NOTICE OF Council MEETING
The Meeting of
Parramatta City Council will be held in the Council Chamber, Fourth Floor,
Sue Coleman
Acting General
Manager
Phone 02 9806 5050 Fax 02 9806 5917 DX 8279
ABN 49 907 174 773
www.parracity.nsw.gov.au
“Think Before You Print”
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
|
|
Clr Paul Barber, Lord Mayor – Caroline Chisholm Ward |
Sue Coleman, Acting General Manager - |
|
|
Acting |
|
|
Assistant Minutes Clerk – Michael Wearne |
|
|
|
|
|
Minutes Clerk – Grant Davies |
|
|
Marcelo Occhuizzi –Acting Group Manager Outcomes
& Development |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clr Omar Jamal – Arthur Philip Ward |
|
|
Clr |
|
|
Clr Anita Brown – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward |
|
|
Clr John Chedid – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward |
|
|
Clr David |
|
|
Clr Andrew Wilson – |
|
|
Clr Paul Garrard – Woodville Ward |
|
|
Clr Tony Issa, OAM – Woodville Ward |
|
|
Clr Julia Finn – Arthur Philip Ward |
|
|
Clr Brain Prudames – Caroline Chisholm Ward |
|
|
Clr Chris |
Clr Pierre Esber, Deputy Lord Mayor – |
Clr Maureen Walsh – Wooville Ward |
Clr Chiang Lim
– Arthur Phillip Ward |
|
|
Staff |
|
|
Staff |
GALLERY
|
Ordinary
Council |
|
|
|
|
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
ITEM SUBJECT PAGE
NO
1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES -
Ordinary Council –
2 APOLOGIES
AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE
3 DISCLOSURE
OF INTEREST
4 MINUTES OF THE LORD MAYOR
5 PETITIONS
6 PUBLIC FORUM
4 COUNCIL MATTERS TO BE
ADOPTED WITHOUT DISCUSSION
5 Regulatory Reports
5.1 Site
Meeting Process
5.2
Lots 17-20 in DP 8408, Part Portion 144 and
6 City Development
6.1 Guiding
the future development of Riverbank block - bounded by Church, Phillip, Smith
Streets and Foreshore
6.2 Police
Memorandum of Understanding - Update
6.3 Sydney
Link (North West Metro)
7 Roads Paths Access and Flood Mitigation
7.1 Report
of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group Meeting - 14 April 2008
7.2 Report
of the
8 Culture and Leisure
8.1
9 Community Care
9.1 Results
of Service Review conducted by the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home
Care (DADHC)
9.2 Meeting
of Community Safety Advisory Committee 12 March 2008
9.3 Meeting
of Aboriginal and
9.4 Meeting
of Youth Advisory Committee 12 March 2008
9.5 Affordable
Housing
10 City Leadership and Management
10.1 GST
Certificate
10.2 Investments
Report for February 2008
10.3 National
Local Roads & Transport Congress - 15 to 17 June 2008
10.4 Local
Government Managers Australia (LGMA) National Congress and Business Expo
"The World is Local: Local Government ... No Boundaries."
10.5 Program
Panel
10.6 City
Development World
10.7 Report
of Investigation into Compliance Section
10.8 City
Services Restructure
10.9 Report
of Code of Conduct Committee
11 Notices of Motion
11.1 Condemnation
of Government of Zimbabwe
12 DECISIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION
13 Closed Session
14.1 2008
Community Grants Program
This report is
confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government act
1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature
that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person
who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the
Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.
14.2 Feasibility
Study of Community Hubs for the
This report is
confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government act
1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature
that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person
who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the
Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.
14 QUESTION
TIME
|
|
|
|
|
|
REGULATORY
ITEM NUMBER 5.1
SUBJECT Site
Meeting Process
REFERENCE F2004/08629 - D00917709
REPORT OF Manager Development Services; Service Manager
Development Assessment
|
PURPOSE: To provide Councillors within a 6 month review of the
implementation of the site meeting process that commenced in October 2007,
and to recommend some changes and enhancements to the existing process. |
|
(a) That site meetings be held for the following types of
applications: · Development applications where
10 or more submissions have been received. · Masterplan applications. · Development applications which
seek demolition of a heritage item. For applications that do not meet the above criteria,
site meetings can be arranged at
the request of the Ward Councillors and at the request of staff where it is considered that there is
merit in arranging a site meeting, the reasons
of which must be provided. (b) That a minimum of two Councillors be in attendance to enable
an on-site meeting to be held. (c) That all Councillors, relevant staff, persons who made a
submission (both objecting and
support) and the applicant be invited to attend the site meeting. (d) That the Development
Support Team Leader - Development Assessment Services schedule on-site
meeting through the corporate diary and attached a summary report of the
proposal with each invitation and that acceptance of attendance by
Councillors be provided within 3 working days. Residents and applicants will
not be advised of the site meeting until attendance at the site meeting is
confirmed by at least 2 Councillors. (e) That on-site meetings be
arranged for Saturday mornings. (f) That a strict protocol for the chairing of on-site meetings
be developed. (g) That Council’s notification letter advises attendees of the
purpose of the meeting and the
level of behaviour expected. (h) That all residents attending the on-site meeting provide their
details on the day and that this
information be recorded by Council (i) That Council staff provide a summary report of the
development proposal for the on-site meeting. (j) That a review of the revised operating procedures for onsite
meetings be carried out 6 months
from commencement of operation and a further report be prepared for Council’s consideration. |
BACKGROUND
Council at its meeting of
In addition to this Council
resolved that operational matters relating to site meetings (including what
stages should site meetings be held; who is to be invited to attend site
meetings; and what days and times site meetings are to be held) be prescribed
in an operating procedure manual.
The site meeting process as
adopted by Council on
A Notice of Motion relating to
the on-site meeting process was put forward by Councillor Worthington at the
Council meeting of
A response to the Notice of Motion
was tabled at the Council meeting of
REPORT
The parliamentary nature of
Council meetings does not lend itself to objectors being heard at Council
meetings. For this reason Council has decided that in some cases site meetings
should be held prior to the determination of an application to provide
Councillors with an opportunity to listen to matters raised by both objectors
and applicants.
Council in June 2007 agreed to
the circumstances in which site meetings would be held and the time they should
be held. A review of the adopted process was to take place 12 months from the
date of commencement (ie October 2008), however it is considered appropriate
for a 6 month review to be conducted.
To date, this procedure has
highlighted the following areas of concern:
· an excessive number of meetings, many of which were for
development proposals that were of little if any interest to residents (as
evidenced by resident attendance) and raised no particular concern among
Councillors.
· the ‘triggers’ for on-site meetings being too broad and
this has lead to significant delays and complaints by applicants forced to wait
for the next available time.
· the current timetable for site meetings has caused
problems for Councillors and staff in terms of availability to attend.
· many of the on-site meetings have been compromised by
issues raised by residents that were not related to the development proposal.
· Councillors and staff have been verbally abused and
intimidated at on-site meetings.
· An inherent risk of undue pressures (perceived or
otherwise) being brought to bare on development assessment staff prior to their
assessment of the development proposal.
Large Number of Applications Requiring On-site Meetings
The following applications
currently require an on-site meeting:
· Development applications for Childcare Centres where one
or more submissions are received
· Section 82a reviews of determination
· Development applications which seek demolition of a
heritage item
· All development applications where five or more submissions
are received
· Masterplan applications
Since the commencement of the
on-site meeting process in October 2007 a total of 70 on site meetings have
been held using the above criteria including:
· 9 for s82a applications;
· 8 for Child Care Centre DAs;
· 3 for applications which sought to demolish heritage
items; and
· 50 for all other development applications.
It is obvious that the ‘triggers’
which necessitate an on-site meeting are broad and have resulted in a
significant number of meetings being held over the last 6 months. It is noted
that there is no discretion for Council not to hold a meeting once required in
accordance with the Council Resolution. Similarly, there is no discretion for
staff to recommend dispensing with an on-site meeting where it is apparent that
one is not required.
There are widely differing views
on the question ‘when is it appropriate to have a site meeting’ and there is no
right answer to the question. However, it is clear that the ‘triggers’ which
have been established are perhaps too broad and have resulted in timing,
budget, staffing and availability issues for Councillors.
Whilst setting a threshold for
the number of submissions that triggers a site meeting is not always a reliable
way of predicting which applications require a site meeting due to public
interest in the application, it is considered that the current threshold of 5
is too limited and that the number should increase to 10 or more. The trigger
for child care centres to have site meetings if only 1 submission is received
is also considered too broad, as is the requirement for all section 82A reviews
to have a site meeting.
It is noted that the number of
on-site meetings held in the last 6 months (70) is nearly double the number of
site inspections that were held in a 12 month period between April 2006 and
April 2007 (42).
Given the number of applications
requiring on-site meetings under the current criteria, significant delays have
occurred in scheduling an available meeting date. This has lead to extended
time frames for the determination of applications. Delays have often range from
To address this issue the
following changes are recommended:
1. That site meetings be held for the following types of
applications:
· Development applications where 10 or more submissions
have been received.
· Masterplan applications.
· Development applications which
seek demolition of a heritage item.
2. For applications that
do not meet the above criteria, site meetings can be arranged at the request of
the Ward Councillors and at the request of staff where it is considered that
there is merit in arranging a site meeting, the reasons of which must be
provided.
3. That a minimum of two
Councillors be in attendance to enable an on-site meeting to be held.
Site Inspection Schedule
The Council Resolution of 25 June
2007 sets out the days and times on which on-site meeting can be held.
· Tuesday and Thursday evenings at
· 2 Saturdays per month outside of daylight saving period.
This schedule has created
problems, generated numerous complaints from Councillors and formed the basis
for the Notice of Motion put by Councillor Worthington at the March 25 Council
Meeting.
In particular, there have been
on-going issues of availability of Councillors and Council staff to attend
meetings. It is noted that to date there have been 8 on-site meetings where no
Councillors have been available to attend the scheduled meetings due to other
work or personal commitments. The absence of Councillors at these meetings has
been met by disappointment by the community
Likewise, Council staff have ongoing
family and private commitments which limits their availability for after hour
site meetings. It is noted that it is normal for up to four on-site meetings to
be held on Saturdays and that this means that Council staff are required for
the whole day as subsequent meeting notes are required to be prepared. Due to
the limited number of staff who are available to work after hours and on
weekends the burden falls on a small number of staff (mainly team leaders and
managers) to share responsibility of attending the large number of site
meetings.
There is a very real concern that
the current timetable compromises the staff work-life balance, which is an
espoused value of Parramatta City Council. It is noted that these senior
officers are already routinely working in excess of their contract hours to
meet deadlines and manage workloads and that weekend work extends their work
week to 6 days. There are also significant wage costs associated with after
hours employment. It is estimated that the cost of each site meeting including
administration costs is approximately $300 per inspection. If the number of
inspections were to continue at the current rate over a 12 month period the
overall cost of running the on-site meetings would be approximately $50,000 per
annum.
There are challenges in arranging
site meetings to suit the needs of staff, Councillors, applicants and
residents. For this reason it is suggested that some flexibility in meeting
times needs to be made. It is suggested that the current schedule for on-site
meetings be changed by allowing on-site meetings to be held at 4.30 pm on
weekday evenings (except Monday & Wednesdays which are days where there are
council workshops and meetings and Fridays) and on Saturday mornings if
required. If advance notice of these meetings is given it will allow members of
the public who have a genuine and relevant interest in the development proposal
to make arrangements to attend the meetings and will also ensure all relevant
staff can attend, such as traffic engineers and the development assessment
officers.
To address these issues the
following changes are recommended:
1. That the Development
Support Team Leader - Development Assessment Services schedule on-site meeting
through the corporate diary and attached a summary report of the proposal with
each invitation and that acceptance of attendance by Councillors be provided
within 3 working days. Residents and applicants will not be advised of the site
meeting until attendance at the site meeting is confirmed by at least 2
Councillors.
2. That on-site meetings
be arranged for
Inappropriate behaviour at site meetings
Both Councillors and Council
staff have provided feedback on numerous occasions that they have been verbally
abused at on-site meetings and on several occasions felt physically intimidated
by residents. On one particular occasion, a Councillor was verbally abused and
had to leave the meeting. That event sparked media interest. Council staff have
also been the subject of unfounded and unwarranted allegations of corruption by
residents who often do not agree with planning decisions.
Unfortunately, inappropriate
behaviour on the part of residents is not always isolated and some individuals
utilise the on-site meeting process to raise issues unrelated to the proposed
development. These issues are often raised vociferously and Councillor and
staff efforts to explain the absence of a nexus between their concerns and the
subject development application are often met with contempt.
On-site meetings are scheduled
prior to assessment of the development proposal by Council staff. This means
that at the time of a site meeting, Council officers have not fully assessed
the proposal against the relevant legislation and Council controls and are yet
to form an objective opinion and recommendation in respect of the development.
This creates a risk that the
assessing officer may be placed under inappropriate pressure and/or perceived
to be under some form of duress as a result of the site meeting and thereby, to
have their professional opinion inappropriately influenced.
The Independent Commission
Against Corruption (ICAC) actively encourages avoidance of procedures of
potential risk. It is in the best interest of Council to consider procedures
that may have a degree of perceived or actual risk and to weigh this against
benefits afforded by the procedure.
To appropriately manage these
risks the following is recommended:
1. That a strict
protocol for the chairing of on-site meetings be developed.
2. That Council’s
notification letter advises attendees of the purpose of the meeting and the
level of behaviour expected.
3. That all
residents attending the on-site meeting provide their details on the day and
that this information be recorded by Council
4. That Council staff provide a summary report of the development proposal for the on-site meeting.
Louise Kerr
Manager Development Services
|
1View |
Site Meeting Process Report from |
5 Pages |
|
|
2View |
Resolution of Site Meeting Process Report from |
1 Page |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
|
28 April 2008 |
|
|
|
|
REGULATORY
ITEM NUMBER 5.2
SUBJECT
Lots 17-20 in DP 8408, Part Portion 144 and
DESCRIPTION Erection of 4
floodlight towers and use of park for sports training seven days a week until
REFERENCE DA/490/2007 - Submitted
APPLICANT/S
OWNERS
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
|
PURPOSE: To
determine Development Application No. 490/2007 that seeks approval to erect 4
floodlight towers and the associated use of the park for sports training and
operation of the floodlights till The
application has been assessed by an independent consultant town planner and
referred to Council due to Council being the applicant and owner. Council
at its meeting on ‘That consideration of this matter be deferred and in the meantime,
Councillors be provided with a list of all persons notified in relation to
the proposal.’ The
information requested will be provided to all Councillors prior to the
Council Meeting on |
|
(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application
No. 490/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following specific
conditions. Hours of Use 1. Sports training at the park shall cease by Hours of Operation of Lighting 2. The floodlighting of the sports fields is to be turned off
by no later than 9.00pm Monday to Saturday and by 8.00pm on Sundays and
Public Holidays. The floodlighting is not to be used during daylight. The
floodlighting is not to be turned on unless the sports fields are intended to
be used that same day and is to be switched off as soon as the use is completed.
The lights are to be turned on
by an automatic timing system controlled by Council staff, with lights turned
off by users or Council staff and an automatic timing system is to be
installed preventing use beyond the approved hours of use. Car
Parking 3. The car parking area accessed off Complaints Handling Procedure 4. A complaints handling procedure is to be prepared and provided
to Council for approval prior to the first use of the floodlighting. The
complaints handling procedure is to detail the process for handling
complaints related to the extended hours of use of the park under
floodlighting, including but not limited to nuisance from lighting, noise and
patron behaviour. Details are to include: 4.1 a manned contact phone number for complaints; 4.2 specified timeframes for response to complaints; 4.3 appropriate methods of response (i.e. written or verbal);
and 4.4 measures that may be used in response to complaints (such as
the number of warnings given to organizations against which numerous
complaints are received and likely penalties including banning use by the
organization and/or limitations on the hours of use by such organisations). 4.5 A copy of the complaints handling procedure is to be
provided to all organisations using the park under floodlighting. A letter
summarizing the procedure and providing the contact number is to be sent to
all residents notified of the development application prior to the
commencement of the use of the park under floodlighting. Flood Proofing the 5. All electrical wiring and accessories related to the
lighting poles are to be provided above 28.15m AHD. All underground
cable/duck or similar are to be flood proofed. Details are to be provided
prior to the commencement of works. Specification of Lighting 6. The flood lighting to be installed is to be in compliance
with the lighting design and report detailed in the letter dated |
PROPOSAL
1. The development application seeks
approval for the erection of four 28m high floodlighting towers. Two towers are
to be erected on the western side of the playing fields and two are proposed on
the eastern side of the fields. Each pole is to support 3 x 2kw luminaries.
2. The lighting is proposed to extend
the hours of use of the playing fields until
3. Additional information sought from
the applicant indicates that the users will be different sporting organizations
for training, but predominantly for soccer training.
4. It is advised that the lights are to
be on a timing system controlled by Council remotely and that hirers will have
access to turn off the lights only by using a sms message (if they are regular
users), but otherwise the settings will be made by Council staff.
SITE & LOCALITY
5. The site is known as McCoy Park, 26
Mimosa Avenue, Toongabbie, being Lots 17-20 in DP 8408, Part Portion 144 and
Lot A in DP 29128 and is located to the north of the residential area including
Edna Avenue, Highland Avenue, Paris Place, Mimosa Avenue and Woodlawn Drive.
The park has vehicular access from
6. The portion of the park involved in
the proposal is the western end, which contains the abovementioned driveway and
parking area, child play equipment, a facilities building and two sports
fields, which are currently setup for soccer, with goal posts at each end.
7. The park is only adjoined by
residential properties on the southern side. In particular the sports fields
are adjoined by dwellings in
STATUTORY CONTROLS
8. The site is zoned Public Open Space
6(a) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. The existing sports fields
and any ancillary works such as the proposed lighting are defined as a
recreation facility under the definition section of the LEP and are permissible
uses with the consent of Council. It is also noted that any development in
accordance with a plan of management (POM) adopted under the Local Government
Act 1993 is also permissible subject to consent. The relevant POM is addressed later in this
report.
9. The proposed installation of
floodlighting and extended hours of use of the park is consistent with the
objectives of the zone, which include allowing for the use of land for open
space and recreational purposes.
10. The site is located on flood prone land
and as such the provisions of clause 21 apply, which require the consent
authority not to grant consent to the carrying out of works if the proposal
would:
10.1 be inconsistent with any Council
interim flood policy, floodplain management policy, development control plan or
floodplain management plan or the Floodplain Development Manual; or
10.2 detrimentally increase the potential
flood impact on other development; or
10.3 result in a substantial increase in risk to life; or
10.4 result in additional economic/social
cost which could not be reasonably managed; or
10.5 adversely affect the environment of the floodplain.
11. Comments provided by Council’s
Infrastructure and Drainage Engineers, who indicated the proposal is
satisfactory subject to wiring being appropriately located and treated. As such
the proposal satisfies the requirements of clause 21.
12. The provisions of clause 46 apply to
all development in the Public Open Space 6(a) zone. Clause 46 requires that
consent shall not be granted to development unless consideration has been made
as to whether the development is consistent with any plan of management
applying to the site. The relevant plan of management is addressed later in
this report.
13. Further, clause 46 requires Council to
take the following into consideration:
13.1 the need for
the proposed development on that land,
14. The proposed lighting towers will allow
for the extended use of the sports fields, increasing the usability of the
fields and better providing for recreation opportunities in the area. The more
efficient use of recreation facilities is needed given the increasing demand
for such facilities in the area.
14.1 whether the
impact of the proposed development will be detrimental to the existing or
future use of the land,
15. The impact of the proposal will be to allow
for more efficient and extended hours of use of the sports field, which is not
detrimental to the existing and future use of the site for recreation purposes.
15.1 whether the proposed development will be secondary and
complementary to the use of the land for recreation,
16. The proposed lighting towers are
secondary and complementary to the use of the land for recreation, making the
use more efficient by extending the hours during which the sports fields can be
used.
16.1 whether the height and bulk of any proposed building or
structure has regard to existing vegetation and topography,
17. The site is very flat and there is
little vegetation in the vicinity of the sports fields. Whilst the lighting
towers proposed are very high (ie 28m), they are very narrow and as such will
not result in an unacceptable visual bulk or appearance.
17.1 in the case of public open space, whether the proposed
development will significantly diminish public use and access to public open
space,
18. The installation of lighting poles will
increase the public use and access to the public open space by allowing for
access and use for a longer period of time each day.
s18.1 whether the proposal is compatible with adjacent uses in
relation to its height, bulk and noise generation and any other aspects that
might conflict with surrounding land uses,
19. The narrow design of the lighting
towers, despite their height, will ensure that there is minimal shadowing from
the structures and their separation distance from the adjoining residential
properties combined with their narrow design will ensure that shadow impacts
are acceptable.
20. Another potential impact of the towers
is intrusive light during the evening periods into the residential properties
in
21. A further potential impact of the
development upon the residential properties in
22. A final potential impact of the
development upon the residential properties in
23. Of particular concern is the use beyond
24. It is considered that subject to the
imposition of the abovementioned conditions, the amenity of the adjoining
residential area will be suitably protected.
24.1 whether the proposed development will impact on bushland
and remnant bushland,
25. The site is used for sports fields and
as such contains no bushland or remnant bushland on the portion of the site on
which the lighting towers are proposed.
25.1 whether the proposed development will impact on stormwater
flow.
26. The narrow design of the lighting
towers is such that there would be minimal and acceptable impact on stormwater
flow across the site.
27. The DCP identifies general principles
of development that apply to all types of development, the relevant ones of
which are addressed following.
28. Section 4.1.1 deals with views and
vistas and the design principles require that development preserve views of
significance and reinforce public view corridors. Whilst the proposed lighting
towers are tall (ie 28m), their slim design ensures that views from the
adjoining residential areas and streets of the park are not significantly
affected.
29. Section 4.3.3 deals with acoustic
amenity and the relevant design principle requires that non-residential
development is not to adversely affect the amenity of adjacent residential
development as a result of noise and hours of operation. This issue has been
addressed in relation to the controls contained within LEP 2001 at paragraphs
22-23 and is satisfactory subject to the imposition of conditions limiting the
hours of use of the sporting fields under floodlights.
30. Section 4.4.1 deals with access for
people with disabilities and as the proposal is for floodlighting only and does
not involve any change to the access arrangements for the park, the proposal is
considered to be acceptable in relation to this section and in relation to the
provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act.
31. Section 4.4.2 deals with safety and
security and the design principles include a requirement for effective
lighting. The provision of floodlighting and the resultant extended use of the
park is likely to reduce the use of the park for criminal activities such as
graffiti and vandalism and improve the general safety of the area by increasing
the times of use of the park and hence the casual surveillance of the area.
32. Section 4.5.1 deals with parking and
vehicular access and the relevant design principles require parking to be
provided onsite in sufficient number to cater for the use and minimize loss of
on-street parking. The park has sufficient onsite parking spaces, however the
access road to the car park was closed (ie gate shut and locked) at the time of
the inspection. To ensure parking occurs onsite and not in the surrounding
street network a condition of consent is recommended requiring that the gate to
the access road to the car park is open at all times of use of the sporting
fields under floodlights.
Sportsground
Plan of Management
33.
34. As such the provisions of the
Sportsground Plan of Management (Sportsground POM) is relevant to the
assessment of the application. The Sportsground POM identifies a series of
management issues and Section 4.1 contains a matrix identifying objectives,
performance targets, means to achieve the targets and prioritization for each
management issue. The performance targets of relevance to the application are
addressed following:
35. Sportsground facilities meet the needs
of local communities – the means to achieve this target is to improve existing
facilities provided the development is permissible under the objectives of the
land category and the necessary approvals have been obtained. The use of the
site as a recreation facility is permissible with consent and once the consent
and construction certificate are obtained the second criterion will also be
satisfied.
36. Minimal adverse impacts upon
surrounding residents with Sportsground development and use – the means to
achieve this target include monitoring of noise issues, restricting
overdevelopment and unsuitable activities and facilitation of use of onsite car
parks. The use of the sports fields in the evening introduces potential noise
impacts due to both use of the sports fields and noise from persons coming to
and leaving the park. These concerns have been addressed previously by
recommending conditions that limit the hours of use to generally
37. Maximise Sportsground usage through
Australian Standard floodlighting whilst ensuring minimal adverse impacts upon
residents and adjoining bushland – the means to achieve this target include
allowing only floodlights that meet Australian Standards for lux and light
spill, mound and landscape buffer zones to minimize the impact of light spill
where appropriate, ensure floodlights are extinguished immediately following
the conclusion of activities, investigate implementation of automated
floodlighting controls and monitor the use to ensure the floodlighting is not
used when the sports ground is not in use.
38. The light spill impact of the
floodlights is address in paragraph 20 of this report and the light spill is
acceptable without the need for landscape buffer zones or mounds. A condition
of consent is recommended in relation to the use of the floodlighting and
automation of the lighting.
CONSULTATION
External
Consultation
39. In accordance with Council’s
Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was advertised between 1
August and
Internal
Consultation
40. The application was referred to
Council’s Infrastructure and Drainage Engineers and the following comments were
received.
40.1 The proposed light poles are located
within Council's Sportsfields in the higher ground which adjoins McCoy Park
Flood detention basin. Apparently the 1 in 100 year flood level with the basin
would be 28.15mAHD.
40.2 All electrical wirings including
accessories related to the proposed Light Poles have to be above the 1 in 100
year flood levels. Whilst other
underground cable/duck or similar have to flood proofed.
40.3 A condition to this effect is
included in the recommendation.
ISSUES
Impact
on Amenity of Adjoining Residents
41. The potential impacts of the floodlighting
on the residents within
42. It is considered that subject to the
imposition of conditions requiring:
42.1 the floodlit use of the sports fields
to cease by
42.2 the opening of the gates to the
access road to the car park during the hours of use of the sports fields under
flood lighting, and
42.3 the compliance with the submitted
lighting report to prevent unacceptable lighting glare impacts upon the
adjoining residential properties
42.4 that the provision of floodlighting
will not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of surrounding
residents. Notwithstanding this assessment, given the potential for noise
impacts due to the use of the sports fields in the evening, a condition is
recommended requiring a complaints handling process to be set-up and for
information in relation to the process
to be provided to the users of the sports fields and the surrounding residents.
Visual
Impact
43. Whilst the proposed lighting towers are
very tall (i.e. 28m), they are very slim in design and as such the towers will
not be overly dominant features in the context of the park. The towers will be
visible from a number of properties and surrounding streets and from those
locations will not necessarily be seen in the context of the surrounding park,
however it is considered that the towers will not be an unacceptably visually
intrusive element.
Parking
Availability
44. The final concern with potential
impacts of the proposal to extend the use of the sports fields by the provision
of floodlighting is that the users may inconvenience surrounding residents by
parking in the residential streets of
45. In order to avoid this occurrence as
far as possible, a condition of consent is recommended requiring the gates to
the access road to the onsite car, which is accessed off
Kerry
Gordon Planning Services
Independent Planning Consultant
|
1View |
Locality Map |
1 Page |
|
2View |
Aerial Plan |
1 Page |
|
3View |
History of Development Application |
1 Page |
REFERENCE MATERIAL
|
History of Development Application |
History
of Development Application
|
28 April 2008 |
|
|
|
|
CITY DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 6.1
SUBJECT Guiding
the future development of Riverbank block - bounded by Church, Phillip, Smith
Streets and Foreshore
REFERENCE F2007/02194 - D00914928
REPORT OF
|
PURPOSE: This report presents the Draft Urban Design Framework for the
Riverbank block and recommends Council adopt the framework for exhibition. The report also provides an outline of other key documents developed
for the Riverbank project . - Communication Plan; - Probity Process Plan; and - Proposed governance model |
|
(a) That Council
endorse the Draft Urban Design Framework for the Riverbank block for
exhibition (Attachment 1) (b) That the public
exhibition include inviting all property owners within the Riverbank block to
a meeting to present the Draft Urban Design Framework and seek feedback (c) That the matter
be reported to Council after public exhibition for finalisation including any
amendments that arise from the exhibition process or Council’s further
consideration of the Draft Urban Design Framework (d) That the Draft
Urban Design Framework be used to inform any design competitions required
under the City Centre LEP, that may take place during the exhibition phase
and prior to coming back to Council for finalization |
BACKGROUND
1. Council owns a substantial parcel in the Riverbank block
bounded by the river,
2. Council recently adopted (
3. The City Centre LEP identifies the Riverbank block as a “key site”. While the Vision document
for the city centre states that, “The city centre will celebrate the river as a
local and regionally significant asset within the metropolitan region. The
river’s edge will be activated through strategic mixed use development,
interpreting
Issues
4. Whilst the adopted planning documents
for the city centre provide guidance on the development potential for the
Riverbank block, given the strategic significance and enormous potential of the
block under the new planning controls, it is considered both prudent and
necessary to provide finer grain planning guidance for the future development
of the block.
5. Draft Urban Design Framework - Due to the fragmented
ownership and complexity of the block a lack of overall planning and
integration could affect the potential of achieving the broader objectives for
the block and the development potential of Council’s property. Discussions to
date with property owners has shown that they are very supportive of Council’s
approach in developing the framework
6. Key objectives developed for the
Riverbank block include:
· activate the river frontage as the primary
waterfront address of the city
· increase pedestrian access and connectivity
to the riverfront and through site connections,
· river access and foreshore development, and
· encourage opportunities for the right
balance of commercial, residential, retail and cultural development.
· ensure return on investment
· enable ongoing income generation
· continue provision
of public parking
· protect and enhance
heritage attributes
7. Probity Process Plan - The purpose of the Probity
Process Plan is to outline the processes to be adopted by Council and the
legislative and probity considerations Council needs to be cognisant of during
the development of the Urban Design Framework and any subsequent potential
commercial dealings. (Attachment 2)
8. Communication Plan - The purpose of the Communication
Plan is to ensure that information provided to various stakeholders affected by
the Riverbank project is consistent and equitable and that issues around
confidentiality is managed appropriately. (Attachment 3)
9. Proposed governance structure - The proposed
governance structure stems from the Probity Process Plan that advises the
separation of the overall co-ordination and urban planning arm of Council from
the commercial arm of Council. One of the main objectives is to ensure that
probity considerations are adhered to as the project moves through the various
stages of development. It is recommended therefore that the Place Team
co-ordinates the overall Riverbank project to ensure integration and adherence
to Council’s overall objectives for the block. And that the Strategic Asset
Management Team take the lead on commercial transactions. (Attachment 4)
Consultation / Exhibition
10. A workshop was held with the Councillors on
11. The Draft Urban Design Framework will be placed on formal
exhibition from
12. A meeting be held for all property owners within the Riverbank
block to present the Draft Urban Design Framework and gain their input /
comments.
13. Any submissions from external parties are to be submitted in
writing and will be considered by Council’s internal team along with an
external urban designer engaged by Council to provide independent advice.
14. A workshop to be held with Councillors in October to present
and discuss the results of the exhibition, followed by a report to Council for
finalisation of the Draft Urban Design Framework.
Linda Perrine
Manager Place Strategy
|
1View |
Draft Riverbank Urban Design Strategy |
41 Pages |
|
|
2View |
Draft Probity Process Plan |
22 Pages |
|
|
3View |
Draft Communication Plan |
7 Pages |
|
|
4View |
Proposed Governance Model |
2 Pages |
|
|
Map of Riverbank block |
1 Page |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
|
Draft Riverbank Urban Design Strategy |
Placeholder for Attachment
1
Guiding the future
development of Riverbank block - bounded by Church, Phillip, Smith Streets and
Foreshore
Draft Riverbank Urban
Design Strategy
41 Pages
PLEASE NOTE:-
COLOUR A4 ATTACHMENT PROVIDED TO COUNCILLORS AND SENIOR STAFF ONLY UNDER
SEPARATE COVER
|
Draft Probity Process Plan 19 February
2008 |
|
David
Frater Carpark Development Process
Plan |
|
Attachment 2 |
Draft Probity Process Plan 19 February
2008 |
Contents
1 Introduction 3
2 Executive Summary 4
2.1
Project Background 4
2.2
Summary 4
3 Project objectives and
probity principles 6
3.1
Project objectives 6
3.2
Probity principles 6
4 Strategic Approach 9
5 Statement of Roles and
Responsibilities 20
5.1
Council Commercial Arm 20
5.2
Central
5.3
Councillors 20
5.4
General Management Team 21
5.5
Council Staff 21
The
purpose of this Process Plan is to outline the two major stages of the
potential redevelopment of the David
Frater Carpark (the redevelopment) and associated Parramatta City Council
(Council) owned land:
Stage
1: Urban Design Framework Development
Stage
2: Potential Commercial Transactions
The
Process Plan outlines the processes to be adopted by Council and the
legislative and probity considerations Council needs to be cognisant of during
the redevelopment.
The
Process Plan provides a framework for maintaining the integrity of processes
associated with the implementation of the project and is informed by the generally accepted ICAC probity principles
of:
· transparency
· obtaining value for
money
· accountability
· maintaining security and
confidentiality
· managing conflicts of
interests
Section
3 of the Process Plan outlines Council’s objectives for the project as well as
a detailed description of the probity principles and their applicability to
this project. The Process Plan provides details about the steps involved for
Council during the abovementioned stages as well as probity considerations for
Council. At this stage in the project, the two key probity considerations for
Council are demonstrating a transparent approach to the redevelopment as well
as Council achieving a value for money outcome from the redevelopment.
The
Process Plan provides guidance to Council on the steps required to allow Council
to satisfy itself that it can demonstrate value for money and transparency. The
Plan also notes considerations for Council in terms of accountability for
decision making and conflict of interest and confidentiality management.
This
Process Plan applies to all staff of the Council, Councillors, as well as any
external consultants or advisers connected with the redevelopment of Council
lands or the precinct planning associated with Council lands.
|
Attachment 2 |
Draft Probity Process Plan 19 February
2008 |
2 Executive
Summary
2.1 Project Background
Council owns a
substantial portion of land in the precinct bounded by
The land that
Council’s carpark and Brandsmart are within is part of an overall precinct,
which is the subject of a newly gazetted Local Environmental Plan (LEP) (
To date Council
has been approached to consider the development of its entire land holdings in
this precinct by a single party(ies), representative of the Brandsmart owners.
This party has communicated its intention to redevelop the Brandsmart Shopping
Centre and has expressed interest in having further discussions with Council
about possible joint development options on Council’s land. It is Council’s
intention to maintain ownership of it land in this precinct and to assist the
activation of the precinct through a unit within Council’s City Strategy and
Outcomes Directory developing an urban design framework.
2.2 Summary
Council is seeking
to develop an Urban Design Framework for the block bounded by
This plan outlines a
process whereby Council completes the Urban Design Framework development
process prior to entering in to any potential commercial transactions with
current or future land owners. This will
allow Council to ensure that its Urban Design Framework design is in accordance
with the Local Environment Plan (‘LEP’) and Urban Design Framework for the
site.
The key concerns for
Council during the initial Urban Design Framework development phase are the
management of transparency and value-for-money outcomes. Council has indicated that it wishes to
liaise with land owners and other key stakeholders during the development of
the Urban Design Framework. During this
communication process, Council must clearly demonstrate that all stakeholders
are being treated equitably, and that information provided to one party is made
freely available to all other parties.
Further, Council may wish to consider the option of cost-sharing
relating to specialist input with the landowners. In doing this, Council must clearly state
that any financial input by the landowner will not feter Council’s consent
role, or confer any advantage with Council during any potential commercial
transactions.
Council will also
need to demonstrate that it is driven by achieving an outcome that represents a
value-for-money outcome, cognisant of its community custodian role. During the Urban Design Framework development
phase, Council should obtain independent valuations of all its holdings related
to the development, and feasibility studies for suggested development outcomes,
so that any potential commercial offer can be accurately and adequately
assessed.
Throughout the
process by which the Urban Design Framework is developed, and extending into
any potential commercial transactions that may eventuate, Council will need to
clearly segregate its dual roles (and associated outcomes), in seeking to
achieve both a commercially attractive outcome whilst ensuring that any use of
the land is in line with Council’s LEP, DCP and Urban Design Framework for the
block. To do so, Council will need to
demonstrate that neither the commercial or planning divisions have had any
ability to exert undue influence, or obtain confidential information. A number of confidentiality measures should
be undertaken to secure all information relating to each division’s involvement
in the development.
Upon entering future
stages of the process, including entering into any potential commercial
transaction, Council should complete a thorough Business Plan detailing key
project areas, such as a project plan, financial analyses, risk management plan
and the formalised communication strategy.
Further, Council will undertake extensive due diligence to identify the
financial and other key outcomes associated with any offer that may be
considered as a potential development outcome.
|
Draft Probity Process Plan 19 February 2008 |
3 Project objectives and probity principles
3.1 Project objectives
The purpose of this framework is to ensure that
Council’s objectives in its public vision document for the City Centre,
including this block are realised in any future development.
One of the statements within the Vision document
relating specifically to this block is ….
“The City Centre will celebrate the river as a
local and regionally significant asset within the metropolitan region. The
river’s edge will be activated through strategic mixed use development,
interpreting
Key objectives include:
· activate the river
frontage as the primary waterfront address of the city
· increase
pedestrian access and connectivity to the riverfront and through site
connections,
· river
access and foreshore development, and
· encourage
opportunities for the right balance of commercial, residential, retail and
cultural development.
· ensure
return on investment
· enable
ongoing income generation
· continue
provision of public parking
3.2 Probity principles
As noted above, at
this stage in the project, the two key probity considerations for Council
relate to demonstrating a transparent approach to the potential redevelopment
and obtaining a value for money outcome for Council. While these two principles
are key to the process at this stage, Council also needs to be cognisant of the
following:
· Accountability for
decision making through the appropriate approval process being in place,
including that decisions are in accordance with legislative and policy
requirements
· Maintaining an audit
trail of decisions made
· Ensuring all
confidential information is treated with care and not released to persons not
authorised to receive such information
· Ensuring
that all individuals involved in the project are free from conflicts of
interest (with related interests being recorded) to prevent the integrity of
the processes being questioned.
In its commercial dealings, the Council will observe the highest
standards of probity. The Council in all
of its dealings must be fair, open and demonstrate the highest levels of
integrity consistent with the public interest.
It is impossible to prescribe rules for every situation. Rather, it is incumbent on every participant
in the process of developing the Project to understand and apply the principles
of probity set out below in all their dealings as public officers, or as
consultants to the Council.
3.2.1 Transparency of the process
Transparency in the
Project’s processes helps ensure fairness and impartiality is apparent to
potential participants, thus enhancing competition and the delivery of value
for money, as well as reducing opportunities for corruption, maladministration
and substantial waste of public money.
Each process associated with the Project should be consistent and
conducted in accordance with appropriate methodologies. Such processes should be well documented and
reviewable.
As relevant to the
redevelopment of Council’s land it will be important for Council to demonstrate
transparency in its decision making and in the processes followed to determine
the best approach for the redevelopment, such as adopting an appropriate level
of community consultation and a consistent approach in its dealings with
precinct landowners.
3.2.2 Obtaining Value for Money
Obtaining value for
money is enhanced when there is open competition and the market is tested regularly. Market testing helps determine whether a
service can be carried out more effectively and efficiently. Impartial, open and competitive processes are
an important stepping-stone in achieving value for money.
Of particular
relevance for this project, Council should ensure that valuations are obtained
for all of its holdings and that these valuations be used as benchmarks for
assessing the value of any land transactions Council considers.
As the assessment of
the redevelopment process develops, Council may elect to directly negotiate
with one particular party. In this
circumstance, Council will need to consider how they intend to provide surety
that they have obtained a value for money outcome in the redevelopment.
3.2.3 Accountability
Public sector accountability
requirements are intended to save money, resources and time in the long term
and prevent corruption, maladministration and substantial waste of public
resources. Council officers and
consultants should be accountable for their actions in the processes associated
with the redevelopment. All activities
and decision-making associated with the redevelopment should be recorded.
The decisions made
surrounding the commercial expectations for the redevelopment, in addition to
the place management strategies utilised by Council need to be appropriately
documented and recorded by individuals with suitable authority within
Council. These decisions could include
the Council resolutions for going to either an open market procurement or a
direct negotiation process. In addition, Council should ensure that any
decisions made in relation to the project are in accordance with legislative
requirements under the Local Government Act 1993 and any better practice
guidance material, such as for entering into Public-Private Partnerships and/or
Joint Ventures.
3.2.4 Maintaining Confidentiality
Breaches of
confidentiality requirements such as unauthorised release of confidential
information can compromise the fairness of the process and lead to outcomes
which do not represent best value for money.
The processes adopted for receiving and managing information are to
ensure the security and confidentiality of intellectual property, proprietary
information or otherwise sensitive information.
In these
circumstances, Council will need to balance maintaining a level of
confidentiality required in a redevelopment such as this, including
commercial-in-confidence information, and the need to display suitable levels
of transparency by providing sufficient information to other landowners and
more general information to the community. In doing this, Council should ensure
that individuals involved in the redevelopment are aware of what documentation
is considered confidential and consent is sought from stakeholders prior to releasing
information they consider to be confidential.
3.2.5 Managing Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts of
interest arise when there is a conflict between a public official’s public duty
and private interests, where those private interests could improperly influence
the performance of their official duties and responsibilities. Conflicts of
interest can be actual, perceived or potential.
The Council’s dual role in the process, acting as both land owner and
consent authority, represents a perceived conflict of interest that will
require active management.
Council will need to
maintain clear role definitions between the various functions within Council
responsible for overseeing this process, particularly through the use of
Chinese Walls and the use of external consultants where required.
4 Strategic
Approach
The tasks in the
below table should be undertaken for openness and fairness and are provided as
a guide for Council. The steps are suggested to demonstrate a due regard to
probity throughout the Urban Design Framework development and any potential
commercial transactions Council enters into. The accountability considerations
as outlined in the table include the level of approval required for decisions
made relating to the redevelopment and the documentation to maintain an audit
trail. Further information about the
roles and responsibilities of specific committees/units within Council can be
found in Section 5 below.
Overarching all of
the tasks outlined below is the need for Council to maintain confidentiality of
information associated with the redevelopment and ensuring that individuals
involved with the redevelopment are free from conflicts of interest (including
that any related interests are appropriately recorded). Council’s actions to
manage confidential information and conflicts of interest should be applied not
only to Council officers and elected officials but also all advisers and
external contributors to the project.
|
|
Task |
Responsibility/Approvals
required |
Documentation
to be maintained |
|
STAGE 1: MASTERPLAN DEVELOPMENT |
|||
|
Transparency |
Communication Strategy Development Council
must ensure that the information provided to the various stakeholders
affected by this development is consistent and equitable. Develop a Communication Strategy to relay
information to key stakeholders, namely members of the Council, landowners,
adjoining land owners and the community.
Communication will differ according to the nature of the stakeholder.
As such, the Communication Strategy will need to cater for differing levels of
information to be provided to each stakeholder. The
Communication Strategy should outline the level of communication that will be
entered in to with each stakeholder group, including specific types of
information to be conveyed. This could
include: · Council’s priorities and intentions in
relation to the Urban Design Framework. · Opportunities to share costs for key
consultancy requirements that are regularly required for DA assessment. · Any specific design constraints that are
to be developed by Council’s Planning section. · Method and detail as to how Council staff
are to conduct meetings with third parties, and how any findings from the
consultation process are to be reported to the General Management Team and
Councillors. |
· Communication Strategy to be endorsed by
Council resolution |
· The Communication Strategy and its
approval should be documented and accessible to Council staff and others
involved with the redevelopment · Any communication with stakeholders should
be appropriately documented in the form of file notes or other records. |
|
Cost-Sharing Opportunities If Council selects
to offer cost-sharing opportunities with stakeholders for required
consultancy services, Council should expressly state that any payment will
not confer any advantage when/if Council proceeds to a commercial negotiation
phase. Further, if
Council selects to offer a cost-sharing opportunity for consultancy services,
Council will offer this opportunity to all land-owners who will be affected
by the Urban Design Framework. This
will ensure that Council is acting equitably with all land-owners. At an appropriate time and in line with the
communication strategy principles Council may share these consultancy
services reports with other land owners. Before making any reports available
to landowners Council will need to ensure each party receiving the
information abide by any relevant confidentiality requirements. |
· Cost-sharing initiatives should be
approved by Council resolution. |
· Rationale and approval of any cost-sharing
opportunities should be appropriately recorded · Records should be maintained to
demonstrate that such opportunities have been offered to all current or
potential land-owners to demonstrate equal access to the opportunity. |
|
|
Meetings with Stakeholders Council
may opt to conduct one-on-one or group meetings with stakeholders. Council may consider it beneficial to
confer with land owners collectively during Urban Design Framework
development to set the parameters of this stage, particularly Council’s
role(s) during this stage. Individual
meetings with land owners may then be offered to address each individual’s
specific concerns. However, in line
with confidentiality requirements, Council will exhibit caution when
discussing content not included in the initial group meetings or
communication strategy. Council
should develop a mailing list (in either electronic or physical form) to
distribute desired information to third parties who request to be updated of
the process. Third parties should be
advised that they must register with Council to receive the information. |
· Council should ensure that one individual
within Council is designated to run sessions with stakeholders to ensure
consistency of approach and information provided. |
· A record of the mailing list should be
maintained as well as any rules in place for the level of information that
can be released to different stakeholders e.g. some stakeholders, depending
on their role with the redevelopment, may be authorised to access more
information than other stakeholders. · Records should be maintained of the meetings
with stakeholders which document the information provided, any questions
asked, and whether further action is required. |
|
|
Process Rules for Meetings Council will
develop a series of process rules by which all meetings with proponents will
be conducted. These process rules
include (but are not limited to): · No reliance may be placed upon information
unless it is provided in writing by Council. · Proponents will not contact or liaise with
any Council official other than those designated as the official contact
persons. · Parties must have demonstrated that they
hold authority to represent land owners. · Each party is responsible for maintaining
their own notes (Council hold only one record from the meeting) · Council’s interest in developing the Urban
Design Framework prior to exploring any commercial possibilities should be
expressly stated. · Any information provided by the other
party which they consider commercially sensitive or intellectual property
should be nominated as such. |
· Process rules should be established and
endorsed by the relevant unit within Council such as Council’s Commercial Arm
or the City Strategy and Outcomes Directory Unit. · Proponents/stakeholders involved in the
meetings should be made aware of the process rules and indicate their
concurrence to these rules e.g. through signing a meeting protocol. |
· The process rules for meetings with
proponents/stakeholders should be documented, for example, in the form of a
meeting protocol. · Minutes of meetings with
proponents/stakeholders should be maintained, which record the issues discussed,
information provided to stakeholders, any actions arising from the meeting
and responsibility and due date for such action items. · Records should be maintained of any
information that is deemed to be commercial in-confidence and action should
be taken by Council to ensure the confidentiality of this information is
maintained. |
|
|
Providing Contact Details and Third Party
Information Council
may wish to allow various stakeholders to make contact with each other, or to
disseminate information from one third party to another. Prior to providing any stakeholder with
another’s contact details or other information, Council is required to obtain
expressly informed consent by that stakeholder. |
· The stakeholder’s written consent should
be obtained prior to releasing their contact details or information to other
stakeholders. |
· A record should be kept of the written
consent from the stakeholder to ensure Council can demonstrate authority to
release a stakeholder’s contact details or other information. |
|
|
Separation of Management Responsibilities Council will
ensure that the operational running of the Commercial and Planning/Urban
Development functions within Council are separated, and are supervised by
different individuals. |
· Any future development applications for
the site should be considered and approved by the Central Parramatta Planning
Committee (CPPC). · Councillors who are members of the CPPC
should not also be acting on behalf of the Council committee(s) that considers
the commercial decisions of Council associated with this redevelopment. · Any decisions made by the commercial arm
of Council should be signed off by the Group Manager / Councillors (as
required) responsible for this function within Council which is a separate
role to the Group Manager / Councillors responsible for the urban development
function of Council. |
· Clear goals and objectives for the
redevelopment should be established by Council and recorded. · The Communication Strategy for the
redevelopment should communicate Council’s goals and objectives for the
redevelopment. · Any development application determinations
should be appropriately documented, including reasons for the
approval/rejections and the rationale for any conditions attached to development
consents. · Conflict of interest and confidentiality
undertakings should be signed by all individuals involved in the development
application assessment and urban development function within Council. |
|
|
Value for Money |
Independent Valuations Council
will obtain independent valuations of all Council holdings, including cost of
retained conditions (such as drainage, rights of way), and are to be in line
with highest and best use as documented in the gazetted LEP. |
· Council should
resolve that it has a number of benchmarks in place with regard to any future
commercial transactions, such as valuations of Council’s land holdings
associated with the redevelopment. |
· A record should be
maintained of the independent valuation/s obtained of Council’s land holdings. |
|
Content of Discussions Discussions with
adjoining landowners can outline Council’s commercial objectives (as already
publicly notified) such as retaining ownership and improving recurrent
revenue streams. Discussions can also detail the process Council will
undertake for commercial transactions, which may include: · Market testing, through expressions of
interest or tender (which demonstrates Council’s consideration of value for
money) · That urban design framework will be
completed prior to undertaking any commercial transactions, which will serve
to demonstrate Council’s desire to achieve a beneficial planning outcome, in
line with the requirements set forth in the LEP. · Making other land
owners cognisant of Council’s significant land holdings within the area. |
· The Communication Strategy will outline
the process for communicating with stakeholders including the level of
authority required to release information to relevant stakeholders. · Council should resolve to enter into a
market testing phase for the redevelopment, either through a tender or EOI
process. · Council should resolve to accept the Urban
Design Framework for the site once developed. |
· Appropriate documentation should be
maintained of any market testing process undertaken to ensure an audit trail
is maintained of these activities. · Any communication with
landowners/stakeholders should be appropriately documented. · The approval process for the Urban Design
Framework and any urban development of the site should be appropriately
recorded. |
|
|
STAGE 2: POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS |
|||
|
Transparency |
Process Rules for Meetings Council will
continue the use of predetermined meeting rules when conducting meetings with
any stakeholder. |
Refer to above for
approvals required and responsibility |
Refer to above |
|
Assessment of Current Conditions with
Leaseholders Council
will need to take into account any conditions and rights in the current lease
with Brandsmart for the use of the carpark. Depending on the conditions of
the current lease with regard to exclusive rights over the land for the
length of the lease, Council may need to give consideration to any offer put
forward by Brandsmart for redevelopment of the land. |
· Any decision made by Council to consider a
proposal from Brandsmart or enter into a direct deal with Brandsmart or any
other individual property owners should be made by Council resolution. |
· Any decision made by Council in relation
to a direct deal with Brandsmart or other landowner should be appropriately
documented, including the rationale for pursuing this option. For example, it
could be supported by a detailed cost–benefit analysis or similar study to
verify that best value for money is being obtained by entering into any
agreement with Brandsmart or other landowner. |
|
|
Adherence to legislative and policy
requirements In determining the
approach to the redevelopment Council needs to be cognisant of its
requirements under the Local Government Act 1993 (specifically related to the
circumstances under which a tendering process is not required, such as the
leasing or licensing of the land) and Public-Private Partnerships
requirements. In the event that
a PPP or Joint Venture option is pursued, Council may be required to develop
a business plan. Such a Business Plan should include the following content: Project Plan (defining the strategic need) · Clear description of the project and
objectives (refer to existing Council documents, link to public Urban Design
Framework) · Management/governance structure (refer to
existing Council probity plan and current adjustments) · Detailed program · Consultant lists/register – skills
required within and external to Council list who and roles Financial and economic analysis · Scope of the project · Projected costs – whole of life, Council
cost as part of disposal · Projected revenues and any borrowings if required
· Capacity of Council to conduct the project
· Public interest evaluation – management
plan objectives; charter obligations; consultation; public access; safety and
security · Assumptions and sensitivity analysis Communication strategy Purpose · Identification of stakeholders, community · Market or direct negotiations
communication · Link to risk and contingencies management · Procedures for how and who responsible Probity plan · Management of key probity risks, such as
conflict management, confidentiality, value for money Risk management plan · Detailed risk assessment (residual risk ratings after considering
mitigation strategies) across whole project timeframe, such as negotiations,
contract risks pre-development, during development and post development · Include preferred risk allocation for
Council and other parties Masterplan |
· Any approach by Council for the
redevelopment of the land should be endorsed via Council resolution. |
· Documentation should be maintained of the
approval of the approach including the rationale for selecting one approach
over another, particularly related to value for money considerations for
Council. · If a PPP approach is adopted, Council
needs to ensure an appropriate level of documentation is maintained. |
|
|
Council’s
Central Parramatta Planning Committee (CPPC), which comprises individuals
from both within Council and will undertake the ultimate assessment of any
potential Development Application. However,
during any potential DA process, Council will engage an external consultant
to undertake the DA review process. In
the new LEP any site within this block is subject to undertaking a Design
Competition process aimed at ensuring quality of development. |
· Any decisions to engage external
consultants for the development application review process should be made by
Council resolution. · Applicants are required to follow the
design competition guidelines |
· Ensuring that appropriate documentation is
kept of the reasons for decisions Council makes relating to place management
and the urban strategy for the site. · As noted above, documentation should be
maintained of approvals/rejections of development applications including the
rationale for development consent conditions. · Confidentiality and conflict of interest
declarations should be completed by all members of the CPPC and all
individuals involved in the development application assessment. · Documentation to be maintained as per
design competition guidelines and Council processes. |
|
|
Value for Money |
Pre-Transactional Due Diligence Council will
ensure that all required due diligence, including (but not limited to)
valuations, risk assessments and financial feasibility studies are completed
prior to the commencement of any commercial negotiation process. Council should
consider establishing at least some different assessment team members to
consider each separate land transaction, who are responsible for the
assessment of the value of the offering relative to Council’s benchmarks,
including the financial component (incorporating whole of life costs), urban
outcomes (relative to UDF and/or Urban Design Framework), and the capability
and capacity of private sector organisation to undertake the development. Council
may consider using an external adviser to test the values prior to the
completion of each engagement. |
· Council should resolve that it has a
number of benchmarks in place with regard to any future commercial
transactions, such as valuations of Council’s land holdings associated with
the redevelopment. · Decisions made by the urban development
function of Council should be endorsed by the Director of this area within
Council. Similarly, commercial decisions of Council should be endorsed by the
Director responsible for this arm of Council and approved by Council
resolution. |
· Any valuations, risk assessments and
financial feasibility studies should be documented and the circulation of
these documents should be limited to persons who are authorised to receive
this information. · Documentation should be maintained of
Council’s consideration of a private sector organisation’s capacity and
capability to undertake the development. |
|
Attachment 2 |
Draft Probity Process Plan 19 February 2008 |
5 Statement of Roles and Responsibilities
5.1 Council Commercial Arm
The role and
function of Council’s commercial arm is to:
· Assess the commercial viability of the
redevelopment, including an assessment of the financial and commercial outcomes
of potential Council decisions;
· Nominate an individual within the commercial
arm to act as the official communication channel for any external enquiries of
a commercial nature;
· Give direction in relation to the
preparation of budget for the redevelopment or any particular phase or part of
the redevelopment and make recommendations about the same;
· Monitor and report to Council about the
financial performance of the Project or any particular phase of the Project.
5.2 Central
The role and function of the Central Parramatta Planning Committee, in
respect of this Council land redevelopment, is to:
· Objectively consider and assess any
development application that Council may otherwise have a pecuniary interest
in, acting as a sufficiently independent party;
· Review development applications in the
context of Council’s urban strategy and place management frameworks;
· Nominate an individual within the CPPC to
represent Council as the official communication channel for any external
enquiries relating to planning and urban design nature;
· Should the requirement arise, undertake
community and key stakeholder consultation to determine public sentiment in
relation to the redevelopment, and report these findings accurately to the
Council.
5.3 Councillors
The role and
function of the elected Councillors of Parramatta City Council are to:
· Act as the final approval mechanism for any
potential redevelopment proposal;
· Assess information provided to the Council
by key internal functions and external parties in determining the most
beneficial outcome for the local area and population.
· Maintain confidentiality with any
information they obtain through their involvement in either the CPPC or
commercial viability assessment processes, including minimising any opportunity
for conflicts of interest to develop across between these areas.
5.4 General Management Team
· To advise on and recommend to Council the
optimal strategic delivery and possible redevelopment process for the Project
· To manage the redevelopment process for the
Project on behalf of Council and provide assurance that adequate separation of
Council’s commercial and development functions exist throughout the Project
· To advise on financial, structure and risk
issues for Council and to make recommendations to Council
· To advise on and recommend to Council
property acquisition and related property issues
· To advise on and recommend the appointment
of a specialist advisers to assist in the Project delivery
· In any Land Acquisition or disposal to
review the value for money outcomes, including price and risk, prior to
recommendations being made to Council for its decision
· To review the Probity Plan at designated
milestones and recommend its amendment or any separate Probity Plan at those
designated milestones
· To provide policy guidance to the Project
Team
· To receive reports and recommendations from
the Project Team
· To seek clarification from the Project Team
on any matter.
5.5 Council Staff
The following are general staff guidelines for any staff not necessarily
connected with any component of the Urban Development Framework or Council’s
commercial arm. The points raised in this section could be circulated by email
to all staff once Council formally commences development of the Urban
Development Framework.
Outside parties with whom Council has a business relationship may
contact staff (who do not have a direct involvement in the selection process)
as part of the normal day to day relationship.
It is important that staff follow the following guidelines throughout
the entire process:
· No discussion should be held with any
landowner about the redevelopment process in relation to any aspect of the
redevelopment process without the prior approval or at the direction of the
General Manager or his nominee.
· No landowner or other person should receive
or be perceived to have received additional information to that which is
publicly available in released in line with the Communications Strategy.
· Respondents should be advised to deal
directly with the Council Contact on matters in relation to the precinct,
redevelopment of Council’s land or the Urban Development Framework
· Unusual or exceptional invitations from any
party with a declared interest in the Project should not be accepted.
· Routine business meetings and social
activities continue as usual, but Council managers and employees must exercise
caution, and must not discuss the redevelopment process.
|
Draft Communication
Plan |
Draft Communication Plan – Riverbank
Date:
Date
revised:
Introduction
The Riverbank Project is a medium to long term project comprising the
development of an Urban Design Framework for the block bounded by
Council owns a substantial parcel
in this larger city block. A portion of the land is an at-grade car park, the
David Frater multideck carpark is leased until 2061 to the Brandsmart Shopping
Centre and the balance is used as access for adjoining properties.
The block is
a complex arrangement of individual lots, ownership and rights and uses
including a retail centre, hotel, multi storey office block and a range of
smaller scale commercial buildings. There has been significant interest over
recent years in the development of Council’s land and other privately owned
parcels either independently or in some form of partnership.
Parramatta City Council recently adopted (
“The City Centre
will celebrate the river as a local and regionally significant asset within the
metropolitan region. The river’s edge will be activated through strategic mixed
use development, interpreting
connections from key
sites such as
Key
objectives of the Riverbank block include:
§ activate the river frontage as the primary
waterfront address of the city
§ increase pedestrian access and connectivity to the
riverfront and through site connections,
§ increase river access and foreshore development,
and
§ encourage opportunities for the right balance of commercial,
residential, retail and cultural development
§ ensure return on investment
§ enable ongoing income generation
§ continue provision of public parking
§ investigate the use and installation of
sustainability initiatives
In tune with the recently gazetted Local Environment Plan Council is seeking to develop an Urban Design
Framework for the Riverbank block and to
assess the potential for the redevelopment of Council’s land. The purpose of
this Urban Design framework is to ensure that Council’s objectives in its
public vision document for the City Centre are realised in any future
development.
Purpose of a
Communication Plan for the Riverbank Project
A major project such as this needs to have a Communication Plan as it
will provide the framework for interaction within Council and with any external
parties. This plan will outline the communication between various individuals
and groups that will be involved through this project and help clarify the
desired relationship between parties. It is evident that these relationships
will develop over time, however, this plan will set an understanding of what is
required at the beginning of the process.
Effective communication is essential with this project as it will assist
in ensuring transparency of process and keeping people/groups/organisations
informed of objectives, progress and process. The plan will outline who the
stakeholders are and the expected forms of communication with each
individual/group and procedures for how and who is responsible.
Key Messages for the
Riverbank Project
There are a number of key messages that are part of the Riverbank
project. These messages can be adapted to meet the needs of both formal and
informal partners. Specific communication strategies should aim to incorporate
these where relevant.
§ the
riverbank block is a key site within the
§
o activate the river frontage as the primary waterfront address of the
city
o increase pedestrian access and connectivity to the
riverfront and through site connections,
o increase river access and foreshore development,
and
o encourage opportunities for the right balance of
commercial, residential, retail and cultural development
o ensure return on investment
o enable ongoing income generation
o continue provision of public parking
o investigate the use and installation of
sustainability initiatives
§ Council
will be actively working with surrounding property owners to assist in
achieving the objectives listed above
§ Council
has committed to resource the project and forming an integrated internal team
to manage the Riverbank project
§ Council
will ensure that the information provided to the various stakeholders affected
by this development is transparent, consistent and equitable
§ Council
will respect the confidentiality of any commercial information provided by other
parties
§ Council
will need to balance the communication needs and transparency with achieving a commercially viable solution for Council
§ Council
will make it clear what information it will make publicly available and what
will be considered as confidential
It is important that
communication plans are flexible and remain targeted at changing project
priorities as well as reflect the changing or dynamic nature of communication
needs. As such it is proposed that this plan be regularly evaluated to ensure
it is meeting the needs of the project overall and communication needs of
internal and external customers.
|
Attachment 3 |
Draft Communication Plan |
|
Key communication outcome |
Suggested strategy |
|
Provide consistency of information |
One point of contact for Urban Design Framework and overall project
management. Which will assist in ensuring enquiries are given consistent
advice Separate point of contact for commercial dealings in relation to
Council land / properties |
|
Interaction between Council’s Riverbank project team and other parts
of Council |
Project management team – formal monthly team meetings with an agenda
and meeting notes Informal team weekly meetings for progress updates Update at Senior Management Team for their information Formal update to General Management Team at key milestones Councillor workshops held at key milestones May include information on KISS and send info to customer service for
general access by the rest of Council and questions from the community |
|
Decision making |
Council reports required for key decision making to be made by Council Regular project progress decision making to be done on an ongoing basis by the project team
/leader and GMT as required |
|
Interaction between Council’s team and external parties / external
consultation (landowners and adjoining land owners) |
Council run multi stakeholder meetings will require an external
facilitator to be engaged by Council and notes of the meeting recorded by
Council for Council records. For one on one meetings with stakeholders to be managed by the project
manager and notes of the meeting recorded for Council records Parties must have demonstrated that they hold authority to represent
land owners Proponents or other external parties will not contact or liaise with
any Council official other than those designated as the official contact
persons Any communication with landowners/stakeholders should be appropriately
documented |
|
Communication with the community and tenants within the block |
The following communication techniques will be used to keep the
general community informed: - stories in the local paper, Council web and Council’s community
newsletter and KISS For the tenants in addition to the above communication techniques it
is proposed that a newsletter be developed and distributed on at least a
quarterly basis on progress and updates. The timing of the newsletter can
vary as the project develops. |
|
Media management |
Media Unit to liaise with the project manager to obtain the most up to
date information available for public release |
|
Confidential information |
All members of the project team to sign confidentiality agreements All members of GMT to sign confidentiality agreements Ensure appropriate security controls are implemented to guarantee that
confidential information is released to personnel on a need to know basis and
all security arrangements are detailed to council staff and any external
individuals involved in the negotiation All external / proponent personnel involved in the negotiation be
required to sign confidentiality undertakings The project leader is to assess the access of information and
provision of information to external parties and make a record of these
decisions Confidential information to be flagged as confidential within TRIM and
access to be limited |
|
Information management |
Records of the negotiation process should be maintained and
responsibility for generating and maintaining such records should be clearly
defined and communicated Council should develop a mailing list to distribute desired
information to third parties who request to be updated of the process. Third parties should be advised that they
must register with Council to receive the information. This list needs to clarify level of
information that can be released to different stakeholders as their role with
the project / redevelopment, may enable them to access more information than
other stakeholders. Some adjoining landowners may choose to become an active partner with
Council in the Riverbank project and
choose to share costs for obtaining information /research as such there will
be a difference in the level of information shared and the associated
responsibilities with this that needs to be clarified and agreed upon.
Council may choose to share costs of research with external parties and
agreement needs to be gained that this information may be distributed to
other parties. Records should be maintained of the meetings with stakeholders which
document the information provided, any questions asked, and whether further
action is required. All meeting notes of internal and external meetings and
other information relevant to the Riverbank project is to be stored in TRIM.
Maintain file notes of all communication with proponents or external parties Any information provided by the other party which they consider
commercially sensitive or intellectual property should be nominated as such.
Agreement to be gained prior to distributing information gained from external
parties Each party is responsible for maintaining their own notes (Council
hold only one record from the meeting) Council will share information researched or developed by Council with
everyone equally unless deemed commercial in confidence and therefore subject
to management of confidential information No reliance may be placed upon information unless it is provided in
writing by Council Council may wish to allow various stakeholders to make contact with
each other, or to disseminate information from one third party to
another. Prior to providing any
stakeholder with another’s contact details or other information, Council is
required to obtain expressly informed consent by that stakeholder. The stakeholder’s written consent should be
obtained prior to releasing their contact details or information to other
stakeholders. A record should be kept of the written consent from the
stakeholder to ensure Council can demonstrate authority to release a
stakeholder’s contact details or other information. Agendas and Minutes of meetings with external stakeholders to be
provided and filed Ensure Council resolutions are made for major decision making Maintain documentation used as part of the basis for assessment
(including that obtained from internal or third party sources) Maintain record of individuals involved in the process, both internal
and external Access to information to be separated on the basis of confidential
versus non confidential information |
|
Proposed Governance Model |
Proposed Governance Model and Proposed Next Stages
|
Stage |
Proposed Governance
Model |
|
Stage One - current stage to April 2008 Objectives - Undertake urban design planning for the Riverbank Block - Council adopt draft Urban Design Framework, Draft communication plan
and probity process plan |
Internal governance - Internal team comprising staff across 3 units in Council including:
Land Use and Transport; Strategic Asset Management; and Place Management. - Project leader from the Place Management Team and role comprises:
being the main contact point for internal and external liaison; communication
planning; co-ordination; financial management and project leadership - Consultation / information provided to SMT - Consultation / direction management provided by GMT - Consultation / decision making provided by Councillors via workshops
and Council resolution. External governance Place Manager and staff from SAM meet with
external parties and take notes as per communication plan |
|
Stage Objectives - Gain external comment and input on draft Urban Design Framework and
facilitate discussions with all property owners within the Riverbank block. - Assess options for Council’s land and feedback from property owners - Develop criteria for assessing input / proposals from external
proponents - Council adopt the finalised Urban Design Framework. - Complete next phase of probity planning - Communicate with community and tenants |
It is proposed that the same governance model as
in stage one be continued for stage two. |
|
Stage Objectives - commence commercial discussions with external parties - meet with new Council - continue facilitating discussions with internal and external parties
to ensure that development occurs within the Urban Design Framework |
At this stage it is foreseeable that governance
will travel down three different paths: 1/ Development Services will manage design
competitions and development applications 2/
Strategic Asset Management will manage commercial dealings for Council
properties, acquisitions and disposals. It is proposed that SAM work with a
sub committee comprising Councillors, General Manager, Group Manager City
Services or nominee and external advisors 3/ Place Manager continue overall co-ordination,
communication, probity and financial planning |
Financial Management
It needs to be noted that for projects such as
these that the financial management is critical. It is proposed that the Place
Manager being given the support to ensure that resources across Council are
managed and co-ordinated so that allocation of funds such as Section 94, money
from planning agreements etc are managed accordingly. Therefore it is proposed
that the Place Manager work with a sub committee comprising SAM, City Assets
and City Operations to enable these discussions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CITY DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 6.2
SUBJECT Police
Memorandum of Understanding - Update
REFERENCE F2006/01279 - D00914997
REPORT OF Place Manager - City Strategy
|
PURPOSE: This
report is in response to Council’s resolution on |
|
That Council note this report. |
BACKGROUND
1. In August 2004, Parramatta City Council entered into an
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with NSW Police. That MoU applies to the City Centre and its
objectives are to:
§ Reduce crime levels by deterring
potential offenders
§ Reduce fear of crime
§ Help ensure fast effective
police response in emergency situations
§ Improve the approach to
enforcement in the CBD
§ Assisting the detection and
prosecution of offenders, and
§ Help secure a safer environment
for those people who live in, work in and visit
2. In August 2006, Council resolved to undertake a comprehensive
five year Crime Prevention Plan for the Parramatta City Centre. This plan was adopted by Council in March
2008 and includes a recommendation that a Crime Prevention Officer (CPO) be
appointed. This new position is subject
to the current Management Planning process for the coming 2008/2009 financial
year, and has been prioritised due to its importance in delivering the five
year Crime Plan for the City Centre.
3. The adopted Plan also contains a recommendation that an MoU
with the NSW Police be reviewed in recognition that the existing MoU is not
delivering its stated objectives.
4. According to the adopted City Centre Crime Prevention Plan, the
MoU would be renewed and reviewed by December 2008. This would be dependent on the employment of
the Crime Prevention Officer mentioned above.
5. Following the resolution at the
· Ranger Services preliminary review of effectiveness of 2004 MoU
· Internal Working Group formed - Change Manager
Regulatory Services, Strategic Partnerships and Programs Manager, Service
Manager Community Capacity Building
· Informal discussion between the Acting General Manager and
the Parramatta Local Area Commander
· Meeting with Parramatta Police Crime Manager and Internal
Working Group to scope MoU process was scheduled for mid April.
6. Ranger Services met with Commander Redfern in November 2007 to
discuss the relationship between Council Rangers and the Parramatta Police
Local Area Command. Information from
this meeting has informed the current review and reinforced the commitment by
both Council and Police to work in partnership.
Issues
7. A preliminary review of the current MoU is included as
Attachment 1. This was undertaken by
Ranger Services in early 2008 and will inform further work of Council in
reviewing this partnership.
8. As has been the experience with the successful MoU’s with the NSW
Department of Housing and the NSW Department of Health, these agreements are
time consuming and rely on developing good rapport between agencies.
9. The MoU is a tool that allows agencies to work closely
together, creating trust and a working relationship that is key to meaningful
partnership between these agencies and Council. An MoU without this trust and
relationship will be of little value to Council or its partners.
Future Actions
10. The Parramatta Police Local Area Command (LAC) have committed to
a renewed MoU with Council. The
Parramatta LAC have recently committed to looking at best practice following
experience with a similar agreement with Sydney City Council.
11. A meeting between senior Parramatta Police, Council staff and
interested Councillors is planned for May.
Final date to be advised following the Meeting with the Crime Manager
and Internal Working Group to scope MoU process in mid April 2008.
12. Should the project bid for a Crime Prevention Coordinator be
successful further development, implementation and monitoring of the MoU will
form an integral part of the Coordinator’s workplan.
Neile Robinson
Place Manager – City Strategy
|
1View |
Preliminary Review of Current Memoorandum of Understanding |
1 Page |
|
|
2View |
Current Memorandum of Understanding with NSW Police |
6 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
|
Preliminary Review of Current Memoorandum of
Understanding |
Preliminary
Review of current Memorandum of Understanding between
The existing Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
between Parramatta City Council and Commissioner of Police (Parramatta Local
Area Command) was signed by both parties on
The aim of the MoU was “to assist in the prevention
of crimes and maintain law and order throughout the city”. It applies to the
CBD only, not the whole of the Parramatta LGA.
The MoU outlines primary responsibilities for each
agency. In the context of the existing MoU, the responsibilities for Council
fall mainly with the existing Ranger Services section - it does, however,
include other functions of Council including the regulation of commercial
premises and pedestrian and road safety, but not the other areas of Council
including the Community Capacity Building Team or City Strategy.
Since the MOU was signed, council officers and
police have engaged in three joint programs. The first program was undertaken
in 2005. It was carried out on a Friday
night during a NRL match at Parramatta Stadium. The aim of this joint venture
was as follows-
1. Rangers monitor illegal parking and report any
suspicious people loitering in the area to Police.
2. Undercover Police targeted car theft.
The other two joint programs were carried out
recently -
·
Two police officers attended licensed premises in
the Parramatta CBD from
·
Parramatta Police carried out vehicle stops in
streets near licensed premises in the CBD and three Ranger staff targeted
illegal parking in and around each area in which the Police venture was carried
out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CITY DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 6.3
SUBJECT Sydney
Link (
REFERENCE F2006/00716 - D00917837
REPORT OF Senior Project Officer - Transport Planning
|
PURPOSE: This report provides a draft submission
for Council’s consideration to State Government regarding the Sydney Link
plan which includes the proposed North West Metro. |
|
That
Council adopts the draft submission (attachment
1) to be presented to the State Government. |
BACKGROUND
1. In March 2008 the State
Government released the Sydney Link plan which includes proposals for
the North West Metro, West Metro, South East Metro, M4 East Extension and South
West Rail Link. The proposed North West Metro (attachment 2) runs from Rouse Hill to
Sydney CBD and replaces the North West Rail Link.
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
2. The
attached report (attachment 1) is
tabled as a draft submission to State Government for Council’s
consideration. The Sydney Link primarily
contains an outline of the North West Metro scheme. The individual recommendations are italicised
in the relevant discussion area. In
summary, the following issues are discussed in the submission.
· The North
West Metro appears to be a confused hybrid of metro and heavy rail. The outer section (Rouse Hill to Epping)
serves an outer suburban area with low densities some 30km from Sydney CBD. These characteristics suggest heavy rail
public transport.
· The inner
section (Epping to Sydney CBD) is more suited to a metro-style service with
higher densities and a closer proximity to Sydney CBD. This section needs more stations to be
successful and it is suggested that this deliberate to minimise the travel
times from the
· The Metro
lines should continue across
· The position of State Government on the most recent transport planning
policies, State Plan (2006) and NSW Urban Transport Statement (2006) is not
clear. Both contained the now scrapped
Second Rail Crossing of Sydney Harbour which results in a loss of planned
increased capacity on the CityRail network which would have improved
reliability.
· There
are no details on the RTA’s proposed M4 East Extension and how it will
contribute to increased public transport use, a key policy of State Government
as contained in the above mentioned documents.
· The North West Metro does not consider the RTA’s
proposed duplication of the
· The
proposal lacks any reference to the Metropolitan Planning Strategy.
· There is no State Government
strategic vision for a Sydney-wide metro network of which the
· The Sydney Link proposal does not address how
ticketing of this new transport mode will be included in the already
over-complicated fare structure.
CONSULTATION & TIMING
3. A memo (
David Gray
Senior Project Officer – Transport Planning
Land Use & Transport Planning
|
1View |
Detailed Report |
9 Pages |
|
|
2View |
Map of proposed North West Metro |
2 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
|
Detailed Report |
Detailed Report
Introduction
On
An exposure draft bill (attachment 3) was released by the Minister for Planning on
The draft exposure bill is being released for
comment for a period of 21 days. This
represents the most comprehensive review and amendment to the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act for many years.
Whilst there has been a discussion paper and an ideas forum prior to the
detail being released, it is the detail that captures the actual impact of the
proposed changes.
It is disappointing that there is such limited
opportunity for assessment and debate on such significant change. This is reinforced by the fact that, as
discussed below, there are details which will be released at a later date
through the Regulation or codes which are fundamental to gain a comprehensive
understanding of the changes proposed.
On this basis, it is acknowledged that the attached submission has been
prepared in haste given the limited time available.
It should be noted that unless otherwise stated,
references in this report to section and page numbers, are references to the
document titled “Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill – Exposure Draft”
(137 pages).
Inadequate Information to Make an Informed
Submission
Whilst the draft Bill contains much information
about the directions being pursued for the proposed reforms, there is very
relevant detail that will be contained in the Regulation and Codes that hasn’t
been presented. There are many
references to more detailed guidelines and details that may be outlined in the
Regulation, but are not presented. Some
examples are listed below and others included in other parts of this report:
§ fees
to be paid in association with new services to be paid for by Council (see
recommendation 2 below)
§ functions
conferred on a regional panel by the Minister (Section 118(7) – p. 43)
§ remuneration
for members of the Planning Assessment Commission (Schedule 3(7) – p. 48) which
are to be paid by Council
§ maximum
security deposit required for ensuring compliance with the terms of development
consent (Section 80A(7A) p. 110).
§ The
State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) that deals with Major projects is
proposed to be amended to identify which types of development may be dealt with
by “Regional Panels” (see below).
The uniform complying development codes are clearly
another set of documents that contain significant detail that Council does not
have the capacity to comment on at this stage, yet an understanding of the
proposals are integral to the amendments proposed to the Act. This is consistent with Council’s previous
submission which outlined a general concern for the detail to be included in
such codes (see “Complying Development” below for greater detail on this
matter).
Recommendation 1
That given the significance and extent
of changes proposed, the full set of documents relevant to the exposure draft
Bill, including the Regulation, Codes and Guidelines, be circulated for comment
with reasonable period for comment in order to achieve effective and
comprehensive communication of the proposed changes being considered.
Cost Shifting
The draft Bill establishes “planning assessment
commissions”, (PAC) “regional panels” and “independent arbitrators”. PAC’s are intended to determine large
applications for development such as Part 3A applications delegated by the
Minister or to provide advice to the Minister for certain development and plan
making matters.
Regional panels may be constituted by the Minister
for particular parts of the State.
Regional panels are intended to deal with matters of regional
significance and it is proposed to amend the “Major Projects” SEPP to give this
effect.
Planning arbitrators will be established to make
determinations for some types of development that are under $1 million in value
where an applicant wishes to challenge Council’s decision. Arbitrators will need to register with the Department
of Planning which will keep a central register of all arbitrators.
The draft Bill requires (Section 23N (p. 27)) that
Councils make available records, facilities and staff in order that the PAC, a
panel or an arbitrator is able to exercise its functions. The actual function of these bodies is yet to
be fully understood and there may be very significant staff time and resources
that will need to be devoted to ensuring that these bodies properly exercise
their functions.
In addition, proposed section 23O (p.28) requires
that costs of these bodies be covered by Council. Whilst proposed sections 96C and 96D (p.35
and p.36) require that a fee be paid for these additional services, they will
be regulated and there is no way of knowing at this stage, whether the proposed
fee will be sufficient to cover the new services proposed. This is underlined by the current regulated
fees for development assessment, which in Parramatta City Council’s experience,
do not cover the actual cost to Council of providing these services. This is compounded by the fact that these
will be new services without real benchmarks to assess their cost
implications.
Recommendation 2
That fees to cover the additional
workloads and resources that will need to be devoted to the operation of PAC’s,
regional panels and arbitrators be calculated at full market rate and that this
be reviewed within 12 months of operation to ensure full cost recovery to
Council is reflected in the regulated fee.
Recommendation 3
That the current regulated
fees associated with development assessment be calculated in a transparent
manner that achieves full cost recovery of the service provided. As an example,
these current regulated fees could be indexed to CPI or other inflationary
indicators as is the practice with many market based fee structures.
Complying Development
One of the most significant proposals is to
increase the number of applications dealt with as exempt and complying
development. The Community Guide (“the
Guide”) prepared by the Department, identifies a target of increasing the
proportion of exempt and complying development from the current 11% of all
development, to 50% within four years.
Clearly, the actual codes that the Guide refers to
are required to fully understand the extent and detail of the changes
proposed. For example, the Guide refers
to single and two storey houses being included in the complying development
list (p. 11 of the Guide). In many parts
of the LGA, applications for detached housing can be the subject of much
discussion amongst neighbours and often result in alterations in the design of
proposals to accommodate amenity issues raised.
Such discussion will no longer be possible.
The consultation of neighbours, where complying
development proposals are being considered, is likely to be limited to
notification of commencement of development.
Whilst there should always be scope to consider a wider range of
applications outside of the DA process, the list included in the Guide appears
to be frought with risk for management of development in neighbourhoods. As has been the experience to date, it is
likely that Council staff will end up being included in discussions with
disaffected neighbours after the commencement of construction of complying
development. There will be no resources
to deal with these as there are no fees payable in cases where complying
development is privately certified.
In addition, the codes are likely to be standard
across the state with minimal distinction between the character of areas. Further, it is not clear what level of
locational differences that Council will be able to incorporate into these
codes as anticipated by the Guide (p. 11).
The proposed amendments include the removal of
Section 76A(6) from the Act which currently restrict areas where development
can be carried out as complying (e.g. on an item of heritage significance or in
a wilderness area). The explanatory notes state that these matters can be dealt
with in the relevant Environmental Planning Instruments. It is unclear as to
whether Councils will be able have any real control or input into where
complying development can be carried out.
Recommendation
4
That consultation occur on the extent and detail of the proposed
complying development to be included in the State wide codes.
Proposed section 85A (p.30) includes a provision
that private certifiers or Council may approve complying development even if
there is a minor variation to a standard or condition, but only if the Council
has been notified and agrees with the minor variation. The Council will have seven days to make this
judgement or the certifier may approve the development. Given that the Council will need to perform
this assessment task in the absence of any fees being paid for the service, it
is difficult to see how this additional service will be undertaken properly,
especially as there will need to be a site inspection in most, if not all,
instances.
Recommendation 5
That the Bill be
amended to include a fee being payable for Council consideration of a complying
development application seeking a variation of a standard or condition and that
the statutory time provided to Council's to review these requests be increased
to 14 days.
Proposed section 74C (p. 12) excludes the ability for Councils to
include notification requirements for complying development applications. The
Parramatta Notification DCP does not require notification of complying
development, given the fairly narrow range of developments that are complying. However, the types of complying development
are to be significantly broadened, with no provision for neighbour notification
now possible with this amendment.
Recommendation
6
That the
Department of Planning consider a more inclusive model of neighbour
notifications to enable meaningful input onto complying development
applications.
Plan Making Provisions
The general approach of a “gateway” (section 56, p.
8) to consider proposals to create draft LEP’s (“planning proposals”) is
supported. The intention is to ensure
that the process for small amendments and large LGA wide proposals, is
distinguished and the process is tailored accordingly. There are, however, some general comments
that are worth making.
The Regulation for categorising planning proposals for different types
of draft LEPs and the standards for community consultation for the different
categories are not yet available. Time frames for various stages of plan making
procedure are to be determined by the Minister seemingly on a case by case
basis. It is not possible to evaluate how onerous the time frames will be on
Councils, especially demands on staff resources. The extent of community
consultation for draft LEPs may be minimal and in some cases, this may be quite
appropriate, however, no detail on the procedure is available at this stage.
Recommendation 7
That
the DoP consult widely on the details associated with the gateway
determinations process prior to its establishment.
Proposed Section 26(3A) (p. 3) LEPs states that an LEP can make
provision for the temporary zoning of land.
There are no provisions that indicate the circumstances when this
provision should/could be used, so it is difficult to understand how this would
work. For example, would this allow land banking of areas by downzoning for a
limited period of time? This may be a
useful provision, but there is no detail relating to how this may actually be
administered.
Proposed section 55 (p.7) requires that as well as statement of
objectives, explanation of provisions and justification (including compliance
with s117 directions) and details of community consultation to be undertaken,
the planning proposal is to include maps such as land use zones, heritage areas
etc, prepared in accordance with the technical requirements. This is then
submitted to the Minister for ‘gateway determination’. It will be onerous for Councils to prepare
the maps to technical standard at this early stage, especially when the
planning proposal is not intended to include the legally drafted LEP document,
and the plan may not be allowed to proceed or be amended before proceeding.
The draft Bill contains an added provision to the potential to expedite
amendments to LEPs (S73A, p. 11).
Currently this section enables the amendment of an LEP without all the
normal processes required to make an LEP to correct obvious errors,
misdescriptions etc. The proposed
addition will enable this power to be exercised in circumstances that the
Minister considers that the amendment of the LEP would “not have any adverse
impact on the environment or adjoining land”.
This provision is supported as it adds flexibility to an otherwise rigid
process.
Council is required to include flood maps in its standard LEP. Council staff have argued that this will be
difficult as flood information is dynamic and will not wait for the lengthy
plan making process to catch up when amendments are required. There may be issues with section 149
certificates for example as LEP maps may be outdated but Council is obliged to
provide this information on such certificates whilst an amendment is being
prepared and finalised.
Recommendation
8
Given that Council
must include flood maps as part of the standard LEP, and given that flood
information is by definition, dynamic and constantly changing, that Councils be
allowed to amend flood maps using the amended draft section 73A.
Indemnity
for Arbitrators
Proposed section 23P (p. 28) of the draft Bill
requires that Council must indemnify a planning arbitrator against a liability
for costs incurred by the arbitrator with respect to an appeal concerning an
appeal under sections 97 or 123 of the Act.
Additional advice will need to be gained from
Council’s insurers to effectively provide feedback to this provision. Suffice to say that this is an additional
impost that Council does not currently cover and may represent an additional
insurance cost and risk.
Appointment of Private Certifiers
Appointment of private certifiers by an applicant
is contrary to best practice corruption prevention practice. Clearly, applicants have a vested interest in
ensuring that private certifiers approve development in an efficient
manner. Whilst some additional measures
such as stiffer penalties and ensuring that no more than 20% of a private
certifier’s total work be derived from a single developer will help, they do
not address the central issue of a private certifier having a fundamental
conflict of interest.
Private certifiers perform a regulatory function
that until relatively recently, was generally conducted by Councils. There must be public confidence in the
private certification process. A
relatively easy method of working towards this is ensuring that private
certifiers are appointed on a random basis and not of the applicant’s choosing. This way, a private certifier can be
confident what he/she will continue to receive employment regardless of their
recommendations and findings. The system would benefit from a process that
appoints private certifiers by an independent third party or randomly.
Recommendation 9
That
private certifiers be appointed by an independent party or by virtue of a
central register on an automated rotating roster or similar, to achieve a best
practice corruption prevention approach to approvals in the private sector, and
that the Buildings Professionals Board establish an auditing system for
accredited certifiers which includes random auditing together with
investigations into complaints received.
Accreditation of Council Employees to Carry out
Certification Work
It is proposed to amend Schedule 1 of the Building
Professional Regulation 2007 to include three new separate categories of
individual accreditation relating to accredited certifiers employed by a
council to carry out certification work on behalf of, or in the name of a
council. These 3 new categories will be
equivalent to the current categories A1, A2 and A3 Building Surveying.
The Accreditation Scheme will be amended to make
provision for the qualifications, skills, knowledge and experience required for
accreditation as a council accredited certifier for the 3 new categories. For the new categories CA1 and CA2 the
Council employing the person must certify that the person is competent and has
the appropriate skills and knowledge to undertake the specified category of
accreditation work.
In principle the concept of Council officers
requiring accreditation to undertake certification work is supported, however,
no further details have been provided regarding under what parameters a Council
is to certify the 'competence' of an existing member of staff. Until this level of detail is provided
Council will not be able to carry out a full analysis of the impacts that this
legislative change will have on what projects staff will be able to certify,
budgetary issues if certification work is required to be outsourced if existing
staff do not hold the required level of accreditation and professional indemnity impacts.
Developer Contributions
The developer contributions framework has been the subject of much
discussion recently. The media fact
sheet titled “A More Accountable
Infrastructure Contribution System” is misleading and gives the impression
that local councils have been greedy and irresponsible in their use of the
contributions system. It states that
councils are increasingly retaining and not spending the money collected,
however, it doesn’t acknowledge why this is occurring. For instance, in the case of an established
Council like
In this regard, the proposed legislation contains inherent conflicts
which would create uncertainty regarding the use of section 94A funds, or
indirect contributions as they are proposed to be called. The proposed legislation provides that there
is no requirement that there be a connection between the development the
subject of a section 94A contribution and the object of expenditure of the
funds. As such, it continues the current
provision that there be no nexus for section 94A contributions. However, it also proposes to introduce
legislation which requires that councils must have regard to whether the
contribution is based on apportionment between existing and new demand.
This type of requirement would be more relevant to direct contributions
under section 94 where the amount of the contribution is based on a calculation
of the cost of works divided by incoming population at an apportioned
rate. It would seem unworkable and would
defeat the advantages of a section 94A plan if the apportionment restriction
was applied to section 94A indirect contributions.
The range of infrastructure that councils will be able to fund under
section 94 and section 94A will be restricted to those that fit the definition
of “key community infrastructure” (as prescribed by the Regulations) or is
“additional community infrastructure” being that specifically approved by the
Minister. Contributions Plans that don’t
comply with this requirement will be automatically repealed on
The comprehensive review of the section 94 legislation
in 2003 developed a more flexible approach to contributions in proposing
potential for a flat rate levy, developer agreements or that traditional
section framework. The flat rate
approach, whilst not ideal, proposed a reasonable compromise between
flexibility and sharing the burden amongst developers and “existing residents”
by providing for the potential to impose the levy more widely across the
board. It does not seem to make sense to
further restrict this capacity where the levy will continue to be 1%. The burden of a developer or other applicants
is exactly the same.
Recommendation 10
All infrastructure works in
Given
that the flat rate levy that can be imposed by a section 94A plan distributes
the levy burden across both developers that are introducing new population and
existing populations, the capacity to spend these funds in established areas
like
Affordable Housing Contributions
Draft section 924-927 (p. 86-88) deal with development contributions for
affordable housing.
It is noted that the draft provisions are substantially the same as the
current provisions of the Act. However, given the current and ongoing issue of housing
affordability, the capacity to deliver affordable housing should be expanded
through the planning system rather than merely maintained.
Developer contributions can only be imposed by
Councils where they are identified in SEPP 70.
Parramatta Council has for some years, made formal application and
requests to be included in this SEPP unsuccessfully. The current draft Bill reinforces the need to
be included in the SEPP.
The change in public housing policy in the past
decade also needs to be mitigated. Public housing is now a social welfare
policy rather than a housing policy. The
restriction of public housing to people with complex and multiple needs rather
than the original policy that provided housing to moderate to low income
households has left a significant number of people with no housing support in
an increasingly market driven housing environment.
Recommendation 11
The
affordable housing provisions within the Act be expanded to enable state and
local government to develop and implement a sustainable housing policy that
provides housing to the sector of the community that is no longer served by
public housing.
Statutory Time
Frames for Assessing DAs
The draft Bill proposes to amend significantly the time frames available
for Council to determine development applications (DAs). Whilst these timeframes have been increased
to 50 day (standard DA), 70 days (where referral to another agency is required)
or 90 days (where it is an integrated DA).
Council will have seven days to determine whether the application is
deficient in information and reject it on that basis or within 15 days, request
additional information. The catch,
however, is that stop the clock provisions will no longer apply. Whilst theoretically, this sounds reasonable,
in practice, it is a significant step to refuse an application because for
example, it is deficient in say an acoustic report. Whilst this information is being sought and
prepared by the applicant, the clock continues to run and move towards a deemed
refusal even thought the Council may be dealing with the application
efficiently.
Recommendation
12
That stop the
clock provisions be retained.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROADS PATHS ACCESS AND FLOOD MITIGATION
ITEM NUMBER 7.1
SUBJECT Report
of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group Meeting -
REFERENCE F2004/06921 - D00917696
REPORT OF Manager Traffic and Transport
|
PURPOSE: Please refer to
the Background portion of this Report for more information |
|
That the report of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting
held on Monday 14 April 2008 be adopted. |
BACKGROUND
(a) A meeting of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group was held in
the Council Chambers on
(b) The proposal/recommendations of the Traffic Engineering
Advisory Group are attached to this report of the Traffic Engineering Advisory
Group.
Richard
Searle Kevin
Brennan
Traffic
& Transport Services Mgr Change
Mgr Regulatory Services
|
1View |
Report of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Committee Group held on |
65 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
|
Report of the Traffic Engineering Advisory
Committee Group held on |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROADS PATHS ACCESS AND FLOOD MITIGATION
ITEM NUMBER 7.2
SUBJECT Report
of the
REFERENCE F2004/06921 - D00917842
REPORT OF Manager Traffic and Transport
|
PURPOSE: Please refer to
the Background portion of this Report for more information |
|
That the
report of the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting held on |
BACKGROUND
(a) A meeting of the
Parramatta Traffic Committee was held in the Council Chambers on
(b) The
proposal/recommendations of the Parramatta Traffic Committee are attached to
this report of the Parramatta Traffic Committee.
Richard Searle Kevin Brennan
Traffic & Transport Services Mgr Change Mgr Regulatory Services
|
1View |
Report of the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting held on |
32 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
CULTURE AND LEISURE
ITEM NUMBER 8.1
SUBJECT
REFERENCE F2005/01947 - D00917826
REPORT OF Service Manager Open Space and Natural
Resources
|
PURPOSE: The Parramatta
Cycleway Committee met on |
|
(a) That Council receives and notes
the minutes of the Parramatta Cycleway Committee meeting held on (b) Further, that Council note there
are no requests for additional expenditure. |
BACKGROUND
1. Parramatta City Council’s
Cycleway Committee meets every second month.
The Committee currently comprises ten members representing various
cycling interests.
2. The
MAIN DISCUSSION POINTS
3. The Committee Members were given a briefing on
the present status with a number of the new off road cycleway projects being
constructed under the 2007/08 capital works program.
4. Discussion was also held on the present progress
of the 2008 Bike Plan and negotiations with the RTA for funding of a new
section of the North West TWay Cycleway through Council’s
5. The draft 2008 Bike
Plan will be issued to Committee Members prior to the next meeting on
Neville Davis
Service Manager Open Space and
Natural Resources
|
1View |
Minutes Cycleway Committee meeting |
7 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
|
Minutes Cycleway Committee meeting |
MINUTES OF THE PARRAMATTA CYCLEWAYS
COMMITTEE HELD IN THE BOARDROOM, LEVEL 12, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 30 DARCY
STREET, PARRAMATTA ON TUESDAY, 4 MARCH 2008 AT 6.15 PM
PRESENT
Neville Davis (Service Manager Open Space & Natural Resources) in
the Chair, Ian Macindoe, Antony DeVries, Peter Dixon (attending on behalf of
Megan Kessler), Councillor Maureen Walsh (arrived at 6.25pm), Glen Elmore
(arrived at 6.30pm).
IN ATTENDANCE
Danielle Sherd (Committee Clerk), Leanne Sutcliffe (Committee Clerk),
David Gray (Senior Project Officer – Transport Planning), Myfanwy Lawrence
(Project Officer Transport Planning).
APOLOGIES
An apology was received and accepted for the absence of Megan Kessler,
Councillor Chris Worthington, Robert Catford and Richard Searle Traffic &
Transport Service Manager).
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no conflicts of
interest at this meeting.
MINUTES
01/08 A copy of the Report of the Meeting of the
Parramatta Cycleway Committee held on
Recommendation
That the Minutes
of the Meeting of the Parramatta Cycleway Committee held on
BUSINESS ARISING
02/08 Bike
Plan Review Draft
Staff have
received the draft bike plan review from Contessa of Urban Arc Pty Ltd which
they will meet in two weeks time to review and arrange for their suggested
amendments to be incorporated before issuing to the committee around the first
week of April. The committee will be provided with a hard copy of the draft
review and will have approximately two weeks to provide comments and forward them to Myfanwy.
Action
Myfanwy will collate all committee members’
comments in document form ready for the next meeting on 6 May to enable group
discussion.
03/08 Subiaco
Creek/Bridge (Rheem Site)
Neville advised
that the land acquisition from Rheem had now been finalised, a contractor
engaged, and work had commenced last Saturday. It is envisaged the project
would be completed by mid April 2008.
Neville also
indicated that once the works were completed a date would be set to unveil the
Bill Brewer plaque.
04/08 Missing Link on North West T Way Cycleway
at
As previously
advised the RTA have tentatively agreed to fund this project at an estimated
cost of $130,000. Council has invited three contractors to quote for the works as agreed with the RTA. One
quote has been received so far and quotes close this week.
Councillor Walsh arrived
Council is also
waiting on a quote from Integral Energy for lighting for the missing link which is due within two
weeks.
Once all quotes
are received Council will undertake another meeting with the RTA.
Glen Elmore arrived at
Ian raised the
question of whether drop down kerbs would be included in the quote and Neville
confirmed they had been included.
Councillor Walsh
raised the issue of the need for better public access and measures to improve
public safety in the park due to its isolated location.
Neville responded that council's Community, Library and Social
Services staff have been working with the police & local community groups
& residents about the safety issues of this whole precinct area & will
be working with us in coordinating the community consultation aspects for this
proposed pathway prior to implementation.
This project also
includes relocation of the sound wall barriers back to the resident’s fence
line to improve cyclist’s visibility, improve passive surveillance and reduce
crime in the area.
Neville also said
the RTA had indicated that they were not prepared to fund the reconfiguration
of the traffic lights for cyclists and pedestrians in the left hand (slip)
lane.
Action
Neville to issue
committee members with a copy of the police
safety audit for the Wentworthville Housing Estate area.
05/08 Missing Link on
