Agenda of Council Meeting - Tuesday, 26 October 2021

Council Meeting

26 October 2021

Minutes of Extraordinary Council Meeting held remotely and livestreamed on Council’s website on 5 October 2021

Meeting commenced at 6.31pm

Present:
Rochelle Porteous Pauline Lockie Darcy Byrne Marghanita Da Cruz Mark Drury Colin Hesse Tom Kiat Victor Macri Lucille McKenna OAM Julie Passas Vittoria Raciti John Stamolis Louise Steer Anna York Peter Gainsford Graeme Palmer	Mayor Deputy Mayor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor General Manager Acting Director Planning
Cathy Edwards-Davis	Director Infrastructure
Caroline McLeod Peter Livanes	Acting Director Community Acting Director Corporate
Beau-Jane De Costa	Senior Manager Governance and Risk
Katherine Paixao	Governance Coordinator
Carmelina Giannini	Governance Support Officer
Peter Doyle	Governance Advisor

APOLOGIES: Nil

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:

Councillor Raciti declared a significant, pecuniary interest in Item 5 Notice of Motion: Fee Waiver For Sporting Fields Ground Hire as her husband and son belong to the tigers soccer club board and hire the parks at Inner West and she will leave the meeting during discussion and voting.

Clr Stamolis declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 13 Mayoral Minute: Callan Park must not be commercialised as he is on the executive of the friends of Callan park and he will remain in the meeting during discussion and voting.

Motion: (Porteous/Drury)

THAT Council note the disclosures of interest

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

PUBLIC FORUM

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

C1021(1) Item 13 Mayoral Minute: Callan Park must not be commercialised

Motion: (Porteous)

THAT Council:

1. Notes that the Draft Exposure Bill: Greater Sydney Parklands Trust Bill was released on October 1 and the NSW Government is seeking feedback until 29 October;

2. Opposes any changes to the Callan Park (Special Provisions) Act 2002;

3. Opposes any commercial uses at Callan Park;

4. Opposes 50 year leases (potentially commercial leases) on Kirkbride, Broughton Hall and the Convalescent Cottages;

5. Calls for the retention of council as the consent authority;

6. Calls for the establishment of the Callan Park and Broughton Hall Trust;

7. Writes to the Minister outlining council’s strong opposition to the Exposure Bill and calling on the Minister to make public the successful tenderer in the EOI process for Kirkbride;

8. Write to The Leader of the Opposition asking that the Labor Party publicly announce that they are opposing the Exposure Bill;

9. Write to all NSW MPs outlining Council’s concerns regarding the Exposure Bill and seeking their support to oppose the Bill and have the Callan Park and Broughton Hall Trust established as soon as possible;

10. Makes a Council submission on the Greater Sydney Parklands Exposure Bill;

11. Convenes a Public Meeting to explain the Greater Sydney Parklands Trust Exposure Bill and the impact it will have on Callan Park. The Public Meeting will be in October before submissions are due and will be held virtually. The format of the meeting will be in accordance with Council’s Event invitation, Speaking and Public Meeting Policy which includes staff presentations and inviting Ward Councillors to speak. A representative of Friends of Callan Park will also be invited to speak;

12. Promotes residents making a submission and the Public Meeting through all of Council’s communication channels including a letter to local residents;

13. Erects two banners in Rozelle and Balmain and prints 100 corflutes available to residents. Corflutes and Banners to read: “ Not for Sale: Hands off Callan Park – Make a Submission xxxxxxxxxxxxxx”;

14. Notes the estimated costs for a letter box drop, banners and corflutes is $6,000 and is to be funded from Council’s communications budget;

15. Request a 2 week extension on the exhibition period and invites the Minister to address Council at a meeting convened by Council; and

16. A Councillor briefing be organised as soon as possible.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Cr Passas

Amendment (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

THAT Council replace point 2 with ‘THAT Council requests that the Planning Minister urgently attend a briefing with Inner West Councillors to explain the purposes and details of the Greater Sydney Parklands Trust Bill.’

Motion Tied

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

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

The Chairperson used her Casting Vote against the MOTION and the MOTION was lost.

Amendment (Byrne/McKenna OAM)

THAT Council replace point 3 with ‘THAT Council seeks clarification from the Government about whether a café can operate within Callan Park under existing legislation and whether the St Jerome’s Laneway Festival constitutes a “commercial use”.’

Motion Tied

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

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

The Chairperson used her Casting Vote again the MOTION and the MOTION was lost.

Amendment (Byrne/Drury)

THAT Council writes to the NSW Government and the Member for Balmain requesting a feasibility study for the establishment of a public high school or public TAFE campus at the Kirkbride Precinct or information about any public university campuses proposed through the recent EOI process.

Motion Tied

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

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

The Chairperson used her Casting Vote against the MOTION and the MOTION was lost

Procedural Motion – Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion: (Drury/Hesse)

THAT Council suspend standing orders and enter into Confidential session to deal with Item 1 Notice of Motion: Councillors not advised at this time as it deals with staffing matters.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Crs Macri, Passas, Raciti and Stamolis

Confidential session

That in accordance with Section 10A(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, the following matter be considered in Closed Session of Council for the reasons provided:

C1021(1) Item 1 Notice of Motion: Councillors not advised contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors) (Section 10A(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1993).

Motion: (Porteous/Steer)

THAT Council move back into the Open Session of the Council Meeting.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

C1021(1) Item 1 Notice of Motion: Councillors not advised

No resolutions were passed in Confidential Session.

Councillor Stamolis left the Meeting at 9:15 pm.

Councillor Hesse left the Meeting at 9:18 pm.

Councillor Macri left the Meeting at 9:28 pm.

C1021(1) Item 2 Notice of Motion: Wear it Purple

Motion: (Drury/Kiat)

THAT Council:

1. Note that Council celebrated the 12th annual “Wear it Purple day” on Friday 27 August which had the them being “Start the Conversation and Keep it going”; and

2. In recognising and promoting this message notes the decision of Comensoli v Passas [2019] NSWCATAD 155, handed down by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal during this term of Council which found that a complaint of homosexual vilification in breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act by Councillor Passas had been substantiated.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Crs Passas and Raciti

Absent: Crs Hesse, Macri and Stamolis

Amendment (Macri/Raciti)

THAT Council delete point 2 from the primary motion.

Motion Lost

For Motion: Crs Macri, Passas and Raciti

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

Absent: Crs Hesse and Stamolis

ADJOURNMENT

9.29pm - The Mayor, Clr Porteous adjourned the meeting for a short recess.

9.37pm– The Mayor, Clr Porteous resumed the meeting.

Councillor Stamolis returned to the Meeting at 9:37 pm.

Councillor Hesse returned to the Meeting at 9:37 pm.

Councillor Macri returned to the Meeting at 9:37 pm.

C1021(1) Item 3 Notice of Motion: Flying the Italian Flag on Festa Della Repubblica

Motion: (McKenna OAM/Porteous)

THAT Council each year on Festa della Repubblica (Italian National Day), 2 June, the Italian flag be raised on the Leichhardt Town Hall.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

At 10:27pm, the Mayor, Councillor Porteous issued a warning to Councillor Passas for repeated interjections during debate.

C1021(1) Item 4 Notice of Motion: Refugee Arts Project at Thirning Villa

Procedural Motion (Steer/Da Cruz)

THAT the motion be put without further debate.

Motion Lost

For Motion: Crs Da Cruz, Kiat and Steer

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

Motion: (Kiat/Steer)

THAT Council:

1. Endorse the Refugee Arts Project as a tenant in Thirning Villa;

2. Note that the ongoing use of Thirning Villa by RAP is not to the exclusion of other artists or art collectives; and

3. Note that the Creative Inner West Cultural Strategy 2021-25 and Action Plan has just completed its community exhibition phase and will shortly be reported to Council. The report should address how Council's various Artist in Residence programs (including at Thirning Villa) can further highlight and/or enhance their engagement with their local community in partnership with Council, including through school and broader community collaboration (e.g. workshops, exhibitions, education, and the bestowing of significant artwork to community, etc.).

4. Receive a report on how after the pandemic, the Thirning Villa Artist in Residence program could be rejuvenated. One of the models that should be considered is restoring it to its original model of short term residency for 3-4 months for significant artists from the regions and interstate to use the space as a base to interact with the wider community through workshops, exhibitions and education and to leave a significant art work at the end of the residency to the people of the Inner West (formally the Ashfield Art Collection).

Motion Tied

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

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

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

Foreshadowed Motion (McKenna OAM/Byrne)

THAT Council receive a report on how after the pandemic, the Thirning Villa Artist in Residence program could be rejuvenated. One of the models that should be considered is restoring it to its original model of short term residency for 3-4 months for significant artists from the regions and interstate to use the space as a base to interact with the wider community through workshops, exhibitions and education and to leave a significant art work at the end of the residency to the people of the Inner West (formally the Ashfield Art Collection).

This foreshadowed motion lapsed.

Councillor Raciti left the Meeting at 10:40 pm as she declared a significant, pecuniary interest in Item 5 Notice of Motion: Fee Waiver For Sporting Fields Ground Hire as her husband and son belong to the tigers soccer club board and hire the parks at Inner West and she will leave the meeting during discussion and voting.

C1021(1) Item 5 Notice of Motion: Fee Waiver For Sporting Fields Ground Hire

Motion: (Macri/Passas)

THAT Council prepare a report on the ability to wave the fees for ground hire of sports fields as per the Canterbury-Bankstown Council approach to assist our sporting clubs.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Councillor Raciti returned to the Meeting at 10:44 pm.

Procedural Motion - Extension of Time

Motion: (Steer/Da Cruz)

THAT the meeting be extended for 15 minutes until 11.15pm.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Cr Drury

C1021(1) Item 6 Notice of Motion: Keep Inner West Local Government Area Nuclear
Free

Motion: (Steer/Hesse)

THAT Council:

1. Writes to the Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and the Minister for Defense Peter Dutton expressing Inner West Council’s opposition to the presence of nuclear submarines in Sydney Harbour, noting the risks to human, animal and plant life posed by nuclear submarines and requesting that the Australian government ratify the UN Treaty against Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons;

2. Notes the ‘nuclear free zone’ signs throughout the LGA;

3. Informs residents of its resolution via a media release and information in the next newsletter; and

4. Puts forward the following motion to the LGNSW Conference 2021

a) NSW Councils oppose nuclear submarines in Sydney Harbour;

b) That LGNSW writes to the Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and the Minister for Defense Peter Dutton expressing opposition to the presence nuclear submarines in New South Wales waters, in particular Sydney Harbour, noting the risks to human, animal and plant life posed by nuclear submarines, and requesting that the Australian government ratify the UN Treaty against Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Motion Lost

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

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

Procedural Motion

Motion: (Drury/Porteous)

THAT items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 be deferred to the Ordinary Council meeting to be held on Tuesday, 12 October 2021 at 6.30pm.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Meeting closed at 11.14pm.

Public Speakers:

Item #

Speaker

Suburb

Item 13:

Hall Greenland

Cynthia Nadai

Leichhardt

Lilyfield

Unconfirmed minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 5 October 2021.

Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held remotely and livestreamed on Council’s website on 12 October 2021

Meeting commenced at 6.31pm

Present:
Rochelle Porteous Pauline Lockie Darcy Byrne Marghanita Da Cruz Mark Drury Colin Hesse Sam Iskandar Tom Kiat Victor Macri Lucille McKenna OAM Julie Passas Vittoria Raciti John Stamolis Louise Steer Anna York Peter Gainsford Graeme Palmer	Mayor Deputy Mayor Councillor (6:32pm) Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor (6:32pm) Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor (6:32pm) General Manager Acting Director Planning
Cathy Edwards-Davis	Director Infrastructure
Caroline McLeod Peter Livanes Beau-Jane De Costa Daryl Jackson Harjeet Atwal Billy Cotsis Simon Turner Elizabeth Renneberg Peter Doyle	Acting Director Community Acting Director Corporate Senior Manager Governance and Risk Chief Financial Officer Senior Manager Planning Economic Development Team Leader Acting General Counsel Internal Ombudsman Governance Advisor
Katherine Paixao	Governance Coordinator
Carmelina Giannini	Governance Support Officer

APOLOGIES: Nil

Councillors Byrne, McKenna OAM and York entered the meeting at 6:32pm.

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:

Councillor Porteous declared a significant, pecuniary interest in Item 4 Local Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes – September 2021 (Item 2 Balmain East Precinct Parking Study) as her partner holds a parking permit in the area and will leave the meeting during discussion and voting.

Councillor Lockie declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 11 Inner West Outdoor Dining and Live Performance Guidelines as it talks about the City of Sydney and she works there.

Councillor Passas declared a significant, pecuniary interest in Items 32 Request for Reimbursement of Legal Expenses as per Council’s Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy and a significant, non-pecuniary interest 33 Outcome of Code of Conduct Investigation as she lodged the Code of Conduct and will leave the meeting during voting and discussion on both items.

Councillor York declared a significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 24 Notice of Motion: Tempe Bunnings as her family member lives in the area and will not participate in discussion or voting.

Councillor Da Cruz declared a non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 29 Appointment of Community Representative for the Inner West Local Planning Panel as one of the shortlisted candidates is the husband of a friend.

Motion: (McKenna OAM/Drury)

THAT Council note the disclosures of interest.

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

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Motion: (Da Cruz/Hesse)

THAT the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 28 September 2021 be confirmed as a correct record.

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

Procedural Motion

Motion: (Drury/Hesse)

THAT Council allow an additional speaker on Item 27.

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

PUBLIC FORUM

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

C1021(2) Item 34 Mayoral Minute: Parking Meter Operations Following Lockdown

Motion: (Porteous)

THAT Council:

1. Extends the period during which parking meters are turned off on Norton Street, Leichhardt; Darling Street, Rozelle/Balmain, King Street and Enmore Road, Newtown/Enmore pending the outcome of consultation with businesses;

2. Consult with the local mainstreamed business to determine turnover and impact on those businesses with a recommendation to come back to the next available Council meeting in terms of continuing the parking meters being turned off until 31 December 2021; and

3. Staff include in the report the reintroduction of parking restriction signage on the streets.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Crs McKenna OAM and Passas

Procedural Motion - Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion: (Porteous/Lockie)

THAT Council:

1. Deal with Items 1-5 then Suspend standing orders to deal with Items 10, 11 and 24 at this time; and

2. Defer Item 6 to the Ordinary Council meeting on 26 October 2021

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Cr Passas

Councillor Stamolis left the Meeting at 7:50 pm.

C1021(2) Item 1 De-amalgamation Yes / No Case

Motion: (Porteous/Hesse)

THAT Council adopts the Yes and No case flyer which has been fact checked as distributed to Councillors prior to the meeting.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Cr Passas

Absent: Cr Stamolis

As voting for the amendment took place prior to the primary motion, Councillor Stamolis was in attendance during the amendment.

Amendment (Stamolis/Macri)

THAT given the caveats, methodology and data limitations expressed by the consultant in regard to the impact on rates from a demerger; as well as the recommendation from the fact checker that an economist should review this data; that the rates table be removed from the Yes/No case as it would mislead our community.

Motion Lost

For Motion: Crs Macri and Stamolis

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

Councillor Stamolis returned to the Meeting at 7:55 pm.

C1021(2) Item 2 Endorsement of the Cooks River Litter Prevention Strategy and
target of 50% less litter by 2025

Motion: (Hesse/Drury)

THAT Council:

1. Endorse the draft Cooks River Litter Prevention Strategy; and

2. Endorse the key target of the strategy for the Cooks River Catchment of 50% less litter by the year 2025.

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

C1021(2) Item 3 Accommodation Grant for Deadly Connections

Motion: (Kiat/Lockie)

THAT Council:

1. Offer Deadly Connections the opportunity to enter a 12 month venue hire agreement, subject to the suitable outcome of a structural engineers report;

2. Investigate whether a review of the Enmore Park Plan of Management is required to progress the formal process to offer Deadly Connections a two year lease/license (offering a total of three years);

3. Authorise the General Manager to negotiate the terms of the lease/license and to sign/execute the lease/license on Council’s behalf;

4. Note the requirements of the hire and lease agreement to be in keeping with Council’s Land and Property Policy, Lease Management whereby the tenant is responsible for funding any connection and ongoing costs associated with the internet, phone lines, water, electricity, air-conditioning, security etc;

5. Endorse a budget adjustment of $30,000 to the Facilities Maintenance budget be made to cover the costs associated with addressing the existing maintenance issues at the facility;

6. Note that Council officers share information regarding any relevant grants with Deadly Connections and assist with any supporting documentation required; and

7. Supply air conditioning.

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 Porteous left the Meeting at 8:33 pm as she declared a significant, pecuniary interest in Item 4 Local Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes – September 2021 (Item 2 Balmain East Precinct Parking Study) as her partner holds a parking permit in the area. The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Lockie assumed the chair.

C1021(2) Item 4 Local Traffic Committee Meeting - September 2021

Motion: (Lockie/Steer)

THAT the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 20 September 2021 be received and the recommendations be adopted with the following amendments:

a) That the Mayor write to Transport for NSW to raise concerns with the WestConnex widening the road at the intersection of Victoria Road and Toelle Street, Rozelle. (General Business item 4); and

b) That given that a broad range of community concerns remain with Item 2 Balmain East Parking Study that it be deferred further for these to be resolved.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Cr Porteous

Amendment (Stamolis/Byrne)

THAT given that a broad range of community concerns remain with Item 2 Balmain East Parking Study that it be deferred further for these to be resolved.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Crs Hesse and McKenna OAM

Absent: Cr Porteous

As the amendment was carried, it was incorporated into the primary.

Councillor Porteous returned to the Meeting at 8:51 pm. The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Lockie vacated the chair and Councillor Porteous assumed the chair.

C1021(2) Item 5 Change to December 2021 Council Meeting Date and 2022 Ordinary
Council Meeting Schedule

Motion: (Hesse/Drury)

THAT Council:

1. Amend the 2021 Ordinary Council meeting schedule to remove the 7 December 2021 Ordinary Council meeting;

2. Set the date for the first ordinary meeting for the new term of the Inner West Council as 6.30pm Wednesday, 29 December 2021; and

3. Adopt the 2022 ordinary Council meeting schedule:

Tuesday 8 February

Tuesday 22 February

Tuesday 8 March

Tuesday 22 March

Tuesday 12 April

Tuesday 26 April

Tuesday 10 May

Tuesday 24 May

Tuesday 14 June

Tuesday 28 June

Tuesday 26 July

Tuesday 9 August

Tuesday 23 August

Tuesday 13 September

Tuesday 27 September

Tuesday 11 October

Tuesday 25 October

Tuesday 8 November

Tuesday 22 November

Tuesday 13 December

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Crs Passas and Stamolis

Amendment (Stamolis/Passas)

THAT Council amend point 2 to ‘That Council set the date for the first ordinary meeting for the new term of the Inner West Council as 6.30pm Tuesday, 4 January 2022.’

Motion Lost

For Motion: Crs Da Cruz, Passas and Stamolis, Macri

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

C1021(2) Item 10 Inner West Economic Recovery Taskforce Update

Motion: (Porteous/Steer)

THAT:

1. Council notes the update on the Inner West Economic Recovery Taskforce recommendations;

2. $138,000 be expended from the Inner West Economic Recovery Taskforce to fund the Outdoor Dining and Live Performance Project; and

3. Council give In principle support for businesses applying to roofing the outdoor dining platforms when they apply.

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 Macri left the Meeting at 9:35 pm.

C1021(2) Item 11 Inner West Outdoor Dining and Live Performance Guidelines

Motion: (Da Cruz/Steer)

THAT Council:

1. Note the update on the draft Inner West Outdoor Dining and Live Performance project; and

2. Endorse the reallocation of $138,000 from the Inner West Economic Recovery Taskforce to partially fund the Outdoor Dining and Live Performance project.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Cr Passas

Absent: Cr Macri

Amendment (Byrne/Drury)

THAT Council:

1. Note the resolution of May resolving to develop a public space activation strategy to be rolled out in line with the lifting of public health restrictions has yet to be implemented; and

2. Urgently create a live performance small grants scheme with funding of $80 000 as indicated in the report. Grants of up to $300 are to be made available to hire live performers who are residents of the Inner West local government area to perform, with eligible applicants to include:

a) Local hospitality businesses

b) Local residents facilitating streets parties

c) Local community organisations arranging Christmas parties and reunion events

Motion Lost

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

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

Absent: Cr Macri

Procedural Motion

Motion: (Lockie/Steer)

THAT Council further suspend standing orders to bring forward item 12 to be dealt with at this time.

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

Absent: Cr Macri

C1021(2) Item 12 2020/21 Annual Designated Person Disclosure (Pecuniary
Interest) Returns

Motion: (Drury/Lockie)

THAT Council note the tabling of Pecuniary Interest Returns of Councillors and Designated Staff for the return period 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021.

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

Absent: Cr Macri

Councillor York retired from the Meeting at 9:42 pm.

ADJOURNMENT

9.42pm - The Mayor, Clr Porteous adjourned the meeting for a short recess.

9.48pm– The Mayor, Clr Porteous resumed the meeting.

Councillor Macri returned to the Meeting at 9:48 pm.

C1021(2) Item 24 Notice of Motion: Bunnings Traffic

Motion: (Macri/Passas)

THAT Council:

1. Commence a campaign to lobby Bunnings about improving traffic arrangement at Tempe;

2. Campaign includes ads in local newspapers, social media and installation of banners at high-visibility locations near Bunnings Tempe and consider ads in the SMH also the Telegraph;

3. Writes to NSW Minister for Roads seeking approval of traffic signals installation on Princes Highway to provide controlled access to Bunnings;

4. Writes to all residents of Sydenham, Tempe and St Peters advising of Council’s advocacy and calling on residents to lobby the NSW Government for a better outcome;

5. Staff do not exercise their delegations to approve the LATM during the Caretaker period until the new council has been consulted; and

6. Submit submission opposing the section 4.55 until the traffic issues have been resolved.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Cr York

Councillor Macri left the Meeting at 10:15 pm.

C1021(2) Item 7 Council and Community Covid Crisis Intervention Taskforce

Motion: (Porteous/Lockie)

THAT Council adopt the draft Terms of Reference for the Council and Community Covid Crisis Intervention Taskforce.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Cr Passas

Absent: Crs Macri and York

C1021(2) Item 6 Report on progress in implementing the Community Strategic Plan

This item was deferred to the Ordinary Council meeting on 26 October 2021.

Procedural Motion – Resumption of Standing Orders

Motion: (Porteous/McKenna OAM)

THAT standing orders be resumed

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Macri and York

C1021(2) Item 8 Re-opening of Outdoor Aquatic Centres

Motion: (Lockie/Kiat)

THAT Council:

1. Note that the Outdoor Aquatic Centres re-opened from Monday 27^th September;

2. Note that Officers have implemented a range of processes for the safe re-opening of the outdoor pools in line with conditions as determined by the public health order; and

3. Receive a report on increasing the Ashfield Aquatic closing hours to 8pm on Saturday and Sunday (generally or just in Summer) to be considered at the November Council meeting.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Macri and York

Councillor Macri returned to the Meeting at 10:25 pm.

Procedural Motion – Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion: (Porteous/Hesse)

THAT Council suspend standing orders and enter in Confidential session to deal with all confidential items at this time.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Macri and York

Confidential Session

That in accordance with Section 10A(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, the following matters be considered in Closed Session of Council for the reasons provided:

C1021(2) Item 29 Appointment of Community Representative for the Inner West
Local Planning Panel contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors) (Section 10A(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1993).

C1021(2) Item 30 T01-19 Marrickville and St Peters Town Halls - External Works contains commercial information of a confidential nature (Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993) that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

C1021(2) Item 31 RFQ64-21 Local Road Asphalt Mill and Fill Contract contains commercial information of a confidential nature (Section 10A(2)(d)(ii) of the Local Government Act 1993) that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council.

C1021(2) Item 32 Request for Reimbursement of Legal Expenses contains advice concerning litigation, or advice (Section 10A(2)(g) of the Local Government Act 1993) that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

C1021(2) Item 33 Outcome of Code of Conduct Investigation contains alleged contraventions of any code of conduct requirements applicable under section 440.

Councillor Passas left the Meeting at 10:30 pm.

Reports with Confidential Information

C1021(2) Item 29 Appointment of Community Representative for the Inner West
Local Planning Panel

Motion: (McKenna OAM/Hesse)

THAT Council appoint Ken Hawke, Narelle Butler, Allan Barnes, Andrea Connell, Lea Richards, Kath Roach and Silvia Correia from the Expression of Interest process as Community Representatives on the Inner West Local Planning Panel

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Passas and York

Councillor Passas returned to the Meeting at 10:34 pm.

C1021(2) Item 30 T01-19 Marrickville and St Peters Town Halls - External Works

Motion: (Lockie/Stamolis)

THAT Council:

1. Decline to accept all tender submissions for Tender T 01-19 for the Marrickville and St Peters Town Halls External Works; and

2. Invite fresh tenders for the Marrickville and St Peters Town Halls External Works by open tender.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Cr York

Councillor Passas retired from the Meeting at 10:37 pm.

C1021(2) Item 31 RFQ64-21 Local Road Asphalt Mill and Fill Contract

Motion: (Drury/Lockie)

THAT the submission submitted by Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd for $3,723,149 excluding GST be accepted for the Local Road Asphalt Mill and Fill Contract FY21-22 for Inner West Council.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Passas and York

Councillor Steer left the Meeting at 10:41 pm.

Councillor Byrne retired from the Meeting at 10:42pm

Councillor Kiat left the meeting at 10:42pm

Councillor Passas was not in attendance for discussion or voting in Items 32 and 33 as she declared a significant, pecuniary interest in Items 32 Request for Reimbursement of Legal Expenses as per Council’s Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy and a significant, non-pecuniary interest 33 Outcome of Code of Conduct Investigation as she lodged the Code of Conduct.

C1021(2) Item 32 Request for Reimbursement of Legal Expenses

Motion: (Macri/Raciti)

THAT Council reimburse legal expenses of $3960.00, incurred by Councillor Passas, in accordance with the Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Byrne, Kiat, Passas, Steer and York

Councillor Kiat returned to the Meeting at 10:42 pm.

Councillor Steer returned to the Meeting at 10:43 pm.

Procedural Motion - Extension of Time

Motion: (Porteous/Hesse)

THAT the meeting be extended until 11.15pm

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Byrne, Passas, Steer and York

Procedural Motion - Extension of Time

Motion: (Porteous/Stamolis)

THAT the meeting be extended until 11.30pm

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Byrne, Passas, Steer and York

Procedural Motion - Extension of Time

Motion: (Porteous/Da Cruz)

THAT the meeting be extended until 11.45pm.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Byrne, Passas, Steer and York

Procedural Motion - Extension of Time

Motion: (Porteous/Hesse)

THAT the meeting be extended until 11.50pm.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Byrne, Passas, Steer and York

C1021(2) Item 33 Outcome of Code of Conduct Investigation

Motion: (Porteous/Hesse)

THAT Council receive the report.

Motion Carried

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

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

Absent: Crs Byrne, Passas, Steer and York

Councillor Raciti retired from the Meeting at 11:50 pm.

Motion: (Porteous/Hesse)

THAT Council move back into the Open Session of the Council Meeting.

Motion Carried

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

Against Motion: Nil

Absent: Crs Byrne, Passas, Raciti, Steer and York

Procedural Motion

Motion: (Porteous/Lockie)

THAT items 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27 and 28 be deferred to the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on Tuesday, 26 October 2021 at 6.30pm

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Drury, Hesse, Kiat, Lockie, McKenna OAM and Porteous

Against Motion: Crs Da Cruz, Iskandar, Macri and Stamolis

Absent: Crs Byrne, Passas, Raciti, Steer and York

Foreshadowed Motion (Stamolis/Da Cruz)

THAT items 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27 and 28 be deferred to an Extraordinary Council Meeting to be held on Tuesday, 19 October 2021 at 6.30pm

This foreshadowed motion lapsed.

Meeting closed at 11.52pm.

Public Speakers:

Item #	Speaker	Suburb
Item 1:	Brian Halstead Pip Hinman	Mosman Newtown
Item 3:	Carly Stanley	Dulwich Hill
Item 24:	Jack Breen Juliet Barr Patrick William	Tempe Earlwood Tempe
Item 26:	Jody Toomey	Dulwich Hill
Item 27:	Mathew Howard	Marrickville

Unconfirmed minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 12 October 2021.

Council Meeting

26 October 2021

Item No: C1021(3) Item 2

Subject: COVID-19 Financial Assistance - Engagement Outcomes Report

Prepared By: Peter Livanes - Acting Director Corporate

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - General Manager

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. Note the engagement outcomes from the public exhibition process;

2. Note the easing of COVID-19 related restrictions now that the 80% vaccination rate has been met in NSW; and

3. Council does not proceed with further COVID-19 financial assistance as a result of feedback through public exhibition, financial support already provided through Commonwealth funded payments (disaster relief) and funds already provided to local community organisations.

BACKGROUND

At its meeting on 24 August 2021, the Council resolved to:

1. Endorse the redistribution of a portion of Council’s annual Community Wellbeing grant funding by allocating $25,000 to Addison Road Food Pantry and $25,000 to Bill Crews Exodus Foundation to support the increased demand for food insecurity for families in the Inner West;

2. Support the redeployment of IWC staff where appropriate, to assist the work of local agencies;

3. Support the redistribution of $20,000 from the Targeted Early Intervention funding from Department of Communities and Justice, in keeping with guidelines to key services, working with vulnerable families and young people in the outreach and early intervention areas;

4. Notes Council Officer and Office of Local Government advice that financial assistance can be provided to ratepayers under s356 of the Local Government Act 1993;

5. Note that COVID-19 has had a significant impact on Council’s budget with $13.8M in 2020/21 and the forecast impact for 2021/22 could be as high as $11.7M;

6. Council’s response be reviewed should further impacts arise;

7. Provides financial assistance, up to $400, to residential ratepayers who qualify for the Commonwealth or State COVID-19 Disaster Payments;

8. Limit the assistance to owner-occupiers, to be claimed for one dwelling only, with total expenditure to be initially capped at $250 000, to be funded from consolidated revenue and considered in the next quarterly budget review;

9. Officers develop hardship criteria to allow applicants who have suffered the greatest disadvantage to be prioritised through the application process;

10. Places the proposal on public exhibition for 28 days;

11. Provide a mechanism for ratepayers to register or apply for the program immediately while the policy is on public exhibition;

12. Reviews this financial assistance package after two months with a report to be tabled at an ordinary Council meeting; and

13. Receive a report to the next council meeting addressing how up to $250,000 can be targeted to those most in need in our community eg through expanding Council’s own social programs, or via grants to community organization such as Addison Road and Exodus Foundation.

As a result of this resolution, Council officers placed the COVID-19 Financial Assistance Proposal on public exhibition in accordance with Section 356 of the Local Government Act.

The exhibition period commenced on 31 August and concluded on 28 September 2021.

The community was invited to provide feedback online via Council’s engagement hub yoursay.innerwest.nsw.gov.au

Other options for the community to provide feedback were:

· By mail

· By phone

· Through an interpreter and voice relay via TTY and SMS.

The proposal was promoted through Council’s communication channels:

· Council website

· Social media - Facebook

· Press release

· Council e-news

· Your Say Inner West special bulletin.

ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES

Question one: Do you support Council's proposal to provide COVID-19 financial support for eligible ratepayers. Total to be capped at $250,000.

This question received 200 responses from 192 people.

- 109 support the proposal
- 82 do not support the proposal
- 9 are not sure/don’t know.

Question two: 134 submissions were received in response to the proposal. A copy of all responses can be found in the Engagement Outcomes Report at attachment 1.

Key themes in support of the proposal can be found in the table below.

Theme	Comments
Community members expressing the need for additional support due to loss of work and income	Strong support from respondents who indicate a need for additional support.
Ensuring those that need the support receive it	Commentary suggesting that review of hardship to ensure those that need it most / suffered greatest hardship receive the support
Support to have the scheme available to other e.g. renters	Support should be provided to all residents regardless of property ownership status

Key themes against the proposal can be found in the table below.

Theme	Comments
This is not the role of local government	Support is already provided from state and federal government
The proposal is only good for those that own property	Eligibility for the proposal is for property owners only and excludes those that do not own property e.g. renters
Council should focus on delivering local services and infrastructure and improving amenities	Roads, footpaths, potholes, parks, outdoor spaces should be prioritised along with more urgent projects or programs that benefit all of the community including local businesses
Concern for equity and inability to assess financial hardship	The proposal should reach those that need it most. Council does not have the information or capacity to determine levels of hardship
Support should be provided through existing community organisations	Council has and will continue to partner with community organisations to assist those in need Consideration should be given to staff resources needed to be redirected from service delivery to assess and process applications
Concern regarding recent increase in rates in parts of the LGA and Council’s capacity to afford this support	Some properties in the LGA have had rate increases as a result of the 8-year harmonisation

It is noted there were nine (9) respondents who responded not sure/don’t know. These related to uncertainty about ensuring the support would go to those in need including renters who are not eligible under this proposal.

DISCUSSION

COVID-19 Disaster Payment

The Council resolution from the meeting of 24 August states that the proposed financial assistance is for eligible residential ratepayers who qualify for the COVID-19 disaster payment.

The Commonwealth funding COVID-19 disaster payment has been available for several months. This payment has provided $750 a week to people who have lost at least 20 hours of work, and $450 a week to those who have lost between eight and 20 hours.

The federal government will begin winding down the payments as each state and territory hits the 70 per cent and 80 per cent target vaccination rates for their populations aged 16 and over.

NSW has now hit over 70% of residents vaccinated aged 16 and over. As a result, automatic payments for financial support will stop. If members of the NSW population are affected by movement restrictions, they will need to reapply for the payment each week. The Inner West local government area is not affected by movement restrictions.

At 80 per cent, the payment will be phased out entirely within two weeks. This target has now been met.

Extreme Hardship Payment

An emergency payment of $400 for people living in Greater Sydney, experiencing financial hardship who cannot access ongoing Commonwealth income support, have zero or limited income, savings or community support and are temporary or provisional visa holders, or undocumented migrants. This payment is delivered through the Red Cross and is available to applicants in NSW.

Evidence of Financial Hardship

The resolution requires Council officers to determine applicants that have experienced the greatest hardship to be prioritised. This approach may be prohibitive as Council has very limited capacity to obtain, receive and assess hardship. This approach opens the scheme to criticism and allegations of disproportionate assistance to some and not others who thought that were suffering hardship. The administrative time to assess the applications will impact on staff resources and may lead to disappointment for those applying that are ineligible or if successful they receive a smaller one-off payment should there be a large number of applicants.

The feedback received through community consultation demonstrated the need to provide support to those that need it most. As stated, Council does not have access to this information nor the capacity to assess individual applicants and their financial status.

Easing of Restrictions

The NSW Government has now announced an easing of restrictions and a roadmap to reopening NSW.

Now that the 70% vaccination rate has now been achieved, restrictions have been eased with further easing of restrictions at 80% and a full reopening from 1 December. The roadmap for easing of restrictions can be found on the NSW COVID-19 website.

Easing of restrictions from 11 October included non-critical retail, personal services including hairdressers, restaurants and hospitality subject to restrictions including density limits and vaccination status.

The easing of restrictions extends to reopening Council services including libraries, aquatic centres and gyms and customer service centres.

Council Support

Council is acutely aware of the hardship faced by many in our community in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. To assist members of our community (property owners, renters or others) that need support of all kinds, Council has already partnered with ten (10) local community organisations and leveraged their existing networks and capacity to support those in need. This has been achieved through the allocation of $250,000, endorsed by Council resolution on 14 September 2021. Further to the allocation of these funds, Council also provided another $50,000 of $25,000 each to Addison Road Food Pantry and Bill Crews Exodus Foundation to support the increased demand for food insecurity for families in the Inner West.This approach removed the risk of criticism from attempting to determine who is suffering hardship more than others and most importantly, enables support to be provided expeditiously to those who need it most.

Council also has a range of other support measures already in place to assist our community.

These include:

· A rate relief program which remains in place. The program allows approved applicants to defer their rates payment up to 12 months with no interest charged. Council continues to receive applications from both residential and business and to date has resulted in:

- 329 residential rates applications that were approved; to date only 24 have been signed and returned totalling $33k in deferred residential rates payment

- 56 business rates applications that were approved, to date 32 applications have been signed and returned totalling $334k in deferred business rates payment

· establishing a dedicated COVID19 page on Council’s website with all relevant information to keep our community informed including:

- the latest Health advice including Public Health Orders

- links for Government support including financial support

· working with tenants in Council owned properties ensuring no tenants will be evicted and working with tenants depending on their circumstances

· established a list of food businesses that are open for takeaway or delivery, and a social media campaign encouraging residents to support their local restaurants and cafes

· Council’s parking officers have prioritised public safety over other enforcement activity during the lockdown period

· main street parking meters in Leichhardt, Rozelle and Balmain shopping strips turned off after 7pm to help the night time economy

· abolishing outdoor dining fees, saving local businesses $1.5 million over three years

· holding public meetings to inform our community with officials from Health and Police

· providing links to relevant community groups and support organisations to support vulnerable people during this difficult time

· Council has created a support page for the local arts and cultural sector, which lists relevant grants, information and resources, including mental health support

· provided additional lighting hours to our parks and sportsfields to extend the hours available for exercise.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The proposal to provide $250,000 in COVID-19 financial assistance to ratepayers does not have a funding source.

This would be considered an additional expense to Council to be considered at the following quarterly budget review.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Engagement Outcomes Report

Council Meeting

26 October 2021

Item No: C1021(3) Item 4

Subject: Henson Park-Redevelopment of King George V Grandstand and Future Public Amenity Provision.

Prepared By: Aaron Callaghan - Parks and Recreation Planning Manager

Authorised By: Graeme Palmer - Acting Director Planning

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. Council endorse the proposed redevelopment of the Henson Park Grandstand and supporting amenities;

2. Council note that the proposed development will be a Public-Private Partnership;

3. Council endorse the provision of Owner’s Consent for lodgement of the Development Application;

4. Council staff work with AFL and the Jets to enable the lodgement of the Development Application;

5. Council endorse the Heads of Agreement Principles as outlined in the report;

6. Council staff work with AFL and the Jets to assist in the lodgement of any applicable grant applications;

7. Council staff work with AFL and the Jets to prepare an Agreement to Lease and Lease documents, which includes ongoing community access to Henson Park;

8. Any future Heads of Agreement include a key principle on the continuation, promotion and facilitation of junior rugby league and AFL sporting activities at Henson Park;

9. To provide security and clarity around future use for both sporting codes and the general community, Council cap future match games at 20 games per sporting season per sporting code; and

10. Given Council’s recent $2.6 million dollar investment in the Henson Park sporting ground upgrade program it is recommended that Council cap its contribution to any future construction project to $500K

DISCUSSION

At its August 2021 Ordinary Council meeting Council adopted the Henson Park Plan of Management. A key concept of the Plan of Management includes the future upgrade of the King George V Grandstand and the provision of support amenities to allow for future AFL and Rugby League content at the park. The existing facilities are aged and substandard in terms of amenity. In terms of sporting content Henson Park is jointly shared by the Newtown Jets and the NSW AFL.

In 2017, Council agreed to the Newtown NRL, Newtown Jets and AFL NSW/ACT entering into an 8-year sporting ground access agreement. This agreement allows exclusive use for match play until the year 2025.

Henson Park Redevelopment Plans

The NSW AFL and the Newtown Jets have developed concept plans for the future upgrade of the existing grandstand facilities and the provision of ancillary facilities to support use and enjoyment of Henson Park. Detailed concept plans have been finalised

(refer to Attachment 1) and construction plans are now being prepared.

The proposed new facilities include the provision of multiple female friendly change rooms, all with self-contained shower and toilet cubicles and upgraded public amenities. A new public kiosk will be provided along with media and coaches’ rooms. Televised Broadcast facilities are also planned. Currently, the grandstand facility has open showers, non-discrete urinals, outdated interiors and not fit for purpose ancillary amenities. The works will assist in providing safe and inclusive facilities for women to play at the venue and for the community to have a safe and enjoyable experience. The concept plans and proposed works will preserve the grandstand’s heritage and deliver improvements at Henson Park, with no significant changes to the Park’s aesthetic and community feel.

Compliance with the Henson Park Plan of Management

The proposed redevelopment of the Henson Park Grandstand and the provision of supporting facilities to enable improved sporting use and enjoyment of the park is supported by Councils adopted Park Plan of Management. The Plan of Management highlights the following:

Page 15: ”Improving sporting building infrastructure, amenities blocks to increase usability and support safety, and support the participation of women and people with disability in sport”

Page 47: “Grandstand, amenities and sporting infrastructure upgrades to suit professional matches, and to provide accessible and inclusive facilities for players and spectators. Continue maintenance as required, including the future removal of hazardous materials - Sense of place, Inclusive and Sustainability • New public address system and scoreboard to improve the spectator experience”.

The Plan of Management also supports additional infrastructure into the future including:

Page 47: “New public address system and scoreboard to improve the spectator experience”

Landowners Consent and Future Grant Funding Opportunities

To enable future planning and development works Landowner’s consent is required from Council to enable the lodgment of the a Development Application.

Previous sporting infrastructure improvement grant funding applications have required as a prerequisite approved development consent. In 2018 Council resolved to submit a grant application for upgrades to the Henson Park Grandstand to the NSW Government Grant Program, the Greater Sydney Sports Facility program. This application was unsuccessful in part as there was no approved Development Application in place. The granting of a successful development application will also allow Council to partner with the NSW AFL and Newtown Jets on a future grant application.

Sydney Swans FC

The Sydney Swans FC have recently been successful in securing a license to join the National Australian Football League Women’s Competition (AFLW) in season seven, from December 2022. Hosting Swans games at Henson Park will significantly lift the profile of women’s sport, particularly in NSW and strengthen the pathway for girls to participate at the highest level. It is the intention of the Newtown Jets to also provide improved pathway opportunities for girls and women to play rugby league at the highest level at Henson Park into the future.

It is noted that the proposed Henson Park grandstand upgrades will not be ready for the 2022/23 sporting season.

Henson Park Sporting Ground Upgrade

In 2020/21 Council commenced works on the upgrade of the playing surface at Henson Park to promote its use for high level sporting competition. An investment of $2.6 million in sporting ground improvements.

Key works included:

· Upgrading the turf and underlay soil to suit elite standard sporting use

· Installing a storm water harvesting and treatment system to reduce the use of town water for irrigation

· Rearranging the storm water drainage network upstream of, and across, the field

· Installing new field drainage system, including recycling of water

· Upgrading the irrigation system

· Rectifying the long-term sinkhole in the centre of the field.

· Renewing wiring to sports light poles

Funding

The proposed redevelopment of the grandstand facility and the construction of new supporting facilities has been estimated at $7.4 million. It is noted that this is a preliminary estimate by AFL, based on concept designs only, with a number of budgetary exclusions. Council has previously set aside a funding contribution of $466,000 (existing capital budget allocation for necessary renewal works for the grandstand). Noting Councils recent significant investment in sporting ground improvements ($2.6 million), it is recommended that Councils contribution for any future grandstand and additional amenity improvements are capped at $500k

Legal Advice- Public, Private Partnerships.

Council officers have sought legal advice on the future governance arrangements associated with the proposal upgrades to Henson Park. This advice has been marked as confidential by Councils Legal Services Section and is attachment as Attachment 2. All councils have a responsibility to their communities for the prudent management of community assets and finances. For example, land owned and controlled by a Council is a public asset to be held, administered and used for the benefit of the public and to assist the Council in providing the services and facilities it is charged to provide for the community.

A public-private partnership (PPP) is an arrangement between a Council and a private person including companies and incorporated associations for the purposes of:

a) providing public infrastructure or facilities in which the council has an interest, liability or responsibility under the arrangement, and/or;

b) delivering services in accordance with the arrangement.

In relation to PPP’s Council is required to comply with the requirements in Chapter 12 Part 6 of the Local Government Act 1993 (sections 400B- 400N). Legal advice obtained confirms the proposal by AFL (NSW) and the Newtown Jets for the upgrade of the grandstand, amenities at Henson Park meets the definition of a PPP.

Before Council formally notifies the Office of Local Government (OLG), Council will need have developed the project to a stage where it has been formally approved, in principle, by a resolution that sets out what the project will deliver in clear and unambiguous terms and broad concepts and principles have been formed, approved and settled. This includes the dimensions of the project and its outcomes are costed on the basis of expectations about responsibilities, risk management and anticipated or preferred sources of funding.

Council’s General Manager must certify that the assessment is prepared in accordance with the OLG guidelines. Council is required to provide the following information to the OLG:

· Project description and relationship to council’s strategic and management plans including reasons why a PPP is the preferred delivery model;

· clear statement of outcomes/deliverables as agreed by a resolution of council,

· projected timeframe for project;

· estimated total project costs and sources of funding;

· preferred extent/value of council contribution to project and/or equity position;

· Council annual revenue available for the PPP proposed;

· Preferred risk assessment/management plan prepared in accordance with AS/NZS 4360:2004;

· Preferred management and governance structure for the PPP entity.

Project Timeframes

On approval of a Development Application and subject to the required agreements being signed off by Council in terms of future governance, Heads of Agreement, funding mechanisms and the signing of a PPP it is anticipated (that once funding is secured) that tendering, procurement and construction will take a minimum of two years.

Heads of Agreement

In addition to the development of a public-private partnership arrangement, a Heads of Agreement will be required between Council, the NSW AFL and the Newtown Jets. This agreement needs to include a number of significant governance terms to ensure due prudence with regards to future funding, access, management and maintenance of new and existing facilities and the ongoing access and use of Henson Park. Key governance arrangements will include:

· Pre DA and DA

· Access and Land Management

· Development Deed – covering project works, tender, contractual arrangements, project manager, project delivery committee, payments, costs overrun, step in rights.

· Financing – NSW sports grants, AFL, Jets and Council contributions

· Public, Private Partnership requirements

· Agreement to Licence and Licence – terms, conditions precedent to the licence, Local Government requirements – Henson Park Plan of Management

· Duration and Termination

· Liability

· Dispute Resolution

Community Access to Henson Park

Ongoing community access to Henson Park is an important issue for the community as the park is a greatly valued public recreational asset. The Plan of Management has developed core objectives for the ongoing management of Henson Park and notes that the park has three main categories of land use as defined by the Local Government Act. These categorisations are summarised in Table 1.0 below.

Table 1.0 Land Categorisation Henson Park

In terms of ongoing community use and access to Henson Park, Council needs to develop a ceiling limit on the number of match games per year for both the AFL and the Newtown Jets. This is required to provide clarity for all park users on access conditions as well as allow proper seasonal planning by the main sporting codes. Critically it is noted that match play is typically limited to three hours only on a limited number of weekends throughout the year.

Table 1.1 Historical Sporting Usage Henson Park

	2021	2020	2019
	Weekend games booked	Covid interrupted	Weekend games played
Newtown Jets	16* (includes pre-season games)	Covid interrupted	16* (includes pre-season games)
AFL	16 (Can include Saturday & Sunday)	Covid interrupted	19 (can include Saturday & Sunday)

*Newtown Jets only play on Saturday.

It is recommended that future match days are capped at 20 game days per sporting code, per sporting season. This represents a total of only 120 match hours per year. This will allow for additional content to be planned for future years while still maintaining significant public access to the park for other recreational activities. It is noted that the park currently supports an off-leash dog exercise area which is designated as on leash when match games are played. It is critical to note that the dog off leash area has only been in existence since 2014 and that Marrickville Park located some 800m away which also provides an off-leash exercise area for companion animals. Dog walkers are therefore not underprovided in terms of access to open space in this regard and its needs to be recognised that open space is a shared resource.

In addition to the above it is also recommended that Council ensure that in any future Heads of Agreement that a key principle is developed around the continuation of junior sporting activities at the park and the need to ensure junior rugby league and AFL content is facilitated and promoted.

Councilor Briefing

A councilor briefing was held on 6^th October 2021. At this briefing session a presentation was received from the AFL, Newtown Jets and their lead consultants on the proposed redevelopment of Henson Park. Key issues raised by Councillors included:

· Funding Arrangements

Funding arrangements have been clarified in this report.

· Ecologically Sustainable Development

Revised concept plans are attached to this report which include the provision of Solar Panels in the design, water harvesting and the color of the additional buildings have been reconsidered and neutral colors proposed to off set heat island impacts.

· Security of Community Access

Ongoing community access to Henson Park is addressed in this report.

· Car Parking Arrangements

Utilisation of the adjacent high school and rationalisation of the car park have been key issues which the AFL have highlighted.

· Impact on junior community sporting use

A future Heads of Agreement will ensure that junior community sporting use for both AFL and rugby league is a feature of Henson Park continues.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Council has previously set aside a funding contribution of $466,000 (existing budget allocation for identified refurbishment and disability access works for the grandstand). Noting Councils recent significant investment in sporting ground improvements ($2.6 million), it is recommended that Councils contribution for any future grandstand and additional amenity improvements are capped at $500k. Grant funding sources and funding from both the AFL and the Newtown Jets will be required to deliver this project.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Henson Park Redevelopment Concepts

Confidential Legal Advice Public Private Partnership - Confidential

This attachment is confidential in accordance to matters affecting the security of the council, councillors, council staff or council property (Section 10A(2)(f) of the Local Government Act 1993).

Council Meeting

26 October 2021

Item No: C1021(3) Item 5

Subject: Draft Exposure Bill: Greater Sydney Parklands Trust - Callan Park

Prepared By: Robert Wilcher - Senior Lawyer

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - General Manager

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council will make a formal submission to draft Exposure Bill by 29 October 2021 which includes:

a) Make no changes to the Callan Park (Special Provisions) Act 2002;

b) Commit to no future commercial uses at Callan Park;

c) Opposes 50-year leases (potentially commercial leases) on Kirkbride, Broughton Hall and the Convalescent Cottages;

d) Retain Callan Park (Special Provisions) Act 2002 in its entirety:

e) Establish Callan Park and Broughton Hall Trust; and

f) Maintain community, recreation open space access to Callan Park in its entirety.

DISCUSSION

The Greater Sydney Parklands Trust Bill (“Exposure Bill”) is on public display with submissions to close on 29 October 2021.

Exposure Bill amends the way Callan Park (and other Sydney parklands such as Centennial Park and the Western Sydney Parklands) will be administered.This report summarises the current regime of land use at Callan Park and then examines the changes proposed by the Exposure Bill.

1. Current controls – the Callan Park (Special Provisions) Act 2002 (“Callan Park Act”)

The Callan Park Act provided very strong protection of the public nature of the land at Callan Park in the following ways:

· It stated that the land must remain in public ownership; and

· While the land could be leased or licensed, any lease or licence greater than ten years had to be tabled for 15 days in both Houses of State Parliament before the lease could be granted; and

· It stipulated that Council would be the consent authority for all development (although Council’s functions would now be exercised by the Local Planning Panel) due to the changes in the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act in 2018);

· It applies the planning laws as they were in 2002, i.e. it applies:

1. The Leichhardt LEP 2000, under which the land is zoned Public Purposes; and

2. SEPP 56 – Sydney Harbour and Tributaries, which laid out a number of guiding principles for development assessment and required a Masterplan to be adopted by the Minister as the guiding plan for the uses at Callan Park. (Notably, while Council prepared a comprehensive masterplan for the Government to adopt, it never did). No development application was to be approved without the masterplan in place, although the Minister could waive that requirement where the development in question was appropriate to the public nature of Callan Park;

· It specified that health facilities and educational and community facilities could be developed in the Park, but not retirement villages. Educational facilities include a university but not a primary or secondary school, and any facility had to be run on a not for profit basis.

· No development was allowed outside the existing footprint of buildings at Callan Park and there was to be no diminution of open space.

The net result is that, at Callan Park:

Ø Development that does not need development consent is recreation areas – the use of Callan Park for recreation - and other forms of Exempt Development;

Ø Development needing consent includes:

o Health facilities;

o Not for profit educational and community facilities (university and other facility);

o Development that is permissible in the Public Purposes zone under Leichhardt LEP 2000 that fulfils the public nature of Callan Park.

Council has previously received legal advice from external counsel that the following are permissible:

- Administration offices for ambulance services (as development for a health facility);

- Floodlights on sports fields (as ancillary to recreation areas);

- A skate park (as a form of recreation area); and

- A place of assembly if run as a not-for-profit community facility.

Ø Prohibited development includes:

o For profit educational facilities;

o Retirement villages;

o Primary or secondary schools;

o Development prohibited in the Public Purposes zone under Leichhardt LEP 2000; and

o Development that, although listed in the category of permissible development in the Public Purposes zone under Leichhardt LEP 2000 offends the public nature of Callan Park.

Prohibited development would currently include such things as a hotel, a restaurant, and a business park.

2. The Exposure Bill

The Exposure Bill:

• establishes the Greater Sydney Parklands Trust (“GSPT”) as the overall manager of existing Sydney parklands such as Centennial Park (including Moore and Queens Parks), Callan Park, Parramatta Park, Western Sydney Parklands and Fernhill Estate;

• allows the GSPT to establish community trust boards as the consultation mechanism for each park; and

• amends the above regime of property and planning control at Callan Park (as well as for the other parklands).

Proposed Changes to the Callan Park Act – property management

• Public ownership of Callan Park

While Callan Park will be vested in the GSPT, it will still be required to remain in public ownership.

The GSPT is a State controlled entity. However, the Exposure Bill states that the Government may acquire land beneath the Park for the purposes of the proposed Sydney Metro tunnel (being a power the Government most likely already had under the Transport Administration Act 1988)

• Leasing at Callan Park

There are important changes to the leasing regime at Callan Park:

While leases at Callan Park are still generally restricted to 10 years, the Minister may approve leases of Kirkbride, Broughton Hall and Convalescence Cottages for up to 50 years.

There is no requirement that the lease be tabled in Parliament; it is only a matter of Ministerial approval.

In granting any lease at Callan Park the Government is to “give priority to” not for profit uses. It is by no means clear how this might work out. What level of priority is to be given to the NFP sector, and in what areas? Will a NFP lease proposal that offers less rent than a commercial proposal be granted the lease?

Proposed Changes to the Callan Park Act – land development

The Exposure Bill makes a number of changes to the planning process at Callan Park.

• Plan of Management

The Exposure Bill requires the GSPT to prepare and the Minister to adopt a Plan of Management to guide the assessment of any development application.

This essentially replaces the masterplan requirement of SEPP 56, which will no longer apply under the Exposure Bill.

• Consultation

The GSPT is to develop for Ministerial approval a Consultation and Engagement Framework to govern consultation at Callan Park within the next two years.

It may also set up Community Trust Boards to assist it in the consultation process.

There is potential uncertainty in the overall effectiveness of these two mechanisms for consultation. It will depend on the scope of the Consultation and Engagement Framework approved by the Minister (assuming one is), and the level of input afforded to the Community Trust Boards.

• Consent Authority

The Exposure Bill removes the explicit statement that Council is the consent authority for all development at Callan Park.

While there has been some concern that the Minister will be the consent authority for all development this is not stipulated in the Exposure Bill. Instead, it is the opinion of Council’s in house legal advisers that the identity of the consent authority would follow the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

That is for most development Council will be the consent authority.

However, and by way of example, a combination of s.4.5 of the EP&A Act and the SEPP (Regional and State Infrastructure) renders the Independent Planning Commission as the consent authority for a health facility involving a capital investment value of more than $30 million. Council would not be the consent authority for a $35 million health facility in the Kirkbride Precinct, whereas it would currently.

Notably Council’s functions would (as they are now) be exercised by the Local Planning Panel.

• Updating planning controls

The Exposure Bill “unfreezes” the planning controls applicable to Callan Park. As a result:

o SEPP 56 – Sydney Harbour and Tributaries will no longer apply;

o Leichhardt LEP 2000 will still apply, according to its terms as they are today (which have not changed considerably since 2002).

This change of itself will not allow much change to the range of permissible uses at Callan Park. Development will still be subject to the planning table applicable to the Public Purpose Zone under Leichhardt LEP 2000.

There is some potential uncertainty here, in that, by removing the reference to planning instruments, the Exposure Bill may be legally interpreted as removing the application of any planning instruments at all, so that the Exposure Bill is the sole source of authority for what can be undertaken at Callan Park. This interpretation however goes against the public statements by the Minister that the intent is for current planning rules to apply.

• Permissible and prohibited development

The Exposure Bill amends the express controls in the Callan Park Act as follows:

o An educational facility need no longer be run on a not for profit basis (but the prohibition on primary and secondary schools is not altered. Hence, for example a private university or a privately run language centre could operate there);

o It specifically allows consent to granted for:

- arts and culture facilities;

- educational facilities (as above);

- community facilities;

- food and drink premises;

- health facilities;

- temporary structures;

o The prohibition on extending outside the footprint of existing buildings is relaxed to allow:

- accessibility structures,

- minor modifications,

- temporary structures.

o The prohibition on retirement villages remains.

The net result is that, under the Exposure Bill:

Ø Development that will not need development consent is recreation areas – the use of Callan Park for recreation – and other forms of Exempt Development;

Ø Development needing consent includes:

o Health facilities

o Educational (whether or not run on a not for profit basis) and community facilities (university and other facility);

o Development that is permissible in the Public Purposes zone under Leichhardt LEP 2000 that accords with the Plan of Management adopted for Callan Park.

Ø Prohibited development will include:

o Retirement villages;

o Primary or secondary schools;

o Development prohibited in the Public Purposes zone under Leichhardt LEP 2000; and

o Development that, although listed in the category of permissible development in the Public Purposes zone under Leichhardt LEP 2000 does not accord with the Plan of Management adopted for Callan Park.

Prohibited development would include such things as a hotel, a restaurant, and a business park, as all these are prohibited in the Public purpose zone under Leichhardt LEP 2000.

However, by applying planning laws as they evolve and are changed, the possibility arises of a planning instrument being made that overrides the restrictions in the Leichhardt LEP 2000 and opens the site for a wider range of uses. A SEPP for example could be made which allows development of a kind that is not envisaged by the Leichhardt LEP 2000.

3. Draft Submission - To be updated and circulated to Councillors prior to Submission

The Council Resolution (C1021(1) Item 13) of 5 October 2021 provides that Council makes a formal submission to NSW State Government by 29 October 2021. Namely, the submission will set out the following:

1. Make no changes to the Callan Park (Special Provisions) Act 2002. The Exposure Bill amends the way Callan Park (and other Sydney parklands such as Centennial Park and the Western Sydney Parklands) will be administered. The Callan Park Act provides very strong protection of the public nature of the land. The Exposure Bill seeks to undermine those protections.

2. Commit to no future commercial uses at Callan Park. Applying planning laws as they evolve and are changed, the possibility arises of a planning instrument being made that overrides the restrictions in the Leichhardt LEP 2000 and opens the site for a wider range of uses. A State Environmental Planning Policy for example could be made which allows development of a kind that is not envisaged by the Leichhardt LEP 2000.

3. Opposes 50-year leases (potentially commercial leases) on Kirkbride, Broughton Hall and the Convalescent Cottages. While leases at Callan Park are still generally restricted to 10 years, the Minister may approve leases of Kirkbride, Broughton Hall and Convalescence Cottages for up to 50 years. There is no requirement that the lease be tabled in Parliament; it is only a matter of Ministerial approval.

In granting any lease at Callan Park the Government is to “give priority to” not for profit (NFP) uses. It is by no means clear how this might work out. What level of priority is to be given to the NFP sector, and in what areas? Will a NFP lease proposal that offers less rent than a commercial proposal be granted the lease?

4. Retain Callan Park (Special Provisions) Act 2002 in its entirety and Council as the consent authority for the parkland. The Exposure Bill removes the explicit statement that Council is the consent authority for all development at Callan Park. The concern is that the Minister may become the consent authority for all development.

5. Establish a Callan Park and Broughton Hall Trust. The Exposure Bill does not provide certainty that the council has control, the community is consulted, engaged and funding is appropriately administrated.

6. Maintain community, recreation open space access to Callan Park in its entirety.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Council Meeting

26 October 2021

Item No: C1021(3) Item 10

Subject: Tree Management DCP - Review Process

Council Meeting at its meeting on 12 October 2021 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 26 October 2021.

Prepared By: Cathy Edwards-Davis - Director Infrastructure

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - General Manager

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the report be received and noted.

DISCUSSION

The Inner West Council Tree Management Development Control Plan (Tree DCP) was adopted by Council in February 2020. At the Council meeting on the 11 February 2020, it was resolved:

THAT Council:

Review the policy after 12 months of implementation and the review be reported to Council;

Council is currently unable to undertake this review because of resources. The purpose of this report is to outline the proposal to review and resolve some of the inconsistencies that have been identified in the Tree DCP since adoption.

Trees located on private land generally require Council consent to prune or remove. The State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) (Vegetation SEPP) prohibits removing vegetation identified in a DCP without authorisation issued by a Council. Council’s DCP identifies the vegetation that it applies to and sets out different forms of authorisation:

· A Minor Works application is utilised for the removal of specific tree species or dead trees

· A Tree Permit application is utilised for most trees unless covered by the Minor Works application or where the works is an exempt activity.

· Exempt Activity includes canopy lifting to 2.5m above ground level, selective pruning to a 3m clearance above the roof or face of structures and pruning of deadwood that does not have hollows or provide habitat for native fauna.

· A Development Application is only required where the request is for removal of trees identified on the Inner West Council heritage trees list or the tree forms part of an Aboriginal object or is located within an Aboriginal place of heritage significance or is located within a heritage conservation area or item where the works are determined to be not of a minor nature; or likely to have an adverse impact on a Heritage Conservation Area or Heritage Item.

Positive Outcomes

The key positive outcomes from the new Tree DCP include:

· Requirement for replacement tree planting

Council requires replacement tree/s to be planted as a condition of any consent to remove a tree to effectively maintain the urban forest canopy across the local government area.

· Minor works application

The Minor Works Application is a free process that allows some pruning and removal work that previously required a permit

· Land Zone Canopy Targets

Land Zone canopy targets have been introduced for different development types, ranging between 15 and 40%. These targets have improved tree planting outcomes in new developments

· Reduced Development Applications for trees

A greater number of applications for tree pruning and removal may now be considered through a Minor Works application or Tree Permit application. This has reduced the number of formal Development Applications required for tree pruning and removal, providing an easier approval process for the community.

· No mandatory requirement for Arborist reports

Tree DCPs from the former Councils had mandatory requirements for an Arborist report to accompany an application, regardless of the particular circumstances of the property or tree. An Arborist report (or other specialist reports) are now not mandatory. Council as the consent authority provides a determination based on information provided.

Tree DCP Review

The following aspects of the Tree DCP require review:

1. Legal inconsistencies

2. Tree species list for Minor Works applications

3. Assessment criteria for pruning and removal

4. Right of appeal

These matters will be discussed in detail below.

1. Legal inconsistencies

The legal inconsistencies include the following:

· The DCP is inconsistent with the Vegetation SEPP

· The two metre rule is inconsistent with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act (EP&A Act)

· Clarification is needed as to whether the two metre rule applies to neighbouring properties.

Vegetation SEPP

The Tree DCP currently permits tree removal without development consent in heritage conservation areas and where a tree is part of a heritage item. This is inconsistent with the EP&A Act and the Vegetation SEPP.

Under the Vegetation SEPP, development consent is needed to remove vegetation that is:

· a heritage item; or

· within a heritage conservation area; or

· that is or forms part of an Aboriginal object; or

· that is within an Aboriginal place of heritage significance…

It is therefore recommended that the DCP be amended to require a development consent for removal of a tree that is within a heritage conservation area or that is part of a heritage item unless Council is satisfied that the removal is minor or for the maintenance of the heritage conservation area and would not adversely impact on the heritage conservation area.

Two Metre Rule

Clause 5.2(i) of the Tree DCP says that approval will be given if a tree is within two metres of a dwelling or garage. This is inconsistent with the EP&A Act as it removes Council’s ability to consider an application and decide it in any way other than to approve it.

Where legislation or a SEPP gives a public authority discretion to make decisions, e.g. to issue a tree permit or consent, the public authority must allow itself to consider each decision on its own merits. The tree’s proximity to buildings is relevant but that criterion alone cannot mandate the outcome of the permit application.

Section 4.15 EP&A Act sets out everything that a consent authority must consider when assessing DAs, including applicable SEPPs, LEPs and DCPs, the likely environmental impacts of the proposed removal on the natural and built environment, submissions and the public interest. The blanket two metre rule does not allow for these EP&A Act requirements for DAs.

It is therefore recommended that one of the following amendments be adopted:

The Tree DCP be amended to say that distance of a tree to a dwelling or garage is a relevant matter for consideration and, where trees are less than two metres, that will be given significant weight in the assessment of the application. Other relevant considerations include habitat, environmental services, shade, scenic quality, amenity, structural damage to property, risk of injury. This amendment would allow for tree replacement to be a condition of consent.

Except where a development consent is needed, make the pruning or removal of trees within two metres of a dwelling an exempt activity, which means that no approval is needed. It is noted that this does not allow a condition to be placed on the applicant requiring them to plant a replacement tree.

Neighbouring Properties

Clause 5.2(i) of the Tree DCP says that approval will be given if a tree is within two metres of a dwelling or garage. It is unclear whether this applies only where the dwelling and tree are on the same property or whether this also applies where the tree is on one property and the dwelling is on the neighbouring property.

Consideration should be given to amending clause 5.2(i) of the DCP to clarify that it refers to trees that are two metres from any dwelling only on the subject property.

2. Tree species list for Minor Works applications

Council is currently experiencing a large increase in the volume of Minor Works applications and as a result there are delays in the processing of permits. Council staff are utilising all available resources to reduce these delays. However, there are currently delays of six to eight weeks for all tree applications.

The Minor Works application has made the process easier for many. However, it has made some applications harder. For example, weeds such as privet now require an application whereas previously, they could be removed without any Council approval.

The tree species list should be split into two, allowing some trees to be removed without approval and other trees would be subject to a Minor Work application. The Minor Works tree species list needs to be reviewed and should only include weed species. Further, consideration needs to be given to reinstating the use of the Minor Works application only for those trees that do not exceed 10 metres in height above ground level.

3. Assessment criteria for pruning and removal

Section 5.2 of the Tree DCP outlines the application assessment criteria for pruning and removal. This section, as written, has resulted in a loss of evidence-based approach. The criteria is not in line with industry standards and adopted risk methodologies. Further, the criteria is confusing and can be contradictory. It is therefore recommended that this section be reviewed to improve clarity.

It is noted that Council has received complaints from residents where trees have been removed due to these assessment criteria changes. It is recommended that any future Draft Tree DCP be placed on public exhibition to allow for community engagement.

4. Right of Appeal

Section 5.3 of the Tree DCP outlines that in accordance with the Vegetation SEPP, applicants may appeal a Council decision within three months to the NSW Land and Environment Court.

Section 5.3 also allows for an internal Council review within six months of the determination. This internal review may be considered inconsistent with the Local Government Act which allows for a 28 day internal administration review by Council and the Vegetation SEPP. Consideration should be given to amending the internal Council review period to 28 days.

Timing on the Review

Council is currently in the process of recruiting a new Urban Forest Manager. Once this person has been appointed, they will be tasked with undertaking the Tree DCP review. It is likely that a Draft Tree DCP will be referred to Council in early 2022.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The proposed review of the Tree DCP can be undertaken within existing resources. Should Council continue with the current Minor Works applications unamended, additional staff resources will need to be employed in order to manage the increase in applications being received.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

1.⇩	Draft 2020/21 Inner West Council Financial Statements
2.⇩	Draft 2020/21 IWC Infrastructure Asset Schedules

Task	Time Frame	Comments
Consultant procurement	October 2021
Access Audit Cost Estimate Planning Advice	November 2021 – February 2022
Community and Stakeholder Engagement	February 2022	Community engagement is not undertaken during school holidays. Access committee meeting schedule will also be considered.
Engagement outcomes report Finalise proposals Report to Council	April 2022	Pending the available IWC Access Committee meeting dates and completion of the Engagement Outcomes Report.

1.⇩	IWC Investment Report - September 2021
2.⇩	IWC Economic & Investment Portfolio Commentary September 2021