Agenda of Ordinary Council

Attachment 1

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 24 April 2008 regarding the City Services Restructure

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER 10.8

SUBJECT City Services Restructure

REFERENCE F2007/00732 - D00917898

REPORT OF Acting General Manager

PURPOSE:

This report provides Council with an update on implementation of the restructure of the City Services Group.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive and note the report of the Acting General Manager on implementation of the restructure of the City Services Group.

BACKGROUND

1. In consideration of a Notice of Motion by Councillor Worthington, Council resolved at its meeting of 25 March 2008 to seek a further report on implementation of the City Services Restructure.

2. On 23 July 2007, Council approved in principle the restructuring of the City Services Group from seven to five service units. Council determined that further detailed consultation would be undertaken with staff prior to the final proposed structure being presented for Council approval and implementation by December 2007. At the same time, Council approved in principle the transfer of Regulatory functions and Traffic and Transport Services from City Services to the Outcomes and Development Group.

3. On 29 October 2007, Council received a further report advising of progress on the City Services restructure. All Level 3 Managers had been appointed and in-depth staff consultation undertaken in each area to determine the best possible structure for the Group to Level 5 management. Council approved the proposed structure including the establishment of up to 5 new staff positions to be deployed in outdoor front line services. Council further resolved that the savings currently being utilised to support the Outcomes and Development Review would support the appointment of two additional Tree Chipping team members upon completion of this review in June 2008.

4. Following these decisions of Council, the final structure of the Group was communicated to staff and further consultation undertaken in the preparation of detailed positions descriptions. The job evaluation process was undertaken with the support of the Workplace Reform Committee and the Joint Consultative Committee.

5. In December 2007, changes were made to Council’s internal financial reporting to ensure that the relevant cost areas supported the new structure. This enabled the December Quarterly Review to be prepared in the new structure and supported comparative analysis in the draft 2008/09 Budget which was commenced at the same time.

6. On 25February 2008, an update on the City Services restructure was provided as part of the report to Council on the December Quarterly Review. Savings had been determined once the grading was completed for all new or changed positions and Council was advised that these savings would be utilised to increase outdoor front line services with 2 additional Grass Cutting team members and 1 additional Parks Infrastructure Maintenance team member. These positions have since been advertised and are expected to be filled by the end of this month.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

7. The report to Council on 29 October 2007, confirmed that since teams were aligned with the new service units, the majority of City Services staff would experience no impact to their existing roles and accountabilities other than changes to reporting lines once the Level 4 and 5 positions were filled.

8. By the end of 2007, many of the changed positions had been drafted, graded, approved by Consultative Committee and filled, and as outlined above, the budget had been recast to support the new structure. Implementation of the City Services restructure has continued, however, well beyond the December 2007 timeframe.

9. To date, thirty-four people have been appointed to changed positions through the City Services restructure including three which required external advertising. A further six positions are currently advertised including four that have now been promoted externally as they were unsuccessful in attracting appropriate internal candidates.

10. With so many internal appointments, some follow-on recruitment is inevitable and has since been completed or remains underway for various vacated positions.

11. Where possible, sequencing of recruitment has been arranged to enable newly appointed supervisory staff to participate in the recruitment of their direct reports. Sequencing has also been considered in some areas to enable the outcome of selection for popular positions to be determined before staff are asked to consider accepting less favoured positions.

12. A number of staff matters have arisen throughout the implementation period which have required careful consideration and prolonged the process. Council approved, for example, the establishment of a graffiti removal service utilising existing resources within the City Operations team, subject to approval from Workplace Reform and Joint Consultative Committees. Consultation with the two staff affected has been lengthy and it is envisaged that this matter will now be considered by Workplace Reform Committee later this month.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

13. Since Council adopted the City Services restructure in October 2007, detailed consultation has been undertaken with affected staff, for example, in the development of position descriptions.

14. The job evaluation process has been completed with the support of the Workplace Reform Committee and the Joint Consultative Committee has also received updates on implementation of the City Services restructure to each subsequent meeting including the most recent held on 8 April 2008.

15. It is envisaged that consultation in regard to implementation of the City Services restructure, including reports to Consultative Committee, will continue until it is finalized with the expansion of the Tree Chipping service in July 2008.

Sue Coleman

Acting General Manager

17 April 2008

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 26 May 2008

Item 8.1

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER 8.1

SUBJECT Footpath Parking

REFERENCE F2004/07072 - D00937247

REPORT OF Change Manager Regulatory Services

PREVIOUS ITEMS 12.2 - Footpath Parking in the Parramatta LGA - Ordinary Council - 17 December 2007

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to clarify Council’s approach to footpath parking.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council write to residents in streets where the nature strip has been widened reminding them that it is illegal to park on footpaths and nature strips.

BACKGROUND

1. At the meeting on 17 December 2007 Council considered a report on footpath parking. Council had received a petition from residents and Councillors reported complaints in regards to infringement notices received by residents for illegally parking on footpaths / nature strips.

The adopted recommendations were:

(a) That Council write to the RTA as a matter of urgency and seek approval for the erection of permissive parking signs or other methods for areas where existing hard surface bays are located adjacent to roll-top kerbs, and that any associated works be funded from the Urgent Ward Work Funds.

Action: (Response from RTA received on 13 March 2008).

(b) That the matter be referred to the Parramatta Local Traffic Committee for their comment.

Action: (Response tabled at the Committee meeting on 14 April 2008)

(c) That Council write to the RTA seeking advice on the use of signage and footpath parking trials that are being carried out in other Local Government Areas.

Action: (Refer to RTA letter – attached - signage not required)

(d) That Council write to residents in areas where footpath parking may occur due to the roll-back kerbs reminding them of the requirements of the parking legislation.

Action: (Draft letter attached, can now be distributed as Council has received a formal response from the RTA)

(e) That Council officers review the ‘Standard Operating Procedures’ for Ranger Services staff.

Action: (This item is explained in Point 10 below).

2. At the Council meeting held on 28^th April 2008 Councillors also reported complaints from residents resulting from an illegal truck parking operation conducted by Rangers Services staff on the evening of Saturday 26^th April 2008. Infringement notices were issued to illegally parked trucks and cars illegally parked on footpaths / nature strips in streets in Granville, Merrylands, Chester Hill and Guildford.

3. Generally the complainants live in residential streets where the nature strip was widened by Council in the mid 1990s – a minimum of 38 streets.

4. The report presented on 17 December 2007 tabled legal advice on the matter and provided details of practices at other Councils. Subsequent to the Council meeting of 17 December 2007, Council wrote to the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) requesting clarification on the issue of footpath parking. A response letter from the RTA was received on 15 March 2008, and was tabled at the Parramatta Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 14^th April 2008.

5. A copy of this letter is attached to this report.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

6. It is clear that parking on footpaths / nature strips was made illegal with the introduction of the Australian Road Rules on 1 December 1999. The following are listed as ‘penalty notice offences ‘ :

a. Stopping on a path / nature trip in a built up area (rule 197/1)

b. Stopping on / across a driveway / other access to / from land (rule 198/2

7. The new rules came into operation after council constructed widened nature strips in some streets.

8. Hard Surface / delineated parking bays

The letter from the RTA received by Council on 15 March 2008 states the following:

“The Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) does not believe that existing hard surface bays located adjacent to roll top kerb require any special treatment.”

Council can infer that it is legal to park in hard surface bay areas such as those in Crown Street Epping, Marion Street Harris Park and Railway Parade Granville, and that signage is not required as the bays are clearly delineated from the nature strip.

Rangers and Parking Patrol Officers have been advised by management that Penalty Infringement Notices are not to be issued to cars parked on hard surface bays in the above mentioned streets. However, hard surface bays have not been installed in the majority of streets with widened nature strips. Staff in City Services have provided approximate estimates to:

· Restore these streets to their original width, or

· Install hard surface bays.

Restore the road to its original width

Costs for this can be estimated using m² rates. For example in Caroline Street Granville there is 95 lineal metres of existing roll kerb extending the footpath zone beyond the existing road carriageway alignment. The total estimate of costs to reconstruct the kerb along the original alignment is $80 000.

Install hard surface bays

The m2 rate to replace soft surfaces with a variety of hard surfaces is roughly as follows (estimates include site prelims, traffic control, sediment control, and demolition):

Concrete $198/m²

Crushed Rock $225/m²

Permeable Pavement $223/m²

Asphalt on Concrete $207/m²

As an example, for Caroline Street Granville (approximately 247m2) the following costs would apply:

Concrete $49 000

Crushed Rock $55 000

Permeable Pavement $55 000

Asphalt $51 000

Crushed Rock is an expensive system due to the concrete perimeter border required.

One option is for Council to advise residents that with the approval of Council and at their own expense, a hard surface bay may be constructed in the nature strip in front of their property. A consequence of this would be that the said parking would be on public land and therefore anyone could park their vehicle in that space which may cause conflict between neighbours.

9. Issuing Warnings

Residents have suggested that Council officers should issue warnings to the owners of vehicles parked illegally on footpaths. There is a strong possibility that this will result in inconsistency and perceptions of unfair application of the law, although it appears that some Councils (Ryde and Holroyd) at times ask residents to move cars parked on footpaths / nature strips in residential streets.

As far back at February 2000 other Councils (Pittwater) have sought legal advice on this matter, the advice received being that Council cannot instruct officers to use discretion, further that while there appears to be an option for officers to issue warnings this is limited as there is a risk of such behaviour being viewed as unlawful, improper or even corrupt. As an example, Parramatta City Council officers tasked on Saturday 26 April 10.00pm – 2.00am to investigate illegal truck parking in residential streets also detected cars parking illegally on footpaths. The officers on duty would need to consider why they would issue a warning for one offence and not another, and how they might explain the situation if one of the truck owners claimed that it was unfair for them to receive and infringement notice when other illegally parked vehicles did not.

On the other hand, Ryde Council does include in operating procedures an option for officers to ask the owners of vehicles parked on footpaths to move their vehicles.

The Ranger Services unit at Parramatta City Council does have ‘Standard Operating Procedures’. However, these procedures do not currently refer to a warning system as a first step in the enforcement process practice officers are not instructed to issue warnings to the owners of vehicles illegally parked on footpaths / nature strips.

A number of reasons not to issue warning emerged from discussions with management and staff in the Ranger Services Unit:

· Inconsistent practice with infringement notices issues without warning for other detected offences,

· would be difficult to monitor warnings and would take staff away from priority areas,

· officers may be accused of favouritism,

· may give the impression to residents that it is OK to park on the footpath / nature strip when under the Australian Road Rules (1999) these are clearly penalty notice offences.

A reminder letter to all house households with widened nature strips would fill the purpose of warning residents that is illegal to park on footpaths and nature strips (a draft letter is attached to this report).

10. Local Orders Policy

Councillors have previously asked whether a ‘Local Orders Policy’ or Operating Procedures could be developed advising officers to issue ‘warnings’ to the owners of vehicles illegally parked on footpaths / nature strips. The advice received from Council’s solicitors on 22 November 2007 conferred with the advice received by Pittwater Council that there is no statutory basis for creating a local order in regards to footpath parking.

The Local Government Act, 1993 provides council enforcement staff with the regulatory tools to deal with issues that have a detrimental impact on individuals or the community. Section 159 allows for the preparation of draft local policy for orders;

Preparation of draft local policy for orders;

(1) A council may prepare a draft local orders policy.

(2) A draft local orders policy is to specify the criteria which (if the policy were to be adopted) the council must take into consideration in determining whether or not to give an order under section 124.

Sections 124 and 125 of the Act, give council authority to serve specific Orders, depending on the circumstances, and to whom they can be served. Section 124 covers ‘Orders requiring or prohibiting the doing of things to or on premises”. The orders listed deal primarily with environmental and health issues. Section 125 refers to orders ‘To abate a public nuisance or order a person to abate a public nuisance”. An order relating to the regulation of parking on public land does not fit within the guidelines listed. A scan of ‘Local Orders Policies’ from other Councils has not revealed any reference to footpath / nature strip parking.

The enforcement of footpath parking in residential streets is not a high priority for the Ranger Services unit. The majority of footpath and nature strip offences are detected when officers are responding to other complaints raised by Councillors and members of the community.

11. Implications for Council taking no action on parking infringements which involved parking across driveway / on a footpath / nature strip.

Advice from Council’s solicitors dated 22 November indicated that, as parking on a footpath/ nature strip and across a driveway are penalty notice offences under the Australian Road Rules (1999), there is no implication for Council in not informing residents about the Road Rules, and that once an infringement is issued:

“the processes of law require the person served either elect to have the matter come before the Court or to pay the amount specified on the penalty notice”.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

12. It is clear that parking on footpaths / nature strips is an offence under Rule 197(1) of the Australian Road Rules 1999. Sending a reminder to residents that this is the case would clarify the issue on that point , but may not satisfy residents who may have construed that parking on the nature strip was permissible in streets where Council widened the nature strip. Given that most of the affected residences have off-street parking and parking is also available on-street, it would then not be necessary to pursue either returning the streets to their original width or the installation of hard surface bays.

Kevin Brennan

Change Manager – Regulatory Services

15 May 2008

Attachments:

1View	Streets with widened nature strips and roll kerbs	1 Page
2View	Draft letter to residents	1 Page
3View	Lette from the RTA regading footpath parking 13 March 08	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 26 May 2008

Item 8.2

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER 8.2

SUBJECT Site Meeting Process

REFERENCE F2004/08629 - D00939449

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PREVIOUS ITEMS 5.1 - Site Meeting Process - Ordinary Council - 28 April 2008

PURPOSE:

To seek endorsement to amendments to the adopted site meeting process and to provide additional information to assist Council in consideration of the matter.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That site meetings be held for the following types of applications:

· Development applications where 7 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.

2. That a minimum of one Councillor be in attendance to enable an on-site meeting to be held.

3. That all Councillors, relevant staff, persons who made a submission (both objecting and support) and the applicant be invited to attend the site meeting.

4. That the Development Support Team Leader - Development Assessment Services schedule on-site meeting through the corporate diary and attach 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.

5. That on-site meetings be arranged for 5pm on Tuesday or Thursday and

Saturday mornings.

6. That a strict protocol for the chairing of on-site meetings be developed.

7. That Council’s notification letter advises attendees of the purpose of the meeting and the level of behaviour expected.

8. That all residents attending the on-site meeting provide their details on the day and that this information be recorded by Council

9. That Council staff provide a summary report of the development proposal for

the on-site meeting and that a map be supplied with each report which indicates both the number of residents notified of the DA and the number of residents who made submissions (both objections and supporters).

10. That a review of the revised operating procedures for on-site 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 28 April 2008 considered a report on site meeting process and resolved:

‘That consideration of this matter be deferred for 4 weeks pending the provisions of further information on any matters raised via email by Councillors with staff within the next 10 days together with the changes to the Manager Development Services’ recommendation as contained in the above motion.’

An email was sent on 1 May 2008 to all Councillors providing a reminder of the Council resolution of 28 April 2008. Councillors were requested to send any questions or issues that they wished to have considered in the follow up report to the Manager Development Services by Friday 9 May 2008.

At the date of writing this report (15 May 2008) no further questions or comments have been provided to staff by any Councillor.

REPORT

Whilst no questions or comments have been provided by Councillors for inclusion in this report some commentary will be made on issues raised by Councillors during the debate on 28 April 2008 and the proposed amendments as suggested by Councillor Worthington:

Letter sent to residents and applicants advising of site meeting

A copy of the standard letter which is currently sent to residents and applicants inviting them to attend site meetings can be found in Attachment 1. The letter clearly states:

· the purpose of site meetings

· who is invited to attend the site meeting

· the time and date of the site meeting

It is proposed to retain this current standard letter, but enhance the letter by outlining the standard of behaviour which is expected from all persons attending site meetings.

Changes to the ‘trigger’ for on-site meetings

It has been suggested by some Councillors that the ‘trigger’ for holding on-site meetings should be amended to include:

· Development applications where 8 or more submissions have been received

· Masterplan applications

· Development applications which seek demolition of a heritage item

· All child care centres

· All brothels and massage parlours

· Hotels and licensed restaurants

The broadening of the ‘triggers’ which necessitate an on-site meeting will result in an increase in the number of site meetings being held. It is estimated that the number of additional on-site meetings which would be required to be held will not be dissimilar to that which has occurred over the past 6 months (i.e. 70 inspections in a 6 month period). As outlined in the previous report to Council on this matter the issues which have been experienced over the last 6 months due to the large number of inspections includes: timing, budget, staffing and availability issues for Councillors. The further broadening of applications to be referred to site meetings will not help to address these existing issues.

There are widely differing views on the question ‘when is it appropriate to have a site meeting?’ and there is no right answer. However, establishing ‘triggers’ based on application types, rather than the ‘public interest’ in the application (which is largely based on the number of submissions received from the community) is not considered to be the most appropriate way for an application to ‘trigger’ an on site meeting as it does not show what ‘public interest’ there is in an application.

For this reason, it is recommended that the ‘trigger’ for the number of submissions received be reduced from the previously recommended 10 to 7, but that ‘triggers’ relating to land use types not be established as it is not an accurate way in which to establish ‘public interest’ in an application.

Number of Councillors to be in attendance for site meetings to be held

It has been suggested that a minimum of 1 councillor be in attendance to enable an on-site meeting to be held. This is supported and the report recommendation has been amended.

Timing of Site Inspections

The suggested change in starting time for the Tuesday and Thursday evening site inspections to 5.00pm is supported and the report recommendation has been amended.

Documentation submitted with on-site summary report

It has been suggested that a map be supplied with each on-site summary report which indicates both the number of properties which were notified of the DA and the number of residents who have lodged submissions (objectors and supporters).This is supported and the report recommendation has been amended.

Louise Kerr

Manager Development Services

Attachments:

1View	Site Meeting Process - 28 April 2008 - Ordinary Council Meeting	7 Pages
2View	Advise notified properties On-site Meeting Letter	2 Pages

BACKGROUND

Council at its meeting of 25 June 2007 considered a report which sought to establish a formal site meeting process for development applications and Masterplan applications. At the meeting it was resolved that on-site meetings be held for certain types of applications.

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 25 June 2007 commenced operation in October 2007.

A Notice of Motion relating to the on-site meeting process was put forward by Councillor Worthington at the Council meeting of 25 March 2008. The Notice of Motion proposed identified that the adopted on-site meeting process could be improved.

A response to the Notice of Motion was tabled at the Council meeting of 25 March 2008. The Notice of Motion was deferred to enable staff to prepare a report for Council’s consideration on the implementation of the site meeting process.

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 4 to 8 weeks.

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 6pm and Saturday mornings during daylight saving period;

· 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 4.30pm on Tuesday or Thursday and Saturday mornings.

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

17 April 2008

Ordinary Council 26 May 2008

Item 9.2

CITY DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.2

SUBJECT Funding of Heritage Assistance

REFERENCE F2008/00567 - D00936977

REPORT OF Acting Manager Land Use and Transport Planning

PURPOSE:

To report results of investigations into the feasibility of establishing a heritage fund for spending on heritage listed properties on a needs basis as required by Council resolution dated 23 July 2007.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That a proposal be submitted by staff through the management plan project prioritisation process for the 2009/2010 budget to allocate a total amount in the order of $50,000 to $100,000 to Council's Local Heritage Fund.

(b) That if the proposal in Recommendation (a) is successful, that the current Local Heritage Fund guidelines be modified to allow grants up to;

1 50% of project costs, where costs are not greater than $5,000, and

2 up to an additional 25% for project costs in excess of $5,000 to a maximum of $10,000.

(c) That, as part of the process of determining the amount of funding proposed to be allocated to the Local Heritage Fund as referred to in (a) above, investigation take place into the feasibility of obtaining contributions, donations and services from the public, businesses and government agencies to assist with heritage conservation in the Parramatta LGA.

(d) That a proposal be submitted by staff through the management plan project prioritisation process for the 2009/2010 budget to allocate $20,000 for the preparation of a series of brochures on listed buildings within historic precincts of Parramatta.

(e) That priority be given to be completion of heritage information which is to be posted on Council's website and distributed to all owners of heritage listed properties.

(f) Further that, the provisions of section 4.8 of draft Parramatta DCP 2008 dealing with the maintenance of heritage buildings be modified to include advice on the importance of heritage buildings being kept structurally sound, habitable and weatherproofed.

BACKGROUND

1. Council at its meeting of 23 July 2007 resolved to investigate potential financial assistance for heritage listed properties, as follows:

“That Council produce a report by May 2008 advising the feasibility and options of developing and operating a Support Parramatta's Heritage Fund to avert "demolition by neglect or inability" whereby:

1 All rates collected from heritage listed properties outside of the Parramatta CBD are marked as the Support Parramatta's Heritage fund;

2 This Support Parramatta's Heritage Fund is to be used annually for capital works and related maintenance projects with the Parramatta Local Government Area but outside of the Parramatta CBD under a minimum of 3 years rolling programme;

3 The rolling programme for each year's capital works and related maintenance projects are determined, prioritised and budgeted for in consultation with Council's Heritage Advisory Committee, Heritage Office and any other appropriate authorities and experts;

4 The priorities for funding are skewed towards those heritage listed properties that are on a needs basis, as well as corresponding commitment demonstrated by the property owners to jointly fund such proposed capital works and related maintenance; and

5 The agreed rolling programme of projects and funding is published and regularly updated on the Council's website, and an additional list of those projects that should be funded despite the corresponding property owner not yet agreeing to or committing to jointly fund the proposed capital works and related maintenance.”

Investigations

2. In response to the above resolution and to determine whether alternative options may be available, the following investigations were undertaken:

(a) consideration of the amount of money that would be raised through rates on heritage listed properties and the ramifications of this expenditure on Council’s budget;

(b) consideration of alternative funding proposals;

(d) focus group discussions with a sample of resident panel members owning heritage listed properties; and

(e) a general high level evaluation of the condition of heritage listed properties within the Parramatta LGA.

3. Detailed results of the investigations are outlined more fully in attachments to this report.

Issues

4. The direction of rates from heritage listed properties outside the Parramatta City Centre would raise approximately $ 3.6 million to be used for maintenance and conservation. This proposal would have the advantage of providing substantial funds for heritage conservation. However, the proposal is not financially sustainable, particularly given the budgetary system within which Council operates, with rates capping limiting Council's ability to raise revenue, and the large demands over a wide range of Council services on its limited funds. In addition, the administration of a capital works and maintenance program, as proposed in the resolution, would not be possible without substantial additional Council staff resources and finances, further calling on recurring funding.

5. Council's present financial assistance under the local Heritage fund is perceived as inadequate by some owners of heritage listed properties and is substantially less than provided by other major Australian cities. In reviewing options for financial assistance elsewhere in Australia and overseas including rates relief, loans and grants, the latter is considered the most effective option for the Parramatta LGA. Nevertheless, there is a need for the allocation to the fund and for individual grants to be substantially increased given the importance of heritage to Parramatta and its large number of heritage listed properties.

6. It is recommended that a budget bid be made in the 2009/2010 year to increase the total allocation to the Local Heritage Fund by an amount in the order of $50,000 to $100,000. In subsequent years the allocation would be regarded as a rolling project in the management plan project prioritisation process. It is also recommended that subject to the fund increase the current Local Heritage Fund Guidelines be modified to allow grants up to 50% of project costs, not greater than $5,000 and up to 25% for project costs in excess of $5,000 to a maximum of $10,000.

7. Alternatives to Council grant funding should also be explored. A scheme, such as the City of Perth Heritage Appeal, or variation of it, may have merit and it is recommended that the feasibility be investigated of obtaining contributions, donations and services from the public, businesses and government agencies to assist with heritage conservation in the Parramatta LGA. This is discussed in more detail in Attachments 1 and 2.

8. From the focus group discussions with owners of heritage listed properties a strong need emerged for additional information on maintenance and upkeep and on measures of assistance. The need for additional information is supported and the Land Use and Transport Planning Unit will be, as a matter of priority, completing the preparation of information on heritage assistance which will be posted on Council's website and forwarded to all owners of heritage listed properties. This information will include the discounted loans offered by Bendigo Bank for heritage properties.

9. In addition, the Heritage Advisory Committee, in considering the issue of heritage assistance, sought the preparation of a series of brochures on listed buildings within historic precincts of Parramatta. This proposal has merit and would enhance heritage owners’ understanding and appreciation of the heritage significance of particular localities. It is recommended that a budget bid be made to allocate $20,000 for this purpose in the 2009/2010 budget.

10. Consideration has been given to the administration of the Local Heritage Fund and whether applications should be made at any time of the year, or whether applications should be called once a year. On balance, the present approach is preferred as it is reasonably well known to the owners of properties and there are perceived benefits in being able to be make an application when works have been completed. However, this matter will continue to be monitored.

11. Council has a limited ability to address neglected heritage buildings under formal legal processes. However, a more pro active approach could be taken by Council staff who, in the course of their duties, are likely to become aware of neglected heritage buildings. A more formal process could be established to record reporting and follow up actions, which could include a letter written to the owner requesting that remedial work be undertaken with potential assistance of grant funds and with the services offered by Council’s heritage adviser. For serious issues of neglect, enforcement orders can be served under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act requiring works to be carried out. In addition, section 4.8 of draft Parramatta DCP 2008 should be modified to include advice on the importance of heritage buildings being kept structurally sound, habitable and weatherproofed.

12. Increased funding of the Local Heritage Fund and the dissemination of increased heritage information, together with more emphasis on identification of neglected heritage items and working with owners to improve maintenance, should provide improved assistance for the conservation of heritage listed properties in the Parramatta LGA and help prevent demolition by neglect.

Paul Kennedy Sue Stewart

Project Officer Acting Manager, Land Use and

Land Use and Transport Planning Transport Planning

Attachments:

1View	Background Report on Heritage Assistance	10 Pages
2View	Outline of Options for Financial Assistance	6 Pages
3View	Heritage Assistance Consultation Report	15 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

None.

Attachment 1

Background Report on Heritage Assistance

Background report on heritage assistance

Council resolution

1. Council at its meeting of 23 July 2007 passed a resolution regarding financial assistance for heritage listed properties, which stated:

That Council produce a report by May 2008 advising the feasibility and options of developing and operating a Support Parramatta's Heritage Fund to avert "demolition by neglect or inability" whereby:

1 All rates collected from heritage listed properties outside of the Parramatta CBD are marked as the Support Parramatta's Heritage fund;

Investigations

2. In response to the above resolution and to determine whether alternative options may be available, the following investigations were undertaken:

· Consideration of the amount that would be raised through rates on heritage listed properties and the ramifications of this expenditure on Council’s budget

· An examination of practices being pursued elsewhere in Sydney, NSW, Australia and overseas to assist with the conservation of heritage properties

· An evaluation of all measures including grants, loans, rates relief and other initiatives

· Consultation, through Council's Community Engagement Unit, with a sample of resident panel members who own heritage listed properties in the Parramatta LGA regarding awareness of Council's Local Heritage Fund, perceived problems of the fund and possible suggestions for improvement. Consultation was undertaken in the form of focus group discussions

· Discussions with the Heritage Advisory Committee of Council

· A general evaluation of the condition of heritage listed properties within the Parramatta LGA, mainly based on a survey undertaken by the Parramatta Regional Branch of the National Trust in 2004.

3. Investigations also included a review of several comprehensive studies dealing in whole or in part on heritage assistance, these being:

· The Productivity Commission Enquiry Report, Conservation of Australia's Historic Heritage Places, April 2006

· A report, Making Heritage Happen by the National Incentives Task Force for the Environmental Protection and Heritage Council, April 2004, and

· A draft report, Investigation of Heritage Mechanisms, produced by SGS Economics and Planning for NSW Heritage Office.

Need for assistance

4. Generally government and heritage agencies, both in Australia and overseas advocate some measure of assistance for the maintenance and protection of heritage listed properties.

5. The NSW Heritage office considers that there are benefits of heritage funding, and that they encourage conservation of items and promote a positive community attitude, encourage more work because funding is on a contributory basis and provide a tool for more closely targeted projects.

6. The Productivity Commission Enquiry Report, Conservation of Australia's `Historic Heritage Places, April 2006 states that on the issue of assistance, ‘Taxpayer/ratepayer funding should be seen as complementary to private expenditure and as a last resort, rather than a first, as there is unlikely ever to be enough taxpayer/ratepayer funding available to satisfy all conceivable requests for public funds -that is priorities have to be set. Importantly, public expenditures should not displace private funding sources, and should only be used if the community benefits of conservation are assessed to be greater than the costs of conserving the extra heritage value’.

Existing assistance in Parramatta LGA

7. Currently, the assistance outlined in the following paragraphs is provided for owners of heritage properties within the Parramatta LGA.

8. Council makes grants of up to $2,500 per person from its Local Heritage Fund to encourage appropriate conservation work to privately owned properties which are heritage listed or in conservation areas in the Parramatta LGA. Grants are limited as follows:

· $1,000 for works up to $5,000 in value

· $2,000 for works between $5,000 to 20,000 in value

· $2,500 for works over 20,000 in value.

9. Council has a scheme in place, which as stated in Section 2.4.2 of the Heritage DCP, offers assistance with DA fees in 2 ways:

· Rebate of 10% on the cost of the DA fee may be paid when a Statement of Heritage Impact is required

· An amount equal to the entire DA fee may be reimbursed in cases where the application is required only because the building or place is heritage listed.

The DCP goes on to state that 'applicants may apply for the rebate' or 'applicants may apply to be reimbursed for an amount equal to the entire DA fee'.

10. The Heritage DCP indicates that if a property is listed as a heritage item or is within a conservation area, the Valuer- General will automatically calculate an artificial reduction in the value of the property. The land value of properties that are heritage restricted by a planning instrument, such as a local or regional environmental plan is determined in accordance with section 14G of the Valuation of Land Act 1916. The heritage restriction is considered when determining the land value used for rating and taxing purposes. This will have the effect of reducing Council rates for heritage properties, since the calculation of those raised is based on the value of property as provided by the Valuer-General.

11. Council provides a free advisory service for the maintenance, repair and development of properties that are either heritage listed or located in conservation areas. Advice can be given as to whether proposals will enhance the heritage value of a property, whether there are alternatives available and whether the proposal would be likely to receive consent.

12. Under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (LEP) (Heritage and Conservation) and also the recently gazetted Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007, there are provisions for conservation incentives to allow development that would not otherwise be permitted if the retention of the heritage item depends on the granting of consent. This flexibility may help in the conservation and maintenance of heritage properties.

13. Council has the power to serve enforcement orders under Section 121 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for badly neglected buildings which are a safety or health risk to occupants or the public. A number of such enforcement orders have been recently served in Parramatta City for heritage listed buildings; often where such buildings are deceased estates or fire damaged. To extend these powers, local government made representations in the Heritage Act Review to impose minimum standards of maintenance and repair for local heritage items, similar to powers that exist for state listed items. However, the independent panel of experts who conducted a review of the NSW Heritage Act 1977 considered that such powers are only justified for items of state significance, deliberate neglect of local items was not believed to be widespread and the introduction of minimum standards of maintenance and repair could impose considerable financial burdens on owners of local heritage items.

Condition of heritage listed properties

14. A general evaluation of the condition of heritage listed properties in the Parramatta LGA was undertaken, mainly based on a survey by the Parramatta Regional Branch of the National Trust in 2004. Selecting a sample of one quarter of the properties surveyed, it was found (and accepting some inevitable degree of subjectivity in the assessment) that 58% were identified as in good condition, 24 % in fair condition and 6% in poor condition.

15. A recent general inspection of a large number of heritage properties took place, where properties were viewed from the road, which confirms that the majority of heritage listed properties are in a good condition with only a small minority in a poor or neglected condition. This information shows that whilst problems of neglect do not appear to be significant, maintenance is an issue for many properties, which is likely to create demands for assistance.

Consultation on heritage assistance

16. Two focus group discussions on heritage assistance were held on 2 and 5 April 2008 with 21 resident panel members who are owners of heritage listed properties in the Parramatta LGA, which was organised through Council's Community Engagement Unit. A summary of the views of the groups is indicated below:

· Owners of heritage buildings appreciated the building’s history and heritage and special style and ambience

· Negative aspects of heritage home ownership included maintenance problems, impact on property value, restrictive heritage regulations and a lack of heritage information

· Future work planned by owners was mostly plumbing, drainage and roofing with painting and work on walls and windows being the next most mentioned

· The majority of owners were aware of the Local Heritage Fund. However, they considered the value of grants to be low in comparison to the cost of work, or that they were uncertain of grant details, or that they thought the obtaining of funding was too regulated

· A variety of forms of increased financial assistance is sought (exemption from rates, Council to pay for heritage works, owner to pay for materials only, exemption from Council development application fees, Council purchase of heritage properties and a heritage assessment of properties)

· The need for additional information on heritage is almost as important as increased financial assistance and includes information on local heritage, good tradesman and for new property owners.

A full report on the consultation undertaken is included as Attachment 3.

17. The issue of increased financial assistance for the maintenance and conservation of heritage listed properties in the Parramatta LGA was discussed on several occasions with Council's Heritage Advisory Committee. The Committee welcomed the enthusiasm and willingness to assist heritage owners shown by Council and raised the following points:

· There needs to be increased promotion of the awareness of the fund and the benefits of heritage listing

· The provision of increased heritage information is important and the Committee specifically seeks that Council give consideration to funding the preparation of a series of simple language guides or pamphlets on heritage buildings within the historic precincts of the LGA. This proposal has the aim to raise awareness of heritage issues by property owners and the community.

Rates from heritage listed properties

18. The Council resolution of 23 July 2007 required investigation of an option that all rates collected from heritage listed properties outside the Parramatta CBD would be added to a heritage fund for spending on heritage listed properties on a needs basis. The option would specifically require preparation, in consultation with the heritage groups and agencies, of a three-year programme of conservation and works prepared, which would be determined on a needs basis, with contributions sought from owners and would be published on Council's website.

19. The approximate amount that could be raised from rates collected from heritage listed properties outside the Parramatta CBD has been estimated at $3.6 million. A large proportion of this amount (one million plus) is from a small number of sites where only a small part is of heritage significance (eg. foreshores of properties are shown as heritage wetlands). The use of rates from these properties for heritage maintenance purposes may be considered unfair and unjustified.

20. The rate income from heritage listed properties would provide substantial funds for heritage conservation. However, the proposal is not considered to be financially sustainable, particularly having regard to the following:

· The budgetary system within which Council operates, with rates capping, limiting Council's ability to raise revenue, with large demands over a wide range of council services on its limited funds. The increase in expenditure from the budget to fund any increase for heritage work would require offset savings or reduction in services.

· The use of $3.6 million for heritage conservation and maintenance could seriously affect Council's ability to fund discretionary projects. Of note, in the proposed 2008/2009 budget the planned expenditure for non-discretionary services is $121 million, leaving a surplus of approximately $9.3 million for discretionary projects. The amount of $ 3.6 million represents a substantial proportion of $9.3 million and would mean that many desirable projects could not be funded.

· In addition, the administration of a capital works and maintenance program, as proposed in the resolution, would not be possible without substantial additional Council staff resources and finances, further calling on recurring funding.

Alternative options

21. Alternative options for providing financial assistance for heritage properties were researched and are outlined more fully in Attachment 2 to this report. Options considered are rates relief, grants, loans and Section 94 contributions.

22. It is accepted that different options for heritage assistance can be effective in various circumstances for achieving heritage outcomes. In many cases, as for the City of Perth, a number of options can be successfully pursued concurrently.

23. However, grants are the main preferred approach for financial assistance to the owners of heritage listed properties in the Parramatta LGA. Grants are transparent, can be targeted to achieve satisfactory results and Council already has a grant scheme in place.

24. Comments on the various options are briefly outlined below:

· Rate relief would have the advantage of reducing the burden on the owners of heritage listed properties. However, it would likely have a significant impact on Council's rate income and would not necessarily achieve conservation work to heritage properties

· Council administered loans could also provide assistance but would require a significant outlay of financial and staff resources with uncertain outcomes and at this stage are not supported. However, as noted in Attachment 2, Bendigo Bank offers discounted loans of 0.50% off the variable rate for heritage properties. These can be publicised with little cost to Council

· Developer contributions would be of little use to heritage assistance as they cannot be used to fund works and maintenance on privately owned buildings; they can only be used for the capital costs of public buildings with a civic and community function.

25. In addition, a scheme such as the City of Perth Heritage Appeal, where public donations are sought to fund heritage grants and projects, may be of potential benefit to the Parramatta LGA. It is recommended that investigations should take place into whether such a scheme, or a variation of it, would be viable for the Parramatta LGA and whether generally contributions, donations or services could be sought from the public, businesses and government agencies to help fund heritage conservation and projects. Investigations could include whether major retailers would give discounts on materials (for example, timber and paint) to be used in undertaking maintenance and conservation work to heritage properties.

Increased funding for the Local Heritage Fund

26. Whilst grants are the preferred option for assistance, the current level of funding for the existing Local Heritage Fund for the Parramatta LGA is generally perceived as inadequate and is substantially less than provided by a number of councils in Sydney and major Australian cities. Therefore, the allocation to the fund and individual grants should be increased. It is noted that better promotion of the grant scheme is also required to make it more effective and additional funds are not the sole solution.

27. It is considered that the following changes should be made to the Local Heritage Fund:

· The annual allocation to the fund should be increased by a total amount in the order of $50,000 to $100,000 in the 2009/2010 financial year.

· Grants should be limited to 50% of the project cost, or 50 cents in the dollar, where the project cost is not greater than $5000.

· Where project costs exceed $5000, grants would made on the basis of:

- 50%, or 50 cents in the dollar, of the project cost, of that portion of the cost up to $5,000 and

- an additional 25%, or 25 cents in the dollar, for that portion of the cost in excess of $5,000 and

- restricting grants to a maximum of $10,000.

28. Examples of grants that could be offered under the above guidelines are shown in the following table.

Value of work	50% of project costs up to $5,000	An additional 25%	Grants offered
$3000	$1500	Nil	$1500
$9,000	$2500	$1000	$3500
$70,000	$2500	$16,250	Maximum grant of $10,000

29. The modifications reflect the general practice of most other councils where grants are limited to 50% of the project cost, with a number of councils reducing the proportion of assistance to 20% to 30%. In most cases, because the maximum grant amount is capped at a comparatively low figure, only in a few cases will applicants receive half of the project cost. That is, if the maximum amount of grant is set at $3,000, then when the cost of the work exceeds $6,000 the applicant will receive less than 50%.

30. Allowing grants up to 50% of the project cost of up to $5,000 will preserve the benefits of the present Local Heritage Fund. Currently, when the value of work is up to $2000 fund applicants are entitled to a 50% rebate from Council. In addition, past analysis (of years 2003 to 2006) showed that 50% of the applicants for the Local Heritage Fund spent less than $5,000.

31. From analysis of the value of conservation works for grants applied for in the last two years it is considered that the above changes to the fund should satisfy demand - at least in the short term. The following table has taken the value of past works, assumed a doubling of demand and shows the value of grants that could be offered in the future. On this basis, future demand for grants could be in the order of $60,000 annually.

2006/2007 financial year

Value of work	Assumed doubling of demand	Grants offered
520	X 2x 50%	520
1155	X 2x 50%	1155
2500	X 2x 50%	2500
5600	X2 x 25%	5300
12,600	X2 x 25%	8800
14, 635	X2 x 25%	9842
14,950	X2 x 25%	9974
100,000	X2 x 25%	20,000
	Total	58,0 91

2007/2008 financial year

Value of work	Assumed doubling of demand	Grants offered
2387	X 2x 50%	2000
2700	X 2x 50%	2000
6184	X2 x 25%	5592
18,231	X2 x 25%	11615
72,000	X2 x 25%	20,000
105,000	X2 x 25%	20,000
	Total	61,207

32. It is considered that by increasing individual heritage grants and publicity on the Local Heritage Fund that an increased demand should more closely match the annual allocation to the Fund.

Administration of Local Heritage Fund

33. Currently, applications for grants under Councils Local Heritage Fund can be made at any time of the year. However, the NSW Heritage office recommends that applications be called on a once - a -year basis as this provides:

· the best overview of needs in the area

· enables the selection committee to prioritise applications and recommend funding accordingly

· is equitable because the program can be properly advertised and all applications dealt with at the same time.

34. Most other funding schemes in NSW and elsewhere in Australia, which information was collected on, call for applications on an annual basis. In discussions with officers administering funding schemes at Hornsby Shire Council and City of Sydney it was noted that funds are always fully subscribed, in part because maximum publicity can be given to the schemes under this arrangement.

35. Whilst the above advantages are acknowledged it is considered that Council’s present system has the following advantages:

· That funding processes are now reasonably well known to the owners of heritage listed properties

· That there are perceived benefits in being able to make an application when works have been completed

· There is a reasonable certainty that grants will be approved.

36. On balance, it is considered that the present arrangements where grants can be applied for any time should be retained. However, this matter should be raised in further contact with the owners of heritage listed properties, planned for later this year. If necessary a recommendation could be made to Council to change the timing of making applications.

Increased heritage information

37. During consultation on heritage assistance a strong need emerged for additional information on heritage issues. The need for additional information is supported and the Land Use and Transport Planning Unit will be as a matter of priority completing the preparation of information on heritage assistance which will be posted on Council's website and forwarded to all owners of heritage listed properties. Specifically, information is to be provided on:

· the Local Heritage Fund

· Councils free heritage advisory service

· rebates for heritage development applications

· the discounted loans offered by Bendigo Bank

· links to other website, such as the Heritage Office website including information on firms and specialist trades providing a range of heritage supplies and services across New South Wales

· the implications of heritage listing for owners and development processes and procedures, and

· for the new owners of heritage properties.

38. As part of Council’s ongoing heritage program it is intended to hold a further seminar (one was previously held in 2006) for the owners of heritage properties on a range of issues generally concerned with the maintenance of heritage properties. At the seminar the possibility will be explored of setting up a heritage network for the owners of heritage properties.

39. In addition, the suggestion of the Heritage Advisory Committee to produce a series of brochures on listed buildings within historic precincts of Parramatta has merit and would enhance heritage owners’ understanding and appreciation of the heritage significance of particular localities. It is recommended that a budget bid should be made to allocate $20,000 for this purpose in the 2009/2010 budget.

Improved Processes for Working with Owners of Neglected Heritage Items

40. Council's current enforcement powers for neglected heritage buildings, as noted in paragraph 14 of this background report, are limited. However, there are opportunities for Council officers, during the course of their duties in the field, to become more aware of neglected heritage items. A more pro active approach could be taken to facilitate a better reporting and action system, to work with owners of these properties to encourage better care and maintenance.

41 Council’s Compliance officers, Environment and Health officers, Operational Liaison officers and Heritage Adviser are the most likely staff engaged in their usual duties, to become aware of neglected heritage items. A system of preparing a service request report (such as already operates when matters are raised by the public) on heritage buildings which are observed to be in a neglected condition would enable a better tracking process for follow up action. Enforcement orders are served for heritage buildings under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act where buildings are badly neglected and in an unsafe condition. For properties whose condition is neglected, but not unsafe, a letter could be forwarded to owners requesting that remedial works be undertaken with potential assistance of grant funds and with the assistance of the services of Council's Heritage Adviser.

42. In order to raise awareness amongst property owners of Council’s expectations for the upkeep of heritage properties, it would also be appropriate to strengthen the maintenance provisions dealing with heritage buildings in draft Parramatta DCP 2008, carried over from Parramatta Heritage DCP 2001. Existing provisions indicate that: roofs should be kept waterproofed and in good repair, timber walls should be kept well maintained with regular painting and original doors and windows should be retained. These provisions should be extended in scope to include advice emphasising the importance of heritage buildings being kept structurally sound, habitable and weatherproofed.

Attachment 2

Outline of Options for Financial Assistance

Outline of options for financial assistance

There are a number of options for providing financial assistance to the owners of heritage listed properties, which are generally rates relief, grants, loans and also Section 94 Contributions. An outline and discussion of the options, largely based on a report, Making Heritage Happen by the National Incentives Task Force for the Environmental Protection and Heritage Council, April 2004, is below:

1. Option/property tax abatements or rates relief

How they work

This approach involves a full or partial reduction, freezing or deferment of property taxes or rates. Access to property tax abatements schemes can be based on requirement to undertake conservation work, or can be an automatic entitlement for all eligible properties. They are usually as of right incentives rather than fully discretionary ones.

Examples

Such schemes are widely employed in North America, but also in parts of Europe (West Germany and France) and Turkey (where heritage properties are completely exempted from property taxes). In the Northern Territory, all owners of heritage places are entitled to rate rebates - 75% of rates for residential properties and 25% for commercial properties.

Fairfield City Council in Sydney has a scheme where it grants rates relief at a standard rebate of 30% of the General Ordinary Rate to a maximum of $3000 per assessment.

A draft report, Investigation of Heritage Mechanisms, produced by SGS Economics and Planning for NSW Heritage Office suggests a scheme where owners of heritage properties would be allowed to ‘draw-down’ on property rates paid following heritage listing to undertake bona fide heritage related protection works. It is suggested: the amount would only start accumulating once the property was listed (or from the moment the scheme commenced for existing properties) and any single redraw could be capped (at say $20,000).

Effectiveness

· Does not involve positive expenditure and maintains an illusion of being costless

· An overt sign of government commitment to heritage conservation

· Concern at erosion of revenue base

· No certainty that savings from rate relief will be used for maintenance and conservation of heritage properties.

2. Grants

How they work

Grant schemes are the most common form of financial assistance provided by governments. They can be categorised into two main types: entitlement grants; and discretionary/performance grants.

Entitlement grants are given to any owner whose property meets preset eligibility criteria. Equal benefits are paid to all, not discriminating between those managing their properties to a high standard and those that simply meet the criteria.

Discretionary grants have flexible guidelines and applicants must compete for selection. Typically, a grant assessment committee or board determines the most worthy projects to be funded.

The Parramatta Local Heritage Fund is considered to have the general characteristics of entitlement grants. Grants are provided to owners whose conservation works meet preset eligibility criteria and where there is no competition for funds.

Examples

Entitlement grants and can be found in the Netherlands, Austria and Denmark.

Discretionary grants are offered by most Australian State government heritage agencies. In addition, schemes are offered in the United Kingdom many states in the United States (at the state and or local level).

In Sydney, a number of councils including Strathfield, Mosman, Blacktown, Penrith, and Ku-ring-gai offer grants ranging from $1000 to $4000. Hornsby Shire Council allocates $60,000 annually to its Local Heritage Assistance Fund and offers grants ranging from $1000 to $12,000. The City of Sydney provides grants of up to $10,000 from an annual allocation of $120,000 ($20,000 is for administration).

Other major cities in Australia provide generous grant schemes. The City of Perth makes grants of up to $30,000 available for the conservation or restoration of culturally significant buildings. Brisbane City Council makes small grants available to a maximum of $3000, but not exceeding 30% of the total project cost. Large grants can be allocated to a maximum of $15,000, but not exceeding 20% of the total project cost. The City of Adelaide has operated perhaps the most well known local grants scheme in Australia since the 1980s, offering owners up to $1,000,000 a year in discretionary grants, with the maximum individual grant capped at $10,000 or 20% of the cost of a restoration project.

A variation of a grants scheme is the City of Perth Heritage Appeal. The City of Perth, in partnership with the National Trust of Australia (WA), has set up an independent heritage fund that will make grants to assist owners of heritage sites with conservation and interpretation. To ensure that the fund will have sufficient money to make significant grants towards the maintenance, restoration and interpretation of heritage throughout the city, a National Trust Tax Deductible Appeal has been initiated. The appeal was launched in June 2005 with a target of $5 million over five years.

The grants offered by councils; in Sydney, elsewhere in Australia and overseas are summarised in the table at the end of this report.

Effectiveness

· Depends on the quantity of grants provided in relation to the size of the total heritage stock and level of demand

· In Australia grant schemes are generally quite limited when compared with: the number of places that the schemes target; the resulting scale of the demand; the level of government assistance provided in the natural environment; and the level of comparable assistance provided in other countries

· Entitlement grants are not as effective as performance grants, as they are not targeted, spread the available money thinly and may not oblige the recipient to spend the grant directly on conservation works

· Conversely, entitlement grants have advantages in giving greater certainty for owners; compensating all owners for the universal imposts associated with heritage listing; addressing the burden of ongoing maintenance as well as intermittent restoration projects

· Performance grants tend to be best suited to assisting major restoration projects that arrive from time to time.

3. Loans

How they work

Subsidised finance can be provided to property owners in the form of direct loans, or loan subsidies.

Direct loans are made to the property owner at a lower interest rate that would be commercially available. Funds can be lent on a long-term or short-term basis and may be secured against the property if necessary.

Loan subsidies provide essentially the same effect as direct concessional loans, except that the loan finance is supplied by a commercial lender, while the interest rate gap is funded by the heritage organisation.

Examples

There are numerous examples of direct loans. In the United States numerous states provide concessional loans from loan funds. In New South Wales and Victoria a number of local governments provide concessional loans for heritage conservation work including City of Broken Hill, City of Greater Geelong and the Melbourne Restoration Fund.

Examples of loan subsidies are operated by the Victorian Heritage Council the Western Australian local government Association and a number of US local councils.

As a variation of the above examples, Bendigo Bank offers a 0.50% pa discount on the standard variable rate for purchases and renovators of properties heritage listed or in a conservation area. Where conservation work is proposed, appropriate approvals must be obtained from a council or a qualified heritage practitioner.

Effectiveness

· Dependent on the quantity of loans or loan subsidies. Most loans incentive schemes provided in Australia have been limited by the very small amount of funds available

· Can be useful tools in leveraging increased private investment

· The advantage of loan subsidies approach over loans made directly by a heritage organisation is that much of the administrative cost falls to the partnering financial institution and no capital is required to be set aside (with the cost of the subsidies met on a recurrent basis).

4. Section 94A as a Heritage Funding Mechanism

The draft report “Investigation of Heritage Mechanisms” prepared by SGS Economics and Planning on behalf of the NSW Heritage Office suggests that Councils investigate the inclusion of heritage services in section 94 plans. The report argues that:

“In the same way as the purchase of land for parks in new release areas is part of providing for the recreation services of a community, and can be the subject of a section 94 plan, it could be argued that the protection or purchase of a heritage item using section 94 contributions is justified by the ‘heritage services’ provided by the item. The ‘heritage services’ add to the amenity, mix and character of the development area. Of course arguing the ‘nexus’ test (i.e. that new development creates the ‘need’ for the heritage item or services) might be difficult from a benefits apportionment perspective, but it could be successfully argued in an impact mitigation sense (i.e. that the development will otherwise cause the loss of the heritage item).”

Effectiveness:

Council has in place, two relatively new contributions plans being the Parramatta Civic Improvement Plan (city centre) and the Parramatta Section 94A Development Contributions Plan (non-city centre). Only the Civic Improvement Plan includes works to heritage items including the Parramatta Town Hall, heritage walk, Lennox Bridge, Prince Alfred Park and Lancer Barracks. However, it should be noted that the Civic Improvement Plan was made by the Minister who is not bound by the Regulations in making a contributions plan.

Contributions plans made by Council are bound by the Regulations and in this sense, the SGS report does not entirely acknowledge the fundamental principles and limitations of section 94 and section 94A. Developer contributions funds can only be used for the capital costs of amenities and services but not for maintenance. As such, the funds can be used for the acquisition of a building of heritage significance but not for its ongoing maintenance.

The rules around section 94 and section 94A are also undergoing changes in the near future under the recently released Draft Exposure Bill. The Bill proposes to limit the range of amenities and services that can be funded through section 94 and section 94A. Such works will be required to meet the definition of “key community infrastructure” which, for the purposes of heritage buildings are limited to local cultural, civic and social services facilities. Examples of this would be the acquisition of a heritage item for the purpose of a town hall or child care centre.

In summary, developer contributions cannot be used to fund works on privately-owned heritage buildings only on public buildings which fulfil a civic or community function. The funds also can’t be used on maintenance, only capital costs associated with the provision of that civic or community function. Hence, the usefulness of developer contributions for encouraging the conservation of heritage amongst private property owners is quite limited.

Table: Heritage grant schemes in NSW, Australia and overseas

Council's	Annual allocation	Individual grants	Number of heritage items	Limits
Sydney and NSW
Hornsby	60,000	Merit-based	800plus	50% of cost
Holroyd	10,000	1000	101
Blacktown		2000	202	Dollar for dollar
Penrith		3000	270
Mosman	20,000	3000	478	Dollar for dollar
City of Sydney	125,000	10,000	3700
Strathfield		300 -- 1000	226
Ku-ring-gai	22,000	4000 maximum	700	Dollar for dollar
Bathurst	37,500	300 -- 1000	131	50% of cost
Broken Hill	16,400	500 -- 1000	350
Other major Australian cities
City of Brisbane	150,000	Up to 3000 and up to 15,000	2000 plus	30% of cost for grants of 3000 and 20% of cost for grants of 15,000
City of Adelaide	800,000 approx	10,000	2000 plus	50% of cost
City of Melbourne	Approved grants amounting to $427,000 since 2005	5000 -- 10,000 (in past some approved up to 40,000)	9,000 approx.
City of Perth	200,000	30,000	271
Overseas
Toronto		10,000 for residential		50% of cost
Christchurch		5000		20 to 40% of cost
North Shore City	50,000 and 15,000 from Telecom New Zealand	5000

Attachment 3

Heritage Assistance Consultation Report

Parramatta City Council

Heritage Assistance Consultation Report

April 2008

1. Background

Councillors of Parramatta City Council (the Council) made a resolution on 23^rd of July 2007 to produce a report by May 2008 advising on the feasibility and options of developing and operating a ‘Support Parramatta's Heritage Fund’.

The intention was to avert community neglect of heritage listed properties which could ultimately lead to demolition of these properties.

There are over 1100 plus heritage listed properties in the Parramatta Local Government Area. Parramatta’s ratio of heritage properties to overall housing stock is one of the largest in the country and is seen as a major asset to the community.

The Council, realising this, has already established heritage assistance in the form of:

· A local heritage fund for owners of heritage listed properties, to encourage appropriate conservation work, and

· A designated heritage advisor who is available to owners of heritage listed properties in the Parramatta Local Government Area to provide advice on all matters relating to maintaining a heritage listed property.

Whilst the Council is currently making efforts to help owners maintain heritage listed properties, it was deemed imperative to speak to owners to understand if they knew what the Council offered in the form of assistance, perceived problems with the current assistance, and suggestions for improvement.

The Residents Panel Team was engaged by the Land Use and Transport Team to advise on the type of consultation and assist with the delivery of it. It was decided that two focus groups be run with members of the Parramatta City Council’s Residents’ Panel (who owned heritage listed properties) and other owners of heritage listed properties throughout the local government area.

The consultation required an objective third party expert in land use and planning with a focus on understanding heritage. Colin Johnston with some 30 years experience in these areas as well as research was selected to assist with the development of this report.

Before the consultation was conducted, the Heritage Advisory Committee was consulted to understand information gaps that currently exist, with a view of implementing this into the focus group agenda.

The focus groups were held on 2^nd April (Wednesday) from 6pm to 7:30pm and on 5^th April (Saturday) from 10.30am to 12.00noon.

The following report provides a detailed analysis on the discussions from the focus groups.
2. Executive Summary

The aggregated views of the two focus groups (20 participants in total) are listed below.

1. Selection of properties was from across the older heritage suburbs in Parramatta LGA; owners represented buildings mainly from around the 1890’s and to a lesser extent 1900’s, with a range from 1870s to 1920’s.

2. Asked about the good points of heritage buildings, owners mainly indicated their building’s history and heritage, then its special style and ambience. Bad points included maintenance problems, the heritage impact on property value, more intensive regulation of heritage, and their need for access to heritage information.

3. Issues about undertaking work on heritage listed properties included the complexities of heritage work, including presentation challenges, difficulties of finding good reliable tradesmen, accessing materials and high costs.

4. Future work planned by owners was mostly plumbing, drainage and roofing. Painting, wall and window work, were next most mentioned.

5. Whilst eleven heritage listed property owners indicated they were aware of Council’s local heritage fund four indicated that they were not unaware of the fund. There were differing perceptions of what the fund was and how it functions; some comments could be labelled as incorrect perceptions fuelled by word of mouth.

6. Good heritage information via the internet, development of a network of heritage property owners, and occasional information exchange seminars on heritage listed properties was presented as improvements; all of which were low cost. Organised walks could also help address constraints.

3. Methodology

As consultation with owners of heritage listed properties had not previously been completed and the input required was more of a qualitative nature it was decided that focus groups should be conducted as the main form of research.

It was decided that participants of the groups be selected across different age groups (starting from around 25 years of age), gender, country of origin, employment status and location. Ofcourse only persons who own heritage listed properties in the Parramatta LGA were invited to participate.

The groups design was to be small and inclusive (maximum of 12 participants in each), this allowed a good range of discussion, balancing individual experiences and group reflection. This also helped to build confidence, group empathy, and provide quality results.

Seven consistent questions were asked of each group:

1. Your property’s suburb and age of property

2. Good and bad points about heritage listed properties

3. Issues undertaking work to heritage listed properties

4. Work planned for the future

5. Awareness of Council’s heritage fund

6. How heritage assistance could work better in Parramatta

7. A final point

The methodology applied an array of balanced, inclusive question techniques.

This ensured that each person was invited to participate and respond individually to each question, and then interact with others to develop perspective. Questions had been carefully developed with Parramatta City Council staff (Paul Kennedy – Project Officer LUTP and Wade Clark - Residents Panel Coordinator).

On this premise two focus groups were formed; one on the Wednesday evening, 2 April and one on the Saturday morning, 5 April 2008. Time segmentation allowed residents, who kindly attended, to also respect their work and other commitments.

The intent of the study was to produce a good range of issues, complemented by a depth of individual knowledge, from the two owner groups.

4. Findings

Question 1 – Heritage Property’s Suburb and Age of Building

Age of building – this question asked about simple yet important aspects of the residents’ buildings – each building’s location, and its age or approximate year of construction. It was an introductory question and a base for opening further discussion.

Age of building

Decade Buildings

1870's 1

1880's 2

1890's 6

1900's 3

1910's 2

1920's 1

Six owned buildings represented from the 1890’s. Owners of three buildings from the 1900’s era contributed to the consultations. The 1910’s and 1880’s buildings had two representatives each, and 1870’s, 1920’s one each.

Suburb - Question 1 also sought the suburb in which the building was located.

Suburb of Building

Suburb Buildings

Granville 5

Not stated 3

Parramatta 3

Eastwood 2

Guildford 1

North Parramatta 1

The suburb of Granville had the most numbers of heritage listed buildings at the consultations, with some five represented. Parramatta suburb had three, and Eastwood had two owners attending. Guildford and North Parramatta each had one heritage building represented.

Question 2 – Good & Bad Points about Heritage Listed Properties

As with Question 1, Question 2 comprised two parts, with all owners being given the opportunity of responding individually to both parts. This question asked good points and bad points about owning a heritage property. It was an open and unconditional question that sought an ambit of issues for consideration.

Good points Comments

History/ heritage 9

Style/ ambience 5

Council help 1

Good points about heritage buildings

A range of points were made by owners – these fell into three broad areas:

History / heritage –owners expressed notable pride at being custodian of a piece of local building history. Their comments included:

· …nice to own a piece of history

· Lots of history, how it was built and I like the big block of land

· I know the history of the house. It is a real story. It has a different feel and I have an appreciation of this

· I am a proud Australian and I am proud of the history of heritage properties like the one I own.

Style / ambience – owners referred to their enjoyment of a lifestyle that brought another era into a present reality for them. Comments included:

· It helps to retain the look and feel of the local area.

· It is very peaceful; it gives me time to reflect on what it was like yesteryear.

· I like the mystery of the house; it has a feel, a relaxing feel.

Council help – one owner noted appreciatively the support that Council had given in the restoration of the building. Comment was:

· I think that what Council is doing for heritage assistance is terrific as it is important to retain heritage properties.

Bad Points Comments

Maintenance 7

Value impact 4

Information 3

Regulation 2

Not a lot 1

Bad points about heritage buildings

A range of points were made by owners – these fell into four key areas:

Maintenance – owners noted the relatively high cost of maintaining their properties in terms of specialist trades and materials:

· Cost of renovating is expensive; the assistance only provides for a small allocation.

· Cost of windows - $1100 per window! Very expensive

· $80,000 to repair the wood on the house. When it was heritage listed I found out that it was originally a hospital. Interesting, but to get new lead lighting is very expensive....

· Council rebates are very small, being forced to work on the property has hurt our bank balance. In other countries the government pays for updates and maintenance … placing in a claim [for assistance here] is a waste of time

· Look to Tripoli, they have good policies!

Value Impact – owners mentioned the loss of site redevelopment opportunities compared to similar non-heritage properties had a negative impact on the value of the property:

· Heritage listing has caused a decrease in property value

· Another thing is that because it is an old house it is expensive to maintain and you cannot develop it and there is no compensation for that.

Information – owners referred to the need for good accessible information on trades and materials, and the need for networking, displays and other means of information exchange between and for owners:

· I did contact Parramatta staff, however no one provided to me the correct material

· Dodgy work has also hampered our efforts. A seminar is required.

Regulation – owners said that the (perceived) regulation of heritage buildings through the maintenance and enhancement of heritage properties is a constraint:

· Difficulty in processing paperwork

· There is an issue of Local Council regulations vs. State Regulations, as there are inconsistencies, particularly with what can and can not be developed.

Question 3 – Issues about undertaking work to heritage listed properties

This question developed from the above sought to focus on owners’ experience of restoration and related work:

Heritage work

Issues Comments

Complex/present 6

Tradesmen 5

Materials 2

Cost issues 2

Issues about undertaking work to heritage listed properties

A range of points were made by owners – these were in 4 areas:

Complexity / presentation – these ranged over matters of separate ownerships of terrace properties, to locating good information, to restoration complexity, and extent of modernisation:

· For commercial developments with multiple stakeholders, it is difficult to have everyone on the same page

· There is currently an information issue – where do I go to find out what I can do to my property, who should I use, what should I pay?

· Property has been modernised, how do I go back to the original?

Tradesmen – the lack of a good means of obtaining the services of skilled trades to complete work was notable. The need for networking, website, seminar or other means of sharing good information was salient in owners’ comments:

· Tradesmen are hard to get and they are very expensive – especially the one’s that are motivated.

· Roof man was good – group of 3 in Charles Street, did good job; poor paint job; good plumber and tree person; path work.

· New tradies highlight faults and issues with the property, and you don’t know whether to trust them, as I have been fleeced before.

Materials – heritage materials and their sources were also important:

· For my bull nose & weatherboard no real issue. I find that changing like for like is fairly simple even if it is not exactly the material that was originally used - but sometimes cost of the renovation is an issue

Cost issues – both of heritage restoration work and foregone redevelopment opportunities were mentioned:

· The cost to the owner for non-development.

Question 4 – Work planned for the future

With the discussion broadened by their experience of past issues, discussion was then directed to work that owners planned for their properties in the future.

Future work

Planned Comments

Plumb/drain 6

Roofing 5

Painting 4

Walls 4

Windows 3

Electrical 2

Landscape 2

Nothing 2

Additions 1

Fencing 1

Flooring 1

Subfloor 1

Whilst plumbing and drainage were most frequently mentioned, roofing work proposed was at a similar level. Painting, wall and window work, were the next most frequently mentioned areas of intended work, whilst electrical and landscaping were also mentioned. Additions, fencing, flooring and sub-flooring work were planned by one owner each.

A selection of comments across these areas provides the flavours of individual experience and intentions:

· New roof from Legacy loan – just paying; need new window sashes, painting weatherboard to keep in good condition.

· The piers need a bit of work and there is a ventilation issue thus creating a moisture problem. Also I am going to work on the weather boards as they are rotting. Lastly there is a roofing issue adjoining an extension.

· I too am going to work on the guttering and there is an aggravation of water issue I need to address. I am looking to address a water drainage problem. Currently I have wallaby jacks on the piers to straighten them.

· Not too much. 2C re-zoning has taken place close to us; I find it is not fair as there is opportunity for redevelopment and we cannot do this.

· Windows are rotting, replacement of roof. Extension needs to be amended.

· I am attacking the drainage issue and the corresponding pier problem (as they are skewed). Then I am going to build a granny flat.

· Roofing starting to crack, looking to change to tin, landscaping, polishing the floorboards some need to replaced because of borers! All of this is very costly, electric work needs to be done also.

Question 5 – Awareness of Council’s local heritage fund

From the large range of work exposed in question 4, focus was then directed to owners’ awareness of Council’s funding support for heritage.

Awareness of

Heritage fund Comments

Yes 11

No 4

Aware – funding 5

Aware – uncertain 3

Aware- regulations 2

Aware 1

Unaware 2

No- interested 1

No - here 30yrs 1

Whilst eleven responses indicated yes, that owners were aware of Council’s local heritage fund, four indicated that they were not unaware of the fund.

Those owners that were aware also indicated that they thought the dollar value of support was low, in comparison with the cost of their work, or that they were uncertain of grant details, or that they thought obtaining funding was heavily regulated.

Some of the owners also mentioned that having spoken to neighbours and other people (who own a heritage listed property); they heard that the heritage grants scheme was not worth the trouble.

There was clearly a perception problem here created by incorrect word of mouth.

Owners that were not aware included one that noted future interest in grants and another that had lived some 30 years in Parramatta without knowing of the grants. Some of the comments made by owner are listed below:

· Yes knew, too many constraints

· Yes knew, but didn’t think was worth it. Should be federal grants for this type of work. Why don’t we get Council to look into this?

· Unaware Council had funds available

· Heard of it through word of mouth

· Yes aware, but not enough

· Yes aware, but hesitant, wasn’t sure if I should put a grant forward

· I also was aware that funds were available but others said it was insignificant, now that I know of the assistance I will consider it

· Didn’t bother but knew about it. Didn’t feel it was worth it.

· Ratio of grants, didn’t know we could use for landscaping.

Question 6 – How heritage assistance could work better in Parramatta

Drawing from the shared array of understanding in question 5, owners were then asked to indicate improvements for heritage assistance.

Improving

Assistance Comments

Funding 10

Information 7

Services 2

Funding

It is notable that some broad ranging reform and augmentation of financial assistance to owners of heritage properties was suggested. These included:

1. Exemption from Council rates

2. Council to pay for heritage works

3. Owner to pay for materials only

4. Exemption from Council development application fees

5. Council should start purchasing heritage properties

6. A free heritage assessment of their properties

These reflected real concerns that the special nature of ownership of heritage protected properties. It was acknowledged that some financial costs would need to be borne by the owner for heritage conservation but not all. Purchase by Council of significant built environment would be similar to its purchase of open space, which often preserved flora and fauna remnant habitat.

The comments also recognised the current constraints on substantially improved funding for heritage properties, and indicated a lower cost range of options to assist owners.

Information

Provision of quality information was nearly as important including:

1. An information base about local heritage

2. Either a network of owners or a means to find good tradesmen

3. Information to new heritage property owners

4. More use of Council web-site to have forms & information accessible.

Of the above, utilising the internet as a core communication medium was indicated as a requirement, but communication strategy would need to take into account those that did not have access to the internet.

Services

Other tangible support suggested to owners would be an assessment of their property by Council as a guide to work needed, and a need for other residents to better appreciate heritage work undertaken by owners.

Development of a network of interested property owners, and occasional information exchange sessions/ seminars/historical walks are some of the low -cost ideas that could dramatically help avert neglect, and empower local residents.

Question 7 – Final point…

As a rounding-off means for the two sessions, owners were asked to provide a final point from the discussion which they thought was important for them and Council to take forward to action. The discussions for both Wednesday and Saturday sessions had been very intensive, constructive and broad-ranging, and as a result a few final points were made.

Whilst the Wednesday evening session owners attending suggested no final points, the Saturday morning session indicated three:

1. We are custodians at the end of the day, and should be assisted accordingly.

2. Please place good examples of heritage works and properties on the Council website

3. We should have addresses of heritage properties around the area so that we can go and have a look.

In some respects these summarise the key factors of the sessions. There is a real need for notable funds for heritage assistance, but given the large numbers of such properties in Parramatta, owners to an extent recognised Council’s implicit financial constraints.

Assistance to owners by way of expanded website materials, web-links to NSW government heritage sites, and messages on quarterly rate notices about heritage property owners’ seminars, and related initiatives would seem well justified, given the 1100+ heritage properties in Parramatta. Guest speakers in the field, from NSW government, academia, or private practice would raise the profile of heritage, and build good networks for informal exchange of good information, including the much mentioned access to good tradesmen, and materials supply.

Occasional, say Spring and Autumn, heritage walks conducted by appropriate guides, could highlight by precinct or suburb, many of the large numbers of heritage properties in Parramatta. These should comprise owners of heritage properties in recognition of their special interest and financial commitment to the maintaining the history and heritage of Parramatta.

______________________

Ordinary Council 26 May 2008

Item 9.3

CITY DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.3

SUBJECT Amendment to Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2007 to correct a misdescription

REFERENCE F2006/00601 - D00937204

REPORT OF Project Officer - Land Use and Transport Planning

PURPOSE:

This report seeks a resolution to prepare a LEP amendment under Section 73A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, to correct a misdescription in Schedule 1 of the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council resolve to prepare an LEP amendment to correct a misdescription from “Lots 204 & 206” to “Lots 204 & 205” contained within Schedule 1 (3) of Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007.

(b) Further, that Council endorse the pro-forma Section 73A submission required to accompany the amendment request in Attachment 3.

BACKGROUND

1. On 5 May 2006, Development Application No. 104/06 for the subdivision of Lot 102 DP 1083102 for land at the Parramatta Transport Interchange in Argyle Street was approved. On 10 September 2007, a Section 96 modification to DA. No 104/06 was approved. A copy of the approved plan of subdivision is attached (Attachment 4).

2. On 21 December 2007 Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2008 was gazetted. An extract of Schedule 1 (Additional permitted uses) of this plan is attached to this report (Attachment 1), circling the misdescription.

3. Since the gazettal of the LEP, the Department of Planning and Parramatta Council have been contacted by the current owners and prospective purchasers of the land to advise that the lot description in the LEP as gazetted, is incorrect and should be proposed Lots 204 & 205 not 206 as contained in the LEP. There is no proposed Lot 206 in the approved plans.

ISSUES

4. The information, including proposed Lot numbers supplied to the Department of Planning by Council was correct, however, an error has occurred in the subsequent drafting of the document that was not detected prior to gazettal of the LEP. The wrong Lot description is causing a delay in a possible transfer of property and lodgment of a development application on the site.

5. Section 73A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, may be used to correct a misdescription of a planning instrument without the normal 28 day exhibition and reporting processes, only where the amendment will not have any material effect ‘on-the-ground’. The Department has advised that the correction of this error should fall within the scope of a minor amendment and is able to be dealt with under Section 73A. A letter from the Department of Planning is attached confirming this. (Attachment 2)

CONSULTATION

6. As the amendment is only an error involving a misdescription, no formal notification of the Director General of Council’s decision to make the LEP amendment under Section 54 of the Act or public exhibition of the amendment under Section 65 is required.

TIMING

7. Upon receipt of Council’s resolution and the attached pro-forma submission, the proposed amendment will be referred to the LEP Review Panel within the Department. The Department has set a benchmark of 15 days for formally responding to confirm that the matter can be dealt with under Section 73A of the Act. If agreed, the amendment would then be sent to the Department’s Legal Services Branch and Parliamentary Counsel. The amendment would then be endorsed by the Minister for Planning and public notification would occur through the Government Gazette.

CONCLUSION

8. The amending LEP will simply be the correction of an incorrect Lot number in Schedule 1 of Parramatta City Centre LEP 2008. The amendment will not have any material effect on the ground and does not have any broader strategic or policy implications.

Neal McCarry

Project Officer

Land Use and Transport Planning

Attachments:

1View	Extract of Schedule 1 of Parramatta City Centre LEP 2008	1 Page
2View	Letter from the Department of Planning	1 Page
3View	Pro-forma-Section 73A EP & A Act submission	2 Pages
4View	Approved plan of subdivision	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Attachment 3

Pro-forma-Section 73A EP & A Act submission

Part A. Council to complete

Subject:

Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007

Report requesting the making of amending local environmental plan under section 70 and section 73A.

Background:

Parramatta City Council resolved on 26 May 2008, to amend Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007 and to request that the Minister for Planning make the plan under section 70 and section 73A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The draft amending plan is attached. (Attach copy of resolution.)

The land to which this amendment applies is Pt Lot 102, DP 1083102 (shown as proposed lots 204 and 205 within approved subdivision - Development Application No. 104/2006/B). Approved plan of subdivision is attached.

Why there is a need for the amendment:

An amendment is required in order to correct a misdescription (incorrect Lot No) contained within Schedule 1 of the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007. Schedule 1 contains Additional Permitted uses. The incorrect description is preventing the owner/applicant from lodging a development application on the site for the permitted use.

What the amendment does:

The amendment corrects a misdescription of a parcel of land and will allow an owner/applicant to lodge a development application for the intended permitted use on the site.

Why the amending plan is suitable to be made in accordance with section 73A:

The amending plan is suitable to be made in accordance with Section 73A of the Act as the amendment is simply a correction of an incorrect Lot number. The lot No’s provided during the preparation of the LEP were proposed lots 204 & 205 not 206 as was printed in the gazetted LEP. The error appears to have occurred during the final drafting process. There is no proposed Lot 206 in approved Devleopment Application No. 104/2006/B.

The amending application falls within the guidance and criteria contained wihtin Department of Planning Circular PS 06-14.

The Council requests that the Minister agree to make draft Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007 Amendment No.1

Signed: …………………………………………………………………… Date: …………………..……………………………………..…

Name: ……………………………………………………………………. Position: …………………..……………………………………

On behalf of: Parramatta City Council

Part B. Department of Planning use only

Date of referral to LEP Review Panel: …………...….…………….. (Insert date)

Department position:

The draft LEP amendment has been considered by the Department and it is satisfied that the amendment can be considered as a minor amendment under section 73A (see advice tagged ‘A’).

Parliamentary Counsel opinion:

The Parliamentary Counsel has provided an opinion indicating that the plan may legally be made (tagged ‘B’).

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Minister:

(a) under sections 70(1)(a) and (8) and section 73A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 make …………...….…………………………………………………………..tagged ‘B’)

(Name of LEP)

(b) authorise the Department to advise council of the Minister’s decision.

Date: …………………………………………………………………

Signed: ………………………………………………………………… Name: …………………..……………….………………………

Position: …………………………………………………………………

for Director-General

Ordinary Council 26 May 2008

Item 9.5

CITY DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.5

SUBJECT 2 Morton Street, Parramatta - Future Development Options

REFERENCE F2005/01017 - D00939407

REPORT OF Manager Land Use and Transport Planning

PURPOSE:

To recommend a direction for the potential future development of the site at 2 Morton Street, Parramatta.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council endorse the Minister for Planning being the consent authority for a concept plan for the development of the site at 2 Morton Street, Parramatta, pursuant to Part 3A of the EP&A Act, subject to:

§ Development being consistent with the draft planning controls contained in the draft LEP and DCP most recently adopted by Council in 2007.

§ The assessment of the application being delegated to Council and appropriate development fees being paid to Council.

§ The draft voluntary planning agreement previously prepared by Fraser’s, being re-negotiated prior to the lodgement of a Concept Plan to ensure that it is as contemporary as possible. This should be in accordance with Council’s adopted Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPA) Policy and consistent with the legal advice that has been sought but not yet received for this draft agreement.

§ A traffic management plan being prepared prior to the lodgement of the Concept Plan to test impacts on the local street network and identify any additional measures which may ameliorate impacts. This work may identify matters to be addressed in the VPA including the potential to recommend lower than required carparking numbers per unit given the proximity of the site to the Parramatta CBD.

2. That Parramatta City Council requires that the development of the site is to be characterised by the highest possible standards of architecture and urban design.

3. In addition, at the time of lodgement of a Concept Plan, all the usual issues that are addressed at DA stage be addressed including but not limited to flooding, views, heritage impact, ecological sustainability solar access, social plan and public art.

BACKGROUND

1. Consideration of development of the site at 2 Morton Street commenced in March 2002 with the owners of the time approaching Council about the potential to rezone the site from an industrial to a residential zone. Since that time Council has considered various reports into the matter and in 2007 resolved to rezone the site in the context of the city wide draft LEP along with draft DCP controls for the precinct. In addition, Council endorsed in principle, a draft voluntary planning agreement for the site.

2. In mid 2007, Council requested that the draft LEP which included the zoning of the Morton Street precinct, be certified for public exhibition. In October 2007, the Department of Planning advised Council that it would not be prepared to certify the draft LEP for various drafting and policy reasons. These issues are still being addressed by Council staff.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. On 23 March 2008, a workshop was conducted between Council and the landowner (Fraser’s Development Group) to discuss options for considering the future development of the site.

4. At that workshop the landowner expressed a strong desire to see the development of the site come to fruition. To the landowners’ credit, they have continued to collaborate with Council and provide the information requested at various stages of the process. This willingness to work with Council has occurred since 2004. The options available to the landowner at present are:

§ Finalise the development of the site as a warehouse/industrial use for which substantial commencement exists on previous approval by the Land and Environment Court, or

§ Sell the site, or

§ Request that the Minister assume consent authority status for the site under Part 3A of the EP &A Act.

5. Fraser’s presented examples of their work around Australia and the world to demonstrate their commitment to design quality and environmental performance. Their preference is to continue with the residential development of the site.

6. The timing of the finalisation of the LEP is difficult to predict in the current environment of rapid change related to the State Government’s planning reform agenda. However, it is likely to be late 2009 or early 2010, Frasers submit that there are opportunities to maintain Council’s adopted position/controls for the site and achieve a more immediate resolution of the future development of the site through a Part 3A process to assess a concept plan for the development of the site.

7. At the time of writing, the draft exposure draft Bill of amendments to planning legislation indicates that development such as this, will be dealt with by Planning Assessment Commissions. The precise implications of this are unclear except that the consent role may well be taken out of Council’s hands in this scenario. It should be note that Council staff were scheduled to meet with Departmental staff over this issue and general Part 3A issues on 19 May 2008. Further clarification may arise form this meeting.

Marcelo Occhiuzzi

Acting Group Manager

Outcomes and Development Group

Attachments:

1View	Detailed Report	3 Pages
2View	Draft Development Agreement	9 Pages
3View	Draft Planning Controls	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Attachment 1

Detailed Report

Attachment 1

Detailed Report

THE SITE

The site at 2 Morton Street, Parramatta is located on the northern shore of the Parramatta River in close proximity to the Parramatta CBD. The site has an area of 4.92 ha and is currently zoned Employment 4. The southern portion of the site is flood prone. The site is currently occupied by industrial buildings.

BACKGROUND

Consideration of residential development of the site at 2 Morton Street commenced in March 2002 with the owners of the time approaching Council about the potential to rezone the site from an industrial to residential use. Since that time:

§ In February 2003, Council considered a report into the rezoning and resolved to conduct a Councillor workshop to discuss details associated with the rezoning of the site. This was conducted on 27 August 2003.

§ A further report was considered by Council on 21 June 2004 which resolved to defer the matter to be considered as part of Council’s residential development strategy (RDS) preparation in addition to considering the wider precinct as the area for future consideration. The RDS process indicated that this precinct would be investigated for future development.

§ A further report was considered by Council on 23 May 2005 at which time Council reinforced its position that the rezoning of the land should not be considered ahead of the RDS process in addition to the request that the applicant prepare design guidelines for the precinct and identification of public benefit to be gained as part of this rezoning.

§ On 29 August 2005, Council endorsed the RDS centres mapping which identified the Morton Street precinct as an area for potential future residential development. Further to this, a workshop was conducted on 18 September 2006, part of the purpose of which was to enable the landowners to present their intentions for the site.

§ On 23 July 2007, Council adopted the planning controls for the precinct which resulted from the urban design analysis of the precinct.

§ On 27 August 2007, Council adopted the DCP for the precinct.

§ On 29 October, Council adopted in principle, a draft development agreement for the site which was to be exhibited for public comment concurrent with the rezoning of the land as part of the wider draft LEP.

§ Various workshops over the last three years have included discussion about the suite accommodating residential development.

In September 2007, Council requested that the draft LEP which included the zoning of the Morton Street precinct, be certified for public exhibition. It should be noted that this was the culmination of a long period of close consultation with Departmental staff which included the release of mapping and other documentation over the previous 12 months or so. On 12 October 2007, the Department of Planning advised Council that it would not be prepared to certify the draft LEP for various drafting and policy reasons. These issues are being worked through by staff and it is noted that there were two workshops during April 2008 which were intended to update Councillors on this progress.

APPLICANTS REQUEST

The landowner has made an informal representation to Council to consider the future development of the site. At a workshop on 23 April 2008, a representative of the landowner (Frasers Property Group) presented the options to develop the site. He outlined the following options:

§ Finalise the development of the site as a warehouse/industrial use for which substantial commencement exists on previous approval by the Land and Environment Court, or

§ Sell the site, or

§ Request that the Minister assume consent authority status for the site under Part 3A of the EP &A Act

The landowner clearly would prefer to see the development site being developed generally in the manner as has previously been considered and determined by Council. The landowner has had the opportunity to have this development considered under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act in the past but has chosen rather to collaborate with Council to achieve an outcome that was mutually beneficial. Under Part 3A, the Minster becomes the consent authority but may delegate the assessment of an application to Council.

The applicant has requested that Council consider endorsing that the Minister for Planning determine a concept plan for the site under the provisions of Part 3A of the Act. This would enable consideration of the residential development of the site, which Council has already taken in-principle decisions on through the draft LEP preparation process.

DELAYS WITH THE DRAFT LEP

The draft LEP was planned to be publicly exhibited at the end of 2007. This did not occur because the Department of Planning refused to issue a section 65 certificate citing drafting issues and matters of policy that in its opinion did not warrant certification. At present, Council staff are working on the drafting issues identified by the Department, however, it should be noted that the standard LEP template has been amended several times, which makes this exercise difficult to finalise. In addition, to this, Parliamentary Counsel will need to review that draft in detail. In all, whilst it is very difficult to estimate the exact time that the draft Plan may be gazetted, particularly at a time of such rapid change with the State Government’s reform agenda, it is unlikely that the draft Plan will be gazetted within less than 18 months or so.

The draft LEP includes the zoning, height and other controls for the site that the landowner is keen to utilize for the development of the site. Given the timelines, however, a Part 3A process with the right checks and balances, would seem a reasonable proposition.

CHECKS AND BALANCES

If Council were to endorse the position that a concept plan should be determined by the Minister under Part 3A of the Act, various measures should be guaranteed in order that Council can work towards a positive outcome for the site and surroundings.

Any application under Part 3A should include delegation of the assessment functions to Council with the appropriate development fees being paid to Council. This will ensure that the detailed negotiations on the outcomes on the site are dealt with locally.

There should be a re-negotiation of the VPA to ensure that it is as contemporary as possible. This should include timelines for delivery of infrastructure and dedication of land.

A traffic management plan should be prepared prior to lodgement of any concept plan to test impacts on the local street network and identify any additional measures which may ameliorate impacts. A traffic management plan has not been prepared for the site and Council should be appraised of the exact impacts prior to development occurring. This may identify matters to be addressed in the VPA including the potential to recommend lower than required carparking numbers per unit given the proximity of the site to the Parramatta CBD.

Flooding is a significant issue for the site and a comprehensive analysis of the flooding regime should be lodged at the time of the concept plan being lodged.

All the usual matters to be addressed in a DA should also be lodged with any future concept plan. In addition, Council should insist on the highest possible design and architectural standards being incorporated into the design of future development of the site.

NEW DRAFT LEGISLATION

As reported to Council on 21 April 2008, the State Government has prepared a draft exposure Bill relating to amendments to various planning legislation. One new initiative is to create a Planning Assessment Commission. The intent is to conduct the determination of large applications including those that currently may fall within the gambit of Part 3A of the Act.

Given the draft status of the legislation and uncertainty relating to its introduction, it is difficult to be definitive about its implications to this site. Council should note that Council staff will be attending a meeting scheduled for 19 May 2008 to discuss issues relating to this and matters relating to the site. Further clarification may arise form this meeting.

Attachment 2

Draft Development Agreement

Attachment 2

Draft Development Agreement

PLANNING AGREEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NO.2 MORTON ST PARRAMATTA

We attach:

A draft of suggested "operative" provisions of a proposed Planning Agreement to be made under Section 93F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act).

A short note on the operation of Section 93F of the EPA Act and, in particular, how the relevant parts of the proposed Planning Agreement will comply with the various requirements of that section.

The subject land at No.2 Morton St Parramatta is owned by Frasers Morton Pty Ltd (Frasers).

The purpose of the proposed Planning Agreement is to provide certainty as to the public facilities which will be provided by Frasers Morton Pty Limited if the land is rezoned and approval is given to a development which achieves the yields and other objectives for blocks F, G and J of the Structure Plan (September 2006) for the Elizabeth Precinct.

Frasers is of the view that a Planning Agreement has a number of advantages. It will greatly facilitate the redevelopment of not only our site but also the other parts of the Precinct.

This is particularly so having regards to the regional significance of the proposed foreshore dedication, pedestrian bridge, cycle/pedestrian paths, landscaping and public art works.

Frasers is prepared to enter into an agreement as we are of the view that the timely provision of the foreshore reserve, as envisaged in the Structure Plan, will add to the desired amenity of this part of Parramatta. This is to be contrasted with what could be achieved under Section 94 contributions. It would take some time to finish the works and Council would most likely have to fund a substantial proportion of the cost.

Council, and the people of Parramatta, will benefit in that the implementation of these public policy objectives will be achieved in a more timely manner than would otherwise be the case. Indeed, without the agreement there must be some question as to whether they would be achieved to the extent proposed.

To ensure the urban design outcomes envisaged in the Structure Plan are achieved in the development of the site, Frasers will commit to an Architectural Design Competition for the site masterplan. The details of the competition process will be agreed with Council.

The attached draft Planning Agreement is provided for the consideration of the Elizabeth Precinct Project Control Group. When agreed, it is proposed that a formal draft of the Voluntary Planning Agreement will be prepared by Frasers on behalf of Council for public exhibition in conjunction with the Structure Plan

Appendix "A"

Draft clauses of proposed Planning Agreement

The following is an initial draft of some of the "operative" provisions of the proposed planning agreement.

This draft is not in its final form. Other more “mechanical” provisions are required and it is subject to the outcome of negotiations with Council.

1 The planning agreement applies to:

(a) No 2 Morton Street [a full title description will be inserted here]; and

(b) the development proposed to be carried out on No 2 Morton Street, where that development is in conformity with the criteria set out in the next clause.

(c) Development undertaken in two Stages, Stage 1 being development of the vacant developable land and warehouse unit 5, and Stage 2 being re-development of the land currently occupied by warehouse units 1, 2, 3 and 11 (see attached sketch).

2 The proposed development is the construction, use and subdivision of residential and commercial buildings:

(a) generally in accordance with the Structure Plan for the Elizabeth Precinct (dated September 2006), as it relates to Blocks No F, G and J; and

(b) where the yields, net floor area and building envelopes for those blocks set out at pages 47, 48 and 49 of the Structure Plan are achieved when calculated over the site in its entirety, and

3 The planning agreement will:

(a) become operational when it is signed by the developer and Council;

(b) cease to be operational if the current LEP is not amended, within[a time to be agreed] to allow the proposed development to take place;

(c) provide that the dedications, other public facilities and contributions are to be provided as set out in Schedule 1 below.

4 The public facilities which must be provided by the developer following the granting of a development consent meeting the criteria set out in clause 2 above are:

(a) the developer will dedicate land along the Parramatta River foreshore, having a width of approximately 30 metres, to Council for public reserve (see attached sketch);

(b) the developer will construct (complete) the pedestrian and cycle pathway along the river foreshore between the western side of Gasworks Bridge to the western side of James Ruse Drive;

(c) the developer is to undertake landscaping works and install public artworks along the length of this "bridge to bridge" link;

(d) the developer is to construct two mangrove viewing platforms and a mangrove boardwalk, if such is permitted following an appropriate study;

(e) the developer is to construct a foreshore road from the southern end of Morton Street to link with new road as shown on page 44 of the September 2006 Structure Plan (see attached sketch);

(f) the developer is to construct an active recreation area on the existing hardstand (car park), including hard surface playing courts for sports such as basketball, a family picnic area, children's playground and car parking area (see attached sketch);

(g) the developer will contribute $1.5million towards the construction of a pedestrian bridge as shown in concept form in the September 2006 Structure Plan;

(h) the developer is to supply, plant and maintain, until one year after the site redevelopment, the road reserve tree planting as shown on the plan on page 44 of the September 2006 Structure Plan.

(i) The developer will construct (complete) the proposed turning circle/extension to Pemberton Street within the existing road reserve.

5 The timing in which the above dedications, work and contributions are to be made (and the circumstances in which they are to be made are set out in Schedule 1.

6 The parties agree that the indicative cost of the land and other facilities to be provided is as set out in Schedule 1.

7 The parties agree that the application of Section 94A of the EPA Act is excluded.

Note:

The Planning Agreement will also either:

(i) Specify the boundaries of the areas to be dedicated and the details of the works to be undertaken; or

(ii) Provide a mechanism for determining those boundaries and other details

It is expected that:

(iii) the works to be undertaken under clause 4 will be to a design approved by Council, where that design reflects the indicative cost of the works as set out in Schedule 1; and

(iv) The boundaries of the land to be dedicated will be in accordance with approved subdivision plans.

Appendix “B”

Section 93F of the EPA Act

Sue Coleman – Group Manager City Services			Assistant Minutes Clerk – Michael Wearne
Stephen Kerr – Group Manager Corporate			Minutes Clerk – Grant Davies
Marcelo Occhuizzi –Acting Group Manager Outcomes & Development

Clr Omar Jamal – Arthur Philip Ward			Clr Lorraine Wearne - Lachlan Macquarie Ward
Clr Anita Brown – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward			Clr John Chedid – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward
Clr David Borger – Macarthur Ward Elizabeth			Clr Andrew Wilson – Lachlan Macquarie Ward
Clr Paul Garrard – Woodville Ward			Clr Tony Issa, OAM – Woodville Ward
Clr Julia Finn – Arthur Philip Ward			Clr Brian Prudames – Caroline Chisholm Ward
Clr Chris Worthington – Caroline Chisholm Ward	Clr Pierre Esber, Deputy Lord Mayor – Lachlan Macquarie Ward	Clr Maureen Walsh – Wooville Ward	Clr Chiang Lim – Arthur Phillip Ward

Arrangements for an on site meeting at:-
Address, WESTMEAD NSW 2145
Application No.:	DA
Proposal:

	Street Name	Suburb
1.	Aubrey Street	Granville
2.	Badham Street	Granville
3.	Baker Street	Merrylands
4.	Brady Street	Merrylands
5.	Carhullen Street	Merrylands
6.	Caroline Street	Guildford
7.	Chamberlain Street	Guildford
8.	Charles Street	Granville
9.	Cleone Street	Merrylands
10.	Earl Street	Granville
11.	Daniel Street	Granville
12.	Elizabeth Street	Granville
13.	Garland Avenue	Epping
14.	Glenfern Road	Epping
15.	Crown Street	Epping
16.	Hewlett Street	Granville
17.	Grandview Parade	Epping
18.	Hillside Crescent	Epping
19.	John Street	Granville
20.	Kimberly Street	Merrylands
21.	Lansdowne Street	Merrylands
22.	Linthorne Street	Guildford
23.	Lewis Street	Epping
24.	Margret Street	Granville
25.	Melrose Street	Epping
26.	Milner Road	Guildford
27.	New York Street	Granville
28.	Osgood Street	Merrylands
29.	Rosebery Road	Guildford
30.	Salisbury Road	Guildford
31.	Smith Street	Granville
32.	Station Street	Guildford
33.	Stuart Street	Granville
34.	Victoria Street	Granville
35.	Walter Street	Granville
36.	Warrington Avenue	Epping
37.	Wynyard Street	Granville
38.	Wyralla Street	Epping

1View	Site Meeting Process Report from 25 June 2007 Council Meeting	5 Pages
2View	Resolution of Site Meeting Process Report from 25 June 2007	1 Page

1View	Attachment 1 - Detailed Submission	1 Page
2View	Attachment 2 - Location Plan	1 Page