Agenda of Ordinary Council

Item 7.1 - Attachment 1

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 23 June 2008 regarding Draft Planning Controls for Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere

DETAILED REPORT ON DRAFT PLANNING CONTROLS FOR

MERRYLANDS, CARLINGFORD & EAST RYDALMERE

BACKGROUND

In November 2006, Council adopted a revised Residential Development Strategy (RDS) to respond to future population growth and housing demand in Parramatta local government area (LGA). The purpose of the RDS is to set the direction for the future location, density and character of housing within Parramatta.

To manage new residential development, the RDS proposes a ‘concentrated growth’ model. This would allow more intense housing development to occur in areas or ‘centres’ which can best support such growth. Typically, these areas are close to public transport, shops and community facilities.

In adopting the RDS, Council deferred some of the ‘centres’ for consideration at a later date. Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere were amongst those areas deferred in the RDS. There were a variety of reasons for the decision to defer areas but generally it was better to examine these areas in the longer term when the affects of other influences could be better assessed.

In translating the RDS into the draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (LEP), Council in May 2007 adopted the draft Parramatta LEP 2008 which proposed to downzone some areas within the study areas of Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere that are currently zoned Residential 2(b). This was to preserve the land from ad-hoc development in the short term until decisions on its future development capacity were made. (Note: The existing areas zoned Residential 2(c) within these areas were proposed to be retained in the equivalent R4 High Density Residential Zone under the draft LEP).

In October 2007, the Department of Planning (DoP) advised Council that there were a number of outstanding issues that prevented the DoP from authorising a Section 65 Certificate enabling the draft Parramatta LEP to be formally exhibited. One of the issues raised by the DoP was that deferred areas where down-zoning was proposed would not be supported. At its meeting of the 29 October 2007, Council resolved in part:

‘That Council note the advice of the Minister for Planning on 24 October that:-

1. The Department of Planning will not accept the down-zoning of deferred areas and therefore Council proceed immediately to prepare detailed analysis of these areas leading to zoning and built form controls in the draft Parramatta LEP 2008.’

As a consequence, an assessment of the deferred areas of Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere was undertaken.

THE DEFERRED AREAS

This report focuses on the deferred areas in the RDS of Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere. Maps of each study area are identified within Attachment 2.

The Merrylands Study Area is focused on the eastern side of Merrylands Railway Station. The railway line forms the boundary between Parramatta City Council and Holroyd City Council. A small group of shops are located on the eastern side of the railway station. The area surrounding these shops comprises mostly detached dwellings. The Merrylands Town Centre is located on the western side, within the Holroyd LGA.

There are small pockets of medium and higher density housing spread throughout the study area. The study area is relatively flat and there is a large park (Granville Park) further east of the station closer to Woodville Road. The primary roads in the study area are Merrylands Road, Railway Terrace, Mombri Street and Loftus Streets. Merrylands Road provides access directly to Merrylands Railway Station and Woodville Road to the east. Railway Terrace provides access to the south towards Guildford. Mombri and Loftus Streets provide access across the railway line into the Merrylands Town Centre. Two heritage items are located in the study area at Nos. 56 and 59 Merrylands Road, being single storey dwellings.

The Carlingford Study Area is located around Carlingford Railway Station. The study area is located on a ridge line defined by Pennant Hills Road, which also forms the boundary between Parramatta City Council and Baulkham Hills Shire Council. Carlingford Railway Station is the last stop on the Carlingford Railway Line. Access to the railway station is on the northern side of Pennant Hills Road. Several bus services exist connecting Carlingford to other centres such as North Rocks, Epping, Pennant Hills, Ryde, West Ryde and Meadowbank.

There is a small group of shops to the south of Carlingford Railway Station along Pennant Hills Road, located in Parramatta LGA, as well as the Carlingford Village shops at the eastern end of the study area at the intersection of Marsden Rd and Pennant Hills Road. The study area comprises a mix of housing, including residential flat buildings, town houses and detached houses. Spread throughout the area is a series of bushland corridors.

There are a number of heritage items in and adjacent to the study area including bushland at Evans Road, Carlingford Memorial Park, Eric Mobbs Memorial, K13 Memorial, Galaringi Reserve, Mobbs Hill Reserve, bushland, fencing and bridge on Honiton Avenue, water tanks on Marsden Road, and dwellings at Nos. 101 and 105 Adderton Road.

The East Rydalmere Study Area is located on Victoria Road at the intersection of Park Road. Victoria Road is a heavily trafficked arterial road linking Parramatta to Sydney. The study area accommodates a variety of building types and land uses, including low scale detached housing and is adjacent to substantial industrial areas. Subiaco Creek, a regional open space corridor, lies to the north of the study area, with Parramatta River to the south. The study area also includes a Bowling Club and local parks. There is a small grouping of shops framed by Park Road and Victoria Road which provide day to day retail services. There is also a hotel, baby health care facility, church and school within the precinct. Heritage items are located at Nos. 2 Myrtle Street (Catholic Church), and two dwellings at No. 24 Wattle Street and No. 72 Park Road.

DEFERRED AREAS ANALYSIS

A workshop was held with Councillors on 7 April 2008 in relation to the deferred areas of Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere. The information presented at the workshop outlined the context and setting for each area, environmental analysis, proposed urban design principles and draft land use controls to underpin the LEP. The principal findings of the analysis are discussed below.

Merrylands

§ With access to public transport, retail and commercial services, open space and a relatively unconstrained urban structure, Merrylands offers opportunities for increased residential densities.

§ This area has direct pedestrian access to the railway station and vehicular and pedestrian access to the Merrylands Town Centre. Given the principles of transit-oriented development, the lots directly adjacent to the station may be given comparatively more generous height and floor space controls.

§ In the short term, it is desirable to preserve the low scale residential character of single dwellings in the southern part of the precinct, which contribute to the mix of housing and the amenity of the neighbourhood. In the longer term, increased densities may be considered, as the first stage of redevelopment is completed, and assuming that there is sufficient demand for further housing.

§ Planning controls prepared by Holroyd Council in respect of land in that LGA directly adjacent to the railway line allows for mixed used development between 6 – 8 storeys in height. This also accommodates some demand for housing development in the locality.

Carlingford

§ Carlingford has topographical and natural constraints, poor pedestrian and vehicular connectivity and is characterised by a mix of housing including established residential flat buildings and low scale detached housing. Considering these constraints Carlingford study area is less likely suitable to sustain significant housing growth.

§ Planning controls prepared by Baulkham Hills Shire Council in respect of land on the northern side of Pennant Hills Road allow for significant increases in residential densities and will also accommodate demand for housing in the area.

East Rydalmere

§ Considering the existing mix of uses in East Rydalmere, as well as its established low scale character, it is anticipated that this study area could sustain contained redevelopment for increased residential densities focused around the existing ‘centre’ and close to parks and schools.

§ New mixed-use development should be focused around the current commercial and community uses and toward the intersection of Park Road and Pine Street.

§ Part of the study area has an established low density character with single dwellings that are highly consistent in terms of scale, materials and setbacks from the street. Retention of this housing in the eastern sections of Pine and Wattle Street is desirable in providing for housing mix and retaining the character of this housing and the amenity it provides to the neighbourhood.

RECOMMENDED PLANNING CONTROLS

Merrylands Precinct

1. Preferred Planning Controls - Option 1

The provision of high density residential development near existing public transport infrastructure is consistent with transport oriented development promoted by the NSW State Government and Council’s RDS. Land along Mombri Street, Loftus Street, Railway Terrace, Merrylands Road and Smythe Street is in the immediate vicinity of Merrylands Railway Station and is recommended for higher density residential development. This area also is within walking distance to a large retail centre on the opposite side of the railway station which provides major retailing and considerable services to support the needs and demands of the existing and future community.

The recommended draft planning controls for Merrylands provide for increased densities concentrated along the northern portion of the precinct, whilst allowing reduced densities within the southern portion as outlined in Attachment 2.

It is proposed to concentrate higher density mixed use development toward the railway line, with building heights and densities gradually falling from west to east (towards Woodville Road). An active street frontage to Railway Terrace is recommended, creating opportunities for surveillance of the railway line and improved pedestrian access between the northern portion of Railway Terrace and Merrylands Railway Station.

Concentrating the tallest buildings (5 – 6 storeys or 17 – 21 metres proposed on the Parramatta LGA side) closest to the railway station has also been the strategic approach of Holroyd City Council, which allows for development between 6 – 8 storeys in this vicinity. The area bound by Mombri Street, Loftus Street, and Merrylands Road is proposed to allow higher density residential development, providing a gradual change in scale from Railway Terrace to Woodville Road. The area bound by Boomerang, Bennalong, Randle and William Streets, and the parcels between the existing school and Bennalong Park on William Street are also proposed to be zoned to allow higher density residential development, providing streetscape continuity along Boomerang and William Streets.

Land south of Sutherland Lane and the southern part of the precinct is proposed to be zoned low density residential, allowing it to be revisited in the future as to its longer term development capacity.

2. Alternative Zoning based on Department of Planning Advice – Option 2

At the Councillor workshop it was suggested that another zoning option could be considered for Merrylands, reflecting the advice of the Department of Planning (DoP) in its letter to Council of 19 December 2007, viz:

The Department’s assessment of the zoning within the RDS included consideration of Council’s argument that down zoning was needed to retain capacity for future higher density development. In most cases adequate low density 2(a) land was identified in reserve, without the need to downzone existing medium density 2(b) or high density 2(c) land. In the case of Merrylands however, there does not appear to be adequate 2(a) land in reserve. Therefore the Department agreed that the two street blocks closest to the station (Mombri & Lotus Streets & Merrylands Road) could be down zoned to allow for future higher density development.

Under this scenario of the Department of Planning, all existing zonings of Residential 2(b) and Residential 2(c) in the Merrylands RDS precinct would be retained, with the exception of the Mombri Street, Loftus Street and Merrylands Road blocks referred to. The zoning, height and FSR outcomes under this scenario are mapped in Attachment 3. Building height and density controls would remain consistent with those allowed under the existing LEP 2001, other than for the Mombri, Loftus & Merrylands Road blocks which would be downzoned to R2 low density residential.

Councillors may wish to consider this option, but the recommended planning controls discussed in Option 1 above are preferred because they make better provision for consolidated increase in residential density in the short term as well as preserving land for longer term growth.

Option 2 would result in the fragmentation of high and medium density areas over the Merrylands RDS area and limit the long term growth potential of Merrylands. It may also result in more inconsistency in built form throughout the precinct.

3. Response to issues raised at Councillor Workshop

Concern was raised by some Councillors at the workshop about the width of Smythe Street in relation to the proposed higher density residential development. This matter has been discussed with Council’s Transport & Traffic Service Manager and Design staff who have advised that the current Smythe Street road pavement width of 9.65 metres is sufficient to enable 2 metres for vehicle car parking on either side, whilst allowing 2.8 metres per vehicle travelling lane in each direction. These widths are consistent with the RTA’s minimum width of 2.7 metres and are comparable to sections of Parramatta Road which allows vehicles to travel at 60 km/hour. By contrast, Smythe Street is a slow vehicle movement area, is of a reasonably short distance, and is not a major road within the local road network.

Options are available to improve vehicle circulation within Smythe Street including restricting parking to one side of the roadway only, altering vehicle movements to ‘one way’, or widening of the carriageway.

Should Council wish to widen the Smythe Street carriageway in the future, this could be achieved within the existing road reservation, without the need to acquire private property. The costs associated with undertaking road widening would include realignment of kerb and guttering, extension of road pavement, removal and replacement of existing trees, potential realignment of the footpath/s and potential relocation of services.

While an increase in traffic volumes may be expected as a result of higher residential densities within the locality, the proposal accords with the principles of Council’s RDS to provide higher density housing close to centres and public transport, which provides opportunities for reduced car movements in the longer term. Traffic speeds in any case will be slow.

Another matter raised at the Councillor Workshop was concern about the proximity of higher density development in the vicinity of existing heritage items at Nos. 56 and 59 Merrylands Road, Merrylands and the potential impact this will have on the integrity of these heritage items. Proposed zonings in proximity of these items have been reviewed so that the current zoning regime is maintained immediately adjoining these sites.

Carlingford Precinct

In response to a number of constraints relating to Carlingford as previously discussed, particularly topography and poor vehicular and pedestrian connectivity, it is recommended to concentrate increased densities along Pennant Hills Road, Adderton Road and Charles Street as detailed at Attachment 2.

The draft planning controls propose greater height and density along Pennant Hills Road in the shopping precincts of Carlingford Village Shopping Centre at the eastern end of the precinct, and for the shops closer to Carlingford Railway Station, to encourage an upgrade of existing retail shops with shop top housing and support their ongoing viability with increased residential population within their catchment. It would also add to the diversity of dwelling types in the locality.

West of the railway line it is proposed to allow a mix of four storey (14 metres) residential flat buildings and two storey (11 metres) townhouse style housing. This part of the precinct also has good proximity to the Telopea RDS precinct and has already shown potential for redevelopment with recent medium density redevelopment.

The remainder of the precinct is more suited to low density residential development. The effect of this is some proposed down zonings of residential land at the perimeter of the RDS area consistent with proposed zonings outside the RDS area, where rezoning is proposed from 2(b) Residential to R2 Low Density Residential. This is considered appropriate and justifiable to the DoP largely because of the environmental constraints and limited walkability of these areas for residents, as well as in the context of the broader RDS proposals in this locality.

Existing heritage items within the precinct are proposed to retain existing zoning equivalents.

As mentioned previously, planning controls prepared by Baulkham Hills Shire Council in respect of land on the northern side of Pennant Hills Road allow for significant increases in residential densities and will also accommodate demand for housing in the area.

East Rydalmere Precinct

The recommended planning controls for East Rydalmere seek to accentuate development along Park Road both north and south of Victoria Road within the precinct as detailed at Attachment 2. It is proposed to retain the existing medium density residential zone along Victoria Road as R3 Medium Density Residential, reflecting the existing zoning and recent multi-unit residential redevelopment in this location.

Proposed zonings north of Victoria Road seek to allow for a level of mixed use activity (3 storeys or 12 metres) to be concentrated around the intersection of Park Road and Pine Street, building on existing activities including the church, school, hotel and shops, and allowing future redevelopment to be focussed away from Victoria Road. Increased residential densities are generally proposed between the industrial area west of Myrtle Street and the eastern side of Park Road allowing for a mix of two storey (11 metres) R3 medium density and 3 storey (11 metres) R4 high density residential zones.

Proposed zonings on the southern side of Victoria Road will also allow for a mix of two storey (11 metres) R3 Medium Density Residential and R4 three storey (11 metres) R4 High Density Residential zones. The existing commercial zoning on the south eastern corner of Victoria Road and Park Road will be extended to incorporate two additional properties on Park Road as previously resolved by Council and will allow a maximum of 3 storeys (12 metres).

The southern part of the precinct is considered appropriate for up zoning given its isolation from low density residential areas, its proximity to open space, Rydalmere Primary School and public transport services including the Rydalmere Ferry Wharf and bus services along Victoria Road. The street width in Elonera Street and Burbang Crescent allows for constrained traffic movement if cars are parked in the street and may require an extension of existing parking restrictions that apply on one side of Elonera Street.

Height and densities proposed over the precinct as a whole are proposed to be relatively low scale allowing for two and three storey developments throughout. These heights and densities would also provide consistency where existing development has already taken place within the 2(b) Residential Zone, particularly along Victoria Road. Furthermore, the heights and densities proposed allows for a suitable relationship to be created between the existing low density areas and proposed areas to be up zoned.

An existing heritage item and adjoining land at No. 72 Park Road is proposed within the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. Height and densities proposed on and adjacent to this site will provide for relatively low scale development at 2 storeys (11 metres). The current Residential 2a zone applying to this site and surrounds permits a maximum height of 2 storeys (9 metres). Heritage planning controls require the heritage significance of the heritage item to be considered as part of any development on or adjacent to the site. The heritage item at No. 24 Wattle Street is proposed to remain within a low density residential zone, while the heritage item at No. 2 Myrtle Street, the Catholic Church, will maintain zoning, height and density controls equivalent to Parramatta LEP 2001.

CONSULTATION

Staff from Council’s Strategic Asset Management, Community Capacity Building, Place Management, Traffic and Transport Services and Urban Design teams were consulted in the preparation of draft planning controls.

Community consultation of these deferred areas will occur with the exhibition of the draft Parramatta LEP 2008 as a whole.

NEXT STEPS

This report details the preferred zoning, height and density options for Council to consider. Once the draft planning controls have been adopted by Council they will be included as part of draft Parramatta LEP 2008. Draft DCP controls will also be formulated, to provide more detailed planning guidance on built form outcomes, desired streetscape, building setbacks, future character, desired future pedestrian connections etc and will be reported for Council’s consideration. These controls will form part of the draft Parramatta Development Control Plan 2008 to guide future development in each precinct.

Item 7.2 - Attachment 1

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 14 July 2008 regarding the Development Application for 132 Blaxcell Street, Granville

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.1

SUBJECT 132 Blaxcell Street, Granville. (Lot 2 Sec 3 DP 1788) (Woodville Ward)

DESCRIPTION Further Report - Alterations and additions to the front of the existing dwelling for the purposes of a local shop.

REFERENCE DA/306/2007 - Submitted 24 April 2007

APPLICANT/S Mr E Sassine

OWNERS Mr E Sassine and Mrs A Sassine

REPORT OF Development Assessment Officer

PURPOSE:

To provide Councillors with a response to the resolution of Council at its meeting on 10 December 2007, and determine Development Application No. 306/2007, which seeks approval for alterations and additions to the front of the existing dwelling for the purpose of a local shop.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 306/2007, subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

1. The development is to be carried out in accordance with the following plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent.

Drawing No	Dated
Site, Elevation and Section Plan, Prepared by C.B of Baini Design, Numbered 07042/01B, Revision B	September 2007
Floor and Fitout Plan, Prepared by C.B of Baini Design, Numbered 07042/02B, Revision B	September 2007
Elevations Plan, Prepared by C.B of Baini Design, Numbered 07042/03B, as amended in red	April 2007

Document(s)	Dated
Waste Management Plan for 132 Blaxcell Street, Granville, as amended in red	Undated
Schedule of finishes for 132 Blaxcell Street, Granville	Undated
List of items to be sold	Undated

Note: In the event of any inconsistency between the architectural plan(s) and the landscape plan(s) and/or storm water disposal plan(s) the architectural plan(s) shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

Reason: To ensure the work is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

2. A standard rubbish bin (with a minimum 120 litre capacity) is to be provided to the front of the premises underneath the proposed awning for general waste from customers. The bin is to be provided at all times while the shop is operating and is to be removed and stored out of view at the end of daily operations.

Reason: To ensure the work is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

3. All food items sold from the premises are to be pre-packaged. No food preparation activities are to occur from the premises.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the consent.

4. Access for people with disabilities from the public domain and all car parking areas on site to and within the building is to be provided. Consideration must be given to the means of dignified and equitable access from public places to adjacent buildings, to other areas within the building and to footpath and roads. Compliant access provisions for people with disabilities shall be clearly shown on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate. All details shall be prepared in consideration of, and construction completed to achieve compliance with the Building Code of Australia Part D3 “Access for People with Disabilities”, provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and the relevant provisions of AS1428.1 (2001) and AS1428.4.

Reason: To ensure the provision of equitable and dignified access for all people in accordance with disability discrimination legislation and relevant Australian Standards.

5. The gradient for all disabled access ramps shall not exceed a maximum of 1 (vertical) in 14 (horizontal) as per the requirements of Australian Standard AS1428.1 (2001) – Design for Access and Mobility – General Requirements for Access – New Building Work. The final design of the proposed disabled access ramps shall be reflected on the Construction Certificate plans.

Reason: To ensure equity of access and appropriate facilities are available for people with disabilities in accordance with Federal legislation.

6. Signs incorporating the international symbol of access for disabled persons must be provided to identify each accessible entrance. This requirement shall be reflected on the Construction Certificate plans and supporting documentation.

Reason: To ensure equity of access and appropriate facilities are available for people with disabilities in accordance with Federal legislation.

(b) Further that, objectors be advised of Council’s decision.

BACKGROUND

1. At the regulatory Council meeting of 10 December 2007, Council considered a report which recommended approval for alterations and additions to the front of the existing dwelling for the purpose of a local shop. At the meeting the following was resolved;

1.1. That consideration of the development application be deferred and a traffic count be taken at the intersection of Membrey and Blaxcell Streets and at the intersection of Blaxcell and Farnell Streets and in Blaxcell Street, Granville.

1.2. That Council be provided with a report which addresses the sight lines from the subject premises and also from the egress and ingress points of Farnell and Membrey Streets.

1.3. Further, that the Development Control Unit reassess the development application in light of the report and the information that is brought forward.

APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION

2. The applicant was advised of the resolution of Council on 20 December 2007 and was accordingly requested to provide a traffic study.

3. The applicant was contacted by telephone on 2 April 2008 as no information had been lodged to Council regarding the traffic study requested. During the telephone conversation, the applicant advised that they are not willing to provide Council with the information requested and furthermore that they no longer wish to proceed with the application.

4. The applicant was requested to confirm their intentions to no longer proceed with the application in writing. The applicant advised that they would not provide Council with written confirmation as they had made their intentions clear during the telephone conversation and considered that to be a sufficient request to withdraw the application.

5. As the applicant has not formally withdrawn their application, this report is being returned to Council for determination.

ISSUES

Traffic

6. The application was referred for a 2nd time to Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer for additional comment. Comments from Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer include:

6.1. The proposed development has a gross floor area of 46sqm and its traffic generation is considered to be low with a parking demand of 2 spaces based on Council's DCP (refer to previous traffic comment dated 14 August 2007 - D0069717).

6.2. A traffic study is not warranted for this proposal as the scale of development is small and the proposal is not expected to have a significant traffic impact on Blaxcell Street and the surrounding road network.

6.3. As per Item (a) of the Council's resolution on 10 December 2007, the traffic count that was required to be taken at the intersection of Membrey and Blaxcell Streets and at the intersection of Blaxcell and Farnell Streets and in Blaxcell Street, Granville is not required for the purpose of this proposed development. For a proposed retail development, traffic counts and traffic study are required for the assessment of traffic impact if it is within a scale of 500sqm or more according to RTA Guidelines for Traffic Generating Development and that would need referral to the RTA or its Regional Development Committee for consideration.

6.4. A check of the RTA recorded accidents during the last 5 years indicate that there have been a total of 4 accidents (no injury accidents) at Blaxcell Street & Membrey Street intersection (1 accident), and Blaxcell Street & Farnell Street intersection (3 accidents) during the last 5 years from January 2002 to December 2006. Based on the number of accident data, provision of any intersection improvement on either of these intersections is not warranted according to RTA requirements.

6.5. This section of Blaxcell Street has a road width of approximately 11.5m wide with bicycle/parking lane (approx 2.3m wide) and painted median island (approx 2m). The traffic lane width is approx 2.8m. Parking in this section of Blaxcell Street is unrestricted.

6.6. Analysis of the sight lines from the subject premises and also from the egress and ingress points of Farnell and Membrey Streets are as follows:

6.6.1. Sight lines from the subject premises into Blaxcell Street - if a vehicle is parked on the parking lane near the development site, a driver wishing to leave from the premises would have a limited sight distance unless the front of car is right on the edge of the parking lane. Otherwise, the sight distance is approximately 100m and is in accordance with the Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Part 5 - Intersections at Grade.

6.6.2. Sight lines from Farnell Street into Blaxcell Street in both directions are approx 100m to the north and 120m to the south of the intersection of Farnell Street & Blaxcell Street and are in accordance with the Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Part 5 - Intersections at Grade.

6.6.3. Sight lines from Membrey Street into Blaxcell Street - due to the existing shrubs and tree on the north-eastern corner, the sight distance from Membrey Street turning into Blaxcell Street is approximately 35m and is considered to be less than the required minimum sight distance according to the Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Part 5 - Intersections at Grade. If a vehicle is within the alignment of the parking lane when turning at the intersection, the sight distance would be approximately 70m from the intersection. However, the sight distance at the intersection can be improved by removing the existing shrubs and pruning the branches of the tree on the footpath through Council's Tree Management Officer. In addition, it is considered appropriate to install a 'No Stopping' zone on Blaxcell Street to a distance of approximately 20m to the north of Membrey Street, subject to the approval of Council's Traffic Committee under Delegated Authority.

6.6.4. Sight lines from Membrey Street into Blaxcell Street - the sight distance at the intersection looking to the south-eastern corner is approximately 100m and is in accordance with the Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Part 5 - Intersections at Grade. However, it is also considered appropriate to install 'No Stopping' zone on Blaxcell Street to a distance of approximately 15m-20m to the south of Membrey Street, subject to the approval of Council's Traffic Committee under Delegated Authority.

6.7. Based on the analysis and assessment of the Council's resolution on 10 December 2007 as mentioned above, it is considered that this proposed development is not expected to have a significant traffic impact on Blaxcell Street and is supported on traffic and parking grounds. Also, in order to improve the sight distance of driver's vision when turning at the intersection of Blaxcell Street & Membrey Street, the installation of the 'No Stopping' zone on Blaxcell Street on either side of the intersection of Membrey Street and the removal and pruning of the shrubs and branches of the existing tree on the north-eastern corner of the intersection are considered appropriate. The installation of the 'No Stopping' zones in Blaxcell Street on either side of Membrey Street will be referred to Council's Traffic Committee under Delegated Authority. Council's Tree Management Officer should also be requested to remove the shrubs and prune the branches of the tree to improve sight distance when turning at the intersection.

7. The recommendation from Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer is that the proposed development for a local shop at 132 Blaxcell Street, Granville can be supported on traffic and parking grounds subject to the traffic related conditions as specified in the traffic comments dated 14 August 2008.

8. Part (c) of Council’s resolution from the regulatory Council meeting of 10 December 2007 states;

(c) Further, that the Development Control Unit reassess the development application in light of the report and the information that is brought forward.

9. In light of the latest comments received from Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer and a further assessment of the application, the previous recommendation that the application should be approved subject to standard and extraordinary conditions remains unchanged.

Ali Hammoud

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Previous Report DSU 239/2007 to Council 10/12/2007 including all attachments	16 Pages
2View	Previous Traffic Comments for DA/306/2007 at 132 Blaxcell Street, Granville	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Item 7.3 - Attachment 1

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 14 July 2008 regarding the Development Application for 25 Talbot Road, Guildford

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.8

SUBJECT 25 Talbot Road, Guildford. Lot A in DP 349926 (Woodville Ward).

DESCRIPTION Section 82A Review of determination of Section 96AA modification to DA/1270/2004 that granted approval for the construction of a 2 storey commercial building over basement carparking. (Location Map - Attachment 1).

REFERENCE DA/1270/2004/B - Submitted 14 March 2008

APPLICANT/S Mr S Nour

OWNERS Mr S Nour and Mrs T Nour

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To review a refused (under delegated authority) Section 96AA modification to DA/1270/2004. The Section 96AA application sought approval to modify the Land and Environment Court approval to the demolition of the existing dwelling and other structures and the construction of a 2 storey commercial building over basement parking, providing a 28 place child care centre on the ground floor and 2 offices on the first floor.

The application has been referred to Council for determination as the original determination (refusal) was made at Council Officer level under delegation.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council uphold refusal of Section 96AA Application No. 1270/2004/B which seeks approval to modify the original development application for the following reasons:

1. That the proposed modification will have an adverse impact on the heritage significance of the adjacent heritage cottages within the “Talbot Road Precinct”. The desirable streetscape relationship with the heritage items will be adversely affected by the proposed increase in building height and bulk and views to and from the heritage cottages will also be unnecessarily diminished.

2. That the proposed modification does not comply with the following objective for outdoor areas set out in 3.7.1 of Parramatta Child Care Development Control Plan, in that the modification fails to minimise potential impacts on adjacent residential premises in that it will exacerbate the amenity impacts on No 23 Talbot Road in terms of noise transmission and building bulk and scale. In particular:-

(a) As the children’s transition area (veranda) is now elevated higher (approximately 1.9m above the existing ground level) the acoustic impact of the child care centre will be greater. However, no revised noise assessment report has been provided to establish whether the elevated transition area is acceptable in terms of noise impact.

(b) The split levels approved under the original consent are now proposed to be removed. Therefore, the overall height of the building has been increased by 370mm in the front and 1.085m in the rear respectively, which unnecessarily results in an adverse bulk and scale impact upon the adjoining property at No 23 Talbot Road. It is essential for the subject commercial building to minimise its bulk and scale as the building is not adequately articulated on the northern and southern elevations and extends significantly into the rear yard well beyond the de-facto rear building line within the locality.

3. That the proposed modification does not comply with the following design principles for outdoor play space set out in 3.7.2 of Parramatta Child Care Development Control Plan. In particular:-

(a) The proposed ramping and steps are excessive and does not provide a convenient and safe means of access for children between the indoor and outdoor play areas.

(b) The proposed zigzagged ramping with associated railing is approximately 28m in length and 1.9m in overall height. This will significantly block sightlines and compromise carers’ ability to supervise children between the outdoor and indoor areas.

(b) Further, that the objectors be advised of Council’s decision.

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is located on the western side of Talbot Road with a frontage of 14.7m and a total area of 802.58sqm. The site has a fall of approximately 2.3m from the north-western corner to the south-eastern corner.

2. There is an existing dwelling on the site, which is of a similar era and style to neighbouring buildings within Talbot Road.

3. To the north, the site adjoins the “Talbot Road Precinct”, which is identified as a significant group of 1920s cottages mostly built of brick with some timber and all of similar quality and all roofed with Marseilles tiles.

4. The subject site adjoins the council car park area to the south and west, which is utilised by the Guildford Road commercial area.

PROPOSAL

5. The Section 96AA application, subject to a review under the current Section 82A application, seeks to modify the original consent for the demolition of the existing dwelling and other structures and the construction of a 2 storey commercial building over basement parking, providing a 28 place child care centre on the ground floor and 2 offices on the first floor, in the following way.

(a) Internal layout redesign of the child care centre on the ground floor, including provision of a new cot room and separation of the indoor play areas between different age groups

(b) Removal of internal ramps accommodating transition in floor levels and replacement with an elevated floor level to provide the same finished floor level (FFL) from the front to the rear of the building

(b) The ground level has been amended to remove the split levels which results in raising the finished floor level by 585mm

(c) Internal layout redesign of the offices on the first floor by resizing Office 1 and 2 and reconfiguring the amenity facilities, including staff kitchens and toilets

(d) The first floor level has been amended to remove the split levels which results in raising the finished floor level by 885mm at the rear

(e) Consequently, the overall height of the building at the rear has been increased by 1.085m (from RL35.215 to RL36.30) and the ramp and stairs connecting between the children’s transition area and outdoor play area have been expanded

(f) The overall building height in the front has been increased by 370mm (from RL35.93 to RL36.30)

BACKGROUND HISTORY

DA/1270/2004

6. A Development Application for the demolition of existing structures, tree removal and construction and strata subdivision of a part 2 and 3 storey commercial building over basement parking, providing a 30 place child care centre on the ground floor and 2 office units on the first floor was refused by Council on 14 November 2005.

Appeal No 11371 of 2005

7. The applicant appealed Council’s determination to the Land and Environment Court and the Court subsequently upheld the appeal and approved the proposed development on 15 November 2006, after a series of amendments to the original scheme that resolved heritage and streetscape concerns identified by the Court-appointed planning expert.

DA/1270/2004/B

8. A Section 96AA application to modify the original consent given by the Court was refused by Council under delegated authority on 17 January 2008 for the following reasons:

(1) The proposal is inconsistent with zone objectives (a) and (e) of the 3A Centre Business Zone of Parramatta Local Environment Plan 2001 as the scale and size of the proposed development are not in keeping with the established and likely future character of the locality, especially having regards to the height of the rear elevation.

(2) That insufficient information has been submitted with the development application to enable Council to undertake an informed and comprehensive assessment of the application, in particular in relation to:

- Additional supporting details, being non compliance with DOCS requirements and justification of level changes, not being submitted as requested.

(3) The proposal fails to comply with the objectives of Parramatta DCP2005 Section 4.1.7 Development on Sloping Land as the proposal fails to respond to the natural topography. In particular the proposal is inappropriate in respect of the following design principles by failing to:

- minimise the visual bulk of the development, particularly when viewed from the rear

- minimise the impact of development on the privacy of the adjoining property

- maximise the useable area at the rear of the site

(4) The proposal fails to comply with the objective of Parramatta DCP2005 Section 4.2.3 Building Form and Massing, as the proposal fails to ensure that where changes in building scale, mass and height are proposed, it occurs in a manner that is sensitive to amenity issues of surrounding or nearby development. In particular the proposal is inappropriate in respect of the following design principles:

- The rear floor level increase is excessive and is not at a height that responds to the topography of the site.

- The proportion and massing of building does not relate favourably to the form, proportions and massing of existing building patterns when viewed from the side and rear elevations.

- The proposed floor levels result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to the adjacent property.

(5) The proposal fails to comply with the objectives of Parramatta DCP2005 Section 4.4 Social Amenity as the proposal fails to provide a convenient means of access to the rear playground due to the extensive ramping system proposed.

(6) The proposal fails to comply with the objectives of Parramatta DCP2005 Section 4.3.2 Visual and Acoustic Privacy as the proposal fails to ensure that development does not cause unreasonable overlooking of habitable rooms and principal private open spaces of dwellings. In particular the proposal is inappropriate in respect of the following design principles:

- The increased floor level of the rear balcony results in unreasonable overlooking of living areas and private open spaces of the adjoining dwelling at 23 Talbot Road.

(7) That granting consent to the proposal would not be in the public interest.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

9. Under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, an applicant may request Council to review a determination of a development application including a Section 96 application, other than for designated development, integrated development and state significant development. The proposed development does not fall into any of these categories.

10. The request for review must be made within 12 months after the date of determination and the review must be undertaken in the following manner;

10.1 If the determination was made by a delegate of Council, the review must be undertaken by Council or another delegate of Council who is not subordinate to the delegate who made the original determination, or

10.2 If the determination was made by full Council, the review must also be undertaken by full Council.

10.3 The subject Section 82A review application was made within 12 month after the date of determination (refusal) of Section 96AA application No. 1270/2004/B, which was on 17 January 2008.

11. Upon making a determination of the Section 82A review application, the following must be undertaken:

11.1 If, upon review, Council grants development consent, or varies the conditions of development consent, it must endorse on the notice of determination the date from which the consent, or the consent as varied by the review, operates

11.2 If, upon review, Council changes a determination in any way, the changed determination replaces the earlier determination as from the date of the review.

12. Council’s decision on a Section 82A review may not be further reviewed under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979.

13. An assessment of the Section 82A review application will be discussed below.

14. As the subject Section 82A application seeks a review of a determined Section 96AA application, the proposed modification must also satisfy the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

15. Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 allows an applicant to make an application to modify a development consent issued by a consent authority. It also states that a consent authority must be satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates and is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted.

16. The words “substantially the same development” have repeatedly been interpreted by the Land and Environment Court to mean “essentially or materially the same or having the same essence” and “to alter without radical transformation”.

17. The proposed modification (as described above) would be substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted, should the Section 96AA application be approved.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

18. The subject site is zoned Centre Business 3(a) under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. Both child care centres and commercial premises are permissible within the zone with the consent of Council. The proposed modification does not change compliance with the LEP.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation)

19. The subject site is not listed as a heritage item. However, the site is within the vicinity of the “Talbot Road Precinct” which contains 14 heritage items consisting Nos 11 to 23 and 12 to 24 Talbot Road.

20. Clause 14 of the LEP requires Council to consider the impact of the development:

20.1 on the heritage significance, curtilage and setting of the heritage item or the heritage significance of the heritage conservation area, and

20.2 on any significant views to or from the heritage item or the heritage conservation area.

21. Having regard to the heritage LEP and DCP, Council’s Heritage Advisor considers the proposed modification unacceptable. The following comment has been provided:

Having reviewed the available documents, the application cannot be supported.

The subject site is, in effect, semi-encircled by historic single-storey cottages of the Talbot Road Precinct, including the heritage listed cottages at Nos. 1 to 23 and 12 to 24. It is noted that the demolition of the existing cottage and the construction of a new two storey dwelling at No.23 Talbot Road has been approved in 2005 by Council. However the other heritage listed cottages of the precinct remain, including notably No.22 directly across the road, and Nos. 24 and 20 to the south-east and north-east of the subject site, respectively.

The original DA/1270/2004 for the subject two storey commercial building had been refused by Council mainly due to adverse heritage and streetscape impacts. The Land and Environment Court then approved the proposal after a series of substantial amendments undertaken by the applicant which addressed the heritage and streetscape issues. At the proceedings, the Court-appointed expert for planning recognised that the site constitutes a transition point between 3A Centre Business and 2B Residential zones and that the proposed building needs to provide an appropriate transition accordingly.

In essence, the Land and Environment Court approval has imposed a balanced outcome, between the original proposal and the applicable Council Heritage DCP controls. Council’s Heritage DCP guidelines were not strictly complied with. The Court has thus, in its judgement, established a new set of controls and criteria to regulate the development on this site. These controls and criteria would be breached should the proposed Section 96 modification application be approved.

The Section 96 application includes raising the approved floor levels with subsequent increase in the building height and the overall bulk and volume of the proposal. This would clearly have an additional negative impact on the adjacent heritage cottages. The proposed increase in the building height would also affect views to and from the heritage listed 1920s Bungalows and similar modest cottages in the vicinity.

Children’s Services Regulation 2004

22. The subject child care centre on the ground floor complies with the minimum space requirements regarding indoor play space (at least 3.25sqm of unencumbered space per child) and useable outdoor play space (at least 7sqm useable space per child) set out in Clause 30 of the Regulation.

23. The child care centre provides 3.493sqm of indoor play space per child and 7.57sqm of useable outdoor play space per child in the form of the grassed at-grade playground and tiled masonry veranda (i.e. transition area).

24. It is noted that Children’s Regulation 2004, which does not differentiate between an at-grade outdoor play space and a transition area, is not an environmental planning instrument but regulates licensing requirements for child care centres in New South Wales.

Child Care Centre Development Control Plan

25. The original application was Court approved before the implementation of Council’s Child Care Centre Development Control Plan (in force from 6 June 2007). However, the DCP does not contain any saving provisions for the proposed Section 96 modification to be exempt from complying with the requirements.

26. The DCP requires provision of a separate transition area and unencumbered outdoor play space. The proposed transition area, in the form of a veranda, provides a total area of 95.05sqm and a width of 8m which complies with the DCP. However, the unencumbered outdoor play space additional to the transition area provides approximately 4.18sqm per child as opposed to 7sqm per child. The deficiency has been exacerbated as a result of the extended ramping that occupies useable space.

27. The finished floor level of the transition area (veranda) has been increased by 0.885m which is approximately 1.9m above the existing ground level. This is considered contrary to the following objective of outdoor areas set out in 3.7.1 of the DCP, namely:

To ensure that the outdoor areas are designed so as to minimise potential impacts on any adjacent residential premises

28. In contrast, the modification has potential for exacerbating the amenity impacts on adjoining residential properties, particularly No 23 Talbot Road, in terms of noise transmission and building bulk and scale.

29. As the veranda is now elevated higher, the acoustic impact of children playing on the transition area will be greater. However, no revised noise assessment report has been provided to establish whether the elevated transition area is acceptable in terms of noise impact.

30. Bulk and scale issues are discussed below.

31. The extensive ramping and steps will also hinder provision of a convenient means of access for children between the indoor and outdoor play areas and will make supervision of children more difficult, which is contrary to the following design principles for outdoor play space set out in 3.7.2 of the DCP, namely:

- Outdoor play spaces are to be integrated with indoor space and provide direct and easy access from transition areas

- Outdoor play spaces are to be of a design and layout to enable clear lines of sight to all areas of the outdoor space to allow direct staff supervision from other areas of the child care centre

32. The proposed zigzagged ramping is approximately 28m in length and 1.9m in overall height and railing is also provided all along the ramp. This will significantly block sightlines and compromise carers’ ability to supervise children between the outdoor and indoor areas. In addition, the proposed 10 steps are not considered an easy and safe means of access for smaller children catered for in the centre.

33. The Court-approved child care centre on the ground floor has three internal ramps of 1:14 in grade that satisfy the provisions of Australian Standards 1428.1 to 1428.4 (Design for access and mobility). The ramps are not located within the child accessible spaces and therefore will not affect children’s indoor activities.

34. It has been confirmed by a Licensing Officer of the Department of Community Services, Leona Golan, that ramping is acceptable within non child accessible spaces.

35. However, the applicant fails to provide reasonable justification for the level increase, other than stating:

“The level changes are required to make the internal space of the child care more functional (i.e. less steps within the building)”

“Ground and first floor levels have been amended to make single level floors which in return will allow easier manoeuvring for people with disabilities on both floors due to the intended use of the first floor for a medical centre.”

36. Council does not have any objection to the proposed internal modification to the approved child care centre. However, suitable ramping can still be accommodated within non child accessible spaces in accordance with the advice from the Department of Community Service which provides a continuous path of travel for people with a disability without excessively raising the ground floor level.

37. The first floor comprised of 2 offices under the original consent. Office No 1 was 146sqm in total area with no steps provided between the lift and the office, whilst Office No 2 had a total area of 148.17sqm with 4 steps located internally within the office. There is no reason why the intended medical centre could not be accommodated in Office No 1 where there are no steps at all.

38. It is noted that the number of offices on the first floor remains unaltered under the current Section 96 modification application.

CONSULTATION

Notification

39. In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was notified between 1 and 15 April 2008. The notification generated two submissions. The matters raised in the submissions are addressed below.

The decision made by the Land & Environment Court should be final and should not be modified.

40. Section 96AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act allows Court consents to be modified by a consent authority including Council, should the application be supported.

Concern is raised whether the building has been placed closer to the street frontage

41. The setbacks of the approved building relative to all boundaries are not proposed to change.

Demolition, waste production

42. Concern is raised over demolition and the production of waste associated with demolition and the preservation of heritage items.

43. The proposed modification would not unduly increase demolition waste should the proposal be supported.

Preservation of heritage building

44. The proposed Section 96AA modification is recommended for refusal due to adverse heritage impacts. Refer to Council Heritage Advisor’s comment above.

Tree removal and attack on natural environment and pollution

45. Concern is raised over the protection of trees, increases in air pollution when trees are removed, the emission of electromagnetic radiation from telecommunication antennae and allied structures and increases in concrete surfaces.

46. The modification does not propose to remove any additional trees and there will not be a significant increase in hard surface.

Increase in housing, industrial density

47. The proposed modification would not increase density of the development should the application be supported.

Section 96 Applications

48. Concern is raised over the submission of Section 96 modification applications. The submitter argues that the Section 96 application must be refused when it is obvious that the original application was just a ruse to get an approval and the true intention was to follow with modifications.

49. This is not a relevant consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Hours of operation not to be increased

50. Hours of operation of the commercial premises are not proposed to change.

ISSUES

Bulk and scale

51. The overall height of the building has been increased by 370mm in the front and 1.085m in the rear respectively. The finished floor level of the transition area (veranda) has been increased by 0.885m which is approximately 1.9m above the existing ground level. This is contrary to the evidence provided by the Court-appointed expert for planning, Ms A McCabe, during the Court proceedings in 2005.

52. Ms McCabe gave evidence that the site constitutes a transition point between two different zones (Centre Business 3A and Residential 2B) and therefore any building proposed needs to provide an appropriate transition to the adjoining residential and heritage listed buildings.

53. After a series of amendments by the applicant in response to the heritage streetscape concerns, Ms McCabe re-assessed the proposal and reiterated importance of appropriate building bulk and scale on the subject site by saying:

“The scale of the development now reads as 2 storeys and has been stepped down the site. The rear terrace is now within 1.15m of the ground level.”

“A 2 storey development is an acceptable form of development on the subject site but only with adequate setbacks to north, east and western boundaries and not elevated from the natural ground level.”

54. However, the split levels that minimised the bulk and scale of the development are now removed under the Section 96 modification. This unnecessarily increases the building bulk and scale and result in adverse built form impact upon the adjoining property on No 23 Talbot Road. Despite Council’s consent for a new 2 storey dwelling house with swimming pool at No 23 Talbot Road on 12 March 2007, it is still essential for the subject commercial building to minimise its bulk and scale as the building is not adequately articulated on the side elevations and extends significantly into the rear yard well beyond the de-facto rear building line within the locality.

ON-SITE MEETING

55. Council, at its meeting of 9 July 2007, resolved that all Section 82A reviews of determination be subject to an on-site meeting prior to them being determined at a Regulatory Meeting.

56. In accordance with the above resolution, an invitation to Councillors, Council officers, the applicant and the objectors was sent in relation to an on-site meeting to be held on Saturday 31 May 2008, commencing at 9am.

57. Present at the site meeting were Councillor Omar Jamal (Chair) and Council’s Team Leader Development Assessment and Senior Development Assessment Officer, the applicant and 3 residents. The following issues were discussed at the meeting:

Front setback

58. Concern was raised whether the proposed s82A application seeks to modify the approved front setback.

59. The applicant advised that the setback relative to the front boundary remains unchanged.

Drainage

60. Concern was raised whether the proposed drainage provision will be satisfactory.

61. The applicant advised that the drainage provision approved by the Land & Environment Court will not be affected by the proposed modification.

Conclusion

62. The meeting concluded at 9.35am with all parties being advised that they will be notified in writing of the date on which the development application will be presented at the Council meeting.

James (Seong) Kim

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Plans and Elevations (Original Consent)	6 Pages
3View	Plans and Elevations (Section 96AA)	8 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 28 July 2008

Item 9.2

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER 9.2

SUBJECT 87A Hammers Road, Constitution Hill

REFERENCE DA/1370/2001 - D00966065

REPORT OF Service Manager, Construction and Development

PURPOSE:

To provide Council with information on issues raised at the an on-site meeting held 20 March 2008 with residents and Council representatives including Councillors regarding the Constitution Hill Retirement village located at 87A Hammers Road, Constitution Hill.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the report be received and noted.

(b) Council undertake an audit of the existing pathway to determine if any works are required to ensure the existing pathway is accessible and unobstructed.

(c) Council engage an independent auditor to review the maintenance program as required by the conditions of the Bushland Management Plan to date, and upon completion.

BACKGROUND

1. Following an onsite meeting held at the Constitution Hill Retirement Village on 20 March 2008 issues were raised by residents. Councillor Worthington that a report be forward to Council, outlining the following:-

All matters which pertain to Council, and are its responsibility to maintain in the long term as set down in the set of conditions by the L&E Court.

(a) Which of these matters to date have been attended to, and those which are still outstanding.

(b) A timeline of when it is expected that all outstanding matters pertaining to Council will be met.

(d) The amount of money budgeted for each year to ensure necessary ongoing maintenance is provided within the timeline set down.

2. Information is also sought on Council's involvement to date in ensuring that the Body Corporate of the Village is conforming with the conditions as set down by the L&E Court, and what can be done regarding outstanding matters for which it is responsible, and which to date, haven't been responded to.

Report

Issue 1:

A. All matters which pertain to Council, and are its responsibility to maintain in the long term as set down in the set of conditions by the L&E Court.

B. Which of these matters to date have been attended to and those which are still outstanding.

1. In relation to the development known as the Constitution Hill Retirement Village

Council is responsible for the enforcement of conditions of development consents and the management of the land transferred to Council, for public use as open space known as Lot 3

2. The issues that remain outstanding as a result of this development are the construction of a bicycle pathway on lot 3 as required by Development Consent No. 10799/1994 and the reporting to the developer of the maintenance of bushland on Lot 3 in accordance with the bushland management plan approved as part of the Development Consent.

3. Development Consent No 10799/1994 required a bicycle pathway to be constructed on Lot 3. This pathway has not been constructed and since the issuing of the development consent the land has transferred to Council’s ownership and is used as open space.

4. Another condition of this 1994 consent was for Council to maintain the bushland in accordance with the adopted Bushland Management Plan and provide 6 monthly reports to the developer. Investigations have revealed Council has been maintaining the land known as Lot 3 but has failed to report 6 monthly to the developer. The maintenance of lot three is detailed under the following heading; Actions from 87A Hammers Rd Bushland POM.

Bicycle Pathway

5. As Council would be aware development consent for the redevelopment of the site for an aged care retirement village was issued many years ago. As a result appeals to the Land and Environment Court two Development Consents have been issued for the subdivision of the land, which included the transfer of land adjacent to Toongabbie Creek to Council.

6. The Development Consents are known as 10798/1994 and 10799/1994.

7. As a result of the court decision a Deed of Agreement was signed by Council and the developer and is referenced in Development Consent No.10798/1994. The Deed of Agreement confirmed the conditions of consent and made Council responsible for the payment of land and the maintenance of the existing pathway in proposed Lot 3 as required in condition 10 of Development Consent No. 10798/1994. The Deed of Agreement did not refer to the other development consent issued ie. Development Consent No. 10799/1994.

Condition 10 of Development Consent 10798/1994 states:

“The Council and the applicant shall comply with the bushland management plan to be approved by Council, which shall be generally in accordance with the terms of the bushland management plan dated 22 July 1996 submitted by the applicant and the Council acknowledges it is responsible for the cost and implementation of the works set out therein”.

8. Both Council and the developer are required to comply with the Bush Management Plan prepared by Anne Clements as part of condition No.10. Both the consent and Deed of Agreement referred to the Bush Management Plan prepared by Anne Clements requiring the existing pathway to be maintained.

9. Development Consent No. 10799/1994 contains an additional condition that requires the construction of a new Bicycle pathway (Condition No.28).

10. The land has been subdivided and the subdivision was registered with the Land Titles Office on 22 December 2000. Council took ownership of Lot 3 after an inspection of the infrastructure for drainage. There are no records to indicate that Council requested the construction of the pathway as referred to in condition No 28 of Development Consent No. 10799/1994.

11. Council had the opportunity at the time to request the path be constructed but appears only to have required condition 10 of the consent be enforced.

12. No formal records of this decision can be found but it can only be assumed that the developer and Council agreed that the construction of the pathway was not required and that only maintenance of the existing pathway was required to satisfy both consents.

13. In discussions with present staff in both Strategic Asset Management and Bushland Management it appears that the reasons for the decision are:

(a) A new bicycle pathway was not required as the overall cycle way was to take an alternative route and not along Toongabbie Creek.

(b) To construct a new pathway would involve major construction work in an environmentally sensitive area. The land is protected under the National Parks and Wildlife legislation and the construction of a new path would significantly impact on the environment and maintenance would preserve the existing pathway and have minimal environmental impacts.

14. Council has maintained the existing pathway and has constructed stairs and boardwalks to maintain access as required in the Bushland Management Plan. Details of the works undertaken by Council are documented further in the report.

Bushland Management Plan Maintenance Reporting

15. As required in the Deed of Agreement, Council is required to maintain the natural bush located on Lot 3 in conjunction with the privately owned land during development of the site, and in accordance with the Bushland Management. Council has been maintaining the land in accordance with the Bushland Management Plan.

16. The Bushland Management Plan requires Council to report 6 monthly on the maintenance of the bushland to the private land owner of the ongoing maintenance that has occurred. If Council did not meet the terms of agreement then the private land owner could complete the works at a cost to Council.

17. The Deed of Agreement and the Bushland Management Plan do not require Council to maintain the bushland located on private land, however the developer is required under the development consent to comply with the Bushland Management Plan.

18. It is has been established that Council Bush Care Officers have carried out maintenance works as required in the Bushland Management Plan, however reporting to Grand United (adjoining land owner) has not occurred.

19. The development of the retirement facility is nearing completion. Despite the reporting to Grand United not being carried out to date it is suggested that Council engage a consultant to prepare a report on the maintenance that has been carried out to date, and again at the completion of the project and also to report on any other matters required in Deed of Agreement relating to the Bushland Management Plan.

20. The first bush regeneration contract entered into by Council was for the period of 2004/05 after the land known as Lot 3 was transferred to Council.

Issue 2:

Which of these matters to date have been attended to, and those that are outstanding as identified from the Bushland Management plan.

22. The following table shows actions from the Bushland Management Plan and implemented to date:

Source	Actions from the Bushland Plan of Management Part B Backhousia Reserve (Lot 3 Hammers Rd)	% Complete	Time	Comment
4.1	Series of soaks in the western creek line seeded with Eucalyptus amplifolia due to increased stormwater from Retirement Village	30%	Started 2008	Initial weed removal in this area
5.0	Soil translocation from Housing footprints in housing estate	100%		As development occurred
7.1	Bush regeneration upper slopes above 1:100 flood levels – 5 years *	75%	4^th year	Likely to be completed within 5 years
7.2	Bush regeneration lower slopes below 1:100 flood levels “mosaic clearance over an extended period of time”	20%	Ongoing	Approx 10 years at current funding levels
8.2	Formalised bush tracks from the residential development to the creek	100%	4^th year	Exceeded standard by providing formal boardwalks & stairs Minor upgrades of track surface required.

* doesn’t provide a timeframe for maintenance

23. Estimated cost by Anne Clements & Associates, acting on behalf of GUFS, was $200,000 over 5 years in Lot 3 (Backhousia Reserve). Advice at the time by the Bushland Supervisor was that this was a gross underestimate of costs & the timeframe for recovery was longer than 5 years. The report states “The quality of the bushland on Lot 3 and the Buffer Zone varies from about 10% exotic cover up to 80% cover.” And in the POM this statement appears in 8.1 “After this initial weed treatment” (5 years), work should commence in the other more degraded bushland areas”. This contradicts the impression given by the works program that the bush regeneration would take 5 years.

Issue 3:

A timeline of when it is expected that all outstanding matters pertaining to Council will be met.

24. Council’s Bushland Management Officer has advised of the following time estimates for the completion of works.

Source	Actions from the Bushland Plan of Management Part B Backhousia Reserve (Lot 3 Hammers Rd)	Estimated time of completion.
4.1	Series of soaks in the western creek line seeded with Eucalyptus amplifolia	Completed by 2010
5.0	Soil translocation from Housing footprints in housing estate	Completed 2006
7.1	Bush regeneration upper slopes above 1:100 flood levels	Completed by 2010
7.2	Bush regeneration lower slopes below 1:100 flood levels	Completed by 2018
8.2	Formalised bush tracks from the residential development to the creek	Completed 2007

25. Council is on track to deliver all outcomes from the actions list from the Bushland Plan of Management Part B Backhousia Reserve (Lot 3 Hammers Rd).

26. However construction of a pathway is required by condition 28 of the Development Consent. Staff from Council’s Bushland Team and Strategic Asset Management are now required to determine whether the pathway should be constructed or whether they seek to have the condition removed from the development consent. In the event that Council wishes to not construct the pathway a formal request to modify the Development Consent will need to be lodged and the application will be independently assessed.

Issues 4 & 5

Timeline of ongoing maintenance for matters, for which Council is responsible and the amount of money budgeted each year to ensure necessary maintenance.

The Bush Regeneration

27. Maintenance will be ongoing to achieve and keep the bushland at the asset target of 2-5% weed level.

Walking Track (existing)

28. Brush cut to 1m either side of current track (approx. 1.5km) once per quarter to maintain ease of pedestrian access.

29. The amount of money budgeted for each year to ensure necessary ongoing maintenance is provided within the timeline.

30. Current expenditure $70, 000 per annum no increase required to meet targets.

Laurie Whitehead

Service Manager – Construction & Development

Attachments:

1View

Annexure A - Scope of Works

1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 28 July 2008

Item 9.3

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER 9.3

SUBJECT 10-20 Constance Street, Guildford (Lots 18-23, Section 2 in DP 1144)

DESCRIPTION Demolition of 6 dwelling houses and construction of 27 seniors living/disabled housing units within a part 1 and part 2 storey multi-housing development.

REFERENCE DA/914/2007 -

APPLICANT/S Resitech (Department of Housing)

OWNERS Department of Housing

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 914/2007 that seeks approval for the demolition of 6 dwelling houses and the construction of 27 seniors living/disabled housing units and a community room within a part 1 and part 2 storey multi-housing development.

The application is referred to Council due the number of objections received.

The development application is a Crown application and is subject to the provisions of Part 5A (Development by the Crown) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and development standards prescribed by State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That, subject to the written approval of the Department of Housing or the Minister and in accordance with Part 116C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, the application be approved subject to standard, and the following extraordinary, conditions:

1. In accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, a restriction as to occupier, in accordance with Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919, shall be registered against the title of the property limiting accommodation on the premises to the following:

(i) seniors or people who have a disability (as defined in the SEPP);

(ii) people who live within the same household with seniors or people who have a disability;

(iii) staff employed to assist in the administration of and provision of services to housing provided under State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the Seniors SEPP.

2. Prior to the commencement of demolition and/or construction activities, a construction management plan shall be developed and submitted to Council for approval. The plan shall provide a comprehensive and complete action and implementation plan to ensure that the anthropological and natural environment is not unacceptably affected by the proposal. The plan shall include but not be necessarily limited to the following:

(i) measures to control noise emissions from the site during the construction phase;

(ii) measures to suppress odours and dust emissions;

(iii) selection of traffic routes to minimise residential noise intrusions;

(iv) soil and sediment control measures;

(v) measures to identify hazardous wastes (such as asbestos) and the procedures for removal and disposal;

(vi) community consultation;

(vii) construction vehicle parking;

(viii) pedestrian access and safety.

Reason: To ensure that adequate safeguards are employed.

3. A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained and an application made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. Following the application, a ‘Notice of Requirements’ will detail water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid. The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Department of Housing prior to construction commencing.

Reason: To ensure that an adequate provision is made for services.

4. All lighting on the site shall be designed to ensure no adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding residential area by light overspill. Lighting shall comply with Australian Standard 4282-1997: Control of the Intrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting.

Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding residents.

5. The design of the facility must permit effective, appropriate, safe and dignified use by all people, including those with disabilities and must be in accordance with:

- NSW Health Facility Guidelines, in particular Part B – Design for Access, Mobility, OH&S and Security.

- AS1428

- The Building Code of Australia

- Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992

- NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977

Reason: To ensure equity.

6. The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of a new footpath, for the full length of the site along the Constance Street frontage, designed and constructed in accordance with Council’s specifications. All associated costs are to be borne in full by the consent holder.

Reason: To ensure appropriate access

7. Before occupation of the development commences, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of Council. As far as is reasonably possible, all new landscaping shall be of a semi-mature nature in order to expedite screening and privacy mitigation.

Reason: To ensure that suitable landscaping is provided.

8. The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of Council, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced. The landscape works shall be maintained into the future to ensure the establishment and successful growth of plant material to meet the intent of the landscape design and to enhance the character of the surrounding area. This shall include but not be limited to watering, weeding, replacement of plant material and promoting the growth of all plants through standard industry practices.

Reason: To ensure the ongoing maintenance of landscaping.

(b) Further, that the objectors be advised of Council’s decision.

PROPOSAL

1. The proposed development is on land owned by the NSW Department of Housing (Crown Land) and the applicant seeks consent for the demolition of 6 dwelling houses and the construction of 27 seniors living/disabled housing units and a community room within a part 1 and part 2 storey multi-housing development.

SITE & LOCALITY

2. The site is located on the southern side of Constance Street, Guildford, to the west of Excelsior Street and Porst Place, and approximately 200 metres to the east of Woodville Road. The immediate area is characterised by detached dwelling houses and a smaller number of newer multi-unit housing developments.

3. The site contains 6 allotments, is rectangular in shape with side boundaries of 55.78 metres and front and rear boundaries of 91.44 metres, resulting in a land area of approximately 5,100m².

STATUTORY CONTROLS

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People With a Disability) 2004

4. ‘Seniors Housing’ is defined by the SEPP as being residential accommodation for seniors or people with a disability consisting of:

(i) a residential care facility, or

(ii) a hostel, or

(iii) a group of self-contained dwellings, or

(iv) a combination of these; but does not include a hospital.

5. This proposal involves self-contained dwellings and satisfies the requirements to be considered under the SEPP.

6. Clause 2, ‘Aims of Policy’, is a relevant provision of the SEPP and states that the aims of the policy will be achieved by setting aside local planning controls that would prevent the development of housing for seniors or people with a disability that meets the development criteria and standards specified in this policy.

7. The proposed development is permissible by way of clause 4(1)(a) of the SEPP being "land zoned primarily for urban purposes". Where there is any inconsistency between the SEPP and any environmental planning instrument, clause 5(3) provides that the provisions of the SEPP shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

8. Part 2 of the SEPP provides site related requirements, such as location and access to facilities (clause 26) and water and sewer (clause 28).

9. Part 3 provides design requirements, including design of in-fill self-care housing (clause 31). This clause requires consideration be given to the provisions of the Seniors Living Policy: Urban Design Guideline for Infill Development published by the former Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources in March 2004.

10. Clause 32 provides that consent must not be granted unless the proposed development demonstrates that adequate regard has been given to the principles set out in the Division 2. The relevant provisions are Neighbourhood Amenity and Streetscape (clause 33) and Visual and Acoustic Privacy (clause 34).

11. Part 4 of the SEPP provides development standards to be complied with. The proposed development satisfies the requirements relating to site size and site frontage, as well as development within the rear 25% of the site being restricted to single storey construction.

12. Part 7 identifies development standards that cannot be used as grounds to refuse consent. The proposed development satisfies all relevant development standards in Part 7. These development standards relate to building height (clause 50(a)), density and scale (clause 50(b)), landscaped area (clause 50(c)), deep soil zones (clause 50(d)), solar access (clause 50(e)), private open space (clause 50(f)), and parking (clause 50(g)).

13. The provisions of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)

14. The site is not identified by Council’s records as having any known contaminants present. A search reveals that the site has a lengthy history of residential usage and it is unlikely that there are any substances on the site which would cause harm to humans.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

15. State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 ("BASIX") applies to the proposed development. The development application was accompanied by BASIX Certificate No. 162959M, dated 11 October 2007, committing to environmental sustainability measures.

16. These requirements have been imposed by standard condition prescribed by Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

Parramatta LEP 2001

17. The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under the provisions of Parramatta LEP 2001 and the proposal is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the LEP.

18. Clause 30 of Parramatta LEP 2001 requires development of land referred to in Schedule 4 of the LEP to be the subject of a masterplan. Schedule 4 relates to the development site as the land has a site area in excess of 5,000m².

19. However, Clause 30(11) provides that Council may dispense with the requirement for a masterplan if a site analysis study that is satisfactory to Council accompanies the development application.

20. The applicant has submitted a detailed site analysis that is considered acceptable. There is therefore no requirement for the submission of a masterplan.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

21. The provisions of Parramatta DCP 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the DCP.

CONSULTATION

22. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was advertised and notified between 14 November and 5 December 2007. Nine submissions were received. The matters raised in the submissions are outlined below:

Excessive height

23. Clause 50 of the SEPP provides that Council must not refuse consent to a development application if all the buildings are 8 metres or less in height.

24. In this instance, the proposal would have a maximum height (defined to be the distance from the greatest distance from the ceiling to ground level immediately below that point) of approximately 6.5 metres.

25. The proposal complies and Council cannot refuse the proposal on the basis of excessive height.

26. It is also noted that Parramatta DCP 2005 allows multi-unit housing that is permissible in the zone to have a maximum height of 11 metres.

Acoustic privacy

27. Clause 34 of the SEPP requires that the proposed development shall consider the acoustic and visual privacy of neighbours by ensuring appropriate site planning, locating balconies and windows to have regard to neighbours, through the use of screening devices and landscaping as well as locating bedrooms within the development away from driveways, parking areas and pathways.

28. The proposal has been designed to take into consideration existing adjoining residential properties, as well as the internal layout of the scheme.

Overdevelopment of the site

29. The proposed floor space ratio is considered to appropriately measure the density of development over a site.

30. Whilst Parramatta LEP 2001 prescribes a maximum FSR of 0.6:1 for development of multi-unit housing over land zoned Residential 2(b), the SEPP provides that a development must not be refused by Council if the density and scale of the buildings expressed as a floorspace ratio is 0.5:1 or less. The proposal would result in an FSR over the site of approximately 0.4:1 and thereby complies.

31. As the proposal complies, Council cannot refuse the proposal on the basis of excessive floorspace (overdevelopment of the site).

Insufficient setbacks

32. The following minimum setbacks are required by Parramatta DCP 2005:

(i) Side – 3 metres

(ii) Front – 5-9 metres

(iii) Rear – 15% of the site’s depth (8.37 metres)

33. The proposal complies with the requirements of Parramatta DCP 2005 having the following setbacks:

(i) Side - 4.5 metres (to both sides),

(ii) Front - 8.49 metres

(iii) Rear - 15.4% (8.595 metres).

Health – noise & emissions as a result of residential development near to Woodville Road

34. The NSW State Government and its various authorities and departments have long recognised the air quality of Sydney to be a major issue. The issue is not a new one and these various bodies have, over time, prepared various policy and discussion documents on this matter. Some of these initiatives include the various NSW State of the Environment Reports, and notably the 2003 report on “Atmosphere”, the Clean Air Forums of 2001 and 2004 and the Action for Air Plans of 2002 and 2006. Most recently, the Department of Environment and Climate Change with the Department of Planning, are reportedly combining to prepare policy guidelines for development along main roads in response to this issue. The issue is much wider than individual Councils and requires a broad state wide response.

35. However, there is no current evidence to suggest that the approval of residential properties along main roads has adverse health impacts such to warrant refusal of the application.

36. Given that the western-most edge of the site is located approximately 200 metres to the east of Woodville Road, it is unlikely that future residents would be overly affected by pollution emissions resulting from traffic on Woodville Road

Increased traffic generation

37. The proposal is compliant with floor space ratio controls and density and resultant traffic generation is anticipated by the site’s zoning and applicable development standards under the SEPP. Notwithstanding this, a residential development of this scale within the existing traffic environment will not have any undue traffic impacts relative to traffic flow and safety. The surrounding road network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the increase in traffic flow generated by the development and this remains so when also taking into consideration other medium density development that has been approved by Council within the surrounding area.

38. Council’s Traffic Engineer has assessed the proposal and found the allocation, access arrangements and dimensions of the carparking area and driveway to be satisfactory.

Lack of parking

39. Under the provisions of the SEPP, a minimum of 1 on-site space per 5 dwellings is required. The development requires 5 carparking spaces and 12 are proposed. It is considered the proposal achieves compliance with the objectives of the SEPP and provides sufficient parking on-site to cater for the needs of residents and visitors.

40. Council’s Traffic Engineer has assessed the proposal and found it to be satisfactory.

The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site having regard to existing infrastructure

41. The proposal is for the construction of a part one and part two storey multi-unit housing development comprising 27 dwellings and a community room in association with the site. The proposal achieves general compliance with the relevant controls contained in the Seniors SEPP (other than in respect of the requirement for two-thirds of the deep soil zone to be located at the rear of the site), Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005. Accordingly, the proposed development is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.

42. The applicant will need to satisfy relevant utility authorities that the appropriate provision of water, gas, sewer and electricity can be provided, prior to the construction of the development. At this stage, there does not appear to be any evidence that the provision of these services cannot be satisfied.

Overshadowing

43. Concerns are raised that the proposal will result in unacceptable levels of overshadowing to the properties adjacent to the site to the side and to the rear.

44. Shadow diagrams for the winter solstice have been submitted which illustrate the proposed overshadowing to neighbouring properties and are attached to this report. The proposal will allow the adjoining properties to continue to receive adequate solar access and in accordance with the requirements of Clause 35 of the Seniors SEPP.

45. The shadow diagrams identify overshadowing of the private open space of the properties to the east and west will occur during earlier morning and later afternoon hours, with all properties retaining at least 3 hours of sunlight in accordance with the requirements of Parramatta DCP 2005. It is also noted that the properties to the rear (located to the south) will achieve adequate solar access for all of the day and will not be significantly affected by the proposal.

46. The level of sunlight available to adjoining properties is acceptable and the extent of overshadowing is not sufficient to warrant refusal or modification of the proposal.

The site would be better used as open space

47. The land is currently zoned to permit the form of development proposed with the consent of Council.

Asbestos in houses to be demolished

48. A recommended standard condition of consent will require any asbestos to be handled, removed and disposed of in accordance with relevant Australian Standards.

Copies of the SEPP are not available in the public libraries

49. This planning instrument was not prepared by Parramatta City Council and is not an instrument for exclusive use within the Parramatta local government area. It was prepared by the former Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources and the NSW Government’s Parliamentary Counsel’s Office. The document is therefore not provided for sale by Parramatta City Council, but is available for purchase from the Department of Planning and available for free to download from various state government departmental websites (including the NSW Legislation website).

Exceeds 2 storey height limit at the rear of the site

50. Under Parramatta DCP 2005 townhouse development is restricted to 2 storeys in height within the front 20 metres of the site. However, this requirement does not apply to development that is subject to the provisions of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability).

51. The SEPP contains provisions that override the development standards and controls of both the LEP and the DCP respectively. In this regard, the relevant standard relates to development within the rear 25% of the site being limited to single storey. This equates to a length of approximately 14 metres. The proposal complies with this requirement, having single storey development that extends approximately 17.2 metres (or 30.8%) from the rear boundary.

That the development is not in the public interest

52. This development application has raised considerable interest within the local community. The level of submission is not surprising as these sites retain examples of the original residential development that was prevalent in this area and are consistent with the prevailing form of development located nearby.

53. Several generations of planning controls have passed since the development of the detached dwellings now present on site and in the locality. Examples of medium density development are occurring nearby.

54. The site’s zoning allows for the form of development proposed. The compliance with the density controls of Council’s planning controls and of the SEPP (setbacks, height and FSR) indicates that anticipated site yield is appropriate.

55. The development is compliant with Council’s controls and generally with those prescribed by the Seniors SEPP and does not result in any undue privacy, overshadowing or bulk and scale impacts on adjoining sites.

56. The facility is replacing ageing dwellings that offer poorer facilities and which do not contribute positively to the qualities of the streetscape. The new facilities will improve site conditions and are considered to fulfil a wider public benefit for increased community housing of better design.

Loss of character of the street

57. The proposed buildings will be 2 storeys fronting Constance Street and this is consistent with the desired future character of the locality. What distinguishes this development from its surrounds is not the height of the development, but the continuity of the development with attached dwellings.

58. However, given the articulated frontage with recessed components of the façade, along with the 8.49 metre setback and landscaping, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory and not out of context with the surrounding area.

Impact on sewer/capabilities of sewer

59. Clause 28 of the Seniors SEPP requires Council to ensure that the development is capable of being connected to the sewer system.

60. The submitted plans indicate the proposal will be connected to the local pipes within Constance Street.

61. Prior to the construction of the development, the Department of Housing will obtain a Section 73 Certificate from Sydney water to ensure that existing facilities will be able to cope with the proposal. The Department of Housing has concurred with the imposition of this condition of consent.

Water pressure in street is insufficient to cope with this development

62. A recommended condition of consent requires the Department of Housing to liaise with Sydney Water in relation to the connection to the water supply. This is not an issue for Council to consider as determinative, as Council is not the service authority for the provision of water. Council merely needs to be assured that water supply is available to the site.

63. Prior to the construction of the development, the Department of Housing will obtain a Section 73 Certificate from Sydney water to ensure that existing facilities will be able to cope with the proposal. The Department of Housing has concurred with the imposition of this condition of consent.

Too many Department of Housing dwellings within the street

64. This is not a valid planning consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979.

Dwellings must be for seniors only

65. The Seniors SEPP provides that accommodation on the site may be provided for:

(i) seniors or people who have a disability;

(ii) people who live within the same household with seniors or people who have a disability;

(iii) staff employed to assist in the administration of and provision of services to housing provided under State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

66. An appropriate condition of consent is recommended to ensure that the dwellings are not occupied other than in accordance with the SEPP.

Loss of privacy

67. The development has been designed to minimise living area windows and balconies adjacent to the side boundaries. This, together with the rear part of the land being restricted to single storey development, will ensure that privacy loss is not unacceptable.

68. In addition to this, the driveway is proposed near the centre of the front of the site, not adjacent to the side boundaries. Impacts from cars and other vehicles on the amenity of existing residents will therefore be minimised.

Lack of architectural merit

69. The design of the proposal is conducive to maintaining a low density character as well as minimal height and the particular design has incorporated measures to promote this character.

70. The Urban Design principles for the site are prescribed by Division 2 of Part 3 of the Seniors SEPP. These principles set out design principles that should be followed to achieve built form that responds to the characteristics of its site and form.

71. An assessment of the proposal indicates that the proposal meets the prescribed and subjective requirements of the SEPP and the design principles purposes to produce good design.

Unsightly extra garbage bins and general rubbish being located on the street

72. Garbage bins will not be placed on the street. Instead they will be collected from an internal area by private contractor. The enclosed garbage storage area will be located near the front of the site, with bins not visible from the street.

The proposal fails to meet the ‘desired future character’ requirements envisaged by the LEP and the DCP

73. The permissibility of this form of development by virtue of the provisions of the Seniors SEPP and Parramatta LEP 2001 indicates that there is nothing about this proposal that compromises the desired future character of the locality.

74. Two storey development with an FSR of a maximum of 0.6:1 is envisaged by the LEP. The Seniors SEPP on the other hand limits the development of land to 0.5:1. The proposed development would have an FSR of 0.4:1.

75. Future development is anticipated and is to be controlled by the planning and design policies of the council, in addition to the prevailing state and regional policies at the time. The desired future character is derived from these instruments and policies and in this regard, the proposal is satisfactory.

Transport and amenities for residents are poor

76. Clause 26 of the Seniors SEPP requires Council to take into consideration the access for future residents to facilities such as shops, bank service providers and other retail and commercial services that residents may reasonably require, as well as community facilities and recreational facilities and location of a general medical practitioner.

77. Clause 26 outlines that compliance with this clause is attained where such services are located less than 400 metres from the site (and with a pathway with a gradient of no greater than 1:14) or where there is a public transport service available to the residents who will occupy the development located no further than 400 metres from the site and that will take residents to facilities or to within 400 metres of those facilities.

78. Such transport services must be provided (to and from) at least once between 8.00am and noon per day and at least once between noon and 6.00pm from Monday to Friday.

79. The site is located near Excelsior Street, with the western (furthest) corner of the site located approximately 100 metres from Excelsior Street. The nearest bus service is the Veolia-operated Route 906 linking Fairfield with Parramatta via Excelsior Street, Guildford Railway Station and Fairfield Railway Station. Services run at regular intervals Monday to Friday with the first journey commencing at 5.37am (from Fairfield) and concluding at 8.50pm terminating at the intersection of Excelsior Street and Guildford Road.

80. On Sundays, an hourly service (Route 907) operates along Woodville Road and connects Bankstown with Parramatta, including Yagoona, Villawood and Bass Hill Plaza. This service commences at Parramatta Interchange at 8.10am with the last trip from Parramatta departing at 7.10pm.

81. In addition to meeting the locational criteria of the SEPP, the local bus operator provides access for wheelchair-bound persons on a number of journeys throughout the day, including weekends.

82. The gradient of the land to and from the bus stops is less than the 1:14 maximum prescribed by the SEPP.

Limited access to facilities (shops, recreation, community)

83. Given the destinations described above, the SEPP does not require that shops and facilities need to be located in proximity to the site. Each of the bus services listed above provides direct access to a range of services and meets the requirements of the Seniors SEPP.

Noise from demolition and construction activities

84. Residents raised concern that vehicle access to the site during construction would be problematic. Concern was also raised that traffic would be diverted through local residential streets and that would create noise and safety problems for residents.

85. A construction management plan is included as a recommended condition of consent and that the traffic management component must take into account construction traffic routes and construction vehicle parking.

86. Construction hours (including demolition and excavation) are set by a standard condition of consent, limiting the hours of work to 7.00am to 8.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 8.00pm on Saturdays.

No indication of future maintenance of landscaping

87. Residents have raised concern that the planned landscaping of the site has not been accompanied by any plan for ongoing maintenance.

88. Landscaping in new developments can easily die if not maintained, or become infested with weeds, or fail to propagate in the first few years, and as a result fail to achieve the final intention of the proposed development.

89. In this instance, it would be more appropriate to ensure that mature specimens are planted throughout the site and that the Department of Housing commit itself to providing some degree of assistance to future residents of the site to carry out landscaping particularly for those who are unable to actively participate in such activities. A standard condition has been recommended requiring the planting of semi-mature species throughout the site.

Insufficient parking

90. The facility will provide 12 carparking spaces. This exceeds the minimum number of 5 prescribed by the Seniors SEPP. This provision is considered sufficient, with ample unrestricted on-street parking currently available.

High crime within the area

91. The facility would provide support facilities and would have good surveillance over the internal driveway. There is no evidence to suggest that this issue is sufficient to warrant refusal of the proposal, nor that there is any correlation between Seniors Living development and increased crime.

ON SITE MEETING

92. Council, at its meeting of 9 July 2007, resolved that all applications with 5 or more submissions be subject to a site inspection prior to them being determined at a Regulatory meeting.

93. In accordance with the above resolution, an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 8 March 2008 at 9.00am.

94. Present at the meeting were Councillors Barber (Chairman), Jamal, Walsh and Brown; 25 residents, the architect and applicant and the Team Leader Development and Certification. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

95. The site meeting opened at 9.05am with the proposal description being identified and the following issues discussed.

Traffic generation from the development site and the difficulty of passing in the street due to limited parking

96. Local residents are concerned about the potential increase in traffic within Constance Street and surrounding feeder streets, which are currently managing the amount of traffic at various times of the day. There are concerns in regard to safety of children and persons with a disability trying cross the feeder street. The residents also raised concern to the narrowness of the street and if cars are parked on the street, to pass it is difficult and dangerous and any additional on street parking will only add to the existing situation.

97. Issues relating to traffic were examined by Council’s Traffic Engineer and found to be satisfactory, subject to standard conditions of consent.

98. The proposal also includes 12 on-site carparking spaces, being 7 spaces in excess of the SEPP requirement of 5 spaces for this development.

Overcrowding within the street and a drain on resources given the inadequate water pressure within the street

99. All residents raised this concern, in particular as the water pressure is allegedly inferior in the street, so much so that residents can identify if a neighbour is watering the lawn. There appears to be a long-standing history with this issue and was apparently raised when the DA was lodged for a similar type of development within the street.

100. A condition was imposed on a Land and Environment Consent for a mixed use development on Woodville Road that Sydney Water is to make recommendations to improve the water supply before construction works started. It appears from the residents that whilst they acknowledged that Sydney Water did carry out repairs, this has not to date rectified the problem.

101. Residents are therefore concerned that the water supply lines/pipes are inadequate to manage the supply of water to serve the residents of the street. Therefore the additional 27 units proposed with this current DA would only exacerbate the current situation and impact on the new and existing residents.

102. A recommended condition of consent requires the Department of Housing to liaise with Sydney Water in relation to the connection to the water supply. The issue of water pressure is not one for Council to consider as a determinative issue, as Council is not the service authority for the provision of water. Council merely needs to be assured that water supply is available to the site.

103. Prior to the construction of the development, the Department of Housing will obtain a Section 73 Certificate from Sydney water to ensure that existing facilities will be able to cope with the proposal. The Department of Housing has concurred with the imposition of this condition of consent.

Inadequate infrastructure available to the existing residents due to limited bus services and no service on Sundays, and any proposed development will add more concern to infrastructure

104. Residents advised that the current transport network servicing this area has been reduced and with no bus service available on Sundays. As the proposed development is for seniors living, the occupants of the new development will have expectations that if they have no vehicle that public transport would be provided. Concern was raised that this may not comply with the SEPP for seniors living requirements.

105. This issue is addressed above at Paragraphs 73-79 where it is concluded that the proposal complies with the distance requirements of the SEPP.

Parking arrangements upon the site. Will they comply with SEPP criteria?

106. The residents are concerned that the proposed development nominates 6 car spaces, which will not provide adequate parking on the site considering that development comprises of 1 and 2 bedroom units in which may attract 2 cars per unit.

107. The applicant responded by outlining the proposed parking arrangements and highlighting that the 12 spaces provided (not 5 or 6 as suggested by some residents) comply with the car-parking requirements of the Seniors SEPP.

Explanation on the SEPP for seniors living in relation to the requirement for only one occupant to be aged over 55

108. An explanation to the definition of seniors living was requested as the residents are concerned that whilst it is proposed to accommodate persons over 55 years old, the requirements of the Seniors SEPP allow that only one of the occupant/s have no restriction on age.

109. The concern is based on the perception that residents feel that the area is currently over-supplied with Department of Housing occupants in the street and that this generates crime ranging from theft to assault. Residents indicated that to allow a mixture of ages may add to the existing crime within the street.

110. The Seniors SEPP provides that accommodation on the site may be provided for:

(i) seniors or people who have a disability;

(ii) people who live within the same household with seniors or people who have a disability;

(iii) staff employed to assist in the administration of and provision of services to housing provided under State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

111. ‘Seniors’ is defined as:

(i) People aged 55 years or more,

(ii) People who are resident at a facility at which residential care (within the meaning of the Aged care Act 1997 of the Commonwealth) is provided,

(iii) People who have been assessed as being eligible to occupy housing for aged persons provided by a social housing provider.

112. ‘People with a disability’ is defined by the Seniors SEPP as:

“…people of any age who have, either permanently or for an extended period, one or more impairments, limitations or activity restrictions that substantially affect their capacity to participate in everyday life.”

113. An appropriate condition of consent is recommended to ensure that the dwellings are not occupied other than in accordance with the SEPP.

Design elements can they be amended to reflect single storey development Explanation on the reason for two storeys given the potential age of the occupants

114. The residents queried the need for two-storey development, given that the proposal is for seniors and considered that there is an opportunity to reduce the proposal to a single storey development.

115. The applicant responded to this concern by explaining that the needs of the occupants have been considered with the two-storey design as a lift has been proposed to allow all units to be accessible .The two storey design allows the ability to utilise the site dimensions/area and address the housing shortage in Sydney.

Can a covenant be created to ensure a more consistent development pattern within the Guildford area?

116. The residents are concerned that there is no consistent development plan/ pattern for the Guildford area as there are residential flat buildings on Woodville Rd, seniors living in residential areas and there is no certainty to the future development of the area.

117. Councillor Barber responded by reference to the State Government’s housing strategy and the need for all local government areas to consume additional housing, be it villas to apartments.

118. It is also noted that the Seniors SEPP applies to all urban land, including land not zoned for such purposes provided that it is located adjacent to such and land that permits dwellings of any type, hospitals and special use zones.

Local shops are for sale. This raises the possibility of potential development sites for additional housing resulting in a further drain on services

119. The residents are concerned that the local shops may be redeveloped to become additional housing, placing greater demands on the area and limit the intention of the Seniors SEPP, in that shops should be within walking distance.

120. This is not a relevant consideration at this time, as no development application has been received by Council.

Waste generated from the site and if over-55, the ease in which these bins are moved within the site for collection

121. Concern is raised to waste disposal on the site and the ability for the occupants to manoeuvre their bins to the kerbside for weekly collections.

122. Bins will be stored and collected on-site by a private contractor, therefore there will be no need for bins to be located by the kerb.

Is the footpath to be reinstated?

123. The applicant responded by stating that a footpath for the length of the development will be built as per Council’s requirements. The remainder of the footpath is a matter for the Council to address separate from the assessment of this DA.

The development as proposed is too modern for the area

124. Some residents raised concern with the design of the development and felt that it is a modern design and would be more suited to the new Homebush area than in Guildford.

125. The applicant explained that the modern elements of the design and the use of balconies to the front of the site provide solar access and surveillance of the street. The design also maximises the aspect of the street and outlook.

Increase in Crime in the area

126. Residents allege to have had and continue to experience crime in their streets and, given the proposed development, they are concerned of the potential for a further increase in crime. The residents explained the frequency in which the police attend the street and the concern from Department of Housing staff that visit the occupants of their properties.

127. In addressing this issue, it is submitted that this is part of a broader social concern that is not limited to persons associated with this tenure of housing. The facility is permissible within most zones throughout the Parramatta City LGA.

128. This is not a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 as the proposed use is a legal activity and there is no established nexus, supported by data, between Department of Housing facilities and increased crime.

No social impact statement provided

129. Residents expressed concerns that no social impact statement was submitted with the DA.

130. Whilst all applications at assessment stage are considered on the basis of social impacts on the area and community, the proposal is not required to be accompanied by a social impact assessment or statement.

The concern that this proposed development is not consistent with the approved seniors living in the street

130. Some residents raised further design concerns, in particular, drawing a comparison to existing development in the street to this DA, suggesting single storey development would be more in keeping with the area.

131. As mentioned previously in this report, Council cannot lawfully refuse this DA on the basis of height alone where it complies with the height restrictions imposed by the Seniors SEPP. Notwithstanding this compliance, 2 storey development fronting Constance Street is not inappropriate and is consistent with surrounding development and Council’s planning controls not only for this site, but for the locality.

Councillor Walsh requested that the issue of potential isolation of the adjoining development be addressed

132. Councillor Walsh is concerned, along with some residents, that adjoining residents to the proposed development will be landlocked and have no future potential for development due to the isolation of their parcel of land.

133. Development of the land will not result in adjoining allotments becoming land-locked. There are ample opportunities for allotments both east and west to be consolidated and approval of this DA will not affect this situation.

State of existing department of Housing within the street the gardens not being maintained

134. Some residents raised concern that a number of the Department of Housing sites in the area are not maintained and are not mowed until complaints are made, which is making the street appear unkempt. Concern is that the proposed development may generate similar maintenance issues in the street.

135. This is an issue that is the responsibility of the Department of Housing as part of its site management.

136. Council’s limitations extend to possibly imposing conditions of consent in relation to ongoing maintenance of the site, particularly its landscaping. Accordingly, such a condition is included in the Recommendation.

Land Acquisition by the Department of Housing and devaluation of the resident’s properties as a result of the Seniors SEPP

137. The residents are concerned that if the properties are required in the future, is the value of the home at market value or is the purchase price set by the Department of Housing. This is not a valid planning consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979.

Construction time frames and the management of construction vehicles within the street

138. The residents are concerned about time frames for construction and the management of heavy vehicles during this phase of construction.

139. In response the applicant provide the time frame for completion being approximately 12 months and there would be traffic management controls during construction. It was suggested that this be a condition of consent that a construction management plan be submitted prior to works commencing. An appropriate conditions is included in the Recommendation.

NON-COMPLIANCES

140. The deep soil zone requirements prescribed by the Seniors SEPP are outlined as follows:

Deep soil zones (Clause 81 SEPP)	Minimum 15% of site area (765m²)	815m² (=15.9%)	Yes
Deep soil zones (Clause 81 SEPP)	Two-thirds of zone to be provided at the rear of the site (66% or 505m²)	260m² or 34%	No

141. The requirement for the development to provide two-thirds of the soft soil zone at the rear of the site is the only area within which the proposal fails to satisfy a development standard nominated by the SEPP.

142. The applicant provided the following commentary in relation to the non-compliance:

“After detailed analysis, the layout of the proposed development is considered the most appropriate for the site in terms of neighbourhood amenity and streetscape, and maintenance of visual and acoustic privacy and solar access. As a result, obtaining the preferred deep soil requirement to the rear of the site is unachievable. However, considering the proposal provides 50m² in excess of the minimum deep soil requirement, this non-conformity with the SEPP’s preference is considered justifiable.”

143. In addition to the applicant’s comments in relation to the overall deep soil area of the site, it is also noted that the development exceeds private and communal open space provision and is contained within a density and scale below the maximum achievable on the site.

144. The provided soft soil is still suitable for the site and the non-compliance is not considered to be a significant departure from the controls nominated by the SEPP, having regard to all other factors. In addition, it will not manifest any unreasonable impacts on neighbours or the environment generally.

145. The non-compliance is acceptable, does not result in any unreasonable impacts on the amenity of neighbours and is not sufficient to warrant refusal or modification of the proposal.

146. The standards contained in Division 4 (specifically Clause 50) of the Seniors SEPP are non-discretionary standards and if complied with cannot be used to refuse consent.

147. Section 79C(3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 provides that a provision of an environmental planning instrument that allows flexibility in the application of a development standard may be applied to the non-discretionary development standard.

148. In this regard, some flexibility in its application is permitted without the need to have to consider an objection under SEPP1.

Alan Middlemiss

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Plans	4 Pages
3View	Compliance Table	2 Pages
4View	History of DA	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 28 July 2008

Item 9.4

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER 9.4

SUBJECT 62-66 Robertson Street and 27-29 Zillah Street, Merrylands (Lots 15 Sec 3, 16 Sec 3, 36 Sec 3, 37 Sec 3 and 38 Sec 3 in DP 945) (Woodville Ward)
(Location Map - Attachment 1)

DESCRIPTION Demolition of 5 dwelling houses and construction of a multi unit housing development containing 11 dwellings.

REFERENCE DA/726/2007 - Submitted 4 September 2007

APPLICANT/S Resitech Australia

OWNERS Department of Housing

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 726/2007 that seeks approval for demolition of 5 dwelling houses and construction of a multi unit housing development containing 11 dwellings.

This application is being referred to Council due to the number of submissions received.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 726/2007 subject to standard conditions.

(b) Further that, objectors be advised of Council’s decision.

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The development site consists of 5 separate allotments known as 62, 64 and 66 Robertson Street and 27 and 29 Zillah Street, Merrylands and the legal descriptions are Lots 15 Sec 3, 16 Sec 3, 36 Sec 3, 37 Sec 3 and 38 Sec 3 in DP 945. The subject sites are located on mid blocks between Robertson and Zillah Streets with east to west orientations and a fall of 1.5m from Zillah Street to Robertson Street. Each individual allotment has a 12.19m width and a 45.72m depth resulting in a site area of 557.33m² per site and an overall site area for the development of 2786.65m². Existing improvements on the sites include a single storey detached fibro-cement dwelling on each site and a single car carport on the 62 Robertson Street site.

BACKGROUND

2. A petition containing 80 signatures from surrounding residents opposing the proposed development was tabled at Council’s Regulatory meeting on 8 October 2007, where the following was resolved:

2.1. That the petition be received and noted and the NSW Department of Housing be requested to withdraw the relevant application based on information relayed to the Chamber by The State Member for Granville, that the Minister for Housing would not allow townhouses in this area of South Granville.

2.2. That a delegation be arranged to meet with the Housing Minister and that the State Member make representations on Council’s behalf.

2.3. Further, that in the event the development application is placed before Council, the petition be addressed in the officer’s report.

2.4. In accordance with part 1 of the above resolution, Council’s Group Manager Outcomes and Development sent a request to the Director General of the Department of Housing on 16 October 2007 to withdraw the subject Development Application. In response to Council’s request, the following summarises the response received from the Director General on 26 October 2007:

2.4.1. “The Department has given no indication that it will not proceed with its development applications nor can it give such an undertaking.”

2.5. In accordance with part 2 of the resolution, the Lord Mayors Office contacted the Housing Minister on 3 separate occasions in January and February 2008, to organise a meeting to discuss the proposed development. No response has been forthcoming from the Ministers office to date.

2.6. In accordance with part 3 of the resolution, the petition is addressed in the Consultation section of this report.

3. At the Regulatory Council meeting on 11 February 2008, Council resolved:

3.1. That an immediate inquiry be undertaken to determine why Council’s resolution of 8 October 2007 relating to 27 - 29 Zillah Street, South Granville was not carried out.

3.2. That urgent and immediate action be implemented in order to put into effect Council’s resolution.

3.3. That any further action on the related Development Application be deferred pending the outcome of Council’s resolution.

3.4. Further, that the Acting General Manager report to Council as to what administrative changes need to be put into place to avoid a similar recurrence of this nature.

3.5. In accordance with part 3 of the resolution, an on-site meeting for the proposed development was cancelled and further action on the application was deferred.

4. At the Regulatory Council meeting on 25 February 2008, Council resolved:

4.1. That Acting General Manager Report No 06/2008 be received and noted.

4.2. Further, that the process to complete the assessment of the Development Application for 27 - 29 Zillah Street, South Granville be recommenced, including the provision of an on-site meeting.

4.3. In accordance with part 2 of the resolution, an on-site meeting for the proposed development was held. The issues raised at the on-site meeting are discussed in the On-Site Meeting section of this report.

PROPOSAL

5. The proposed development is on land owned by the NSW Department of Housing (Crown Land). The proposal is DA/726/2007 and seeks consent for demolition of 5 dwelling houses and construction of a multi unit housing development containing 11 dwellings.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

6. The sites are zoned 2B Residential pursuant to the zoning provisions contained in Clause 16 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. Multi unit housing is a permissible form of development within the 2B Residential zone with the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the aims and objectives of the 2B Residential zoning.

7. Pursuant to Clause 39 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001, multi unit housing developments are restricted to a height limit of 2 storeys above ground level. The proposed development includes 3 separate blocks which are part single and part 2 storeys in height. The development is therefore consistent with the height limits prescribed by Clause 39 of PLEP 2001.

8. Pursuant to Clause 40 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001, multi unit housing developments are restricted to a 0.6:1 floor space ratio, which equates to 1672.59sqm of floor space on the 2787.65sqm site. The proposed development includes 1146.94sqm of floor space which equates to a floor space ratio of 0.41:1. The development is therefore consistent with the floor space ratio controls contained in Clause 40 of PLEP 2001.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

9. The provisions of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 apply to this development and have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the plan and achieves compliance with most of the numerical requirements of the plan. A numerical compliance table demonstrating the proposed development’s compliance with PDCP 2005 can be found as attachment 2 to this report. The non-compliances with PDCP 2005 are discussed in the Issues section of this report.

CONSULTATION

10. In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, owners of surrounding properties were given notice of the proposed development between 26 September and 17 October 2007. In response to the notification period, 6 written submissions and 1 petition containing 80 signatures were received. An additional submission was received outside the notification period.

11. Amended plans were received for the application, which were further notified to surrounding properties between 4 July and 18 July 2008. In response, 2 written submissions were received. The issues raised in all the submissions and petition are discussed below.

The site is not suitable for this type of development.

12. Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Development Control Plan 2005 contain specific controls for multi unit housing developments including minimum site frontages and floor space ratio controls, which determine whether a site is suitable for the development.

13. Pursuant to Clause 40 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001, multi unit housing developments are restricted to a 0.6:1 floor space ratio, which equates to 1672.59sqm of floor space on the 2787.65sqm site. The proposed development includes 1146.94sqm of floor space which equates to a floor space ratio of 0.41:1.

14. Section 3.1 of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires a minimum site frontage of 24m for multi unit housing developments. The proposed development site has a dual street frontage with a 36.57m frontage to Robertson Street and a 24.38m frontage to Zillah Street.

15. The development is consistent with the floor space ratio controls contained in Clause 40 of PLEP 2001 and the minimum site frontage controls for multi unit housing developments contained in Section 3.1 of PDCP 2005. The proposed multi unit housing development is therefore suitable for the site.

The existing road network is not capable of supporting such a development.

16. The proposed development was referred to Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer for comment who raised no objection to the proposal on traffic and parking grounds subject to conditions of consent. The conditions recommended by Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer will be included on the consent.

The development will result in a decrease in property values.

17. The potential impact on property values is not identified as a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

Demolition involves the production of waste and should be avoided.

18. Demolition is a permissible development within the 2B Residential zone with the consent of Council. The proposal includes demolition of the existing dwellings on the sites as part of the development. Suitable conditions will be incorporated in the consent to cover demolition including the hours of demolition work, handling and removal of asbestos, the use of licensed demolition contractor/s and the provision of a waste management plan.

Heritage items, structures and heritage precincts should remain intact. Heritage items or structures should not be overwhelmed or overshadowed by new development.

19. The sites are not listed as or located within close proximity to heritage items nor are they within a heritage conservation area and therefore this issue is not related to this application.

Existing trees should be protected as removal of trees increases air pollution. If trees are removed, replacements should be planted.

20. The proposed development includes the removal of 4 trees. The proposal was referred to Council’s Landscape Officer for assessment who raised no concern over the tree removal subject to replacement planting and conditions of consent. Suitable conditions will be imposed on the consent to cover the proposed tree removal and replacement plantings.

Telecommunication antennae and allied structures increase unwanted and dangerous electromagnetic radiation into the natural environment.

21. This issue is not related to this application.

There should be no increase in concrete surfaces.

22. The development does not include excessive concrete surfaces. The development allows for concrete driveways on each side of the development which are not excessively sized and serve the purpose of provide vehicular access to the sites. The development includes landscaped areas covering 46% of the site which is the equivalent of 1277.22sqm. Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires only 40% of the site to be landscaped and so the development provides additional landscaped areas than what is required by PDCP 2005.

Increase in housing or industrial density must not overburden utilities and must allow for sufficient space for children to play.

23. The proposed multi unit housing development achieves a floor space ratio of 0.41:1 which is below the permissible 0.6:1 floor space ratio control for the site. The development is not anticipated to overburden utilities. The development allows for sufficient outdoor areas for children to play with each unit being provided with sufficient private open space areas.

Concern raised over the intent behind the lodgement of Section 96 Modification Applications.

24. The application is not a Section 96 Modification Application and so this issue is not related to this application.

There must be no increase in hours of commercial or industrial activity.

25. The proposed development is not a Section 96 Modification Application seeking increase in hours and so this issue is not related to this application.

Dust and pollution from the development will affect the health of neighbouring residents.

26. Suitable conditions will be placed on the consent including the provision of dust control measures during all works associated with the development and restrictions on noise generation during works associated with the development.

The development will require tenants of the existing dwellings to be relocated. New tenants will pose safety concerns for existing residents.

27. The potential tenants of a development is not identified as a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

The development will result in a loss of sunlight to adjoining properties. The 2 storey development will overshadow the front landscaped area of 26 Zillah Street.

28. Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires a development to provide adequate solar access to new developments and adjoining properties. A minimum of 3 hours solar access between 9am and 3pm at the winter solstice on 21 June is required for dwellings and private open space areas of the development and adjoining properties. The proposed development satisfies the solar access requirements of PDCP 2005 as the dwellings and private open spaces of this development and adjoining properties receive a minimum of 3 hours solar access between 9am and 3pm at the winter solstice on 21 June. Shadow diagrams provided with the development application indicate that the development will not cast any shadows over 26 Zillah Street, which is located on the opposite side of the street to the west of the development site.

All residents in both Zillah and Robertson Streets oppose the development and therefore the development is not in the public interest.

29. The sites are zoned 2B Residential pursuant to the zoning provisions contained in Clause 16 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. Multi unit housing is a permissible form of development within the 2B Residential zone with the consent of Council.

30. The proposed development is consistent with the aims and objectives of the 2B Residential zoning primarily by:

30.1. Enhancing the amenity and characteristics of the established residential area, and

30.2. Encouraging and stimulating further redevelopment of low density housing forms, including dual occupancies and multi unit housing. The proposed development will not compromise the amenity of the surrounding residential area or the natural and cultural heritage of the area, and

30.3. Ensuring that the building form is in character with the surrounding built environment.

31. The proposed development is consistent with the aims, objectives and controls contained in Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Development Control Plan 2005.

32. The proposed development is consistent with the NSW Department of Planning’s Metropolitan Strategy which has identified Parramatta as a “Regional City” with a target of providing an additional 21,000 dwellings within the LGA between 2004 and 2031.

The number of visitor parking spaces proposed for the development is insufficient.

33. Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires multi unit housing developments to provide on site visitor parking spaces at the rate of 0.25 spaces per dwelling. The development includes a total of 11 dwellings which requires the provision of 2.75 visitor car parking spaces. The development allows for a total of 3 on site visitor car parking spaces over the site which is consistent with the requirements of PDCP 2005.

ON-SITE MEETING

34. Council at its meeting of 9 July 2007 resolved that a site meeting be held for Development Applications where five or more submissions have been received. A total of 7 written submissions and 1 petition containing 80 signatures from were received during the first notification period. In accordance with the above resolution, an on-site meeting was held on Thursday 13 March 2008 commencing at 6:00pm. Present at the meeting were Councillor Brown (Chairperson 1), Councillor Borger (Chairperson 2), Ali Hammoud (Development Assessment Officer), Brad Delapierre (Team Leader Development Assessment), approximately 30 residents and 4 representatives on behalf of the applicant. The following issues were raised and discussed at the on-site meeting:

The development is an overdevelopment of the site.

35. At the on-site meeting, Councillor Borger emphasised that multi unit development has been a permissible development in the area for approximately 20 years.

36. Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Development Control Plan 2005 contain specific controls for multi unit housing developments including minimum site frontages and floor space ratio controls, which determine whether a site is suitable for the development.

37. Pursuant to Clause 40 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001, multi unit housing developments are restricted to a 0.6:1 floor space ratio, which equates to 1672.59sqm of floor space on the 2787.65sqm site. The proposed development includes 1146.94sqm of floor space which equates to a floor space ratio of 0.41:1.

38. Section 3.1 of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires a minimum site frontage of 24m for multi unit housing developments. The proposed development site has a dual street frontage with a 36.57m frontage to Robertson Street and a 24.38m frontage to Zillah Street.

39. The development is consistent with the floor space ratio controls contained in Clause 40 of PLEP 2001 and the minimum site frontage controls for multi unit housing developments contained in Section 3.1 of PDCP 2005. The proposed multi unit housing development is therefore suitable for the site and is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.

Dual Occupancy Developments on the sites would be more acceptable.

40. At the on-site meeting, the applicant’s representative emphasised that the Department of Housing does not build to represent the department and that their developments are comparative to private developments.

41. Multi unit housing and dual occupancy developments are both a permissible form of development on the subject site with the consent of Council. The applicant has applied for a multi unit housing development on the subject site, which as previously outlined, is suitable for the subject site.

Residents were concerned that their properties had been rezoned without their knowledge.

42. The subject development site and surrounding properties are zoned 2B residential pursuant to the zoning provisions contained in Clause 16 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001, which was gazetted in December 2001. No rezoning of the subject or surrounding sites has occurred since the gazettal of the LEP.

2 storey townhouses are not permissible in the area and attempts by other residents in the past to build 2 storey dwellings have been refused by Council.

43. The sites are zoned 2B Residential pursuant to the zoning provisions contained in Clause 16 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. Multi unit housing and dwelling houses are a permissible form of development within the 2B Residential zone with the consent of Council.

44. Pursuant to Clause 39 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001, multi unit housing developments are restricted to a height limit of 2 storeys above ground level. The proposed development includes 3 separate blocks which are part single and part 2 storeys in height. The development is therefore consistent with the height limits prescribed by Clause 39 of PLEP 2001.

Manoeuvring within Robertson Street is difficult as residents use on street parking where they own multiple vehicles. Safety of children and residents in the street and would be compromised by this development. Traffic calming devices are required in the street. Accidents occur frequently at the Lavinia Street intersection.

45. The proposed development will create at least 2 additional on street parking spaces on Robertson Street and at least 1 on Zillah Street as the existing 5 driveways and crossovers will be replaced with 2 driveways and crossovers for the overall development.

46. The proposed development was referred to Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer for comment who raised no objection to the proposal on traffic and parking grounds subject to conditions of consent. The conditions recommended by Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer will be included on the consent.

The number of visitor parking spaces proposed as part of the development is insufficient.

47. Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires multi unit housing developments to provide on site visitor parking spaces at the rate of 0.25 spaces per dwelling. The development includes a total of 11 dwellings which requires the provision of 2.75 visitor car parking spaces. The development allows for a total of 3 on site visitor car parking spaces over the site which is consistent with the requirements of PDCP 2005.

The development will result in a decrease in property values.

48. The potential impact on property values is not identified as a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

First floor balconies, which face into neighbouring properties, would have privacy impacts on adjoining residents.

49. Amended plans were submitted to Council on 14 July 2008 which included the deletion of all first floor balconies.

New tenants will be socially unstable and will pose safety concerns for existing residents.

50. The potential tenants of a development is not identified as a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

Driveways of adjoining properties would be blocked during the construction of the development.

51. The submission of a construction management program will be included in the conditions of consent to ensure this does not occur. At the meeting, the applicant’s representatives advised that the Department of Housing follows a construction management plan for all their developments and if any issues arise during construction, contact details for the relevant people are available on the site sign.

ISSUES

Height

52. Section 3.1 of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 limits the height of a row of townhouses, that predominantly faces the side boundary of a site, to 2 storeys for the first 20m of the building and the building is then required to step down to 1 storey. The proposed development includes 2 storey portions up to 22.6m for blocks A and B and block C of the development has a 2 storey first floor which extends 18m.

53. The development does not numerically comply with the height limit contained in Section 3.1 of PDCP 2005 and the applicant has sought a variation to the height limit control. The variation sought is an additional 2.6m for blocks A and B which equate to a 13% variation to the control.

54. The objective of the height control is to ensure that new development is consistent with and promotes the existing character of the area with lower scale development at the rear of the site. The development is effective in satisfying this height objective as the remainder of the blocks are single storey in height. The minor variation is considered acceptable and to have minimal impact on surrounding developments.

Rear Setback

55. The development is inconsistent with the rear setback controls as set out in PDCP 2005 which requires multi unit housing developments to observe a minimum rear boundary setback measuring 15% of the length of the site.

56. The development allows for a 5.9m rear boundary setback for unit 9 of block C which equates to 13% of the 45.72m side boundary. The development also allows for a 6m building separation between blocks A and B with each block observing an individual 3m rear boundary setback. Although the individual blocks do not achieve the minimum rear boundary setback required by PDCP 2005, when combined, the blocks achieve a 6m separation which equates to 13% of each 45.72m side boundary.

57. The minor variation of 1m to the rear boundary setback controls is acceptable as the proposal is able to satisfy the objectives of the rear setback control of PDCP 2005. The objective of the control is to allow for a suitable private open space areas and provide a continuous vegetation corridor between the rear boundaries of the subject property and adjoining properties. The development allows for a substantial and usable private open space area to the rear of the development and also allows for the continuous vegetation corridor.

Deep Soil Zone

58. Section 4.1.10 of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires a minimum 10% of the deep soil zone of a development to be provided as communal open space. The purpose of communal landscaped open space is to provide a deep soil area outside of private courtyards that is planted with trees and landscaping that will mature and contribute to the amenity of the site and locality. In developments with more than one group of attached dwellings, the deep soil communal open space is to be provided between the buildings.

59. A communal open space is not proposed as part of this development. The original proposal included a communal open space area located between the blocks at the centre of the site, however was deleted from the amended proposal by the applicant. The rationale behind the deletion of the communal open space area is that the development will be occupied by tenants by the Department of Housing on a short to mid term basis. Given this, no tenant takes ownership of the communal areas and maintenance of these areas becomes an issue for all tenants. As a result, the development does not include a communal open space area, however includes larger sized courtyard areas for a number of the units. Furthermore, the proposal is able to satisfy the objectives of the communal landscaped open space requirement as the areas between the buildings to the rear of the sites, provide a deep soil area planted with trees and landscaping that will mature and contribute to the amenity of the site and locality.

60. The development includes deep soil zones which have dimensions measuring less than the 4m x 4m required by PDCP 2005. The development achieves a generous overall deep soil zone measuring 39% of the site, which is equivalent to 1080.83sqm. PDCP 2005 requires a multi unit housing development to provide a 30% deep soil zone. The amended development has resulted in an increased overall deep soil zone with reduced dimensions in order to allow for greater setbacks to the northern and southern boundaries. The reduced dimensions for deep soil zones is acceptable given that the development is now able to achieve greater side boundary setbacks to the neighbouring properties.

Private open space

61. The development includes 6 out of the 11 units with Private Open Space areas measuring less than the 40m² required by PDCP 2005. The variations to the Private Open Space controls vary between 2m², which equates to a 5% variation to the control and 0.75m², which equates to a 1.9% variation to the control.

62. The Private Open Space areas of the development are consistent with the objectives of Private Open Space as contained in PDCP 2005. The development ensures that the Private Open Space areas provide residents with quality usable private outdoor living areas for recreational and outdoor activities and are designed for privacy, solar access, and well integrated with living areas.

Ali Hammoud

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Location Map	1 Page
2View	Compliance Table	1 Page
3View	Plans and Elevations	25 Pages
4View	History of Development Application	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Item 10.2 - Attachment 1

Detailed Report - Review of draft Heritage Listing

Detailed report - Review of draft heritage listings

The purpose of this report is to provide the outcomes of a review carried out by Heritage specialists from the Government Architect’s Office of two heritage studies. The review includes recommendations for which heritage listings to proceed with.

BACKGROUND

On 25 September 2006, Council considered a heritage study carried out by heritage consultant, Graham Hall which assessed properties throughout Parramatta which had been identified for potential listing over a period of several years. At this meeting Council resolved to accept the recommendations as draft listings and incorporate them into future Local Environmental Plans.

On 23 July 2007 Council considered a heritage study carried out by heritage consultant, Rod Howard which identified potential new heritage items in Toongabbie and Epping, the proposed extension of the existing Epping/Eastwood Conservation Area and a potential new Conservation Area in Boronia Avenue Epping. At this meeting Council resolved to accept the recommendations as listings in Draft Parramatta LEP 2008. In August 2007 affected residents were advised in writing and information evenings were held in Epping and Toongabbie.

On 10 September 2007, Council considered a report which provided feedback on the information evenings and a summary of submissions received. At this meeting Council resolved to proceed with formal exhibition of the draft listings as part of the comprehensive LEP (Draft Parramatta LEP 2008), and that an independent heritage consultant be engaged to review the draft listings.

On 24 September 2007, Council resolved to not progress with the draft listings of No’s 8, 10 & 12 Lennox Street Toongabbie.

In October 2007, Council had its application for exhibition (Section 65 submission) of the comprehensive LEP rejected by the Department of Planning. As a consequence, the draft listings have not been formally exhibited.

In January 2008, Council engaged heritage specialists from the NSW Government Architect’s Office (GAO) to carry out an independent review of the study and draft listings as per Council’s resolution. It was also included as part of the brief that a review of the previous study by Heritage Architect Graham Hall be carried out.

In February 2008, affected property owners were advised that a review was being carried out and given the opportunity to have a one-to-one meeting with the specialists carrying out the review to discuss their concerns.

On 31 March 2008, interviews with affected property owners were conducted at Council offices and via telephone. A total of eight (8) property owners took up this opportunity.

On 30 April 2008 a workshop was held with Councillors to discuss the preliminary findings of the review.

On 18 June 2008, Council’s Heritage Advisory Committee were briefed on the findings and given opportunity to comment on the review. One submission was received from a representative of the Epping Civic Trust. This submission generally supported the approach and view of the Government Architect’s Office with the exception of the recommendations for 41 Kent Street & 51 Willoughby Street Epping. The Civic Trust has commented that it would prefer that these properties be listed as individual heritage items. It is recommended however that the advice of the Government Architect’s Office be followed and that these properties not be individually listed.

REVIEW PROCESS

As detailed further in attachment 2 under the heading – Methodology (page 1), the review process involved;

· a review of each inventory sheet,

· a site visit of each proposed listing,

· consideration of briefs given to each consultant and general standard of similar heritage studies,

· review of overall adequacy of the resultant Heritage Studies,

· review of the submissions received and one-to-one meetings held with owners,

· general histories of Parramatta and suburban Sydney were referred to for local context and

· where available an examination of architectural typologies and heritage assessments including those in neighbouring LGA’s for comparative analysis.

FINDINGS OF THE REVIEW

The review contains specific comments on the two studies as well as an agreement or otherwise with each of the proposed draft listings. The review also contains some recommendations about future studies and management of heritage generally.

Further comments on each of the listings are provided in Appendix A of the consultants report contained in attachment 2.

Draft Items contained in Graham Hall’s Study

The draft listings/actions supported by Heritage specialists from the Government Architect’s Office (GAO) are;

38 Marsden Street South Parramatta – Page 6 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.8)

40 Marsden Street South Parramatta – Page 6 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.8)

100 Midson Road Epping – Page 6 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.9)

23B Orchard Street Epping – Page7 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.10)

101 Spurway Street Ermington - Page 7 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No. 11)

2-14 Bridge Street Epping - Page 8 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.13)

69 Wigram Street Harris Park - Page 11 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No. 17)

Church hall – 7 St Andrews Street Dundas – (to be removed from Heritage list) Page 11 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.18)

The draft listings/actions not supported by the Government Architect’s Office are;

21 Prince Street North Parramatta - Page 1 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.1)

8 Rose Crescent North Parramatta – Page 1 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.2)

12 Rose Crescent North Parramatta - Page 1 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.2)

14 Rose Crescent North Parramatta - Page 1 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.2)

16 Rose Crescent North Parramatta - Page 1 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.2)

19 Sutherland Road North Parramatta – Page 2 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.3)

26 Sutherland Road North Parramatta - Page 2 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.3)

31 Sutherland Road North Parramatta - Page 2 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.3)

33 Sutherland Road North Parramatta - Page 2 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.3)

35 Sutherland Road North Parramatta - Page 2 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.3)

95 Isabella Street North Parramatta - Page 3 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.4)

97 Isabella Street North Parramatta - Page 3 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.5)

99 Isabella Street North Parramatta - Page 4 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.6)

41 Kent Street Epping - Page 4 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.7)

51 Willoughby Street Epping - Page 7 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No. 12)

85 Lanhams Road Winston Hills – Bunya Pine - Page 9 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.14)

Huxley Drive (John Curtin Reserve/Moxham Park) Winston Hills (fmr convict roadway to quarry) - Page 10 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.15)

Oakes Road Old Toongabbie – convict steps - Page 10 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.16)

Draft Items contained in Rod Howard’s Study

The draft listings/actions supported by Heritage specialists from the Government Architect’s Office (GAO) are;

17 Grandview Pde, Epping – Page 20 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.32)

61 Kent St, Epping - Page 21 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.33)

Extension to Epping/Eastwood Conservation Area - Page 22 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.35)

Boronia Avenue Group Conservation Area - Page 23 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No. 36)

The draft listings/actions not supported by the Government Architect’s Office are;

52 Caloola Rd Wentworthville - Page 12 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No. 19)

83 Binalong Rd Pendle Hill - Page 12 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.20)

101 Binalong Rd Toongabbie - Page 13 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.21)

52 Bungaree Rd Toongabbie - Page 13 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.22)

101 Ballandella Rd Toongabbie - Page 14 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.23)

18A Lamonerie Rd Toongabbie - Page 15 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.24)

4 Fryer Avenue Wenworthville - Page 15 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No. 25)

41 Lower Mount St, W’ville - Page 16 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No. 26)

50 Lower Mount St W’ville - Page 17 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.27)

28 Ferndale Close W’ville - Page 17 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.28)

4 Doig St, W’ville - Page 17 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.29)

28 & 30 Francis St, Epping - Page 18 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.30)

1 & 2 Duncan Pce Epping - Page 19 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.31)

119 Midson Rd, Epping - Page 21 of appendix A in attachment 2 (GAO ref No.34)

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

In addition to providing advice on the proposed individual listings, the report by the Government Architect’s Office also recommended that several of the draft items be incorporated into either an existing conservation area or a new conservation area potentially created. These and the issues of conservation areas are discussed below under relevant headings.

Extension of the Epping/Eastwood Conservation Area

The proposed extension of the Epping/Eastwood Conservation Area has been agreed to by the Government Architect’s Office in its entirety. This extension would effectively join the existing smaller pocket of the Wyralla Avenue Conservation Area with the existing larger area to the south and east. A map indicating the existing and proposed conservation areas in Epping is included in attachment No.3

The Government Architect’s Office (GAO) has not agreed with the listing of No 41 Kent Street as an individual item. This item was recommended by the Graham Hall Study for listing. The GAO has suggested that whilst not sufficiently meeting the criteria for individual listing it may be appropriate to incorporate the property into the Wyralla Avenue Conservation Area. A diagram in page 5 of appendix A (item 7) in attachment No. 2 identifies the area in question. This would also involve extending the conservation area to include No. 39 Kent Street. No 39 Kent Street contains a relatively new dwelling (constructed in 1996). Whilst the inclusion of No.39 would result in a non-contributory item within the conservation area, this is not uncommon throughout conservation areas and it is felt that this is an appropriate way to deal with No. 41 Kent Street. The owners of No. 41 have raised objection to both the individual listing or inclusion within a conservation area.

It has also been suggested by the Government Architect’s Office that No.26 Kent Street be included in the new conservation area so as to not leave a hole in between the Wyralla and Epping/Eastwood Conservation Areas. This property also contains a relatively new dwelling but inclusion would ensure that any future re-development/alterations to this property would be done in accordance with DCP guidelines for Conservation Areas.

Boronia Avenue

The GAO have agreed with the creation of the proposed ‘Boronia Avenue’ conservation area also identified in Attachment No 3. The GAO has also suggested that the draft Boronia Avenue Conservation Area be extended at each end slightly to include No’s 1, 33 & 35 Boronia Avenue as well as Duncan Park & the Croquet Club. No’s 1 & 33 Boronia Avenue have been modified, however, it was felt that by there inclusion and any future DCP guided modifications that they would contribute more strongly to the group. The croquet club is currently a listed item under Council’s LEP. It is recommended that the Boronia Avenue Conservation area proceed and that affected property owners be advised.

Rose Crescent

No’s 8,12,14 & 16 Rose Crescent, North Parramatta were recommended in Graham Hall’s Report as draft items of local significance. The GAO report has not agreed with individual listings of these 1930’s brick dwellings and suggested that, as an alternative, Council consider incorporating these properties into the nearby Jeffrey Avenue Special Character Area and potentially creating this area as a Conservation Area. The area in question is identified in Appendix B of attachment 2.

This would involve approximately 100 properties being included in a Conservation Area rather than a special character area currently identified under Parramatta DCP 2005.

The GAO have advised that this is a suggestion only as a possible alternate means of managing these items and acknowledged that further work would need to be done to establish boundaries, conduct relevant historic research, carry out more detailed field work and consultation with owners.

It is felt that due to the number of properties involved and the work for which there is currently no budgetary allocation under this project, that this area is best deferred until a more comprehensive LGA wide heritage review is carried out.

Sutherland Road

No’s 19, 26, 33 & 35 Sutherland Road were recommended in Graham Hall’s report as draft items of local significance. The GAO report has not agreed with the individual listing of these dwellings and similarly to Rose Crescent suggested Council consider incorporating these into the adjacent Sutherland Road Special Character Area and create a Conservation area. The area in question is identified in Appendix C of attachment 2. This would involve approximately 50 properties being included in a Conservation Area rather than a special character area as currently under Parramatta DCP 2005.

It is felt that this area is also best to be deferred until a comprehensive LGA wide heritage review is carried out.

‘Convict’ steps & roadway

In respect to the draft listing of the former ‘convict’ roadway in Huxley Drive, Winston Hills & the ‘convict’ steps in Oakes Road, Toongabbie, (page 10 of appendix A in attachment 2 -GAO ref No.15 & 16) the GAO has advised that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate and support the listing of these two items and that further historical research would need to be carried out. It is recommended that these two items be further investigated when a comprehensive LGA wide heritage review is carried out.

General

In the project brief the GAO were also asked as part of the review to provide any other guidance on heritage management generally or specifically related to the two studies.

In regard to management of heritage from the Post World War 2 period there is currently very little listed (Sydney wide). There is an emerging appreciation for this period in the community but as it is relatively recent with many individual items and streetcapes falling in this period, an LGA wide study based on historical, community and field research is required. It was also suggested that exactly how much, if any, from this period needs to be conserved is largely a matter for the community.

Post dating both the studies is a recent publication entitled Community Based Heritage Studies: A Guide (NSW Heritage Branch DoP NSW 2007). This document may help guide future studies. The guide emphasises the need for greater community involvement in the process.

Some of the other broader suggestions to come out of the review included;

* the preparation of a forward 10 year program outlining a way to keep PCC heritage listings up to date, including consideration of thematic heritage studies/reviews.

* the avoidance of studies and reviews of isolated geographic areas (hinders comparative analysis)

* review materials sent to owners – avoid generalised statements on impact

* retention of existing provision of area specific DCP’s and access to advice

* review opportunities for heritage incentives

* consider a broader consultation process about the value the community places on retaining and managing heritage values.

CONCLUSION

The management of local heritage represents a challenge for all local Council’s. There are usually competing priorities between individual property owners and the notion of the retention of items of significance for the benefit of the broader community. Adding to the challenge is the fact that heritage is not a static thing and is constantly evolving. For example, a dwelling that once may not have been deemed noteworthy many years ago may now hold special significance in an area.

The appropriate and successful conservation and management of heritage contributes to the unique character and history of an area which can contribute to a community’s sense of identity.

Parramatta Council currently has a very high number of individual items listed (approximately 1100). Exactly which and how many examples of certain buildings should be retained will likely never be totally agreed upon by every community member and owner. The number of studies and extent of analysis and consultation are also unfortunately likely to be constrained by the financial cost of undertaking such work. However, resulting from the review of these two studies has been some useful guidance and principles which PCC should seek to incorporate into the future management of Parramatta’s Heritage.

WHAT NEXT?

As incorporated in the report it is recommended that Council proceed with the listings where agreed to by the Government Architect’s Office. As a process, the comprehensive draft LEP 2008 would be the means of implementation of the listings. Once the draft LEP proceeds to public exhibition all property owners and the community will have the opportunity to comment before Council makes a final decision regarding the listings. Until such time as formal exhibition occurs, as a courtesy, it is recommended that affected property owners be advised of the outcome of the review.

Item 13.2 - Attachment 1

Minutes of Access Advisory Committee Meeting 3 June 2008

MINUTES OF THE ACCESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD IN MEETING ROOM 3, GROUND FLOOR, COUNCIL CHAMBER BUILDING, CIVIC PLACE, PARRAMATTA ON TUESDAY, 3 JUNE 2008, COMMENCING AT 5.30PM.

PRESENT

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

IN ATTENDANCE

Donna Mosford – Community Capacity Building Officer, Beth Collins – Team Leader, Home Support and Community Care and Michael Wearne – Administration Officer.

1. WELCOME

The Acting Chairperson, Debbie Manuel, welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked them for attending.

2. APOLOGIES

An apology was received and accepted for the absence of the Chairperson - John Moxon.

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 1 April 2008 had previously been forwarded to each member.

RESOLUTION (Barbara Jones/Leone Clark)

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Access Advisory Committee held 1 April 2008 be taken as read and confirmed as a true record of the meeting.

5. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE PREVIOUS MINUTES

5.1 Railway Stations Inspections

Peter Simpson has completed the Access Audit Inspections on the Parramatta, Westmead, Granville, Pendle Hill, Epping and Wentworthville Railway Stations. Peter has compiled a report on his findings and placed this report on to a CD for distribution.

ACTION: Donna Mosford to pass on the Railway Accessibility Inspection Report from Peter Simpson to the appropriate officer within Council.

Donna advised that Committee members should lodge a Customer Service Request with Council if they have any other access concerns regarding Railway Stations or other areas with in the Parramatta Local Government Area (LGA). This is the quickest way to engage appropriate Council staff in any necessary actions and ensures requests are recorded in the system.

During discussion on this matter the Committee raised ongoing concerns with the decreasing number of Disabled parking spots in the CBD; it was recently noticed that a Disabled parking spot outside the Blood Bank on George Street, has now disappeared.

ACTION: Donna to contact Richard Searle from Council’s Traffic Section and seek a response to the Committee’s concerns regarding the decrease of Disabled parking spots in the CBD.

5.2 International Day of People with a Disability (IDWPD)

The Committee agreed to hold the next IDWPD Sub-Committee meeting on Tuesday, 17 June 2008, in the Ground Floor Meeting Room of Council’s Darcy Street Building, commencing at 4pm.

6. ‘YOU’RE WELCOME PROJECT’ ACCESS AUDIT UPDATE

Donna Mosford advised the Committee that a previous Access Review of Granville has been checked by Peter Simpson and suggested it may be more appropriate to ask John Evernden from the ‘You’re Welcome Project’ to focus on another area in the Parramatta LGA.

Peter added that although there is still much work to be done in regards to accessibility around Granville Town Centre in future works, the Access Review is a relatively comprehensive document and according to Peter, is considered an adequate reference for access-related design in the current plans for Granville.

In light of the existing Access Review for Granville, Donna asked the Committee for other possible locations for John Evernden to carry out an Access Audit.

RESOLUTION (Jim Grainda/Debbie Manuel)

That pending John Evernden’s availability, the Committee ask him to carry out an Access Audit on the Dundas and Telopea Railway Stations.

ACTION: Donna to contact John Evernden and advise all Committee members of the details for above mentioned Access Audit.

7. JOHN RAYMOND LETTER

As requested by the member’s at the previous Access Advisory Committee meeting, Donna has sent a second follow up letter to John Raymond to confirm the termination of his membership on the Committee. Donna has received no response from John Raymond.

RESOLUTION (Debbie Manual/Jim Grainda)

That John Raymond’s membership on the Access Committee be terminated and Donna to send a letter to John thanking him for his contribution.

8. GENERAL BUSINESS

8.1 Bus Routes

Barbara Jones and Leone Clark have written to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) regarding the decline in Bus Services and changes to Bus Routes in the Parramatta LGA. Barbara and Leone tabled their letter and the response received from HREOC.

Hills Bus is in the process of updating their services and the letter from Barbara and Leone included the following concerns about the proposed new Routes:-

· More direct routes replacing routes that serviced the suburbs;

· More routes along main roads that do not service those who live in suburban streets or close to a main road;

· Bus stop proximity to increase to 400 metres on weekdays and 800m on weekends.

Barbara advised that these concerns were highlighted in the letter as they will have a major impact on people with a disability or people with a mobility problem when they wish to catch a bus.

Barbara advised that both she and Leone wanted to bring HREOC’s response to the attention of the Committee. One positive is that the different levels of Government will be consulted when the Bus Routes are to be determined in the future.

Barbara also stated that State Member for Parramatta – Tanya Gadiel MP has been very helpful and supportive in this campaign. Tanya been collecting survey results and talking to other Ministers about Bus Route issues and the effects of the proposed changes.

Donna advised the Committee that she would forward a copy of this letter to the Senior Transport Planner – David Gray, for his information.

During further discussion on this matter, the Committee agreed that they would like Council Officers to be actively involved in assessing Bus Routes changes when they are proposed by State Government to try and rectify problems before decision are made.

8.2 George Mannix

Donna Mosford advised the Committee that George Mannix had taken up a new role within Council for the next 12 months as the Service Manager, Major Events and Sponsorship Team.

A new member of the Community Capacity Building Team will work with Donna to convene the Access Advisory Committee meetings when they are appointed. The Committee thanked George for his work and commitment.

NEXT MEETING

Access Advisory Committee Meeting

Tuesday, 5 August 2008, 5:30pm

Ground Floor Meeting Room 3

Council Chambers Building

Civic Place, Parramatta

Meeting concluded at ~~The meeting concluded at~~ 6.47pm~~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~~

Item 13.5 - Attachment 1

ATSI Advisory Committee Minutes 27th May 2008

MINUTES OF THE ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD IN ROOM 1, GROUND FLOOR, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, PARRAMATTA ON TUESDAY 27^th May 2008 AT 6.23 PM.

__________________________________________________________________________

PRESENT

Mr Bruce Gale (in the Chair), Linda McDonald, Doug Desjardines, June Magrath, Marcia Donovan, Anne Castles, Lyn Leerson, Annie Nielsen, Phil Russo, Clr Walsh and Clr Barber (departed at 7.17pm) and Phil Bradley (arrived at 6.48pm).

OBSERVERS

Anne Stonham

IN ATTENDANCE

Ms Maggie Kyle – Community Capacity Building Officer; Tanya Bigeni – Events and Project Officer, Elise Mawhood – Minute taker, Graeme Riddell – Service Manager Council Support (departed at 7.00pm)

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

Bruce Gale welcomed members, observers and PCC staff to the meeting.

3 CHAIRPERSON’S REMINDER REGARDING MEETING PROTOCOLS

Meeting protocol reminder was noted.

4 APOLOGIES

Apologies were received and accepted for the absence of Gilson Saunders, John Robertson and Kerry Kenton.

5 CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

No conflicts of interest noted.

6 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

A copy of the minutes of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting held on 29^th April 2008 had previously been forwarded to each member.

It was noted that that the ‘a’ in Aboriginal, noted in line 2 of Minute 9.4 be amended to be a capital ‘A’.

RECOMMENDATION (Russo/McDonald)

The minutes of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting held on 29^th April 2008 be taken as a true record of the meeting.

7 BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING 29^TH APRIL 2008

7.1 Maggie Kyle reported that she had reviewed the last 12 months of the Committee’s minutes and the Committee had not made a recommendation to Council that a plaque be placed at Lake Parramatta acknowledging the work of Phil Russo in Council apologising in 1998 to the Stolen Generations.

The Committee agreed that Council should place another plaque at Lake Parramatta which acknowledged Phil Russo’s work as a Councillor, in Council determining to apologise to the Stolen Generations.

RECOMMENDATION (Gale/McDonald)

That Council place another plaque at Lake Parramatta which acknowledges Phil Russo’s work as a Councillor, in Council determining to apologise to the Stolen Generatons in 1998.

7.2 Maggie Kyle reported that she had not received any feedback from the Committee on the letter drafted by Lyn Leerson to the Honourable Julie Owens expressing the Committee’s concerns regarding the Northern Territory intervention. The Committee agreed that the letter did not need any changes and could be sent.

RECOMMENDATION (Nielson/Russo)

That the letter drafted by Lyn Leerson to the Honourable Julie Owens expressing the Committee’s concerns regarding the Northern Territory intervention needed no changes and could be sent.

7.3 Maggie Kyle reported that she had spoken to Council’s Home Support Services and had been informed that 10 people who have identified as Aboriginal are currently using these services. She had also handed on the name and contact details of Kels Lawn and Garden Service as requested. Maggie Kyle also noted that the Service Manager Home Support and Community Services had attended a Committee meeting in the past to inform members about Council’s services and that she would be happy to attend again should they wish her too.

Councillor Maureen Walsh also suggested that Kel’s Lawn and Gardening Service and other Aboriginal businesses could possibly benefit from Council’s Social Enterprise program including the Social Enterprise Grants. The Social Enterprise Grant opens in September 2008 and offers up to $10,000 per applicant. Business are eligible if they plan to or currently do provide employment to people who are traditionally excluded from employment opportunities. Maggie Kyle reported that Joanne McNeill would welcome the opportunity to talk to the ATSI Committee about the Social Enterprise Grants and how Council can help the ATSI community access this grant money and assisting them in preparing an application.

7.4 The Committee’s Executive reported that Council Officers Stephan Jaeggi and Troy Holbrook had attended the Executive meeting immediately prior to the Committee meeting and they had further discussed the issues regarding the naming of the Campbell Hill Pioneer Park. Stephan Jaeggi had agreed to email different names with their meaning and history to the Executive members for further deliberation and discussion.

Clr Maureen Walsh suggested that Phil Gordon of the Australian Museum may also be able to assist in the consultation process. Clr Walsh is able to provide Phil Gordon’s contact details to Stephan Jaeggi.

8 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS – COMMUNITY INFORMATION

Graeme Riddell – Service Manager Council Support (9806 5019), presented information to the committee concerning the upcoming Local Government Elections, in particular how people can stand as a candidate for election. Graeme Riddell reported that he had been presenting this information to each of Council’s Advisory Committees over the past month and has asked that Advisory Committee members relay information to organisations and communities they are connected with.

Graeme Riddell provided copies of the Department of Local Government handout entitled ‘So you’re thinking of becoming a Local Government Councillor’.

He 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.

Clr Walsh also provided information around deadlines for party pre-selections, and suggested that the best way to run, at this late stage, would be as an independent.

Clr Walsh informed Committee members that if they were talking to people in the community who were not enrolled to vote, that they should encourage them to do so. She also noted that they would not be fined for not having been enrolled however, as a precaution it was suggested that they contact their Local Member who could support their application.

9 SORRY DAY REVIEW

Maggie Kyle asked the Committee members for their feedback regarding the Sorry Day event held on Monday 26^th May 2008. Members who attended agreed the event was a success. The following specific comments were made: Phil Russo commented that he thought the catering was excellent, however Doug Desjardine thought the salad dressing was too strong.

Doug Desjardine thought it was excellent that Tanya Gadiel MP, the Lord Mayor, Clr Walsh, and Clr Jamal attended, however expressed his disappointment that other Councillors were not present.

Doug Desjardine, supported by other Committee members, thought it was wonderful that Council’s ATSI staff participated throughout the Sorry Day 2008 function and felt it was important that ATSI staff are represented and participate in all future ATSI events.

RECOMMENDATION (Russo/Desjardine)

That all Aboriginal workers within Parramatta City Council continue to be invited to attend and participate in all future Council ATSI events.

The Committee agreed that Grahame Davis King did a wonderful job playing the Didgeridoo during the event.

It was brought to the attention of the Committee that staff from the Attorney General’s Department who were invited to attend the Sorry Day 2008 event at Lake Parramatta did not arrive on time due to local transport issues (namely the taxi driver did not know where Lake Parramatta was). It was suggested that future invitations for events at Lake Parramatta should have specific directions detailed.

RECOMMENDATIONS (McDonald/Desjardine)

That Council write to the relevant staff at the Attorney Generals Department (Aboriginal Justice Centre) to thank them for their efforts in attending the Sorry Day 2008 event and expressing the Committee’s hope they attend the Sorry Day 2009 event.

That staff from the Aboriginal Justice Centre be invited to address the ATSI Advisory Committee after NAIDOC had passed, to talk about social justice issues.

RECOMMENDATION (McDonald/Desjardine)

That letters of thanks be send to the Honourable Tanya Gadiel MP and those Councillors who attended the Sorry Day 2008 event.

RECOMMENDATION (Russo/Desjardine)

That Aboriginal workers at Parramatta City Council continue to be represented at the Local Government Aboriginal Network conference.

10 BURRAMATTA NAIDOC 2008 PLANNING

10.1 Tanya Bigeni updated the Committee on the following:

(a) The Lions Club would do the BBQ at the Family Fun Day and that a donation of $400 would be paid.

(b) The RTA banner has been booked for the corner of James Ruse Drive and Kissing Point Road north bound.

(d) A letter inviting the Koori Line Dancers to participate in the NAIDOC celebrations has been sent. Council is still waiting on their confirmation.

(e) There are currently 5 stallholders applications, however, past trends have shown that a flood of applications tend to be received close to the event. Committee members were asked to continue to encourage community organisations to forward store holder applications to Tanya Bigeni. It was further noted that Committee members must vote on stall holder applications at the next meeting. Doug Desjardines reported that he has rung and promoted the stalls to Department of Veterans Affairs, NSW Land Council, Department of Fair Trading, and the Lands Department. They will contact Tanya Bigeni.

(f) The secured sponsors are: Northmead Butcher who will donate the time required to cut the Kangaroo Meat and John Miller who will donate 300 caps.

(g) The posters were presented to the Committee and it was reported that the DL flyers are currently being approved and will be ready for print Thursday 29^th May 2008. Tanya Bigeni reported that she would post out a handful of the flyers to each of the Committee members.

(h) It was suggested the Art Exhibition be shown at Parramatta Library during the build up to NAIDOC 2008 week, however this requires a lot of behind the scenes work in the Library and therefore will not take place during the 2008 NAIDOC celebrations, but will form part of the 2009 NAIDOC event.

10.2 The Committee agreed to use Munki Munk, at a cost of $500, as the Master of Ceremonies for the NAIDOC Family Day.

10.3 Members discussed their role/s at the Family Fun Day and agreed on the following:

(a) All Committee Members would be Ambassadors on the day representing the Committee, welcoming people and explaining the role of the Committee. They would also interview people and ask them to complete the evaluation forms. It was agreed that asking people to fill in an evaluation form was a good lead in to a conversation about the Committee and its role in Council.

(b) John Robertson was nominated to man the Arts stall, with other ATSI members rotating.

(d) It was suggested that Council’s Aboriginal staff be on the Council Information stall with ATSI members rotating and supporting staff.

10.4 Tanya Bigeni suggested that Grahame Davis King be invited to participate in the NAIDOC celebrations, as his performance at the Sorry Day event had been very good. However, the Committee requested that Flynn Donovan be invited instead. Tanya Bigeni informed the Committee that numerous attempts to contact Flynn Donovan had been made to no avail.

Linda McDonald provided contact details for Flynn Donovan (withheld from public minutes) and requested that Tanya Bigeni try to contact him again with a view to having him be the didgeridoo player.

After further discussion the Committee agreed that both didgeridoo players should be invited to participate.

10.5 Bruce Gale informed the committee that the Commander of HMAS Parramatta is interested in participating in the NAIDOC celebrations. Bruce Gale will supply contact details to Tanya Bigeni to follow up on their offer of involvement.

10.6 Ann Stonham reported that CSR can supply Fairy Floss machines at a cost of $75 each which included sugar and colouring. Ann Stonham also nominated her husband Greg Stonham to assist with the running of the Fairy Floss machine. The Committee agreed that Tanya would contact CSR and order a machine for the day.

10.7 Clr Maureen Walsh will provide contact details for the Australian Football League to Tanya Bigeni who will invite them to be involved in the Family Day celebration.

10.8 Clr Maureen Walsh also suggested members of the Cyclways Committee may be interested in participating in the Family Day event to run workshops on repairing bikes. Maureen Walsh will discuss this further with Tanya Bigeni.

10.9 The Committee discussed the purchase on new jackets for all Committee members. The Executive Committee stated that they disagreed with the statements made at the last meeting by Maggie Kyle and Tanya Bigeni that the original decision to purchase jackets in 2007 was for a one off purchase and that only new Committee members and staff would be supplied with new jackets in the future.

It was reported by Doug Desjardines that the Executive felt strongly that the Committee should receive new jackets for all Committee members and Aboriginal staff.

Maggie Kyle and Tanya Bigeni stated that they were concerned that the Burramatta NAIDOC budget was to be spent on community based events and that purchasing jackets for all Committee members would mean less to spend on the community.

The Committee discussed the issue and agreed that those members who wished to receive a new jacket could do so. Members will supply Maggie Kyle with their required size prior to 30^th May 2008.

10.10 Tanya Bigeni and Maggie Kyle asked the Committee to clarify how the Kangaroo BBQ NAIDOC celebration at Parramatta Goal had been organised in previous years. Members were unsure but advised Council staff to contact Superintendent Kisuak. In previous years, the BBQ was not organised until 2 weeks before the event.

RECOMMENDATION McGrath/Desjardine

That the Kangaroo BBQ NAIDOC celebration at Parramatta Gaol be organised and Executive members of the Committee will attend.

11. GENERAL BUSINESS & INFORMATION SHARING

11.1 The Committee accepted the applications for membership of the Committee by Anne Stonham, Gregory Stonham and Adam Bell.

RECOMMENDATION (Bradley/Donovan)

That Anne Stonham, Gregory Stonham and Adam Bell’s applications to become members of Parramatta City Council ATSI Advisory Committee be accepted.

11.2 Linda McDondald described some newly released films directed by Aboriginal young people. She suggested these may be available for screening during NAIDOC week. Linda MacDonald will forward further information to Maggie Kyle.

11.3 Annie Neilson and Philip Bradley provided the Committee with an update of their recent South America trip. They reported they had met with the Vice President of the Latin American Indigenous Parliament, and expressed their shame that Australia was one of only four countries not onboard with United Nations Convention regarding Indigenous Peoples. The Reconciliation Committee will continue to campaign that this decision be reversed.

11.4 Annie Nelson and Philip Bradley asked the Committee for their suggestions on inviting and encouraging local young Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander activists to attend the Indigenous Would Youth Conference which will be held in South America between the 18-24^th June 2008. The participants would need to pay their own airfare but once at the conference all other costs are covered. Members suggested securing financial support from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, NSW Lands Council or the Honourable Peter Garret.

11.5 Doug Desjardine described to the Committee an incident which had happened at Long Bay Gaol over the past weekend. Due to chairs in the visitor section of Long Bay Gaol being broken, only one family member, rather than three, were allowed to visit the prisoners. Staff told family members that it was an Occupational Health and Safety issue and there were no exceptions. This was only communicated to visitors on arrival. Many family members had travelled long distances including from Dubbo, Orange and further and were very upset. The Committee agreed that this was distressing for families and prisoners and should not have happened.

Doug Desjardine noted the recent article written by John Lyons called ‘Suburb in trouble, with and without men’ which was in The Australian newspaper on Saturday May 24^th 2008. (Attachment 1) This article is based on the Aboriginal Community in La Perouse.

RECOMMENDATIONS (Desjardine/McDonald)

That Western Sydney Reconciliation look into the incident at Long Bay Gaol and advocate that it does not happen again.

That a letter be written on behalf of the Committee to the Honourable Ministers Paul Lynch and John Hatzistergos outlining the incident at Long Bay, asking for an explanation as to why the incident had occurred and seeking clarification regarding what steps would be put in place to prevent it from re-occurring.

Clr Maureen Walsh also offered to send a letter regarding the issue.

Doug Desjardine also described the Art Gallery located at Long Bay Gaol and reported that it has a fantastic collection of Aboriginal artwork.

11.6 It was clarified for Clr Maureen Walsh that the Committee’s Minutes of 29^th April 2008 referred to a letter from Council regarding the naming of the Park being received by Kerrie Kenton as a result of it being forwarded by the Honourable Laurie Ferguson, Member of Parliament. There was no intention that the minutes reported the letter had been written by Laurie Ferguson office. Further, that Kerrie Kenton and other Committee members were grateful Laurie Ferguson’s office had forwarded the letter as otherwise they would not have known about the plans to name the park.

Next Meetings

ATSI Advisory Executive Meeting

Room 1, Ground Floor Council Chambers, Parramatta

Tuesday 24^th June 2008, 5:00 - 6:00 pm

ATSI Advisory Committee Meeting

Room 1, Ground Floor Council Chambers, Parramatta

Tuesday 24^th June 2008, 6:00 - 8:00 pm

The Meeting concluded at 8.15pm

Ordinary Council 28 July 2008

Item 13.6

COMMUNITY CARE

ITEM NUMBER 13.6

SUBJECT Presentation to Councillor Workshop from City of Sydney Council on 9 July 2008

REFERENCE F2007/00732 - D00981288

REPORT OF Service Manager Community Capacity Building

PURPOSE:

To provide information to Councillors in regard to the workshop presentation from City of Sydney Council regarding the ‘Safe City Strategy’

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive and note the information from City of Sydney Council regarding their Safe City Strategy

BACKGROUND

1. At its Ordinary Meeting of 26 May 2008, Council deferred a report on the Parramatta Liquor Accord pending further information from City of Sydney Council regarding their Safe City Strategy. The earlier report appears as attachment 1 to this report.

PRESENTATION FROM CITY OF SYDNEY COUNCIL

2. On 9 July 2008, a Councillor workshop was held in which Ms Suzie Matthews, Manager Social Policy and Community Support, City of Sydney Council provided presentation on the City of Sydney Council’s Safe City Strategy and answered questions from Councillors regarding the implementation of the strategy and various initiatives undertaken by the City of Sydney Council.

3. In attendance at the workshop were: Councillors Barber, Esber, Wilson, Jamal, Finn, and Lim. The following PCC staff were also present: A/ Manager Community Library & Social Services, Service Manager Community Capacity Building and Social Policy and Planning Officer.

4. Ms. Matthews provided an overview of the City of Sydney’s Local Government Area and identified the unique challenges facing the City of Sydney, particularly in relation to crime prevention and safety. Of note, were the following statistics:

(a) 26.15sq km

(b) 160,000 residents

(d) 400,000+ daily visitors

(e) 43% of the population are aged 20 - 40 years

(f) 35% of the population are born overseas

(g) 10% public housing

(h) 7 Police Local Area Commands

(i) 2 Area Health Services

(j) The City hosts landmark events – NYE, Mardi Gras, Sydney Festival (can bring up to an extra 1 million people into the city)

(k) 3 major landmark entertainment areas

(l) Several smaller local entertainment areas

(m) Nearly 2000 licensed premises

(n) Greatest concentration of 24 hours trading premises in Australia.

5. The following statistics were also provided in regard to alcohol related crime in the City of Sydney:

2006-2007

(a) 75% of all crime in City of Sydney is alcohol related

(b) 2,558 alcohol related assaults in City of Sydney

(d) City Central – 774 per 100 000 (No. 1 alcohol related assaults in NSW)

6. The presentation outlined a range of strategies utilised by the City of Sydney to enhance safety within the City and its various entertainment precincts.

7. The objectives of the Safe City Strategy are as follows:

(a) Reduce crime and anti-social behaviour

(b) Tackle complex crime in public housing

(d) Primary prevention & early intervention

(e) Target first time offenders released from prison

(f) Strengthen communities

(g) Advocate to other levels of government

(h) Safe City Strategy.

8. The strategy takes a holistic and integrated approach to crime prevention and safety and relies heavily on partnerships with various stakeholders including, but not limited to, State Government partners, business, licensed premises and community members. Some of the initiatives being rolled out under the strategy include:

Reduce crime and anti-social behaviour:

(a) Address assaults

(b) Target steal from motor vehicle

(d) Tackle victimisation of international students

(e) Provide crime prevention information to residents & business

(f) Delivering localised crime prevention plans

Tackle Complex Crime in Public Housing:

(a) Deliver the Creating a Safer Community Project

(b) Establish a Public Housing Liaison Officer position

(d) Attend relevant forums

Improve the Look & Feel of the Built Environment:

(a) Deliver good urban design

(b) NSW Police CPTED Referral Protocol

(c) Deliver CCTV camera network ($4.5 million initial outlay, $3million upgrade 2007, $1.2 million annual development budget)

(d) Initiate community safety audits

(e) Rapid graffiti removal ($1million annual budget)

(f) Improved street lighting

(g) Reactivation of laneways and parks

Primary Prevention and Early Intervention:

(a) Increase opportunities for recreation and learning.

(b) Invest in programs that increase chances of vulnerable children and young people at key transition points in life.

Target first time offenders released from prison:

(a) Support the STAMP mentoring program, providing a mentoring program to ex- offenders (in partnership with State Government)

Strengthen communities:

Develop appropriate responses for the following key target groups:

(a) Aboriginal people

(b) Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Communities

(d) Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender communities

(e) Women

(f) Street Based Sex Workers (establishment of “preferred areas” for street sex work in partnership with Local Area Command)

9. Key to the implementation of the Safe City Strategy is the team that operates the various initiatives, which consists of:

(a) 6 full time staff in the Unit plus agency staffers

§ Manager Safe City (also sex industry management)

§ Senior Safe City Project Coordinator (Crime Prevention)

§ Safe City Project Coordinator (Crime Prevention)

§ Safe City Project Coordinator (Drug and Alcohol)

§ Safe City Project Coordinator (Syringe Management and Alcohol Free Zones)

§ Public Housing Liaison Officer

10. Ms Matthews also outlined City of Sydney’s approach to Liquor Licensing Accords. The City has a total of seven accords which are: Sydney CBD Licensing Accord, City North Licensing Accord, Kings Cross Licensing Accord, Surry Hills Licensing Accord, South Sydney Licensing Accord, Newtown Licensing Accord and the Motor Vessels Licensing Accord.

11. The specific example of the Sydney CBD Liquor Licensing Accord which was created in July 2003 with the first meeting held on 26 August 2003. The Accord was a joint initiative of the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing, NSW Police, Australian Hotels Association and the City of Sydney. Ms Matthews indicated that there are over 400 licensed premises in the Accord’s catchment area. Accord meetings are held quarterly and attract around 70 licensees. Ms Matthews noted that it can be difficult to get participation from restaurants in the Accord.

12. The key objectives of the Accord are:

i. To promote the responsible serving of alcohol in licensed premises;

ii. To enhance safety and security in and around licensed premises; and

iii. To improve the general amenity by fostering licensee ownership of the

CBD area.

13. Some initiatives that have been successful so far have been the training of Police and Development Assessment Officers on Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design as well as educating Police as to how the Development Application Process works and how the Police may assist by commenting on Development Applications. The City of Sydney have a program whereby the Police Crime Manager responds to all major development applications for large residential buildings, licensed premises and entertainment venues. These Development Applications are also automatically referred to the Safe City Strategy Team within Council for consideration and comment.

14. In addition to this, the City of Sydney Council has a process whereby residents and not-for-profit agencies can be automatically notified via email regarding Development Applications that are lodged with the Council.

15. Ms Matthews discussed a very successful initiative in which Council has employed a Public Space Liaison Officer. This role is employed to liaise with ‘street drinkers’ (often homeless and vulnerable people) with the objective of reducing the impact of alcohol on vulnerable populations and to enhance street safety and amenity. Ms Matthews noted that much of the success of this project is a result of the officer having a previous role with Council whereby he was able to develop long term relationships with the target group.

16. A copy of Ms Matthews’ presentation appears as attachment 2 to this report.

17. Ms Matthews indicated that Councillors would be welcome to come and visit City of Sydney Council to see the Safe City Strategy in operation.

18. The Councillors thanked Ms Matthews for her presentation.

Lisa Giacomelli

Service Manager – Community Capacity Building Team

Attachments:

1View	Report on Parramatta Liquor Accord 26 May 2008	4 Pages
2View	Presentation from City of Sydney Council - Safe City Strategy	20 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 28 July 2008

Item 14.2

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER 14.2

SUBJECT Making of 2008/09 Rates

REFERENCE F2007/02457 - D00985932

REPORT OF Group Manager Corporate Services

PURPOSE:

To inform Council of minor amendments to rates for 2008/09 following a re-calculation of rates in the dollar as a result of updated land information and to make the amended 2008/09 Rates.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council receive and note the Group Manager Corporate Services’ report outlining the changes to rates previously made as part of the adoption of the 2008/09 – 2011/12 Management Plan and

(b) Further, that Council make the following Rates for the 2008/09 rating year using Land Values with a valuation base date of 1 July 2007 -

Ordinary Rates

(A) Residential Rates

(i) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta which is categorised as Residential land, an Ordinary Rate of zero point zero zero two four five zero zero nine (0.00245009) in the dollar upon the Land Value. The minimum amount of the rate which shall be payable for the year in respect of any individual parcel of such rateable land shall be four hundred and ninety two dollars and ninety nine cents ($492.99).

(ii) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta which is categorised as Residential land and is within the sub-category of Central Business District (CBD), because it is a centre of population within the geographical area which is highlighted on the map exhibited for inspection during the exhibition of the Draft Management Plan as Central Business District Centre of Population, an Ordinary Rate of zero point zero zero one six nine eight eight five (0.00169885) in the dollar upon the Land Value. The minimum amount of the rate which shall be payable for the year in respect of any individual parcel of such rateable land shall be four hundred and ninety two dollars and ninety nine cents ($492.99)

(B) Business Rates

(i) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta which is categorised as Business land (and is not within the sub-categories of Business land referred to in (B)(ii) through to and inclusive of (B)(iv) below), an Ordinary Rate of zero point zero one zero seven zero five one three (0.01070513) in the dollar upon the Land Value. The minimum amount of the rate which shall be payable for the year in respect of any individual parcel of such rateable land shall be five hundred and two dollars and fifty eight cents ($502.58).

(ii) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta which is categorised as business land and is within the sub-category of Central Business District (CBD), because it is within the geographical area which is highlighted on the map exhibited for inspection during the exhibition of the Draft Management Plan as Central Business District Centre of Activity, an Ordinary Rate of zero point zero one nine one four zero five eight (0.01914058) in the dollar upon the Land Value. The minimum amount of the rate which shall be payable for the year in respect of any individual parcel of such rateable land shall be five hundred and two dollars and fifty eight cents ($502.58).

(iii) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta which is categorised as Business land and is within the sub-category of Central Business District – Centre of Activity Area No 2, because it is within the geographical area which is highlighted on the map exhibited for inspection during the exhibition of the Draft Management Plan as Central Business District Centre of Activity Area No 2, an Ordinary Rate of zero point zero two eight five four seven one five (0.02854715) in the dollar upon the Land Value.

(iv) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta which is categorised as Business land and is within the sub-category of " Industrial Centres of Activity” because it is within the suburbs of Camellia, Chester Hill, Clyde, Eastwood, Ermington, Granville, Guildford, Melrose Park, Merrylands, Northmead, North Parramatta, Old Toongabbie, Parramatta, Pendle Hill, Rosehill, Rydalmere, Seven Hills, Toongabbie, Wentworthville and within the geographical areas which are highlighted on the map exhibited for inspection during the exhibition of the Draft Management Plan as "Business Industrial Centres of Activity " inclusive, an Ordinary Rate of zero point zero one one three eight six five five (0.01138655) in the dollar upon the Land Value. The minimum amount of the rate which shall be payable for the year in respect of any individual parcel of such rateable land shall be five hundred and two dollars and fifty eight cents ($502.58).

(C) Special Rates

(i) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta, a Special Rate, which will be known as Open Space Acquisition & Embellishment Special Rate and which will consist of a base amount of fourteen dollars and sixty five cents ($14.65) calculated to yield forty nine point eight four percent (49.84%) of the total revenue of $1,715,982 for this Special Rate to which will be added an ad valorem amount which will be calculated at a rate of zero point zero zero zero zero five six two two (0.00005622) in the dollar upon the Land Value for all such land, for or towards the acquisition of open space including compulsory acquisition and the purchase of remnant bushland, the embellishment and maintenance of public reserve areas, including passive reserve areas and other areas unsuitable for other recreational pursuits, such works, services, facilities or activities being, in the opinion of Council, of special benefit to the whole of the Parramatta Local Government Area.

(ii) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta with the exception of all rateable land that is highlighted on the map exhibited for inspection during the exhibition of the Draft Management Plan as Central Business District Centre of Activity and Central Business District Centre of Activity Area No 2 and including land categorised as Residential land within that geographical area, a Special Rate, which will be known as Suburban Infrastructure Special Rate and which will consist of a base amount of six dollars and fourteen cents ($6.14) calculated to yield twenty five point zero nine percent (25.09%) of the total revenue of $1,339,077.20 for this Special Rate to which will be added an ad valorem amount which will be calculated at a rate of zero point zero zero zero zero seven zero eight zero (0.00007080) in the dollar upon the Land Value for all such land, for or towards new infrastructure and environmental works within the suburbs of the Parramatta Local Government area, such works, services, facilities or activities being, in the opinion of Council, of special benefit to that part of Council’s area.

(iii) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta that is highlighted on the map exhibited for inspection during the exhibition of the Draft Management Plan as Central Business District Centre of Population and categorised as Residential land within that geographical area, a Special Rate, which will be known as CBD Residential Infrastructure Special Rate and which will consist of a base amount of nine dollars and ninety one cents ($9.91) calculated to yield thirty nine point seven seven percent (39.77%) of the total revenue of $53,251.92 for this Special Rate to which will be added an ad valorem amount which will be calculated at a rate of zero point zero zero zero one four one seven four (0.00014174) in the dollar upon the Land Value for all such land, for or towards new infrastructure and environmental works within the Central Business District of the Parramatta local government area, such works, services, facilities or activities being, in the opinion of Council, of special benefit to that part of Council’s area.

(iv) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta that is highlighted on the map exhibited for inspection during the exhibition of the Draft Management Plan as Central Business District Centre of Activity and Central Business District Centre of Activity Area No 2 but excluding land categorised as Residential land within that geographical area, a Special Rate, which will be known as CBD Infrastructure Special Rate and which will consist of an ad valorem amount which will be calculated at a rate of zero point zero zero one eight two three eight seven (0.00182387) in the dollar upon the Land Value for all such land, for or towards infrastructure improvements within that geographical area, such works, services, facilities or activities being, in the opinion of Council, of special benefit to that part of Council’s area.

(v) In the case of all rateable land within the City of Parramatta that is highlighted on the map exhibited for inspection during the exhibition of the Draft Management Plan as the Economic Development Special Rate area with the exception of all properties categorised as Residential within that area, a Special Rate, which will be known as Economic Development Special Rate and which will consist of an ad valorem amount which will be calculated at a rate of zero point zero zero zero three three five nine seven (0.00033597) in the dollar upon the Land Value for all such land, for or towards the implementation of the Regional Environmental Plan within that geographical area, such works, services, facilities or activities being, in the opinion of Council, of special benefit to that part of Council’s area.

BACKGROUND

1. At the Council meeting of 30 June 2008, Council adopted the 2008/09 – 2011/12 Management Plan which included making the various rates and annual charges that had been exhibited in the draft Management Plan.

2. The ordinary and special rates exhibited in the draft Management Plan were based on land valuations used in the 2008/09 rates calculation projection which was undertaken in April. Since April there have been a number of changes to the rating land valuation database including changes to the rateability of some properties and the deletion and inclusion of properties that are subject to valuation changes resulting from subdivision etc.

3. The changes to valuations have now been incorporated in the rating land valuation database and the projected rates for 2008/09 re-calculated. This has resulted in some minor increases to rates in the dollar that will apply in 2008/09, compared to those exhibited in the draft Management Plan. The total amount of rate income Council will collect remains unchanged. A summary of rates is included in Attachment 1.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

4. There are no changes resulting from the updated valuations to the various minimum rates or base amounts, the Domestic or Commercial Waste Management Charges or the Stormwater Management Charges.

5. There is no change to the previously made business rate – ‘Centre of Activity Industrial No. 2.’

6. There is no change to the total estimated rates income budget as a result of these amendments.

7. The following table shows the average rates for the various categories and the variation from those exhibited in the Draft Management Plan.

Combined Rates, Waste Management Charge and Stormwater Management Charge

	As exhibited in Draft Management Plan	Proposed 2008/09	Variation
Average Residential Property	1,022.35	1,022.61	0.26
Average Residential CBD Property	860.86	858.93	-1.93
Average Business General Property	3,807.07	3,813.23	6.16
Average Business CBD Property	14,504.86	14,451.15	-53.71
Average Business CBD # 2	196,268.97	198,402.85	2,133.88
Average Business ICA	11,789.44	11,614.33	-175.11
Average Business ICA # 2	929,622.32	929,622.32	0.00

Stephen Kerr

Group Manager Corporate Services

Attachments:

1View

Ordinary and Special Rates 2008/09

1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Item 14.3 - Attachment 2

Audit Committee Minutes from 26 June 2008

MINUTES OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE HELD IN MEETING ROOMS 1 AND 2, GROUND FLOOR, COUNCIL CHAMBER BUILDING ON THURSDAY, 26 JUNE 2008 AT 7.05 PM

_________________________________________________________

PRESENT

Councillor J D Finn in the Chair, Councillor O Jamal (retired 8.40 pm), Councillor C X Lim and Pamela Fynan - Community representative.

IN ATTENDANCE

Sue Coleman - Acting General Manager, Michael Quirk - Manager Service Audit & Review, Denis Banicevic - External Auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers and Grant Davies – Minute Clerk.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

There were no conflict of interest declarations at this meeting.

01/08 Audit Committee Minutes – 16 April 2008

RESOLVED (Lim/Fynan)

That the minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held on 16 April 2008 be received and accepted as a true record of the meeting.

PRIORITY MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

02/08 Contract Management

Emphasis was given to the Council’s Online Contract and advice was particularly sought on the following issues:-

· How did the contract evolve;

· Who executed the negotiations and were supposed benefits negotiated away;

· What consideration was given to the fine print;

· What was and was not delivered from the original contract;

· What remedies/compensation clauses were put in place in case of non delivery of the contract;

· What has Council learned from this process.

It was noted that the Council’s Online syndicate had carried out an Implementation Review and that this may be an appropriate place for the Committee’s investigations to commence. It was also noted that an audit of Contracts Management was included in the draft Internal Audit Plan for 2008/09 and Syndicate Audit Proposals have been prepared for reviews of Councils Online contract governance arrangement and benefits planning.

It was also noted that issues with contract delivery and negotiation were not limited to Council’s Online but also experienced in such contracts as the Granville Swimming Centre and Multi Storey Car Parking.

03/08 Implementation of Council Resolutions

Councillor Jamal sought information on Council’s mechanisms in place to ensure that Council’s resolutions were enacted.

He suggested that there should be a monthly report as part of the Council Meeting (Non Regulatory) on the status of previous resolutions.

Denis suggested that in the first instance it may be beneficial to carry out a spot audit on Council decisions.

Councillor Finn noted that it appeared to be issues raised by Councillors that tended to be ignored ie Lord Mayoral Minutes and Notices of Motions.

Councillors present provided examples of decisions either not carried out or not carried out in timely fashion and these included:-

· Inclusion of prelodgement minutes in DA reports;

· Provision of ‘in kind’ support in response to the Tsunami disaster;

· Utilisation of excess funds from selling of previous mayoral vehicle and purchase of Prius for a school art award;

· Visit to Vietnamese Sister City by school student from Parramatta High.

It was suggested that a compliance audit be added to the 2008/09 Audit Program to firstly consider the extent of any issues in implementing Council Resolutions. Such audit could be based on feedback from Councillor members of the Audit Committee.

04/08 Management Accountability.

This issue had been raised by Councillor Jamal in an effort to ascertain what mechanisms were in place to ensure staff performance and staff accountability. He questioned how the performance of staff was measured.

Sue suggested that this issue should form part of the General Manager’s Performance Plan.

Sue added that Human Resources could also present to Council on grievance procedures followed.

The issue of weighting given to Councillors’ concerns was also raised.

Sue suggested that the discussion should commence with big picture issues such as how complaints were managed, how such complaints were fed into performance management and the weighting given to complaints.

It was agreed that this issue would remain a key agenda item for the next meeting.

05/08 Management of Adjustments to Child Care Rates

This issue had been raised by Community Member – Frank Mersal. He had sought advice as to what process had been undertaken by Council to determine current child care rates.

Sue advised that briefing notes had been supplied to Councillors at a recent workshop and these notes would be made available to members.

Denis considered that this area was not high risk.

A brief discussion ensued on the impact of competitive neutrality principles on setting fees.

06/08 Asset Management Including Lease and Hire Arrangements

This issue had been raised by Community Member – Frank Mersal.

There was some confusion as to whether the issue related to hiring out of Council assets or leasing rather than owning Council assets.

The Committee agreed to defer this matter pending the attendance of Mr Mersal.

Denis noted that the Committee and Council’s Internal Auditors could not investigate every issue and accordingly, weighting should be given to the issues raised.

Sue advised that discussions would be held between Mr Quirk and the new General Manager on which issues should be incorporated into the Audit Plan.

Denis asked whether recommendations of the Audit Committee could be overridden by the GM.

Michael noted that the GM could direct the Internal Auditor though relevant key performance indicators could be included in the General Manager’s Performance Plan by the Chamber.

Councillor Lim outlined his asset management concerns as follows:-

· Resourcing issues;

· Strategic perspective between Council and staff;

· Need for clear direction;

· Operational issue of contract management/lease management.

MATTERS REFERRED BY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION

07/08 Consultants Report

Council had sought a detailed report on this issue and had asked that it be referred to the Audit Committee for investigation/review and to see if procedures/policies had been followed.

Issues of concern to the Committee included:-

· Use of credit cards to pay for small jobs;

· Why small jobs were given to consultants?

· Whether it would be beneficial/efficient to employ in house staff rather than utilise consultants;

· Level of consultancy used and amount spent on consultancies.

Denis suggested that the first step would be to obtain benchmark figures with similarly sized councils.

Councillor Lim outlined his desire for information pertaining to:-

· Could the works be carried out in house?

· What process has been put in place to determine whether a consultant is needed in the first place?

· Selection process. Why was a particular consultant chosen?

· Following completion of works, was there a skills/knowledge transfer?

· Feedback. Was the consultant required?

Denis reiterated that it would be best, in the first instance, to obtain benchmarks across the industry. If other Council’s were spending less, find out what those Council’s were doing that Parramatta was not. Additionally, information on the framework for the engagement of consultants could be circulated to the Audit Committee.

08/08 Legal Expenses Report

Sue suggested that issues raised with the consultancy report would be applicable to the legal expenses report.

Councillor Finn questioned where the funds went from a successful case (ie dog attack). Michael explained that the report related only to the legal expenses and would not necessarily cover any revenue as a result of legal action.

Denis suggested that Council should have in place a policy defining whether legal advice should be sought and also addressing the issue of following up funds from successful cases.

Sue mentioned that the Resources Advisory Committee was examining the benefits of employing in house counsel, as occurred at other Councils such as Ryde. The diversity of legal work involved with Councils was noted. The in house counsel at Ryde Council had also acted as a legal library and managed legal advice previously received.

Michael further noted that the Council’s appointed panel of solicitors expires next March which may prove to be an opportune time to re-examine the policy issues.

Note

Councillor Jamal retired from the meeting at 8.40pm during consideration of this matter.

09/08 Internal Audit Charter

Michael advised that the Charter had been circulated to members. Now that an Audit Committee was in existence, the Charter would need revising, however, it may be beneficial to await the commencement of the new General Manager.

10/08 External and Internal Audit Plans

There were a number of associated issues that would need to be discussed with the new General Manager and referred to the next meeting of the Committee.

11/08 Next Meeting

The next meeting will be held on 31 July 2008 at 6.45 pm.

Councillor Lim asked that in the meantime, Councillors be supplied with advice on the position of the consultants review by the Audit Committee..

Michael added that he would report to Council shortly, enclosing the minutes of this and the previous Audit Committee meeting.

The meeting terminated at 9.05 pm.

Item 14.5 - Attachment 4

Code Cross Reference Analysis 2008

CROSS-REFERENCE ANALYSIS OF CODE OF CONDUCT PROVISIONS – JULY 2008

Existing PCC Code Section		Revised Model Code Section

1 to 3		Now Covered in Part 1 Context
4	General Conduct Obligations
4.1.1		6.2
4.1.2		6.1 + 6.2
4.1.3		6.3
4.1.4		6.1 Modified
4.2.1		6.5
4.2.2		6.6
4.3		6.7
4.4	Alcohol & Other Drugs	NIL
4.5	Public Comment	NIL
4.6.1		6.8
4.6.2		6.9
5	Conflicts of Interest
5.1.1		7.1
5.1.2		7.2 Modified
5.1.3		7.3 Modified
5.1.4		Re-drafted into 7.1 to 7.25
5.1.5		Re-drafted into 7.1 to 7.25
5.1.6		Re-drafted into 7.1 to 7.25
5.1.7		Re-drafted into 7.1 to 7.25
5.2		Re-drafted into 7.1 to 7.25
5.3		Re-drafted into 7.1 to 7.25
5.4.1		7.26
5.4.2		7.27
5.5		Re-drafted into 7.21-7.25
5.6.1		7.28
5.6.2	Councillors & Staff DAs	NIL
5.6.3	Councillors & Staff DAs	NIL
5.7.1	Former Councillors & Staff	NIL
5.7.2	Former Councillors & Staff	NIL
5.8	Staff Political Participation	NIL
6	Personal Benefits
6.1.1		8.3 Modified
6.1.2		8.4 Modified
6.1.3		8.1 Modified
6.1.4		8.2 Modified
6.1.5		8.5 + 8.6
6.1.6		8.3 Modified
6.1.7		NIL Covered in LG Act
6.1.8		NIL
6.1.9		NIL
7	Relationships Between Councillors & Staff
7.1.1		9.1 Modified
7.1.2		9.2 Modified
7.2.1		9.3
7.2.2		9.4 Modified
7.3.1		9.5
7.3.2		9.6
7.4		9.7 + 9.8 Modified
8	Access to Council Information & Resources
8.1		10.3
8.2.1		10.9 Modified
8.2.2		10.10 Modified
8.2.3		10.10 Modified
8.3.1		10.12 + 10.14 + 10.15
8.3.2		10.17 + 10.18 Modified
8.3.3		10.16
9	Reporting Breaches, Investigation & Sanctions
9.1.1		11.3 Modified
9.1.2		11.3 + 11.4 + 11.5
9.2.1		11.6 Modified
9.3.1 to 11.9 incl.		Now covered in Part 3

Ordinary Council 28 July 2008

Item 14.6

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER 14.6

SUBJECT Proposed Structure for Outcomes and Development Group

REFERENCE F2007/02407 - D00979743

REPORT OF Acting Group Manager Outcomes & Development

PURPOSE:

To endorse a new structure for the Outcomes and Development Group, which includes:

1. The establishment of a new unit responsible for compliance and regulatory functions,

2. Transfer of the Traffic and Transport Service Area to the Land Use and Traffic Planning Unit,

3. Creation of 2 additional compliance positions, and

4. Reduction of 2 parking officer positions.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council approve, in accordance with section 332(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, a new structure for the Outcomes and Development Group to Level 4 (service manager), which includes the establishment of a new unit responsible for compliance and regulatory functions (Attachment 1).

BACKGROUND

1. Council at its meeting on 18 December 2006 agreed in principle to the transfer of the following functions and staff from the City Services Group to the Outcomes & Development Group:

(a) The functions of the Traffic and Transport Service Area,

(b) The functions of the Ranger Service Area (including ‘on-street’ parking enforcement),

(c) The functions of the ‘Regulated Premises’ and ‘Environmental Protection’ teams from the Environment & Health Service Area,

(d) The functions relating to the determination of applications to remove/prune ‘private’ trees and enforcement of unauthorised activity concerning ‘private’ trees’.

2. Further to that resolution, Council on 23 July 2007 resolved the following:

(a) That Council note the contents of the report.

(b) That Council approve in principle, the transfer of Compliance & Regulatory functions and the Traffic and Transport Services from City Services to Outcomes and Development, subject to further consultation with both the Traffic and Transport Staff and the Development Services Unit Staff, outlining in detail via the mode of workshops and written information, what is proposed in the relocation, and seeking their oral and written feedback on what they consider to be the pros and cons of the proposal, plus any suggestions which they consider may further assist the restructure and be beneficial to the organisation in the long term.

(c) That Council approve in principle the proposed City Services Restructure as outlined in annexure 1, subject to further detailed consultation with both the City Services and Outcomes Staff, outlining in detail via the mode of workshops and written information, what is proposed in the overall re-structure, and seeking their written feedback on what they consider to be the pros and cons of the proposal, plus any suggestions which they consider may further assist the restructure and be beneficial to the organisation in the long term.

(d) That the United Services Union Organiser be invited to participate during all aspects of the consultative process, and his opinion be sought and taken into consideration along with the rest of the staff.

(e) That Council approve the recruitment of the proposed Level 3 Manager positions within the proposed City Services Restructure, initially from staff already employed in the City Services and Outcomes Units. Following applications and interviews, wherever it is deemed there are no suitable applicants from within the organisation, advertising for suitable staff take place externally.

(f) That following staff consultation being undertaken, a final structure for City Services below Level 3 Managers be provided to Council for approval and implementation by December at the latest.

(g) That minutes of all meetings held with all stakeholders be available to all Councillors, affected staff and Union Organiser upon request.

(h) Further, that following the completion of this restructure, no further restructures are to occur within any unit during the remaining term of Council.

3. Council also resolved on 23 July 2007 in the report of Group Manager Outcomes and Development (OG 32/2007),

(a) That the modification of the structure and name change from “Outcomes and Place Unit” to “City Strategy Unit” be endorsed.

(b) That the change process and integration of teams transferred out of City Services Group initially into Development Services Unit be endorsed.

(c) Further, that a review of the proposal be held in 12 months time.

4. On 13 August 2007 the above mentioned functions transferred to the Outcomes and Development Group. A Change Manager was appointed on a 12 month temporary basis to provide line management to the transferred functions and develop, in consultation with senior management and the affected staff, a preferred permanent structure. The Change Manager and staff which transferred from City Services were, for the 12 month period, located within the Development Services Unit. The interim structure is shown in Attachment 2.

5. The agreed principles which guided the development of the preferred structure were:

(a) The process and recommendations will align with Council’s 6 Values;

(b) No individuals current pay will be reduced;

(d) Over all cost impacts should be cost neutral or if there are savings they are to be redirected to service delivery;

(e) The need for staff to apply for positions will be mimimised;

(f) Where possible, internal appointments will be looked for in the first instance;

(g) The span of control should be no more than 5/6;

(h) That information to all affected staff will be made as soon as practicable with progress and update reports being made available to affected staff.

6. Over the 12 months there has been extensive engagement and consultation with staff. A detailed analysis of this consultation, together with the 2 Councillor workshops held in November 2007 and March 2008 is discussed under the Consultation section of this report.

DETAILS OF PROPOSAL

A. Establishment of a Regulatory Unit within the Outcomes and Development Group

7. It is proposed to establish an additional unit within the Outcomes & Development Group. This Unit is to be known as ‘Regulatory Services’ and would be responsible for the delivery of all compliance & regulatory functions at Parramatta Council. The Unit would be lead by one unit manager.

8. Within the Regulatory Unit there will be 2 service areas which are responsible for the following services:

(a) Ranger Services – responsible for:

· Enforcement of complaints which include matters such as illegal rubbish dumping, abandoned vehicles and illegal truck parking.

· Enforcement of street parking offences.

The Ranger Service team will comprise the existing service manager position, 2 existing supervisor positions, existing 6 Ranger Officers, existing 3 Animal Management Officers and existing 17 Parking Officers.

(b) Environmental Compliance Services - responsible for:

· Investigation of all land use, building, development, fire safety, environmental, public safety and health related complaints.

· Inspections of ‘Regulated premises’.

The Environmental Compliance Service team will comprise a service manager position, 2 team leader positions, 7 existing environmental health officers. The 3 existing development control officers/compliance officers currently in the Development Services Unit will transfer to the Environmental Compliance Service team.

9. It is also proposed to establish 2 additional full time compliance positions to work in the Environmental Compliance Service Area. Recruitment for these additional compliance positions will take place when 2 vacancies arise in the Parking Officers team, through natural attrition. Increases to the number of staff allocated to compliance functions has been determined to be a high priority during the course of this project. There is scope to reduce the number of staff currently employed as Parking Officers to provide additional resources to compliance.

NB – this service area was formerly referred to in the documents presented to Consultative Committee as Health & Safety.

Reasons for the establishment of a new unit

10. The creation of the Regulatory Unit and the transfer of the existing compliance functions performed by the Development Services Unit, separates the regulatory ‘approval’ and regulatory ‘compliance’ functions of council. This has a number of advantages including:

(a) Appropriate Management of Corruption Risks associated with both approval and compliance processes.

All forms of regulatory activity carry some corruption risks and the Independent Commission Against Corruption has produced a number of publications in the past on this issue. The Commission in their 2007 report titled ‘Report on an investigation into corrupt conduct associated with the regulation of brothels in Parramatta’ stated the following:

‘While regulators are no more likely to act corruptly than any other kind of public official, the nature of their work exposes them to situations in which they can face special risks of corruption. Regulators are authorised to make decisions that often affect matters of significant value and importance to members of the public. In such circumstances a regulator has opportunities for exploiting his or her position for personal gain, that is, to act corruptly. A member of the public whose activities are regulated, may seek to escape compliance with standards or responsibilities that have been imposed in the public interest. They may try to corruptly influence a regulator to obtain a favourable result or other advantage. Thus the risks of corruption can be higher for a regulator than for other kinds of public officials.’

The Commission’s 1997 report titled ‘Accountable Health and Building Inspections: Recommendations for Local Government’ highlighted the specific corruption risk factors for councils carrying out health and building function:

· High levels of autonomy

· Delegated authority

· Exercising discretion

· Regulatory capture

One of the key findings of the Parramatta ICAC report was the importance of appropriate levels of management oversight of high risk areas of local government, that being regulatory functions, including both approval and compliance functions.

The structure as proposed recognises the high risk areas of the organisation and reinstates an appropriate level of management support to minimise the high risks associated with the regulatory functions.

(b) Centralisation of all regulatory compliance functions of Council.

The centralisation of all of the regulatory compliance functions of Council into one unit will:

· Ensure that Council’s regulatory compliance functions are carried out in a consistent matter that will improve the delivery of environmental and compliance services.

· Enable appropriate resources to be directed to compliance activities and management of the high volume of compliance work more effectively and efficiently.

· Improve customer service as it provides one point of contact for all regulatory compliance matters within the organisation and ensures clarity of processes and ownership of responsibility.

Impacts of new Regulatory Unit on the existing Development Services Unit

11. The transfer of the existing development related compliance & fire safety functions presently carried out by the Development Services Unit to the new Regulatory Unit recognises the distinction between regulatory approval (including certification) and compliance functions. The separation of the regulatory approval functions of a local Council and the related regulatory enforcement functions minimises corruption risks. The separation of these functions within a structure is commonly found in other local government areas. The Development Services Unit would continue to be led by a Unit Manager.

12. The transfer of the compliance functions to a Regulatory Unit also recognises the importance of the development assessment process and development within the LGA and the need for appropriate management oversight of the area of Council where development decisions are made.

13. In the proposed structure there will be 2 service areas in the Development Services Unit which are:

(a) Development Assessment Services – responsible for:

· Assessment of development applications and assessments of applications to remove and/or prune private tree.

As part of the transfer of functions from the City Services Group the function relating to the assessment of applications to remove/prune private trees moved to the Development Assessment Service Area.

It is proposed for this function to remain in the Development Assessment Service team. The reasons for this are:

· To ensure that assessment processes are carried out in a consistent manner in the organisation.

· To improve customer service via one point of contact for all applications and assessment matters.

· Strengthen assessment processes relating to tree matters, especially as standards prescribed in DCP 2005 relating to protection of trees can be enforced and applied when making decisions.

(b) Certification Services – responsible for:

· Issuing of Construction Certificates, Occupation certificates & Subdivision Certificates.

· Carry out building inspections where Council has been appointment as a Principal Certifying Authority (PCA).

B. Transfer ‘Traffic and Transport Services’ to the Land Use and Transport Planning Unit

14. It is proposed to transfer the Traffic & Transport Service Area to the Land Use and Transport Planning Unit, resulting in an alteration to the reporting line for the Service Manager Traffic & Transport. This proposal involves no reduction in staff tenure or staff numbers within the Traffic & Transport Service Area. It is also noted that no existing position’s role/duty at or below level 4 management will change.

Reasons for the transfer of Traffic and Transport Services

15. The transfer of the Traffic and Transport Service Area to the Land use and Transport Planning Unit will achieve a consistent approach to transport and traffic planning within the Parramatta Local Government Area, and particularly the CBD. The transfer of functions to the Land Use and Transport Planning Unit will ensure that the strategic transport and traffic decisions made by Council will be delivered on the ground and will be carried out. It will also strengthen relationships between staff who plan for transport and traffic and those who implement policy. It is not expected that the existing relationships between Traffic & Transport staff and the City Operations team will be impacted by proposed transfer.

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

16. The full time establishment (FTE) number of staff within the Outcomes and Development Group will remain the same as a result of the proposed structure and no overall increase to staff numbers will occur.

17. The 2 additional compliance officer positions arise from a reduction of 2 parking officer positions.

18. The establishment of an additional unit manager and 2 team leaders within the new regulatory unit is in lieu of 3 existing team leader positions.

BUDGET IMPACTS

19. One of the principles that applied to the ‘Integration Project’ was for overall cost impacts to be cost neutral or if there are savings that they are to be directed to service delivery.

20. Opportunities to provide additional compliance staff and additional management support to the staff working in these high risk and high work load areas of the organisation, within a tight budgetary environment have been explored, albeit that the additional functions and staff were transferred to the Outcomes and Development Group without a Unit Manager and Service Manager.

21. The proposed structure and positions can be largely achieved within the existing budget that has been allocated for this Group in the 08/09 Management Plan. However, it is expected that there will be a shortfall of approximately $28,000.

CONSULTATION

22. The ‘Integration Project’ was developed to allow all staff in the Outcomes & Development Group, together with Councillors to be engaged in the review and to help identify business & customer needs for this area of the organisation.

23. All staff have been invited over the last 12 months to participate in workshops, project teams, visits to other Councils, information briefings and feedback sessions relating to both business improvement opportunities and structural options.

24. In addition to this 2 workshops have been held with Councillors on 14 November 2007 and 31 March 2008, where key issues such as:

· Inadequate number of compliance staff

· Concerns about previous decision to split private/public trees

· Need for traineeships/apprentices at Parramatta Council

· Budget constraints

were discussed.

25. Meetings with Union Delegates of DEPA, USU and LGEA to discuss the proposed structure were also held on 11 March 2008 and 19 June 2008.

26. Each month updates to the Workplace Reform Subcommittee and the Consultative Committee have been provided, with the Consultative Committee at its meeting of 1 July 2008 endorsing the proposed structure to level 4 (service manager). The report presented to Consultative Committee and the minutes of the meeting can be found in Attachment 3 (Report) and Attachment 4 (Minutes).

27. Following the endorsement of the proposed structure and establishment of a new unit by the General Management Team, in June 2008 all staff were provided with a 2 week period in which to discuss the proposed structure and impacts on their work teams and make comment on the proposed structure. No members of staff stated that they did not support the proposed structure and establishment of an additional unit. Refer to Attachment 5 for consultation summary.

CONCLUSION

28. After 12 months of consultation and engagement with senior management and affected staff, a preferred structure for Outcomes and Development Group has been developed.

29. The structure principally includes:

· The establishment of a new unit responsible for all compliance and regulatory functions;

· Additional 2 compliance officers;

· Reduction in 2 parking officer positions; and

· The transfer of Traffic and Transport Services to the Land Use and Transport Planning Unit.

30. The structure will:

· Improve delivery of services to our customers,

· Manage corruption risks associated with regulatory approval and compliance functions,

· Provides additional resources to compliance functions,

· Increases career development and progression opportunities for our staff,

· Provide an opportunity services to be carried out consistently and for system and process enhancements to be made,

· Places Parramatta Council in a better position to adapt to legislative changes and respond to opportunities as the City develops and grows.

Marcelo Occchiuzzi

Acting Group Manager Outcomes and Development

Attachments:

1View	Attachment 1 - Proposed Structure endorsed by Consultative Committee 1 July 2008	1 Page
2View	Attachment 2 - Outcomes and Development Group L2 - 3 Structure - 1 May 2008	1 Page
3View	Attachment 3 - Consultative Committee Report 1 July 2008	14 Pages
4View	Attachment 4 - Minutes of Consultative Committee 1 July 2008	4 Pages
5View	Attachment 5 - Summary of Consultation	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Item 14.6 - Attachment 3

Attachment 3 - Consultative Committee Report 1 July 2008

Parramatta City Council Workplace Reform Proposal: Template

1. Scope of the PCC Workplace Reform sub-committee

The scope of the Workplace Reform sub-committee [wprsc] includes proposals to:

Redesign jobs; re-organize and/or restructure work within a particular unit / team / division; alter reporting lines; vary hours of work for new or vacant positions; or evaluate new or redesigned positions.

The wprsc makes recommendations to the Consultative Committee.

2. Title and Purpose of the Proposal

Proposal Title: Getting it Sorted Integration Project

Purpose of Proposal:

The purpose of this proposal is to present the preferred structural chart for the integration project. OPTION 4a (see attachment 2) provides the most effective structure to achieve the goal of integrating the Regulatory Services functions into the Outcomes and Development Group. These teams - Ranger Services, Traffic and Transport, Environmental Protection, Regulated Premises and Tree Management – Private, were transferred out of City Services Group in August 2007.

3. Details of Proposal

UPDATE FOR JCC

This proposal seeks endorsement from the Joint Consultative committee of Option 4a to the Level 4 positions, as per the attached organisation chart. This structure is based on the principle there are two units as a result of the Integration Project – Development Services and Regulatory Services. It is noted that further consultation is required for the team structure below Level 4 (Service Manager level).

In August 2007, the five functions listed above were transferred to the Outcomes and Development Group (ODG). A Change Manager was appointed to a one year temporary position to both guide the integration project and to manage the day-to-day operations of the new Regulatory Services section. For the duration of the review period the Regulatory Services function was located in the Development Services Unit (DSU) under the guidance of the Manager Development Services Unit.

The task, in a 12 month timeframe, was to integrate five new functions into the Outcomes & Development Group. A project plan was developed and key elements include:

The success criteria for the project are:

1. That affected staff have been engaged and will have had their ‘say’.

2. That a range of possible options for the integration of the transferred functions into the Outcomes and Development Group will have been explored.

3. A new structure incorporating the integration of the transferred functions into the Outcomes and Development Group will be recommended to Council by the end of June 2008.

4. Both the project management and people side of change are managed effectively.

5. Recommendations for how we do business are presented and ideally introduced during the year.

The Scope and Boundaries of the project:

What it ‘is’:

· Identifying options for business improvement,

· Enhanced customer service,

· Logical grouping of like activities,

· Where possible, career progression opportunities,

· The process is intended to be cost neutral.

What it ‘is not’:

· Comment or recommendations as to structural change in other groups,

· Decreasing staff numbers or re-grading of positions,

· The review of the salary system.

· An exercise to create organizational redundancies

Note: Details of Proposal - Checklist

Where a proposal for workplace change falls within the scope of the wprsc, the relevant manager shall detail the nature of the change, the effect of the change on employees, and the consultative process that has been undertaken with the affected employees.

The proposal, using this template, shall be submitted to the wprsc through the Manager’s HR Service Unit Partner. Note: The managers and the HRSUP are required to attend the meeting of the wprsc.

Details of proposals to be submitted include:

· Organisation charts [existing and proposed, both showing the grades of all relevant positions].

· Position descriptions [existing and proposed, both showing the grades of all relevant positions]. [In new format].

· All memos, letters and reports regarding the proposal.

· Details relating to job evaluations including the names of the evaluators and the date and result of the evaluation.

· Details of all consultation undertaken with the affected employees as set out in section 4 of this template.

· Details of implementation plan where appropriate.

Details of the proposal

3.1 Option 4a emerged through a process with the team leaders / supervisors / Service Managers from DSU and Regulatory Services analysing the data collected through the research and consultation phase of the project. The intention was to deliberately steer clear of drafting organisation charts until this analysis was complete, with the aim that staff would be armed with appropriate information and research findings to make informed decisions. The data set is comprised of:

1. input from the 6 staff project teams

2. analysis of the visits to six other Councils

3. analysis of existing Position Descriptions

4. Notes from meetings

5. Service Matrix

6. Statistical package (snapshot of CRMs, SLA turnaround times, inspections, revenue). A comprehensive statistical analysis set was prepared for the purposes of this project

The options emerging for this analysis and discussion were viewed through five “decision making lenses”:

· Improving customer service

· Improving business processes

· Developing careers for staff

· Better use of technology

· Improving probity

3.2 How does Option 4a address these issues?

OPTION 4a depicts 4 units in the Outcomes and Development Group (City Strategy, LUTP, Development Services and Regulatory Services). Traffic and Transport would sit in LUTP, Development Services would have two Service areas – Development Assessment and Private Certification, and Regulatory Services would have 2 service areas - Health & Safety, and Ranger Services. Option 4a represents a structure that resolves many of grey areas - particularly in the crossover between 'Health' and 'Building'. It also provides equitable and reasonable Service Manager and Unit Manager support for the Health and Safety and Ranger Service teams. These options emerged from extensive research and consultation and the preferred Option 4a is the result of a fruitful collaborative process between the team leaders in DSU and Reg Services, with guiding thoughts provided by GMT.

The two unit model both the sensitivity and high volume of contestable issues in both the Development and Regulatory sides of the business. A presumption would need to be made to sustain a one unit model that existing management in the Development Services Unit has the capacity to take on about 50% additional workload. This would need to be carefully considered as the likely outcome would be a decline in service across all areas, and potentially an increase in OHS issues are managers in DSU are exposed to significantly increased workload, including complaints management. It is important to note that the Change Manager has performed a de facto level 3 management role within the unit for day to day operations and complaints management. This level of management support would be lost in a one unit model.

For the majority of staff there is no change, in fact most of the position changes proposed are at the Team Leader level. The proposed 'structure' aims to address some of the issues raised during the course of this project; however, 'structure' does not fix everything and consequently there are numerous other projects that have been identified as part of the process needed to deal with systems and process issues, a task for Service Managers once the structure is settled.

3.3 Improving customer service

There is a likelihood that customer service will improve through

· Less grey areas

· Appropriate management to ensure that operational staff are supported

· Consistent approach

3.4 Improving business processes

It is intended that the centralisation of Support resources within each unit and the creation of the new Health and Safety Service area will present opportunities to significantly improve business processes. Centralised support provides the platform for a flexible and responsive service for the business areas within each unit, and the bringing together of both ‘health and ‘building’ matters should lead to less grey areas and faster turnaround times for CRMs.

3.5 Developing careers for staff

Improving opportunities at Parramatta City Council and for staff to progress their careers elsewhere is a key element of this proposal.

The removal of two management layers, the education position and the PA role from the old Environment and Health Unit during the City Services restructure has perhaps led to concern that the area is undervalued. Option 4a reinstates appropriate management support for Environmental Health Officers, and provides career progression opportunities for staff.

3.6 Improving Probity

Given the complexity and inherent risk in the services provided by this unit, GMT will be careful to ensure the final structure includes sufficient management oversight and support, particularly in light of the findings of the recent ICAC. Chapter 5 of the ICAC position Paper ‘Corruption risks in NSW development approval processes’ (September 2007) clearly identifies that officers in development and regulatory functions are at risk of ‘regulatory capture’ and recommends appropriate checks and balances, peer review and random auditing. The proposed structure as detailed in Option 4a provides the appropriate level of management oversight in regards to this issue.

3.7 Complaint management needs support a two unit model

The nature of ‘Regulatory’ services generates a great deal of complaints, many of which are serious allegations against the behaviour of officers, particularly from the Ranger Services Unit. Complaints of this nature require sensitive and thorough investigation, and detailed reporting back internally (usually to the Service Audit and Review – SAR - section) and externally to the complainant (s).

At present the Change Manager Regulatory Services responds to these complaints as would a Level 3 Manager, and should a position similar to this not exist in the new structure either

1. an existing Level 3 Manager would need to pick up this work OR

2. Investigations are run in their entirety by SAR OR

3. Investigations are shared by Level 3 Managers across the organisation.

3.8 Cost neutrality

Savings have been identified through the merging of three team leader positions into two: (the three existing positions of)

1. Supervisor Environmental Protection

2. Supervisor Regulated Premises and

3. Team Leader Development Control

Into:

1. Team Leader Health & Regulated Premises and

2. Team Leader Environment & Building

It was intended that the outcomes of the integration Project would be cost neutral. At present the model is under funded to the tune of approximately $80,000. The core issue is that a Level 3 and a Level 4 Manager Position were removed prior to the staff from the old Environment & Health section being transferred to the Outcomes and Development Group. Reinstating a Level 3 Manager position (approx $120-170,000 package) for the proposed Regulatory Services Unit may be viewed as a cost that the organisation cannot afford. The temporary position of Change Manager Regulatory Services is partially funded through the previous Level 4 position Service Manager Environment and Health; and it appears that funding for this position may be transferred to City Services for the 2008/09 year. However, the evidence is that a Level 3 position for Regulatory Services is required to ensure

· Maintenance and improvement of business processes and customer service standards.

· Adequate probity and peer review capacity – as referred to in the ICAC report. Development and Regulatory activities are high risk of corruption, and it is the responsibility of Council to ensure that appropriate management support is provided to staff to avoid and if necessary detect illegal or corrupt activity.

The merging of three team leader positions (existing Team Leader Development Control, Supervisor Regulated Premises and Supervisor Environmental Protection) into two modified positions in the new Health and Safety service area provides an annual saving of approximately $75,000 p.a. However, OPTION 4a requires the re-grading of at least three positions, which will partially reduce this saving;

· Tree Supervisor (Grade 11) into Team Leader Design Specialists (Grade 12 or 13)

· Team Leader Environment & Building Control (modified Team Leader Position in the new Health and Safety Service Area)

· Coordinator Regulatory Services (Grade 6 to Grade 7).

4. Consultation

Consultation is the process whereby the Manager/s are required to:

· Inform the employees of the proposed changes and the reasons for the changes.

· Inform the employees of the likely effects of the change and the options available to the employees concerned.

· Provide the employees with opportunity to respond with alternatives and or issues for consideration.

· Inform the employees of the Manager’s response to the matters put forward by the employees.

Consultation Check List [to be completed by Manager]

How, when and by whom were the affected employees informed of the proposal?

Refer to ATTACHMENT 3 – Consultation Log.

Have all affected employees been informed of the proposal? If some have not been informed, please indicate why.

4.1 The staff most affected by the proposed changes are:

· Team leaders / Supervisors: Team Leader Development Control, Supervisor Environmental Protection, Supervisor Regulated Premises, Service Manager Building and Development Control, Team Leader Tree Management.

· Construction Services team

· Development Control team

· Traffic and Transport Team

· Environmental Protection Team

· Regulated Premises Team

4.2 Private Certification and Construction Services

GMT has previously agreed that the Private Certifying Authority function would sit separate to other services provided by Building Surveyors at Parramatta City Council. This is achieved structurally with the Team Leader Private Certification reporting to the Unit Manager Development Services, and the team being reduced by one member who is transferred (voluntarily if possible) to the new Health and Safety area, which responds to CRM building related matters. Building Certificates and Subdivisions certificates will be managed by the Development Assessment Services team, leaving the Private Certification team to focus in the competitive marketplace.

Some of the team members have expressed concern over the splitting up of this team. A rotation system is proposed to ensure Building Surveyors have opportunity to gain skills and experience in both Private Certification and Building work required in the Health and Safety portfolio, Rotation to Development Assessment may also be considered so that Building Surveyors can keep abreast of issues in Building Certificate and Subdivision Certificates.

4.2 Development Assessment

This service area may well in future be required to adapt to changes initiated by the State Government through the NSW Planning Reforms. The proposals in this structure are that:

· Building Certificates and Subdivision certificates are undertaken by this team

· A modified position and new team of Design Specialists is created (see below – staff have raised concerns about this proposal)

4.3 The Traffic & Transport section

· The move to Land Use and Transport Planning Unit (LUTP) was supported by Traffic and Transport staff in the meeting held on Friday 13^th June 2008. On Monday 16^th June staff from LUTP met to discuss the proposal and welcomed the Traffic and Transport section joining their Unit. Questions asked were concerns that an ‘operational’ section may impede or consume the strategic role of LUTP, and seating arrangements as currently the Traffic & Transport section is located in another building.

· GMT previously decided that the Traffic & Transport section would stay as a team – this is the case and should ensure that existing service levels are met.

· Improved integration of Transport Planning and Traffic Services is an expected Outcome of this move.

· Moving Traffic and Transport to LUTP is cost neutral.

· Additional Accountabilities (RTA Delegation and Parramatta Local Traffic Committee) would be allocated to the Manager LUTP.

4.4 Environmental Protection Team

Environmental Health Officers will transfer into the new Health & Safety Service area, but remain on their existing Position Descriptions.

4.5 Regulated Premises Team

Environmental Health Officers will transfer into the new health & Safety Service area, but remain on their existing Position Descriptions.

4.6 Ranger Services

The impact for this service area are:

· the reduction of the Parking Patrol Officers team from 18 to 16 officers by a process of natural attrition.

· Centralisation of support resources

4.7 Business Improvement and Development Support

The Development Support team would report to the Team Leader Business Improvement Services, and the tile for the Team Leader Development Support would be changed to Coordinator Development Support

Team Leaders / Service Manager positions

4.8 Team Leader Design Specialists (working title)

Formerly – Team Leader Tree Management

This is a leadership role for a team of design specialists in the Development Service Unit. This position will report to the Service Manager Safe and Quality Development. A specialist team was suggested by staff in the workshop held on 8^th May 2008. This is a modification of the position currently held by Robert Sutton (Supervisor Tree Management). A revised PD and OCR assessment will be required, and the team will decide on a new title for the position.

Discussions with staff and with Union Delegates on 19 June 2008 suggest that a re-think of this position. The concerns are as follows:

1. That should the team leader be an engineer that person would be unable to provide relevant technical advice on tree related matters.

2. That should the team leader be an aborist that person would be unable to provide technical advice on engineering related matters.

3. The making of a team leader position will take out an ‘operational’ position and there are no resources to add another operational position.

4. Engineers / arborists may not aspire to a position leading a multidisciplinary team, and this (partially) defeats the purpose of creating this position.

4.9 Service Manager Health and Safety (working title)

Formerly - Service Manager Construction and Development Control

This is a modification of the position currently held by Laurie Whitehead (Service Manager Construction and Development Control). The modified will lead the new Health and Safety section, which brings together existing Fire Safety, Environmental protection and Development Control activities. A revised PD and OCR assessment will be required.

4.10 Team Leader Health & Regulated Premises

Formerly – Supervisor Regulated Premises

Closely relates to the existing Team Leader Regulated Premises position. . A revised PD and OCR assessment will be required.

4.11 Team Leader Environment and Building Control

Formerly - Supervisor Environmental Protection / Team Leader Development Control. This role brings together ‘Health’ and ‘Building’ aspects of regulation. A revised PD and OCR assessment will be required.

4.12 Waste Planning & Education Officer (working title)

This is a modification of existing position of Waste Planning Officer, and it will be located in the new Health & Safety Service Area. A revised PD and OCR assessment will be required.

4.13 Coordinator Regulatory Support

This position will be similar to the Coordinator Development Support. The proposal is that the coordinator is sourced from existing staff and will have both operational and staff management responsibilities. A revised PD and OCR assessment will be required.

New Positions

4.14 Unit Manager Regulatory Services

A Level 3 position to head up the Regulatory Services Unit, which has 3 direct reports;

· Service Manager Health and Safety

· Service Manager Ranger Services

· Coordinator Regulatory Support.

A position similar to this existed in the old Environment & Health Department. It is recognized that there is no funding source for this position, particularly given the cost neutral approach to this project. Saving will be made through the merging of three team leader positions into two in the new Health & Safety section.

4.15 Two compliance / health and safety officers.

Funding source yet to be confirmed may be achieved through natural attrition in the Parking Patrol Officer area, where the proposal is to reduce the number of staff down from 18 to 16 (through natural attrition). The objective would be to increase capacity to respond to complaints about health and building related matters.

One Position name change only

4.16 Coordinator Development Support

Formerly – Team Leader Development Support.

This is a name change as the proposal sees the position reporting to the Manager Business Improvement, and two additional staff moved into the Development Support team. The position description (PD) does not change.

The change is in line with the concept of centralized support, and provides a career path opportunity, as in the existing structure the Team Leader Development Support cannot aspire to become the Service Manager Development Assessment. The incumbent in this position had challenged the change claiming that it is a downgrade of the position. This will be reviewed by the team leaders.

Communication throughout the course of the project has occurred through:

· Team Meetings

· Group emails

· Cascade briefings

· One-on-one discussions

· workshops

Some staff are leave, and some of these overseas (Ricardo Santos and Leanne Niblock for example). Attempts have been made to contact staff on maternity leave (Anna Drew and Hayley Lloyd – Anna had provided comment and Hayley has received a copy of the preferred structure).

How has the Manager explained the likely effects of the change and the options available to all the employees concerned?

Communication has occurred through a number of channels: direct emails, face to face, team meetings, Managers and team leaders meetings and Cascade briefings. Team leaders were also requested to meet with their teams to specifically discuss the preferred options 4a. Attached are the records that these meetings have occurred.

What documentation has been provided to the employees?

All staff in the Development Services and Regulatory Services Units were provided with access to all the documentation relating to the Integration Project.

All for the documents were stored at:

S:\KEEP\Outcomes & Development\Integration Project 0708

Notes from specific team meetings were also distributed to participants and copies stored on the S:\KEEP drive for all to access.

Colour copies of the 5 structural options were displayed at the briefing with all staff on 4^th June 2008.

What opportunity and time frame was given to the employees to respond with issues for consideration?

All staff in both DSU and Regulatory Services were invited to participate in the Integration project fro the time of the handover on 13^th August to the present time. Throughout the course of the project the team leaders and supervisors have met monthly then weekly to ensure the concerns of staff were considered in the process.

Outcomes of the project were progressively considered by GMT:

· On 30 April 2008 GMT supported the

o Centralisation of admin resources

o Exploring opportunities for Compliance and Regulatory Service to work more closely together

o Opportunities for more apprenticeships and traineeships.

What alternative submissions have been submitted by the affected employees?

Option 4a has been accepted and supported by staff in both units, and to date the majority of staff have signed the Workplace Reform ‘Declaration by Employees’ (88 staff), 13 Staff are on leave and 5 outstanding.

Alternatives have been suggested for:

· Modified position Team Leader Design Specialists

· Changed name and reporting line of the exiting position Team Leader Development Support, and the relationship and role of Business Support

· Draft PD for the Building Surveyor role in the new Health & Safety area

What responses from the Manager were given to matters raised by the employees?

· Emails directly to concerned staff

· Meeting set up

· Issues raised with union representatives

To what extent have the relevant Union Delegate/s been involved in the consultation process?

· Meeting held with Union delegates on 19^th June 2008

· Meeting held with Union delegates on 11^th March 2008

· Updates to the Joint Consultative Committee on 6^th November 2007, 4^th March, 3^rd June, and 6^th May 2008.

· Updates to the Workplace Reform subcommittee on 30^th October 2007, 29^th April, and 27th May 2008

Please indicate the level of discussions that have occurred with the unions if the proposal has “significant effects” on employees, and attach all correspondence with the union/s.

· Meeting held with Union delegates on 19^th June 2008

· Formal notification to occur when modified and new Position Descriptions have been assessed through the OCR system.

5. Occupational Health and Safety.

What considerations have been given to the occupational health and safety implications of the changes to job design or new positions? 

A primary consideration in support of the preferred organisational structure (Option 4a) is ensuring that appropriate support is provided to staff. The reinstatement of a Level 3 Unit Manager and Service Manager position in the Regulatory Services area is designed to ensure that;

· the workload for the managers in Development Services and Regulatory Services is reasonable and appropriate to ensure maintaining and improving customer service

· Team Leaders and Service Managers are not unfairly stressed given the high volume of contestable activity in both DSU and Regulatory Services, and the frequency of complaints targeted against staff

5. Declaration by Employees

NOTE: REFER TO ATTACHED SHEETS

I/we confirm that my/our Manager has provided full details of the proposed changes and that I/we have been given opportunity to respond to the proposal.

I/we have been advised that under the terms of the Local Government (State) Award, union advice can be sought in relation to this proposal.

I/we have had the opportunity to review, comment on any relevant job description(s) and organisation chart attached to this template.

EMPLOYEE NAME

SIGNATURE

DATE

Additional Comment by Employee

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7. Declaration by Manager

All affected employee(s) have been consulted regarding the impact of this proposal and have had the opportunity to provide input into the formation of the proposal according to the consultation section in this template.

NAME

SIGNATURE

DATE

Kevin Brennan

Change Manager Regulatory Services

8. Approval/Endorsement of Group Manager

NAME

SIGNATURE

DATE

Marcelo Occhiuzzi

Acting Group Manager Outcomes and Development

1. Process

· All proposals must be completed by the relevant manager and submitted to the wprsc through the relevant HR SUP.

· All proposals must be accompanied by all relevant documentation including reports, memos, letters to employee and unions, position descriptions, and organisation charts.

· The appropriate union must also be advised once a definite decision has been taken to implement workplace reform, which may have significant efforts on employees.

· Recommendation of wprsc goes to consultative committee.

· Consultative committee recommends to General Manager

· For new or vacant positions, once the proposal is fully approved, you should commence recruitment for the position

· Proposal implemented.

· Ongoing discussion with employees about implementation

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Consultation Log

2. Organisation Charts

3. Staffing Principles

4. GMT / Cascade Briefs

5. Communication examples

Item 14.7 - Attachment 1

Policy on provision of catering

POLICY ON PROVISION OF CATERING

CREATED 9 APRIL 2008

INDEX

Section Topic Page

1 Introduction 3

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Scope

1.3 Background

1.4 Related policies

2 Policy Statements & Principles 5

2.1 Fiscal responsibilities

2.2 Environmental responsibilities

2.3 Social & local responsibilities

2.4 Ethical responsibilities

3 Council funds & catering 6

3.1 Catering expenses funded by council

3.2 Catering expenses not funded by council

3.3 Catering not subject to this policy

4 How to cater for council events 6

4.1 Event types

4.2 Decision matrix

5 How to organise catering 7

5.1 Use of tendered caterers

5.2 Use of council’s facilities officers for catering purposes.

5.3 Purchase and distribution of internal catering provisions

5.4 Use of volunteers for catering purposes.

6 Tendering for catering services 9

6.1 What the request for tender will include

6.2 What the tendered caterer must provide

6.3 Distribution of excess food

7 Responsibilities 10

8 Definitions 11

9 Procedures 12

1. Introduction

Parramatta City Council (PCC) coordinates a range of functions throughout the year which include civic events, council meetings and workshops, staff training days and other business related meetings and events. Many of these functions require catering for councillors, staff and guests attending.

This policy provides direction for staff responsible for organising catering at council functions to ensure consistency and accountability. To assist staff determine the appropriate catering for each function, all function types have been categorised with allowable expenditure. This policy is accompanied by a procedures document to guide the procurement of catering and the purchase, use and storage of food and beverage provisions on site.

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to:

(a) Regulate catering expenditure associated with council functions

(b) Standardise procurement of catering provisions

(d) Ensures catering provides a healthy choice of food and beverage

(e) Ensure minimum wastage

(f) Provide catering in accordance with socially and environmentally responsible principles

(g) Ensure the services of councils ‘facilities support officers’ are used appropriately

(h) Provide guidelines for the preparation of a catering tender.

1.2 SCOPE

This policy applies to all PCC staff engaging the services of caterers or purchasing catering provisions for council. Catering organisations providing their services or supplies to council must also comply with this policy.

This policy does not apply to staff providing catering at their own personal expense.

For information about events and functions not covered by this policy, refer to section 3.3.

1.3 Background

An internal review was conducted to examine council’s catering practices. The purpose of the review was to ascertain current costs and practices associated with the provision of catering across council and to recommend a ‘best practice’ approach to this service. The review recommended that a catering policy with procedures be developed to regulate all facets of catering throughout the organisation.

1.4 Related Policies

Other PCC policies that relate to this policy include the:

(a) Civic Office Expenses and Facilities Policy- section 10.1 (d) of this policy relates to the provision of meals and refreshments for councillors at council meetings, workshops and other council related business

(b) Procurement Policy 287 adopted by council in September 2007 - sections of this policy provide tendering guidelines and procurement procedures for the purchase of goods and services

(c) Environmental Management Policy, which includes commitments to showing environmental leadership, and reducing waste, resource use and pollution. The policy specifies that Council will work with staff and suppliers to constantly strive to improve our environmental performance in all aspects.



 2 Policy statements and principles

2.1 Fiscal responsibilities

(a) Staff organising catering for Council functions must adhere to the expenditure allowed for each function type listed in Annexure 1. Where a function does not fit into one of the categories listed, approval must be given by the General Manager for the allowable expenditure.

(b) Staff must ensure minimum wastage occurs when providing catering at council functions.

(c) Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) can create a sizable liability for Council as it almost doubles the cost for the staff proportion for some catering types, for example dining at external restaurants, cafes and events; any function where alcohol is available and Christmas parties. To minimise this liability staff must ensure they adhere to the catering categories listed in the decision matrix (Annexure 1).

(d) Correct account codes relating to the type of function and catering must be used. Catering expenditure must indicate usage by either staff or councillors through the allocation of expenses to the relevant account code. This is vital for the calculation of FBT.

2.2 Environmental responsibilities

Environmentally responsible practices must be adopted in all areas of the provision and service of catering, including disposal of catering waste.

Detailed environmental guidelines are contained in Annexure 5.

2.3 Social/local responsibilities

Council is committed to fostering social enterprise ventures in the Local Government Area. These ventures create jobs in Parramatta for people that have been marginalised due to a disability or other disadvantage. PCC will give preference to the engagement of such enterprises and activities where the service quality and cost of catering is comparable to that service provided by a professional catering organisation.

(a) The tender document will include weighting specifications towards local catering providers.

(b) Council will include in its catering tender that where possible, the caterer will engage with a licensed provider to distribute left over food from council meetings and functions to disadvantaged groups within the Local Government Area.

2.4 Ethical Responsibilities

(a) Council will endeavour to ensure that, where products are purchased for catering purposes, a fair price has been paid to providers at all stages of the production of the product.

(b) Council will endeavour to ensure that, where animal products are purchased, the animals concerned were treated humanely. In particular, free range eggs are to be selected over cage eggs.

(c) All staff involved in the sale, supply or promotion of alcohol should complete an accredited training course in the ‘responsible service of alcohol’. It is important that staff understand the requirements of the Liquor laws in detail, in order to protect themselves and council from civil and criminal liability.



 3. COUNCIL FUNDS & CATERING

3.1 Catering expenses funded by council.

Council will provide funds for council related business functions only. Functions/meetings that are deemed to be Council related are listed in the decision matrix (Annexure 1). The decision matrix states the maximum expenditure allowed per head for each type of function.

3.2 Catering expenses not funded by council.

Council will not provide funds for any function that is deemed as being non council business related. Types of non Council business related functions include: birthday celebrations, staff farewells, anniversaries or any other function that is not directly related to the business of council.

Any function types held at Council that are not listed in Annexure 1 will not be funded by Council and therefore are not subject to this policy.

3.3 Catering not subject to this policy.

Staff procuring catering provisions or services at their own personal expense are not subject to this policy. This relates to non business related Council functions as stated in 3.2 where the catering provisions and services are funded through the personal contributions of staff and not provided by Council funds.

4. How to cater for council functions

4.1 Event types

The types of council functions identified in the 2007 catering review and included in the decision matrix (annexure 1) include:

· Council meetings and workshops

· Committee meetings

· Civic events, citizenships and formal receptions.

· Council business functions both internal and external

· Training courses

· Working lunches

· Council’s end of year staff function for all staff

· Executive/Business lunch/dinner

4.2 Decision matrix

a) Staff must refer to the decision matrix (Annexure 1) of this policy to establish the maximum expenditure allowed for each function type. The decision matrix states the maximum cost allowable ‘per head’ for each function type inclusive of food, beverages and services provided for that function. Other expenses incurred in the organising of functions such as venue and equipment hire are not included in these costs. This decision matrix should be used to establish the total catering costs for each function in relation to the number of attendees.

(b) Staff are encouraged to adopt a reduced cost per head to that listed in the decision matrix Annexure 1. The decision to reduce the cost per head may be under circumstances where sponsorship funds are provided by an external organisation or where the function being catered for would be adequately catered for with a reduced menu.

5. How to organise catering.

Annexure 2 of this policy provides a flowchart of the catering request process.

5. 1 Use of tendered caterers

(a) The tender process will appoint several catering providers and all catering and related services funded by Council, are to be procured through one of these approved caterers. The details of these caterers will be provided on Council’s procurement web page.

(b) Staff are responsible for providing the selected caterer with the relevant function type, category and costs as specified in Annexure 1. A catering request form (Annexure 3) is to be completed at least 5 days prior to the event, authorised by the relevant service manager and forwarded to the caterer.

(c) Staff responsible for organising catering, must ensure stringent measures are in place to confirm attendee numbers within the agreed period specified in the catering tender. Staff must ensure through careful planning that over catering and wastage at council functions is kept to a minimum.

(d) In the event that none of the caterers listed in the tender are available, staff may engage the services of a caterer not approved in the formal tender, in line with Council’s procurement policy. The catering request form (Annexure 3) must be completed stating the reason for not using one of the approved caterers for the manager’s approval.

5. 2 Use of council’s Facilities Support Officers (FSO) for catering purposes.

Annexure 1 of this policy lists the functions that may be catered for by utilising Council’s Facilities Support Officers to purchase, deliver, set up and remove catering provisions. The services of council’s FSO’s should only be engaged where internal provisions such as tea, coffee, biscuits are provided and/or it remains a cost effective option compared to engaging one of the tendered caterers.

Staff must book catering through Lotus notes and provide the FSO’s with a Catering Request Form (Annexure 3) authorised by their manager at least two (2) days prior to the event.

5. 3 Purchase and distribution of internal catering provisions.

(a) FSO’s purchasing catering provisions for Council business related functions must adhere to Council’s procurement policy and procedures. All stock purchased must be kept in locked storage facilities and recorded in council’s Catering Provisions Register. Accurate records of the distribution of catering provisions must be recorded in this register.

(b) Internal provisions other than tea, coffee and biscuits, such as alcohol, juice or soft drinks are not to be consumed by staff unless permission has been granted by the Unit Manager.

5.4 Use of volunteers for catering purposes

(a) Staff may engage individual volunteers or a volunteer organisation to assist in the provision and service of catering at council functions. Staff must ensure that the necessary volunteer agreement forms are completed and that proof of public liability insurance is provided.

(b) Council may provide a small donation to the volunteer organisation in appreciation of their services.

6. Tendering for catering services

6.1 What the request for tender will include

(a) Council will tender for the provision of catering at all council functions for a period of three years. Council will invite submissions of quotations from suitable caterers for the provision of meals prior to council meetings, workshops, civic functions and other business functions organised by council.

(b) The tender will specify in particular; preparation standards, minimum numbers for catering, menu types and related costs.

(c) To provide variations in menus and flexibility in booking arrangements several catering organisations will be selected from the tender process.

(d) The tender shall include specifications for caterers to provide a healthy choice of food and beverages at all Council meetings and functions

(Annexure 4).

(e) The tender will include weighting towards local catering organisations.

(f) The tender will require the selected caterers to engage an approved charity provider (as agreed by Council’s Council Support Manager) to distribute left over food from Council meetings and events to disadvantaged people within the Parramatta Local Government Area.

(g) The tender will state as a preference, that each caterer holds a ‘gold licence’ accreditation.

6.2 What the tendered caterers will provide

The tendered caterer/s will:

(a) comply with the decision matrix in Annexure 1 of this policy in relation to menu types and cost per head for each function category

(b) provide flexibility in relation to changes to attendance numbers or menu types at functions

(d) provide accurate and prompt invoicing of accounts to council’s finance unit

(e) comply with all occupational health and safety and safe food handling legislation

(f) ensure waste is kept to a minimum, maximising use of reusable containers, plates and cups and ensuring all disposable products are recyclable at the facility where the function is being held.

(g) ensure that catering is suitable for attendees with special food needs.

RESPONSIBILITIES

Requisitioner

Ensure appropriate catering forms are completed and authorised by a Manager.

All Managers

Only authorise expenditure that is permitted under this policy.

Council Support Manager

Preparation of tender document and updating catering policy and procedures when required.

Ensure staff compliance to the catering policy and tender.

Approve charity provider for left over food.

Facilities Support Officers

Provide assistance for council related functions only.

Provide six monthly stock takes of council provisions

Ensure catering request forms are completed and signed by a manager before providing service.

Business Support Officers

Ensure accurate numbers for catering are provided to council’s approved caterer in relation to council meetings & workshops.

Civic Events Officer

Ensure the appropriate costs per head for function types stated in this policy are adhered to. Adhere to all other conditions of this policy

Environmental Management System Coordinator

Provide advice and assistance as necessary to ensure caterers, staff and attendees understand and can adhere to the environmental responsibilities as set out in this policy.

All staff

Comply with all aspects of this policy when ordering catering provisions and engaging the services of councils approved caterers. Ensure catering request forms are completed and authorised.

8. Definitions

Definitions of terms used in this policy

Accountable

Council and their staff are answerable for their procurement decisions and all monies spent, therefore all procurement and use of goods and services must be completed in the most efficient and effective way and comply with all legal obligations and councils code of conduct to deliver best value solutions.

Staff Awards

Functions facilitated by Human Resources to celebrate the achievements of staff.

Civic Events

Events held by the Lord Mayor.

Council Meetings & Workshops

All council meetings and workshops dates are adopted by council prior to their occurrence. Catering for these meetings are provided in line with council’s ‘civic office expenses and facilities policy’ and councils catering policy. This definition does not include any other committee or meetings held at council.

Council ‘end of year’ Celebration

Official annual function organised and paid for by council to celebrate the year’s achievements of all indoor and outdoor staff at council. Any other functions held to celebrate achievements at a department, unit or group level must be authorised by the General Manager.

Executive/ business functions

Functions held at the discretion of the Lord Mayor or General Manager

External Functions

Council events held external to council’s offices which would include civic receptions, community events or other council business events where catering is provided by councils tendered caterers.

In-House Functions

Community and business group meetings held within council premises.

Non-Business Functions.

Functions not related to Council business which include staff ‘get-togethers’ birthdays celebrations, farewells etc. Council will not fund the catering of these functions.

Social Enterprise

A social enterprise is a non-profit business whose purpose is to create employment for marginalised people, including refugees, indigenous people, people with disabilities and other long-term unemployed people.

Staff Training Courses

Training courses approved by council’s human resources department.

Working Lunch

Where important business meetings prevent staff from leaving the building to purchase their own lunch.

Gold Licence

Accreditation scheme developed by Restaurant & Catering NSW, enables catering operators to be recognised by Government departments (Gold licence is mandatory for most Government tender applications)

Procedures

Annexure 1- Decision matrix

Annexure 2- Catering request process

Annexure 3- Catering request form

Annexure 4- Nutritional guidelines

Annexure 5 - Environmental Guidelines

Annexure 1 Decision Matrix

Catering Categories (CPI indexed annually on 30 June)

Code	Catering Categories	Description	Maximum expenditure per head
A	Basic Morning/Afternoon Tea	tea, coffee, juice, biscuits	Provided by council’s FSO
B	Morning/Afternoon Tea	muffins, fruit, tea, coffee, juice	$10-$12
C	Working lunch or dinner	sandwiches/wraps, fruit, tea, coffee, juice	$12-$15
D	Dinner	3 course meal, tea, coffee, juice	$45
E	Cocktail Menu	finger food (savoury and sweet), tea, coffee, juice	$30-$35
F	Buffet or Cocktail Menu	Buffet or finger food, Tea, coffee,+ juice	$40-$45
G	BBQ	Sausage sizzle, steak sandwich, vegetarian choice salad and tea, coffee, juice	$10-$15
	Alcohol	Wine/beer will only be provided at specific functions as identified in the following chart	$10

Event Type	Catering categories (See table above)	Alcohol permitted	Catering, Serving and Cleaning provided by: FSO=Facilities Support Officers TC=Tendered Caterer V=Volunteer group VC=Venue Catering
Council Meetings
Ordinary/Regulatory	D	Yes	TC
Council Workshop	C	Yes	TC
Council Committees
Advisory Committees Program Panel and other formal committee	C	NO	TC
Civic Events
Flag Raising Ceremony	B	No	TC
Citizenship Ceremonies	B	No	V/TC
Civic Receptions	F	Yes	TC
Business Functions
Working Lunch	C	No	TC
Full day training courses	C& A	No	VC/TC
In-House business morning/afternoon tea	A	No	FSO
Half Day In-house training	A	No	TC
Executive Business lunch/dinner Function	D or E	Yes	TC
Management Plan Expo	E	Yes	TC
Miscellaneous
Official Council “End of Year” Celebration	F	Yes	VC
Staff Awards Quarterly	B	No	FSO
Staff Awards Yearly	G	No	TC/V
Community events	G	No	TC/V

Annexure 3

CATERING REQUEST FORM

To be completed and authorised for all catering required at PCC)

To be sent to PCC caterer or Facilities Support Officers

Yes/No

Tendered Caterer’s details:

(select (1) of the three caterers provided in the tender)

………………………………………………………………………..

Yes/No

Provide details of non-tendered caterer

…………………………………………………….

(Reasons for using non-tendered caterer)

………………………………………………………………………..

Copy of three quotes if expenditure is over $250

Yes/No

Facilities Support Officer

(refer to catering policy for appropriate usage)

FUNCTION DETAILS

Refer to catering policy decision matrix (Appendix 1) attached for correct catering category and maximum cost per head

Catering category ………………….

Cost per head ………………….

Function

Details

Day

…………………

Date

…………………

Start time

…………………

Finish Time

…………………

No of attendees

…………………

Venue & address

…………………

Venue contact details:

…………………

Access details

(Load in/out time)

…………………

Kitchen Facilities

………………………………………………………………………………….

AUTHORISATION

Catering requested by: ……………………………………………………….

Signature: ……………………………………………………….

Section: ……………………………………………………….

Unit: ……………………………………………………….

Contact Details: …………………………………………………………

Manager Authorisation

Name of manager authorising: ……………………

Signature: …………………

General Managers authorisation if catering is not listed in decision matrix

Name of manager authorising:.…………..…………….

Signature:..…………….

Please complete the applicable tables shown below

Table 1A. Costing – Not Project (all sections to be completed)

Entity

Responsibility

Activity

Natural Account

Project

Spare

anD if work order expenditure is involved, complete Table 1B also

Table 1B. Work Order Costing (shaded areas not required)

Area

Work Order No.

Project No.

Task No.

Entity

P

A

FBT RQUIREMENTS – MUST BE COMPLETED (Councillors and Lord Mayor not counted as staff)

Caterer: _____________________________________________________

No. of people in attendance _____________________________________________________

How many staff in attendance _____________________________________________________

Did they eat? _______________ Did they consume alcohol? _____________

Annexure 4

Nutritional Guidelines

The preparation of a catering Tender must ensure it includes specifications and requirements for caterers to provide a healthy choice of food at all meetings and functions. Specifications must request the caterer to provide catering within the following guidelines: Note: Staff purchasing provisions for council functions must also adhere to the following guidelines:

· Select foods and beverages that are culturally appropriate

· Choose foods that are low in fat, especially avoiding saturated and trans fats

· Provide whole grain products

· Provide fresh fruits and vegetables, and salads

· Provide vegetarian, vegan and wheat free options, recognising that people with special diets require protein in the same quantities as people without special dietary needs

· Offer locally grown products, when available

· Offer organically produced products, when available

· Serve non-fat or 1% milk, soy milk, 100% fruit or vegetable juice, water or unsweetened iced tea instead of soft drinks and other sugar-sweetened beverages

· Provide pitchers or bottles of tap water at meetings

· Avoid foods with added salt and added sugar

· Follow safe food handling practices

· Provide Nutrition Facts Labels whenever possible

· Low Sugar

Annexure 5 – Environmental Guidelines

Catering for all Council functions is to be undertaken in accordance with Council’s commitments to continual improvement and leadership in reducing waste, pollution and use of resources. The following guidelines apply:

Sustainable Purchasing

a) For functions where use of disposable cups, plates and /or crockery is unavoidable, items provided are to be made of materials for which recycling or composting is provided at the premises (whether permanently or temporarily for the function). Appropriate materials include:

▪ recycled and unbleached paper,

▪ bamboo, corn starch or other plant materials

▪ PET 1 plastic, HDPE 2 plastic or V 3 plastic

Note: Where composting facilities are not available, preference is to be given to recyclable materials. Organic materials (paper, food, bamboo) do not readily compost in landfill as there is no oxygen present, and their presence in landfill produces methane (a greenhouse gas) and pollutes groundwater.

b) Plastic straws are not to be provided at catered functions. Where straws are necessary, paper straws are to be supplied.

c) Where it is necessary to provide serviettes, they are to be made of recycled paper, unbleached paper and are to measure not more than 20cm in width.

Waste Reduction

d) Packaging of all products used in catering for a function is to be reusable or locally recyclable or biodegradable.

Note: Plastic cling wrap is not recyclable or biodegradable. Where sandwiches are to be served on a platter, they are to be transported from the supplier in reusable, sealed containers.

e) Where product packaging is reusable, the packaging must be returned to the supplier immediately after the function for which it was supplied. This includes items such as polystyrene boxes, crates, plastic sealable containers and platters.

f) Disposable cups, plates and crockery must not be used unless reusable alternatives are not available and cannot be adequately washed.

g) Single-portion, individually wrapped items such as butter, jam, sugar and sauces are not to be provided. Such foods are to be served in reusable and/or refillable containers.

Waste Disposal

h) At a minimum, arrangements are to be made to ensure that all waste consisting of the following recyclable materials is recycled at the conclusion of the event:

▪ aluminium cans and bottle tops

▪ cardboard and paper

▪ wine corks

▪ glass

▪ plastic types PET 1, HDPE 2 and V 3

▪ steel cans

i) The function organiser is to ensure that all staff involved in serving and cleaning up are aware of the recycling / composting arrangements for the site.

j) Where disposable or biodegradable items are used in catering, the organiser is to ensure that used items are properly disposed of to recycling or composting facilities, and that any necessary arrangements are made to ensure collection by the required waste contractors.

k) Note: it is advisable to inform attendees of the waste system being provided to ensure cooperation. This may entail use of clear signage or making mention of it in the course of presentations. It is necessary to minimise contamination to ensure that recycling loads are not rejected by the recycling station.

l) For large events, the organiser is to ensure bins are checked by staff during the course of the function to ensure that sufficient space remains for continued disposal of recyclable, biodegradable and landfill waste.

Reduced “Food Miles”

m) Preference is to be given to foods that are locally produced, as transport of food uses considerable resources.

n) Preference is to be given to foods that are in season, as producing foods outside normal seasons is resource intensive.

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

1View	Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 23 June 2008 regarding Draft Planning Controls for Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere	24 Pages
2View	Petition from the Residents of Smythe Street, Merrylands that was tabled at Council Meeting on 14 July 2008 to be considered in conjunction with this matter	3 Pages

1View	Independent Urban Design Report	3 Pages
2View	Previous Manager Development Services Report 11 December 2006	37 Pages

1View	Detailed Report Deferred Area Attachment 1	8 Pages
2View	RDS Deferred Area Attachment 2	9 Pages
3View	RDS Deferred Area Attachment 3	4 Pages

1View	Detailed Report - Review of draft Heritage Listing	8 Pages
2View	Parramatta, Toonabbie and Epping Heritage Studies - Review of Recommendations	45 Pages
3View	Potential Epping Heritage Changes	1 Page

1View	LGA Dog Off-Leash Comparisons	1 Page
2View	Dan Mahoney Reserve Off-Leash Area Location Map	1 Page
3View	Darcy Road Reserve Off-Leash Area Location Map	1 Page
4View	George Kendall Riverside Park Off-Leash Area Location Map	1 Page
5View	Barnett Park Off-Leash Area Location Map	1 Page

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

1View	Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting - Tuesday 22 April 2008	2 Pages
2View	Audit Committee Minutes from 26 June 2008	5 Pages

1View	Operating Protocols for Code of Conduct Committee ver2.1	4 Pages
2View	Conduct Committee Report July 2008 Final	4 Pages
3View	Code Of Conduct	25 Pages