You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Marrickville Council Meetings’ category.
Marrickville Council’s photo of the street tree outside 3/195 Wardell Road voted to be removed. Photo used with thanks.
This was the Council Meeting. The following is how I understood the meeting & all mistakes are mine. Note: MC = Marrickville Council.
The Councillors & Wards are as follows – LABOR: Iskandar/Central, Haylen/North, Tsardoulias/West, Woods/South. GREENS: Phillips/Central, Ellsmore/North, Brooks/West, Leary/South. LIBERALS: Gardener/North, Tyler/West. INDEPENDENT: Macri/Central, Hanna/South.
Notice of Motion by Clr Leary – Community request for park – High Street & Ruby Street, Marrickville – One resident spoke: The proposal is to remove the road reservation restriction. Because of the restriction MC hasn’t put much into this space & it’s become weed infested. Because of MC’s support, residents are weeding this area & we have started to get to know each other. I think it’s important to be taken to the community. Names I am suggesting are: Four Sisters Park – after Ruby, Harriet, Charlotte & Myrtle or Quarry Park. Making it a park will improve the amenity of the area.
Clr Leary: One of the staff’s suggestions is the need for a report. I don’t think we need a report, just to give staff direction. No way a road will be built here. It’s a steep cliff with stairs. I think we could get on with it. Motion – for designation of community land with a Plan of Management. Clr Woods: I endorse Clr Leary’s comments. There will be no road down there. It will become a fantastic little park because it has been neglected.
Clr Hanna: I’m voting for it, but we are taking the consultation out of it. We are not asking those next to it. To do something without telling the residents is not something we have done before. Staff: We would normally do community consultation, but it’s up to the Councillors whether they go ahead. Clr Leary: I am always happy with community consultation. My drafting didn’t reflect that. Vote: unanimous.
Removal of street tree outside 3/195 Wardell Road Petersham (I think the tree is in Dulwich Hill. No suburb name was given in the papers)– From Council’s report: “The Melaleuca quinquenervia (Broad Leaved Paperbark) tree is considered to be in good condition & health with no visible structural issues. It is located under powerlines & has been continuously lopped by Ausgrid. This has affected the trees shape & habit, but it still provides good canopy & contributes to the overall landscape amenity of the area. Damage to the front brick wall of 195 Wardell Road is evident, as is some lifting of the footpath, but the footpath damage is not considered excessive & could be reasonably repaired and/or made safe. It is considered that the single skin low brick wall (which appears to have been constructed on a substandard single brick footing) is not a “significant” structure & that it can be repaired by reasonable & practical means enabling a healthy & viable street tree to be retained.”
One resident spoke: 3 residents want his tree removed. For the last 10-years we have wanted to repair the heritage fence, but two builders say it can’t be done. Two criteria are met – high damage to a significant structure of private property & front wall is damaged by roots & preventing owners from doing important underpinning work. The staff say the damage is not excessive. The footpath is damaged & hundreds of people walk here. It’s inevitable that this tree will be removed because it has grown above the powerline. The residents are prepared to pay $2,800 to remove the trees & replant another tree.
Clr Tsardoulias: This tree is inappropriate & causing significant damage to the building & footpath. It’s evident that the footpath has lifted & cracked. We could be liable for damage to this property. This is about getting the basic infrastructure right & moving on.
Clr Ellsmore: I understood last year we talked passionately about retaining trees when they damage the footpath. Staff: It’s impossible to gauge future damage. We can repair the footpath, but it will be ongoing. Has staff investigated the footpath? Staff: No. Cutting the root will destabilize the tree.
Clr Brooks: When we had a council workshop we were told that damage is caused by younger trees & that older trees have stopped growing. Staff: In similar circumstances we provide reconstruction of the footpath. Clr Gardener: The speaker says damage is caused inside the building. Do you have evidence? Staff: No. It would change my view.
Clr Phillips: I foreshadow that we get that information from staff. This is a healthy, significant tree doing minor damage. The crack in the fence could be fixed. This is a significant tree & a valuable asset for the community. I don’t believe MC should remove it unless sure that it is causing more damage. We should take the staff’s advice & the report.
Mayor Macri: This is a significant issue. Ausgrid has been hacking it. Once the crown reaches the powerline, the less tree you have. It has a large canopy. The roots reach out to the dripline. It’s a renewal issue. We should replace with a number of trees. Managing risk is when people start coming with claims.
Clr Hanna: I support taking the tree out. I always put myself in the same position. I’ve been saying 10-years ago that MC has been planting the wrong trees.
Clr Ellsmore: I would change my opinion if I could see a report on the damage [to the building]. Other Councils find innovative ways to retain their trees. One month will not make a difference. The tree is healthy.
Vote: to remove the tree – Mayor Macri, Clrs Iskandar, Tsardoulias, Haylen, Woods, Hanna & Tyler. Against – Clrs Phillips, Leary, Brooks, Ellsmore & Gardiner. The tree will be removed.
Marrickville Council’s photo of the street tree outside 3/195 Wardell Road voted to be removed. Photo used with thanks.
Smidmore Street – outside Marrickville Metro shopping centre
This was the Council Meeting. The following is how I understood the meeting & all mistakes are mine. Note: MC = Marrickville Council.
The Councillors & Wards are as follows – LABOR: Iskandar/Central, Haylen/North, Tsardoulias/West, Woods/South. GREENS: Phillips/Central, Ellsmore/North, Brooks/West, Leary/South. LIBERALS: Gardener/North, Tyler/West. INDEPENDENT: Macri/Central, Hanna/South.
Proposed purchase of part of Smidmore Street Marrickville by AMP Capital Investors (owners of Marrickville Metro) - There were 2 speakers.
Speaker 1: I was confused whether I should tick the “for” or “against” recommendation option in the online registration, as the recommendation is to move the discussion in to a closed session, which I do not support as I think this is an issue that requires further clarification, transparency & community consultation. As to the actual proposal to purchase Smidmore Street by AMP, I’m trying to have an open mind, but I do have concerns – & again, request further clarification, transparency & community consultation before a decision is made by council. In the past few days I have spoken to quite a few residents, & all are confused, concerned & some are actually quite angry that this proposal is again before council, & that council appear to be ready to consider approving it this time. So as a representative of the community action group Metro Watch, I would like to submit the following points & questions –
1. What circumstances have changed? Refusal to sell the public road Smidmore Street was a core issue in council’s submission of objection to the Dept of Planning regarding the Metro expansion 2 years ago, & throughout the campaign up to the Planning Assessment Commission hearing. Councillors were emphatic & unanimous in their opposition, & this particular point of objection was supported by Metro Watch & the Chamber of Commerce – we all represented a united front with aligned objectives. So I have to ask, what circumstances have changed since then, for council to appear to be considering, & perhaps approving, this proposal now?
2. What is the intended use for this section of Smidmore Street? For example, would the closed section of road be used directly as an outdoor entertaining area, or in order to create more footpath cafes/bars etc on either side of the centre? There was a suggestion in the original expansion plans to create an “entertainment quarter” on Smidmore Street. Would those venues be trading during the day only, or at night also? Or is the intention to create a pedestrian transition from buildings 1 and 2? If so, that objective could be achieved with traffic calming measures, rather than the sale of a public asset. It could also be solved with the option to build an overhead pedestrian walkway, which would not create any negative impacts as far as I can see. This road currently belongs to everyone, & once sold, it will be permanently in private ownership.
3. Negative impact – A key concern with residents is what sort of impact this may have on the immediate area. How would it affect traffic & parking issues; & residential amenity such as additional noise & disturbance particularly at night. It would be essential to conduct an impact assessment. What measures would be put in place to ensure residential amenity was not impacted, now or in the future? If approved, what can guarantee us that the next council team, or the team after, would ensure those conditions were kept, eg if the Metro made a future application to change trading hours or other conditions of operation? An additional element that will affect future traffic issues is council’s consideration of a proposal to re-zone Edinburgh Road to allow the construction of a Masters Home Improvement Centre, which will draw enormous amounts of additional traffic to the area.
4. Consultation with the community – Most councillors will be aware that the original Metro expansion was a cause of great concern with the local community. There were over 500 & 700 letters of objection to the Dept of Planning during the 2 stages of the exhibition & approval process. It would be reasonable to expect that the community would be extensively consulted by council regarding any concerns they may have about potential impacts before a decision is made regarding this new proposal. There is no doubt that if this proposal to purchase Smidmore Street by AMPCI were successful, that the addition of $1.5 million to council’s budget would enable council to implement more services or facilities to benefit the greater community, but possibly at the expense of the amenity of residents around the Metro. On the other hand, if the main objective for the purchase of this street is to improve connectivity & pedestrian access between the 2 sites, then an overhead walkway would achieve that, with no negative impact. In fact, this overhead walkway should be worth much much more than the proposed $130,000 in the AMP offer, which seems a very low estimate of its commercial value. Just recently, several residents as well as other community services representatives & some Metro tenants, were involved in a consultative process with AMPCI/Metro in developing revised plans by the new architectural firm for the Stage 1 (Smidmore/Edinburgh) site. This was a very productive & positive process, with some major amendments to the original plans such as the removal of the dominating & brutally ugly spiral car ramp on Edinburgh/Smidmore corner, & the re-orientation of the market area with double-height ceiling space. It may be that other positive outcomes could also be achieved with rigorous negotiation regarding the options presented in this new proposal, preferably to pursue the option of an overhead pedestrian bridge for improved pedestrian safety; & perhaps some other amendments or conditions could be negotiated by council, such as the immediate implementation of a trolley lock-out system (one of the major concerns of residents throughout the locality) or other measures that could reduce negative impact from the Metro on residential amenity, now & in the future.
As you can hear, I have lots of questions, and I hope that you will consider these points, & postpone any immediate decision on this proposal, in order to allow more clarification, transparency, assessment & community consultation to proceed.
Speaker 2: I am not so reasonable. I had thought MC had rejected to sell Smidmore Street 2-years ago. I don’t know whether I am speaking for or against because it is confidential. It reminds me of George Bernard Shaw – “We know what you are. We just need to discuss the price.” If it’s for pedestrians, you could just close the road. If it’s the money, the airspace would increase quite a lot. They could spend more than $130,000 to buy the airspace.
Clr Tsardoulias & Tyler argued for a closed session. Vote: For – Mayor Marci, Clrs Tsardoulias, Iskandar, Haylen, Woods, Phillips, Gardiner & Tyler. Against - Clrs Leary, Brooks, Ellsmore & Hanna. The Gallery was cleared.
On return – Clr Tsardoulias: Moved refusal of recommendation points 1,2,3 & 4 of confidential paper. Clr Hanna: GM if we said we agree for number 2, does this mean it is finished? Staff: Yes.
Clr Tsardoulias: This caught me by surprise. This Council voted unanimously to refuse so coming back to us is a surprise. I move not to proceed. Some of the valuations are ridiculous. The residents come first. They went through hell for the past 2-years & this matter should have been put to rest.
Clr Gardiner: It is remiss of this Council not to seek to maximize the benefit to at least enter into negotiations with this centre. I think we all know that in 1-2 years this will be back. We know that shopping strips struggle. We know what the pressures on retailers are. I do not understand why people do not accept that their precious little backyard must be shared. It’s a wasteland. It’s going to be developed. It’s utterly ridiculous not to enter into negotiations with AMP.
Clr Phillips: Marrickville used to have more residents than we have now. (1948 – 113,000 people). The industrial areas of MC are employment lands & have been set-aside in our LEP. They are not wastelands. I see this as a planning issue. You don’t just put these aside for a bit more cash. It’s a stand-alone centre causing lots of problems for residents, especially traffic. The reason why MC was unanimous & strongly against the Metro expansion was – why make it bigger & compound the problem & to take business away from our shopping strips? Smidmore Street is not zoned for a shopping strip. This would be privatizing a shopping strip. We don’t want the places where we shop, meet & gather to be in private domains. We should protect our main streets. Staff says if we do sell this street, AMP will be back to put in shops & make this into a pedestrian mall.
Clr Leary: I support Clr Tsardoulias’s motion. Clr Gardener said there are no quality shops in Marrickville LGA. I beg to differ. I bought a new Panama hat on King Street. Across the road is a button shop. Further up the street is a wool shop. Some of the best Asian fruit & vegetables are sold on Illawarra Road. These retail shops give to our community in the way a Westfield-style centre won’t. If you close off Smidmore Street it will cause problems for other streets. Privatizing space is not in the best interests of the community.
Clr Hanna: I can’t agree with Clr Gardiner. I will take you to Metro & ask you to find a quality shop. They can see the Commonwealth Bank doing fantastic & Metro wants them. Menswear – you cannot afford to be in a shopping centre. You would have to buy everything from China. You will never find famous brands in a shopping centre. They don’t make margins from quality shops. They are getting a discount department store & other supermarkets. I don’t want the residents to go through the same thing as 2-years ago. Not many people know about it. How can we do something about this without the residents knowing?
Mayor Macri: I appreciate Clr Gardiner because we need different opinions. The reason I oppose it is about balance. If we move too many people to the side of a rowboat it will be out of balance. Traffic is at capacity. Increasing the size of Metro was always a problem for everyone. I even suggested that they build at the Marrickville Hospital site. They said no. They are trying to redraw the maps. I don’t think it’s good. I thought the design wasn’t attractive & they told us they were interested about doing anything about the road. Now they have come back. Bite. Bite. Bite. They spoke about the financial leakage – people leaving the LGA to shop. I said you are going to address this by two new fruit shops & a supermarket? You are telling me that people are leaving to buy cabbage? I don’t like their approach.
Clr Brooks: Stats about shopping trends showing that people are leaving & shopping online. It’s very hard to use a dead shopping strip.
Vote – For the recommendation NOT sell Smidmore Street to AMP: Mayor Macri, Clrs Iskandar, Tsardoulias, Haylen, Woods, Phllips, Leary, Brooks, Ellsmore, Tyler & Hanna. Against: Clr Gardiner. Carried.
Photo from February 2010 where a number of Labor, Greens & Independent Marrickville Councillors carried the purple Marrickville Council banner & headed the protest march of around 300 people against the last attempt to get a Motorway over Tempe Wetlands & through Tempe Reserve.
This was the Council Meeting. The following is how I understood the meeting & all mistakes are mine. Note: MC = Marrickville Council. Absent: Clrs Iskandar, Tsardoulias & Haylen.
The Councillors & Wards are as follows – LABOR: Iskandar/Central, Haylen/North, Tsardoulias/West, Woods/South. GREENS: Phillips/Central, Ellsmore/North, Brooks/West, Leary/South. LIBERALS: Gardener/North, Tyler/West. INDEPENDENT: Macri/Central, Hanna/South
Marrickville Cooks River Committee recommendation that Council oppose the proposed Westconnex & M5E - There were 3 speakers in favour of the motion.
Speaker 1: Michelle Ziebots – Transport Planner, academic at UTS, advisor on panel for NSW Transport Master Plan. Said she was speaking to 2 broad points; wider strategic transport needs & residents who need to be protected by this development. During the time we were on the Transport Panel we were asked to comment on transport in Sydney. We generally commented on public transport options. We needed to see an increase in spending for public transport infrastructure & second harbour crossing. More public transport will allow people to get out of the car, but there really aren’t the funds available. It’s a statewide problem. We can’t do both. Urban motorway development is not a great solution to traffic management. People move between the two, whichever gives them the quickest journey. If we have a public transport network, less people will be on the road. The motorway plan was headed up by Greiner. I don’t believe it has got strong technical backing. This is a variation of the past. There was a previous attempt to extend the M4 Motorway. There can be devastating impacts on the feeder roads. We need to spare the residents currently affected by WestConnex. It is in the interest of MC & a lot of transport providers to say that we don’t want WestConnex to go ahead. There is a wide raft of public transport available & it is these MC needs to support.
Speaker 2: President of the Wolli Creek Preservation Society – 25% of our members live in Marrickville municipality. We have had clear information from Maritime Services about WestConnex. It will destroy 2 hectares of bushland (11% of the bushland of Wolli Creek) & about 400 high quality trees, which would not be allowed to be removed if they were in people’s backyards. The M5 East was congested within 2-years. More roads attract more cars. Patronage of the East Hills line dropped after the M5 was built. Motorways take money from public transport. Road peak times are largely solo drivers. Congestion is self-limiting. Providing good public transport is available. The other solution is charging & allows wealthy people priority use. Climate change is also an issue. This is no time to be building roads.
Speaker 3: My family have a long history in Tempe. 4 generations have lived in my house. This issue came to Council 2-years ago. All Councillors were united to oppose the road across Tempe. It’s a no brainer. All Councillors were completely against the motorway. This will destroy more people’s homes. The wetlands are very precious. To dig into the Tempe Tip site will be an environmental disaster. We do not want to see wetlands, which has the largest number of birds in the LGA, be affected. A tree is listing on Fatima Island. It’s an emergency situation. We are a part of the environment. I ask MC to oppose WestConnex flat-out. We do not need any more reports.
Clr Leary: Motion: I ask that MC does oppose WestConnex & MC write to the Minister informing him of MC’s opposition. This was adopted unanimously by the Cooks River Committee. Our residents are against this proposal. I know the Councillors have dealt with aspects of this issue a few months ago. I thought the response was woefully inadequate. It’s great to see Clr Hanna siding with the Greens on this. He always supports the residents of Tempe. The main argument for the Taskforce was that we need more information before we can comment. There are 14 things we know about WestConnex & only one is enough to reject.
- No traffic modeling before the project has been announced.
- Sydney is the 4th worst city in terms of public transport. WestConnex will suck money away from public transport.
- The plan has been criticized & condemned by leading experts.
- We know it will have a significant & major negative impact on the Wolli Creek area.
- Two main routes have been proposed. One route is gazetted & goes through Tempe Reserve & Tempe Wetlands. The other is through the Alexandra Canal. All proposals take from Tempe & all our LGA.
- The Minister appears to be concerned about the cost.
- Existing road reserves … [I missed this bit].
- Tunnels mean toxic smoke stacks. The Minister said we won’t get the best technology for smoke stacks because of costs.
- The justification is that WestConnex will relieve traffic around Botany, but this section of road has been removed.
- The Minister’s long-term financial plan in Tempe (pg 15). There is a risk that these sites may be removed from MC. What is the cost to MC? Looks like the rent is $2.3 million per year. Average this over 10-years & it will be a black hole to MC of around $23 million. It is questionable whether we will get more from them that the value of the land.
- We know Councillors had a briefing re WestConnex, but this was only open to the Clrs & a few staff – no public consultation.
- We know the Federal Government is currently jointly funding a study of WestConnex with the State Government & has representation on a committee. Our Local Member is funding the study of WestConnex.
- We know that the Labor Party is split on the issue. Clr Woods is on the Cooks River Committee & they unanimously voted against WestConnex, so I hope Clr Woods will be against the WestConnex tonight.
- Another point – the meeting that I chaired on the weekend of environmental groups … a Tempe resident said. “This is a no-brainer.” Why are not all the other Councillors opposing WestConnex? So if you support a delay, can you explain why? A motorway through our community is the worst thing.
Clr Hanna: Last time I voted against it & I will vote against tonight. I was really surprised that some Councillors were saying go for it. Go to the people & ask them. Last time the Labor, Greens & even Anthony Albanese were marching against it. It’s about time MC shows that they are not neglecting Tempe & Sydenham.
Clr Woods: Two amendments – point 2; change to “formally oppose motorway if it will have a negative impact on Tempe Reserve, Wolli Creek & any other part of Marrickville area.” Point 3: says there is already an accepted position that MC has & this will change depending on point 2. Replacing all of point 3 motion of 16th October 2012 will remain MC’s position. Clr Leary’s position is all about strategy & is dishonest.
Clr Leary: Withdraw dishonest accusation.
Clr Woods: I will replace with ‘misleading’ if Councillors will not oppose WestConnex that we are not concerned & we are very concerned about the environmental impacts. Our position is if that proposal duplicates that of before, we will oppose this. The reason why I put point 3 was because that was a reasoned decision. Clr Leary would like to say the debate is over. I think the debate will go on & on & we should adopt a reasoned approach as things come. We will probably not support WestConnex once we get all the details & realize the environmental impacts. It’s quite disadvantageous to knock out my amendments. If WestConnex causes environmental damage we will not support it.
Mayor Macri: Clr Leary said we have the 4th worst public transport system. I’d much rather our public transport system than trade for Beijing’s human rights. It is misleading Clr Leary about the quality of air in tunnels. The Minister said they have learnt. It won’t be the same as the Lane Cove tunnel, which is actually cleaner than the air outside. It’s interesting that Clr Learys is concerned about MC’s financial position when he refused the container DA now in the Land & Environment Court. The meeting had nothing that would concern the public. It was about how to engage the public in consultation. They said it will be on the table. At this stage there are no details. Many of Clr Leary’s points are rhetoric. I’d be concerned if our Federal Minister didn’t investigate where our funds go. The clearest & most damming thing is build it & the people will use it. Car-pooling is available. That is why I got the Tarago. Councillors should not drive singularly to inspections. We can’t say no, no, no. If it is detrimental, I’m sure all Councillors will oppose.
Clr Phillips: Clr Hanna was right in that MC has a long history…
Clr Gardener: Point of order. Clr Phillips should not speak as only one speaker after an amendment. If someone has spoken for, there are no speakers against. It’s in the Code of Practice. Staff: I believe we are talking about substantial motion by Clr Leary & foreshadowed motion by Clr Woods. Clr Phillips: I’ve been on Council for 4-years & Clr Hanna 16-years. The practice has always been all Councillors have a chance to speak. It’s a real pity if you shut me down.
Clr Gardener: I’m not shutting you down. There is no debate. I am against Councillors grandstanding & using Council Chambers to mislead the community. Clr Phillips: People know WestConnex goes up Parramatta Road. There is a long history of MC opposing various incarnations of motorways through, over & under Marrickville LGA. Clr Leary made an excellent case against the motorway. The community know about the motorway & they do not want it. I think it a narrow short-term vision at the detriment of Marrickville & Leichhardt. How many times has the Taskforce met that was set up last year? Staff: We just received a letter from Duncan Grey who said no Taskforce has been formed, so no meetings yet.
Clr Woods: Question involves direction number 7. We urge residents of Marrickville LGA to be involved in consultation. This motion gets rid of the process of consultation with the community. My amendment acknowledges that the community is concerned & we do not want to take consultation out of the motion.
Clr Gardener: I am against Clr Phillips’s amendment. This room is like 1939. The bombs haven’t started dropping. We don’t know what is happening. We have a Taskforce that haven’t met because there is nothing to talk about yet. If my home was bulldozed, I’d be in front of the bulldozers & your house also. I have grave fears that this will fix any issue. We are not saying we will oppose for the sake of opposing it. If we are to be taken seriously, we should wait & see. Don’t fight the phony war.
Clr Leary: I disagree with Clr Macri’s interpretation of what occurred with the Minister. I think it is ludicrous that they will be no community consultation just because Councillors opposed WestConnex. Just because MC opposes WestConnex does not mean we will be locked out of the process.
Vote: For Clr Leary’s motion – Clr Philips. Leary, Brooks, Ellsmore & Hanna. Against: Mayor Macri, Clrs Woods & Tyler. Motion passed. Clr Gardener walked out of the Chamber just as the vote was beginning & returned just as the vote ended & therefore he did not vote.
The motion adopted is – That Council:
1. Note the minutes of the Marrickville Cooks River Committee meeting of 26 November 2012.
2. Resolves to formally oppose the WestConnex motorway & widening of the M5 East & any other motorway proposal that will have negative impacts on the Wolli Creek Regional Park, the Tempe Wetlands & any other area of the Marrickville LGA &
3. Directs the General Manager to write to the Minister for Roads & Ports & the NSW Premier notifying them of MC’s opposition to WestConnex.
The old Marrickville Hospital site on Marrickville Road
This was the Council Meeting. The following is how I understood the meeting & all mistakes are mine. Note: MC = Marrickville Council.
The Councillors & Wards are as follows – LABOR: Iskandar/Central, Haylen/North, Tsardoulias/West, Woods/South. GREENS: Phillips/Central, Ellsmore/North, Brooks/West, Leary/South. LIBERALS: Gardener/North, Tyler/West. INDEPENDENT: Macri/Central, Hanna/South
New Marrickville Library – Progress Report - The recommendation was that:
1. Council reaffirms its commitment to the library as a major project priority;
2. Council expresses its appreciation to the residents of Lillydale Street for their patience with the early works;
3. Council notes the report and resolves to proceed with Phase 4 consultation to include;
a) the Accommodation Schedule schemes referred to in the report identifying Scheme 1 as Council’s preferred option; &
b) the funding options identifying Option 3 as Council’s preferred option;
4. a report regarding the outcome of the Phase 4 consultation be submitted to Council in March 2013;
5. Council continue to develop the adopted design concept for the library to meet the key program dates discussed in the report; &
6. further progress reports be submitted to the Major Projects Steering Committee and Council with regard to the ongoing work.
There were two speakers supporting Council’s recommendation in the Progress Report. After a really long debate the following motion put up by Mayor Macri & seconded by Clr Tsardoulias. This motion was passed with the vote being – For – Mayor Macri, Clrs Iskandar, Tsardoulias, Haylen, Woods, Gardener, Tyler & Hanna. Against – Clrs Phillips, Leary, Brooks & Ellsmore.
That:
1. Council reaffirms its commitment to achieving the best outcome for the community in its use for the old hospital site to provide the best library & public space.
2. Council expresses its appreciation to the residents of Lillydale Street & neighbouring streets for their patience with the early works
3. Council adopts Accommodation Schedule Scheme
4. The current project continues & that alternative cost saving options be presented without further reducing the floor space reflected by 3 above & including access from Marrickville Road
5. Subject to obtaining all required State Government approvals for the conduct of an expression of interest process;
a) EOIs be obtained for the development of a building on Precinct B (of no more than 4 storeys) & the Livingstone Road frontage of Precinct C to include; a shell space for a future library as per 3 above & the provision of 60 car spaces all at no cost to Council. Such EOIs to comply with applicable planning requirements, but may also consider the demolition of the 3 terraces fronting Livingstone Road. Such demolition would be subject to the proponent obtaining the development consent.
b) In submitting EIOs, proponents may consider lodging EOIs for the development of the entire site, but must include the requirements set out in 5(a) above & must also include for the conservation & reuse of the remaining heritage buildings 1 & 4 & the provision of civic open space preferable fronting Marrickville Road of no less than 1,200sqm.
c) Alternatively, proponents may consider lodging EOIs for the developments of Precincts C, D & E only.
6. Development proposals for the residential are to include affordable housing at the rate of at least 4% of total units.
7. Concurrent with the above, the existing concept designs for the development of a library at Marrickville Town Hall be presented to Council.
8. Funding for the above activities to be drawn from the property reserve.
9. That Council reaffirms its commitment to full community consultation in relation to the options considered.
-
Marrickville Hospital building
Arlington Oval, though the 2 Sydney Blue Gums on the left have been removed.
This was the Council Meeting. The following is how I understood the meeting & all mistakes are mine. I have left out some of the debate as it ran for more than 1 hour & many things were repeated. Note: MC = Marrickville Council, AO = Arlington Oval, ST = synthetic turf, PoM = Plan of Management.
The Councillors & Wards are as follows – LABOR: Iskandar/Central, Haylen/North, Tsardoulias/West, Woods/South. GREENS: Phillips/Central, Ellsmore/North, Brooks/West, Leary/South. LIBERALS: Gardener/North, Tyler/West. INDEPENDENT: Macri/Central, Hanna/South
Notice of Motion: Street Tree Outside 16 Temple Street, Stanmore – Clr Phillips asked: That Council monitor the Lemon Scented Gum (Corymbia citriodora) street tree outside 16 Temple Street for 12 months & then review the decision for removal. I was not present for the debate. Vote for – Clrs Phillips, Leary, Brooks, Ellsmore, Iskandar, Tsardoulias, Haylen, Woods & Gardiner. Against Mayor Macri, Clrs Hanna & Tyler. Carried.
Notice of Motion to Rescind: Arlington Reserve Playing Field - This issue was debated on 20th November 2012. See – http://bit.ly/TnDEX5 Clr Gardiner: Because no-one gave a precis of the speakers for & against, there should be no speakers tonight. Staff: It’s a policy matter. You are entitled to insist on it, but it has not been common practice. Clr Brooks: People should not be stopped from speaking on a technicality. As there were 33 people from the community registered to speak it was decided that only 3 for & 3 against could speak.
The speakers for the rescission motion raised the following – 1,348 petition signatures were collected against ST over last 5 days. It doesn’t add up financially – $800,000, plus maintenance to replace a $50,000 maintenance bill for grass? That’s $750,000. There are environmental impacts. ST can be 20 degrees hotter in summer & that heat is going into surrounding houses. Chemicals are also an issue. Find another ground for one of the clubs. A local school might like having their ground developed. There is enormous disquiet about this in the community. It’s about equity & ethics. Report says that soccer clubs will help pay for field improvements. Is the offer from the clubs in writing? If so, why aren’t the papers attached as per ICAC guidelines? I’m concerned about a minority group disenfranchising the local community. The problem is 2 clubs playing on the one field. This denies access to the community & schools. Leaves cannot fall on ST so there will be calls to remove the trees. The clubs assert there will be no increase in usage, yet we will be spending $1 – $1.5 million? The Hurlstone Park Wanderers are interested in playing at AO. MC said it would need to increase usage to more than 60 hrs/week. A tripling is unreasonable. To vote first & act later is a farce.
The speakers against the rescission motion raised the following issues – Grass surfaces are not suitable at AO in current state despite MC spending $300,000 to rectify the issue. ST is safe for everyone. Why else would schools install it? No safety concerns, only myths. The environmental concerns are favourable. The field will not get more usage. All users are members of the community. ST will show how MC are looking after the people. Councils all over NSW are approving ST. It’s crazy when you roll your ankle & you are out for 3-months. My enjoyment of that field should be the same as everyone else’s. We represent 1,800 people & the Stanmore Hawkes have 3,500 people. 48 games a month is a myth. 32 degrees of higher & no game can be played. We pick up dogs droppings on AO before our kids play football. There is no leeching from ST surface. Everyone says AO is a dog pit & they hate coming there. (After the speakers finished a representative from each side left the Chamber together, presumably to negotiate a mutually agreeable outcome.)
Clr Brooks: The residents worked very hard. 1,348 petition signatures were collected over last 5 days. I was concerned about contempt via emails from Clrs. Why are you ramming a motion like this through when there is so much concern, logical impossibilities & so many questions? Important to recognize there is a shortage of open space. There is no business case for ST at AO. The environmental issues are quite specific to the location. I have concerns regarding technical decisions around this proposal. The embankments make drainage difficult. ST does not do well with pools of water. The residents have very little trust that they will be respected or consulted. There will be floodlights streaming into houses until 9pm. If we can get a commitment from MC about turning off the lights, then this won’t be an issue. Clr Phillips: We have to vote to rescind the rescission motion to debate the issue. Moved to investigate hybrid grass.
Mayor Macri: Clr Tsardoulias: Last meeting we didn’t vote to lay ST. We spend $56,500 every year. We have problems in LGA with a shortage of space. Tempe Reserve is a pig sty. Mackey Park is a mess. AO is restricted to 22 weeks in the year. We had community engagement for months. Every day we face complaints by staff & players. We could shut AO down & the issue would be solved, but I’m in the business of keeping it open. Violence in the community is not tolerated. In the last 7 days people have been threatened; receiving phone calls at midnight. Concerns about traffic will be alleviated because of the PoM. Today I instructed the Rangers to find out who owns the boat. I’ve instructed them to tow away cars. It will be enforced & monitored on a weekly basis. AO has been there a long time, since I was a kid. This motion I’ve received is a balancing act. I’m about listening.
Clr Brooks: Amendment – MC provide a report on the environmental health of synthetic turf with references to DCP & LEP. Cr Phillips: A couple of years ago we gave $270,000 to get good turf at AO. If it’s failing I’d like to know why. We have thrown away a lot of money. I am not convinced we have to go the way of ST. AO is not a closed ground. MC should look at other areas. If we were to do it, we should do it in Tempe Reserve. AO is the wrong place. That’s why 1,300 signatures were collected in only 5 days. MC must recognize this. Residents must feel they have been heard. MC did choose Option 3. There is a real risk that the players will want to change the PoM in the future.
Mayor Macri: Motion that we get a report on the condition of the surface & outline options. 1. Maintain current usage & deal with problems as is. 2. Reduce usage & tell clubs we don’t want you there. 3. Investigate ST. Nothing is wrong with the process. Henson Park is a good model. They all get on because they respect each other. There are no dogs at Henson Park so there is no poo problem. Nothing was in the report about taking out trees. The surface is vacuumed once a week. Actual soccer use is heritage. MC spends more money on its residents. We are Number One.
Clr Leary: Tempe Reserve is not dead. There are many in the community fighting against WestConnex. Clr Gardiner: I am ashamed that so many people have expressed abusive & defamatory comments. Exaggerated clapping from the Gallery is unhelpful. As Marrickville’s population increases we are moving toward higher density. People have to learn to get along. The residents have chosen to live next to a sporting reserve. Over the last week I have heard ST has been blamed for global warming & Hurricane Sandy. For goodness sake people, get along. Let’s move forward as a community.
Clr Hanna: I’m very happy we are going to come to an agreement. Clr Gardiner had worked very hard to get everyone to this situation. Clr Iskandar: When I was the Mayor I was very well respected, so some comments show me that some people are looking for cheap politics. It’s about safe turf. We want to address the issue. Instead of grass we use ST. “Some players are wogs.” – that’s not true. I was abused in the first open meeting. The Management Plan; we did it & everyone was happy. The Labor Party did it so please treat us with respect. I commend Clr Gardiner for putting this together.
Mayor Macri: Part of the motion is to look at lighting issues. Clr Tsardoulias: in 2009 we said we put shadows on those lights. Agreed to absorb into the motion. He supported Clr Brook’s amendment, but wanted it dealt in a separate motion. Clr Gardner: I’m concerned this may delay. Staff: It can be done by Feb 2013.
Clr Tsardoulias: I inspected every oval with staff. Tempe Reserve is a disaster. AO; a disaster. Camperdown Oval; an extreme disaster. Mackey Park; bad. Our budgets do not cope. We have a reputation of having the best services. Our childcare is the best because MC takes responsibility to make sure we balance the act. Vote – unanimous. Part 2 next.
Arlington Oval, though the 2 Sydney Blue Gums on the left have been removed.
This was the Council Meeting. Absent: Clr Gardener. The following is how I understood the meeting & all mistakes are mine. Note: MC = Marrickville Council.
The Councillors & Wards are as follows – LABOR: Iskandar/Central, Haylen/North, Tsardoulias/West, Woods/South. GREENS: Phillips/Central, Ellsmore/North, Brooks/West, Leary/South. LIBERALS: Gardener/North, Tyler/West INDEPENDENT: Macri/Central, Hanna/South
Arlington Reserve Playing field - recommendation that:
- the report be received & noted;
- Council consider the options presented in the report;
- Council officers prepare a further report, that details the financial, management & community engagement considerations of Council’s preferred option, & addresses issues associated with the use of Arlington Reserve through a plan of management review process; &
- Council officers proceed immediately with implementation of Council’s preferred option, including a community engagement process at the outset.
Council resurfaced the field with grass in 2010 at a cost of $272,214. $1,325,000 has been budgeted for a synthetic surface & replacement of failing retaining wall & path adjoining the playing field. Usage: September to March: 4-hours/week on average. April to August: 22-hours/week on average by the Dulwich Hill & Stanmore Hawks Football Clubs. MC says synthetic surfaces provide up to 80-hours of use/week.
There were 5 speakers against the recommendation & 2 speakers for the recommendation. For brevity I will outline the issues discussed rather than each speech.
Issues raised by those speaking AGAINST synthetic turf were – The proposal is not in the best interests of residents or ratepayers. The community expects to be consulted with before the decision. There was extensive consultation in 2009, but no consultation for this now. No details are available. MC shouldn’t pretend that a synthetic surface will save money. It will need maintenance just as a natural surface. There is no detailed costing. Arlington Oval is in the middle of a dense residential area with 400 units & there will be even less parking. 3-years later & I am here on the same issue. There is no environmental basis for plastic. You will need to remove trees. All the Councillors were elected on the basis of supporting the environment. Local schools can’t use Arlington. You will have to explain when the Jacarandas are chopped down & the Bandicoots are killed & the watercourse is polluted. If not, we will notify ICAC of your decision. Arlington will not be any safer. Recent research shows no measurable difference with safety playing on synthetic turf. If Arlington is so unsafe, why aren’t staff working on it now? Synthetic turf is 30-40% hotter than natural grass. Nothing can be done regarding the heat effects. Surface temperature is a major issue on a synthetic field. Plan of Management says the ground is open all year. It could be locked to exclude the community. MC has provided no detail on the impacts of Light Rail traffic impacts. It would appear that this is being rushed through. This is an unpopular decision so early after the election & people will not forget for the next election. Local residents will be locked out. Players already have keys & have locked the community out of the park. Having it used all year round will give no respite the community for traffic, litter, parking, environmental impacts & hooning. This is not a fair & unbiased report. $1.2 million is 22-years of maintenance. Synthetic field will only last 10-years. An exorbitant amount of money is being wasted on Arlington. It’s a historic reserve that has been neglected for decades.
The Plan of Issues raised by those speaking FOR synthetic turf were – Our school doesn’t use it for safety reasons, we use Marrickville Oval instead. We do not support limiting sporting opportunities to youth in the area. Synthetic turf does provide many advantages over grass. Water costs are reduced, fewer chemicals are needed. Many Councils have gone down this path [some were listed]. We represent the kids who play on this. It has been a safety issue for years. I agreed with grass turf decision in 2009. Anyone can see that that surface is unplayable. It’s about the kids who play on this. Synthetic turf is expensive & the clubs will absorb the costs. All-weather playing is a definite advantage. The cost of maintaining synthetic turf is significantly less that grass surface. I understand there may be an issue with parking. We don’t support illegal parking.
Mayor Macri: moved the recommendation. I sat here 3-years ago knowing what the outcome would be in 3-years time. When we asked the staff to put more resources into it, staff said we cannot overuse the turf. We are not changing anything. We have a tight budget & we cannot keep putting money into it. Two clubs are using it for 12-weeks. Parking will always be an issue. Hopefully Light Rail will help. I can’t keep pouring money into something that doesn’t work. This is about clubs playing safely. We need to proceed to something that will work. It will be a quarter million dollar saving over 10-years. We need to move forward, not run around in circles.
Clr Brooks: Foreshadowed motion – delete points 2 & 3, add the MC prioritises maintenance of Arlington field to ensure a high standard of natural turf. I’m concerned with the lack of community consultation. I understand the problems with poor surfaces. The weather is not a compelling case. The local community is incredibly upset about this. They thought they engaged in good faith with MC. Synthetic turf is not a flexible option for a park that is used by local residents too. 350 community members consulted on this in 2009 & were overwhelmingly opposed. It has been suggested that we will need to remove trees. Any leaf litter or flowers from the Jacarandas will damage the synthetic turf, which is not very stable. Trinity Grammar has synthetic turf. It increases injury risk & causes a high level of septicaemia. Trinity Grammar maintain the surface every day. Two people vacuum it & water it all day long to keep it cool enough. With the World Cup Championship, players refused to play on synthetic turf in Africa because they would not risk injury. Risk massive fines by EPA for runoff from synthetic turf. This is an enormous risk for MC of environmental impacts from the synthetic turf. Our world is heating up every year. This surface retains heat. It’s an unacceptable health risk. You are more likely to be injured. The area will be unsuitable because of heat. The medical risks are well documented. Synthetic turf removes amenity for the community. You can’t walk your dog or go for a walk. Synthetic turf locks Arlington Oval into one elite sport. It’s not suitable for any other sport. I’m unconvinced this will increase the numbers of kids playing sports. We will be unable to reverse this if we go ahead.
Clr Phillips: I’m very disappointed that we have come back so soon. It was a huge issue in 2009. It’s enormously disrespectful to local residents. People have been playing on grass all over the world for a very long time. We should at least look at what we can do instead of resurfacing with plastic grass. This came through a direct request from the clubs. We got hammered for not doing community consultation right in 2009 & we appear to be doing this again. It costs significant money to lay the synthetic turf & replace every 10-years. Last time MC said we would have to increase fees & increase usage; now this is not needed. What’s changed? Why can we do lawn at Henson park & not at Arlington Reserve? Plastic grass doesn’t respect the heritage of Arlington. I have big concerns with laying crumpled tyres & plastic turf. You say you won’t to change the Plan of Management, but I’m not convinced you won’t in the future.
Mayor Macri: What’s changed is we are not proposing an increased amount of usage. Henson Park is different because soccer & rugby have different usage needs. Rugby runs whereas soccer kicks the ground.
Clr Hanna: In 2009 I said I would vote against it. Mayor, we are talking about a large amount of money. If we really want to save money we don’t give astro turf for one group. Look at the whole council. We are here to serve them, not make everything hard for residents. I feel sorry for the clubs. We should go to the head of the clubs & tell them to spend money to the club & the schools. Kids are paying $200-$300 per season. Tell Frank Newey to spend some of his money on the kids. I cannot see any change from 2009. We have to go to community consultation. It is artificial consultation after we have made a decision.
Clr Leary: Against motion. I’ve lived near Arlington Oval & I know why it is important. We have heard many reasons why we should vote against your recommendation. The community is intensely opposed to this. One thing has changed & that is an election. The Greens strongly supported the natural grass solution & took it to the election. The Labor Party didn’t put up a single word about Arlington Oval. Nothing about this was taken to the electorate. One would have assumed it would have gone to the people – I seek a mandate to put in astro turf. There are many reasons why we should vote against it. We have to consider the residents, ratepayers, environment & traffic, not just 2 clubs. We’ve been through all this in 2009. I see no evidence that the surface is unplayable. They use sand to maintain the ground.
Clr Wood: I acknowledge the concerns of residents & the expertise of clubs assessing their needs. I believe the citizens’ needs are properly addressed through the Plan of Management. The surface does not impact on residents. I’m concerned that we might lose soccer on Arlington Oval. Point 3 is what we should do.
Clr Iskandar: Remember what I did when I was Mayor? I learnt from everyone, even from the humble soccer players. It’s 2 separate issues. We had a long serious consultation about what the community needed & we were generous at the expense of soccer. There are two sets of highly respected clubs here. Don’t think the soccer players & the clubs are from another galaxy. They are your neighbours & in the streets. It’s a soccer issue, not a political issue. Mayor Macri: Unfortunately for all of us we spent $300,000 & nothings changed.
Vote on option 3: For – Mayor Macri, Clrs Iskandar, Tsardoulias, Haylen, Woods & Tyler. Against: Clrs Phillips, Leary, Brooks & Ellsmore (& Clr Hanna I think.) Carried – synthetic turf for Arlington Oval.
Sunday 25th November 2012 – The Marrickville Greens have put in a recision motion & this will bring the decision of synthetic turf for Arlington Oval back to a Council Meeting.
This street just off King Street South caught my attention because it has short street trees on the side of the powerlines & tall Eucalypts on the other where there are no powerlines. This is not something I see often.
Apologies. This is a long post, but I believe the issue is important. From memory the debate for this item lasted around 3-hours.
This was the Council Meeting. Absent: Clr Gardener. The following is how I understood the meeting & all mistakes are mine. Note: MC = Marrickville Council.
The Councillors & Wards are as follows – LABOR: Iskandar/Central, Haylen/North, Tsardoulias/West, Woods/South. GREENS: Phillips/Central, Ellsmore/North, Brooks/West, Leary/South. LIBERALS: Gardener/North, Tyler/West INDEPENDENT: Macri/Central, Hanna/South.
Tree Management – Inventory, Master Plan & Policy Framework – The state of the Marrickville Street Tree Urban Forest are drawn from the Street Tree Inventory Report. For a summary see – http://bit.ly/PURYpe
The recommendation was to -
- receive & note the report;
- provide a capital budget of $170,000 in 2013/14 for street tree removal & replacement;
- where capital renewal reconstruction works are undertaken & conflict exists between a street tree & footpath renewal made with concrete, that conflict shall be resolved by removal & replacement of the tree & installation of the concrete footpath; &
- advise & clearly enunciate any changes to the policies & controls governing tree management within the Marrickville Local Government Area.
There were 10 speakers (including myself) against the recommendation & 1 speaker for the recommendation. For brevity I will outline the issues discussed rather than each speech. The report was described as draconian, shocking, contentious, preposterous & something that inflamed the community.
Issues raised were – Removing street trees fails to acknowledge the value of the tree to the urban environment. The report does not look at other options & other technologies to deal with roots other than tree removal. There was no community consultation. The assessment of public infrastructure is that concrete will win over street trees. Education & consultation needs to happen & this needs to be done street by street. Questioned why community consultation is to happen 10-months after tonight’s decision. Size of tree hole needs to be looked at. There is a need for peer review of the report. There is an inequity of our urban forest compared with other Councils around Sydney. Exorbitant cost ($1,000) to plant a sapling. Climate change & the importance of trees to create a livable environment. Losing older, taller trees that are the very things that make our environment pleasant. Changing community attitudes recognize the value & importance of the urban forest. Contradictory elements in this report compared to the Urban Forest Policy. Council failed to consult with the Environment Committee. The removal of 3,960 trees will leave an enormous hole in the urban forest. The high loss of newly planted trees. Planting new trees over the tree roots of the removed tree, thereby setting the new tree up for failure. The large trees will be lost. We are beset by pollution & need all the help from trees we can get. We do recognise problems with trip hazards & that there are dying & dead trees that need to be removed. Concerned that trees will be removed without the opportunity for the community to comment. Trees should be marked for possible removal with the community given 1-month to comment. Section 5.9 of the LEP sets out the policy of how trees are managed & removed. The LEP has the force of the law. Clause 4 clearly states the requirement for community consultation. There is a huge contrast with the City of Sydney who are increasing their urban forest. They have doubled their trees & want to double this again. Lack of shade increases the Urban Heat Island Effect. Lack of aesthetics results in increased rates of violence in the community. MC’s Urban Forest Policy is more a ‘vision’ & if the recommendation is approved it will be a step in the wrong direction. MC has already adopted water-sensitive designs. Replacing impermeable surfaces with permeable surfaces is a better solution. The Urban Habitat Mosaic is important & concrete can be replaced with an understory. There can be mini-raingardens that water street trees & filter water before it gets to the Cooks River & this will save MC money on watering. MC should involve the community in planting as giving us ownership of trees will lower bills. This is a blanket approval to cut down trees. Only 1 person’s wage per year is being spent on maintaining newly planted trees – no wonder they die. Replacement trees are not canopy trees. We are planting too small & too few species. Trees are not maintained. We are in for a 4-degree rise in temperature & heat waves are predicted. On a recent 41-degree day, thousands of trees died. Bitumen becomes a heat trap. Humans need to keep cool. Trees prolong the life of house paint & concrete footpaths. Would MC be legally liable for the loss of property values? The recommendation is in strong contrast to every MC survey, which advocates for more trees. MC should respect trees & not see them as liabilities. They should show vision & best practice for large trees that are more robust than short trees. Big trees are carbon stores & lower the Heat Island Effect. A tree should only be removed after all avenues have been explored & only after consultation with the community.
And finally this gem – The Urban Forest Policy says that 42,500 trees had been planted. The Tree Inventory said there were 22,608 street trees – so where are the other 47% of missing trees? Only half the trees that have been planted have survived.
The speaker for the recommendations spoke about the following issues – Safety is a big issue. Hard to navigate a wheelchair safely around & over roots & people often need to go onto the road. I have 600mmm access for the wheelchair. MC wants us to get reports that cost thousands of dollars if we want a tree removed that is causing property damage. It should be easier & cheaper for people to have trees removed. The new trees on my street did grow. Tall trees are not stable. The first priority is safety. We need to get the balance right.
Clr Tsardoulias: Moved the motion, but delete point 3. MC staff should look at porous & flexible pavement & stop using asphalt to repair footpaths next to trees. The main issues are serious trip hazards. There is a large incidence of liability over people tripping on our footpaths. Verge gardens are increased. Staff needs direction. If a tree is ready to collapse, staff should do something about this. We need to balance the issues with growing a canopy, maintaining trees & minimizing trip hazards. We need to trim trees & take action when there is an issue between the tree & footpath.
Clr Hanna: If I am going to fix trees in Silver Street then I want to talk to residents of that street. I want to consult with the people living in that street. Clr Tsardoulias: We should talk to all the residents around the tree & plant the right tree or 2 or 3 trees. We have a significant problem & need to do a lot – asap.
Clr Phillips: I’m quite horrified with the recommendations to take a chainsaw to the numbers of trees & that concrete has priority. It’s not with current community attitudes & our own guidelines. It looks at trees as liabilities, not as assets. Large, older trees, particularly Eucalypts will be the trees removed & they are giving a huge impact on the LGA. Pulling out the Eucalypts will change the Australian look to the LGA. We haven’t peer reviewed, sent the report to the Environment Committee or had community consultation, yet we are giving such a strong recommendation. The Street Tree Masterplan is a great idea, a more holistic view & it’s what MC & community needs about removing trees. To make major changes to our other tree policies should require community consultation. Moved amendments – MC refers report to the Environment Committee & this audit be peer reviewed. Maintenance should be included in the $170,000 budget. MC defers any non-urgent work until the Street Tree Masterplan has been adopted.
Mayor Macri: We are talking about removing 98 trees at a cost of $170,000. The rest is renewal within 4-5 years & part of the Street Tree Masterplan. We are voting on 98 trees now. MC self-insures. Trees have been identified as a risk & MC must protect itself. MC spends $23 per tree per year. We have to remove trees. We want to gain canopy. 117 trees are dead. 18% are poor structure. 70% are mature. We have to take a balanced approach & we need to start from the beginning. We have never done it this way. We can’t take an alarmist approach. Once the concrete comes up, that’s the best time to see the roots & sometimes they need to be chopped off.
Clr Ellsmore: There were more than 250 submissions in a petition in under 24-hours. Serious questions have been raised by the community. 80% of trees in my street have cracked the pavement. It is important to remember than the community has gone through a long period of community consultation. Why has the report not been sent to the Environment Committee? Everyone wants a Street Tree Masterplan & have community engagement.
Clr Haylen: We need to take the safety of our residents, which is a genuine concern. Clr Tsardoulias’s amendment, when we are renewing an entire street, the Urban Forest Policy provides the guidelines whether that tree stays. Repair footpath every 2-years or every 10-years? Trees make our place a better place to live. I don’t support a further review. It’s an audit. Next step is a Street Tree Masterplan. Let’s find those vacant spots. Clr Hanna: If the Director was here he would tell you how many people fall on the footpath. We have a lot of older people. Safety comes first. Trees come last.
Clr Leary: Staff need to look at other pavement options, stop using asphalt & consult with residents over verge gardens. Staff also needs to consult with residents of affected streets. (These were incorporated into the amendment.) Clr Tsardoulias: We want to grow & balance services. Fixing cracked footpaths & planting the right trees in the right place.
The amended motion by Clr Tsardoulias – That Council:
- Receive & note the report.
- Refer the report to the Environment Committee.
- Provide a capital budget of $170,000 in 2013/14 for street tree removal & replacement.
- Where capital renewal reconstruction works are undertaken & conflict exists between a street tree & infrastructure, the guidelines outlined in the Urban Forest Strategy should be followed.
- Advise & clearly enunciate any changes to the policies & controls governing tree management within Marrickville LGA.
- Council staff look at other paving options, including porous flexible paving & that staff stop using asphalt for reconstruction of pavements.
- Council staff look at options to increase the number of verge gardens & sustainable gardens.
- Consult with the residents of the streets affected.
- Defer any non-urgent actions arising from the report until the Street Tree Master Plan is completed & adopted & a thorough community consultation is completed.
Vote – unanimous. Motion Carried.
Thanks if you managed to read all of this. Part 2 will be posted tomorrow. Jacqueline
These street trees along Petersham Road Marrickville are at least 2-years old. The photo was taken last winter when they had no leaves.
I think the verges around the street trees in Despointes Street in Marrickville look quite good.
Another street in Marrickville where someone is trying to add beauty by creating a verge garden. Note the lack of & short stature of the street trees.
Illawarra Flame tree – currently a blaze of red in Illawarra Road Marrickville
This was the Council Meeting. Absent: Clr Hanna. The Councillors & Wards are as follows – LABOR: Iskandar/Central, Haylen/North, Tsardoulias/West, Woods/South. GREENS: Phillips/Central, Ellsmore/North, Brooks/West, Leary/South. LIBERALS: Gardener/North, Tyler/West INDEPENDENT: Macri/Central, Hanna/South. The following is how I understood the meeting & all mistakes are mine.
Notice of Motion Memorial tree – Clr Phillips:Request for a tree to be planted, (no plaque & the cost borne by the family) in Enmore TAFE Park in memory of a recently deceased individual who was raised in the area & a report be prepared providing options to formulate a policy to accommodate any future requests for memorial plaques or structures within the Marrickville LGA.
I spoke for the motion: I was contacted by the family after they did not receive a response from Council. Their only son & brother died in his mid thirties & the family would like to have a nice tree planted in Enmore TAFE Park because he grew up in Simmons Street & went to this park pretty much every day of his life. They do not want a plaque. They just want to have a beautiful living tree planted as a way to express love & pay tribute to their son & brother. I do not think this is too much to ask. Marrickville Council would be in control. Council will choose the tree & plant it. The family will pay all costs. I realize there may be some fear that Marrickville LGA might become like a cemetery, but if there were no plaques, nothing to say the tree concerns a dead person, how would this be so? People & the environment will benefit by more trees planted & Council will also benefit by not having to pay for this. I firmly believe that Marrickville Council should be following the lead of other nearby Councils by having an option for the community to pay for a memorial tree or park bench. Sydney Council, Leichhardt Council, Canterbury Council & Burwood Council – all allow memorial trees & benches. It’s in your business paper. Almost every week I sit on a memorial bench with a small brass plaque that Canterbury Council has placed overlooking the Cup & Saucer Creek Wetlands. It doesn’t make me feel sad. Yet if I walk from Mackey Park to Steel Park, there is nowhere to sit. This is hard for older people or people who are not well. No park bench means they don’t even attempt the walk. If Council can’t afford park benches, then please allow the community to pay for them. Council still keeps control so there should be no problem. However, tonight I am asking that you allow the Bishop family to honour their son & brother by letting them to pay for a lovely tree to be planted in Enmore TAFE Park. It would make a grieving family very happy & it is the right thing to do.
Clr Phillips: I was informed that MC doesn’t have a policy & that I should take a Notice of Motion. It would mean a lot to the family. For the second part – MC to prepare a policy so staff can have guidance so these don’t have to come to a Council Meeting. I think MC should have a policy.
No debate. Vote – unanimous on both this tree & a policy to be created. Here ends the report for this week.
Many in the community believe that Tempe Wetlands will be destroyed if the WestConnex Motorway goes over the top.
This was the Council Meeting. The Councillors & Wards are as follows – LABOR: Iskandar/Central, Haylen/North, Tsardoulias/West, Woods/South. GREENS: Phillips/Central, Ellsmore/North, Brooks/West, Leary/South. LIBERALS: Gardener/North, Tyler/West. INDEPENDENT: Macri/Central, Hanna/South.
The following is how I understood the meeting & any mistakes are mine. Note: MC = Marrickville Council.
Apologies. This is a long post, but I thought it was an important enough issue to write all that I managed to catch. I have also included the full motions. It was also an extraordinarily interesting debate.
Westconnex Motorway – The Agenda first has had a Notice of Motion by Clr Leary recommending that MC oppose the WestConnex. Then, a Mayoral Minute by Mayor Macri recommending that a Task Force be established. Mayor Macri wanted both Motions discussed concurrently.
Clr Phillips: Clr Leary’s Motion is a substantial motion & should be discussed first. It has been exhibited in public for the last 6 days. I received the Mayoral Motion after noon today. We have speakers from the public. Mayor Macri: We will be discussing them at the same time. If the Mayoral Minute was discussed first, it could cancel out the motion. Clr Leary: My motion is diametrically opposed. Yours refers to a Task Force. Mayor Macri: The detail we need to assess is not with us yet. If we take the view that we won’t talk about this, we will lose the chance of community consultation. (There was a debate about the legality of Mayor Macri wanting to combine the 2 motions).
Clr Phillips: We can’t debate 2 motions at once. Clr Tsardoulias: We will debate the Mayoral Minute. Clr Gardener: We should debate the Mayoral Minute first, then hear the next motion & hear from the speakers. Staff: If Clr Leary’s motion is diametrically opposed to Mayoral Minute & then the Mayoral Minute is passed, the Clr Leary’s motion lapses.
Mayor Macri: I was contacted by the Mayor of Leichhardt, who proposed this way of going forward. No other reason than this. We would approach the government & find out what is going on. Clr Phillips: I’m not against a Task Force & am not sure Clr Leary’s Motion discounts a Task Force. I think we should go with Marrickville Council, not Leichhardt Council.
Clr Woods: I’m concerned that my FaceBook page is causing this. Clr Leary posted his motion to Tempe2020 & I replied. Some of the words are similar in the Mayoral Minute. I’d take a lot of convincing that a flyover Tempe Wetlands will get my support, but we need to look at the whole 33km of expressway. Clr Leary: I am happy to accept Clr Woods’s explanation. Clr Hanna: Don’t put any motion on FaceBook in the future. It’s looking for a cheap vote. I got a 23% rise in votes & I never advertised on FaceBook.
Vote to debate the Motions separately – For: Mayor Macri, Clrs Iskandar, Tsardoulias, Haylen, Woods, Gardener & Tyler. Against: Clrs Hanna, Leary, Phillips, Brooks & Ellsmore. The Motions will be debated concurrently.
The following are the 2 Motions -
Clr Leary’s Notice of Motion: WestConnex –THAT Council:
1. opposes the proposed WestConnex Project & in particular the following proposed elements:
a) the proposed motorway tunnel, slot & surface road from Taverners Hill/Petersham under the Marrickville Local Government Area via Camperdown to St Peters;
b) the Sydney Airport Access link from St Peters to the M5East portals & links to the airport terminals, Port Botany & surrounding industrial areas & any variation of the proposed surface motorway along the Canal Road/Gardeners Road axis; &
c) the duplication of the M5 East
2. calls on the state government to abandon the proposed WestConnex Project & in particular the elements noted at (1) above;
3. expresses its deep concern about the potential of the construction of surface roads, tunnels & associated ventilation stacks to impact on the health, welfare & amenity of residents in the vicinity of the proposed construction;
4. urges that local residents and Marrickville Council be meaningfully engaged in consultation at all stages of the project if it does proceed;
5. calls for the WestConnex Project to be routed away from residential areas, the Tempe Reserve & the Tempe wetlands;
6. urges the Federal Government & the Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Member for Grayndler Mr Anthony Albanese not to provide any Commonwealth funding or other assistance to the State government with respect to the WestConnex Project;
7. urges the State member for Marrickville Ms Carmel Tebbutt & the Federal Member for Grayndler Mr Anthony Albanese to join with Marrickville Council & the Community in opposing the WestConnex Project;
8. directs the General Manager & staff as he shall so delegate to convene a public meeting & to launch a public information campaign to make residents aware of the implications of the WestConnex Project for the local community & in particular the communities of Tempe, Sydenham, St Peters, Enmore, Newtown, Camperdown, Stanmore & Petersham. The Mayor, Councillors, the Minister for Roads & Ports & Transport, & transport spokespersons from the Labor Party & the Greens should be invited to speak at such public meeting; &
9. directs the General Manager to write to the Premier of NSW Mr Barry O’Farrell, the Minister for Roads & Ports Mr Duncan Gay, the Member for Grayndler Mr Albanese & the State Member for Marrickville Carmel Tebbutt advising them of the terms of this motion.
Mayor Macri’s Mayoral Minute – WestConnex Taskforce - THAT Council:
1. recognises the immediate transport & infrastructure needs of all of Sydney & the importance of ensuring access to commercial centres for all of Sydney;
2. calls on the NSW Government to undertake a detailed assessment of the impact of this project including any noise impacts, environmental impacts & social and economic impacts;
3. calls on the NSW Government to undertake a full consultation with the Marrickville community before any decisions about the project are made;
4. notes that the Federal Government has referred the Infrastructure NSW report to Infrastructure Australia for assessment & advice; &
5. writes to the Ministers for Planning & Transport requesting the creation of a WestConnex Taskforce comprising representatives of all relevant State Government agencies & the Councils that the proposed WestConnex project will run through or adjacent to. The purpose of the taskforce should be to:
- ensure adequate community consultation occur
- allow for effective coordination of the planning & infrastructure elements of the project
- ensure the development of appropriate planning controls along the route of the project & that the planning controls of local communities are upheld; &
- allow for effective co-ordination of any future works.
There were 3 speakers from the community.
Speaker 1 for Clr Leary’s motion: (I was given the speech & transcribed it in full). The Convener of Eco-Transit Sydney, a not-for-profit active & active public transport group. The WestConnex proposal is frankly a piece of planning lunacy. As INSW admits in its overall plan, Sydneysiders are driving less. Passenger car travel in all major Australian capitals has been flatlining since 2004. The only thing keeping it from actually falling as has occurred in the US, is population increase & the mining boom. At the same time per-capita vehicle kilometers traveled (VKT) has been falling sharply. In Sydney it is now back to the mid 1990s. This didn’t start with the global financial crisis in late 2008. It started 4-years earlier in 2004 when petrol hit 90-cents a litre. At the same time demand for public & active transport is rising strongly.
The trouble we have in Sydney is we are bumping up against the upper capacity limits of all our public transport systems. What this means is that if we spend affordable amounts on rail, light rail & freight rail projects we can rip great chunks of traffic out of the road traffic stream, particularly in the peaks. Eco-Transit for example, has put forward a plan for light rail along Parramatta Road from Strathfield to the CBD that would cost a tiny fraction of the cost of WestConnex.
Public transport is where the demand is, but the Greiner plan goes back to the same old argument the road lobby – nowadays that’s the tollway lobby – have been conning us for decades. The argument says that maybe you can have some more public transport, but first we have to complete the missing links in the motorway network. Let’s be blunt; if the Greiner gets the WestConnex, we simply won’t get any significant augmentation for the public transport system, other than perhaps the NWRL, for at least a decade. And that’s going to be a decade during which all energy prices are going to increase radically.
It is remotely possible that the WestConnex could trigger off another round of traffic increase – that’s what the proponents are looking for – but it’s far more likely that the $10billion will simply have been wasted because VKT will continue to decline. All we know about WestConnex is the incredibly vague sparkly line on the map we’ve been shown on an almost satirical video.
Marrickville’s residents have a lot to be scared about. If the project ever went ahead the inner west tunnel section would have to have a series of exhaust stacks above it. There are no details showing how the local road system would be connected to the underground motorway. But we know the effect on local amenity would be enormous. What would happen at the foot of Taveners Hill where the thing is supposed to go underground? Will that require disruption to light rail services which will have begun long before? What will happen east of Battle Bridge is passed over with indecent haste. Is this a bored tunnel or a cut-&-cover job? How many buildings would be torn down? Where will its Camperdown access point be located? There is no detail on any of this because there is no planning.
We do know that the surface section of the road will take a huge chunk of Tempe Reserve. We can be certain there would be much land take & destruction in the vicinity of Sydney Park. This plan is sheer madness. That’s what responsible planners are telling us. It’s little more than a wish list of projects the tollway lobby would like to have funded. It deserves to be completely rejected.
Speaker 2 for Clr Leary’s motion: (I was given the speech & transcribed it in full). I support Clr Leary’s motion to oppose the WestConnex proposal in its current form, which is quite sketchy & troubling. There are no doubt many ideas in the proposal that may be of benefit to traffic congestion & transport woes, but the elements that I believe will affect us in the Marrickville area is what the report refers to as ‘Sydney’s next motorway project; integration the M4 extension & on the expansion of the M5E. The report says that this new tollway will be in 2 stages – north sector & M4 extension/southern sector M5 expansion. The critical point is the timing. “The timetable is still under consideration although it is likely that much development & construction would occur in parallel. INSW proposed WestConnex should be completed within 10-years.”
My concern is that this part of the proposal is going to start asap because it has been identified as high priority & that consultation during the development stage will be limited & rushed. Key areas of concern to our community will be the actual route & how it will affect residential areas, noise impacts, tunneling underneath houses, unfiltered ventilation stacks spewing concentrated pollution into residential areas – look at the spike in cancer rates in Turella – the destruction of significant nature reserves such as Tempe Reserve & Wetlands & the Alexandra Canal, which are sensitive & important areas of biodiversity.
The motorway & tunnel will be sharing cars & trucks, which is risky. I am worried that the project seems heavily focused on finding a road solution & less on providing effective & affordable public transport options. We have all experienced firsthand how any new motorway fills up to choking point almost immediately. Will this happen with WestConnex? An expert in this field Ron Christie, commented in the Sydney Morning Herald & was highly critical of the proposal. He is particularly scathing about the public transport options in the project.
I would hope that the Council will have a unified & consistent approach to the opposing of the WestConnex project, initiate a community awareness campaign & work closely with the community to find the best possible outcomes for the amenity of Marrickville LGA. This is going to affect us all. Also FaceBook is an effective way to communicate with the public & an appropriate way for the public to speak to Councillors. This is the way it works these days. Also the wording in Clr Woods’s motion & the Mayoral Motion is almost identical. This is confusing to me.
Speaker 3 – speaking to the Mayoral Motion – The Mayoral Motion could have been dealt with as an amendment to Clr Leary’s Motion. The Mayoral Motion is weak. The community have already said what they said when the M5 came up before. The Mayor was there too. The people have spoken. Why is the Mayor not opposing it straight out? He should support Clr Leary’s motion in parts 1, 2, 3, 4 & 6. We should have a Task Force. I’m disappointed with the lack of scope of the Mayoral Minute. You will see Tempe Wetlands destroyed & $20 million of taxpayers money destroyed. Tempe Wetlands has more birds than the whole of Marrickville LGA.
I ask MC to ask Dr Michelle Zeibots to give her analysis to all the Councillors & to different community meetings across the LGA. She has no commercial interest in this motorway. Dr Michelle Zeibots has done analysis on the M5 previously. She is a world expert. My understanding is that the previous Councillors asked MP Albanese not to provide funding for the motorway. What they are planning is frightening & will destroy Tempe completely. You can’t gloss over it. If you hear Dr Michelle Zeibots speak, you will not. I am prepared to put up a few hundred towards the cost of employing her.
Clr Leary: Foreshadowed motion – to retain points 1,2,3,4,5,6,9 & add Dr Michelle Zeibots as a consultant to MC. Clr Phillips: Which points in Clr Leary’s are in conflict with the Mayoral Minute? Staff: 1,2,3,6 & 7 are all statements opposing the motorway, so are in conflict.
Clr Woods: I support the Mayoral Minute because it doesn’t oppose Westconnex. Clr Leary’s motion opposes from the outset. There are many questions. There are a number of difficult questions & we don’t want to prevent meaningful dialogue with the community. Clr Gardener: I love move that Items 3 & 4 in Clr Leary’s motion be incorporated into the Mayoral Minute. I have deep reservations about the growth of motorways & that tollways will solve all the problems. We keep building roads & they keep failing. It’s incumbent on MC to do more than just say no. We need to engage constructively. The Mayoral Minute is an important statement of MC’s desires & intent. I understand Clr Leary’s vehement opposition to it. It’s far too early in the process to just say no. Clr Leary: I move a further amendment – Item 8 to be incorporated into the Mayoral Minute. 3, 4 & 8.
Mayor Macri: They have been accepted. This is a start of a process & it has to be constructive if we are to have a good solid reason to oppose it. We have to know the details. By law you cannot have a preconceived idea. All we’ve got is we don’t like tunnels. I have a petition from residents of Railway Terrace saying they can’t walk out their front doors for truck movements. A few years ago a resident said to me that he thought his street was getting busier, so I had a traffic count done. It actually decreased. What happened was the M5. Maybe he thought he was annoyed by the noise of cars, but perhaps he was annoyed by less cars. I don’t want to have a symbolic gesture that is poisonous. I want them to think that they can talk to MC. Once we get information back from staff we will organize information meetings. I am not going to have older people worrying & being concerned.
Clr Leary: There has been a lot of emphasis about the lack of detail. The WestConnex document project involves different sections. This is far bigger than before. It probably calls for 4-tunnels of 6-lanes. There is a significant lack of detail. Road’s admitted that no modeling of traffic has been done. Yet road is put forward or congestion. Christy dammed the project because it won’t solve Sydney’s traffic problems. We have a transport problem & if we spend on motorways we won’t have money for public transport. Price Waterhouse said that you would be better off for public transport in Mumbai, Beijing, Istanbul & Moscow.
I was there [at the rally] 3-years ago. I heard Clr Iskandar speak. All those Clrs there knew that a motorway was no good for our community. I’m disappointed that the bipartisan co-operation is no longer here. This document clearly states that it will need time to acquire people’s property. The federal member said he would not fund a motorway in our electorate. We know enough detail – Tempe Wetlands, Tempe Reserve, Tempe residents. It’s enough detail for me to protect our homes for those that want to bulldoze a 6-lane highway.
Clr Brooks: I don’t support the motorway. I know enough. It’s going to affect people’s lives. It’s clear that the community have directly opposed similar projects in the past. We don’t need to know more. I’m concerned that this will encourage road freight through the community. Development is for large trucks, which will put drivers at risk. Money would be better spent on light rail & rail. MC should show real leadership in strong opposition to the state government with this.
Clr Hanna: I knocked on doors in Sydenham & Tempe & many asked whether I supported the motorway. I was in the rally. I have enough information. Why are we wasting our time asking for more when we will oppose it? Tempe people have enough & planes as well. Clr Phillips: We have opposed this proposal as MC several times. I’ve voted against it 3 times. They want to link an extended M4 to the M5. We know there will have to be stacks spewing concentrated exhaust fumes & that it will attract more traffic. Can you imagine St Peters Triangle as a motorway entrance? We have a duty to our residents to come out early & strong against the motorway. The amendment calls for public information campaign. Re Parramatta Road; having a slot will narrow the road causing problems & probably mean a permanent clearway, so no parking & this will affect the shops. One study I saw had 20-storey high buildings at Petersham along Parramatta Road. MC should take a strong stand against it. Local Labor has a duty to put residents first. Nick Greiner was Premier 20-years ago & he is not an elected person. We should be standing up for our residents.
Clr Haylen: Amendment to insert point 5 – Request the Minister for Roads to be part of the consultation. I think the Mayoral Minute provides leadership. Some of the language used tonight is scaremongering – “Bulldozers & 6-lane highway.” Let’s deal with it appropriately. Point 8 of Clr Leary’s is similar to point 3 of the Mayoral Minute. I want to see money spent on public transport, but I don’t want to be excluded from the process. Clr Leary: Pg 16 WestConnex clearly states might be 3-lanes in each direction. Clr Haylen: Might be.
Mayor Macri: We are all on the same page. Some want to alarm the public. Taking articles out of the paper causes problems. Do the people of Marrickville really think Marrickville is not served well by public transport? The issue is that everyone else doesn’t have good public transport so they are driving through Marrickville. The Mayoral Minute is the correct way. You can bang on on the internet, but the state government will make the decision. They need facts. All I’ve heard tonight is rhetoric.
Clr Leary: Amendment to include a public meeting.
Vote for the public meeting: Clr Hanna, Leary, Phillips, Brooks & Ellsmore. Against: Mayor Macri, Clrs Iskandar, Tsardoulias, Haylen, Woods, Gardener & Tyler. There will be no public meeting.
Vote for the mayoral Minute with Clr Leary’s amendments – unanimous. End of the Report for this week.
Another section of Tempe Wetlands. It’s a very beautiful & important place
A whole bunch of new plants (ferns & Pig Face) were planted in Steel Park Marrickville South a couple of weeks ago.
This was the Development Assessment Committee Meeting. Absent – Clrs Iskandar & Haylen.
The Councillors & Wards are as follows – LABOR: Iskandar/Central, Haylen/North, Tsardoulias/West, Woods/South. GREENS: Phillips/Central, Ellsmore/North, Brooks/West, Leary/South. LIBERALS: Gardener/North, Tyler/West INDEPENDENT: Macri/Central, Hanna/South.
The following is how I understood the meeting & all mistakes are mine. Note: MC = Marrickville Council & DA = Development Application.
21 Essex Street Marrickville – Removal of car parking space for the front of the property. MC recommended refusal.
Speaker 1: Design Consultant. The original DA included a car park & crossing. MC required this to be removed. MC thinks the space is small in size, but it is of sufficient size for a small car. There is a precedent for this in this street with the next door neighbour’s property. Can fit in a small car with a gate & still provide a car space on the street. The neighbours support this.
Clr Phillips: Moved Council’s recommendation to refuse. Mayor Macri: Delete condition 1 & add construction to a layback. Parking is a premium. I’m happy to help lessen any congestion in the street.
Clr Phillips: Opposing. Previous Clrs have been consistent in opposing parking in front gardens. It puts pedestrians at risk & removes public parking with the driveway. We will get more requests to do this. We need a consistent streetscape, not vehicle crossings for paths. The space doesn’t match the car size. There is a prospect of car overhang. Walking with a pram with cars crossing driveways can force you on the street.
Clr Hanna: I always support car spaces. Ladies can’t park close & can’t carry their kids. I support the motion. Clr Leary: Looking at the application, the debate is over 75cms. I don’t believe this makes much of a difference, so will support the motion. Clr Ellsmore: Asked staff for conformation that it won’t impact on street parking. Staff: No current driveway exists. Putting in a driveway removes a car space.
Mayor Macri: The space will make a big difference to the people. Being a narrow street, it will free up the street. It’s a gated spot. All Councillors voted to approve, except for Clr Phillips.
30 Terminus Street Petersham, the White Cockatoo Hotel – Alterations & additions, including a enclosed rear terrace area & creating atrium areas. MC recommended approval with conditions.
Speaker 1: Planning Consultant. Asked for the Councillors approval of the DA. The atrium will contain noise & improve the amenity to neighbours. MC recommends approval. We have a detailed acoustic report. The atrium will be planted out with plants. This provides an internal space for smokers & will stop people smoking on the street. No increase in gaming, no change in trading hours & no live music in this section.
Resident 1: I oppose the DA on noise & privacy. The gravest concern with the DA is rooftop stacks that will release secondhand smoke near my property. My two kids will be playing under these stacks. Other kids live around the hotel too. Only two sentences in the DA mention secondhand smoke. The houses are over 5–metres. This smoke will permeate the buildings. There are 4 unfiltered stacks. I’m not prepared to risk my family’s health. It’s a temple to Winfield & completely out of step with community standards.
Resident 2: Objecting to the DA. It’s very difficult to have a Council that approves smoking & drinking together. Smoking areas are too large. I request strongly that they remove the London Plane Tree & plant a native tree. It sheds a lot of leaves. This is the perfect opportunity to remedy that.
Clr Phillips: Move to refuse. The DA has multiple problems. It is stretching the definition of what is an outdoor area. Basically, it is stacks or chimneys & louvers. I don’t think this is a true outdoor area. It’s probably more profitable to keep patrons at gaming machines & smoke. MC should be putting amenity of residents before the profits of the pub. Not a good outcome to encourage people to gamble & smoke. Smoke will come out of exhaust stack drifting into their windows. It’s surrounded by dense residential area. There is a strong public interest here.
Clr Brooks: I agree with Clr Phillips. The other concern is worker’s health grounds, who work in venues where people are able to smoke. No suitable protection for people who work in this pub. Clr Ellsmore: I support refusal. My greatest concern is the increase in gambling revenue. Not good in the public interest. Clr Tsardoulias: Q: If we refused the DA how would we stand in the Land & Environment Court? Clr Hanna: I don’t think this is the right question. Staff: We can’t be sure. We would run on social impact. Clr Tsardoulias: Will patrons smoke on Carrington Lane? Map shows side door, which will allow people to go there. Staff: People will smoke outside on Terminus Street.
Clr Gardiner: I’m proudly a Liberal Party member. I wholeheartedly support the motion by Clr Phillips. I worked in the gaming industry for a long time & understand the gaming industry well. I’ve no doubt this application is to support gaming & keep people on the gaming machines by allowing them to smoke. I strongly object to the hotel industry bringing back smoking in a sham DA. I am concerned regarding the Land & Environment Court & the DA exceeding the floor/space ratio.
Clr Hanna: I support Clr Phillips. I’ve been a Councillor for 17-years. This is the second time I’ve seen a resident speak & cry. The first one was about a tree & this one about protecting his kids. No way I will vote for this one. Mayor Macri: Challenging application. Floor/space ratio has actually reduced. Staff: Marginal decrease so point 3 is inaccurate. Clr Phillips deleted this from his motion. The vote to refuse the DA was unanimous.
32-70 Alice Street Newtown – 7 retail tenancies, 206 residential dwellings & 163 car parking spaces – This DA has been appealed in the Land & Environment Court, “in relation to the deemed refusal of the application.” Contentions have been raised, “regarding excessive floor space ratio & non-conforming building massing, which leads to additional density & overdevelopment of the site.” The papers said this was a confidential report & that Councillors may decide to discuss this in a closed meeting. As it was last on the agenda, I decided not to stay. Here ends the Report for this week.
DA diagram for Alice Street Newtown
Recent Comments