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

1 A planning agreement under Section 93F of the EPA Act is a voluntary agreement.

2 It is entered into between a person described as the developer, and, in this case, the Council.

3 It can be entered into where:

(a) an environmental planning instrument is to be amended; or

(b) the developer wishes to lodge a development application.

4 The agreement is one where the developer agrees to dedicate land free of cost, pay a monetary contribution, or provide any other material public benefit, or any combination of them, to be used for or applied towards a public purpose.

5 Under Section 93F, a planning agreement must provide for the following:

(a) a description of the land to which the agreement applies;

(b) a description of:

(i) the required change to the environmental planning instrument;

(ii) the development to which the agreement applies;

(iii) the nature and extent of the public facilities to be provided by the developer;

(ii) the manner by which it is to be made;

(d) whether the agreement excludes (wholly or in part) the application of Section 94 or Section 94A of the EPA Act to the development;

(e) if it does not exclude Section 94, whether benefits under the agreement are to be taken into consideration in determining a development contribution under Section 94;

(g) a mechanism for the resolution of disputes;

(h) the enforcement of the agreement by suitable means, such as the provision of a bond or guarantee.

Other sections of the act provide for the public exhibition of planning agreements.

In this regard one of the objectives of Section 93F is to ensure appropriate transparency as to what is proposed.

Attachment 2

Draft Development Agreement

Schedule 1

	Schedule 2	Indicative Value/Cost	Timing/Circumstances
(a)	The developer will dedicate land along the Parramatta River foreshore, having a width of 30 metres, to Council, for public reserve (approx area 6,600m2)	Actual land cost at $450/m2: $2,970,000 Council Valuation $2,000,000 (2004), which represents $300/m2	Within three months of completing development of Area G (refer Structure Plan p 45) and registration of the subdivision plan
(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	$300,000 plus design fees	Within three years of the later of: · commencing development; or Council giving approval to the design of that part of the pathway through Council Reserve
(c)	The developer is to undertake landscaping works and install public artworks along the length of this "bridge to bridge" link	$100,000 plus design fees	As above
(d)	The developer is to construct three mangrove boardwalk/viewing platforms Study & Report & Design Fees Eastern reserve boardwalk River Platform 1 River Platform 2	$40,000 $75,000 $45,000 $23,000	As above
(e)	The developer is to construct a foreshore road from the southern end of Morton Street to link with a new road as shown on page 44 of the September 2006 Structure Plan	$260,000 plus design fees	· To be completed with Stage 2. To be dedicated on completion of construction
(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, car parking area, children's playground.	Land value for approx 6000m2 @ $450/m2: $2,700,000 actual cost Council valuation @ $300/m2: $1,800,000 plus $350,000 (cost of works) plus design fees	The works are to be fully completed concurrent with the completion of Stage 2. The land dedication will occur in conjunction with registration of the Subdivision and Strata Plans for the Stage 2 development
(g)	The developer will contribute $1.5 million towards the construction of a pedestrian bridge as shown in concept form in the September 2006 Structure Plan	$1.5 million	To be paid into a trust fund established for this specific purpose, on commencement of Stage 2 (see Notes 1 & 2 below)
(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	$50,000 plus design fees	To be undertaken in conjunction with Stage 1 for available road areas (see Note 3 below)
(g)	New vehicle turning point at end of Pemberton St	$30,000 plus design fees	To be undertaken in conjunction with Stage 1

Note 1: It is suggested that Council design and gain approvals for the bridge with a view to construct the bridge concurrently with Stage 2, so as to achieve cost savings in completion of the roadworks, pathways, landscaping and recreation area.

Note 2: In the event that Council is granted additional funds sufficient to undertake construction of the bridge prior to commencement of Stage 2, Frasers will undertake to bring forward their contribution to ensure that the construction can be undertaken within the earlier timeframe.

Note 3: If Council's work depot redevelopment lags behind Stage 2, Council will assume responsibility for this element of the precinct landscaping within their site and associated road works.

Note 3: The amount of money to be provided by the developer into a Trust Account for the construction of the pedestrian bridge shall be subject to escalation in accordance with CPI. The calculation of the escalation amount will commence from the date of gazettal of the LEP until the developer commences Stage 2 and makes the payment.

Contribution Summary

Land contribution: Actual Cost: $5,670,000 for approx 12,600m2 (1.26 ha, representing 25.6% of the total site).

Council Valuation: approx $3,800,000.

Works Contribution: $1,273,000 plus design fees (say) $227,000 = $1,500,000

Cash Contribution; $1,500,000

Per Dwelling: $16,057 per dwelling based on actual cost

$12,833 per dwelling based on Council land valuation

Section 94 Current S94 plan equates to $5,589 per dwelling

Note: these figures are based on a yield of 580 dwellings

Ordinary Council 26 May 2008

Item 10.1

ENVIRONMENT

ITEM NUMBER 10.1

SUBJECT Parramatta River Foreshore Plan Review 2008 - Public Exhibition

REFERENCE F2006/00560 - D00936445

REPORT OF Waterways Systems Manager

PURPOSE:

This report informs Council of the draft Parramatta River Foreshore Plan Review 2008 and recommends the document be placed on public exhibition for information and comment.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the draft Parramatta River Foreshore Plan Review 2008 be placed on exhibition for 28 days in the Parramatta City (central) Library, branch libraries, the Customer Service Centre and on Council’s website.

(b) Further, that a report be brought back to Council with consideration of public submissions and recommendations for adoption.

BACKGROUND

1. The original Parramatta River Foreshore Reserve Concept Plan and Management Strategy was prepared by Clouston Consulting in December 1994. The 1994 Plan covered an area extending from Parramatta Park to Ermington Bay. In late 2006, Council officers identified the need to review the plan in order to confirm ongoing directions relevant to current and future issues.

2. The 2008 Foreshore Plan has extended the original scope to include the full extent of the Parramatta River foreshores within the Parramatta Local Government Area, from Lake Parramatta Reserve to Ermington Bay divided into nine (9) geographic precincts.

3. Environmental Partnership were commissioned in February 2007 (at a cost of $63,000) to prepare the Foreshore Plan Review for the Parramatta River. The primary aim of the 2008 Foreshore Plan Review is: To revise the current Parramatta River Foreshores Reserves Concept Plan and Management Strategy and develop a prioritised action / implementation plan to consistently guide the future management and development of the Parramatta River Foreshore over the next 20 years.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

4. The preparation of the revised Plan incorporates linkages to existing Council strategic documents including Parramatta Twenty25 and the Revitalising Parramatta City Centre Plan / Vision. With the Plan now extending upstream of the CBD, a number of other strategic documents were also considered including the Parramatta Park Plan of Management and Masterplan, the North Parramatta Mixed Use Zone Masterplan, the Westmead Precinct Implementation Plan and the Lake Parramatta Plan of Management.

5. While the Parramatta River foreshore plan focuses on the land based activities, Council is involved in the preparation of the Parramatta River Estuary Management Plan which will target the management of tidal waters from Charles Street Weir to Cockatoo Island (confluence with the Lane Cove River). This will be a staged process over the next 18 months commencing with a data compilation or literature review report, an estuary processes study (examining data gaps) and the management plan itself. Council officers will ensure that the two Plans have appropriate linkages, synergies and integration during their respective implementation phases.

6. The draft Foreshore Plan includes: implementation of key management areas to date; a vision for the river foreshore and each specific precinct; foreshore values, issues and objectives; an updated implementation action plan for both the river corridor and each precinct; a checklist for future foreshore development; funding options and prioritisation of actions; proposed monitoring and evaluation of the plan; and consultation to date.

7. The revised Plan incorporates a number values which identify the qualities of the foreshore open spaces that are seen to be important and that should be conserved and optimised. These include habitat, water management, landscape and visual quality, future urban form, landuse and ownership, access and transport, recreation, visitation and special events, cultural heritage, and planning, policy and management.

8. Sources of funding have been identified within the Plan including existing capital works planned within Programs supported by Special Rates for Open Space, City Centre, Suburban Infrastructure (Environment, Roads and Neighbourhoods), the Stormwater Charge, the Section 94A Development Contributions Plan, as well as numerous State and Federal government grant opportunities.

9. It should be noted that an Executive Summary will be developed along with promotional material (eg. posters, fact sheets) for the exhibition period. Due to the large number of precinct maps (18 in total) that accompany the Plan, only 2 examples have been attached to this report for ease of reference and file size. A full set of maps will be available for the exhibition period and the return report to council.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

10. In July 2007, Council officers conducted three separate workshops involving internal staff, authorities, key stakeholders, and community representatives selected and organised through the Residents Panel. In addition two Councillor workshops were conducted in August 2007 and May 2008, as well as a Councillor River Cruise which occurred in late September 2007.

11. It is recommended that the draft Parramatta River Foreshore Plan Review 2008 be placed on public exhibition for 28 days in the Parramatta City (central) Library, branch libraries, the Customer Service Centre and on Council’s website.

12. A further report be brought back to Council with consideration of public submissions and recommendations for adoption.

Anthony Collins

Waterways Systems Manager

City Strategy Unit

Attachments:

1View	Draft Foreshore Plan (text only)	166 Pages
2View	Example Precinct Map - Actions	1 Page
3View	Example Precinct Map - Principles	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Attachment 1

Draft Foreshore Plan (text only)

Ordinary Council 26 May 2008

Item 10.2

ENVIRONMENT

ITEM NUMBER 10.2

SUBJECT Parramatta River Catchment Group

REFERENCE F2004/06098 - D00937979

REPORT OF Waterways Systems Manager

PURPOSE:

This report seeks Council’s endorsement of a Memorandum of Understanding, Terms of Reference and funding commitment to the Parramatta River Catchment Group.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council endorse the attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Terms of Reference for the Parramatta River Catchment Group and delegate the General Manager to sign the MOU.

(b) That Council endorse a contribution of $5,000 per year commencing 2008/09, towards the employment of a part-time Group coordinator and implementation of prioritised initiatives as determined by the Group. These funds to be sourced from existing budgets within the Waterways Improvement Program (Rolling Projects).

(c) Further, that the Lord Mayor (or their nominated representative) and Councillor Maureen Walsh be confirmed as the Councillor representatives on the committee.

BACKGROUND

1. In 2006, Council’s officers made representations to the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority (CMA) requesting their help to form a cooperative group of councils and NSW Government agencies to improve the health of the Parramatta River. As a result of this initiative, Bob Junor, the Chairman of the CMA wrote to the Lord Mayor advising of the formation of the Parramatta River Catchment Group.

2. The Parramatta River Catchment Group, comprising of eleven councils within the catchment (including the Parramatta and Duck Rivers), has been formed to facilitate a cooperative venture between councils, the CMA and relevant State government agencies to improve the health of the Parramatta River.

3. The Parramatta River Catchment Group aims to lead efforts to improve the condition and ecological function of the Parramatta River, its tributaries and catchment lands by improving and coordinating effort in natural resource management in the Local Government Areas (LGA) of Ashfield, Auburn, Bankstown, Blacktown, Burwood, Canada Bay, Holroyd, Hunter’s Hill, Parramatta, Ryde and Strathfield.

4. Parramatta River Catchment Group is a positive step for cooperation between the key councils and agencies to improving the health of this important River.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

5. As a result of several officer meetings to date, the Group has produced an agreed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or regional natural resource management partnership agreement between Councils and agencies within the Parramatta River Catchment. A Terms of Reference for the Group was also prepared noting the aims, composition, structure and role of the committee. Both of these documents are attached for endorsement.

6. The Group has a two-tiered structure. The first tier is comprised of technical officers from the councils and CMA, who will meet at least twice yearly. Councillors meetings will also be held twice yearly in the early evening, either in conjunction with or after the officer’s meetings. At least one officer from each council will also attend these meetings. If a need is identified by the Catchment Group, special interest groups shall form a second tier of sub-committees within the Group. These shall form on an as-needs basis to oversee projects or investigate specific issues. The Parramatta River Estuary Management Committee has been adopted as a sub-committee.

7. In accordance with the Terms of Reference, a Coordinator shall be employed three days per week from council and agency contributions to coordinate meetings of the complete Group, actively seek to help members identify issues, seek funding for regional projects, work as a link between State and Local Government, and undertake other tasks as identified by the Catchment Group. An independent Chair shall be engaged to Chair the meetings of the complete Group to allow meetings to be run without bias.

8. The Sydney Metro CMA shall accommodate the Coordinator and provide supervision, advice and support to ensure actions of the PRCG that are consistent with the Catchment Action Plan (CAP). Any remaining funds are to be spent on items determined by the PRCG, for example promotional material. Voting rights for major issues, such as the direction of the PRCG, will be limited to contributing councils and agencies. A contribution of $5,000 per annum will be sourced from existing budgets within Council’s Waterways Improvement Program (Rolling Projects).

CONSULTATION & TIMING

9. The attached MOU and Terms of Reference have been prepared by council officers and agency staff. Officers of all 11 councils have supported the Group initiative and funding commitment in principle. Following Council endorsement, the documents will be collectively signed-off by General Managers of all eleven councils and nominated key agencies. Employment of the coordinator and independent chair will commence in the 2008/09 financial year through the agreed funding contributions.

Anthony Collins

Waterways Systems Manager

City Strategy Unit

Attachments:

1View	Memorandum of Understanding	6 Pages
2View	Terms of Reference	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Attachment 1

Memorandum of Understanding

Memorandum of Understanding

Regional NRM Partnership Agreement

between the

Councils and agencies within the Parramatta River Catchment Group

2008

1. BACKGROUND

The Parramatta River Catchment Group (PRCG) has evolved from:

· The Duck River Steering Committee (Auburn, Bankstown, Holroyd and Parramatta Councils).

· The Upper Parramatta River Catchment and Waterways Management Task Force (Baulkham Hills, Blacktown, Holroyd and Parramatta Councils, Parramatta Park Trust, Sydney Water, Department of Environment and Conservation, Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust and the Roads and Traffic Authority).

· The Lower Parramatta River Group (Ashfield, Burwood, Canada Bay, Hunter’s Hill, Leichhardt, Ryde and Marrickville Councils).

Many natural resource management (NRM) issues exist across the catchment or across a region and therefore working solely within Local Government boundaries will have limited achievements. A collaborative approach between councils and the relevant government agencies is essential to ensure the holistic management of NRM issues. For example: biodiversity corridors need to allow for movement of species into and beyond local government areas, particularly with climate change implications; weed species need to be managed in adjoining and upstream/downstream council areas; water quality needs to be managed for receiving waters and downstream areas.

Working together on catchment-wide or regional NRM issues has a synergistic effect, allowing for cost-efficiencies, pooling of resources such as staff time and technical expertise, providing a stronger collective voice, providing a stronger basis for grant applications, allowing closer links with agencies, opening up additional opportunities such as research outcomes, and contributing to local council and agency obligations to achieve state-wide targets for NRM as outlined in the State Plan.

2. MEMBERS

2.1 Member Councils: Ashfield Council, Auburn City Council, Bankstown City Council, Blacktown City Council, Burwood Council, City of Canada Bay Council, Holroyd City Council, Hunter’s Hill Council, Parramatta City Council, Ryde City Council and Strathfield Municipal Council.

2.2 Member Agencies: Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority (SMCMA), Sydney Water (SW), Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC), NSW Maritime, Sydney Olympic Park Authority (SOPA), Department of Water and Energy (DWE), Parramatta Park Trust (PPT), NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI), Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC), Sydney Ferries, NSW Fire Brigade and others, on an as needs basis, as identified by the Catchment Group.

3. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

3.1 The PRCG wish to coordinate and improve Natural Resource Management in the catchment through a formal agreement in accordance with this MoU.

3.2 This MoU has been developed under the PRCG's Terms of Reference (2008). It is consistent with the Aims of the PRCG outlined in its Terms of Reference.

3.3 This Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) sets out specific working arrangements between the council members and agencies concerning coordination, sharing of information, investment in NRM, and the partnership arrangements.

3.4 The MoU acknowledges the substantial investment in NRM by Councils, agencies and the SMCMA, and their willingness to work together to achieve sustainable outcomes for a healthy and diverse catchment and river system.

3.5 The MoU also acknowledges that sustainable outcomes in NRM can be achieved through a collaborative process to attain strategic management targets identified in Councils’ and agencies’ Strategic NRM plans and the SMCMA’s Catchment Action Plan (CAP).

3.6 This MoU will not prevent the members from fulfilling their core functions.

4. INTENT

This MoU forms the principal working agreement between PRCG members to:

4.1. Establish a partnership based on cooperation and value-adding between members.

4.2. Build on the commitment and understanding of each other’s values, priorities and capabilities to deliver mutual outcomes.

4.3. Coordinate and facilitate catchment management planning and implementation outcomes within the constraints of each other’s operating environments including budget.

4.4. Explain the capabilities and operations of the partnership.

4.5. Develop an inclusive process to deal with all member NRM and CAP issues.

4.6. Identify within the PRCG Implementation Plan the key NRM actions for the PRCG and what each organisation will deliver.

5. THE AGREEMENT

5.1 The PRCG members agree to:

a. Fulfil the PRCG’s role as stipulated in its Terms of Reference (2008).

b. Respect the independence, statutory responsibilities and reputation of the other parties.

c. Agree to meet at least twice per year to discuss and provide advice on how to resolve NRM issues raised by members.

d. Appoint a nominated Councillor/General Manager or Board member or Senior Agency Officer, as relevant, and technical officer to attend PRCG meetings.

e. Allocate other technical staff and/or elected representatives and the resources required to participate and work in a collaborative process on the PRCG and other sub-committees as required.

f. Recognise that officers will be required to prepare for Catchment Group meetings and sub-committee meetings and follow-up with work and projects out of meetings.

g. Provide copies of reports, protocols, collated data, GIS layers and other NRM material that is considered to be relevant to the PRCG to allow for the collective benefit of this information.

h. Recognise that each member council or agency has knowledge, technical skills and experience that may assist decision-making and execution of actions by the PRCG, and shall therefore strive to share such knowledge and skills.

i. Provide advice on their role in catchment management, communicate their objectives, and update the PRCG on the delivery of management actions at PRCG meetings.

j. Refer issues that require PRCG input, or response, to the Coordinator as soon as practical. The Coordinator will circulate as necessary.

k. Respond in a timely manner to requests from the Coordinator or Chair or on behalf of the Coordinator or Chair.

l. Make available council/agency reports that document the annual allocation of resources to NRM actions and outline how these address State targets and targets within the CAP. This includes funds from environmental special rates and charges.

m. Recognise that Councils and the SMCMA have statutory reporting responsibilities (State of Environment, catchment targets and state-wide targets) that may be modified over time. Councils and the SMCMA commit to aligning monitoring and reporting programs over time to reduce any duplication of effort.

5.2 The SMCMA agrees to:

a. Provide advice as to the management priorities and actions that need to be implemented on a catchment and regional basis within the CAP framework.

b. Advance the PRCG’s knowledge and understanding of the SMCMA’s core functions, role and responsibilities under the Act within the context of State statutes relating to environmental management in the PRCG area.

c. Assist where appropriate with contacts, networks and training.

d. Provide advice and assistance on regional grant applications that are consistent with the CAP.

e. Provide technical advice where possible on projects that are consistent with the CAP.

f. Consider PRCG actions and projects for inclusion in investment strategies, in consultation with PRCG members.

g. Provide supervision, advice and support to the Coordinator of the PRCG.

6. REVIEW AND TERMINATION

6.1 This MoU will be reviewed with each new term of council by the members of the PRCG to ensure that the conditions outlined in this document are relevant and applicable.

6.2 This MoU is not a legally binding document and may be terminated provided one month's written notice is given to the representatives involved.

Signed:_______________________

General Manager

Ashfield Council

Dated:_______________

Signed:______________________General Manager

Auburn City Council

Dated:______________

Signed:_______________________General Manager

Bankstown City Council

Dated:______________

Signed:______________________

General Manager

Blacktown City Council

Dated:_______________

Signed:______________________GGeneral Manager

Burwood Council

Dated:_______________

Signed:______________________

General Manager

City of Canada Bay Council

Dated:_______________

Signed:______________________GGeneral Manager

Holroyd City Council

Dated:_______________

Signed:______________________General Manager

Hunter’s Hill Council

Dated:______________

Signed:_______________________General Manager

Parramatta City Council

Dated:_______________

Signed:______________________General Manager

City of Ryde Council

Dated:______________

Signed:______________________

General Manager

Strathfield Municipal Council

Dated:______________

Signed:______________________

General Manager

Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority

Dated:______________

Signed:______________________

Sydney Olympic Park Authority

Dated:______________

Signed:______________________

Sydney Water

Dated:______________

Signed:______________________

NSW Maritime

Dated:______________

Signed:______________________

Department of Environment and Climate Change

Dated:______________

Signed:______________________

Parramatta Park Trust

Dated:______________

Other agencies as appropriate

Attachment 2

Terms of Reference

PARRAMATTA RIVER CATCHMENT GROUP

Terms of Reference

2008

Aims of the Parramatta River Catchment Group

The Parramatta River Catchment Group aims to lead efforts to improve the condition and ecological function of the Parramatta River, its tributaries and catchment lands by improving and coordinating effort in natural resource management in the Local Government Areas (LGA) of Ashfield, Auburn, Bankstown, Blacktown, Burwood, Canada Bay, Holroyd, Hunter’s Hill, Parramatta, Ryde and Strathfield.

Area of Interest of the Parramatta River Catchment Group

The Group’s area of interest shall be the Parramatta River Catchment from Blacktown in the west; to the confluence of the Lane Cove River in the east. It shall include the Parramatta River, all its tributaries and catchment lands.

Parramatta River Catchment Group Composition

The Parramatta River Catchment Group shall be made up of representatives from the following categories:

· Council Staff Representatives

Staff representatives shall be nominated by each of the eleven catchment councils: Ashfield Council, Auburn City Council, Bankstown City Council, Blacktown City Council, Burwood Council, City of Canada Bay Council, Holroyd City Council, Hunter’s Hill Council, Parramatta City Council, Ryde City Council and Strathfield Municipal Council.

· Council Elected Representatives

One Councillor from each of the above Councils shall be nominated to the Catchment Group. The elected representative shall preferably be the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor. Councillors will be asked to represent the interests of the Catchment Group in Council meetings.

· Agency Representatives

Representative(s) from the following Agencies shall be nominated to attend meetings and/or receive minutes of the meetings: Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority (SMCMA), Sydney Water (SW), Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC), NSW Maritime, Sydney Olympic Park Authority (SOPA), Department of Water and Energy (DWE), Parramatta Park Trust (PPT), NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI), Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC), Sydney Ferries, NSW Fire Brigade and others, on an as needs basis, as identified by the Catchment Group.

Council and agency staff shall be able to speak for the whole-of-council/agency, and be at a level within the organisation, to either make decisions in relation to Group outcomes, or have ease of access to senior management. Depending on the issues to be addressed by the Catchment Group, additional Council and Agency staff, with areas of expertise specific to identified issues, may be requested to attend meetings.

· Community Representatives

Community representatives shall be invited from the community and environmental groups, including Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) active in the catchment for sub-committees on an as-needs basis. It is recognised that Councillors also represent the community.

Community members shall actively participate and liaise between relevant stakeholder groups, participate in relevant projects and share information on regional activities with other community groups where possible.

· Landuser/Landholder Representatives

Major landuser/landholder representatives not listed above, shall be invited onto the Catchment Group or sub-committee or invited to attend group meetings on an as needs basis.

Role of the Parramatta River Catchment Group

Issues confronting councils and agencies will be dealt with on a strategic basis. Within this coordinated approach, a number of functions can be undertaken by the Catchment Group, including:

· identify remedial measures and improvements,

· set priorities;

· develop, initiate and oversight waterway and catchment health projects;

· arrange technical help from other Government agencies and universities;

· seek and obtain Federal and State Government grants;

· address threats to waterway health from the surrounding catchments;

· build community support and involvement;

· help develop the technical capacities of councils and council staff; and

· facilitate information exchange and mutual support.

Additionally, the Group will work with the SMCMA to help determine where funds should be allocated in the catchment to best achieve the outcomes identified in the SMCMA’s Catchment Action Plan* and other management plans for the region. The SMCMA is a recognised regional body for the distribution of Federal and State investment funds for natural resource management,

*The Catchment Action Plan is a strategy which sets targets for the health of the Sydney Metropolitan region by 2016. This Plan is supported by an Investment Strategy

Structure of the Parramatta River Catchment Group

The structure of the Group will be a two-tiered structure:

· Officer Meetings

Technical and natural systems officers from councils and agencies will meet on a regular basis, at least twice per year, unless an alternative timeframe is identified and agreed upon by the Catchment Group.

Each Council shall commit to follow up and report on the requests of the Catchment Group, the Coordinator and the Chair. They shall also, from time to time, agree to take the lead role on various projects, administer funds and support sub-committees as required.

· Councillor Meetings

Councillor Meetings will be held twice per year in the early evening, either in conjunction with or after the Officers’ meetings. At least one officer from each council will also attend these meetings to report on the activities of the Officers’ Group and receive feed back from Councillors.

· Sub-committees

If a need is identified by the Catchment Group, special interest groups shall form as sub-committees of the Parramatta River Catchment Group; for example a Communications Group or a Spills Response Group. Additionally special project groups may need to form on a temporary basis to oversight projects or investigate specific issues. Sub-groups shall consist of the relevant interested parties, meet as required and report back to the full Catchment Group.

Hosting and Administration

Each council and/or land manager shall take it in turns to host the Parramatta River Catchment Group meetings. The rotation of meeting venues will be undertaken in alphabetical order of member organisations. The Coordinator and the Chair, dependent on the funding outlined below, are responsible for setting the agenda, and taking and distributing the minutes of the Officers’ and Councillors’ meetings. Each council and/or agency may also be requested to assist with additional administrative tasks on an as needs basis. Sub-committees may need to be run and administered by council and/or agency officers.

Refreshments will need to be provided for each meeting of the full Catchment Group.

Co-ordination of the Group and Chairing of meetings

A Coordinator shall be employed three days per week from council and agency contributions to coordinate meetings of the complete Group, actively seek to help members identify issues, seek funding for regional projects, work as a link between State and Local Government, and undertake other tasks as identified by the Catchment Group.

An independent Chair shall be engaged to Chair the meetings of the complete Group to allow meetings to be run without bias.

The SMCMA shall accommodate the Coordinator and provide advice and support. The Sydney Harbour Place Manager position, funded by the SMCMA, shall provide supervision for the Coordinator and assist to coordinate and implement actions of the PRCG that are consistent with the Catchment Action Plan (CAP). A key role for the Place Manager is continued involvement with the PRCG.

Funding and Voting

Funding for the Coordinator, the independent Chair and cost to run meetings is to be provided by a contribution from the eleven Catchment Councils, and Agencies where relevant. The remaining funds are to be spent on items determined by the PRCG, for example promotional material.

Voting rights for major issues, such as the direction of the PRCG, will be limited to contributing councils and agencies.

Attachment 1

Deed of Agreement

Deed of Grant of Licence

Parties

Parramatta Park Trust

("Trust")

Parramatta City Council

("Council")

Background

A. The land comprising of Parramatta Park, Parramatta being the lands described in Schedule A (the Property) is vested in Parramatta Park Trust.

B. Council wishes to erect a collection of three (3) interpretative sign structures and all improvements associated with the structures relating to the fish ladder near Ross Street Weir at the location shown on the plan attached as Schedule B ("the Structure").

C. The Trust has agreed to the signage design and content as outlined at Schedule C as attached hereto.

D. The Trust has agreed to the erection by Council of the signs referred to in Recital B above (subject to council securing the site during the construction period).

E. The Trust and the Council have agreed to enter this Deed to confirm the terms of the Deed reached between them relating to the erection and ongoing maintenance of the signs on the property.

This Deed witnesses in consideration of, among other things, the mutual promises contained in this Deed, the parties agree:

1. Parties bound by this Deed

For the purposes of this Deed, the rights, liabilities and obligations imposed on the Council shall be deemed to be binding on the Council's agents, assigns, invitees, contractors, employees and any person authorised by it.

2. Grant of Licence for Access, Construction and Maintenance

2.1 The structure and all improvements associated with the structure are subject to final approval by the Trust.

2.2 This Deed between Council and the Trust binds both parties and provides for the construction and ongoing maintenance of the structure.

2.3 The Trust agrees to grant to the Council a right of entry onto the Trust's land for the purposes of planning for a non-exclusive licence to erect and maintain the structure to an acceptable standard on the Trust land identified in the plan attached in Schedule B. Continuing responsibility for maintenance of the structure shall always be the obligation of Parramatta City Council (or its nominated contractors). The Trust shall remain responsible for the maintenance of the surrounding ground surface including regular mowing and weed control.

2.4 The Council agrees to make good any damage caused to the Trust's property and to otherwise indemnify the Trust in respect of any liability arising from the Council's use of the Trust's property pursuant to the rights granted under this clause.

2.5 Council will at all times maintain a policy of public risk insurance associated with any act or omission on the part of Council or its staff and those persons referred to in clause 1 associated with the structure together with such other insurances as the trust may reasonably require that the Council have in place during the term of this Deed.

2.6 If Council or the Trust are in dispute regarding any matter arising out of the Deed and this dispute cannot be resolved between the parties or through an agreed mediation process, then either party may by notice in writing served on the other, require that such dispute be resolved by the determination of an independent third party acceptable to both parties. Any costs of the independent expert shall be equally shared between the Council and the Trust.

2.7 Arrangements for replacement or removal of the signage shall be agreed to by both parties.

2.8 This Deed will be for a term of thirty (30) years, unless earlier terminated as a result of Council (or contractors) failing to carry out regular maintenance with due diligence and competence, or if either party commits a substantial breach of this Deed. The Trust agrees to enter into negotiations with the Council to extend the operation of this agreement in the event that the Fishway operation is still in place at that time. In the event that the Fishway operation ceases to be in place during the term of this Licence Agreement the parties agree that the provisions of this Deed shall automatically cease upon the termination of the Fishway operation.

2.9 Termination will be by notice in writing served on either party for breach of the term/s of this Deed whereby the breach has not been remedied within twenty eight (28) days of the first recorded (in writing) breach notification to the respective party.

2.10 Termination will not release the Council (or its nominated contractors) from liability in respect of any breach of, nor non-performance of any obligation by Council pursuant to, this Deed.

2.11 Termination of this Deed by either party is without prejudice to any accrued rights or remedies of each party.

2.12 Upon termination of this Deed the structure is to be removed by the Council at the expense of the Council. All such work should be carried out in a proper and workmanlike manner and the grounds returned to as close a condition as possible to the surrounding land vested in the Trust at the cost of the Council.

2.13 The structure shall not be used for any other signage or purpose except for the purpose of explaining the operation of the Fishway. In the event that the Council wishes to display any other signage then the Council must obtain the prior written consent of the trust.

3. Costs

The Council must pay all reasonable costs and expenses in connection with the preparation and execution of this Deed.

4. Governing Law

This Deed and the transactions contemplated by this Deed are governed by the law in force in New South Wales from time to time.

5. Counterparts

This Deed may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same Deed.

Executed as a deed on 2008

THE Seal of Parramatta City Council was hereunto affixed in the presence of authorised officers of the council in the presence of:	Signature: ...................................................
Signature of Authorised Officer:....................
Name of Authorised Officer:..........................
Position of Authorised Officer:.......................
PLEASE PRINT

Signed by the Minister for Sport and Recreation for and on behalf of the Parramatta Park Trust in the presence of:

Signature: ……………………………………..

Name of Authorised Officer:..........................

PLEASE PRINT

Position of Authorised Officer: ………………...

Ordinary Council 26 May 2008

Item 11.1

ROADS PATHS ACCESS AND FLOOD MITIGATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.1

SUBJECT Dedication of land owned by Council as Public Road

REFERENCE F2008/02414 - D00933935

REPORT OF Service Manager - GIS/LIS

PURPOSE:

This report seeks a resolution to dedicate the land detailed below as Public Road.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council resolves to dedicate by notification in the Government Gazette the land described below as public road in accordance with the Roads Act 1993.

BACKGROUND

1. During a validation process for all land owned by Parramatta City Council it became apparent that land existed within the Local Government Area that was being used as public road but was not as yet formally defined as public road.

2. The land identified as being owned by Parramatta City Council that is currently being used as road to be dedicated as public road includes:

Lot 1 DP 723953, Lot 2 DP 731018, Lot 2 DP 580646, Lot A DP 153464,
Lot 14 DP 548233, Lot 53 DP 1346, Lot 1 DP 601591, Lot 4 DP 575528,
Lot 5 DP 574406, Lot 6 DP 540450, Lot 4 DP 529723, Lot 2 DP 524788,
Lot 15 DP 539448, Lot 1 DP 604304, Lot 2 DP 517284, Lot 2 DP 221394,
Lot 8 DP 227138, Lot 13 DP 547024, Lot 14 DP 547024, Lot 1 DP 207864,
Lot 3 DP 207864, Lot 4 DP 207864, Lot 1 DP 591454, Lot 1 DP 442837,
Lot 8 DP 207864, Lot 9 DP 207864, Lot 10 DP 207864, Lot 11 DP 207864,
Lot 12 DP 207864, Lot 2 DP 575003, Lot 5 DP 605051, Lot 6 DP 617776,
Lot 8 DP 599376, Lot 1 DP176267, Lot 2 DP176267

3. Detailed location maps are attached.

4. On the publication of the notice in the Government Gazette, the land is dedicated as a public road.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

5. Currently viewing this information on the Geographical Information System maps it is not clear that the land is road which can cause confusion for internal and external customers.

6. This administrative task of dedicating the land as road will assist the strategic asset management project for providing clarity for the recording of land within Councils land register.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

7. Civil Infrastructure, Capital Projects, and SAM are supportive to dedicate the land as public road.

Kim Menzel

Service Manager – GIS/LIS

Attachments:

1View	Map - Clarke Street Granville Lot 1 DP723953	1 Page
2View	Map - Hunts Lane Epping Lot 2 DP731018	1 Page
3View	Map - Parkes Street Parramatta Lot 2 DP580646 Lot A DP153464	1 Page
4	Map - Mary Street Granville Lot 14 DP548233	1 Page
5	Map - Robertson Street Parramatta Lot 53 DP1346	1 Page
6	Map - Parkes Street Harris Park	1 Page
7	Map - Parkes Street Harris Park	1 Page
8	Map - Hunts Lane Epping	1 Page
9	Map - Russell Street Granville	1 Page
10View	Map - Houison Place Parramatta	1 Page
11View	Map - United Lane Parramatta Lot 8 9 10 DP207864	1 Page
12View	Map - United Lane Parramatta Lot 11 12 DP207864	1 Page
13View	Map - Guildford Road Guildford	1 Page
14View	Map - Rawson Street Epping - Lot 1 and 2 DP176267	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 26 May 2008

Item 11.2

ROADS PATHS ACCESS AND FLOOD MITIGATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.2

SUBJECT Wharf Road Boat Ramp, Wharf Road, Ermington.

REFERENCE F2005/01517 - D00935424

REPORT OF Service Manager Capital Projects

PURPOSE:

Parramatta City Council and Ryde City Council submitted a joint application to the NSW Maritime Authority under its 2007/08 Better Boating Program. The joint application was successful in receiving a $455,000 fully funded grant from the NSW Maritime Authority to upgrade Wharf Road Boat Ramp, Ermington.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council accepts the $455,000 fully funded grant from the NSW Maritime Authority to upgrade the Wharf Road Boat Ramp, Ermington and delegate authority to Council’s General Manager to execute the agreement.

(b) That Council endorses that Parramatta City Council officers administer and manage the project.

BACKGROUND

1. Wharf Road Boat Ramp lies adjacent to the Parramatta River at Ermington with a shared common city boundary with Ryde City Council running generally through the centre of the access road to the site. The maintenance of the ramp is currently carried out by Ryde City Council. The boat ramp is functional for medium size trailer boats, however, does become congested during the summer months and would benefit users by the addition of another launching ramp and improved roadwork facilities. The ramp services users from the western areas of Sydney and is the western most useable facility on the Parramatta River.

2. During October 2007 the NSW Maritime Authority announced the availability of funding under its Better Boating Program and approached Ryde City Council and Parramatta City Council to lodge a joint application for upgrade work to the Wharf Road Boat Ramp at Wharf Road, Ermington.

3. Conceptual plans and estimates for the work were prepared by Parramatta City Council’s Capital Projects team, which included the following improvements to the value of approximately $1.3 million:

· Widening of the existing two lane boat ramp to create an additional ramp;

· deepening of the river and extension of the ramps;

· road widening works and ramp to car park linkage;

· replacement of degraded floating pontoon;

· protection of historical ferry infrastructure;

· existing car park improvements to include flood-lighting and line marking;

· reconstruction and formalising of Waratah Street from the western end of the car park to Wharf Road;

· construction of a cycleway from the western end of the car park to Hope Street; and

· associated boating facilities to include showers, boat washing and fish cleaning tables.

4. Council received notification from the NSW Maritime Authority, in March 2008, advising of its success in its application, as follows:

“NSW Maritime is pleased to offer the joint application a BBP grant of $455,000 to be used solely in relation to the above project as described in your application. The grant amount is based on 100% support of the items listed in the Project Cost breakdown as follows:

· Survey, Design, DA (50,000)

· New jetty/pontoon ($250,000)

· Widen ramp by 3m ($80,000)

· Extend ramp – planks ($10,000)

· Road from ramp to carpark ($50,000)

· Project Management ($15,000)

Additionally, NSW Maritime wishes to confirm in principle support for the remainder of the project. Funding for works in addition to the components listed above will be subject to finalisation of the design, including concurrence of NSW Maritime and confirmed cost estimates, except that funding of the cycleway has not been approved as eligible under BBP. The cycleway may be eligible for 50% funding under SSHAP.

I understand that Parramatta City Council will be the project manager for the works and subsequently will be making the claims for funding. Unless otherwise advised, the BBP grant will be subject to conditions as detailed in the Better Boating Program Grant Conditions, a copy of which is attached for your information.”

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

5. Users from western Sydney will benefit by having an uncongested launching facility giving water access to Sydney Harbour.

6. The amenity of the facility will improve with future lighting upgrades increasing safety and deterring unsociable night activities.

7. An opportunity exists for Council to achieve a total upgrade of the boat ramp facility with all funding being provided by the NSW Maritime Authority. Based on the advice received, funding for further stages may be possible in future years.

8. A maintenance agreement is currently being negotiated with Ryde City Council officers to include, in particular, the management of the new facility.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

9. Consultation has taken place on-site with several users of the boat ramp, together with input received from Ryde City Council’s officers. Also, the requests from officers of the NSW Maritime Authority, have been incorporated in the concept design (see attachments).

10. The NSW Maritime Authority has verbally agreed to a 12-18 month timeframe for completion, although, it is anticipated that final design and construction, for this stage of the works, will be undertaken and completed within the 2008/09 financial year.

Jim Stefan

Service Manager – Capital Projects

15 May 2008

Attachments:

1View	Concept Plan	1 Page
2View	Artist's Impression	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 26 May 2008

Item 12.1

CULTURE AND LEISURE

ITEM NUMBER 12.1

SUBJECT International Charter for Walking

REFERENCE F2008/01449 - D00919513

REPORT OF Recreation Planner

PURPOSE:

To seek Council’s endorsement of the strategic principles of the ‘International Charter for Walking’.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council adopt the International Charter for Walking in recognition of the benefits of walking as a key indicator of a healthy, efficient, socially inclusive and sustainable community.

(b) That Council acknowledge the universal rights of all people to be able to walk safely and the need to reduce the physical, social and institutional barriers that limit walking.

(d) Further, that Council work with State and Federal Governments, local businesses and the community to implement the principles of the International Charter for Walking.

BACKGROUND

1. Walking is a fundamental and universal right, whatever our ability or motivation, and continues to be a major part of our lives. However, in many countries including Australia, people have been increasingly walking less and less. Walking Forward in the 21^st Century, known as Walk21, was created to champion the development of healthy, sustainable and efficient communities which provide an environment where people choose to walk more often.

2. The International Charter for Walking was developed by the International Walk21 Committee, and was presented to the Walk21 Conference in Melbourne in 2006 for adoption by individuals, organisations and governments. It identifies the needs of pedestrians and provides a common framework to help authorities refocus their existing policies, activities and relationships to create an environment and culture that encourages people to walk. (Attachment 1)

3. Many cities throughout the world are recognising the importance of providing walkable environments and have committed to the principles of the International Charter for Walking. The Charter has been signed, for example, by both the Lord Mayor of London and the Lord Mayor of Sydney.

4. The principles and actions identified in the Charter to encourage and promote walking supports Council’s existing investment in cycleways, pathways and public domain improvements. It is consistent with Parramatta Twenty25 which identifies a priority strategy (TC4) “to increase the number of people walking and cycling, particularly for journeys within the neighbourhood”. The Charter also supports actions and strategies in the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, Parramatta City Centre Plan (2007), Parramatta Sport and Recreation Plan (2005), and Parramatta Open Space Plan (2004).

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

5. Walking as a way of getting between destinations has decreased dramatically during the 20^th century in many parts of the world, particularly in Australia. We have developed an increasing reliance on motorised forms of transport, which has severely decreased our physical activity levels. The NSW Health Population Health Survey Report on Adult Health, published in 2006 found that over 77% of people commuted to work by car or motorbike compared to only 7.7% who walked and 1.2% who travelled by bicycle. The Report further found that this has contributed to significant increases depression, heart disease, road rage, anxiety, social isolation and record obesity levels, with 50.4% of Australians now classified as overweight or obese. This is particularly evident in Western Sydney where 55.7% of the community are overweight or obese.

6. From an environmental perspective our streets are now congested with large volumes of traffic and the air is becoming increasingly polluted, resulting in an increasingly unattractive and unsafe environment for pedestrians.

7. A walkable neighbourhood is one that provides and encourages a safe and attractive environment where people are within a reasonable walking distance to most of the places they want to visit, such a local shops, schools and other services. Walkable neighbourhoods provide significant environmental, economic and social benefits to the community, including improved health, reduction in pollution, increased local business activity and social capital.

8. Evidence from other cities has shown that improving the pedestrian and cycling environment creates a livelier and attractive city where more people desire to walk, cycle and spend time. For example, in Copenhagen (where use of non-motorised transport is measured annually), 100,000m2 once devoted to motorised traffic has been converted into vehicle-free city space exclusively for pedestrians and cyclists. This has resulted in 80% of the movement through the city centre being foot-traffic and 36% of people travelling to work by bicycle. More locally, according to the 2004 Melbourne: Places for People report, the Melbourne CBD has increased the space devoted to pedestrians by over 70% in the last ten years, resulting in a 39% (daytime) and 98% (evening) increase in pedestrian traffic.

9. Parramatta City Council has already implemented some significant improvements to the pedestrian environments through both increased funding for footpaths, cycleways and other public domain improvements under the Better Neighbourhood program.

10. In signing the Charter, Council would be acknowledging that it understands the value of walking and the desire to create a supportive environment. However, it does not commit Council to any specific actions or budgetary implications.

11. Economic, Social, Environmental and Organisational implications are detailed in Attachment 2.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

12. Consultation regarding the Charter has been undertaken with various stakeholders within Council to ensure that the Charter is consistent with Councils strategic directions. No specific formal consultation has been undertaken with the community. However, walking is actively encouraged and promoted in various Council plans and strategies.

Troy Holbrook

Recreation Planner

12 May 2008

Attachments:

1View	International Charter for Walking	8 Pages
2View	Detailed Submission	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Attachment 2

Detailed Submission

DETAILED SUBMISSION

1. SUSTAINABILITY

1.1 Economic Implications

Research shows that transport is second only to food as the largest item of household expenditure in Australia. The cost of running the family car is continually increasing due to rising fuel costs, however a large proportion of car trips are short. Comparatively however, the cost of walking costs as little as a good pair of walking shoes.

Replacing short car trips with walking helps local businesses as goods and services are increasingly purchased locally rather than driving further away. Pedestrian friendly neighbourhoods with less traffic increase the number of passers-by which increases a sense of safety, benefitting local businesses through encouraging additional visitors and attracting new businesses and jobs. In addition, land currently reserved for car parking could be reduced and utilised more productively.

Research shows that Staff who walk are generally more punctual and take less sick days due to improved health. Therefore, businesses that encourage staff to walk to work will benefit from increased productivity as a result of improved employee fitness and mental health. The benefits of walking will also reduce stress on health services and road maintenance costs.

1.2 Social Implications

Walking is free and requires no special equipment, making it an affordable and convenient means of transport. Research shows that walkable communities are better connected as walking provides the opportunity for people to interact with others in the community. More people walking also creates a safer environment as streets are under natural surveillance resulting in reduced crime levels.

Lack of regular physical activity is not only unhealthy, it puts a great deal of strain on Australia's health care system. Physical inactivity is second only to tobacco in terms of contribution to ill-health in Australia. Regular walking provides a significant number of health benefits, both physical and mental. It reduces air and noise pollution produced by motor vehicles which can affect sleep, disturb mental function, increase blood pressure and psychological stress. Walking is essential in the prevention of:

· heart disease

· stroke

· type 2 diabetes

· falls / fractures / injuries (through improved strength and coordination)

· colon cancer

· hypertension (high blood pressure)

· osteoporosis

· depression

· lower back pain.

It also also improves:

· psychological well-being

· metabolism

· muscle strength and flexibility

· strength and endurance

· respiratory function

· concentration and memory.

· strengthening the immune system

· increasing energy levels

· managing weight.

In particular, children who walk to school can benefit from regular exercise and improved concentration and memory. Outdoor activity such as walking is important for children as it contributes to the development of physical, practical, emotional and social skills.

1.3 Environmental Implications

Walking is a pollution-free mode of transport. Motor vehicles contribute to a large proportion of our air pollution, with cars being responsible many millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia. However, the majority of vehicle emissions are released when engines are started (up to 40 per cent more), in stop-start traffic and during short trips.

The majority of car trips to school and the local shops are within walking distance of the majority of households. By walking some of these short trips instead of driving we can help reduce air pollution, congestion and associated costs through fewet cars on the road. More pedestrians and less cars near schools will also creat a much safer environment for our children to get to and from school.

Maintaining and improving the transport network costs the Australian Government significantly each year. Up to 40 per cent of urban areas in Australia are taken up with infrastructure for vehicles, such as roads, car parks, service stations and auto manufacturers. Within the community, the family car requires three times more space than the family home because of the amount of space needed for cars at home, work, at shopping centres and schools. Walking reduces the parking spaces required by cars, providing opportunities for more recreational spaces to be enjoyed by the community, as well as less impacts on our native animals and ecological communities.

2. ORGANISATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

2.1 Financial

The signing of the International Charter for Walking will not directly impact upon the current management plan. Any additional funding of capital works improvements or additional maintenance works will be separately considered and approved by Council as part of the annual management plan process.

2.2 Legal

Not Applicable

2.3 Human Resources

Not Applicable

2.4 Information Technology

Not Applicable

2.5 Risk Management

The principles of the International Charter for Walking encourage the development of safe environments for the public which incorporates actions relating to the provision of safe, clean and well maintained spaces and facilities. These principles aim to develop a pro-active risk management program to increase the safety of public domain areas and reduce Council’s liability for possible compensation claims.

2.6 Policy

The International Charter for Walking is consistent with Councils adopted policies and strategies, in particular it supports Parramatta Twenty25. It is also consistent with the NSW Government State Plan and Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, and will provide a basis for their implementation through future strategic partnerships and alliances with key government agencies, non government organisations and the private sector.

3. ALIGNMENT WITH CORPORATE PRIORITIES

The International Charter for Walking supports both Council’s Corporate Plan and Parramatta Twenty25. It will provide guidelines which will assist Council in implementing many of the priorities identified in these adopted strategies.

4. CONCLUSION

Walking is free, requires no special equipment and is a universal right whatever our ability or motivation. However our increasing reliance on motorised forms of transport has severely decreased our ability and desire to walk due to an increasingly unattractive and unsafe environment for pedestrians.

The International Charter for Walking recognises the benefits of walking and identifies the needs of pedestrians in providing a common framework to help authorities create an environment and culture that encourages people to walk. It is consistent with Council’s Corporate and Parramatta Twenty25 strategic plans as well as the NSW Government’s State Plan and Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, and will assist in their implementation.

Ordinary Council 26 May 2008

Item 13.1

COMMUNITY CARE

ITEM NUMBER 13.1

SUBJECT Parramatta Liquor Accord

REFERENCE F2007/01888 - D00919356

REPORT OF Service Manager Community Capacity Building

PURPOSE:

This report is provided in response to a request from Council for urgent information pertaining to the Parramatta Liquor Accord. The Report outlines the operations of the Parramatta Liquor Accord, and those actions undertaken by the City of Sydney Liquor Accord. It also outlines the nexus between the newly adopted City Centre Crime Prevention Plan on the Parramatta Liquor Accord.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive and note the contents of the report.

BACKGROUND

Report

1. At it’s regulatory meeting on 21 April 2008, Council requested an urgent report containing information in regard to the Parramatta Liquor Accord. The request also asked for information regarding the City of Sydney Liquor Accord and its operation.

Liquor Accords

2. According to the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing (OLGR), “A liquor accord is an agreement to take certain actions in local communities which aim to improve safety in entertainment areas and reduce alcohol related anti-social behaviour, offences and violence”. Liquor Accords are aimed at taking a proactive and preventative approach to issues that may be related to licensed premises.

3. It is important to note that Liquor Accords are voluntary in nature and are usually established by Council and/or the Police Local Area Command and/or an interested licensee.

PARRAMATTA LIQUOR ACCORD

4. The Parramatta Liquor Accord was established on 31 October 2002.

5. The principles of the Parramatta Liquor Accord are as follows:

· Responsible Service of Alcohol

· Improving Safety and Security

· Commitment to Being Good Neighbours

· Co-operating with the Police and Community to Improve Local Outcomes

6. In 2008 the Parramatta Accord comprises 57 licensed venues as well as the Police Local Area Command, NSW Health, Council and the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing. The licensee membership includes hotels, clubs, restaurants and bottle shops across the Parramatta Police Local Area Command.

7. The Parramatta Accord is administered by an Executive Group that meets bimonthly to discuss issues impacting members and the community and to also plan events and initiatives to be supported by the Accord.

8. The Executive Group is Chaired and resourced by the Parramatta Leagues Club. It consists of representatives from Parramatta Police Local Area Command, Parramatta City Council (Service Manager, Community Capacity Building, Legal Services Support Officer and Road Safety Officer), representatives from hotels, clubs and bottle shops as well as other Government Departments.

9. The Executive Group is active in encouraging membership of the Accord from all licensed premises throughout the Parramatta Local Government Area. One way in which Council contributes to the promotion of the Parramatta Accord is via the provision of information about the Parramatta Accord to all applicants and re-applicants for ‘Place Of Public Entertainment’ (POPE) licenses.

10. All new member venues are provided with an ‘Accord Kit’ that provides details of the Accord policies and principles, signage and information brochures for patrons and staff.

11. Unlike many other Accords, and to encourage participation in the Accord, there is no fee charged for membership. Operational expenses for the Accord are met by Executive Group members through sponsorship, subsidy or in-kind support. The Parramatta Leagues Club contributes significantly to the operational expenses of the Parramatta Accord.

12. Initiatives undertaken by the Parramatta Accord include information sessions for members and non-members, network breakfasts, meetings with representatives of late night venues to establish communication channels, distribution of advertising materials promoting local Drug and Alcohol Help Lines, and regular email dispatches to members including regular updates from the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing.

13. During 2005, 2006 and 2007 the Accord’s network breakfasts have included themes such as; “Compliance + Community + Co-operation”, with information sessions focusing on topics such as ‘Compliance’, ‘Drink Spiking’ and ‘Smoke-Free Environment’.

14. Further, the Parramatta Leagues Club and the Parramatta Accord have been the venue/hosts for several Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing Regional Accord Conferences and Forums. The next Regional Conference will be held at Parramatta Leagues Club on Wednesday 11 June 2008. The event will be funded and hosted by Parramatta Accord and the Parramatta Leagues Club.

15. Items for discussion on the Agenda of Parramatta Accord meetings usually include updates from the Licensing Police regarding current trends and initiatives, feedback on cooperative initiatives between the Police and licensed venues, information sharing between venues in regard to security arrangements and incident and patron management as well as issues arising from changes to policy or legislation by the Department of Liquor, Gaming and Racing or other relevant agencies.

16. Parramatta Accord members were invited to participate in the development of the City Centre Crime Prevention Plan. This opportunity was offered via one of the Accord’s Networking Breakfasts. In addition, the Parramatta Accord Executive Group provided particular input into the plan.

17. The Executive Group has also provided input and support to Council’s Shuttle Bus Project. Members have expressed a strong interest in exploring the potential to expand such a service to operate after hours with a view to enhancing the safety of people moving through the CBD after dark. This would obviously include a number of patrons of Parramatta Accord members. This concept is in accord with recommendations contained within Council’s City Centre Crime Prevention Plan (see below).

CITY CENTRE CRIME PREVENTION PLAN

18. As mentioned previously in this report, Parramatta Accord members were invited to participate in consultations regarding the development of Council’s recently adopted City Centre Crime Prevention Plan. GHD Consulting attended a Liquor Accord Management Group Meeting and also held a specific consultation with Liquor Accord members.

19. The actions of the City Centre Crime Prevention Plan consider the need to review the existing Liquor Accord arrangements. Further the plan recommends that the Liquor Accord members will need to be engaged in the development and delivery of safer late night transport within the CBD, particularly in regard to licensed premises.

20. This and the other actions from the City Centre Crime Prevention Plan will form the priority actions and work plan for the Crime Prevention Coordinator once appointed.

CITY OF SYDNEY LIQUOR ACCORDS

21. A literature review of the City of Sydney Licensing Accord agreements, promotional materials and minutes of the Accord meetings has yielded the following information.

22. Due to its geography and large number of licensed premises, the City Of Sydney participates in a number of Liquor Accords (referred to as Licensing Accords) across the Sydney City area. Active Accords in the City of Sydney are: CBD, South Sydney, Surry Hills and Sydney City North. Accords in the process of being established are: Newtown and Glebe.

23. These Accords meet on a semi-regular basis, generally every two months.

24. Although worded slightly differently, the principles of the Accords in the City of Sydney are on par with those of the Parramatta Accord. For example, the principles of the Sydney CBD Liquor Accord has the following aims:

· To reduce alcohol related crime in and around licensed premises

· To improve the perception of the safety and appeal of the Sydney CBD area

· To build relationships between licensees, the Police and other Stakeholders

25. The Licensing Accords in the City of Sydney appear to have much the same focus as Parramatta’s including providing information seminars to members, promoting safe use and responsible service of alcohol and coordination between venues, Council and the Police.

26. The Licensing Accords in the City of Sydney also provide promotion of the City’s ‘Safe City Education Campaign’ by distributing information to patrons on issues such as theft of personal items and drink spiking.

Lisa Giacomelli

Service Manager – Community Capacity Building Team

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Attachment 2

Minutes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee 1st April 2008

MINUTES OF THE ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD IN ROOM 1, GROUND FLOOR, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, PARRAMATTA ON TUESDAY,1^st APRIL 2008 AT 6.20 PM.

__________________________________________________________________________

PRESENT

Mr Bruce Gale (in the Chair), Linda McDonald, June Magrath, Marcia Donovan, Phil Russo, Anne Castles, Lyn Leerson, Kerrie Kenton, Phillip Bradley and Clr Maureen Walsh.

IN ATTENDANCE

Ms Maggie Kyle – Community Capacity Building Officer; Tanya Bigeni – Events and Project Officer, Elise Mawhood – Minute taker, Vikki King – Manager Social and Community Services.

MINUTES

1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF TRADITIONAL OWNERS THE DHARUG PEOPLE

Bruce Gale did an Acknowledgment of Country recognising that the land upon which the meeting was being held is Dharug and paying respect to Elders past and present.

2 WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS

The committee welcomed Anne Stonham and Greg Stonham to the meeting as observers.

3 APOLOGIES

Apologies were received and accepted for the absence of John Robertson, Gilson Saunders, Doug Desjardine, Bettina King and Stephan Jaeggi.

4 CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

No conflicts of interest noted.

5 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

A copy of the minutes of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting held on 4 March 2008 had previously been forwarded to each member.

Amendments to the Apology list were made to include Phil Russo.

RECOMMENDATION

The report of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting held on 4 March 2008 be taken as a true record of the meeting.

6 BUSINESS ARISING

6.1 Lyn Leerson provided an update regarding the Northern Territory Intervention: Lyn Leerson and Annie Neilson had met with the Honourable Julie Owens, Member of Parliament and discussed the Northern Territory Intervention. Lyn Leerson expressed her concerns about the outcomes of that meeting and as a result the committee agreed to prepare a letter to the Honourable Julie Owens Member of Parliament.

RECOMMENTATION

Lyn Leerson in conjunction with Maggie Kyle, and on behalf of the ATSI Advisory Committee will prepare a letter to Julie Owens, expressing the Committee’s disappointment and serious concerns regarding aspects of the Northern Territory Intervention, in particular the suspension of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act and the impact of the Intervention on the human rights of indigenous communities.

6.2 Bruce Gale advised the Committee that the raising of the Aboriginal flag in conjunction with the Australian flag, at the Greek Flag raising ceremony was a great success. Bruce Gale and June Magrath had attended the event. It was suggested that Aboriginal dancers could form part of the 2009’s Greek flag raising.

6.3 Vikki King, Manager Social and Community Services, brought to the attention of the Committee the reported behaviours of some members at the last ATSI Advisory Committee meeting. Vikki King advised that meetings of the Committee must follow accepted meeting practice and abide by Council’s Code of Conduct. Members agreed that the behaviour displayed at the previous meeting was not acceptable. Further, members identified that behaviour by some members appeared to be having a negative affect on attendance, particularly by Aboriginal members. Vikki King suggested that the Committee further discuss this issue and consider further investigating inconsistent attendance of members.

Members identified a number of strategies to support the Committee operate in a more effective manner including:

(a) Review relevant aspects of the Committee’s Terms of Reference and Council’s Code of Conduct at the beginning of each meeting

(b) Identify and agree to adopt strategies to manage difficult discussions/ agenda items

(c) Consider engaging an external Aboriginal facilitator to conduct meeting facilitation training with the Committee or who could facilitate Committee meetings

(d) Undertake some cross cultural training for all members of the ATSI Committee and those that resource it

6.4 Maggie Kyle advised that the Aboriginal Project Officer would be commencing on 14 April 2008 and that a meeting would be set up to introduce them to Bruce Gale, Chairperson of the Committee, within the Officer’s first two weeks in the position.

7. NAIDOC 2008 DECISIONS AND ACTIONS

7.1 Maggie Kyle reviewed the decisions made by the Committee in the Burramatta NAIDOC Planning Workshop held on 5 February 2008 and the Committee meeting held on 4 March 2008 including the agreed principles of Burramatta NAIDOC activities:

(a) Events and activities will celebrate Aboriginal people, culture and history and promote cultural pride.

(b) There will be a focus on family with activities and events for children, young people and adults.

(d) Events would be alcohol and drug free.

(e) A number of events will be held. The main events are the Family Day and Flag Raising ceremony. There will also be a number of smaller events including mall performances, workshops for children and young people in the library, and an art exhibition.

(f) The NAIDOC budget would be used for Burramatta Family Day and the NAIDOC Flag Raising ceremony. The other lead up events would be funded from different program budgets.

7.2 Maggie Kyle informed the Committee that the Historic Houses Trust are currently talking to Michelle Desailly and Stephan Jaeggi about holding a NAIDOC activity at Elizabeth Farm. The Committee would be provided with further information as this progressed.

7.3 Tanya Bigeni updated the committee on the entertainment for Burramatta NAIDOC Family Day which will be based on the 2007 program. The Committee agreed on the following:

(a) The Committee is enthusiastic about the prospect of Sean Chooburra being available to MC the event.

(b) The Committee agreed to engage more performers that young people would enjoy including Hip Hop.

(c) An Aboriginal contractor will be engaged to film the event and record people’s comments about the event. This footage could be utilised as part of the evaluation of the event, supplementing the written evaluation forms.

Tanya Bigeni will provide a program of entertainers at the next meeting.

The Executive Committee will advise the Committee on whether any dance troupe engaged needs to have each member identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

7.4 Tanya Bigeni provided an update on the marketing and promotion for Burramatta NAIDOC:

(a) Marketing will start around the 9^th June 2008 and strategies will include: a DL flyer for direct marketing; street banners placed at the corners of Parramatta Pools, Riverside, Prince Alfred Park and on city flag poles; posters placed around the city in as many venues as possible including businesses, not for profits and community notice boards.

(b) Tanya will contact City Rail regarding displaying Burramatta NAIDOC posters.

(c) The Committee discussed the strategic placement of posters/banners on city entry points including the M4, Victoria Road and the Rose Hill Race Course.

Tanya will contact the Roads and Traffic Authority regarding placing a notice on the M2.

(d) As in previous years, press releases will be distributed to all local newspapers and free communication outlets/ channels. Paid advertisements will be placed in the Koori News, Parramatta Advertiser and Koori Radio.

Press releases will be sent to the Honourable Laurie Ferguson and the Honourable Julie Owens, Members of Parliament, who will be asked to place these in their community newsletters.

(e) Burramatta NAIDOC will also be promoted through websites including ANTAR, National NAIDOC, South Western Sydney Koori interagency, Western Sydney Koori interagency and Parramatta City Council. Michael Dagostino and Andrew Overton will be asked to assist Tanya Bigeni to identify suitable arts and cultural websites.

(f) It was agreed that an important marketing and promotion strategy is to distribute notice of the event through community networks, groups and inter-agencies. Committee members could play an important role in this. Tanya Bigeni will prepare a pdf version of the flyer and posters so Committee members can distribute through their networks.

Committee members wishing to promote or advertise the event through other channels will contact Tanya Bigeni to ensure the material they supply is accurate. Tanya Bigeni’s email address is: t.bigeni@parracity.nse.gov.au

RECOMMENDATION

Any advertising, promotion of the Burramatta NAIDOC event will be managed by Tanya Bigeni, Events Project Officer, to ensure consistent messaging and branding.

Clr Maureen Walsh noted that the promotion in 2007 was a significant improvement on previous years and acknowledged Tanya Bigeni and the Committee’s achievements.

7.5 The Committee discussed the allocation of stalls including:

(a) Tanya Bigeni explained that whilst not for profit and community groups will be not be charged for stalls, commercial and government stalls business will be charged $100.00.

(b) Stall holder application forms were distributed to members and Tanya Bigeni will email a pdf version to members. It was agreed that completed applications would be presented to the Committee at the June 2008 meeting for members to determine stall allocation. It was noted that individual members cannot approve stall applications.

(c) Members agreed that the Committee would have a stall to promote its role to the community and attract potential members.

7.6 Tanya Bigeni informed members that Westfields had been approached regarding sponsorship however they have not yet responded. An update on sponsorship will be provided at the April meeting. Members suggested that Streets Ice Cream and the NSW Police also be approached as potential sponsors.

8. GENERAL BUSINESS

8.1 Clr Walsh described contact she had recently had with the Mayor of Palm Island who is seeking assistance with the Island’s direction and strategy.

8.2 June McGrath attended the opening of the Attorney Generals Parramatta building and met the Assistant Project Officer of the Norimbah Unit which is responsible for Aboriginal recruitment in NSW Attorney General’s Department. Mark Wenburg would like information about the ATSI Advisory Committee. Maggie Kyle will follow up with Mark and forward information.

8.3 Maggie Kyle distributed information on an exhibition at Campbelltown Regional Art Gallery: ‘My Father, My Brother Stories of Campbeltown’s Aboriginal Men’. The opening is on Friday 11^th April 2008 at 2.30pm.

8.4 Lyn Leerson requested the exhibition of photos of famous Aboriginal people that was collected for 2007 Burramatta NAIDOC, be changed to focus on local Aboriginal people. The Executive Committee was asked to consider this proposal and whether to develop it into a project. It was noted there would be a number of issues to consider including applying for funding, storing the collection. If the Executive Committee recommends this project should proceed, the Committee would approach Michael Dagostino and Andrew Overton from Council’s City Culture, Tourism and Recreation Team for advice and support.

8.5 Maggie Kyle advised members that as part of 2008 Burramatta NAIDOC planning, she was discussing with the library displaying the collection of photos and brief biographies of famous Aboriginal people collected in 2007.

8.5 Maggie Kyle advised members that the Community Development and Support Expenditure Grants were open until 11 April 2008 and requested members advise Aboriginal programs and services.

8.6 A flyer was tabled regarding a sports clinic for adults providing sports programs with children/ young will be held in Matraville on 19 April 2008 between 10.00am – 3.00pm.

Next Meetings

ATSI Advisory Executive Meeting

22^nd April 6:00 -7:00 pm

Council Chambers

ATSI Advisory Committee Meeting

Including Burramatta NAIDOC planning

29 April 2008

The Meeting concluded at 7: 55

Attachment 2

Minutes Arts Advisory Committee 8 April 2008

MINUTES OF THE ARTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD IN ROOM C, LEVEL 2, COUNCIL CHAMBER BUILDING, CIVIC PLACE, PARRAMATTA ON TUESDAY, 8 APRIL 2008 AT 6.10 PM

PRESENT

Patricia Prociv in the Chair, Katherine Knight, Judith Rowling, Val Squires, Dianne Turner and Caitlin Vaughn.

IN ATTENDANCE

Maggie Kyle - Community Capacity Building Officer, Karly Smith – Manager PCC Events Team and Grant Davies - Minute Clerk.

1. WELCOME

Patricia Provic welcomed members to the meeting.

2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

A copy of the report of the meeting of the Arts Advisory Committee held on 12 February 2008 had previously been forwarded to each member.

RECOMMENDATION (Rowling/Knight)

The report of the meeting of the Arts Advisory Committee held on 12 February 2008 be taken as read and be confirmed as a true record of the meeting.

3. APOLOGIES

An apology was received and accepted for the absence of Toni Courtelis, Jacqui Douglas, Gay Hendriksen (Curator, Heritage Centre), Jane Ho, Lyn Lollback, Lena Nahlous, Graeme Riddell (Service Manager – Council Support) and Deborah Walker.

4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

There were no conflict of interest declarations at this meeting.

5. BUSINESS ARISING

There was no Business Arising.

6. REPORT ON INAUGURAL ARTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORKSHOP/PRESENTATION HELD ON 11 MARCH 2008.

A brief report on the inaugural workshop is appended to these minutes- Attachment 1.

Maggie Kyle advised that future workshop notes would include those present, a brief paragraph prepared by the presenter and any questions raised at the meeting.

It was also agreed that any handouts provided at the meeting would be provided by the Workshop presenter to the minute clerk who would then scan the documents and email them to members.

7. PRESENTATION BY KARLY SMITH – MANAGER PCC EVENTS TEAM

7.1 Karly Smith outlined the composition of the PCC Events Team; how events are programmed, what the Team aims to achieve and the main objectives for the Team.

The Events Team consists of Karly Smith as Manager, a Marketing Sponsorship Co-ordinator (to carry out marketing and promotion), 3 Events Co ordinators (responsible for different components of events) and an Administrative Assistant.

The Team is responsible for all major events and festivals (such as Australia Day, New Years Day, NAIDOC and Riverbeats), sponsorship, community events and decorating the city.

The Team can offer support and advice regarding community events particularly regarding issues such as risk and traffic. Geoff Miller, Community Events Co-ordinator, is responsible for this work. It was noted that community events are often run by a Committee for example the Rosella Festival and Waratah Festival.

Council also supported certain events by contributing funding such as the Arab Film Festival, Sydney Festival and Chess Festival.

In addition, certain one off events are also held such as the Dragon Boat Races, World Youth Day activities and Ride to Work Day.

7.2 In 2006, a major events review was undertaken with a view to refocussing events to ensure they were in accordance with the Council’s 2025 plan. The review included consultation with Councillors, relevant experts and representatives from other councils.

As a result of the review, the major events objectives were developed. These include:-

(a) Engage people to be active in the life of the city (Engagement/Involvement)

(b) Demonstrate and deliver a diversity of life understandings and perspectives (Celebrate Diversity)

(c) Celebrate and promote urban form and the natural environment through innovative use of place and space (Creative use of Place)

(d) Encourage local creative enterprise (Local Creativity)

(e) Boost the local economy both through the day and night. This is by events resulting in increased sales/ activities of local businesses.

Karly Smith also noted that Council’s Civic Events Team, which operates out of the Lord Mayor’s Office, is currently undertaking a similar strategic review and will align itself to similar objectives.

7.3 Karly Smith then outlined the strategic programming undertaken for each event which included the identification of areas of each event that were working well and achieving the desired outcomes, and those parts that were not working as well. Karly Smith acknowledged that this was certainly an area where the expertise of members of the Arts Advisory Committee could be better utilised.

7.4 Karly Smith advised that Council was currently in year 3 of the Riverbeats roll out but added that it was her preference to talk to the Committee prior to an event rather than only to seek their input at the evaluation phase.

7.5 Judith Rowling sought advice on the best course of action should the community wish to carry out a festival, perhaps in partnership with Council.

Karly Smith outlined the differing time schedules dependant on the necessity of arranging a development application, risk and/or traffic strategies.

Karly Smith stressed that no sponsorship budget existed within the Events Team’s budget. However it was also noted that certain requests for events may be handled through Council’s Community Grants scheme which is Co-ordinated by the Community Capacity Building Team, whilst more significant events may require a report to Council seeking financial assistance.

It was also noted that funding may also be available from external bodies such as the Australia Council.

7.6 The Committee proceeded to discuss concerns in relation to Riverbeats. It was noted that Katherine Knight had previously forwarded correspondence to Council outlining her concerns.

Patricia Prociv and Dianne Turner were particularly concerned about the perceived lack of local connection by Riverbeats and the lack of engagement of local artists. They raised the possibility of utilising artists from the Parramatta area and possibly artists with a connection to the Artists Studio.

Karly Smith thanked the Committee for its feedback which was important and added that professional evaluations were carried out on Council’s events. Council’s feedback for Riverbeats had indicated that the event was highly rated and supported.

Judith Provic suggested that Riverbeats follow a similar model regarding engaging artists as the Riverside Theatres uses: an excellent mix of international, Sydney based and local artists are engaged. This mix had resulted in a flow on effect of increasing audiences to amateur performances.

Karly Smith responded that Riverbeats does and would continue to include local artists, however, Council considers Riverbeats to be Parramatta’s signature event and accordingly, larger scale performers would continue to be utilised.

Karly Smith will ask Geoff Miller, Community Events Co-ordinator responsible for Riverbeats, to be invited to a future meeting to talk further about the event.

Recommendation (Turner/Squires)

(a) That Geoff Miller be invited to attend the next meeting of the Arts Advisory Committee to provide information on the current position with Riverbeats, especially in relation to the identification and selection of artists for participation in this event.

(b) That the Committee’s views on the need for local artist participation in this and future Council events be noted.

(c) Further, that Karly Smith be thanked for her informative presentation to the Committee.

8. 2008 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION – PRE ELECTION INFORMATION FOR POTENTIAL CANDIDATES

Mr Graeme Riddell, Service Manager – Council Support had intended to present to the Committee on this subject. However, the anticipated advice from the Department of Local Government had not been forthcoming, and accordingly, Graeme had apologised for this meeting and had requested the opportunity to meet in the near future with the Committee.

9. GENERAL BUSINESS

Workshop Presentation by Judith Rowling

Judith Rowling advised that it had been her intention to present to the October Workshop however, due to a prior commitment, she advised that the presentation would now be made to the August Workshop.

State of Community

Maggie Kyle outlined a project that the Community Capacity Building Team was undertaking: The State of the Community would describe the current state of Parramatta communities. In addition to demographic information, it would also include findings from community consultations. The consultant, Ms Pat Johnson, wished to meet different persons who live in and were connected to Parramatta.

It had initially been proposed that Ms Johnson would attend the next meeting of the Arts Advisory Committee, however, due to the full agenda, members decided that this was now not possible.

Maggie Kyle will inform Ms Johnson of the Committee’s decision. A meeting with Ms Pat Johnson may now be called with individual members.

Apology for Next 2 Meetings

Katherine Knight advised members that she will be unable to attend the next two meetings (despite her desire to hear Geoff Miller’s proposed presentation). Her non attendance would make it difficult for Jacqui Douglas to also attend. Judith Rowling offered a lift home for Jacqui Douglas should this assist in her attendance.

10 INFORMATION SHARE

Memories from the Past

Val Squires displayed past copies of ArtsWest and Arts in Action as prepared by members of the Arts Advisory Committee’s from the early 1990’s.

Arab Film Festival

Caitlin Vaughn advised that the Arab Film Festival opening night will be held on Thursday 10 April 2008. The event was fully booked.

Fearless at the Armoury

Dianne Turner advised that she had recently viewed Fearless at the Armoury and that it was absolutely brilliant.

NEXT MEETINGS

Workshop/Presentation Meeting

Parramatta Park Project - Patricia Prociv

Tuesday 13 May 2008

Artists Studios, Parramatta

Arts Advisory Committee Meeting

Tuesday, 10 June 2008, 6:00 pm

Room C, Level 2 Council Chambers Building

Civic Place, Parramatta

CHAIRPERSON FOR NEXT MEETING: Val Squires.

The meeting concluded at 7.40 pm.

Attachment 1

Access Advisory Committee Minutes 1 April 2008

MINUTES OF THE ACCESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD IN MEETING ROOM 3, GROUND FLOOR, COUNCIL CHAMBER BUILDING, CIVIC PLACE, PARRAMATTA ON TUESDAY, 1 APRIL 2008, COMMENCING AT 5.35PM.

PRESENT

John Moxon in the Chair, Debbie Manuel, Jim Grainda, Phillip Cornwall, Barbara Jones, Peter Simpson and Leone Clark.

IN ATTENDANCE

Graeme Riddell – Service Manager Council Support, Donna Mosford – Community Capacity Building Officer and Michael Wearne – Administration Officer.

1. WELCOME

The Chairperson, John Moxon, welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked them for attending. John introduced Graeme Riddell – Service Manager Council Support, who was in attendance to deliver community information about the September 2008 Local Government Elections.

2. APOLOGIES

An apology was received and accepted for the absence of George Mannix – Community Place Development Officer and Beth Collins – Team Leader, Home Support and Community Care.

3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION

There were no declarations made regarding conflict of interest at this meeting.

4. MINUTES

A copy of the Minutes of the Access Advisory Committee held 5 February 2008 had previously been forwarded to each member.

RESOLUTION (Barbara Jones/Debbie Manuel)

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Access Advisory Committee held 5 February 2008 be taken as read and confirmed as a true record of the meeting.

5. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS – COMMUNITY INFORMATION

Graeme Riddell – Service Manager Council Support, presented the committee with information regarding the upcoming Local Government Elections. Graeme will present this information to each of Council’s Advisory Committees over the next few weeks and has asked that Advisory Committee members relay information to their organisations and communities with a view to reaching as many interested people as possible.

Graeme advised the Committee regarding how to become a Councillor, including how to become a candidate, information about current Councillors and the amount of work Councillors must undertake. Graeme provided all Committee members with a hand out from the Department of Local Government titled ‘So you’re thinking of becoming a Local Government Councillor’ for additional information.

Graeme also encouraged interested Committee members to attend Parramatta Council’s “Pre-Election Information Session” to be hosted by Gerry Holmes on Wednesday, 28 May 2008, and the NSW Electoral Commission Briefing “Potential Candidates Information Session” on Wednesday, 11 June 2008.

Graeme thanked the Committee for their time and asked members to contact him should they have further questions about the Local Government Elections.

Graeme Riddell retired from the meeting at 5.50pm after discussion on this matter.

6. POSITIVE IMAGES OF PARRAMATTA PROJECT

Donna Mosford provided the Committee with a summary of the Community Safety Advisory Committee’s ‘Positive Images of Parramatta’ media promotion. Donna advised the Committee that a representative from Community Safety Advisory Committee will be attending all Advisory Committee’s to discuss and gather information about community safety issues.

Donna supplied each Committee member with a hand out regarding the project and asked the committee “What are the community safety issues for the communities you represent?” The follow issues were raised by the committee:-

· One member didn’t feel completely safe during the day or night around the Church Street Mall and the Council Chamber areas. This member has often been asked for money in these areas.

· Two members come into Parramatta CBD regularly and feel safe. The Bus and Rail Interchange is often full of young people but most are respectful and Transit Officers are often present. A police van is regularly located at the corner of Darcy and Church Streets and the police presence in the Church St Mall helps this Committee member to feel safe. One of these members commented that they are more concerned about bag snatching or robbery in Westfield Shopping Centre than becoming a victim of crime elsewhere in the CBD.

· Another member feels safe in Parramatta, adding that in their opinion, fears are more about perceptions than reality.

· One member advised that they are concerned that a lot surveys taken about safety in the Parramatta area are manipulated to sound negative.

· Another member feels generally safe in Parramatta, however, better lighting would increase their sense of safety. This member added that most crimes in Parramatta are possibly random attacks and that due to the Bail Court’s location in Parramatta, there is a widespread perception that all crime happens in the Parramatta CBD or Local Government Area.

Donna advised the Committee that these comments will be given to the ‘Positive Images of Parramatta’ Working Party and has asked for any Good Samaritan stories to be forwarded to her.

During discussions on this matter Committee members raised an issue regarding the unreliability of Accessible Buses. In some instances Committee members have had to book an Accessible Bus on their particular route a week in advance.

The Committee agreed to include this matter on the Agenda for the next meeting.

7. ACCESS AUDIT – JOHN EVERNDEN ‘YOU’RE WELCOME’ PROJECT

Donna Mosford advised the Committee that the ‘Access Australia’ 2001 Access Audit Report is the reference document for design works associated with various works in Granville.

However, the Committee agreed that they would still like John Evernden from the Independent Living Centre to look at the previous Access Audit as part of his assessment of Granville to ensure works comply with Australian Standards. The Committee also agreed that they would like the results of John’s audit to come back to the Committee for further discussion.

Donna advised the Committee that she would liaise with Place Manager, Neile Robinson, to clarify which projects in Granville the Access Audit Report will apply to and how the Access Committee may be involved in access-related planning in place.

ACTION: Donna to liaise with Neile Robinson to request information of works in Granville that involve access-related issues, and to clarify which planning processes the Access Committee will have an opportunity to feed into.

8. COMMUNICATION WITH JOHN RAYMOND

Donna has telephoned John Raymond to confirm his request to terminate his membership on the Committee. However, as there is no voicemail service on his phone, Donna has been unable to leave a message. A final letter regarding his membership will now be sent. If no response is received, John’s membership will be terminated.

ACTION: Donna to write to John Raymond requesting confirmation of John Raymond’s request to terminate his membership on the Access Advisory Committee.

9. NATIONAL DISABILITY AWARDS 2008

Nominations for the National Disability Awards 2008 are now open and John Moxon encouraged Committee members to nominate people they feel should be recognised.

ACTION: Michael Wearne to send to out the nomination forms and the criteria for the National Disability Awards to all Committee members with the Minutes.

10. INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY (IDPWD)

The IDPWD Sub-Committee is considering applying for Community Development Support Expenditure (CDSE) funding for IDPWD 2008. George Mannix is liaising with the sub-committee to determine eligibility and timeframes.

11. GENERAL BUSINESS

11.1 Railway Stations Inspections

Peter Simpson is yet to complete the inspections of various railway stations. Peter advised the Committee that he will try and undertake these inspections before the next Access Advisory Committee meeting.

Peter Simpson retired from the meeting at 6.55pm after discussion on this matter.

11.2 Ramp Accessibility Issues – Cumberland Highway and Wentworth Road Intersection

Donna advised the Committee that works were due to start as a matter of urgency at this intersection. The Committee agreed that should works still be stalled by the next meeting, they would begin to raise the issue with Councillors.

Phillip Cornwall advised that he is also having access problems at another section of Cumberland Highway where the pathway has been closed. This is forcing Philip to take his wheelchair onto the road.

Philip agreed to lodge an urgent Customer Service Request regarding this matter with Council’s Customer Service Department.

NEXT MEETING

Access Advisory Committee Meeting

Tuesday, 3 June 2008, 5:30pm

Ground Floor Meeting Room 3

Council Chambers Building

Civic Place, Parramatta

Meeting concluded at ~~The meeting concluded at~~ 7:09pm~~MINUTES OF THE ACCESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD IN MEETING ROOM 3, GROUND FLOOR, COUNCIL CHAMBER BUILDING, CIVIC PLACE, PARRAMATTA ON TUESDAY, 4 DECEMBER 2007, COMMENCING AT 5.33 PM.~~

~~PRESENT~~

~~John Moxon in the Chair, Debbie Manuel, Jim Grainda, Peter Simpson, and Phillip Cornwall (from 5:44pm)~~

~~IN ATTENDANCE~~

~~Donna Mosford – Community Capacity Building~~ ~~Officer,~~ ~~George Mannix – Community Place Development Officer, Beth Collins – Team Leader, Home Support and Community Services and~~ ~~Erin Lottey – Minutes Clerk.~~

~~1. WELCOME~~

~~The Chairperson, John Moxon, welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked them for attending.~~

~~2. APOLOGIES~~

~~An apology was received and accepted for the absence~~ ~~of Barbara Jones.~~

~~It was noted that David Powell is on an extended leave of absence.~~

~~RECOMMENDATION~~ ~~(Debbie Manuel / Jim Grainda)~~

~~That the committee accept the apology put forward by Barbara Jones~~

~~3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION~~

~~There were no declarations made regarding conflict of interest at this meeting.~~

~~4. MINUTES~~

~~A copy of the report of the Minutes of the Access Advisory Committee held 2 October 2007 had previously been forwarded to each member.~~

~~RECOMMENDATION~~ ~~(Peter Simpson / Debbie Manuel)~~

~~That the Minutes of the meeting of the Access Advisory Committee held 2 October 2007~~ ~~be taken as read and confirmed as a true record of the meeting.~~

~~5. ACCESS COMMITTEE REPRESENTATION AT PARRAMATTA TRAFFIC COMMITTEE (PTC)~~

~~5.1 PTC Report~~

Donna Mosford advised that she had spoken to Council’s Traffic and Transport Service Manager, Richard Searle, regarding the report he is preparing. The report is expected to be put to the next meeting of the Parramatta Traffic Committee in February 2008. Information collected at a meeting between Richard, John Moxon and George Mannix on 18 October 07 would also be presented at that meeting.

~~5.2 Investigation into access provisions at Railway Stations within the Parramatta Local Government Area~~

Donna advised that Richard Searle is undertaking an investigation into provisions for accessible parking at railway stations within the Parramatta Local Government Area. Richard has agreed that feedback about railway stations with inadequate access provisions would be considered for works. Feedback from committee members included:

~~The ramps at the north side of Granville railway station~~

~~Kerb ramps at Westmead railway station~~

~~Accessible car parking spaces at Westmead railway station do not conform, the roll top kerbing is located to the rear of the space making it very difficult to get from the car to the footpath.~~

~~Epping station lacks accessible parking; the nearest is located at Coles or at the library, and there is no accessible path of travel from the station to these spaces~~

~~John Moxon suggested that a visit to the various railway stations may assist the committee in providing more detailed feedback.~~

~~ACTION~~~~: Peter Simpson and John Moxon will conduct an inspection of the various railway stations within the Parramatta Local Government Area, and report their findings to Richard Searle~~

~~5.3 Accessible Bus stops~~

The committee discussed the speech given by Graeme Innes, the Commissioner of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, at Parramatta Council’s International Day of People with a Disability celebrations. The speech highlighted the requirement that 25% of all bus stops within the local government area meet the standards set in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (NSW) by the end of 2007. The committee agreed that an audit of existing bus stops is required to determine the level of compliance within the Parramatta Local Government Area

~~RECOMMENDATION:~~ ~~(Jim Grainda / Peter Simpson)~~

The Committee recommends that Council resolve to direct Council to audit all bus stops in the Parramatta Local Government Area to determine how many meet the requirements of the Accessible Transport Standard within the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (NSW)

~~6. PARKING INFRINGEMENT ISSUE~~

The committee was advised that Richard Searle had indicated that the 3 accessible parking spaces in Civic Place (which are currently designated ½ hour parking until 6pm and 4 hours parking thereafter) are going to have the time limit removed. George Mannix indicated that to his knowledge only the Civic Place accessible parking spaces would have the time limit lifted. George also advised the committee that Council Rangers have recently been conducting a ‘blitz’ on the misuse of accessible parking.

~~RECOMMENDATION~~~~: (Debbie Manuel / Jim Grainda)~~

~~The committee commends the Council for its crackdown on the misuse of mobility parking authorities and the unlawful use of designated accessible parking bays.~~

~~7. INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY (IDPWD)~~

John Moxon commended the staff involved in organising the day, George Mannix, Donna Mosford, Maia Giordano and Zoe Spiteri and thanked the members of the organising sub-committee, Barbara, Peter and Debbie, for their hard work during the year.

~~The committee suggested ways of improving the day for 2008, and identified specific issues which require addressing. The suggestions and issues included:~~

~~7.1 Art Competition and Engagement of Local Schools~~

~~Issues~~

~~Inadequate number of entries in art competition at the secondary school level~~

~~Getting engagement from secondary schools early enough in the year.~~

~~Suggestions~~

~~Changing the art competition, possibly having a poetry competition instead~~

~~Pinpointing the relevant staff at local schools earlier in the year to ensure that there is a contact at the school~~

~~Providing more guidance as to what the day is about, such as a one or two page outline to provide to schools~~

~~Preparation of a photo montage to include in any outline~~

~~Forming the subcommittee earlier to identify potential improvements and funding opportunities.~~

~~ACTION:~~ ~~A subcommittee be formed and the first meeting be scheduled for late January or early February 2008.~~

~~7.2 Marketing of the Day~~

~~Marketing needs to be improved, more publicity required in the lead up to the day.~~

~~A printed programme / flyer handout detailing the activities and events could be prepared and handed out in the mall~~

~~External activities should be signposted~~

~~Use of a PA system to commentate sporting events, Richie Benaud style spruiker etc.~~

~~7.3 The Function Itself~~

~~Issues~~

~~Acoustics in the town hall aren’t good~~

~~Getting the function started on time~~

~~Getting school attendance~~

~~Suggestions~~

~~Timing was better than last year~~

~~Graeme Innes was an excellent drawcard~~

~~Representatives from other Council departments be invited to join the working party to ensure coordination of activities across Council~~

~~Perhaps another school group doing street theatre~~

~~Scouts involvement~~

~~One hour is long enough for the function~~

~~Perhaps hold the formal proceedings outdoors, with the town hall as a fall back should the weather require it~~

~~Get a Federal Minister to attend, for example Bill Shorten~~

~~Have well known speakers to attract attendees~~

~~7.4 “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly DVD”~~

Commissioner of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Graeme Innes, referred to a DVD titled “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” in his speech. The DVD relates to access considerations within development. The Committee noted that one local government area is giving a copy of this DVD to every DA. The committee further noted that this would increase awareness around accessibility issues within the Development Application team.

~~RECOMMENDATION~~~~: (Peter Simpson / Jim Grainda)~~

The committee recommends that the Council make a determination that Parramatta City Council follows other Councils by distributing a copy of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s DVD, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, to all Development applicants.

~~8. GENERAL BUSINESS~~

~~8.1 Pedestrian Access & Mobility Plan (PAMP)~~

The committee was advised that the Traffic and Transport Service Manager, Richard Searle, had asked for the locations of crossings that are non compliant. John Moxon suggested that some photographs of the crossings should be taken, and a report provided stating which crossings do not comply. John suggested that this exercise could be done at the same time as the railway station visits.

~~ACTION~~~~: Peter Simpson and John Moxon will visit locations if time permits prior to the next Access Committee meeting.~~

~~8.2 Bus Stop Relocation~~

The committee was advised that Richard Searle had indicated that the bus stop which is currently south of the Lennox Bridge will be moved to either the north side of the bridge, or onto the bridge itself, to improve the line of sight of bus drivers to the stop.

~~8.3 Ramp Accessibility Issues – Cumberland Highway and Wentworth Road~~

Phillip Cornwall tabled a letter indicating problems with the footpath ramps at the Cumberland Highway and Wentworth Road intersection. The problems with the ramps have left Phillip dangerously stuck on the road in front of approaching traffic.

~~ACTION~~~~: A service request will be raised with Council about this safety concern and Donna Mosford will contact the relevant Council Officer to reiterate the urgent nature of Philip’s request.~~

~~8.4 Courtesy Call to John Raymond~~

Debbie Manuel requested that a courtesy call be made to John Raymond to check if he is alright, given that he has not attended any committee meetings this year. It was further suggested that a call be made to David Powell to enquire as to the health of his wife.

~~ACTION:~~ ~~Donna Mosford will make a courtesy call to John Raymond and David Powell.~~

~~8.5 Movement of the Intercom / Bell to obtain access to the Council Chambers Building~~

~~The committee noted the ongoing issue of the height and accessibility of the intercom and buzzer system used to facilitate access to the Council Chambers Building after business hours.~~

~~RECOMMENDATION~~~~: (Peter Simpson / Debbie Manuel)~~

The committee recommends that Council resolve to have the after-hours bell at the rear entrance to the Council Chambers building relocated to meet the requirements of Australian Standard 1428. i.e. Between 900mm and 1100 mm from the ground and no closer than 500mm to an internal corner.

~~8.6 Hearing Loops in the Town Hall~~

~~The committee noted the lack of provision within the Town Hall for persons with hearing loss.~~

~~RECOMMENDATION~~~~: (Debbie Manuel / Jim Grainda)~~

The committee recommends that Council take action to install hearing augmentation systems in the Town Hall in order to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, so that people with hearing loss can engage in functions held at the Town Hall.

~~NEXT MEETINGS~~

~~International Day of People with Disability 2008~~

~~Working Party Sub Committee Meeting~~

~~To Be Confirmed – Late January / Early February 2008~~

~~Access Advisory Committee Meeting~~

~~Tuesday, 5 February 2008, 5:30pm~~

~~Ground Floor Meeting Room 3~~

~~Council Chambers Building~~

~~Civic Place, Parramatta~~

~~The meeting concluded at 6:58pm~~

~~ACCESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING DATES FOR~~ ~~2008~~

~~Tuesday, 5^th February 2008~~

~~Tuesday, 1^st April 2008~~

~~Tuesday, 3^rd June 2008~~

~~Tuesday, 5^th August 2008~~

~~Tuesday, 7^th October 2008~~

Ordinary Council 26 May 2008

Item 14.1

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER 14.1

SUBJECT Regulation & Enforcement of Brothels and Massage Parlours

REFERENCE F2007/01985 - D00935148

REPORT OF Strategic Analyst, Crime and Corruption Prevention

PURPOSE:

This report provides Council with an update on the work of the Strategic Analyst, Crime and Corruption Prevention particularly in relation to the regulation and enforcement of brothels and massage parlours.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council receive and note this report.

(b) Further, that Council refer both this report and the latest Report of Investigation into Compliance Section to ICAC for information and review.

BACKGROUND

1. The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) commenced an investigation into the activities of the Compliance Section of Council’s Development Services Unit in November 2006 on the basis of information received. In August 2007, ICAC published a report of its investigation finding that the former Team Leader Compliance Services acted corruptly in accepting cash and sexual favours in exchange for failing to undertake inspections and providing prior warning of inspections.

2. A detailed report on improvements arising out of the ICAC report was provided to Council on 29 October 2007 (SAR 34/2007 refers) and a further update appears elsewhere on this Agenda, deferred from the Council meeting of 28 April 2008.

3. In September 2007, a temporary position of Strategic Analyst, Crime and Corruption Prevention (CCPA) was created. The Workplace Reform Proposal includes the following background comments:

Recent enquiries both within Council and by external agencies have shown the need for a more strategic approach to information gathering and dissemination in relation to crime and corruption trends in the Council area. The long-term risks to the development and growth of Parramatta posed by organized criminal activity needs to be addressed overtly and effectively.

4. The key accountabilities for this new position include:

(a) establish sustainable networks for intelligence sharing in relation to crime prevention and regulatory services

(b) contribute to the reduction in the level of organized crime within the Parramatta Local Government Area through collaborative operations between Council, law enforcement agencies and Council’s legal service providers

(c) development of policies, procedures and training strategies that enable an holistic risk-based approach to compliance related services as part of Council’s corruption resistance strategy.

(See Position Description shown at Attachment 1)

5. Council resolved on 14 April 2008 to receive a progress report on the work carried out to date by the CCPA as detailed below:

(a) That a progress report be provided by the Strategic Analyst, Crime and Corruption Prevention Officer on the work carried out to date since his appointment and further, that the officer’s view be sought on what actions need to be undertaken in order to oversee the regulatory and development functions of Council, so as to ensure appropriate and responsible standards of approval practices covering brothels, massage parlours, licensed premises, tattooists and piercing establishments.

(b) Further, that in order to better address the public interest and future integrity of the City’s governance around such issues of brothels, licensed premise, massage parlours, tattooists and piercing establishments, that an independent report be brought forward from an appropriate body as to how those issues mentioned could be addressed and strengthen Council’s adopted Crime Prevention Policy.

WHY FOCUS ON REGULATION OF BROTHELS AND MASSAGE PARLOURS?

6. The corrupt conduct of the former Team Leader Compliance Services contributed in part to a proliferation of illegal brothels and massage parlours within the Parramatta Local Government Area. These corrupt activities also enabled some approved brothels and massage parlours within the Parramatta Local Government Area to operate in breach of their consent conditions. These breaches commonly included operating in breach of operating hours, operating with more sex workers than permitted, operating more service rooms than permitted and serious fire safety defects.

7. Brothel owners and operators tend to be somewhat transient in nature and are not always focused on complying with conditions of any Development Approval that may be in place.

8. Illegal brothel operators have little or no regard for planning and land use laws and tend to shift their operations frequently to evade attention. The generation of large sums of what is predominantly a cash business is a significant motivator for illegal brothel operators to ply their trade.

IMPROVEMENTS FOLLOWING ICAC INVESTIGATION

9. In August 2007, ICAC made a number of recommendations relating to Council procedures, systems and staff training. The changes and improvements that have resulted include:

(a) modification of the CRM system

(b) provision training to Compliance Team members including brothel enforcement and investigative training

(c) formulation and implementation of corruption resistant Operating Procedures for compliance activities involving legal and illegal brothels and massage parlours and

(d) risk review conducted of Compliance activities. Identification of OH&S issues. Equipment issued and training provided to Compliance Team.

Council’s response to the ICAC recommendations are detailed in the separate report on this Agenda titled Report of Investigation into Compliance Section.

10. The Integrity Steering Committee has been established to oversight Council’s brothel and massage parlour compliance activities, in particular, providing advice on policy and procedural matters. The Integrity Steering Committee was formed in October 2007 and its membership includes General Manager (Chair), Special Advisor (John Mant), Manager Service Audit and Review, Strategic Analyst Crime and Corruption Prevention, Group Manager Outcomes and Development, Manager Development Services and Group Manager Corporate Services.

11. Early this year, new procedures were introduced that enable the CCPA to review and provide comment on all development applications relating to brothels, massage parlours, licensed premises, tattoo parlours and piercing salons. The CCPA can provide information and advice on the appropriateness of any intended land use with in our LGA to supplement any information provided by external agencies such as the NSW Police. Recently this has contributed to a number of applications for brothels and massage parlours being refused.

12. The CCPA undertakes an assessment of all brothels and massage parlours which includes reviewing relevant Council records and intelligence data from external agencies such as the NSW Police. Those premises which are of particular interest to such external agencies, whether authorized or operating illegally, are determined to be of special interest and the relevant compliance activities are overseen by the CCPA in consultation with the external agencies. This ensures that Council’s activities do not compromise the investigations of other agencies nor place its officers in undue risk.

13. The NSW Police lead investigations into special interest premises and appoint a Team Leader to liaise with other participating agencies, including Council. These investigations follow the standard operating procedures of the NSW Police and Council’s CCPA and Compliance Officers participate in order to collect evidence in relation to breaches of development consents.

14. There are presently twelve special investigations in progress which have resulted in entry to premises by way of either inspections pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act or by virtue of search warrants executed by NSW Police or the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

15. Key matters investigated by way of joint agency operations include brothel owners and operators engaging in activities such as the employment of illegal immigrants as sex workers, sex workers obtained and detained by way of sexual servitude and the use of underage girls as sex workers. Of concern is that these issues are predominant amongst the licensed brothels within the Parramatta LGA.

16. Thirty-one Penalty Infringement Notices have been issued by the CCPA to the owners and operators of special interest premises, with a total fine value of approximately $16,500. None of these fines have been contested within the Courts.

17. Additionally, the NSW Fire Brigade has issued two Section 10 Emergency Orders against licensed brothels during these joint agency operations.

18. The majority of brothels and massage parlours in Parramatta Local Government Area are not determined to be of special interest to external agencies. Compliance activities relating to these premises are managed by Council’s Development Control Team in accordance with internal procedures. These procedures have been developed to enhance corruption prevention in field activities and cover matters such as management of evidence, use of utility orders and occupational health and safety.

19. As outlined in the separate Report of Investigation into Compliance Section, some fifty inspections of brothels and massage parlours (both unauthorised and approved) have been carried out by the Development Control Team since October 2007. These inspections have resulted in fifteen Brothel Closure Orders being issued by Parramatta Council and four Utility Orders being issued by Parramatta Local Court over the last six months.

20. Staff from Council’s Development Control and Environment and Health teams carry out similar inspections of other types of premises including tattoo parlours and body piercing establishments once development consent has been issued. Periodic inspections are conducted to ensure compliance with consent conditions as well as in response to complaints which may be received in relation to these land uses.

21. In summary, significant improvements have occurred in the regulation and enforcement of brothels and massage parlours within the local government area. The number of these premises has been reduced overall and all premises identified by the ICAC Report have been closed and/or closed and prosecuted by PCC. The number of illegal brothels and massage parlours establishing in the area has also significantly decreased.

22. The Special Advisor to the Integrity Steering Committee, John Mant, has reviewed both this report on the recent status report on implementation of the ICAC recommendations and provides the following comments:

There are three lessons from the Council’s regulation and enforcement of brothels and massage parlours:

(a) The importance of an intelligence based strategic approach, rather than merely responding to complaints.

(b) The virtue of detailed standard operating procedures that is documented and learnt.

(c) The usefulness of inter-agency partnerships that build trust.

The CCPA and the Development Control Team are to be commended for their efforts. Council is leading the way in this difficult area of enforcement. As has been shown in cities such as New York, a no-exceptions enforcement of rules can be an important element in combating crime and improving security.

CONSULTATION AND PARTNERSHIPS

23. Council works collaboratively on a variety of crime and corruption prevention activities and receives regular community input through the Community Safety Advisory Committee. In addition to the recently completed City Centre Crime Prevention Plan, Council is currently working with the NSW Police on the development of a Memorandum of Understanding to support the implementation of this plan. Council also regularly participates in other forums such as the Parramatta Crime Prevention Partnership and the Parramatta Liquor Accord. A separate report elsewhere on this Agenda outlines the current operations of the Parramatta Liquor Accord.

24. As outlined above, Council has established networks with external agencies including NSW Police and Department of Immigration and Citizenship in a whole of government approach to the regulation and enforcement of brothels and massage parlours. During preparation of this report, Parramatta Local Area Command was invited to provide comment on Council’s recent activities in the regulation and enforcement of brothels and massage parlours including the role of the CCPA. The response confirms the significant improvements that have been achieved as outlined in the confidential ATTACHMENT 2.

CONCLUSION

25. Overall, PCC has either met or exceeded the recommendations from the ICAC report following investigation of the Compliance Section in 2007. PCC has set the benchmark in this particular field of regulatory function and intends to continue on a path of continuous improvement in this area. In addition to Council pursuing the recommendations outlined in the ICAC report, Council’s Manager Service Audit and Review has commenced development of a Corruption Prevention Strategy that will help to strengthen corruption resistance across the range of Council activities.

26. It is recommended that Council refer both this report and the separate status report on the Investigation into Compliance Section, to ICAC for information and review.

Nicholas Mamouzelos Sue Colman

Crime & Corruption Analyst Acting General Manager

Attachments:

1View	Position Description - Crime & Corruption Analyst	3 Pages
2View	Confidential Information from NSW Police - Parramatta LAC (Supplied to Councillors ONLY)	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 26 May 2008

Item 14.2

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER 14.2

SUBJECT Report of Investigation into Compliance Section

REFERENCE F2007/01985 - D00917795

REPORT OF Manager Service Audit and Review

PURPOSE:

To provide Council with the final response to the recommendations of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) report into corrupt conduct associated with the regulation of brothels in Parramatta, and to provide Council with an update on the enforcement action that has taken place during the last 6 months relating to brothels and massage parlours.

Council at its meeting on Monday, 28 April 2008 resolved:-

‘That consideration of this matter be deferred to enable its consideration in conjunction with the forthcoming report on Crime and Corruption prevention.’

The above mentioned report titled – ‘Regulation & Enforcement of Brothels and Massage Parlours’ has been listed for consideration prior to this matter.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive and note this status report.

BACKGROUND

1. The ICAC commenced an investigation into the activities of the Compliance Section of the Development Services Unit in November 2006 on the basis of information received. In August 2007 the ICAC published a report of their investigation finding that the former Team Leader Compliance Services acted corruptly in accepting cash and sexual favours relation to inspections and complaints handling in exchange for failing to undertake inspections and providing prior warning of inspections.

2. A detailed report on improvements arising out of the ICAC report was provided to Council on 29 October 2007 (SAR 34/2007 refers). At that meeting Council resolved to endorse the closure of illegal brothels and associated activities as a top priority for Regulatory and Compliance Services over the following four months.

REPORT

ICAC RECOMMENDATION – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

3. In August 2007 Council provided the ICAC with a status report relating to the fourteen recommendations contained in the ICAC report. A final implementation plan relating to the ICAC recommendations was provided to the ICAC in December 2007. The Implementation Plan is posted on the ICAC website. Council is required to provide the ICAC with updates on progress of the Implementation Plan on an annual basis for the next 2 years.

4. The current status of actions in relation to the ICAC report recommendations is shown at Attachment 1.

ENFORCEMENT ACTION OVER LAST 6 MONTHS

5. In providing an emphasis on the control of illegal brothel activity since the introduction of the Brothels Amendment Legislation in October 2007 and the resolution of Council on 29 October 2007, some 50 inspections of brothels and massage parlours (both unauthorised and approved) have been carried out by the Development Control Team.

6. These inspections have resulted in 15 Brothel Closure Orders being issued by Parramatta Council and 4 Utility Orders being issued by Parramatta Local Court over the last 6 months. Additionally, 7 Notices of Intentions to Serve an Order have been issued to brothels which have development consent but are not operating in accordance with the consent conditions.

7. It is noted that Parramatta Council was the first Council in NSW to successfully obtain Utility Orders under the new legislation. These results are pleasing and the efforts of the Development Control Team in carrying out this challenging work and obtaining these positive results should be recognised.

8. Despite priority being given to the closure and inspection of brothels and massage parlours since October 2007 the Development Control Team have also been required to manage the other land use and regulatory complaints received by Council. During this period the team participated in an in-house brothel enforcement training day, and the managers have attended a Crime Prevention Practitioners Seminar and a Corruption Prevention for Managers workshop run by the ICAC.

9. The total number of Service Requests (CRMs) currently allocated to the Development Control Team for investigations is currently 283. Of these, approximately 15% relate to brothels/massage parlours.

10. Despite the success of the brothel closure actions over the last 6 months, the costs in prioritising enforcement action relating to brothels above other compliance matters have included a significant increase to the time taken to finalise the other 85% of service requests allocated to the Development Control Team, this being between 3 and 6 months. Some of the other service requests that the team is responsible in carrying out enforcement work include: buildings not being constructed in accordance with development consents; buildings being constructed with no approval; overland drainage issues and building pollution issues and nuisance issues.

11. To enhance the management of all Service Requests allocated to the Development Control Team the team has commenced an ongoing monitoring program for approved brothels with the aim of ensuring compliance with consent conditions. This program is paralleled by an ongoing program of investigating other breaches of development consent, including illegal brothel activity.

ISSUES, OPTIONS, CONSEQUENCES

12. At its meeting of 14 April 2008 Council sought further information relating to progress by Council’s Strategic Analyst Crime & Corruption Prevention and an independent report into Council’s options to improved city governance in relation to brothels, licenced premises, massage parlours, tattooists and piercing establishments. These reports which will be available in due course will consider the improvements to date as discussed in this report.

Michael Quirk Louise Connolly

Manager Service Audit & Review Manager Development Services

17 April 2008 17 April 2008

Attachments:

1View

Status of ICAC Recommendations

5 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Nil.

Attachment 1

Status of ICAC Recommendations

OPERATION PELION RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATION	RESPONSE	ESTIMATED TIMEFRAME	RESPONSIBILITY
RECOMMENDATION 1
It is recommended that the Minister for Planning and the Attorney General commission a review of the corruption risks attached to the regulation of brothels by local councils, and develop an appropriate strategy to deal with those risks.	Action with Minister for Planning; Reminder letter sent to Minister.		Minister for Planning

RECOMMENDATION 2
It is recommended that the Minister for Planning and the Attorney General give consideration to adopting a system to prevent unsuitable persons operating brothels.	Action with Minister for Planning; Reminder letter sent to Minister.		Minister for Planning

RECOMMENDATION 3
It is recommended that the Minister for Planning and the Attorney General introduce legislation to require sex industry advertisements to show the relevant development approval number. If the business does not require consent, the advertisement should be required to show an exemption number issued by the local council.	Action with Minister for Planning; Reminder letter sent to Minister.		Minister for Planning

RECOMMENDATION 4
It is recommended that Parramatta City Council implements a system of active staff and performance management in the compliance area.	Service Manager and Team Leader have been recruited and have implemented a more formal approach to management control over inspection activities. Team meetings are recorded and include input from the Legal Support Team and the Strategic Analyst. The weekly review of brothel advertisements is provided to the Strategic Analyst for further analysis and possible action. Standard operating procedures enhanced and implemented covering: Legislative and regulatory enforcement; Management of evidence; Corruption prevention in field activities; Court proceedings and use of utilities orders; and Occupation health & safety. Performance standards established for non-compliance timeframes. Independent Integrity Steering Committee oversight of brothel compliance matters. Active networks and liaison established with external enforcement agencies including Police and ATO. Completed with further improvements being developed as part of structural changes to Group.	Implemented	Manager Development Services Unit (DSU)

RECOMMENDATION 5
It is recommended that designated senior staff of Parramatta City Council regularly review closed matters and the information made available to them by the review and audit program recommended in Recommendation 12, and take action if this information suggests the possibility of corrupt conduct. Protocols regarding responsibilities and appropriate actions need to be developed.	A monthly review of closed items is conducted by the Manager DSU. An inter-council peer review and audit process is currently being negotiated with officers from Bankstown and Sydney Councils. Expected to be operational by April 2008.	Implemented April 2008	Manager DSU

RECOMMENDATION 6
It is recommended that the duties of the strategic analyst, crime and corruption prevention at Parramatta City Council include ascertaining the training needs of team members, service managers and senior managers; and procuring and/or developing relevant training programs.	Strategic Analyst currently working with Manager DSU in identifying and conducting further training for Compliance & Construction teams to address immediate and medium-term requirements. Training needs analysis is currently being developed as part of formal Corruption Prevention Plan with input from Strategic Analyst, Internal Audit & Human Resources.	Implemented May 2008	General Manager

RECOMMENDATION 7
It is recommended that Parramatta City Council provide initial and ongoing training tailored to the needs of team members and managers, targeted at recognising and reducing corruption risks.	See recommendation 6 above. Strategic Analyst has provided training to compliance officers in · powers and inspection processes arising from the introduction of the Brothels Legislation Amendment Act 2007; · responsibilities under the ICAC Act 1988; · updated procedures relating to gathering and management of evidence, court procedures, and specific corruption resistance strategies in field activities. Team Members have undertaken Compliance Training in Brothel Enforcement with Team Leaders and Managers attending Crime Prevention Practitioners Seminar in October 2007 and the ICAC Corruption Prevetnion for managers Workshop in March 2008.	May 2008 Implemented	Manager SAR / Manager HR

RECOMMENDATION 8
It is recommended that senior managers at Parramatta City Council undertake specialised training in risk management and methods for early detection of corrupt conduct.	Training needs analysis currently being developed as part of formal Corruption Prevention Plan with input from Strategic Analyst, Internal Audit & Human Resources. Research currently assessing providers of integrity systems training providers. Specific management modules will be developed in co-operation with external authorities in relation to corruption detection.	Plan adopted by May 2008	Manager HR/Manager SAR

RECOMMENDATION 9
It is recommended that Parramatta City Council institute a program of rotation of the position of Team Leader, Compliance Services.	The Team Leader Compliance position was re-graded and qualification requirements enhanced to enable a greater capacity for rotation in the Development Unit. The current Team Leader Compliance was a former development assessment team member. Rotation during periods of leave has being implemented. Rotation will be further considered as part of structural integration project.	Implemented	Manager DSU

RECOMMENDATION 10
It is recommended that the service matter owner of CRMs concerning brothels should be the Service Manager, Compliance Services, rather than the Team Leader. It is also recommended that the Customer Relationship Management system be upgraded so that this does not remove from the Team Leader the ability to allocate tasks to inspectors in the team.	Current business process covered by procedure allocates all relevant Service Requests to the Service Manager as owner who allocates tasks to Team Leader. Service Manager is responsible for reviewing action taken and closing Service Request. Modifications to CRM module in Councils Online currently being investigated with syndicate members and managed service provider. Resolution to await determination relating to core system upgrade	Implemented May 2008	Manager DSU/Manager SAR

RECOMMENDATION 11
It is recommended that the Customer Relationship Management system be upgraded to support the protocol that if an officer undertakes an inspection, he or she cannot close a CRM.	Currently covered by business rule and procedure. Modifications to CRM module in Councils Online currently being investigated. Resolution to await determination relating to core system upgrade	Implemented May2008	Manager DSU/Manager SAR

RECOMMENDATION 12
It is recommended that Parramatta City Council develops a rigorous review and audit system for the compliance function and that a high-level manager oversees that process.	A monthly review of closed items is conducted by the Manager DSU. An inter-council peer review and audit process is currently being negotiated with officers from Bankstown and Sydney. Expected to be operational by April 2008.	Implemented May 2008	Manager DSU

RECOMMENDATION 13
It is recommended that Parramatta City Council introduces a system of fact checking of statements entered into the Customer Relationship Management system by the Compliance Team.	Fact checking is currently undertaken on sample basis by Service Manager prior to closing Service Request. Independent process of fact-checking on sample basis to be incorporated into peer review discussed in Recommendation 12 above.	Implemented April 2008	Manager DSU

Ordinary Council 26 May 2008

Item 14.7

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER 14.7

SUBJECT Investments Report for March 2008

REFERENCE F2004/06960 - D00920918

REPORT OF Manager - Finance

PURPOSE:

To inform Council of the investment portfolio performance for the month of March 2008.

That Council receives and notes the investments report for March 2008.

BACKGROUND

1. In accordance with clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, a report setting out details of all money invested must be presented to Council on a monthly basis.

2. The report must include a certificate as to whether or not the investments have been made in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and the investment policy of Council.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. The Council’s investment portfolio stood at $90.8 Million as at 31^st March 2008. (Previous month $87.0 Million) The weighted average portfolio held for March 2008 was $91.0 Million (Refer attachment 1).

4. Council invests directly with Local Government Financial Services (LGFS), various term deposit providers and with funds managers utilising the services of Grove Financial Services. There are also investments with the Commonwealth Bank for loan offset funds.

5. The average interest rate on Council’s investments for the month compared to the Bank Bill Index is as follows:

Monthly Annualised

Total Portfolio 0.16% 2.42%

Funds Managers 0.11% 1.89%

Bank Bill Index 0.67% 8.13%

NB: Annualised rates are calculated on a compounding basis assuming that the interest returns are added to the initial investment amount and reinvested.

6. After allowing for Council’s loan offsets and at call funds, Council achieved an average annualised interest rate of 2.42% in the month for its total investment portfolio. The rate achieved by Council was below the Bank Bill Index of 8.13%. Fund managers achieved an annualised rate of 1.89% for the month of March.

7. The amount of funds invested at the end of March increased from the previous month by 3.8 Million. This increase was as a result of the Third Rates Instalment due at the end of February 2008.

8. Credit markets once again performed poorly in March 2008. Credit conditions have tightened by well above official rate rises, the RBA has hinted that rates may now be on hold at least until the first quarter inflation figure is scheduled to be released in late-April.

9. Council continued to realign its portfolio in an effort to find a balanced consistent rate of return and placed a $7M 90 day term deposit at 8.16% with IMB.

10. Equity Linked protected note investments held with Longreach and Westpac are shown at actual mark to market value for March 08. These investments show devaluation in current market value totalling approximately $300k, however it is important to note that these are 5 year long term investments and are capital guaranteed at maturity.

11. The following details are provided on the attachments for information:

Graph – Comparison of average funds invested with loans balance

Graph – Average interest rate comparison to Bank Bill Index

Graphs – Investments and loans interest compared to budget

Summary of investment portfolio

12. The Certificate of Investments for March 2008 is provided below:

Certificate of Investments

I hereby certify that the investments for the month of March 2008 have been made in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

13. There is no standard report attachment - detailed submission - attached to this report.

Jenny Fett

Manager Finance

6 May 2008

Attachments:

1View	Investments & Loans - Performance	1 Page
2View	Summary of Investments Portfolio	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 26 May 2008

Item 14.8

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER 14.8

SUBJECT 2007/08 Management Plan - March 2008 Quarterly Review

REFERENCE F2004/05853 - D00934647

REPORT OF Manager - Finance

PURPOSE:

1. Section 407 of the Local Government Act 1993 requires the General Manager to report to the Council within 2 months after the end of each quarter as to the extent to which the performance targets set by the Council’s Management Plan have been achieved during that quarter.

2. Clause 203 of the Local Government (General Regulation) 2005 requires that the Responsible Accounting Officer (Manager Finance) prepare and submit to the Council, not later than 2 months after the end of each quarter, a budget review statement that shows, by reference to the estimate of income and expenditure set out in the Management Plan, a revised estimate of the income and expenditure for that year. The Responsible Accounting Officer is also required to include with the budget review statement, a report as to whether or not the Responsible Accounting Officer believes that the statement indicates that the financial position of the Council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure, and if that position is unsatisfactory, recommendations for remedial action.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council adopt the General Manager’s March 2008 Quarterly Review of the 2007/08 Management Plan and Budget. (Attachment 1).

(b) That Council approve the actual results and forecast variations to the previously approved budget estimates for the 2007/08 financial year as reflected in Attachment 1.

(c) Further, that Council adopt the Responsible Accounting Officer’s report on the financial position of the Council.

BACKGROUND

1. The attached March 2008 Quarterly Review contains the Acting General Manager’s report, on a Program basis, detailing the extent to which the performance targets set by the Council’s 2007/08 Management Plan have been achieved.

2. The Review also contains details at pages 6 and 80 of the actual income, expenditure and proposed funding adjustments for 2007/08 with comparisons to the budget previously adopted by Council.

3. The March 2008 Quarterly Review was submitted to Council’s Program Panels’ meetings on 19 May 2008. Any changes from the Program Panels’ meeting will be incorporated as an addendum to this document to be considered at the Council meeting.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

Report of the Responsible Accounting Officer

As noted earlier in this report the Responsible Accounting Officer is required, as part of the Quarterly Management Plan Review, to report on the financial position of the Council.

Operating Statement forecast result 2007/08

Council is required to produce a financial statement in accordance with statutory accounting standards and generally accepted accounting principles. This Operating Statement does not allow for funds transfers to and from reserves and includes depreciation and the profit/loss on disposals of assets.

Council’s original budget was to deliver a balanced operating result. At the September Quarterly review the forecast deficit was $2.3M due mainly to the re-voting of expenditure for un-completed operating projects from 2006/07 into 2007/08.

At the December review the operating deficit was reduced to $0.3M. This has been reduced further for the March Quarterly Review which now forecasts a year end Operating Statement deficit of $0.174M. (See page 81).

This has been a challenging quarterly review with a significant reduction in revenue forecasts of $1.711M detailed below. The necessary offsetting reductions in expenditure forecasts of $1.871M have resulted from detailed budget scrutiny, including a review of depreciation and reductions foreshadowed for the 2008/09 Budget being implemented this year to match the reduced revenue forecasts.

Investment Income

The impact of the downturn in international and domestic money markets continues to have a significant effect on Council’s financial position, despite Council having no collateralized debt obligations (CDO’s). While credit markets appear to be stabilising previous shortfalls in returns have meant forecast investment income has been reduced by a further $1.22M. Some of this reduction in returns can be expected to be realized in future periods when returns on these long term investments improve.

User Charges & Fees

The slowdown in the development and construction industry is also being felt by Council and development and building related fees are also under budget. Income in this area has been reviewed downwards by $0.357M.

Parking Stations gross income has also been reduced by $0.800M due to as the expected increase in revenue from the fee increases did not eventuate as patronage declined for a period. Patronage levels have since increased. This impact has been offset to a large extent by a reduction in the operating expenses. The net result is a reduction in income of $0.230M.

Employee Costs

Employee costs have been adjusted downwards mainly due to the distribution of internal Project overheads to this expenditure category as well as the materials and contracts categories. A reduction in permanent salary costs of $0.550M has been offset by increases in recruitment costs ($0.119M) and Agency Costs ($0.122M). Other significant variations in employee costs were reductions in Redundancy Provisions ($0.200M) and Superannuation Costs ($0.127M).

Materials and Contracts

Parking stations operating costs have been carefully scrutinized and savings measures initiated to offset the revenue reduction, with savings of $0.571M forecast. Other major reductions include contract costs for on-street parking management, with forecast savings of $0.210M. These savings had already been factored into the draft 2008/09 budget.

Depreciation

Council is required to revalue its assets progressively, commencing with land, buildings, plant and equipment at June 2008. This revaluation exercise is complex and has not yet been completed. The original 2007/08 forecast provided for broad estimates based on the best information that was currently available and assumed that a likely increase in depreciation expense would commence from January 1, to correspond with the recognition of new values. Following the release of the Department of Local Government accounting code, this recognition will not take place now until June 30 and a reduction in forecast depreciation has been made of $0.697M.

With the completion of the valuations, the accurate calculation of depreciation will be possible and this may result in changes to the total expense. This has ramifications for the operating result and will be incorporated in the June 2008 Budget Review.

Funds based forecast financial result 2007/08

As part of the 2007/08 Management Plan, Council adopted a balanced funds result. Council subsequently approved the carryover into 2007/08 of various projects which were not completed in the previous financial year. These projects were fully funded. At the December 2007 Budget Review a funds based surplus of $0.086M was forecast.

Following the March 2008 Budget Review a balanced, funds based financial result is forecast for year end which is in line with the Management Plan target. This has been achieved by transferring $0.112M from working funds to maintain planned projects, and recommended changes to Section 94 funding for projects.

Section 94 – Use of reserve funds

Changes to Council’s Section 94 framework have given Council greater options in the way these funds can be used. This Review proposes funding $0.513M of project expenditure from Section 94 in lieu of using revenue funds. This amount has been used to maintain expenditure on other Projects, when revenue funding for projects was impacted by the reduction in investment income.

Details of other significant variations to the adopted budget are included in the attached March Quarterly Review document within the Acting General Manager’s report , the various Program reports and as follows.

Following a review of the attached March 2008 Quarterly Review, it is considered that the financial position of the Council is satisfactory, and Council will endeavour to deliver a balanced Operating Result at year end.

Jenny Fett

Manager Finance – Responsible Accounting Officer

Attachments:

1View

Quarterly Review March 2008

82 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 26 May 2008

Item 14.9

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER 14.9

SUBJECT Adoption of the Draft Management Plan 2008/09 - 20011/12 for Public Exhibition

REFERENCE F2007/00392 - D00938692

REPORT OF Manager - Finance

PURPOSE:

To provide options to fund the 100% Greenpower project in the 2008/09-2011/12 Draft Management Plan and seek Council’s approval to place the Draft Plan on Public Exhibition.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council adopt, for the purpose of public exhibition, the Draft Management Plan 2008/09 – 2011/12, subject to the following amendments:

1. Budget line item adjustments for the 2008/09 financial year as follows:

(a) Increase the combined expenditure budget for electricity and street lighting by $500,000 to incorporate the purchase of 100% green power.

(b) Reduce the expenditure budget for the Lord Mayor’s Christmas Party by $22,000;

· Catering (excluding Council Meetings) for staff by $10,000;

· Postage by $93,000; and

· Stationery by $45,000;

(d) Based on the most recent advice received from the Department of Local Government, reduce expenditure on Council Elections by $30,000; and

(e) Reduce the services budget by a further $300,000, thereby increasing the efficiency savings target from $750,000 to $1,050,000.

2. Funding of the following projects from Section 94 contributions in lieu of revenue funding by the amounts shown for each of the following projects respectively:

Project	000
Library Materials RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) system	$500
Pavilion Improvement Program	$85
Sportsground Program	$95
Playground Replacement Program	$20
Parks Program	$42
Local Bike Facilities	$163
Total	$905

3. Proposed borrowings reduced by the amount of $905,000 noted above from $2,927,000 to $2,022,000.

(b) Further that Council approve the placing on public exhibition for 28 days of the Draft Management Plan 2008/09 – 2011/12, Proposed Schedule of Fees and Charges 2008/09 and Pricing Policy 2008/09, as attached to this report and amended by this resolution.

BACKGROUND

1. The current 2008/09 budget has been developed following a series of 5 workshops (during the period November 2007 to March 2008) with Councillors to consider expenditure on various Council services, prioritisation of expenditure on projects and revenue parameters for income items. During this process Councillors were asked to review the list of rolling projects and other issues for possible savings.

2. At its meeting on 12 May 2008 Council considered the attached report on the Draft Management Plan, then presented to it, and resolved as follows –

(a) That consideration of this matter be deferred for 2 weeks to receive a response back from staff regarding how Council’s previous resolution of purchasing Greenpower next year can be implemented.

(b) Further, that areas of possible saving to be considered include: -

(i) Planning Policy and Performance Management area (pg 61);

(ii) Reduction in the Civic Events Budget by $22,000 by halving the cost of the Lord Mayor’s Christmas Party and holding such function at the Riverside Theatres; and

(iii) Residents Panel reductions.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

Greenpower

3. At its meeting on 24 September 2007 Council resolved, among other things, to purchase 100% Green Power from the commencement of the 2008/2009 financial year.

4. In response to the resolution, a project proposal for the purchase of 100% green power was prepared for consideration in the preparation of the 2008/2009 budget. The project was included in the prioritised project list where it ranked number 28 out of 36 operating projects. The project scored well below the cut-off for revenue funding available for operating projects.

5. Modelling of Council’s electricity consumption shows the following additional costs to increase the use of Greenpower to 50%, 75% and 100% of total consumption:

Description	Additional Costs ($,000)
Description	50%	75%	100%
Street Lighting (currently 10%)	93	175	210
Other Electricity (currently 25%)	97	195	290
Total	190	370	500

6. As shown above, increasing the use of Greenpower for 100% of Council’s electricity consumption would require additional funding of $500,000.

Savings suggested by Council

7. The following information is provided in relation to the areas of possible savings as resolved at the Council meeting on 12 May 2008.

(a) Planning Policy and Performance Management.

The Planning Policy and Performance Management Service shown in the Management Plan encompasses all services expenditure in the organisation concerned with the activities of ‘providing strategic information’, ‘managing performance’ and ‘developing policy’.

The proposed budget for the Planning Policy and Performance Management Service is $4.6 million. Approximately $3.5 million of this is employee costs, comprising 33 positions, the majority of which are management and/or supervisory positions and were therefore deemed to be concerned with providing strategic information, managing performance and/or developing policy. These positions are responsible for providing Council services including: Strategic Asset Management, City Strategy, Project Management, City Assets and Environment Administration, Strategic Partnerships & Programs, Social Outcomes, Environmental Outcomes, Land Use and Transport Planning, Strategic Business Improvement, Economic Development, Domestic Waste Management, Service Contracts Administration, Civil Infrastructure Administration, Capital Projects Administration and Civil Design.

(b) Lord Mayor’s Christmas Party

Council suggested that the budget for the Lord Mayor’s Christmas Party could be halved to $22,000 by holding the event at the Riverside Theatre.

The Residents Panel costs the Council approximately $380,000 pa to operate. It requires 2 full time staff and the use of casual labour. The Panel provides consulting and research services for Council in lieu of contracting this research to consultants. On a comparative basis, the Residents Panel is cost effective. Prior to the creation of the Residents Panel the Council was spending equivalent amounts of money hiring consultants to undertake consultations and research.

What makes the Residents Panel unique is the Panel itself, a representative sample comprising in excess of 2,000 residents of the Parramatta LGA. In addition to providing the platform for cost effective consultation and research, the Panel are valuable ambassadors for the Council and their commitment to community engagement.

The maintenance of the Panel so that it continues to provide a representative sample of the population of the Parramatta LGA requires considerable effort. Once established, however, the Panel provides a cost effective means of consulting on proposed plans and policies and undertaking research into user satisfaction with Council’s services. In response to the Council’s resolution to examine expenditure reductions, for example, it was found that an expenditure reduction of 18.4% would reduce output by approximately 62%.

Other potential savings

8. The following information is provided in relation to other potential savings.

(a) General Efficiency Savings and the Resources Advisory Committee

The current draft 2008/09 budget was prepared in a very challenging climate and already incorporates expenditure savings targets. These include materials and contracts capital expenses budgeted to increase by only 0.5% (significantly lower than CPI), and a general efficiency target of $750,000 in the services budget.

Strong management discipline will be needed to achieve these projected savings. To assist in this process an internal Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) was established earlier in the year with a brief to review all areas of Council’s revenue and expenditure. Given employee costs represent approximately 40% of Council’s expenditure and employee costs have been rising steeply, the Committee is paying particular attention to this area in consultation with the Council’s Workplace Reform Sub-Committee.

The Draft Management Plan already incorporates savings identified by the RAC, for example in consultancies and printing. Further savings have since been identified in the following areas;

· Catering (excluding Council Meetings) for staff by $10,000;

· Postage by $93,000; and

· Stationery by $45,000.

(b) Council Election Costs

Based on the most recent advice received, expenditure on Council Elections is expected to be lower by $30,000 in the 2008/09 financial year, being revised from $650,000 to $620,000.

Changes to Section 94

9. The report to Council on 12 May 2007 outlined the recent changes to the Section 94 Plan and proposed that, of the $9.4 million of general revenue that was previously proposed to fund Projects in the 2008/09 budget, $905,000 could instead be funded from Section 94 Reserves. Using Section 94 funds to fund the following project expenditure would free up General Revenue funds totalling $905,000:

Project	000
Library Materials RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) system	$500
Pavilion Improvement Program	$85
Sportsground Program	$95
Playground Replacement Program	$20
Parks Program	$42
Local Bike Facilities	$163
Total	$905

10. It is recommended that these General Revenue funds be used to fund Projects previously funded from loans in order to reduce borrowings in 2008/09 by $905,000 and thus reduce future debt servicing costs.

Summary and conclusion

11. Savings totalling $200,000 have been identified in this report leaving a balance of $300,000 in order to fund green power for 100% of Council’s electricity requirements. To fund the $300,000 balance it is recommended that it be added to the existing general efficiency target in the services budget. This will ensure that the savings measures are fully considered in consultation with those who will be affected and have the best possible chance of being realised. Progress on the savings target should be monitored at each quarterly review.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

12. Once Council determines the amendments required to the draft Management Plan, [PCC1] it will be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days from 28 May to 25 June 2008. The exhibition period will be advertised and comments on the draft Plan invited from the community. Copies of the draft Plan will be available at Council’s libraries and the Customer Contact Centre. A copy will also be placed on Council’s website.

13. Following the exhibition period it is proposed to bring the Plan back to Council at a Special Meeting on 30 June to consider any submissions from the community and to formally adopt the Management Plan for 2008/09 to 2011/12. Council is required under the Local Government Act to adopt by 30 June, it’s Management Plan for the following year commencing 1 July.

Jenny Fett

Manager Finance

20 May 2008

Attachments:

1View	Report to Council meeting of 12 May 2008	4 Pages
2View	Draft Management Plan 2008/09 – 2011/12	110 Pages
3View	Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2008/09	107 Pages
4	Project Proposal form for 100% green power	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Attachment 1

Report to Council meeting of 12 May 2008

BACKGROUND

Pursuant to section 402 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council is required to prepare a Draft Management Plan each year. The Local Government Act and Regulations set out the matters that must be included within the draft Plan.

Over the past 5 months, the development process of the draft Management Plan has included a series of workshops for Councillors to consider Council’s current and forecast financial position, to develop operational and budgetary strategies and to review and determine priorities for future services and projects expenditure. The seven Program Panels have also met to review the purposes, objectives, proposed projects, performance measures and targets for each Program.

The Draft Management Plan is now presented to Council for determination. Once determined it will be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days from 14 May to 11 June 2008. The exhibition period will be advertised and comments on the draft Plan invited from the community. Copies of the draft Plan will be available at Council’s libraries and the Customer Contact Centre. A copy will also be placed on Council’s website. A public forum is also planned for 20 May 2008 to discuss the draft Management Plan with members of the Residents’ Panel and the general community.

Following the exhibition period it is proposed to bring the Plan back to Council on 23 June to consider any submissions from the community and to formally adopt the Management Plan for 2008/09 to 2011/12.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

Presentation format

The Draft Management Plan has been prepared in the same format as last year based on Council’s seven Program areas. Each Program section includes details of the Program’s purpose, objectives, service activities, project highlights, proposed income and expenditure on services and projects and the Program’s performance measures and targets. The second section of the Draft Plan sets out details of the draft 2008/09 Budget, forward financial estimates for 2009/10 to 2011/12, proposed rates and annual charges for 2008/09 and the proposed income and expenditure from these proposed rates and charges. Other required statutory information is also contained in this second section. The schedule of proposed Fees and Charges and Pricing Policy for 2008/09 is contained under separate cover.

Performance Measures and Targets

As noted above, the Program Panels have reviewed performance measures and targets previously, and some new measures are included as a result of this process. We have also included for the first time reporting frequencies for these measures.

2008/09 Budget and Forward Estimates

The 2008/09 Budget has proposed a balanced budget in terms of the operating result for 2008/09. Revenue from continuing operations will match operating expenditure, including interest on loans and depreciation. General rates income has been increased by 3.2% in line with the State Government’s permissible maximum increase. The Domestic Waste Management Charge has been increased by 4%. The Stormwater Management Service Charge has not been increased.

Council is required to revalue its assets to fair value commencing with land, buildings, plant and equipment at June 2008 and roads, bridges, footpaths and drainage infrastructure assets as at June 2009. This revaluation exercise has not yet been completed but will have ramifications for future depreciation costs. Pending the completion of these revaluations, an estimate of the impact, of about $1 million has been included in the 2008/09 Budget for increased depreciation on buildings, plant and equipment. The forward estimates 2009/10 to 2011/12 include this impact but do not include any impact from a revaluation of roads, bridges, footpaths and drainage assets. The increase in depreciation expense in those years takes into consideration only the effect of new capital expenditure. The operating result for the forward estimates period shows a deteriorating position primarily due to the following factors:

· impact of increased depreciation

· employee costs increasing faster than income

· the reduction of special rates income in 2010/11 due to the finalisation of the ten year special rate variation that was approved in 2000/01 and

· Some Civic Place commitments resulting from the Development Agreement. These commitments are restricted to the three years of the forward estimates and the costs are forecast to be recouped through project cash flows in future years.

The Resources Advisory Committee has been formed to examine means by which Council can address the unfavourable trend in the operating result and achieve the objective of sustaining a balanced operating result in future years.

Projects

The draft Management Plan proposed expenditure of $30.105 million on Projects in 2008/09. A detailed list of the Projects is contained at page 77 to 82 of the Draft Management Plan. The Draft Management Plan shows Projects expenditure to be funded by general revenue funding of $9.4 million from the Services Budget and the balance from special rates, loans, reserves, grants and section 94 contributions. These projects and associated funding sources were advised to Councillors following the Projects Prioritisation Workshop on March 27.

Section 94 contributions

Recent changes to the Section 94 Plan have meant that Council has greater flexibility in how it can expend Section 94 contributions. A review of these changes and of proposed Projects shows that of the $9.4 million of general revenue currently proposed to fund Projects in the 2008/09 budget, $905,000 could instead be funded from Section 94 Reserves. Using Section 94 funds to fund the following project expenditure would free up General Revenue funds totalling $905,000:

Project	000
Library Materials RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) system	$500
Pavillion Improvement Program	$85
Sportsground Program	$95
Playground Replacement Program	$20
Parks Program	$42
Local Bike Facilities	$163
Total	$905

These general revenue funds could be used to fund Projects previously funded from loans. Council could then reduce its borrowings in 2008/09 by $905,000 and reduce future debt servicing costs. Such an action utilising the additional funding from section 94 is recommended, with the relevant projects identified in the recommendations of this report.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

The Draft Management Plan has been developed through collaboration between Councillors and staff in a series of Workshops and Program Panel meetings. Feedback obtained through the Residents’ Panel and general community input has also been taken into consideration.

The exhibition of the Draft Plan for 28 days together with the planned public forum will give the community the opportunity to make their views known to Council prior to the Plan being adopted by Council on 23 June.

Stephen Kerr

Group Manager – Corporate Services

1 May 2008

Attachments:

1	Draft Management Plan 2008/09 – 2011/12	110 Pages
2	Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2008/09	120 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

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:

Susan Shi	Ivy Chen
Anna Dai	Nathan Kassas
Jessica Taylor	Muhammad Najibullah
Seulki Kim	Robert Shi
Jessica Vidigal	Michael Yuen
Brahmi Kumarasamy	Lisa Kim
Aninda Das	Laura Wilde
Astha Rajvanshi

	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

1View	Deed of Agreement	6 Pages
2View	Signage Specifications	5 Pages

1View	Warrigal Wetland Naming Request - N. McGrath	1 Page
2View	Map of Proposed Warrigal Wetland	1 Page
3View	Submission - J Kyle	1 Page

1View	Wadigora Reserve Naming Request - K Mealing	1 Page
2View	Map of Proposed Wadigora Reserve	1 Page
3View	Submissions	3 Pages

1View	Agenda Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee 1st April 2008	2 Pages
2View	Minutes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee 1st April 2008	5 Pages

AGENDA TOPIC		ATTACHMENTS
1.	Acknowledgement of the Traditional Owners - The Dharug People
2.	Welcome and Introductions
3.	Apologies
4.	Conflict of Interest Declarations
5.	Confirmation of Minutes 4^th March 2008	Attachment 1a
6.	Business Arising
7.	NAIDOC 2008 Decisions and Actions
8.	General Business & Information Sharing
9.	Close

1View	Agenda Arts Advisory Committee 8 April 2008	2 Pages
2View	Minutes Arts Advisory Committee 8 April 2008	5 Pages
3View	Report of Workshop 11 March 2008	1 Page

Kathy Baykitch	Toni Courtelis	Jane Ho
Zachary Lambert	Lynn Lollback	Lena Nahlous
Mathew Poll	Patricia Prociv	Dr Ahmad Qasem
Judith Rowling	Val Squires	Debornah Walker
Jacqui Douglas	Katherine Knight	Shalini Patel
Dianne Turner

1View	Agenda Youth Advisory Committee 9th April 2008	2 Pages
2View	Minutes Youth Advisory Committee 9th April 2008	3 Pages
3View	Westfields Proposal Youth Advisory Committee	2 Page