|
AGENDA R |
Council Meeting
TUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2019
6.30pm
|
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
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 26 February 2019 |
|
PRECIS |
1 Acknowledgement of Country
2 Apologies
3 Notice of Webcasting
4 Disclosures
of Interest (Section 451 of the Local Government Act
and Council’s Code of Conduct)
5 Moment of Quiet Contemplation
6 Confirmation of Minutes Page
Confidential Minutes of 11 December 2018 Council Meeting 5
Minutes of 5 February 2019 Extraordinary Council Meeting 10
Minutes of 12 February 2019 Council Meeting 28
7 Mayoral Minutes
Nil at the time of printing.
8 Condolence Motions
Nil at the time of printing.
9 Staff Reports
ITEM Page
C0219(3) Item 1 DCP Housekeeping Project 43
C0219(3) Item 2 Globe Wilkins Preschool 66
C0219(3) Item 3 Ashfield Aquatic Centre Redevelopment Monthly Project Status Report 69
C0219(3) Item 4 Reusable Coffee Cups 77
C0219(3) Item 5 Weed Management 91
C0219(3) Item 6 Significant Major Projects Governance 202
C0219(3) Item 7 Increase in Court Appeals since Merger 227
C0219(3) Item 8 Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 4 December 2018 and 4 February 2019 236
C0219(3) Item 9 Decision made Under Delegated Authority During the Council Recess 297
C0219(3) Item 10 National General Assembly of Local Government 2019 299
C0219(3) Item 11 Status of Legal Proceedings 316
C0219(3) Item 12 Investment Report as at 31 December 2018 327
C0219(3) Item 13 Quarterly Update on Tenders Awarded 354
10 Rescission Motions
ITEM Page
C0219(3) Item 14 Notice of Motion to Rescind: C1016 Item 8 Establishment of Alcohol Free Zones - Ashfield LGA 356
11 Notices of Motion
ITEM Page
C0219(3) Item 15 Notice of Motion: Joining The Local Government Mayoral Taskforce For People Seeking Asylum To Advocate Against The SRSS Cuts 358
C0219(3) Item 16 Notice of Motion: Retaining Wall Condition - Corner of Ballast Point Rd and Short St, Birchgrove 361
C0219(3) Item 17 Notice of Motion: Callan Park 363
C0219(3) Item 18 Notice of Motion: The Cancelling of Classics in Callan Park with no consultation 365
C0219(3) Item 19 Notice of Motion: Pill Testing 357
C0219(3) Item 20 Notice of Motion: St Peters Metro Rail Spoil 368
C0219(3) Item 21 Notice of Motion: Ashfield Commuter Carpark 370
11 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 Page
C0219(3) Item 22 Car Park Sale By Request For Tender - Chester Street Petersham 371
C0219(3) Item 23 Public Exhibition of Greenway Draft Concept Design 373
C0219(3) Item 24 Code of Conduct Complaint Investigation 377
|
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Confidential Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 11 December 2018
Meeting commenced at 6.33 pm
Confidential Session
Motion: (Drury/McKenna OAM)
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, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York
Against Motion: Nil
Members of the public were asked to leave the Chamber.
Motion: (Byrne/McKenna OAM)
THAT Council return to open session to read out the recommendations from the
Closed Session.
Motion Carried
For Motion: Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York
Against Motion: Nil
The Mayor read out to the Meeting the recommendation from the Closed Session of
Council.
Reports with Confidential Information
|
THAT Council:
a) process the Food Organics and Garden Organics (FOGO) stream for single unit dwellings across the Inner West as FOGO (not AWT processing); and b) provide a FOO service to multi-unit dwellings in the West (Ashfield) Service Area as soon as practicable.
6. Approach
the State and Federal Governments, including the NSW EPA, ARENA
and relevant Ministers about the urgent need for investment in the
food recycling plants and transfer stations in the Sydney Metropolitan
Area; and 7. Investigate the potential to establish a food recycling transfer station or procession plant in the Inner West Municipality. This should include seeking State and Federal Government Investment and an initial assessment of the commercial viability of such facilities.
|
|
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 |
|
THAT Council:
1. Defer the proposal for Chester Street Carpark Petersham until the February 2019 Council Meeting;
2. Undertake an Expression of Interest process and award the lease for the property known as Balmain Pump House;
3. Undertake an Expression of Interest process and award the lease for the property known as New Marrickville Library Development – Commercial Tenancy;
4. Undertake an Expression of Interest process and award the lease of the property known as New Marrickville Library Development – Café;
5. Undertake an expression of Interest process for the Marrickville Town Hall Reuse and report to Council on the outcomes of the Expression of Interest;
6. Prioritise the establishment of a premises for a reuse centre.
|
|
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 |
Extension of Time
Motion: (Drury/Lockie)
THAT Council extend the meeting for 15 Minutes.
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 York retired from the Meeting at 11:11 pm.
Extension of Time
Motion: (Drury/Da Cruz)
THAT the meeting be extended until 11.45pm.
Motion Carried
For Motion: Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis and Steer
Against Motion: Nil
Absent: Cr York
Councillor Passas retired from the Meeting at 11:27 pm.
Minutes of Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 5 February 2019
Meeting commenced at 6.34p.m
|
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 Elizabeth Richardson |
Mayor Deputy Mayor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor (6.36pm) Councillor Councillor Councillor Acting General Manager Deputy General Manager Assets and Environment |
|
Michael Tzimoulas |
Deputy General Manager Chief Financial and Administration Officer |
|
Nellette Kettle
John Stephens Erla Ronan Simon Watts David Birds Harjeet Atwal Cathy Edwards-Davis Ian Naylor Katherine Paixao |
Group Manager Customer Service, Business Excellence and Civic Governance Traffic and Transport Services Manager Group Manager Community Services and Culture Social and Cultural Planning Manager Group Manager Strategic Planning Group Manager Development Assessment & Regulatory Services Group Manager Trees, Parks & Streetscapes Manager Civic and Executive Support Business Paper Coordinator |
APOLOGIES:
Motion: (Byrne/Passas)
THAT Apologies for lateness from Councillor Raciti be accepted.
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
DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS: Nil
Councillor Raciti entered the Meeting at 6:36 pm.
Suspension of Standing Orders
Motion: (Byrne/McKenna OAM)
THAT Council Suspend Standing Orders to hear from the registered speakers for Items 4 and 5.
Motion Carried
For Motion: Crs Byrne, Drury, Iskandar, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Raciti and York
Against Motion: Crs Da Cruz, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Porteous, Stamolis and Steer
Foreshadowed Motion (Porteous/Da Cruz)
THAT Council Suspend Standing Orders to hear from the registered speakers and to deal with Items 4 and 5.
This Foreshadowed Motion lapsed.
Resumption of Standing Orders
Motion: (Byrne/Passas)
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
Suspension of Standing Orders
Motion: (Kiat/Hesse)
THAT Council Suspend Standing Orders to deal with the registered speaker for Item 5.
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
Councillor Passas returned to the meeting at 7.19pm
|
THAT Council:
1. Endorse the proposed Community-led Celebration Day Grant Guidelines for exhibition;
2. Approve recruiting a Multicultural Policy Project Officer position five days per week as a permanent position and the additional funding be considered at the next quarterly budget review; and
3. Increase the funding to a maximum of $5000 for each event.
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 |
|
THAT Council:
1. Receive and Note this report;
2. Agree to explore further:
a. The potential community health and wellbeing initiatives that might better meet the needs of people of Portuguese backgrounds;
b. Potential renaming of Audley Street Petersham between New Canterbury Road and Trafalgar Streets to a name with greater cultural significance to the Portuguese community;
c. Explore the potential for street art created by Portuguese artists; and
d. Further liaison with Roads and Maritime about inclusion of Portuguese elements in the Petersham Station access improvements.
|
|
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 8:02 pm.
|
THAT Council :
1. Note the outcomes of the Gambling Harm Minimisation Mayoral forum; and
2. Approves negotiating an Inner West Gambling Harm Minimisation Compact based on the following points: a. Engaging a high profile ambassador for promoting harm reduction b. Improved training for staff in venues provided by the industry c. Targeted support from Office of Responsible Gambling.
3. Commit to applying to the OGR for at least one grant per year for a harm minimization project designed in consultation with the Inner West community;
4. Host an annual Gambling Harm Minimisation Roundtable, open to the public, at which the local industry and Council can report on activities undertaken and success achieved under the Compact, and allow the community to be part of any plans for future actions;
5. Write to the relevant minister and shadow minister requesting that they commit to prohibiting gambling-based loyalty programs (including for casinos), and empower councils to be able to say "no" to further pokies entering the community; and
6. Note that one focus of the round table is to develop a community education and awareness campaign in regard to gambling harm minimisation.
|
|
Motion Carried For Motion: Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York Against Motion: Nil Absent: Cr Passas
|
|
Amendment (Kiat/Da Cruz)
THAT Council provide the exodus foundation the draft copy of the compact for their comments prior to finalisation. |
|
Motion Tied For Motion: Crs Da Cruz, Hesse, Iskandar, Kiat, Macri, Porteous and Steer Against Motion: Crs Byrne, Drury, Lockie, McKenna OAM, Raciti, Stamolis and York Absent: Cr Passas
The Chairperson used his Casting Vote against the MOTION and the MOTION was Lost. |
Councillor Drury left the Meeting at 8:02 pm.
Councillor Lockie left the Meeting at 8:04 pm.
Councillor Drury returned to the Meeting at 8:04 pm.
Councillor Lockie returned to the Meeting at 8:06 pm.
|
THAT Council:
1. Note the current awards program has been reviewed;
2. Request Precedent Productions include an Ethical Business/Social Enterprise Award as one of its categories in the Inner West Business Awards; and
3. Examine opportunities to promote ACON’s Welcome Here initiative across the LGA.
|
|
Motion Carried For Motion: Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York Against Motion: Nil Absent: Cr Passas |
Councillor Passas returned to the Meeting at 8:17 pm.
Councillor Raciti left the Meeting at 8:34 pm.
Councillor Raciti returned to the Meeting at 8:42 pm.
|
THAT: 1. Council approve the fee waiver applications submitted by regular hirers of the Leichhardt Park Aquatic Centre and Dawn Fraser Baths during 2018 – 2019, as detailed in Attachment 1;
2. Council approve the trial and additional request for use of Leichhardt Park Aquatic Centre between 8pm-9pm by Balmain UTS Waterpolo club for water polo training, subject to UTS Balmain Water Polo Club covering the cost of the lifesaver for the additional hour at LPAC;
3. The Memorandum of Understanding with Water Polo NSW, in relation to AAC, be extended to cover all Inner West Pools;
4. A progress report on this memorandum be brought to council; and
5. Council receive a report explaining why these groups receive a fee waiver and provide a comparison to other clubs in aquatic centres in our Local Government Area.
|
|
Motion Lost For Motion: Crs Da Cruz, Hesse, Porteous and Steer Against Motion: Crs Byrne, Drury, Iskandar, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Raciti, Stamolis and York
|
|
Foreshadowed Motion (Passas)
THAT all entry fees to all pools in the Inner West Council area be waived forever.
The Mayor ruled this Foreshadowed Motion Out of Order as the motion did not identify a source of funds to fund the motion required by Clause 5.1(1) of the Code of Meeting Practice.
|
|
Foreshadowed Motion (Macri/Drury)
THAT this item be deferred for a report to come back explaining why these groups receive a fee waiver and provide a comparison to other clubs in aquatic centres in our Local Government Area.
|
|
Motion Carried For Motion: Crs Byrne, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York Against Motion: Cr Da Cruz |
ADJOURNMENT
8.57pm- The Mayor, Clr Byrne adjourned the meeting for a short recess.
9.15pm– The Mayor, Clr Byrne resumed the meeting.
Councillor Passas left the Meeting at 9:16 pm.
|
THAT Council:
1. Rescind the Statement of Business Ethics for the former councils;
2. Endorse the Draft Statement of Business Ethics shown as Attachment 2; and
3. The words “Independent Ombudsman” being amended to “Internal Ombudsman” subject to on page five.
|
|
Motion Carried For Motion: Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York Against Motion: Nil Absent: Cr Passas |
Councillor Passas returned to the Meeting at 9.22 pm.
|
THAT:
1. An evening domestic waste collection service be introduced in the former Marrickville LGA; and
2. A comprehensive communications plan to affected residents be developed and implemented well in advance of the change.
|
|
Motion Carried For Motion: Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Raciti, Stamolis and York Against Motion: Crs Hesse, Kiat, Porteous and Steer
|
|
Foreshadowed Motion (Kiat)
THAT Councillors be provided with a briefing on the operational service delivery area review being undertaken by an external consultant including information regarding: 1.
The consultant undertaking the
review; 2.
The scope of the brief to the
consultant; 3.
A high level view of the
consultancy contract including fees, budget and duration; 4.
The role of community
consultation in developing recommendations such as the one addressed in this
report; 5.
The role of staff and union
consultation in developing recommendations such as the one addressed in this
report; 6.
The role of councillor
consultation in developing recommendations such as the one addressed in this
report; and 7. Any reports already produced in the course of the review and the expected output of the remainder of the consultancy This Foreshadowed Motion lased. |
|
THAT Council note:
1. The Brief Report on food recycling;
2. All best practice options are already being included in the development and redesign of the organics services (outlined in the Zero Waste Strategy and Transition Plan report on the 30 October 2018); and
3. Organics processing is the subject of a CONFIDENTIAL REPORT to Council at its 11 December 2018 meeting.
|
|
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 |
|
THAT Council:
1. Receives a report on creating a fund for procurement and increasing open space through VPA funding and funds to come from penalty infringements (i.e. fines) starting at 15% in the first year and increasing 5% per annum, capped at 40%; and
2. Receive a report addressing the inclusion of a Property Acquisition Strategy for increasing open space as part of the LEP project, with the financial implications to be addressed in the 2019/20 budget process.
|
|
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 10.02pm.
|
THAT Council receives a report on:
1. Restructuring the grants
program from an annual grant to a bi-annual grants 2. The report should not reduce the amount applied for rather offer a range of grants from small, medium to large e.g. Environmental grants total $50,000
3. Prior to the report coming to Council for adoption there should be a Councillor briefing allowing Council the opportunity to inform themselves; 4. Prior to new grants being given out, Council should receive a report on the outcomes and achievement of the previous recipients to aid in the transparency and accountability to the community; 5. When Councillors receive a report on a request for financial assistance they should direct them to the grants program as the community would expect any money being expended by Council goes through a transparent and accountable process rather than a notice of motion arriving at a Council Meeting; and 6. Successful applicants in the grant program not be considered in the following years grant to allow equity of access to the grants for the whole community.
|
||||||||
|
Motion Carried For Motion: Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Raciti, Stamolis and York Against Motion: Crs Porteous and Steer Absent: Cr Kiat |
Councillor Kiat returned to the meeting at 10.05pm.
Councillor Raciti left the Meeting at 10:46 pm.
Councillor Raciti returned to the Meeting at 10:58 pm.
Councillor Kiat left the Meeting at 11:00 pm.
|
THAT Council write to the NSW labor opposition leader seeking his views on Council amalgamations.
|
|
Motion Carried For Motion: Crs Byrne, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Raciti, Stamolis and York Against Motion: Crs Da Cruz, Porteous and Steer Absent: Cr Kiat |
Councillor Kiat returned to the Meeting at 11:01 pm.
|
Councillor Passas withdrew this Motion. |
Meeting closed at 11.09pm.
Public Speakers:
|
Item #
|
Speaker |
Suburb |
|
Item 5: |
Les Banton |
Ashfield |
Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 12 February 2019
Meeting commenced at 6.34 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 Elizabeth Richardson |
Mayor Deputy Mayor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor General Manager Deputy General Manager Assets and Environment |
|
Michael Tzimoulas |
Deputy General Manager Chief Financial and Administration Officer |
|
John Warburton |
Deputy General Manager Community and Engagement |
|
Nellette Kettle
Wal Petschler David Birds Cathy Edwards-Davis Caroline McLeod Ian Naylor Katherine Paixao |
Group Manager Customer Service, Business Excellence and Civic Governance Group Manager Roads & Stormwater Group Manager Strategic Planning Group Manager Trees, Parks & Streetscapes Group Manager Library and History Services Manager Civic and Executive Support Business Paper Coordinator |
|
|
|
APOLOGIES: Nil
DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:
Clr Lockie declared a pecuniary interest in Item 3 - Library fines for lost or late items as the recommendation of the report would result in a small fine being waived for her and she will leave the chamber during discussion and voting.
Clr Byrne declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 6 - Lilyfield Rd - Assessment of Supplementary Cycle Routes as he lives near Lilyfield Road and he will leave the chamber during discussion and voting.
Clr Raciti declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 7 - Planning Proposal - 67-75 Lords Road, Leichhardt as her husband is involved with Leichhardt Tigers Soccer Club.
Clr Iskandar and Macri declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 8 - Planning Proposal - 120C Old Canterbury Road, Summer Hill as they are members of the Sydney Central Planning Panel and they will leave the chamber during discussion and voting.
Motion: (Passas/Kiat)
THAT the declaration of interest be noted.
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
Confidential Session
Motion: (Byrne/Passas)
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, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York
Against Motion: Nil
Members of the public were asked to leave the Chamber.
Motion: (McKenna OAM/Macri)
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, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York
Against Motion: Nil
The Mayor read out to the Meeting the recommendation from the Closed Session of
Council.
Reports with Confidential Information
|
C0219(2) Item 20 Recruitment of CEO |
|
Motion: (Byrne/Steer)
THAT the matter be deferred to an Extraordinary Council Meeting on 19 February 2019.
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 8:05 pm.
ADJOURNMENT
8.02pm - The Mayor, Clr Byrne adjourned the meeting for a short recess.
8.12pm– The Mayor, Clr Byrne resumed the meeting.
Suspension of Standing Orders
Motion: (Byrne/Kiat)
THAT Council Suspend Standing Orders to hear from all registered speakers and to deal with Items 6, 7, 8, 15 and 19.
Motion Carried
For Motion: Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York
Against Motion: Nil
Absent: Cr Passas
The Mayor, Clr Byrne vacated the chair at 8.15pm as he had declared a Conflict of Interest in Item 6 and the Deputy Mayor, Clr Macri assumed the chair.
The Deputy Mayor, Clr Macri vacated the chair at 8.18pm and the Mayor, Clr Byrne assumed the chair.
Councillor Passas returned to the Meeting at 8:26 pm.
Councillors Iskandar and Macri left the Meeting at 8:28 pm as they had declared a Conflict of Interest in Item 8.
Councillors Iskandar and Macri returned to the Meeting at 8:39 pm.
Councillor Passas left the Meeting at 8:45 pm.
The Mayor, Clr Byrne vacated the chair at 8.57pm as he had a conflict of interest in Item 6 and the Deputy Mayor, Clr Macri assumed the chair.
|
C0219(2) Item 6 Lilyfield Rd - Assessment of Supplementary Cycle Routes |
|
Motion: (Drury/Kiat)
THAT Council:
|
|
Motion Carried For Motion: Crs Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York Against Motion: Nil Absent: Crs Byrne and Passas |
Clr Macri vacated the chair at 9.08 pm as the Mayor, Clr Byrne assumed the chair.
Councillor Byrne returned to the Meeting at 9:08 pm.
|
C0219(2) Item 7 Planning Proposal - 67-75 Lords Road, Leichhardt |
|
Motion: (Byrne/Da Cruz)
THAT:
1. Council not support the Planning Proposal for 67-75 Lords Road, Leichhardt for the reasons outlined in the report including that:
a) It fails the Strategic Merit Test of "A guide to preparing planning proposals" pursuant to Section 3.33(2)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;
b) The proposal does not have merit and fails all of the six (6) criteria when assessed against the Parramatta Road Implementation Plan 2016 - 2023 'Out of Sequence Checklist'. In particular, the proposal:
i. Fails to satisfy Criteria 1 in that it does not adequately demonstrate that it meets the strategic, land use and development objectives outlined in the PRCUTS Implementation Plan and does not provide significant delivery, contribution or benefits for the Strategy's Corridor wide and Precinct vision. It is inconsistent with the recommended built form recommendations and does not demonstrate that the new development will achieve design excellence. The Proposal is also out of alignment with the short term growth projections identified in the strategy and does not demonstrate any significant net community, economic and environmental benefits for the Precinct; ii. Fails to satisfy Criteria 2 in that the Integrated Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IIDP) is inadequate because it is based on a concept plan for 235 dwellings in 23,158sqm of residential floorspace which at average large residential flat building dwelling gross floor area sizes of 76.35sqm could produce 303 dwellings at the development application stage; iii. Fails to satisfy Criteria 3 in that the community engagement is inadequate, has not demonstrated that there is an appropriate level of support or agreement for the proposal and has not demonstrated adequate readiness in terms of the extent of planning or business case development for key infrastructure projects; iv. Fails to satisfy Criteria 4 in that there is no certainty that the proposal achieves or exceeds the sustainability targets identified in this Strategy; v. Fails to satisfy Criteria 5 in that the proposal does not sufficiently demonstrate development feasibility analysis to meet this criterion given the Economic Impact Assessment and the feasibility advice is flawed and contains numerous assumptions, disclaimers and conclusions which are not supported; and vi. Fails to satisfy Criteria 6 in that the proposal does not sufficiently demonstrate a land use and development scenario that aligns with and responds to market conditions for the delivery of housing and employment for 2016 to 2023.
c) The Parramatta Road Corridor Transformation Strategy new dwelling targets for the Taverners Hill Precinct can readily be met and surpassed without rezoning this site;
d) In the context of persistent demand and a low and decreasing supply of industrial land, a rezoning such as this would dilute Council’s ability to provide sufficient industrial land to accommodate demand. The planning proposal would also result in: i. inconsistency with the Leichhardt Industrial Lands Study 2014 (SGS, 2014), Leichhardt Employment and Economic Development Plan (EEDP) and the Leichhardt Industrial Precincts Planning Report (SGS, 2015); ii. a net loss of jobs in the local government area; iii. the loss of an economically viable employment precinct containing local services, light industrial and other non-industrial activities which contribute to the diversity of the economy, community activities and employment opportunities; iv. a lack of merit when assessed against the criteria established by the Leichhardt Employment and Economic Development Plan 2013-2023; and v. the lack of an appropriate Net Economic and Community Benefit Test as it does not address the wider issue of cumulative loss of employment lands in the local government area.
e) It is inconsistent with the infrastructure sequencing of the PRCUTS and the submitted Integrated Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IIDP) and the offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) are unsatisfactory given the lack of adequate contributions;
f) It is inconsistent with numerous Ministerial Directions pursuant to Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 including Directions 1.1 - Business and Industrial Zones, 7.1 - Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney and 7.3 - Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy;
g) It is inconsistent with the Inner West Council Community Strategic Plan: Our Inner West 2036 – Direction 2: Unique, liveable, networked neighbourhoods and Strategic Direction 3: Creative communities and a strong economy;
h) It is inconsistent with the following elements of the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy:
Ø Policy context and the Strategy's vision and key actions for the Corridor and Taverners Hill precinct including all seven (7) principles of the Strategy; Ø Implementation Tool Kit including the Implementation Plan 2016-2023, Planning and Design Guidelines (including the Corridor wide, built form and Taverners Hill Guidelines), Infrastructure Schedule and Urban Amenity Improvement Plan; and Ø Reference Reports including the Precinct Transport Report, Economic Analysis, Fine Grain Study and Sustainability Implementation Plan.
i) It is premature in the light of the prospective outcomes of strategic planning studies and projects underway at State and Local Government levels, particularly having regard to the lack of the Precinct-wide traffic study and supporting modelling which is required under the PRCUTS to be completed to consider the recommended land uses and densities, as well as future WestConnex conditions, and identify the necessary road improvements and upgrades required as part of any proposed renewal in the Precinct;
j) It does not make an adequate contribution towards the provision of affordable housing as it is inconsistent with Council's Affordable Housing Policy 2016 which seeks a 15% contribution of gross floor area of the development as affordable housing and dedicated to Council in perpetuity;
k) It exceeds the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy recommended density by 500m² without satisfactorily demonstrating that the proposal would achieve better built form outcomes or design excellence;
l) It fails to adequately assess the following matters given the insufficient or unsatisfactory supporting studies:
i. Flooding in that the proposal is currently located within the southwest corner of the site where the flood depth is greatest and other unresolved design issues associated with the flood hazard on the site; ii. Heritage in that the Heritage Impact Statement does not adequately consider the potential heritage value of the existing buildings or whether there will be any adverse impacts on the heritage value of the nearby heritage items including the item at Lambert Park and Kegworth Public School; iii. Land contamination and State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land requirements in that the submitted Remedial Action Plan does not locate the known contamination on the site and relies on outdated sampling information; iv. Traffic impacts given an inadequate Traffic Report and supporting information is provided, particularly having regard to the likely impacts on Davies Lane of increased traffic generation; v. Public domain works and connections given the lack of an adequate outline of the proposed works and satisfactory arrangements being made with the relevant stakeholders for connections and linkages within and outside the site; vi. Economic analysis of the loss of employment land given the Economic Impact Analysis did not adequately justify this loss as it relied on the Regional and District Plans excluding the PRCUTS area from the overwhelming evidence contained in the relevant economic and industrial land literature on the loss of employment land; and vii. Sustainability targets and measures given the Sustainability Report was a generic and theoretical analysis of potential measures and failed to demonstrate that the proposal complies with the sustainability targets of the PRCUTS. m) It fails to adequately demonstrate consistency with a number of design quality principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and subsequently results in a number of urban design concerns with subsequent adverse impacts on both internal amenity and the amenity of adjoining properties including:
i. Adverse impact in terms of context having regard to the proposal being out of character within the surrounding low density residential area and therefore inconsistent with Design Quality Principle 1; ii. Setback and separation, height and articulation of the built form concerns resulting in the proposal being inconsistent with the bulk form and scale requirements of Design Quality Principle 2; iii. The proposed FSR exceeds the PRCUTS controls and the scale of residential floor space proposed on this site is not required to meet the PRCUTS projections, thereby being inconsistent with Design Quality Principle 3; iv. The proposed height of the nine storey development (35m AHD or 32m) exceeds the PRCUTS recommended maximum height of 30m; v. The proposal does not satisfy the sustainability requirements of the PRCUTS and is inconsistent with Design Quality Principle 4; vi. Potential impacts on the amenity of the area and the site which is inconsistent with Design Quality Principle 6 including:- - visual impact from the bulk and scale of buildings, - overlooking of Davies Street properties, - inadequate location and quantity of common and public open space which lacks a sufficient interface with the public domain to be considered public space and overshadowing of open space. 2. Should the Proponent request a Rezoning Review by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment, delegation is given to the Group Manager Strategic Planning to lodge a submission to the review process in accordance with this report and Council's related resolution.
|
|
Motion Carried For Motion: Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York Against Motion: Nil Absent: Cr Passas |
Councillors Iskandar and Macri left the Meeting at 9:09 pm as they had declared a Conflict of Interest in Item 8.
Councillor Passas returned to the Meeting at 9:13 pm.
|
C0219(2) Item 8 Planning Proposal - 120C Old Canterbury Road, Summer Hill |
|
Motion: (Drury/Raciti)
THAT Council:
1. Amend
the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013 for 120C Old Canterbury Road,
Summer Hill, as indicated in the report, in the terms of recommendation
2. Liaise with the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) and Parliamentary Counsel’s Office to draft and finalise the LEP Amendment;
3. Finalise
the post-exhibited Voluntary Planning Agreement with the Proponent
4. Following the completion of (3) above request DPE to notify the Plan;
5. Adopt
the site specific amendments for 120C Old Canterbury Road, Summer
6. Delegate the making of the LEP amendments and the adoption of the amended site specific Development Control Plan as indicated in this report to the Group Manager Strategic Planning.
|
|
Motion Lost For Motion: Crs Byrne, Drury, McKenna OAM, Passas, Raciti Against Motion: Crs Da Cruz, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Porteous, Stamolis, Steer and York Absent: Crs Iskandar and Macri
|
|
Foreshadowed Motion (Kiat/Hesse)
THAT:
|
|
Motion Carried For Motion: Crs Byrne, Da Cruz, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, Porteous, Stamolis, Steer and York Against Motion: Crs Drury, McKenna OAM, Passas and Raciti Absent: Crs Iskandar and Macri |
Councillors Iskandar and Macri returned to the Meeting at 9:30 pm.
|
C0219(2) Item 15 Notice of Motion: Warren Road, Marrickville |
|
Motion: (Macri/Hesse)
THAT Council:
1. Complete the necessary study and investigations for a proposed conversion of Warren Road, Marrickville from its current two-way traffic flow operation to one-way; and
2. Recommendations be submitted to the Local Traffic Committee for consideration.
|
|
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 9:42 pm.
Councillor Passas returned to the Meeting at 9:46 pm.
Councillor Passas left the Meeting at 9:53 pm.
|
C0219(2) Item 19 Notice of Motion: Air Pollution Levels Dangerously High Along Westconnex Route |
|
Motion: (Porteous/Lockie)
THAT:
1. The Mayor on behalf of Council writes to the CEO of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting an urgent meeting of the Mayor and interested Councillors with the CEO of the EPA to address the unacceptably high PM 2.5 levels which have been exceeding the National Limit of 8 and WHO limit of 10 for an extended period of time;
2. The Mayor on behalf of Council writes to the Minister for Roads and Maritime outlining the numerous breaches in national limits of PM 2.5 and the failure to produce any recent monitoring results since September 2018 from the St Peters unit and the fact that these high levels already exceed the maximum predicted levels in the M4East EIS and the M4/M5 EIS and requesting an urgent meeting (Mayor and interested Councillors) and response from the Minister as to why there have been no monitoring results since September 2018 from the St Peters unit and report on the origin of these dangerously high air pollution levels along the WestConnex route further no plan to address these high pollution levels;
3. The Mayor on behalf of Council writes to the Premier and Leader of the Opposition outlining the dangerously high air pollution levels along the WestConnex route which have now persisted for an extended period of time, requests an urgent meeting (Mayor and interested Councillors) with the Premier and with the Leader of the Opposition calls on them to commit to take urgent action to address this unacceptable risk to the health of people, including many children in the Inner West Council area;
4. The Mayor on behalf of Council writes to the Minister and Shadow Minister for Planning outlining the dangerously high air pollution levels along the WestConnex route which have already exceeded the maximum predicted levels in the M4East EIS and M4/M5 EIS; noting that the premises on which these EISs have been developed is wrong and that SMC and RMT are likely to be in breach of the conditions of consent for these projects and the EIS for the Stage 3B; further also requesting a meeting of the Mayor and interested Councillors with the Minister and with the Shadow Minister;
5. Councillors be provided with the minutes of all meetings convened to discuss air pollution concerns with WestConnex- affected Councils;
6. Council seeks partnerships with local universities to commission a comprehensive report to investigate the health impacts of the high air pollution levels along the WestConnex route. That this comprehensive study into the health impacts of WestConnex includes construction and operational health impacts and predicts the further health impacts on local Inner West families with the very high air pollution levels which will be generated by the compounding impact of WestConnex if it is opened. Funding for this report to come from the next quarterly budget review; and 7. Interested councillors be invited to attend the upcoming meeting with the centre for air pollution and update on the outcomes of the meeting.
|
|
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
|
|
Foreshadowed Motion (Byrne/McKenna OAM)
THAT the matter be deferred and interested councillors be invited to attend the upcoming meeting with the centre for air pollution and update on the outcomes of the meeting.
|
|
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/Drury)
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
|
C0219(2) Item 23 Mayoral Minute: Dawn Fraser Baths |
|
Motion: (Byrne)
THAT Council:
1. Write to the Minister for Sport thanking the NSW Government for the Greater Sydney Sports Facility Grant funding of $2.2 million for the upgrade of Dawn Fraser Baths;
2. Continue with its program for the upgrade of Dawn Fraser Baths; and
3. Report on the full scope of works for the upgrade of Dawn Fraser Baths using the currently available funding of $6.7 million at the conclusion of the Tender process.
|
|
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 left the Meeting at 10:05 pm.
The Mayor, Clr Byrne vacated the chair at 10.09pm and was assumed by the Deputy Mayor, Clr Macri.
Councillor Byrne retired from the Meeting at 10:09 pm.
Councillor Raciti returned to the Meeting at 10:17 pm.
|
C0219(2) Item 24 Mayoral Minute: Tempe Lands |
|
Motion: (Macri/Passas)
THAT Council write to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight seeking a meeting and outlining the significant financial burden likely to be placed on Council and ratepayers by any acquisition of these properties, and seeking for an initial offer to purchase and lease these lands to be made.
|
|
Motion Carried For Motion: Crs Drury, Iskandar, Kiat, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti and York Against Motion: Crs Da Cruz, Hesse, Lockie, Stamolis and Steer Absent: Cr Byrne |
|
Amendment (Stamolis/Hesse)
THAT a report come back to Council detailing examples of similar acquisitions of council income generating lands.
|
|
Motion Lost For Motion: Crs Hesse, Porteous, Stamolis and Steer Against Motion: Crs Da Cruz, Drury, Iskandar, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Raciti and York Absent: Crs Byrne
|
|
Foreshadowed Motion (Porteous)
THAT this matter be deferred until the valuation of the land is received.
This Foreshadowed Motion Lapsed. |
Councillor Hesse left the Meeting at 10:24 pm.
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
|
Motion: (Macri/Passas)
THAT with the exception of the confidential matters the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 11 December 2018 be confirmed as a correct record.
Motion Carried For Motion: Crs Da Cruz, Drury, Iskandar, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York Against Motion: Nil Absent: Crs Byrne and Hesse |
Councillor Kiat left the Meeting at 10:27 pm.
Councillor Hesse returned to the Meeting at 10:28 pm.
Councillor Kiat returned to the Meeting at 10:29 pm.
|
C0219(2) Item 1 Recreation Needs Study: A Healthier Inner West - update on priority actions |
|
Motion: (Macri/York)
THAT:
|
|
Motion Carried For Motion: Crs Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, McKenna OAM, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis, Steer and York Against Motion: Nil Absent: Cr Byrne |
Councillor Drury left the Meeting at 10:36 pm.
Councillor Passas left the Meeting at 10:42 pm.
Councillor Drury returned to the Meeting at 10:42 pm.
Councillor Passas returned to the Meeting at 10:44 pm.
|
C0219(2) Item 2 Parkfit-Alternative Sites for Fitness Stations in Parks |
|
Motion: (Stamolis/Passas)
THAT Council refer back to its previous motion from August 2018 that councillors will be consulted about the locations of fitness stations in the former Leichhardt Council. Council should be provided with detailed statistics for each location proposed in the report for fitness stations with recommendations to be brought back to Council in March 2019.
|
|
Motion Carried For Motion: Crs Da Cruz, Hesse, Iskandar, Kiat, Lockie, Macri, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis and York Against Motion: Crs Drury, McKenna OAM and Steer Absent: Cr Byrne
|
|
Foreshadowed Motion: (McKenna OAM/Kiat)
THAT Council:
1. Proceed with the installation of Fitness Stations at Ewenton Park in Balmain, 36th Battalion Park in Leichhardt and at Cohen Park in Annandale; and
2. Note the potential for fitness station locations in the future at Birchgrove Park.
This Foreshadowed Motion Lapsed. |
Clr Porteous requested Council consider an urgency motion in relation to Classics at Callan Park.
The Deputy Mayor ruled that it is the practice of the Council to consider urgency motions at the conclusion of all other business and ruled it out of order.
Councillor Lockie left the Meeting at 10:55 pm as she declared a Conflict of Interest in Item 3.
Councillor Passas retired from the Meeting at 11:04 pm.
|
C0219(2) Item 3 Library fines for lost or late items |
|
Motion: (Macri/McKenna OAM)
THAT Council endorses:
1. Writing off the existing Library late fines debt of $538,792 as part of a fine amnesty to launch the new Library Management System and that all library accounts will be cleared.
2. That late fines will only be charged for members 18 years and over.
3. That all library members, regardless of age, will need to cover the costs associated with lost or damaged items.
4. That if a library fine or total cost of overdue items exceeds $50, borrowing will be suspended and if the total cost of overdue items exceeds $100, the customer will be referred to a collections agency (following four notices being sent to the customer).
|
|
Motion Carried For Motion: Crs Da Cruz, Drury, Hesse, Iskandar, Macri, McKenna OAM, Raciti and York Against Motion: Crs Kiat, Porteous, Stamolis and Steer Absent: Crs Byrne, Lockie and Passas
|
|
Foreshadowed Motion (Kiat)
THAT Council endorses:
This Foreshadowed Motion Lapsed. |
Meeting closed at 11.10pm
The following items will be considered at the Extraordinary Council Meeting on 19 February 2019; Items 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20.
Public Speakers:
|
Item #
|
Speaker |
Suburb |
|
Item 6: |
Neil Tonkin |
Lilyfield |
|
Item 7: |
Hall Greenland Paul Dwyer Michael File |
Leichhardt Leichhardt Sydney |
|
Item 8: |
Stefanie Collins Sarah Leong Shunsuke Mukai |
Lewisham Lewisham Lewisham |
|
Item 15: |
Yvette Beaumont Daniel Mulhern Rita Machaalani |
Marrickville Marrickville Marrickville |
|
Item 19: |
Paul Jeffery Wendy Bacon |
Leichhardt Newtown |
|
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: DCP Housekeeping Project
Prepared By: Louise Higginson - Strategic Planner
Authorised By: David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning
|
SUMMARY One of the first sub-projects of the “Our Place Inner West” Project is the alignment of certain Development Control Plan (DCP) provisions across the three DCPs applicable to the Inner West Council area. The alignment will address inconsistencies between the DCPs to help improve development assessment and control processes. The full integration of the DCPs will take place at a later stage in the “Our Place Inner West” project.
This report seeks Council endorsement of draft amendments to the three DCPs for public exhibition, specifically in the areas of: · Tree control; · Site facilities and waste management; · Flood and stormwater management; · Minor inconsistencies with car parking generation rates; and · Administrative and legislative updates.
This report recommends that the draft DCPs be placed on public exhibition for 28 days in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The outcomes of this consultation will be presented to Council following the public exhibition period. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT:
1. Council resolve to publicly exhibit the proposed draft amendments to each Development Control Plan (DCP), as detailed in Attachment 2 of this report, for a period of 28 days, to align certain controls contained within the: a. Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011; b. Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013; and c. Comprehensive Inner West Development Control Plan 2016 for Ashbury, Ashfield, Croydon, Croydon Park, Haberfield, Hurlstone Park and Summer Hill (Ashfield DCP);
2. Council note that the previously resolved exhibition of the Tree Management DCP will occur concurrently with the above; and
3. The results of the public exhibition are reported to Council for consideration with any recommendations for final changes to each of the above mentioned DCPs. |
Background
Since amalgamation occurred in May 2016, Inner West Council has continued to use the existing provisions of the three former Council DCPs for the administration and assessment of Development Applications (DAs) across the LGA.
The “Our Place Inner West Project – a Land Use Planning Framework for the Inner West Council Area” (Our Place Project) is a major strategic project for the Council, and is being undertaken in line with the funding agreement under the accelerated Local Environmental Plan (LEP) Review Project and as required by the Eastern City District Plan, for which the next major milestone is the exhibition of the draft Local Strategic Planning Statement in July 2019.
The Our Place Inner West project includes the following key aspects:
· Preparation of the Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS);
· Preparation of relevant studies to support the LSPS, LEP, DCP and Contributions Plan, including:
o Integrated Transport Strategy;
o Housing Study and Strategy;
o Employment and Retail Lands Strategy; and
o The incorporation of other studies currently being undertaken by other sections of Council;
· A number of neighbourhood or locality based studies to inform the consolidated LEP and DCP;
· Consolidated Local Environmental Plan; and
· A comprehensive Development Control Plan (following submission of the LEP to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway determination).
It was identified that the comprehensive DCP will take around 2½ years until complete, and a number of inconsistent provisions of the three DCPs is needed in the short term to increase efficiencies and reduce confusion. This report relates to that aspect of the Our Place Inner West Project. Attachment 1 provides an indicative outline of stages for the Our Place Inner West Project.
Another key driver for the DCP Housekeeping sub-project has been the Tree DCP harmonisation, the exhibition of which is proposed to be undertaken concurrently with these DCP amendments. In relation to the Tree DCP, at the 27 November 2018 Council Meeting it was resolved as follows:
THAT:
1. Council resolve to publicly exhibit the draft Tree Management Development Control Plan for the Inner West, as detailed in ATTACHMENT 2 of this report, for a period of 28 days, to replace the existing tree management controls contained in:
i. the Comprehensive Inner West Development Control Plan 2016 for Ashbury, Ashfield, Croydon, Croydon Park, Haberfield, Hurlstone Park and Summer Hill;
ii. Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013; and
iii. Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.
2. The results of the public exhibition and community engagement process are presented to Council along with a final Tree DCP for adoption;
3. When the policy comes back off public exhibition, a summary of which options identified in the discussion paper have been included and excluded in the draft DCP policy be provided; and
4. A plain English language explanation of the policy be provided in the post exhibition report.
The proposed changes to Leichhardt, Marrickville and Ashfield DCP’s are in excess of 350 pages and are too large for inclusion in the Council’s Business Papers and so have been published on Council’s website and can be accessed using the link below:-
https://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/develop/planning-controls/development-control-plans-dcp
Key Housekeeping DCP Project Objectives
The project objectives are:
· To undertake minor housekeeping amendments to the three DCPs to align certain inconsistent provisions;
· To address issues raised by internal sections of Council that are known to be causing operational and equity issues in the administration and assessment of Development Applications; and
· Maintain the three separate DCPs of the former Marrickville, Ashfield and Leichardt Local Government Areas until the comprehensive DCP is prepared.
A workshop was held in August 2018 where key staff from across Council discussed the differences and inequities across the three DCPs that urgently needed resolution. Since then, smaller, more targeted workshops have been held with key staff on a number of particular topics where it was necessary to discuss issues and proposed solutions in more detail. As a result of the internal workshops and discussions, proposed amendments have been drafted for the following topic areas:
· Site facilities and waste management;
· Car parking - calculation and rates for particular uses;
· Flood management;
· Storm water management;
· Legislation updates; and
· Administrative updates.
The potential for amendment to the approaches in the existing DCPs to the notification and advertising of DAs has also been raised in the consideration of matters that could be addressed and this is currently being given further consideration. A table outlining the proposed amendments in more detail is provided in Attachment 2.
1. Site Facilities and Waste Management
A summary of the proposed amendments is as follows:
· Alignment of the generation rates for waste and recycling for units (120L per unit, per week); the DCPs currently assess the requirements for waste and recycling variously at 72 to 120 litres for each unit per week. These are catered for in 240 litre bins (except where a combination of waste chutes and 660 litre bins in the waste storage area are provided);
· Waste chutes (for general waste only) to be permitted across the LGA, while waste compaction is proposed to be prohibited across the LGA (Council collected waste only).
This will make the three DCPs consistent in this regard. Note that compaction equipment, mechanical chute diverters and recycling chutes are not supported due to waste management operation and amenity issues;
· Alignment of commercial waste generation rates across the DCPs. These rates are used to ascertain the amount of storage space and number and size of bins. The commercial waste generation rates are not reflective of land use, nor are they consistent across the three DCPs. For instance the recycling generation rate for ‘greengrocer’ varies across the DCPs from 120 litres to 410 litres per 100 m2 per day, while the waste generation rate for ‘café’ varies from 215 litres to 670 litres per 100m2 per day;
· Resource recovery collection vehicle dimensions in the DCPs do not reflect the collection vehicles currently in operation. Truck dimensions for on-site collection have been updated to reflect Council’s standard trucks, servicing 80L/ 120l/ 140L/ 240L/ 660L bins - our normal rear load compactors, noting the longest contract (for Ashfield) is to 2023. The different truck sizes cater to Council’s operational needs, and need to be efficient in terms of load capacity as well as access constraints (e.g. narrow streets). As these vehicles need to travel some distance to transfer stations outside the LGA, the larger trucks are both more efficient and produce less greenhouse emissions than many smaller trucks. This will be even more important, as waste transfer stations have been closing or are under threat of closing, which will result in larger travel distances;
· Accommodation of 660L bins (rather than 240L) is required in recycling/waste storage rooms in multi dwelling residential developments where the generation rate exceeds this level. 660L bins are only required for large residential properties where collection is from within the property boundary and it meets the DCP requirements (flat surface, rolling kerb, wider doorways etc).
Some concerns have been expressed about the larger bins on the footpath. As DAs are submitted for businesses, Council should be requiring storage and collection from within the property boundary. In this regard Council’s Waste Inspectors will be undertaking a targeted program to ensure that businesses are complying with their obligations for management of waste and recycling under state legislation.
2. Flood Management
The key amendments proposed are as follows:
· Each DCP currently contains some controls for underground or basement car parking facilities. It is proposed to align the controls in each DCP for a consistent design approach across the LGA. Enclosed garages and basements would continue to be required to have flood free access, however, minor variations will be permitted in certain circumstances in lower hazard areas. The three DCPs will all now require flood free pedestrian evacuation route basement parking;
· The three DCPs have different requirements for freeboard (the minimum floor level above the relevant flood level). A middle-ground approach is proposed allowing for merit assessment. While 500mm freeboard remains the standard, consideration would be given to reducing this to 300mm in certain circumstances;
· Inclusion of requirements for Flood Risk Management Reports. This includes when the report must be submitted and what should be included in the report. This will assist the Development Engineers in undertaking their detailed assessment of applications that are identified as being on flood liable land – reducing the risk to human life and property. This information will also be included in the “Development Application Documentation Requirements” and DA Lodgment Checklist form available on Council’s webpage. The information is included in the DCP at this stage as the changes in the requirements are quite substantial for some areas. It is anticipated that in the comprehensive DCP this information would only be available in DA documentation and lodgment requirements.
3. Stormwater Management
The key amendments proposed are
as follows:
· Amendments
are proposed to the controls related to the use of water tanks (On-Site
Retention (OSR)) in lieu of on-site detention for low density residential
development. These controls are supported by a study conducted by the
consultants Cardno (2017, Leichhardt Flood Risk Management Study) for
the former Leichhardt Council in 2017. Environmental and cost saving benefits will
result from in encouraging the use of OSR instead of OSD in the above
circumstances. The Urban Ecology Team have provided advice that they:
“support the change in the Interim DCP to make it easier for OSD to be converted into OSR (i.e. rainwater tanks), this has two benefits beyond flood control - it reduces consumption of potable water and it reduces the impacts of stormwater on waterways”.
· Amendment to the control for maintenance of surface flow paths to confirm the design/ performance criteria;
· A consistent approach to stormwater drainage is proposed, to require stormwater systems to drain by gravity (no pumps). At present one DCP allows exceptions;
· The Ashfield Stormwater Management DCP lacks a detailed set of controls for the design and ongoing management of stormwater. The chapter currently only states to “comply with the applicable requirements of the document: “Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013 – Part E4 - Stormwater Management”. The document requires updating, does not align with the Marrickville and Leichhardt DCPs and is difficult for the public to locate. Therefore, to ensure that new development is carefully designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with best practice it is proposed to include a cross reference to the Marrickville DCP Chapter on Stormwater (Part 2.25). Marrickville DCP was selected as it has a separate / standalone chapter for stormwater controls whereas the Leichhardt DCP does not. This will ensure that the three DCPs all have the same approach to the matters considered in relation to stormwater management in this report.
4. Minor Amendments to Car Parking Generation Rates
It is acknowledged that there is concern about different off street parking requirements for a number of uses including the low density residential parking rates across the LGA. However, Council is currently preparing an Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) which will be critical to inform a holistic approach to changes to the car parking generation rates that will apply across the LGA. It would be premature to seek a broader alignment of rates at this stage. Consequently the changes proposed to the current parking rates have been have been kept to a minimum, and only correct inconsistencies or anomalies, rather than a holistic review.
· Calculation Advice
Within each DCP the statement on how the parking rate is calculated is proposed to be updated and aligned. If the parking calculation results in a number that is not a whole number required it will be rounded up from 0.5 and above or otherwise down to the nearest whole number.
· Boarding House Car Parking Standards
Council’s three DCPs have different rates, both for staff/caretaker and for residents of boarding houses, with one DCP based on merit for resident numbers only.
On 1 June 2018, car parking standards were increased for boarding housing proposed to be delivered under the State Environmental Planning Policy Affordable Rental Housing 2009 (ARHSEPP). Car parking standards for boarding houses, except where provided by a Social Housing Provider, are now 0.5 spaces per room in all locations. This standard is contained at Clause 29(2)(e) of the ARHSEPP, and remains a ‘standard which cannot be used to refuse consent’. This means councils cannot refuse a boarding house application on the basis of not meeting this standard. Council may consider a lower car parking rate if appropriate. Council’s boarding house parking rate is proposed to refer directly to the ARHSEPP to avoid confusion.
· Ashfield DCP corrections
Changes are proposed to the current rates for hotels/motels/guest houses and bed and breakfast accommodation to simplify and avoid confusion. The current DCP provides a separate and different rate for the restaurant component than is required elsewhere for restaurants. The controls for restaurant parking would now be consistent within the DCP.
In addition the reference to guesthouses (not a land use in the Standard LEP instrument) and bed and breakfast are proposed to be deleted, to allow merit consideration, as for the other two DCPs.
5. Administrative Updates
Within the current Ashfield and Marrickville DCPs there is a detailed section on what information is to be submitted with development applications. The Development Assessment Team have prepared a “Development Application Documentation Requirements” and a DA Lodgment Checklist now used across the LGA. These documents are able to be updated as needed to clarify lodgment requirements. It is proposed to remove these sections from the Ashfield and Marrickville DCPs with text that states that this information can be found on Council’s webpage to avoid inconsistencies and confusion.
6. Legislation Updates
The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 was updated in March 2018. The update resulted in changes to existing section numbers for parts of the Act frequently used and consequently noted in the current DCPs.
Additionally the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and the amendments to the Local Land Services Act 2013 commenced on 25 August 2017, replacing the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Consequently a number of existing references in the current DCPs are proposed to be updated with the new legislative references.
The proposed amendments will simply replace the old provision references with references to the new provisions as required by the legislation.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Staff resources have been allocated to the preparation and administration (including public exhibition) of this project from the Strategic Planning Group budget.
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
As noted above extensive internal staff discussions assisted in the drafting of the proposed amendments to certain controls across the three DCPs. The following sections of Council have had input into the DCP Housekeeping project:
· Strategic Planning Group;
· Development Assessment and Regulatory Services;
· Resource Recovery Operations and Resource Recovery Planning;
· Urban Ecology;
· Development Engineers;
· Communications, Engagement and Events; and
· Legal Services.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
It is proposed to publicly exhibit the draft Housekeeping DCP at the same time as the Tree Management DCP chapter. On 11 September 2018, Council resolved to accompany the exhibition of the Tree management DCP with an LGA-wide mail out in five languages other than English.
At the same time and in the same manner as the draft Tree Management DCP chapter, it is recommended that the Housekeeping amendments be exhibited as follows:
· Public exhibition of the proposed amendments for 28 days (as per requirements under the EP&A Act);
· Advice on where to find the draft Housekeeping amendments to each DCP within the flyer on the Tree Management DCP;
· “Your Say Inner West” Project Page on Council’s website with an option for the public to make submissions online;
· Advertisement within the Inner West Courier; and
· A hard copy of the proposed draft amendments at the Ashfield, Leichhardt and Petersham Service Centres and libraries.
CONCLUSION
The draft amendments to certain provisions with the three DCPs have been developed to address particular issues that are causing operational and equity issues in the administration and assessment of Development Applications. It is recommended that the Draft DCPs be exhibited to enable the community to provide feedback on the proposed changes.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Available as hard copy in Council agenda:
1. Project Staging – Our Place Inner West Project – a Land Use Planning Framework for the Inner West Council Area
2. Table of Key DCP Alignment Issues and Recommendations
Available online as electronic attachments - Please follow the link below to directly access the relevant attachment:
3. Proposed Draft Amendments to the Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013
4. Proposed Draft Amendments to the Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011
5. Proposed Draft Amendments to the Comprehensive Inner West Development Control Plan 2016 for Ashbury, Ashfield, Croydon, Croydon Park, Haberfield, Hurlstone Park and Summer Hill (Ashfield DCP)
https://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/develop/planning-controls/development-control-plans-dcp
|
1.⇩ |
Project Staging - Our Place Inner West Project – a Land Use Planning Framework for the Inner West Council Area |
|
2.⇩ |
Table of Key DCP Alignment Issues and Recommendations |
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: Globe Wilkins Preschool
Prepared By: Louise Brennan - Coordinator Early Childhood Services and Annette Morgan - Group Manager Children and Family Services
Authorised By: Annette Morgan - Group Manager Children and Family Services
|
SUMMARY NSW Education has indicated that the lease for the Globe Wilkins Preschool will not be extended past the end of the current lease, December 2019, at the current site of the Preschool on Wilkins School grounds. In December 2018, Council lodged a submission as part of an Expression of Interest process with NSW Education regarding an identified parcel of land on Wilkins School grounds on which to build and operate a preschool. At the time of writing this report, a response had not been received from NSW Education. Since 2010 the preschool has catered for children aged three to five years only. Enrolments over the past twelve months have been tracking at a maximum of 36 per day out of an approved capacity of 50 per day. Upon consultation with parent representatives from Globe Wilkins Preschool in late December 2018, it was agreed that Council consider inclusion of two to three-year-olds into the service. Preschools in NSW attract equity funding aimed at prioritising target groups, specifically 4 year olds in the year before school and 3 year olds meeting certain criteria. Children under three years of age do not attract any of this funding. To ensure the service continues to meet the funding criteria, maintains compliance with staffing Regulations, has a cost neutral impact to the financial operations and is able to cater for under 2 year olds, the fees for those groups not attracting funding needs to be at the full daily fee set for the service. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT:
1. Council endorses the published full preschool daily fee be charged for children aged 2 years (25 months) old up 35 months (3 years).
2. Continued adherence to State policy and funding requirements that includes that no subsidy is applicable to enrolled children who are 25-35 months of age. |
BACKGROUND
Prior to 2010, Globe Wilkins Preschool enrolled children aged from 2 years (25 months) up to 5 years of age. When the State Government Preschool policy and funding guidelines changed in 2010 (and subsequent reviews), priority of access and funding subsidies are now focused on providing access to preschool hours for children:
· at least 4 years old, in the year before school;
· at least 3 years old and from low income and/or Aboriginal families;
· at least 3 years with English language needs;
· at least 3 years with disability and additional needs; and
· at least 3 years and at risk of significant harm.
Funding criteria for the above target groups remains in 2019 and excludes children outside any of the target groups above and for children under 3 years. Current enrolments at Globe remain compliant with State Government Policy, attracting funding from the State who set the priority target groups as listed above. The funding enables a significant fee reduction for those children from the target groups who meet the funding criteria. The current Council fee set is at a level that no child who meets the funding criteria in the target groups listed above is charged, as funding covers the current attendances of these enrolled children.
Over the past 12 months, enrolments at Globe have tracked at a maximum of 36 children per day. Current enrolments at Globe are showing to be similar with figures of last year, that is, substantially lower than the maximum daily approved number of 50. Enrolling two and up to three-year-old children will not compromise the current funding for the target groups, provided access to the preschool remains available to them. With so many vacancies in the target groups, Children and Family Services officers are confident the Preschool will still have places for any child in the target groups.
In addition, an increase in enrolments will provide access to preschool hours for children under three who may not otherwise be able to access such services and whose older siblings also attend either the preschool or Wilkins School. It will also ensure continued viability of the service, which maintains a staffing structure that can support enrolled children under three years.
Globe Wilkins Preschool staffing structure is set at standards and budget to meet the Education and Care Services National Regulations. Enrolling children under three years of age requires compliance with Regulations regarding staffing for that age group; a ratio of one adult to five children (1:5) for children 2-3 years, compared with a ratio of one adult to ten children (1:10) for children 3-5 years. Current staffing at Globe can remain compliant for this stipulated Regulatory ratio for up to ten (10) children aged two to three years per day.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Enrolling up to a maximum of ten (10) children aged from 24 months up to 3 years and applying the current highest daily fee, $70 with no subsidy will improve revenue without a negative impact on the staffing and other operational costs. Additionally, in 2018 the State Government announced some funding support for enrolment of 3-year-old children, with a small subsidy to that age group. Enrolling the under 3-year olds will enable a continued enrolment into the priority age groups and provide a more sustainable service to the community.
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
An endorsement by Council, as outlined in this report, for the published full daily fee to be administered to allow children aged two to three years attend Globe Wilkins Preschool will enable the enrolment process to begin immediately for children in this age group. Any alternative process will delay the enrolment of the younger children by a further two to three months.
Below is an excerpt from the current Fees and Charges indicating the current full daily fee:
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Children and Family Services (CFS) consulted with the Globe Wilkins Preschool families and staff during 2018. CFS officers and Executive Leadership including the General Manager and Deputy General Manager met on a number of occasions with the Save Globe Preschool Group also during 2018. It is acknowledged that Councillors have also met with the Save Globe Preschool Group on various occasions.
At one of the meetings with CFS and Executive Leadership, the Globe parent representatives raised a request that Council consider inclusion of under 3-year olds into the service. Officers at those meetings gave verbal support to the request with the understanding that the published full daily fee to be charged for children in the two to three-year-old age group should be considered by Council.
CONCLUSION
Nil.
|
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: Ashfield Aquatic Centre Redevelopment Monthly Project Status Report
Prepared By: Brooke Martin - Group Manager Properties, Major Building Projects and Facilities
Authorised By: Elizabeth Richardson - Deputy General Manager Assets and Environment
|
SUMMARY The redevelopment of the Ashfield Aquatic Centre is a significant infrastructure project for Inner West Council. This February 2019 monthly report is provided to inform the community on the projects progress, costs, value management, approvals, programme, independent project assurance, communications, issues and risks. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council:-
1. Receive and note the monthly status report.
2. Endorse the template for ongoing monthly reports. |
BACKGROUND
Council resolved at the 13th November 2018 meeting the following:
THAT:
1. Council endorse the final program and a final budget for Ashfield Aquatic Centre Redevelopment of $44,752,145;
2. A contract is awarded to FDC Construction for the construction of the Ashfield Aquatic Centre Redevelopment for the agreed amount of $37,250,432 which excludes the nominated value management items;
3. The final budget includes $1,500,000 in value management savings to be negotiated by officers;
4. Given the very significant public funding of the Ashfield pool and the importance of delivery and oversight of this project, that Council provide a monthly report to an Ordinary Council meeting until the project is delivered; and
5. Council to provide detail to its community about the decision and how it will be
funded and why Council considers its funding feasible and secure, at the earliest opportunity. This should appear on Council’s website, the Inner West Courier, social media and other means.
The redevelopment of the Ashfield Aquatic Centre (AAC) includes the following works:
· New 50 metre pool with accessible ramp and pool divider
· New outdoor program pool with moveable floor, suitable for a range of uses
· New children’s leisure pool with landscaping and green wall
· New entry building with gym, café, change areas, crèche and retail
· New sauna, steam and spa
· New community meeting rooms
· Green space, covered seating, landscaped areas and terraces
· More parking
The Monthly Project Status Report for February 2019 in response to Point 4 of the above resolution is provided in Attachment 1. The report is intended to provide Council will a high-level progress report on how the delivery of the project is tracking against schedule and budget; and how key risks are being managed.
The community information in response to Point 5 of the above resolution is provided in Attachment 2.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Council has endorsed a budget of $44,725,145. Council’s loan application has been lodged with T Corp.
The monthly status report will provide Council an update on how the project is progressing against the endorsed budget.
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
The Project Control Group including Deputy General Manager Assets & Environment, Deputy General Manager Community & Engagement, Chief Financial Officer, Group Manager Aquatics and Group Manager Property, Major Building Projects & Facilities have endorsed the monthly report.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
The Monthly Project Status Report will provide ongoing updates on communications to the community throughout the life of the project.
|
1.⇩ |
Council Monthly Project Progress Report February 2019 |
|
2.⇩ |
Community update January 2019 |
|
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
|
Ashfield Aquatic Centre Redevelopment Council Status Report February 2019 |
|
1.0 Budget
|
Approved Budget |
$44,752,145 |
|
Forecast Final Cost |
$44,752,145 |
|
Remaining Contingency |
$3,231,473 |
|
Expenditure to Date |
$3,020,875 |
|
Key Variances in Period |
Nil |
2.0 Value Management
Council resolved that ‘the final budget includes $1,500,000 in value management savings to be negotiated by officers’.
Weekly Value Management workshops commenced in January 2019 and will continue until the value management target of $1.5M is reached. Below is the progress of value management to date:
All stated figures exclude GST.
3.0 Onsite Progress
Works completed over the past month include:
· fence installation,
· site shed installation; and
· services disconnection.
Works forecast for the coming month include:
· Demolition commencement.
4.0 Head Construction Contract - FDC
Early Works contract executed 24 December 2018.
Formal contract execution forecast for late February / early March 2019.
5.0 Statutory Approvals
Development Application Approval: Approval issued 24 May 2018.
Construction Certificate: In progress
6.0 Programme
|
Stage |
Date |
|
Early Works Commence (Fencing, Sheds, Services Disconnect, Etc) |
21 January 2019 (Actual) |
|
Early Works Complete (Fencing, Sheds, Services Disconnect, Etc) |
28 February 2019 (Forecast) |
|
Demolition Commence |
28 February 2019 (Forecast) |
|
Earthworks and Civil Works Commence |
29 April 2019 (Forecast) |
|
Construction Works Commence |
03 June 2019 (Forecast) |
|
Construction Works Complete |
July 2020 (Forecast) |
|
Handover and Commissioning |
August 2020 (Forecast) |
|
Facility Open |
August 2020 (Forecast) |
7.0 Project Assurance
· The Project Control Group continues to meet monthly.
· Tender Release – Independent review of the project completed by PPB Advisory June - July 2018 - Completed
· Tender Assessment – Independent review of the tender panel assessment by Prevention Partners August – November 2018 - Completed
· Contract Commitment – Independent review of the contract negotiations by Prevention Partners November - December 2018. - Completed
· Site Works, Piling & Demolition – Current Action
· All Trade Shop Drawings are Final – Future Action
· Building Secure, Pool Secure – Future Action
· Commissioning – Future Action
· Readiness For Service – Future Action
· Post Implementation – Future Action
8.0 Key Risks
· Programme delay due to late issue of the Construction Certificate.
There is a Sydney Water Section 73 approval pending. DA amendment required for the Construction Certificate is being considered 5th March 2019 by IHAP. The Sydney Trains consent was received 6th February 2019. The Project Control Group is reviewing commencing demolition in preparation of the release of Construction Certificate #1 once the Sydney Water approval is received.
· Cost risk if value management target is not realised.
Weekly Value Management workshops are underway and the Lead Design Consultant is exploring savings in regards to the services.
· Poor coordination of latent discoveries and earthwork requirements during the upcoming works phase.
An independent consultant will be engaged to provide expert technical advice to the project team to identify and resolve any issues quickly.
9.0 Stakeholder Communications
Communication activities performed in the last month:
· Project information flyer released by IWC to residents.
Communication activities planned for upcoming month:
· FDC notification to surrounding residents of demolition commencement.
Monthly reports will be placed on the website page for Ashfield Aquatic Centre Major Project.
10.0 Site Photos
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: Reusable Coffee Cups
Prepared By: Kate Jackson - Coordinator Community Sustainability
Authorised By: Jan Orton - Group Manager Environment and Sustainability
|
SUMMARY In August 2018, Council resolved to support the Responsible Cafes program and requested officers investigate the potential to pilot a reusable coffee cup initiative, inspired by the Freiburg Cup model in Germany.
This report provides a progress update, including information about reusable cup schemes and recommendations for a proposed pilot to commence in mid-2019. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council:
1. Endorses the development and delivery of a reusable coffee cups pilot with Green Caffeen and Responsible Cafes;
2. Notes that the coffee cups pilot and membership of the Responsible Cafes program will be funded from the current Urban Sustainability Budget; and
3. Note that co-branding with Inner West based coffee roasters will not be part of this pilot.
|
BACKGROUND
Australia disposes of a billion coffee cups each year, or 2.7 million cups each day. The ABC’s War on Waste created unprecedented community interest in alternatives to disposable coffee cups, resulting in a surge in sales of reusable cups and new cafes joining the Responsible Cafes program.
The Our Inner West 2036 (Community Strategic Plan) seeks outcomes where:
· the people and infrastructure of the Inner West contribute positively to the environment and tackle climate change (Outcome 1.1.1)
· the Inner West is a zero waste community with an active share economy. (Outcome 1.1.5, Our Inner West 2036).
In August 2018, Council resolved to support the Responsible Cafes program and investigate the potential to pilot a reusable cup scheme, inspired specifically by the Freiburg Cup model in Germany. The details of the resolution are outlined in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Progress – Supporting Use of Keep Cups (C0818 2) Item 21
|
Action |
Status |
|
1. Council immediately supports the successful Responsible Cafes initiative by becoming a program partner for two years at a cost of $3500, to be funded through domestic waste levy |
Completed. Membership has been funded from the current Urban Sustainability Budget |
|
2. A report be prepared on the potential for piloting a reusable cup initiative to reduce consumption of single use, disposable coffee cups. The report should include assessment of: |
Subject of this report
|
|
a. The potential for a pilot to be limited to a single suburb to allow universal café participation to be achievable in the short term |
|
|
b. Local café owners who might be willing to become advocates and assist council in recruiting other businesses |
|
|
c. Links to any available business cases or reviews of municipal or city wide or government initiated reusable cups schemes |
|
|
d. Given the large proportion of disposable cups that are deposited in domestic waste bins, the potential for such a pilot to be funded through the waste levy or reserve. |
|
|
3. The vital component of the Freiburg cup is the deposit scheme and this should be part of the Inner West implementation; and |
|
|
4. Council work with Inner West based coffee roasters on branding the cups. |
2. REPORT
2.1 Responsible Cafés Program Partner
Council signed a two year agreement with Responsible Cafes in October 2018 to support and promote the program as a council partner. Responsible Cafes connects cafes with consumers by encouraging cafes to eliminate or reduce disposable coffee cups by offering a discount to customers with reusable takeaway cups.
For cafes, being a member of Responsible Cafes saves money and reduces waste, and incentivises customers to do the right thing by bringing their own cups and fostering a culture of reuse. Across Australia 4736 businesses are registered Responsible Cafes and the program has helped save 60.9 million cups from landfill.
Council’s Facebook post, announcing the partnership with Responsible Cafes, featured local café Buddha Bowl. This post reached 6,300 people and received hundreds of positive responses.
The number of Responsible Cafes has grown to over 50 in the Inner West.
2.2 Piloting an Inner West Reusable Cup Initiative
2.2.1 Background Research
In response to the August resolution, staff completed background research about existing and emerging reusable coffee cup initiatives.
More than a dozen businesses, organisations and individuals that deliver and promote reusable cup initiatives in Australia were identified. The initiatives underway in Australia and overseas demonstrate the capability of the community, small businesses and not-for-profits to lead and innovate in this area. A summary of the research outcomes is included in Attachment 1 to this report.
Rather than compete with or duplicate the efforts of these emerging reusable coffee cups organisations, Council called for expressions of interest from known providers in this emerging industry, to work with Council on delivering the pilot.
2.2.2 Expression of Interest (EOI)
Organisations that were identified through the background research were invited to submit an Expression of Interest (EOI) to work with Council on an Inner West Reusable Coffee Pilot.
Council received nine EOIs in November 2018. These were considered by a panel of staff from Resource Recovery, Economic Development and Urban Sustainability using the following criteria:
1. Method and quality of service proposed;
2. Demonstrated ability to deliver (capacity and expertise);
3. Willingness/ability to partner with one or more other organisations; and
4. Value for money.
Within the above criteria the panel considered factors including:
· How accessible and easy to use the model would be for cafes and customers
· Likely level of participation and community support
· Environmental impact
· Resources (Council, cafes, stakeholders) set up costs and ongoing costs
· Long term economic sustainability
Out of the EOIs received, the Green Caffeen and Responsible Cafes’ joint proposal scored the highest against the above criteria.
Green Caffeen is a small business that has rapidly expanded its swap and go coffee cup scheme. There is a growing network of 150 cafes and bakeries from the South Coast to Port Macquarie where customers can swap and drop their Green Caffeen cup.
Over 50 Responsible Cafés member businesses are currently located in the Inner West. Existing cases show Responsible Café membership is a strong indicator that a business will be willing to adopt the Green Caffeen reusable cup scheme.
Both Green Caffeen and Responsible Cafes have an excellent track record of engagement and communication, including face-to-face engagement and recruitment of cafes, staff and customers.
2.2.3 Proposed Pilot – Inner West Council, Green Caffeen and Responsible Cafes
The proposed pilot would be a partnership between Inner West Council, Green Caffeen and Responsible Cafes.
The pilot will firstly engage 30 cafes and their customers across the Inner West. It will include targeting universal uptake by cafes in a focus suburb.
Large numbers of Inner West residents commute to work. While most drive, a significant proportion (19.5%), take the train. With 77.5% of residents working outside the Inner West there are large numbers taking a coffee away from the area they buy it. The proximity of trains, buses and ferries to cafes was taken into account in selecting potential focus suburbs and will be one of the challenges for the pilot project.
Summer Hill, Rozelle, Annandale or Dulwich Hill have ben nominated as potential focus suburbs for the pilot due to:
· The concentration of cafes and shops
· The whole suburb being within Inner West local government area
· The proximity of cafes to one another – walkability to drop off used cups
· The potential for people to remain in the suburb long enough to drink their coffee
· Their strong sense of identity as a neighbourhood
· High levels of interest in sustainability in the local community and businesses
The focus suburb will be confirmed after local cafes and customers have been engaged by Green Caffeen and Responsible Cafes. The proposed program has been shown to work well at a neighbourhood level and is potentially scalable to any café with a dishwashing machine in the Inner West.
2.2.4 How the scheme works
Coffee customers:
· Download the Green Caffeen app to their phone.
· Pay a monthly subscription fee of $4.99. In their EOI, Green Caffeen offered a free trial for the first month of the pilot for Inner West customers to encourage participation.
· Use the app to check out the Green Caffeen cup from the participating café.
· Check the cup back in at any participating café (regardless of whether they buy a coffee there).
If the cup is not returned after three weeks, the customer is charged $7.99 which acts as an incentive to return the cup, similar to a deposit system. It also reduces ongoing costs and resource use by reducing cup loss.
Cafes:
· There are no fees for cafes to participate
· Cafes are recruited and staff on-boarded by Green Caffeen and Responsible Cafes.
· Display a Green Caffeen sign at the counter and stock about 50 cups which are topped up by Green Caffeen when they get low.
· May act as champions to help engage and recruit other businesses to participate.
· Wash Green Caffeen cups returned to their café in their commercial dishwasher, and save on the cost of purchasing disposables.
2.2.6 Pilot Program Co-branding
Co-branding with multiple individual roasters or cafes is not appropriate in this model, because of the large number of roasters and cafes that would be involved.
The logistics of attaching cups to individual cafes and their roasters would complicate the pilot, but co-branding with Council is an option.
Council’s own branding project is well underway, but is not anticipated to be finalised before the commencement of the coffee cups pilot which is anticipated to commence in May- June 2019. To address this, all cups in the pilot will be co-branded with ‘Inner West’ in a simple strong font. Urban Sustainability and Marketing and Communications staff will work together on this part of the project.
2.2.7 Targets for the pilot
Targets for the pilot are:
1. Participation by all cafes in one suburb, with a total of 30 cafes across the Inner West
2. 270,000 disposable cups avoided over 12 months.
Targets will be tracked by the app which collects information about sign-ups, cup use and diversion rates. Green Caffeen will report data to Council on a quarterly basis for 24 months.
2.2.8 Next Steps
If endorsed, the pilot will be launched in May – June 2019 following engagement and consultation with cafes and customers. Staff will work with project partners to engage and consult with local cafés, confirm the location, and move to full pilot implementation.
If endorsed, officers will:
1. Formalise the agreement with Green Caffeen and Responsible Cafes
2. Work with Green Caffeen and Responsible Cafes to engage directly with local customers and cafes about the pilot including a café round table with café owners and managers.
3. Following the round table establish the target suburb
4. Complete detailed project planning and cup production
5. Launch the pilot
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The total commitment for the reusable coffee cup pilot is $18,600 comprising:
· $17,050 service fee to Green Caffeen and Responsible Cafes for cover engagement of 30 Inner West cafes, 1500 cups, promotional materials, program data and a fee-free service for Inner West customers for the first month
· $500 printing costs
· $300 for local café roundtable discussion
· $750 (contingency only, if up to 750 additional cups are required during the pilot)
Over the longer term, other than promotion no recurrent funding should be required from Council for the reusable coffee cups scheme. The ongoing financial implications will be assessed at the completion of the trial.
Funding Source
Council resolved at its meeting in August 2018 that:
· Given the large proportion of disposable cups that are deposited in domestic waste bins, the potential for such a pilot to be funded through the waste levy or reserve.
Waste Services related to commercially provided takeaway coffee cups do not comprise “domestic waste services” as defined by clause 11.2 of the Local Government Act 1993, so this pilot cannot be resourced through domestic waste funding.
The cost of the pilot, associated promotion and $3500 cost of two year’s membership of Responsible Cafes can be funded from the current Urban Sustainability program budget.
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
Staff from Resource Recovery Planning and Economic Development have been involved in the development of recommendations provided in this report.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Nil.
|
1.⇩ |
BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON EXISTING REUSABLE COFFEE CUP SCHEMES |
|
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
INNER WEST COUNCIL
BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON EXISTING REUSABLE COFFEE CUP SCHEMES
Contents
1 Background
2 Examples of reusable cup scheme models
3 Impact of reusable cup schemes
4 The role of local government in reusable cup schemes
5 Challenges to success of reusable coffee cup schemes
6 Conclusion
Coffee culture and good coffee is part of Inner West’s identity. Busy, competitive local coffee businesses, bakeries and other outlets continue to provide disposable cups as the default option for takeaway coffees. It is normal practice to use them. They are perceived as convenient, hygienic, familiar and relatively cheap. With no regulation or limits on single use cups at state or federal level, there is little incentive for cafes or consumers to choose a different path.
Australia disposes of a billion coffee cups each year, or 2.7 million cups each day.
They have negative environmental impacts through their life cycle from production through to disposal and beyond. The manufacture, transport and disposal results in greenhouse gas emissions. The cups are sent to landfill as the cup composite of paper and plastic and plastic lids are not easily recyclable. Many cups become litter in public places and waterways. In these environments cups can break down into small particles and other chemicals that enter ecosystems and food chains.
The “polluter-pays” principle does not apply to disposable coffee cups. Those who benefit directly from the cups through profit, brand recognition and convenience (manufacturers, retailers and customers) do not directly bear the cost of the environmental harm. The associated costs of waste and litter management and disposal, and remediation of environmental damage to ecosystems are paid for by the whole community through governmental taxes and council rates to fund prevention campaigns, clean ups, street cleaning, waste disposal and remediation of environmental damage.
Disposable coffee cups are symbolic of our throwaway society as highlighted on the ABC’s War on Waste. The feature on coffee cups created unprecedented community interest in alternatives to disposables, as well as a surge in sales of reusable cups and many new cafes joining the Responsible Cafes program.
The Inner West community’s vision is that the people and infrastructure of the Inner West contribute positively to the environment and tackle climate change (Outcome 1.1.1, Our Inner West 2036) and that the Inner West is a zero waste community with an active share economy. (Outcome 1.1.5, Our Inner West 2036)
In August 2018, Council resolved to support the Responsible Cafes program and investigate the potential to pilot a reusable cup scheme, inspired specifically by the Freiburg Cup model in Germany.
Reusable cup schemes seek to reduce takeaway coffee cup waste by making it easier for customers and cafes to reuse a single cup many times. In the waste hierarchy, these schemes don’t avoid cup waste completely, since the materials in reusable cups eventually need to be recycled and then disposed of. To avoid waste, the best option would be to drink the coffee in the café from a regular non disposable coffee cup, or not have a coffee.
Reusable cups schemes remove some of the barriers for customers who would normally use a disposable cup such as:
- The cost and effort of buying a reusable cup
- Remembering to take a reusable cup with them
- Carrying around a dirty reusable cup
- Having to wash their own reusable cup
Reusable cup schemes usually try to replicate the disposable cup system as closely as possible so minimal behaviour change is required of customers, café owners and staff. The schemes aim to make it easy for cafes to incorporate the service into their business model with minimal effort from staff or customers. The schemes can offer benefits to cafes such as reducing the cost of purchasing disposable cups, creating a unique service or competitive point of difference, and the feel-good factor that they are doing the right thing for the environment.
Despite their benefits, the schemes are competing with an entrenched culture of convenience, and usually involve a direct cost to cafes and/or customers.
2 Examples of reusable cup scheme models
Many schemes are being developed in Australia and internationally however there is limited publicly available information such as case studies or evaluations. Many schemes only engage with commercial office buildings, events, or individual cafes and are not city wide. An overview of the features of reusable coffee cup programs with links to relevant supplier or initiative information that is publicly available is summarised in the Table 1 below.
Table 1: Features of existing reusable cup initiatives
|
Feature |
Description |
Examples |
|
Swap and go
|
Provides customers with a distinctive cup which they use and return to participating cafes for washing. Usually charge a purchase price or ongoing fee for service. Some schemes track cups, or use a deposit to encourage return of the cup and others do not. |
Ruzi – Sydney GreenCaffeen, NSW Huskee Swap Australia Recup - Germany Globelet – NZ/Australia Vessel - Colorado Viva la Cup - Melbourne TCX, Sydney |
|
Cup check in or tracking |
Customer or cafe can check cup in and out using technologies such as QR codes, RFID, smart phone apps or scanners. |
TCX - Sydney Ruzi – Sydney GreenCaffeen, NSW Vessel - Colorado Globelet – NZ/Australia
|
|
Collection and washing service |
Supplier collects and washes reusable cups then returns them to cafes. Specific bins or collection points are often provided. This model works best for special events, commercial centres and other locations in which there a single manager has control of waste. |
Go2Cup, Western Australia Ruzi – Sydney
|
|
Subscription service |
Customer or café pays regular fee for service provided. |
Green Caffeen, NSW
|
|
Deposit system |
Customer is charged if cup is not returned via credit card details or cash deposit. |
Green Caffeen, NSW Go2Cup, Western Australia |
|
BYO cup discount |
Cafes offer a discount to customers for bringing their own re-useable cup |
Individual cafes |
|
|
Customers borrow and return re-useable mugs from cafés free of charge. Usually second hand mugs are provided. |
Cornersmith, Annandale Saint Mondays, Melbourne Tonic Lane, Sydney The Cup Exchange, WA (Emu Point Café and others) |
|
Café no longer provide disposable cups at all. Customers must drink in-house or bring their own takeaway cup. Some sell or provide reusable cups or mugs to customers to take away. This is the only method that avoids all disposable cup waste. |
Antz Inya Pantz, Perth Tonic Lane, Sydney Handsome Her, Melbourne |
|
|
Disposable cup fee |
Café charges a small fee for the use of disposable cups. This is model is similar to the way the large supermarket chains now charge customers for the use of single use plastic bags. This model works because people are “more sensitive to losses (fees/penalties) than to gains (discounts)”. |
Brindabella Café, Canberra Starbucks, UK-wide |
Image: Feel good factor: bakeries and cafes currently participating in Green Caffeen in NSW
3 Impact of reusable cup schemes
Organisations working with cafés in Australia estimate that 4 -8% of customers already voluntarily bring their own reusable cups, a figure that was boosted by ABC’s War on Waste. Little information is available about neighbourhood, suburb or city-wide scale reusable cup schemes’ impact on the number of disposable cups used.
The Freiburg cup has been celebrated internationally for providing customers with an alternative, reducing litter in Freiburg, raising awareness of disposable cups and raising awareness of the need to take policy actions to tackle them. However, the Freiburg cup is still not the most preferred option for takeaway coffee in Freiburg. The impact on the scheme on actually reducing single use cups was not tracked. (The Story of the Freiburg Cup, Zero Waste Europe, 2018)
Go2Cup in Mundaring, Western Australia shared the results of their program with Council. They estimated that cafes offering their free no-deposit scheme stocked around 100 cups and had a turnaround of 20-30 cups per week. Cups circulated at a rate that would have resulted in about 10,000 single use cups per year being prevented from going to landfill.
4 The role of local government in reusable cup schemes
Initiatives underway in Australia and overseas show the capability of the community, small businesses and not-for-profits to lead and innovate in this area. The role of local government in existing schemes is largely focused on supporting or promoting initiatives, rather than driving or coordinating them.
All initiatives, except for the Freiburg cup, have been coordinated and driven by start-up companies, not-for-profit organisations or cafes. No schemes except the Freiburg Cup have been coordinated by government or local government. Local government has provided support for reusable cup schemes in other ways including:
· Funds for the ongoing cost of supplying the cups and promotional materials to businesses.
· A one-off financial contribution to support a chosen scheme provider.
· A grant program to support businesses to join a scheme.
· Sponsorship for promotion e.g. co-branding of cups.
· In-kind support through campaign promotion and business recruitment.
5 Challenges to success of reusable coffee cup schemes
While the Inner West community supports moving away from single use culture in principle, any system that aims to reduce the use of disposable cups will face some challenges. The experience of the Freiburg Cup, a voluntary, government-supported scheme has revealed some barriers to success that any scheme in the Inner West is likely to face. Zero Waste Europe’s case study of the Freiburg cup found that consumers had little incentive to stop using disposable cups because
“There is a lack of level playing field between the single-use cups, that are free of charge and do not require additional effort, and the reusable ones, that require taking them back to a café." Zero Waste Europe 2018.
Furthermore, because the municipal government, and not cafes are the driver of the scheme and exclusively bear the cost of the Freiburg Cup. Cafes had little incentive to get rid of disposable cups because the sustainability of the project depended on the political will of the city. Challenges for reusable cup schemes around the world include:
1. Inconvenience of change
For cafes disposable cups are relatively cheap, light to store and handle, can be written on and branded and do not need to be washed or disposed of by the business.
For customers, coffee cups are perceived as normal, hygienic, easy and quick. They can be easily disposed of.
Use of a reusable cups requires changes to how customers and cafés operate even if the change is as small as returning a cup to a cafe.
2. Cost and risk
There is an additional cost to all organized disposable cup schemes. In contrast, customers and cafes absorb the small financial cost of purchasing disposable cups. There is no economic incentive not to use them. Cafes margins on coffee are small and the industry is highly competitive. It is an economic risk for cafes to change a service that is working, requires more of staff or risk losing customers.
3. Habit
People’s values and intentions don’t always match up with their behaviour. Most decisions people make are based on mental shortcuts (fast brain). Even if people are highly motivated to stop using disposable cups, many immediate and competing factors win out at the coffee counter –what friends or family are doing, cost, effort, habit, pleasure and convenience. Drinking from a disposable cup is an accepted social norm (unwritten rule of acceptable behaviour) which means it is especially challenging to change. All schemes require a level of change from customers and cafes that struggle to compete with the default option of disposable cups.
Australia disposes of a billion coffee cups each year. Council has limited direct influence on coffee cup waste but is able to partner with private sector and not-for profit organisations that are actively developing reusable cup schemes to encourage coffee cup reuse to reduce disposable cup waste. Where schemes are active there is limited publicly available information on their environmental impact in reducing disposable cup use. The challenges are great as all schemes are competing with an entrenched culture of convenience and involve additional direct cost to cafes and/or customers. Despite these barriers the schemes can offer Inner West cafes and customers a unique service and the feel-good factor that they are making a better choice for the environment.
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: Weed Management
Prepared By: Cathy Edwards-Davis - Group Manager Trees, Parks and Sports Fields
Authorised By: Elizabeth Richardson - Deputy General Manager Assets and Environment
|
SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to review Council’s current weed management methodologies and outline alternative methodologies.
This report is seeking Council’s endorsement of the draft Weed Management Policy to be placed on public exhibition for 28 days, with the results presented to Council along with a final Policy for adoption.
|
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT:
1. The draft Weed Management Policy be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days. 2. The draft Pesticide Notification Plan be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days. 3. The results of the public exhibition and community engagement process are presented to Council along with a final Weed Management Policy and Pesticide Notification Plan for adoption. 4. Council note the Weed Management Annexure. 5. Council engage a consultant to review existing herbicide use and make recommendations on improved risk mitigation as outlined in the report. 6. Council note the risk mitigation methodologies outlined in the Safe Work Method Statements, as outlined in the report, and that these will be reviewed by the internal working group at least once per year. 7. Council staff continue to monitor the weed management industry and APVMA advice for any new information and appropriate alternative weed treatments; and take action as needed.
|
BACKGROUND
At the Council meeting on the 30 October 2018, a Notice of Motion on glyphosate was considered. Council resolved:
1. A report be brought to the next available Council Meeting outlining when and where and how frequently the Inner West Council is using Glyphosate and what processes are in place to protect council staff using Glyphosate and local residents and their pets using our parks, gardens and sporting fields where Glyphosate has been sprayed. That the report also includes what other safer products council can use to substitute Glyphosate; and
2. The Inner West Council joins with the Cancer Council of Australia in calling for an independent review on the health and safety impacts of using Glyphosate to be instigated as soon as possible.
Glyphosate is used by the Inner West Council and the majority of Councils to control weeds. Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide which works by inhibiting an enzyme found in plants. If part of the weed is sprayed, the herbicide is translocated throughout the plant to cause death. Glyphosate kills annual and perennial weeds. There are around 500 products containing glyphosate registered for use in Australia. Glyphosate has been registered for use for over 40 years.
Glyphosate was considered at the Inner West Local Representation Advisory Committee (Leichhardt) on the 2 August 2016 where it was recommended:
THAT LRAC note the following recommendation:
That Council continue to use pesticide formulations containing glyphosate in accordance with the label instructions for weed control, and the Integrated Weed Management Strategy, and the notification and reporting in accordance with the Pesticide Notification Plan.
LRAC resolved:
THAT LRAC receives and notes the report.
The minutes of LRAC were considered at the Council meeting on the 23 August 2018 where it was resolved (in part):
The Administrator determined that:
The Minutes of the Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Local Representation Advisory Committee Meetings and the Implementation Advisory Group Meeting held in August 2016 be received and recommendations be adopted.
Existing Use of Glyphosate
An internal working group has been established to review the current use of glyphosate by Council. This working group has also been investigating possible alternative products.
The following areas currently utilised glyphosate:
|
Council Team |
Existing Usage |
Frequency of Usage |
|
Streetscapes (former Ashfield and Marrickville) |
Weed control on verges, LATMs, street gardens, tree pits, footpaths, kerb & gutters, roads and laneways.
|
Daily for roads and laneways as part of the scheduled cycles (weather permitting). Monthly for garden bed maintenance. |
|
Parks Operations (former Ashfield and Marrickville) |
Spot spraying of garden beds, pathways and mulched areas. |
Daily as part of the scheduled cycles (weather permitting) |
|
Urban Ecology |
Weed control in bushcare sites maintained by volunteers and natural areas maintained by contractor. |
1 to 4 times per year. |
|
Home Maintenance & Modification Service |
Weed control in private residents’ garden beds and lawns. |
As requested or required. |
Glyphosate is currently limited to localised spraying, utilising spray wands. It is not used for broad acre crop spraying such as seen on farms. On an annual basis, Council utilises approximately 1,320 litres of 360g/L glyphosate concentrate. Glyphosate is mixed with water at a dilution rate of 1:100 before being sprayed. 94% of glyphosate usage is within the streetscape areas.
APVMA Advice
The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) is the national regulator for agricultural products, including glyphosate. Before a chemical product can be sold or manufactured in Australia, it must first go through scientific assessment by APVMA to check its safety and whether it works as expected and claimed by the manufacturer. These checks are designed to protect the health and safety of people, animals, plants and the environment.
APVMA has recently made comments (3 September 2018) in relation to glyphosate as follows:
“The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) is aware of the August 2018 decision in the Californian Superior Court concerning glyphosate.
“Glyphosate is registered for use in Australia and APVMA approved products containing glyphosate can continue to be used safely according to label directions. Australian law requires appropriate warnings on product labels, which include relevant poisons scheduling, first aid, and safety directions detailing personal protective equipment when handling and using products containing glyphosate. The APVMA reminds users of the importance of following all label instructions.
“As the national regulator for agricultural chemicals, we continue to track and consider any new scientific information associated with safety and effectiveness of glyphosate, including the information available from other regulators.
“In 2016, following the IARC assessment, the APVMA considered glyphosate and found no grounds to place it under formal reconsideration.”
Further information is available on the APVMA website at: https://apvma.gov.au/node/13891 .
As per the Council resolution of 30 October 2018, Council has written to APVMA requesting an independent review of glyphosate.
International Agency for Research on Cancer
In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency affiliated with the World Health Organisation (WHO), classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A). This was based on a hazard-based, strength-of-evidence assessment of publicly available scientific information.
The IARC assessment looked at the intrinsic toxicity potential or ‘hazard’ of the chemical glyphosate as a cancer-causing agent. Other items in the same category as glyphosate, “probably carcinogenic to humans” include: indoor emissions from burning wood and high temperature frying, some shift work, and consumption of red meat. Items in the highest category of “carcinogenic to humans” include: all alcoholic beverages, consumption of processed meat, solar and ultraviolet radiation (i.e. sunlight), engine exhaust (diesel), post-menopausal oestrogen and oestrogen-progestogen therapy, outdoor air pollution, occupational exposure as a painter, and soot and wood dust.
Risk Mitigation
When making an assessment of the hazards associated with these substances or lifestyles, IARC did not consider how the risks can be managed in actual use situations and they did not assess the risk of glyphosate causing cancer when used according to the label instructions in a registered chemical product.
APVMA states, “the findings of IARC cannot be directly compared to assessments conducted by regulatory authorities for the purposes of approval or registration of a pesticide product—assessments by regulators include consideration of appropriate risk mitigation measures to allow safe use.”
APVMA states, “Based on current risk assessment the label instructions on all glyphosate products—when followed—provide adequate protection for users. Any supplementary advice proposed by any other jurisdiction does not replace or override the directions for use on the product label—these directions are based on a scientific risk assessment and are legally enforceable.”
The risks associated with glyphosate, to the community, to staff and the environment, are currently mitigated by Inner West Council utilising the following means:
· Material Safety Data Sheets
· Safe Work Method Statements
· Pesticide Notification Plan
· Sensitive Area Identification
Material Safety Data Sheets
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are documents that provide critical information about hazardous chemicals. For example, they include information on:
· The chemical’s identity and ingredients
· Health and physical hazards
· Safe handling and storage procedures
· Emergency procedures
· First aid measures
· Accidental release measures
· Disposal considerations
· Regulatory information
· Toxicological information
· Transportation information
Council currently utilises the following products which contain glyphosate: Gullf Ag ClearUp Bio 360 SL Herbicide; Gullf Ag ClearUp Bio 360 Herbicide; and Rygel ClearUp Bio 360 Herbicide. Council has copies of the MSDS for these chemicals readily available.
Safe Work Method Statement
A Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) is a document that outlines the high risk work activities to be carried out at a workplace, the hazards that may arise from these activities, and the measures to put in place to control the risks.
Council has the following SWMSs being utilised:
· Storage & Use of Hazardous Substances Safe Work Procedure
· Orphan Hazardous Waste & Pollution Spills Safe Work Procedure
· Weed Control Safe Work Procedure
· Weed Control Vehicle Safe Work Procedure
· Weed Control in Open Drains Safe Work Procedure
· Pollution Response Unit Operating Instructions
· Orphan Hazardous Waste & Pollution Spills Management Operating Instructions
These various SWMSs outline a number of means to mitigate the impacts of glyphosate on staff, the community and the environment, including:
· Staff who utilise glyphosate are required to have a minimum AQF3 qualification to apply chemicals and a valid Chemical Users Certificate.
· Staff must wear appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when handling, mixing and utilising glyphosate. This includes wearing gloves, long sleeves and long pants.
· No spraying in wet conditions and when expecting rain within 24 hours.
· Use blue vegetable based dye when using glyphosate.
· Use nozzle cones on spray wands wherever possible.
· Ensure there are no members of the public nearby when using the pressure spray.
· Only diluted forms of the chemical are used.
· No spraying in windy conditions.
· Records are kept of all applications of glyphosate.
Pesticide Notification Plan
Reporting on the use of herbicides is governed by the Pesticides Act 1999. At the time of amalgamation, the three former Councils all had a Pesticide Notification Plan, which were all fairly similar. A new draft Inner West Pesticide Notification Plan has been developed and is attached.
The aim of the Pesticide Notification Plan is to meet the community's general right to know about pesticide applications made to outdoor public places that are owned or controlled by public authorities. The Plan does not apply to outdoor public places that are not owned or controlled by Council.
The plan allows members of the community to avoid contact with pesticides, if they wish. Council ensures that pesticides are applied to public places in a safe and responsible manner, minimising harm to the community and / or the environment. In addition, Council's application of pesticides is in accordance with the relevant material safety data sheets.
The plan sets out how Inner West Council will notify members of the community of pesticide applications it makes, or allows to be made, to public places.
Sensitive Area Identification
Council currently has a number of identified “sensitive areas” where glyphosate is not utilised for weed treatment. A contractor has been engaged to do steam weeding or hand removal as an alternative. These sensitive areas include:
· Commercial areas
· Town centre areas
· Areas adjacent to childcare centres
· Areas adjacent to schools
· Playgrounds in Council parks
· Where residents have nominated to “opt out” of having glyphosate applied adjacent to their property
· WSUD or rain garden areas
The identified sensitive areas are not currently consistent across the amalgamated Inner West.
Diluted Glyphosate
Glyphosate is mixed with water at a dilution rate of 1:100 before being sprayed.
Glyphosate can be used undiluted for cut and paint and scrape and paint application control of woody weeds. However, Council does not utilise this methodology.
Minimised Glyphosate Use
In the former Leichhardt area, the majority of weed control is undertaken by non-chemical means. In streets with verges, Council staff whipper snip/ mow the weeds as part of their mowing cycles. In streets without verges, a contractor has been engaged to undertake weed control using non-chemical treatments. Originally, the contractor was steam weeding. Now the contractor whipper snips the weeds.
In former Leichhardt, glyphosate is used where other methods cannot be applied, and for spot control of persistent weeds that resist other treatments.
Glyphosate is utilised in the former Ashfield and Marrickville areas.
The contract in the former Leichhardt area is due to expire in September 2019. At this time, consideration will be given as to whether it is more cost effective to re-tender this contract or to bring the works in-house.
Environmental Impact
Council currently utilises the following products which contain glyphosate: Gullf Ag ClearUp Bio 360 SL Herbicide; Gullf Ag ClearUp Bio 360 Herbicide; and Rygel ClearUp Bio 360 Herbicide. ClearUp Bio 360 is an improved product from previous glyphosate herbicides. It is non-toxic to fish, birds and bees.
Glyphosate is strongly adsorbed by soil and therefore becomes practically immobile. Microbial activity is the major cause of soil degradation with liberation of carbon dioxide. Half-life is typically 47 days.
Glyphosate is strongly adsorbed to suspended organic and mineral matter and is broken down primarily by micro-organisms. The half-life in pond water ranges from 12 days to 10 weeks.
Alternative Methods
Just prior to amalgamation, former Marrickville had engaged Ecological Consultants Australia to review alternatives to glyphosate. This information has been utilised to inform the discussion on alternatives below.
The following weed management methods and techniques may be used as an alternative to glyphosate:
· Heat treatment (steam, flame and hot water)
· Mechanical treatment (hand removal, mowers, whipper snipper and high pressure gurney)
· Foam weeding
· Naturally occurring chemical treatments that have different active ingredients to glyphosate (clove oil, pine oil, salt, sugar, vinegar, Pelargonic acid (Slasher), foam)
· Reducing areas for weeds to grow (repairing cracks and damages to kerbs & gutters and footpaths, mulch barriers and increasing the use of native plants)
· Reducing the requirements for weeding through changing community expectations on service levels
Alternative weed management methodologies are discussed in some detail in the table below:
|
Glyphosate Alternative |
Brief Description |
Positives |
Negatives |
|
Heat treatment - steam weeding |
Pressurising water to boiling point and then targeting the weeds with an applicator. The released steam ruptures plant cells, killing the above ground portion of the plant. |
· Effective on young annual weeds · More water efficient than hot water treatment. · Low risk of non-target plant damage. · Suitable in areas with high/ sensitive populations |
· Not effective on older perennial weeds. · Works best in areas with low weed density. · Poor ground penetration/ Only burns the plant foliage contacted by the steam (not the root). · The steam method experiences rapid cooling which reduces its effectiveness. · Utilises high amounts of water (approx. 220 litres per hour). · Accidental contact with steam can cause severe burns. · Best results requires a second treatment 4-6 weeks after the initial treatment. · More expensive than glyphosate treatment. |
|
Heat treatment - flame weeding |
Flames are used on targeted weeds. Flame weeding can mimic control burns. |
· Can stimulate germination of native plants while killing annual weeds. |
· Flame weeding is not generally suitable as it provides an unacceptable fire risk in Australian conditions and it is unsuitable for urban situations. · Cannot be used on materials such as playground softfall. · Requires repeated treatments. · More expensive than glyphosate treatment. |
|
Heat treatment - hot water |
Hot water targeted at the weeds with an applicator. |
· Temperature impact 10mm below the ground is considered very effective. · Low risk of non-target plant damage. · Suitable in areas with high/ sensitive populations |
· Utilises very high amounts of water (>600 litres per hour) · Slow operational speeds needed to ensure effective weed kill. · Requires repeated treatments. · More expensive than glyphosate treatment.
|
|
Mechanical treatment - hand removal |
Hand weeding |
· Effective on all types of weeds. · No impact on the environment. · Suitable in areas with high/ sensitive populations. |
· Labour intensive. · Insufficient existing staff resources/ impractical to do this over large areas. · Increases WHS (ergonomic) risks for staff. · More expensive than glyphosate treatment. |
|
Mechanical treatment – mowers |
Weeds are removed whilst undertaking mowing of the grass (verges or parks) |
· Efficient, as the removal occurs as the same time as scheduled mowing · Minimal impact on the environment (other than petrol use in the mowers). · Effective on most types of weeds. |
· Removes the weed above the ground only/ roots remain. · Does not remove broadleaf weeds. · Some spot weeding of persistent weeds would still be required. · Requires repeated treatments. |
|
Mechanical treatment – whipper snippers |
Weeds are removed by whipper snipper |
· Minimal impact on the environment (other than petrol use in the whipper snippers). · Effective on all types of weeds. |
· Labour intensive. · Insufficient existing staff resources/ impractical to do this over large areas. · Removes the weed above the ground only/ roots remain. · Requires repeated treatments. · Some spot weeding of persistent weeds would still be required. · The associated noise is unpleasant to many residents. · More expensive than glyphosate treatment. |
|
Mechanical treatment - high pressure gurneys |
High pressure gurneys, also known as hydro mechanical obliteration, can be utilised to blast apart plants.
|
· Effective on all types of weeds.
|
· Removes soil, which may then end up in the stormwater/ downstream waterways. · Utilises very high amounts of water. · Removes the weed above the ground only/ roots remain. · This treatment may not be appropriate/ practical in high use public spaces. · Requires repeated treatments. · More expensive than glyphosate treatment. |
|
Foam weeding |
Foam weeding is a biodegradable foam made from natural plant oils and sugars which is applied to weeds together with hot water. |
· Removes the risk of fire hazard (compared with flame weeding) |
· Utilises high amounts of water (approx. 220 litres per hour). · Accidental contact with foam can cause severe burns. · This treatment does not yet appear to be commercially available in Australia. · More expensive than glyphosate treatment. |
|
Naturally occurring chemical treatment - botanical oils (clove oil/ pine oil)
|
Botanical oils are spot sprayed onto weeds. |
· Effective on soft seedlings, grasses, herbaceous plants and seeds |
· Less effective on woody plants or plants with runners, rhizomes or tap roots. · Accumulates in soil, creating a toxic environment to other plants. · Not effective on older perennial weeds. · Only burns the plant foliage contacted by the product/ does not translocate to the roots of treated plants. · High impact on aquatic species. · Higher dermal toxicity than synthetic herbicides. Potential for severe skin irrigation, eye irritation. · More expensive than glyphosate treatment. |
|
Naturally occurring chemical treatment – acetic acid (vinegar) |
Acetic acid affects the cell membranes of a plant, causing rapid breakdown/ desiccation of foliage tissue on contact. |
· Effective on small, young seedlings. · Rapid symptom development (<1 hour on sunny days). · Breaks down quickly in the environment. · Works effectively on hard surfaces (roads, footpaths). |
· Weeds must be sprayed within two weeks of germination. · No residual activity. · Only burns the plant foliage contacted by the product/ does not translocate to the roots of treated plants. · Only burn the foliage of perennial weeds, large annual weeds and grasses. · Sharp vinegar odour may be unpleasant · Reacts with metal street/ park furniture · Higher dermal toxicity than synthetic herbicides. Potential for severe skin irrigation, eye irritation (including blindness). · Requires repeated treatments. · More expensive than glyphosate treatment. |
|
Naturally occurring chemical treatment – herbicides (other than glyphosate) |
Pre-emergent herbicides could be sprayed across all parks (the whole site) |
· Different herbicides work effectively on specific species of weeds. Effective on the targeted weeds. |
· This would result in a large increase in herbicide use. · This is unlikely to be popular with residents and it is not appropriate in urban public areas. · This is not an appropriate treatment for hard surface areas (roads). · More expensive than glyphosate treatment. |
|
Naturally occurring chemical treatment - pelargonic acid (slasher) |
Post-emergent, contact herbicide (applied after the weed has appeared). |
· This has been trialled in former Marrickville · Controls small seedling broadleaf weeds. · Rapid symptom development (<30 minutes). · Low risk of non-target plant damage. · Perceived by some as an alternative to traditional herbicides/ “herbicidal soap”. |
· It only works well in hot conditions. · Burns the plant foliage contacted by the product/ does not translocate to the roots of treated plants. · Requires the plants to be completely covered (drenched) in the acid to be effective. That is, spot spraying does not work. · Large annual weeds and perennials will be injured but not killed. · The odour is persistent and offensive to some people. · Spray drift can be a severe eye irritant. · Requires repeated treatments. · More expensive than glyphosate treatment. |
|
Naturally occurring chemical treatment - diquat |
Post-emergent contact weed killer |
· Rapid kill of small seedling weeds. · Relatively low cost compared with other chemical alternatives. · Small amounts of spray draft will cause only cosmetic damage to landscape plants and will not translocate to kill desirable plants. · Is not as temperature sensitive as many other herbicides, working in cool and warm weather. |
· Only burns the plant foliage contacted by the product/ does not translocate to the roots of treated plants. · Large annual weeds, grasses and perennials will be injured but not killed. · Requires repeated treatments. · More expensive than glyphosate treatment. |
|
Naturally occurring chemical treatment - glufosinate |
Non-selective post-emergent herbicide |
· Control for annual weeds. · May avoid systemic damage to landscape ornamentals from inadvertent spray drift. |
· Locally systemic (moves with the treated foliage) but does not translocate throughout the plant. · No potential for root uptake when applied to the soil. · Does not control perennial weeds. · Requires repeated treatments. · More expensive than glyphosate treatment. |
|
Reducing areas for weeds to grow |
Species selection and planting density that discourages weed growth. Covering of garden beds with materials such as high heat black plastic, mulch, or crushed sandstone to reduce the likelihood of weeds growing. |
· Effective on all types of weeds. · No/ low impact on the environment. · Suitable in areas with high/ sensitive populations. |
· Expensive to install and maintain. · Some spot weeding of persistent weeds would still be required. · More expensive than glyphosate treatment. |
|
Reducing areas for weeds to grow - Sealing cracks in kerb & gutter and footpaths |
Reduce the number of cracks in kerb & gutter and footpaths to provide less opportunities for weeds to grow. |
· Reduced impact on the environment. · Suitable in areas with high/ sensitive populations. |
· This would not prevent all weeds from growing · The cost to implement this would be substantial |
|
Reducing the requirements for weeding through changing community expectations on service levels |
Undertake a community education campaign to advise them on the reasons for reduced service levels. Encourage residents to contribute to weed control adjacent to their property/ within their neighbourhood |
· Effective on all types of weeds. · Reduced impact on the environment. · Suitable in areas with high/ sensitive populations. |
· The Inner West community has been used to high service levels and this expectation is likely to continue. · Loss of amenity for residents. |
Glyphosate is a board spectrum herbicide which controls a variety of grass and broadleaf weeds. There is no single substitute for glyphosate. The use of alternatives will require a variety of weed management techniques to be utilised. To ensure effectiveness, staff would need to be trained in weed identification to ensure they applied the appropriate methodology. In addition, a greater range of chemicals and/ or equipment would need to be stored and transported. Care would need to be exercised to avoid cross contamination.
Alternatives Costs
Should Council resolve to discontinue the use of glyphosate and use only alternatives, the best treatments for the Inner West at this time would be a combination of steam weeding, hand weeding and mechanical treatment (mowing and whipper snipper). The trial use of naturally occurring chemical treatments These treatments are more labour intensive and generally require multiple treatments. Alternatives are therefore significantly more costly. The cost of alternative treatments would need to be reviewed and calculated in some detail.
In the former Leichhardt, the contract specifies 26 non-chemical weed treatments in all areas each year. Based on the unit rates currently paid in the former Leichhardt, the additional operating cost to Council for 26 treatments per year across the Inner West, would be in the order of $5.2 million per annum. This includes treatment for an additional 967km of kerb & gutter and footpath, 1,100 verge gardens and 929 LATMs. If this were reduced to 12 treatments per year, the additional cost would be $1.9 million per annum. This has not been funded through the budget process.
It should be noted that alternative weed management techniques is an area undergoing active research. Current alternative treatments are still being developed and may be more efficient and cost effective in the future.
Other Councils
Council staff reviewed other Councils to determine their approach to the use of glyphosate.
Canada Bay, City of Sydney, Ku-ring-gai, North Sydney, Randwick and Woollahra Councils are all utilising glyphosate. Centennial Parklands and the Royal Botanic Gardens are also utilising glyphosate.
Waverley Council, in September 2018, resolved that Council engage an independent expert to review the existing use of glyphosate and look at alternative solutions.
Other Regulators/ International Reviews
Some governments have taken steps to restrict or ban the use of glyphosate.
To date, no international regulator has banned the use of glyphosate following the IARC re-classification. In summary, other regulators and international reviews have found:
· Anvisa, the Brazilian health regulatory agency, temporarily suspended the registration of glyphosate following a ruling from a Brazilian federal judge. The suspension was overturned after one month.
· The European Food Safety Authority concluded that glyphosate does not cause cancer in humans.
· The European Chemicals Agency concluded that the available scientific literature does not meet the criteria to classify glyphosate as a carcinogen or mutagen or as toxic for reproduction.
· New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Agency concluded that glyphosate was unlikely to cause cancer in humans.
· Canada’s Pest management Regulatory Agency concluded that glyphosate was unlikely to cause cancer in humans.
· The United States’ Environmental Protection Agency concluded that glyphosate does not cause cancer.
· California has listed glyphosate on its list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm as a consequence of the IARC classification.
· The Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) is an international scientific group administered jointly by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Health Organisation. The JMPR concluded that while there was some evidence for a positive correlation between occupational glyphosate exposure and non‑Hodgkin lymphoma in some studies, the only well-designed large cohort study found no association at any exposure level.
· Sri Lanka had banned the agricultural use of glyphosate. The Government of Sri Lanka set up a Presidential Task Force which collaborated with the World Health Organisation and concluded that there was no conclusive evidence of a link between glyphosate and chronic kidney disease of unknown aetiology.
Private Use
It is noted that glyphosate is still readily accessible to the community at local hardware stores in containers up to 20 litres in capacity. The community is generally not trained to ChemCert AQF3 level as Council staff are. Similarly, the community does not necessarily take the safety precautions which Council does.
Safe Work NSW
Safe Work NSW provides the following advice with regards to glyphosate:
If you use these chemicals, obtain the latest information and conduct a risk assessment on their use. Use the hierarchy of control to develop safe work methods and avoid exposure.
Before purchase and use, ask yourself
· Can I eliminate these hazardous chemicals with other methods of pest control, for example integrated pest management approaches like mechanical slashing or hand weeding?
· Can I substitute with safer chemicals for example, substituting non-biodegradable with biodegradable pesticides?
· Are my pesticides registered in Australia for approved purposes?
· Have I read the labels and followed instructions, and am I using pesticides at approved doses?
· Have I read the Safety Data Sheets (SDS) for health and safety information and stored my chemicals according to SDS advice?
· Am I using the right personal protective equipment (PPE) as per the SDS?
· Am I using the most appropriate application system to reduce my risk of exposure?
· Have I considered possible routes of pesticide exposure and contamination and washed my hands thoroughly? For example, cross contamination can occur through air, water soil, food and clothes.
· Have I got emergency and safety equipment on hand ready to use?
· Can my workers quickly access emergency contact details?
If you are worried about any possible health effects when using these pesticides, talk to your employer or consult your doctor.
Smoking and poor hygiene practice can increase your risk of exposure to pesticides.
Council Insurance
Council’s Insurer has provided the following comments on the use of glyphosate (January 2019):
“There has been no advice or commentary issued by Statewide or other insurers on this issue.
“If Council is complying with local regulations and safety regulations then that is all that can be expected.”
Areas for Improvements
Based on the hierarchy of control outlined by Safe Work NSW and the review of existing glyphosate usage at the Inner West, the internal working group has identified that there are a number of improvements which can be made in the area of weed management. These improvements would further mitigate the impacts of glyphosate on the community, staff and the environment. These areas for improvement are described below.
By improving risk management, Council can expect to reduce the potential for:
· Occupational exposure by staff
· Accidental exposure to the community
· Harmful release of pesticides into the environment
A new draft Inner West Weed Management Policy, attached, has been developed which encompasses these improvements.
Eliminate the Use of Glyphosate
It is proposed to eliminate the use of glyphosate in areas where it is feasible and practicable to use alternative methods. This includes:
· Improve the efficiency of non-chemical mechanical treatment of weeds to include the verges in the former Marrickville area by the use of whipper snippers and ride-on mowers. This treatment is currently being trialled, with a view to expanding the treatment across the former Marrickville area.
· Hand weed the garden beds and LATMs in mainstreets, across the LGA.
· Currently a contractor mows some of the verges within the former Ashfield area. As a separate project, Council staff are reviewing existing verge mowing service levels. Should changes be made within the Ashfield area, it is proposed that consideration would also be given to the use of non-chemical mechanical treatment of weeds to include the verges by the use of ride-on mowers.
· Expand the “sensitive areas” list to be consistent across the Inner West and to include steam weeding across all of the following areas:
o Commercial areas
o Town centre areas
o Areas adjacent to childcare centres
o Areas adjacent to schools
o Playgrounds in Council parks
o Waterplay parks in Council parks
o WSUD or rain garden areas
o Within 50 metres of water courses and wetlands
· Allow residents across the Inner West to add themselves to the “sensitive areas” list so they can nominate to “opt out” of having glyphosate applied adjacent to their property and to instead have steam weeding.
· Publicise and promote Council’s aims across the LGA in reducing chemical use to control weeds as a benefit to the Inner West environment and its residents.
Limited Glyphosate Use
Glyphosate will be utilised where other methods are not reasonable and feasible, and for spot control of persistent weeds that resist other treatments.
Improved Risk Mitigation
Council intends to engage a suitably qualified consultant to undertake a review of the existing use of glyphosate with a view to making any recommendation to improve the safe limited application of glyphosate. The review will include:
· Storage
· Transportation
· Application equipment
· Occupational assessment
· PPE
· Implementation of Notification Plan
· Staff training
· Safe Work Method Statements
· Record keeping
· Disposal methods
Improved Record Keeping
Council is currently working in different legacy computer systems. With the introduction of TechOne, improved record will be introduced, including:
· Where limited glyphosate is utilised, it will be recorded in one centralised location within Enterprise Content Management within TechOne, so that the information is readily available.
· “Sensitive areas”, including where residents have “opted out”, will be recorded within the within the asset system of TechOne, so that all staff have access to this information.
Staff Health Monitoring
Council will follow the legislative requirements for staff health monitoring of hazardous chemicals.
Further Reading
The following are links to websites with further information on glyphosate and weed management:
APVMA
https://apvma.gov.au/node/13891
https://apvma.gov.au/node/26561
https://apvma.gov.au/sites/default/files/images/glyphosate_scitox_review_july_2013.pdf
SafeWork NSW
https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/resource-library/hazardous-chemicals/be-aware-glyphosate-and-organophosphates-fact-sheet
Work, Health & Safety
https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2017/404/sch14
International Regulatory Organisations
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302
https://echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate-not-classified-as-a-carcinogen-by-echa
https://www.epa.govt.nz/everyday-environment/gardening-products/?accordion-anchor=552
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/pesticides-pest-management/public/consultations/proposed-re-evaluation-decisions/2015/glyphosate/document.html
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0385-0094
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5693e.pdf
Greater Sydney Regional Strategic Weed Management Plan
http://greatersydney.lls.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/722368/Greater-Sydney-Regional-Weed-Mgmt-Plan-29-June-2017_FINAL-web-res.pdf
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
As outlined in the report, should Council resolve to discontinue the use of glyphosate and use only alternatives, the cost of this alternative treatment would need to be reviewed and calculated in some detail. However, the additional operating cost to Council would be in the order of $1.9 to $5.2 million per annum. This has not been funded through the budget process.
Should Council continue to utilise glyphosate to a limited extent, only where other methods cannot be applied, and for spot control of persistent weeds that resist other treatments, the proposed changes can be managed within the existing staffing and budget levels.
The proposal to engage a consultant to review the safe application of glyphosate will be funded from existing parks operations and streetscape WHS budgets.
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
An internal working group has been established to review the use of glyphosate across Council. The working group has members from the following teams: Trees, Parks & Streetscapes; Properties, Major Building Projects & Facilities; Work Health & Safety and Injury Management; and Environment & Sustainability.
The Policy was also reviewed by the Leadership Team.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Council has not undertaken engagement with the community at this stage. It is proposed that the Draft Weed Management Policy be placed on public exhibition.
FORMER LEGACY COUNCIL/S’ POLICIES TO BE RESCINDED
In developing this new draft Weed Management Policy, the Weed Control Policy (former Marrickville Council) and Weed Policy (former Leichhardt) were considered. It is appropriate that on adoption of the new Policy, the former Policies be rescinded by Council. The former Policies are attached.
The Noxious Weeds Act 1993 and its Amendments has been repealed and replaced by the Biosecurity Act 2015. The Noxious Weeds Policy (former Ashfield) is therefore redundant. The new Inner West Weed Management Policy incorporates the relevant components. It is appropriate that on adoption of the new Policy, this former Policy also be rescinded by Council.
CONCLUSION
This report recommends that Council take a hierarchical approach to weed management. In the first instance, weed management is undertaken by mechanical methods (mowing and whipper snipper) with minimum disturbance to the surrounding environment. Weed management will be undertaken by alternatives to herbicides where feasible and practical.
Herbicides are utilised where other methods are not feasible and practicable, and for spot control of persistent weeds that resist other treatments. This excludes sensitive areas.
A draft Weed Management Policy has been developed to reflect this hierarchical approach to weed management.
A suitably qualified consultant will be engaged by Council within the next three months to undertake a review of the existing use of glyphosate with a view to making any recommendation to improve the safe limited application of glyphosate.
|
1.⇩ |
Draft IWC Weed Management Policy |
|
2.⇩ |
Draft IWC Weed Management Annexure |
|
3.⇩ |
Draft IWC Pesticide Use Notification Plan |
|
4.⇩ |
Former Ashfield Noxious Weeds Policy |
|
5.⇩ |
Former Leichhardt Weed Policy |
|
6.⇩ |
Former Marrickville Weed Control Policy |
|
7.⇩ |
Former Ashfield Pesticide Use Notification Plan |
|
8.⇩ |
Former Leichhardt Pesticide Use Notification Plan |
|
9.⇩ |
Former Marrickville Pesticide Use Notification Plan |
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: Significant Major Projects Governance
Prepared By: Brooke Martin - Group Manager Properties, Major Building Projects and Facilities
Authorised By: Elizabeth Richardson - Deputy General Manager Assets and Environment
|
SUMMARY Council is responsible for managing community resources in accordance with the Integrated Planning and Reporting requirements. The Inner West Council implement a robust process in the preparation of the Community Strategic Plan and the Resourcing Strategy incorporating the Asset Management Plans. Major projects governance is integral in delivering value for money projects for the community. This report identifies reporting and project assurance requirements for major project delivery. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT:
1. All significant major projects over $10 million follow the Office of Local Government Capital Expenditures Guidelines December 2010. 2. Council receive a quarterly project progress report for Dawn Fraser Baths ‘Essential Maintenance’ Project and the Greenway project. 3. Council receive monthly project progress reports for Ashfield Aquatic Centre Redevelopment. 4. The project progress reports to include an update to the regular Council meeting on progress, costs, budget variances, issues and risks. 5. Council receive quarterly briefings for Ashfield Aquatic Centre redevelopment, Greenway and the Dawn Fraser Baths ‘Essential Maintenance’ project. 6. Implement an independent project assurance strategy for significant project milestones for all projects over $10 million plus Dawn Fraser Baths ‘Essential Maintenance’ Project. |
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of the 21st August 2018 Council resolved the following, regarding the establishment of a Major Projects Steering Committee:
THAT a report be prepared on the establishment of a Major Project Steering Committee with membership including councillors, staff and industry experts.
Council undertakes a range of capital works projects that provide maintenance, renewal and upgrade of existing assets, together with the creation of assets. These works are identified as part of the Integrated Planning & Reporting requirements, in particular in the Asset Management Plans, the 4 Year Delivery Program and Annual Operational Plan.
Most major projects require a minimum of a 3 year delivery plan, for example year 1 (Project Initiation and Concept Design) year 2 (Detailed Design and Procurement) and year 3 (Construction and Completion).
Capital Expenditures Guidelines
The Office of Local Government (OLG) issued the Capital Expenditures Guidelines (‘Guideline’) December 2010, Attachment 1, pursuant to Section 23A of the Local Government Act 1993. Councils must take any relevant guidelines issued under section 23A of the Local Government Act 1993 into consideration before exercising any of its functions.
In the case of the Inner West Council, these guidelines apply to capital projects in excess of 10% of council’s annual ordinary rate revenue ie approximately $12 million (based on IWC $119M rate revenue for 2018/19). There are also additional requirements for projects that are forecast to exceed $10 million (excl GST). There are a number of exclusions to these guidelines, including projects for key infrastructure such as roads, footpaths and stormwater drainage.
There are suggested reporting requirements under the Guideline. These include in brief summary of the attached Guideline:
- Identify project in the Community Strategic Plan and Delivery Program;
- Complete Preliminary Business Case;
- Complete the Capital Expenditure Review incorporating public consultation.
- Notify the OLG of the commencement of the project.
- Notify the OLG of the project costs and reasons where there is an increase of 10%.
Significant Major Projects
It is recommended that Council follow the OLG Guideline and have an increased oversight for all significant major projects over $10 million. Council may also identify other projects that are significant due to heritage or other sensitivities.
Current projects over $10 million include:
- Ashfield Aquatic Centre Redevelopment (AAC)
- Greenway
Whilst the Dawn Fraser Baths ‘Essential Maintenance’ project is under $10 million in value, it is recommended that this project also be considered a significant major project due to the heritage and environmental sensitivities.
Council Meetings, Briefings and Oversight
The proposed reporting and oversight requirements for significant major projects include:
- Report quarterly (monthly for AAC) to the council on the project progress, costs and impact on the overall project of any budget variances.
- Report to Councillors at any time where issues or risks may have an adverse impact on the project (this may include monetary and non-monetary inputs and outcomes).
- Report capital works projects in Council’s Annual Report, and provide monthly budget monitoring through Council’s web page
- Brief Councillors quarterly on significant major projects or more regular where a major risk or issue is identified.
- Report to Council the preliminary Business Case for any proposed new significant major projects on the horizon.
Project Control Group
All major capital works projects have a Project Control Group (PCG) responsible for monitoring budget, time, risk, quality and scope.
The members of project control groups include senior staff and technical experts in project management, infrastructure maintenance and construction, service delivery and finance.
The PCG are responsible for inviting industry experts as required eg quantity surveyors, contractors and consultants to provide advice on aspects of individual projects.
Independent Project Assurance
Independent Project Assurance provides technical oversight on specific milestones to identify issues and resolve early so as to mitigate or escalate any adverse impacts to the project.
As part of the project assurance review of Ashfield Aquatic Centre Redevelopment project in June 2018 it was recommended that the PCG include independent project assurance milestones for the remainder of the project. Similarly, Council resolved at the meeting on the 14 August 2018 that an independent project assurance advisor be appointed for the Greenway project.
It is recommended that all Significant Major Projects implement an independent project assurance programme at significant project milestones. An example of the milestones is provided below however, these milestones may change depending on the type project.
- Concept Design
- Detailed Design
- Tender documentation
- Tender Assessment
- Contract negotiation
- In-ground works
- Shop Drawings
- Building lock up
- Commissioning
- Post implementation
Audit Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC)
It is proposed to provide all reports to Council on the significant major projects progress to the ARIC along with a dashboard project risk register. The ARIC has community members skilled in risk management that can provide an additional oversight for the projects.
Major Projects Steering Committee
As has been outlined above, Council has a rigorous governance framework for the delivery of its major projects. Additional reporting measures are proposed in this report.
It is not recommended to form a Major Projects Steering Committee at this time to oversee the current identified significant major projects. It is preferred that Council briefings are held to provide regular information to Councillors on current and future significant projects. Regular Council reports will enable decisions making as required, whereas a steering committee will still need to report to Council for any decisions.
The Council, the ARIC and the internal Project Control Groups have the authority and capacity to interrogate the projects to ensure that value for money is delivered to the community.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Independent project assurance has been included in the budget preparation for the three identified projects.
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
This report was prepared in consultation with Deputy General Manager Assets & Environment, Chief Financial Officer, Group Manager Roads & Stormwater, Group Manager Trees, Parks & Streetscapes, Group Manager Property, Major Building Projects & Facilities.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Nil
CONCLUSION
Council delivers value for money projects for the community through a strong governance structure. This includes oversight by Project Control Groups, Independent Project Assurance, Council meetings/briefings and Audit Risk Improvement Committee. It is recommended to adopt the recommendations for project steering, reporting and briefing as identified in this report.
|
1.⇩ |
Office of Local Government Capital Expenditure Guidelines 2010 |
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: Increase in Court Appeals since Merger
Prepared By: Harjeet Atwal - Group Manager Development Assessment & Regulatory Services
Authorised By: Elizabeth Richardson - Deputy General Manager Assets and Environment
|
SUMMARY Council, at its meeting of 3 July 2018, resolved to investigate the increase in court appeals since the Council amalgamation, the reasons for the change, the resourcing cost and potential ways to respond to the increase in appeals. This report responds to the resolution. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT:
1. Council receive and note the report. 2. The Development Advisory & Assessment Policy be reviewed and the outcomes be reported to Council for consideration by June 2019.
|
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
It is apparent from statistics held by Council that development appeals have increased materially since amalgamation.
Determining the cause for increased appeals, however, is no easy task. Absent inquiring of applicants as to the reason they appeal, Council must rely on statistics it holds regarding appeals and Development Applications generally and how they compare to local, metropolitan and statewide trends.
Analysis of those statistics, however, does not provide a robust answer to the question at hand as it does not answer the core question of “why” appeal numbers are increasing. Rather, the underlying data has been used to underpin an intellectual analysis into what the likely causes are.
Such analysis has led to the identification of several factors that are intertwining to cause the increase in appeals. In summary, there has been a lack of resources and integrated systems within the development application system which has led to increased staff workloads and lengthened application processing times. When coupled with a burgeoning development cycle (which is now beginning to wane) and a Development Advisory and Assessment Policy that does not encourage outcomes focused negotiations with applicants at DA stage (with preference for providing pre-lodgement advice), this appears to be a key reason for appeal numbers increasing.
There is an undoubted cost to the Council associated with appeal numbers increasing. Whilst the legal fees associated with appeals have been managed quite well through internal resourcing, the fees associated with engaging experts have been substantial. In any event, whilst internal legal resources are keeping legal fees low, it does mean that those resources are not available to be deployed to other organisational objectives (particularly in the strategic planning and regulatory enforcement space) which potentially impacts on the achievement of strategic goals in those areas.
The solution to reducing appeal numbers is multifaceted. It will require improved resourcing of and systems within the Development Assessment section (which is currently in train) together with better practices and procedures so that high quality customer service and meritorious development outcomes are balanced with the performance benchmarks for application processing times.. This will take some time.
With respect to policies, Council will be receiving a report sometime in June 2019 which reviews the performance of the Development Advisory and Assessment Policy. That report will provide a detailed analysis of the performance of the policy (which has been outside the scope of this report) and recommendations about how that policy can assist in aligning with the outcomes noted above.
BACKGROUND
Council at its meeting of 3 July 2018 resolved the following:
“THAT:
1. Council report on the increase in appeals to the Land and Environment Court since the Council merger. The report should identify the reasons for the increase (as well as the potential for further increase), the additional costs and resources impacting on Council and it should address ways to best respond to the increase in appeals; and
2. The Inner West Planning Panel be required to report to Council every 6 months to identify any policy issues.”
In accordance with part one of the resolution a review of the appeals lodged with the Land and Environment Court has been carried out in consultation with Council’s Legal Services team who provided input into this report. The review looked at raw data collated from Council’s records, reviewed data from the Land and Environment Court, and compiled comparisons. The review period was confined to the 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and first quarter of 2018-2019 financial years, the only years with where consistent data could be obtained. As discussed in the executive summary, possible causes for the increase in appeals have been investigated. Council’s Legal Services have provided advice on the costs incurred to Council in relation to the appeals. Finally, a focus on possible solutions to the suggested causes of increase in appeals is identified.
In accordance with part two of the resolution a report on the operations of the Inner West Local Planning Panel (IWLPP) was considered by Council on the 27 November 2018. A report will be provided to Council every 6 months in relation to the IWLPP.
In addition to the above Council resolution, Council at its meeting of 23 May 2017 resolved to review the Development Advisory and Assessment Policy no later than 12 months from its commencement. It is acknowledged that the review has not been finalised due to resourcing issues within the Development Assessment section (as discussed further in this report under the heading “Possible Solutions”). It is considered that the review of the policy is outside the scope of this report. However, the research and data which informed this report provides information to assist in the review of the policy. The review is currently taking place in conjunction with the Development Assessment section structure review and will be reported to Council by June 2019.
DATA REVIEW
Inner West Council trends
Council’s Development Assessment section undertook an extensive research project into all appeals lodged against the Inner West Council in 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and first quarter of 2018-2019 financial years. These were the only years where data was consistently available.
The data shows that between the three former Local Government Areas (LGAs) the amount of appeals have increased within the former Leichhardt, Marrickville and Ashfield LGAs as a percentage of DAs lodged.
Tables 1-3: The amount of Development Applications lodged vs number of appeals received vs amount of Development Applications refused within the review periods.
|
FY 2016-2017 |
Marrickville |
Leichhardt |
Ashfield |
Total |
% of DAs lodged |
|
Lodged DAs |
670 |
658 |
255 |
1583 |
- |
|
No. Appeals |
30 |
31 |
11 |
72 |
5% |
|
Refused DAs |
89 |
77 |
22 |
188 |
12% |
|
FY 2017-2018 |
Marrickville |
Leichhardt |
Ashfield |
Total |
% of DAs lodged |
|
Lodged DAs |
585 |
650 |
289 |
1524 |
- |
|
No. Appeals |
56 |
51 |
14 |
121 |
8% |
|
Refused DAs |
60 |
53 |
25 |
138 |
9% |
|
Q1 FY 2018-2019 |
Marrickville |
Leichhardt |
Ashfield |
Total |
% of DAs lodged |
|
Lodged DAs |
120 |
165 |
77 |
362 |
- |
|
No. Appeals |
8 |
12 |
3 |
23 |
6% |
|
Refused DAs |
13 |
7 |
4 |
24 |
7% |
Tables 1-3 demonstrate:
· There has been a small reduction (3.8%) in the total amount of DAs lodged between FY2016-2017 and FY2017-2018. Figures for 2018-2019 also appear stable;
· The number of DAs that where refused during that period have had a substantial reduction (27%)
· The number of Land and Environment Court (LEC) appeals filed has increased from FY2016-2017 (5% of total DAs lodged) to FY2017-2018 (8% of total DAs lodged); and
· Appeals for Q1 2018-2019 appear to more closely reflect the figures of 2016-2017
A reduction in the amount of DAs refused indicates that the Development Assessment section has been supporting a greater volume of outstanding applications.
Analysis of LEC Appeals Lodged
Appeal Type
The increase in appeals relate to ‘deemed refusals’, which is where an applicant lodges an appeal to the LEC before an application has been determined by Council. The following Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate the increase in ‘deemed refusal’ appeals over the review period. The remainder of the appeals were associated with applications that Council had refused or appeals where the applicant contested conditions of development consent.
|
Figure 1: Breakdown of type of appeals lodged 2016-2017 |
Figure 2: Breakdown of type of appeals lodged 2017-2018 |
Development Type
The type of development that became an appeal also changed within the review period. More appeals were lodged against boarding houses, residential flat buildings and against applications for alterations and additions to existing dwellings over the review period.
A correlation was noted between the type of development that became an appeal and the more dominate type of application within each former LGAs. As indicated in the tables below, the former Leichardt LGA has a larger volume of appeals for alterations and additions to existing dwellings, the former Marrickville LGA has a higher number of residential flat buildings appeals and the former Ashfield LGA has a number of boarding house appeals.
Tables 4-5: Development type that became an Appeal during the review period
|
FY 2016-2017 |
Marrickville |
Leichhardt |
Ashfield |
Inner West Total |
|
Residential Flat Buildings |
14 |
9 |
0 |
23 |
|
Subdivision |
9 |
3 |
2 |
14 |
|
Boarding House |
4 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
|
Alterations and Additions to Dwellings |
2 |
16 |
2 |
20 |
|
Child Care Centre |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
Other |
5 |
3 |
4 |
12 |
|
FY 2017-2018 |
Marrickville |
Leichhardt |
Ashfield |
Inner West Total |
|
Residential Flat Buildings |
14 |
7 |
4 |
25 |
|
Subdivision |
6 |
9 |
1 |
16 |
|
Boarding House |
8 |
2 |
4 |
14 |
|
Alterations and Additions to Dwellings |
4 |
26 |
2 |
32 |
|
Child Care Centre |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Other |
4 |
9 |
3 |
16 |
Appeal Outcomes
The final outcome and resolution of the appeals changed over the review period with more applications being settled at Section 34 conciliation conferences as shown in Figure 3 below. All appeals are generally first bought to a Section 34 conciliation conference before a hearing date is set. At the conference a Commissioner presides over discussions between applicant (the developer) and Council. If an agreement can be reached court orders are made. Where an agreement cannot be reached a hearing date is set for the matter to go before the Court and a commissioner will make a determination.
Figure 3: Appeals outcomes (combined) for all former LGAs
NSW trends
The best comparison to gain an understanding of how the changes in the Inner West LGA are reflected is to look at the LEC, which keeps statistics on matters commenced, settled and litigated. The most recent Annual Report released May 2018 deals with the 2017 calendar year.
In the year of the amalgamation (2016), the Court had 842 Class One registrations (that is, 842 applications made during the calendar year). By the close of the year, 398 were “pending” (had not been settled or determined).
In 2017 by contrast, the Court dealt with 1009 registrations, of which 578 had not been finalised by the end of the reporting period.
This should also be seen in the context of continuous and profound increases in appeals from 2013 (521 registrations); to 2014 (692 registrations); and 2015 (794 registrations). The Inner West figures in this context are on par with the increase in the State.
These increases are generally consistent with the number of appeals being lodged with the Court and represent an increase in the amount of development work being undertaken, rather than any endemic failure due to amalgamation.
2018 figures are not yet available, and will not be complied until May 2019, but another metric for determination is waiting times. Council has a number of examples where a conciliated outcome is taking some six months. Contested hearings are taking longer with 10 months not being uncommon.
FINANCIAL & RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
The increase in appeals has inevitably resulted in additional costs to Council.
In FY2016-2017, the total spend on development appeals was approximately $1,700,000. The word approximately is used as the Ashfield costs reports do not distinguish between planning appeals and other types of proceedings. Accordingly, it is likely that the figure would be closer to $1,600,000. It should be noted that, during this phase, the Legal section was significantly under-resourced in the planning law space.
In FY2017-2018, noting that the Legal Team’s resources were by then filled, the spend reduced to $805,000. Of this, the majority has actually been incurred on expert witnesses as opposed to direct legal costs (ie. $713,000 as opposed to $94,000). This is a consequence of the under resourcing in the Development Assessment section which hinders their ability to allocate time to all Court appeals (as discussed below under the heading “Possible Causes”). With regards to the direct legal costs components, whilst there have been occasions where matters are briefed externally, the vast majority of matters have been dealt with by internal legal staff. Having said that, given the volume of appeals, there is a drain on those legal resources which results in less opportunity for the resources to be deployed towards value add aspects of the organisation, such as enforcement (including prosecutions), assistance on the strategic planning front and internal training for development staff.
Based upon current trends, it is expected that costs for FY2018-2019 will be similar to FY2017-2018.
POSSIBLE CAUSES
Staff Resources
During the review periods Council’s Development Assessment section were under resourced in terms of town planners especially at the senior experienced level for an extended period of time. At times, the team was carrying up to 9 full time equivalent (FTE) vacancies, with additional staff also seconded to integration and project work. Attracting and retaining staff, especially those at a senior level is sector-wide concern and affects many other councils, not just Inner West.
The lack of staff resources inevitably increases workload and pressures on the existing staff and delayed the determination of applications, especially those of a larger or more complex nature. The delays in processing applications will inevitably increase the number of ‘deemed refusal’ appeals, with applicants seeking to expedite an outcome on their proposals.
Computer Systems & Planning Controls
Currently the Development Assessment section is unable to maximise efficiency or redistribute staff or workload where required as each of the planning teams of the former LGAs within the section operate on the three different computer systems of the three legacy Councils. This lack of integration has made the flexible or equitable distribution of workloads very difficult and has limited the team from implementing improvements which rely on technology. Full harmonisation of processes and procedures is yet to occur. This makes simple tasks, such as responding to general enquiries, considerably more difficult and time consuming. In addition, the existing operating systems of each of the former Councils are no longer maintained due to licencing restrictions as such the systems are unreliable and are prone to breaking down.
The planning controls of three legacy councils are yet to be consolidated, and this will inevitably take some years yet to finalise. Until that work is complete, DAs will continue to be assessed under the three sets of Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) and Development Control Plans(DCPs). Again, this impacts on the ability of Development Assessment section to efficiently assess DAs.
Market Changes
With the changing property market, many developers have tried to short cut the assessment process by lodging an appeal with the Land and Environment Court. This is evident by the increase in deemed refusal appeals where the applicant is not waiting for an outcome with Council. Majority of these appeals are associated with the complex development types such as boarding houses and residential flat buildings.
Procedural Matters
In May 2017, Council introduced the Development Advisory and Assessment Policy which was aimed at improving development assessment practices and processing times. The Policy introduced a series of expanded and improved up-front advice channels, that encourages pre-lodgement advice to be obtained. This is consistent with the ‘Development Assessment Best Practice Guide’, issued by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment. Application of the Policy essentially results in applicants being requested to withdraw their DA if issues cannot be resolved through minor amendments. The DA is refused should the application not be withdrawn.
The Policy is currently under review and is slated to be brought to Council by June 2019. It has been beyond the scope of this report to engage in a comprehensive assessment of the Policy and its operational impacts.
A desktop analysis has been carried out and indicates that application of the Policy is contributing in part to the increase in appeals. In carrying out such analysis, attention was distilled into 2 categories:
1. appeals that were determined by way of a section 34 agreement in circumstances
where the underlying DA was under assessment in and around the time the Policy came into effect.
2. all other appeals lodged and finalised after the Policy commenced where the relevant letter had not been issued.
Since the date the Policy commenced, there have been approximately 46 agreements struck under the section 34 conciliation regime. Of those, 25 were preceded by the Policy letter. This equates to over 50%. In other words, there was a solution available to Council but which was not taken up resulting in an appeal that was ultimately conciliated without the need for a contested hearing.
It is difficult absent contacting applicants directly to determine whether the Policy approach is actually causing applicants to lodge appeals where they otherwise may not have. Anecdotal evidence from lawyers and experts acting for applicants, however, indicate that there are instances where that is the case.
Ultimately, what this appears to mean is that, whilst the Policy’s intention is to improve development practices, it does appear to be contributing in part to the greater numbers of appeals. This was flagged as a possible outcome when the Policy was reported to Council at the time of its adoption, and was to be the subject of review.
The review of the Policy which is underway is assessing impacts to both Council and customers, including in terms of application processing times and resourcing impacts on the Development Assessment section (for example, by providing more facilitated DA outcomes), impacts on appeal numbers, the customer experience, and budget implications.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
Staff Resources
Ongoing recruitment campaigns have recently filled majority of the positions on a full-time basis within the Development Assessment section. There has been a review of recruitment packages with Council’s Human Resources Group to attract and retain planners and to make Inner West Council an employer of choice within the industry. Further with the commencement of the suite of TechOne capabilities (as they related to development assessment) (expected Q1 2019/2020), including with online lodgement and tracking of applications and in-field technology, Inner West Council will be able to position itself as leaders in the sector and representing best-practice in development assessment. This will assist in attracting and retaining staff.
A program of attracting emerging and junior planners is also in place to develop skills and build the teams from within.
It is noted that during a portion of the review periods the Development Assessment section did not have a permanent Group Manager of Development Assessment and Regulatory Services and Development Assessment Manager. These roles have been recently appointed which will provide stable management and leadership for the section.
In addition from January 2019, the Executive Planner position within the Development Assessment section has been appointed. This position has been vacant since the Development Assessment structure had been implemented. The purpose of this role is to deal with complex DAs, assist Council’s Legal team with appeals and undertake business improvement and excellence. The Executive Planner will be further facilitating and finalising the review of the Development Advisory and Assessment Policy.
Computer Systems & Planning Controls
A new combined computer system (Tech One Property and Rating) is expected to be released in Q1 2019/2020. This system will allow a more harmonised approach to the assessment of DAs, on-line lodgement and tracking of DAs, efficient remote access and greater capability for referral bodies to feed into the development assessment process. This will assist the Development Assessment section in expediting the determination of applications.
Also, the continuous work towards harmonising the policies and procedures of each of the planning teams within the Development Assessment section is occurring with the aim of having a consistent approach to development assessment between each of the former LGAs.
The Strategic Planning group are currently in the process of putting together the Inner West Council LEP and DCP. The adoption and implementation of these documents are vital to establishing consistent development outcomes within the LGA.
Procedural Matters & Policy Review:
A review of the Development Advisory and Assessment Policy has commenced and will be reported to Council by June 2019.
As stated above, it is outside the scope of this report to recommend any changes to the Policy. It will be, however, within the scope of the forthcoming review to identify changes that might result in lower appeal numbers.
It is expected that the review will consider whether a more outcomes focused approach is warranted rather than the procedural, numbers based focus of the existing Policy.
Although the Policy review is overdue since the adoption of the policy the Development Assessment section structure has never been filled, and therefore a comprehensive review of the Policy will be not have had the benefit of the fully resourced team to implement it.
In addition to the Policy review the Development Assessment section have undertaken workshops facilitated by an external management consultant to review current processes and procedures and mechanisms to improve customer service. A Business Plan is being prepared as a result of the workshop findings to establish and implement improvements.
Inner West Local Planning Panel:
There are a significant volume of applications (due to the mandatory delegations set by the State Government) required to be determined by the IWLPP. The IWLPP can only consider a limited amount of applications per month due to the availability of the panel members to attend meetings and budget restrictions. This has caused a significant amount of backlog and delays currently being experienced.
The Development Assessment section has been proactively reviewing delegations with the IWLPP to reduce the backlog in the applications. As a result, the IWLPP has recently given delegations back to the Development Assessment section to determine DAs associated with:
· Minor works to heritage items (this includes tree pruning);
· Minor modifications to IWLPP determinations; and
· Breaches of the site coverage control in the Leichhardt LEP.
These delegations will facilitate the determination of DAs in a timely manner.
Delays within the Court:
The court lists for a hearing date within the Land and Environment Court are currently extensive with any new appeal not receiving dates within 6 months of lodging an appeal. It is expected there may be a slight decrease in appeals were the developer seeks to short cut the assessment process.
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
This report has been written in conjunction with input from Council’s Legal Services team.
CONCLUSION
Short term measures are being introduced to address these issues were possible while longer term strategies, such as reviewing the Development Advisory and Assessment Policy, are explored. It is expected that appeals will continue to increase during the introduction of new computer systems however once the systems are established and staff resources are maintained, the number of appeals should stabilise.
|
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 4 December 2018 and 4 February 2019
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 December 2018 and 4 February 2019 are presented for Council consideration. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 4 December 2018 and 4 February 2019 be received and the recommendations be adopted.
|
ITEMS BY WARD – 4 DECEMBER 2018 MEETING
|
Ward |
Item |
Page Number |
|
Leichhardt |
LTC1218 Item 5 Ash Lane at Wolseley Street and Northcote Street, Haberfield - Proposed 'No Stopping' Restrictions (Leichhardt Ward/ Summer Hill Electorate/ Burwood PAC) |
Page 6 |
|
Leichhardt |
LTC1218 Item 7 Croydon Road, Croydon - Proposed Pedestrian and Traffic Calming treatments. (Leichhardt Ward/Strathfield Electorate/Burwood PAC) |
Page 7 |
|
Leichhardt |
LTC1218 Item 8 Croydon Road and Church Street, Croydon - Proposed improvements to intersection. (Leichhardt Ward/Strathfield Electorate/Burwood PAC) |
Page 10 |
|
Leichhardt |
LTC1218 Item 11 Unnamed Laneway (Rear of Nos.55A-57 Albert Street), Leichhardt - Proposed Extension of 'No Stopping' Zone (Leichhardt Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC) |
Page 14 |
|
Leichhardt |
LTC1218 Item 19 168 Norton Street, Leichhardt (D/2018/490) - Development Application (Leichhardt Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC) |
Page 21 |
|
Leichhardt |
LTC1218 Item 21 Funding for a pedestrian refuge in Darley Street, Leichhardt |
Page 22 |
|
Ashfield |
LTC1218 Item 16 Holden Street, Ashfield - Proposed relocation of Bus Zone to outside the Ashfield Baptist Church. (Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Burwood PAC) |
Page 19 |
|
Ashfield |
LTC1218 Item 17 Forbes Street, Croydon Park – Introduction of short term parking restrictions (Ashfield Ward / Summer Hill Electorate / Burwood PAC) |
Page 20 |
|
Balmain |
LTC1218 Item 3 Darling Street at Denison Street, Rozelle - Intersection Improvements - Design Plan 10046 (Balmain Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC) |
Page 4 |
|
Balmain |
LTC1218 Item 4 Warayama Place and Yara Avenue, Rozelle - Proposed 'No Stopping' Restrictions (Balmain Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC) |
Page 5 |
|
Balmain |
LTC1218 Item 6 Cheltenham Street at Foucart Street and Brockley Street at Denison Street, Rozelle - Proposed 'No Stopping' Restrictions (Balmain Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC) |
Page 6 |
|
Balmain |
LTC1218 Item 12 James Lane, Balmain East - Proposed Extension of 'No Parking' Restriction (Balmain Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC) |
Page 15 |
|
Balmain |
LTC1218 Item 18 Wharf Road, Birchgrove - Extension of 'No Parking' restrictions (Balmain Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC) |
Page 21 |
|
Stanmore |
LTC1218 Item 1 Draft Newtown Local Area Traffic Management Strategy (Stanmore Ward/Newtown Electorate/Inner West PAC) |
Page 2 |
|
Stanmore |
LTC1218 Item 2 Draft Newington Local Area Traffic Management Strategy (Stanmore Ward/Newtown Electorate/Inner West PAC) |
Page 3 |
|
Stanmore |
LTC1218 Item 9 Lennox Street, Newtown – Proposed Redesign and Upgrade Works at Lennox Street Car Park - Amended Design Plan 6088_A (Stanmore Ward/ Newtown Electorate / Inner West PAC) |
Page 12 |
|
Stanmore |
LTC1218 Item 10 31 Fort Street, Petersham - Proposed 'No Parking' and P15 minute 7am-3pm restrictions (Stanmore Ward/Newtown Electorate/Inner West PAC) |
Page 13 |
|
Stanmore |
LTC1218 Item 20 Construction truck movements in Newtown |
Page 22 |
|
Marrickville
|
LTC1218 Item 13 Silver Street at Unwins Bridge Road, St Peters - Proposed installation of 'No Stopping' restrictions (Marrickville Ward/Heffron Electorate/Inner West LAC) |
Page 15 |
|
Marrickville
|
LTC1218 Item 15 Tramway Street, Tempe - Proposed 'No Parking' in the cul de sac (Marrickville Ward/Heffron Electorate/ Inner West PAC) |
Page 18 |
|
All Wards
|
LTC1218 Item 14 Minor Traffic Facilities (All Wards/ All Electorates/ All LACs) |
Page 16 |
ITEMS BY WARD – 4 FEBRUARY 2019 MEETING
|
Ward |
Item |
Page Number |
|
Leichhardt |
LTC0219 Item 6 Canal Road and Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield - Temporary Road Closure for EDGE Greenway event (Leichhardt Ward / Balmain Electorate / Leichhardt PAC) |
Page 8 |
|
Leichhardt |
LTC0219 Item 19 Chapman Lane (rear of Nos.129 - 133 Annandale Street), Annandale - Proposed Extension of 'No Parking' zone (Leichhardt Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt PAC) |
Page 17 |
|
Leichhardt |
LTC0219 Item 24 Susan Lane, Annandale - Extension of Existing Resident Parking Scheme (Leichhardt Ward/Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt PAC) |
Page 22 |
|
Leichhardt |
LTC0219 Item 26 Rawson Street, Haberfield - Proposed '15 Minute' Parking Zone (Leichhardt Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Burwood PAC |
Page 24 |
|
Leichhardt |
LTC0219 Item 27 Parramatta Road, Leichhardt - Proposed '1 hour' Parking Zone (Leichhardt Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt PAC) |
Page 24 |
|
Leichhardt |
LTC0219 Item 28 Young Street at Collins Street, Annandale - Proposed modification to existing 'No Stopping' zone (Leichhardt Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt PAC) |
Page 25 |
|
Leichhardt |
LTC0219 Item 36 Traffic at the intersection of Martin Street and Ramsay Street, Haberfield |
Page 30 |
|
Ashfield |
LTC0219 Item 12 Longport Street, Lewisham - Proposed extension of Peak Hour Parking Restrictions (Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Inner West PAC) |
Page 12 |
|
Ashfield |
LTC0219 Item 18 Grove Street, Dulwich Hill - Extension of Existing Resident Permit Scheme Hours (Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Inner West PAC) |
Page 16 |
|
Ashfield |
LTC0219 Item 20 Short Street, Dulwich Hill- Proposed Permit Parking restrictions (Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/LAC) |
Page 19 |
|
Ashfield |
LTC0219 Item 29 Old Canterbury Road,
Dulwich Hill- Proposed 'No Stopping' restrictions between Constitution Road
and No.275 Old Canterbury Road, Dulwich Hill. |
Page 25 |
|
Ashfield |
LTC0219 Item 37 Parking for Metro Assist staff in Ashfield |
Page 30 |
|
Ashfield |
LTC0219 Item 38 Pedestrian crossing in front of Dulwich Hill Public School |
Page 31 |
|
Ashfield |
LTC0219 Item 40 Closed footpath on Parramatta Road, Ashfield |
Page 31 |
|
Balmain |
LTC0219 Item 1 Mullens Street, near Beattie Street, Balmain - Raised Pedestrian (Zebra) Crossing (Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt PAC) |
Page 2 |
|
Balmain |
LTC0219 Item 3 Darling Street between Mort Street and Curtis Road, Balmain - Road Occupancy - ANZAC Day Dawn Service (Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt PAC) |
Page 4 |
|
Balmain |
LTC0219 Item 5 Temporary Road Closure - Cook Street (between Angelini Street and Brockley Street), Rozelle (Balmain Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt PAC) |
Page 7 |
|
Balmain |
LTC0219 Item 11 Rosieville Lane, Balmain - Proposed 'No Parking' Restriction (Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt PAC) |
Page 12 |
|
Balmain |
LTC0219 Item 21 Little Theodore Street, Balmain - Proposed Extension of 'No Parking' zone (Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt PAC) |
Page 19 |
|
Balmain |
LTC0219 Item 25 King Lane, Balmain - 'No Parking' zone (Balmain Ward/ Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt PAC) |
Page 23 |
|
Balmain |
LTC0219 Item 35 Proposed Development at 63-65 Pyrmont Bridge Road, Annandale |
Page 30 |
|
Stanmore |
LTC0219 Item 4 Audley Street, Sadlier Crescent, Fisher Street, and parking lanes on New Canterbury Road Petersham – Temporary Full Road Closures For Special Event On Sunday 10 March 2019 – Bairro Portuguese Food and Wine Fair (Stanmore Ward/Newtown Electorate/ Marrickville PAC) |
Page 6 |
|
Stanmore |
LTC0219 Item 9 Lord Street, Newtown - Proposed kerb blister islands (Stanmore Ward, Newtown Electorate, Inner West PAC) |
Page 11 |
|
Stanmore |
LTC0219 Item 15 Cannon Lane, Stanmore - Proposed 'No Stopping' and 'No Parking' restrictions (Stanmore Ward/Newtown Electorate/Inner West PAC) |
Page 14 |
|
Stanmore |
LTC0219 Item 17 Brighton Street, Petersham Intersection with Unnamed Lane - Proposed Parking Restrictions (Stanmore Ward/Newtown Electorate/Inner West PAC) |
Page 16 |
|
Stanmore |
LTC0219 Item 30 Liberty Street and Bedford Street, Stanmore – Temporary full road closure for rail overbridge refurbishment works – notice of change of date of works in March 2019 (STANMORE WARD /NEWTOWN ELECTORATE/ INNER WEST PAC) |
Page 26 |
|
Stanmore |
LTC0219 Item 33 3-7 & 13-17 Regent Street, 287-309 Trafalgar Street & 16-20 Fisher Street, Petersham - DA201800173 – Residential and Mixed Use Development and RSL Relocation over 3 Sites (Stanmore Ward / Newtown Electorate / Inner West PAC) |
Page 29 |
|
Stanmore |
LTC0219 Item 34 Bus Stop outside Camperdown WestConnex site |
Page 30 |
|
Marrickville
|
LTC0219 Item 2 Smidmore Street, Marrickville – Road Occupancy - Request by BreastScreen NSW to position a Mobile X-ray Unit on Street between 11 March 2019 and 9 May 2019 (Marrickville Ward / Summer Hill Electorate / Inner West PAC) |
Page 2 |
|
Marrickville
|
LTC0219 Item 7 Council Street, St Peters - Proposed Parking Restrictions (Marrickville Ward/ Heffron Electorate/Inner West PAC) |
Page 9 |
|
Marrickville
|
LTC0219 Item 8 Gannon Lane, Tempe - Proposed Parking Restrictions (Marrickville Ward/Heffron Electorate/Inner West PAC) |
Page 10 |
|
Marrickville
|
LTC0219 Item 10 Unnamed Lane - rear of No.39 Warren Road, Marrickville - Proposed 'No Parking' restriction (Marrickville Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Inner West PAC) |
Page 11 |
|
Marrickville
|
LTC0219 Item 13 Cavey Street, Marrickville - Proposed 'No Parking' in cul de sac (Marrickville Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Inner west PAC) |
Page 13 |
|
Marrickville
|
LTC0219 Item 14 Roach Street, Marrickville - 'Proposed No Parking' in cul de sac (Marrickville Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Inner West PAC) |
Page 14 |
|
Marrickville
|
LTC0219 Item 16 Silver Street, St Peters - Proposed 10m No Stopping at intersection with Edith Lane (Marrickville Ward/Heffron Electorate/Inner West PAC) |
Page 15 |
|
Marrickville
|
LTC0219 Item 22 Frampton Lane, Marrickville - Request for ‘No Parking’ Restrictions (Marrickville Ward / Summer Hill Electorate / Inner West PAC) |
Page 20 |
|
Marrickville
|
LTC0219 Item 31 The ‘Gear Up Girl’ Bicycle Event (Marrickville Ward/Summer Hill & Heffron Electorate/Inner West PAC) |
Page 27 |
|
Marrickville
|
LTC0219 Item 32 WestConnex New M5 Operational Parking & Access Strategy Consultation (Marrickville Ward/Heffron Electorate/Inner West PAC) |
Page 29 |
|
Marrickville
|
LTC0219 Item 39 Heavy vehicle use on Campbell Street, St Peters |
Page 31 |
|
All Wards
|
LTC0219 Item 23 Minor Traffic Facilities (All Wards/All Electorates/All LAC's) |
Page 23 |
BACKGROUND
Meetings of the Inner West Council Local Traffic Committee were held on 4 December 2018 and 4 February 2019 at Petersham. The minutes of the December meeting are shown at ATTACHMENT 1. The minutes of the February meeting are shown at ATTACHMENT 2.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Projects proposed for implementation in 2018/19 are funded within existing budget allocations.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Specific projects have undergone public consultation as indicated in the respective reports to
the Traffic Committee. Members of the public attended the meeting to address the Committee
on specific items.
|
1.⇩ |
Minutes of Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 4 December 2018 |
|
2.⇩ |
Minutes of Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 4 February 2019 |
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: Decision made Under Delegated Authority During the Council Recess
Prepared By: Ian Naylor - Manager Civic and Executive Support
Authorised By: Nellette Kettle - Group Manager Customer Service & Civic Governance
|
SUMMARY Council has resolved to grant the Mayor delegated authority to make urgent decisions on behalf of Council during the annual recess period. Any decisions made under delegated authority are to be reported to the first available Ordinary Council meeting. This report details the decision made under this Delegation during the Council Recess. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council note the decision made under Delegation by the Mayor during the Council Recess. |
BACKGROUND
At the Council Meeting on 11 December 2018, Council considered a confidential report (Item 47) on the Expression of Interest Process to appoint an additional independent member to the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee. At this Meeting Council resolved the following;
“THAT:
1. Council resolve to invite councillors to attend ARIC meetings, following advanced registration, as observers; and
2. Request the chair of ARIC to brief councillors on a yearly basis to report to councillors on the work of the committee”.
The Council resolution did not finalise the Expression of Interest Process and a decision under the Mayor’s delegation was required so that staff could finalise the application process and notify the applicants who applied for this position. While not stated in the above resolution, the intention of the Council was to not appoint an additional independent member to the ARIC at this stage. This decision was considered urgent as the application process was commenced in August 2018 and the applicants should be notified of the outcome of the process. The Mayor made the following decision under delegation during the Council recess;
“THAT Council not appoint any additional members to the Audit Risk and Improvement Committee at this time, and write to all applicants who applied to the Expression of Interest to thank them for their interest in the role, and the time they took to make a submission and attend any interviews”.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Nil.
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
Nil.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Nil.
CONCLUSION
Nil.
|
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: National General Assembly of Local Government 2019
Prepared By: Ian Naylor - Manager Civic and Executive Support
Authorised By: Nellette Kettle - Group Manager Customer Service & Civic Governance
|
SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to advise Council that registrations are open for the National General Assembly 2019 to be held in Canberra and that motions need to be submitted by 29 March 2019. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council:
1. Give consideration to Councillors attending the National General Assembly of Local Government 2019; and
2. Give consideration to putting forward and adopting any motions that meet the National General Assembly’s criteria by 26 March 2019. |
BACKGROUND
The National General Assembly of Local Government 2019 will be held in Canberra from 16-19 June 2019. The purpose of the General Assembly is to bring together councils from around Australia to discuss, debate and adopt motions of national significance.
The cost for registration, travel and accommodation for the General Assembly will be approximately $2000 per Councillor. Funds are available in the Councillors Conference and Training Budget to cover these expenses.
Motions
The National General Assembly is an important opportunity for councils to influence the national policy agenda. The primary focus of all motions should be to strengthen the capacity of local government to provide services and infrastructure in Australia. To be eligible for inclusion in the Business Papers, and subsequent debate on the floor, motions must meet the following criteria;
· Be relevant to the work of local government nationally;
· Be consistent with the theme of the National General Assembly;
· Complement or build on the policy objectives of your state and territory local government association;
· Be submitted by a council which is a financial member of their state or territory local government association;
· Propose a clear action and outcome; and
· Not be advanced on behalf of external third parties that may seek to use the NGA to apply pressure to Board members or to gain national political exposure for positions that are not directly relevant to the work of, or in the national interests of, local government.
Motions must be adopted by the Ordinary Council Meeting on 26 March to meet the Conference deadline of 29 March. To assist councils to identify motions that address the 2019 theme, ‘Future Focused’, the Australian Local Government Association Secretariat has prepared a short discussion paper shown as Attachment 1.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Nil.
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
Nil.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Start typing the “public participation” section here. Please enter “Nil.” if public participation did not occur, or “Not applicable.” if public participation does not apply.
CONCLUSION
Nil.
|
1.⇩ |
National General Assembly Discussion Paper |
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: Status of Legal Proceedings
Prepared By: Joe Strati - General Counsel
Authorised By: Rik Hart - Interim General Manager
|
SUMMARY This report provides Council with a summary of legal proceedings in which Council is involved. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Report be received and noted. |
BACKGROUND
This report provides Council with a summary of legal proceedings in which Council is involved.
It does not include the following types of legal proceedings:
1. Proceedings that are managed by Council’s insurers;
2. Local Court proceedings involving an appeal against a parking fine; and
3. Proceedings for the recovery of debts where those proceedings are being run by council’s external debt collection agency.
The report is current as at 1 February 2019. It does not capture changes that have occurred between that date and the date the report is considered by Council. As the report contains no information of a confidential nature that falls within section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, it is published as an open report. Should, however, Council wish to seek legal advice on any matter addressed in the report, it would be appropriate for Council to enter into closed session for such advice to be provided and so that any legal professional privilege that may attach to such advice is not waived.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Nil.
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
Nil.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Nil.
|
1.⇩ |
Summary of Legal Matters as at 1 February 2019 |
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: Investment Report as at 31 December 2018
Prepared By: Brendhan Barry - Manager Financial Services
Authorised By: Michael Tzimoulas - Deputy General Manager Chief Financial and Administration Officer
|
SUMMARY In accordance with the requirements of clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council is provided with a listing of all investments made pursuant to section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993 and reported for period ending 31 December 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 December 2018 reflects Council’s holding in various investment categories these are listed in the table below. Council’s portfolio size sits at $209.9m, of which 83% 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 continues to exceed the bank bill index benchmark. The period ending 31 December 2018, the portfolio for Inner West Council had a One-Month Portfolio Investment Return of 4.07%, above the UBSWA Bank Bill Index Benchmark (1.81%).
Council has a well-diversified portfolio with 83% 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 $205.3m with the relative total portfolio percentage of 98%.
Council’s holdings in NFF investments were $147.3m with the relative total portfolio percentage of 70%.
Council’s holdings in SRI’s were $58.0m, with the relative total portfolio percentage of 28%.
The attachments to this report summarise all investments held by Council and interest returns for periods ending 31 December 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 December 2018 have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, Local Government Regulations and the Inner West Council Investment Policy.
|
1.⇩ |
IWC Dec18 |
|
2.⇩ |
IWC Economic and Investment Portfolio Commentary Dec18 |
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: Quarterly Update on Tenders Awarded
Prepared By: Joe Cavagnino - Procurement Services Manager
Authorised By: Michael Tzimoulas - Deputy General Manager Chief Financial and Administration Officer
|
SUMMARY Following resolution by Council at its meeting on 3rd July 2018, a list of tenders awarded under delegation by the General Manager is reported to Council for its information. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT information on tenders awarded by the General Manager be received and noted. |
BACKGROUND
On 3rd July 2018, Council resolved that the General Manager be given the delegated authority to award tenders for Contracts up to the value of $1,500,000.
Council further resolved:
2. Information on tenders issued and awarded under delegation by the General Manager be reported to Council for information only at the next possible council meeting.
Accordingly, this report provides advice to Council on tenders awarded by the General Manager that are below the $1,500,000 delegated amount.
For the quarter 1 October 2018 to 31 December 2018, the following tender where awarded:
|
Tender No
|
Description of Goods & or Services |
Awarded Tenderer/Contractor |
Amount Exc GST |
|
T17/18 |
Waterfront Drive Sporting Ground Upgrade |
Landscape Solutions Australia Pty Ltd |
$1,380,000.00 |
|
T03/18 |
Construction of toilet in Wicks Park Amenities Building |
Kellyville Building Pty Ltd |
$470,000.00 |
|
T23/18 |
Sydenham Green Landscape Interpretation |
Landscape Solutions Australia Pty Ltd |
$400,000.00 |
|
T26/18 |
Upgrade of Share Building (Stage 1,2 & 3) at 135 Smith St Summer Hill NSW 2130
|
Maico Property Services Pty Ltd |
$300,895.00 |
|
T15/18
|
Mort Bay Park Lookout Construction |
Growth Civil Landscapes Pty Ltd |
$188,182.00 |
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Nil.
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
Nil.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Nil
CONCLUSION
Council to receive and note this report for information only.
|
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: Notice of Motion to Rescind: C1016 Item 8 Establishment of Alcohol Free Zones - Ashfield LGA
From: Councillors Tom Kiat, Colin Hesse and Louise Steer
|
Motion:
We, the abovementioned Councillors, hereby submit a Notice of Motion to rescind Council’s resolution of 25 October 2016, C1016 Item 8 Establishment of Alcohol Free Zones – Ashfield LGA and if supported, we propose to move the following alternate motion;
THAT Council receive a report regarding the proposed alcohol free zones and alcohol prohibited areas for its consideration, with an expanded focus of community consultation to include users of public space for drinking and organisations that support those vulnerable to Police fines for drinking in public spaces.
|
Background
At the Council Meeting on 25 October 2016, the Administrator resolved:-
C1016 Item 8 Establishment of Alcohol Free Zones - Ashfield LGA
Administrator determined that:
1. Council adopt the establishment of Alcohol-Free Zones for a 4 year period operating 24 hours 7 days per week at the following locations:-
· Chessell Lane, Ashfield;
· Fox’s Lane, Ashfield;
· Hercules Street, Ashfield;
· Summer Hill Car Park;
· The Esplanade, Ashfield;
· Directly outside the Exodus Foundation on Liverpool Road, Ashfield; and
· Directly outside the Catholic Club on Station Street, Ashfield (including from the intersection of Elizabeth and Charlotte Streets)
2. Council adopt the establishment of Alcohol Prohibited Areas for a 4 year period
operating from 9pm to 7am 7 days per week at the following locations:-
· Bill Peters Reserve;
· Darrell Jackson Park;
· Allman Park;
· Ashfield Park;
· Centenary Park;
· Hammond Park;
· Pratten Park; and
· Yeo Park.
3. Council adopt the establishment of Alcohol-Free Zones for a 4 year period operating
9pm to 7am 7 days per week at Summer Hill Fountain; and
4. A review be undertaken after 12 months.
During the period of the unelected Administrator, the Ashfield Police requested Council establish Alcohol Free Zones (AFZs) and Alcohol Prohibited Areas (APAs) in various public street and park locations. The Administrator acceded to this request. Minimal community consultation was conducted - of the 9 submissions to the statutorily required exhibition period, 6 thought the proposed APAs in parks were too restrictive.
There may be legitimate and persuasive reasons to restrict the freedom of people to drink alcohol in public by establishing AFZs and APAs in parks and streets. For example, drinking alcohol in a children's playground between midnight and 5am may be completely inconsistent with a park's Plan of Management and the peace and comfort of neighbouring residents.
However, as there are already statutory powers that allow police to deal with drunken and disorderly behaviour in public, Council should not lightly take the decision to restrict the freedom to lawfully and respectfully enjoy public space. This impacts on every person's ability to use our precious and limited public space. The impact is especially felt by young people and poor people who cannot afford to drink in increasing fancy bars. In Ashfield on Hercules St, I have often seen men who are experiencing homelessness drinking together without causing any disturbance or harm to anyone. Where people do engage in harmful or disorderly behaviour in public, police have existing powers to appropriately respond.
We propose that this matter be reported to the elected Council for its consideration. In keeping with the elected Council's commitment to community consultation, the community engagement for this issue should be expanded beyond mere exhibition of a proposal. We need to engage with those who are using our spaces, for drinking or otherwise, as well as community organisations who support those who may be disproportionately affected by AFZs (e.g. homelessness services). In relation to APAs in parks, we need to ensure that prohibitions do not unnecessarily restrict residents' use of parks for picnics and social events (e.g. in non-Anglo communities it is not unusual for families and groups to use parks after dark in Summer). Community engagement would determine where problematic public drinking behaviour actually exists and hopefully lead to more creative and positive solutions than prohibition.
|
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: Notice of Motion: Joining The Local Government Mayoral Taskforce For People Seeking Asylum To Advocate Against The SRSS Cuts
From: Councillor Marghanita Da Cruz
|
Motion:
THAT Council:
1. Endorses the Joint Statement against changes to the Status Resolution Support Service as formulated by Councils that attended the Mayoral Roundtable held in Dandenong, Victoria on 31 July 2018 shown at Appendix 2;
2. Joins the Local Government Mayoral Taskforce Supporting People Seeking Asylum as a General Member
3. Endorses the Back Your Neighbour Campaign run by the Taskforce.
4. 4. Nominates one or more Councillors as the Inner West Council contact(s) to the taskforce. |
Background
Changes by the Federal Government to the SRSS (Status Resolution Support Services)
program are concerning many Councils as it will cut all income and case management
support of many people seeking asylum and dramatically increase the demand for material
aid resources at the local municipality level. This action will likely leave many people
destitute and requests for places to live, money for clothes, food and medicine, will only
escalate and there will likely be an impact on social cohesion. Within Victoria alone, the
number at risk from these changes is 5,863.
People seeking asylum were already accessing emergency assistance in increasing
numbers from support agencies and other charities such as the Asylum Seeker’s Centre in
Newtown. Many of these organisations receive no government funding. Cuts to the SRSS
program increase the barriers facing asylum seekers in settling into local communities.
In July, 2018 a Mayoral Roundtable was held of interested in Victorian Councils concerned
about the issue. What was agreed was a joint statement see Appendix. Also there was
agreement to form an ongoing taskforce to advocate on the issue. This taskforce, the Local
Government Mayoral Taskforce for People Seeking Asylum expanded in October 2018 to
become national and already has 20 member Councils including four from NSW.
Following the SRSS Mayoral Roundtable held in Dandenong on Tuesday 31 July to discuss
joint advocacy against these changes as well as practical responses a group of Victorian
Councils has now formed the Local Government Mayoral Taskforce Supporting People
Seeking Asylum. The Taskforce is chaired by the City of Greater Dandenong Mayor, Cr
Roz Blades AM.
On the 3rd December, the Taskforce launched the “Back Your Neighbour” campaign against
the cuts. Social Change Projects is managing the Campaign on behalf of the Taskforce and
has a strong record in this area, responsible in Victoria for managing the Make Rent Fair
campaign and nationally and will be running a strong media and stakeholder campaign from
now until at least the Federal election.
Previous Inner West Council Resolution on the SRSS Cuts
At the 24 July 2018 Council Meeting Inner West Council Resolved that:
1. Council writes to the Prime Minister and to the Federal Minister of Home Affairs asking the
Federal Government to reverse cuts to the Status Resolution Support Services (SRSS)
program and highlighting the unfair and devastating impact of these cuts on people seeking
asylum and the Inner West community’s disagreement with these cuts;
2. Council writes to the Premier of New South Wales asking her to make representation to
both the Prime Minister and the Federal Minister of Home Affairs to highlight the devastating
impact of these cuts on the NSW community and to reverse the cuts;
3. Members of Parliaments for the seats of Balmain, Heffron, Newtown, Strathfield, Summer
Hill and Grayndler; New South Wales Senators; and Members of the NSW Legislative
Council are informed of Council’s position;
4. Other NSW Councils are contacted seeking their support for joint advocacy on this issue;
5. Council publicises practical way members of the Inner West Community can work with the
Asylum Seekers Centre in Newtown to support people seeking asylum
(https://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/live/community-well-being/migrant-support-services)
6. Council considers practical ways of supporting people seeking asylum; and
7. Council works with the Asylum Seekers Centre in Newtown to organise a civic leaders
meetings with community leaders in the Inner West. The meeting will discuss ways the
community can collectively address the challenges lying ahead for people seeking asylum.
APPENDIX 1 Taskforce purpose
Coordination of joint state-wide advocacy by Councils and sharing resources and
practical responses by communities to the issues caused by the SRSS cuts.
Councils involved as Executive Members (Executive Members meet monthly and
act as a steering group for the Taskforce.): Brimbank City Council, City of Darebin,
City of Greater Dandenong, City of Hume, City of Monash, Hobsons Bay City
Council, Moreland City Council, Yarra City Council
Councils involved as General Members (General Members get consulted on
Taskforce direction, take an active role in Taskforce activities and contribute
resources to the Taskforce.):Banyule City Council, Cardinia Shire Council, City of
Ballarat, City of Port Phillip, City of Wagga Wagga (NSW), City of Whittlesea,
Hawkesbury City Council (NSW), Leeton Shire Council (NSW), Maribynong City
Council, Moonee Valley City Council and Wyndham City Council.
Back Your Neighbour Campaign
The Back Your Neighbour Campaign, which was launched on 3 December 2018, has
seen 22 Councils band together to ensure people who have fled persecution do not
end up suffering homelessness or destitution as a result of the Federal Government
cuts. This campaign symbolises a unified approach with Councils from NSW and
Victoria involved together with community ambassadors and advocates to have
financial and support services reinstated for asylum seekers.
The objectives of the Back Your Neighbour campaign are to:
Change (reverse or mitigate) the Federal Government’s current policy on
SRSS support for people seeking asylum in the community
Increase humanitarian support from the Victorian Government
Support the Federal Opposition to maintain its new position supporting people
seeking asylum in the community during the election period and, if elected,
into government
For more information visit backyourneighbour.com.au or
facebook.com/backyourneighbour to join the campaign.
If your Council are interested in joining the Taskforce, or just want further information
please contact Peter Johnstone, Coordinator, Community Development, City of
Greater Dandenong at peter.johnstone@cgd.vic.gov.au.
Source: http://www.greaterdandenong.com/document/32480/local-governmentmayoral-
taskforce-supporting-people-seeking-asylum
APPENDIX 2 Joint Statement against changes to the Status Resolution Support
Services for People Seeking Asylum
We the undersigned representatives of local governments in Victoria issue the following
statement:
We want the Australian Government to provide adequate resources to meet the needs of
people seeking asylum who live in the community. Over 4,000 children nationally could be
affected by the changes and we call upon the Australia Government to adhere to its national
and international obligations in accordance with the Charter of Human Rights.
We strongly believe more effective collaboration and coordination is essential between
Commonwealth, State and Local Governments and we seek the following commitments
from the Australian Government:
Commitment One: We want the Australian Government to reverse the recent
assessment changes to the Status Resolution Support Services (SRSS) program and
provide adequate income and case management support for people seeking asylum
while they seek sustainable employment.
Commitment Two: We strongly call on the Australian Government to provide funding
to enable accurate initial job readiness assessment by trained employment consultants
who understand the unique and significant barriers that people seeking asylum face.
Commitment Three: We want the Australian Government to provide additional funding
to enable asylum seekers to be registered as Stream B and C job seekers within the
jobactive network of agencies to facilitate ongoing job readiness assessment and
skilled employment consultant support.
Commitment Four: The Australian Government needs to improve local area
coordination in cooperation with LGA’s. We call on the Australian Government to work
with local municipalities in exploring the feasibility of local coordination points to better
respond to local area need.
Commitment Five: We strongly call on the Australian Government to provide greater
resourcing to reinforce the capacity of community service and voluntary organisations
to assist people seeking asylum to live safely in local communities and receive
emergency relief and material aid support until such time as they receive a substantive
visa or are deported. Accountability Additional resourcing will bring with it an obligation
to ensure that Local Government allocates resources appropriately and resource areas
of identified need. We commit to ensure efficiency and effectiveness. We commit to
evaluate the application of resources in people seeking asylum support programs by
measuring service delivery against agreed objectives and targets. The evaluation
process will include annual program reports and Inter-Governmental consultations to
review program effectiveness and refine objectives and activities
|
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: Notice of Motion: Retaining Wall Condition - Corner of Ballast Point Rd and Short St, Birchgrove
From: Councillor John Stamolis
|
Motion:
THAT Council receive a report on:
a) The condition and stability of the retaining wall at the corner of Ballast Point Road and Short Street including any potential risk; b) The heritage status and ownership of the retaining wall; and c) 3. Who is responsible for the maintenance of the wall and an estimated cost of repair. |
Background
The condition of the stone wall at the corner of Ballast Point Road and Short Street, Birchgrove is deteriorating to such an extent that the wall now has a definite lean and many of the stone blocks have loosened. The presence of self-grown figs has contributed to the instability of the wall. The wall’s condition is a potential risk to the safety of the general public. If the wall were to collapse, there is a 15 metre drop below where the patent slipways of the Morts Dock and Engineering Company once were and there is nothing to protect the general public. Council should assess this potential problem.
Officer’s Comments:
Comments from Development Assessment and Regulatory Services
The retaining wall is located within the Town of Waterview Heritage Conservation Area and is located on private property. The onus of the retaining wall maintenance work and cost falls to the owner ie the private property. Council is not responsible to carry out or bare the cost of maintenance work to the retaining wall.
The concerns regarding the retaining wall stability and potential risk has been formally registered in Council’s Customer Request Management System and referred to Council’s Development Compliance team for investigation and to take the necessary action to rectify the issue.
|
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: Notice of Motion: Callan Park
From: Councillor John Stamolis
|
Motion:
THAT Council:
1. Convey to the leaders of all key political parties at the State Election that it fully supports the establishment of the Callan Park and Broughton Hall Trust and that any decisions or proposals which are not consistent with the Callan Park Special Provisions Act (2002) are not supported.
2. 2. Supports the uses set out by the Callan Park Act since 2002; for education, health and community. |
Background
Broughton Hall Trust, as well as initial funding for urgent works at Callan Park, is most welcome. The establishment of the trust, its non-political composition and the inclusion of community representatives on the Trust; should be the primary focus at this time.
Callan Park is often conveniently portrayed as a vacant and derelict site. This misrepresents its value to our community. This, of course, is opportunistic for those who want to pursue commercial development or commercialisation of this State Significant site and who want to disregard the legal protections of the site as per the Callan Park Act.
The Act clearly defines the use of Callan Park for health, education and community purposes. If anyone goes to the area, they will see how effective the Act is, as follows:
· WHOs drug and alcohol rehabilitation
· Foundation House Rehabilitation Centre
· Mental Health Coordinating Council
· Red Nose (formerly SIDS)
· Sydney College of the Arts
· University of Tasmania
· NSW Ambulance Headquarters
· Writing NSW (formerly the NSW Writers Centre)
· Affordable housing for nurses
· Councils’ refugee welcome centre - a Council initiative
· War memorials
· Laneways Festival
· Classics at Callan Park - a Council run community concert
· Glover Street Community Garden (the first in Australia)
· Aboriginal heritage and middens
· 5 sporting fields - all intensively used day and night
· The Bay Run
· Cycleway.
The Callan Park Masterplan (2011), led by Council, envisages even further opportunities: cafes, restoration of exceptional garden areas, restoration of heritage, the possibility for new and innovate mental health services, a Museum of the Mind and more. Sports fields have already been implemented from this plan with thousands more children and adults now enjoying the sporting amenities at Callan Park.
Education, health and community are protected by the act. These are vital uses that benefit us all. We need to ask why commercialisation should override education, health and community uses, at a time when communities all over NSW are crying out for government to provide these important outcomes.
One might also question the need for a restaurant precinct at Callan Park, in direct competition with our popular restaurant precincts of Balmain, Rozelle and Leichhardt. In fact, right now, our Council is expressing major concern about pubs closing down in the area.
The Callan Park Act protects those opportunities to provide educational, health and community outcomes in our very own area and it prioritises these needs above high-rise development and commercialisation. That is a major benefit of the Act!
The Callan Park Act protects the large areas of green open space and the foreshore, it provides sporting amenity to our community, it supports the Bay Run and it provides a Council sponsored Refugee Welcome Centre. What would happen if building development and commercialisation were to become greater priorities?
|
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: Notice of Motion: The Cancelling of Classics in Callan Park with no consultation
From: Councillor Rochelle Porteous
|
Motion:
THAT: 1. Classics in Callan Park be run in 2019 as was promised to the community and that a new alternative date for it to be run be identified as soon as possible. 2. Further that any future proposal to cancel an existing council event must henceforth come to a council meeting for determination. 3. 3. Should there be any budgetary implications from this motion, that funding be identified in the next quarterly budget review. |
Background
Leichhardt Council’s Sunset Series of outdoor concerts is a well-establish and very popular not only in the Leichhardt Council area but across the Inner West. They are four different music genre concerts with a bi-annual schedule. The series consists of Bluesfest held at War Memorial Park, Leichhardt/Lilyfield; Jazz in the Park held at Gladstone Park in Balmain; World Music fest held in Pioneer Park, Leichhardt and Classics at Callan Park held at Callan Park, Rozelle.
Classics in the Park is due to be held on the last Sunday in March this year - March 24 2019. It is eagerly anticipated by the Rozelle/Lilyfield community and is an important fixture in the calendar for lovers of classical music and opera. Council staff, without informing or consulting with Councillors or the community have decided to cancel Classics in the Park and have determined, again with no consultation, to instead to run the Bluesfest again this year (it was also run in 2018).
Reasons given by staff when I was made aware of this are that the Bluesfest is cheaper per person to run than Classics because more people go to Bluesfest than to the Classics concert and Bluesfest is easier for staff to run than Classics. Staff also noted that Bluesfest is easier to promote through traditional and social media because it will have a headline act with mass appeal and presents less challenges to staff as War Memorial Park is easier to find.
However, Councillors and the community were verbally assured that the all existing events from the 3 councils – Leichhardt, Ashfield and Marrickville would go ahead without change in the 2018/19 financial year. It is likely that staff, who have not previously been involved with these events, do not understand the importance these events have for the local and the arts and creatives community in the Inner West. This is a much loved event.
Different music genre have different audiences, some of these audiences may be larger and some smaller; similarly not everyone uses our libraries, needs disability or youth services or uses our sporting fields. Some of our sporting facilities cost more per capita to run, like the Dawn Fraser Pool, others cost less however all are highly valued by our community and cost per patron or attendee should not be the only criteria upon which decisions are made to provide services or run events. Our council has a varied demographic and the varied events program we run reflects that demographic. Not everyone enjoys the same events nor the same music.
Officer’s Comments:
Comment from Group Manager Communciations, Engagement and Events:
Advice from Council staff who worked on the former Leichhardt Sunset Series events (Jazz in the Park, Bluesfest, Classics in Callan Park, Earthbeat) is that there has always been some operational flexibility around which two events are held each year, and previous changes to this series have not been resolved by Council.
The cost to cancel or change Bluesfest at this stage would be at least $4,000 to cover the 50% cancellation fee for headliners Dragon. It is unlikely we could plan and program Classics at Callan Park six weeks out from the event as more time is generally required for Council’s major events from a risk management, programming and marketing perspective.
Should Council resolve to hold the Classics at Callan Park event in 2019, it is proposed that the event runs in July or August 2019 (i.e. the 2019-20 financial year). This would enable the events team to use the 2019-20 event budget to cover costs and ensure adequate time for planning, risk management and programming. Please note this means that there would be no music event in March 2020 as the funds would be allocated to the July/August event instead.
No decisions have been made to cancel any event as part of Council’s current major events program. The future operation of Council’s major events program – including the Sunset Series – will be addressed in the events review being undertaken in 2019.
|
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: Notice of Motion: Pill Testing
From: Councillor Colin Hesse
|
Motion:
THAT Council:
1. Writes to the Premier and Leader of the Opposition requesting both leaders immediately commit to introduce a trial of pill testing at music festivals around NSW.
2. Writes to the Prime Minister and Federal Leader of the Opposition, and the Premier and NSW Leader of the Opposition in support of an honest ongoing education campaign by the Federal and State Governments to inform potential users of both legal and illegal drugs of the negative effects of drug use and abuse. |
Background
In the last five months five young people in NSW have lost their lives as a result of taking illegal drugs at music festivals.
Many in the medical profession, including the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, as well as those involved in researching the use of illegal drugs have called for a trial of pill testing in NSW.
Pill testing has been trialed overseas to great success, and more recently in the Australian Capital Territory. Support for pill testing is strong in our community.
Campaigns advocating a “just say no” policy have clearly failed both in Australia and overseas. There is much greater evidence that honest public health campaigns outlining the effects of drugs, both legal and illegal, are more effective in controlling the use and abuse of drugs.
|
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: Notice of Motion: St Peters Metro Rail Spoil
From: Councillor Colin Hesse
|
Motion:
THAT Council:
1. Write to the Premier, Leader of the Opposition, and the Sydney Metro calling on them to immediately halt transport by road through St Peters of spoil from the Metro tunnel.
2. Calls on the Premier to ensure that all spoil from the Metro Rail is removed by rail, and notes the negative cummulative effective on the community of St Peters of the construction of the WestConnex, Metro Rail and significant housing construction.
3. Further calls on the Premier to immediately halt all work associated with the WestConnex and Metro Rail projects at St Peters and Marrickville so as to effectively coordinate construction work that reduces the effect of the work on local residents before any further work can proceed.
|
Background
Residents of St Peters have advised that over the summer period trucks have begun to remove spoil from the Metro construction site at Marrickville by way of May Street St Peters. These truck movements have been by night, and are causing additional noise and vibration to residents already suffering the burden of 24 hours a day construction of the WestConnex.
It may be possible to construct a conveyor belt for spoil over the Illawarra Railway line from the Metro Rail site to the former goods rail siding on the St Peters side of the rail line, and for the goods rail siding to be re-connected to the Illawarra rail line for removal of spoil by rail at night.
Additionally residents have been affected by the noise and traffic of the construction of new high-rise fronting the Princes Highway in St Peters, and backing onto Applebee St, and also significantly affecting residents in Hutchinson and Lackey Streets.
Residents are concerned that State and local government authorities need to more effectively coordinate so as to minimise the effect on residents of major construction work, and eliminate night work in residential areas.
Officer’s Comments:
Comments from Development Assessment and Regulatory Services
Compliance and enforcement associated with Westconnex and the Metro rail are investigated and actioned by the Department of Planning and Environment and facilitated by Council’s Westconnex Unit within the Strategic Planning Group.
Council’s Ranger Services are actively investigating and monitoring the construction issues associated with the private construction sites at Applebee Street/Princes Highway, St Peters. These investigations entail Council’s Ranger Services carrying out daily inspections which includes inspections before and after the approved construction hours to ensure to compliance with the development consent.
|
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: Notice of Motion: Ashfield Commuter Carpark
From: Councillor Julie Passas
|
Motion:
THAT Council call upon the State Labor members for Summer Hill and Strathfield to deliver a similar carpark and facilities at an appropriate location if Labor is successful at the March 19 State Election.
|
Background
The State Liberal Government has delivered on their 2015 election promise for a Commuter Carpark at Ashfield Station. The need for this facility is well known and it is reaching capacity by 7.45am daily. It is clear that the carpark should be expanded by adding extra levels or a separate facility at other locations ie. Summer Hill, Canterbury or Lewisham. I recall at the 2015 State Election the Member for Summer Hill stating that she would hold a State Liberal Government to account on the implementation of the Ashfield Commuter carpark. They were and have been accountable.
|
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: Car Park Sale By Request For Tender - Chester Street Petersham
Prepared By: Bojan Sodic - Strategic Investments Manager
Authorised By: Brooke Martin - Group Manager Properties, Major Building Projects and Facilities
|
SUMMARY The Draft Land and Property Strategy includes the initiative for improvements at the Chester Street carpark Petersham. The land is operational and has a total area of 704sqm, with a 20m height limit (6 storeys), Zone R4 FSR 1.3:1 and the surrounding properties are zoned B2 FSR 2.2:1. The carpark currently provides 18 off street carparking spaces. The Petersham parking study identified a need for more parking in the area and there are traffic and accessibility issues connecting New Canterbury Rd and Livingston Rd. It is recommended to undertake a Request For Tender to provide increased carparking (36 spaces), improvements to the rear lane access and cash income. The attached confidential report includes commercial information. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council:
1. Council moves into closed session to deal with this matter as the information contained in CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENTS 1-2 of this report are classified as confidential under the provisions of Section 10A (2) of the Local Government Act 1993 for the following reasons:
c. information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business;
And in accordance with Sections 10A (4) of the Local Government Act 1993, that the Chairperson allow members of the public to make representations as to whether this part of the meeting should be closed.
2. Approves a public tender in accordance with Section 55 of the Local Government Act 1993 for the Sale of the Chester Street Car Park to provide increased carparking (36 spaces), improvements to the rear lane access, balance of cash minus assets.
3. Receive a report on the tender assessment recommendation for endorsement. |
BACKGROUND
Council considered a report on the sale of Chester Street Petersham carpark at the 11th December 2018 meeting and resolved in part the following:
Defer the proposal for Chester Street Carpark Petersham until the February 2019 Council Meeting;
Council own the Chester Street Car Park which comprises of Lots A & B in DP 438174 and Lots 1, 2 & 3 in DP 598422. The car park has an area of 704 square metres and currently provides 18 public car parking spaces.
|
Chester Street Carpark Petersham Sale by Tender Initiative Report - Confidential |
|
|
Valuation Report - Confidential |
|
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: Public Exhibition of Greenway Draft Concept Design
Prepared By: Ryan Hawken - Project Manager Greenway Delivery
Authorised By: Cathy Edwards-Davis - Group Manager Trees, Parks and Streetscapes
|
SUMMARY Draft Concept Designs have been prepared for high priority works as identified in the Cooks to Cove GreenWay Master Plan. Options are presented for Councils consideration with relation to the potential part or full acquisition of 43 Hercules Street. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT:
1. Council moves into closed session to deal with this matter as the information contained in CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENTS 1-5 of this report are classified as confidential under the provisions of Section 10A (2) of the Local Government Act 1993 for the following reasons:
a. personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors) c. information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business;
And in accordance with Sections 10A (4) of the Local Government Act 1993, that the Chairperson allow members of the public to make representations as to whether this part of the meeting should be closed.
2. Adopt the recommendations contained in the Confidential Attachment. |
BACKGROUND
The GreenWay Master Plan was adopted by Council on 14 August 2018. Following on from the Master Plan, draft Concept Designs have been prepared for high priority works as identified in the Master Plan. This broadly includes concept design of:
· all works, from Parramatta Road south to the Cooks River, excluding those areas covered by the Greenway Central Links Development Application;
· the shared path upgrade and associated lighting only, through Richard Murden Reserve and along the Bay Run from UTS Haberfield Rowing Club to, and inclusive of, the Lilyfield Road bridge
Due to their size, the draft Concept Design Plans are available to view electronically on Councils website
The draft Concept Designs are based directly on the adopted Master Plan.
A summary of key issues arising
through the development of the draft Concept Design Plans are provided below.
Traffic modifications in Cooks River Precinct
The key traffic changes from the master plan, based on the outcomes of further community and stakeholder engagement or new information, are:
· A raised pedestrian and bicycle crossing is proposed across Ewart Street in lieu of traffic signals at Ewart Street and Terrace Road based on feedback from residents and RMS that traffic signals are not supported due to traffic volumes and amenity.
· A bike boulevarde is proposed down Garnet Street in lieu of a separated cycle way based on feedback from residents the separated cycle way is not supported due to that the resultant loss of car parking.
Acquisition of 43 Hercules Street
As part of the draft Concept Designs, Council’s consultants have developed a number of options to provide access from Hercules Street into the proposed Greenway corridor to the south. CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 1 sets out options for Councils consideration with relation to the potential part or full acquisition of 43 Hercules Street.
Path at Waratah Mills
The other key issue raised during the engagement to date is the alignment of the path through the Waratah Mills bush care site and the impacts on the bush care site and adjacent property. Issues raised by residents and stakeholders include:
· Path alignment and construction type
· Light and noise
· Security and fencing
· Drainage at Terry Road
· Pedestrian safety at Terry Road
The path alignment remains as per the master plan. Although this alignment will have significant impacts on the existing bush care site, the path alignment protects vegetation with the greatest habitat value, and considers resident amenity. The path is located further away from residences where they have an active frontage on a similar level to the Greenway path.
Lighting nominated in the draft concept has been selected to have minimal spill, and poles located to minimize light spill and amenity impacts on residents. The location of the path within the corridor will have negligible effect on noise generated or received by residences.
Regarding security, it is well established that increasing activity reduces crime. No fencing upgrades are proposed along the property boundary with Waratah Mills as there is an existing 1.8m chain wire fence or a higher concrete wall. It is noted that under the Dividing Fences Act 1991, Council has no obligation to provide fencing of private property.
Drainage at Terry Road has been considered and addressed in the draft concept and will reduce the frequency of flooding, but not eliminate it.
Safety at the intersection of the Greenway path and Terry Road has been considered and addressed in the draft concept design, however it is noted that under the Road Rules 2014 cars exiting a driveway or carpark are required to give way to any pedestrian, cyclist or other vehicle already on Terry Road, including the footpath or verge.
Next Steps
It is intended to publically exhibit the draft Concept Designs for 4 weeks in March 2019. Results of the public exhibition will be reported back to Council.
Following endorsement of a final concept design, staff will commence the next stages of planning to facilitate preparation of a development application and detailed design. This will include, but not be limited to:
· Utility investigations, geotechnical investigations and soil testing investigations to inform the detailed design and development assessment.
· Further liaison with state agencies and specifically in relation to approvals from RMS, Sydney Trains, Transdev and Sydney Water
· Wayfinding and interpretation plan for the Greenway, including consideration of directional signage and interpretation of ecology and industrial and aboriginal heritage.
· Statement of environmental effects and associated environmental and arboricultural studies to inform development assessment
· Detailed design, including civil, structural, landscape and lighting based on the endorsed concept design.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
As part of the draft concept design an updated cost estimate has been prepared. The cost of the proposed works set out in the draft concept exceeds current funding levels. As a result some elements shown in the draft concept plan will not be delivered unless additional funding becomes available.
Items which may need to be deferred or changed to make up the funding shortfall include (item numbers in brackets relate to items in the adopted Greenway Master Plan):
· Defer Canal Road bike friendly upgrade (Item 1.02)
· Defer Gadigal Reserve ecological restoration and informal nature play (Items 2.10 and 2.14)
· Defer Lewisham West Habitat wetland and community garden (Items 3.01 and 3.02)
· Defer Lewisham West Dog off leash area (Item 3.08)
· Modify raised path from Davis Street to Johnson Park to be on-grade (Item 4.02)
· Defer Davis Street Tunnel, relocation of isolation transformer and associated artwork (Item 4.06)
· Defer Johnson Park Signature artwork (Item 4.05)
· Defer Hercules Street open space grass terraces (Item 5.06)
· Defer Hercules Street open linear skateable edge (Item 5.07)
· Defer Modest artwork at southern end of Jack Shanahan Park (item 5.10)
· Defer Lighting upgrade Ness Ave (part item 6.07)
· Modify Lighting along Greenway from P2 to P3 standard (part item 1.40, 4.02, 4.12, 5.14)
CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 1 sets out costs based on the draft detailed design and quantifies possible cost savings. A more detailed report regarding costs will be reported back to Council at the end of the public exhibition process.
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
These matters have been reviewed through the Greenway PCG.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
The draft Concept Designs have been prepared based on the Master Plan with further input from community groups and directly affected residents as well as state agencies and staff.
Prior to the proposed public exhibition, two main rounds of engagement were undertaken in late September and early October; and in late November and early December. This included
· 8 resident workshops for directly affected residents;
· 2 community stakeholder workshops;
· Specific meetings with RMS, Sydney Trains and Canterbury Bankstown Council; and
· Specific engagement with individual residents as requested.
A summary of the community engagement comments are available on Council’s engagement website: https://yoursay.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/greenway
It is intended to publically exhibit the draft Concept Designs for 4 weeks in March 2019.
This will include a newsletter to all residents within 400m of the GreenWay corridor informing of the draft Concept Design and seeking feedback, as well as providing the plans and a feedback form on Council’s engagement website.
|
Confidential Attachment - Confidential |
|
|
Letter to Residents - Confidential |
|
|
43 Hercules Street Options - Confidential |
|
|
HV Option 1 - Confidential |
|
|
HV Option 2 - Confidential |
|
|
Council Meeting 26 February 2019 |
Subject: Code of Conduct Complaint Investigation
Council at its meeting on 12 February 2019 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 26 February 2019.
Prepared By: Suellen Bullock - Internal Ombudsman
Authorised By: John Warburton - Acting General Manager
|
SUMMARY In August 2018, Council received a complaint alleging a breach of the Code of Conduct by a Councillor. The complaint was referred to a conduct reviewer in accordance with the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for NSW councils (the Procedures). As required, the complaint was referred by the General Manager to Council’s Complaints Coordinator, who under the Procedures, referred the matter to a conduct reviewer from Council’s appointed panel of conduct reviewers. The matter was investigated and the conduct reviewer’s final report is submitted for Council’s consideration in accordance with Clause 8.43 of the Procedures. |
|
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council consider the conduct reviewer’s report and take action in accordance with the Procedures as outlined in this report.
|
BACKGROUND
The subject complaint has been administered under the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for NSW councils (the Procedures).
The Procedures state:
Final investigation report
Clause 8.43
Where the investigator has determined that there has been a breach of the code of conduct and makes a recommendation or recommendations under clause 8.35, paragraphs (d) to (h), the complaints coordinator must, where practicable, arrange for the investigator’s report to be reported to the next ordinary council meeting for the council’s consideration unless the meeting is to be held within the 4 weeks prior to an ordinary local government election, in which case the report must be reported to the first ordinary council meeting following the election.
Consideration of the final investigation report by Council
Clauses 8.44-8.59
8.44 The role of the council in relation to a final investigation report is to impose a sanction where an investigator determines that there has been a breach of the code of conduct and makes a recommendation in their final report under clause 8.35, paragraphs (d) to (h).
8.45 The council is to close its meeting to the public to consider the final investigation report where it is permitted to do so under section 10A of the Act.
8.46 Where the complainant is a councillor, they must absent themselves from the meeting and take no part in any discussion or voting on the matter. The complainant councillor may absent themselves without making any disclosure of interests in relation to the matter unless otherwise required to do so under the Act or the Model Code
8.47 Prior to imposing a sanction, the council must provide the subject person with an opportunity to make an oral submission to the council. The subject person is to confine their submission to addressing the investigator’s recommendation/s.
8.48 Once the subject person has completed their oral submission they must absent themselves from the meeting and, where they are a councillor, take no part in any discussion or voting on the matter.
8.49 The council must not invite oral submissions from other persons for the purpose of seeking to rehear evidence previously considered by the investigator.
8.50 Prior to imposing a sanction, the council may by resolution:
· request that the investigator make additional enquiries and/or provide additional information to it in a supplementary report, or
· seek an opinion by the Division in relation to the report.
8.51 The council may, by resolution, defer further consideration of the matter pending the receipt of a supplementary report from the investigator or an opinion from the Division.
8.52 The investigator may make additional enquiries for the purpose of preparing a supplementary report.
8.53 Where the investigator prepares a supplementary report, they must provide copies to the complaints coordinator who shall provide a copy each to the council, the subject person and the complainant.
8.54 The investigator is not obliged to notify or consult with any person prior to submitting the supplementary report to the complaints coordinator.
8.55 The council is only required to provide the subject person a further opportunity to address it on a supplementary report where the supplementary report contains new information that is adverse to them.
8.56 A council may by resolution impose one or more of the following sanctions on a subject person:
a) that the subject person apologise to any person or organisation affected by the breach in such a time and form specified by the resolution,
b) that findings of inappropriate conduct be made public,
c) in the case of a breach by the general manager, that action be taken under the general manager’s contract for the breach,
d) in the case of a breach by a councillor, that the councillor be formally censured for the breach under section 440G of the Act,
e) in the case of a breach by a councillor:
i. that the councillor be formally censured for the breach under section 440G of the Act, and
ii. that the matter be referred to the Division for further action under the misconduct provisions of the Act.
8.57 The council is not obliged to adopt the investigator’s recommendation/s. Where the council does not adopt the investigator’s recommendation/s, the council must resolve not to adopt the recommendation and state in its resolution the reasons for its decision.
8.58 The council may, by resolution, impose a sanction on the subject person under clause 8.56 different to the sanction recommended by the investigator in their final report.
8.59 Where the council resolves not to adopt the investigator’s recommendation/s, the complaints coordinator must notify the Division of the council’s decision and the reasons for it.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The costs for this investigation as at 22 January 2019 were $11,000 (excl. GST).
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
Not applicable.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Not applicable. The substance of this matter is for consideration in closed meeting in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Procedures.
CONCLUSION
This report is submitted to Council in accordance with clause 8.43 of the Procedures.
Council must consider the report of the conduct reviewer and impose a sanction (Clause 8.44 of the Procedures).
In considering the conduct reviewer’s report, Council must close the meeting (clause 8.45) and the subject person must be given the opportunity to make an oral submission to council addressing only the conduct reviewer’s recommendations (clause. 8.47). Furthermore, once the subject person has completed their oral submission, they must absent themselves from the meeting and as a Councillor, take no further part in any discussion or voting on the matter (clause 8.48). Council must not, in its consideration of the matter, invite oral submissions from other persons for the purpose of seeking to rehear evidence previously considered by the investigator (clause 8.49).
Prior to imposing a sanction, the Council may:
· defer the matter and request the conduct reviewer to make additional enquiries (Clause 8.50 a) of the Procedures)
· defer the matter and seek an opinion from the Office of Local Government (Clause 8.50 b) of the Procedures)
Council is not obliged to adopt the conduct reviewer’s recommendations, and where this is the case must state in its resolution the reasons for its decision (Clause 8.57 of the Procedures).
It is also open to the Council to impose a sanction on the subject person that is different to the sanction recommended by the conduct reviewer (clause 8.58 of the Procedures) where the Council considers this an appropriate course of action.
|
1.⇩ |
Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW (March 2013) |
|
Conduct Reviewer's Final Investigation Report - Confidential |
