Agenda of Council Meeting - Tuesday, 9 August 2022

Council Meeting

9 August 2022

Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 14 June 2022 at Ashfield Service Centre

Meeting commenced at 6.32pm

Present:
Darcy Byrne Jessica D’Arienzo Liz Atkins Marghanita Da Cruz Mark Drury Dylan Griffiths Mathew Howard Justine Langford Pauline Lockie Philippa Scott Kobi Shetty Chloe Smith John Stamolis Timothy Stephens Zoi Tsardoulias Peter Gainsford Ruth Callaghan	Mayor Deputy Mayor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor General Manager Director Community
Beau-Jane De Costa	Acting Director Corporate
Simone Plummer	Director Planning
Matthew Pearce	General Counsel
Manod Wickramasinghe	Acting Director Infrastructure
Simon Duck	Senior Manager Sports and Recreation
Daniel East	Strategic Planning Manager
Daryl Jackson	Chief Financial Officer
Gwendolyn Hughes	Governance Coordinator (Minute Taker)
Lanieta Tukana	Governance and Risk Support Officer (Minute Taker)
Grace Gallo	Executive Assistant to Councillors (Minute Taker)

APOLOGIES: Nil

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:

Clr Lockie declared a non-significant and non-pecuniary interest in Item 24 Tech Central-Camperdown Node Westconnex Dive Site as her employer, the City of Sydney is actively involved in the Tech Central Alliance noted in the motion. This will not affect her ability to consider the matter impartially and she will remain for the debate and vote.

Cl Howard declared a non-significant and non-pecuniary interest in Item 12 Local Traffic Committee Meeting – May 16 2022 as he works in the Office of the State Member who has a representative on the Local Traffic Committee. This will not affect his ability to consider the matter impartially and he will remain for the debate and vote.

Clr Da Cruz declared a significant and non-pecuniary interest in Item 12 Local Traffic Committee Meeting – May 16 2022 (Item 4 of the Local Traffic Committee Minutes), as she lives adjacent to the proposed works. She will leave the meeting during discussion and voting, as the member participated directly in the meeting.

Clr Shetty declared a non-significant and non-pecuniary interest in Item 13 LPAC masterplan update, her children attend swimming lessons there. This will not affect her ability to consider the matter impartially and she will remain for the debate and vote.

Motion: (Smith/Stephens)

That Council note the disclosures of interest.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Motion (Scott/Stephens)

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 10 May 2022 and Extraordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 10 May 2022 be confirmed.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

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.

Mayor Byrne left the meeting at 6.57pm and the Deputy Mayor D’Arienzo stood in to Chair the meeting. Mayor Byrne returned to the Meeting at 7.05pm and resumed the role of the Chair at this time.

Councillor Stephens left the meeting at 7.16pm.

Councillor Stephens returned to the Meeting at 7.22pm.

C0622(1) Item 1 Condolence Motion: Bill Hiliard

Motion: (Drury/Byrne)

That Council writes a letter of condolence to the family of Bill Hilliard, expressing our sadness at his passing and commending the contribution he made to Rugby League in the Inner West.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0622(1) Item 33 Mayoral Minute: Condolence Motion Kathleen Hamey

Motion: (Da Cruz/Byrne)

That Council:

1. Writes a letter of condolence to the family of Kathleen Margaret Hamey, expressing our sadness at her passing and commending the enormous contribution she made to the Balmain community both as a volunteer and local historian; and

2. Write to the Balmain Association proposing the renaming of the Glass House at Balmain in her honour.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0622(1) Item 32 Mayoral Minute: Cathy Edwards-Davis

Motion: (Byrne)

That Council thank Cathy Edwards-Davis for her work for Council during the past seven years of service with Inner West Council and Ashfield Council.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0622(1) Item 34 Mayoral Minute: Pedestrian Safety Hazards in High Traffic Areas

Motion: (Byrne)

That Council receive a report at the August Council meeting identifying the current procedures for monitoring and reporting of pedestrian safety hazards in high traffic pedestrian thoroughfares and making recommendations about inspection, monitoring and repairs.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Procedural Motion (Scott/Howard)

That Council suspend Standing Orders to bring Items 7 and 17 forward to be dealt with at this time.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Procedural Motion (Scott/Howard)

That Items 7 and 17 be moved in globo and the recommendations contained within the report be adopted.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0622(1) Item 7 Updated Partnership Agreement with Service NSW

Motion: (Scott/Howard)

That Council:

1. Endorses the updated Partnership Agreement with Service NSW and;

2. Authorises the General Manager to sign the updated Partnership Agreement with Service NSW.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0622(1) Item 17 Camdenville Park Upgrade Re-commencement

Motion: (Scott/Howard)

That Council receive and note the report.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0622(1) Item 2 Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy

Motion: (Howard/Scott)

That Council:

1. Place the draft Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy, as attached, on public exhibition for a period of 28 days, subject to the following addition to the policy:

9. General facilities for all Councillors

Administrative support

9.8 Councillors will be provided with communications support to promote initiatives that have been resolved at council, including the drafting and distribution of media releases and through council's social media channels

2. Note that:

a. In addition to supporting and representing the community, a core function of councillors is to promote the initiatives and good work of Council, its programs, events and staff. Council has a responsibility to assist councillors to achieve this;

b. The primary purpose of council’s communications channels including the newsletter, email lists and social media channels is to promote the policies and priorities of the elected body, as established by adopted resolutions and in the community strategic plan, and to inform the community about programs and initiatives being undertaken by Council in support of the community;

c. While the Mayor (as spokesperson for the council) is to continue to be consulted on any communications as per existing policy and practice, the author of a successful motion is to be offered the opportunity to lead on media opportunities and to feature in photo, video or communications published by council. They may choose to involve other Councillors;

d. Understanding the variety and volume of events and initiatives at council, it is not a requirement for publication that all Councillors or representatives from all political groupings be included in individual photographs, videos or communications on any policy or initiative;

3. Officers bring a Media Policy and amended Social Media Policy to the August Council meeting that reflects Council’s endorsement of points a.-d. above; and

4. Consider the results of the public exhibition process when adopting the final Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Byrne, D'Arienzo, Drury, Howard, Scott, Smith, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, Griffiths, Langford, Lockie, Shetty and Stamolis

Amendment (Lockie/Shetty)

That clause 2. d is amended to:

‘Understanding the variety and volume of events and initiatives at council, it is not a requirement for publication that all Councillors or representatives from all political groupings be included in individual photographs, videos or communications on any policy or initiative; but that every effort should be made to ensure a diversity of elected Councillors and political groupings is included in published communications’.

Motion Lost

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, Griffiths, Langford, Lockie, Shetty and Stamolis

Against Motion: Crs Byrne, D'Arienzo, Drury, Howard, Scott, Smith, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Amendment (Atkins/Griffiths)

That clause 2 of the motion be deleted.

Motion Lost

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, Griffiths, Langford, Lockie, Shetty and Stamolis

Against Motion: Crs Byrne, D'Arienzo, Drury, Howard, Scott, Smith, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Amendment (Da Cruz/Shetty)

That clause 2. d is amended to:

Motion Lost

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, Griffiths, Langford, Lockie, Shetty and Stamolis

Against Motion: Crs Byrne, D'Arienzo, Drury, Howard, Scott, Smith, Stephens and Tsardoulias

C0622(1) Item 3 Endorsement of Ashfield Park Plan of Management

Motion: (Drury/Griffiths)

That the matter be deferred to the August Council Meeting for further consideration to allow for additional in person consultation.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Mayor Byrne left the Meeting at 8.33pm and the Deputy Mayor D’Arienzo assumed the role of the Chair at this time.

Mayor Byrne returned to the Meeting at 8.35pm and assumed the role of the Chair at this time.

C0622(1) Item 4 Endorsement of Petersham Park Plan of Management.

Motion: (Smith/Atkins)

That Council as land manager of Petersham Park:

1. Endorse the Draft Plan of Management (D500070 & D500430) and refer this to the Minister for Crown Land and Waters for owner’s consent;

2. Note that on receipt of owners consent the Draft Plan of Management will be exhibited for 28 days and reported back to Council for adoption; and

3. Note the outcomes of community engagement associated with the renaming proposal for the Petersham Park Grandstand.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0622(1) Item 5 Endorsement King George Park Plan of Management

Motion: (Byrne/Scott)

That Council:

1. Endorse final plans for the King George Park Upgrade must include new use of the amenities block for female friendly change rooms including showers.

2. Endorse plan of management of King George Park incorporate the final design for amenities block, which is still yet to be finalised.

3. Staff continue to engage key stakeholders as part of the investigations for a new storage facility within King George Park. As part of these investigations Council officers are to restrict any future building envelope outside of identified and developed bush care areas.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Amendment (Shetty/Byrne)

Council staff continue to engage key stakeholders as part of the investigations for a new storage facility within King George Park. As part of these investigations Council officers are to restrict any future building envelope outside of identified and developed bush care areas.

As the Amendment was accepted by the Mover of the Motion, it has been incorporated into the Primary motion.

C0622(1) Item 6 Lewis Herman Reserve - Endorsement of Park Plan of Management and Master Plan

Motion: (Drury/Griffiths)

That Council as land manager of Lewis Herman Reserve;

1. Endorse the Plan of Management (Lot 12 DP 11457261) and refer this to Transport for NSW for formal sign off and consent;

2. Note that subject to formal sign off on the Plan of Management development of the reserve will commence in Quarter 3 of the 2022 financial year;

3. Note that due to the size restrictions of Lewis Herman reserve, limitations on landscape design and the proximity of the aged care home, that Lewis Herman Reserve be dedicated as an on leash park. An off-leash dog exercise area is currently being proposed for Ashfield Park; and

4. Investigate and report back to Council’s Traffic Committee on community feedback in relation to expressed community needs for a pedestrian crossing to the new reserve in Holden Street, Ashfield.

5. Note the following brief biography of Lewis Hermann AO:

· Lewis (Lew) Herman AO was Ashfield’s longest serving Mayor from 1976-1991 and a proud advocate for Ashfield and the community he lived and served.

· After leaving school at 15, Lew worked in the family business, eventually taking over from his father. It was as a cap maker that Lew became involved in the Hatters Union, though which he join the ALP and subsequently embarked on his 35 years as an Ashfield Councillor, beginning in 1971.

· Lew was a compassionate community leader and took up many key fights, including against the expansion of Kingsford Smith Airport in the 1980s. Lew worked tirelessly for his local community and took great pride in his work. He has a keen sense of humour and a twinkle in his eye.

· Also a great advocate of multiculturalism, Lew was actively involved in several ethnic associations, also ensuring that the Ethnic Community Council held its annual meeting at the Ashfield Town Hall every year, from 1974 to 2003.In 1982, he was awarded an Order of Australia

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0622(1) Item 8 De-amalgamation Business Case for Inner West Council

Motion: (Scott/Drury)

That Council

Resolve to place the draft De-amalgamation Business Case for Inner West Council on public exhibition for 28 days;

Endorse the public engagement activities, as outlined in the report, being undertaken, including:

a. that the flyer referenced in the report be letterboxed to all households and include the known tangible, financial costs, including the costs of senior staff salary and politician costs; and non-financial risks, such as a period of anti-democratic administration; and any benefits as identified by the report and by the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee;

b. that this information also be prepared as a summary introduction to the Morrison Low business case when it appears on exhibition, where it is promoted through Council’s communication channels, and as an introduction to the survey activity; and

c. that an additional online public forum be held to be Chaired by the General Manager and that Morrison Low attend the forum;

3. Notes that the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee:

a. resolved that if Council does de-amalgamate that the risks associated with staff retention and engagement, loss of corporate/local knowledge, service disruption and inconsistency during the transition and IT security and controls risk in demerging systems will require significant management throughout the process and an agreed transition approach will also be critical

b. requested that a comprehensive risk analysis of the de-amalgamation process and its subsequent impacts is undertaken and reported back to ARIC

c. recommended that the communication to the community in relation to the de-amalgamation process clearly identifies the known non-financial risk and benefits to the community; and

d. endorsed the recommendations of the ARIC meeting of 8 June 2022, in relation to the item ‘Draft de-amalgamation business case for Inner West Council’ being provided to the Council meeting on 14 June 2022, as part of the item considering the de-amalgamation business case in the Ordinary Council agenda;

Approve the Mayor to write to the Minister for Local Government asking for a commitment that the state government pay the full costs of de-amalgamation should it occur, and that they commit to not sacking the Council and installing an administrator; and

Officers prepare a further report to the August Council meeting, outlining the outcomes of the community engagement process along with the final business case for Council's consideration

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Byrne, Drury, Howard, Langford, Scott, Smith, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Griffiths, Lockie, Shetty and Stamolis

Amendment (Atkins/Shetty)

That Council:

1. Note that, as noted by Morrison Low, a significant piece of work is missing from the draft Business Case, being the qualitative work with residents who voted to demerge.

2. Approve this critical work to complete the demerger business case, be undertaken and included in a revised draft Business Case prior to public exhibition.

3. Refer the revised draft Business Case and the proposed public engagement activities for review by a panel comprised of 3 local government experts and 3 independent community representatives from local community organisations such as Friends of Callan Park.

4. Notes that the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee:

b. requested that a comprehensive risk analysis of the de-amalgamation process and its subsequent impacts is undertaken and reported back to ARIC

c. recommended that the communication to the community in relation to the de-amalgamation process clearly identifies the known non-financial risk and benefits to the community; and

5. That the Mayor write to the Minister for Local Government asking for a commitment that the state government pay the full costs of de-amalgamation should it occur, and that they commit to not sacking the Council and installing an administrator

6. Officers prepare a further report to the September Council meeting, outlining the outcomes of the panel consideration along with a further draft business case for Council’s consideration for public engagement, including public exhibition for 28 days.

Motion lost

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, Griffiths, Langford, Lockie, Shetty and Stamolis

Against Motion: Crs Byrne, D'Arienzo, Drury, Howard, Scott, Stephens and Tsardoulias

The Chairperson used his Casting Vote and the Motion was lost.

Councillor Smith left the meeting at 8.57pm and did not vote when the Amendment was put.

Councillor Smith returned to the meeting at 8.59pm.

Procedural Motion (Scott/Stephens)

That the meeting be adjourned for 10 minutes.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

The meeting was adjourned at 9.00pm

The meeting recommenced at 9.20pm

C0622(1) Item 9 Rescheduling of October 2022 Meetings

Motion: (Scott/Drury)

That Council:

1. Reschedule the Ordinary Council Meeting on 11 October 2022 to 25 October 2022;

2. Reschedule the Local Forum Matters Public Forum Meeting on 25 October 2022 to 11 October 2022; and

3. Publish these changes to the Meeting Schedules on Council’s website.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Byrne, D'Arienzo, Drury, Howard, Scott, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, Griffiths, Langford, Lockie, Shetty and Stamolis

C0622(1) Item 10 Options on Accessibility improvement for small business

Motion: (Howard/Scott)

That Council defer the Item to a future Ordinary Council meeting, noting that Council is undertaking a comprehensive engagement on the Disability Inclusion Access Plan, and ask that further consideration be given to a proposed grants program as part of that process.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0622(1) Item 11 2022 Inner West Council Annual Grants

Motion: (Smith/Scott)

That Council:

1. Endorses the 2022 Annual Grant Guidelines for public exhibition, subject to the Guidelines including;

a. practical support for applicants, particularly to support applicants from diverse backgrounds; and

b. the Diversity Council in selecting the panellists for grant rounds; and

2. Acquittal of any grant include the opportunity for Councillors to attend events and support community groups through the use of Council’s media and social media.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Councillor Da Cruz left the Meeting at 9.25pm as she declared a significant, non-pecuniary interest in Item 12 Local Traffic Committee Meeting – 16 May 2022 (Item 4 of the Local Traffic Committee Minutes) as she lives adjacent to the proposed works.

C0622(1) Item 12 Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 16 May 2022

Motion: (Scott/Stephens)

That the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 16 May 2022 be received and the recommendations be adopted.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Councillor Da Cruz returned to the meeting at 9.26pm.

C0622(1) Item 13 LPAC masterplan update

Motion: (Drury/Byrne)

That Council:

1. Endorses the depth of the proposed 25 metre Outdoor Program Pool at Leichhardt Park Aquatic Centre to be 2.1 metres with a movable floor and

2. Endorses the funding outline for the outdoor elements of the Leichhardt Park Aquatic Centre masterplan.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Amendment (Da Cruz/Shetty)

That Council:

1. Provide a Corflute display highlighting what is happening at the Aquatic Centre;

2. Feature the Aquatic Centres in the Council Newsletters twice a year; and

3. Run two Forums/Workshops/Open Days a year at each Aquatic Centre.

Motion Lost

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, Griffiths, Langford, Lockie, Shetty and Stamolis

Against Motion: Crs Byrne, D'Arienzo, Drury, Howard, Scott, Smith, Stephens and Tsardoulias

C0622(1) Item 14       Bays West - Stage 1 White Bay Power Station and Roberts Street
         Sub-Precincts Draft Master Plan - Inner West Council
         Submission

Motion: (Smith/Byrne)

That Council:

1. Commence public advocacy to have the establishment of the Bays Precinct Walk, a continuous pedestrian path around the harbourside land incorporating White Bay, Rozelle Bay, Black Wattle Bay and the Fish Markets.

2. Endorses the Inner West Council Submission which outlines its concerns and suggestions for improvement, and overall position not to support the plans in their current form to the exhibited Bays West Stage 1 – Draft Master Plan: White Bay Power Station (and Metro) and Robert Street Sub Precincts, subject to the inclusion of minimum 15% affordable housing levy be required on all residential, commercial and retail gross floor areas (GFA) within the Bays West Master Plan precinct within the precinct as recommended by Shelter NSW, noting that the Council does support the public amenities contained within the plan and supports bringing them forward.

3. Submission be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment for consideration.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Amendment (Shetty/Stamolis)

1. Council endorses the Inner West Council Submission to the exhibited Bays West Stage 1 – Draft Master Plan: White Bay Power Station (and Metro) and Robert Street Sub Precincts, subject to the following inclusions:

Additional points as an introduction (can possibly be added to point 16).

· Inner West Council does not support this draft master plan in its current form.

· Council sees the piecemeal approach of releasing each stage of the Masterplan separately as problematic, as it does not take into account the cumulative impacts of the project beyond Stage 1. This increases the risk of enabling inappropriate levels of development favouring developers over local residents, that would otherwise be rejected if considered in conjunction with neighbouring aspects of the same development.

· Each stage of the Masterplan that is released should have more accessible and inclusive consultation, including face to face consultation and public meetings. Current community consultation has relied heavily upon online engagement, excluding wide sections of the local community.

2. Page 3 – point 4 – Affordable housing

· Change to 4. A minimum 30% of residential development for affordable and social housing

3. Page 10, point 11 – Traffic and transport

· Add information about problematic aspect of the 5% mode share target (unrealistic)

· Council supports the draft masterplan’s aim to be a 5% ‘ultra-low’ private vehicle environment, and a modal hierarchy that prioritises walking, riding, public transport, freight logistics, port traffic, taxis and pool cars over private cars. Council, however, notes that a 5% private vehicle mode share is unrealistic and unprecedented. Council’s 2020 Integrated Transport Strategy shows that 46% of people in the Inner West travel by private car, and that approximately 70% of trips with a destination within the Balmain Peninsula are as a driver or passenger in a private vehicle. Modelling needs to be undertaken to show the impact of realistic traffic projections, noting that even with the ultra-ambitious targets of both 5% and 15%, Transport for NSW 2040 traffic modelling shows unacceptable levels of congestion at intersections on Robert Street/Victoria Road, Robert Street/Mullins Street and The Crescent/James Craig Road. This impact will not only affect car users, but also public transport users, with buses travelling to and from the new Metro Station along Robert Street and Victoria Road as the only means of dispersement with no light rail or heavy rail nearby.

4. Page 17 – Port Road duplication

· Strengthen wording around council not supporting access to cruise terminal via Robert St.

· Replace comments section with below:

· Council does not support access to the cruise terminal via Robert Street, or any other residential streets in Rozelle or Balmain. Not only is it necessary to maintain the two roads, as required by the cruise terminal’s existing conditions of approval, congestion at the Victoria Road and Robert Street intersection on cruise days or when the Cruise Terminal is open for events will have an unacceptable impact on the local traffic network.

5. Page 22 – Built form

· Add first point to comments:

· Based on the high-level built form information provided, Council:

· Does not support the proposed height of 22 storeys, which is excessive. The scale will obscure the heritage Power Station and impact sight lines of the Power Station from Blackwattle Bay. Additionally, traffic modelling has identified unacceptable traffic impacts that can be ameliorated by a reduction in density.

Motion Lost

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, Griffiths, Langford, Lockie, Shetty and Stamolis

Against Motion: Crs Byrne, D'Arienzo, Drury, Howard, Scott, Smith, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Procedural Motion (Byrne/Griffiths)

That an extension of time of one (1) minute for Councillor Shetty to speak on the motion in Item 16 be granted.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Mayor Byrne left the Chair at 9.44pm and the Deputy Mayor D’Arienzo assumed the role of the Chair at this time.

Mayor Byrne returned to Chair the Meeting at 9.45pm and assumed the role of the Chair at this time.

Councillor Shetty left the Meeting at 9.51pm

Councillor Shetty returned to the Meeting at 9.52pm

C0622(1) Item 15     Community Strategic Plan 2036, Delivery Program 2022-26,
             Operational Plan and Budget 2022-23, Long Term Financial
             Plan 2022-32, Workforce Management Strategy 2022-26 and
             Asset Management Strategy 2022-32

Motion: (Drury/D'Arienzo)

That Council:

1. Note the community submissions for the following documents which were publicly exhibited as required by the Local Government Act 1993:

· Draft Community Strategic Plan – Our Inner West 2036

· Draft Delivery Program 2022-26, Operational Plan and Budget 2022-2023 (including Fees and Charges 2022-2023)

· Draft Long Term Financial Plan 2022-2032

2. Endorse the Community Strategic Plan with the proposed changes arising from the public exhibition as outlined in the report.

3. Adopt the following documents with the proposed changes arising from the public exhibition as outlined in the report;

· Draft Delivery Program 2022-26, Operational Plan and Budget 2022-2023 (including Fees and Charges 2022-2023)

· Draft Long Term Financial Plan 2022-2032 (Scenario 1 – Business as Usual)

4. Adopt the following elements of the Resourcing Strategy (no public exhibition required):

· Draft Workforce Management Strategy 2022-26; and

o That Council consult with staff and develop an LGBTIQ+ Pride Staff Network and report back to council by way of a councillor briefing and supports other measures being taken by council to foster diversity and inclusion within council’s workforce.

· Draft Asset Management Strategy and Policy, and Draft Asset Management Plans for asset classes:

§ Parks

§ Buildings

o Stormwater and Drainage

o Transport

Publish the final documents on Council’s corporate website by 30 June 2022 and notify Office of Local Government of a link to the web page.

Note that every action in the Operational Plan needs to take account of the diverse nature and ability of all Inner West residents.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Procedural Motion (Tsardoulias/Stephens)

That an extension of time of one (1) minute for Councillor Drury to speak on the motion in Item 15 be granted.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Byrne, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Crs Da Cruz, Atkins and Langford

Amendment (Atkins/Scott)

That Council note that every action in the Operational Plan needs to take account of the diverse nature and ability of all Inner West residents.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

As the Amendment was carried, it has been incorporated into the Primary motion.

C0622(1) Item 16 Investment Report At 30 April 2022

Motion: (Scott/Lockie)

That Council receive and note the report.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0622(1) Item 18 King George Park - Priority Community Improvement Project

Motion: (Byrne/Drury)

That Council receive and note the report.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0622(1) Item 19 Notice of Motion: 40zM/H Speed Limits on Local Streets

Motion: (Lockie/Da Cruz)

That Council:

1. Notes that Inner West @ 40, one of the key projects identified in the Integrated Transport Policy adopted by Council in March 2020, seeks to establish an area-wide 40km/h zone on all local streets across the Inner West, with investigative areas of 30km/h in areas of demonstrated high pedestrian flow or pedestrian/cyclist crash clusters;

2. Notes that any changes to speed limits must be approved and implemented by Transport for NSW, which has provided in-principle support for safer speed limits of 40km/h on all local roads in the Inner West;

3. Notes that, since providing this in-principle support, Transport for NSW has yet to amend the speed limit on any local road in the Inner West LGA to 40km/h, despite repeated requests from Council staff;

4. Writes to the Minister for Metropolitan Roads to request that she ensures Transport for NSW works with Council to:

a. Identify priority streets for 40km/h speed limits and implement these changes by the end of this year;

b. Implement 40km/h speed limits on all remaining local roads in the Inner West LGA as soon as possible, and ensure State funding is allocated to allow this to happen to an agreed timeline;

c. Investigate and prioritise streets and/or areas for the implementation of 30km/h speed limits, particularly around schools, and areas of high pedestrian activity or pedestrian/cyclist crash clusters.

d) requests urgent implementation of the Haberfield High Pedestrian Activity area as was promised in 2019.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Amendment (Da Cruz/Lockie)

That Council amend clause 4 and include a new subclause d) ‘requests urgent implementation of the Haberfield High Pedestrian Activity area as was promised in 2019.’

As the Amendment was accepted by the Mover of the Motion, it has been incorporated into the Primary motion.

C0622(1) Item 20 Notice of Motion: DA Info Sessions

Motion: (D'Arienzo/Howard)

That Council:

1. Implements DA Information Sessions for all development application types that are to be determined by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel (SECPP). Advice to the community is to be included in the initial neighbour notification letter;

2. Acknowledges the complexity of the planning legislation and process and the significance of its impact upon the community and accordingly implements a series of monthly workshops alternating between sessions on the DA process for applicants and the DA process for submissions by community members;

3. Recognises the possibility that non-SECPP applications with widespread impacts may be lodged, and in such an event supports the holding of DA Information Sessions at the discretion of the Director of Planning;

4. Endorses that a range of options be explored for how the information session is to be held, with a report on these to be provided after a 12-month trial; and

5. Reviews a report provided by way of briefing note on all relevant or significant applications.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0622(1) Item 21 Notice of Motion: Westconnex St Peters Interchange

Motion: (Lockie/Howard)

That Council:

1. Requests an urgent briefing from Transport for NSW about the reports ordered by the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) about the WestConnex St Peters Interchange, and the remediation works being carried out at the site;

2. Writes to the Premier and relevant Ministers to:

a. Request that Transport for NSW shares the reports ordered by the EPA with Council, along with any other relevant reports and information about investigations into ongoing contamination the WestConnex St Peters Interchange site;

b. Request that the EPA takes enforcement action on any non-compliance issues and licence breaches at the site in order to protect our local community;

c. Seek confirmation that the NSW Government will take responsibility for the care, control and management of the St Peters Interchange parkland, and work with Council to identify an alternative site to provide genuine open space and parkland as compensation for the impact of WestConnex.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0622(1) Item 22 Notice of Motion: Lighting up Dulwich Hill Skate Park

Motion: (Griffiths/D'Arienzo)

That Council:

1. Investigate the lighting along the pedestrian path between the Dulwich Hill Light Rail to Terrace Road and;

a. undertake a lighting test to measure the existing lighting level and performance and ensure compliance with Australian Standards;

b. work in consultation with the NSW Police to conduct a Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) assessment which includes reviewing current lighting lux levels within the park.

2. Bring forward up to $200,000 from the 2023/24 Parks Upgrades capital works budget and allocate funding to light the Dulwich Hill skate park, subject to community engagement support and report it to Council.

3. Convene a community meeting with ward councillors at the skate park to identify ‘quick wins’ to improve the facility.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0622(1) Item 23 Notice of Motion: Inner West Pride Centre

Motion: (Howard/Atkins)

That Council:

1. Reaffirm its commitment to establishing an Inner West Pride Centre at Newtown Town Hall following the relocation of the Newtown Neighbourhood Centre to the Tom Foster Centre;

2. Establish a sub-committee to advise the establishment of the Centre, chaired by Clr Howard, and consisting of Clr Atkins (Alternate Chair), Deputy Mayor Jess D’Arienzo, three representatives of the LGBTIQ Working Group and relevant staff, to work with the Staff Reference Group for the Inner West Pride Centre to:

a. Review the former Expression of Interest process;

b. Conduct a scoping study to determine a sustainable operating model that advances the vision of the Pride Centre whilst ensuring ongoing community access to Newtown Town Hall;

c. Establish principles, objectives and activities for the Inner West Pride Centre;

d. Prepare for a renewed Expression of Interest process for the second half of 2022;

3. Ensure adequate staffing and resources to enhance Council’s collaboration with Local LGBTQ+ organisations, deliver LGBTQ+ programs and manage the Inner West Pride Centre; and

4. Work with the World Pride Sub-Committee to incorporate Newtown Town Hall in World Pride activities.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0622(1) Item 24 Notice of Motion: Tech Central-Camperdown Node Westconnex Dive Site

Motion: (Smith/D’Arienzo)

That Council:

1. Note the current and upcoming work of Inner West Council in the Tech Central innovation precinct;

2. Actively collaborate with the Tech Central Alliance in recognition of Tech Central innovation precinct’s critical role in Sydney's economic recovery, jobs growth and productivity rise; and

3. Advocate to the State Government that the Transport for NSW owned WestConnex dive site in Annandale be:

a. retained in public ownership; and

b. secured for biotechnology and advanced manufacturing uses in the innovation sector to contribute to the economic outputs of the Camperdown health and education innovation precinct of Tech Central.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Amendment (Da Cruz/Smith)

That Council amend the word ‘Camperdown’ in the first part of clause 3 and insert the word ‘Annandale’.

As the Amendment was accepted by the Mover of the Motion, it has been incorporated into the Primary motion.

C0622(1) Item 25 Notice of Motion: Beautification of Railway Parade, Annandale

Motion: (Shetty/Byrne)

That council:

1. Prepare a report back to the August Council meeting about the management of

Railway Parade, Annandale, including:

a. The current cleaning and maintenance cycle for the area

b. Information about when the road surface along Railway Parade is due to be upgraded.

2. Create a native planting schedule for the site, in consultation with Sydney Water, that connects the planting by Transport for NSW (TfNSW) surrounding the new overpass bridge, along Railway Parade to the Rozelle Bay light railstop for beautification, provision of habitat and to make a contribution to Council’s development of the Blue-Green grid.

3. Write to TfNSW to advocate for better masking of the visual impact of the overpass bridge for residents on Railway Parade and Pritchard St, Annandale, including planting and public art.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0622(1) Item 26 Notice of Motion: Audit of Council venues

Motion: (Shetty/Stamolis)

That Council:

1. Prepare a report for the September council meeting on council operated venues and current levels of use. The purpose of this report is to identify any under-utilised council properties that may be offered to artists as workspaces, rehearsal spaces or performance spaces at an affordable rate.

2. Prepare a report for the September council meeting on council operated venues and current levels of use. The purpose of this report is to identify any under-utilised council properties that may be offered to artists as workspaces, rehearsal spaces or performance spaces at an affordable rate.

3. Share a 2019 audit of council venues with councillors comparing current levels of use to pre-Covid levels, to understand the impact that Covid has had on the use of council properties.

Motion Lost

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, Griffiths, Langford, Lockie, Shetty and Stamolis

Against Motion: Crs Byrne, D'Arienzo, Drury, Howard, Scott, Smith, Stephens and Tsardoulias

C0622(1) Item 27 Notice of Motion: Artist's Wage

Motion: (Atkins/Griffiths)

That Council:

1. Congratulate staff on the success of the Inner West Arts Summit;

2. Notes that the concept of an artist’s wage provided by government was raised by many tables of participants at the Summit; and

3. Immediately commences advocacy at the Federal government level for the introduction of a fixed income support scheme for artists, with the Mayor to write to the Minister for the Arts and the Special Envoy for the Arts as a first step.

Motion Lost

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, Griffiths, Langford, Lockie, Shetty and Stamolis

Against Motion: Crs Byrne, D'Arienzo, Drury, Howard, Scott, Smith, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Amendment (Stamolis)

Immediately commences advocacy at the Federal Government level for the investigation of a fixed income support scheme for artists, with the Mayor to write to the Minister for the Arts and the Special Envoy for the Arts as a first step.

The Amendment lapsed as it was not supported by the Mover of the Motion and the Amender elected not to put the Amendment to vote.

Procedural Motion (Smith/Stephens)

That the meeting be extended until 11.10pm

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

C0622(1) Item 28 Notice of Motion: Senior Staff Changes

Motion: (Stamolis/Atkins)

That the General Manager brief Councillors about why turnover at senior manager level and above remains at a high level.

Motion Lost

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Da Cruz, Griffiths, Langford, Lockie, Shetty and Stamolis

Against Motion: Crs Byrne, D'Arienzo, Drury, Howard, Scott, Smith, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Confidential Session

Motion: (Griffiths/Scott)

That Council enter into Confidential session.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

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:

C0622(1) Item 31 Dulwich Hill Station Precinct Public Domain Improvements Project – Construction Tender (T05-22)

(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.

Motion: (Griffiths/Scott)

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

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Reports with Confidential Information

C0622(1) Item 31 Tender (T05-22) Dulwich Hill Station Precinct Public Domain Improvements Project - Construction

Motion: (Scott/Smith)

That Council:

1. Accept tender submission from CA&I Pty Ltd for $4,197,861. (excl. GST);

2. Include a 10% contingency sum of $419,786 (excl. GST) due to the unknown extent of the works;

3. Adopt the total budget of $5,232,647 (excl. GST) to deliver this project which includes design, project management costs, contingency and construction.

4. Provide the General Manager with delegated authority to execute any associated documents.

Motion Carried

For Motion: Crs Atkins, Byrne, Da Cruz, D'Arienzo, Drury, Griffiths, Howard, Langford, Lockie, Scott, Shetty, Smith, Stamolis, Stephens and Tsardoulias

Against Motion: Nil

Meeting closed at 10.58 pm.

Public Speakers:

Item #	Speaker	Suburb
Item 3:	Jo Alley	Ashfield
Item 5:	Trent Miller Cheyne Harrison Bronson Harrison	Leichhardt North Rocks Breakfast Point
Item 6:	Alyce Lythall	Ashfield
Item 8:	Pip Hinman Michele Hacking Louise Steer	Newtown Rozelle Stanmore
Item 10:	Rochelle Porteous Jane Scott	East Balmain St Peters
Item 14:	Rochelle Porteous	East Balmain
Item 15:	Hannah Solomons	Ashfield
Item 18:	Bronson Harrison	Breakfast Point
Item 19:	Bridget Foley	Breakfast Point
Item 25:	Pieter Lindhout	Annandale
Item 26:	Jonathan Biggins Lisa Tatman	Balmain Balmain
Item 27:	Rachael Jacobs	Stanmore

Zone

Issues

E1 Local Centre

Merging of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones means the differentiation between hierarchy of centres is largely lost. To retain some differentiation Council’s submission recommends that certain uses be prohibited in the E1 Local Centre zone (where not mandated) and then permitted in the former B2 Local Centre through Local Provisions and Key Site Maps. These uses are:

· advertising structures, registered clubs, restricted premises, sex services premises, tourist and visitor accommodation, vehicle and repair stations and vehicle sales or hire premises.

E2 Commercial Centre

There is no equivalent zone in the draft IWLEP 2022. This zone has been assigned to the Ashfield Town Centre as the Inner West Employment and Retail Lands Strategy (ERLS) adopted by Council in 2020 identified Ashfield as the highest order centre in the LGA. The uses are broadly similar to those in the E1 Local Centre zone, with the objectives differing slightly in recognition of the role of the centre. Council’s submission includes the following recommendations

· Shop top housing requires to be included as permitted with consent

· Advertising structures and sex services premises should not be prohibited but considered under the category of “any other development” (AOD). This permissibility would be consistent with the E1 Local Centre zone.

E3 Productivity Support

Merging of the B5 Business Development, B6 Enterprise Corridor and B7 Business Park zones means nuances of each zone is lost.

To retain some differentiation Council’s submission recommends that certain uses be prohibited (where not mandated) and then permitted through Local Provisions and Key Site maps or Additional Permitted Uses (APUs). By zone these are:

· B5 –amusement centres, entertainment facilities and registered clubs.

· B6 - amusement centres, entertainment facilities and registered clubs, resource recovery and restricted premises.

· B7 – residential accommodation on certain sites as part of a mixed-use development.

E4 General Industrial

This merges the IN1 General Industrial and IN2 Light Industrial zones. The historical development of land in the Inner West has resulted in commercial, industrial and residential uses occurring in close proximity to each other, with the IN2 Light Industrial land often being a transition area to more sensitive land uses.

A key concern is that general industry is a mandated land use in the E4 General Industrial Zone, which unlike light industry, does not limit activity by virtue of adverse amenity impacts on a neighbourhood. This has the potential to have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjacent low density residential land. DPE has advised that submission points related to mandated uses will not be considered. Notwithstanding it is considered appropriate for Council concerns to be placed on record in relation to this matter. Council’s submission outlines the following recommendation:

· General industry should not be a mandated use in the E4 General Industrial zone to ensure adverse amenity impacts are minimised in areas adjacent to low density housing zones and other sensitive uses. They should be permitted on former IN1 General Industrial zoned land though a Local provision and Key Site Map.

W4 Working Waterfront

There is no equivalent zone in the draft IWLEP 2022. This zone will be applied to a few sites in Balmain East that are currently zoned IN2 Light Industrial. This zone currently permits advertising structures and these should be prohibited. As such Council’s submission recommends:

· Prohibiting advertising structures from the W4 zone.

MU1 Mixed Use

This zone is a translation of the current B4 Mixed use Zone. There are no major issues.

Excluded Areas

Camperdown Precinct and St Peters Triangle were excluded areas for the purpose of the exhibition. This is supported for the following reasons:

· The Camperdown Precinct forms (refer to Figure 1) part of Tech Central (previously called Camperdown Collaboration Area) and is an essential component of the Greater Sydney Region Plan’s Eastern Harbour City Innovation Corridor. The Precinct is a mix of B2 Local Centre, B4 Mixed Use, B7 Business Park and IN2 Light Industrial zones under the draft Inner West Local Environmental Plan (IWLEP) 2022. The exclusion of this Precinct allows for the completion of the Camperdown Structure Plan and future Planning Proposal that would support the growth of a globally significant biotechnology precinct.

· The St Peters Triangle (Refer to Figure 2) is a complex area comprising B5 Business Development, B6 Enterprise Corridor and B7 Business Park zoned land. There are a number of Local Provisions, Additional Permitted Uses (APUs) and a Master Plan currently applying to the Precinct and the area is in transition to a mixed use precinct including residential accommodation, light industrial and business. The exclusion of this area will allow for the continuing implementation of the masterplan and vision. DPE subsequently advised that St the St Peters Triangle may require to be translated to the new zones. Further work is now being undertaken to assess how this can be progressed.

Council Meeting

9 August 2022

Item No: C0822(1) Item 8

Subject: General Manager's Delegation

Prepared By: Katherine Paixao - Business Paper Coordinator

Authorised By: Kelly Loveridge - Director Corporate

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the General Manager Delegations, as outlined and attached to the report.

Background

In accordance with Section 380 of Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) Council must review it’s delegations within the first 12 months of each term of office.

Subject to the requirements and limitations of the Act delegations allow the General Manager and subsequently Council staff to exercise Council functions ensuring that council is able to operate efficiently and effectively.

Section 377 states that, a council may, by resolution, delegate to the General Manager or any other person or body (not including another employee of the council) any of the functions of the council, other than:

(a) The appointment of a general manager.

(b) The making of a rate.

(c) A determination under section 549 as to the levying of a rate.

(d) The making of a charge.

(e) The fixing of a fee.

(f) The borrowing of money.

(g) The voting of money for expenditure on its works, services or operations.

(h) The compulsory acquisition, purchase, sale, exchange or surrender of any land or other property (but not including the sale of items of plant or equipment).

(i) The acceptance of tenders to provide services currently provided by members of staff of the council.

(j) The adoption of an operational plan under section 405.

(k) The adoption of a financial statement included in an annual financial report.

(l) A decision to classify or reclassify public land under Division 1 of Part 2 of Chapter 6.

(m) The fixing of an amount or rate for the carrying out by the council of work on private land.

(n) The decision to carry out work on private land for an amount that is less than the amount or rate fixed by the council for the carrying out of any such work.

(o) The review of a determination made by the council, and not by a delegate of the council, of an application for approval or an application that may be reviewed under section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

(p) The power of the council to authorise the use of reasonable force for the purpose of gaining entry to premises under section 194.

(q) A decision under section 356 to contribute money or otherwise grant financial assistance to persons.

(r) A decision under section 234 to grant leave of absence to the holder of a civic office.

(s) The making of an application, or the giving of a notice, to the Governor or Minister.

(t) This power of delegation.

(u) Any function under this or any other Act that is expressly required to be exercised by resolution of the council.

In turn, section 378 of the Act allows the General Manager to sub-delegate some or all the functions and powers to relevant employees.

Existing delegation

The existing Instrument of Delegation for the General Manager was approved by Council at its meeting on 8 December 2020, as detailed in Attachment 2.

The current financial delegation of $1.5 million has been in place since 2018. This has enabled Council to commence projects in a timely manner and proceed with key projects without delays to the day-to-day business of Council.

By way of comparison, we have sourced a sample of what other NSW Councils have in relation to their General Managers financial delegations, as articulated below Inner West council has one of the most conservative financial delegations, noting Inner West Council is classified as a Metropolitan Large Council:

Council	Financial Delegations	Category/Size (LGRT)
Bayside	Unlimited if funds have been adopted in the budget	Metro Large
Willoughby	Unlimited if funds have been adopted in the budget	Metro Medium
Randwick	Unlimited with the exception of writing of debts over $10,000 or individual rate charge over $1000	Metro Medium
Penrith	$10 Million	Metro Large
City of Sydney	$5 million	Principal
Waverley Council	Unlimited	Metro Small
Woollahra Council	$2.5 million	Metro Small
Inner West Council	$1.5 Million	Metro Large
Cumberland	$500,000	Metro Large

It is not recommended to reduce the financial delegation of $1.5 million as it would cause significant delay to the procurement and progression of projects as staff would have to wait for the Council Meeting cycle in order to progress contracts and tenders delaying the issue of signed contractual documents and delaying commencement of work for projects.

In addition, reducing the financial delegation would result in more reports being brought to Council Meetings and have an impact on Council’s ability to deal with all matters on the Council Agenda in a timely manner.

New Additional Delegation

After a review of the current delegations, in accordance with the Act, and previous resolutions of Council, we are recommending the following amendments be included to ensure compliance with the Act and current internal operations. The amendments also provide further clarity for staff and Council to operate within.

All these new delegations will be in Part B – General Limitations:

1. Asset Disposal

Council currently does not have an asset disposal guideline, for assets. This does not include real property, civil fixed assets and financial investments.

This delegation would deal with disposing assets such as furniture, books and other consumable items. This delegation would provide clear guidance to staff on whether the General Manager can dispose of assets. Below the proposed delegation:

‘Authority to approve the disposal of assets up to the value of $100,000.

Approval must not be given without consideration of a recommendation from the Director of the relevant business area.

This authorization does not apply to the disposal of real property, civil fixed assets, financial investments and the Fixed Assets Policy.’

2. Writing off bad debts

Under clause 213(2) of the Local Government (General) Regulation, Council ‘must from time to time, by resolution, fix an amount above which debts to the council may be written off only by resolution of [Council].’

If a resolution is in place, debts below the fixed amount can be written off by the General Manager by order in writing.

Pursuant to clause 213(5), only certain (bad) debts can be written off; that is, where:

(a) The debts are not lawfully recoverable, or

(b) The debts are a result of a decision of a court, or

(c) Council or the General Manager believes on reasonable grounds that an attempt to recover the debts would not be cost effective.

None of the above applies to outstanding rates and charges, which are dealt with by different sections and clauses of the Act and Regulation respectively.

It is recommended that Council fixes $2,500 (including GST) as the amount above which debts may be written off only by resolution of Council. This will allow the General Manager to write off debts below this amount.

By way of comparison, Randwick Council and Waverley Council have fixed the amount at $2,500, while Woollahra Council’s maximum is $25,000.

Below the proposed delegation:

‘Authority to write of debts up to the value of $2,500 (including GST) without a resolution of Council in accordance with clause 213(2) of the Local Governance Regulation 2021.’

3. Writing Off Rates and Charges

Under clause 131(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation, Council ‘must, from time to time, by resolution, fix the amount of rates and charges above which any individual rate or charge may be written off only by resolution of [Council].’

If a resolution is in place, rates and charges below the fixed amount can be written off by the General Manager by order in writing.

Pursuant to clause 131(4) of the Regulation, an amount of rates or charges can be written off only:

(a) If there is an error in the assessment, or

(b) If the amount is not lawfully recoverable, or

(d) If Council or the General Manager believes on reasonable grounds that an attempt to recover the amount would not be cost effective.

It is recommended that Council fixes $2,500 as the amount above which rates and charges can be written off only by resolution of Council.

It is proposed, under clause 131(6), that an annual report on rates, charges and bad debts written off by the General Manager be submitted to Council at the start of each financial year covering any rates, charges and bad debts written off by the General Manager in the previous financial year.

Below the proposed delegation:

‘Authority to write off rates and charges up to the value of $2,500 without resolution of Council in accordance with clause 131(1) of the Local Government Regulation 2021.’

4. Executing Council’s Insurance Renewal

Under section 382 of the Act, Council must ensure that adequate insurance against public liability and professional indemnity is in place. Currently Council has an approved supplier, however, the premiums are renewed on an annual basis. This renewal schedule is valued over $1.5 million per annum.

It is recommended that once the procurement of Councils insurance supplier is approved by a resolution of Council for a set number of years that the ongoing annual renewals to maintain Councils insurance in accordance with Section 382 of the Act are delegated to the General Manager.

The insurance renewal process internally is extensive and has to be undertaken in a very limited timeframe, providing the General Manager with delegation to maintain Council’s insurance after Council appoints the insurer is common practice across Local Governments with Council then provided with a briefing paper outlining the annual renewals for information.

This delegation is to be an exemption to the $1.5 million financial delegation to the General Manager.

Below the proposed delegation:

‘Authority to renew Council’s annual insurance premiums after a resolution of Council determines the supplier and the term of the contract for Council’s insurances.

This delegation is to be an exemption to the $1.5 million financial delegation to the General Manager.’

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications resulting from this report and the recommendations are intended to assist Council in continuing normal day-to-day operations efficiently and effectively. The Instrument of Delegation to the General Manager will take effect on Wednesday, 10 August 2022, and will be reviewed in accordance with the Act or as circumstances require

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Current Instrument of Delegation - General Manager
2.⇩	Draft Instrument of Delegation - General Manager

Council Meeting

9 August 2022

Item No: C0822(1) Item 14

Subject: Engagement for Inner West Local Environmental Plan Phase 2B

Prepared By: Denise Benger - Senior Strategic Planner

Authorised By: Simone Plummer - Director Planning

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive and note the report.

DISCUSSION

At its Ordinary Council meeting on Tuesday 8 February 2022 Council resolved that

1. Upon completion publishes the place based and heritage studies that will be informing the Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan;

2. Develops a community consultation plan demonstrating broad community and stakeholder engagement; and

3. Provides a briefing on the timeline and strategies of the consultation plan.

The purpose of this report is to give an overview of the engagement program for the Local Environmental Plan Phase 2B project. It expands on the information presented in the Councillor workshops held on 22 March 2022 and 2 August 2022.

Background

Council has now completed several technical studies that will inform the first amendment to the Inner West Local Environment Plan (LEP) and development of the Comprehensive Development Control Plan (DCP). The studies which form part of the early engagement program include:

· Dulwich Hill Station Precinct Urban Design Study

· Dulwich Hill Village Urban Design Study

· Marrickville Town Centre Urban Design Study

· North Ashfield Urban Design Study

· Low Carbon Precinct Study for Marrickville and Dulwich Hill

· Heritage Study – Stages 1 and 2 (potential new Items and new Heritage Conservation Areas)

Aims of the LEP Phase 2B project

Feedback is sought from the community to ensure Council’s comprehensive planning documents meet public expectations as well as achieve the vision of Inner West’s Local Strategic Planning Statement (2020):

Inner West 2036: A place of creative, connected, sustainable and productive neighbourhoods - as vibrant, innovative and diverse as our community.

Key outcomes of the engagement program are to:

· understand the level of community support for the design rationale and recommendations for the uplift areas of Dulwich Hill and Marrickville and North Ashfield

· understand the level of agreement with the recommendations contained within the Low Carbon Study and Heritage Study

· identify community preferences and priorities for car parking in new developments.

Previous engagement undertaken to inform the Inner West LEP and LEP Phase 2B

In 2019-2020 Council completed a range of evidence-based studies and strategies to inform the development of the Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) and Inner West LEP and Comprehensive DCP including:

· Local Housing Strategy (LHS)

· Integrated Transport Study (ITS)

· Employment and Retail Lands Strategy (ERLS)

The engagement undertaken by Council to inform the background studies and strategies has been extensive and robust. The communication and engagement activities undertaken by Council has amounted to approximately:

· 16,000 letters sent to residences and businesses

· 50,000 postcards sent to all landholders to complete a Place Score survey

· 47 drop-in sessions held across the local government area (LGA) at Council Service Centres, train stations, shopping centres, community sport and council events.

· 8000 visits to Your Say Inner West project pages

· 597 individual submissions received by Council on the strategies studies and planning documents

The draft LHS received 170 submissions with the majority of submissions supporting its vision and focus of growth around centres and existing/proposed transport infrastructure. The LHS was adopted by Council 3 March 2020 and approved by the Department Planning and Environment (DPE) on 8 July 2021.

The draft LSPS received 182 submissions from individuals and interest groups. More than 89% of respondents agreed with the 20-year vision. The majority of submissions agreed with Council’s approach to improving the area’s liveability, and to increasing the resilience of our environment and community to hazards. The LSPS was supported by the Greater Sydney Commission on 25 March 2020 and made by Council on 31 March 2020.

LEP Phase 2B project links to the LSPS and LHS

The NSW Government aims to ensure there are enough homes to meet the needs of a growing population. Council is required by the DPE to plan for additional housing growth across the local government area (LGA) to meet targets set by DPE.

The LHS is a high-level strategy providing direction for the provision of housing across the Inner West. The uplift areas of Dulwich Hill, Marrickville and North Ashfield were identified in the strategy as areas able to accommodate additional housing growth in the LGA over the medium – long term.

The LHS identifies Marrickville and Dulwich Hill as medium-term housing investigation areas (likely to result in new housing delivery from 2021-2026). The rationale for these investigation areas is that they are associated with the commitment to and progressing major transport infrastructure (Metro South West). Engagement for the LHS and LSPS received a great deal of interest and feedback from Marrickville and Dulwich Hill residents and landowners.

North Ashfield is identified as a longer-term housing investigation area in the LHS, likely to result in new housing delivery from 2026-2036. Due to landowner submissions received as part of the LHS exhibition period, Council resolved to bring the North Ashfield investigation area forward.

Attachment 1 depicts the map from the LSPS showing investigation areas for additional housing across the LGA as identified in the LHS.

The LHS and the LSPS provide some of the evidence base required to inform and support the amendments to the Inner West LEP put forward as part of the Phase 2B project related to the uplift areas.

Consultant services to assist with the early engagement program

To demonstrate both transparency and independence throughout, Cred Consulting have been engaged to assist with the scheduled engagement program. Cred assisted with the design of the program, recommending a two-stage approach to enable more useful and representative feedback from the community to be obtained:

· Stage 1 - traditional broad community engagement

· Stage 2 - a People’s Panel to provide more informed, tailored feedback on the recommendations on each of the technical studies.

Cred have indicated the use of a People’s Panel would be more fitting to the level of influence Council would like to see the community have on the planning controls put forward in the Phase 2B LEP Project.

Attachment 2 outlines how the planning and engagement program for the Phase 2B LEP project work together.

The costs for the engagement program are within budget and includes consultant fees for the lead consultancy in this strategy, additional work from technical consultants who prepared the technical studies to assist with the webinars and the People’s Panel, and stipends for participants in the People’s Panel. Other communication and marketing costs associated with the project such as the printing and distribution of letters and post cards have also been factored in, and are within budget.

Communication and Engagement Summary

Stage 1:

· Postcard promoting engagement to all properties in the LGA (residences and businesses)

· Letters to all non-resident ratepayers

· Council digital channels: news announcement on website, social media, YSIW e-news, Council e-news

· 6 x meet the planner drop-in sessions (in person), with Greek, Vietnamese and Mandarin materials and interpreters provided to relevant sessions

· Technical studies exhibited on the Your Say project page

· 5 x webinars to explain the technical studies

· 1 x explanatory video for car parking

· Survey on YSIW project page

· Public meetings with the community

Stage 2:

· 4 x People’s Panel meetings (in person)

· 4 x Local Democracy Group meetings

· 4 x Councillor Roundtables

What is a People’s Panel?

· 20 – 25 community members recruited to represent the demographic breakdown of the whole LGA

· Panel comes together face to face over a series of 4 sessions

· Panel members are ‘upskilled’ on the topics of LEP/DCP/planning controls

· Panel is provided with results from the broad community consultation, presentations from technical experts and community groups, and background information from endorsed Council policies (e.g., housing strategy) to inform their recommendations. They will use this knowledge to provide recommendations to Council to inform amendments to the planning controls.

· Panel members are paid a stipend for their time as follows:

o $240 per person per day for weekend sessions

o $80 per person per session for evening sessions

o Total for four sessions = $640 per person.

The People’s Panel approach allows community members to work with technical experts and have the time to understand and resolve any potential concerns with the recommendations of the technical studies and subsequent amendments to the existing planning controls.

Benefits for the use of a People’s Panel approach

The technical studies are generally ‘too technical’ for community members to both understand and comment on within a 1.5hr workshop, focus group, or public meeting. This is especially true when engaging with those who are reactive or opposed to the proposals.

The People’s Panel approach provides the opportunity to upskill a group of community members on planning matters. The panel will work with technical experts and have the time to understand the opportunities and constraints and other parameters that Council must work within when drafting planning controls.

It is an iterative process that allows community feedback to be incorporated in real time; it is an advisory group not a decision-making body.

Community groups are also being identified for targeted engagement and will be invited to make submissions and to speak to the People’s Panel.

Risks to Council in using a People’s Panel approach

· The panel may disagree with fundamental aspects of the technical studies which are not able to be changed. It will be important to set clear terms of reference for the panel, including outlining the parameters for uplift defined in the endorsed LHS. Any recommendations provided by the panel will have to meet these parameters and fall within set terms of reference.

· The duration of the People’s Panel will run from October 2022 through to February 2023 with a break over the Christmas period. There is a risk that panel members may go on holidays and not be able to make all four sessions. Availability should form part of the initial selection criteria for panel members. There may be some flexibility to move panel sessions to dates and times better suited to most panel members if there are major issues with the proposed dates.

· Panel members may drop out after the first panel session due to lack of interest. Panel recruitment should accommodate for more rather than less panel members and the incentives must be enough to encourage people to turn up to each of the four sessions.

Councillor Roundtables

Councillor Roundtables are specific collaboration opportunities to provide the summation of engagement outcomes from the Stage 1 and Stage 2 (people’s panel and planning and heritage local democracy group feedback) to the Councillors and seek input and direction to Council officers regarding the development of draft standards and controls for the new planning instruments. Either 4 workshops of 1.5 hours held of an (Monday) evening, or 2 workshops of 3 hours held on a Saturday are recommended.

Timeline

Stage 1

· Broad community engagement - 22 August – November 2022

Stage 2

· People’s Panel - October 2022 – February 2023

· Councillor Roundtables – October 2022 – March 2023

Activity	Start date	Duration
Stage 1 engagement commences	22 August 2022
Online Survey opens	22 August
Recruit and appoint People’s Panel	August 2022
Webinars x5
- Marrickville Urban Design Study	Thurs, 25 August	1.5hrs
- Dulwich Hill Urban Design Studies	Tues, 30 August	1.5hrs
- Low Carbon Precinct Study	Wed, 31 August	1.5hrs
- Heritage	Wed, 7 September	1.5hrs
- North Ashfield Urban Design Study	Wed, 14 September	1.5hrs
6 x meet the planner drop-in sessions
- Marrickville Station	Tues, 23 August	2hrs
- Marrickville Library (includes provision of Vietnamese & Greek interpreter)	Sat, 27 August	6hrs
- Dulwich Hill Station	Mon, 29 August	2hrs
- Orange Grove Markets	Sat, 3 September	4hrs
- Ashfield Service Centre (includes provision of Mandarin interpreter)	Tues, 13 September	6hrs
- Dulwich Hill Library	Sat, 17 September	6hrs
Public Meetings	October/November 2022
Stage 1 Engagement Outcomes Report	October/November 2022
Stage 2 engagement commences	October 2022
People’s Panel
- People Panel meeting No.1	Wed, 12 October	2hrs
- People Panel meeting No.2	Sat, 5 November	6hrs
- People Panel meeting No.3	Wed, 7 December	2hrs
- People Panel meeting No.4	Sat, 11 February	6hrs
New Local Democracy Group (Planning & Heritage)
- Meeting No.1 (optional meeting or briefing note)	Mon, 17 October	2hrs
- Meeting No.2	Mon, 14 November	2hrs
- Meeting No.3 (optional meeting or briefing note)	Mon, 12 December	2hrs
- Meeting No.4	Mon, 20 February	2hrs
Councillor Roundtables (4 evening sessions or 2 Saturday sessions over 3 hours each)
- Councillor Roundtable No.1	Mon, 24 October	1.5hrs
- Councillor Roundtable No.2	Mon, 21 November	1.5hrs
- Councillor Roundtable No.3	Mon, 30 January	1.5hrs
- Councillor Roundtable No.4	Mon 13 March	1.5hrs
Stage 2 engagement finishes	February 2023
Stage 2 Engagement Outcomes Report	March 2023
Councillor Roundtable	April 2023

Community feedback received as part of this engagement program

This engagement strategy has been developed arising from a review of a range of best practice strategies. The feedback gained from the engagement will provide the structure that preparation of the planning controls in the Phase 2B Inner West LEP and Comprehensive DCP will be based on - related to the uplift areas, low carbon precincts, heritage, and car parking controls. Council Officers may investigate additional issues that are highlighted in the feedback as part of separate components of the LEP Phase 2B project work.

Simultaneous Engagement of the Public Domain Master Plan

A public domain master plan engagement for the Marrickville Village, Dulwich Hill Village and Station Precincts will be run simultaneously and alongside the LEP engagement. These Master Plans are smaller and more specific than the LEP engagement strategy, have their own time table and resources, and are the subject of briefing notes to Council. They are mentioned here so as to avoid confusion regarding the simultaneous engagement. The aim of the Master Plans is to:

1. Develop illustrative plans that identify urban design and landscape elements that can raise each precinct’s overall liveability and be delivered by Council or developers.

2. Be guided by design principles outlined in the Inner West Council’s (IWC) Public Domain Design Guide, as follows:

a. Enhancing liveability and placemaking;

b. Promoting ecological sustainability;

c. Activating the public domain;

d. Creating accessible, inclusive and safe places;

e. Fostering urban cohesion and shared identity; and

f. Embedding maintenance and durability.

3. Articulate a ten-year vision, with strategies costed and grouped as deliverable projects to ensure integration with the forward financial and asset plans for implementation.

The Master Plans will specifically address

· Metro rail development and associated opportunities.

· LEP 2B project and implications for changes in density

· Opportunities to better integrate and improve possible new and existing open space and plaza spaces in the local area

· Opportunities to improve active transport and connections to the Greenway.

These engagements are being supported by smaller public domain specialists and council officers. The LEP engagement and the public domain engagement offer important synergies in terms of matching the vision for future private development through standards and controls in the new planning instruments with development in the public domain and ensuring a match between the two spheres.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The total cost of this early engagement project is within budget.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Housing Investigation Areas in Inner West Local Housing Strategy
2.⇩	Timeline for LEP Phase 2B

Council Meeting

9 August 2022

Item No: C0822(1) Item 27

Subject: Question on Notice: Council Investments

From: Councillor John Stamolis

Council currently has one quarter of a billion dollars of investments. At March 2022 this was $253.2 million.

	Investments	Change	Interest received ($)	Other change ($)	Portfolio return
Jun-20	$223,460,607				2.22%
Jul-20	$223,455,614	-$4,993			2.31%
Aug-20	$223,460,179	$4,565			1.30%
Sep-20	$223,464,595	$4,416			1.62%
Oct-20	$216,467,512	-$6,997,083			1.85%
Nov-20	$223,570,419	$7,102,907			1.80%
Dec-20	$223,573,327	$2,908			1.83%
Jan-21	$219,475,955	-$4,097,372			1.57%
Feb-21	$230,178,865	$10,702,910			1.25%
Mar-21	$230,181,682	$2,817			1.30%
Apr-21	$230,184,594	$2,912			1.13%
May-21	$227,187,412	-$2,997,182			1.02%
Jun-21	$227,187,412	$0			0.91%
Jul-21	$230,190,326	$3,002,914			0.90%
Aug-21	$230,177,691	-$12,635			0.90%
Sep-21	$238,929,760	$8,752,069			0.67%
Oct-21	$242,931,219	$4,001,459			0.25%
Nov-21	$248,917,111	$5,985,892			0.24%
Dec-21	$248,918,570	$1,459			0.23%
Jan-22	$252,670,029	$3,751,459			0.12%
Feb-22	$257,416,660	$4,746,631			0.18%
Mar-22	$253,180,765	-$4,235,895			-0.38%

Questions

- Show the amount of monthly interest received?

- Show any other change(s) and explain what this includes?

- Detail how the monthly portfolio return is calculated?

Answer

	EOM Current Value of Investments	Change	Interest accrued ($)	Capital Gains/Loss	Portfolio return (% per annum)
Jun-20	$225,901,662
Jul-20	$226,205,222	$303,560	$274,724	$160,985	2.31%
Aug-20	$226,201,161	-$4,061	$262,700	-$27,640	1.30%
Sep-20	$225,966,630	-$234,531	$252,847	$44,350	1.62%
Oct-20	$226,152,581	$185,951	$251,534	$97,012	1.85%
Nov-20	$219,160,336	-$6,992,245	$233,248	-$29,656	1.13%
Dec-20	$226,236,245	$7,075,909	$233,471	-$113,617	0.65%
Jan-21	$226,180,459	-$55,786	$231,014	-$99,320	0.70%
Feb-21	$221,638,852	-$4,541,607	$202,998	-$506,503	-1.79%
Mar-21	$231,991,643	$10,352,791	$225,927	-$61,518	0.85%
Apr-21	$231,940,115	-$51,528	$213,829	-$13,094	1.07%
May-21	$231,957,643	$17,528	$212,205	-$43,437	0.87%
Jun-21	$228,904,660	-$3,052,983	$195,243	-$43,697	0.84%
Jul-21	$232,223,908	$3,319,248	$201,199	$209,064	2.14%
Aug-21	$232,264,961	$41,053	$199,120	-$62,873	0.70%
Sep-21	$240,196,219	$7,931,258	$190,766	-$408,669	-1.12%
Oct-21	$243,468,292	$3,272,073	$196,820	-$814,187	-3.04%
Nov-21	$249,463,267	$5,994,975	$193,884	-$5,543	0.92%
Dec-21	$249,448,367	-$14,900	$202,594	-$89,900	0.53%
Jan-22	$252,916,041	$3,467,674	$203,547	-$316,535	-0.53%
Feb-22	$257,256,912	$4,340,871	$190,037	-$406,617	-1.10%
Mar-22	$251,093,893	-$6,163,019	$213,054	-$1,426,390	-5.46%
Apr-22	$240,764,555	-$10,329,338	$166,430	-$340,904	-0.85%
May-22	$248,273,478	$7,508,923	$203,150	-$550,733	-1.65%

Notes:

1. The original table had the portfolio's Face Value in the Investments column, this has been updated to Current Value. The Current Value takes into account the changes in market valuations;

2. The calculation for the overall performance is more complicated than just taking the net change in value versus the prior month's Current Value;

3. The Calculation is ((Total Accrued Interest for the month + Total Capital Gain/Loss of Market traded securities)/Weighted Days)*365;

4. Weighted Days (not shown) is the summation of all individual securities' returns for the month weighted by their $ amount and time held during the month; and

5. It is the Weighted Days calculation which brings into account the change in Current Value of the portfolio on an individual security basis, including new purchases/maturities/sales, and for which a complex system is required

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Existing Zones within Inner West	Proposed Zones within Inner West
B1 Neighbourhood Centres B2 Local Centre	E1 Local Centre
No equivalent in the draft IWLEP 2022	E2 Commercial Centre
B5 Business Development B6 Enterprise Corridor B7 Business Park	E3 Productivity Support
IN1 General Industrial IN2 Light Industrial	E4 General Industrial
B4 Mixed Use	MU1 Mixed Use
No equivalent in the draft IWLEP 2022	W4 Working Waterfront
No equivalent in the draft IWLEP 2022	SP4 Special Enterprise

1.⇩	Exhibited Employment Zone Translation Land Use Table - Draft Inner West LEP 2022
2.⇩	Employment Zone Reforms - Draft IWLEP 2022 Comparison Maps
3.⇩	Draft Submission - Employment Zone Reforms

Ward	Item
Baludarri (Balmain)	Tobruk Avenue, Balmain - Temporary full road closure for excavation works
	Nelson Lane, Annandale - Proposed No Parking Restrictions
	Stephen Street, Balmain (at Vincent Street) - Proposed kerb indentation
Gulgadya (Leichhardt)	Elswick Street North, Charles Street, William Street, Leichhardt - Proposed traffic calming, angled parking and pedestrian facilities
	Seven Bridges Walk - Special Event
	Trafalgar Street, Annandale - Proposed raised pedestrian crossing
	George Street, Leichhardt - Proposed 'Motor Bike Only' Parking Restrictions
Midjuburi (Marrickville)	Smidmore Street, Marrickville – ENRC/2022/0022 - Temporary full road closure for two Marrickville Metro events The Fringe Festival 8-12 September 2022 and 10-12 December 2022 Markets and related temporary changes to Victoria Road kerbside parking restrictions to accommodate relocation of community bus
	Tempe South Local Area Traffic Management Study - Revised Report
	Temporary parking changes from T3 Line rail shutdown – Consultation Outcomes Report
Djarrawunang (Ashfield)	Yeo Park, Summer Hill - Formalisation of off-road shared bicycle - pedestrian path, between Victoria Street and Prospect Road
Djarrawunang (Ashfield)	Temporary parking changes from T3 Line rail shutdown – Consultation Outcomes Report
Damun (Stanmore)	Nil. See All Wards.
All Wards	Draft Pedestrian Crossing Warrant Policy
All Wards	Draft Traffic Management Investigation Policy

Ward	Item
Baludarri (Balmain)	Pedestrian crossings on Darling Street, Balmain
Gulgadya (Leichhardt)	Railway Street, Croydon-Proposed 'No Parking' opposite driveway
Midjuburi (Marrickville)	Dulwich Hill Station Precinct Public Domain Improvements Amendments - Location of traffic calming entry thresholds
	Bayley Street, Marrickville, Cavendish Street, Stanmore and Fotheringham Street, Enmore - Dedicated Car Share Parking Restrictions
	Livingstone Road, Marrickville bike path
Djarrawunang (Ashfield)	Murrell Street, Ashfield- Traffic and parking changes
Djarrawunang (Ashfield)	Pram ramps for Orchard Crescent, Ashfield
Damun (Stanmore)	Bayley Street, Marrickville, Cavendish Street, Stanmore and Fotheringham Street, Enmore - Dedicated Car Share Parking Restrictions
All Wards	Filming applications occupying footpaths and cycle paths

1.⇩	Local Traffic Committee minutes 20 June 2022
2.⇩	Local Traffic Committee meeting 18 July 2022

1.⇩	2022 Motions submissions guide
2.⇩	LGNSW 2022 Special Conference Records of Decisions

1.⇩	IWC Investment Report - May 2022
2.⇩	IWC Economic & Investment Portfolio Commentary - May 2022

1.⇩	IWC Investment Report - June 2022
2.⇩	IWC Economic & Investment Portfolio Commentary - June 2022