AGENDA R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council Meeting

                            

TUESDAY 25 SEPTEMBER 2018

 

6.30pm

 


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 

Live Streaming of Council Meeting

 

In the spirit of open, accessible and transparent government, this meeting of the Inner West Council is being streamed live on Council’s website. By speaking at a Council meeting, members of the public agree to being recorded and must ensure their speech to the Council is respectful and use appropriate language. A person who uses defamatory, discriminatory or offensive language may be exposed to liability for which Council takes no responsibility. Any part of this meeting that is held in closed session will not be recorded

 

Pre-Registration to Speak at Council Meetings

 

Members of the public must register by 2pm of the day of the Meeting to speak at Council Meetings. If you wish to register to speak please fill in a Register to Speak Form, available from the Inner West Council website, including:

 

Are there any rules for speaking at a Council Meeting?

The following rules apply when addressing a Council meeting:

 

What happens after I submit the form?

Your request will then be added to a list that is shown to the Chairperson on the night of the meeting.

 

Where Items are deferred, Council reserves the right to defer speakers until that Item is heard on the next occasion.

 

Accessibility

 

Inner West Council is committed to ensuring people with a disability have equal opportunity to take part in Council and Committee Meetings. At the Ashfield Council Chambers there is a hearing loop service available to assist persons with a hearing impairment. If you have any other access or disability related participation needs and wish to know more, call 9392 5657.

 

Persons in the public gallery are advised that under the Local Government Act 1993, a person may NOT tape record a Council meeting without the permission of Council.

 

Any persons found recording without authority will be expelled from the meeting.

 

“Record” includes the use of any form of audio, video and still camera equipment or mobile phone capable of recording speech.

 

An audio recording of this meeting will be taken for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the minutes.  

 

 

   


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 

 

 

PRECIS

 

 

1          Acknowledgement of Country

 

2          Apologies

 

3          Notice of Webcasting

 

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

 

5          Moment of Quiet Contemplation

 

6          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                             Page

Minutes of 11 September 2018 Council Meeting                                                             5

6          Mayoral Minutes

 

Nil at the time of printing.

7          Condolence Motions

 

ITEM                                                                                                                                          Page

 

C0918(2) Item 1       Condolence Motion Faye Carroll                                                           23

 

8          Staff Reports

 

ITEM                                                                                                                                          Page

 

C0918(2) Item 2       Tree DCP Harmonisation - Discussion Paper                                       24

C0918(2) Item 3       Climate & Renewables Strategy                                                            77

C0918(2) Item 4       Children and Family Services                                                                90

C0918(2) Item 5       Inner West Council Stronger Communities Fund Grants Program 2018/19    96

C0918(2) Item 6       Report on the Council Review of the Organisation Structure              116

C0918(2) Item 7       Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 4 September 2018             118

C0918(2) Item 8               Flood Risk Management Plans - Cost of Flood Mitigation Measures       147

C0918(2) Item 9       Draft Complaints Handling Policy                                                        159

C0918(2) Item 10     Councillor Representation on Committees                                          172

C0918(2) Item 11     Rescheduling October Council Meeting                                              193

C0918(2) Item 12     Investment Report as at 31 August 2018                                             194

 

 

 

 

 

9          Notices of Motion

 

ITEM                                                                                                                                          Page

 

C0918(2) Item 13     Notice of Motion: Waterfront Drive Cricket Nets                                 221

C0918(2) Item 14     Notice of Motion: Solar Schools                                                           223

 

10        Reports with Confidential Information

 

Reports appearing in this section of the Business Paper are confidential in their entirety or contain confidential information in attachments.

 

The confidential information has been circulated separately.

ITEM                                                                                                                                                 

 

C0918(2) Item 15     Status of Westconnex Stage 3 proposed compulsory acquisitions

C0918(2) Item 16     RFT 20/18 Cleaning and Grounds Maintenance Tender

C0918(2) Item 17     Appointment of External Member to Audit Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC)

C0918(2) Item 18     Status of Legal Proceedings

 


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 

 

Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 11 September 2018

 

Meeting commenced at 6.33 pm

 

Present:

Darcy Byrne

Victor Macri

Marghanita Da Cruz Mark Drury

Lucille McKenna OAM

Colin Hesse

Sam Iskandar

Tom Kiat

Pauline Lockie

Julie Passas

Rochelle Porteous

Vittoria Raciti

John Stamolis

Louise Steer

Anna York
Rik Hart

Elizabeth Richardson

Mayor

Deputy Mayor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor (6.34pm)

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

Harjeet Atwal

David Birds

John Stephens

Prue Foreman

Nellette Kettle

 

Ian Naylor

Katherine Paixao

Group Manager Development Assessment & Regulatory Services

Group Manager Strategic Planning

Traffic and Transport Services Manager

Engagement Manager

Group Manager Civic and Executive Support, Integration,

Customer Service and Business Excellence

Manager Civic and Executive Support

Business Paper Coordinator (Minute Taker)

 

APOLOGIES:  

 

Motion: (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT Apologies from Clr Porteous for lateness be accepted.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:               Nil

 

 

Councillor Porteous entered the Meeting at 6:34 pm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

Motion: (Byrne/Passas)   

 

THAT the Minutes of the Council Meetings held on Tuesday, 21 and 28 August 2018 be confirmed as a correct record subject to:

-       Amending the resolution for Item 14 – Victoria Road Precinct, Marrickville, Development Control Plan Amendment of 28 August 2018 Council Meeting, to add the words ‘as exhibited’ to the end of the resolution to clarify the intention of the motion.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

  

Suspension of Standing Orders

 

Motion: (Byrne/Passas)

 

THAT Standing Orders be suspended to allow the General Manager to conduct the Election of the Deputy Mayor.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C0918(1) Item 1         Election of Deputy Mayor

Motion: (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT the election of the Deputy Mayor be conducted by open voting through a show of hands.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

The General Manager advised that he has received nominations for the position of

Deputy Mayor for Councillor Macri and Councillor Da Cruz

 

The General Manager asked all Councillors who support Councillor Macri  being the

first nomination received, for the position of Deputy Mayor to raise their hands.

 

Councillor Macri received 8 votes

 

The General Manager asked all Councillors who support Councillor Da Cruz  being the

second nomination received, for the position of Deputy Mayor to raise their hands.

 

Councillor Da Cruz received 6 votes

 

Councillor Stamolis abstained from voting.

 

The General Manager declared Councillor Macri to be elected Deputy Mayor.

 

 

The Mayor thanked  Councillor Passas for her service as Deputy Mayor for the last 12 months and congratulated Councillor Macri on his election as Deputy Mayor.

 

Suspension of Standing Orders

 

Motion (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT Council Suspend Standing Orders to hear from the registered speakers at this time.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Crs Hesse, Lockie and Stamolis

 

Suspension of Standing Orders

 

Motion (Porteous/Hesse)

 

THAT Council further Suspend Standing Orders and bring forward the items the register speakers spoke to.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Crs Passas and Raciti

 

C0918(1) Item 7         Victoria Street, Ashfield - Proposed combined bus stop and    pedestrian crossover facility opposite Cardinal Freeman Village

Motion: (McKenna OAM/ Da Cruz)

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:        Crs Passas and Raciti

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

7.19pm - The Mayor, Clr Byrne adjourned the meeting for a short recess.

7.22pm– The Mayor, Clr Byrne resumed the meeting.

 

C0918(1) Item 12       Post Exhibition Report - Draft Marrickville Local Environmental          Plan 2011 Amendment - Sydenham Station Creative Hub

Motion: (York/Iskandar)

 

THAT Council:

 

1. Note:

 

a.            The existing Sydenham Creative Hub proposal has been                                 
               endorsed repeatedly by the former Marrickville Council and the NSW                           Department of Planning;

 

b.            The large body of work that has been dedicated to the development of                      the policy for the Sydenham Station Creative Hub involving input from                   a wide range of stakeholders over a substantial period of time, and the                careful consideration of the development of that policy by the                             former Marrickville Council;

 

c.            The independent support for the policy from academic and                                 planning experts including the City Futures Research Centre, Professor                   Peter Phibbs and SGS Economics in their 2014 Study of Marrickville                            Employment lands;

 

d.            The very large proportion of submissions received during the                            consultation   process in support of the existing proposal; and

 

e.            The original intent of the Sydenham Creative Hub proposal, which was                     to protect current industrial uses in the precinct, by adapting our                           planning Instruments to ensure emerging additional artistic and creative                        uses are permitted, as a means of securing the vibrancy and visitation to                    the area.

 

2.         Defer consideration of the matter pending further investigation into options to       achieve the original intent of the proposal at the original scale, by further specifying and limiting new uses, including potentially;

 

a.            Removing office space from the list of permissible uses;

 

b.            A narrower focus on live performance and artistic uses to operate after                     existing businesses hours;

 

c.            Further limiting the scope for small bars and restaurants;

 

d.            Mandating a review period for the proposed controls following adoption;                 and

 

e.            Further measures to better test and mitigate the perceived risks                        identified in the most recent SGS report.

 

Motion Lost

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

Foreshadowed Motion: (Hesse/Da Cruz)

 

THAT:

 

1.       The report be received and noted;

 

2.       Council forward the draft amendment to MLEP 2011 to the Department of Planning & Environment seeking final approval and gazettal;

 

3.       The Inner West Police Local Area Command, Sydney Water, Create NSW and those persons who made a submission in relation to the revised Planning Proposal be advised of Council’s decision;

 

4.       Council resolve to publicly exhibit draft Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (Amendment No. 9) to amend Part 9.43 – Sydney Steel (Precinct 43) of MDCP 2011 to incorporate provisions relating to Sydenham Station Creative Hub, as detailed in ATTACHMENT 3 of this report; and

 

5.       The additional permitted uses on such land to ‘cafes, restaurants and small bars’ proposal be considered as part of the LEP review.

 

Motion Carried

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

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

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

8.21pm - The Mayor, Clr Byrne adjourned the meeting for a short recess.

8.37pm– The Mayor, Clr Byrne resumed the meeting.

 

C0918(1) Item 18       Notice of Motion to Rescind: C0818(2) Item 14 Victoria Road    Precinct, Marrickville, Development Control Plan Amendment

Motion: (Kiat/Lockie)

 

THAT the resolution of the 28 August 2018 Council Meeting with respect to Item 14, Victoria Road Precinct, Marrickville, Development Control Plan Amendment be rescinded.

 

Motion Lost

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

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

 

Matter Arising – Affordable Housing for Victoria Road Precinct

 

Motion: (Drury/Byrne)

 

THAT:

 

  1. Council seeks  timely external expert advice on how to get the financial feasibility analysis that would support the most effective application of councils affordable housing policy to the residential component of the Victoria Rd Precinct. This advice should canvas whether it can be funded from section 94 monies or the LEP budget; and

 

  1. A report be brought back to the first meeting in October 2018.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:        Nil

 

Councillor Kiat left the Meeting at 8:58 pm.

Councillor Kiat returned to the Meeting at 9:02 pm.

 

C0918(1) Item 19       Notice of Motion: Tree DCP Mailout

Motion: (Passas/Macri)

THAT:

 

  1. An LGA wide mail out calling on submissions on the new Tree DCP with information on what is happening in 5 ethnic languages, after the adoption of draft changes to the DCP; and

 

  1. Council consider at the time of the quarterly budget review an allocation of funds for the strategic planning  group for the purpose of notification about infrastructure projects, rezoning proposals and public meetings.

 

Motion Carried

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

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

 

 

C0918(1) Item 20       Notice of Motion: Onsite Meeting for Proposed Bunnings        Warehouse at Tempe

Motion: (Passas/Byrne)

 

THAT:

 

  1. Council have an onsite meeting with affected residents at the proposed Bunnings Warehouse site at Tempe with the officers involved; and

 

  1. A report come back to Council for the councillors to state the elected Council’s position on this proposal for the Sydney Central Planning Panel.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:        Nil

 

C0918(1) Item 25       Notice of Motion: Implementing Council's Affordable Housing            Policy in the Victoria Rd Precinct

Motion: (Kiat/Porteous)

 

THAT:

 

1.         In response to the upzoning in the Victoria Rd Precinct which will result in up to     1,100 additional dwellings in the area, Council engages a consultant for a         maximum of $15,000 to prepare an affordable housing contribution scheme study for the precinct in accordance with Council's Affordable Housing Policy          and Council's inclusion in SEPP 70 in February 2018, with progress to be     reported back to Council by October;

 

2.         Council notes the affordable housing contribution scheme study can inform            either a submission to DPE for the precinct’s inclusion in a SEPP 70 mandatory        affordable housing zone, OR a VPA negotiation with the proponent;

 

3.         Council immediately write to the DPE to indicate Council’s intention to         prepare an affordable housing contribution scheme as a feasibility study to    support the Victoria Rd precinct's inclusion under the SEPP 70 scheme; and

 

4.         The funds required for the consultant be identified by staff by             reprioritisation of other work, to be reported in the next quarterly budget          review.

 

The Mayor ruled this motion out of order as the motion did not identify a source of funds to undertake the work as required by Clause 5.1(1) of the Code of Meeting Practice.

 

C0918(1) Item 26       Notice of Motion: Changes To Operational Noise At The          White Bay Cruise Ship Terminal

Motion: (Stamolis/Byrne)

 

THAT Council write to the Minister for Planning and the CEO, Ports Authority at NSW (PANSW):

 

•        to find out whether there are plans to review or change the approved operational noise conditions at the White Bay Cruise Ship terminal, including what these changes will be and why the changes are necessary;

 

•      to seek information about the status of the Noise Mitigation Strategy which was approved by the NSW Planning in December 2017;

 

•      to see what efforts have been made to reduce the noise at source rather than to impose noise solutions on the residential community; and

 

•        to express concern about current impacts of noise from the terminal on the adjacent residential community.  

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:        Nil

 

Resumption of Standing Orders

 

Motion: (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT Standing Orders be resumed.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Councillor Passas left the Meeting at 9:38 pm.

Councillor Passas returned to the Meeting at 9:43 pm.

 

C0918(1) Item 2         Local Democracy - Outcomes of Proposed New Advisory Group        Structure Public Exhibition

Motion: (York/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Receive and note the public exhibition outcomes of the proposed local democracy advisory committees and groups’ structure;

 

2.   Adopt the amended local democracy advisory committees and groups’ structure as outlined in the report with the addition of an extra working group for International Women’s Day;

 

3.   Receive and note information about pre-amalgamation facilities committees and plans to engage the Inner West community about facilities over the next two-three years;

 

4.   Receive and note information about Your Say Inner West outreach stalls; and

 

5.   Adopt the proposed Residents’ Association Small Grants Program, funded from the Community Wellbeing Grants program to a maximum allocation of $7,500, reviewed within one year.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Crs Da Cruz, Lockie and Stamolis

 

Amendment (Da Cruz/Porteous)

 

THAT there is a preference that committees are chaired by Councillors.

 

Motion Lost

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

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

 

C0918(1) Item 3         Draft Leichhardt Park Aquatic Centre (LPAC) Master Plan

Motion: (Macri/Stamolis)

 

THAT:

 

1.   The draft master plan for Leichhardt Park Aquatic Centre (ATTACHMENT 1) be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days and submissions be received for a further 14 days;

 

2.   The results of the public exhibition and community engagement process be presented to Council recommending further action; and

 

  1. The draft master plan be exhibited at the Leichhardt Park Aquatic Centre and all plans be exhibited in A3 size.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

C0918(1) Item 4         Draft Marrickville Road (East) Public Domain Master Plan:       Feedback from Public Exhibition

Motion: (Hesse/Steer)

 

THAT:

 

1.   The report be received and noted;

 

2.   Council adopts the draft Marrickville Road (East) Public Domain Master Plan (ATTACHMENT 1);

 

3.   All residents and stakeholders who made submissions during the public exhibition period be notified of Council’s determination; and

 

4.   The master plan be used to inform future capital streetscape upgrades along Marrickville Road (East).

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C0918(1) Item 5         Events in Parks Policy & Events in Parks Guidelines

Motion: (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT:

 

1.       The draft Events in Parks Policy be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days;

 

2.       The results of the public exhibition and community engagement process are presented to Council along with a final Events in Parks Policy for adoption;

 

3.       The Events in Parks Guidelines be noted; and

 

4.         The words ‘discourages the use of’ be inserted at the beginning of condition 44 of the Park Event Conditions included in the Policy.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

C0918(1) Item 6         Change in parking meter operational hours in the side streets of         Leichhardt, Rozelle and Balmain

Motion: (Byrne/Porteous)

 

THAT:

 

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

 

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

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

 

Councillor Raciti retired from the Meeting at 10:00 pm.

 

C0918(1) Item 8         Street Libraries in the Inner West

Motion: (York/Drury)

 

THAT Council:

 

1.       Purchase the Street Library Australia Council Grant Pack at a cost of $3,399 to fund an additional 10 street libraries in the Inner West;

 

2.       Consider incorporating street libraries into the design of any future park  upgrades and/or community facilities if appropriate with a focus on schools, pre-schools and childcare centres as preferred locations, where possible, including options for students and children at these centres to decorate the libraries in partnership with Council;

 

3.         Support start-up street libraries in the inner west by donating up to 20 discarded library items / per street library as a starting point if requested;

 

4.         Consider any offers from Men’s Shed (or other community organisations) to build additional street libraries beyond the 10 Council will purchase; and

 

5.         Consider options for the additional roll out of 10 “Bookswap boxes” in indoor locations, in support of Paint the Town REaD and Paint Marrickville REaD.

 

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Crs Hesse and Passas

Absent:                        Cr Raciti

 

Motion: (Iskandar/Macri)

 

THAT the Items 11, 15 and 16 be brought forward and moved en bloc and the recommendations contained in the reports be adopted.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Cr Raciti

 

C0918(1) Item 11       Sydenham Green Skate Park opportunities for competitive      events and activation

Motion: (Iskandar/Macri)

 

THAT:

 

1.       Council officers continue to liaise with organisers regarding a potential X Games qualifying event at the Sydenham Green Skate Park in October 2018;

 

2.       Council officers work with YMCA Action Sports to deliver an inclusive skate / scoot / BMX event at Sydenham Green Skate Park in 2019;

 

3.       Council officers continue to liaise with stakeholder organisations regarding future opportunities to host events for Olympic qualifying rounds and skate competitions; and

 

4.       The Recreation Strategy: A Healthier Inner West addresses opportunities for recreational and competitive skate, scoot and BMX activities in the Inner West.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Cr Raciti

 

C0918(1) Item 15       Extraordinary Local Traffic Committee Meeting (13 August 2018)

Motion: (Iskandar/Macri)

 

THAT the Extraordinary Local Traffic Committee item distributed on 13 August 2018 be received and the recommendations listed below be adopted.

 

THAT:

 

1.   The proposed temporary full-road closure of Applebee Street (between Short Street and May Street) and Hutchinson Street (between Daburi Lane and Applebee Street) between 6:30pm and 9:30pm on Friday, 21 September 2018 to facilitate a light/art show (In the Night Garden Art Exhibition) as part of the Sydney Fringe Festival, be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:

 

a)   A Traffic Control Plan (TCP) which has been prepared by a certified Traffic Controller, is to be submitted to Council for review and RMS for approval with a copy of the Traffic Controller’s certification number attached to the plan;

 

b)   Notice of the proposed event is to be forwarded by the applicant to the NSW Police Local Area Commander, State Transit Authority, Fire & Rescue NSW and NSW Ambulance Services;

 

c)   Advance notification signs advising of the proposed road closure and traffic diversions to be strategically installed and maintained by the applicant at least two (2) weeks prior to the event;

 

d)   A 4-metre wide emergency vehicle access must be maintained through the closed road areas during the course of the event;

 

e)   All affected residents and businesses shall be notified in writing by the applicant of the proposed temporary road closure at least two (2) weeks prior to the event, with the applicant making reasonable provision for residents and businesses;

 

f)    Adequate vehicular traffic control shall be provided for the protection and convenience of pedestrians and motorists including appropriate signage and flagging. Workers shall be specially designated for this role (and carry appropriate certificates), as necessary to comply with this condition. This is to be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1742.3 – Traffic Control Devices for works on roads;

 

g)   Water filled barriers be placed at the road closure points to protect against any possible errant vehicles; and

 

2.  The applicant be advised in terms of this report.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:        Nil

Absent:                      Cr Raciti

 

C0918(1) Item 16       Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee Minutes

Motion: Motion: (Iskandar/Macri)

 

THAT Council adopts the Minutes of the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee of 21 February 2018 and 30 May 2018 shown as attachments 1 and 2.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:        Nil

Absent:                      Cr Raciti

 

C0918(1) Item 9         Investment Report as at 30 June 2018

Motion: (Kiat/Stamolis)

 

THAT:

 

  1. The report be received and noted; and

 

  1. Council receive a further report on possible targets for increasing Council’s investment in SRIs over the next four years.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:        Nil

Absent:                      Cr Raciti

 

C0918(1) Item 10       Status of Legal Proceedings

Motion: (Byrne/Passas)

 

THAT this report be deferred to the next Ordinary Council Meeting and all future Legal Proceedings reports be considered in Confidential Session of Council Meetings.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                      Cr Raciti

 

 

 

 

C0918(1) Item 13       Planning Proposal, Cyprus Club, 58-76 Stanmore Road, 2-20   Tupper Street and 3-9 Alma Avenue, Stanmore.

Motion: (Steer/Kiat)

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council note the comments of the Local Planning Panel of 10 July 2018 on the Planning Proposal;

 

2.   The attached Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Minister for Planning for a Gateway Determination in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 with a recommendation that an additional traffic and street capacity study be provided prior to public exhibition;

 

3.   The Department of Planning and Environment be requested to delegate the plan making functions for the Planning Proposal to Council;

 

4.   Following receipt of a Gateway Determination and compliance with its conditions by the proponent, the Planning Proposal and supporting documentation be placed on public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days and public authorities be consulted in accordance with the Determination;

 

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

 

6.   Council negotiate a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) with the proponent with the intention of exhibiting the VPA at the same time as the Planning Proposal;

 

7.   The plans be amended before going in exhibition to comply with the height requirements ie no taller than 55 meters including aerials, cranes etc set out in  the correspondence from Sydney Airport Corporation.

 

  1. Council note there now may be the opportunity for Council to obtain an affordable housing contribution pursuant to s 7.32 of the EPAA Act as an alternative to accepting a VPA offer from the owner;

 

  1. Council when forwarding the proposal to the Minister, request  guidance from the Department on how Council may propose for this site an additional LEP amendment, supported by a scheme for dedications or contributions, pursuant to s 7.32 (old s 94F) of the EPAA Act, for the purpose of imposing a condition requiring the contribution of affordable housing under any future DA pursuant to s 7.32(2); and

 

  1. Council receive a report in relation to this guidance as soon as practicable. 

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Cr Hesse

Absent:                      Cr Raciti

 

 

 

 

C0918(1) Item 14       Councillor Expenses and Facilites Policy

Motion: (McKenna OAM/Hesse)

 

THAT:

 

  1. The Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy shown as Attachment 1 be adopted subject to amending the Policy to include a provision that an annual limit of $9,000 per Councillor be applied to reimbursement of Carer’s Expenses; and

 

  1. Council review the usage of carer expenses under this policy after 12 months.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                      Cr Raciti

 

C0918(1) Item 17       Notice of Motion to Rescind: C0818(1) Item 11 Greenway Master         Plan - 14 August 2018 Council Meeting

This motion was withdrawn.

 

Councillor York left the Meeting at 10:36 pm.

Councillor York returned to the Meeting at 10:41 pm.

 

C0918(1) Item 21       Notice of Motion: Single Use Plastics Reduction

Motion: (Steer/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council demonstrates community leadership to improve and protect the health of our waterways by acting to stop the use of single-use plastics including plastic bags, single use plastic drink bottles,  balloons, plastic straws, plates and cutlery in all directly controlled Council operations and Council sponsored events;

 

2.   Council takes all reasonable steps from 1 January 2019 to stop using single-use plastics across all directly controlled Council operations, including plastic bags, single use plastic drink bottles,  balloons, plastic straws, plates and cutlery in all Council operations and Council sponsored events;

 

3.   Council takes all reasonable steps to advise all organisers of Council-supported external events, festivals and major activities that as of January 1, 2019, event permissions and booking forms will stipulate that single-use plastics, single use plastic drink bottles, balloons, plastic straws, plates and cutlery must not be provided, with exceptions for childcare or seniors’ events where excessive temperatures or circumstances may require availability of single-use plastic drink bottles and use of plastic straws by people with a disability who may require them for drinking; and

 

4.   A report on the reduction of single use plastics be incorporated in the next report to Council on Zero Waste in October 2018.

 

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Crs Macri and Passas

Absent:                        Cr Raciti

 

C0918(1) Item 22       Notice of Motion: Smart Cities

Motion: (Byrne/Drury)

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council convene a meeting with the Eastern Economic Growth Corridor Councils, the Australian Smart Communities Association, Infrastructure NSW, the Committee for Sydney and other relevant parties, to discuss a potential strategic partnership in the planning and procurement of smart city technology; and

2.   A report, informed by these discussions, be prepared that examines the potential for Inner West Council to form a strategic partnership with councils within the Greater Sydney Commission’s Eastern economic growth corridor, in relation to planning, procurement and provision of smart city technology.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Cr Raciti

 

C0918(1) Item 23       Notice of Motion: Taking Leichhardt Bus Depot staff parking off         the street

Motion: (Byrne/Stamolis)

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council write to Police Commissioner Michael Fuller requesting that NSW Police support the activation of land at 29 Derbyshire Road as additional parking places for staff at the Leichhardt Bus Depot; and

2.   Letter drop nearby residents in Balmain Road, Piper Street, Charlotte Street, Alfred Street and Moore Street to notify them of Council’s actions and encourage them to contact the Commissioner directly.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Cr Raciti

 

C0918(1) Item 24       Notice of Motion: Condolence Motion Faye Carroll

Motion: (Byrne/Porteous)

 

That this item be deferred to the next Ordinary Council Meeting and the Code of Meeting Practice be amended to include Condolence Motions in the Order of Business at the beginning of the meeting.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Cr Raciti

 

Councillor York left the Meeting at 10:59 pm.

 

Extension of Time

 

Motion: (Drury/McKenna OAM)

 

THAT the meeting be extended for 10 minutes.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Crs Raciti and York

 

Councillor York returned to the Meeting at 11:03 pm.

 

C0918(1) Item 27       Notice of Motion: Bill Posters on Council Property

Motion: (Passas/Macri)

 

THAT Council investigate the viability of introducing paid advertising on Council property in place of the illegal posters and that Council be more proactive reporting the problem to Energy Australian and RMS.

 

Motion Lost

For Motion:                 Crs Macri and Passas

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

Absent:                        Cr Raciti

 

Foreshadowed Motion (McKenna OAM/Byrne)

 

THAT Council investigate opportunities to work with NGOs who support residents of boarding houses and who can be engaged to remove posters.

 

Motion Tied

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

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

Absent:                        Cr Raciti

 

The Chairperson used his Casting Vote for the MOTION and the MOTION was carried.

 

Councillor Passas left the Meeting at 11:05 pm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matter Arising

 

Motion: (Kiat)

 

THAT Council receive a report in relation to the arrangements facilitating any commercial paid advertising spaces that it sells.

 

This matter arising lapsed for want of a seconder.

 

Confidential Session

 

Motion: (Byrne/Drury)

 

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

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                                  Cr Raciti

 

Members of the public were asked to leave the Chamber.

 

Motion: (Byrne/Porteous)

 

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

Closed Session.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                                  Cr Raciti

 

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

Council.

 

Reports with Confidential Information

 

C0918(1) Item 28       Status of Westconnex Stage 3 proposed compulsory    acquisitions

Motion (Byrne/Hesse)

 

THAT this item be deferred until the Group Manager Legal Services is in attendance.

 

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion:          Nil

Absent:                        Crs Passas and Raciti

 

 

Meeting closed at 11.08pm.

 

Public Speakers:

 

 

Item #

 

Speaker                     

Suburb

Item 7:

Dr. Crisetta MacLeod

Ashfield

Item 12:

Kerri Glasscock

John Wardle

Tempe

Belmore

Item 18:

Simon Konstantinidis

Marrickville

Item 19:

Rene Holmes

Nancy Wahlquist

Ashfield

Balmain

Item 20:

Stephanie Ward

Graham Griffith

Catherine Stewart

Tempe

Tempe

Tempe

Item 25:

Dr. Crisetta MacLeod

Ashfield

Item 26:

Alan Rosen, AO.

Balmain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 

Item No:         C0918(2) Item 1

Subject:         Condolence Motion Faye Carroll           

            Council at its meeting on 11 September 2018 deferred this item to the meeting to be held on 25 September 2018.

From:             The Mayor, Councillor Darcy Byrne   

 

 

Motion:

 

THAT Council write a letter of condolence to the family of Faye Carroll.

 

 

Background

 

Inner West Council and the Councillors would like to acknowledge and send their condolences to the Carroll family in the passing of Faye Carroll on 8 August 2018.

 

Fay Carroll was a Wiradjuri woman born on Eora country in Sydney. She was raised in Redfern. She was also a long time resident of Woolloomooloo, where she raised her family.

 

Her commitment to education was evident through the 24 years she spent with the NSW Department of Education.

 

Aunty had an incredible wealth of grass roots community knowledge and education for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait community and dedicated herself to all children and young people.

 

She was a widely respected community elder and had close associations with all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in the inner city.

 

Aunty will be missed across the Inner West Community especially in our school communities, where she helped countless students and parents.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.   


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 

Item No:         C0918(2) Item 2

Subject:         Tree DCP Harmonisation - Discussion Paper           

Prepared By:     Gwilym Griffiths - Urban Forest Manger  

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

 

SUMMARY

This report provides information on the principles outlined in the Tree Development Control Plan (DCP) amendment Discussion Paper.  The report also summarises the feedback received from the community on the Discussion Paper, which will be utilised to inform the drafting of the Draft DCP.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.       That the Development Control Plan amendments on tree management be developed having regard to the principles of:

• Public safety

• Protection of property

• Equity/ financial burden

• Increased urban canopy

 

2.       Council prepare the draft Tree DCP taking into consideration the options within the Discussion Paper, and the feedback received from the community consultation; and

 

3.       The draft Tree DCP be reported to Council prior to being placed on public exhibition.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 At the 13 February 2018 Council Meeting (C0218 Item 11), it was resolved that Council:

 

Urgently review the DCP controls on trees relating to issues arising around damage to residents and properties and the financial burden to residents of tree retention ie. The requirement to obtain engineers and arborist reports and bring forward and expedite the harmonisation of Council DCP relating to tree preservation and replacement.

 

Trees are protected under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and; State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017. These state legislated documents provide broad controls for trees and give powers to Council’s Development Control Plans to determine what tree works require approval.

 

Council currently has three separate DCPs that regulate the management of trees on private land and set out controls for determining tree pruning and removals via Permit Applications and Development Applications.

 


 

PRINCIPLES

Principles will form the foundation for the development of the Draft Tree DCP. These principles were formed based on the understanding of concerns raised by members of the public and Council. The principles include:

• Public safety

• Protection of property

• Equity/ financial burden

• Increased urban canopy

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Tree DCP amendment Discussion Paper was placed on Your Say Inner West for a period of four weeks. The community where requested to comment on two questions:

 

1. Do you support the principles that guide the Tree DCP Amendment?

2. Do you support the DCP amendment options?

 

The community where requested to provide feedback by the 14 September 2018.

 

Notification on the Your Say engagement page was placed in the Council section of the Inner West Courier on the 4th September and notification was also placed on Council’s social media channels on the 26th August.

 

Further consultation on the proposed changes to the draft Tree DCP will be done during the broader Council DCP amendment project and will be undertaken as per Council resolution made at the 11th September Council meeting where it was resolved that:

An LGA wide mail out calling on submissions on the new Tree DCP with information on what is happening in 5 ethnic languages, after the adoption of draft changes to the DCP.

 

A total of fifty-two (52) submissions were received from the community. The full summary report is attached. The key feedback and issues raised by the community are summarised as follows:

 


 

Do you support the principles?

Do you support amendment options?

Summarised comments

Council staff response

                         

Yes

Yes (with changes)

They seem fair and will bring all the former council regulations into alignment.

 

Need more natives.

Native tree species will form the majority of the suggested tree replacement species outlined in the new DCP.

Yes

Yes (with changes)

Option 2 free ‘informal’ tree application for dead or dying trees. Concern is that some dead or dying trees may have been killed by a resident. I agree that the expense of a full arborist report is wasteful and a brief letter of confirmation of the state of the tree is enough. Dead or dying trees should be replaced.
 
I object to the distance exemption for trees within 500 mm of a primary dwelling as it will inevitably be a subjective assessment and will lead to the unnecessary removal of trees. 

An exemption for trees within a given distance of a building is a retrograde step with no technical justification. Many trees close to buildings present no difficulties and can be sustainably managed. Each situation should be assessed on its merits otherwise trees will be lost unnecessarily.

I support grant scheme proposal.

This DCP amendment is an opportunity to increase the urban canopy rather than accelerate its current rate of decline.

The dead tree removal process will need to have some tight controls set around it and poisoning is a good reason to do so. This will be looked at during formulation of draft DCP.

 

These suggestions will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

 

Noted

Yes (with changes)

Yes (with changes)

I disagree with the assumption that "Trees are there for the benefit of the community”. There a benefits to the community to be sure but it is not one that that should be assumed by any future DCP for tree protection.

 

Option 4 - needs to be extended to 1.0m.

 

Option 9 - 40% canopy target for residential zones is unreasonable. There should be encouragement but it should not be mandated.

 

The policy needs to be considered along with solar access and view entitlements along with fair and reasonable assessment.

Trees perform essential functions that benefit urban areas and the people that live in these areas such as the Inner West.

 

 

 

The amendment of option 4 to allow 1m exemption and option 9 canopy targets will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

Yes

Yes (with changes)

If the council wants to encourage the canopy then they should consider providing free trees. It would also be good to have a list of preferred trees.

Council provides free trees to residents on an annual basis at on National Tree Day and throughout the year via the community nurseries. The DCP will have a list of suitable replacement species for our area.

Yes

Yes (with changes)

Safety principle - Could photos also be sufficient where a dead branch is hanging on an otherwise ok tree thus posing risk? Equity/financial burden principle- Can other 'lower income" residents also be assisted? Not all "lower income" residents receive government pension."

Removal of dead branches does not require council consent.

 

Additional discounts for low income will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

Yes (with changes)

Yes (with changes)

Min distance of 500mm scale should be dependent on tree height and size.

 

If a tree is rejected on private property council should be liable for maintaining the tree.

 

Branches that overhang properties should be able to be trimmed without approval.

Will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

 

Tree owners are responsible for the care and maintenance of trees on their property. Any liability is assessed on a case by case basis.

 

Tree pruning requires expert assessment. Indiscriminate boundary pruning can see a tree left potentially unstable or with irreparable damaged.

Yes (with changes)

Yes (with changes)

Council policy discourages people from planting trees by threatening residents with large fines for pruning their own trees.

 

Owners should be allowed to prune their own trees without council permission and should be allowed to remove (as long as they replace) a tree on their own property without Council involvement. 

Council administers controls on trees to ensure the preservation and appropriate management of trees within the LGA. Trees are essential green infrastructure that require skilled care and maintenance. Council is uniquely placed to be able to manage trees as a collective Urban Forest which means when we look at applications we also consider broader elements such as canopy cover in that area.

 

Allowing removal without consent would be inconsistent with best-practice tree management and would mean healthy viable trees are removed and the urban canopy will decline.

Yes (with changes)

Yes (with changes)

Can Council require an application to plant new trees and enforce removal of unauthorised planting?

 

Council is not able to regulate the planting of trees as there is no planning mechanism that allows this. Council can provide guidance to residents on species and locations.

Yes

Yes

Great initiative. A more streamlined process would help. It would also be great to see the Council continue to promote species that are suited to gardens and soil types.

The DCP amendment aims to make the process easier.

 

Council will prepare a list of suggested tree replacement species outlined in the new DCP.

Yes (with changes)

Yes (with changes)

Option 4 - needs to be extended to 2.0 metres.

 

Why does the trunk girth need to be less than 300mm at the base? This seems counter intuitive as larger trees are going to have a far greater risk of damaging a property than a smaller tree?

Increasing the exemption to 2 meters may allow for removal of trees that aren’t causing damage to property. This does not mean they cannot be removed it will just need an application to be submitted and if the damage is substantiated the tree will be approved for removal. 

 

The trunk girth diameter exemption will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

Yes (with changes)

Yes (with changes)

Suggest additional principle of ‘Sustainable Vegetation’ - ie trees should be appropriate to the urban environment (not reducing ability of other vegetation coverage) and non-invasive (ie allow removal of mature trees that are invasive - bot native and non-native) and as appropriate allow for replacement with other trees.

Most invasive tree species are considered exempt and do not require approval to removal. The exempt weeds list will be revised during formulation of draft DCP.

Yes (with changes)

Yes (with changes)

The Council must establish a Significant Tree Register. 

I also believe we have no time to lose, so can you please support a Significant Tree Register and add this to the Tree DCP Amendment.

 

Having such a Register will set up a culture & philosophy of protecting our natural heritage & will go a long way to protecting significant trees.

The DCP sits within the planning policy framework and sets out controls under the LEP. A significant tree register is more of a Council policy level document not tied to planning controls (unless trees are listed in the LEP heritage list).

 

Council supports the idea of a Significant Tree Register however currently has three other significant operational and policy documents to deliver within the next 18 months and does not have the resources to undertake this work at this time.

Yes (with changes)

Yes (with changes)

Do not allow dead or dying trees to be removed without a formal assessment. Some people poison trees deliberately. Therefore a qualified Council Officer needs to make an assessment and confirm that deliberate vandalism has not occurred.

 

Where developments along a fence line are approved (where no dwelling previously existed) how are the trees on the other side of the fence to be protected from the 500mm rule?

 

Are replacement trees followed up?

 

Many people don't understand the importance of trees. I think that where significant trees are identified on private property, there should be a rebate on rates to the property owners.

 

The policy should include a registration for tree pruners who wish to work in the area.

 

More council assistance for tree disputes between neighbours.

The dead tree removal process will need to have some tight controls set around it and poisoning is a good reason to do so. This will be looked at during formulation of draft DCP.

 

It is possible that this offset rule will have a flow on effect on the conditions imposed on developments adjacent to trees. It is unlikely that a new dwelling would be approved within 500mm of a tree anyway.

 

Replacement plantings are currently and will continue to be followed up on.

 

The intention of the proposed grant scheme is to recognize the importance trees on private property. A rebate scheme could be considered in the future but would be subject to broader Council review.

 

Registration for contractors is an interesting concept this can be looked at during formulation of draft DCP.

 

Processes already exist to assist civil disputes between neighbours. It is not Council’s role to get involved in such matters.

No

No

These changes seem to be a watering down of the current rules and can easily be abused.

 

Impacts on neighbouring trees from development and the 500mm rule need to be considered.

These impacts will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

Yes (with changes)

Yes (with changes)

As a senior with several magnificent Eucalypts on my property I support the introduction of a grants scheme.

Noted

No

No

Trees are a vital part of the community. There seems to be a swing ‘Not In My Back Yard’.

 

I believe that the original policies provide protection to all trees and people.

 

Trees will be poisoned then a photo sent to council and then the tree will be removed.

Noted

 

The dead tree removal process will need to have some tight controls set around it and poisoning is a good reason to do so. This will be looked at during formulation of draft DCP.

 

Yes (with changes)

Yes (with changes)

I do not believe the draft policy is specific enough.

 

Residents should be permitted to view independent reports undertaken by Council when Council uses such reports in the assessment of trees.

 

The cost burden should be reduced for all residents when trees are being assessed for public safety and protection of residences.

This is not a draft policy it is a discussion paper that will inform the DCP (policy).

 

Council reports can be requested under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.

 

Noted. This will be looked at during formulation of draft DCP.

Yes

Yes

Council conditioning a replacement tree that is the same size as the one that is removed seems illogical; it will just cause the same issues.

This needs to be assessed on a case by case basis and be determined by available space and size of lot.

Yes

Yes (with changes)

In regards to distance exemption, this measurement needs to have a sliding scale applied, as trees come in many sizes.

For example, a tree that is 1800mm at the base, would equate to a distance of 3000mm to the primary dwelling.

This suggestion will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

Yes (with changes)

No

Reducing the cost should not discriminate against working people by limiting it to people on "low incomes”. If reducing costs is an option it must be for all.

 

More broadly, the Council has no business interfering with the property rights of property owners.

This suggestion will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

 

Work on trees is considered a form of development under the EP& A Act and the Vegetation SEPP, as such Council administers controls under these state legislations.

Yes (with changes)

Yes (with changes)

What about protection of existing and elderly trees in perfect health. Why is there no 'Register of Significant Trees' in Inner West. Preserving what tree canopy remains should be a top priority.

 

Consideration for 'dead' habitat trees.

 

Replanting - yes and compliance inspected and policed.

Council supports the idea of a Significant Tree Register however currently has three other significant operational and policy documents to deliver within the next 18 months and does not have the resources to add another.

 

The habitat and planting compliance suggestion will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

Yes (with changes)

Yes (with changes)

I am a pensioner, I don't have the money required to remove two wonderful but inappropriate lemon scented gums from my property.

The grant scheme would apply to the maintenance of trees only and not for the removal.

Yes

Yes (with changes)

The concept of 'informal' applications is a great idea.

The proposal for the planting a minimum of 2 trees (lot size greater than 300m2) should be different for battleaxe blocks. 

Taking the entire area of a battleaxe block into consideration is not practical as often a large contributor to the area is the driveway.

 

Noted. This suggestion will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

Yes

Yes (with changes)

The distance of 500mm is still too close for most trees to be to a dwelling. 2000 mm is more realistic.

 

The cost of arborist reports is prohibitive for most people. Can we please go back to the system we had years ago.

Noted. This suggestion will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

Yes

Yes (with changes)

Weed trees on residential properties should be able to be removed even in a heritage conservation area.

 

Photographic evidence of branches fallen from trees should be sufficient evidence of risk. Owners should not always have to pay substantial arborist's fees for expensive risk reports in these instances.

 

The size and species of new trees should be from an approved list to ensure trees with excessive leaf drop, tendency to drop branches and damaging root systems are not allowed in residential areas.

 

Neighbours solar access should not be impinged on by mandatory tree planting (including future size) therefore 2 trees should not be required until 400m2 block and located to front of properties.

 

Other issues: requiring a DA for tree removal in a heritage conservation area (min $220 in fees) is an unfair imposition on residents.

The exempt weeds list will reviewed as part of this draft DCP.

 

Tree risk assessment is a complex process that requires a full assessment of the tree. Risk cannot be assessed from photos.

 

There is no perfect tree and the proposed preferred tree species list will aim to outline trees that can tolerate a range of locations and are varying in size.

 

Noted. This suggestion will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

 

The $220 fee applies to any tree application (permit or DA). The requirement for DAs with conservation areas is set by state government legislation.

Yes (with changes)

Yes (with changes)

I would like to see a principle incorporated that favours local native plantings over non-natives.

 

The 'increased urban canopy' principle is unworkable if decisions are to be made on individual trees on private property. The proposed principle infers that individual residents will be judged against an area wide policy of increased canopy.

A lack of trees in Leichhardt (or three backyards away) for example, should not impact a decision to remove a tree in St Peters. The principle infers otherwise."

Native and non-native tree all contribute to the canopy and ecology of the LGA. Native trees with form the majority of the preferred replanting list.

 

Council is uniquely placed to be able to manage trees as a collective Urban Forest which means when we look at applications we also consider broader elements such as canopy cover in a specific area, not the entire LGA.

 

Yes (with changes)

Yes (with changes)

500mm is too small a measurement to ensure the safety of property. This distance of a tree to a primary dwelling should be measured by its height as well as its diameter.

 

An architect should be able to provide an assessment on the risk a tree provides to a dwelling. Arborists have no qualifications with regard to knowing the structure/physical damage.

Noted. This suggestion will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

 

The key point in assessment of damage to a property is that its evidence based - not opinion based.

Yes (with changes)

Yes (with changes)

O1. Agree – risk should be assessed by an arborist qualified in tree risk assessment.

O2. Agree.

O3. Disagree. The industry accepted methods of tree risk assessment already consider future damage to property. If this is included it needs to be within a given time frame.

O4. Disagree – no setback rule should be added to the DCP. Trees can coexist without problem within close proximity to buildings. This should be assessed on a case by case basis. Due to the small property sizes in the Inner West area, a setback rule would unnecessarily exempt trees which are not problematic.

O6. Agree – case by case basis is the best approach.

O7. Agree.

O8. Agree.

O9. Agree. Needs clarification to determine what area/volume of soil will allow for the required canopy coverage.

O10. Agree. Suggest also adding a compulsory monetary contribution for council planting in cases where there is no physical space for a tree to be planted with opportunity for it to grow to maturity.

 

Noted. These suggestions will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

 

Yes

Yes

I support changes because it will ease the burden of having trees on your property. Residents won’t plant trees on their property unless Council makes it easier to manage them. In other words, there would not be any increase in tree canopy on private land because landowners would not willingly take on the risk under current DCP rules.

Noted. These suggestions will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

 

Yes (with changes)        

Yes

No minimum requirements to plant trees on property size less than 150sqm.

 

Allow for tree removal where they are within 2m of main dwelling to allow for small verandas.

Agree about subsidy for maintenance of large private property trees.

Noted. These suggestions will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

Yes (with changes)

Yes (with changes)

I would like to see more emphasis on keeping trees where ever possible. I am concerned that some Aborists just say what the resident wants them to say.

 

Better community education on how to look after trees (in changing climate) and which tree to choose.

 

Include a principle for ‘Climate change mitigation and shade’ (huge issues into the future).

 

Public safety: Will council have a list of approved arborists who are independent of tree loppers.

Supportive of discount for pensioners and grants

Noted. These suggestions will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

 

Council will be undertaking a community education program to coincide with the new tree DCP.

Yes

Yes (with changes)

Amendment Option 10: recommend that a Council follow-up program be included to track the survival of compensatory plantings.

Noted. These suggestions will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

 

No

Yes (with changes)

Agree with Public safety and Protection of property principle.

 

Unfair financial burdens imposed on tree owners results in poor outcomes both for trees and individuals. Better understanding of regulations is needed by tree owners.

 

Risk assessment can be carried out by competent arborists with years of experience in the field.

Agree with informal tree application.

Assessing future structural damage can only be speculative and not useful.

Trees located within 500mm, this needs to be increased and to include other structures large walls.

Canopy percentage targets are not needed.

Noted.

 

Council will be undertaking a community education program to coincide with the new tree DCP to improve understanding.

 

Tree risk assessment is subjective and requires an adopted methodology to ensure appropriate factors are considered.

 

These suggestions will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

 

Yes

Yes (with changes)

The simplified 'informal' application should include a replacement tree if dead tree is approved to be removed.

 

Assessment of alleged damage or potential for damage to a primary dwelling should be a merit based with strong evidence to support an approval for removal. Many trees in proximity to dwellings do not damage structures. Home owners often receive poor advice and scare tactics to push them to tree removal as their only option.

Noted.

 

These comments will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

 

Yes

Yes (with changes)

Do not support the 500mm exemption.

 

Research on this subject shows that it is virtually impossible for tree roots to exert enough physical pressure to damage the foundation of a heavy structure such as a house, unless that foundation was poorly constructed or somehow degraded. This is something that is very poorly understood by the general public.

 

This seems like it would be easily misinterpreted by residents who would begin to remove trees purely on the basis on proximity, it should be case by case.

 

Trees that are proven to be causing damage to structures are currently already allowed for removal anyway.

Noted.

 

These comments will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

 

Yes

Yes

Trees do have a measurable financial benefit to our community.

Noted.

 

No

No

Clarification is required in order to determine whether the risk methodology and these principles are truly taken into consideration.


What risk management methodology will be adapted to align with these principles? One of the current industry methodologies in place is QTRA (Quantified Tree Risk Assessment) a method adopted to quantify the probable risk of a tree failure. This methodology is orientated around trees and not people and is based on a one-size fits all approach. 

The trees distance from a main dwelling, 500mm is inadequate.
How are carports, verandas etc deemed as non-primary dwelling?

How will the grant scheme work, where will council obtain funding to provide this assistance?

Rather than co-contribute to the maintenance of private trees, should there not be a focus toward replanting in parks to increase and maintain the urban canopy.

Noted.

 

Tree risk assessment is a complex process that requires the user to be qualified in the system. QTRA is one of these systems and is used by Council in the risk assessment of it public trees. It considers people in the target assessment component.

 

Ancillary structures such as carports and not deemed primary dwellings as they are not typically significant structures occupied by the owner.

 

Details of the grant scheme will need to be resolved following adoption of the option.

 

 

These comments will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

 

No

No

The tree DCP needs to consider the nesting season for bird and mammals. Some LGAs do not allow trees to be cut down during the nesting season - from August to March - without special permission. 

 

The tree DCP needs to be backed up by enforcement.

 

Developers should be encouraged to keep mature trees on their property and care for new trees if they are required to plant them. Too often they die due to neglect.

Noted.

 

These comments will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

 

Yes (with changes)

Yes (with changes)

It’s essential that trees are recognised for their significant contribution to the urban environment. It is essential that Council remains in a monitoring and assessment role where tree removal is sought.

 

State government has a positive target of 40% urban forest canopy and in light of the fact that the inner west is far lower than that, there is a long way forward.

 

The free ‘informal’ tree application should require a brief letter by an arborist on the state of the tree and possible cause of death to Council. The poisoning of trees by some property owners is a known behavior. Replacement trees should be provided.

 

500 mm exemption is not supported  each situation should be assessed on its merits otherwise trees will be lost unnecessarily

Noted.

 

These comments will be considered during formulation of draft DCP

 

The dead tree removal process will need to have some tight controls set around it and poisoning is a good reason to do so. This will be looked at during formulation of draft DCP.

 

Yes (with changes)

Yes (with changes)

Reducing the cost to the tree owner must not lead to unprofessional, biased assessment of trees. Council is best placed to do this.

 

01 Agree- tree hollows must be kept whenever possible.

02 - no - this is asking for people to begin poisoning any tree that they want to remove. There must be no un-notified tree removal.
03 - no - future damage should not be considered as grounds for removal.
04 - no – 500mm rule not supported.
05 - no - An arborist (specifically a Council arborist) is essential to the process of assessment.
06 - yes - Very supportive of this idea. These trees are so important to the community that the community should certainly assist home owners to maintain them.

07 - yes - elderly people with a limited income need this.
08 - I would support notification in the surrounding area for the whole LGA.
09 - yes - But the medium and high density areas also need the 40% coverage.

10 - yes - There needs to be a 'check up' system so that it is proven that replacement trees are still alive in a year's time.

Noted.

 

These comments will be considered during formulation of draft DCP

 

Yes

Yes (with changes)

"O1 As part of the risk management review, include consideration for whether this an appropriate tree for the site conditions.

O2. Would this simplified process also apply to houses within a heritage conservation area?

O3. Strongly agree with your recommendation to include an assessment of future structural damage.

O4. Amend the distance to 3m in line with the other neighboring councils such as Bankstown  Council.  

 

O5. Strongly agree with this amendment.

 

O9. On such small inner west blocks a target of 40% seems too high and would make the case for tree removal for those who have existing trees that require removal due to safety issues more challenging.

 

These comments will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

 

Simplified dead tree application would apply to HCA’s.

 

The 3m rule for Bansktown Council is not an equal comparison as their lots sizes a generally much larger that the Inner West.

No

No

Consideration should be given to trees that are totally inappropriate to their placement on a property. Permission should not be necessary if the tree is dangerous and causing damage dwellings both primary and non-primary.

 

An arborist cannot give technical advice on structural matters. They can only give advice on the Tree.

 

Who would decide the criteria for the grants scheme?

 

What about the self funded retirees on a fixed income deserve to have a discount on the tree assessment applications.

 

Canopy percentage targets are too excessive.

 

Many properties less than 300sqm would not have any place to plan a tree.

 

These comments will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

 

Details of the grant scheme will need to be resolved following adoption of the option.

 

Yes

Yes (with changes)

Managing the urban forest is increasingly challenging as the need to increase canopy will be addressed in a climate of increasing urban densities, increasing heat etc.

 

In the last 10 years, internationally recognised tree risk assessment methodologies have been developed for which there is training and qualifications.  These should be the standard to which Council aspires.

No prescribed trees should be exempt.  Exempt species should be subject to an application for removal.  Approval should be automatic but compensatory tree planting can be required to replace and replenish tree canopy. 

Dead trees should not be exempt or subject to an 'informal' application.  This will open the way for tree poisoning to proliferate.

There should be no exemption for trees within a minimum distance from a building.  Some trees can grow immediately adjacent to a structure without causing damage.  Each situation should be assessed on its merits.

These comments will be considered during formulation of draft DCP.

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Staff resources have been allocated to the preparation and administration of this DCP amendment as part of their annual action plan.

 

If a grants scheme is recommended, a discussion on the financial implications of the scheme will provided to Council at that time.


 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Comments from Council’s Urban Ecology team were received during the engagement period. The Draft Tree DCP, when prepared, will be distributed for further staff comments.

 

 

CONCLUSION

There have been broad and wide-ranging comments provided by the community during the engagement with many issues presented. One of the most common topics was the 500mm exemption proposal which saw a mixed of responses both for and against.

 

In general, the community has indicated that they support the principles and options for amendment as outlined in the Discussion Paper.

 

The following diagram illustrates the process to implement the amendment to the Draft Tree DCP. Some timeframes are subject to the broader Council DCP amendment project that is being delivered by the Strategic Planning Team.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Tree DCP amendment - Engagement Report

2.

Tree DCP amendment - Discussion Paper

3.

Tree DCP amendment - Submission from IACA

  


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 

Item No:         C0918(2) Item 3

Subject:         Climate & Renewables Strategy           

Prepared By:     Claudia Cowell - Coordinator Corporate Sustainability and Jon Stiebel - Urban Sustainability Manager 

Authorised By:  Jan Orton - Group Manager Sustainability and Environment

 

SUMMARY

Council has resolved to become a leader in renewable energy and to become carbon neutral in its own operations at the earliest opportunity (C1017 Item 25).  Council has developed a draft pathway to carbon neutrality with the assistance of technical consultants 100%renewables.  The pathway involves:

 

·    Rollout of a programme of rooftop solar and energy efficiency projects at Council sites;

·    Sourcing of renewable energy from large-scale renewables facilities.

 

Council resolved to have staff assess the merits of constructing its own solar farm (C1217 Item 18).  The current political and economic climate indicates that a preferable option would be supporting a third-party renewable facility by purchasing renewable power through a power Purchase Agreement.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

 

1.   Note the draft Pathway to a Carbon Neutral Council outlined in this report;

 

2.   Note the proposal to include feasible energy efficiency and rooftop solar projects for Council assets in the annual budget development process, renewal and capital works programme;

 

3.   Commission the University of New South Wales to undertake a peer review of the draft Pathway to a Carbon Neutral Council and supporting technical reports;

 

4.   Endorse staff to proceed with the assessment of options for converting the “residual load” to renewable power; and

 

5.   Receive a further report on the final Pathway to a Carbon Neutral Council in November 2018.

 

 

 

1. BACKGROUND

Council has resolved to become a leader in renewable energy and to become carbon neutral in its own operations.  Resolution C1017 Item 25 (24 October 2017) indicates that Council will receive a report/s on how Council will:

 

“Make the Inner West Council 100% carbon neutral by the earliest possible date, while balancing immediate actions with the need for more impactful, longer term solutions”

 


 

“Make the Inner West Council a leader in solar photovoltaic (PV) energy by:

·    Ensuring all new Council-owned developments are fitted with Solar PV cells.

·    Working towards the retrofitting of all Council-owned buildings with appropriately sized Solar PV cells – potentially through a bulk tendering process – where possible.”

 

The resolution also requires that “this report/s form the basis of an integrated climate and renewables strategy for the Inner West Council….” and that “Council’s Environment Strategic Reference Group … be consulted in the drafting of this report/s and recommendations”.

 

Resolution C1217 Item 18 (12 December 2017) requires that the General Manager, investigate the requirements for a feasibility study into:

 

“a) The business case for Inner West Council to invest in a solar farm to offset Council’s electricity consumption across facilities and operations; and

 

b) Options to share investment and return / savings with the community, including direct community investment and / or savings passed on through rates discounts.”

 

In response, Council staff have completed technical investigations to develop a draft pathway to carbon neutrality (Pathway to a Carbon Neutral Council) for Inner West Council.  This report provides Council with an outline of the draft pathway, which was also presented at the Councillor Briefing on 18 September 2018. 

 

As detailed in following sections, the draft pathway will be peer reviewed by UNSW before a final pathway is delivered to the Council Meeting on 13 November 2018. This pathway will form the corporate component of the broader Inner West Council “Climate and Renewables Strategy” which will be presented for adoption in early 2019.

2.  CARBON NEUTRALITY

An organization is “carbon neutral” when the net carbon emissions are equal to zero.  In other words, the organization removes as much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere as it emits.  This is achieved by:

 

1.   Measuring. The first step is to quantify the organisation’s carbon emissions using a recognised standard, such as the Australian Government’s National Carbon Offset Standard.

 

2.   Reducing. Reducing the amount of carbon generated in operations.  This can translate to cost savings due to the reduction in energy use.

 

3.   Switching to carbon-neutral power. This may be through roof-top generation of solar power or by sourcing renewable power from elsewhere.

 

4.   Offsetting.  Carbon offsets are used for emissions that cannot be avoided.  Certified carbon offsets are purchased annually to cover the residual emissions in a given year. 

 

Organisations wishing to make public claims about carbon neutrality are certified by an independent auditor against the National Carbon Offset Standard (NCOS).

 

Certification audits against NCOS are conducted every two years. Under NCOS, an organisation demonstrates that it has the systems and processes in place to accurately calculate and understand its carbon emissions profile; has a plan to reduce its emissions; and will offset remaining emissions annually with certified carbon offsets to achieve net zero carbon emissions.

 

3.  INVESTIGATIONS TO DATE

Council has developed a draft Pathway to a Carbon Neutral Council to support reaching carbon neutrality.  Technical advice was provided by specialist consultancy firm 100%renewables, who have experience in this area particularly in local government.

 

 

Figure 1: Investigations to date

 

The work undertaken to date is outlined in Figure 1 above, and has involved:

 

·    Quantification of Council’s carbon footprint;

·    Identification of rooftop solar and energy efficiency projects at Council sites;

·    Review of options for sourcing additional renewable power;

·    Consultation with a wide range of Council staff;

·    Consultation with the Environment Strategic Reference Group;

·    Briefings with the Leadership Team and the Councillors;

·    Preparation of a draft technical report and Draft Pathway to a Carbon Neutral Council, on which this Council Report is based.

 

This Report summarises the draft carbon neutral pathway and presents its recommendations. Subsequent steps prior to November will involve:

 

·    Peer review of the draft 100%renewables technical report by the University of New South Wales and

·    Consultation with the Leadership Team on funding for the solar and energy efficiency projects on Council sites.

 


 

The following will then be presented at the Council Meeting on 13 November 2018:

 

·    The UNSW Peer Review report;

·    The final Technical Report by 100%renewables;

·    The final Pathway to a Carbon Neutral Council.

This work will ultimately be incorporated into the overall Carbon and Renewables Strategy for both Council operations and the Inner West community.

4.  COUNCIL’S CARBON FOOTPRINT

The amount of carbon and other greenhouse gases generated by Council’s own operations is approximately 22 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent each year[1].  This carbon footprint is equivalent to the carbon produced by electricity use in around 6,000[2] Inner West households each year.

 

The main sources of carbon from Council’s operations are shown in Figure 2 below.

 

Figure 2: IWC carbon footprint 

5.  DRAFT PATHWAY TO A CARBON NEUTRAL COUNCIL

As shown in Figure 2, the main source of carbon in Council is electricity consumption in street lights and Council assets.  This has therefore been a focus in carbon reduction investigations.

 

Options for reducing carbon from other sources are more limited, however the final Pathway to a Carbon Neutral Council will recommend a number of longer-term projects for these sources. In the shorter term, substantial reductions can be made by focusing on electricity use, as illustrated in Figure 3. 

 


 

 

Figure 3: Reducing carbon from electricity use

 

As shown, Council currently uses approximately 17,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per annum.  Each bar in Figure 3 represents a drop in carbon-generating electricity use, and is described further in subsequent sections.

 

5.1  Energy Efficiency in Council buildings

 

Reducing the amount of electricity used in Council assets reduces electricity bills and carbon.  All energy efficiency projects pay for themselves over time.

 

Suitable energy efficiency projects have been identified through:

 

·    Data review and site visits by

·    Consultation with asset owners (generally at Group Manager level)

·    Screening and ranking of projects to prioritise those with:

Strong payback periods

High carbon reduction per dollar spent

Relative ease of installation

Comparatively strong community interest

Innovative approaches

·    Consultation with Properties, Major Projects and Facilities

·    Consultation with the Leadership Team

 

This resulted in identification of around 37 projects, mainly involving either upgrade of lighting (to LED[3]) or adjustments to air conditioning system settings.  Table 1shows the key characteristics of these projects.  While the projects pay for themselves over time, they do require upfront investment and are not currently funded.  Funding will be reviewed as part of the annual budget process and incorporated into the capital and recurrent works programmes.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1: Summary of 37 Energy Efficiency projects for Council buildings

Criteria

Payback

(years)

Carbon saving

(tonnes CO2e)

Investment

($)

Average

5.5

24

$20k

Range

<1 – 12

<1 - 245

<$1k - $140k

Total

N/A

900

$800k

 

5.2  Energy Efficiency in Streetlights

 

Council pays for the power and maintenance of most street lights.  Both power and maintenance are provided by Ausgrid under contract.

 

Council’s Group Manager Footpaths Roads Traffic Stormwater has been negotiating with Ausgrid to accelerate the replacement of existing fluorescent street lights with LED lights.  This is expected to reduce maintenance and power costs, as well as carbon impact.  Negotiation has been undertaken in association with other councils under the umbrella of the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC).

 

Council has budgeted for the residential road LED project and is currently considering the main road proposal from Ausgrid.

 

Timing for replacement is not yet confirmed as it will depend on Ausgrid’s programme of works, which extends to other local government areas.  It is understood that the bulk of the residential replacement will be undertaken over the next five years.

 

5.3   Solar on Council buildings

 

Generating our own power using rooftop solar is very efficient.  Electricity is generated at the site where it is consumed, eliminating the charges associated with transmission (poles and wires).  Solar technology is well-established and relatively simple to install, and has a very low maintenance cost once installed.  Solar power is only limited by the size/orientation of the roof and the amount of demand at the site during the daytime (at least until batteries are cheaper). 

 

Generating our own power on Council assets reduces electricity bills and carbon.  All solar power projects pay for themselves over time.

 

Around 30 Council facilities are already equipped with solar, however there is potential to expand.  Suitable solar power projects have been identified through the same process described for energy efficiency projects in Section 5.1.  This resulted in identification of around 17 projects as shown in Table 2.  While the projects have a payback, they do require upfront investment.  Funding will be reviewed as part of the annual budget process and incorporated into the capital and recurrent works programmes.

 

Table 2: Solar on Council buildings

Criteria

Payback

(years)

Carbon saving

(tonnes CO2e)

Investment

($)

Average

7

22

$30k

Range

<5 – 12

2 – 110

<$3k - $150k

Total

N/A

380

$540k

 


 

5.4   Offsite Renewable Power

 

Energy efficiency and solar farms on Council’s buildings are cost effective ways of reducing carbon and electricity costs.  However these projects alone, will not make Council’s electricity use 100% carbon neutral.  Additional renewable power will need to be sourced from utility-scale renewable power projects, which include solar, wind, hydro-power and a range of other less established technologies. 

 

5.4.1 Building a Council solar farm

 

Council’s Resolution C1217 requires that the General Manager, investigate the requirements for a feasibility study into:

 

“a) The business case for Inner West Council to invest in a solar farm to offset Council’s electricity consumption across facilities and operations; and

 

b) Options to share investment and return / savings with the community, including direct community investment and / or savings passed on through rates discounts.”

 

A solar farm of sufficient size to manage all of IWC’s current electricity consumption would cover approximately 36 hectares (around 1% of the LGA).  However IWC aims to reduce its energy use over several years, and based on 100%renewables’ assessment, this would reduce the required area to around 12 hectares. 

 

Given our population density, there is no suitable site for such a facility within the LGA. The available roof space owned by IWC would not supply our needs, and there are insufficient third-party roofs that could be used long-term. The solar farm would therefore be located remotely, in an area that meets key criteria such as:

 

·    High solar radiation

·    Access to a nearby section of the electricity grid with the capacity to accept the supply

·    Available land area with suitable topography

·    Reasonable cost for land

·    Appropriate zoning

 

The process for constructing and operating a solar farm is illustrated in Figure 4.

 

Figure 4: Council solar farm


 

IWC would buy land, or partner with an organisation with suitable rural land (likely another Council).  Site selection and solar farm design would need to be undertaken by specialist engineers.  This would likely involve an Engineer-Procure-Construct (EPC) contract.  The scale of contract would be in the order of $5-10M. 

 

Based on recent solar projects in Australia, the likely timeframe from project inception to power generation is between 5 and 10 years.  Any solar farm established by IWC would be at the upper end of this range as we would need to identify land, obtain approvals, and develop our skill set around the contracting requirements associated with solar farms.

 

Once constructed, Council would contract with a specialist Operation and Maintenance (O&M) company to run the solar farm.  Operational and maintenance costs for solar farms are comparatively low however specialist personnel are required.

 

Once operating, the solar farm would generate (day-time) electricity that would feed into the grid.  In the future it may be possible to add storage capacity to the project, so that electricity can be fed into the grid at night. 

 

Once delivered to the grid, the power would be deployed to consumers by the Australian Energy Market Operator.  Solar power is indistinguishable in the network from any other power.  The electricity from the solar farm cannot be supplied directly to IWC or our residents due to the inability to distinguish between power sources once electricity enters the grid. 

 

Electricity would therefore need to be sold back to IWC from the Solar Farm under the terms of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). Current legal advice is that IWC must have an electricity Retailer between ourselves and the Solar Farm. We would therefore incur some administration fees from the Retailer, and would still pay network fees (for poles and wires) to the Transmission and Distribution companies (e.g. Ausgrid).

 

In addition to electricity, the solar farm would generate renewable energy certificates[4] under the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 (Cth).  These certificates provide a financial incentive to increase the generation of renewable power, and can be sold by the generator.  Certain organisations (mainly electricity retailers) are required to purchase certificates in proportion to the power they source.  Renewable power facilities can therefore sell generated certificates as a second revenue stream (in addition to electricity).

 

It is essential to note that in order to claim a carbon reduction, renewable energy certificates cannot be sold to another organisation – they must be retired.  Retiring the renewable certificates simply means that they are surrendered to the Australian Government’s Clean Energy Regulator, and do not form part of the Australian Government’s carbon reduction – they are additional and attributable to Council.  This would be the case for IWC’s solar farm, and we would therefore forego the second revenue stream.

 

IWC faces a number of circumstances that differ from councils who have built their own solar farms as follows:

 

·    IWC’s objectives are around both electricity costs and carbon, meaning that we would not sell the renewable energy certificates to enhance the business case;

·    IWC does not hold suitable land, and there is no large area nearby that could be purchased/leased at a reasonable cost;

·    Unlike some regional councils, IWC is not accustomed to building, operating and maintaining large utility infrastructure.

 

While undertaking research for this project, it quickly became apparent that there are significant uncertainties in relation to the commercial issues associated with an IWC solar farm, particularly in the current political climate. 

 

Energy and climate policy is very uncertain, as are the incentives currently employed by the Federal Government to encourage investment in renewables.  Until the Federal election is held it is difficult to predict the electricity market or the renewables investment landscape.  IWC staff and 100%renewables do not recommend that a business case for a solar farm is further assessed until this uncertainty is resolved.

 

Policy developments, technology changes and price trends will be monitored to inform a re-assessment of this option in future.  An update on the policy climate will be provided to Council after the Federal Election enabling a reassessment of whether a council owned solar farm build option should be part of Council’s future electricity supply strategy. 

 

5.4.2 Other sources of renewable power

 

Given the challenges identified above, Council staff investigated whether there are other options for sourcing renewable power.  The main avenue identified was a long-term purchasing agreement with a solar farm.  This is known as a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). 

 

Solar farm developers generally need to establish PPAs with reliable customers in order to obtain financing, as banks and investors require proof of a solid market for the electricity prior to funding construction.  Entering into a PPA therefore provides substantial support to the solar industry. 

 

Entering into a PPA is a fairly traditional procurement process whereby retailers with access to renewable power[5] are invited to tender for a given load.  The process is illustrated in Figure 5. As it is common to only purchase a portion of power from renewables, the PPA is usually accompanied by a contract that provides the balance of the required electricity from the grid. 

 

 

Figure 5: Renewable power purchase

 

Mid-scale electricity users such as councils generally form a buying group in order to aggregate their load and obtain better rates from suppliers.  This adds some complexity to the process as all parties must be comfortable with the terms and duration of the contract.

 

The timeframe from forming a buying group to power supply ranges from 1 to 3 years[6]. The bulk of that time is associated with negotiating suitable contract terms. 

 

The duration of a PPA is usually in the order of 10-15 years as renewables developers need to lock in contracts over their financing period.  The balancing contract for the non-renewable electricity may be similar, or may be a shorter period allowing some flexibility in approach.  

 

Specialist legal, technical and commercial advice is required during the contract development and negotiation given the duration of the PPA and the complex and highly mobile nature of the electricity market.  The procurement process would generally involve a Council working group from Finance, Sustainability, Legal and Procurement.

Council would benefit from the power and the renewable certificates which would be “retired” to provide the carbon reduction. 

 

5.4.3 Build or Buy: Comparative Risks and Benefits

 

A comparison of the potential risks and benefits involved in building Council’s own solar farm, versus purchasing renewable power from a specialist operator, is provided in Figure 6.

 

For the same amount of renewable power, in both cases Council would enter into a PPA with an electricity retailer to purchase renewables and would retire the renewables certificates obtained.  In the case of the “build” option, Council’s contractors would construct and operate the facility. In the case of the “buy” option, a specialist solar farm developer would construct and operate the solar farm.  This reduces a number of challenges including:

 

·    Lead time, given that organizing the “buy” option is faster;

·    Upfront capital investment, as this is not required for the “buy” option; and

·    Technology risk, as the “buy” option does not lock Council for 30 years into a facility which may become obsolete given the rapid development of renewables technology.

 

IWC’s consultants advice is that in comparing the two, at this time, the balance of evidence suggests that a PPA supplying IWC’s electricity demand from renewable energy is the preferred approach.

 


 

 

Figure 6: Build versus buy: comparison of risks and benefits

 

 

5.4.4 Upcoming Off-Site Solar Farm Supply

 

Inner West Council has joined a buying group of 20 Councils to enter into a PPA to purchase solar power from a NSW rural solar farm.

 

Council has resolved to purchase 4,127MWh per annum[7] of solar power.  This is equivalent to most of Council’s daytime load.

 

The procurement process is being managed by SSROC and is currently confidential as tender negotiations are being finalised.

 

Figure 7 below shows the reduction in grid electricity consumption due to the SSROC PPA in the bar labelled “Offsite Solar Farm”. 

 


 

Figure 9: Grid electricity reduction via PPA

 

The arrangement with the supplier will last for at least three years and will commence in FY19. 

 

Based on advice from SSROC’s technical advisors, this is expected to be a cost-neutral arrangement that delivers significant carbon reductions to IWC.

 

5.4.5 Next Renewables Supply

 

Council’s next opportunity to increase the percentage of renewable power will occur in FY22 when the current contract is renewed or re-tendered.

 

It is expected that this time will be needed to form the next buying group, explore the latest technologies, and identify the preferred contractual model. 

 

Council staff propose that a project to assess options for converting the “residual load” in Figure 7 to renewable power is commenced in FY19. 

 

5.5  Residual Carbon Management

 

The projects above will reduce Council’s carbon arising from electricity use, which is by far the largest source of carbon emissions at Council.  However as shown in the earlier Figure 1, there are a number of smaller carbon sources (e.g. fuel use in Council’s fleet).

 

In the interim it is expected that at least some of Council’s carbon will need to be reduced by purchasing carbon offsets.

 

Carbon offsets essentially support renewable energy projects by third parties, who sell the right to claim the carbon reduction.  Carbon offsets vary in price, and the cost to Council will depend on our progress in reducing energy consumption and switching to renewable power.

 

An early carbon neutral target date would require more carbon offsets as substantial emissions reductions are expected over the next five years.

 

The carbon neutral target date will be the subject of discussions with Councillors at upcoming briefings prior to the Council Meeting on 13 November. 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Financial implications have been discussed with the Leadership Team at a briefing on 13 September 2018.  Funding for energy efficiency and solar projects will be addressed in the usual budget process and incorporated into the capital and recurrent works programmes where feasible.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

A variety of internal and external stakeholders have been consulted throughout the technical work associated with this project.

 

A Project Control Group (PCG) was formed and met at two key points in the project.  PCG members are:

 

·    Deputy GM Assets and Environment

·    Group Manager Environment and Sustainability

·    Manager Urban Sustainability

·    Group Manager Properties Major Projects and Facilities

(represented by Manager Facilities)

·    Group Manager Procurement and Fleet

·    Group Manager Recreation and Aquatics

·    Group Manager Finance

·    Group Manager Library and History Services

 

Stakeholders involved in developing and reviewing the list of on-site projects included:

 

·    Group Manager Community Services and Culture

·    Group Manager Library and History Services

·    Group Manager Recreation and Aquatics

·    Group Manager Parks Trees and Sportsfields

·    Group Manager Procurement and Fleet

·    Group Manager Roads & Stormwater

·    Manager Fleet Management Services

·    Manager Parks Capital Works Manager

 

Stakeholders involved in detailed discussions around the off-site renewable projects were:

 

·    Deputy GM, Chief Financial and Administration Officer

·    Deputy GM, Assets and Environment

·    Group Manager Environment and Sustainability

·    Manager Urban Sustainability

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The members of the former Environment Strategic Representation Group were briefed on the overall approach on 21 June 2018.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


D:\WORD\BUSPAPER\BUSFINAL\##2018\Council Meetings\180925 - 25 September 2018Item No: C0918(2) Item 4

Subject:         Children and Family Services           

Prepared By:     Annette Morgan - Group Manager Children and Family Services 

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

 

SUMMARY

Since the council report of 26 June that outlined a number of issues facing the operations and costs of Council’s Education and Care Services and possible options, further Council resolutions have stipulated that May Murray Early Learning Centre will remain at its current site and will begin enrolments as per usual for 2019 and the two new centres at Leichhardt Park and Steel Park will be operated and managed by Inner West Council as originally planned.

 

As a result of the resolutions, the options as outlined in the June report are no longer relevant except for the option suggesting a relocation of Leichhardt Children’s Centre to the new facility at Leichhardt Park and operating a Before and After School Care service from the building in Leichhardt St (pending NSW Education approval).

 

During July and August council officers held feedback meetings with families and staff of the services impacted by the options outlined in the June report, whereby majority of parents/families opposed relocations to new facilities.

 

More recent discussions with local Out of School Hours Care services indicate that the demand has dropped slightly for these services in the immediate vicinity of Leichhardt Children’s Centre with an expected continued need for After School Care for kindergarten children in 2019. Given the opposition from families at Leichhardt Children’s Centre to relocate to the new facility at Leichhardt Park, there is a possibility that a certain number of places at Leichhardt Children’s Centre could cater for after school care for kindergarten children (pending NSW Education approval) and/or occasional care, should long day care enrolments remain low, thereby fully utilizing the facility at Leichhardt St as a mixed use facility.

 

Globe Preschool has an individual and unique situation, compared with the other services in that NSW Education has informed Council that it will not be renewing the licence (lease) for the preschool’s accommodation after December 2019. Therefore, without an alternate site, the preschool does not have a premises from which to operate after this date.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   Leichhardt Children’s Centre begins enrolment process for 2019 and continues to operate as a Long Day Care service, with a review of enrolment patterns for both Leichhardt Park and Leichhardt Children’s Centres, six to eight months into 2019;

 

2.   Council officers further investigate how After School Care for kindergarten children might be able to be catered for within the service approval for the premises of Leichhardt Children’s Centre; and

 

3.   Council consider alternatives for the future of Globe Preschool.

 

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

At the 26 June council meeting, a report was discussed in regards to a number of issues facing the operation of some of Council’s Education and Care Services and also presented possible solutions.

 

At the meeting Council resolved:

“…THAT the report be deferred for further consideration by Council, pending:

…Correspondence being written from Council to the NSW Department of Education

putting on record Council’s strong opposition to the planned closure of Globe Wilkins

pre-school, and seeking the Department’s advice on potential alternative locations for

Globe Wilkins pre-school...

 

…Further engagement with staff, parents and families at the potentially impacted centres…

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

 

The application for approval for the Leichhardt Park Children’s Centre has been finalized and submitted to NSW Education (DEC) as required by legislation. This process may take up to 90 days as indicated by the Department. The recruitment process for staff (both internal and external) has resumed. Dependent upon any additional requirements by DEC, the length of the approval process and the successful recruitment of suitable staff, it is anticipated that the service will be operational from January 2019, if not before.

 

The Yirran Gumal service at Steel Park is still in the final stages of construction, with an Occupation Certificate (OC) yet to be applied for and granted. Once the OC is received, the process of application for approval with NSW Education can begin. At this stage it is anticipated that the service may be operational by early to mid-2019, pending certifications as part of the construction, the granting of the OC and the NSW Education approval process.

 

Meetings with staff and parents at all impacted services, as resolved at the 26 June council meeting, were held between 9 July and 8 August, in addition to earlier meetings held with staff in June. It is important to note that staff at all services, whilst ideally wanting to stay at their current services and continue working with the teams and families, verbally demonstrated that they understand they are employed by Council’s Children and Family Services service unit and showed team work and flexibility in accepting any decision that Council made in relation to each of the services impacted, whilst also seeing the positive outcomes from the possibility of working at a newly constructed facility.

 

Since the meeting of 26 June, further resolutions have been made in response to Notice of Motions discussed at 14 August council meeting, specifically:

 

“…1. Confirm no further consideration will be given the relocation of the May Murray

Early Learning Centre to the new Steel Park centre, and that the service will continue

at its current location in Premier St; and

 

2. Confirm enrolments and wait listing for 2019 onwards will proceed on this basis…”

 

As a general summary, feedback from families from May Murray Early Learning Centre saw strong opposition to a relocation to Steel Park, mainly due to the intimate environment for the children and staff that the May Murray premises supports due to it being a 24 place service, including the innovative outdoor-classroom programme, Cook’s River Kids. The families/parents’ position has been supported by Council in the resolution at 14 August meeting, as above, and the re-enrolment/enrolment process for 2019 will proceed as usual, beginning this month.

 

Leichhardt Children’s Centre families had similar sentiments in relation to the home-like environment that the Leichhardt Children’s Centre premises promote. Within this there was also a mixed reaction to the possibility of relocation to the new facility at Leichhardt Park with some parents indicating they are waiting to move to the new centre due to family convenience. Others indicated they would find a move challenging due to the location of the new centre in relation to two of the local primary schools which are within walking distance of the centre and the close proximity of public transport in all directions, also in walking distance of the centre; reasons why, as indicated by families, that Leichhardt Children’s Centre was chosen, in conjunction with being a council service. These were the majority of responses by more than half of those providing feedback.

 

There were also a number of families who indicated that even though they would prefer not to move, they would consider relocating to Leichhardt Park should there be no other option and after taking into account the logistics of travel to Leichhardt Park and then on to work, using both private and public transport.

 

Globe Preschool families are very supportive of continuing to advocate to the State for the service to stay on the grounds of Wilkins School not only or specifically for their own children, as many will attend school over the next couple of years, but also for the future of retaining a preschool in the immediate local area. Preschools attract a significant amount of operational funding to help reduce the cost of fees for children in the year before school as well as children from Aboriginal backgrounds and children with a disability. Preschools support both the Commonwealth and State priority for all children accessing education and care services for 600 hours in the year before school. Being on the grounds of a primary school further supports and provides naturally occurring synergies to this national agenda.

 

At the time of writing this report, no formal written response had been received by NSW Department Education in response to the Mayor’s letter dated 5 July, as per the resolution from the June 26 council meeting:

 

“…putting on record Council’s strong opposition to the planned closure of

Globe Wilkins pre-school, and seeking the Department’s advice on potential

alternative locations for Globe Wilkins pre-school …”

 

In addition, at 14 August meeting, council resolved:

 

“…Continuing to lobby the NSW Department of Education and Minister for Education

to retain the award-winning Globe-Wilkins Preschool at its current location within

Wilkins Public School including seeking a meeting with the Minister and parents

involved in the Save Globe-Wilkins Preschool Campaign…”

 

A second letter was sent on 29 August to the minister requesting a meeting with the ‘Save Globe Preschool Campaign’ group.

 

In late August, Council officers had a third meeting with officers of NSW Education, including Wilkins School. Each of these three meetings has resulted in the continued position from the Department that Globe Preschool will not be able to be accommodated at the current site. Council officers will continue to work with the Assets section of NSW Education to explore any available options.

 

It is important to note and reiterate that at this point there is no alternative option for Globe Preschool past December 2019. Council officers have again explored whether there are any Council properties that are suitable for use as an education and care service that can be retrofitted or renovated to meet compliance for an early childhood service. There are no suitable Council sites at this point in time. As stated in the June report: “…As the Preschool licence will not be renewed past December 2019 at Wilkins School, Council needs to consider future operations and/or re-location of the Preschool. To re-accommodate the preschool in a new facility, Council would need to invest between $3.5M and $5M to purchase a suitably sized premises to meet all space requirements and refurbish the property to be compliant with requirements and regulations…” Without either an alternate site or a renewal of licence (lease) agreement with NSW Education, Globe Preschool cannot continue to operate after December 2019.

 

As highlighted in the council report of 26 June 2018, the suburb of Leichhardt currently has a significant number of private operators, the concentration of which appears to be impacting utilization across all services in the area, not just the council operated service. Other areas of the LGA are beginning to see a similar pattern with a slow increase in the number of private services opening. Whilst Council has always promoted the quality provision that its education and care services offer, the Children and Family Services team are working on an annual promotional and marketing plan for all council’s Education and Care Services. Initiatives already begun include: an annual open day held in mid-September for some of the most impacted services; the development and distribution of posters and flyers; utilizing council’s social media tools; developing temporary measures for Inner West Council signage specific to each site. The team will continue to consult with Council’s Communications and Media team on this plan to be an ongoing and annual strategy for council’s Education and Care services.

 

Further discussions with one of the local Out of School Hours (OSHC) services, since the June report, indicate that the unmet demand for Before and After School care has reduced slightly. Local services are not experiencing a waitlist for before school hours care, whilst the need for afterschool hours care has also dropped. That said, it is anticipated there will still be a shortfall of afterschool hours care for kindergarten children in 2019. To support both the local OSHC services and local families and to fully utilize the premises at Leichhardt Children’s Centre in Leichhardt St, council could consider the operation of a mixed use service by retaining the existing long day care service at the site with re-enrolments and new enrolments, whilst also exploring possibilities to cater for afterschool hours care for a certain number of kindergarten children and/or occasional hours care for those vacancies that may exist once the long day care enrolment process for 2019 has been finalized.

 

There may be additional requirements from DEC such as minor modifications to children’s bathrooms and a change in centre practices required to provide separate space/s for the After School Care, before being approved to operate as a mixed use service. If allowable, this would fully utilize the premises, continue to provide places for existing families that do not want to relocate to Leichhardt Park and also provide a small number of places of After School Care for kindergarten children not able to access the other two Out of School Hours Care services.

 

Should an After School Care service not be approved at the premises, the opportunity to provide occasional care places can also be explored. From 2019, it is anticipated that Occasional Care services will be operating under the full extent of the current regulations and legislation and so the premises will meet all requirements as the same age is being catered for.

 

All services have started the re-enrolment process for 2019, with Leichhardt Children’s Centre on hold pending this report and council decision. As a result, parents are considering all available options for care in the area, not just the council services. To alleviate any further uncertainty for the long day care places and to develop a picture of what places may be available for either After School Care or Occasional Care at Leichhardt Children’s Centre, re-enrolment and enrolment process for 2019 for Leichhardt Children’s Centre should begin as soon as possible.

 

Should long day care enrolments at Leichhardt Children’s Centre continue to be low over the next 12 to 18 months, a review of operations as a long day care or mixed use service can be undertaken and a transitional plan of relocating the long day care children and staff to Leichhardt Park or other Council services can be developed to give families time to adjust to any such change. In addition, the planned Needs Analysis of Education and Care services in the wider Inner West LGA will provide more robust research and information to inform future needs for child care of all ages from birth to the year before high school across the Inner West Council area. This will be particularly helpful when reviewing the patterns of enrolments for 2019 and forecasting the future supply and demand for the area surrounding Leichhardt Children’s Centre as well as the wider Inner West community.

 

With a variety of unexpected changes in the sector this year and their rollout and implementation timeframes, such as the Commonwealth Families Package and its continued phased roll out with more changes scheduled for 2019, as well as a change in interpretation of a Regulation in NSW, Children and Family Services officers have needed to focus their ongoing attention to these external and day to day matters to ensure preparation and compliance with both State and Commonwealth requirements and Regulations. This has and continues to involve working closely with other sections of Council, particularly Finance and ICT. As a result, the planned Needs Analysis has had to be placed on hold until the second quarter of this Financial Year.

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

As mentioned in the 26 June council report and also in this report, at this point in time there is no alternative for Globe Preschool should NSW Education maintain its position of not renewing the licence (lease) for the continued operation of the preschool at its current site.

 

Should council consider funding a relocation of the preschool, it is expected that in the current property market a one off capital cost of approximately $3.5 - $5M, to purchase and re-furbish a suitable site would be required, possibly more depending on the site. In addition there would be ongoing operational maintenance and renewal/depreciation costs for the life of the building.

 

At Leichhardt Children’s Centre, minor modifications may be required to accommodate an After School Care service, which may total between $3,000 and $5,000.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Whilst lobbying and advocating for Globe Preschool continues, Council needs to consider the possibility that NSW Education will continue its current position that Globe Preschool will not be accommodated at its current premises at Wilkins School beyond December 2019.

 

Council could consider acquiring a suitable site at a one off capital cost of between $3.5M and $5M, with ongoing operational maintenance and renewal costs. However, even with a suitable premises, refurbishment/renovation to ensure compliance with the Education and Care services National Regulations will require adequate lead up time, whilst construction of a new facility may take up to 3 years after land purchase, from engaging architect, concept development, DA and construction    Without an alternate venue or premises, Globe Preschool may not operate past December 2019.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Feedback meetings with parents held during July and August as summarized earlier in this report.

 

 

CONCLUSION

Without a renewed licence (lease) or alternate premises, Globe Preschool will not operate past December 2019. The cost to Council of funding an alternate venue would be between $3.5 and $5M with ongoing maintenance and renewal costs.

 

The loss of a preschool in the area would negatively impact families and children from Aboriginal backgrounds, children with a disability and reduce the number of children being able to access education and care in the year before school, a Commonwealth and State priority.

 

The option of exploring the possibility of seeking approval to operate a mixed use facility at Leichhardt Children’s Centre continues to flexibly meet the needs of changing child care needs of the community.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 

Item No:         C0918(2) Item 5

Subject:         Inner West Council Stronger Communities Fund Grants Program 2018/19           

Prepared By:     Freya Ververis - Arts Grants and Engagement Support Worker  

Authorised By:  Angus Ng – A/Group Manager Community Services and Culture

 

SUMMARY

The report proposes projects for funding by Council from the Inner West Council 2018/19 Stronger Communities Fund Grants Program. The recommended projects align with Council’s vision and priorities and the Stronger Communities Fund guidelines. 13 projects are recommended for funding in 2018 at a value of $324,000.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council approve the funding recommendations for the Stronger Communities Grant Program 2018/19 contained in Attachment 1.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The Stronger Communities Grants Program allocated $1 million in grants over three years to incorporated not-for-profit community groups, for projects that build more vibrant, sustainable and inclusive local communities. This grant initiative forms part of the Stronger Communities funding that was made available to Inner West Council by the NSW Government’s Fit for the Future program. Inner West Council invited local community groups to apply for grants that provide community benefits for residents ranging from a minimum of $10,000 to a maximum of $50,000.

 

2018 is the final year of this three year NSW Government funded program. $324,000 of the original grant remains and it is recommended for allocation to support 13 projects in the Inner West area (see Attachment 1).

 

The Stronger Communities Grant Program guidelines are attached (see Attachment 2). The key objectives of the Inner West Council Stronger Communities Grants are to:

·    Deliver social, arts and cultural, recreation, environmental and economic benefits for the communities of the Inner West

·    Strengthen the Inner West as the creative engine of global Sydney

·    Deliver innovative projects to enhance liveability and wellbeing in the Inner West

·    Enhance local identity in the communities, villages, neighbourhoods and precincts of the Inner West

·    Support a vibrant street life, support local business and enterprise throughout the Inner West

·    Reflect and celebrate community and cultural diversity

·    Strengthen social justice and inclusion

·    Support social, cultural, environmental and economic sustainability

·    Improve connectivity across the Inner West.

 

Delivery of the 2018 Stronger Communities Grant Program

The Stronger Communities Grants program opened on 7 June and closed on 16 July 2018, during this period Council officers hosted four information sessions at Ashfield Civic Centre and Petersham Service Centre. The information sessions included an initial presentation on the Grant Program, followed by breakaway one on one sessions between Council staff and applicants to provide tailored advice. Approximately 40 perspective grant applicants attended each of the four events.

 

Council officers worked with and coached individuals and groups, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse communities in developing their ideas and applications. An analysis of the 2017 Grants Program showed a lack of representation of local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

 

In alignment with Notice of Motion C0318 Item 8, IWC Grants Program: Overview of Criteria and Processes, 3. Council provide an outreach service to organisations representing multicultural communities to assist with grant applications, Grant Program information was publicised via the Multicultural NSW email broadcast service (8,000 recipients) encouraging people from multicultural backgrounds residing in the Inner West to apply. Grant information was also translated into 6 predominant community languages for targeted advertising in community press. Council Staff coached a number of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Community groups in developing applications.

 

The Mayor convened the assessment meeting that evaluated and prioritised applications against the relevant eligibility criteria and has made the attached funding recommendations to Council for approval.  

 

The 2018 assessment panel included:

·    Mayor Clr Darcy Byrne

·    Mathew Howard (representative for Jo Haylen MP, Member for Summer Hill)

·    Jenny Leong MP, Member for Newtown

·    Jamie Parker MP, Member for Balmain

·    Dr. Paula Abood, Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Coordinator, TAFE NSW

·    Alexander Bailey, Deputy Local Controller-Community, Ashfield Leichhardt Unit, State Emergency Service

·    Paul Kougias, Club Grants & Community, Canterbury Hurlstone Park RSL

·    Doug Thompson, Principal Coordinator, Department of Premier and Cabinet

·    Umayal Sivanandan, Probity Advisor Southern Sydney Regional Organisations of Councils (SSROC)

·    John Warburton, Deputy General Manager.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

NIL

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Not Applicable

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Stronger Communities Grant Program Recommendations

2.

Stronger Communities Grant Program Guidelines

  


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 

Item No:         C0918(2) Item 6

Subject:         Report on the Council Review of the Organisation Structure           

Prepared By:     Melodie Whiting - Group Manager Human Resources 

Authorised By:  Rik Hart - Interim General Manager

 

SUMMARY

In accordance with the Local Government Act, Council must review the organisation structure within 12 months after the election of the Council, and may re-determine the senior staff positions in consultation with the General Manager. The timing of the review is significant as the recruitment of the General Manager is underway. It is important to guarantee stability of the organisation during this time of change to ensure quality service delivery to the community is at least maintained and the leadership model supporting the integration, harmonisation and cultural projects is preserved.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council approve the current organisation structure.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Council has obligations under the Local Government Act in relation to the organisation structure as follows:-

Part 332 Determination of structure

(1) A council must, after consulting the general manager, determine the following:

(a) the senior staff positions within the organisation structure of the council,

Part 333 Re-determination and review of structure

The organisation structure may be re-determined under this Part from time to time. The council must review, and may re-determine, the organisation structure within 12 months after any ordinary election of the council.

 

Accordingly, Council must now review the organisation structure and may re-determine the structure. In reviewing the structure, it is important to acknowledge that Council is currently undertaking the recruitment process for a new General Manager, as it determined that the current General Manager’s contract will not be renewed, and the impact this change may have on the organisation. It is paramount therefore, to guarantee stability of the organisation during this time, to ensure quality service delivery to the community is at least maintained, and the leadership model supporting the integration, harmonisation and cultural projects is preserved.

 

Current organisation structure for designated senior staff positions is:-

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Not Applicable

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Not Applicable

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 

Item No:         C0918(2) Item 7

Subject:         Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 4 September 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 4 September 2018 are presented for Council consideration.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

THAT the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 4 September 2018 be received and the recommendations be adopted.

 

 

 

ITEMS BY WARD

 

Ward

Item

Page Number

Leichhardt

LTC0918 Item 4         

Boomerang Street, Haberfield - Haberfield North LATM - Traffic calming improvements (Leichhardt Ward / Summer Hill Electorate / Ashfield LAC)

Page 6

Leichhardt

LTC0918 Item 10       

Elswick Street North, Charles Street, Hubert Street, Francis Street,             James Street, Leichhardt - Resident Parking Scheme (Leichhardt   Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC)

Page 11

Leichhardt

LTC0918 Item 15       

Annesley Street at Balmain Road, Leichhardt - Proposed 'No Stopping' zones (Leichhardt Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC)

Page 15

Leichhardt

LTC0918 Item 17       

2018 Norton Street Italian Festa - Special Event (Leichhardt Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC)

Page 17

Leichhardt

LTC0918 Item 23    

Bicycle logos in Nelson Street, Annandale

Page 26

Leichhardt

LTC0918 Item 24    

Closure of Chandos Street, Haberfield

Page 26

Leichhardt

LTC0918 Item 26    

Funding for pedestrian facilities on Darley Road, Leichhardt

Page 27

Ashfield

LTC0918 Item 18       

Dixson Avenue, Dulwich Hill –Traffic Calming Design Plan 10005 – Intersection narrowing and threshold treatment at Old Canterbury Road (Ashfield Ward /Summer Hill Electorate/ Ashfield & Inner West LAC)

Page 21

Ashfield

LTC0918 Item 20       

Seaview Street and Yeo Avenue, Ashfield - Installation of statutory 'No Stopping' restrictions. (Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Ashfield LAC)

Page 23

Ashfield

LTC0918 Item 22    

Parking in Lewisham Street, Dulwich Hill

Page 26

Balmain

LTC0918 Item 1         

Traffic Management Plan for the 2018 New Year's Eve Event (Balmain Ward / Balmain Electorate / Leichhardt LAC)

Page 2

Balmain

LTC0918 Item 2         

Batty Street, Rozelle - Proposed Kerb Extension Design Plan (Balmain Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC)

Page 4

Balmain

LTC0918 Item 3         

Booth Street Bridge Widening over Johnston Creek, Annandale

Page 5

Balmain

LTC0918 Item 6         

Pedestrian Safety - Balmain East Transport Interchange - Darling Street, Balmain East (Balmain Ward / Balmain Electorate / Leichhardt LAC)

Page 8

Balmain

LTC0918 Item 11       

Margaret Street at Yara Avenue, Rozelle - Proposed 'No Stopping' Restrictions (Balmain Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC)

Page 12

Balmain

LTC0918 Item 12       

Weynton Street at Piper Lane, Annandale - Proposed 'No Stopping' Restrictions (Balmain Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC)

Page 13

Balmain

LTC0918 Item 13       

O'Neill Lane, Lilyfield (rear of No. 9 O'Neill Street) - Proposed Extension of 'No Stopping' Zone (Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

Page 14

Balmain

LTC0918 Item 14       

Reynolds Street at Evans Street, Balmain - Proposed 'No Stopping' zones (Balmain Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC)

Page 14

Balmain

LTC0918 Item 23    

Bicycle logos in Nelson Street, Annandale

Page 26

Stanmore

LTC0918 Item 9                     

Rowley Lane, Camperdown - Proposed 'No Parking' restrictions (Stanmore Ward/Newtown Electorate/Inner West LAC)

Page 10

Stanmore

LTC0918 Item 19       

Petersham Area M5 extension of Permit Parking (Stanmore Ward/Newtown Electorate/Inner West LAC)

Page 22

Stanmore

LTC0918 Item 21       

Eliza Street, Newtown – Temporary Road Closure For The Newtown Good Food Fair 2018 – Sunday 14 October 2018 (Stanmore Ward/Newtown Electorate/Inner West LAC)

Page 24

Marrickville

LTC0918 Item 5         

Victoria Road at Leicester Street, Marrickville – Revised Proposed Kerb Extensions Design Plan – No.10016 (Marrickville Ward / Newtown Electorate / Inner West LAC)

Page 7

Marrickville

LTC0918 Item 7         

Edgar Street, Tempe - Proposed '2P Permit Holders Excepted' Parking (Marrickville Ward/Heffron Electorate/Inner West LAC)

Page 9

Marrickville

LTC0918 Item 8         

Blamire Lane, Marrickville - Proposed 'No Parking ' (Marrickville Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Inner West LAC)

Page 9

Marrickville

 

LTC0918 Item 25    

School Zone flashing lights on Marrickville Road, Marrickville

Page 27

All Wards

 

LTC0918 Item 16    

Minor Traffic Facilities (All Wards/ All Electorates/ All LACs)

Page 16

 

BACKGROUND

Meeting of the Inner West Council Local Traffic Committee was held on 4 September 2018 at Petersham. The minutes of the September 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.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Minutes of Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 4 September 2018

  


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 

 

Minutes of Local Traffic Committee Meeting

Held at Petersham Service Centre on 4 September 2018

 

Meeting commenced at 10.03am

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY BY CHAIRPERSON

 

I acknowledge the Gadigal and Wangal people of the Eora nation on whose country we are meeting today, and their elders past and present.

 

COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT

 

Clr Julie Passas

Chair, Deputy Mayor – Ashfield Ward

Mr Bill Holliday

Representative for Jamie Parker MP, Member for Balmain

Mr Chris Woods

Representative for Ron Hoenig MP, Member for Heffron

Ms Sarina Foulstone

Representative for Jo Haylen MP, Member for Summer Hill

Sgt John Micallef

NSW Police – Burwood Police Area Command

A/Sgt Charles Buttrose

NSW Police – Leichhardt Police Area Command

Sgt Paul Vlachos

NSW Police – Inner West Police Area Command

Mr Ryan Horne

Roads and Maritime Services

 

 

OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE

 

 

SC Anthony Kenny

NSW Police – Inner West Police Area Command

SC Sam Tohme

NSW Police – Burwood Police Area Command

Mr Asith Nagodavithane

Transit Systems – Inner West  Bus Services

Mr Bob Moore

Inner West Bicycle Coalition

Clr Marghanita Da Cruz

Leichhardt Ward

Mr John Stephens

IWC’s Traffic and Transport Services Manager

Mr Manod Wickramasinghe

IWC’s Coordinator Traffic and Parking Services (North)

Mr George Tsaprounis

IWC’s Coordinator Traffic and Parking Services (South)

Mr David Yu

IWC’s Engineer – Traffic and Parking Services

Mr Boris Muha

IWC’s Engineer – Traffic and Parking Services

Ms Jenny Adams

IWC’s Engineer – Traffic and Parking Services

Mr Joe Di Cesare

IWC’s Coordinator Design Services

Mr Davide Torresan

IWC’s Civil Engineer

Ms Ranji Nadarajah

IWC’s Civil Engineer 

Ms Mary Bailey

IWC’s Parking Planner

Ms Christina Ip

IWC’s Business Administration Officer

 

 

VISITORS

 

 

 

Mr Phillip Lineham

Item 10 - Resident

Mr John Golinelli

Item 10 - Resident

Mr Luc Streit

Item 10 - Resident

Mr Ron Page

Item 10 - Resident

 

 

APOLOGIES:    

 

 

 

Mr Wal Petschler

IWC’s Group Manager, Roads, Traffic and Stormwater

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:

 

The representative for the Member for Heffron declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 8  as he resides in one of the streets adjacent to Blamire Lane.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

The Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday, 7 August 2018 were confirmed.

 

MATTERS ARISING FROM COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION OF MINUTES

 

The Local Traffic Committee recommendations of its meeting held on 7 August 2018 were adopted at Council’s meeting held on 28 August 2018, with the exception of LTC0818 Item 4 in which Council requested that the alternative plan devised for a resident be referred to the September Local Traffic Committee meeting for its consideration.

 

 

LTC0918 Item 1 Traffic Management Plan for the 2018 New Year's Eve Event (Balmain Ward / Balmain Electorate / Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

As instructed by the Police, access to the Balmain peninsula is closed to vehicular traffic every New Year’s Eve. This report outlines the traffic management associated with the event.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.         the Traffic Management Plan (Attachment 1) detailing the traffic arrangements for the 2018 New Year’s Eve be supported;

2.         the Traffic Management Plan (Attachment 1) be forwarded to Council’s Parks and Streetscapes Coordinator, Transport Management Centre and the Major Events & Incidents Group (NSW Police);

3.         a temporary ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the eastern side of Montague Street between Darling Street and Beattie Street, Balmain;

4.         That the following modifications to bus stops be approved:

a.         On the northern side of Darling Street:

i.          Install temporary ‘Bus Zones’ between  Mort Street and Ford Street 

ii.         Extend the ‘Bus Zone’ between Ford Street and McDonald Street

iii.        Extend the ‘Bus Zone’ between McDonald Street and Curtis Road, outside Nos.217-223 Darling Street

b.         On the southern side of Darling Street:

i.          Install a temporary ‘Bus Zone’ between Booth Street and Beattie Street, outside No. 244-270 Darling Street.

5.         The Police representative be requested to provide bike unit resources to improve traffic/crowd controls around the Darling Street/Curtis Road intersection (roundabout);

6.         The Police be requested to liaise directly with the Roads and Maritime Services in regards to the installation of variable message signs (“Balmain Peninsula is closed” and “Alcohol Free Zone”) on the main access roads into Balmain Peninsula a few days in advance of the event;

7.         Confirmation be sought regarding the areas to be declared alcohol free and the Police and Transit Systems representatives be advised;

8.         The Transit Systems representative be requested to place adequate notices on buses regarding the establishment of an alcohol free zone in the Balmain East area (details to be provided by Council);

9.         The taxi/hire car access to the Peninsula be restricted from 7:00pm.

10.       Taxis/hire cars carrying mobility impaired or infirmed residents be permitted access at all hours into the Peninsula; and

11.       The NSW Taxi Council be advised of the Committee’s recommendation.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The representative for Transit Systems stated that, in regards to part 8 of the recommendation, notices on buses is not the most appropriate channel to communicate messages about an alcohol free zone as this space is used by Transport for NSW to advertise transport messages for the Christmas and New Year period. The representative advised that a request for notices for the establishment of an alcohol free zone should be submitted to Transport for NSW.

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation with an amendment to part 8 to reflect comments from the Transit Systems representative.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.         the Traffic Management Plan (Attachment 1) detailing the traffic arrangements for the 2018 New Year’s Eve be supported;

2.         the Traffic Management Plan (Attachment 1) be forwarded to Council’s Parks and Streetscapes Coordinator, Transport Management Centre and the Major Events & Incidents Group (NSW Police);

3.         a temporary ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the eastern side of Montague Street between Darling Street and Beattie Street, Balmain;

4.         That the following modifications to bus stops be approved:

a.         On the northern side of Darling Street:

i.          Install temporary ‘Bus Zones’ between  Mort Street and Ford Street 

ii.         Extend the ‘Bus Zone’ between Ford Street and McDonald Street

iii.        Extend the ‘Bus Zone’ between McDonald Street and Curtis Road, outside Nos.217-223 Darling Street

b.         On the southern side of Darling Street:

i.          Install a temporary ‘Bus Zone’ between Booth Street and Beattie Street, outside No. 244-270 Darling Street.

5.         The Police representative be requested to provide bike unit resources to improve traffic/crowd controls around the Darling Street/Curtis Road intersection (roundabout);

6.         The Police be requested to liaise directly with the Roads and Maritime Services in regards to the installation of variable message signs (“Balmain Peninsula is closed” and “Alcohol Free Zone”) on the main access roads into Balmain Peninsula a few days in advance of the event;

7.         Confirmation be sought regarding the areas to be declared alcohol free and the Police and Transit Systems representatives be advised;

8.         Transport for NSW be requested to place adequate notices on buses regarding the establishment of an alcohol free zone in the Balmain East area (details to be provided by Council);

9.         The taxi/hire car access to the Peninsula be restricted from 7:00pm.

10.       Taxis/hire cars carrying mobility impaired or infirmed residents be permitted access at all hours into the Peninsula; and

11.       The NSW Taxi Council be advised of the Committee’s recommendation.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0918 Item 2 Batty Street, Rozelle - Proposed Kerb Extension Design Plan (Balmain Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

A detailed design plan has been finalised for the proposed treatment in Batty Street, Rozelle at its intersection with Mansfield Street.

 

The proposal includes installing kerb extensions to reinforce the existing ‘No Entry’ restriction that prohibits northbound entry into Batty Street from Mansfield Street, and to install pedestrian kerb ramps to improve pedestrian safety.

 

Consultation was undertaken with the owners and occupiers of properties adjacent to the intersection regarding the proposal. A summary of the consultation results are presented in this report for consideration.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the detailed design plan for the kerb extensions and associated signs and line markings at the intersection of Batty Street and Mansfield Street, Rozelle (as per the attached design plan no.10025) be approved.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Clr Da Cruz stated that she was concerned that the  proposed kerb extensions will be in the middle of the road and that there will be wide space on the other side of the kerb extensions. Clr Da Cruz believed that the road needed to be blocked off as the proposed kerb extensions will not indicate to motorists that there is no entry into Batty Street from Mansfield Street.

 

Council Officers advised that a wider kerb extension on the western side of the street had been investigated. It was found that this would have limited vehicle manoeuvrability along the street and would result in the removal of some parking spaces. Moving the kerb blisters towards the centre of the road allowed parking to be retained.

 

The RMS representative suggested installing a ‘No Entry’ sign on the western side of the intersection, in addition to the proposed ‘No Entry’ sign on the eastern side. This could increase awareness to motorists travelling in both directions on Mansfield Street that they cannot access Batty Street.

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the detailed design plan for the kerb extensions and associated signs and line markings at the intersection of Batty Street and Mansfield Street, Rozelle (as per the attached design plan no.10025) be approved.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

 

LTC0918 Item 3 Booth Street Bridge Widening over Johnston Creek, Annandale

SUMMARY

 

A detailed design plan has been prepared for the Booth Street Bridge widening over Johnston Creek. The proposal adds a separated unidirectional cycleway in the southbound direction as well as footpath and linemarking amendments.

 

It is recommended that the proposed detailed design plans be approved.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.         The design plans for the proposed Booth Street Bridge Widening over Johnston Creek, Annandale (as per the attached design plans No. C101.3 and C101.5) be approved; and

 

2.         Additional PS-2 bicycle logos be provided in the northbound direction on both approach and departure to the proposed treatment.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The representative for the Inner West Bicycle Coalition stated that the Booth Street Bridge has not been treated for cyclists and is a missing link of the East West Cycle Route. The representative asked whether the bike lane on Booth Street Bridge would be extended further north.

 

Council Officers advised that the northern section of Booth Street was under the jurisdiction of the City of Sydney. Council Officers had made enquiries with the City of Sydney to find out why the bike lane ends before the roundabout. City of Sydney advised Council Officers that funding was not yet available and there are constraints to extending the bike lane due to existing trees. However, City of Sydney have identified that there is a possibility of extending the bike lane to the roundabout and further south.

 

The Inner West Bicycle Coalition representative stated that the shared path near the roundabout does not have signage indicating the end of the shared path. Council Officers suggested raising this issue with the City of Sydney as this section of road is within its jurisdiction.

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.         The design plans for the proposed Booth Street Bridge Widening over Johnston Creek, Annandale (as per the attached design plans No. C101.3 and C101.5) be approved; and

 

2.         Additional PS-2 bicycle logos be provided in the northbound direction on both approach and departure to the proposed treatment.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

LTC0918 Item 4 Boomerang Street, Haberfield - Haberfield North LATM - Traffic calming improvements (Leichhardt Ward / Summer Hill Electorate / Ashfield LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Detailed design plans have been finalised for the proposed road and traffic improvements in Boomerang Street, Haberfield as part of Council’s 2018/19 & 2019/20 Capital Works Program for Traffic Facilities.

 

The proposed works include the upgrade of an existing at-grade pedestrian (zebra) crossing to a raised pedestrian (zebra) crossing, introduction of speed calming devices and upgraded bicycle facilities with associated line marking and signposting.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the detailed design plans for the raised pedestrian crossing, traffic calming devices, bicycle facilities and kerb blisters with associated signposting and line marking in Boomerang Street, Haberfield (as per the attached plan Nos. 10041, 10013B & 10014) be approved.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

The representative for the Member for Summer Hill asked what criteria must be met in order for Boomerang Street to be converted to a School Zone. The RMS representative advised that a school needs to directly front the street and the street must provide direct access to the school.

 

The representative for the Inner West Bicycle Coalition stated that:

 

·          the proposed green bike lane for the northbound direction of Boomerang Street is not necessary.

·          the marking of a bike lane close to the doors of parked cars would create a dangerous environment for cyclists.

·          cyclists would be safer staying in the middle of the lane instead of using the bike lane as cars would likely veer over to the bike lane when travelling over the speed cushion.

·          experienced cyclists can use the road and cycle over the speed cushion.

·          the kerb could be extended to narrow the section of road where the speed cushion is proposed.

 

The representatives for the Member for Summer Hill and the Member for Balmain agreed that the proposed bike lane will be unsafe for cyclists. The representative for the Member for Summer Hill added that it is likely that a motorist will attempt to overtake a cyclist in the proposed bike lane when going over the speed cushion.

 

NSW Police representatives stated that cyclists will likely veer to the left of the speed cushion regardless of the presence of a bike lane in the northbound direction. 

 

Council Officers advised that the design attempts to cater for all road users and that the green bike lane signals to drivers to stay in the traffic lane and crossing into the bike lane would be breaching road rules. Council Officers also stated that many cyclists prefer not to ride over speed cushions and if there was no bike lane, cyclists would likely ride around the speed cushion.

 

The Transit Systems representative requested that the maximum height of the proposed pedestrian crossing be 75mm as per STA and Transit Systems Guidelines, rather than the 75mm to 90mm as noted in the Council Officer’s report. Council Officers stated that the intent is for the pedestrian crossing to be constructed at a maximum height of 75mm.

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the detailed design plans for the raised pedestrian crossing, traffic calming devices, bicycle facilities and kerb blisters with associated signposting and line marking in Boomerang Street, Haberfield (as per the attached plan Nos. 10041, 10013B & 10014) be approved.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

LTC0918 Item 5 Victoria Road at Leicester Street, Marrickville – Revised Proposed Kerb Extensions Design Plan – No.10016 (Marrickville Ward / Newtown Electorate / Inner West LAC)

SUMMARY

 

A revised design plan has been finalised for the proposed traffic calming improvements in Victoria Road at Leicester Street, Marrickville as part of the Marrickville East LATM study implementation. The revised proposal for kerb extensions with a new kerb and gutter alignment and associated signs and line markings will improve pedestrian safety and traffic conditions at this location.

 

Consultation was undertaken with owners and occupiers of properties adjacent to Victoria Road and Leicester Street regarding the revised proposal. It is recommended that the revised proposed detailed design plan be approved.

 

In addition, pedestrian counts in Victoria Road at Leicester Street, Marrickville have been undertaken and RMS warrants for a pedestrian crossing cannot be met at this location; however, the proposed kerb blisters will facilitate safe crossing for pedestrians by reducing crossing widths providing pedestrians a shorter distance to cross the road.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the design plan for the revised proposed kerb extensions with a new kerb and gutter alignment and associated signs and line markings in Victoria Road at Leicester Street, Marrickville (as per the attached design plan No. 10016) be APPROVED.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Councillor Da Cruz stated that she was concerned that pedestrians would still need to wait for both lanes of traffic to clear before crossing Victoria Road after the road is narrowed.

 

Council Officers advised that traffic volumes are low in the street at all times and there are adequate opportunities for pedestrians to cross the street safely.

 

RMS commented that the proposed treatment would be acceptable for the volumes of traffic in the street.

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the design plan for the revised proposed kerb extensions with a new kerb and gutter alignment and associated signs and line markings in Victoria Road at Leicester Street, Marrickville (as per the attached design plan No. 10016) be APPROVED.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0918 Item 6 Pedestrian Safety - Balmain East Transport Interchange - Darling Street, Balmain East (Balmain Ward / Balmain Electorate / Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Concerns have been raised regarding pedestrian safety at the Balmain East Transport Interchange. In order to address these concerns it is proposed to relocate and redesign the existing pedestrian ramps to provide a diagonal crossing point which would improve sight distance for pedestrians and motorists.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.         The 15m of the existing ‘Bus Zone’ restrictions on the northern side of Darling Street, immediately west of the dead-end be signposted as ‘Bus Zone 2 Minutes Parking Maximum’;

 

2.         That the existing pedestrian ramp on the northern footpath of Darling Street, east of Weston Street opposite be relocated approximately 10m east; and

 

3.         That the existing pedestrian ramp on the southern footpath of Darling Street, east of Weston Street be redesigned to allow the ramp grade to match the new direction of travel to the relocated pedestrian ramp on the northern footpath.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The RMS representative raised an issue with the proposed ‘Bus Zone 2 Minutes Parking Maximum’ sign. The representative stated that according to NSW Road Rules, a bus cannot stop in a bus zone unless dropping off or picking up passengers. He suggested for the signage to state ‘No Parking, Buses Excepted’ and have a designated bus zone to pick up and drop off passengers.

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.         The 15m of the existing ‘Bus Zone’ restrictions on the northern side of Darling Street, immediately west of the dead-end be signposted as ‘No Parking, Buses Excepted’;

 

2.         That the existing pedestrian ramp on the northern footpath of Darling Street, east of Weston Street opposite be relocated approximately 10m east; and

 

3.         That the existing pedestrian ramp on the southern footpath of Darling Street, east of Weston Street be redesigned to allow the ramp grade to match the new direction of travel to the relocated pedestrian ramp on the northern footpath.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0918 Item 7 Edgar Street, Tempe - Proposed '2P Permit Holders Excepted' Parking (Marrickville Ward/Heffron Electorate/Inner West LAC)

SUMMARY

 

A petition was received from residents requesting permit parking be introduced in Edgar Street, Tempe. Council undertook parking surveys and consultation with all affected residents and owners. As a result of the investigations, Council is now proposing a permit parking scheme in Edgar Street, Tempe to increase parking opportunities for residents.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT conversion of unrestricted parking to ‘2P Permit Holders Excepted 8:30am-10pm Monday to Friday Area M18’ in Edgar Street, Tempe (southern side) between Unwins Bridge Road and the cul-de-sac, be approved.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The representative for the Member for Heffron commented that the Member supported the proposal as he had received a number of representations from residents in Edgar Street who struggled to park in the street due to commuters utilising parking spaces during the day.

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT conversion of unrestricted parking to ‘2P Permit Holders Excepted 8:30am-10pm Monday to Friday Area M18’ in Edgar Street, Tempe (southern side) between Unwins Bridge Road and the cul-de-sac, be approved.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

 

LTC0918 Item 8 Blamire Lane, Marrickville - Proposed 'No Parking ' (Marrickville Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Inner West LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Council has received representations seeking parking restrictions in Blamire Lane. Concerns have been expressed by residents regarding access and safety issues at the intersection of Unnamed Lane and Blamire Lane. It is proposed to implement ‘No Parking’ in Blamire Lane (both sides) and Statutory 10m 'No Stopping’ restrictions at Blamire Lane and the unnamed lane in order to improve access and safety. The results from the community consultation process indicated that there is support for a proposal to install ‘No Parking’ and ‘No Stopping’ restrictions in Blamire Lane.

 

 

 

 

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.         ‘No Parking’ restrictions be installed in Blamire Lane (both sides) between unnamed lane and the rear of property no 34-36 Grove Street, and

 

2.         ‘No Stopping’ signs be installed in Blamire Lane (both sides) from the intersection of the Unnamed Lane for the statutory distance of 10m.

 

DISCUSSION

 

(The representative for the Member for Heffron left the meeting at 11.38am during discussion on this Item)

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

(The representative for the Member for Heffron re-entered the meeting at 11.40am)

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.         ‘No Parking’ restrictions be installed in Blamire Lane (both sides) between unnamed lane and the rear of property no 34-36 Grove Street, and

 

2.         ‘No Stopping’ signs be installed in Blamire Lane (both sides) from the intersection of the Unnamed Lane for the statutory distance of 10m.

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0918 Item 9         Rowley Lane, Camperdown - Proposed 'No Parking'     restrictions(Stanmore Ward/Newtown Electorate/Inner West LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Following community representations, Council is proposing to convert ‘unrestricted’ parking’ in Rowley Lane to ‘No Parking’. Community consultation has been carried out and the proposal has been assessed against the current Laneway Guidelines (December 2015). Given the narrowness of the lane, reported damage by service vehicles and the obstruction to off-street parking spaces by parked vehicles, it is recommended to restrict parking in Rowley Lane, Camperdown.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT the proposal to install ‘No Parking’ restrictions in Rowley Lane (both sides) between Kingston Lane and St Marys Lane be approved.

 

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the proposal to install ‘No Parking’ restrictions in Rowley Lane (both sides) between Kingston Lane and St Marys Lane be approved.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0918 Item 10    Elswick Street North, Charles Street, Hubert Street, Francis Street,       James Street, Leichhardt - Resident Parking Scheme (Leichhardt        Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Council has received correspondence from a number of residents of Elswick Street North, Charles Street, Hubert Street, Francis Street, and James Street, requesting Residential Parking Scheme (RPS) restrictions in their streets to deter commuter/long stay parking.

 

This report provides the result of the resident parking scheme investigation in Elswick Street North, Charles Street, Hubert Street, Francis Street, and James Street, Leichhardt. It also provides the results of the investigation for the proposed truck ban bounded by Darley Road – James Street – William Street – Elswick Street North.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.         The proposed Resident Parking Scheme in Elswick Street North, Charles Street, Hubert Street, Francis Street, and James Street, Leichhardt not be supported at the present time due to less than 50% support received from the consulted residents; and

 

2.         The proposed truck bans in the streets bounded by Darley Road – James Street – William Street – Elswick Street North, Leichhardt be approved, subject to RMS approval of the TMP.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Public speakers: Mr Phillip Lineham, Mr John Golinelli, Mr Luc Streit, Mr Ron Page attended at 10.05am.

 

Mr Page stated that he supported the recommendation for the Resident Parking Scheme to not proceed in Hubert Street and made the following comments:

 

·          As the WestConnex dive site is no longer proceeding, there would not be a need for a Resident Parking Scheme in Hubert Street.

·          Residents on the eastern side of Hubert Street, who do not have rear lane access, would be disadvantaged by the introduction of a Scheme in the street as residents who are not eligible for a permit or have excess number of cars would park on the unrestricted eastern side of the street.

 

Mr Golinelli expressed support for the recommendation and requested that angle parking be considered for Hubert Street due to limited parking, speeding and rat running in the street.

 

Council Officers advised that this is being considered as a separate issue and traffic counts are currently being undertaken on some of the streets in the area.

 

Mr Lineham stated he supported the recommendation and commented that Francis Street receives high traffic volumes from City West Link who use the road to avoid Norton Street. Mr Lineham stated that he spoke to residents of Francis Street and they would like to make a proposal to Council to half close Francis Street so vehicles can only exit into Darley Road.

 

(Mr Lineham, Mr Golinelli, Mr Streit and Mr Page left at 10.18am)

 

Councillor Da Cruz advised that she received three submissions from residents requesting for angle parking in Charles Street and notified the Committee of her intention to make a Notice of Motion at Council to investigate this request.

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.         The proposed Resident Parking Scheme in Elswick Street North, Charles Street, Hubert Street, Francis Street, and James Street, Leichhardt not be supported at the present time due to less than 50% support received from the consulted residents; and

 

2.         The proposed truck bans in the streets bounded by Darley Road – James Street – William Street – Elswick Street North, Leichhardt be approved, subject to RMS approval of the TMP.

 

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0918 Item 11    Margaret Street at Yara Avenue, Rozelle - Proposed 'No Stopping'        Restrictions (Balmain Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Council has received a request to signpost the statutory ‘No Stopping’ restrictions at the corners of the Margaret Street and Yara Avenue (Rozelle) intersection, in order to prevent illegal parking and improve sight lines.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.         A 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the southern side of Yara Avenue, west of Margaret Street, Rozelle;

 

2.         A 14m ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the northern side of Yara Avenue, west of Margaret Street, Rozelle;

 

3.         An 11m ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the western side of Margaret Street, north of Yara Avenue, Rozelle; and

 

4.         A 7m ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the western side of Margaret Street, south of Yara Avenue, Rozelle.

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.         A 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the southern side of Yara Avenue, west of Margaret Street, Rozelle;

 

2.         A 14m ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the northern side of Yara Avenue, west of Margaret Street, Rozelle;

 

3.         An 11m ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the western side of Margaret Street, north of Yara Avenue, Rozelle; and

 

4.         A 7m ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the western side of Margaret Street, south of Yara Avenue, Rozelle.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0918 Item 12    Weynton Street at Piper Lane, Annandale - Proposed 'No Stopping'      Restrictions (Balmain Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Council has received a request to signpost the statutory ‘No Stopping’ restrictions at the corners of the Weynton Street and Piper Lane (Annandale) intersection, in order to prevent illegal parking and improve sight lines.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.         A 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the southern side of Weynton Street, east of Piper Lane, Annandale; and

 

2.         A 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the southern side of Weynton Street, west of Piper Lane, Annandale.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.         A 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the southern side of Weynton Street, east of Piper Lane, Annandale; and

 

2.         A 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the southern side of Weynton Street, west of Piper Lane, Annandale.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

LTC0918 Item 13    O'Neill Lane, Lilyfield (rear of No. 9 O'Neill Street) - Proposed     Extension of 'No Stopping' Zone (Balmain Ward/Balmain   Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Council has received concerns regarding parked vehicles obstructing access to off-street parking in O’Neill Lane (between Grove Street and Grove Lane), Lilyfield.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT a 18m ‘No Stopping’ zone (including the statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone from an intersection) be installed on the southern side of O’Neill Lane, west of Grove Lane, Lilyfield.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT a 18m ‘No Stopping’ zone (including the statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone from an intersection) be installed on the southern side of O’Neill Lane, west of Grove Lane, Lilyfield.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

 

LTC0918 Item 14    Reynolds Street at Evans Street, Balmain - Proposed 'No Stopping'      zones (Balmain Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Council has received a request to signpost the statutory ‘No Stopping’ restrictions in Reynolds Street at the intersection of Evans Street, Balmain in order to prevent illegal parking and improve sight lines.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.         A 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the northern side of Reynolds Street, east of Evans Street, Balmain; and

 

2.         A 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the southern side of Reynolds Street, east of Evans Street, Balmain.

 

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.         A 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the northern side of Reynolds Street, east of Evans Street, Balmain; and

 

2.         A 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the southern side of Reynolds Street, east of Evans Street, Balmain.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0918 Item 15    Annesley Street at Balmain Road, Leichhardt - Proposed 'No      Stopping' zones (Leichhardt Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt          LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Council has received a request to signpost the statutory ‘No Stopping’ restrictions at the intersection of Annesley Street and Balmain Road, Leichhardt in order to prevent illegal parking and improve sightlines.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

 

THAT:

 

1.         A 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the northern side of Annesley Street, east of Balmain Road;

 

2.         A 10 ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the southern side of Annesley Street, east of Balmain Road; and

 

3.         A 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the eastern side of Balmain Road, north of Annesley Street.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.         A 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the northern side of Annesley Street, east of Balmain Road;

 

2.         A 10 ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the southern side of Annesley Street, east of Balmain Road; and

 

3.         A 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the eastern side of Balmain Road, north of Annesley Street.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

LTC0918 Item 16       Minor Traffic Facilities (All Wards/ All Electorates/ All LACs)

SUMMARY

 

This report considers minor traffic facility applications received by Inner West Council, including ‘Disabled Parking’ and ‘Work Zone’ requests.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.         A 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone be removed in front of No.48 Smith Street, Balmain as it is no longer required;

2.         A 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in front of No.47 St Davids Road, Haberfield;

3.         A 3.7m (60-degree angle parking) ‘Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in front of No.23 Charlotte Street, Lilyfield;

4.         A 9m (2 x 45-degree angle parking spaces) ‘Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in front of No.213 Elswick Street, Leichhardt (St Columba’s Church), south of the existing pedestrian (zebra) crossing;

5.         ‘Disabled Parking’ signs be installed in the Marrickville and District Hardcourt Tennis Club car park at No.33 Centennial St, Marrickville, to supplement the existing line marked ‘Disabled Parking’ bays;

6.         A 10m ‘Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon – Fri and 7.00am – 1.00pm Sat’ be installed in front of No.114 and No.116 Louisa Road, Birchgrove;

7.         An 11m ‘Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon – Fri and 7.00am – 1.00pm Sat’ be installed in front of No.300 and No.302 Darling Street, Balmain; and

8.         A 12m ‘Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon – Fri and 8.00am – 1.00pm Sat’ be installed in front of No.2 Dougan Street, Ashfield.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.         A 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone be removed in front of No.48 Smith Street, Balmain as it is no longer required;

2.         A 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in front of No.47 St Davids Road, Haberfield;

3.         A 3.7m (60-degree angle parking) ‘Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in front of No.23 Charlotte Street, Lilyfield;

4.         A 9m (2 x 45-degree angle parking spaces) ‘Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in front of No.213 Elswick Street, Leichhardt (St Columba’s Church), south of the existing pedestrian (zebra) crossing;

5.         ‘Disabled Parking’ signs be installed in the Marrickville and District Hardcourt Tennis Club car park at No.33 Centennial St, Marrickville, to supplement the existing line marked ‘Disabled Parking’ bays;

6.         A 10m ‘Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon – Fri and 7.00am – 1.00pm Sat’ be installed in front of No.114 and No.116 Louisa Road, Birchgrove;

7.         An 11m ‘Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon – Fri and 7.00am – 1.00pm Sat’ be installed in front of No.300 and No.302 Darling Street, Balmain; and

8.         A 12m ‘Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon – Fri and 8.00am – 1.00pm Sat’ be installed in front of No.2 Dougan Street, Ashfield.

For motion: Unanimous

 

LTC0918 Item 17    2018 Norton Street Italian Festa - Special Event (Leichhardt Ward/         Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC)

SUMMARY

 

The proposed event, the Norton Street Italian Festa, is a street festival held annually celebrating the traditional Italian culture that is considered an essential part of the Leichhardt community.

 

To facilitate the event, it is proposed to close the following roads in the area between 3.00am and 8.00pm on Sunday, 28 October 2018.

 

·          Norton Street from Marion Street to William Street;

·          Marlborough Street from Norton Street to Cromwell Street;

·          Short Street from Norton Street to Balmain Road;

·          Carlisle Street from Norton Street to Cromwell Street;

·          Allen Street from Cromwell Street to Derbyshire Road;

·          Arthur Street from Allen Street to Short Street.

 

It is recommended that the 2018 Italian Festa Event to be held on Sunday, 28 October 2018 be supported, subject to complying with the following conditions:

 

The TMP and TCP being approved by the RMS as well as the Transport Management Centre, installation of a ‘Special Event Clearway’ restriction in Norton Street prior to the event, parking for the event be reserved in Short Street on both sides between Norton Street and the unnamed lane for Emergency Service vehicles, approval to conduct a public assembly be obtained from the NSW Police, all affected businesses, residents and other occupants be notified of the road closures, proposed event being forwarded to the appropriate authorities, including emergency services and a current Public Liability Insurance Policy be provided to Inner West Council, nominating Council as an interested party.

 

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1)         The road closure application for the ‘Norton Street Italian Festa 2018’ on Sunday, 28 October 2018 be supported subject to the following conditions:

a)         The road closures be restricted to occur between 3:00am and 8:00pm on Sunday, 28 October 2018 at the following locations:

i.          Norton Street from Marion Street to William Street;

ii.         Marlborough Street from Norton Street to Cromwell Street;

iii.        Short Street from Norton Street to Balmain Road;

iv.        Carlisle Street from Norton Street to Cromwell Street;

v.         Allen Street from Cromwell Street to Derbyshire Road; and

vi.        Arthur Street from Allen Street to Short Street.

b)         Approval from RMS for the TMP and to install a ‘Special Event Clearway’ restriction in Norton Street be obtained prior to the event;

c)         Wetherill Street (Norton Street – Balmain Road) and Macauley Street (Cromwell Street – Norton Street) function as two way roads when Norton Street is closed to provide access for residents etc;

d)         Parking for the event be reserved in:

·          Short Street on both sides between Norton Street and the unnamed lane for Emergency Service vehicles;

·          William Street on the southern side between Norton Street and Derbyshire Road (Pioneers Memorial Park side). The angle parking in this area will be temporarily amended to allow parallel parking for Police horse floats etc;

e)         Approval from the Transport Management Centre to close the roads is obtained prior to the event;

f)          A three (3) metre unencumbered passage be available for emergency vehicles through the closed section of Norton Street at all times;

g)         Approval to conduct a public assembly be obtained from the NSW Police prior to the event. A copy of the NSW Police approval must be forwarded to Council’s Traffic Section prior to the event.

h)         The applicant be requested to provide free bicycle valet parking at a central location (i.e. Short Street or Allen Street) including adequate ‘way finding’ signage to the public and include the availability of this service in promoting the event;

i)          Additional signs indicating ‘Bicycles Expected’ and ‘cyclists dismount’ be included with the road closure signs provided at the road closure points;

j)          The occupation of the road carriageway must not occur until the road has been formally closed;

k)         That the set up and break down times occur at 3:30am and 7:00pm respectively and include additional waste staff at the break down to expedite the road openings;

l)          The entrance to the access way into Pioneers Memorial Park in Allen Street opposite Arthur Street be temporarily closed by barricades for security purposes during the event;

m)        All advertising of the event must encourage the use of Public Transport;

n)         All affected businesses, residents and other occupants be notified of the road closures, activities, parking changes and changes to public transport arrangements. Any concerns or requirements raised by business proprietors, residents and other occupants must be resolved or reasonably accommodated. The notification shall involve the following, at minimum an information letterbox drop distributed two weeks prior to the commencement of the event. The proposed information, distribution area and distribution period is to be submitted to Council’s Traffic Section for approval one week prior to distribution;

o)         The approved Traffic Management Plan must be implemented at the applicant’s expense;

p)         Where applicable, that the applicant provides and erects barricades and signage in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1742.3-1996: Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads;

q)         All traffic controllers must hold RMS certification;

r)         The areas to be used for the activities must be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the satisfaction of Council’s Group Manager Roads and Stormwater, or else the applicant will be required to reimburse Council for any extraordinary cleaning costs;

s)         Council’s Manager Resource Recovery Services must be notified of the cleanup arrangements;

t)          The conduct of any activities or use of any equipment required in conjunction with the road closures must not result in any “offensive noise” as defined by the Protection of Environment Operations Act 1997;

u)         Copies of approvals from Council, NSW Police, RMS and the approved Traffic Management Plan must be available on the site for inspection by NSW Police, WorkCover Inspectors, RMS Inspectors, or Council Officers;

v)         Applicant shall comply with any reasonable directive from Council’s Officers;

w)        A notice of the proposed closure be forwarded by the applicant to the NSW Police, Fire and Rescue NSW and the NSW Ambulance Services;

x)         Council and RMS must be indemnified against all claims for damage or injury that may result from either the activities or from the occupation of part of the public way during the road closures. The applicant must produce evidence of public risk insurance cover (under which the Council and RMS are indemnified) with a minimum policy value of at least $20,000,000;

2)         The following measures be provided to accommodate buses:

i.          Install temporary ‘Bus Zones’ to accommodate two buses on both sides of William Street between Norton Street and James Street;

ii.         Place barricades within 10m at the south-eastern corner of the Flood Street/William Street intersection to assist buses; and

iii.        No trucks (Festa) to be parked in the Marion Street ‘Bus Zone’ at the Norton Street intersection, outside the Town Hall.

3)         The Leichhardt Bus Depot be notified of the road closure and associated activities. Any concerns or requirements raised by the Leichhardt Depot manager must be resolved or accommodated by the applicant; and

4)         Council reserves the right to cancel the road closure approval at any time.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1)         The road closure application for the ‘Norton Street Italian Festa 2018’ on Sunday, 28 October 2018 be supported subject to the following conditions:

a)         The road closures be restricted to occur between 3:00am and 8:00pm on Sunday, 28 October 2018 at the following locations:

i.          Norton Street from Marion Street to William Street;

ii.         Marlborough Street from Norton Street to Cromwell Street;

iii.        Short Street from Norton Street to Balmain Road;

iv.        Carlisle Street from Norton Street to Cromwell Street;

v.         Allen Street from Cromwell Street to Derbyshire Road; and

vi.        Arthur Street from Allen Street to Short Street.

b)         Approval from RMS for the TMP and to install a ‘Special Event Clearway’ restriction in Norton Street be obtained prior to the event;

c)         Wetherill Street (Norton Street – Balmain Road) and Macauley Street (Cromwell Street – Norton Street) function as two way roads when Norton Street is closed to provide access for residents etc;

d)         Parking for the event be reserved in:

·          Short Street on both sides between Norton Street and the unnamed lane for Emergency Service vehicles;

·          William Street on the southern side between Norton Street and Derbyshire Road (Pioneers Memorial Park side). The angle parking in this area will be temporarily amended to allow parallel parking for Police horse floats etc;

e)         Approval from the Transport Management Centre to close the roads is obtained prior to the event;

f)          A three (3) metre unencumbered passage be available for emergency vehicles through the closed section of Norton Street at all times;

g)         Approval to conduct a public assembly be obtained from the NSW Police prior to the event. A copy of the NSW Police approval must be forwarded to Council’s Traffic Section prior to the event.

h)         The applicant be requested to provide free bicycle valet parking at a central location (i.e. Short Street or Allen Street) including adequate ‘way finding’ signage to the public and include the availability of this service in promoting the event;

i)          Additional signs indicating ‘Bicycles Expected’ and ‘cyclists dismount’ be included with the road closure signs provided at the road closure points;

j)          The occupation of the road carriageway must not occur until the road has been formally closed;

k)         That the set up and break down times occur at 3:30am and 7:00pm respectively and include additional waste staff at the break down to expedite the road openings;

l)          The entrance to the access way into Pioneers Memorial Park in Allen Street opposite Arthur Street be temporarily closed by barricades for security purposes during the event;

m)        All advertising of the event must encourage the use of Public Transport;

n)         All affected businesses, residents and other occupants be notified of the road closures, activities, parking changes and changes to public transport arrangements. Any concerns or requirements raised by business proprietors, residents and other occupants must be resolved or reasonably accommodated. The notification shall involve the following, at minimum an information letterbox drop distributed two weeks prior to the commencement of the event. The proposed information, distribution area and distribution period is to be submitted to Council’s Traffic Section for approval one week prior to distribution;

o)         The approved Traffic Management Plan must be implemented at the applicant’s expense;

p)         Where applicable, that the applicant provides and erects barricades and signage in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1742.3-1996: Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads;

q)         All traffic controllers must hold RMS certification;

r)         The areas to be used for the activities must be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the satisfaction of Council’s Group Manager Roads and Stormwater, or else the applicant will be required to reimburse Council for any extraordinary cleaning costs;

s)         Council’s Manager Resource Recovery Services must be notified of the cleanup arrangements;

t)          The conduct of any activities or use of any equipment required in conjunction with the road closures must not result in any “offensive noise” as defined by the Protection of Environment Operations Act 1997;

u)         Copies of approvals from Council, NSW Police, RMS and the approved Traffic Management Plan must be available on the site for inspection by NSW Police, WorkCover Inspectors, RMS Inspectors, or Council Officers;

v)         Applicant shall comply with any reasonable directive from Council’s Officers;

w)        A notice of the proposed closure be forwarded by the applicant to the NSW Police, Fire and Rescue NSW and the NSW Ambulance Services;

x)         Council and RMS must be indemnified against all claims for damage or injury that may result from either the activities or from the occupation of part of the public way during the road closures. The applicant must produce evidence of public risk insurance cover (under which the Council and RMS are indemnified) with a minimum policy value of at least $20,000,000;

2)         The following measures be provided to accommodate buses:

i.          Install temporary ‘Bus Zones’ to accommodate two buses on both sides of William Street between Norton Street and James Street;

ii.         Place barricades within 10m at the south-eastern corner of the Flood Street/William Street intersection to assist buses; and

iii.        No trucks (Festa) to be parked in the Marion Street ‘Bus Zone’ at the Norton Street intersection, outside the Town Hall.

3)         The Leichhardt Bus Depot be notified of the road closure and associated activities. Any concerns or requirements raised by the Leichhardt Depot manager must be resolved or accommodated by the applicant; and

4)         Council reserves the right to cancel the road closure approval at any time.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0918 Item 18    Dixson Avenue, Dulwich Hill –Traffic Calming Design Plan 10005 –        Intersection narrowing and threshold treatment at Old Canterbury   Road (Ashfield Ward /Summer Hill Electorate/ Ashfield & Inner     West LAC)

SUMMARY

 

A detailed design plan for the proposed traffic calming improvements in Dixson Avenue, Dulwich Hill at its intersection with Old Canterbury Road, as part of the Dulwich Hill North LATM study implementation, was finalised and presented at the 7 August 2018 Traffic Committee meeting (LTC0818 Item 4) for approval. A resident of Dixson Avenue attended and objected to the proposal as it resulted in the loss of two parking spaces. The resident stated that there is the potential to retain one of the parking spaces if the kerb extension was reduced. The resident also attended Council’s meeting of 28 August 2018 and Council resolved to resubmit the matter back to the Committee for consideration.

 

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

For the Traffic Committee to consider.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Council Officers presented the alternative design plan (Option 2) for the proposed traffic calming improvements as first presented by the resident at the Council meeting. Council Officers explained the differences between the two design plans:

 

 

Option 1 (the original design presented at August LTC meeting):

·          There will be a loss of two parking spaces.

·          The centre line remains as is.

·          Service vehicles can make left and right turns without crossing the centre line.

·          First car parking space not located within 10m of the intersection.

 

Option 2:

·          There will be a loss of one parking space.

·          One parking space will be within the statutory 10m zone.

·          It is proposed that the centre line be moved 1m across to accommodate turning circles. However, service vehicles turning left or right would still cross the centre line.

 

Council Officers explained in relation to Option 2 that the parking space, although closer than 10m to the intersection, it would be indented and on the downstream to traffic so sightlines to pedestrians was clear.

 

The RMS representative stated that he had no concerns with retaining a parking space in the ‘No Stopping’ zone in Option 2 as the sight distance is adequate at the corner. However, the representative was concerned with vehicles having to negotiate a more complex turn and vehicles crossing the centre line.  The representative suggested removing the parking space outside No.5 Dixson Avenue as it appears this space causes vehicles to cross the centre line.

 

 

The RMS representative also stated that the proposed at-grade threshold at the entry of Dixson Street is not necessary. The representative advised that at-grade thresholds are typically used for gateway treatments for 40km/h zones with high pedestrian activity. He stated that black asphalt is more appropriate for Dixson Street as it is a 50km/h zone and a low pedestrian activity area. The representative raised a concern that entry threshold treatments used in high pedestrian areas could lose their effect if they became a common treatment for streets with low pedestrian activity.

 

Council Officers commented that the proposed threshold treatment came from the Dulwich Hill North Local Area Traffic Management study which recommended encouraging slower speeds in the area and is not a treatment for every street. Council Officers stated that Dixson Street would have relatively few truck movements.

 

The Police representative supported Option 2 given the low usage of the streets by trucks and the retention of an extra parking space.

 

The Committee members agreed to endorse Option 2 and agreed with the removal of the at-grade threshold at the entry to Dixson Street.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.         Option 2 of the detailed design plan of the kerb extension and associated signs and line markings at the intersection of Dixson Avenue and Old Canterbury Road, Dulwich Hill be APPROVED.

2.         The new at-grade threshold be removed from the design plan.  

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0918 Item 19    Petersham Area M5 extension of Permit Parking (Stanmore        Ward/Newtown Electorate/Inner West LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Following representation to Council a proposal for an extension of the existing M5 permit parking area was circulated to residents for comment. Given the feedback from residents a revised proposal has been developed. The revised proposal addresses concerns raised by residents and offers a balanced approach to providing permit parking and unrestricted parking in the area.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.         ‘2P Permit Holders Excepted 8:30am-10pm Monday to Friday Area M5’ be installed on Brighton Street (southern side) between property no. 93 and West Street;

 

2.         ‘2P Permit Holders Excepted 8:30am-10pm Monday to Friday Area M5’ be installed on Brighton Street (southern side) between Palace Street and Station Street;

 

3.         ‘2P Permit Holders Excepted 8:30am-10pm Monday to Friday Area M5’ be installed on Brighton Street (northern side) between property no. 92 and Station Street;

 

4.         ‘2P Permit Holders Excepted 8:30am-10pm Monday to Friday Area M5’ be installed on Wentworth Street (western side) between Brighton Street and the cul de sac;

 

5.         ‘2P Permit Holders Excepted 8:30am-10pm Monday to Friday Area M5’ be installed on West Street (western side) between Brighton Street and the cul de sac; and

 

6.         Implement Statutory No Stopping in conjunction with resident parking where required.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed to defer the item to allow time for Committee members to consider the item.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the Item be deferred and considered at the 2 October 2018 meeting.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0918 Item 20    Seaview Street and Yeo Avenue, Ashfield - Installation of statutory       'No Stopping' restrictions. (Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Ashfield LAC)

SUMMARY

 

Statutory 10 metre length ‘No Stopping’ restrictions are proposed on the Seaview Street corners of the intersection of Seaview Street and Yeo Avenue, Ashfield. The signage would assist to regulate parking and improve sight view and vehicle access in and out of Yeo Avenue.

 

 

 

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.         A 10m length ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the southern side of Seaview Street, west of Yeo Avenue; and

 

2.         A 10 m length ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the southern side of Seaview Street, east of Yeo Avenue.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.         A 10m length ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the southern side of Seaview Street, west of Yeo Avenue; and

 

2.         A 10 m length ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the southern side of Seaview Street, east of Yeo Avenue.

 

For motion: Unanimous

 

 

LTC0918 Item 21    Eliza Street, Newtown – Temporary Road Closure For The Newtown    Good Food Fair 2018 – Sunday 14 October 2018 (Stanmore          Ward/Newtown Electorate/Inner West LAC)

SUMMARY

 

A Section 68 application has been submitted to Council by the Newtown Precinct Business Association (NPBA), in collaboration with Council’s Economic Development Unit for the holding of the Newtown Good Food Fair in Eliza St, Newtown on Sunday 14 October 2018. The event will necessitate the temporary road closure of Eliza Street for the section between King Street and Lennox Street, Newtown from 6.00am to 8.00pm.

 

It is recommended that the proposed temporary road closure of Eliza Street on Sunday 14 October 2018 be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in this report.

 

 

Officer’s Recommendation

 

THAT:

 

1.         The proposed temporary road closure of Eliza Street, Newtown for the section between King Street and Lennox Street from 6:00am to 8.00pm on Sunday 14 October 2018 for the holding of the Newtown Good Food Fair be APPROVED subject to the approval of the Section 68 Development Application and the applicant complying with the following conditions:

 

a.                     A fee of $1,578.50 for the temporary road closure is payable by the applicant in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges;

b.                     The temporary full road closure be advertised in the local newspaper providing 28 days’ notice for submissions;

c.                     A Traffic Control Plan (TCP) which has been prepared by a certified Traffic Controller, is to be submitted to Council for review with a copy of the Traffic Controllers certification number attached to the plan, not less than 5 days prior to implementation of the closure;

d.                     A Road Occupancy License be obtained by the applicant from the Transport Management Centre (TMC);

e.                     Notice of the proposed event is forwarded to the NSW Police Local Area Commander, Transit Systems, Fire & Rescue NSW and Ambulance Service of NSW;

f.                      Advance notifications signs advising of the proposed road closure and new traffic arrangements to be strategically installed and maintained by the applicant at least two (2) weeks prior to the event;

g.                     A 4-metre wide emergency vehicle access must be maintained through the closed road areas during the course of the event;

h.                     All affected residents and businesses shall be notified in writing by the applicant of the proposed temporary road closure at least two (2) weeks prior to the event, with the applicant making reasonable provision for residents and businesses;

i.                      Adequate vehicular traffic control shall be provided for the protection and convenience of pedestrians and motorists including appropriate signage and flagging. Workers shall be specially designated for this role (and carry appropriate certificates), as necessary to comply with this condition. This is to be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1742.3 – Traffic Control Devices for works on roads; and

j.                      Water filled barriers be placed at the road closure to protect against any possible errant vehicles; and

 

2.         The applicant be advised in terms of this report and that all costs for advertising the event and implementation of the road closure are to be borne by the applicant.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Council Officers advised that the closure was advertised in the local paper.

 

The RMS representative requested the Traffic Management Plan for the road closure be submitted to RMS for its approval.

 

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.         The proposed temporary road closure of Eliza Street, Newtown for the section between King Street and Lennox Street from 6:00am to 8.00pm on Sunday 14 October 2018 for the holding of the Newtown Good Food Fair be APPROVED subject to the approval of the Section 68 Development Application and the applicant complying with the following conditions:

 

a.                     A fee of $1,578.50 for the temporary road closure is payable by the applicant in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges;

b.                     The temporary full road closure be advertised in the local newspaper providing 28 days’ notice for submissions;

c.                     A Traffic Control Plan (TCP) which has been prepared by a certified Traffic Controller, is to be submitted to Council for review with a copy of the Traffic Controllers certification number attached to the plan, not less than 5 days prior to implementation of the closure;

d.                     A Road Occupancy License be obtained by the applicant from the Transport Management Centre (TMC);

e.                     Notice of the proposed event is forwarded to the NSW Police Local Area Commander, Transit Systems, Fire & Rescue NSW and Ambulance Service of NSW;

f.                      Advance notifications signs advising of the proposed road closure and new traffic arrangements to be strategically installed and maintained by the applicant at least two (2) weeks prior to the event;

g.                     A 4-metre wide emergency vehicle access must be maintained through the closed road areas during the course of the event;

h.                     All affected residents and businesses shall be notified in writing by the applicant of the proposed temporary road closure at least two (2) weeks prior to the event, with the applicant making reasonable provision for residents and businesses;

i.                      Adequate vehicular traffic control shall be provided for the protection and convenience of pedestrians and motorists including appropriate signage and flagging. Workers shall be specially designated for this role (and carry appropriate certificates), as necessary to comply with this condition. This is to be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1742.3 – Traffic Control Devices for works on roads; and

j.                      Water filled barriers be placed at the road closure to protect against any possible errant vehicles; and

 

2.         The applicant be advised in terms of this report and that all costs for advertising the event and implementation of the road closure are to be borne by the applicant.

For motion: Unanimous

 

LTC0918 Item 22    Parking in Lewisham Street, Dulwich Hill

 

The representative for the Member for Summer Hill stated that the Member was copied in on an email that was sent to Council regarding parking in Lewisham Street, Dulwich Hill. The representative asked if there was an update on the matter. Council Officers advised that they will follow up and advise the representative on the matter.

 

 

LTC0918 Item 23    Bicycle logos in Nelson Street, Annandale

 

The representative for Inner West Bicycle Coalition advised that the bicycle logos and linemarking in Nelson Street, Annandale have faded and need re-marking. In addition, a section of the Nelson Street, between Booth Street and The Crescent, was dug up during electrical works and bicycle logos that were on the road surface were removed in the process. Council Officers advised that they would refer the issues to Council’s Maintenance section.

 

 

LTC0918 Item 24    Closure of Chandos Street, Haberfield

 

Clr Passas stated that currently there is a temporary road closure on Chandos Street at Parramatta Road in Haberfield due to WestConnex works and asked whether the road could eventually close permanently.

 

Council Officers advised that Council received a request on this same issue and Council’s WestConnex unit has been asked to provide a response. Council Officers will advise of the response when received.

 

 

LTC0918 Item 25    School Zone flashing lights on Marrickville Road, Marrickville

 

The representative for the Member for Summer Hill advised that one of the School Zone flashing lights on Marrickville Road, near the Waranara Centre has been obscured by a tree and requested for the tree to be pruned. Council Officers will forward this request to the Council’s Tree Management section.

 

 

LTC0918 Item 26    Funding for pedestrian facilities on Darley Road, Leichhardt

 

The RMS representative advised that following a number of requests received for pedestrian facilities on Darley Road, Leichhardt, the representative submitted an application for funding to build pedestrian refuges. The application was unsuccessful and the representative is exploring other avenues for funding.

 

Council Officers advised that Council has written to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight and the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure requesting:

 

·          urgent funding to install traffic signals in Darley Road at the Hawthorne Light Rail Station

·          pedestrian crossings in Darley Road at Charles Street

·          a review of existing pedestrian crossing facility at the Leichhardt North Light Rail Station

 

 

Meeting closed at  11.53am.

 


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 

Item No:         C0918(2) Item 8

Subject:         Flood Risk Management Plans - Cost of Flood Mitigation Measures           

Prepared By:     James Ogg - Stormwater and Development Engineer  

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

 

SUMMARY

This report summarises the flood mitigation measures and projected costs identified to-date from the various Floodplain Risk Management Plans that have been completed for the Inner West local government area and outlines possible sources of funding to contribute to the implementation of mitigation measures.

 

Structural mitigation measures to the value of approximately $260 million have been identified to date of which higher priority works amount to approximately $83 million. Due to the meagre amount of government subsidies applied across the State for flood mitigation, this is generally beyond the financial capacity of Council to deliver in the medium term without significant impact on other Council services. The primary management measures to mitigate flood impacts are therefore primarily dependent of non-structural measures such as planning controls and emergency response planning.

 

This report also identifies the Flood Risk Management Study & Plans (FRMSP) that are currently in progress and those that are still to be undertaken. With the completion of these additional FRMSP in the future, further flood mitigation measures will be identified.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

At the Council meeting held on 24th April 2018, Council considered a report on various Flood Management related matters and resolved:

 

“ to produce a report for Council on the cost of all the flood mitigation measures arising out of the floodplain risk management plans for all of the affected areas in the Inner West and a funding strategy to address them.”

 

Inner West Council and the former Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils have been undertaking flood risk studies across the 15 catchments within its LGA since 2009 in accordance with the NSW Flood Prone Land Policy. The policy specifies a staged approach to the floodplain management process as identified in Figure 1.

 

 

 

 

Figure 1 - Summary of the Floodplain Risk Management Process

 

To date, Council has completed 9 Flood Studies, encompassing 12 of its 15 catchments and representing approximately 90% of the Local Government Area. Of these, Council has completed three Flood Risk Management Studies & Plans (FRMSP) which outline proposed mitigations options across six of the catchment areas.

 

The three completed FRMSP include:

 

-    Marrickville Valley Flood Risk Management Study & Plan

-    Eastern Channel Subcatchment Management Plan

-    Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study & Plan (Incorporating the Foreshore and Whites Creek catchments, as well as portions of the Johnston Creek and Hawthorne Canal catchments)

 

In addition to the above Council has also completed studies into coastal impacts and mainstream flooding resulting from the overflow of Cooks River, Parramatta River and Sydney Harbour. These studies include:

 

-    Leichhardt Estuarine Planning Levels Study

-    Cooks River Flood Study

-    Cooks River Flood Risk Management Study and Plan

 

Attachment 1 identifies each of the 15 catchments within the LGA and indicates those which have an adopted FRMSP.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Flood Mitigation Costs

 

Each FRMSP prepared to date proposes recommendations for a number of structural management options, such as stormwater drainage upgrades, ranked according to cost and benefit.

 

The estimated cost of structural mitigation works currently identified is approximately $260 million, with projects to value of approximately $83 million considered higher priority. The estimate within each catchment is listed within Table 1. A list of the recommended stormwater upgrade projects and their estimated cost is provided in Attachment 2.

 

In addition to these stormwater upgrade projects each study also recommends a range of associated management measures which will reduce the risk associated with flooding. Suggested non-structural measures include:

 

-    Interactive Flood Mapping

-    Flood Awareness & Education programs

-    Emergency planning and response

-    Planning controls

 

Non-structural measures generally provide the greatest immediate benefit from the completion of a FRMSP as the Plan identifies areas of greatest flood impact and allows for informed decision making with regard to land zoning and planning controls to reduce the impact of flooding and the associated private and public losses that may result. The costs of such measures can generally be accommodated within Council’s operating expenditure.

 

It is noted that the capital works listed within Attachment 2 do not include structural measures from the Cooks River Flood Risk Management Plan or the Leichhardt Estuary Planning Levels Study, as the key mitigation measure in both these studies is the encouragement of flood sensitive building design through the use of Development Controls.

 

Catchment Area

Total Cost of Proposed Works

Cost of High Priority Works

Leichhardt FRMSP (including Hawthorne Canal, Whites Creek, Johnstons Creek & Foreshore catchments)

$215,000,000

$75,000,000

Marrickville Valley FRMSP

$35,000,000

$7,000,000

Eastern Channel SMP

$10,000,000

$1,000,000

Hawthorne Canal, Ashfield (Hawthorn Canal FRMSP)

FRMSP In Progress

-

Hawthorne Canal, Marrickville (Hawthorn Canal FRMSP)

FRMSP In Progress

-

Dobroyd Canal FRMSP

FRMSP In Progress

-

Whites Creek, Marrickville

Outstanding

-

Johnstons Creek, Marrickville

Outstanding

-

Marrickville South

Outstanding

-

Alexandra Canal

Outstanding

-

William Street Croydon

Outstanding

-

Cooks River (Ashfield)

Outstanding

-

TOTAL

$260,000,000

$83,000,000

 

Table 1 - Summary of Current Cost of Flood Mitigation Works

As noted in the table above, Council is currently preparing FRMSPs for the Hawthorne Canal (Ashfield/Marrickville) catchment and Dobroyd Canal catchment. The completion of these studies will result in Council having a proposed list of mitigation works program for almost 80% of the LGA.

 

Funding Strategies

 

The Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study and Plan, the Marrickville Valley Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan, and Eastern Channel Subcatchment Management Plan include recommendations for a number of stormwater upgrade projects; however they do not present a prescribed schedule for implementation.

 

Rather, the Flood Risk Management Studies and Plans identify mitigation measures that have merit for implementation when funding becomes available or the opportunity arises from major development. These plans provide a sound basis from which Council can make decisions concerning the undertaking of works, making planning decisions and developing response arrangements to reduce the impact of flooding.

 

An implementation strategy may not necessarily approach the options from “highest ranking to lowest ranking” but will also consider existing works programs, availability of funding and other opportunities to combine floodplain works with other infrastructure works.

 

The following provide potential opportunities to contribute resourcing towards delivery of mitigation works:

 

1)         Programming Upgrades in Conjunction with Planned Renewals

 

Primarily Council’s current level of stormwater funding is directed towards renewal of existing deteriorated assets and addressing issues of nuisance flooding relating to low recurrence interval storms. Where the need for renewal works are identified the need for augmentation of the stormwater infrastructure is considered concurrently to maximise the benefit from programmed expenditure.

 

Council’s Long Term Financial Plan currently identifies approximately $26 million (net present value) for stormwater projects ($16 million for renewal works and $10 million for upgrades / expansion works) over the next 10 years.

 

Implementation of the FRMSPs recommendations without supplemental income from external sources, would require Council to substantially reduce its service in other areas in order to reallocate funds and resources to deliver these projects.

 

            2)         State Government Grant Funding

 

The NSW Government, through the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) currently offers grants for up to two-thirds funding for selected flood mitigation projects each year. The grant scheme is a competitive process with authorities across the State competing for a relatively small pool of funds.

 

Government funding for flood works across the State is relatively small compared to the quantum of flood mitigation works needed and given its competitive nature, based on risk and benefits, cannot be relied upon to accelerate delivery of Council’s program of works to any great extent. In 2017, only $9.8million in grant funding was awarded to local councils and other authorities across the State to undertake projects to assess the risks and implement works to reduce the impacts of flooding across NSW.

 

Council has been successful in the past in receiving subsidies to progress flood studies and management plans. Grant applications will be made progressively in line with Council’s projected delivery program. In 2018, Council applied for funding for various flood studies, within the Whites Creek, Johnstons Creek Marrickville South and Alexandra Canal catchments.

 

As part of the 2019/20 capital program, Council will apply for funding for the design and staged upgrade of drainage works identified in the Eastern Channel Subcatchment Management Plan.

 

            3)         Redevelopment

           

Where appropriate Council currently seeks stormwater expansion works associated with development projects in flood affected areas, requiring developers of such lots to undertake capital works to the benefit of the public to off-set the increased flood risk liability generated by the increase in population.

 

Similarly, Council is the beneficiary of stormwater expansion works associated with state government infrastructure projects in flood affected areas. One such example is the flood mitigation works proposed to be undertaken as part of the Sydney Metro Project.

 

4)         Local Infrastructure Contribution Plans

 

Developer contributions and/or funds collected under Voluntary Planning Agreements can be set aside for flood mitigation works. This would require preparation of site specific Developer Contribution Plans, developed in partnership with Council’s Strategic Planning group.

 

Consideration would be given by Council’s Strategic Planning Group staff, to the potential inclusion of water related Infrastructure provisions within the new comprehensive Inner West Developer Contribution Plan(s) which are under early development.

 

One such example is the proposed redevelopment of Victoria Road Marrickville, for which a site specific Developer Contributions Plan is currently being prepared and Council is pursuing the potential inclusion of drainage upgrade works.

 

5)         Partnership with Sydney Water & RMS

 

A number of the proposed mitigation measures involve trunk drainage systems that are owned and operated by state agencies. The full adoption of the Flood Risk Management Plans prepared to date will require a number of these trunk drainage systems to be upgraded. In this regard, Council’s 2018/19 budget includes a design contribution for Sydney Water to investigate and design an upgrade of the Whites Creek stormwater channel, which is one of the mitigation projects identified in the Leichhardt FRMSP.

           

6)         Special Rate Variation

 

Where Council cannot achieve sufficient funding through the above sources, it may choose to consider a temporary Special Rate Variation above the rate peg to accommodate the additional funding required.

 

Such an option would require community consultation to assess the community’s acceptance of a SRV to fund flood mitigation options.

 

Regardless of the potential funding sources noted above, given the significantly high total cost of works identified, the implementation of structural measures identified in the FRMSPs should be considered a long term strategy, extending beyond the duration of Council’s existing financial plans. An expectation to deliver all these projects in the short to medium term is unachievable considering the high cost of the program, which is beyond Council’s own funding ability.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Each Flood Risk Management Study and Plan has been previously exhibited for public consultation.

 

CONCLUSION

The Flood Risk Management Studies and Plans completed to date propose a number of stormwater upgrade works totalling approximately $260 million. The plans do not present a prescribed schedule for implementation, rather they identify a series of structural flood modification measures that have merit for implementation when funding becomes available or the opportunity arises from major development. These plans provide a sound basis 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.

 

There are further Flood Risk Management Studies and Plans to be completed in the future

 

These projects form a long term implementation strategy, extending beyond the current 10 year financial plans, and will be integrated into Council’s forward works plan on the basis of compatibility with other projects, asset renewal, land use planning changes and funding availability.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

IWC Flood Catchments

2.

Summary of Recommended Flood Mitigation Options from completed Flood Risk Management Plans

  


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 


 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 

Item No:         C0918(2) Item 9

Subject:         Draft Complaints Handling Policy           

Prepared By:     Nellette Kettle - Group Manager Integration, Customer Service, Business Excellence and Civic and Executive Support  

Authorised By:  Rik Hart - Interim General Manager

 

SUMMARY

This report presents Council’s updated draft Complaints Management Policy for adoption for public exhibition.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the draft Complaints Handling Policy be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

This updated Complaints Handling Policy is based on the NSW Ombudsman’s Model Complaint Handling Policy (June 2015) and supersedes the following policies:

 

·    Marrickville Council Complaint Management Policy, December 2014

·    Ashfield Council Customer Complaints Policy, December 2015

·    Leichhardt Council Service and Complaints Policy, March 2009

 

The policy is predicated on Inner West Council’s commitment to providing outstanding customer service and the value that an effective complaints management framework plays in helping to identify service issues and improvements to the customer experience. 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no additional financial implications arising from adoption of this Policy.  It will be implemented within existing Council resources and operational activities.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

The Internal Ombudsman’s Office, the Leadership Team and key staff involved in receiving and handling customer complaints have had input to the Policy.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

It is proposed that the draft Policy be exhibited for customer feedback for a period of 28 days, prior to being reported back to Council for adoption.

 

 

CONCLUSION

The draft Policy is based on the NSW Ombudsman’s Model Complaint Handling Policy and is consistent with the NSW Customer Service Commissioner’s six commitments to effective complaints handling (2015), which are as follows:

 

 

 

Respectful treatment

We are responsive and treat our customers with courtesy and respect.

 

Information and accessibility

We make it easy for our customers to give us feedback so we can make improvements.

 

Good communication

We keep our customers informed about the status of their complaint or feedback.

 

Taking ownership

We are trained and skilled to manage customer complaints and one person, or our team, will manage the complaint.

 

Timeliness

We do our best to deal with customer complaints as soon as possible. Our customers know our timeframes for finalising their complaint.

 

Transparency

We record and analyse information on our complaint handling processes to help improve our services.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Draft Complaints Handling Policy

  


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 

 

DRAFT COMPLAINTS HANDLING POLICY

 

 

 

 

Title

Complaints Handling Policy

Summary

This policy outlines how Council will handle customer complaints.

Background

This policy is consistent with the NSW Ombudsman’s model policy for complaint handling

Policy Type

Council

Relevant Strategic Plan Objective

Strategic direction 5: Progressive local leadership

 

Relevant Council References

This policy supersedes:

-     Marrickville Council Complaint Management Policy, December 2014

-     Ashfield Council Customer Complaints Policy, December 2015

-     Leichhardt Council Service and Complaints Policy, March 2009

Main Legislative Or Regulatory Reference

NSW Ombudsman’s model policy for complaint handling (2015)

Record Notes

External available document

Version Control

See last page

 

 

 

                                                                 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

1.         Introduction

 

Inner West Council is committed to providing outstanding customer service to the community. Council recognises the value of an effective complaints management framework as a vital part of capturing and responding to feedback.

 

Council sees the receipt of feedback as an opportunity to identify service issues and to improve the customer experience.  Council will consider complaint feedback in its planning and quality management practices.

 

 

2.         Purpose

 

Our complaint management system is intended to:

 

·    handle complaints fairly, efficiently and effectively

·    enable Council to respond to issues raised by customers making complaints in a timely and cost-effective way

·    increase public confidence in Council’s administrative processes,

·    outline Council’s management of unreasonable complainant conduct;

·    outline the relevant external agencies for referral of serious breaches/ complaints; and

·    provide information that can be used to deliver quality improvements in our services, staff conduct and complaint handling.

 

This document provides guidance to Council staff and to Council customers who wish to make a complaint about Council’s service or performance.

 

Staff grievances, code of conduct complaints and public interest disclosures are dealt with through separate complaint handling processes.

 

 

3.         Organisational commitment 

 

Council expects staff at all levels to be committed to fair, effective and efficient complaint handling. The following table outlines the nature of the commitment expected from staff and the way that commitment should be implemented.

 

 

Who

Commitment

How

General Manager

Promote a culture that values complaints and their effective resolution

Provide adequate support and direction to key staff responsible for handling complaints.

Regularly review reports about complaint trends and issues arising from complaints.

Encourage all staff to be alert to complaints and assist those responsible for handling complaints to resolve them promptly.

Encourage staff to make recommendations for system improvements.

Recognise and reward good complaint handling by staff.

Support recommendations for service, staff and complaint handling improvements arising from the analysis of complaint data.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who

Commitment

How

Internal Ombudsman

Review / investigate matters in accordance with the Internal Ombudsman Shared Service Governance Charter.

Contribute to the development of an efficient, fair, consistent and transparent complaints handling framework at Inner West Council.

Provide regular reports to the General Manager and Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee on issues arising from complaint handling work including identifying any systemic organisational issues.

Ensure recommendations arising out of complaints are addressed by the General Manager.

Educate and support staff involved in managing complaints.

Educate Council’s customers on the Internal Ombudsman service. 

Group Manager, Customer Service Business Excellence & Civic Governance

Establish and manage Council’s complaint management system.

Provide regular reports to the General Manager on issues arising from complaint handling work.

Ensure recommendations arising out of complaint data analysis are canvassed with the General Manager and relevant Group Manager and implemented where appropriate.

Train and empower staff to resolve complaints promptly and in accordance with Council’s complaints framework.

Ensure all staff are aware of Council’s complaint handling framework.

Encourage staff managing complaints to provide suggestions on ways to improve Council’s complaint management system.

 

Staff whose duties include complaint handling

Demonstrate exemplary complaint handling practices.

Treat all people with respect, including people who make complaints.

Assist people make a complaint, if needed.

Comply with Council’s complaints handling policy.

Implement Council’s complaint management system as relevant to role and responsibilities.

Provide feedback to management on issues arising
from complaints.

Provide suggestions to management on ways to improve Council’s complaints management system.

Implement changes arising from individual complaints and from the analysis of complaint data as required.

Keep all appropriate records in relation to a complaint as required by this policy, but not limited to correspondence with complainant, interview notes, the evidence relied upon in an investigation, investigation/complaint findings and reasons for decisions.

 

 



Who

Commitment

How

All staff

Understand and comply with Council’s complaint handling practices.

Treat all people with respect, including people who make complaints.

Be aware of Council’s complaint handling framework.

Assist people who wish to make complaints to access the complaints process.

Be alert to complaints and assist staff handling complaints to resolve matters promptly.

Provide feedback to management on issues arising from complaints.

Implement changes arising from individual complaints and from the analysis and evaluation of complaint data as directed.

 

 

4.         Terms and definitions

 

Complaint

 

A complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction with the level or quality of the service provided by Inner West Council.  This includes dissatisfaction with the outcome of a decision, level or quality of service, the failure to adhere to a policy or procedure, or behaviour of an employee or agent, which can be investigated and acted upon.

 

A complaint covered by this policy can be distinguished from the following:

 

·    staff grievances - see our grievance policy

·    public interest disclosures made by our staff - see our internal reporting policy

·    code of conduct complaints - see our code of conduct

·    responses to requests for feedback about the standard of our service provision - see the definition of ‘feedback’ below

·    reports of problems or wrongdoing merely intended to bring a problem to our notice with no expectation of a response - see definition of ‘feedback’ below

·    service requests - see definition of ‘service request’ below, and

·    requests for information - see our access to information policy

 

 

Feedback

 

Opinions, comments and expressions of interest or concern to Council about our services or complaint handling where a response is not explicitly or implicitly expected or legally required.

 

Service request

 

Service requests include requests for approval; requests for action; routine inquiries about Council’s business; requests for the provision of services and assistance; reports of failure to comply with laws regulated by Council; and requests for explanation of policies, procedures and decisions.

 

 

 

Grievance

 

A clear, formal written statement by an individual staff member about another staff member or a work related problem.

 

Public interest disclosure

 

A report about wrongdoing made by a public official in New South Wales that meets the requirements of the Public Interest Disclosures Act 1994.

 

 

5.         Guiding Principles for our Complaint Handling Framework

 

5.1       Facilitating complaints

 

 

People focus

 

Council is committed to seeking and receiving feedback and complaints about our services, systems, practices, procedures and complaint handling.

 

Complainants will be:

 

·    provided with information about our complaint handling process

·    provided with multiple ways to make complaints

·    listened to and treated with respect by staff; and

·    provided with reasons for decisions and any options for redress or review.

No detriment to people making complaints

 

Council will take all reasonable steps to ensure that people making complaints are not adversely affected because a complaint has been made by them or on their behalf.

 

Anonymous complaints

 

Council will accept anonymous complaints and will carry out an investigation of the issues raised where there is enough information provided.

 

Accessibility

 

Council will ensure that information about how complaints may be made to us is well publicised.

 

Council will ensure that our systems to manage complaints are easily understood and accessible to everyone, particularly people who may require assistance.  If a person prefers or needs another person or organisation (e.g. advocate, family member, legal or community representative, member of Parliament, another organisation) to assist or represent them in relation to their complaint, we will communicate with them through their representative if this is their wish and this wish has been advised to us by the complainant.

 

No charge

 

Making a complaint to Council is free.

 

 

 

5.2       Responding to complaints

 

Early resolution

 

Where possible, complaints will be resolved at first contact with Council.

 

Responsiveness

 

Complaints will be dealt with promptly.

 

Council will investigate and respond to complaints within 10 business days of receipt.  Where this is not possible due to the nature or complexity of a matter, a progress update will be provided to the complainant.

 

Council will assess and prioritise complaints in accordance with the urgency and/or seriousness of the issues raised. If a matter concerns an immediate risk to safety or security the response will be immediate and will be escalated appropriately.

 

Complainants will be informed about:

 

·    the complaints process

·    the expected timeframes for our actions

·    the progress of the complaint and reasons for any delay

·    their likely involvement in the process, and

·    the possible or likely outcome of their complaint.

 

Objectivity and fairness

 

Council will address each complaint with integrity and in an equitable, fair, and unbiased manner.

 

Council will ensure that the person handling a complaint is different from any staff member whose conduct or service is being complained about.

 

Internal reviews of how a complaint was managed will be conducted by a person other than the original decision maker and may be referred to Council’s Internal Ombudsman.

 

Confidentiality

 

When requested, Council will protect the identity of people making complaints where this is practical and appropriate.

 

 


5.3       Manage the parties to a complaint

 

Complaints involving multiple organisations or parts of Council

 

Where a complaint involves multiple organisations, we will work with the other organisation/s where possible to ensure that communication with the person making a complaint is clear and coordinated.

 

Where a complaint involves multiple areas within Council, responsibility for communicating with the person making the complaint will also be coordinated.

 

Where our services are contracted out, we expect contracted service providers to have an accessible and comprehensive complaint management system. We take complaints not only about the actions of our staff but also the actions of service providers.

 

Complaints involving multiple parties

 

When similar complaints are made by related parties we will try to arrange to communicate with a single representative of the group.

 

Empowerment of staff

 

All staff managing complaints are empowered to implement our complaint management system as relevant to their role and responsibilities.

 

Staff are encouraged to provide feedback on the effectiveness and efficiency of our complaints management system.

Managing unreasonable conduct by people making complaints

Council is committed to being accessible and responsive to all customers who approach us with feedback or complaints. At the same time our success depends on:

 

·    our ability to do our work and perform our functions in the most effective and efficient way possible

·    the health, safety and security of our staff, and

·    our ability to allocate our resources fairly across all the complaints we receive.

 

When people behave unreasonably in their dealings with Council, their conduct can significantly affect the progress and efficiency of our work. As a result, we will take proactive and decisive action to manage any conduct that negatively and unreasonably affects Council and will support Council staff to do the same in accordance with this complaints handing framework.

 

In managing unreasonable conduct by people making complaints, Council will have regard to the NSW Ombudsman’s guidelines on managing unreasonable complainant conduct.

 

 


6.         Our complaint management system

When responding to complaints, staff are required to act in accordance with this complaint handling framework and any other internal documents providing guidance on the management of complaints.


Staff should also consider any relevant legislation and/or regulations when responding to complaints and feedback.

 

 

Receipt of complaints

 

Unless the complaint has been resolved at the outset, Council will record the complaint and its supporting information. We will also assign a unique identifier to the complaint file.

 

The record of the complaint will document:

·    the contact information of the person making the complaint and the date this is received

·    issues raised by the person making the complaint and the outcome/s they want

·    any other relevant information; and

·    any additional support the person making a complaint requires.

 

Acknowledgement of complaints

 

Where a complaint is not likely to be resolved within 10 days, the assigned officer must inform the complainant promptly about:

 

·    the complaints process

·    the expected timeframes  for any actions

·    the progress of the complaint and reasons for any delay

·    their likely involvement in the process, and

·    the possible or likely outcome of their complaint

 

 


Initial assessment and addressing of complaints

 

Initial assessment

After acknowledging receipt of the complaint, Council will confirm whether the issues raised in the complaint are within Council’s control. We will also consider the outcome/s sought by the person making the complaint and, where there is more than one issue raised, determine whether each issue needs to be separately addressed.

 

When determining how a complaint will be managed, we will consider:

 

·    whether the complaint falls under this or some other complaints or legislative framework (e.g. Code of Conduct, Public Interest Disclosures Act)

·    how serious, complicated or urgent the complaint is

·    whether the complaint raises concerns about health and safety

·    how the person making the complaint is being affected

·    the risks involved if resolution of the complaint is delayed; and

·    whether a resolution requires the involvement of the Internal Ombudsman or any external organisations.

 

Addressing complaints

After assessing the complaint, we will consider how to manage it. To manage a complaint we may:

 

·    give the person making a complaint information or an explanation

·    gather information from the service, person or area that the complaint is about, or

·    investigate the claims made in the complaint.

 

We will keep the complainant up to date on our progress, particularly if there are any delays. We will also communicate the outcome of the complaint.

 

Providing reasons for decisions

 

Following consideration of the complaint and any investigation into the issues raised, Council will advise the complainant of:

 

·    the outcome of the complaint and any action taken

·    the reason/s for the decision

·    the proposed remedy or resolution/s that will be put in place, and

·    any options for review that may be available to the complainant, such as an internal review by the Internal Ombudsman, external review or appeal.

 

Closing the complaint, record keeping, redress and review

 

Council will keep documented records at all stages of the complaints management process, including how we managed the complaint, the outcome of the complaint and any outstanding actions that need to be followed up.

 

Council will ensure that outcomes are properly implemented.

 

Council will inform people who make complaints about any internal or external review options available to them (including the Internal Ombudsman, Office of Local Government and the NSW Ombudsman).

 

 

 


7.         Our three levels of complaint handling

 

Our three tiered approach to complaints handling aims to have complaints responded to and resolved fairly, efficiently and effectively subject to their seriousness and stage in the process.

 

Tier 1 – Frontline complaints handling

 

Council aims to resolve complaints at the first level, the frontline. Wherever possible staff will be adequately equipped to respond to complaints, including being given appropriate authority, training and supervision.

 

Depending on the parties, nature and seriousness of the complaint, Tier 1 resolution may take place at any of the following levels:

 

1.   Front line Customer Service Officer

2.   Person responsible for providing the service (Service Unit)

3.   Immediate supervisor of the person providing the service (Service Unit)

4.   Level 4 Manager of the function (Service Unit)

5.   Responsible Group Manager (Service Unit)

6.   Responsible Deputy General Manager

 

A staff member may decide to escalate the complaint to a more senior officer within this hierarchy for review or assessment of the complaint at any point in time. This review will be provided to the complainant.

 

Tier 2 – Internal review

 

Where Tier 1 front line resolution is not possible, the relevant Deputy General Manager, Group Manager or complainant may refer the matter to the Internal Ombudsman for internal review.

 

Tier 3 – External review

 

Where a person making a complaint is dissatisfied with the outcome of Council’s review of their complaint, they may seek an external review of our decision (for example by the NSW Ombudsman or the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

 

8.         Accountability and learning

 

Council will ensure that complaints are recorded in a systematic way so that information can be easily retrieved for reporting and analysis to the Leadership Team to monitor trends, measure the quality of customer service and to make improvements.

 

The complaints management system will be continuously monitored and reviewed to ensure its effectiveness in responding to and resolving complaints.

 

9.         Policy Review     

                                                                                                                                                 

This policy is subject to regular review at a maximum interval of two years. Any recognised change to relevant legislation, directives or guidelines issued by agencies including the NSW Ombudsman and the Office of Local Government will instigate an immediate review of this policy to reflect any changes.

 

Document:

Council Policy

Uncontrolled Copy When Printed

Custodian:

Group Manager Customer Service, Business Excellence and Civic Governance

Version #

Version #

Approved By:

Leadership Team

TRIM Ref #

XXXXXX

Adopted By: 

Council

Publish Location

Intranet/ Internet

Adopted Date and Minute #:

XX / XX / XXXX

Next Review Date

XX / XX / XXXX

 


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 

Item No:         C0918(2) Item 10

Subject:         Councillor Representation on Committees           

Prepared By:     Ian Naylor - Manager Civic and Executive Support  

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

 

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to determine Councillor Representation on Council and External Committees until September 2019.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council determine Councillor representation on Council and External Committees for the next 12 months as detailed in this report.

 

 

BACKGROUND

Council may establish Committees to provide advice or exercise decision making functions of the Local Government Act. Councillors can attend these committees as observers or be appointed by Council as members of these committees and exercise voting rights. Councillors may also be appointed to represent Council on external committees. The responsibilities and operation of the external committees are set by the host organisation. Council is required to make appointments for the next 12 months as the current appointments cease in September 2018.

 

Council Committees

 

The charters of the following committees or the resolution establishing these committees require formal appointment of Councillors as voting members of these committees.

 

Name of Committee

Purpose

Meeting Time and Frequency

Reporting Framework

Councillor Representation

Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee

The purpose of the Committee is to provide independent assurance and assistance to Inner West Council in the effective discharge of its responsibilities for financial reporting, risk management, internal controls, governance, improvement and internal and external audit. The Charter of the Committee is shown as Attachment 1.

The committee meets four times a year regularly, plus an optional additional meeting for considering the Annual Financial Statements, with the location rotating between the three Service Centres.

 

 

Minutes of the Committee are reported to Council to note.

Two Councillors.

 

Currently, Councillors McKenna OAM and Councillor Steer.

Flood Management Advisory Committee

The Flood Management Advisory Committee assists Council in the preparation of floodplain management studies and plans for the Inner West local government area. The Committee acts as both a focus and forum for the discussion of technical, social, economic and environmental matters, and for the distillation of possibly differing viewpoints on these matters into a management plan. The Charter of the Committee is shown as Attachment 2.

The committee meets at least twice  a year at the Petersham Service Centre.

Minutes of the Committee are reported to Council for adoption.

 

Up to Three Councillors.

 

Currently, Councillors Hesse, Da Cruz and McKenna OAM.

Local Traffic Committee

 

The Local Traffic Committee is primarily a technical review and advisory committee which considers the technical merits of proposals and ensures that current technical guidelines are considered. It provides recommendations to Council on traffic and parking control matters and on the provision of traffic control facilities and prescribed traffic control devices for which Council has delegated authority. The Committee also advises on traffic matters arising from development applications.

The Committee meets on the 1st Tuesday of each month at 10am at the Petersham Service Centre.

Minutes of the Committee are reported to Council for adoption.

 

One Councillor and an alternate Councillor.

 

*The nominated Councillor chairs the Meeting and has voting rights. In their absence, Council’s Group Manager Roads, Traffic & Stormwater or nominee chairs the meeting and has voting rights.

 

Currently, Councillor Passas with Councillor Da Cruz as the alternate.

General Manager’s Performance Assessment Panel

To review the performance of the General Manager in liaison with the appointed facilitator.

 

 

Five councillors.

 

Currently, the Mayor, Councillor Byrne and Councillors Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis and York.

 

External Committees

 

Council is a member of a number of external organisations who have committees to discuss business relevant to their organisation. These organisations have requested representation on these committees by Councillors. Shown below is a summary of each committee and the Councillor representation sought.

 

Name of Committee

Purpose

Meeting Time and Frequency

Councillor Representation

ClubGrants

The objective of the Committee is to identify priority projects and services within the Inner West area for local registered clubs to consider funding.

Guidelines are silent on Councillor representation.

4-5 meetings/year (meetings held on Tuesdays at 10am)

Guidelines require “Representative/s of the local council” (Clubgrant Guidelines 6.2).

 

Currently, the Mayor, Councillor Byrne and Councillor Porteous.

Cooks River

Alliance Board

The Cooks River Alliance is a partnership between councils in the Cooks River Catchment – Bayside, Canterbury-Bankstown, Inner West, and Strathfield. The Alliance uses the combined resources, experience, knowledge and skills within the councils and the community to address the complex environmental problems of the Cooks River and its catchment.

Meetings are held quarterly and hosted by rotating member council facilities.

One Councillor and an alternate Councillor.

 

Currently, the Mayor, Councillor Byrne (Chair of the Board) with Councillor Hesse as the alternate.

 

Eastern Region

Local

Government

Region of

Aboriginal &

Torres Strait

Islander Forum (ERLGATSIF)

Established in 1998, the Forum aims to address and participate at a regional level in the affairs, events and celebrations that impact our local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The ERLGATSIF is a partnership between six Councils; Bayside, Inner West, Randwick, City of Sydney, Waverley and Woollahra.

Meetings are held on Fridays

bi-monthly (usually on the 3rd Friday of every second month, commencing February) from

2-4pm.

One Councillor

 

Currently Councillor Da Cruz.

Greenway

Steering

Committee

The GreenWay Steering Committee provides advice on the development and implementation of the GreenWay Program,  GreenWay Master Plan and  associated action plans. Comprising Inner West and City of Canterbury Bankstown Councillors, resident representatives, GreenWay community groups and council staff, it generally works towards the goal of establishing a multi-purpose urban environmental corridor along the Cooks River to Iron Cove GreenWay.

Meetings are held at least 5 times per year from 4.30 to 6pm and hosted by rotating member council facilities.

Three Councillors.

 

Currently, Councillor Kiat, Lockie and York.


NSW Public

Libraries Association

The NSW Public Libraries Association is the peak body for public libraries in NSW and advocates on behalf of the library sector to strengthen the public library network.

As required.

One Councillor and an alternate Councillor.

 

Currently, Councillor Lockie with Councillor Steer as the alternate.

Parramatta River

Catchment Group

The Parramatta River Catchment Group (PRCG) is a regional organisation of local councils, state agencies and community representatives whose aim is to work together to improve the health of the Parramatta River and its catchment. 

Meetings are held quarterly on the 1st Thursday of  March, June, September and December, commencing at 5.30pm with the locations rotating between different member agencies.

One Councillor and an alternate Councillor.

 

Currently, Councillor Drury with Councillor Da Cruz as the alternate.

Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC)

 

SSROC is an association of 10 Sydney councils serving large and diverse communities

that face all the challenges of metropolitan living. SSROC provides a forum for the councils to

undertake resource sharing activities and deal with common issues, particularly those that

cross boundaries.

Meetings are held quarterly, generally 1st or 3rd Thursday, 6.00 pm for 6.30 pm start.

Two Councillors – currently the Mayor and Deputy Mayor (per

SSROC requirements), as well as two alternate Councillors.

 

Currently, the Mayor, Councillor Byrne and Councillor Porteous with Councillors McKenna OAM and Stamolis as alternates.

Sydney Airport

Community

Forum

SACF is the main body for consultation on the Sydney Airport Long Term Operating Plan. The

Forum includes representatives from the community, councils, industry, and State and Federal

Parliaments.

As required

The Mayor (SACF requirement) and an alternate Councillor.

 

Currently, the Mayor, Councillor Byrne.

Sydney Central Planning Panel

The Sydney Central Planning Panel has responsibility for:

§ determining ‘regionally significant’ development applications (DAs) and certain other DAs and modification applications

§ acting as the relevant planning authority (RPA) when directed

§ undertaking rezoning reviews

§ providing advice on other planning and development matters when requested

 

 

As required.

To be addressed by a separate report.

Sydney Coastal

Council Group

The Sydney Coastals Group Inc. (SCCG) was established in 1989 to promote co-ordination between Member Councils on environmental issues relating to the sustainable management of the urban coastal and estuarine environment. The Group consists of 9 Councils adjacent to Sydney marine and estuarine environments and associated waterways.

Meetings are held quarterly on a Saturday and hosted by rotating member council facilities.

2 Councillors and an alternate Councillor.

 

Currently, Councillors Hesse and Porteous.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil

 

CONCLUSION

Nil

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Audit and Risk Improvement Committee Charter

2.

Flood Management Advisory Committee Charter

  


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 

Item No:         C0918(2) Item 11

Subject:         Rescheduling October Council Meeting           

Prepared By:     Ian Naylor - Manager Civic and Executive Support  

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

 

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to resolve to move the Council Meeting scheduled for 23 October to 30 October due to the clash of dates with the LGNSW Conference.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.       The Ordinary Council Meeting scheduled for 23 October 2018 be rescheduled to 30 October 2018; and

 

2.       Council publicise this change to the Meeting Schedule in the Inner West Courier, at Council’s Service Centres and on Council’s website and social media.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The LGNSW Annual Conference is being held in Albury from 21-23 October. Council has 9 Councillors in attendance for this Conference and it is unlikely that they will return in time for the start of the Council Meeting. The Conference concludes at 4.30pm in Albury on 23 October and the Council Meeting is due to commence at 6.30pm on the same day. If this Meeting was to go ahead Council would be in danger of not reaching a quorum for the Meeting. Council’s Code of Meeting Practices requires 8 Councillors to be in attendance for a meeting to commence. It is recommended that due to the clash of dates, that Council reschedule the Council Meeting planned for 23 October to 30 October.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

 

CONCLUSION

Nil.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 

Item No:         C0918(2) Item 12

Subject:         Investment Report as at 31 August 2018           

Prepared By:     Brendhan Barry - Manager Financial Services  

Authorised By:  Pav Kuzmanovski - Group Manager Finance

 

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 August 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 August 2018 reflects Council’s holding in various investment categories these are listed in the table below. Council’s portfolio size sits at $204.4m, of which 80% was rated A rated or above. All Socially Responsible Investments (SRI’s) are investments that comply with the Non Fossil Fuel standards.

 


 


 

 

Council’s annualised return of continues to exceed the bank bill index benchmark. The period ending 31 August 2018, the portfolio for Inner West Council had a One-Month Portfolio Investment Return of 3.96%, above the UBSWA Bank Bill Index Benchmark (1.99%).

 

 

 

Council has a well-diversified portfolio with 80% 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 and Socially Responsible Commitments

 

 

The graph above illustrates the gap between yields received from Socially Responsible Investments (SRI), Fossil Fuel (FF) and Non Fossil Fuel (NFF) Investments. All Socially Responsible Investments are also Non Fossil Fuel Investments.

 

 

 

Council’s holdings in NFF / SRI’s was $192.8m with the relative total portfolio percentage of 95%.

 

Council’s holdings in NFF investments were $158.8m with the relative total portfolio percentage of 78%.

 

Council’s holdings in SRI’s were $34.0m, with the relative total portfolio percentage of 17%.

 

The attachments to this report summarise all investments held by Council and interest returns for periods ending 31 August 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 August 2018 have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, Local Government Regulations and the Inner West Council Investment Policy.

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

IWC Aug18

2.

IWC Economic and Investment Portfolio Commentary Aug 18

  


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 


 

 


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 

Item No:         C0918(2) Item 13

Subject:         Notice of Motion: Waterfront Drive Cricket Nets           

From:             The Mayor, Councillor Darcy Byrne   

 

 

Motion:

 

THAT:

1.    Council support the proposal to relocate the three cricket nets from within the Waterfront Drive sporting ground and place them adjacent to the canal;

2.    Council support the proposal to realign the fence on the north-western side of the sporting ground to improve functionality of the grounds; and

3.    Staff provide a report to Council on the process to submit a 4.55 (2) modification application.

 

 

Background

 

In September 2018 Council is due to begin the $1.3m upgrade of the Waterfront Drive sporting ground at Callan Park.

 

The works include increasing the level of the fields by 300mm, new subsurface drainage, a new irrigation system, laying of couch turf, constructing a cricket wicket, constructing cricket practice nets and refurbishment of the Air Raid shelter for storage purposes.

 

Council has an approved DA for the above works.

 

I recently met with representatives from Balmain District Football Club and Balmain South Sydney Cricket Club who are the winter and summer season clubs who use Waterfront Drive.

 

There have been differences of opinion regarding the location of the cricket practice nets. The approved DA has three cricket nets located on the south-west of the site, within the boundary fence. This location overlaps the warmup area used by soccer and cannot be used if teams are training or playing on the sporting grounds, as the cricket balls create a safety hazard.

 

Representatives from Clubs have collaborated and now advise that a more suitable location for the three cricket nets would be outside the sporting grounds, further to the south-west and next to the canal. A Section 96 application (now section 4.55) would be required.

 

Balmain District Football Club has also requested adjustment of the fence alignment on the north-west side of the sporting ground, adjacent to the Bay Run. This would improve the functionality of the sporting ground for soccer. The approved DA does not allow for this change in fence alignment and a 4.55 (2) modification application would be required.

 

The Callan Park Act has specific requirements relating to the submission of a DA or Section 96 Application.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Officer’s Comments:

 

Comment from: A/Group Manager Trees, Parks and Sports Fields

Should this Notice be adopted, Council will prepare a detailed report to Council on the 4.55 (2) modification application.

 

The Council report will cost approximately $510 in staff time.

 

It is likely that the 4.55 (2) modification application will cost approximately $22,000 in technical/specialist consultants fees. In addition, there will be approximately $3,600 in staff time.

 

This will require a senior Council officer to be taken from their current duties and it will result in delays to the delivery of other parks capital works projects.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Council Meeting

25 September 2018

 

Item No:         C0918(2) Item 14

Subject:         Notice of Motion: Solar Schools           

From:             The Mayor, Councillor Darcy Byrne  

 

 

Motion:

 

THAT Council officers produce a report on how Council can support the Sydney Student Leaders Coalition in their solar panel initiative, to support their aim of creating solar schools across the inner west local government area.

 

 

Background

 

We are fortunate in the Inner West to be raising a generation of environmentally aware and active young people. I have recently been approached by a school group demonstrating forward thinking and an environmental conscious that should be supported.

 

The Sydney Student Leaders Coalition has been formed by high school students from across the inner west as a platform for students to advocate for change in communities.

 

Recently I met with SSLC representatives about their Sydney solar panel program goal to see every school in the inner west maximising the environmental and economic benefits of solar power.

 

Their letter regarding their initiative is included below.

 

The Coalition has requested support from Council to further their goal of powering schools with solar energy by sponsoring their community partnership initiative.

 

Sydney Student Leaders Coalition letter

 

Sydney Student Leaders Coalition
www.sydneyslc.org

 

The Sydney Student Leaders Coalition (Sydney SLC) is writing to put forth our proposition regarding renewably powered schools across the Inner West.

 

Currently, there are a small number of schools partially relying on solar panels as an energy source. Based on the environmental and economic benefits of renewable energy for school communities, we believe this number should reach every school in the Council area.

 

The Sydney SLC is requesting the support of the Inner West Council to further our goal of powering schools with solar energy by sponsoring our community partnership initiative.

 

Through community partnerships, solar-powered schools could be supported by numerous funding streams, such as the Department of Education, local government, and community groups (namely P&Cs). Already, we have precedent of student-led initiatives which involve partnerships occurring between schools and communities in order to fund solar panels, and we intend to replicate this process in order to see solar panels installed in every Inner West school.

 

 

 

 

 

Officer’s Comments:

 

Comment from Group Manager Environment and Sustainability:

This proposal fits very well within the work currently underway to assist the Inner West to become a zero emissions community. Staff are currently working on a range of projects to assist the community to reduce emissions including an increase in the uptake of solar power.

 

A report back on a program to support solar in schools will cost approximately $140 in staff time.

 

 

Resource Implications:

 

Nil additional, already a factor in the work for the community element of the Climate and Renewables Strategy.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.



[1] 22ktCO2e p.a. based on NCOS (calculated on Scope 1 and 2) for FY17

[2] 5,736 average Inner West households using approximately 12kWh/d

[3] Light Emitting Diode (LED) lights use less electricity, have a longer life, require less maintenance and generate less heat than incandescent or fluorescent lights.  LED is therefore cheaper and more climate-friendly.

[4] Large Generation Certificates (LGCs)

[5] Note that unlike corporate entities, councils in NSW cannot enter into a PPA directly with a generator as this would require a contract for difference.  According to legal advice via SSROC, this is considered a financial derivative instrument and is prohibited. 

[6] Assuming the renewables farm is already operational. 

[7] Approximately 25% of Council’s electricity use based on FY17 use.  Note this proportion will change over time as total electricity consumption changes.