Agenda of Council Meeting

Council Meeting

3 August 2021

Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held remotely and livestreamed on Council’s website on 20 July 2021

Meeting commenced at 6.32pm

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 Peter Gainsford Simon Duck	Mayor Deputy Mayor (6:42pm) Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor (6:35pm) Councillor (6:35pm) Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor (6:35pm) General Manager Acting Director Development and Recreation
Cathy Edwards-Davis	Director Infrastructure
Caroline McLeod Peter Livanes Harjeet Atwal Aaron Callaghan	Acting Director City Living Acting Director Corporate Senior Manager Planning Parks and Recreation Planning Manager
Katherine Paixao	Acting Manager Governance
Carmelina Giannini	Acting Governance Coordinator

APOLOGIES: Nil

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS: Nil

Councillors Hesse, Iskandar and York entered at 6.35pm.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Motion: (Lockie/Kiat)

THAT the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 29 June 2021, Extraordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 29 June 2021 and Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 6 July 2021 be confirmed as a correct record subject to the following amendment:

- 6 July 2021 – Record Councillor Lockie as absent in the motion of dissent vote in item 7 Notice of Motion: Mayor to Stand Down to absent as she not in attendance.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

PUBLIC FORUM

The registered speakers were asked to address the meeting. The list of speakers is available on the last page of these minutes.

Councillor Macri entered the meeting at 6.42pm

Councillor Passas left the Meeting at 7:30 pm.

Councillor Iskandar left the Meeting at 7:30 pm.

C0721(2) Item 11 Mayoral Minute: Council’s Covid Actions for the Community

Motion: (Byrne)

THAT Council:

1. Expresses thanks to the residents of the Inner West, the officers of Inner West Council and all of the frontline workers who have dedicated themselves to saving lives and protecting public health during this latest COVID-19 lockdown;

2. Thanks NSW Health, the NSW Police and other emergency services for their collaboration in responding to the crisis;

3. Thanks the local NGOs and charities working to provide outreach services to vulnerable citizens, and resolves that Council officers contact the NGOs to find out how it can support them in their efforts to address food security and outreach services;

4. Extends the availability of the Summer Hill Depot as a COVID-19 testing centre until the end of September 2021;

5. Notes the successful City of Ryde financial assistance package for ratepayers implemented during last year’s lockdown and tables a report to the next Council meeting identifying options for providing financial assistance, up to $400, to ratepayers who have lost income to assist in ameliorating the financial impacts from the present lockdown. This should include advice from the Office of Local Government on how financial assistance can be provided to ratepayers;

6. Writes to the relevant Federal and State Ministers to urgently request that all of Council’s frontline workers are prioritised to receive vaccinations;

7. Ensures that tenants of Council properties will not be evicted during this lockdown, and that affected businesses receive a deferral of rental payments in accordance with Council’s previously adopted policy;

8. Notes this existing policies and measures Council is implementing to assist residents and businesses including:

a) Sporting clubs are not to be charged fees for sporting fields and facilities that are closed and unable to be used during this COVID-19 crisis;

b) Sporting fields, tennis and basketball courts (other than Henson Park and Tempe Reserve) are being illuminated until 9pm for the duration of the lockdown to allow more opportunity for safe exercise;

c) Council rangers have been directed to prioritise safety not issuing fines in residential streets. Rangers are also monitoring main streets to ensure there is adequate parking for residents to access essential services; and

d) Council’s social media channels are available, upon request, to not-for-profit community organisations and local service providers to promote resources, services, donations and volunteerism in response to the crisis.

9. Write to the Prime Minister urging him to immediately lift the rate of the Jobseeker Allowance and Student Allowance to $600.00 per week so that people in receipt of Jobseeker Allowance and Student Allowance, many of whom work casually, do not lose income during the current round of restrictions that seek to manage Covid-19;

10. Further seek the Prime Minister’s urgent support for the voice of local government around Australia to be part of National Cabinet through the participation of the President of the Australian Local Government Association;

11. Receive a report back regarding United Services Union that includes the adequacy of the support offered by Council to its casual aquatic centre workers, with any proposals by the union to be reported to Councillors for consideration.

12. Receive a report back at the next Council meeting on turn off all parking meters during the lockdown period.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Iskandar and Passas

Councillor Passas returned to the Meeting at 7:35 pm.

Councillor Iskandar returned to the Meeting at 7:41 pm.

C0721(2) Item 10 Mayoral Minute: Infrastructure Contributions Reforms

Motion: (Byrne)

THAT Council:

1. Endorses Council’s submission to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Amendment (Infrastructure Contributions) Bill 2021, and;

2. Notes the concerns raised by Council officers in the submission.

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 7:50 pm.

C0721(2) Item 1 Adoption of Inner West Council Gender Equity Strategy and Action Plan

Motion: (Lockie/Steer)

THAT Council:

1. Adopt the Gender Equity Strategy 2021-2025; and

2. Adopt the Gender Equity Action Plan for implementation.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Cr Kiat

Amendment (Da Cruz/Passas)

THAT a report be brought back to Council in October of metrics by gender to be reported in the annual report such as Use of sports grounds and other facilities; Employment in Council by Salary Bracket or a job level or classification; and Community employment - possibly gender breakdown of business owner by survey or possibly from ABN register.

Motion Lost

For Motion: Crs Da Cruz, Passas, Porteous, Raciti, Stamolis and Steer

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

Absent: Cr Kiat

C0721(2) Item 2 Live music and entertainment conditions

Motion: (Byrne/Hesse)

THAT Council defer this matter to be considered when the Enmore Road precinct matter is brought back to Council.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Cr Kiat

Councillor Kiat returned to the Meeting at 8:10 pm.

C0721(2) Item 3 Identifying a Vietnamese Precinct

Motion: (Iskandar/Byrne)

THAT Council:

1. Receives and notes the Engagement Outcomes Report;

2. Notes that the majority of respondents agreed to name the proposed precinct “Little Vietnam” and that the precinct be located in Marrickville;

3. Submits the following to the Geographic Names Board for adoption:

a) Name: Little Vietnam;

b) Geographic Precinct: between corner Marrickville Road and Illawarra Road and Illawarra Road and Warren Road;

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

C0721(2) Item 4 Henson Park Plan of Management

Motion: (Macri/Drury)

THAT Council:

1. Adopt the Henson Park Plan of Management (POM) as attached in Attachment 1, Appendix A, B,C,D and E and:

a) That in relation to the fencing and path between Amy St park and Centennial St Council notes that the fencing and entry is to be replaced and upgraded and that supporting documents should be amended to reflect this.

b) That Council notes the intention to retain and renovate the scoreboard, amenities and office space in the eastern Hill building and that where an inconsistency appears in supporting documents it should be amended.

c) In relation to women’s participation notes that both the AFL and Newtown Jets wish to provide opportunities for women to be involved and participate in their sports at the highest level.

d) Notes the support for tree planting throughout the sportsground and notes that the plans are indicative of proposed plantings and the need to consult with the AFL, Newtown Jets and adjoining residents on any proposed planting.

2. Note the ongoing support and sporting pathways which are being invested in and advocated for the growth and development of girls and women’s sport at Henson Park.

3. Notes that the POM and Master Plan maintain and enhance public use of and access to Henson Park sportsground.

Motion Carried

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

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

Foreshadowed Motion (Hesse/Passas)

THAT the Henson Park Plan of Management (POM) be deferred until more effective community consultation on the PoM, including letter box drops to all residents within a 1km radius of Henson Park, and that Councillors receive a briefing prior to the PoM being further considered by Councillors.

This foreshadowed motion lapsed.

Councillor Byrne retired from the Meeting at 8:53 pm and the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Macri assumed the chair.

C0721(2) Item 5 Review of Inner West Council Complaints Handling and Draft Complaints Handling Policy

Motion: (Da Cruz/McKenna OAM)

THAT Council:

1. Endorse the draft Policy shown as Attachment 1 to be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days; and

2. Consider the results of the public exhibition process when adopting a final policy.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Crs Macri, Passas, Raciti and Stamolis

Absent: Cr Byrne

Foreshadowed Motion (Stamolis/Passas)

THAT Council defer this item to the new term of Council.

This foreshadowed motion lapsed.

C0721(2) Item 6 Camperdown Memorial Rest Park - Update on Public Toilet Design and Construction

Motion: (Steer/Macri)

THAT Council:

1. Note the updates on the design and delivery of public toilets for Camperdown Memorial Rest Park;

2. Notes that construction has been delayed since Councils original motion approving it on 11 December 2018; and

3. Notes the commitment of Council to construct the public toilets in Camperdown Memorial Rest Park in financial year ending 30 June 2022.

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

C0721(2) Item 7 Local Traffic Committee Meeting - June 2021

Motion: (Macri/Da Cruz)

THAT the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meetings held on 21 June 2021 be received and the recommendations be adopted.

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

C0721(2) Item 8 Investment Report as at 30 June 2021.

Motion: (Stamolis/Macri)

THAT the report be received and noted.

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

Meeting closed at 9.14pm.

Public Speakers:

Item #	Speaker	Suburb
Item 3:	Kate Hoang Anh Linh Pham	Bankstown Canley Heights
Item 4:	Stuart McCarthy Anthony Brooks David Klarnett Deborah Evans Roger Hudson	Marrickville Moore Park Marrickville Marrickville Marrickville
Item 5:	Jonathan Bolton	Annandale

Unconfirmed minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 20 July 2021.

Council Meeting

3 August 2021

CAR SHARE POLICY

DOCUMENT PROFILE

Title	Car Share Policy
Summary	This Policy provides a framework for the application, installation and management of designated car share spaces in public streets and car parks owned and/or managed by council.
Background	Car sharing is well established in the Inner West. Car sharing services provide an additional transport option for the growing population in the Inner West LGA.
Policy Type	Council
Relevant Strategic Plan Objective	Strategic Direction 2: Unique, liveable, networked neighbourhoods
Relevant Council References	This Policy supersedes the following: · Ashfield Council: Supporting Car Share Parking December 2015 · Leichhardt Council: Car Share Policy 2008 · Marrickville Council: Marrickville Car Share Policy May 2014
Main Legislative or Regulatory Reference	NSW Road Rules
Applicable Delegation of Authority	As per delegations register
Other External References	Guidelines for On-Street Fixed Space Car Share Parking, NSW Government Technical Direction, TTD 2018/001 – 26 October 2018
Attachments	Nil
Record Notes	External available document
Version Control	See last page

Document:	Council Policy	Uncontrolled Copy When Printed
Custodian:	Traffic and Transport Planning Manager	Version #	Version 1
Approved By:	Director Infrastructure	ECM Document #	35066067
Adopted By:	Council	Publish Location	Internet
Adopted Date and Minute #:		Next Review Date	2026

1. INTRODUCTION  

Car sharing allows people to use a car for any period of time and only pay for the time used and/or the distance travelled. It is a membership-based service available to all qualified drivers in the community and it can be a convenient and cheaper way to drive in place of owning a car. The use of shared cars reduces the need for car ownership subsequently reducing vehicle emissions and the demand for street parking. Members of car sharing services also report increased walking activity and reduced transport costs.

The Car Share Policy aims to achieve consistency and clarity in the application, installation and management of designated car share spaces in the following locations:

· Public streets owned and/or managed by Inner West Council, and  

· Car parks owned and/or managed by Inner West Council.   

The policy is based on the NSW Government Guidelines for On-street Fixed Space Car Share Parking (TTD 2018/001 dated 26 October 2018) which outlines the use of signage for fixed street parking designated for use by car share vehicles.

2. OBJECTIVES 

Going Places: An Integrated Transport Strategy for Inner West outlines Inner West Council’s support for car share as a means to reduce car parking demand and improve sustainability. Users of car share schemes in the Inner West report reduced car ownership and greater use of other transport options including public transport, walking and cycling and the Car Share Policy aims to support these outcomes.

The objectives of this policy are to: 

a. Support Going Places: An Integrated Transport Strategy for Inner West 

b. Provide an additional transport option to reduce vehicle congestion and greenhouse gas emissions

c. Reduce the demand for on-street car parking

d. Encourage more active lifestyles by reducing dependency on private cars

e. Provide assessment considerations and the rationale for fees and charges for on-street parking bays/spaces for car share vehicles

3. SCOPE 

This policy applies only to streets and car parks which are owned and/or managed by Inner West Council.  

The policy does not apply to agreements between car share operators and another party for parking vehicles on private property, whether existing or proposed by development. For car share parking to be provided with new development, please refer to the relevant Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP).

The policy applies only to car share schemes which provide access to vehicles for members of the scheme. It does not apply to ‘peer-to-peer' car rental services where an individual provides public access to their own privately registered vehicle for a fee. The policy does not apply to schemes offering services to non-member customers such as car hire/rental companies.

Provided it meets the specifications in this policy, any car share scheme operator can make applications for dedicated on-street parking bays/spaces.

4. ELIGIBILITY TO OPERATE A CAR SHARE SCHEME IN THE INNER WEST LGA   

Designated car share parking bays/spaces will only be allocated to operators that satisfy the following: 

1. Have a network of cars in place, planned or emerging within the Inner West Local Government Area to provide equitable and competitive access.

2. Any person with a valid driving licence, provisional or above, is eligible for membership of the car share scheme subject to relevant financial and driving checks.

3. Provides both phone and internet booking facilities with availability 24 hours per day and 7 days per week and allows immediate booking of cars to support spontaneous trips.

5. OBLIGATIONS OF CAR SHARE OPERATORS

Operators of a car share scheme must meet the following obligations:

1. A range of vehicles suitable for use and access by people with disabilities including wheelchair users must be provided within the operators network.

2. Vehicles within an operator’s fleet are not to exceed the following combined average of carbon dioxide emissions for each category:

Hatchbacks / sedans	150g/km
Sports Utility Vehicles (SUV)	180g/km
Vans / people movers	230g/km

3. Operators are encouraged to achieve the following combined average of carbon dioxide emissions for each category within five years of adoption of this policy:

Hatchbacks / sedans	128g/km
Sports Utility Vehicles (SUV)	162g/km
Vans/people movers	219g/km

4. Car share operators are to provide an annual report, for their fleet of vehicles in the Local Government Area, which states:

a. The average carbon dioxide emission levels for each of the vehicle categories referred to in point 5.2.

b. Steps taken by the car share operator, that year, to assist in achieving the fleet average emission targets specified in point 5.3

5. All passenger vehicles are to have a minimum 4-star ANCAP safety rating.

6. The exterior of vehicles must clearly identify the company name.

7. Operators are to provide telephone and email contact details which are staffed 24 hours per day 7 days per week.

8. A vehicle is to be installed and available in the bay/space within three days after the installation of signage.

9. Car share operators are to provide a monthly vehicle usage and membership report for all vehicles in the Local Government Area including at least the following:

a. The total number of vehicles.  

b. The total number of vehicles allocated with designated street parking space.  

c. The total number of vehicles using non-allocated street parking space (also known as ‘floating car share vehicles’).

d. The total number of members, showing the total number of residential members and business members.

10. The monthly report is to include at least the following per vehicle:

a. Location description and spatial location.

b. Total number of bookings 

c. Total number of hours booked.

d. Average number of bookings per day. 

e. Average and median trip distance.

f. The proportion of bookings on weekdays and weekends. 

11. All vehicles available for booking in the Inner West Local Government Area are to be included in the data required by points 5.8 and 5.9 above including vehicles using non-allocated street parking space (also known as ‘floating car share vehicles’).

12. If considered necessary by council, independent auditing of the data submitted may be carried out at the operator’s expense.

13. When considered reasonably necessary to ensure its ability to meet its obligations to members and council, a car share operator may be requested to demonstrate its financial soundness.

14. Operators will be required to enter into a licence agreement with council in accordance this policy.

6. APPLICATION AND INSTALLATION

1. Council will authorise the exclusive use of an approved dedicated parking bay/space by the operator 

2. The following hierarchy of preferred locations for designated car share spaces will be considered when assessing suitability of locations: 

a. Within immediate proximity to public transport services such as a rail/metro station/stop. 

b. Adjacent to public land such as a park.  

c. Adjacent to a public facility such as a leisure centre or library.

d. Within high/medium density residential areas.

e. In or immediately adjacent to retail / commercial streets. 

f. Adjacent to the side boundary of single dwellings. 

g. Other locations.   

3. Car share parking spaces located in front of single dwellings will be given low priority and avoided in most circumstances.

4. Consultation will be carried out with residents and businesses in the immediate vicinity of a proposed parking space.

5. Parking spaces are to be endorsed by the Local Traffic Committee.  

6. Inner West Council reserves the right to reject, or determine by refusal, any application for a car share parking space. 

7. A maximum of three applications from a car share operator will be accepted at any one time. Additional applications will not be accepted until prior applications are determined.

8. Costs associated with the installation, removal, maintenance and administration of dedicated car share bays/spaces including non-statutory features such as painted road markings will be met by the relevant car share company in accordance with the Schedule of Fees and Charges.

7. MANAGEMENT OF ESTABLISHED PARKING BAYS/SPACES

1. Parking bays/spaces designated for use by car share vehicles can be removed at any time, at council’s discretion. Notification of at least one month will be provided.

2. In the event of non-compliance with the policy or licence agreement council may revoke, suspend or remove parking bays/spaces designated to an operator and reject further applications.

3. Parking bays/spaces are not to be transferred between operators. If ownership of a car share company changes council may, if considered reasonably necessary, revoke or re-allocate any or all of the parking bays/spaces approved for use by the subject operator. For the purposes of this section an ‘operator’ is a car share company with street spaces allocated by Inner West Council.

4. To facilitate competition of operators functioning in the Local Government Area, Inner West Council may, at its discretion, invite applications for use or re-allocation of any, some or all car share parking bays/spaces, either established or proposed. Established parking bays/spaces will not be reallocated to another operator within three years of signage installation and line marking of the space.

5. A clearly marked car share vehicle, operated by a car share scheme authorised by Council, will be entitled to the same parking exemption in a permit parking zone as provided to the holder of a resident parking permit.

8. FEES

Fees are set annually in the Schedule of Fees and Charges.

Fees are to be set only for the recovery of costs associated with the installation, administration, maintenance and removal of parking spaces    

The following factors will be considered in determining the applicable fees and charges, following factors:

a. The infrastructure costs of installing new car share bays/spaces.

b. Administration costs including installation and ongoing management.

c. Staff time dedicated to the expansion of the car share network.

Reduced application fees may be set to facilitate new car share operators and support a diversity of car share companies operating in the Local Government Area 

Version Control - POLICY HISTORY:

Governance Use only - The history of modifications and approval to the Policy must be detailed in the table below post adoption

Governance Use only:

Version	Amended By	Changes Made	Date	ECM #
1	Traffic and Transport Planning Manager	Policy placed on public exhibition	April 2021
2		Policy reported to council for adoption	August 2021

Council Meeting

3 August 2021

Item No: C0821(1) Item 5

Subject: Paringa Reserve Plan of Management

Prepared By: Aaron Callaghan - Parks and Recreation Planning Manager

Authorised By: Simon Duck - Acting Director Development and Recreation

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Note the additional community engagement which has been undertaken with respect to the development of a Plan of Management and Master Plan for Paringa Reserve (Attachment 1);

2. Adopt the Plan of Management and Master Plan for Paringa Reserve (Attachment 2 and Attachment 3); and

3. Proceed with the delivery of an architecturally designed container kiosk at Paringa Reserve, noting that the design will be one which is secure and transportable to other park locations should the facility not be financially viable at Paringa Reserve in the longer term.

DISCUSSION

At its meeting on the 24 April 2021 Council considered a report on the adoption of a Plan of Management for Paringa Reserve and resolved the following:

1. THAT Council defer this item to June 2021 for additional consultation with the community and an inspection for interested Councillors.

Additional Community Consultation

Council undertook additional community engagement and consultation on a revised Plan of Management for Paringa Reserve between 26 May and 23 June 2021. A fully summary of the community engagement is attached in Attachment 1.

Community engagement was undertaken through both online engagement and through on site engagement with local residents and park users. Council’s online engagement (Your Say Inner West) was visited by 63 people during this time. Of these, 19 people downloaded the revised proposals. Overall, there were 34 participants across the various methods of engagement.

Key Online Engagement Themes

· Removal of the existing dilapidated buildings

· Additional planting

· Welfare of birdlife

· Litter

· A perceived lack of community consultation

· Possible contamination of land

· Light and Noise pollution

· Concerns regarding rodents

· Security and safety

· Privacy to neighboring homes

· Ongoing park maintenance

· Crown Land transition to Community Land

· Mental health concerns

· Parking pressures.

Community Engagement and On-Site Meetings at Paringa Reserve

Onsite Meeting

A preliminary on site meeting was organised by council officers with local residents regarding initial proposals on 12^th May 2021. Council Parks Planning and Engagement Unit held this meeting with six residents to discuss residential concerns associated with the draft Plan of Management. Key issues discussed included

· Human impact on natural environment:

· Seating plans

· Tree planting

· eco-friendly/social responsibility clauses in the kiosk contract.

· Impacts on immediate residents’ privacy and security

· Remove of the fitness stations from the plans,

· Removal of path lighting,

· Installation of fishing tangle bins

· Access path – Future Pedestrian Route

Advertised Public Consultation and Engagement Session

On Saturday, 5 June 2021 (11am – 12:30pm) residents were invited to meet with Council staff and Councillors at Paringa Reserve to discuss the revised Plan of Management proposals. A walkabout tour was also held. The meeting was well advertised and attended.

In summary:

· 28 local residents attended the meeting

· 4 Council Officers attended

Key issues discussed included:

· Kiosk and Public Toilet Proposal

· Wildlife protection

· Key Pedestrian Route discussion and alternative path network

· Traffic management

· Seating

· Litter management

Kiosk Proposal

In summary, the majority of respondents supported the concept of a kiosk at the Park. Those who do not support the kiosk question it’s viability in this location and adverse social and aesthetic impacts on the Reserve. Some participants advocated for a shade structure/rotunda to be considered.

It is recommended that Council proceed with the delivery of kiosk café and public toilet delivery. The proposal involves the development of a container kiosk (refer to Fig 1.0 and Fig 1.1 below) which is portable and relocatable. The benefits of this design are threefold. One being that if the facility is identified as not being financially viable in its current location it can be easily relocated to another park within the LGA and utilised. Secondly, this development approach is also ecologically friendly in that it is repurposing a former shipping container and creating local employment. Thirdly, the container model can also be fully enclosed and locked at night.

The alternative proposal of a rotunda is not considered appropriate in this location. Rotunda’s can attract anti-social behavior including after dark drinking as well as amplified music.

Figure 1.0 Examples of a Container Kiosk

porchetta shipping container kiosk by noiseux + sasseville

Fig 1.1 Artists Impression of Paringa Reserve Master Plan Works

Key Pedestrian Route

The draft plan of management highlighted a long-term proposal to develop a pedestrian link and right of way from the edge of the parkland to Lockhart Avenue. There was significant opposition to this proposal with opponents citing accessibility issues, cost implications to Council, ongoing maintenance and issues associated with residential privacy.

An alternative proposal which was suggested by residents has now been incorporated into the revised Plan of Management and Master Plan for the park. The previous option has been removed. The alternative proposal is based on an informal right of way which adjacent residents utilise. The proposed alternative pathway strategy would commence at the edge of the Reserve near the path between Apartment Blocks 4 and 5, proceed up existing stairs to Lagan Avenue, along this Avenue (for a short walk),to Blocks 101 Elliott and 2 Lockhart to Lockhart Avenue. This option is supported by Council officers subject to a future negotiated agreement with NSW Housing. The Plan of Management has been amended in this respect.

Key Master Plan Changes

A revised Master Plan for Paringa Reserve has been developed following the outcomes of community consultation. This is attached as Attachment 2.

Following the outcomes of the community engagement Council officers have amended the Draft Plan of Management and included a number of key changes including:

· Removal of long-term proposal to develop a pedestrian link and right of way from the edge of the parkland to Lockhart Avenue.

· Inclusion of negotiated right of way path through the public housing area (subject to a future agreement with NSW Housing).

· Future seating with backrests and handrails proposed behind the pathway

· Removal of Fitness Stations

· Removal of Park Lighting

· Provision of a Bubbler

· Provision of Fishing Line Tangle bin

· Future tree planting

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Council has current budget allocation in the capital works program for the Kiosk Proposal. Other park improvements will be subject to future planning and budget consideration by Council.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Comunity Engagement Summary
2.⇩	Paringa Reserve Plan of Management
3.⇩	Paringa Reserve Master Plan A3

Council Meeting

3 August 2021

Item No: C0821(1) Item 7

Subject: Marrickville Parklands and Golf Course- Adoption of Park Plan of Management

Prepared By: Aaron Callaghan - Parks and Recreation Planning Manager

Authorised By: Simon Duck - Acting Director Development and Recreation

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Adopt the Marrickville Parkland and Golf Course Plan of Management and Master Plan (Attachment 1 and 2);

2. Note the key changes highlighted in this report which have been made to the Plan of Management and Master Plan for the Marrickville Parklands;

3. Note the key challenges and cost impacts in building a bridge from the Marrickville Parklands to Gough Whitlam Park; and

4. In managing the future success of a restored biodiversity habitat at the Dibble Avenue Water Hole, Council permit the Marrickville Golf Sporting and Community Club, to undertake water extraction for the purpose of irrigation at a fixed level between the outflow pipe level (RL 1.25mAHD) and the fixed stabilisation level of RL 0.8mAHD. This allowance is to be documented in any future license agreement with the Marrickville Golf Sporting and Community Club.

DISCUSSION

At its Ordinary Meeting on 22^nd September 2020 Council considered a report on the draft plan of management for the Marrickville Parklands and Golf Course and resolved the following:

1. Council maintain an 18-hole golf course and revise the Draft Plan of Management accordingly prior to referring its Crown land components (generally the area described as Riverside Park) to the Minister for Water, Housing and Property for owners consent;

2. The revised Plan of Management highlight the environment, safety and community benefits that can be achieved while maintaining an 18 hole golf course;

3. Council commit to working with the Marrickville Golf, Sporting and Community Club on grant opportunities which will assist the club with environmentally sustainable water supply for greens and fairway watering;

4. Council note that on receipt of owner’s consent by the Minister the Draft Plan will be exhibited for 28 days and brought back to Council for adoption;

5. Council investigate the potential benefits of a bridge to Gough Whitlam Park;

6. Council give in principle support for a 21 year lease; and

7. Council to conduct a safety audit as part of the Plan of Management of the public walking paths through the golf course to determine if safety treatments are needed.

A Revised Plan of Management (with 18 holes) has now been prepared for the parklands (Attachment 1). This report highlights the key changes which have been made to the Plan of Management and master plan (Attachment 2) for the parklands. The report also highlights the key community engagement outcomes associated with additional community engagement and recent work by Council officers which have resulted in minor adjustments to the final plan of management.

Community Engagement

Council undertook additional community engagement on a revised plan of management and master plan for the Marrickville Parklands and Golf Course between 19 March and 1 May 2021. The majority of community engagement was undertaken on Council’s Community Engagement platform, Your Say Inner West. In addition, a number of workshop meetings were also held with the Marrickville Golf Sporting and Community Club Executives to discuss the revised draft plan of management, key sporting club member views and issues associated with the master plans. Much of the discussion form the workshop events centered around the current and future operation and success of the sporting club.

In total the project and engagement page received 1007 visits and there was a total of 67 responses to the online submission form. Respondents were asked whether they supported the draft Master Plan. The responses were as follows:

· Yes – 19

· No – 47

· Not sure / Neutral – 5

The responses received reflect the wider community views on the use of the parkland as an 18 hole golf course. This issue was however formally reoslved by Council (at its meeting on the 22^nd September 2020) prior to the final public exhibition. The elected Council voted to maintain an 18 hole course within the parkland. A full sumarry of the community engagement outcomes is attached in Attachment 3.

Key Plan of Management and Master Plan Changes

Council officer have worked closely with the Marrickville Golf, Sporting and Community club to update the Plan of Management and Master Plan (Attachment 2) for the Marrickville Parklands and Golf Course. Key changes have included:

· Increasing the number of course holes from 9 holes to 18 holes in the revised master plan.

· Removing the concept of multipurpose sporting grounds.

· Realigning future pathways to ensure no conflict with golf tees

· Updating the Plan of Management to align future tee improvements across the course

· Including options for future water harvesting including options for ponds within the parkland subject to future Development Application Approval by Council.

· Removal of the nursery concept.

· Future options for car parking included.

· Upgrades to golf infrastructure and support facilities.

· Access improvements across the course.

· Inclusion of a 21 Year license agreement for the Marrickville Golf, Sporting and Community club

· The lease agreement is to include responsibilities pertaining to tree management for the site which will be the responsibility of the Golf Club.

· Allowance for water harvesting from the Dibble Avenue Water Hole (subject to set conditions established by Council).

The revised Plan of Management and master plan recognize that over the next 10 years, the Marrickville Parklands and Golf Course will continue to become an integral part of the recreation and biodiversity fabric of the Inner West Local Government Area. Developments including the Greenway in the north and Cooks River Parklands in the south will improve connectivity to the Cooks River, Paramatta River, Marrickville Parklands and greater Sydney. It expected that the importance of recreational use and appreciation of the Marrickville Parklands will continue to grow as future open space areas are connected and the population need for access to quality open space increases.

Dibble Avenue Waterhole Management

Council has recently completed works on the restoration of the Dibble Avenue Waterhole. The total budget cost of this restoration work was $900k. Careful management of the Waterhole moving forward is essential to ensure that there is no future collapse of the embankment walls which support the waterhole. Critical to this, will be the ongoing management of hydrology within the water hole and ensuring that water levels where naturally possible are maintained.

Based on engineering feedback some small amount of ongoing water removal is supported where conditions support such use. Removal of water from Dibble Avenue Waterhole for the purpose of irrigation will be fixed between the outflow pipe level (RL 1.25mAHD) and the fixed stabilisation level of RL 0.8mAHD. Removal of water from Dibble Avenue Waterhole is supported by the Plan of Management provided the Golf Course implement an overall water security strategy. To achieve this requirement Council will physically fix the golf course pump inlet at a fixed level to prevent pumping below 0.8m AHD. The maximum height of the water is set by the outlet pipe at 1.25m AHD. The water hole is designed based on the creation of a wet/dry zone within these levels and plants selected for this environment. These water levels also provide a sustainable volume of water in the Waterhole to support environmental and aquatic species and provide stability of the embankments. Benefits of Fixed Golf Club Pumping Continued pumping of water from the Waterhole by the Golf Club for irrigation has the following benefits:

1. Establishment of native plant species in the newly stabilised waterhole wet/dry planting zones. If the water level is permanently at the outflow pipe level, the planting zone will be flooded inhibiting plant growth.

2. If the water level is maintained below the outflow pipe, the Waterhole can act as a buffer for high intensity rainfall runoff and receive excess overflow stormwater during rain events. This is particularly important as the downstream area of Riverside Crescent is prone to flooding.

3. Without pumping access to the Waterhole, the Golf Club would be reliant on potable water for irrigation. This could be considered an inefficient use of potable water resources and a negative environmental outcome considering the proximity of the Waterhole.

The golf club has indicated that they are undertaking a review of water capture and storage opportunities to ensure there is improved water security during over the tenure of the renewed lease. Pumping from Dibble Avenue Waterhole will only form a portion of the overall water usage strategy for the Golf Club.

Crown Lands Sign Off

Formal advice from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment – Crown Lands was received on 4^th March 2021. The Department advised Council that the draft Plan of Management had been reviewed and that the draft plan of management satisfies the requirements under section 3.23 of the Crown Land Management Act 2016. The Crown Lands Office has however advised that should Council that If Council amends the draft Plan of Management following community consultation then Council is required to again submit it to the landowner prior to adoption.

Bridge to Gough Whitlam Park

The distance to build a raised bridge from the edge of the Marrickville Golf Course to Gough Whilam Reserve in the Canterbury Bankstown LGA is approximately 1.5km. A bridge of this scale would cross two suburbs, including Undercliffe in the Canterbury Bankstown LGA. Such a proposal would rival that of the Macleay Valley Bridge in regional NSW. A project of this nature would be a state significant infrastructure project and is likely to cost in the region of $520 million with a three to four-year construction period. Such a proposal would cripple Council financially.

Future Safety Audit

Council has previously resolved to undertake a safety audit of the parkland to support community safety and access. This work will be commissioned upon adoption of a final Plan of Management.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil at this stage

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Plan of Management
2.⇩	Master Plan
3.⇩	Community Engagement Report

Council Meeting

3 August 2021

Minutes of Local Traffic Committee Meeting

Held remotely on 19 July 2021

Meeting commenced at 10.08AM

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY BY CHAIRPERSON

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

COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT

Clr Victor Macri	Councillor – Midjuburi-Marrickville Ward (Chair)
Bill Holliday	Representative for Jamie Parker MP, Member for Balmain
Omar Rodriguez	Representative for Ron Hoenig MP, Member for Heffron
Roisin Murphy	Representative for Jo Haylen MP, Member for Summer Hill
Maryanne Duggan	Representative for Jodi MacKay MP, Member for Strathfield
SC Anthony Kenny	NSW Police – Inner West Police Area Command
SC Germaine Grant	NSW Police – Burwood Police Area Command
James Suprain	Transport for NSW (TfNSW)

NON VOTING MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE

Clr Marghanita da Cruz	Councillor – Gulgadya-Leichhardt Ward (Alternative Chair)
Colin Jones	Inner West Bicycle Coalition (IWBC)
Keith Stallard	Inner West Bicycle Coalition (IWBC)
John McNeil	Inner West Bicycle Coalition (IWBC)
Adrian Prichard	Transit Systems – Inner West Bus Services
Manod Wickramasinghe	IWC’s Traffic & Transport Planning Manager
George Tsaprounis	IWC’s Coordinator Traffic Engineering Services (South)
Sunny Jo	IWC’s Coordinator Traffic Engineering Services (North)
Jason Scoufis	IWC’s Traffic & Parking Planner
Jenny Adams	IWC’s Engineer – Traffic & Parking Services
Mohammed Haque	IWC’s Civil Engineer
Pierre Ayoub	IWC’s Civil Engineer
Christina Ip	IWC’s Business Administration Officer

VISITORS

Charmila Sathianandan	Item 4 - Transport for NSW (TfNSW)
Bonnie Mo	Item 4 - Transport for NSW (TfNSW)
Gauam Pathmanathan	Item 4 - Arenco
Angelo Stratikopoulos	Item 4 - Arenco
Anthony Leung	Item 8 and 9 - Stantec

APOLOGIES:

SC Sam Tohme	NSW Police – Burwood Police Area Command
Sgt Charles Buttrose	NSW Police – Leichhardt Police Area Command

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:

Nil.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 21 June 2021 were confirmed, with amendments to the discussion of Item 8 to record comments from the representative for the Member for Balmain, as follows:

The representative for the Member for Balmain commented that the consultation does not consider that there are two distinct areas, the areas north and south of Springside Street, that would be impacted differently by a ‘No Left Turn’ restriction from Moodie Street. The representative raised the following concerns:

1. Residents from the area south of Springside Street would suffer from the out-of-area traffic avoiding the bank up at Darling Street to turn left at Moodie Street but would benefit from being able to turn left at Moodie Street.

2. Residents from the area north of Springside Street cannot access their area from Darling Street as a result of the one way sections of McCleer and Manning Streets and this also applies to any out-of-area rat runners. On the other hand they can readily turn left at Callan Street and also at Toelle Street when it is re-opened.

3. A ‘No Left Turn’ restriction would impact residents from streets south of Callan Street who need the left turn from Moodie Street to head westbound on Victoria Road. This impact will likely worsen if the Norton Street, James Street, Darley Road and City West Link intersections are upgraded and when Rozelle Interchange traffic merges with traffic from Darling and Moodie Streets going towards the Iron Cove Bridge.

4. Traffic in the side streets of Victoria Road, between Darling Street and Gordon Street will worsen when the City West Link intersections are upgraded and traffic is increased. Residents in these side streets will face the same problem Moodie Street residents face now.

MATTERS ARISING FROM COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION OF MINUTES

The Local Traffic Committee recommendations of its meeting held on 21 June 2021 are awaiting adoption.

EMAIL CONFIRMATION OF OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

The representative for NSW Police – Inner West supported the Officer’s recommendations for the items in their PAC.

The representative for NSW Police – Burwood supported the Officer’s recommendations for the items in their PAC.

The representative for the Member for Strathfield supported the Officer’s recommendations.

LTC0721(1) Item 1 Wardell Road/Riverside Crescent, Marrickville/ Dulwich Hill - No Left Turn Restriction (Djarrawunang-Marrickville Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

A ‘No Left Turn’ restriction was installed in early 2021 to ban vehicles heading northeast in Wardell Road from making a left turn into Riverside Crescent, Dulwich Hill/ Marrickville.

Since the sign was installed, Council has received numerous correspondence from the community regarding the negative impact the banned left turn movement restriction has had on traffic delays and travel times in Wardell Road , in particular in the weekday AM peak period heading towards Dulwich Hill.

A number of treatments are proposed to alleviate traffic congestion whilst supporting cycling for the on-road sections of the Greenway.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. The ‘No Left Turn’ sign in Wardell Road facing northeast bound motorists at Riverside Crescent be replaced with a ‘No Left Turn Vehicles over 6 metres’ sign subject to TfNSW approval of a TMP.

2. The BB lines in Riverside Crescent at Wardell Road be adjusted by relocating 1m northeast for a length of 10 metres.

3. A concept design for traffic calming in the form of kerb extensions at the Tennyson Street/Riverside Crescent be prepared for consideration by Traffic Committee

4. A 30 km/h speed limit in Ness Avenue along the on-road Greenway route be supported for a 12-month trial period subject to approval of the trial by TfNSW

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The ‘No Left Turn’ sign in Wardell Road facing northeast bound motorists at Riverside Crescent be replaced with a ‘No Left Turn Vehicles over 6 metres’ sign subject to TfNSW approval of a TMP.

2. The BB lines in Riverside Crescent at Wardell Road be adjusted by relocating 1m northeast for a length of 10 metres.

3. A concept design for traffic calming in the form of kerb extensions at the Tennyson Street/Riverside Crescent be prepared for consideration by Traffic Committee

4. A 30 km/h speed limit in Ness Avenue along the on-road Greenway route be supported for a 12-month trial period subject to approval of the trial by TfNSW

For motion: Unanimous

LTC0721(1) Item 2 Liberty Street and Kingston Road, Enmore / Newtown / Camperdown – Trucks and request to reclassify road – LTC0321 Item 15 General Business (Damum-Stanmore Ward / Newtown Electorate /Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

Council has received concerns regarding truck movements along Liberty Street and Kingston Road, Enmore and an Item was raised in General Business at the March 2021 Committee meeting to assess the need for reclassification of the existing Regional Road. Past traffic count data was compared with current traffic volume counts and it is recommended that no action be taken at this time and the traffic situation in the area continue to be monitored.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT this report be received and noted.

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

THAT this report be received and noted.

For motion: Unanimous

LTC0721(1) Item 3 Bailey Street, at Enmore Road, Newtown – 10km/h 'Shared Zone' Treatment – Design Plan 10133 (Damum -Stanmore Ward / Newtown Electorate / Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

Council has finalised a design plan (10133) for a 10km/h ‘Shared Zone’ treatment in Bailey Street at Enmore Road, Newtown. The proposal for a ‘Shared Zone’ with threshold treatments and associated signs and line markings will improve safety and accessibility for pedestrians and traffic conditions at this location. The proposed works are part of recommendations endorsed in September 2019 and listed in the Newtown Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) report.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the detailed design plan for the 10km/h ‘Shared Zone’ treatment in Bailey Street at Enmore Road, Newtown and associated signs and line markings (as per Plan No.10133) be APPROVED, subject to separate TfNSW approval.

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For motion: Unanimous

LTC0721(1) Item 4 Terminus Street, Petersham – TfNSW Petersham Station Upgrade Project - Signs and Line Markings Plan 150272-PET-CI-DRG- 45402 (Damun -Stanmore Ward/ Newtown Electorate/ Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

The signs and line marking plan for the proposed traffic / parking changes in Terminus Street, Petersham associated with Petersham Station Upgrade Project works have been submitted to Council (150272-PET-CI-DRG-45402) by Arenco, on behalf of TfNSW. It is recommended that the signs and line marking plan be approved.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the detailed signs and line marking plan for Terminus Street, Petersham (as part of Petersham Station Upgrade works) as per the attached plan (Signage and Line Marking Plan - Sheet 2 - 150272-PET-CI-DRG-45402) be approved.

DISCUSSION

Public speakers: Charmila Sathianandan, Bonnie Mo, Gauam Pathmanathan and Angelo Stratikopoulos attended at 10.08am.

TfNSW project managers made a presentation on how parking will be impacted by the Petersham Station Upgrade Project works and presented results of community consultation noting that:

· Six out of the 60 community submissions received raised questions around parking and the kiss and ride space. None of these six submissions raised an issue with the removal of parking spaces on Terminus Street.

· Additional notifications were delivered via doorknocking of 89 properties in Terminus Street and Railway Street (between Terminus Street and Brighton Street) and a letterbox drop notification within a 500 metre radius of the station.

· Residents identified parking as an existing issue in the area.

· Residents requested for timed parking spots in the untimed sections on Terminus and Railway Streets, and for the existing timed parking spaces to be extended into the weekends. TfNSW commented that these requests are outside the scope of the station upgrade works.

Committee members raised a number of issues which were addressed by the speakers as follows:

· Due to low pedestrian and vehicle volumes, Terminus Street would not have met the warrants for a marked pedestrian crossing. The width of the road does not allow for a pedestrian refuge to be installed.

· The speed zone in Terminus Street will be reduced to 40km/h as part of the LGA-wide project to reduce traffic speeds. This is not within the scope of the station upgrade.

· The project’s planning approval includes a condition specifying that the tree is to be retained due to community desire to keep it. An arborist is present during works to ensure the tree is not damaged.

· The Manager of the White Cockatoo Hotel has been consulted throughout the project and has not raised any objections to the changes. Clr Macri requested TfNSW obtain a response from the Hotel’s owner and provide to the Committee before the project is approved by Council.

· Bike hoops will be installed on Trafalgar Street as part of the project.

· Residents were concerned that seating would encourage loitering in the area. There is some seating adjacent to the stair and there is a possibility of installing an additional seat. Shelters are not part of the project scope.

(Speakers left at 10.30am)

Due to concerns with the substantial loss of parking, the Chair requested that Council Officers investigate any design changes that could help retain some parking spaces, including seeking advice from an arborist to determine if the tree, which is located within the proposed kerb blister area, is at the end of its lifecycle and whether more trees could be incorporated into the design in lieu of this tree being removed. Council Officers were also asked to consult residents and businesses regarding the loss of parking.

The Item was deferred until Council Officers obtained the requested information.

The TfNSW representative requested that Council Officers keep the project manager informed on how they intend to proceed.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

THAT the detailed signs and line marking plan for Terminus Street, Petersham (as part of Petersham Station Upgrade works) as per the attached plan (Signage and Line Marking Plan - Sheet 2 - 150272-PET-CI-DRG-45402) be deferred until Council Officers investigate changes to the design to retain some of the parking spaces lost in Terminus Street (including consideration of the removal of the large tree in the kerb blister area and replacement of this tree with a number of smaller trees), and consult with affected residents and businesses regarding the loss in parking.

For motion: Clr Macri

Abstained: TfNSW

LTC0721(1) Item 5 Fred Street, Dulwich Hill - Proposed Painted Island Treatment

SUMMARY

Council has received concerns raised by a number of residents and motorists regarding safety along Fred Street and at the intersection of Fred Street/ Victoria Street and Eltham Street. It has been raised with Council that on many occasions, vehicles drive into Fred Street, against the one-way direction of travel with drivers either unaware of the current ‘No Entry’ signage or wilful intent to disobey the no entry restrictions. Council has proposed a painted island treatment in order to enhance the current no entry restrictions and to possibly deter illegal traffic behaviour.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT

1. the proposed painted island treatment, including travel direction arrow and extension of existing ‘No Stopping’ restrictions to 15m, on both sides of Fred Street north of the intersection of Fred Street, Victoria Street and Eltham Street, Dulwich Hill, be approved.

2. Physical kerb blister islands to replace the painted island treatment be approved in principle and listed on Council’s forward Capital Works Program.

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

THAT

2. Physical kerb blister islands to replace the painted island treatment be approved in principle and listed on Council’s forward Capital Works Program.

For motion: Unanimous

LTC0721(1) Item 6 Unwins Bridge Road, adjacent to Tillman Park, Tempe – Proposed New Mid-Block Signalised Pedestrian Crossing – Design Plan 10111 (Midjuburi – Marrickville Ward / Heffron Electorate/ Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

Detailed design plans have now been finalised for the proposed new mid-block signalised pedestrian crossing in Unwins Bridge Road, adjacent to Tillman Park, Tempe. The purpose of the proposed works is to increase pedestrian safety at the existing raised pedestrian zebra crossing which has a poor road safety history. The proposed works received funding from the TfNSW Blackspot Program and the works will improve pedestrian and motorists' safety and addresses residents' concerns about speeding, driver behaviour and pedestrian safety at this location. Consultation has been undertaken with nearby owners and occupiers of properties along Unwins Bridge Road regarding the proposal. It is recommended that the proposed detailed design plans be approved.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the detailed design plans for the proposed new mid-block signalised pedestrian crossing on Unwins Bridge Road, adjacent to Tillman Park, Tempe, including associated signposting and line marking (as per the attached plans No. 10111) be APPROVED.

DISCUSSION

It was noted that this item is within the Heffron Electorate, not the Summer Hill Electorate as stated in the report.

The Member for Heffron, Ron Hoenig MP, submitted his support for the proposal.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For motion: Unanimous

LTC0721(1) Item 7 Alt Street at intersections with Church Street and Charlotte Street, Ashfield- Investigation on the warrant of pedestrian crossings (Leichhardt – Gulgadya Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Burwood PAC)

SUMMARY

The Inner West Bicycle Coalition representative, at the Local Traffic Committee meeting of the 3 August 2020, under General Business, requested that traffic, speed and pedestrian counts be conducted in Alt Street, between Church Street and Charlotte Street, Ashfield, with view to installing a pedestrian crossing if warrant permits under the Transport for NSW (TfNSW) or RMS guidelines.

Council at its meeting on the 25 August 2020 resolved or noted that:

Staff will arrange a pedestrian/traffic volume count in the area to determine if the site meets the warrants for a crossing. The Ashfield Traffic Management Study (ATMS) also recommended the need to calm traffic in Alt Street at this location.

This report outlines the results of traffic and pedestrian count survey carried out in November 2020 at the proximity intersections of Alt Street/Church Street and Alt Street/Chandos Street where pedestrian activity is most occurrent.

The outcome of the results generally determined that there is a low or non-consistent pedestrian activity in crossing the road through the day or week to warrant the establishment of crossings under the TfNSW or RMS guidelines. Council will review and investigate alternate possible cross-over and/or traffic control measures for improved safety to pedestrians under the recommendation of the ATMS and Ashfield/Inner West Council Pedestrian Access Mobility Plan (PAMP).

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. The report be received and noted that no warrant can be made to justify the installation of a pedestrian crossing in Alt Street between Charlotte Street and Church Street, nor the intersection sides of Church Street and Charlotte Street, Ashfield; and

2. Council staff review and investigate other alternate and possible cross-over and/or traffic control measures to improve pedestrian safety in the area.

DISCUSSION

It was noted that this item is within the Gulgadya-Leichhardt Ward, not the Djarrawunang- Ashfield Ward as stated in the report.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

2. Council staff review and investigate other alternate and possible cross-over and/or traffic control measures to improve pedestrian safety in the area.

For motion: Unanimous

LTC0721(1) Item 8 Leichhardt West Precinct Parking Study (Gulgadya-Leichhardt Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt PAC)

SUMMARY

The Leichhardt West Precinct Parking Study reviewed the location, supply, demand and distribution of short and long stay parking, commercial, residential, employee, and commuter parking. The work consisted of examining existing conditions including parking data, community submissions, observed parking conditions, existing permit allocation, and future land uses within the Leichhardt West precinct.

A community survey was also undertaken to gauge the parking issues faced by different users. With consideration of the above a draft parking management strategy for Leichhardt West was developed.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. The Draft Leichhardt West Precinct Parking Study including the Draft Leichhardt West Parking Strategy be endorsed for community consultation; and

2. The draft report be placed on Public Exhibition, providing a minimum 28 days for submissions and the results be reported back to the Traffic Committee.

DISCUSSION

Clr da Cruz stated that residents of Hawthorne Street are interested in angle parking and asked whether this within the scope of the study. Council Officers are not aware of this request; however, they advised that the request may be considered if raised during the consultation.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The Draft Leichhardt West Precinct Parking Study including the Draft Leichhardt West Parking Strategy be endorsed for community consultation; and

2. The draft report be placed on Public Exhibition, providing a minimum 28 days for submissions and the results be reported back to the Traffic Committee.

For motion: Unanimous

LTC0721(1) Item 9 Rozelle North Precinct Parking Study (Baludarri-Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt PAC)

SUMMARY

The Rozelle North Precinct Parking Study reviewed the location, supply, demand and distribution of short and long stay parking, commercial, residential, employee, and commuter parking. The work consisted of examining existing conditions including parking data, community submissions, observed parking conditions, existing permit allocation, and future land uses within the Rozelle North precinct.

A community survey was also undertaken to gauge the parking issues faced by different users. With consideration of the above a draft parking management strategy for Rozelle North was developed.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. The Draft Rozelle North Precinct Parking Study including the Draft Rozelle North Precinct Parking Strategy be endorsed for community consultation; and

2. The draft report be placed on Public Exhibition, providing a minimum 28 days for submissions and the results be reported back to the Traffic Committee.

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The Draft Rozelle North Precinct Parking Study including the Draft Rozelle North Precinct Parking Strategy be endorsed for community consultation; and

2. The draft report be placed on Public Exhibition, providing a minimum 28 days for submissions and the results be reported back to the Traffic Committee.

For motion: Unanimous

LTC0721(1) Item 10 Henry Lane, Lewisham - Proposed 'No Stopping' Restrictions (Damun- Stanmore Ward/ Summer Hill Electorate/ Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

Council has received concerns of parked vehicles at the T-junction of Henry Lane, Lewisham resulting in difficulties for some residents maneuvering at the T-junction due to the narrowness of the two laneways. Therefore, Council is proposing to implement a 6 metre length of ‘No Stopping’ restriction to remove potential obstructions and improve the ability of motorists to maneuver at the T-junction.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT a 6 metre ‘No Stopping’ zone on the western side of Henry Lane, Lewisham, along the eastern boundary of property No.16 Henry Street, Lewisham.

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

THAT a 6 metre ‘No Stopping’ zone on the western side of Henry Lane, Lewisham, along the eastern boundary of property No.16 Henry Street, Lewisham.

For motion: Unanimous

LTC0721(1) Item 11 Victoria Road, Marrickville - Proposed Short-Term Parking (Midjuburi- Marrickville Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

Following representations from local businesses, Council is proposing to implement a 50 metre section of one-hour parking, along the western side of Victoria Road, north of its intersection with Sydenham Road. Council has now undertaken community consultation to gauge the community’s view in relation to introducing a section of time-restricted parking on Victoria Road, Marrickville, immediately north of Sydenham Road, in order to improve parking turnover in the vicinity of the local businesses.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT a 50-metre section of ‘1P 9am – 5pm Monday to Saturday’ on western side of Victoria Road, Marrickville between the signalised intersection of Victoria & Sydenham Road and northern boundary of property 191 Victoria Road, Marrickville be APPROVED.

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For motion: Unanimous

LTC0721(1) Item 12 Constitution Road, Dulwich Hill - Proposed 'No Parking' Restrictions (Djarrawunang - Ashfield Ward/ Summer Hill Electorate/ Inner West Pac)

SUMMARY

Council’s Resource Recovery department have raised concerns of traffic and pedestrian safety during garbage collection times outside 115 – 117 Constitution Road, Dulwich Hill. Following an investigation into this matter by a Council Traffic Officer, it is now recommended that a 12 metre section of ‘No Parking’ restriction during the waste collection times be approved on the southern side of Constitution Road, immediately east of driveway to 115-117 Constitution Road, Dulwich Hill.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT a 12-metre section of ‘No Parking 4pm Monday – 10am Tuesday’ restriction on southern side of Constitution Road, Dulwich Hill, immediately east of driveway to 115 – 117 Constitution Road, Dulwich Hill be APPROVED.

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For motion: Unanimous

LTC0721 Item 13 Cavendish Street, Stanmore - Resident Parking Scheme Proposal (Damun - Stanmore Ward/ Newtown Electorate/ Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

In response to a community petition received from a number of residents of Cavendish Street, Stanmore between Holt Street and Merchant Street, Council has investigated a proposal for Residential Parking Scheme. This report provides the results of the residential parking scheme investigation into Cavendish Street, Stanmore, between Holt Street and Merchant Street, with the recommendation of not to support the proposal.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the proposed Residential Parking Scheme in Cavendish Street, Stanmore between Holt Street and Merchant Street is not be supported at the present time due to less than required Level of Support as outlined in Inner West Council’s Public Domain Parking Policy.

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For motion: Unanimous

LTC0721(1) Item 14 Proposed Resident Parking Scheme in Rozelle (Baludarri- Balmain Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt PAC)

SUMMARY

Council has received multiple requests from residents of Foucart Street, Hutcheson Street and Denison Street for a Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) to address issues with WestConnex workers’ long-term parking within the residential streets.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. A ‘2P 8am-6pm, Permit Holders Excepted, Area R1’ parking restriction be installed on:

a. Both sides of Foucart Street between Albert Street and Lilyfield Road, Rozelle;

b. Both sides of Hutcheson Street, Rozelle;

c. Western side of Alice Street between Albert Street and Mary Street, Rozelle;

d. Western side of Denison Street between Cashman Street and Cheltenham Street, Rozelle;

e. Both sides of Cashman Street, Rozelle.

f. Northern side of Lilyfield Road between Foucart Lane and Foucart Street.

2. 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone to be installed at intersections where Resident Parking Scheme is implemented;

3. A ‘2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri, 4P 8am-1pm Sat’ restriction be installed on the angle parking spaces only on the eastern side of Denison Street along Easton Park.

DISCUSSION

Council Officers tabled a number of submissions received regarding the amended proposal. Residents raised concerns that:

· Some Foucart Street residents will be disadvantaged by the loss of parking from the proposed 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone at the intersection of Joseph Street. In response to these concerns, Council Officers further recommended that the three parking spaces on the north side of Joseph Street, between Foucart Street and Foucart Lane, be relocated to the south side of the street and included in the RPS, and a 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed at Foucart Street at Joseph Street. This will provide parking for residents in 24 and 26 Foucart Street who will lose parking in front of their property.

· The RPS is not necessary as the parking problems are caused by WestConnex. Council Officers stated that providing an RPS will give residents a better chance of parking near their properties without competing with WestConnex vehicles parking in the streets.

· The 10m ‘No Stopping’ zones are excessive and could be reduced to increased parking supply.

· Concerns with visibility when exiting Foucart Lane and Foucart Street onto Lilyfield Road. Council Officers will investigate this issue separately.

· One resident changed their vote and now supports the inclusion of Albert Street in the proposed RPS. In response to the revised support rate for an RPS in Albert Street, Council Officers proposed an additional recommendation that the south side of Albert Street, between Hutcheson Street and Foucart Street, be included in the RPS and a 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed at that section of Albert Street.

Clr Macri asked what the process is for residents, who will not be part of the RPS, to later request to be included. Council Officers advised that the Traffic & Transport Planning Manager has delegated authority to make minor modifications to an existing RPS and this would allow a small number of properties not included in the proposed RPS to be later considered for inclusion.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. A ‘2P 8am-6pm, Permit Holders Excepted, Area R1’ parking restriction be installed on:

a. Both sides of Foucart Street between Albert Street and Lilyfield Road, Rozelle;

b. Both sides of Hutcheson Street, Rozelle;

c. Western side of Alice Street between Albert Street and Mary Street, Rozelle;

d. Western side of Denison Street between Cashman Street and Cheltenham Street, Rozelle;

e. Both sides of Cashman Street, Rozelle.

f. Northern side of Lilyfield Road between Foucart Lane and Foucart Street.

2. 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone to be installed at intersections where Resident Parking Scheme is implemented;

3. A ‘2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri, 4P 8am-1pm Sat’ restriction be installed on the angle parking spaces only on the eastern side of Denison Street along Easton Park.

4. Based on additional feedback, ‘2P 8am-6pm, Permit Holders Excepted, Area R1’ parking restriction be also installed on:

a. the southern side of Joseph Street between Foucart Street and Foucart Lane with the existing parking on the northern side of the street being relocated to the southern side of the street and replaced with appropriate ‘No Parking’ restrictions

b. the south side of Albert Street, between Hutcheson Street and Foucart Street

For motion: Unanimous

General Business

LTC0721 Item 15 Request for 10km/h ‘Shared Zone’ in Prospect Street, Leichhardt

Clr da Cruz requested for a 10km/h ‘Shared Zone’ in Prospect Street, Leichhardt as the street has no footpath, has high pedestrian volume and is close to schools and a child care centre. Council Officers advised that Prospect Street has been identified in the Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan as a location for further investigation.

LTC0721 Item 16 Proposed Whites Creek Lane, Leichhardt cycleway and 10km/h ‘Shared Zone’

Clr da Cruz questioned the status of the proposed cycleway and 10km/h ‘Shared Zone’ along Whites Creek Lane. Council Officers will follow up on this and provide an update.

LTC0721 Item 17 Request to designate McCarthy Lane and Cahill Lane, Annandale, a cycle route

The representative for the Member for Balmain requested that Council consider connecting McCarthy Lane with Cahill Lane in Annandale and designating it as a bike route.

LTC0721 Item 18 Request for cycle route improvements on Albion Street, Annandale

Clr da Cruz asked for improvements to the Albion Street cycle route at the intersection of Johnston Street to make it safer for cyclists to cross Johnston Street.

LTC0721 Item 19 Request for 10km/h ‘Shared Zone’ on Etonville Parade, Croydon

Clr da Cruz requested a 10km/h ‘Shared Zone’ for Etonville Parade, Croydon as it connects to the Iron Cove cycleway.

LTC0721 Item 20 Request for traffic calming in Wetherill Street, Croydon

Residents of Wetherill Street, Croydon have requested for a 10km/h ‘Shared Zone’ or other traffic calming treatment in the street.

Meeting closed at 11.02am.

Council Meeting

3 August 2021

Item No: C0821(1) Item 12

Subject: Community satisfaction survey - 2021

Prepared By: Prue Foreman - Communications and Engagement Manager

Authorised By: Caroline McLeod - Acting Director City Living

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council receive and note the report.

DISCUSSION

Council commissioned independent social research company Micromex to survey a representative sample of 1,002 residents across all areas of the Inner West local government area in May/June 2021. The results are positive for Inner West Council. Community satisfaction with Council’s overall performance has maintained its solid result since 2018 and is on par with the Micromex Metropolitan Council benchmark. The research and full results are detailed in the report.

BACKGROUND

Council commissioned statistically valid, demographically representative research in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2021 enabling comparison of change over time. The recent research conducted in May/June 2021 was scheduled to inform the Community Strategic Plan progress report which must be presented to the outgoing Council at its last meeting. The research will also inform the development of the next suite of Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) documents.

The research aims to:

· Assess and establish the community’s priorities and satisfaction, in relation to Council activities, services and facilities

· Identify the community’s overall level of satisfaction with Council’s performance

· Identify the community’s level of agreement with prompted statements surrounding wellbeing/connectedness

· Assess methods of communication and engagement with Council

· Identify priority areas for Council to focus on

· Assess community strategic plan measures

KEY FINDINGS

Living in the Inner West

Ninety-five percent agree with the statement “The Inner West is a good place to live” which is 10% higher than the Micromex benchmark. Eighty-one percent agree that “Inner West is a harmonious, respectful and inclusive community” which is 20% higher than the Micromex benchmark.

Respondents are also more likely to agree with the following statements than the Micromex benchmark:

· I have enough opportunities to participate in sporting or recreational activities (64% agree, 7% above benchmark)

· I have enough opportunities to participate in arts and cultural activities (54% agree, 7% above benchmark)

· I feel a part of my local community (74% agree, 6% above benchmark)

Respondents were slightly less likely to agree with the following statements than the Micromex benchmark:

· Council offers good value for money (29% agree, 2% below benchmark)

· Housing in the area is affordable (10% agree, 4% below benchmark)

Ninety-eight percent of respondents feel safe during the day while 77% feel safe after dark.

Top priority areas for Council to focus on

Respondents were asked for the top three challenges facing the area in the next 10 years.

Managing the challenge of population growth remains the key problem area for the community. There has been a significant increase in residents prioritisation towards environmental protections. The top three themes were:

1. Managing development/adequate planning/overdevelopment 38%

2. Environment protection/managing pollution/climate change/maintaining and provision of green open spaces 31% (significantly higher than 22% in 2018)

3. Traffic management/congestion 27%

Council’s overall performance

Overall, 92% of respondents were satisfied with the performance of Council (top three tiers).

The mean satisfaction rating was 3.58 (out of 5), which was the same as 2018 and significantly higher than 3.49 in 2017. This rating is on par with the Micromex benchmark for Sydney metropolitan councils.

Community engagement

The mean rating of resident perceptions of Council’s community engagement has steadily increased over the four survey periods since Inner West Council was established to 3.75. In 2021 60% rate Council’s community engagement as good to excellent.

Council’s integrity and decision making

The mean rating of resident perceptions of Council’s integrity and decision-making has steadily increased over the four survey periods since Inner West Council was established to 3.17. In 2021 80% were satisfied (top three tiers).

Contact with Council

Half of respondents had contacted Council in the past year for a reason other than paying rates. The top three methods for contacting Council were:

1. Online at Council’s website

2. Telephone

3. Email

The top three reasons for contacting Council were:

1. Waste/rubbish removal

2. Make a complaint

3. Development Application

The mean satisfaction for contact with Council is 3.56 which is slightly lower than 2018 and significantly below the Micromex benchmark (3.77).

Satisfaction with online contact has significantly increased while satisfaction with telephone and email contact has significantly decreased.

Information from Council

Respondents were asked how they would prefer to receive information about Council.

Council’s website is the top source (80%) followed by word of mouth (77%), libraries (77%), other direct email from Council and Council’s e-news (67%). These replace the top two sources from 2018 which were brochures/flyers and Council’s printed newsletter.

Flyer/letter to my home is lower than 2018 (59% in 2021) but still an important source for many people, as is Council’s printed newsletter Inner West Council News (58%).

People aged 65+ were significantly more likely to prefer printed flyer/letter and newsletter to their home while people aged 18-36 were significantly more likely to prefer social media.

Community Strategic Plan principles

Respondents were asked about their perceptions of Council as creative, caring and just. Creative (85% agree, mean 3.37) and caring (88% agree, mean 3.41) remain on par with 2018 but the mean rating of perceptions of just have reduced (87% agree – same as 2018 / mean 3.36 compared to 3.47 in 2018).

WestConnex

Awareness remains high (95%), and support for the project has increased. There was a significant increase in support to a mean of 3.07 compared to 2018 with 74% support (top three tiers). Those who are ‘not at all supportive’ has halved from 34% to 17% since 2018.

Analysis of 41 services and facilities

Analysis determined stated importance, rated satisfaction and to what extent the services and facilities contribute to residents’ overall satisfaction with Council.

Importance increased for seven of the 41 comparable services and facilities and decreased for six.

The most important services/facilities were:

1. Access to public transport

2. Household garbage collection

3. Encouraging recycling

4. Safe public spaces

5. Protecting the natural environment

The least important services/facilities were:

1. Graffiti removal

2. Cycleways

3. Building heights in town centres

4. Community education programs

5. Festival and events programs

6. Flood management

Satisfaction increased for four of the 41 comparable services and facilities and reduced for four.

The services/facilities with the highest satisfaction were:

1. Library services

2. Swimming pools and aquatic centres

3. Maintenance of local parks, playgrounds, and sporting fields

4. Community centres and facilities

5. Household garbage collection

6. Availability of sporting ovals, grounds, and facilities

7. Festival and events programs

8. Maintenance and cleaning of town centres

9. Appearance of your local area

The services/facilities with the lowest satisfaction were:

1. Management of parking

2. Managing development in the area

3. Community’s ability to influence Council decision-making

4. Building heights in town centres

5. Cycleways

6. Tree management

7. Maintaining footpaths

Performance gaps

The top five performance gaps (difference between importance and satisfaction) are: community's ability to influence Council's decision making; maintaining footpaths; managing development in the area; management of parking and maintaining local roads excluding major routes.

Key drivers of overall satisfaction

The key driver of overall satisfaction (as determined by advanced regression analysis) is Council’s integrity and decision-making.

Out of the 41 services/facilities, the key drivers of satisfaction are community's ability to influence Council's decision making; long-term planning for Council area; provision of Council information to the community; tree management; maintaining local roads excluding major routes; supporting local jobs and business; managing development in the area and maintenance of local parks, playgrounds and sporting fields.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The Community Satisfaction Survey is an engagement technique guided by Council’s Community Engagement Framework. It informs service delivery and measurement of achievement of the Community Strategic Plan – Our Inner West 2036.

CONCLUSION

The 2021 community survey results indicate that Inner West Council is achieving satisfaction on par with the Micromex benchmark for metropolitan councils.

The full report is attached and provides further details of the results and analysis.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Inner West Council community satisfaction survey report - 2021

Council Meeting

3 August 2021

Item No: C0821(1) Item 13

Subject: Deamalgamation Cost Benefit Report

Prepared By: Peter Livanes - Acting Director Corporate

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - General Manager

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council receive and note the report.

BACKGROUND

At the Extraordinary Council Meeting on 24 May 2021, The Inner West Council resolved that Council:

1. Use the opportunity presented by the recent amendments to the Local Government Act to investigate de-amalgamation of Inner West Council and to prepare a report for an Extraordinary Council meeting in the first week in August 2021. Councils’ case should include:

a. Councils’ financial position;

b. Councils’ future financial position;

c. harmonisation changes in rates and costs;

d. service performance of Council has not improved and has been subject to significant community concern;

e. strong community dissatisfaction with the merger remains after 5 years;

f. communities of interest and community cohesion;

g. the dramatic fall in community representation (Councillors/population ratio) has not been good for our people;

h. the merged Council has created a huge bias which favours political party control of Council; along with reduced opportunity and greater hurdles for non-political party representation on Council;

i. Council engages in community consultation;

j. thorough cost benefit analysis on demerger by a reputable independent source that has the capacity to assess complex economic social and environmental issues;

k. the ongoing costs and benefits on each of the councils if they were to demerge. The estimated cost of demerger in the ranges in vicinity of $20M to $34M and an annual cost ranging from $11M to $15M year;

l. the impact on staff, to be assessed independently;

m. the effect on the consolidated information communication and technology costs;

n. the effect on current governance arrangements; and

o. the effect on the ability to introduce new or improved service delivery.

2. Pursuant to section 14 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW):

a. Take a poll of electors on the question of whether the Inner West local government area should be de-amalgamated, so as to restore the former local government areas of Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville; and

b. Hold the poll on the day of the 2021 NSW local government elections, being Saturday, 4 September 2021 or such later or other day as may subsequently be proclaimed.

3. Examine any additional cost of a poll on the amalgamation as part of the quarterly budget review;

4. Write to Local Government NSW and seek to place on the business paper for the forthcoming Local Government NSW Conference the following motion, that: The NSW Government pay 100% of costs of de-amalgamation of local government areas forced to amalgamate where a referendum of residents has chosen to reverse the forced amalgamation; and

5. Write to the Premier, Minister for Local Government, Leader of the Opposition, and cross benchers in the NSW Parliament asking their support for the NSW Government to pay 100% of costs of de-amalgamation of local government areas forced to amalgamate where a referendum of residents has chosen to reverse the forced amalgamation.

DISCUSSION

As a result of the Council resolution stated above from the Extraordinary Meeting on 24 May, Council commissioned Morrison Low to undertake a high-level cost benefit assessment case, to identify the benefits and costs of a potential de-amalgamation of the Inner West Council into its former councils of Ashfield Council, Leichhardt Council and Marrickville Council.

Suitably qualified and experienced, Morrison Low are a reputable and independent source that has the capacity to assess complex economic, social and environmental issues. Morrison Low have performed numerous engagements concerning amalgamations, transition planning and deamalgamation in Australia and New Zealand.

The report is intended to inform the Council and community of the possible costs and future costs and benefits of any de-amalgamation.

The report finds that a de-amalgamation of the Inner West Council to reform Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils would have the following financial impacts. Further information is contained within the report with estimated net costs for the proposed de-amalgamation being:

- one off de-amalgamation costs - $26.2 million

- ongoing costs and benefits net - $22.1 million.

Further insights drawn from the report include:

- that there is no prescribed methodology for a de-amalgamation of councils in NSW and therefore this report proposes both a methodology and assumptions

- the recent community perception survey undertaken by Micromex shows the highest level of satisfaction (92%) since the introduction of Inner West Council at a level above the Micromex local government area benchmark for the metropolitan region

- a fall in community representation shown by the Councillor to population ratio for the amalgamated Council compared to the legacy Councils

- significant transition and ongoing costs resulting in operating deficits for each of the reinstated Councils

- proposed special rate variations (SRV’s) to address funding gaps as each of the legacy Councils are unsustainable resulting in rate increases ranging from $180 to $321

- recent decisions from the Minister for Local Government to not proceed with two deamalgamation proposals despite support for one of these proposals from the Boundary Commission.

The Council resolution (part l) required the impact on staff to assessed independently. This work has been completed by Insync, an independent specialist employee survey provider resulting in 71% of staff supporting the amalgamated Inner West Council (refer attachment 2). The Morrison Low report notes key risks arising from deamalgamation on staff including the loss of key staff and cultural separation from the Inner West Council which may not go well resulting in low morale, increased turnover and reduced performance.

Further to receiving this report, Council has engaged an independent copywriter to prepare information from the Morrison Low report as a summary of the advantages and disadvantages for each option. This information will be provided to the Electoral Commission who advised they will review any material prepared by Council.

Council has a dedicated web page on the elections, including a section on the de-merger poll in the drop-down concertina.

Other scheduled action include:

- Media release

- Social media

- Home page web banner

- Email signature

- E-news

- Flyer to all households and businesses – drafted by external copywriter and based on independent cost/benefit analysis by Council’s consultants

- Inner West Council News November edition.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Cost Benefit Proposal Inner West Council Deamalgamation
2.⇩	Insync Staff Survey - Deamalgamation

1.⇩	Zero Waste Strategy-Engagement Outcomes Report
2.⇩	IWC Zero Waste Strategy

1.⇩	Gateway Determination 36 Lonsdale Street & 64-70 Brenan Street, Lilyfield
2.⇩	Engagement Outcomes Report 36 Lonsdale Street & 64-70 Brenan Street, Lilyfield
3.⇩	Site-Specific DCP 36 Lonsdale Street & 64-70 Brenan Street, Lilyfield

1.⇩	Engagement Outcomes Report - Gender Equal Representation Policy
2.⇩	Gender Equal Representation Policy

Ward	Item
Baludarri (Balmain)	Rozelle North Precinct Parking Study
Baludarri (Balmain)	Proposed Resident Parking Scheme in Rozelle
Gulgadya (Leichhardt)	Leichhardt West Precinct Parking Study
	Request for 10km/h ‘Shared Zone’ in Prospect Street, Leichhardt
	Proposed Whites Creek Lane, Leichhardt cycleway and 10km/h ‘Shared Zone’
	Request to designate McCarthy Lane and Cahill Lane, Annandale, a cycle route
	Request for cycle route improvements on Albion Street, Annandale
	Request for 10km/h ‘Shared Zone’ on Etonville Parade, Croydon
	Alt Street at intersections with Church Street and Charlotte Street, Ashfield - Investigation on the warrant of pedestrian crossings
Midjuburi (Marrickville)	Wardell Road/Riverside Crescent, Marrickville/ Dulwich Hill - No Left Turn Restriction
	Unwins Bridge Road, adjacent to Tillman Park, Tempe – Proposed new mid-block signalised pedestrian crossing – Design Plan 10111
	Victoria Road, Marrickville - Proposed short-term parking
Djarrawunang (Ashfield)	Fred Street, Dulwich Hill - Proposed painted island treatment
	Request for traffic calming in Wetherill Street, Croydon
	Constitution Road, Dulwich Hill - Proposed 'No Parking' Restrictions
Damun (Stanmore)	Liberty Street and Kingston Road, Enmore / Newtown / Camperdown – Trucks and request to reclassify road – LTC0321 Item 15 General Business
	Bailey Street, at Enmore Road, Newtown – 10km/h 'Shared Zone' Treatment – Design Plan 10133
	Terminus Street, Petersham – TfNSW Petersham Station Upgrade Project - Signs and Line Markings Plan 150272-PET-CI-DRG-45402
	Henry Lane, Lewisham - Proposed 'No Stopping' Restrictions
	Cavendish Street, Stanmore - Resident Parking Scheme Proposal
All Wards	Nil