks River and its catchment.
Between 2012 and 2017, the Alliance delivered over $2 million in works and projects to increase Alliance councils’ capacity for water sensitive urban design, connecting communities with the River, and sharing Aboriginal people’s cultural values and skills in Caring for Country. It was mainly funded by the Australian Government’s National Landcare Programme grant. Works include revegetation and restoration of the Landing Lights Wetlands in Rockdale and seven rain gardens - two in Marrickville (Scouller Street and Murdoch Park).
Inner West Council (previously Marrickville and Ashfield councils) has been a long-term and active partner in organisations aiming to improve the ecological health and water quality of the Cooks River, including bringing a research focus through the CRC Water Sensitive Cities research in the catchment. It has provided ongoing support on the Executive, with the Mayor of Inner West Council, Councillor Byrne being the current Inner West Council representative on the Management Committee and Council’s Urban Ecology Manager on its Executive Committee.
The Cooks River Alliance is proposing a new governance model that invites broader participation from State Government agencies, Sydney Water and the catchment community.
Current work
Cooks River Alliance Strategic Plan
The Alliance is now developing its next four-year strategic plan to 2021, expected to be completed by June 2018. It will include the Alliance mission and strategic priorities with measurable goals for the CRA member councils. Inner West Council has been participating in its development and will work towards ensuring it includes strategies with catchment-wide (stretch) targets for measurable improvements. Key stakeholders, such as the Cooks River Valley Association, are also keen to see and maintain action on the Cooks River and in the catchment. Suggestions include a Cooks Riverkeeper, re-establishing the Cooks River Committee and establishing a ‘Pemulwuy trail’. These suggestions are consistent with the direction with the CRA and Inner West Council and will be covered in the next CRA action plan and relevant Inner West Council strategies for urban ecology, parks, culture and recreation.
Cooks River Catchment Coastal Management Plan
To fulfil the requirements of the new NSW Coastal Management Act 2017 and associated SEPP for member councils, the Alliance is preparing the Cooks River Catchment Coastal Management Plan (CRCCMP) that will take up to four years to complete. The State Government has established a five-stage process for developing coastal management plans and the Alliance has commenced Stage One, the Scoping Study. It is now engaging consultants to prepare the study, expecting it to take nine months.
The study will collect information about the catchment, identify issues and opportunities affecting the area now, and those considered likely in the future, and assess the adequacy of existing management arrangements. This includes a review of priorities, triggers for change and current and planned actions. The scope will include a vision, management plan and objectives and for a whole-of-River catchment plan.
Stage two will then prepare detailed studies of vulnerabilities and opportunities and review Cooks River and catchment governance, its social, economic, political, cultural and Aboriginal contexts relevant to all Alliance councils.
Through the development of the CRCCMP, the Alliance will Inner West Council have a coastal management plan for the Cooks River that provide eligibility for State Government funding for green infrastructure and other actions to achieve catchment wide targets and enable swimmability in local waterways, in the knowledge that the other catchment land owners and managers are required to do the same. The Alliance will also coordinate advocacy, promotion and resources.
CONCLUSION
Inner West Council has made significant achievements in improving the stormwater runoff from the portions of Parramatta River and Cooks River catchments within the LGA by taking a water sensitive community approach to strategic planning to support green infrastructure including WSUD stormwater treatments and harvesting. The ability for Council to continue addressing the issues of water quality and ecological health in the waterways and catchments will be sustained through:
1. Planning at a local level through subcatchment plans for green infrastructure and community and stakeholder action.
2. Developing catchment-wide targets for consistent land use and development controls
3. Working regionally with:
a. the Parramatta River Catchment Group and the Cooks River Alliance on catchment management plans, identifying swim sites, and pollution reduction initiatives
b. Sydney Coastal Councils Group will work with Sydney Water Corporation to address sewer defects and non-compliant connections within the LGA, and other pollution reduction initiatives
4. Maintaining current and developing new research partnerships for Council to keep abreast of leading thinking and technologies the will help improve waterways and enable safe swimming.
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Grants and Fee Scale Policy
Council at its meeting on 10 April 2018 deferred this item to the meeting to be held on 24 April 2018.
Prepared By: Sue Pym - Social Planning Coordinator
Authorised By: Erla Ronan - Group Manager Community Services and Culture
|
SUMMARY The Grants and Fee Scale Policy provides integrated, transparent and equitable processes to govern the allocation of grants and fee scales for Council venues and town halls. The policy aligns Council’s investment in the community with the strategic directions in the Community Strategic Plan, Our Inner West 2036. The attached Grants and Fee Scale Policy (Attachment 1) provides an overarching grants policy for the IWC Grants Guidelines, as well as providing consistent fee scales across Council’s venues and town halls. This report addresses why Council needs an integrated policy; the types of groups and activities accommodated by the proposed fee scale categories; and the potential impacts on regular hirers and Council revenue (powerpoint presentation included in Attachment 2). The policy incorporates Council’s request for policy direction regarding small grants. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT:
1. Council notes the Grants and Fee Scale Policy for the purposes of public exhibition;
2. Once adopted Council implements the Grants and Fee Scale Policy from 1 July 2018, and applies to all bookings for Council venues scheduled for use from 1 Jan 2019;
3. Council trial a quarterly small grants stream component to the Community Wellbeing Grants, effective from 1 July, to be reviewed after 12 months operation;
4. The Community Wellbeing Grant Guidelines be revised to include a new small grant stream (for grants from $200-$500) to ensure these grants are governed in a professional and transparent manner; and
5. Council allocate $2,000 each year from the annual Community Wellbeing Grant budget to fund the new small grant stream. |
BACKGROUND
1. Annual IWC Grants Program
· The integration of the 14 separate grants programs of the three former Council’s into an Inner West Council (IWC) Grants program occurred in 2017. Consequently an integrated package of grant guidelines was developed for the 2017/18 grant round; budgets from former Councils grants were combined; and staff from across Council worked together in a seamless manner to deliver over $742,847[1] to benefit the Inner West community. Although the guidelines and program delivery was integrated, there was no overarching IWC grant policy to underpin these guidelines.
· The grants component of the policy sets out the legislative context, principles and rationale behind the funding of groups to provide a range of community benefits. The detail regarding Council’s five grant programs, including their objectives, eligibility, assessment criteria and conditions is contained in the guidelines listed in Appendix 1 of the attached policy. The guidelines for the NSW Government funded Stronger Communities Grants is also included in the Appendix for information only as these grants do not form part of Council’s own grant program: while Council administers the grants the guidelines, criteria, assessment panel membership and ultimate decision making is not determined by Council.
2. Small grants
On 13 March 2018 Council resolved “THAT the General Manager urgently develops a small donations/financial assistance policy with identified funding sources for consideration by Council at the earliest opportunity”. This resolution was in response to a Notice of Motion regarding the need for a policy to guide Council’s response to ad hoc requests for small community initiatives that may need support before Council’s annual grants are allocated towards the end of each year.
The following considerations have been taken into account in responding to the Council resolution regarding a small donations and financial assistance policy:
· Council’s annual Grants program, provides over $390,000 each year to assist local initiatives. Some of these are small, as little as $500 in some cases and the upper limit is $7,500 per grant. Applicants for these grants must submit thorough applications and are assessed on merit relative to a range of competing applications. Any new funding scheme for small grants must avoid undermining Council’s annual grant by offering funding which is not subject to a similar application and assessment processes.
· The aim of any small grant scheme would be to provide a means of assisting groups requiring assistance for small initiatives in cases where the scale and timing of their project is incompatible with either the IWC grant program (which allocates funding in November/December each year) or the Clubs NSW Clubgrant program (which allocates funding from poker machine revenue from five Inner West licensed clubs in July/August each year).
· Small grant applicants would need to provide reasons why they cannot apply under Council’s annual grant program or Inner West Clubgrants. Organisations should be encouraged to practice sound project planning, including planning ahead to develop local partnerships and applying for grants in a timely manner.
Proposed policy response regarding small grants
· The Environment Grant Program already has a quarterly small grant stream, enabling groups to apply for up to $500 once a year. This model could be built upon to provide small grants to community groups for other purposes.
· It is proposed that financial assistance could be accommodated through a small grants stream application process, incorporated into, and subject to, the Community Wellbeing Grant Program guidelines. These guidelines will require applicants to be subject to the same eligibility criteria, conditions and reporting as the annual grants, however will be available on an as needs basis for a pilot period of 12 months.
· Grants will be for a minimum of $200 and maximum of $500 per applicant per year. It is proposed that the utilisation, effectiveness and value of the small grant stream be reviewed after 12 months of operation, and reported to Council. The small grants provide assistance for community projects and are not designed to support donations and sponsorship requests, which would continue to require a Council resolution.
· Due to the small size and intermittent nature of applications, recommendations on funding will be submitted to the General Manager or delegate for consideration and approval (in contrast to the more substantial annual IWC Grants that are approved through Council resolution).
· As these small grants would form part of the IWC Grants Program, information regarding the availability of small grants will be included on the grants page of council’s website.
· It is proposed $2,000 would be allocated from the annual Community Wellbeing grant budget each year to fund these incidental applications and one-off requests.
· Applications that have already been successful in receiving an IWC grant, cannot apply for a small grant.
· The Community Wellbeing Grant Guidelines contained in the attached policy have been amended to incorporate these one-off requests for financial assistance. It is proposed that the small grant scheme commences in the first quarter of 2018/19.
3. Fee Scales guiding concessional rates at Council’s halls and venues
Background to the fee scale policy
There has been no integration of the various fee scales that determine the level of fee subsidy for groups hiring Council’s venues and town halls. Consequently, there is no consistency between the rate of subsidy available to groups across the Council area. This means we currently have the same group paying different rates for the same activity, depending on which former LGA the venue is located within. For example, support groups such as Alcoholic Anonymous receives a 100% subsidy for venues in Ashfield and Marrickville, while in Leichhardt they receive an 80% subsidy. Multicultural dancing groups receive a 100% subsidy in Ashfield; 50% subsidy in Leichhardt and 73% subsidy (depending on booking duration) in Marrickville. Community groups are understandably confused about the varying levels of subsidy that exists across the Council.
Some initial fee scale integration work was undertaken in 2017 in response to Council’s 6 December 2016 resolution “that Council undertakes a review of fees and charges and relevant policies for fee waivers and concessions with a view to consistency, equity and transparency across the LGA”. A draft policy was considered by the Leadership Group, the Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) and the Local Representation Advisory Committee (LRAC). The LRAC recommendation on 11 April 2017 (L0417, Item 4) was that:
1. The report be received and noted
2. The IWC LRAC does not support:
· The proposal to abolish the full fee waiver category for not for profit groups that help to build the sense of community that is a critical part of the culture and ethos of the inner west
· The charging of Parents and Citizens and religious groups 50% of the hire rate
· Charging not for profit groups 100% of the hire rate for fundraising activities.
3. Council do not charge resident committees or activist groups along the lines of what was consistent with former policies of Councils
4. A revised Community Resourcing Policy report which includes the issues raised tonight be prepared for the next LRAC meeting.
Benchmarking
The following table indicates the fee scales from a selection of other Councils. It shows the differing rates based on the nature of the organisation. The rates proposed in the new IWC policy provides higher fee subsidies for not for profit groups than is the case with this sample of Councils:
|
Council |
Commercial/private |
NFP organisations (percentage of full rate paid) |
Other (percentage of full rate paid) |
|
Burwood |
100% |
Approx. 70% |
Burwood based community and seniors- 23% |
|
Ryde |
100% |
Funded Community groups pay 50% (majority of their groups fall into this category) |
Unfunded community groups pay 10% |
|
Rockdale (now Bayside) |
100% category A |
Local NFP approx. 50% |
Free use for 3 musical groups and seniors groups using senior Citizen centres |
|
Canada Bay |
100% category 1 |
Varies between venues 50% -approximately 80% |
|
|
Canterbury Bankstown |
100% |
50% ( some variability reflecting different approaches between the 2 former Councils) |
|
Current IWC fee subsidies
The following table indicates the complexity and inconsistencies of the current fee subsidies as they relate to different categories of hirers across the IWC area:
|
2017/2018 |
|||||
|
Ashfield |
100% Fee Subsidy for Local NFPs who receive no formal funding (Category 3) |
65% Fee Subsidy for Local NFP Groups (Category 2) |
50% Fee Subsidy for Not For Profit (NFP) Groups from outside LGA; including church groups (Category 1) |
0% Fee Subsidy for Commercial and Private hirers |
|
|
Marrickville |
100% Fee Subsidy for Unincorporated Community Organisations for up to 4 hours/day (Monday-Friday). Any additional use will not receive further subsidy (conditions apply) (Category 5) |
100% Fee Subsidy for NFP groups for up to 4 hours/day (Monday-Friday). Any additional use will not receive further subsidy, conditions apply (Category 2) |
73-85% Fee Subsidy for Concession Cardholders at limited venues (Category 4) |
73% Fee Subsidy for NFP Groups (that charge participants) for up to 4 hours/day. Any additional use will not receive further subsidy (conditions apply) (Category 3) |
0% Fee Subsidy for Commercial and Private hirers (Category 1) |
|
Leichhardt |
100% Subsidy activities granted through application process addressing specific policy criteria |
80% Fee Subsidy for Support Groups (Support Rate) |
50% Fee Subsidy for NFP groups; sole traders offering affordable community well-being programs (Community Rate) |
0% Fee Subsidy for Commercial and Private hirers |
|
Proposed new IWC fee subsidies
The following table outlines the proposed new fee scales to apply consistently across the IWC area. The categories have been simplified into just 3 levels of fee subsidy, based largely on the type of organisation and the nature and affordability of the activity for local residents.
|
Subsidy |
Organisation |
Activity Type |
Examples |
|
|
1 |
100% |
• Incorporated NFP organisation • Unincorporated local NFP group |
• Service that enables achievement of specific Community Strategic Plan objective for local residents; and • Where there is evidence that payment of a fee for venue use will prevent the activity from occurring |
• Recognised social support eg Alcoholics Anonymous, GA, NA., for their weekly meeting, • Men’s Group • Seniors and cultural social support • Play groups • Local meetings of registered political organisations • Local youth band rehearsals |
|
2 |
50% |
• Incorporated NFP organisation • Unincorporated local NFP group • Sole traders with public liability insurance |
• Service that enables achievement of specific Community Strategic Plan objective for local residents; and • A fee over $2 is charged for membership/ participation • Offering community focused activities, and discounted access to health care card holders |
• Dance groups • Yoga for cancer patients • Painting classes • U3A • P&C fundraiser • Charity event with over 50% beneficiaries being local residents |
|
• Religious institutions (ATO defined) |
• Religious services |
• Weekend church service |
||
|
3 |
0% |
• Commercial hirers • Private functions • Activities where IWC residents comprise less than 50% of participants |
• Activities designed for benefit of the for profit sector • Activities that are for the benefit of a private individual or organisation that is not open to the general public • Community activities designed to cater for residents of other Council areas |
• Sales conference • Birthday parties, weddings • Activities of a metropolitan-wide club |
Anticipated impacts of new IWC fee scale on 126 regular hirers
|
Proposed Fee Subsidy |
Eligible Groups |
Impact on Organisations |
|
TOTALS |
126 |
119 Groups benefit or experience no change 7 Groups will be consulted and worked with over 3 years to migrate into model |
|
100% subsidy |
87 |
17 Groups, originally in 80% Fee Subsidy, migrate to 100% Fee Subsidy 2 Groups migrate to 0% Fee Subsidy due to “Majority Participants Outside IWC LGA” |
|
50% |
37 |
5 Groups within the 65% and 73% Fee Subsidy ranges migrate to 50% Fee Subsidy |
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The following represents an estimate of possible impacts:
• Overall the proposed new fee scales aim to be cost neutral to current income
• The 100% subsidy for all support groups will likely result in a decrease in revenue from support groups of $14,500
• It is anticipated that 7 out of the 126 regular hirers will be impacted:
o If they meet the criteria for 50% subsidy: revenue may increase by approximately $38,000
o If they meet criteria for 100% subsidy, revenue may decrease by approximately $74,000
Finance have been consulted around the potential financial impacts of implementing the proposed Fees and Charges Policy. Review will occur in Quarter 3 of the next Financial Year.
If your report has resourcing or budget implications above your current allocation of resources or budget, please contact Pav (x2040) or Caroline Bugg (x2043). Please enter “Nil.” if there are no financial implications.
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
Include comments from other staff here.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Staff have met with 7 groups that have been identified as being potentially impacted by the policy. They have outlined in general terms the proposed fee scales, and discussed the proposed phasing in period over 36 months to enable each group to address sustainability issues.
The draft policy will be on public exhibition for one month. During this time, Council staff will continue discussions with affected groups.
CONCLUSION
The proposed new IWC Grants and Fee Scale Policy addresses the need for a transparent, consistent and equitable approach to the way Council provides financial and in-kind assistance to community groups to enable them to deliver community benefits.
Start typing the “conclusion” section here.
|
1.⇩ |
Draft IWC Grants and Fee Scale Policy |
|
2.⇩ |
Powerpoint presentation- Briefing on Draft Grants and Fee Scale Policy |
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Leichhardt Flood Study and Estuarine Planning Levels Study and Flood Management Advisory Committee meeting held 14 December 2017
Council at its meeting on 10 April 2018 deferred this item to the meeting to be held on 24 April 2018.
Prepared By: Christine Phillips - Stormwater and Development Engineer
Authorised By: Wal Petschler - Group Manager Footpaths, Roads, Traffic and Stormwater
|
SUMMARY This report recommends that Council adopts the Leichhardt Flood Study, the Leichhardt Estuarine Planning Levels Study, the Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan, the Marrickville Valley Flood Risk Management Study and Plan and the draft DCP amendments to Appendix E (Water Guidelines) Sections 4 and 5, of the Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013. The draft amendments involve changes to the maps that identify those properties which are designated as flood control lots and foreshore control lots.
This report also recommends that Council adopt the Minutes of the Inner West Council Flood Management Advisory Committee meeting held on 14 December 2017, which includes the adoption of the Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan and adoption of the Marrickville Valley Flood Risk Management Study and Plan. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council
1. Adopt the draft amendments to update the Flood Control Lot Maps and the Foreshore Flood Control Lot Maps in Appendix E (Water Guidelines) Sections 4 and 5 of the Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013, in accordance with Clause 21 of the Environmental Planning Assessment Regulation 2000;
2. Place a notice in a local newspaper advising of the commencement of the amendments to Sections 4 and 5 of Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 that incorporate the updated Flood Control Lot Maps and the Foreshore Flood Control Lot Maps detailed in Part 1 of the recommendation;
3. Adopt the Leichhardt Flood Study – Volume 1 & Volume 2 (Cardno, 2015 & 2014) and Estuarine Planning Levels Study (Cardno, 2010); and
4. Receive the minutes and adopt the recommendations of the Inner West Council Flood Management Advisory Committee held on 14 December 2017, which includes the adoption of the Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan (Cardno, November 2017) and adoption of the Marrickville Valley Flood Risk Management Study and Plan (Cardno, September 2017).
|
BACKGROUND
Leichhardt Flood Study and Estuarine Planning Levels Study
In July 2009, Leichhardt Council adopted flood related development controls within its Development Control Plan 2000 (DCP 2000) along with associated Flood Control Lot mapping that identified properties that are affected by flooding. The flood control lot mapping was based on preliminary results of a Council-wide flood study and estuarine planning levels study that were being prepared by specialist consultants for Council.
In 2010, when the draft Leichhardt Flood Study was completed, the mapping was refined, resulting in a number of properties being added or removed. Amendments to the flood control lot mapping were placed on exhibition and there were a number of submissions made by affected property owners. All submissions were reviewed and the draft Flood Study was peer reviewed, resulting in minor amendments to the mapping and Flood Study.
The amendments included the removal of 21 properties and the addition of 2 properties to the flood control lot mapping, together with the removal of 2 properties from the foreshore flood control lot mapping. Consequently, the mapping identifies 3,129 properties as being flood affected, of which around 15% are estimated to be subject to flooding above the floor level.
At the Council meeting held on 25 November 2014 Council resolved the following:
1. That the proposed amendments to Section 4 – Flood Control Lot Maps and Section 5 – Foreshore Flood Control Lots of Appendix E: Water Guidelines of Development Control Plan 2013 be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 and Council’s Community Engagement Framework.
2. That the revised draft Leichhardt Flood Study be publicly exhibited concurrently with the proposed amendments to the Flood Control Lot Maps in DCP 2013 in accordance with Council’s Community Engagement Framework.
3. That a report be presented to Council at the conclusion of the exhibition period to allow consideration of any submissions received.
This report provides the results of the public exhibition in relation to the draft Leichhardt Flood Study, the Estuarine Planning Levels Study and the draft amendments to the Flood Control Lot Maps in the Leichhardt DCP 2013.
Inner West Council Flood Management Advisory Committee held on 14 December 2017
A meeting of the Inner West Council Flood Management Advisory Committee was held on 14 December 2017. The Business Paper of this meeting, included as Attachment 3, provides the full details of the matters considered. The Minutes of this meeting, included as Attachment 4, provide a summary of the discussion which occurred at the meeting and provide recommendations to Council for consideration and adoption.
The Committee recommended THAT:
a) Council adopt the Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan dated November 2017.
b) Council adopt the Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan dated September 2017.
The Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan (Cardno, November 2017) and the Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan (Cardno, September 2017) are available via the Floodplain Committee page of Council’s website and can be accessed using the following link https://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/council/meetings/committees/flood-management-advisory-committee/flood-management-advisory-committee
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan and the Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan include recommendations for a number of structural management options, such as stormwater drainage upgrades; however they do not present a prescribed schedule for these works. Works will be considered as part of Council’s forward capital works program. Many of the structural management options will cost many millions of dollars to implement. Consequently, implementation of some of the options are reliant on contributions from external sources including Sydney Water, Roads and Maritime Services, financial assistance from the Office of Environment and Heritage under their Floodplain Management Program and through developments undertaken within flood prone land.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Public Exhibition of the Draft DCP Amendments to Appendix E (Water Guidelines) Sections 4 and 5 of the Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 and Public Exhibition of the draft Leichhardt Flood Study and Estuarine Planning Levels Study
The Amendments to remove 21 properties and the addition of 2 properties to the flood control lot mapping, together with the removal of 2 properties from the foreshore flood control lot mapping within the Leichhardt Development Control Plan were placed on public exhibition between Tuesday 2 February 2015 and Tuesday 3 March 2015, in accordance with the requirements of clause 18 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (EP&A Regulation).
During the exhibition period Council responded to approximately 37 telephone and face to face enquiries in relation to the draft DCP and the identification of flood control lots. A total of 20 written submissions were received from local residents, business owners and a public authority (Sydney Ports) and included additional submissions from some of those who had made submissions in 2010. Of these submissions all raised objections and provided comment on the identification of flood control lots. As part of this process, Council considered the submissions that were received during the exhibition period in 2010, resulting in a total of 56 objections, 15 of which related to properties that were already included on the mapping and were not affected by the proposed amendments.
An analysis of the most common issues or groups of issues raised in the submissions is detailed in Attachment 1. Each individual submission from the 2010 and 2015 exhibition periods is summarised and a response provided by Council officers in Attachment 2.
An analysis of the nature and extent of flooding was undertaken for each property for which an objection was received by a Review Panel made up of the Manager Parks and Assets and the Team Leader Stormwater & Development from the former Leichhardt Council and the Project Manager and Project Engineer from Cardno.
The Panel recommended no further amendments to the proposed Flood Control Lot mapping.
A sensitivity analysis was undertaken by Cardno in response to the concerns raised in the peer review. The Leichhardt Flood Study was amended to include a summary of the sensitivity analysis as Section 11.2.1 Peer Review.
Residents who made submissions during the 2010 and 2015 exhibition periods were provided with another opportunity during the public exhibition of the draft Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan in 2017 to ask further questions to further improve their understanding of the flooding as it impacts on their properties.
Adoption of the Leichhardt Flood Study and the Estuarine Planning Levels Study was postponed during preparation of the Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan when it became evident that a revision of the flood models developed for the Flood Study was needed. The amendments reflected several major upgrades to drainage infrastructure in Balmain as well as confirmation of drainage infrastructure connections, sizes and location that were previously uncertain in Balmain, Rozelle and Lilyfield. The modifications resulted in the addition of a further seven (7) properties to the Flood Control Lot Mapping and the deletion of a further 22 properties from the Flood Control Lot Mapping. These further changes to the Flood Control Lot Mapping were exhibited as part of the exhibition of the draft Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan in 2017.
The total amendments to the Flood Control Lot Mapping and Foreshore Flood Control Lot Mapping as a result of both exhibition periods (2015 and 2017) are as follows:
· The addition of a total of 9 properties to the Flood Control Lot Mapping
· The removal of a total of 43 properties from the Flood Control Lot Mapping
· The removal of a total of 2 properties from the Foreshore Flood Control Lot Mapping
The Leichhardt Flood Study and Estuarine Planning Levels Study are available via links on the Floodplain Committee page of Council’s website and can be accessed using the following link https://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/council/meetings/committees/flood-management-advisory-committee/flood-management-advisory-committee
Public Exhibition of the draft Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan
The draft Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan was placed on public exhibition for a period of 6 weeks from the 15th of August 2017 to the 29th of September 2017. During the public exhibition period, the community and interested parties reviewed the draft study and plan and submitted comments on the study and plan and its outcomes.
Two community information sessions were held during the public exhibition period to present the findings of the study and plan and seek input from the community. The first information session was held on the 29 August 2017 at Leichhardt Town Hall Council Chamber and the second was held on the 30 August 2017 at Balmain Town Hall Meeting Room. A notification of these sessions was placed in the Inner West Courier on 15th and 22nd of August 2017 and on Council’s website. Letters of invitation to attend were extended to owners of all properties identified as Flood Control Lots or Foreshore Flood Control Lots.
Community members were invited to view the study and plan and indicate the extent of their support for both. Community members were also able to provide comment on which options they support, which options they do not support and any matters related to flood mitigations and management that had not been addressed in the study and plan.
During the exhibition period the webpage was visited 989 times and project documents were downloaded 866 times. A total of thirty-three submissions were received through the Council’s website.
During the exhibition period Council also received approximately 40 queries via telephone. Around 90% of these calls were received within two days of the start of the exhibition period. Most of them were from residents with queries about the purpose of the study, and its impact on their property, if any. Following clarification of their queries by Council, the majority of the callers were in support of the FRMSP. Around three residents disputed the accuracy of the Flood Study which resulted in the inclusion of their property as a flood control lot. These were based on their experience of observing no flooding near their property.
Council also received 10 feedback emails during the exhibition period, plus four (4) feedback forms at the community workshops and one (1) feedback form via a submissions box at the Leichhardt Library. Feedback was also received from Council’s Development Advisory Service.
Of all the submissions received from the public exhibition (including via emails and telephone), the majority of the interest from residents was for the Hawthorne Canal and Whites Creek options assessment. Options FM1, FM3, and FM13 for Whites Creek received strongest support, endorsing the desirability for implementing these flood mitigation options.
Council’s Development Advisory Service raised concerns that several of the Property Modification (PM) options and recommendations do not sufficiently consider protection of the heritage fabric and the built environment. The relevant chapters of the study and plan have been amended to include the following:
"It is noted that the there are no flood related provisions in the DCP for development in heritage conservation areas. Given that some of the heritage conservation areas within the study area are flood affected, it is recommended that Council consider provisions of flood related controls in the DCP for development in heritage conservation areas."
Council also received several comments from residents whose properties are classified as Flood Control lots. They voiced their concerns and desire for removing their property from the Flood Control Lot maps. Council’s Stormwater and Development Engineer contacted those residents to explain the process for classifying a property as a Flood Control Lot and implications of the classification for them.
A summary of submissions received and responses to those submissions are provided in Appendix G of the Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan.
Based on the submissions received, any adjustment or further assessment to address issues raised was not warranted.
Public Exhibition of the draft Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan
The Draft Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan was placed on public exhibition from 24 July 2017 to 27 August 2017. The plan was made available on Council’s ‘Your Say Inner West’ webpage and the exhibition promoted through Council’s e-newsletter. Community members were invited to view the plan and indicate the extent of their support for the plan. Community members were also able to provide comment on which options they support, which options they do not support and whether there were any other flood affected areas that had not been addressed in the plan.
During the exhibition period, the webpage was visited 201 times and the project documents were downloaded 78 times. Eight submissions were received through the website and one submission was received via email. Six survey submissions were received from residents of Marrickville, with one submission each from residents of St Peters and Dulwich Hill. Of the eight submissions received four submissions strongly supported the draft plan, three submissions supported the plan, and one submission neither supported nor opposed the plan.
When asked to consider options they supported, half the submissions indicated their support for the options that alleviate flooding on Lawson Avenue. There were no specific options that were not supported, however, two submissions noted that not all options have been covered and raised suggestions for the dredging of Cooks River. Two submissions indicated that their properties were not addressed in the plan and concerns were raised about the flood impacts of new and proposed developments in the catchment.
An email submission from the Marrickville Croquet Club raised concerns about the impact to the club grounds as a result of the proposed option of regrading Lawson Avenue to direct flows into the park.
A summary of submissions received and responses to those submissions are provided in Appendix F of the Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study. Based on the submissions received, any adjustment or further assessment to address issues raised was not warranted based on the outcomes of the public exhibition.
CONCLUSION
Draft DCP Amendments to Appendix E (Water Guidelines) Sections 4 and 5 of the Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 and Public Exhibition of the draft Leichhardt Flood Study and Estuarine Planning Levels Study
The Leichhardt Flood Study and Leichhardt Estuarine Planning Levels Study are a result of a comprehensive analysis of flooding and foreshore inundation using highly sophisticated computer modelling developed in accordance with and jointly funded under the NSW Government’s Floodplain and Estuary Management Programs, respectively.
These studies have been utilised to prepare flood control lot mapping based on the guidelines set out in the NSW Government’s Floodplain Development Manual. The mapping is utilised to identify those properties that are subject to flood related development controls in Council’s Leichhardt Development Control Plan (DCP 2013). The Flood Control Lot Mapping is provided in Figures 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 and the Foreshore Flood Control Lot Mapping is provided in Figures 12.4, and 12.5 of Leichhardt Flood Study - Volume 2 (Cardno, 2014) respectively.
Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan
The Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan identifies that the proposed emergency response measures should be implemented as the first planned risk management action.
The Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan does not recommend a specific works plan for implementation of the property modification and flood modification measures. Instead the Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan identifies a series of structural flood modification measures and property modification measures that have merit for implementation when the opportunity arises. A sound basis is provided from which Council can make decisions about the undertaking of works, making planning decisions and developing response arrangements to reduce the impact of flooding on property and life.
Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan
The Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study examined a range of flood modification, property modification and emergency management options aimed at reducing the likelihood and / or consequences of flooding.
An implementation plan of the recommended management options was developed and is provided in the Executive Summary as well as Chapter 5 of the Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Plan. The implementation plan is based on the preferred options from the Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study. Prioritisation of options has been based on the Multi-Criteria Assessment scores and opportunities for integration with other works.
The implementation plan lists the following information relevant to the implementation of the management actions:
· An estimate of capital costs for each structural action;
· The multi-criteria assessment scores;
· The agency or organisation likely to be responsible for the action and/or funding;
· The priority for implementation (high, medium, or low) as an outcome of the FRMS; and
· Criteria to consider for implementation.
The measures identified in the implementation plan represent a capital outlay of approximately $35.3M over the life of the plan. However, high and medium priority actions have a total cost of approximately $18.5M.
Similar to the Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan, works will generally be undertaken when and as funding becomes available, as well as when various opportunities might arise specifically for an option. Notwithstanding this, the non-structural measures can generally be implemented in the short term (approx. 3 years), as they are relatively low in capital expenditure and generally revolve around policy and information; and priority structural measures can generally be considered in the medium term (approx. 20 years), and will be implemented as funding and opportunities arise.
|
1.⇩ |
Public Exhibition of the Leichhardt Flood Study 2010 and 2015 - Analysis of Issues Raised |
|
2.⇩ |
Public Exhibition of the Leichhardt Flood Study 2010 and 2015 - Summary of Submissions and Responses |
|
3.⇩ |
Business Paper Inner West Council Flood Management Advisory Committee Meeting 14 December 2017 |
|
4.⇩ |
Minutes of the Inner West Council Flood Management Advisory Committee Meeting 14 December 2017 |
The following attachments are available via links on the Floodplain Committee page of Council’s website and can be accessed using the following link https://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/council/meetings/committees/flood-management-advisory-committee/flood-management-advisory-committee
|
5. |
Leichhardt Flood Study - Volume 1 (Cardno 2015) |
|
6. |
Leichhardt Flood Study - Volume 2 (Cardno, 2014) |
|
7. |
Leichhardt Estuarine Planning Levels Study (Cardno, 2010) |
|
8. |
Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study (Cardno, November 2017) |
|
9. |
Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Plan (Cardno, November 2017) |
|
10. |
Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study - Appendix (Cardno, November 2017) |
|
11. |
Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study (Cardno, September 2017) |
|
12. |
Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study - Appendix (Cardno, September 2017) |
|
13. |
Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Plan (Cardno, September 2017) |
|
Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Plan - Appendix (Cardno, September 2017) |
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Post Exhibition Report - Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 - Amendment to Part 2.22 Flood Management
Council at its meeting on 10 April 2018 deferred this item to the meeting to be held on 24 April 2018.
Prepared By: Peter Wotton - Strategic Planning Projects Coordinator
Authorised By: David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning
|
SUMMARY This report addresses submissions received in response to the public notification of a proposed amendment to Part 2.22 Flood Management of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (MDCP 2011) to update the Flood Planning Area Map and Flood Liable Land Map. The proposed amendment is known as Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (Amendment No. 7).
The proposed amendment seeks to update the Development Control Plan (DCP) maps to be consistent with the Johnstons Creek, Alexandra Canal and Hawthorne Canal flood studies adopted by Council at its meeting on 25 July 2017.
The proposed amendment was publicly exhibited from 17 October 2017 to 21 November 2017. As part of the community consultation, letters were sent to the property owners of affected properties. Over 2,900 properties were notified of the public exhibition of the proposed amendment.
15 submissions were received in response to the exhibition of the proposed amendment with 3 additional written requests to Council’s Stormwater Development Engineer.
This report provides a review of the feedback from the public exhibition.
It is considered that the submissions do not raise issues that warrant not proceeding with the proposed amendment.
The report recommends that Council adopt the publicly exhibited draft MDCP 2011 (Amendment No. 7) to update the Flood Planning Area Map and Flood Liable Land Map in Part 2.22 – Flood Management to incorporate the adopted flood studies for Johnstons Creek, Alexandra Canal and Hawthorn Canal.
|
|
THAT Council:
1. Receive and note the report;
2. Adopt Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (Amendment No. 7) to update the Flood Planning Area Map and Flood Liable Land Map in Part 2.22 – Flood Management to incorporate the adopted flood studies for Johnstons Creek, Alexandra Canal and Hawthorn Canal;
3. Place a notice in a local newspaper advising of the commencement of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (Amendment No. 7); and
4. Notify those persons who made a submission in relation to Draft Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (Amendment No. 7) to inform them of Council’s decision. |
BACKGROUND
Council at its meeting on 25 July 2017 (Item 16 CO0717) considered a report on proposed amendments to Part 2.22 Flood Management of MDCP 2011 to update the Flood Planning Area Map and the Flood Liable Land Map to incorporate the additional flood affected properties that have been identified in the adopted Flood Studies.
A copy of that report is attached as ATTACHMENT 1.
In dealing with the matter Council resolved:
“THAT Council:
1. Receive and note the report;
2. Adopt the updated Flood Planning Area Map in ATTACHMENT 1 and the updated Flood Liable Land Map in ATTACHMENT 2; and
3. Resolve to publicly exhibit draft Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (Amendment No. 7) to amend Part 2.22 – Flood Management to incorporate the updated Flood Planning Area Map in ATTACHMENT 1 and the updated Flood Liable Land Map in ATTACHMENT 2.”
The following table provides a breakdown of the number of existing and additional properties identified as flood affected in the respective flood study areas:
Table 1: Properties identified as Flood Affected in the respective flood study areas:
|
|
Properties identified as Flood Affected |
||
|
Flood Study Area |
Existing properties identified |
Additional properties identified |
Total identified properties |
|
Alexandra Canal |
22 |
58 |
80 |
|
Johnstons Creek |
194 |
219 |
413 |
|
Hawthorne Canal |
40 |
287 |
327 |
|
TOTAL |
256 |
564 |
820 |
Draft MDCP 2011 (Amendment No. 7) was publicly exhibited in accordance with Council’s resolution from 17 October 2017 to 21 November 2017.
It should also be noted that following the adoption of the Johnstons Creek Flood Study, the Alexandra Canal Flood Study, and the reviewed Hawthorne Canal Flood Study, notations have been placed on Section 10.7 Planning Certificates (formerly known as Section 149 Planning Certificates) issued for those properties in “ITEM 7A Flood related development controls information” that the land is identified as flood affected according to the respective Flood Study.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
The proposed amendment to Part 2.22 Flood Management of MDCP 2011 to update the Flood Planning Area Map and Flood Liable Land Map was exhibited from 17 October 2017 to 21 November 2017.
As part of that community engagement process, letters were sent to the individual property owners and occupiers of flood affected land. Over 2,900 letters were sent out advising of the public exhibition of the proposed amendment.
Council’s Your Say Inner West Website, the portal to review the exhibition material, received 220 visits and 236 downloads.
149 participants were informed by visiting the page and doing something while they were on the page (e.g. opened a document, clicked on a picture etc). 10 participants filled in a survey. 186 participants were visitors who didn’t take any further action on the website.
Council’s Storm Water and Development Engineer, the contact person during the exhibition period, received 3 written requests and spoke to 10 residents.
A total of 15 submissions were received in response to the community engagement, all of which were opposed to the proposed amendment to the DCP. Many cited concerns regarding the 1:100 year flood event and the identification of their land as flood affected. Many submissions questioned the analysis and detail on how their property was identified as being flood affected.
General Comments:
What is a 100 year flood event?
A 100 year flood event is a flood that is predicted to occur on average once every 100 years. There is a 1% probability of it occurring in any given year. However, if an area has had a 100 year flood, it doesn’t mean that it would be another 99 years before the next one happens. For example, the last time the Brisbane River flooded before the 2011 disaster was in 1974. These were both 100 year events.
A 100 year flood is also expressed as a 1% AEP flood event. This is the Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) and is the chance of a storm of a given intensity and duration happening at least once in any year.
The 100 year flood, or 1% AEP, is used as the standard for identifying flood affected properties and determining residential development controls.
How did Council determine if a property is flood affected?
Properties flooded in a 1% AEP storm event, where more than 10% of the property area is inundated and the flood depth is greater than 0.15 metres, are initially identified as being flood affected.
Each property is then reviewed to determine if it is either:
· Exposed to water depths generally in excess of 0.3 metres in or adjacent to the property, as this may be dangerous, cause property damage or both; and/or
· Located in the floodplain of an original watercourse (which may now be piped, channelised or diverted), or sloping areas where overland flows develop along alternative paths once the capacity of the stormwater system is exceeded; and/or
· Located in a major overland flow path through developed areas outside of defined drainage reserves.
This process ensures that only those properties which are subjected to a genuine flood risk are identified.
The Flood Studies were carried out, on Council’s behalf, by hydraulic engineering consultants with extensive experience and expertise in this field. The Flood Studies were undertaken in accordance with the Floodplain Development Manual: The Management of Flood Liable Land (NSW Government, 2005). In accordance with the Manual, the Flood Studies identified properties that are likely to be affected specifically in the case of a 1 in 100 year flood event.
Several submissions called for better management of Council’s storm water system in the first instance and the need to respond more proactively to increased development in the area and to upgrade the storm water system to deal with it.
Maintenance of stormwater infrastructure
Council maintains the public stormwater system. Typically pits are cleaned twice per year. Pits which are susceptible to blockage, such as those in areas with large amounts of trees, are cleaned once per fortnight. Other infrastructure, such as pipes and channels, are inspected periodically and cleaned as required as part of a planned inspection and maintenance program.
Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan
Given that Council has now completed key steps in the plan updating process it will now prepare associated risk management plans for each of the flood catchment areas.
The Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan evaluates management options for the floodplain in respect of both existing and proposed development and develops a plan of management for the floodplain. The measures that can be implemented to manage flood risks can also be separated into three broad categories:
· Flood modification measures modify the flood’s physical behaviour (depth, velocity) and include flood mitigation dams, retarding basins, on-site detention, channel modifications, diversions, levees, floodways, flood gates or catchment treatment.
· Property modification measures modify land use including development controls. This is generally accomplished through such means as flood proofing (e.g. house raising or sealing entrances), planning and building regulations (such as zoning) or voluntary purchase, among others.
· Response modification measures modify the community’s response to flood hazard by informing flood affected property owners about the nature of flooding so that they can make informed decisions. Examples of such measures include provision of flood warning and emergency services, improved information, awareness and education of the community and provision of flood insurance.
Review of Submissions:
Post exhibition Council’s Storm Water and Development Engineer reviewed all the submissions and contacted those persons who made submissions in relation to the proposed amendment. An analysis of the submissions received and a response to the issues raised are detailed in ATTACHMENT 2.
In essence, the review of submissions and discussion with the submitters confirmed the lots as being flood control lots.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Nil, apart from advertising the coming into effect of the amendment and costs associated with updating Council’s planning documents and the planning controls on Council’s website to reflect the approved amendments. These will be funded from within existing Operating Budget allocations.
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
Nil.
CONCLUSION
Local councils are responsible for managing the flood risk in their local government areas. The Floodplain Development Manual: The Management of Flood Liable Land (NSW Government, 2005) outlines the risk management process which assists councils in making informed decisions on managing flood risk to existing and future development through the development and implementation of flood studies and risk management plans.
Council has now completed the key steps in the process and will now prepare risk management plans for each flood catchment area.
Updating the DCP maps to align with the adopted flood studies is required to ensure a comprehensive and agreed approach to flood management.
The submissions received in response to the public notification of Draft MDCP 2011 (Amendment No. 7) did not raise any substantive issues to warrant changes being made to the updated Flood Planning Area Map or the Flood Liable Land Map exhibited as part of draft MDCP 2011 (Amendment No. 7).
It is recommended that Council adopt the publicly exhibited MDCP 2011 (Amendment 7) to amend Part 2.22 – Flood Management to incorporate the updated Flood Planning Area Map and updated Flood Liable Land Map and to place a public notice to give effect to those changes.
|
1.⇩ |
Council Report C0717 Item 16 (25 July 2017) |
|
2.⇩ |
Submissions Summary - Proposed amendments to Part 2.22 Flood Management of MDCP 2011 |
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Planning Proposal and Draft Development Control Plan - 17 Marion Street, Leichhardt: Community Consultation Outcomes
Prepared By: Gunika Singh - Strategic Planner
Authorised By: David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning
|
SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the outcomes of community consultation undertaken for a Planning Proposal for 17 Marion Street, Leichhardt and an associated draft Development Control Plan 2013 amendment. The Proposal will facilitate redevelopment of the site for seniors housing. The report also seeks endorsement from Council to proceed to finalise the amendments to Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 (LLEP) and Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 (LDCP). |
|
THAT Council:
1. Amend the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 (LLEP) for 17 Marion Street, Leichhardt as detailed in this report; 2. Liaise with the NSW Parliamentary Counsel's Office and the NSW Department of Planning and Environment to draft and finalise the LLEP amendment; 3. Delegate the making of the LLEP to the General Manager; 4. Following the completion of (3) above, request the Department of Planning and Environment to notify the Plan; and 5. Adopt the draft Development Control Plan for 17 Marion Street, Leichhardt. |
BACKGROUND
In April 2017, City Plan Services on behalf of Uniting lodged a Planning Proposal with Council for 17 Marion Street, Leichhardt - Annesley House. The Planning Proposal requested an amendment to LLEP seeking the following planning controls:
· A maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 2.4:1;
· A maximum building height of RL 57.50;
· Additional 3m height for the provision of ancillary building elements related to the provision of communal open space on the roof;
· Use - Residential Aged Care Facility (90 - 95 beds) and Independent Living Units (ILUs, total 20 units);
· Restrict the maximum development capacity to seniors housing only; and
· The maximum development capacity in the LLEP to be available only if the development does not rely upon the bonus floor space provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 (SEPP 2004).
The Planning Proposal and the associated draft LDCP had a larger building with a higher FSR than the built form that was established with the former Leichhardt Council through community forums, and based on development principles devised by Council's urban designers AJ+C in a Uniting/Council Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
The proponent's Planning Proposal was reported to the 25 July 2017 Council meeting where the Administrator resolved (C0717 Item 10) the following:
1. Receive and note this report and attachments;
2. Resolve to support the revised Planning Proposal as outlined in this Report;
3. Resolve to forward the revised Planning Proposal to the Minister for Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;
4. Delegate the preparation of a revised draft Development Control Plan (DCP) that will reflect the revised Planning Proposal to the General Manager;
5. Upon the receipt of the Gateway Determination, the Planning Proposal should be put on public exhibition to meet the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The revised DCP should be exhibited concurrently and public authorities be consulted in accordance with the Gateway Determination; and
6. That a post exhibition report be prepared for Council consideration.
Consequently, the Planning Proposal and draft LDCP were amended to reflect the maximum FSR of 2:1 stated in the MOU. The revised Planning Proposal and draft LDCP were forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) on 7 November 2017.
This Planning Proposal seeks to amend the LLEP to enable the redevelopment of the former Annesley House at 17 Marion Street, Leichhardt for a seniors' housing development with affordable residential units and minimal adverse impacts.
The proposed outcome will be achieved by including a new local provision in the LLEP that:
1. Confirms the objective of the proposed amendment as enabling a seniors housing development with minimal adverse impacts;
2. Includes requirements for:
o A maximum floor space ratio of 2:1;
o A maximum building height of RL 57.5 and 5 storeys;
o 15% of the dwellings to comply with the SEPP 2004 definition of an affordable place;
3. Restricts the maximum development capacity to seniors housing only; and
4. Stipulates that this maximum development capacity in the LLEP will only be available if the development does not rely upon the bonus floor space provisions of the SEPP 2004.
The proposed outcomes also require an amendment to LLEP Key Sites Map for 17 Marion Street, Leichhardt in accordance with the proposed Key Sites Map as attached in the Planning Proposal.
Figure 1 - Extract from the proposed Key Sites Map under LLEP
Council received a Gateway Determination from the DP&E on 11 December 2017. The Gateway Determination required community consultation for a minimum of 28 days in accordance with the section 3.34 (2) (previously section 56 (2)) of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The Gateway conditions also required the Planning Proposal to be updated to replace the detailed draft clause text with a plain English explanation of the intended effect of the Planning Proposal and demonstrate consistency with the Draft Greater Sydney Region Plan and the Draft Revised Eastern City District Plan.
The exhibited Planning Proposal and draft LDCP are included at Attachments 1 and 2.
Community Consultation
In accordance with the Council resolution (C0717 Item 10) and Gateway Determination conditions, the Planning Proposal, LDCP amendment and supporting documentation were exhibited for 28 days from 30 January 2018 to 27 February 2018. During this period, the material was made available on Council's Your Say website and in the Leichhardt Customer Service Centre.
The public exhibition was advertised in the Inner West Courier on 30 January 2018 and letters were sent to 551 owners and occupiers in the vicinity of the subject site.
Submission Overview
During the exhibition period, Council's Your Say Inner West website received the following response:
· No. of visitors who viewed the page - 279
· No. of visitors who clicked the page to download documents - 118
· No. of visitors who engaged and made an online submission - 9
The public exhibition process generated nine submissions in all with the following mix of opinion on the proposal:
· Nil objected to the Planning Proposal ;
· 6 (55.6%) submissions supported the Planning Proposal;
· 3 (44.4%) submissions supported the Planning Proposal in principle and suggested changes to the proposed scheme; and
· 1 submission from the proponent.
Public Authority Submissions
No public authority consultation was required by the Gateway Determination.
Local resident / Inner West Your Say submissions
Six of the nine submissions from local residents expressed support for the Planning Proposal. These submissions indicated particular support for the provision of seniors housing and affordable housing.
The other three local resident submissions (including a group submission from residents of three neighbouring properties) supported the redevelopment of the site in principle but raised various concerns as discussed below:
|
ISSUE - Additional traffic generation and pedestrian and vehicular safety |
|
One submission raised concerns regarding the impact of development on the existing infrastructure in the area - particularly additional traffic generation, vehicular and pedestrian safety and parking problems. |
|
RESPONSE |
|
The proponent provided a traffic and parking report which reviewed the existing road network and traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site; estimated the potential traffic generation of the future development; and assessed the traffic implications of the Planning Proposal in terms of road network capacity. The report concluded that the proposed development will not result in a noticeable traffic impact on the surrounding network capacity. A more detailed traffic and parking study will be required at the Development Application (DA) stage. LDCP 2013 has parking controls for new developments. The Planning Proposal and draft LDCP do not seek any changes to the existing parking provisions. Any future DA will be assessed against the parking provisions of the LDCP 2013. No change to the exhibited controls is recommended. |
|
ISSUE - Setbacks |
|
Two submissions expressed concern regarding the lack of setbacks along the northern boundary. Concerns were also expressed regarding the potential use of setbacks to the upper storeys as an entertainment area or balconies which could raise visual privacy and noise issues. |
|
RESPONSE |
|
The proponent's original urban design concept was based on the preliminary design scheme prepared by AJ+C for the former Leichhardt Council in consultation with community forums and endorsed in the related Uniting/Council Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The urban design concept included in the Planning Proposal and site-specific LDCP was amended to address Council officers' concerns regarding bulk and scale and visual privacy impacts prior to being forwarded to the DP&E for Gateway Determination.
The revised design provides a 6m setback to the first three storeys and 12m setback to the top two storeys from the western, eastern and northern site boundaries. The proposed setbacks are consistent with the minimum required setbacks recommended in the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) under the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP - 65).
The ADG also recommends an increased separation distance of 3m for apartment buildings when adjacent to a LEP zone that permits lower density residential development. The Planning Proposal will not change the zone but it will result in a higher density development in a predominantly low density area. The top two storeys of the proposed development provide a 9m + 3m (overall 12m) setback from the rear and site boundaries and will comply with this requirement of the ADG.
The exact locations of any balconies or entertainment areas will be determined at the DA stage and this will provide an opportunity to address potential amenity impacts on neighbouring properties.
No change to the exhibited controls is recommended. |
|
ISSUE - Overlooking and amenity impacts |
|
Two submissions expressed concern that the proposed development will compromise the existing privacy and amenity of the neighbouring residents, particularly to the north of the development along Marlborough Street. Concerns were also raised regarding the potential privacy/ noise impacts from the proposed roof top terrace. |
|
RESPONSE |
|
As discussed above, the proposed minimum setbacks are satisfactory. The proposed setback from the northern boundary requires a 3m wide landscaped area with generous planting. The setbacks when combined with landscaped screening will provide appropriate visual privacy for the adjoining dwellings.
Compliance with the relevant visual privacy provisions in the LDCP, ADG and SEPP 2004 will need to be demonstrated at the DA stage.
In addition, the building envelope shown in the draft LDCP is a guide which recommends minimum setbacks from the adjacent dwellings. Higher setbacks to address amenity issues can be provided at the DA stage if required.
Compliance with the relevant noise provisions in the LDCP, ADG and SEPP 2004 will need to be demonstrated at the DA stage.
No change to the exhibited controls is recommended. |
|
ISSUE - Overshadowing |
|
One submission raised concern that the proposed development will result in additional overshadowing impact on the pool area and private open space of their existing dwelling on Marlborough Street. |
|
RESPONSE |
|
The site is south of the dwellings along Marlborough Street and there will be no overshadowing of their private open spaces as shown in the applicant's overshadowing analysis below.
Figure 2 - Extract from the applicant's urban design scheme indicating that there is no overshadowing impact to the north on the dwellings along Marlborough Street. No change to the exhibited controls is recommended. |
|
ISSUE - Landscaped Area and Site coverage |
|
One submission raised concern that the proposed building envelope will breach the maximum site coverage and minimum landscaped area as required by Clause 4 of the LLEP. The submission also requested that the Planning Proposal be assertive to ensure that a detailed landscape plan is provided at the DA stage. |
|
RESPONSE |
|
This Planning Proposal is not a development application and as stated in the DP&E's 'Guidelines for preparing Planning Proposals', it should not consider the detailed development application matters. The Planning Proposal's urban design concept only indicates potential building envelope for the site. The detailed building footprint determining the extent of site coverage and landscaped area will be provided at the DA stage. The proposed LLEP amendment will not contradict the existing provisions of the LLEP which require a minimum landscaped area of 20% for sites larger than 235 sqm and maximum site coverage of 60% in the Residential R1 zone. Seniors housing developments have to comply with the landscaping objectives of SEPP 2004 which prevail over the LLEP provisions in any case.
Compliance with the relevant landscaped area and site coverage provisions of the LLEP or SEPP 2004 will need to be demonstrated at the DA stage.
No change to the exhibited controls is recommended. |
|
ISSUE - Proposed maximum building height |
|
One submission raised concern regarding Council's support for the inclusion of maximum building height control in the Planning Proposal. The submission also sought clarification as to why the proposed maximum building height was being supported by Council if the proponent's built form was substantially higher than what was previously agreed in the MOU community consultation process. Comment was made that the process invalidates the prior community consultation process that was undertaken to guide the redevelopment process.
|
|
RESPONSE |
|
The proponent's original Planning Proposal in April 2017 sought to vary the built form controls from the preliminary design scheme by increasing the maximum FSR to 2.5:1. This Planning Proposal was assessed by Council officers as raising concerns about bulk, scale and visual privacy. At the July 2017 Council meeting, it was resolved that the Planning Proposal would be amended to reduce the maximum FSR to 2:1 in accordance with the MOU.
The Planning Proposal was amended by Council officers. Changes were also made to the urban design scheme to improve a built form representation and respond to potential visual privacy/amenity impacts on neighbouring properties. The current Planning Proposal has a maximum FSR of 2:1 and maximum height of RL 57.5 which is consistent with the AJ+C design scheme endorsed by appearance of the former Leichhardt Council.
No change to the exhibited controls is recommended. |
|
ISSUE - Community consultation of the proposed site - specific local provision |
|
One submission sought clarification if the new site-specific local provision of the draft LLEP would be exhibited for public feedback. |
|
RESPONSE |
|
The Council's Pre-Gateway Planning Proposal had a detailed draft local provision for the subject site. The Gateway Determination imposed a condition to remove the draft local clause and include a plain English explanation of the intended effect of the Planning Proposal prior to community consultation. The final local provision will be made in accordance with the Explanation of Provisions as included in the Part 2 of the Planning Proposal and would not be re-exhibited for public feedback. It will not involve any change of meaning to the Pre - Gateway Planning Proposal.
No change to the exhibited controls is recommended. |
|
ISSUE - Numerous suggestions to strengthen the intention of Planning Proposal and DCP amendment |
|
One submission suggested numerous recommendations to strengthen the wording of the Planning Proposal and site - specific LDCP amendment. These included suggestions such as replace 'should' with 'must'; 'would be desirable' with 'are essential' etc. to make the controls stronger. |
|
RESPONSE |
|
A Planning Proposal is a document that explains the intended effect of a proposed LEP amendment and sets out justification for making the plan. These explanations are not statutory controls and are only used to demonstrate that there is strategic merit of the proposed LEP amendment. The site specific local provision to be drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel's Office in liaison with Council will impose strict FSR and height controls which will limit the maximum size of development on the site. The proposed wording of the site - specific LDCP amendment is generally consistent with the wording of other sections of LDCP 2013 and other site specific DCPs including the recent ones for 141 - 159 Allen Street, Leichhardt and 168 Norton Street, Leichhardt. In addition, the proposed site - specific LDCP amendment supplements the proposed LLEP amendment by providing design guidance for DA preparation. No change to the exhibited controls is recommended. |
|
ISSUE - Key workers housing |
|
One submission requested clarification regarding the Planning Proposal's discussion of the economic impacts. It was stated that the provision of affordable housing for key workers housing is inconsistent with the proposed LEP amendment which restricts the maximum development capacity to seniors housing only, given 'senior' in most circumstances is taken to be a person aged 60 and over and not working full time. |
|
RESPONSE |
|
The Planning Proposal seeks to increase the maximum FSR and height of the site subject to the redevelopment being for seniors housing with 15% affordable housing. This is set out in Part - 2 Explanation of Provisions of the Planning Proposal (Attachment 1). The proposed amendment will bring socio-economic benefits to the area by provision of affordable housing. The proposed LLEP amendment will comply with the relevant definitions of 'seniors' and 'affordable places' of SEPP 2004. No change to the exhibited controls is recommended. |
|
ISSUE - Smoking and pets |
|
One submission raised concern regarding the amenity impacts if the future residents were allowed to smoke in the balconies or communal areas and allowed to keep pets. The submission requested DCP amendment to prohibit smoking and pets. |
|
RESPONSE |
|
These are not matters for consideration in a DCP.
Uniting has advised that smoking inside apartments and communal areas is generally not permitted under Uniting’s 'village rules'. Residents are generally permitted to smoke on their balconies as long as there is no smoke drift into other apartments or adjoining properties.
Uniting villages are progressively becoming pet friendly in recognition of the physical and psychological health benefits of pet ownership. All dogs and cats will be registered on the NSW Companion Animals Register and managed in accordance with the Companion Animals Act 1998 and the Companion Animals Regulation 2008.
No change to the exhibited controls is recommended. |
|
ISSUE - Miscellaneous |
|
The following miscellaneous concerns were raised in one submission: · Location of air-conditioning units and exhaust fans. · Basement parking plan and number of parking spaces. · Boundary treatment between the subject site and 22 Marlborough Street. · Detailed landscape plan and impacts of the proposed development on the existing landscape/ trees located on adjoining properties. · Inconsistencies in the survey plan. · Compliance with the aircraft noise provisions. |
|
RESPONSE |
|
All the above mentioned issues are normally dealt with at the DA stage. The detailed design of development including a landscape plan, basement parking plan, the location of windows, balconies and roof top terrace will be provided at the DA stage which will provide opportunity to address the concerns of the neighbours.
In relation to the boundary treatment between the subject site and the dwelling to the north at No. 22 Marlborough Street, Uniting has advised that the existing wall will be demolished to accommodate additional setbacks and landscape planting as part of future redevelopment of the site. A new boundary fence will be erected and Uniting would discuss the appropriate height/form of any boundary fencing with the adjoining neighbours. This matter is not a consideration for the Planning Proposal and will be resolved at the DA stage.
Any future DA will be accompanied by an Arborist Report, which will evaluate the significance of existing trees on the site or close to the site and provide recommendations for tree protection. A detailed Landscape Plan will demonstrate landscape planting and improvements.
The potential impacts from the aircraft noise have been considered in the proponent's Aircraft Noise Intrusion Assessment. The specific building treatments to mitigate the aircraft noise impacts will be considered in detail at the DA stage.
No change to the exhibited controls is recommended. |
|
Proponent's submission |
|
A submission was received from the proponent in support of the Planning Proposal that responded to the issues raised in other submissions.
The proponent is concerned about the proposed LLEP provision which restricts the maximum building height to RL 57.50 and 5 storeys. The twin RL and 5 storey description creates an inadvertent anomaly in the way the proposed height control is described in the LLEP and draft LDCP. The proposed maximum building envelope in the draft LDCP will result in a part 5 and part 6 storey building due to the sloping nature of the site. The proponent would like the wording of the draft LLEP amendment to be changed slightly to ensure the partly 6 storey section of the building allowed within the exhibited building envelope height and RL is not prevented by the 5 storey description. |
|
RESPONSE |
|
The proposed building envelope exhibited in the draft LDCP allows a partly 6 storey section at the lower, western end of the building. This is illustrated in Figure - 3 of the proposed DCP.
Figure 3 - Extract from the exhibited DCP amendment indicating building heights and Massing envelope - Section B - Red line indicating the Part - 6th storey The reference to the number of storeys in the LLEP local provision would contradict the building envelope controls in the LDCP.
To avoid this inconsistency between the proposed LLEP and LDCP, it is recommended that the proposed LLEP provision be amended to exclude reference to the number of storeys. The deletion to the number of storeys would not result in any change to the overall height of the proposed development as the maximum RL of 57.50 would still apply to the site.
A minor change is recommended to the exhibited Planning Proposal.
|
The Difference Between The MOU Indicative Proposal And The Intention Of The Planning Proposal
On 5 March 2015, former Leichhardt Council and Uniting signed a MOU (Attachment 3) with respect to three Uniting properties in the suburb of Leichhardt. The MOU included key principles and objectives, proposed built form controls and anticipated community benefits drawn up in consultation with local residents and endorsed by Council. The following principles were endorsed by Council in relation to the Marion Street site:
Table 1 - Existing and indicative planning controls, height, land use and community benefits for 17 Marion Street, Leichhardt as prescribed in the Uniting/ Former Leichhardt Council MOU
|
Site |
1 Current
|
2 Indicative Proposal and Example Use |
3 Indicative Anticipated Community Benefits |
|
15 - 17 Marion Street, Annesley House |
FSR control 0.5:1 |
FSR control 2.0:1 |
Upgrade and increase existing aged care accommodation within the Leichhardt LGA to accord with current Commonwealth best practice |
|
FSR actual 1.5:1 |
FSR control 2.0:1 |
||
|
3 storeys |
5 storeys/ 18 metres |
||
|
86 aged care beds |
Approx. 108 aged care beds |
Uniting's original Planning Proposal submitted to Council in April 2017 sought to provide a mix of residential aged care facility (RACF) with approximately 90 aged care beds and 20 independent living units (ILUs). The supporting Social Impact Study (SIS) provided the following supply and demand assessment for RACF and ILUs in the Leichhardt catchment area.
Table 2 - Uniting's Demand and Supply gap assessment submitted in April 2017
|
Residential Aged Care Supply and Demand |
|
|
Now |
Oversupply by 140 beds |
|
2027 |
Undersupply by 190 beds |
|
Independent Living Unit's Supply and Demand |
|
|
Now |
Undersupply by 121 ILUs |
|
2026 |
Undersupply by 123 - 395 ILUs |
|
2036 |
Undersupply by 213 – 1,311 ILUs |
In January 2017, Uniting expressed their intention to redevelop the site for a 100% ILU seniors' housing development. Prior to public exhibition, Uniting provided a revised SIS which demonstrated that the projected demand for Independent Living Units is considerably higher than at present and that there will be a future oversupply of Residential Aged Care as shown below. The revised SIS was exhibited with the Planning Proposal.
Table 3 - Uniting's Demand and Supply gap assessment submitted in January 2018
|
Residential Aged Care Supply and Demand |
|
|
Now |
Oversupply by 612 beds |
|
2027 |
Oversupply by 430 beds |
|
Independent Living Unit's Supply and Demand |
|
|
Now |
Undersupply by 121 ILUs |
|
2026 |
Undersupply by 123 - 395 ILUs |
|
2036 |
Undersupply by 213 - 1,311 ILUs |
The revised SIS area assessments do not compare like for like geographical areas. The main catchment area used to assess RACF demand in the most recent version of SIS has been expanded to the Inner West Age Care Region (Figure 4). The demand and supply gap for ILUs has been limited to the Leichhardt catchment area which only included Leichhardt and surrounding suburbs.
Figure 4 - Extract from the Department of Social Services's Aged Care Planning Regions
Uniting's demand for ILUs has been calculated on the basis of current and potential provisional rates for people aged 65+ to occupy available ILUs. Current demand for ILUs is approximately 224 ILUs with the demand expected to increase up to 1,311 ILUs by 2036.
On the supply side, the Leichhardt catchment area currently has 103 ILUs with an additional 77 ILUs in the development pipeline with no additional ILUs planned beyond 2021. The increasing demand for ILUs is a result of higher demand for this type of accommodation from the population group aged 85+. It is likely that additional ILUs will be developed over time to respond to market trends, however, the seniors' housing development would have to compete with the regular housing market. This would result in higher land values especially in the inner west area, potentially placing pressure on the supply of ILUs and seniors housing.
The provision of seniors housing in the form of ILUs or self-contained dwelling units will consequently assist to meet the needs of the ageing population through the provision of diverse type of seniors housing. In addition to the provision of seniors' housing development with ILUs, the site will also provide 15% affordable housing for people on lower income levels.
In relation to the indicated community benefits, the MOU anticipated that redevelopment of this site would generate approximately 108 aged care beds to upgrade and increase existing aged care accommodation within the Leichhardt LGA to accord with current Commonwealth best practice. Part 5 of the MOU acknowledged that there had been limited detailed assessment of the opportunities and constraints of the sites and stated that:
'With respect to scoping and drafting a planning proposal for each of the sites, the parties note the current arrangements in column 1 in table 1, will investigate potential opportunities and constraints for the indicative proposals in column 2 of table 1, and will consider and refine the indicative public benefits in column 3 of table 1'
A detailed assessment has been undertaken in determining the community benefits of the redevelopment of this site. The social benefits of the proposal including provision of seniors housing and affordable housing indicates there is sufficient merit to support the variation between the MOU and the Planning Proposal.
It is also noted that this variation does not require any amendments to the exhibited Planning Proposal or the draft site - specific LDCP. The Planning Proposal seeks to provide seniors housing. Residential aged care facility and self-contained dwelling units are both permitted under the Seniors Housing SEPP 2004.
Post Exhibition Amendments
Consideration has been given to the public and proponent's submissions. As discussed previously, it is recommended that the Planning Proposal be revised to exclude reference to the number of storeys from Part 2 Explanation of Provisions. The revised Planning Proposal will continue to require the exhibited maximum building height as follows:
· 'Include requirements for:
o A maximum building height of RL 57.5'
This amendment is minor as it does not modify the intent of the exhibited Planning Proposal and consequently, does not require re-exhibition.
No changes are recommended to the draft LDCP.
Financial Implications
There are no financial implications for Council. The proponent has made an offer to enter into Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) with Council to provide 15% of affordable housing units in perpetuity under the SEPP 2004. This offer is currently being considered in accordance with Council's Interim Voluntary Planning Agreement Policy. The VPA is being publicly exhibited between 27 March 2018 and 24 April 2018.
Following the completion of the exhibition period, the draft VPA will be reported to Council for final approval.
Conclusion
The Planning Proposal and draft LDCP amendment for 17 Marion Street, Leichhardt have been publicly exhibited in accordance with the Gateway conditions, Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Council's Community Engagement framework.
This report has assessed the submissions and recommends that a minor change be made to the Planning Proposal to clarify the building height. It is recommended that this slightly revised Planning Proposal be endorsed by Council.
It is recommended that the Council officers liaise with the Parliamentary Counsel's Office and the Department of Planning and Environment in relation to the drafting of the LLEP amendment. It is also recommended that Council delegate the making of the LLEP amendment to the General Manager and adopt the site-specific LDCP.
|
1.⇩ |
Council's exhibited Planning Proposal - 17 Marion Street, Leichhardt.pdf |
|
2.⇩ |
Council's exhibited Draft LDCP - 17 Marion Street, Leichhardt |
|
3.⇩ |
Uniting/ Former Leichhardt Council MOU |
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Mandatory Reporting of Fire Safety Reports Referred to Council from Fire & Rescue NSW
Council at its meeting on 10 April 2018 deferred this item to the meeting to be held on 24 April 2018.
Prepared By: Michael Simmons - Team Leader Fire Safety
Authorised By: Jamie Erken – A/Group Manager Development Assessment and Regulatory Services
|
SUMMARY 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 adequate of the premises to suppress fire or prevent the spread of fire; and § Improve the safety of persons in the event of fire. |
|
THAT Council:
1. Note the correspondence provided by Fire and Rescue NSW for development on land at “Panorama Court” - 25 Ormond Street Ashfield; “Dulwich Hill Lodge” – 407 to 413 Marrickville Road Dulwich Hill; “Woolworths Industrial Estate” – 74 Edinburgh Road Marrickville; “The Good Pub Australia/The Sly Fox” – 199 Enmore Road Enmore; “Botany View Hotel” – 597 King Street Newtown; “Holey Moley: - 387 to 391 King Street Newtown; “Riverview Hotel” – 900 Princes Highway Tempe; “Romeo’s IGA Supermarket” – 1 Hardie Street Summer Hill and “Australian Sunrise Lodge” – 485 King Street Newtown, (Attachments 1 - 9);
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 buildings 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 adequate 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 letters to Council detailing a number of concerns with the fire safety measures and fire safety procedures for properties in the Inner West Council area.
Owners of buildings such as 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 adequate 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.
In accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPAA), Fire and Rescue NSW (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: |
|
Panorama Court – 25 Ormond Street Ashfield |
A single exit serves the tenant’s unit |
|
Dulwich Hill Lodge – 407-413 Marrickville Road, Dulwich Hill |
The Fire Indicator Panel (FIP) was isolated and displayed numerous faults |
|
Woolworths Industrial Estate – 74 Edinburgh Road, Marrickville |
Multiple faults and isolations were present on the Fire Indicator Panel (FIP) |
|
The Good Pub Australia/The Sly Fox – 199 Enmore Road, Enmore |
Multi Agency Compliance Operation |
|
Botany View Hotel – 597 King Street, Newtown |
Multi Agency Compliance Operation |
|
Holey Moley – 387-391 King Street, Newtown |
Multi Agency Compliance Operation |
|
Riverview Hotel – 900 Princes Highway, Tempe |
Multi Agency Compliance Operation |
|
Romeo’s IGA Supermarket – 1 Hardie Street, Summer Hill |
Egress via at least 2 emergency exits blocked by temporary shelving. Access to firefighting equipment also blocked. |
|
Australian Sunrise Lodge – 485 King Street, Newtown |
The Fire Indicator Panel (FIP) was isolated to allow residents to smoke inside the premises. |
In response Council's Fire Safety Team undertook inspections of all premises as per the table below:
|
Property |
Key Requirement |
|
Panorama Court – 25 Ormond Street, Ashfield |
Inspection of premises carried out by Council and a Notice of Intention to Serve an Order No.6 issued on the owners of the Strata Plan to undertake remedial fire upgrading works |
|
Dulwich Hill Lodge – 407-413 Marrickville Road, Dulwich Hill |
Inspection of premises carried out by Council. Owner advised in writing, some upgrade work has already been undertaken. Fire Engineering report submitted by owner for Council’s review. |
|
Woolworths Industrial Estate – 74 Edinburgh Road, Marrickville |
Inspection of premises carried out by Council, telephone calls and emails to Managing agent. Owner’s Engineer has inspected site and will provide recommendations. |
|
The Good Pub Australia/The Sly Fox – 199 Enmore Road, Enmore |
Inspection of premises carried out by Council. DA Files to be reviewed and a Notice of Intention to Serve an Order 6 to be issued on the owner of the building. |
|
Botany View Hotel – 597 King Street, Newtown |
Inspection of premises carried out by Council. DA Files to be reviewed and a Notice of Intention to Serve an Order 6 to be issued on the owner of the building. |
|
Holey Moley – 387-391 King Street, Newtown |
Inspection of premises carried out by Council and a Notice of Intention to Serve an Order 6 to be issued on the owner of the building. |
|
Riverview Hotel – 900 Princes Highway, Tempe |
Inspection of premises carried out by Council. Owner advised in writing of deficiencies, upgrade works currently being undertaken. |
|
Romeo’s IGA Supermarket – 1 Hardie Street, Summer Hill |
Inspection of premises carried out by Council. On site meeting held with owner and occupier. Exits cleared, additional exit signs installed. Owner has engaged Fire Safety Consultant to review remaining fire safety issues.
|
|
Australian Sunrise Lodge – 485 King Street, Newtown |
Inspection of premises carried out by Council. FIP no longer isolated. Owner preparing plans to be submitted to Council to address remaining fire safety issues. |
Following a review of the correspondence and site inspections, Council’s Fire Safety Officers, under delegated authority will or have issued Notices of Proposed Order and or Orders 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 each 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 letters from Fire and Rescue NSW have identified a number of fire safety matters that are required to be addressed. Following an inspection, Council’s Fire Safety Officer has determined that Notices of Proposed Orders and Orders requiring various audits and upgrade to the buildings is required to be undertaken. These requirements will promote adequate fire safety or fire safety awareness in the buildings. 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.
|
1.⇩ |
Letter from Fire and Rescue NSW regarding: 25 Ormond Street, Ashfield |
|
2.⇩ |
Letter from Fire and Rescue NSW regarding: Dulwich Hill Lodge - 407-413 Marrickville Road Dulwich Hill |
|
3.⇩ |
Letter from Fire and Rescue NSW regarding: Woolworths Industrial Estate - 74 Edinburgh Road Marrickville |
|
4.⇩ |
Letter from Fire and Rescue NSW regarding: The Good Pub Australia - The Sly Fox - 199 Enmore Road Enmore |
|
5.⇩ |
Letter from Fire and Rescue NSW regarding: Botany View Hotel - 597 King Street Newtown |
|
6.⇩ |
Letter from Fire and Rescue NSW regarding: Holey Moley - 387-391 King Street Newtown |
|
7.⇩ |
Letter from Fire and Rescue NSW regarding: Riverview Hotel - 900 Princes Highway Tempe |
|
8.⇩ |
Letter from Fire and Rescue NSW regarding: Romeo's IGA Supermarket - 1 Hardie Street Summer Hill |
|
9.⇩ |
Letter from Fire and Rescue NSW regarding: Australian Sunrise Lodge - 485 King Street Newtown |
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee Minutes and Charter
Council at its meeting on 10 April 2018 deferred this item to the meeting to be held on 24 April 2018.
Prepared By: Charmian King - Policy and Risk Services Manager
Authorised By: Adam Vine - Executive Manager Enterprise Risk
|
SUMMARY In accordance with Council resolution, an Audit Risk & Improvement Committee (ARIC) of Inner West Council has been established and meets ordinarily four times per year. The ARIC meeting minutes of 13 December 2017 have been confirmed by the committee and these minutes are provided to Council for consideration and adoption. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council:
1. Adopts the Minutes of the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee of 13 December 2017 shown as Attachment 1; and
2. Adopt the reviewed Charter of the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee shown as Attachment 2.
|
BACKGROUND
The new Inner West Council Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee (ARIC) has a key role in the organisation’s governance framework by bringing a systematic and disciplined approach to examination of the effectiveness of risk management, control, governance, and continuous improvement processes in Council.
The Committee works under a Charter and the meeting minutes are routinely provided to Council for adoption. This report provides the minutes of the 13 December 2017 ARIC meeting as Attachment 1.
The ARIC Charter was previously adopted by Council on 31 October 2017. As the attached ARIC December minutes refer to the ARIC Charter being reviewed, the Charter is also provided again now to Council as Attachment 2.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Costs of supporting the ARIC including meeting attendance-fees paid to the 3 independent members are accounted for in the current budget.
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
Nil.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
- The 13 December 2017 ARIC minutes were confirmed accurate by the committee members at the February 2018 ARIC meeting.
- The ARIC Charter was reviewed at the 13 December 2018 ARIC meeting - the committee recommended that no changes be made to the number of independent members.
CONCLUSION
The Inner West Council ARIC is a key element of good corporate governance. Its establishment reflects the commitment of Council to industry better practice and high standards of accountability to the community it serves. The minutes of the 13 December 2017 meeting and the reviewed Charter are accordingly provided to Council for adoption.
|
1.⇩ |
Minutes - Audit Risk & Improvement Committee - 13 December 2017 - Confirmed |
|
2.⇩ |
Charter - Audit Risk & Improvement Committee - Adopted Council 31 October 2017 |
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Permitting Dogs in Pubs in the Inner West
Prepared By: John Duncombe - Business Improvement and Education Officer
Authorised By: Ryan Cole - Group Manager Development Assessment and Regulatory Services
|
SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to respond to Council resolution C1017 dated 31 October 2017 and C1217 dated 12 December 2017 which required consultation with pub operators and the public exhibition of fee waivers for ‘dog welcome zones’ across the Inner West Council Local Government Area. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council:
1. Note the outcomes of Consultation with Pub Operators; 2. Note the outcomes of the Community Consultation on Dog Welcome Zone Fee Waivers; and 3. Amend Council’s current 2017/2018 fees and charges as follows: Development Application Fees charged under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 – All Inner West LGA
FOOTPATH OCCUPATION
Approval for Footpath Occupation requires application and rental fees. The charges listed below apply to the Roads Act 1993 and fees are levied pursuant to Sections 411 and 611 of the Local Government Act 1993 – All Inner West LGA
*‘Low-impact ‘Dog-Welcome Zones’ means:
· An outdoor area of a premises consistent with the definition of a pub.
Pub means licensed premises under the Liquor Act 2007 the principal purpose of which is the retail sale of liquor for consumption on the premises, whether or not the premises include hotel or motel accommodation and whether or not food is sold or entertainment is provided on the premises.
· An outdoor area associated with a pub includes areas such as: footpath dining, courtyards or beer gardens · The outdoor areas will not accommodate more than twenty (20) people · Outdoor areas should not be used for functions and music (live or amplified) · The placement of tables and chairs on footpaths must accord with the relevant Development Control Plan and/or Local Approvals Policy · Those outdoor areas within 50m of residential premises shall be limited to opening until 7pm in the evening. Other applications seeking to use an outdoor area beyond 7pm must be accompanied by an Acoustic Report prepared by a suitably qualified expert.
|
BACKGROUND
Council resolution C1017 dated 31 October 2017 required:
1. Produce a report which will investigate allowing access to dogs in pubs across the Inner West Council area. The report will address:
a) Explaining the reasons for and the process that resulted in the ban being implemented and hotels systematically being threatened with fines if they were found to have dogs on their premises;
b) Identifying the past mechanisms through which statutory food safety and WHS requirements have been upheld by Council officers without implementing a blanket ban; and
c) Exploring options for how complaints about dogs in pubs could be resolved through mitigation rather than litigation of punitive action from Council.
2. Consult with relevant hotel owners, licensees and managers about how the ban on dogs has affected their business and to identify practical measures that could maintain food safety standards without banning dogs from pubs. The results of this consultation are to be reported back to Council;
3. That the report includes further information on the Companion Animal Amendment (Dining Areas) Bill 2017 moved in NSW Parliament by Jamie Parker MP; and
4. That the Mayor write to all State MPs asking them to support legislation that comes to parliament which will enable people to bring their dogs into pubs.
On 12 December 2017, in a report to Council information was provided to Council on the following areas:
· How is Council’s Food Safety Program implemented
· Council ability to allow access to dogs in indoor areas of pubs across the Inner West Council area
· Response to allegations that Council Officers banned dogs in pubs and threatened pub operators with fines if they were found to have dogs on their premises
· Ability for Council to direct the way that Authorised Officers deal with the issue of dogs in pubs
· Information on the volume of complaints
· Information on consultation undertaken with pub operators
· Details associated with the Companion Animal Amendment (Dining Areas) Bill 2017
· Correspondence from the Mayor to all State MPs asking them to support legislation that comes to parliament which will enable people to bring their dogs into pubs
· Information on immediate options are available
In response to the report, Council resolved (under C1217 dated 12 December 2017) the following:
1. Publicly exhibit a proposed amendment to the 2017/2018 Fees and Charges to provide for full fee waivers for Development Applications (and associated modifications), footpath use applications and any lease fees associated with establishment of new low-impact ‘Dog-Welcome Zones’ (only) in outdoor areas such as footpath dining, courtyards or beer gardens, where a premises does not currently have such an area;
2. Provide a further report to Council outlining the outcomes of the application fee waiver public exhibition process at its completion
3. Publishes a plain English Comprehensive guide to Commercial Footpath Occupation on its website to encourage and assist businesses to apply for licenses to occupy and enliven these public spaces without negatively impacting pedestrian amenity. The guide is to include Council’s policy(s), scale of occupation, application fees, lease charges, relevant legislation and other requirements that the businesses need to comply with including Food Safety, Licensing, Work Place Health and Safety, Public Liability and Pedestrian Amenity.
REPORT
Outcomes of Consultation with Pub Operators
Some pubs in the Inner West Council local government area have a long standing tradition of dog owners taking their dogs to the local pub whilst the owner/s have a quiet drink. Current NSW food safety laws and regulations do not allow dogs (except assistance or law enforcement dogs) in areas where food and drink is prepared or served.
On 31 October 2017, Council resolved to undertake a consultation process with pub operators in the Inner West Local Government area about the impact of NSW food safety legislation.
A consultation process was then initiated which included obtaining feedback from pub owners/publicans on the issue of dogs in pubs. A survey was developed in both hard and soft copy and distributed to 107 pubs within the Local Government Area (sample form at Attachment A). Support for Council advocating the State Govt. to allow dogs in pubs was 91%.
Response to the consultation with pub operators is outlined as follows:
|
Overall Survey Response rate |
||||||
|
Total letters issued |
Total number responses |
Survey response rate |
||||
|
107 |
23 |
21% |
||||
|
Responses received sources |
||||||
|
Total responses received |
Number responses |
Response rate |
||||
|
On-line survey |
5 |
22% |
||||
|
survey form |
18 |
78% |
||||
|
Do you currently permit dogs in your venue? |
||||||
|
|
Number |
Percentage |
||||
|
Yes |
11 |
48% |
||||
|
No |
12 |
52% |
||||
|
Areas where dogs are currently permitted (for pubs that allow dogs): |
||||||
|
|
Number |
Percentage |
||||
|
Bar area (drinks and food served) |
3 |
13% |
||||
|
Bar area (drinks only, no food served) |
2 |
9% |
||||
|
Tables and chairs on the footpath |
2 |
9% |
||||
|
Outside areas such as beer gardens/courtyards |
7 |
30% |
||||
|
Restaurant area |
0 |
_ |
||||
|
Have Council Health Inspectors/Rangers ever discussed with you issues associated with having dogs in pubs? |
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
|
Number |
Percentage |
|
|||
|
Yes |
1 |
4% |
|
|||
|
No |
22 |
96% |
|
|||
|
Would you support Council advocating to the State Government to legally permit dogs in pubs? |
||
|
|
Number |
Percentage |
|
Yes |
21 |
91% |
|
No |
2 |
9% |
|
Areas where pub operator would support dogs in pubs (respondents could make multiple selections) |
||
|
|
Number |
Percentage |
|
Bar area (drinks and food served) |
9 |
39% |
|
Bar area (drinks only, no food served) |
4 |
17% |
|
Tables and chairs on the footpath |
8 |
35% |
|
Outside areas such as beer gardens/courtyards |
16 |
70% |
|
Restaurant area |
1 |
4% |
The second part of the survey enabled the pub operators to provide free form responses to questions. The responses are outlined as follows:
Other comments from respondents:
· Kitchen is outside and believe it would create issues
· Guide dogs permitted of course. Personal business decision
· We would love to have dogs in the hotel. Unfortunately we have been threatened by customers in the past that we will be reported to the authorities for allowing them in the Front Bar. If it was not the law, we would welcome dogs.
· We have no external areas or areas for animals to defecate.
· We are currently not allowed to do so by NSW food regulations.
· Unhygienic, will disrupt customers, customers may be allergic, will leave dog hair, some people may be scared of dogs.
· We are under the understanding dogs are not permitted anywhere drinks are served/consumed which is our entire venue.
· Believe that they are not allowed (due to food safety standards) without modification being made to our venue ie. an entry point for dogs away from food areas.
· Chose not to allow dogs due to insufficient areas and food service. Also that some dog owners did not have sufficiently behaved dogs for indoor areas.
· It's a grey area, but it's generally perceived that dogs are not allowed inside, so our customers leave their dogs outside the bar.
· The council banned it. We do not because of the risk of a fine.
· I believe it is a positive for some hotels that have an area which is non-food related.
· Size of venue, outdoor areas or not, size and breed of dogs - one rule for all, noisy dogs, dogs on leads or not, venues have rights to create their own house policy.
· We have had dogs in all of the time I have owned the pub and I dare say they have always been allowed in the Wallace and I have never had any problems and do not know of any problems in the past.
· Would strongly support a change to allow dogs in pubs. Many of our patrons are dog lovers and have asked repeatedly if we could allow dogs.
· I think it is important to allow the hotel operator to have the final say on whether dogs are allowed or not. A law "allowing" dogs in pubs may result in confrontation between publican VS dog owners if the publican doesn't want the dog in the pub. Any law should give the operator the right to allow or refuse dog entry.
· It is ridiculous to suggest dogs are any more unhygienic than some locals in the area. We support a dog-free eating area however it should otherwise be up to the patron whether they choose to bring their furry family members to pubs/cafes.
· Although I do support dogs in pubs the onus is on the owner of the dog to manage responsibly.
· As long as the community and locals support it then I'm all for it - MORE DOGS IN PUBS!
· It should be left up to the individual licensee, owner, operator of the hotel to choose if they permit dogs in areas that comply with health regulations etc.
· We and our customers would love to have tables and chairs outside the venue that would make the venue much more dog friendly (as well as much more "community-friendly"). We have contacted the council with this request several times, however it has proven very difficult as there are no clear rules around this. So far our requests have not had any traction.
· Let them back in! Balmain has been dog friendly for years. Why change such a great thing!
Outcomes of Community Consultation on Dog Welcome Zone Fee Waivers
On 12 December 2017 Council resolved to publicly exhibit a proposed amendment to the 2017/2018 Fees and Charges to provide for full fee waivers for Development Applications (and associated modifications), footpath use applications and any lease fees associated with establishment of new low-impact ‘Dog-Welcome Zones’ (only) in outdoor areas such as footpath dining, courtyards or beer gardens, where a premises does not currently have such an area. The public exhibition and community consultation ran between 13 February 2018 and Wednesday 28 March 2018.
The proposed amendments are outlined as follows:
Development Application Fees charges under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 – All Inner West LGA
|
Fee Description |
Proposed Fee Amendment |
|
Development Applications associated with the establishment of new low-impact* ‘Dog-Welcome Zones’ in outdoor areas operated by Pubs” |
Nil. |
|
Modification Applications associated with the establishment of new low-impact* ‘Dog-Welcome Zones’ in outdoor areas operated by Pubs” |
Nil. |
|
Review of Determination Applications associated with the establishment of new low-impact* ‘Dog-Welcome Zones’ in outdoor areas operated by Pubs” |
Nil. |
FOOTPATH OCCUPATION
Approval for Footpath Occupation requires application and rental fees. The charges listed below apply to the Roads Act 1993 and fees are levied pursuant to Sections 411 and 611 of the Local Government Act 1993 – All Inner West LGA
|
Fee Description |
Proposed Fee Amendment |
|
Foot path usage applications associated with the establishment of new low-impact* ‘Dog-Welcome Zones’ in outdoor areas operated by Pubs” |
Nil. |
|
Foot path usage modification applications associated with the establishment of new low-impact* ‘Dog-Welcome Zones’ in outdoor areas operated by Pubs” |
Nil. |
|
Foot path licencing fees associated with the establishment of new low-impact* ‘Dog-Welcome Zones’ |
Nil. |
*
‘Low-impact ‘Dog-Welcome Zones’ means:
· An outdoor area of a premises consistent with the definition of a pub.
Pub means licensed premises under the Liquor Act 2007 the principal purpose of which is the retail sale of liquor for consumption on the premises, whether or not the premises include hotel or motel accommodation and whether or not food is sold or entertainment is provided on the premises.
· An outdoor area associated with a pub includes areas such as: footpath dining, courtyards or beer gardens
· The outdoor areas will not accommodate more than twenty (20) people
· Outdoor areas should not be used for functions and music (live or amplified)
· The placement of tables and chairs on footpaths must accord with the relevant Development Control Plan and/or Local Approvals Policy
· Those outdoor areas within 50m of residential premises shall be limited to opening until 7pm in the evening. Other applications seeking to use an outdoor area beyond 7pm must be accompanied by an Acoustic Report prepared by a suitably qualified expert
In response to the public exhibition process, the number of submissions received by Council was 290.
· 256 in favour of proposed fee waivers (or 88%).
· 34 against proposed fee waivers (or 12%).
The key messages contained within the submissions are outlined as follows:
In favour of proposed fee waivers
· pubs which allow dogs are vibrant and help foster a greater sense of community.
· supports the well-being and mental health of both dog owners and their dogs.
· great initiative in making the neighbourhood more dog and community friendly.
· supports small business.
Not in favour of proposed fee waivers (details of submissions at Attachment B)
· safety concerns – aggressive or menacing dogs, fear of dogs, dog attack, trip hazards.
· health concerns – allergies, dog hair, urinating or defecating dogs.
· amenity - patrons wanting to quietly dine or drink without dogs in the area.
· suitability of the pub environment for dogs - open space or a park is more appropriate.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are financial implications to both Council and venue owners/operators. The fee waiver for 2017/2018 Fees and Charges in respect of Dog Welcome Zones does have financial implications for Council in that the fees that would otherwise be collected are not realized. There are also administrative costs associated with processing the Dog Welcome Zone DA’s, footpath licences and ongoing records management. The costs cannot be measured at this time as it will entirely depend on the take-up rate by pub owners or operators for Dog Welcome Zones.
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
Nil.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
The public consultation for the proposed amended fees and charges for Dog Welcome Zones ran between 13 February 2018 and 28 March 2018 where the proposal was placed on public exhibition. The public exhibition was published on Council’s Your Say Inner West webpage, social media posts and in the Inner West Courier print media where submissions were invited.
During this period external consultation was also undertaken with representatives from the Office of Local Government and the NSW Food Authority.
CONCLUSION
Based on the submissions to the public exhibition there is a high level of support for the fee waivers for Dog Welcome Zones in the community. Allowing the final decision to owners/publicans/operators of venues as to whether they decide to establish Dog Welcome Zones provides them with the option to opt in or out. This may be a business decision based on a number of factors such as the level of dog-friendliness in their clientele; existing location, layout and size of their venue; and whether any modifications to their venue would be necessary to facilitate the setting up of Dog Welcome Zones.
Patrons can also decide if they will attend a Dog Welcome Zone venue or not, depending on their level of fondness for dogs. This may be the best option for those who do not support the fee waiver for Dog Welcome Zones.
|
1.⇩ |
Copy of Survey to Publicans |
|
2.⇩ |
Submission details not in favour of the fee waiver for Dog Welcome Zones |
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Attachment B – Submission Comments not in favour of the fee waiver for Dog Welcome Zones
· Dogs are dirty and people do not control their dogs adequately.
· I would avoid establishments that allowed dogs, particularly if food is served due to health and safety reasons.
· I don't believe the pub is a suitable place for dogs (nor children).
· Lots of people have fear or allergies of dogs, and I feel it unfair to make it harder for a human to visit their chosen pub over an animal.
· Not all dogs are well adjusted to children, adults or other dogs/pets. One accident is one too many.
· It is currently impossible to safely push a stroller along Darling St when dogs are with their owners who are seated at tables enjoying their coffees, or when dogs are secured to poles while their owners are conducting their business. Perhaps a few parking spaces could be removed, grassed and provided with tree cover to enable safe places for the placement of pets.
· It is currently impossible to safely push a stroller along Darling St when dogs are with their owners who are seated at tables enjoying their coffees, or when dogs are secured to poles while their owners are conducting their business. Perhaps a few parking spaces could be removed, grassed and provided with tree cover to enable safe places for the placement of pets.
· People don’t want to be pestered by dogs while they are eating or drinking let alone if some drunk steps on one it’s bad enough! They have dog parks let them use them.
· Dogs have fleas etc and take up space and can bite people. The main thing is if you are eating there should be no dogs.
· No, I don't want to have dogs everywhere I go, particularly in areas where I want to go with people to have a meal and/or a drink. Dog owners NEVER manage their dogs as well as they say they do or will. Never. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have dogs, that's their decision, but it shouldn't be their decision to impose their dog on me and my family. I like to take my kids to eat meals in these places and my kids don't feel safe with dogs around them. By including dogs you are excluding many people who simply don't want to be around dogs when they are eating.
· People who do not wish to eat with dogs around them should not have to be relegated to the indoor eating areas.
· I support neither the creation of the Dog Welcome Zones nor the waiving of fees for their establishment. Council costs for services are assessed based on the cost of providing them and should be factored in to the financial planning process of the affected businesses. The cost also acts to ensure that there is a level of commitment to the process before it is initiated. On the matter of dogs being welcome in specified areas of pubs I do not think that this is a good idea absent further information around the regulatory framework.
· This proposal makes no sense and certainly no financial sense, there is no logical case to support this. There are many other equally meritorious proposals for waving fees which are likely to have much greater social impact.
· Young children, disabled, older people will be forced out of pubs. These people will be threatened by aggressive and menacing dogs. This happens too much. Dogs also urinate wherever. Inside a pub garden this will stop many people coming into beer gardens for a drink. The result will be loss of social cohesion and community connection.
· Now, no one can complain about dogs or be taken seriously because dog groups are too political powerful. When did the Council last look seriously into the negative impacts of dogs? I haven't seen it in this Council. The Council should take everyone seriously and be balanced, rather than just taking lobby groups wants into account.
· I am not against dogs in outdoor necessarily, but I do not agree to these fees being waved for the following reasons:
- Streets and footpaths are already crowded and encouraging more private use of public domain is not in the public interest. Pubs can still take initiative to setup outdoor areas but I do not believe Council should make this any easier than it currently is.
- Streets and footpaths are already filthy. I have seen dogs urinate and defecate on footpaths near pubs (the Cricketer's Arms in Darling St Balmain is a great example). The wind dividers and sandbags used to secure them are regular targets of dogs. I see no plan to clean the footpaths to account for this.
- Council needs all the funds it can get to be able to address to sorry state of the public domain in our suburbs. Streets and footpaths are already filthy, broken, narrow, etc. I believe Council should invest less in cultural activities and more in cleaning up the physical spaces it is responsible for.
· There are inherent risks in encouraging dogs in outdoor areas. Does this mean outdoor areas are no longer deemed safe for children? Are dogs required to be kept on a leash? There are public safety concerns. These already exist, but again, Council explicitly encouraging this is inappropriate.
· Dogs are pets and such should be kept out premises such as pubs.
· People walking around with dogs on leads in confided spaces will cause a trip hazard, Dogs defecating and urinating in Pubs is not a site I wish to see or smell.
· Where will the dogs be tied up? is the owner expected to hold the lead the entire time, how will dogs be stopped from running off in a pub.
· Dog owners being intoxicated and being in control of potential dangerous animal. Dogs of various temperaments in a confined space.
· Pubs are for people not dogs. Dogs have absolutely no reason to be in a pub. Allowing dogs in pubs is unhygienic, unnecessary and in bad taste.
· I don't agree at all with dogs allowed in pubs
· No dogs should be allowed where people are eating and drinking. It is a health hazard. I am also sick of dog owners thinking that other people should put up with their pets. An example is Sydney Park where I cannot have a quiet coffee without dogs coming over to me.
· One owner, one day, will not be able to either stop their dog attacking another dog or worse still biting an innocent bystander. And or will defacate or urinate where they shouldn’t. Pubs are more often than not places where food is served.
· Why on earth should dogs be allowed in eating spaces?! Anywhere, not just pubs.
· I don't believe there should be dogs in pubs unless they are for people with disabilities. The fees should cover administrative costs associated with administration of such a scheme. A user pays system applies to every other sector of the community for services.
· This is an abhorrent intrusion upon the safety of and the food-safety for ratepayers, and will not be tolerated. If the Council proceeds with this, then the Council is jointly and severally liable, along with the dog owner and the hotel, for attacks by dogs upon people inside the venue, including transmission of diseases from the animal to the person. Since the Council is proceeding with this in the full knowledge that harm may result to innocent people as a result of the presence of the animal, it is not acting "in good faith" therefore the liability protections for Council employees (under the Local Government Act) do not apply, creating full personal liability for Council staff involved in this decision. You have been warned.
· As much as I love the idea of an old man sitting in a pub with his equally old dog under his chair, I don't foresee this as the reality.
· Hygiene - even a separate area does not stop dog hair from travelling, they scratch and sniff and do dog things. My dogs have always been outdoor pets, but every day I would still have to sweep up dog hair inside and the smell transfers, too. What if it's raining?! Ugh - wet dog smell!
· People comfort - some people are afraid of dogs. A separate area will not stop sounds, like fights, from upsetting patrons. And smells, as above. Some people have allergies and sensitivities that could be exacerbated in a shared atmosphere.
· Dog comfort - I don't believe a pub is a suitable environment for a dog; if the owners cannot bear to be separated, then they could take the dog for a run and play.
· Extensions - would cats then be allowed? Their fur is a known allergen and their faeces can contain a pathogen known to cause serious problems in unborn babies.
· I’m allergic to dogs and would like to be able to continue visiting pubs without having alllergic reactions. The dog may have even left, but dog hairs left behind on floors and furniture, inside or outside, will have the same effect.
· Pet dogs are a privilege not a necessity.
· I am a victim of a dog attack. In recent months I have seen the Inner West Council allow dogs into public parks, housing units, shops and now pubs and hotels.Not only do dogs have the potential to be dangerous animals they are unsanitary. Fees will help to limit this spread and promote responsibility."
· I don’t support dogs in eating or drinking places. I see the dogs on their owners laps at the tables and it is not hygienic. I saw one dog drinking at the table from a glass and another eating from a plate. Having them outside restricts those areas from patrons who do not want to eat or drink with dogs in warm/hot weather. The dog lobby is vocal but I’m not sure they represent the majority.
· I dislike the idea of sharing a beer garden with a number of dogs. Inevitably some animals will toilet, some will bark and fight. A pub is not a place for animals. Thank you.
· The pubs shouldn't be given a free kick for hijacking a public space. Council has permitted a large number of footpath dining areas which have usually resulted in overloading of these areas without any post implementation review to ascertain whether the proprietor has exceeded their area allocation, the customer limitations, whether there have, occurred, unintended consequences or unreasonable contention between staff, pedestrians or vehicle, including bike users.
· Unfortunately I am allergic to dogs and whist I like dogs, and respect dog owners in general, the allergens cannot be contained effectively in what are essentially contained or walled in out door areas and the simple act of patting a dog causes fur/hair and related naturally shedding material to become airborne.
· It would mean that I would be excluded from being able to enjoy the outdoor areas of pubs where this zone if part of the same outdoor area was introduced.
· Dogs should not be allowed in Pubs.
· i am a dog owner and I’m happy to take my pet to parks and long walks where she can play with friendly dogs or move on if their not.
· We already have problems with barking dogs sitting around cafes as we walk past. There are some that are nice but most of the dogs we've walked past have not been and its not surprising as the poor buggers are made to sit there for long periods of time and are uncomfortable and bored. I occasionally take my pet with me for a coffee but i prefer to take her to a park where she can play or sniff around. When i go to the pub i like to focus on my friends and my pet is happy at home where she is comfortable.
· What about people with allergies to dogs?
· What about dog fights, noise and mess from urine and faeces (even if picked up the area is not clean)?
· why do dogs need a fee waiver - should it not be open to ALL pets be they four legged or otherwise.
· no pets should be allowed near food and drink areas.
· I oppose fee waiver proposal esp for footpaths. Footpaths are for pedestrians, are already overcrowded with obstacles eg tables & chairs. Pedestrians should not have to compete with dogs, their poo, owners and cigarette smoke for public footpath space to benefit pubs and the pet food industry.
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Proposed change to car parking standards for boarding houses under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009
Prepared By: Peter Wotton - Strategic Planning Projects Coordinator
Authorised By: David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning
|
SUMMARY The Department of Planning and Environment has released an Explanation of Intended Effect for public consultation concerning a proposed amendment to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARHSEPP) relating to the car parking provisions for boarding house developments. The Department is proposing to increase the parking standards that cannot be used to refuse consent for boarding houses “to address concerns raised by the community regarding the impacts of on-street parking as a result of new boarding house development in some areas.”
It is clear that community concerns with the ARHSEPP provisions relating to boarding houses are extensive and extend well beyond “the impacts of on-street parking as a result of new boarding house development.”
Of particular concern is that there are no specific eligibility criteria that apply to boarding houses under the ARHSEPP and consequently rents for boarding house accommodation provided under the Policy can be set at the discretion of the boarding house owner / manager. It is considered that the ARHSEPP needs to incorporate appropriate rental restrictions to ensure the new accommodation being facilitated by the ARHSEPP planning controls is affordable to persons in need in the localities in which it is being developed.
The ARHSEPP provisions relating to boarding houses should be reviewed in a holistic manner rather than in the ad hoc approach proposed. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT:
1. The report be received and noted; and
2. The Department of Planning and Environment be forwarded a copy of this report as Council’s response to the consultation and be advised that:
i. Community concerns with the ARHSEPP provisions relating to boarding houses are extensive and extend well beyond “the impacts of on-street parking as a result of new boarding house development.”
ii. The ARHSEPP provisions relating to boarding houses should be reviewed in a holistic manner rather than in the ad hoc approach proposed to ensure that an affordable housing product results.
iii. Different car parking standards should apply to traditional boarding house rooms and new generation boarding rooms as detailed in the report. The floor space ratio bonus provision contained in Clause 29 (1) (c) of the ARHSEPP needs to be amended (before 6 July 2018) to ensure that any floor space ratio bonus provision for boarding house developments in the ARHSEPP does not apply to any land zoned R2 Low Density Residential in environmental planning instruments listed in Schedule 2 Amendment of other environmental planning instruments) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) Amendment (Low Rise Medium Density Housing) 2017) and does not apply to any land zoned R3 Medium Density Residential where the current environmental planning instruments do not permit residential flat buildings. |
BACKGROUND
State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARHSEPP) was introduced on 31 July 2009 to increase the supply and diversity of affordable, rental and social housing. Boarding houses are one form of housing facilitated by the ARHSEPP.
On 29 March 2018 the Department of Planning and Environment released an Explanation of Intended Effect for public consultation concerning a proposed amendment to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARHSEPP) relating to the car parking provisions for boarding house developments. The Department is proposing to increase the parking standards that cannot be used to refuse consent for boarding houses “to address concerns raised by the community regarding the impacts of on-street parking as a result of new boarding house development in some areas.”
The Explanation of Intended Effect was placed on exhibition until 14 April 2018. The Department of Planning and Environment has been forwarded the information in this report as Council’s response to the consultation, subject to the consideration of the matter at this meeting.
The Explanation of Intended Effect states (in part) that:
“The Department of Planning and Environment is reviewing the ARHSEPP, including the boarding house provisions, as part of the wider SEPP review program. This process has highlighted a need to reconsider parking provisions for boarding houses to address concerns regarding parking impacts. In response, the Department of Planning and Environment is proposing to increase the parking standards that cannot be used to refuse consent.”
The Department is reviewing the boarding house car parking provisions of the ARHSEPP “to address concerns raised by the community regarding the impacts of on-street parking as a result of new boarding house development in some areas.” The Department is proposing “to amend the car parking provisions for boarding houses in the ARHSEPP based on these concerns.” The Department states that “the intent is to reduce on street parking impacts created by boarding house developments.”
Current car parking provisions for boarding house developments under the ARHSEPP:
The provisions relating to boarding houses in the ARHSEPP are contained in Part 2, Division 3 Boarding houses (Clauses 25 to 30A respectively).
Clause 29 of the ARHSEPP specifies Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent.
In relation to car parking Clause 29 (2) specifies that “A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds:
“(e) parking
if:
(i) in the case of development in an accessible area* - at least 0.2 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and
(ii) in the case of development not in an accessible area - at least 0.4 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and
(iii) in the case of any development - not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on site.”
* Under the ARHSEPP “accessible area” is defined as follows:
“accessible area means land that is within:
(a) 800 metres walking distance of a public entrance to a railway station or a wharf from which a Sydney Ferries ferry service operates, or
(b) 400 metres walking distance of a public entrance to a light rail station or, in the case of a light rail station with no entrance, 400 metres walking distance of a platform of the light rail station, or
(c) 400 metres walking distance of a bus stop used by a regular bus service (within the meaning of the Passenger Transport Act 1990) that has at least one bus per hour servicing the bus stop between 06.00 and 21.00 each day from Monday to Friday (both days inclusive) and between 08.00 and 18.00 on each Saturday and Sunday.”
Proposed amendment to the car parking provisions for boarding house developments:
The amendment to the ARHSEPP car parking standard proposed in the Explanation of Intended Effect is an increase in the parking standard to 0.5 parking spaces per boarding room. The standard is proposed to be the same for all boarding house developments. Consequently the proposed car parking standard would apply to boarding house developments in an accessible area and boarding house developments not in an accessible area. Under the proposed amendment the car parking standard would apply to both ‘traditional boarding houses’ (where rooms have access to shared facilities such as kitchen(s) and bathroom(s)) and ‘new generation boarding houses’ (where rooms include self-contained kitchen and/or bathroom facilities).
The Explanation of Intended Effect notes that the new car parking standard proposed for boarding house developments aligns with the car parking standard for one bedroom dwellings for In-fill affordable housing under the ARHSEPP (Clause 14 (2) (a)).
The background information with the Department’s Explanation of Intended Effect states (in part) the Need for change as follows:
“Through the amendment, the Department of Planning and Environment seeks to ensure that adequate car parking is provided to meet the needs of people living in boarding houses, whether the boarding house is traditional or a new generation type. The proposed change also responds to community concerns relating to the impact of boarding house developments on on-street parking.
A review of other boarding house provisions and the wider ARHSEPP is continuing.”
Existing boarding house car parking provisions in DCPs that apply in the Inner West LGA
A summary of the current car parking provisions for boarding house developments contained within the Council’s planning controls that apply in the Inner West LGA are detailed in Table 1:
Table 1: Car parking rate provisions in DCPs that apply in the Inner West LGA
|
Car Parking provisions for Boarding Houses |
|||
|
LGA |
Planning Document |
Car parking provisions for boarding houses |
|
|
Ashfield |
Comprehensive Inner West Development Control Plan 2016 for Ashbury, Ashfield, Croydon, Croydon Park, Haberfield, Hurlstone Park and Summer Hill - (Part 8 Parking) |
1 space per staff member. Parking rate for residents to be assessed on merit of application. |
|
|
Leichhardt |
Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 |
No specific requirements relating to car parking provision rates for boarding houses. |
|
|
Marrickville |
Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 - (Part 2.10 Parking) |
Parking Area 1 |
1 per caretaker + 0.2 spaces per boarding room for residents. |
|
Parking Area 2 |
1 per caretaker + 0.25 spaces per boarding room for residents. |
||
|
Parking Area 3 |
1 per caretaker + 0.25 spaces per boarding room for residents. |
||
Should the proposed amendment to the ARHSEPP proceed, Council should consider amending the minimum car parking provisions for new generation boarding houses in Council’s planning controls to align with the provisions of the ARHSEPP.
DISCUSSION
Boarding houses take a variety of forms. The Explanation of Intended Effect describes the types of boarding houses as follows:
“There are two forms of boarding houses facilitated in NSW, distinguished by whether rooms have access to shared facilities (termed ‘traditional boarding houses’) or include self-contained kitchen and/or bathroom facilities (termed ‘new generation boarding houses’).”
The Division 3 Boarding houses provisions of the ARHSEPP have essentially remained unchanged since the coming into effect of the SEPP in July 2009. The Explanation of Intended Effect notes that the boarding house car parking standards reflect “the expected car ownership of occupants when the SEPP was developed. However, with boarding houses catering to an increasingly diverse range of cohorts, levels of car ownership among boarding house residents varies.”
It seems likely that the majority of the “concerns raised by the community regarding the impacts of on-street parking as a result of new boarding house development in some areas” more than likely relate to “new generation boarding houses” as opposed to “traditional boarding houses”.
The basis for this contention is that the majority of development applications lodged for boarding houses since the coming into effect of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP have been for “new generation boarding houses” containing boarding rooms that have private kitchen or bathroom facilities in each boarding room. For example in the former Marrickville LGA during the first 5 years after the coming into effect of the ARHSEPP a total of 63 development applications were lodged for boarding house developments. Approximately 80% of those applications (50) of those applications were for new generation boarding houses. Seven applications related to changes to existing traditional boarding houses whilst the remaining applications related to proposed boarding houses which contained a mix of self contained boarding rooms and boarding rooms with shared facilities.
The ‘new generation boarding houses’ cater for a different demographic than the ‘traditional boarding houses’ located in the Inner West LGA. Anecdotal information suggests that the ‘new generation boarding houses’ are not providing housing for very low income households and that occupants of ‘new generation boarding houses’ have much higher car ownership levels than occupants of ‘traditional boarding houses’.
As stated previously it is contended that the “on street parking impacts created by boarding house developments” are primarily caused by ‘new generation boarding houses’ as opposed to ‘traditional’ boarding houses’. It is considered that there should be different parking requirements for ‘traditional’ boarding rooms and ‘new generation’ boarding rooms to reflect the likely needs of their occupants. Increasing the amount of car parking requirements for ‘traditional’ boarding rooms could potential result in increased rental costs for that type of accommodation.
It is recommended that the two types of boarding houses described in the Explanation of Intended Effect, namely ‘traditional boarding houses’ and ‘new generation boarding houses’ be specifically defined terms in the ARHSEPP and that different parking standards be set for the two types of boarding houses.
Clause 29 of the ARHSEPP specifies standards that cannot be used to refuse consent. In relation to car parking for boarding rooms the standard specifies a requirement “at least” whereas the requirement for each person employed in connection with the boarding house specifies “not more than”. Consequently a boarding house development that provides well in excess of the number of car parking spaces specified, cannot be refused on the grounds of parking under the ARHSEPP. It is considered the words “at least” should also be deleted from the wording of the car parking standard.
In light of the above comments, it is recommended that Clause 29 (2) (e) of the ARHSEPP be amended to read:
(e) parking
if:
(i) in the case of a boarding room in a ‘traditional’ boarding house development - 0.2 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and
(ii) in the case of a boarding room in a ‘new generation’ boarding house development - 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and
(iii) in the case of any development - not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on site.
OTHER MATTERS
It is considered that community concerns with the ARHSEPP provisions relating to boarding houses are extensive and extend well beyond “the impacts of on-street parking as a result of new boarding house development.”
Boarding houses where all the boarding rooms contain private kitchen and bathroom facilities, charge higher rents than those paid for a traditional boarding house room in the Inner West (traditional being a boarding house with shared facilities, purpose built as supported accommodation, or one fitted into an existing building).
It is evident that the ‘new generation’ boarding houses that are operating are able to charge higher rents than ‘traditional’ boarding houses. The provision of self-contained accommodation, and market competition, is resulting in an increase in rentals for boarding rooms. An increase in rent levels will contribute to an overall increase in property and housing costs in the Inner West. It may also potentially encourage the conversion or loss of ‘traditional’ boarding houses, may contribute to a lack of studios and one bedroom units, and have a negative impact on housing affordability in the Inner West. This impact will be cumulative as further ‘new generation boarding houses’ are developed.
Whilst provisions relating to boarding houses are included in the ARHSEPP the policy does not set any specific eligibility criteria, such as the boarding rooms must only be used for the purposes of providing boarding room accommodation for very low households and low income households, or that the rent levels of all the boarding rooms within the boarding house must be within the range specified for the boarding house land tax exemption in accordance with NSW Treasury annual revenue rulings under section 10Q of the Land Tax Management Act 1956.
Without such restrictions rents for boarding rooms in those boarding house developments are set at the discretion of the boarding house owner/manager.
The former Marrickville Council considered a report, at its meeting on 2 December 2014, concerning problems that the boarding house provisions contained in Division 3 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARHSEPP) were causing within the Marrickville Local Government Area.
The issues raised in relation to the ARHSEPP boarding house provisions included:
· The boarding house provisions in Division 3 of the ARHSEPP do not include any provisions to require boarding house accommodation provided under the Policy to be affordable;
· The ARHSEPP includes a floor space ratio bonus provision (Clause 29 (1) (c)) for certain boarding house developments, but unlike some of the other forms of residential accommodation permitted under the ARHSEPP, there are no provisions that require boarding house accommodation provided under the SEPP to limit rents charged for such accommodation, or to limit the occupancy of such accommodation to only persons on very low, low or moderate incomes or to require the accommodation to be managed by a registered housing provider;
· Whilst no objection is raised in principle to the concept of providing incentives for affordable accommodation for very low income households it is contended that an incentive, such as a floor space ratio bonus, should not apply to ‘new generation boarding houses’ especially without provisions that require that boarding house accommodation to remain affordable and for that accommodation to be managed by a registered community housing provider;
· Certain provisions of the ARHSEPP, when applied in conjunction with the provisions of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (MLEP 2011), have unintended consequences for boarding house developments. Specifically, the floor space ratio bonus clause in Clause 29 (1) of the ARHSEPP and the structure of the Land Use Zoning Tables in MLEP 2011 are allowing excessive FSRs in some zones, e.g. On some land zoned R2 Low Density Residential the maximum floor space ratio permissible under the ARHSEPP is over 80% higher than the maximum floor space ratio permitted for other forms of development permitted on that land;
· The ARHSEPP does not specifically restrict the capacity of boarding houses in residential zones. This is an issue in the R2 Low Density Residential zone where a boarding house with twenty or more residents is permissible adjacent a dwelling house with three or four residents;
· The ARHSEPP does not apply to all land in the LGA where boarding houses are permissible with consent under MLEP 2011 creating two tiers of controls e.g. The ARHSEPP provisions only apply to land zoned R2 Low Density Residential where that land is in an accessible area (Clause 27 (2)), whereas boarding houses are permissible with consent on all land zoned R2 Low Density Residential under MLEP 2001;
· The provisions of ARHSEPP are not designed to address large scale boarding houses (which in many cases operate to provide student accommodation);
· Shortcomings in some of the standards that cannot be used to refuse consent under Clause 29 of ARHSEPP lead to poor development outcomes; and
· The provisions of the ARHSEPP do not adequately ensure that reasonable amenity will be provided for boarding rooms and boarding house lodgers including access to sunlight, natural ventilation, visual and acoustic privacy, open space and communal facilities for all boarding house developments.
Local planning controls for boarding house developments that would provide for better development outcomes and that are more aligned with the housing needs of the Marrickville LGA were developed and discussed in the report.
The former Council adopted the report’s recommendation to seek an exemption for the Marrickville LGA from Division 3 – Boarding Houses of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and implement its own boarding house controls in place of these. However the Department of Planning and Environment did not agree an exemption for the former Marrickville LGA from Division 3 – Boarding Houses of the ARHSEPP.
It is therefore considered that the ARHSEPP provisions relating to boarding houses should be reviewed in a holistic manner rather than in the ad hoc manner proposed.
Notwithstanding the above, one provision of major concern that needs immediate attention is the floor space ratio bonus provision contained in Clause 29 (1) (c) of the ARHSEPP. Clause 29 reads as follows:
“29 Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent
(1) A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on the grounds of density or scale if the density and scale of the buildings when expressed as a floor space ratio are not more than:
(a) the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land, or
(b) if the development is on land within a zone in which no residential accommodation is permitted - the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of development permitted on the land, or
(c) if the development is on land within a zone in which residential flat buildings are permitted and the land does not contain a heritage item that is identified in an environmental planning instrument or an interim heritage order or on the State Heritage Register - the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land, plus:
(i) 0.5:1, if the existing maximum floor space ratio is 2.5:1 or less, or
(ii) 20% of the existing maximum floor space ratio, if the existing maximum floor space ratio is greater than 2.5:1.
Firstly it is considered inappropriate to provide a floor space ratio incentive for boarding houses where there are no provisions that require that boarding house accommodation to limit rents charged for such accommodation, or to limit the occupancy of such accommodation, to only persons on very low, or low or moderate incomes, or to require that accommodation to be managed by a registered housing provider.
Secondly it is considered inappropriate that a floor space ratio incentive should apply to land zoned R2 Low Density Residential “if the development is on land within a zone in which residential flat buildings are permitted”. In most environmental planning instruments the maximum floor space ratio that applies to development on such land generally does not exceed 0.5:1. The floor space ratio incentive clause would permit a floor space ratio bonus of 0.5:1 on such land and a consent authority would not be able to refuse consent to that “on the grounds of density or scale” notwithstanding that the development was double the maximum floor space ratio permitted for other forms of development permitted on the land.
Clause 29 (1) (c) currently has limited application in R2 Low Density Residential zones under most environmental planning instruments. However because of the way land use zoning tables have been required to be structured by the Department to list certain uses in the land use tables in Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (MLEP 2011) as “Permitted with consent”, when those uses are only permitted in specific circumstances the floor space ratio incentive clause applies to all land zoned R2 Low Density Residential under MLEP 2011. As a result a floor space ratio bonus of 0.5:1 applies to boarding house developments under the ARHSEPP on all land zoned R2 Low Density Residential under MLEP 2011 where that land is within an accessible area.
Clause 29 (1) (c) of the ARHSEPP also has implications in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone under MLEP 2011. Because of the way the Land Use Table for the zone is structured, a floor space ratio bonus of 0.5:1 applies to boarding house developments under the ARHSEPP on all land zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under MLEP 2011.
Clause 29 (1) (c) of the ARHSEPP currently does not have similar implications for land covered by Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013 or Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013.
More background and detailed discussion in relation to the matter is provided in Attachment 1 to this report. Attachment 1 also includes discussion on the impacts of the coming into effect of Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Amendment (Low Rise Medium Density Housing) Order 2017 on the application of Clause 29 (1) (c) of the ARHSEPP on the Inner West LGA’s environmental planning instruments and on other environmental planning instruments.
Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Amendment (Low Rise Medium Density Housing) Order 2017
Changes that have been introduced by the above amendment that come into effect on 6 July 2018 include the definition of a new term “manor house” and an amendment to the current Standard Instrument definition of “residential flat building”. The change also mandates “manor houses” as a use Permitted with consent in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.
The wording of the new term and the amendment term are as follows:
“manor house means a building containing 3 or 4 dwellings, where:
a) each dwelling is attached to another dwelling by a common wall or
b) at least 1 dwelling is partially or wholly located above another dwelling,
c) the building contains no more than 2 storeys (excluding any basement).
Note. Manor houses are a type of residential flat building—see the definition of that term in this Dictionary
residential flat building means a building containing 3 or more dwellings and includes manor houses, but does not include an attached dwelling or multi dwelling housing”
The combination of the these amendments (and amendments to other environmental planning instruments) extend the application of the boarding house floor space ratio bonus provision contained within Clause 29 (1) (c) of the ARHSEPP to many areas where the floor space ratio bonus provision does not currently apply. Those impacts are discussed in more detail in Attachment 1 to this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Nil.
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
Council’s Affordable Housing Planning Leader was consulted in the preparation of this report.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Nil.
CONCLUSION
This report raises a number of concerns with the proposed amendment detailed in the Explanation of Intended Effect and broader issues with the provisions relating to boarding houses contained within Division 3 Boarding houses under Part 2 of the ARHSEPP.
Community concerns with the ARHSEPP provisions relating to boarding houses are extensive and go well beyond “the impacts of on-street parking as a result of new boarding house development,” including the lack of any rent restriction on boarding house accommodation provided under the Policy.
The ARHSEPP provisions relating to boarding houses should be reviewed in a holistic manner rather than in the ad hoc approach proposed to ensure that an affordable housing product results from the concessionary planning controls that are facilitated.
One provision of major concern that needs immediate attention is the floor space ratio bonus provision contained in Clause 29 (1) (c) of the ARHSEPP. That provision needs to be amended (before 6 July 2018) to address the concerns raised in this report, and to ensure that any floor space ratio bonus provision for boarding house developments in the ARHSEPP does not apply to any land zoned R2 Low Density Residential under environmental planning instruments, or to apply to any land zoned R3 Medium Density Residential where the current environmental planning instrument does not permit residential flat buildings.
|
1.⇩ |
Background and Discussion Concerning Application of Clause 29(1)(c) of the ARHSEPP |
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Victoria Road Precinct, Marrickville - Development Control Plan Amendment
Prepared By: David Milliken - Project Director Growth Management
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 (MLEP) 2011 on 1 December 2017. Council is now required to consider associated amendments to the Marrickville Development Control Plan (MDCP) in order to support the amended LEP.
Since the gazettal of the MLEP amendment, Council officers have been working with the proponent to prepare draft amendments to the MDCP. The draft MDCP amendment (Attachment 1) is now recommended for public exhibition. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT:
1. The shadowing diagrams for Wicks Park within this report be included in the draft Victoria Road Precinct (Precinct 47) amendment to the Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 at Attachment 1; and
2. Council resolves to publicly exhibit the draft Victoria Road Precinct (Precinct 47) amendment to the Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (April 2018 version) at Attachment 1.
|
BACKGROUND
On 1 May 2012, the former Marrickville Council resolved to advise the proponent that Council would consider revised planning controls for the Victoria Road precinct and invited the proponent to submit a planning proposal.
On 21 May 2014, the proponent submitted a preliminary planning proposal to the former Marrickville Council. On 2 September 2014, Council resolved to forward the preliminary planning proposal to the Department of Planning for Gateway Determination. In December 2014, the Department requested that the proposal be withdrawn in order to allow additional studies to be undertaken to inform a revised planning proposal.
On 7 August 2015, the proponent submitted a revised planning proposal to the former Marrickville Council. The key differences between the original (2014) preliminary planning proposal and the revised planning proposal were:
· a reduction in number of apartments proposed from approximately 3,100 to approximately 1,100;
· land use zones that permit residential uses were restricted to the area between 25-30 ANEF contour, which is in the southern part of the precinct only (previously, residential uses were proposed in areas above the 30 ANEF contour);
· minor amendments to street and block layouts;
· an employment strategy was included;
· acoustic studies and an aircraft noise strategy was included;
· an affordable housing contribution was proposed, which was 3% of ‘developable residential floor area’ and has since been amended to 5% of ‘accountable gross floor area’; and
· specific LEP provisions for which amendment was sought were identified.
Image 1: Map indicating the area encompassed by the Victoria Road Precinct Planning Proposal (outlined in black) that forms part of Precinct 47 (identified in red dash) as defined under Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.
The former Marrickville Council considered the revised planning proposal at its 3 November 2015 meeting, and resolved to submit the planning proposal in the form lodged by the proponent to the Department for Gateway Determination.
On 14 March 2016, the Department issued a Gateway Determination for the planning proposal subject to a number of conditions. The conditions on the Gateway Determination required the proponent to make a number of amendments to the planning proposal, and submit the updated planning proposal to the Department for review and approval prior to public exhibition.
The proponent submitted the updated planning proposal to the Department on 14 July 2016 and on 6 September 2016 the Department advised Council that “the Gateway conditions have been sufficiently satisfied and the proposal should proceed to public exhibition”.
The planning proposal was publicly exhibited from 23 September 2016 to 23 November 2016 and in accordance with the Gateway Determination was referred to Transport for NSW (TfNSW), Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), Sydney Airport Corporation (SACL), Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, Department of Education and Training, Energy Australia, Telstra and Sydney Water.
On 27 June 2017, Council considered the Planning Proposal post exhibition and resolved as follows:
“Council forwards the Victoria Road Planning Proposal to the Minister for Planning indicating its support for the Proposal subject to:
1. resolution of matters the subject of an unresolved objection from the Roads and Maritime Service;
2. there is to be no change to the existing IN1 – General Industrial zoning on the south eastern side of Victoria Road. This land forms part of the core Sydenham / Marrickville Industrial Area and should be preserved in line with the recommendations of the Marrickville Employment Lands Study and subsequent Review. Council will further consider its position subject to review of the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor Strategy;
3. with the exception of the properties on the north western side of Farr Street to be zoned R3 – Medium Density Residential, no properties in the precinct are to be zoned residential; the Danias Timbers Site / Timber Yards Sub-precinct to be zoned B4 – Mixed Use (along Victoria Road and Sydenham Road) and B7 – Business Park (for the remainder of the sub-precinct) with an appropriate mix of employment and residential uses to be provided via site specific provision. The remainder of the precinct north-west of Victoria Road and north of Chalder Street to be zoned B5 – Business Development;
4. any intersection upgrade works necessitated by the planning proposal cannot require the acquisition of parts of Wicks Park or properties outside the area covered by the planning proposal;
5. the planning proposal must adequately deal with infrastructure planning, funding and delivery (including any required property acquisitions) in consultation with Council;
6. the planning proposal must reflect the urban design and built form recommendations provided by Rod Simpson and Council’s Architectural Excellence Panel;
7. affordable housing being provided in accordance with the requirements of the Inner West Council Affordable Housing Policy;
8. the planning proposal cannot result in the loss of any existing areas of public open space and adequate new additional areas of public open space must be provided to service the new resident and worker population (e.g. an expansion and embellishment of Wicks Park);
9. the planning proposal must provide suitable mechanisms to deliver the new laneways and road connections required to service the rezoning and stated vision for the Victoria Road corridor; and
10. the planning proposal must adequately deal with identified potential heritage.”
On 1 December 2017 the MLEP amendment was gazetted, refer to Attachment 2 for the gazettal determination letter. New Clause 6.17 was inserted into the MLEP which requires the preparation of a Development Control Plan (DCP) for the land prior to any development consent being granted. Clause 6.18 was also inserted which requires satisfactory arrangements to be made with the State regarding public infrastructure, most specifically some widening at the intersection of Victoria and Sydenham Roads.
The current zoning map of the Marrickville LEP for the precinct is below.
The current height of buildings map of the Marrickville LEP in the precinct is below.
DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN ASSESSMENT AND COMMENT
The proponent has provided a table with each of the latest proposed amendments and a comment on each at Attachment 3.
Since the gazettal of the LEP amendment, significant changes included the confirmation of the location and size of the Rich Street Public Open Space, further wording to ensure building heights are under the height limits required by the airport, and inclusion of road widening requirements (not impacting Wicks Park) at the intersection of Victoria and Sydenham Roads have been introduced to the draft MDCP amendment.
Officers requested the proponent to reconsider proposed pocket parks near Farr Street as they would reduce the ability for traffic to circulate in the immediate precinct. The proponent considered this, provided further information on traffic circulation (Attachment 4), and has elected to retain the proposed pocket parks in the draft MDCP amendment.
Officers also requested further laneways, parallel to Victoria and Sydenham Roads, to be included to assist access and circulation. Again, the proponent provided further information on traffic circulation (Attachment 4) and elected not to add further laneways. This matter will be referred to Council’s Road and Traffic team for further consideration during the exhibition period.
The applicant also removed ‘potential heritage items’ from the draft MDCP amendment to add to clarity of which items are heritage and must be considered. This matter will be referred to Council’s Heritage Advice team during the exhibition period.
Another significant modification is a change to the proposed orientation and location of the building to the north of Wicks Park to reduce overshadowing of the park.
The three diagrams below show the extent of shadowing initially proposed for Wicks Park.
The three diagrams below show the latest proposed extent of shadowing of Wicks Park under the latest version of the MDCP amendment. Afternoon shadowing in winter has been almost eliminated, midday winter shadowing has been reduced, and morning winter shadowing is similar to initially proposed. This latest level of shadowing is considered much more acceptable than initially proposed.
The following table outlines issues that have been raised during the planning proposal process, and a comment on each.
|
Issue |
Comment |
|
Issues to be considered from Councils June 2017 support of the planning proposal |
|
|
Unresolved objection from Roads and Maritime Services |
The RMS objection was resolved at the gazettal of the LEP, the proponent must come to satisfactory arrangements with the State. The proponent is currently in discussion with RMS on this matter. |
|
No change to the IN1 zoning on south eastern side of Victoria Road |
The LEP amendment has been made and the zonings are as per the gazetted MLEP. |
|
With the exception of the properties on the north western side of Farr Street to be zoned R3, no properties in the precinct are zoned residential; The Danias Timbers Site / Timber Yards Sub-precinct is to be zoned B4 and B7 – with an appropriate mix of employment and residential uses to be provided via a site specific provision. The remainder of the precinct north-west of Victoria Road and north of Chalder Street are zoned B5. |
|
|
Any intersection upgrade works necessitated by the planning proposal cannot require the acquisition of parts of Wicks Park or properties outside the area covered by the planning proposal. |
The road widening does not impact upon Wicks Park. |
|
The planning proposal must adequately deal with infrastructure planning, funding and delivery (including any required property acquisitions) in consultation with Council. |
The proponent is in the process of discussing the Developer Contribution (formerly s94) and a Voluntary Planning Agreement. It is anticipated this will be resolved during the exhibition period. |
|
The planning proposal must reflect the urban design and built form recommendations provided by Rod Simpson and Council’s Architectural Excellence Panel. |
The planning proposal and MDCP amendment was refined based upon this feedback, however given the changes to the MDCP amendment it is considered prudent to refer the latest draft MDCP amendment to the Panel for comment during the exhibition period. |
|
Affordable housing being provided in accordance with the requirements of the Inner West Council Affordable Housing Policy. |
This is not normally a matter for a specific DCP and is expected to be addressed in a VPA. |
|
The planning proposal cannot result in the loss of any existing areas of public open space and adequate new additional areas of public open space must be provided to service the new resident and worker population (e.g. an expansion and embellishment of Wicks Park). |
The latest draft MDCP amendment shows the location and size of a park in the Rich Street area of at least 1,200m2, two pocket parks of about 700m2 and no change to Wicks Park. This is considered acceptable. |
|
The planning proposal must provide suitable mechanisms to deliver the new laneways and road connections required to service the rezoning and stated vision for the Victoria Road corridor. |
The applicant has decided to not improve vehicle circulation by removing the pocket parks and adding laneways parallel to Victoria and Sydenham Roads. This will be referred to Council’s Roads and Traffic team during the exhibition period. |
|
The planning proposal must adequately deal with identified potential heritage. |
The proponent has removed ‘potential’ heritage items from the DCP to aid clarity. This will be referred to Council’s Heritage Advice team during the exhibition period. |
It is considered that the issues identified have been resolved to sufficient extent to enable formal exhibition of the draft MDCP amendment. Some referrals will be conducted during the exhibition period in order to have the final feedback considered by Council post-exhibition.
New Clause 6.17(3) of the Marrickville LEP requires the DCP to address nine matters. An assessment of the nine matters is included in the table below.
|
Requirement |
Comment |
|
The upgrading of road networks and intersections on the land and surrounding areas. |
The draft DCP shows this. The proponent must also come to satisfactory arrangements with the State to upgrade the Sydenham/Victoria intersection in line with the requirements of the LEP. |
|
Transport connections on the land and within surrounding areas (including the layout of laneways, bicycle routes and other connections). |
The DCP shows good access and connectivity to main thoroughfares for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. The applicant has updated the DCP based on Council officer feedback. During the exhibition period a final referral to Council’s Roads/Traffic branch will be undertaken to ensure they are fully satisfied with the DCP requirements. |
|
The protection of items and areas of heritage significance. |
This is included in the draft DCP. During the exhibition period a final referral to Council’s Heritage Advice branch will be undertaken to ensure they are fully satisfied with the DCP requirements. |
|
The management and mitigation of the impact of existing industrial development in the surrounding areas on the amenity of proposed residential development on the land. |
The draft DCP addresses this through careful controls around built form and noise to ensure minimal impact on the industrial land uses from the residential development. |
|
The impacts of the development on the surrounding residential and industrial areas and the amenity of the neighbourhood. |
The draft DCP addresses this through careful controls around built form, movement network, pubic open space and noise to ensure minimal impact on the industrial land uses from the residential development. |
|
The mitigation of aircraft noise (including through building design and the use of appropriate building materials). |
The draft DCP addresses this through careful controls around built form and noise. Particular noise requirements have been developed for the precinct, and Sydney Airport has endorsed this requirements as acceptable |
|
The management of drainage and flood risks. |
The draft DCP addresses this through careful controls around stormwater management. A major drain requires upgrade, the funding of which is being negotiated through developer contributions or a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA). |
|
A network of active and passive recreation areas. |
The latest draft MDCP amendment shows the location and size of a park in the Rich Street area of at least 1200m2, two pocket parks of about 700m2 and no change to Wicks Park. This is considered acceptable. |
|
The protection of public open spaces (including from overshadowing). |
The extent of shadowing of Wicks Park has been significantly reduced under the latest version of the MDCP amendment. Afternoon shadowing in winter has been almost eliminated, midday winter shadowing has been reduced, and morning winter shadowing is similar to initially proposed. This latest level of shadowing is considered much more acceptable than initially proposed. |
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AND VOLUNTARY PLANNING AGREEMENT
The proponent is in the process of discussing the Developer Contribution (formerly s94), which may include works-in-kind, and a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) for the proposal. It is anticipated this will be resolved during the exhibition period and before to the final DCP is adopted.
ROADS AND MARITIME SERVICES (RMS) SUBMISSION
It is noted that RMS did not support the planning proposal during the exhibition period for the LEP amendment. RMS was concerned that the cumulative impacts of the residential development had not been adequately assessed. The Department considered the position of RMS and decided to gazette the LEP amendment with a ‘satisfactory arrangements’ clause (6.18) and a road widening reserve along Victoria Road and at the intersection of Sydenham Road.
The proponent is working with the Department to satisfy this clause in terms of road design and construction prior to any development consent being granted. Council will be consulted during this process. The draft DCP has been refined to be consistent with the LEP zoning map and to ensure the satisfaction of this clause will not impact on the LEP itself. It is noted that the design for the intersection must not impact upon Wicks Park and must be kept within the road corridor zone.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Nil.
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
The draft MDCP amendment will be referred to the Traffic and Heritage branches of Council and the Architectural Excellent Panel for further advice during the exhibition period.
Sydney Airports Corporation Limited has been consulted on the latest draft of the DCP and is satisfied with its requirements. Specific care has been taken to ensure SACL is satisfied with the heights and locations of the buildings. All development applications over 15.24m in height are required to be referred to SACL under the Civil Aviation (Building) Regulations.
It is proposed to undertake a number of referrals during the exhibition period to ensure certain sections of Council are fully satisfied with the draft DCP. Internal referrals have previously been conducted and the majority of matters raised have been addressed. The final round of referrals refer to the latest set of refinements to the DCP and are technical changes to certain elements of the DCP. It is not considered that these refinements are significant enough to delay exhibition, and any minor changes to the draft DCP recommended by Council departments can be considered at post-exhibition stage when a further report will be presented to Council for consideration.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
The Planning Proposal was placed on exhibition from 23 September 2016 to 23 November 2016. 549 individual submissions were logged by Council. Submissions were received via an online submission form on the Your Say Inner West website, by email and directly posted to Council. The Engagement Report which provides a summary of the supportive and non-supportive comments received during the public consultation period is at Attachment 6.
It is noted that this exhibition was the formal exhibition of the LEP amendment. A draft DCP was prepared to support the LEP amendment and was exhibited as an appendix to the LEP. Council never resolved to exhibit that draft DCP, it only resolved to send the planning proposal to the Department for Gateway determination. The draft DCP was therefore never exhibited under the conditions of Council having resolved to exhibit it. The draft DCP has also evolved substantially since the exhibition of the LEP amendment, including many issues that were resolved by the gazettal of the LEP.
The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires draft DCPs to be exhibited for 28 days. The proponent contends that appropriate DCP exhibition has occurred and has provided a submission and legal advice to that end. This submission is at Attachment 5.
Council’s Strategic Planning Staff and General Counsel disagree with the proponent and recommend that the draft DCP be placed on formal exhibition. It is important that the DCP be exhibited for the purposes of legality, transparency and public participation in the planning process (noting that an exhibition process that does not conform to the requirements of the Act could result in the DCP having being made unlawfully and, therefore, susceptible to legal challenge).
In the event that Council agrees with the proponent and does not require the latest draft MDCP amendment to be exhibited, it is considered that it would be premature to approve it as further referrals are required as detailed in this report, certain infrastructure requirements need resolution, developer contributions require resolution and the Voluntary Planning Agreement process requires finalisation. Staff propose to undertake these activities during the exhibition period in order to finalise the DCP in a timely manner.
CONCLUSION
The Victoria Road Planning Proposal has been gazetted and the associated DCP amendment is now needs to be progressed. The draft DCP has significantly changed since it was previously exhibited with the draft LEP and has evolved to a state where formal exhibition can now be undertaken. A small number of outstanding items require addressing by way of referrals, however these can be completed during the exhibition period.
It is therefore recommended that the draft DCP amendment for the Victoria Road Precinct, Marrickville be placed on formal public exhibition for 28 days. Following this, and the resolution of outstanding referral matters, a further report will be presented to Council to consider any submissions, and final feedback from the referral process. During this time, the developer contribution and VPA process will also be progressed.
|
1.⇩ |
Draft Victoria Road Development Control Plan |
|
2.⇩ |
Determination notice of LEP amendment |
|
3.⇩ |
Summary table of latest modifications to the DCP amendment |
|
4.⇩ |
Further Information from Proponent on Traffic Circulation |
|
5.⇩ |
Proponents letter and legal advice contending that exhibition is not required |
|
6.⇩ |
Engagement report from exhibition of LEP amendment |
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/passenger-sucked-out-of-plane-window-forcing-emergency-landing-20180418-p4za75.html
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Council Support for WestConnex Dilapidation Reporting
Prepared By: Kendall Banfield - Manager WestConnex Unit
Authorised By: David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning
|
SUMMARY In October 2017 Council resolved to investigate the potential to initiate a dilapidation reporting service for property owners affected by WestConnex tunnelling. The resolution stated that the investigation should be on a cost-recovery basis, implying there should be no financial cost to Council. In response, Council officers have identified three actions that are recommended for implementation involving providing information on Council’s website, an advice service from Council staff and making a register of certified consultants available on the proponent’s website.
|
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council endorses implementation of the following
three actions to support the community with WestConnex dilapidation
reporting: a) Action 1 – Provide information on Council’s website;
b) Action 2 – Provide advice from Council staff to the community about the dilapidation process and how homeowners can best protect their interests; and
c) Action 3 – Establish a register of certified consultants on the proponent’s website and/or council’s website that can provide independent dilapidation reports.
|
BACKGROUND
Introduction
At its 3 October 2017 Extraordinary Meeting, Council made a number of resolutions related to WestConnex, including: “Produce a report investigating the potential to initiate a dilapidation and structural assessment service for home and business owners impacted by tunnelling for the WestConnex project. The report should detail how the service could be provided on a cost recovery basis. Internal legal advice will be sought when drafting this report to determine if there are legal and/or administrative barriers to Council’s involvement in the dilapidation reporting process.”
Council staff presented a series of options for such a service at a Councillor briefing session on 22 March 2018. Information from this briefing is summarised below, and comments from Councillors have guided this report.
Background to dilapidation reporting
A dilapidation report is a report on the condition of a property at a given point in time. It records the existing conditions and any existing damage – providing a ‘baseline’ record of the state of the property that may be affected by construction, excavation or demolition. Usually the main components of dilapidation report are a set of dated photographs of building(s) or other items of interest on the property and a description of existing conditions. Dilapidation reports are prepared to potentially assist property owners and construction contractors with the consideration of damages claims. Without a report, claims can still be made, but it would likely be more difficult and costly to establish a case.
Whilst dilapidation reports provide some assistance in the event of a claim, they do not (and cannot) provide conclusive evidence that construction is the cause of the damage - expert reports are also usually needed. The dilapidation report is only one of several pieces of evidence that would be used to verify a claim.
Current practice is for WestConnex Joint Venture (JV) contractors (referred to in this report as ‘the proponent’) to issue a notice to property owners located up to 50m around work sites and 50m either side of tunnel corridors with an offer of a pre and post construction dilapidation report at no cost to the property owner. The proponent issues three notices of offer to all affected property owners pre-construction, seeking to maximise the number of owners who take up the offer. A similar process is undertaken post-construction.
If/when the offer is taken up by property owners, the proponent commissions and pays for a consultant to undertake the reporting. Certified dilapidation consultant(s) (i.e. structural engineers) are appointed by the proponent by competitive tender to undertake the reporting.
The community’s issues with the reporting process
Community members have raised issues with the dilapidation reporting processes at public forums, citing a lack of independence, a perception of conflict-of-interest and a lack of trust in the proponent. Some community members have also doubted that the ‘affected area’, where the offer of report applies, is sufficiently broad.
Notwithstanding the above, Council staff have only received one complaint (by phone or in writing) from a property owner raising issues about the proponent’s determination on their claim of damage to being related to WestConnex. M4 East project staff have reported that of the total of approximately 1,500 reports prepared for affected M4 East properties, there have been few issues raised about the process.
Project staff have also pointed out that that dilapidation reports protect the proponent as well as property owners. It is therefore in the proponent’s interest to ensure there is reasonable takeup of these reports and they are prepared by suitably qualified consultants to an appropriate standard.
Summary of suggested actions for Council
Following are four actions that were suggested by Council officers and discussed at the Councillor briefing:
· Action 1 - information on Council’s website;
· Action 2 - advice available from Council staff;
· Action 3 - register of certified consultants on proponent’s website; and
· Action 4 - financial assistance from Council for property owners who are unable to carry out or pay for any independent supplementary assessment required.
Action 1: Information on Council’s website
This action involves including on Council’s website a description of the dilapidation reporting process and why reporting is important. This is to encourage property owners to firstly take up the proponent’s offer of a report and secondly to encourage them to carry out their own supplementary independent assessment if needed.
The additional assessment would provide an extra level of evidence as a back-up in the event of a claim and could cover any aspects of the property that owners consider may not be fully covered by the proponent’s report, for example additional photographs taken from positions that the proponent’s consultant does not access. In most instances, the additional assessment would involve property owners taking their own date-stamped photographs. Council’s website would include instructions on how to do this and what areas might be considered to be covered. Property owners could also commission and pay for their own consultant to undertake supplementary assessment work.
This action could be undertaken within a reasonable timeframe (2-3 months) without financial cost to Council. It would involve staff time to undertake research and establish the web information, and would not need support or co-operation from the proponent.
Action 2 – Council staff advice
This action would involve dedication of appropriately skilled staff to provide verbal advice (upon request) to property owners in addition to the web information described as part of Action 1. This advice would be intended to guide property owners when undertaking their own assessments or commissioning supplementary work.
As for Action 1, this action could be undertaken within a reasonable timeframe (2-3 months) without financial cost to Council. It would involve staff time to undertake research to acquire the necessary knowledge to provide advice and would not need support or co-operation from proponent.
Action 3 – Register of consultants on proponent’s website
This action would involve Council staff requesting the proponent to place a register of suitably qualified and certified consultants on its website. Council’s dilapidation reporting web pages (described in Action 1) would include links to this register.
This action is intended to improve property owners’ trust in the proponent’s dilapidation reporting process, as consultants on that list would be shown to be certified as qualified and independent. For any property owner that decided to commission their own supplementary assessment, the register may also provide guidance for their choice of a consultant.
There would be no financial cost to Council to undertake this action – it would involve only staff time (over a period of 2-3 months) to make the request to the proponent to develop the register and post it online. There is no guarantee the proponent will support this action, but early discussions with the proponent indicate that this action (or something similar) is likely to be supported. Even if support was not forthcoming, Council staff could still develop a register and post this on Council’s website.
Action 4 – Financial assistance from Council for an additional report
Consideration has also been given to an action involving Council providing financial assistance to eligible property owners for a consultant to assist them with a supplementary assessment where they are unable to do this themselves. Eligible property owners might include elderly people and/or people with a disability. Should Council seek to pursue this option, the eligibility criteria would need to be defined, noting that the criteria would affect the number of people who qualify and consequently the financial cost to Council.
This action would involve the property owner commissioning a supplementary report after they had obtained the original report commissioned by the proponent. Council could partially or fully reimburse the property owner for the cost of the supplementary report. It follows that this option would involve a financial cost to Council plus staff time to administer the process.
In relation to the potential cost of such a scheme to Council, assuming a total of 3,000 properties were affected within the Inner West Council area, 5% meet Council’s eligibility criteria (150 properties), there is an 80% takeup rate (120 properties) and each report costs $1,000 - the total cost to Council would be $120,000. If the subsidy was reduced to 50%, the cost would be $60,000. These estimates would need to be verified, but they indicate that the costs to Council would be substantial even if the eligibility criteria allowed for only 5% takeup. Should Council seek to pursue Action 4, these assumptions and estimates would need to be tested and verified in a further report.
Key points to note about these actions
Key points to note about the above actions are:
· the WestConnex proponent currently commissions and pays for all dilapidation reports;
· there is currently no barrier to any property owner supplementing the proponent-commissioned report with their own assessment or by a further report at the property owner’s expense;
· all four actions involve staff time, but only Action 4 would involve financial costs for Council;
· the overall aim of all actions is to provide assistance (in the form of advice) to all affected property owners, but financial assistance according to Action 4 would only be given under special circumstances defined by Council;
· none of the four options involve Council commissioning consultants, so the risk of liability for Council would be minimised, avoiding claims against Council for sub-standard work by consultants; and
· dilapidation reporting applies to all three stages of WestConnex, but most reports would be likely to be for the Stage 3 (M4-M5 Link) if approved.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial implications associated with Actions 1, 2 and 3 recommended by this report.
Should Council resolve to pursue Action 4 there would be financial costs to Council in the future. These would be dependent on the extent of subsidy Council is prepared to provide and the eligibility criteria adopted.
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
This report has been prepared in consultation with Council’s General Legal Counsel in accordance with the requirement in the 3 October 2017 resolution that “Internal legal advice will be sought when drafting this report to determine if there are legal and/or administrative barriers to Council’s involvement in the dilapidation reporting process.”
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Public consultation is not required at this stage.
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Late Collection of Children Fee
Prepared By: Annette Morgan - Group Manager Children and Family Services
Authorised By: John Warburton - Deputy General Manager Community and Engagement
|
SUMMARY Both former Councils of the Inner West that operated Children and Family Services (CFS) charged a late fee for parents/carers collecting children after closing hours, with the fees at each former council being structured differently. As part of the 2017/2018 budget process, the ‘Late Collection of Children Fee’ was harmonised to be consistent across all services and also included an additional fee to discourage families from regularly collecting children after centre closing hours. At the October 2017 Council meeting, it was resolved that a report be brought back to council outlining the justification of the additional fee, including evidence that it would discourage parents/carers from regularly picking children up late. It was also resolved that the fee be reverted to the previous years’ fees whilst this report was prepared. The fee structure was reverted to both previous Council’s ‘Late Collection of Children’ fee structure in November 2017 and continues as such to date. Whilst researching and reviewing available data in preparation for this report, it was evident that late collection of children fees are common practice in the Education and Care Services sector, with a range of structures and administration of such a fee. It was also evident that the occurrences of regular late collection of children decreased when an additional late collection fee was introduced at one of the legacy councils in 2009/2010. Further data showed a slight decrease in regular late collection of children since the additional fee was introduced across all the Inner West Council services in July 2017 until November 2017. In an attempt to continue harmonising fees and charges for consistency across the CFS services and to discourage parents/carers from regularly picking children up late, this report proposes to apply a similar structure to the late collection fee that one of the legacy Councils found beneficial in encouraging families to pick children up prior to centres’ closing hours. This structure includes an initial fee of $45 for the first 15 minutes or part thereof and an additional fee should parents/carers regularly pick children up late. Parents/carers are well informed of the fee structure upon enrolment, at various times during the year and to promote and build professional relationships, an initial warning without charge is given on the first occasion of late collection. Further to this and taking into consideration that the 2017/2018 additional fee of $100 for regular late collection of children may have been perceived to be too high, this report proposes that the additional fee be reduced to $65 after the second occasion of late collection in a calendar month. Essentially this means that parents will be charged $65 for the first 15 minutes only if they collect children late from a service on the fourth occasion of a calendar month. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council approves the Late Collection of Children fee for the 2018/2019 Fees and Charges as follows:
a) On the first two occasions of the calendar month a charge will be made every 15 minutes or part thereof of $45.00; and
b) After the second occasion within a calendar month and for the rest of the calendar year $65 for the first 15 minutes or part thereof and then $45 for every subsequent 15 minutes or part thereof. |
BACKGROUND
At the Extraordinary Council meeting of 31 October 2017, it was resolved that:
1. The General Manager provide a report on the evidence it has used to justify this fee increase, including evidence that it will in fact deter parents/carers from late pick up; and
2. In the meantime while this report is prepared and considered by Council, that these fee increases immediately revert to the previous 2016/17 rate at Stanmore Public School and other impacted schools.
Both former councils of Marrickville and Leichhardt charged a late fee for parents/carers collecting children after closing hours of the council operated services. Education and Care Services are approved by NSW Department of Education to operate within particular nominated hours. Outside of the prescribed hours, services are considered not licensed to operate and in some circumstances, insurances may not cover particular situations. A service’s operating hours are also dependent upon the respective DA approval/consent for the particular site.
Previous charges for the late collection of children at each former Council in the financial years leading to amalgamations and inclusive of 2016/2017 were:
Former Marrickville
Per 15 minutes of part thereof: $43.30
This was applicable to the following Centre Based Education and Care Services:
· Long Day Care
· After School Care
· Vacation Care
· Preschool
Former Leichhardt
Minimum after hours collect fee for the first 10 min of part thereof:
For each of the first 2 occasions per calendar month $ 30.00
For each subsequent occasion in excess of 2 per month $ 50.00
Where more than 2 occasions of after-hours collection have occurred in a month,
all subsequent occasions of afterhours collection for the remainder of the Financial year will incur $50.00
For occasions where after hours collection is greater than 10 minutes
(Charge per minute after the first 10 minutes) $ 2.00
This was applicable to the Long Day Care services. The Occasional Care Late Collection of Child/ren fee was structured slightly differently due to the operational nature of Occasional Care.
The structure for the late collection of child/ren fee at the former Leichhardt Council was reviewed in 2009 as a result of a number of parents/carers across all services habitually picking child/ren up late after operational hours, despite warnings and frequently being charged the standard fee. The fee prior to 2009 was:
· $30 for the first 10 minutes or part thereof and
· $2 per minute after the first 10 minutes.
Once the new late pick up fee structure was introduced to the Leichhardt services in 2009, services observed a significant reduction in regular and habitual late collection of child/ren. Due to the length of time that has passed since the introduction of the previous Leichhardt fee and the changeover from one reporting system to a new one as a result of amalgamations and Commonwealth requirements, figures shown below have been manually collated from one of the former Leichhardt services.
|
|
2008/2009 |
2009/2010 (higher fee introduced) |
|
Total number late pick ups
|
31 |
18 |
|
Number 1st warnings |
14 |
9 |
|
Number charged late pick up fee |
17 |
9 |
|
Number charged higher fee due to frequency |
N/A |
2 |
The table above illustrates a substantial drop in the late collection of child/ren in the year after the introduction of the higher fee. There was also a significant reduction in having to charge the standard late collection fee by approximately 50%, with only 2 of those occasions requiring the higher late fee to be administered due to picking up late twice in the calendar month.
It is also interesting to note that according to centre records of the two services with relevant manual data available, the higher fee of $50 has needed to be charged only 7 times since its introduction in 2009/2010. That’s an average of less than once per year.
The figures above indicate that a higher fee is in fact a deterrent to families from collecting child/ren late from the service/s (after operating hours).
When reviewing the fees for the first full budget development after amalgamation and in an attempt to harmonise as many fees and charges as possible, Children and Family Services Leadership group concluded that a stricter fee was required due to verbal comments made by parents/carers that they were not perturbed about the $45 per every 15 minutes and that it wouldn’t stop them from picking their child/ren up late.
The services predominantly experiencing recent occasions of regular and habitual late collections of children have been the Out of School Hours services, specifically After School Care. Between 1st July 2017 and when the fees reverted back to the prior schedules after the Council Resolution in October, there were a total of 8 families that collected their child/ren late from the OSHC services on two occasions each, the first time being a warning without a fee being charged. None of these families had to be fined the higher amount of $100 as they had not collected late again in that period. Once the fees were reverted back, there were 3 families that were fined twice or more. This means that they have collected the child/ren late at least 3 times since November 2017; the first occasion being a warning without charge.
As a result of comments made to the OSHC services and the results that Leichhardt had experienced after introducing the higher fee after the second occasion of late collection in a month, a harmonised and higher Late Collection of Children fee was included as part of the budget process for 2017/2018:
Inner West
1. On the first two occasions of the calendar year a charge will be made every 15 minutes or part thereof of $45.00
2. After the second occasion within a calendar year and for the rest of the calendar year $100 for the first 15 minutes and $45 for every subsequent 15 minutes or part thereof.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
It is not intended nor preferable that any Late Collection fee is charged and as such there is no allocation or expectation for income generation from these ‘late fees’. The fees are used only to discourage parents from picking up late and prevent children from being left at a centre without their friends or peers after operational hours.
Centre staff are required to be paid overtime for any time worked that is after 6pm or once they reach their permanent hours for the week, in the case of services that close prior to 6pm. Part time staff are paid additional hours prior to 6pm. The late collection of child/ren fee helps to offset the payment of overtime or additional hours, any allowances the staff member may have accrued in that pay period as a result of the overtime and costs incurred by Council for having to provide an alternate mode of transportation home should the staff member miss their connection to public transport because of a child/ren being collected after closing hours, particularly those services open until 6pm.
A fee for the late collection of children is common practice across all service types in the sector. The following table illustrates the late pick up fee of a sample of services across the LGA, both private and community based and also indicates other Councils:
|
Community Based |
For Profit |
Other Councils |
|
$32.50 every 15 minutes (or part thereof), once over 30 minutes $55.00 (every 15 minutes or part thereof).
|
$25 Initial flat fee plus $10 every 5 mins or part thereof |
$25 for the first 15 mins or part thereof and then $50 every 15 mins or part thereof |
|
$50 for the first 10 mins. Then $2 per minute Flat rate of $100 after 20 mins |
$50 flat rate fee plus $25 for each 15 mins or part thereof |
$1.00 per minute for the first 10 minutes. Then $20 every 5 minutes or part thereof |
|
$30 first 15 minutes. Then $2 per minute thereafter |
$50.00 per 15 minutes or part thereof |
$2.05 per minute |
|
$10 for the first ten minutes. Then $10 per each five minutes thereafter |
$5 per minute |
$10 every 5 mins |
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
Staff are entitled to expect to finish their working day at the end of their shift and the service’s closing time; they have families and responsibilities of their own to attend to after work. If they have child/ren of their own in care, they too need to collect them prior to their service’s closing time or be faced with a late pick up fee themselves. Staff also use public transport and at times have missed their bus or train, with the next service not for another half to full hour. On some of these occasions, particularly in the situation where there is a lengthy delay in the next bus services and/or it is winter and dark when the service closes, the centre has re-imbursed the costs of taxis. These types of situations increase costs for services by having to pay overtime for staff and the cost of the staff member using taxis to get home safely.
In addition to staff complexities, the well-being of child/ren is paramount. A child left after hours is usually the only child left in the service (or at times with a sibling) whilst one staff member is locking the service down prior to departure. Even though one or both staff member/s are with the child, it can be a very isolating time for a child and one that also disrupts their positive experience of having had a fun and good day at the centre or at school and replaces it with a feeling of being forgotten and at times loneliness. After a long day in care and/or school, children are tired and can be fragile in their emotions. Late picks ups by parents/carers add to this sensitive transitional time for children.
Information in regards to the process of the late collection of children is provided to parents regularly. As part of the orientation process, the operational procedure for this fee is outlined and discussed with parents/carers. To promote and build good working relationships, parents/carers are given an initial warning on the first occasion of the late collection and reminded of the procedure in writing. They are encouraged to call the centre should they be unable to pick up their child/ren on time. In addition to orientation for new enrolments, each year the schedule of fees and charges is distributed to all families with the new financial year and usually also at the beginning of the calendar year as part of ongoing communication between services and families.
In addition, a requirement of enrolment under the Regulations is that parents/carers/carers must nominate others with the authority to collect child/ren. It is in situations where collection of child/ren prior to closing time cannot be met, that these nominated people should be called upon to collect the child/ren. Whilst our services appreciate the needs of working families, it is our primary role to ensure that children’s well-being is of the utmost importance and that our staff are empowered to support such a significant time in a child’s day.
It is proposed that the late collection fee be harmonised across all Council’s centre based services (except Occasional Care which has a separate late collection fee structure due to the nature of its operations). In light of the perceived excessiveness of the 2017/2018 fee increase, a compromised approach to the late fee structure is proposed; similar to one that has been previously used and proven to act as a deterrent in late collection of children from services after operating hours.
It is proposed that the fee for the Late Collection of Children for the 2018/2019 Fees and Charges be:
· On the first two occasions of the calendar month a charge will be made every 15 minutes or part thereof of $45.00; and
· after the second occasion within a calendar month and for the rest of the calendar year $65 for the first 15 minutes or part thereof and then $45 for every subsequent 15 minutes or part thereof
Essentially this means that parents will be charged the $65 for the first 15 minutes only if they pick up late on the fourth occasion in a calendar month (and every subsequent late collection for the reminder of the calendar year).
This fee structure and charge will be reviewed periodically to determine its effectiveness in deterring parents from picking up children late after operational hours.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Nil.
CONCLUSION
Late collection of children fees are in place to encourage parents/carers to pick up children preferably before closing time to allow exchange of information between educators and parents/carers prior to locking the service down and all parties departing at or soon after operational hours.
There have been instances in the past where parents/carers have regularly picked children up late and have not viewed the standard charge as an issue that will stop them from collection late, as per comments made to educators in services. In the interest of building positive relationship with parents, a warning is given on the first occasion of a late pick up and then charges are administered after that should late collection occur again.
A structure of additional charges as a deterrent has been used successfully at former Leichhardt since 2009 and a reduction in parents picking up late was noticeable between July and November 2017 for the Out of School Hours services when the additional charge of $100 was implemented after the second occasion of late collection in a calendar year.
It is recommended that the proposed fee for 2018/2019 for the Late Collection of Children outlined in this report be approved to be included in the 2018/2019 development of the Fees and Charges for Council’s Children and Family Services.
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Intersection Treatment, Croydon Road and Church Street, Croydon.
Prepared By: Boris Muha - Engineer – Traffic and Parking Services
Authorised By: Wal Petschler - Group Manager Footpaths, Roads, Traffic and Stormwater
|
SUMMARY At its meeting of 12th October 2017, Council deferred consideration of the September 2017 Traffic Committee Item 16 “Traffic Calming – Intersection of Croydon Rd and Church St, Croydon” pending a site meeting with interested Councillors and residents. The site meeting was held on 7th December 2017.
This report seeks Council consideration and adoption of the Local Traffic Committee recommendation for this item as follows:
|
|
THAT recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting of 12th October 2017 concerning Item 16 “Traffic Calming – Intersection of Croydon Rd and Church St, Croydon” be adopted. |
BACKGROUND
The feasibility of providing a roundabout at the intersection of Church Street and Croydon Road, Croydon has been examined over several years. A chronological history of the project dating back to 2001 is summarized as follows:
· The former Ashfield Council devised a Traffic Management Plan in 2001/2002 for the Ashfield LGA. Amongst the devices or road treatments considered under that Traffic Management Plan was the proposal for a roundabout at the intersection of Croydon Road and Church Street, Croydon;
· The former Ashfield Council subsequently commissioned a traffic consultant “Transport and Urban Planning” to examine the feasibility of certain devices and treatments as proposed under the Traffic Management Plan, including that of the roundabout at the intersection of Croydon Road and Church Street;
· The roundabout as proposed at the intersection was to be a small dome central island approx. 2-3 metres in diameter with painted splitter islands to all the approaches;
· The consultant’s report of November 2001 commented that this design was not preferred, owing to the narrow geometry and misalignment of the intersection. Vehicles would either mount the island or go to the wrong side of the island;
· The Local Traffic Committee at its meeting on the 1 March 2002 endorsed the concept of a roundabout and the recommendation was subsequently adopted by Council on the 26 March 2002;
· The project was placed on the future works program but did not receive funding to proceed to a detailed design stage.
· The proposal was re-visited in 2008 and reported back to the Council’s Works and Infrastructure meeting on 18 November 2008 based on the investigation of the original intent of a small dome roundabout. The report stated that;
“Further to this items being raised in the July Traffic Matters report, design work was undertaken to proceed with the proposal. During this process, it was determined that it is not possible to install any form of roundabout, as the off-set and angle branches of the intersection don’t allow sufficient room for even car turning movements around an island.
To deal with the major issue at the intersection of right turns being blocked by queues behind the opposite turning vehicle, an alternative treatment for the intersection is required that keeps the intersection clear until the turn can be made. Council has proposed a right turn bay northbound in Croydon Road that the RMS and NSW Police have agreed to in principle.”
· An alternate treatment was considered at the intersection providing a right turn bay from Croydon Road (South) into Church Street (East), together with a pedestrian refuge just south of the right turn bay. Residents were consulted at the time (around May 2009) and did not support the alternate treatment. It was resolved through a report to Council dated 21 July 2009, that any traffic measures at the intersection of Croydon Road and Church Street be deferred until a municipal traffic study is undertaken.
· Preparation of the Ashfield Traffic Management Strategy (ATMS) was commenced by Ashfield Council.
· In adopting the Ashfield Traffic Management Strategy the Inner West Council adopted a recommendation of the Local Representation Advisory Committee (LRAC) that:
“Consideration be given to commissioning an engineer’s report in relation to the proposed roundabout at the Croydon Road/Church Street intersection, noting the comments that were made on page 121 of the business paper.” – these comments are an extract from the ATMS and are shown below.
Resident Comment Response ATMS
· Complete Urban Pty Ltd were subsequently engaged to independently review the feasibility of a roundabout at the intersection and provided their report in August 2017.
· Intersection Traffic Counts were undertaken in March and September 2017 as follows:
|
Approach |
|
Direction |
ADT (vehicles per day) |
|
Croydon Road (north) |
Northbound |
Away from Church Street |
3,633 |
|
Southbound |
Towards Church Street |
5,759 |
|
|
Croydon Road (south) |
Northbound |
Towards Church Street |
4,426 |
|
Southbound |
Away from Church Street |
5,170 |
|
|
Church Street (east) (taken Sept 2017) |
Eastbound |
Away from Croydon Road |
2640 |
|
Westbound |
Towards Croydon Road |
1776 |
|
|
Church Street (west) |
Eastbound |
Towards Croydon Road |
547 |
|
Westbound |
Away from Croydon Road |
736 |
· The feasibility report and findings where considered by the Local Traffic Committee at its September 2017 meeting. A copy of the report to the Local Traffic Committee is provided at Attachment 1 and Minutes of the meeting dealing with that item provided as Attachment 2.
· The Local Traffic Committee recommended that:
· At its meeting of 12th October 2017, Council resolved to defer consideration of the Local Traffic Committee recommendation pending a site meeting with interested Councillors and residents.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
An amount of $105,000 is proposed for the 2018/19 capital budget to implement works at the Church St/ Croydon Rd intersection. Following consultation and completion of detailed design, estimated costs of Council’s preferred treatment will be reviewed.
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
Although a roundabout treatment of the intersection maybe the option preferred by residents using the intersection, successive design reviews have indicated that such a treatment cannot be accommodated so as to operate safely within the existing intersection configuration and constraints. This view is supported by the technical review undertaken by the Traffic Committee.
In summary the site constraints limiting the safe provision of a roundabout include:
· The intersection geometry containing a skewed and offset approach leg on Church St.
· Limited road space to meet geometric design standards without road widening
· Because of the offset intersection leg and restricted road space:
o a small circular dome cannot be positioned at the centre of the intersection legs thus making turning movements difficult.
o Sufficient deflection to slow approaching vehicles entering the roundabout cannot be achieved.
o Vehicle turning movements will potentially overlap and encroach on the wrong side of the road.
o Swept paths of vehicles cannot be accommodated at reasonable intersection speeds.
o Inability to accommodate safe U-turn movements of design vehicles
In addition to the above it should be noted that intersection modelling indicates that whilst there is some improvement to the eastern Church Street approach, a roundabout would reduce the performance on other legs.
Due to the non-feasibility of a roundabout, investigation has turned to alternate options to upgrade /enhance the safety and operation of the intersection. As outlined in the attached Traffic Committee report this includes either:
· providing a right turn lane to improve the level of operation and reduce the delay of traffic coming out of Church Street (east) as depicted in Figure 1 below, or
· maintain the current intersection geometry of the intersection.
In both options 'No Stopping' restrictions would be required at appropriate distances both in Croydon Road and Church Street for improved sight distance and vehicular movement around the intersection. This would involve some loss of on-street parking to facilitate the safe and proper treatment of the intersection, as would be the case with any other treatment. In both options, a new speed hump (or cushions) is proposed in Croydon Road, north of Church Street, to reduce speed in approach to the intersection.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Should Council adopt the Traffic Committee recommendations, consultation on the options outlined in the recommendations will be undertaken.
Figure 1 : Right – Turn Bay Treatment Option.
|
1.⇩ |
Report to Traffic Committee September 2017 |
|
2.⇩ |
Minutes of Traffic Committee September 2017, Item 16 |
|
3.⇩ |
Feasibility Study Report-COMPLETE Urban Pty. Ltd. |
|
4.⇩ |
Various optional plan treatments with vehicle turning paths-supplement inofrmation to the feasibility report |
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 10 April 2018
Prepared By: John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager
Authorised By: Wal Petschler - Group Manager Footpaths, Roads, Traffic and Stormwater
|
SUMMARY The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 10 April 2018 are presented for Council consideration. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 10 April 2018 be received and the recommendations be adopted. |
BACKGROUND
Meeting of the Inner West Council Local Traffic Committee was held on 10 April 2018 at Petersham. The minutes of the April meeting are shown at ATTACHMENT 1.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Projects proposed for implementation in 2017/18 are funded within existing budget allocations.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Specific projects have undergone public consultation as indicated in the respective reports to
the Traffic Committee. Members of the public attended the meeting to address the Committee
on specific items.
|
1.⇩ |
Minutes of Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 10 April 2018 |
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Investment Report as at 31 March 2018
Prepared By: Brendhan Barry - Manager Financial Services
Authorised By: Michael Tzimoulas - Deputy General Manager Chief Financial and Administration Officer
|
SUMMARY In accordance with the requirements of clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council is provided with a listing of all investments made pursuant to section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993 and reported for period ending 31 March 2018.
|
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the report be received and noted. |
BACKGROUND
Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that a report be presented to Council each month listing all investments with a certification from the Responsible Accounting Officer. Attached to this report are further reports from Council’s Investment Advisors, Prudential Investment Services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Investment Holdings report (Attachment 1) for the period ending 31 March 2018 reflects Council’s holding in various investment categories these are listed in the table below. Council’s portfolio size sits at $224m, of which 86% was rated A rated or above.
Council’s annualised return of continues to exceed the bank bill index benchmark. The period ending 31 March 2018, the portfolio for Inner West Council had a One-Month Portfolio Investment Return (2.28%) above the UBSWA Bank Bill Index Benchmark (1.72%).
Council has a well-diversified portfolio with 86% of the portfolio spread among the top three credit rating categories (A long term / A2 short term and higher).
Council has a well-diversified portfolio invested among a range of term deposits and
floating rate notes from highly rated Australian ADIs. The graph above shows Council’s individual institution exposure compared with the investment policy limits.
The graph above demonstrates the term to maturity for Council’s investments compared to Council’s approved investment policy limits.
Environmental Commitments
The graph above illustrates the gap between yields received from Fossil Fuel (FF) versus Non Fossil Fuel (NFF) Investments. The Big 4 banks (which comprise the FF investments) continue to provide a higher interest rate yield in the current economic environment within Council’s investment portfolio.
Council’s holdings in Non-Fossil investments were $164.8m with the relative total portfolio percentage of 73% in Non-Fossil investments. The attachments to this report summarise all investments held by Council and interest returns for periods ending 31 March 2018.
The Current Market value is required to be accounted for. The Current Market Value is a likely outcome if Council were to consider recalling the investment prior to its due date.
All investments made for the month of March 2018 have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, Local Government Regulations and the Inner West Council Investment Policy.
|
1.⇩ |
IWC Mar18 |
|
2.⇩ |
IWC Economic and Investment Portfolio Commentary Mar 18 |
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Notice of Motion to Rescind: Item 17 Notice of Motion: Councillor Access to Media Services - 27 March 2018 Council Meeting
From: Councillors Victor Macri, Deputy Mayor, Julie Passas and Vittoria Raciti
|
Motion:
We, the abovementioned Councillors, hereby submit a Notice of Motion to rescind Item 17 from 27 March 2018 Ordinary Council meeting as shown below:
THAT Councillors be provided with access to media services that are needed for their work and role as a Councillor. These include:
· Sydney Morning Herald (week day and weekend); · Daily Telegraph; and · Courier - Inner West and other regions. |
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Notice of Motion to Rescind: Item 10 - Local Traffic Committee Minutes of 7 December 2017 adopted by Council on 27 February 2018 [Proposed Bus Stop and kerb extended pedestrian crossover facility outside/near No.126 Victoria Street, Ashfield (opposite Cardinal Freeman Retirement Village)]
From: Councillors Deputy Mayor, Julie Passas, Victor Macri and Vittoria Raciti
|
Motion:
We, the abovementioned Councillors, hereby submit a Notice of Motion to rescind Council’s resolution of 27 February 2018, in relation to the Local Traffic Committee Minutes of 7 December 2017 to adopt Item 10 Proposed Bus Stop and kerb extended pedestrian crossover facility outside/near No.126 Victoria Street, Ashfield (opposite Cardinal Freeman Retirement Village). |
BACKGROUND
To support this rescission motion, the Councillors who are have lodged this rescission motion have forwarded a petition to Council with 26 signatories requesting that Council do not proceed with this bus stop.
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Notice of Motion: Minister’s Award in Local Government
Council at its meeting on 10 April 2018 deferred this item to the meeting to be held on 24 April 2018.
From: Councillor Anna York
|
Motion:
THAT Council congratulate Councillor Lucille McKenna OAM, on receiving the Minister’s Award in Local Government in the Elected Representative (Metro) category on International Women’s Day. |
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Notice of Motion: Multicultural Policy
Council at its meeting on 10 April 2018 deferred this item to the meeting to be held on 24 April 2018.
From: Councillors Councillor Sam Iskandar and Councillor Mark Drury
|
Motion:
THAT Council prepare a report on ways to support our multicultural communities including: a. Delivering the largest Lunar festival in the history of the Inner West to celebrate our Chinese and Vietnamese communities; b. Establishing an Inner West Anti-Racism Film Festival with entries to come from local residents, community groups and schools; c. Creating a Multicultural Advisory Committee and Inter-Faith Reference Group to inform Council decision making; d. Instituting Civic Receptions to celebrate the national days of local ethic communities including the Chinese, Vietnamese, Greek, Portuguese, Italian and Lebanese communities; e. Making sure important Council information is available and easily accessible in community languages; f. Reestablishing international community to community relationships which existed under the former councils; and g. Appointing a dedicated multicultural development officer to support local organisations. |
Background
The inner west is the birthplace of multiculturalism in Australia, having been enriched by waves of migration from nations such as Greece, Italy, Lebanon, Vietnam, China, Portugal and many other nations. We must make sure that the Inner West Council does everything it can to celebrate our unique and diverse community.
We must bring our community leaders to the table to ensure that our ethnic communities have a voice and are empowered by Council. And as a community leader, Council must tackle the resurgence of racism in the Australia community head on. There are a range of initiatives Council could undertake to further enrich and support our local multicultural community.
Officer’s Comments:
Comment from Group Manager Communication, Events and Engagement:
The event costs alone are estimated to be in the vicinity of $500,000. A more detailed costing could be provided with additional information such as concept/brief, event size, location, reach, capacity, programming, etc. Consideration would also need to be given to hiring more events staff as our current team are only resourced to deliver the existing program but not additional major events.
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Notice of Motion: Inner West Business Counts 2017
Council at its meeting on 10 April 2018 deferred this item to the meeting to be held on 24 April 2018.
From: Councillor John Stamolis
|
Motion:
THAT Council receive and note and use for internal analysis and reporting. |
Background
· The Inner West Council has 19,547 businesses (at 2017).
· The Inner West Council ranks 8th highest in terms of the number of businesses for the 32 Councils in broader Sydney … of the 13 inner-city Councils (excluding City of Sydney) the Inner West Council has the highest number of businesses.
· 61.0% of businesses in the Inner West have a turnover under $200,000 – almost the same as for greater Sydney (60.8%).
· 2.5% of businesses in the Inner West have a turnover of $5 million or more, slightly lower than for greater Sydney (2.7%).
· One in five (19.9%) businesses in the Inner West Council area are in the Professional, scientific and technical industry. This compares with 14.7% for greater Sydney (excluding City of Sydney).
· Arts and recreation make up 3.2% of businesses in the Inner West, much higher than greater Sydney (1.3%) … but the Inner West accounts for 10.9% of all businesses classified as Arts and recreation across greater Sydney.
· In the Inner West, 60.7% of businesses are non-employing, significantly this is higher than greater Sydney (58.9%) but less than for the 13 inner-city Councils (62.1%).
· The Professional, scientific and technical services industry has both the largest number of employing businesses and non-employing businesses in the Inner West Council. There are 2,266 or 19.1% of businesses in the Professional, scientific and technical services industry in the Inner West which are non-employing while there are 1,627 or 21.1% which are employing.
· Construction is the second highest employing industry in the Inner West Council area but Rental, hiring and real estate services is the second highest non-employing industry.
|
Top 7 non-employing industries – Inner West |
Top 7 employing industries - Inner West |
|
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services |
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services |
|
Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services |
Construction |
|
Financial and Insurance Services |
Accommodation and Food Services |
|
Construction |
Retail Trade |
|
Transport, Postal and Warehousing |
Health Care and Social Assistance |
|
Health Care and Social Assistance |
Manufacturing |
|
Retail Trade |
Wholesale Trade |
ABS data for 2017 shows that the Inner West Council has 19,547 businesses or 4.6% of businesses across the 32 Councils in broader Sydney.
Of the 32 Councils in broader Sydney (excluding City of Sydney), the Inner West Council ranks 8th in terms of the number of businesses. Canterbury-Bankstown ranks highest with 32,435 businesses while Northern Beaches ranks second with 31,951 businesses.
Eleven (11) of the 32 Councils have under 10,000 businesses.
|
Councils in greater Sydney |
No. Businesses |
% of businesses |
|
Canterbury-Bankstown (A) |
32,435 |
7.6% |
|
Northern Beaches (A) |
31,951 |
7.5% |
|
Parramatta (C) |
24,532 |
5.7% |
|
Central Coast (C) |
22,604 |
5.3% |
|
Sutherland Shire (A) |
21,710 |
5.1% |
|
Blacktown (C) |
21,125 |
4.9% |
|
The Hills Shire (A) |
20,253 |
4.7% |
|
Inner West (A) |
19,547 |
4.6% |
|
North Sydney (A) |
15,766 |
3.7% |
|
Liverpool (C) |
15,541 |
3.6% |
|
Georges River (A) |
15,368 |
3.6% |
|
Bayside (A) |
15,169 |
3.5% |
|
Fairfield (C) |
15,102 |
3.5% |
|
Ku-ring-gai (A) |
14,389 |
3.4% |
|
Hornsby (A) |
13,531 |
3.2% |
|
Penrith (C) |
13,518 |
3.2% |
|
Randwick (C) |
12,731 |
3.0% |
|
Willoughby (C) |
12,219 |
2.8% |
|
Ryde (C) |
11,922 |
2.8% |
|
Canada Bay (A) |
10,607 |
2.5% |
|
Woollahra (A) |
9,994 |
2.3% |
|
Waverley (A) |
9,980 |
2.3% |
|
Campbelltown (C) |
8,875 |
2.1% |
|
Hawkesbury (C) |
6,783 |
1.6% |
|
Camden (A) |
6,196 |
1.4% |
|
Strathfield (A) |
5,872 |
1.4% |
|
Blue Mountains (C) |
5,483 |
1.3% |
|
Burwood (A) |
4,813 |
1.1% |
|
Lane Cove (A) |
4,614 |
1.1% |
|
Mosman (A) |
4,232 |
1.0% |
|
Hunters Hill (A) |
1,980 |
0.5% |
|
Total |
428,842 |
100.0% |
Business turnover
The distribution of businesses in the Inner West by turnover ranges is very similar to the average across broader Sydney. That is, 61.0% of businesses in the Inner West have turnover under $200,000 – almost the same as for greater Sydney (60.8%).
In terms of the highest turnover category, 2.5% of businesses in the Inner West have a turnover of $5 million or more, slightly lower than for greater Sydney (2.7%).
|
LGA |
Under $200K |
$200K to $2m |
$2m to $5m |
$5m+ |
Total |
|
Bayside (A) |
9,639 |
4,508 |
540 |
470 |
15,169 |
|
Blacktown (C) |
13,556 |
6,169 |
728 |
674 |
21,125 |
|
Blue Mountains (C) |
3,528 |
1,770 |
135 |
51 |
5,483 |
|
Burwood (A) |
2,984 |
1,581 |
146 |
136 |
4,813 |
|
Camden (A) |
3,464 |
2,319 |
249 |
156 |
6,196 |
|
Campbelltown (C) |
5,451 |
2,847 |
315 |
251 |
8,875 |
|
Canada Bay (A) |
6,464 |
3,564 |
320 |
261 |
10,607 |
|
Canterbury-Bankstown (A) |
20,764 |
9,608 |
1,183 |
889 |
32,435 |
|
Central Coast |
13,159 |
8,260 |
764 |
437 |
22,604 |
|
Fairfield (C) |
8,925 |
5,076 |
595 |
476 |
15,102 |
|
Georges River (A) |
9,924 |
4,695 |
480 |
301 |
15,368 |
|
Hawkesbury (C) |
3,739 |
2,587 |
258 |
175 |
6,783 |
|
Hornsby (A) |
8,696 |
4,205 |
391 |
230 |
13,531 |
|
Hunters Hill (A) |
1,168 |
705 |
65 |
30 |
1,980 |
|
Inner West (A) |
11,916 |
6,399 |
713 |
490 |
19,547 |
|
Ku-ring-gai (A) |
9,080 |
4,747 |
353 |
220 |
14,389 |
|
Lane Cove (A) |
2,789 |
1,451 |
183 |
145 |
4,614 |
|
Liverpool (C) |
9,481 |
5,112 |
535 |
407 |
15,541 |
|
Mosman (A) |
2,580 |
1,464 |
147 |
57 |
4,232 |
|
North Sydney (A) |
8,826 |
5,213 |
824 |
898 |
15,766 |
|
Northern Beaches (A) |
19,224 |
10,887 |
1,071 |
705 |
31,951 |
|
Parramatta (C) |
15,239 |
7,499 |
942 |
852 |
24,532 |
|
Penrith (C) |
7,746 |
4,891 |
539 |
383 |
13,518 |
|
Randwick (C) |
7,952 |
4,226 |
333 |
209 |
12,731 |
|
Ryde (C) |
7,314 |
3,748 |
417 |
468 |
11,922 |
|
Strathfield (A) |
3,337 |
1,997 |
241 |
297 |
5,872 |
|
Sutherland Shire (A) |
12,921 |
7,566 |
794 |
441 |
21,710 |
|
The Hills Shire (A) |
11,977 |
6,964 |
797 |
549 |
20,253 |
|
Waverley (A) |
5,954 |
3,502 |
339 |
188 |
9,980 |
|
Willoughby (C) |
7,054 |
4,129 |
510 |
493 |
12,219 |
|
Woollahra (A) |
5,873 |
3,531 |
397 |
205 |
9,994 |
|
Total |
260,724 |
141,220 |
15,304 |
11,544 |
428,842 |
Here is the percentage distribution for the table above.
|
LGA |
Under $200K |
$200K to $2m |
$2m to $5m |
$5m+ |
Total |
|
Bayside (A) |
63.5% |
29.7% |
3.6% |
3.1% |
100.0% |
|
Blacktown (C) |
64.2% |
29.2% |
3.4% |
3.2% |
100.0% |
|
Blue Mountains (C) |
64.3% |
32.3% |
2.5% |
0.9% |
100.0% |
|
Burwood (A) |
62.0% |
32.8% |
3.0% |
2.8% |
100.0% |
|
Camden (A) |
55.9% |
37.4% |
4.0% |
2.5% |
100.0% |
|
Campbelltown (C) |
61.4% |
32.1% |
3.5% |
2.8% |
100.0% |
|
Canada Bay (A) |
60.9% |
33.6% |
3.0% |
2.5% |
100.0% |
|
Canterbury-Bankstown (A) |
64.0% |
29.6% |
3.6% |
2.7% |
100.0% |
|
Central Coast |
58.2% |
36.5% |
3.4% |
1.9% |
100.0% |
|
Fairfield (C) |
59.1% |
33.6% |
3.9% |
3.2% |
100.0% |
|
Georges River (A) |
64.6% |
30.6% |
3.1% |
2.0% |
100.0% |
|
Hawkesbury (C) |
55.1% |
38.1% |
3.8% |
2.6% |
100.0% |
|
Hornsby (A) |
64.3% |
31.1% |
2.9% |
1.7% |
100.0% |
|
Hunters Hill (A) |
59.0% |
35.6% |
3.3% |
1.5% |
100.0% |
|
Inner West (A) |
61.0% |
32.7% |
3.6% |
2.5% |
100.0% |
|
Ku-ring-gai (A) |
63.1% |
33.0% |
2.5% |
1.5% |
100.0% |
|
Lane Cove (A) |
60.4% |
31.4% |
4.0% |
3.1% |
100.0% |
|
Liverpool (C) |
61.0% |
32.9% |
3.4% |
2.6% |
100.0% |
|
Mosman (A) |
61.0% |
34.6% |
3.5% |
1.3% |
100.0% |
|
North Sydney (A) |
56.0% |
33.1% |
5.2% |
5.7% |
100.0% |
|
Northern Beaches (A) |
60.2% |
34.1% |
3.4% |
2.2% |
100.0% |
|
Parramatta (C) |
62.1% |
30.6% |
3.8% |
3.5% |
100.0% |
|
Penrith (C) |
57.3% |
36.2% |
4.0% |
2.8% |
100.0% |
|
Randwick (C) |
62.5% |
33.2% |
2.6% |
1.6% |
100.0% |
|
Ryde (C) |
61.3% |
31.4% |
3.5% |
3.9% |
100.0% |
|
Strathfield (A) |
56.8% |
34.0% |
4.1% |
5.1% |
100.0% |
|
Sutherland Shire (A) |
59.5% |
34.9% |
3.7% |
2.0% |
100.0% |
|
The Hills Shire (A) |
59.1% |
34.4% |
3.9% |
2.7% |
100.0% |
|
Waverley (A) |
59.7% |
35.1% |
3.4% |
1.9% |
100.0% |
|
Willoughby (C) |
57.7% |
33.8% |
4.2% |
4.0% |
100.0% |
|
Woollahra (A) |
58.8% |
35.3% |
4.0% |
2.1% |
100.0% |
|
Total |
60.8% |
32.9% |
3.6% |
2.7% |
100.0% |
Inner city analysis
Of the 13 inner-city Councils (excluding City of Sydney) the Inner West Council has the highest number of businesses.
The 19,547 businesses in the Inner West Council is 24% more than the next inner-city Council – North Sydney (15,766).
The Inner West Council has a slightly higher proportion of businesses at the lower turnover range (under $200,000) when compared with the 13 inner-city Councils (61.0% vs 59.7%).
|
LGA |
Under $200K |
$200K to $2m |
$2m to $5m |
$5m+ |
Total |
|
Inner West (A) |
11,916 |
6,399 |
713 |
490 |
19,547 |
|
North Sydney (A) |
8,826 |
5,213 |
824 |
898 |
15,766 |
|
Randwick (C) |
7,952 |
4,226 |
333 |
209 |
12,731 |
|
Willoughby (C) |
7,054 |
4,129 |
510 |
493 |
12,219 |
|
Ryde (C) |
7,314 |
3,748 |
417 |
468 |
11,922 |
|
Canada Bay (A) |
6,464 |
3,564 |
320 |
261 |
10,607 |
|
Woollahra (A) |
5,873 |
3,531 |
397 |
205 |
9,994 |
|
Waverley (A) |
5,954 |
3,502 |
339 |
188 |
9,980 |
|
Strathfield (A) |
3,337 |
1,997 |
241 |
297 |
5,872 |
|
Burwood (A) |
2,984 |
1,581 |
146 |
136 |
4,813 |
|
Lane Cove (A) |
2,789 |
1,451 |
183 |
145 |
4,614 |
|
Mosman (A) |
2,580 |
1,464 |
147 |
57 |
4,232 |
|
Hunters Hill (A) |
1,168 |
705 |
65 |
30 |
1,980 |
|
Total |
74,211 |
41,510 |
4,635 |
3,877 |
124,277 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%Inner West |
61.0% |
32.7% |
3.6% |
2.5% |
100.0% |
|
%Inner City |
59.7% |
33.4% |
3.7% |
3.1% |
100.0% |
An industry view
In the Inner West, the Professional, scientific and technical industry has the highest number of businesses of all 19 industries. One in five (19.9%) businesses in the Inner West is in the Professional, scientific and technical industry. This compares with 14.7% for greater Sydney (excluding City of Sydney). In fact, 6.2% of all businesses in greater Sydney which are classified as Professional, scientific and technical are in the Inner West.
Arts and recreation make up 3.2% of businesses in the Inner West, much higher than greater Sydney (1.3%). Much more interesting is that the Inner West accounts for 10.9% of all businesses classified as Arts and recreation across greater Sydney.
The result is similar again for the Information, media and telecommunications industry where 10.1% of these businesses within greater Sydney are found in the Inner West.
|
|
Inner West |
%Inner West |
Total Sydney |
%Sydney |
Inner West % of industry |
|
Professional, Scientific and Tech Services |
3,892 |
19.9% |
63,180 |
14.7% |
6.2% |
|
Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services |
2,209 |
11.3% |
50,354 |
11.7% |
4.4% |
|
Construction |
2,103 |
10.8% |
70,874 |
16.5% |
3.0% |
|
Financial and Insurance Services |
1,469 |
7.5% |
39,593 |
9.2% |
3.7% |
|
Health Care and Social Assistance |
1,454 |
7.4% |
28,251 |
6.6% |
5.1% |
|
Retail Trade |
1,262 |
6.5% |
25,154 |
5.9% |
5.0% |
|
Transport, Postal and Warehousing |
1,081 |
5.5% |
34,266 |
8.0% |
3.2% |
|
Accommodation and Food Services |
955 |
4.9% |
16,125 |
3.8% |
5.9% |
|
Administrative and Support Services |
818 |
4.2% |
18,795 |
4.4% |
4.4% |
|
Manufacturing |
782 |
4.0% |
15,261 |
3.6% |
5.1% |
|
Wholesale Trade |
778 |
4.0% |
18,302 |
4.3% |
4.3% |
|
Other Services |
711 |
3.6% |
17,217 |
4.0% |
4.1% |
|
Arts and Recreation Services |
626 |
3.2% |
5,752 |
1.3% |
10.9% |
|
Information Media and Telecommunications |
576 |
2.9% |
5,697 |
1.3% |
10.1% |
|
Education and Training |
348 |
1.8% |
6,630 |
1.5% |
5.2% |
|
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing |
129 |
0.7% |
4,683 |
1.1% |
2.8% |
|
Public Administration and Safety |
76 |
0.4% |
1,893 |
0.4% |
4.0% |
|
Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services |
27 |
0.1% |
1,075 |
0.3% |
2.5% |
|
Mining |
13 |
0.1% |
381 |
0.1% |
3.4% |
|
Total |
19,547 |
100.0% |
428,842 |
100.0% |
4.6% |
A look at employment
In the Inner West, 60.7% of businesses are non-employing, significantly more than greater Sydney (58.9%) but less than for the 13 inner-city Councils (62.1%).
This proportion of businesses which employ people in the Inner West is 39.3% or 7,673 businesses.
|
|
Non employing |
1-19 |
20-199 |
200+ |
Total |
|
Bayside (A) |
9,434 |
5,410 |
329 |
12 |
15,169 |
|
Blacktown (C) |
12,334 |
8,324 |
447 |
18 |
21,125 |
|
Blue Mountains (C) |
3,224 |
2,154 |
62 |
3 |
5,483 |
|
Burwood (A) |
2,930 |
1,811 |
63 |
9 |
4,813 |
|
Camden (A) |
3,181 |
2,901 |
124 |
3 |
6,196 |
|
Campbelltown (C) |
4,974 |
3,698 |
191 |
6 |
8,875 |
|
Canada Bay (A) |
6,553 |
3,935 |
144 |
3 |
10,607 |
|
Canterbury-Bankstown (A) |
19,279 |
12,652 |
511 |
10 |
32,435 |
|
Central Coast |
12,222 |
9,896 |
480 |
17 |
22,604 |
|
Fairfield (C) |
7,810 |
7,007 |
273 |
9 |
15,102 |
|
Georges River (A) |
9,381 |
5,769 |
209 |
0 |
15,368 |
|
Hawkesbury (C) |
3,537 |
3,083 |
151 |
6 |
6,783 |
|
Hornsby (A) |
8,011 |
5,305 |
193 |
12 |
13,531 |
|
Hunters Hill (A) |
1,321 |
653 |
17 |
0 |
1,980 |
|
Inner West (A) |
11,874 |
7,241 |
422 |
15 |
19,547 |
|
Ku-ring-gai (A) |
9,064 |
5,152 |
164 |
6 |
14,389 |
|
Lane Cove (A) |
2,893 |
1,563 |
133 |
3 |
4,614 |
|
Liverpool (C) |
8,535 |
6,720 |
264 |
12 |
15,541 |
|
Mosman (A) |
2,809 |
1,364 |
46 |
0 |
4,232 |
|
North Sydney (A) |
9,828 |
5,384 |
553 |
15 |
15,766 |
|
Northern Beaches (A) |
18,723 |
12,642 |
570 |
21 |
31,951 |
|
Parramatta (C) |
14,602 |
9,344 |
535 |
23 |
24,532 |
|
Penrith (C) |
7,296 |
5,923 |
306 |
6 |
13,518 |
|
Randwick (C) |
7,960 |
4,569 |
187 |
9 |
12,731 |
|
Ryde (C) |
7,048 |
4,497 |
345 |
18 |
11,922 |
|
Strathfield (A) |
3,539 |
2,168 |
134 |
12 |
5,872 |
|
Sutherland Shire (A) |
12,377 |
8,976 |
363 |
12 |
21,710 |
|
The Hills Shire (A) |
11,640 |
8,210 |
393 |
9 |
20,253 |
|
Waverley (A) |
6,340 |
3,453 |
184 |
6 |
9,980 |
|
Willoughby (C) |
7,289 |
4,583 |
311 |
12 |
12,219 |
|
Woollahra (A) |
6,777 |
3,060 |
151 |
3 |
9,994 |
|
Total |
252,785 |
167,447 |
8,255 |
290 |
428,842 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
. %total Sydney |
58.9% |
39.0% |
1.9% |
0.1% |
100.0% |
|
. % inner city |
62.1% |
35.6% |
2.2% |
0.1% |
100.0% |
|
. % Inner West |
60.7% |
37.0% |
2.2% |
0.1% |
100.0% |
Employing and non-employing businesses
The Professional, scientific and technical services industry has both the largest number of employing businesses and non-employing businesses in the Inner West Council.
That is, there are 2,266 businesses in the Professional, scientific and technical services industry which are non-employing which is 19.1% of all non-employing businesses in the Inner West while there are 1,627 businesses in the Professional, scientific and technical services industry which are employing which is 21.1% of all employing businesses in the Inner West.
Construction is the second highest employing industry but Rental, hiring and real estate services is the second highest non-employing industry.
|
Top 7 non-employing industries – Inner West |
Top 7 employing industries - Inner West |
|
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services |
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services |
|
Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services |
Construction |
|
Financial and Insurance Services |
Accommodation and Food Services |
|
Construction |
Retail Trade |
|
Transport, Postal and Warehousing |
Health Care and Social Assistance |
|
Health Care and Social Assistance |
Manufacturing |
|
Retail Trade |
Wholesale Trade |
|
|
Non-employing |
%non-emp |
Employing |
%emp |
|
Professional, Scientific and Tech Services |
2,266 |
19.1% |
1,627 |
21.2% |
|
Construction |
1,184 |
10.0% |
921 |
12.0% |
|
Accommodation and Food Services |
229 |
1.9% |
726 |
9.5% |
|
Retail Trade |
587 |
4.9% |
673 |
8.8% |
|
Health Care and Social Assistance |
879 |
7.4% |
574 |
7.5% |
|
Manufacturing |
301 |
2.5% |
477 |
6.2% |
|
Wholesale Trade |
319 |
2.7% |
461 |
6.0% |
|
Other Services |
298 |
2.5% |
415 |
5.4% |
|
Administrative and Support Services |
435 |
3.7% |
385 |
5.0% |
|
Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services |
1,928 |
16.2% |
284 |
3.7% |
|
Financial and Insurance Services |
1,198 |
10.1% |
272 |
3.5% |
|
Information Media and Telecommunications |
354 |
3.0% |
224 |
2.9% |
|
Transport, Postal and Warehousing |
900 |
7.6% |
183 |
2.4% |
|
Education and Training |
189 |
1.6% |
156 |
2.0% |
|
Arts and Recreation Services |
469 |
3.9% |
150 |
2.0% |
|
Currently Unknown |
176 |
1.5% |
61 |
0.8% |
|
Public Administration and Safety |
38 |
0.3% |
42 |
0.5% |
|
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing |
101 |
0.9% |
31 |
0.4% |
|
Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services |
19 |
0.2% |
13 |
0.2% |
|
Mining |
4 |
0.0% |
3 |
0.0% |
|
Total |
11,874 |
100.0% |
7,678 |
100.0% |
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Notice of Motion: A Musical Instrument Lending Library
Council at its meeting on 10 April 2018 deferred this item to the meeting to be held on 24 April 2018.
From: Councillor Anna York
|
Motion:
THAT:
1. A report be prepared for Council’s consideration outlining the options and process for establishing a music instrument lending library by expanding the existing library system to include musical instruments – including a potential location and operations of an initial site for a musical instrument lending service; and
2. Council approach Music NSW to investigate a potential partner/s to support the establishment of an Inner West Music Library |
Background
Music and arts education are critical elements to children’s development, and the opportunity to engage with music has learning and development benefits in domains well beyond music and the arts.
While many children in the Inner West LGA are afforded the opportunity to engage with and learn a musical instrument through their school, many currently are missing out on this opportunity, in part due to the prohibitive cost for some of buying musical instruments. This is especially true for young children who may prefer the opportunity to try learning several instruments before they settle on their instrument of choice.
Parents of school aged children in the former Marrickville LGA have raised the suggestion of expanding our existing library system to include the lending of musical instruments, to support the access for all children to a musical education, and allow young children to be exposed to many types of music and instruments as part of their education and learning.
This proposal would see an existing library site potentially house and loan instruments to the public. A report is requested to further scope the requirements for such a system, including a suitable location for an initial musical lending library site (within the existing IWC library system). Further, it is suggested that Council approach Music NSW to discuss the options for partnering with a suitable music and / or community organisation, including the potential to source pre-loved instruments through donation from a suitable organisation.
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Notice of Motion: Train station upgrades and accessibility in the Inner West
Council at its meeting on 10 April 2018 deferred this item to the meeting to be held on 24 April 2018.
From: Councillor Anna York
|
Motion:
THAT Council urgently write to the NSW Premier & Minister for Transport:
1. Highlighting the importance of an accessible public transport network to the community in the Inner West, in the context of increasing demand on our stations, proposed increased density along the Sydenham to Bankstown corridor (strongly opposed by our community) and the privatisation (and potential loss of service levels) of inner west bus routes;
2. Demanding that TfNSW’s own train station accessibility and upgrade assessment be followed, which would see prioritisation of Dulwich Hill, Petersham and Lewisham station upgrades (ranked 2nd, 11th and 18th of 100 respectively);
3. Expressing Council’s (and the Inner West community’s) deep disappointment that only 5 of the 100 highest ranked stations have received accessibility upgrades in the 5 years since the assessment was made by TfNSW; and
4. Requesting the Minister explain the methodology currently being used to prioritise station upgrades, noting that funding has most recently been announced for five stations – two of which are not prioritised in the top 100 (Casula and Beverly Hills), with the other 3 all ranked outside the top 30 (Como, Beecroft and Glenbrook).
|
Background
In 2013, TfNSW undertook a needs assessment of train station upgrades and accessibility based on criteria including station use, interchange requirements, area demographics and distance to nearby train stations.
Commuters in areas such as Dulwich Hill, Petersham, Lewisham and Stanmore have been dealing with limited accessibility on steep staircases without lift or ramp access for many years. These stair cases make accessing the station impossible for those using wheelchairs, parents and carers using proms or for elderly commuters with mobility challenges.
Based on TfNSW’s assessment, Dulwich Hill train station was ranked 2nd of 100 in priority need for train station accessibility upgrade. Petersham station was ranked 11th and Lewisham station was ranked 18th.
However, in the 5 years since this assessment was undertaken, only 5 of the 100 prioritised train stations have received funding for accessibility upgrades. Many stations not included or much further down the list have recently been announced as receiving state government funding for upgrades.
Many in our community have been advocating and campaigning for greater accessibility on our train stations for many years. It is important that Council continues to advocate for greater accessibility on our train network, as we have continued to do in relation to the privatisation of our bus services.
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Notice of Motion: Footpath Grass Verge Maintenance
From: Deputy Mayor, Councillor Julie Passas
|
Motion:
THAT the General Manager bring a report to Council outlining options for a uniform grass verge maintenance policy for all residential streets. |
Background
Council has inherited many policy directions from the three former councils that are anomalous to orderly and fair administration of the Inner West Council. The Policy on cutting grass verges of footpaths in the former Ashfield Council is one that varies substantially from that of the former Leichhardt and Marrickville Council policy.
The former Ashfield Council had a policy that required residents to cut the Council grass verge in front of their premises unless the resident was physically unable to whereon a contractor was engaged by the Council on request of the resident. The former Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils fully maintain the grass verges of residential streets.
I am moving that the General Manager bring a report to Council outlining options for a uniform policy that will take into consideration the current cost of grass verge maintenance and avenues for a more equitable policy that will ensure grass verges are maintained in an environmentally acceptable way that does not place additional budgetary burden on ratepayers.
Options may require considerations of ways Centrelink community work options are factored into Councils administration structure.
Officer’s Comments:
Comment from Group Manager Roads & Stormwater:
Preliminary estimates suggest the cost of extending a monthly verge mowing service across the former Ashfield LGA is likely to cost in the order of $500,000 pa. Currently this could only be funded from a reduction in other services or service levels. Councillors would be aware from budgetary briefings that a significant review of Council’s operational & maintenance services is currently being undertaken to guide the efficient harmonisation and integration of service delivery of the three former council operations. If the intent is to harmonise services across the LGA in a cost neutral manner it is imperative that this service review be completed before any policy development on maintenance service levels is undertaken. Potential cost efficiencies identified from the service reviews will greatly influence options and recommendations provided to Council.
Resource Implications:
Estimated staff time to audit existing services, develop and cost operational service models and subsequent draft policy development is likely to be in the order of 100 hrs and cost approximately $9000. Staff would be diverted from existing service provision duties.
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Notice of Motion: Wests Tigers Winter Homelessness Sleep Out
From: The Mayor, Councillor Darcy Byrne
|
Motion:
THAT Council:
1. Offer a Fee waiver for the use of Leichhardt Oval for the Wests Tigers and Wests Ashfield Leagues Club Sleep Out on 17 August. 2. Offer in kind logistical support for the preparation and cleanup of the event. 3. Provide joint promotional support for the event through regular Council communications channels.
|
Background
On Wednesday 28 March Council met with representatives from the Wests Tigers and Wests Ashfield Leagues Club regarding a proposal to hold a Sleep Out on Leichhardt Oval to raise funds for the Leichhardt Women’s Community Health Centre.
Leichhardt Women's Community Health Centre provides low-cost and affordable medical, allied and complementary health care and education to improve women's health. They are non-government organisation and operate on a not for profit basis.
The provide women’s health nurse clinics in five locations and women’s health general practitioner clinics as well as Acupuncture, Physiotherapy, Massage Therapy and Naturopathy. They provide counselling in English and Vietnamese and health education, as well as the state-wide Women Partners of Bisexual Men counselling and support service.
They also offer legal advice clinics in conjunction with Gowland Legal, a girls career mentoring program and support the Miranda Project, which works with women in the corrective services to help them not to re-offend.
The Wests Tigers have proposed holding the event on the evening of Friday 17 August which is Women in League week and the night before the Wests Tigers clash v Dragons.
The event itself would involve family friendly activities provided by the Wests Tigers. They are also hoping to organise early delivery of the big screen for the next day’s game so that the attendees can watch some football and/or movies.
Attendees will be invited to get their friends, families and local businesses to sponsor them, and the Tigers will be setting up targets and challenges between various groups attending.
The donations will be directed through a GoFundMe page set up for the event, allowing funds to go directly to the Leichhardt Women’s Centre.
There will also be collections on the night, and those funds will also be passed directly on to the Women’s Centre.
Officer’s Comments:
Comment from Group Manager Trees, Parks and Sports Fields:
On the morning of game day, there are a significant number of preparation tasks to be undertaken including mowing, striping up, re-line marking, filling sprinkler heads and minor holes. The Wests Tigers v Dragons game will be televised. Council staff will need to meet with the event organisers and work carefully with them to ensure that there is sufficient preparation time such that the grounds are ready for the first grade game.
The total cost to Council will be dependent on the total number of event participants. Additional cleaning, utilities, waste services and staff time will be required to support this event. The cost will be approximately $1,850.
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Notice of Motion: WestConnex and Sydney Harbour Tunnel Public Meeting
From: The Mayor, Councillor Darcy Byrne
|
Motion:
THAT:
1. Council hold a public meeting at Balmain Town Hall on Saturday 26 May to address impacts from WestConnex and the proposed second Sydney Harbour Tunnel, and acquisition of the Balmain Leagues Club; and 2. Rozelle Public School Parents and Citizens group be formally invited to jointly convene the public meeting with Council. |
Background
At the recent series of WestConnex meetings I made a commitment to convene a rally regarding WestConnex in our local area early in 2018.
Two rallies have since been convened by other community groups and organisations – the NSW Fix public Transport on 17 February in Hyde Park / Martin Place and the Rozelle Against WestConnex demonstration on 14 April at King George Park.
In both cases Council thought it better not to hold a competing event on a date within a short timeframe.
Council officers have begun early work to convene a public meeting concerning the impacts of WestConnex, the second Sydney Harbour Tunnel and the mooted compulsory acquisition of Balmain Leagues Club to use as a dive site for the Harbour Tunnel construction.
Rozelle Public School stands to face massive impacts from the possible use of the Balmain Leagues Club site as a dive site for the Tunnel project. The Parents and Citizens group of the school have indicated that they would like to be co-conveners of this event.
A date of 26 May has been identified as appropriate for all parties. This date also allows Council officers time to press the State Government for more information to better inform the attendees.
A tentative booking has been made for Balmain Town Hall, to allow a larger crowd and to proof against any weather.
Officer’s Comments:
Comment from Group Manager Strategic Planning:
The costs to Council for the meeting, including staff time, production and distribution of promotional material and AV equipment hire and operation for use at the meeting would be approximately $8,000. This is based on the cost of the hire of the hall being waived.
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Notice of Motion: Improving Community Safety in the Inner West
From: Councillor Louise Steer
|
THAT:
1. Council makes creating safer community spaces for people to gather at night time a high priority of council by supporting measures that encourage open, free and accessible spaces that are well integrated and connected with surrounding land uses and transport options; and
2. In line with this, a report be brought to Council within the next 2 months which provides an overview of the work currently being carried out by Inner West Council into improving community safety on both public and private lands and property across the LGA. That this report include, how community safety is being integrated into council’s planning controls; what audits have been done in the three councils of Leichhardt, Ashfield and Marrickville on identifying high risk places and what has been done about putting in place action plans to address identified risk areas; what staff resources are currently allocated to improving community safety and what other measures are currently being taken by Council to promote community safety, and what further measures are needed to ensure that Inner West residents can enjoy open, free and accessible spaces at night. The report should also include consideration on the setting up of a Community Safety Committee for the Inner West Council with members to include the police, relevant council staff members, Councillors and community stakeholders. |
Background
The Inner West is not always a safe place at night for everyone and we should all be able to walk our Inner West streets at night and use our community facilities without fear for our safety.
Safe, resilient and sustainable cities
The UN has declared Sustainable Goal 11 as “Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.” One way of doing this is by using design and planning principles to create safe places.
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cities/
Inner West Council has a statement on its website about community safety but without active support the policy will not work.
http://www.leichhardt.nsw.gov.au/Living-Here/Community-Safety
Some recent examples where issues of community safety have been raised:
Salmon Playground, 118 Station Street Newtown
Residents in Newtown have complained about the use of Salmon Playground, 118 Station Street Newtown at night. This playground is in an old park with a traditional sandstone fence. It is not fully fenced but the playground is in a quiet street set in the far back corner of the park. Residents are complaining about:
· random acts of vandalism such as breaking of car mirrors, spray painting cars with postcode tags, pushing of parked motorcycles and
· increased foot traffic after midnight as people use the playground for drug use or drinking.
The residents regularly contact police but the problems have not improved. They have requested that the council address the community safety issues in the playground.
Bland Street Ashfield
On 12 April 2018, a woman was attacked and strangled with a bike chain in Bland Street Ashfield by a random stranger. She was saved only by the quick action of a couple sitting in a nearby car. Bland St is a mixture of large Victorian terraces and medium rise apartment blocks.
Officer’s Comments:
Comment from Group Manager Community Services and Culture:
· The cost of staff time to conduct a safety audit will be approximately $1000;
· Council does not have a dedicated Community Safety Officer, however Community Projects personnel trained in CPTED and experienced in this field will contribute to the report; and
· The cost of staff time to administer a Committee of Council would be $4000 per annum. Please note there is no money allocated in the budget for any initiatives that may emerge from the potential Committee.
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Notice of Motion:Salmon Playground, 118 Station Street, Newtown
From: Councillor Louise Steer
|
Motion:
THAT Council staff consult with Stanmore Ward Councillors and local residents on community safety at Salmon Playground and report within 4 weeks to Council on a plan for improving community safety at Salmon Playground, 118 Station Street, Newtown, including proposed costs and timeline for works.
|
Background
Residents in Newtown have complained about the use of Salmon Playground, 118 Station Street Newtown at night. This playground is in an old park with a traditional sandstone fence. It is not fully fenced but the playground is in a quiet street set in the far back corner of the park.
Residents are complaining about:
· people using the playground for drug use and/or drinking, with increased foot traffic in Station Street after midnight, and
· random acts of vandalism such as breaking of car mirrors, spray painting cars with postcode tags, pushing of parked motorcycles.
The residents regularly contact police but the problems have not improved.
Officer’s Comments:
Comment from Group Manager Trees, Parks and Sports Fields:
The response to this recommendation will require multi-disciplinary input from a number of service units across Council. Staff will also need to liaise with the NSW Police. In order to meet the requirement for a four week response, staff will need to stop work on other projects to prioritise this. The cost to respond to this NOM is approximately $1,080 in staff time.
It is noted that the relevant staff who will lead this project are currently working on Notices of Motion in relation to Ted Floyd Way; Ferris Lane Annandale Green Space; Pride Seats – Celebrating Council’s Support of Marriage Equality and LGBTIQ Rights. In total, responding to these NOMs is 64 hours of staff time. This is delaying work on the development and implementation of a prioritised plan for Inner West parks Plans of Management and Masterplans.
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Notice of Motion: Inner West Council Libraries
From: Councillor Mark Drury
|
Motion:
THAT:
1. Council welcomes NSW Labor commitment to increase the library subsidy to $3.70 to index the subsidy and create the $25 million dollar public infrastructure plan; and
2. Council calls on the Premier to match this commitment. |
Background
The Libraries of the Inner West are essential services of the council. There are eight libraries across the inner west: Ashfield, Balmain, Dulwich Hill, Haberfield, Leichhardt, Stanmore, Sydenham and Council's historical archive centre in Petersham.
These libraries provide a place to read and reflect, they also provide a central community hub in our suburbs that provide services for senior citizens, members of our multicultural communities, and children and young people. Public libraries are particularly important places for children and young people. They provide talks, activities and ways to access our history.
Since 1944 the NSW state government entered into a commitment with local councils to provide a standard of public liberties across NSW. The main expression of is the state government commitment is the Library subsidy to each council for each resident. This subsidy has been stuck at $1.85 per resident since the mid 1990s. It has not been indexed and successive state governments have refused all submissions to increase it.
So whilst the cost of providing Libraries has increased, the technology needed has grown the demands of our community for a wider range of services has increased the subsidy from the state government has been frozen. This is the state government quietly reneging of their part of the bargain and cost shifting to councils. What has been happening across the state is decreased levels of library staff, fewer qualified staff ,diminished collection budgets , shorter opening hours , fewer public programs , and reduced library community outreach.
NSW Labor has recently announced that if elected that they will increase the subsidy to $3.70 per person and link the subsidy to changes in the consumer price index, to ensure it maintains its value in real terms into the future. NSW Labor also will create a public library infrastructure fund of $25 million in its first term for public libraries to upgrade their facilities or purchase new equipment.
|
1.⇩ |
Media Release - NSW Labor will increase funding to Community Libraries |
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Notice of Motion: Supporting early childhood education and childcare staff in the Inner West
From: Councillor Tom Kiat
|
Motion:
THAT Council:
1. Publicly express its support for the early childhood education and childcare campaign for equal pay campaign including the strike on 27 March 2018, including by writing in support to unions involved;
2. Reiterate its commitment to providing high quality, affordable, and accessible childcare in the Inner West, especially through the Council owned and operated centres including the new centre at Steel Park; and
3. Recognise the valuable, skilled work performed by our ECEC staff for our community, and reiterate Council's commitment to fair, non-discriminatory pay and conditions for our staff. |
Background
Given the number of ECEC workers Council employs, it is appropriate that we recognise and stand in solidarity with ECEC workers campaigning for fair and non-discriminatory pay and conditions.
ECEC workers supported by United Voice have been running an important campaign for education and fair remuneration for workers in the industry. The childcare sector is 97% women. Qualified early childhood educators earn some of the lowest wages in the country, according to United Voice as little as $21.29 an hour, or slightly above half the national average wage. As an escalation of the campaign calling on the federal government to legislate to fix this gender pay gap, ECEC workers walked off work on 27 March. This was the third strike in 12 months for the sector.
Many ECEC workers in the LGA are not employed by Council. We should recommit ourselves to fair, non-discriminatory pay and conditions for our own staff, and and express our solidarity for ECEC workers campaigning for fairness in their industry.
https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/early-childhood-educators-strike-equal-pay
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Question on Notice: Staffing Matters
From: Councillor Rochelle Porteous
Comment by the General Manager:
Staff have provided answers to the questions below where the information is immediately available. The answers to the remaining questions require a considerable amount of time in accessing the three former systems and consolidating data. In addition to normal operating functions HR staff are currently engaged in a significant project to harmonise the payroll systems of the former councils. A response to the remaining questions will be provided by June 2018.
Questions:
Staff employments before and after the forced amalgamation:
What was the effective full time staff number at Leichhardt Council at the time of amalgamation?
What was the effective full time staff number at Marrickville Council at the time of amalgamation?
What was the effective full time staff number at Ashfield Council at the time of amalgamation?
What was the staff headcount at Leichhardt Council at the time of amalgamation?
What was the staff headcount at Marrickville Council at the time of amalgamation?
What was the staff headcount at Ashfield Council at the time of amalgamation?
What is the current effective full time staff level at Inner West Council?
What is the current staff headcount at the Inner West Council?
Outdoor staff:
What was the outdoor staff headcount at Leichhardt Council at the time of amalgamation?
What was the outdoor staff headcount at Marrickville Council at the time of amalgamation?
What was the outdoor staff headcount at Ashfield Council at the time of amalgamation?
What is the current outdoor staff headcount at the Inner West Council?
How many of the current outdoor staff at the Inner West Council are casual?
How many of the current outdoor staff at Inner West Council are on fixed contracts?
Redundancies and resignations:
How many staff have been made redundant in the Inner West Council since May 12 2016?
Answer:
There have been no forced redundancies since 12 May 2016 and forty (40) staff have taken voluntary redundancy from 12 May 2016 to 31 March 2018.
How many staff have left their employment through early retirement, resignation or redundancy in the Inner West Council since May 12 2016?
Since May 2016, how many staff in the Inner West Council have been told that their current position no longer exists and that they will have to apply for new positions in the organisation?
Answer:
All staff were consulted on the new organisation structures and roles through mass and small section group meetings, the Staff Consultative Committee and the Unions on numerous occasions and advised of the recruitment process in applying for roles in the new Inner West structure, which was developed through consultation with the Unions, LGNSW and the Staff Consultative Committee. Nominated general staff, where there was no change to the positions, responsibilities and immediate structure, were transferred across with current conditions and roles into the new organisation as either a direct appointment or bulk transfer.
Since May 2016, how many staff in the Inner West Council have been told that they need to reapply for their jobs?
Answer:
As stated above all staff were consulted on the new organisation structures and roles and advised of the recruitment process in applying for roles in the new Inner West structure, inherent in this was the fact that staff would have to apply for new positions in the new structure. A three stage process of recruitment was agreed unanimously by the Staff Consultative Committee as the fairest and most equitable process to assist staff moving to the new structure. Only nominated general staff were transferred across with current conditions and roles into the new organisation (see above).
Consultants and Labor Hire firms:
How much was spent on consultants by the Inner West Council in the 16/17 FY?
Answer:
$6.9M including operating and capital costs
How much has been spent on consultants by the Inner West Council so far in the 17/18 FY?
Answer:
$2.6M as at 31 December 2017 (Quarter 2 budget review)
In the draft budget for 18/19 what is planned to be spent on consultants in 18/19?
Answer:
Currently $3.7M. (Note the draft budget is subject to change)
Does the IWC use a labour hire company or more than one?
If so how many staff are currently working for Council from a labor hire company?
In the last three months how many new staff have been hired and in which departments?
Answer:
This response is in relation to hiring of permanent staff, not labour hire:- 32 permanent employees have been recruited in the past 3 months within the following service areas:- Community Services and Culture; Development Assessment and Regulatory Services; Environment and Sustainability; Footpaths, Roads, Traffic and Stormwater; Human Resources; ICT; Integration, Customer Service and Business Excellence; Policy and Enterprise Risk; Trees Parks and Sportsfields
Office of the Mayor:
It has been reported to Councillors that the Office of the Mayor has 4.6 full time equivalent employees working in his office. These include 2.6 full time equivalent Executive Assistants / Projects and 2 full time equivalent policy / media. What is he headcount for the number of staff employed in the Office of the Mayor?
Answer:
5
What are the specific role titles of each position?
Answer:
Mayoral Policy and Media Relations Manager
Mayoral Media and Communications Coordinator
Executive Assistant x 2.6
Where is the policy which allows for these staff members to be employed in the Office of the Mayor? The council has not endorsed the employment of the 4.6 FTE in the Office of the Mayor, therefore under what authority have these staff been employed?
Answer:
Clause 10.6 of the Councillor’s Expenses and Facilities Policy provides that the General Manager can determine the number of staff required to provide administrative and secretarial support for the Mayor and Councillors. A review of the workload in supporting the new Council has been undertaken and staff have been allocated to ensure an efficient and effective service is provided in terms of Councillor requests, Councillor Support and the effective operation of the Office of the Mayor. It has been reported to Council previously that the new Council has an increased workload compared to the former councils as each Councillor is now required to represent a significantly higher population base.
Section 332 of the Local Government Act states that it is the Councils role to determine the senior staff positions within the structure, roles and reporting lines to senior staff and resources for the employment of staff. Section 335 states that it is the General Manager’s role to appoint staff. The staff in the Office of the Mayor have been appointed under the authority of Section 335 of the Act and the Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy
When was each role advertised and what was the selection process for each role?
Answer:
Mayoral Policy and Media Relations Manager – advertised internally from 22 Nov to 1 December 2017, appointed in December by merit selection through a three person interview panel.
Mayoral Media and Communications Coordinator - advertised internally and externally from 10 November to 26 November 2017, appointed in December 2017 by merit selection through a three person interview panel.
Executive Assistants – one Executive Assistant was temporarily appointed to their position in June 2017. A second staff member was temporarily appointed to this position in October 2017 due to the increase in workload as a result of the return of the Council.
A recruitment process was commenced in November last year to make these roles permanent and were advertised internally from 22 November to 1 December. These positions were appointed in December by merit selection through a three person interview panel.
In December 2017, a review of the workload and resources of the Office of the Mayor was undertaken and the General Manager determined an additional resource of 0.6 FTE of a Personal Assistant was required to manage the increased workload. This position was advertised internally from 19 January to 28 January 2018 and appointed in February by merit selection through a three person interview panel.
|
|
Council Meeting 24 April 2018 |
Subject: Question on Notice: Recycling
From: Councillor John Stamolis
Question
Residents often enquire about Councils recycling services and, in particular, what happens to the material they recycle.
Now that the merger is in progress it would be helpful if Councillors were provided with summary information, as follows (see the table below).
Additionally, if changes to recycling processes are being proposed, this should be included in the table.
Council officers should add any further relevant information which may be of value to Councillors such as the cost of the contract and the duration of the contract.
Answer
Council Recycling Services:
IWC is still operating three recycling services based on the former Council areas. Resource Recovery will be reviewing services and strategic direction to develop an integrated service and transition plan.
|
Former Council |
Recycling Bins |
Collection frequency |
Accepted Material |
|
Ashfield |
Yellow lid – Commingled recycling |
Fortnightly |
· Paper & cardboard · Glass bottles & jars · Steel and aluminium cans · Plastic food & drink containers · Liquid paperboard containers |
|
Leichhardt |
Blue lid – paper & cardboard |
Fortnightly |
· Paper & cardboard |
|
|
Yellow lid – Container recycling |
Fortnightly |
· Glass bottles & jars · Steel and aluminium cans · Plastic food & drink containers · Liquid paperboard containers |
|
Marrickville |
Yellow lid – Commingled recycling |
Fortnightly |
· Paper & cardboard · Glass bottles & jars · Steel and aluminium cans · Plastic food & drink containers · Liquid paperboard containers |
What happens to IWC recycling?
All of the recycling from the yellow (and blue) recycling bins are collected by contractors or day labour and taken to VISY Recycling to be sorted and separated at the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). IWC has three contracts with VISY for recycling based on former Council areas:
|
Former Council |
Collection |
Processing Contractor |
Term |
Extensions |
|
Ashfield |
Cleanaway |
VISY Recycling |
Oct 2013 to Oct 2020 |
3 years - Oct 2023 |
|
Leichhardt |
URM |
VISY Recycling |
Oct 2013 to Oct 2020 |
3 years - Oct 2023 |
|
Marrickville |
Day Labour |
VISY Recycling |
Mar 2012 to Mar 2017 |
2 years - Mar 2019 |
The final one year extension has been exercised at Council’s discretion, to extending the Marrickville contract to 31 March 2019. Marrickville pay Visy a set price per tonne for recyclable material processing
The Leichhardt and Ashfield contracts expire in October 2020. Each contract grants Council one option to extend the contract for a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of three years, at council’s discretion. Ashfield receive a rebate from Visy for all recycling material. Leichhardt pay VISY a service fee for processing of containers but receive a rebate for paper and cardboard.
Processing of Recycling
At the VISY MRF, the contents of the yellow lidded (container and commingled) recycling bins are sorted through manual and automated processes and baled by material type to send for processing. These materials are commodities and inputs for other processes. Most of the materials are processed in Australia, although a small portion of low grade paper and mixed plastics are sent overseas to international recycling markets. Leichhardt’s paper and cardboard is recycled at Visy’s paper mill at Smithfield.
|
Material |
Country of Processing |
Process and End Product |
|
Paper & cardboard Liquid paperboard containers
|
90% processed by VISY at their paper mills in Australia. The remaining 10% (usually the lower grade paper) is sent to China, India and Indonesia. |
Paper is pulped, washed and rolled into paper rolls at Smithfield for manufacture into new paper products including paper, cardboard boxes and toilet rolls. VISYs core business is paper recycling and manufacture into new paper products. VISY could process all paper and cardboard within Australia with additional investment. |
|
Glass bottles & jars |
Australia VISY has a contract with OI. Glass is separated by colour (green, amber, blue, clear) |
Glass is melted in furnaces and molten glass moulded into new glass bottles and jars. Broken glass is usually crushed and used as a sand substitute in road base. |
|
Steel and aluminium cans |
Australia |
Steel and aluminium are smelted and reprocessed into new steel and aluminium for remanufacture into new products (food and drink cans, cars, steel for construction etc.) |
|
Plastic food & drink containers
|
PET & HDPE – Australia Mixed plastics - Asia |
PET and HDPE (e.g. soft drink containers and milk bottles) are recycled locally and made back into plastic drink containers. The remaining mixed plastics have limited markets are processed in Asia and manufactured into low-grade plastic products such as toys, garden furniture, buckets etc. |
Recycling industry
There has been increased media about recycling and waste management in Sydney, NSW, and globally and the recycling industry has reached a turning point.
Media around China’s Sword restrictions on the importation of low quality mixed plastics has brought the industry and government together to work through what is being called a crisis in the recycling sector.
· China (Sword Policy) from 1 January 2018 restricted recycling contamination to 0.5% with an aim to reduce pollution and improve China’s circular economy.
· China previously accepted half of the world’s recycling including Australia’s mixed plastics and about 10% of its low grade paper.
· Australian (and USA and UK) Material Recovery Facilities can’t meet China’s new standard for contamination (0.5%) and are working to find local and other overseas markets. Australian commodity export data shows that 70% of what was previously sent to China is now sent to Indonesia, India, Vietnam and Thailand (Centre for International Economics verbal advice).
· There is now a reduced value for the lower value (contaminated) materials on the international market.
NSW Impacts
· Materials from the CDS (container deposit scheme) Return and Earn - are still highly sought after internationally as they are a clean separated source of recyclables.
· VISY has a monopoly in the Sydney metro area for the processing of recycling. Two other businesses are looking to establish recycling facilities in the Sydney area in the next few years which provides a wider market for Council to explore in future tenders.
· Recycling gate rates (price per tonne) are likely to increase in relation to markets and future contracts are likely to expect to share the risks associated with commodity prices.
The EPA has released a rescue package for NSW local government of $47M to assist with the current crisis. The details or criteria to access these monies have not been released as yet.
[1] This amount administered by Council includes the 5 grant programs as well as the state government funded Stronger Communities Grants
