Agenda of Ordinary Council

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO

1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council - 27 July 2009, Regulatory Council - 10 August 2009

2 APOLOGIES

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

4 Minutes of Lord Mayor

5 Public Forum

6 PETITIONS

7 COUNCIL MATTERS TO BE ADOPTED WITHOUT DISCUSSION

8 Regulatory Reports

8.1 7/3 Sutherland Street, Clyde (Lot 7 SP 64748) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

8.2 20 Nobbs Street, South Granville (Lots 32 and 33 DP 1305)
(Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

Note: deferred from Council Meeting on 10 August 2009

9 City Development

9.1 Placement of Charity Clothing Bins on Council Owned Land within the Parramatta Local Government Area

9.2 Changes to Council Owned Land in the Draft LEP 2008

9.3 Classification of 38 Marion Street, Parramatta to Operational

9.4 Lifting of the Local Heritage Listing on two Recently Acquired Properties

9.5 Review of Policy on Outdoor Dining

9.6 Rezoning and/or reclassification of 657-661 Victoria Road and 4 and 6 Wharf Road, Melrose Park (Bartlett Park)

10 Roads Paths Access and Flood Mitigation

10.1 Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting minutes held on
6 August 2009

10.2 Parramatta Committee meeting minutes held on 6 August 2009

11 Culture and Leisure

11.1 Facilities in Dog Off-Leash Areas

12 Community Care

12.1 Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee meeting 26th May 2009

12.2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting 23rd June 2009

12.3 Access Advisory Committee Minutes 16 June 2009

13 City Leadership and Management

13.1 Investments Report for June 2009

13.2 Review of Council's Adopted Code of Conduct

13.3 Review of Council's Policy for Interaction Between Councillors and Staff

13.4 Review of Council's Whistleblowers Protection Policy

13.5 Independent Professional Advice on Investment Policy

13.6 Quarterly Management Plan and Budget Review - June 2009

13.7 Council Structure

13.8 Fees and Charges 2009/10 - Events Stallholder Charges

14 Notices of Motion

14.1 Senior Citizens

15 DECISIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION

16 Closed Session

16.1 Expressions of Interest for new All-Weather Multi-Use Court Complex at Barton Park - Tender Number 5/2009

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government act 1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

16.2 Proposed Grant of Easement for Underground Cables and Sub-station to Integral Energy Over Diamond Avenue and Lot 1 DP430693 off Diamond Avenue Granville

16.3 Lake Parramatta Reserve Kiosk and Future Development Options

16.4 Tender 17/2009 South Street, Granville Town Centre Upgrade (Stage 3) - Civil, Drainage, Paving, Landscape and Streetscape Works.

16.5 Proposed Voluntary Planning Agreement 114 - 124 Church St Parramatta

16.6 Class 1 Land and Environment Court Appeal proceedings against Council's deemed refusal of development application 910/2008 for the use of the premises located at Unit 7/3 Sutherland Street, Clyde for the purposes of a 24 hour Brothel

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (e) (g) of the Local Government act 1993 as the report contains information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law; AND the report contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

16.7 Councils Online Status

16.8 Urgent Legal Matters

No matters as yet.

17 QUESTION TIME

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER 8.1

SUBJECT 7/3 Sutherland Street, Clyde (Lot 7 SP 64748) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION Approval is sought for the internal fitout and use of the existing premises as a commercial brothel.

REFERENCE DA/910/2008 - lodged 27 November 2008

APPLICANT/S IV Trading Pty Ltd

OWNERS Tova Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The development application relates to a brothel.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval to fit out and use the existing commercial unit for the purpose of a brothel. A total of 6 work rooms are proposed with a maximum of 6 sex workers operating on the premises at any one time (staffing will be in three 8 hour shifts per day, being 10am to 6pm; 6pm; to 2am and 2am to 10am). One receptionist/manager is proposed on site at all times, as well as a part time contract cleaner. A total of six on-site car parking spaces are provided, inclusive of one disabled parking space. The proposed hours of operation are 24 hours, 7 days a week. No changes are proposed to the façade of the building. No signage is proposed.

The applicant has lodged an appeal with the Land and Environment Court. The callover date is 26 August 2009.

Amended plans were received by Council on 22 July 2009 and filed with the L.E.C on 28 July 2009. The amendments include internal layout modifications, external security provisions, a revised Traffic Report, Statement of Environmental Effects and Plan of Management. The amended DA was re-notified between 7 August and 21 August 2009. Any further submissions will be the subject of an addendum report to Council.

The ground floor will comprise of an entrance lobby, a bin storage area, disabled amenities, a disabled work room and stair access to the first floor as well as internal visitor car parking spaces. The first floor will comprise of a staff meals room, Manager’s office, common unisex WC and shower, laundry, reception, linen and archives room, 2 client waiting rooms, staff waiting room, staff rest room and 5 working rooms.

Twelve submissions have been received objecting to the application. The issues raised within those submissions include the impact of the proposal on parking; inconsistency in the plans submitted with the development application; owner’s consent not being provided; the impact of the proposal on children, surrounding businesses and the economic viability of neighbouring properties; acoustic impacts; lack of external security provisions; increase in criminal activity; the proposal does not share the moral values of the wider community and that the workers of the brothel will be subject to abuse by employers and clients.

The application was referred to Council’s Crime and Corruption Officer who states inter alia:

‘…Having considered all the relevant circumstances and in particular public interest considerations pursuant to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, I recommend that this development application be refused on the basis that it is not in the public interest.

The grounds for public interest are that to permit the proposed development would lead to intensification of brothels within an area that already has a cluster of brothels, and

The applicant has displayed a lack of understanding of risk issues with the operation of a brothel. The subject application does not deal with these risks in a meaningful manner. These risks create a real danger to patrons and employees of the proposed brothel as well as persons working nearby.

I recommend against the approval of this proposed development.’

The NSW Police were also invited to comment on the application. No formal comment has been received from the NSW Police in relation to the proposal.

The proposal is regarded as being inconsistent with the objectives of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001, the objectives of the Employment 4 zone and the requirements of Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 and Parramatta DCP 2005. Accordingly, DA/910/2008 is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Development Application No. 910/2008 for the fit out and use of the premises for the purposes of a brothel be refused, for the reasons in Attachment 1 of this report.

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

Attachments:

1View	Section 79c report	24 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Plans and elevations	11 Pages
4	Strategic Crime and Corruption Officer review	5 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

CITY DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.1

SUBJECT Placement of Charity Clothing Bins on Council Owned Land within the Parramatta Local Government Area

REFERENCE F2005/02439 - D01207621

REPORT OF Property Asset Management Officer

PURPOSE:

Council was approached by a charitable organisation with a proposal to allow the organisation to place clothing bins on public land within the Parramatta Local Government Area. Council adopted a Policy on “Clothing Bins in the Central Business District” in 1996 however the policy appears to be out of date and accordingly the opportunity has been taken to formulate a new policy.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council adopt the Charity Clothing Bin policy as appears at Attachment 1 for a trial period of twelve (12) months.

(b) That upon adoption of the new policy the Strategic Asset Management Unit be responsible for the management of the agreements.

(c) That Council call for Expression of Interest from charitable organisations interested in establishing clothing bins on Council property.

(d) Further, that following the trial period in (a) above, a further report be prepared for Council on the outcome.

BACKGROUND

1. There is a need for a policy to manage charity bins located within the Parramatta Local Government Area.

2. Charity bins are presently located on Council lands without any formal agreement and on other public and private lands.

3. From a town planning perspective the placement of bins is permissible as follows:

“ In areas zoned by Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 ………a portable recycling facility can be located in the residential 2A, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 3A, 3B, Employment 4 and Mixed Use zones subject to development consent being obtained. They are prohibited in remaining zones including Open Space Zones.

In areas zoned by Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.28 …… on the majority of the sites (they) could be considered as exempt development under Schedule 3, Ancillary development………….

In areas zoned by the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007, clause 38A subclause b would allow the bins to be placed on the majority of sites without the need for a development consent.”

4. In addition, any bins operating in a manner that is not recognised as a ‘safe and healthy condition’ in the environment surrounding the clothing bins can be dealt with under the Local Government Act (1993).

5. Council has been approached by a charity based organisation with a proposal to establish a number of sites within the Parramatta City Council local government area for the placement of clothing bins and has offered an annual payment and performance bond. The organisation has also offered to service and clear (empty) bins at least twice weekly or as advised by Council and will accept all responsibility for removing rubbish dumped near or around bins.

6. In order to maintain probity requirements it is considered appropriate to prepare an Expressions of Interest document aimed at charitable organisations for the placement of their collections bins on Council owned land within the local government area.

7. It is proposed to trial the Policy by limiting any agreements to 12 months in order to assess the impact of the bins on the selected property and surrounds.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

8. A review of charity clothing bin policies for various metropolitan Councils has been undertaken. Several Councils hold a performance bond and charge an annual fee for bins located on public land.

9. Parramatta City Council does not charge any fees for the placement of charity bins on public land. However it is deemed acceptable to at least cover the administration costs and management of the Policy by calling for an annual fee per bin to be payable together with a performance bond per site.

10. In addition it is well known that bins sites can become unsightly and untidy. The proposed policy caters for this by the inclusion of provisions regarding the location, distribution, number and tidiness of bin locations.

11. Charity bins located on Council land pose a Public Liability risk to Council. Therefore, there is a need to address this issue by obtaining current Public Liability Insurance Certificates of Currency from all charities that have bins located on Council owned land.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

12. Councils’ City Assets & Environment Unit were consulted and the Service Manager Open Space & Natural Resources Unit provided advice that placement of clothing bins has not been considered in any Plans of Management. The bins are therefore not permitted to be placed on any community land covered by a Plan of Management.

13. The Service Manager - Ranger Services has provided the following advice:

The location requires suitable lighting, there must be a suitable level of passing traffic to reduce instances of dumping household refuse. Any agreement must contain conditions about dumped rubbish in the immediately area surrounding the bins which requires the operator to remove such rubbish within 24 hours or face cancellation of the agreement for breach

14. Acting Service Manager – Cleansing concurs with the advice provided by Service Manager – Ranger Services.

15. Acting Service Manager – Community Capacity Building has provided the following advice :

When considering bin locations the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles should be considered. There is a preference to work with operators who are charity focused and not profit motivated.

16. The consultation acknowledged the need to carefully select appropriate locations and ongoing issues with the management of the bins specifically cleaning the areas immediately surrounding the bins.

17. While the location of bins would not be permissible on land classified as community, ie open space, they could be placed on land classified as operational.

Deborah Irwin

Property Asset Management Officer

Attachments:

1View	Attachment 1 - Policy Document	5 Pages
2View	Confidential attachment	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Report by Manager Community Development (CS 463/2002)

Minute 60085, Central Business District, 11 March 1996

Minute 76772 from Council meeting on 11 July 1994

CITY DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.2

SUBJECT Changes to Council Owned Land in the Draft LEP 2008

REFERENCE F2008/02904 - D01219162

REPORT OF Property Development Advisor

PURPOSE:

NOTE: This item was deferred form the May 25 2009 Council Meeting, to obtain probity advice on the proposed rezoning. See Attachment E

This Report looks at and analyses the proposed changes to Council owned land within the Parramatta Draft LEP document and gives the perspective of the Strategic Asset Management Unit to those changes. The Report and the attachments within also proposes other changes not considered by the Parramatta Draft LEP.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the recommended zonings of the Strategic Asset Management Unit as incorporated within the Attachment “A” under the “Zone” column be adopted to be incorporated into the comprehensive Parramatta Draft LEP. Also that the corresponding height and FSR controls recommended under “FSR” and “Height” columns be adopted to be incorporated into the comprehensive Parramatta Draft LEP.

(b) That the properties identified as Operational in Attachment “A” under the “Classification Required” column, need to be reclassified from “Community” to “Operational” land as part of the comprehensive Parramatta Draft LEP. Those properties identified as “No Change” within that column do not require reclassification.

(c) That the properties in private ownership being, 286 Railway Terrace, Guildford, 292 Railway Terrace, Guildford, 300 Railway Terrace Guildford, 25 Talbot Road Guildford, more formally known as Lot B2 in Deposited Plan 419798, Lot 16 in Deposited Plan 404160, Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 511032 and Lot A in Deposited Plan 349926, be zoned B4, Mixed Use with Floor Space Ratio of 2:1 and maximum height of 20m within Parramatta Draft LEP.

(d) That the Department of Planning be advised of these amendments to the draft LEP as part of Council’s section 64 submission.

(e) Further that a consultant be employed to conduct the carriage of the consultations and mandatory Public Hearing(s) required for the proposed reclassifications of those properties currently classified as community land.

BACKGROUND

1. Council at the Ordinary Meeting of 9 February, 2009 resolved “That a report is requested from Council’s Property Section listing all of Council’s properties and promoting a strategy which seeks to ensure that community owned land in Council’s ownership is not disadvantaged, and that scope is provided to maximise the community’s future investments”.

2. In order to comply with the time frames of exhibiting the Parramatta Draft LEP, and in particular the informal exhibition now proposed it was not possible to analyse completely every property owned by Council. However, it is possible to say that all the properties that have been identified by SAM and those that have subsequently come to our attention have been considered in this report.

3. The great majority of Council owned Community land rightly will not ever be considered for development as they are Open Space or Heritage or under community use. These properties do not need our consideration at this time for this exercise.

4. All of the recommendations contained within this report are done so within the context of the Strategic Asset Management Plan and its objectives.

5. Most of the proposed rezonings are from Public Open Space to Residential. 30% of the total parks in the Parramatta LGA are less than 0.2Ha in size and less than the minimum preferred local park size of 0.5Ha as per Department of Planning guidelines (Parramatta Open Space Plan 2003, Vol. 2, Sec 1.2).

6. Of the 27 properties which SAM is recommending for a zone other than Open Space zone only Bartlett Park exceeds the minimum guideline for a local park of 5000m2. 16 are less than 1000m2 and the balance are between 1000m2 and 5000m2.

7. Bartlett Park has an area of 4.8ha and is a strategic property within SAM and as such is the subject of a separate report.

8. The Morton Street depot is another strategic site which is the subject of some recommended changes. The relocation of the depot has been the subject of a number of reports, most recently a Needs Analysis which looked at the consolidation of Mary Parade and Morton Street to an alternative site. SAM considers that the proposals for 2 Morton Street, the neighbouring property, should be reflected within the controls for the depot site at 1A Morton Street, which is an FSR of 1.2:1 and Height of 34m and is included within Attachment A.

9. Another strategic asset is the Granville Bus Interchange and Memorial Avenue car park which has been the subject of a report to Council which resolved to support further studies for a community hub development. At this stage there has been a Social Impact Assessment and Retail Study commissioned. There is considerable local support for the redevelopment of this site as evidenced within the conclusions of the draft reports. Council will need to consider an increase in height and FSR to reflect the strategic nature of the site to the future of the Granville Town Centre. The recommendation is for an FSR of 6.0:1, which is more than the current controls and a height of 52m.

ISSUES

10. The majority of the properties within the recommendations of the report will need to be re-classified from community to operational land in accordance with the Local Government Act. Re-classification requires public consultation, advertising and a mandatory Public Hearing to put a case for each of the re-classifications.

11. This rationalisation will have a minimal impact on the total Open Space holdings of Council which is about 820ha. The recommendations of SAM are about 8ha which represents about 1% of the Open Space network of Parramatta LGA.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

12. Considerable consultation has occurred with the Land Use and Transport Planning (LUTP) and the Open Space Planning and Development team. All properties which are rezonings of Open space have been referred to LUTP and the Open Space Team for their comments and have general support.

13. This Report has been prepared to fit with the timing of the exhibition of the Parramatta Draft LEP as it is critical that the plan is exhibited with the recommendations of the SAM Unit.

14. As a result of the resolution of Council of 25 May 2009, probity advice was sought from Storey and Gough, which in summary supported the right of Council to both rezone and reclassify Council owned land but only if the legislated processes are followed. The advice is attached to this report as Attachment E.

Graeme Bleus

Property Development Advisor

Attachments:

1View	Attachment A - Legal References	1 Page
2View	Attachment B - SAM Recommendations	3 Pages
3View	Attachment C - Changes to PCC owned land in the Draft LEP	1 Page
4View	Attachment D - Map of all Properties	25 Pages
5View	Attachment E - Probity Advice from Storey & Gough	5 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

1. Open Space Plan 2003

2. Draft LEP 2008

3. Strategic Asset Management Plan

4. Storey and Gough Probity Advice

CITY DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.3

SUBJECT Classification of 38 Marion Street, Parramatta to Operational

REFERENCE F2006/00887 - D01254391

REPORT OF Property Development Advisor

PURPOSE:

This report is required to seek a resolution of Council to classify the recently acquired property at 38 Marion Street, Parramatta as Operation under the Local Government Act 1993.

RECOMMENDATION

That Lot 9 in Deposited Plan 906071, being 38 Marion Street, Parramatta, be classified as Operational land pursuant to Section 31 and 34 of the Local Government Act 1993.

BACKGROUND

1. Council had resolved to acquire this strategic property at an earlier Ordinary Meeting of Council. Contracts were exchanged in this matter on 1 June, 2009, and settlement was effected on 6 August, 2009.

2. Section 31 of the Local Government Act 1993, applies to the classification of land acquired after 1 July, 1993. In particular Section 31(2) of the Act states that Council may, before it acquires the land or within 3 months after acquisition, resolve that the land be classified as community or operational land.

3. Further, Section 31(2A) states that land acquired by Council that is not classified under subsection 2 is, at the end of the 3 month period referred to above, taken to have been classified under a local environmental plan as community land.

4. Until the land is classified Council may not change the use of the land from that immediately before the acquisition nor dispose of any interest in the land.

5. As the use of the land will be for car parking in the short term and for development in the long term the appropriate classification is operational.

6. Under Section 31 and 34 of the Local Government Act 1993 a Public Notice is required to be published locally to inform the public that Council proposes to pass a resolution to classify the land operational. Interested parties are invited to make submissions within 28 days of the publication of the notice.

7. The Public Notice was published on 8 July 2009. At the time of writing this report there have been no submissions.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

8. If the resolution is not passed by Council the land will default to a community classification which will adversely affect the ongoing use of the land.

9. Failure to classify the land at this opportunity will require a reclassification under an LEP process, which is lengthy, time consuming and requires public hearings.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

10. Consultation has taken place with Land Use, Transport Planning the Chief Executive Officer and the Heritage Consultant.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

11. In the short term there will be expenditure for further Heritage Reports however there is rental income of $2383.00 per month which will offset these outgoings.

12. The land is zoned B4 with a height limit of 54 metres which enable a potential large scale residential flat building development or a mixed use development.

Deborah Irwin and Graeme Bleus

Property Asset Management Officers

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

CITY DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.4

SUBJECT Lifting of the Local Heritage Listing on two Recently Acquired Properties

REFERENCE F2006/00887 - D01264883

REPORT OF Property Development Advisor

PURPOSE:

The properties at 40 Cowper Street, Granville and 38 Marion Street, Parramatta have been recently acquired by Council for operational purposes. Both properties are part of Schedule 5 of the LEP 2001 and require a resolution of Council to be lifted from the local heritage listing in Schedule 5 of Parramatta Draft LEP.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the property, 40 Cowper Street, Granville , more formally known as Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 998449 be lifted from Schedule 5 of Parramatta Draft LEP.

(b) Further, that the property, 38 Marion Street, Parramatta, more formally known as Lot 9 in Deposited Plan 906071 be lifted from Schedule 5 of the Parramatta Draft LEP.

BACKGROUND

1. Cowper Street- This property was acquired on 31 July, 2009 and is now in Council ownership.

2. In the Council report of 23 March, 2009 one of the future actions adopted by Council required the finalisation of the process to lift the heritage listing of 40 Cowper Street, Granville from Schedule 5 of the Parramatta LEP 2001.

3. A resolution of Council at this meeting to lift the heritage listing of 40 Cowper Street, Granville will enable the property to be removed from Schedule 5 of the Draft LEP 2008, effectively lifting the heritage listing.

4. As reported previously to Council on 23 March, 2009 the Government Architects Office completed a report which supported the lifting of the local heritage listing because, among other reasons, the property was out of context with the local surrounds. This conclusion was shared by the Council Heritage Officer, who supports the lifting of the heritage listing.

5. Marion Street- This property was acquired on 3 August, 2009, and is now in Council ownership.

6. The property is a strategic acquisition by Council as it completes the consolidation of 40 Marion Street, Parramatta to provide Council with a potentially valuable residential flat building development site.

7. As reported in the previous report of 23 June, 2008 the Heritage Architect, Wayne McPhee and Associates recommended that the local heritage listing be lifted as

“The original form, shape, layout and detail of the original Victorian style property at 38 Marion Street, Parramatta, has lost its intactness through changes carried out to its fabric during the latter part of the twentieth century.

The property has lost much of its integrity and heritage value and, in our opinion, is recommended to be removed from Schedule 5 of the PCC LEP 2007.

The property has limited capability of exhibiting its original form and detailing, its representative local heritage value has been much depleted by ill considered modern change.”

8. Councils Heritage Officer supports the recommendations of the report of the Heritage Architect.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

9. The lifting of the local heritage listings in both cases is supported by independent heritage experts and so there are no issues for Council in the process that has been adopted.

10. The consequences of not lifting the local heritage listing in both cases is that future development of the sites will be severely compromised.

11. Council has considered the heritage implications of each site in their initial resolutions to acquire each property and this together with the recommended removal of the properties from the list of heritage items in draft Parramatta LEP are the procedural parts of the acquisition.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

12. Consultation has taken place with the Council Heritage Officer, Land Use and Transport Planning Unit, the Government Architects Office and an independent heritage consultant.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

13. Each acquisition and the lifting of the local heritage listings will give the council land adjoining and the subject properties a considerable up lift in value.

Graeme Bleus

Property Development Officer

Attachments:

1View	40 Cowper Street Granville Heritage Report by NSW Government Architects Office	31 Pages
2View	38 Marion Street Parramatta Heritage Report by McPhee and Associates	39 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

CITY DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.5

SUBJECT Review of Policy on Outdoor Dining

REFERENCE F2005/01531 - D01267507

REPORT OF Property Program Manager

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to recommend an amended Policy in relation to Outdoor Dining.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt Attachment 3 as its policy on Outdoor Dining.

BACKGROUND

1. Council’s Outdoor Dining Policy has been in operation since 2003 and has resulted in a lively and attractive addition to the streetscape and atmosphere in the various CBDs. There are in excess of seventy (70) outdoor dining establishments operating at present.

2. The current Policy on Outdoor Dining is segment two (2) of the Policy on Activities on Footpaths, Roads and Public Plazas. The Outdoor Dining segment of the Policy has been working successfully however there are a number of areas within the Policy that could be improved to address a number of issues.

3. The Policy was reviewed by a cross functional group of staff each of whom has experience in the strategic and/or operational issues of outdoor dining establishments.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

4. The main issues arising in the management of the current Policy encompass such matters as:

· Greater promotion of the need for good urban design

· Greater emphasis on need for restaurant infrastructure to be able to support increased demand caused by outdoor dining

· Greater emphasis on potential need for Council to gain access to its infrastructure

· Greater emphasis on location of planter boxes

· Preferable location for tables

· Performance monitoring

· Smoking

· Billing cycles

· Fee deposit

· Awnings: attachment of outdoor dining structures

· Size of outdoor dining structures

(a) Urban Design

The opportunity has been taken in this policy update to promote good urban design.

Thus the Policy encourages structures to be sensitive to existing urban character, heritage, street quality and function.

(b) Restaurant Infrastructure

The opportunity has been taken in this policy update to emphasize the need for the restaurant infrastructure to be able to support the increased demand caused by outdoor dining.

(c) Access to Council Infrastructure

The current Policy makes reference for the potential need for Council staff and equipment to be able to gain access for maintenance purposes when required. From time to time maintenance is required to the public area such as footpaths pits, lighting and other services. Equipment may need to access the infrastructure so the structure should be easy to remove and replace to allow for this maintenance.

This aspect of the Policy has been given greater emphasis.

(d) Location of planter boxes

Added guidelines for placement of planter boxes have been included as a safety measure to assist approval holders.

(e) Preferable Location for Tables

Location of tables and chairs in a consistent fashion assists the visually impaired to traverse the footpath. Although this may not be possible in all cases it is encouraged for the above reason.

(f) Performance Monitoring

In applying the current Policy difficulties have been encountered at times with a small minority of operators who consistently don’t comply with the Policy. Although enforcement action can be taken it is considered that a better sanction would be to either delay renewal of the annual approval or, in extreme cases, refuse the annual renewal application.

(g) Smoking

Section 632 of the Local Government Act provides Council with the authority to prohibit smoking in public spaces. The current Policy does not prohibit smoking in outdoor dining establishments and, while such a prohibition was considered in the review, it was considered that the current requirements in the Policy, relating to smoking together with the recommended change, balances the rights of smokers and concerns of non-smokers reasonably. In this regard the current policy requires the use of windproof ashtrays while the recommended changes require operators to display smoking permitted signs within the outdoor dining area to alert non-smokers before they enter the establishment as well as setting aside about 50% of the outdoor area for non-smokers.

(h) Billing Cycles

Currently operators are billed twice yearly. It is considered that it would assist operators if this was increased to quarterly.

(i) Fee Deposit

The deposit has been increased from 1 month to 3 months in order to provide better security on defaulting operators.

(j) Awnings: attachment of outdoor dining structures

The existing Policy does not permit the attachment of outdoor dining structures to existing awnings. This is on the basis that the majority of outdoor dining operations are being conducted on standard width footpaths outside older buildings and awnings, with consequent concerns about their structural adequacy. Awning collapses have been reported as occurring at both Bathurst and Balgowlah due the additional loads created by wind and water.

The question of whether or not the existing Policy should be amended to permit the attachment of outdoor dining structures to existing awnings was examined in some detail. Regard was had to several risk factors such as additional loading on existing awnings, reported collapses of awnings with at least one fatality and alienation of public space.

A structure attached to an existing awning has the potential to create additional loads on that structure as a result of additional force created by say wind or a vehicle collision. This could transfer loads or act as a connection to force the awning to collapse. Additional dangers could result from a car or truck knocking down individual supporting pillars.

Based on the above it was considered that the Policy should, in this respect, remain unchanged.

There may be, however, individual circumstances where some of these factors do not apply and where an application could be considered on its merits. While, because of the potential difficulty in applying a consistent Policy, this is generally not favoured at officer level, the Policy could be styled so as to permit consideration on individual merits.

(k) Outdoor Dining Structures: size
The size of an outdoor dining structure needs to be limited having regard to the

maintenance issues referred to under Access to in (c) above. The use of multiple units in larger areas such as corners would assist in this. This could be managed through the premises management plan and the BCA assessment and would assist in the maintenance issues raised above whereby sections only may need to be removed allowing other sections to remain trading as part of the approval. Once again there may be individual circumstances where an application may be considered on its merits.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

5. As referred to above the proposed amendments to the Policy were considered by a cross functional staff working party. In addition a survey of a small sample of Parramatta CBD outdoor dining operators was canvassed which indicated general support of the majority of the proposed changes. In addition the survey revealed concerns about other issues such as traffic in Church Street.

A copy of the survey results can be seen at Attachment 4.

6. The current Policy is appended as Attachment 1 while a schedule of the proposed changes appears at Attachment 2.

The proposed amended Policy is appended as Attachment 3.

Paul Burne

Property Program Manager

Strategic Asset Manager

Attachments:

1View	Attachment 1 - Current Policy	13 Pages
2View	Attachment 2 - Schedule of Proposed Changes	1 Page
3View	Attachment 3 - Proposed Amended Policy	15 Pages
4	Attachment 4 - Survey Results	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

CITY DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.6

SUBJECT Rezoning and/or reclassification of 657-661 Victoria Road and 4 and 6 Wharf Road, Melrose Park (Bartlett Park)

REFERENCE F2008/02285 - D01274598

REPORT OF Property Development Advisor

PURPOSE:

NOTE: This item was deferred form the May 25 2009 Council Meeting to obtain probity advice on the proposed rezoning such information now included in paragraph 32.

This report seeks the approval of Council to undertake a number of actions relating to rezoning and reclassification of a number of properties in the forthcoming Parramatta Draft LEP process and further reports on the probity advice and the Urban Design advice both of which were requested by resolution at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 25 May 2009.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That action be taken to include Bartlett Park (known as 657 -661 Victoria Road, Melrose Park and 4 and 6 Wharf Road, Melrose Park): entire site, including the area occupied by the Putt Putt Course, 4 and 6 Wharf Road and properly identified as lots 1 and 2 in DP 128912, lots 1 and 2 in DP221045, Lots 2 and 3 in DP588575, lot 2 in DP619396, lot 7 in DP 111186, lot 11 in DP128907 in the Parramatta Draft LEP with an appropriate zoning, B4, the Mixed Use Zone with a note under Schedule 1 which identifies the additional use of bulky goods, and, with a FSR of 1.5: 1 and Height of 28m

(b) That Council include the draft classification of the land being lots 1 and 2 in DP 128912, lot2 in DP619396, lot 7 in DP111186, lot 11 in DP128907, lots 2 and 3 in DP 588575 as operational under Schedule 4, Part 2, of the comprehensive Parramatta Draft LEP

BACKGROUND

1. Council owns a relatively large property which is considered to have development potential. Preliminary analyses have been carried out in respect of this property and a proposed course of action developed. A presentation on the proposal was made to a Councillor Workshop on 3 August 2009, where the probity advice and the urban design advice was discussed. A copy of the minutes with respect to the subject property is appended within Attachment 1. This report canvasses the matter formally and makes recommendations in respect of the property in the context of the Parramatta Draft LEP and beyond.

2. 657 – 661 Victoria Road, Melrose Park known as Bartlett Park

Bartlett Park has been the subject of a number of studies and reports to Council namely an initial contamination report, a Future Uses Report by Sydney Projects in July 2006 (referred to in the balance of the report as “The Sydney Projects Report”) and the Options for Future Uses Report by the Working Party established in 2007 to report to Council on the best way forward for Bartlett Park and two Geotechnical Reports by Jeffery and Katauskas, the latter report based on a 30,000m2 proposed development with two levels of basement car parking, urban design report by Allen, Jack and Cottier and probity advice from Storey and Gough.

3. The site of 4.85ha is largely owned by Council with the RTA being the owner of 2 lots fronting Victoria Road which total about 1776sqm. Part of the site (at the eastern end) is occupied by the Putt Putt Golf Course and another part (at the western end) by the Ermington Gospel Trust. The bulk of the site consists of unformed playing fields. The initial 21 year lease to Wykoff Investments Pty Ltd, the operator of the Putt Putt site, has expired and continues to operate on a monthly basis. Wykoff Investments Pty Ltd has been reluctant to make site improvements due to the lack of security of tenure and are prepared to enter into a 5 year lease with 4% growth each subsequent year. Their current rental agreement has no requirements for yearly rental growth.

4. The licence agreement with the Ermington Gospel Trust has been in force since about 1984 and significant improvements have been constructed on the site in the form of an at-grade car park. It is used for parking mainly after hours. The licensed site, together with the adjoining lot (lot 3 DP 588575) was dedicated to Council by the Trust as a condition of development consent for their existing church building. The licence agreement provides for termination by the licensor (PCC) at any time. The site of the car park has a High Tension power easement running through it which limits the development potential of the land.

5. The following is a table of ownerships, zoning and further details of the land at Bartlett Park;

Lot	DP	Owner	Use	Area m2	Address	Comments
1	128912	PCC	Putt Putt	1,423	661 Victoria	Car park and entry
2	128912	PCC	Vacant	727	4 Wharf	Vacant land
2	619396	PCC	Vacant	520	6 Wharf	Vacant land
7	111186	PCC	Putt Putt	3,699	661 Victoria	Putt Putt and car park
2	221045	RTA	Putt Putt	1,442	661 Victoria	Putt Putt and car park
1	221045	RTA	Vacant	323	659 Victoria	Vacant land
11	128907	PCC	Vacant	31,100	659 Victoria	Unused recreation
3	588575	PCC	Vacant	6,321	659 Victoria	Unused recreation
2	588575	PCC	Car park	2,932	657 Victoria	Licensed to Church
				48,486		All lots are zoned 6a, classified community

OPTIONS

6. The Sydney Projects Report canvassed various uses and options for the site including residential, retail, industrial, Hi- tech industrial and office use. They also looked at retaining the open space use. The urban design report by Allen jack and Cottier contemplated the B6 zoning which looked at some commercial uses, business uses and bulky goods uses. They also looked at the context for large scale residential on the site and made some conclusions which are discussed later in the report.

7. The comments from the Sydney Projects Report and Allen Jack and Cottier are as follows:

8. Residential- “At this stage of investigation we think the site has some potential for residential development which would generally be expected to attract the highest value in any disposal, but also has some issues and negatives against this option.”- Sydney Projects

9. Staff Comment: This proposal does not fit with the residential strategy and does not have support from SAM or the Land Use and Transport Unit. Further the land is situated between a busy arterial road and a highly industrialised estate which does not lend itself to good quality residential real estate despite the potential views.

10. Retail- “The Bartlett park site has some potential for retail usage – it has a large frontage to Victoria Road. It has high exposure. The large land area makes it suitable for a substantial retail centre. It is accessible by public transport as well as good car access. However, it has not been identified under any current town planning strategies of Council for development of a regional precinct; It’s potential catchment area is serviced by the Ermington district retail strip…and there are major competing retail centres to the south east at Rhodes and a major regional shopping centre is under development at Ryde.” -Sydney Projects

11. Staff Comment: The Land Use and Transport Unit do not support a pure retail sector outside the already identified retail sectors. Major competition includes the recently re-developed centre at West Ryde and the currently developing sector at Ryde. Notwithstanding that there has been some interest from a major retailer it is not consistent with the retail strategy to start rezoning spot areas for retail, however retail premises are a permissible use within a B4 Mixed Use zone.

12. Industrial- “This site has good access to major arterial roads in Victoria Road, Silverwater and Concord Road and via these to Parramatta Road. So it is an attractive option for those users. May not be highest and best use in valuation terms for the land given its exposure to Victoria Road and views available.”- Sydney Projects

13. Staff Comment: An industrial use is compatible with the surrounding uses and if there was a flexible zone which allowed for the potential of bulky goods retail this would increase the rate of return over a strictly industrial use.

14. Hi Tech Industrial- This form of industrial is characterised by a greater ratio of office space, about 50%, compared to the conventional industrial warehouse style of 15%-20%.

15. “A High-Tech industrial usage could be attractive for a user which requires 50 or 60% office area or higher, but still requires some warehousing and good road access for distribution functions for example. Such a use takes good advantage of the unique characteristics of this site, with the views available and prominent exposure to Victoria Road and the direct access to the major road network.”- Sydney Projects

16. Staff Comment: Should Council decide that they wish to encourage a Hi-Tech use in the LGA then it should be done on a precinct basis such as in North Ryde and not in an ad hoc way by rezoning on a spot basis. Attracting users from Norwest and North Ryde or new entrants is not going to be possible with 4 hectares of land.

17. Office Development- “An office development would appear to work for the site as it’s not incompatible with the surrounding industrial usage, can exploit the good views available and the exposure to Victoria Road as well as the accessibility of the site for private car and bus transport. However the site is not in a recognized office precinct for a business park type use and the facilities in the immediate area may not be attractive for high numbers of office users.”- Sydney Projects

18. Staff Comment: The real issue here mirror our comments for Hi-Tech industrial usage as 4 hectares is not sufficient to create a viable business or office park precinct.

19. Open Space- “The only point of pedestrian crossing of both Victoria and Wharf Roads is at their intersection on the North East corner at one end of the park. The land is also screened by the line of trees along Victoria Road and is below the line of road at its western end. It is not overlooked by surrounding properties or by vehicle traffic for passive surveillance, which combined with the constraints above has the effect of isolating the park and limiting its attractiveness as public open space. A positive aspect of the current usage of Bartlett Park appears to be the Putt Putt facility. We do not have access to attendance figures or profitability of this facility, but it would appear to be well utilised by the community.” Sydney Projects

20. Staff Comment: The bulk of Bartlett Park has not been utilised for active or passive recreation for some time and the above comments provide reasons. The Service Manager, Open Space “supports the proposal to rezone and reclassify the land within Bartlett Park from Open Space 6A and community land to operational under the current LEP revision to enable possible future sale and redevelopment of a portion of the site. Funding from either sale or lease of the site could be better utilised by Council to either purchase or augment open space in other area or to fund extensive improvements at nearby larger parks such as George Kendall Riverside Park, Cowells Lane Reserve or Upjohn Park.”

21. The Putt Putt facility should be included in the rezoning and reclassification of the site. However it can be retained in the current usage if a new lease increasing the rental return and with yearly growth built in is agreed to and signed by Putt Putt West Ryde Pty Ltd. 5 year leases at a maximum are suggested as it is possible that these types of facility may fall out of favour and the potential for a more intense use can be realised at a future date.

22. Part of the land, namely lot 2 in DP221045, which is wholly used by the Putt Putt facility and lot 1 in DP221045, which is a vacant parcel of only 323m2 adjoining the Putt Putt facility, are owned by the RTA. They have been under the Care, Control and Management of the Council since 1965. The RTA has indicated that they would sell these two parcels in a commercial arrangement. Even if it is not possible to negotiate a fair outcome for acquisition of the RTA parcels there will still be 3.7 hectares to develop and if the Putt Putt facility is retained for some years then the status quo can remain under the current CCM arrangements.

23. Some work has commenced on redesigning the intersection of Kissing Point Road with Victoria Road and these plans have been communicated with the RTA. Although they have not given a formal response so far the indications are positive that the redesign will be approved, which allows for entry to Bartlett Park via two left turn lanes from the east and two right turn lanes from the west.

24. The B Mixed Use Zone within the Parramatta Draft LEP permits the following uses subject to consent from Council: Advertising structures; Attached Dwelling; Building identification signs; Business identification signs; Business premises; Car Parks; Child care centres; Community facilities; Correctional centres; Earthworks; Educational establishments; Emergency service facilities; Entertainment facilities; Environmental protection works; Flood Mitigation Works; Function centres; Funeral chapel; Health services facilities; Home based child care; Home businesses; Hostels; Information and education facilities; Multi dwelling housing; Office premises; Passenger transport facilities; Places of public worship; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Registered Clubs; Residential flat buildings; Retail premises; Roads; Semi-detached dwelling; Seniors housing; Service stations; Shop top housing; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Vehicle repair stations; Veterinary Hospitals; Water recycling facilities. The proposed FSR is 1:5 1 and height of 28m.

ISSUES

25. There are issues with uncompacted fill on the site but not to the extent that it cannot be managed. There will need to be excavation and removal of fill. The contamination falls within the range acceptable for industrial uses.

26. Traffic issues will require consultation with Council traffic engineers and the RTA however they can also be managed and resolved. See item 9 and a copy of the plan in Attachment 4 which shows a plan to signalise the intersection of Kissing Point Road and Victoria Road to provide access to the site from both an easterly and westerly direction. The urban design report by Allen Jack and Cottier shows how access may be configured to and from Wharf Road. The final layout of any access will be included in the detailed design stage.

27. This is a good opportunity to rezone and reclassify the site in a strategic context.

28. The Putt Putt complex will lose business due to a lack of capital input without the security of a long lease. Council lease income is fixed to the annual revenue produced by the complex. Council will continue to lose revenue as Putt Putt loses revenue unless they have security of tenure.

29. It is considered that there is a potential uplift in value to Council after the rezoning and reclassification have been completed.

30. If Council wishes to rezone the RTA owned land it should consult with the RTA to reach agreement, if negotiations for acquisition are unsuccessful. At this stage the RTA have indicated a willingness to negotiate on commercial terms.

31. Preliminary discussions with potential bulky goods retailers have indicated a strong interest in the site, including from major space users.

32. Council, on the 25^th May, 2009, resolved that the Strategic Asset Management Unit seek probity advice and report this advice to a Councillor workshop prior to the report going back to Council. The advice has been received and reported to the workshop of 3 August, 2009. The advice confirmed that Council could rezone and reclassify its land so long as it followed the processes set down in legislation which required community consultation.

33. Council also required urban design advice and this advice was reported to the Councillor workshop of 3 August, 2009. The full advice is included in the report at Attachment 6. In summary the urban design report suggested that the FSR at 1.5:1 was adequate however the height may need to increase to 21m in order to maximise the FSR. This has been accommodated with the proposal to increase the height to 28m.

PROPOSED FUTURE ACTIONS

657- 661 Victoria Road, Melrose Park known as Bartlett Park

34. The Strategic Asset Management Unit undertake the relevant research and employ consultants to further test contamination issues with respect to residential development, traffic and conduct financial feasibility studies for the further development of the land at the property known as Bartlett Park.

35. Negotiations take place with the RTA for the acquisition of their two parcels, being lots 1 and 2 in DP221045.

36. Negotiations take place in due course with a view to having the licence agreement with the Ermington Gospel Trust on the land known as Lot 2 in Deposited Plan 588575 reflect a more commercial arrangement.

37. Complete negotiations with Putt Putt West Ryde Pty Ltd for a maximum 5 year lease with the rental amount no longer fixed to turnover but with growth of 4%pa.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

38. Consultation has taken place with Council’s Land Use and Transport Planning Unit, City Assets and Environment and Traffic units and the RTA.

39. Further consultation has also taken place with external consultants and some of their recommendations are contained in the attachments.

CONCLUSION

40. There are strong financial benefits to Council to adopt all the proposed recommendations.

41. The property requires an annual maintenance expenditure, which varies depending upon any illegal dumping that may have taken place and presents a public liability risk to Council. Parts of the property are overgrown and present possible problems to the surrounding properties. The development or disposal of the property will reduce net outflows to Council.

42. Council will be able to make further decisions on whether to lease, to sell or to develop the site when the feasibility studies are complete.

Graeme Bleus

Property Development Advisor

Attachments:

1View	Attachment 1 - Submission Document Bartlett Park	2 Pages
2View	Attachment 2 - Aerial Photo with Major Site Features	1 Page
3View	Attachment 3 - Aerial View with Lot Details	1 Page
4View	Attachment 4 - Traffic Plan Aerial	1 Page
5	Attachment 5 - Urban Design Report	14 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

CULTURE AND LEISURE

ITEM NUMBER 11.1

SUBJECT Facilities in Dog Off-Leash Areas

REFERENCE F2005/00856 - D01217202

REPORT OF Supervisor Open Space

PURPOSE:

To report on the cost of installing water taps, seating and play equipment in dog off-leash areas. This information is provided in response to Council’s resolutions of 27 April 2009 and 11 May 2009 when considering earlier reports about Council’s dog off-leash areas.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That seating and water taps be installed in the dog off-leash areas at Barnett Park, Winston Hills; Cowells Lane Reserve, Ermington and Burlington Memorial Park, Northmead. These works are to be funded from the 2009/10 Parks Improvement Project (13535).

(b) Further, that dog agility equipment not be installed in dog off-leash areas for the reasons outlined in this report.

BACKGROUND

1. In accordance with the Companion Animals Act 1998, Council has designated a number of dog off-leash areas throughout the city. All of these areas are appropriately signposted and provide dog waste disposal facilities. However, a number of other councils have installed water bowls, seating and dog agility equipment at their off-leash areas.

2. On the 27 April 2009 in considering a previous report on dog off-leash areas, Council resolved in part that:-

“a report on the cost of introducing play equipment for dogs, such as tunnels and ramps, in dog off-leash areas”.

Council officers have now consulted with other councils and park equipment suppliers to evaluate the feasibility of installing dog agility equipment in off-leash areas throughout the city.

3. On the 11 May 2009 in further considering a report on dog off-leash areas, Council resolved in part that:-

“the appropriate Council officer prepare a report by August 2009, including a break down by location, on the cost of placing water taps and seating in Council’s dog leash free areas”.

An audit of each leash-free dog area has been conducted; each site was evaluated for seating and water provision. Quotations and cost estimates were then used to determine the cost associated with providing these additional facilities for each site.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

Dog agility equipment

4. Dog agility equipment is commonly used by dog clubs throughout Australia. This equipment is generally of a portable nature and is typically only setup for use during events and at club training activities. To utilise such equipment, both dogs and their owners require appropriate skills and experience which is usually only gained through participating in an agility club.

5. The permanent installation of dog agility equipment in dog off-leash areas would require a durable design to withstand the elements. This equipment would also be subject to potential acts of vandalism and inappropriate use resulting possible safety risks to park users.

6. Other local government areas consulted have reported lower than expected popularity of dog agility equipment in their off-leash areas. They have found that dog owners using leash free areas were happier just having unstructured time with their dog rather then using the equipment. The equipment available is generally not of competition standard to attract use by organised dog agility groups.

Water and Seat Provision

7. Council will have seven dog off-leash areas installed by 2010. Only one of these sites, Dan Mahoney Reserve at North Parramatta, has adequate seating and water provision. A cost breakdown for seating and water tap installation for the rest of the sites is listed below;

New Seating

Barnett Park, Winston Hills x 2 seats @ $1,000 each =	$2,000
Burlington Park, Northmead x 1 seat @ $1,000 each =	$1,000
Cowells Lane Reserve, Ermington x 2 seats @ $1,000 each =	$2,000
McCoy Park, Toongabbie x 1 seat @ $1,000 each =	$1,000
Robertson Park, Guildford x 3 seats @ $1,000 each =	$3,000
Scout Memorial Park, Granville x 2 seats @ $1,000 each =	$2,000
Excl. GST	$11,000

Drinking Water Provision

Barnett Park, Winston Hills	$2,705
Burlington Park, Northmead	$2,705
Cowells Lane Reserve, Ermington (modification of existing tap)	$1,230
McCoy Park, Toongabbie	$2,705
Robertson Park, Guildford	$1,230
Scout Memorial Park, Granville	$4,640
Excl. GST	$15,215

It is recommended that seating and taps be installed to all off-leash dog areas over a staged period due to funding constraints. The areas that are well used and/or have good community interest have been identified for installation of both seating and taps in the 2009/10 financial year, and these include:

a. Barnett Park, Winston Hills;

b. Cowells Lane Reserve, Ermington;

c. Burlington Memorial Park, Northmead.

Once established the use of other dog off-leash sites will be evaluated and additional sites determined for tap and seating installation in the 2010/2011 financial year.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

8. In regard to the installation of dog agility equipment Council staff contacted Newcastle City Council who has installed this equipment in a number of their dog off-leash areas. Animal Management Officers reported that the popularity of this equipment was less than they originally anticipated.

9. The local Parramatta International Canine Sports dog agility club and our Council’s Animal Management Officers were also consulted regarding the installation of dog agility equipment in dog off-leash areas. Both of these important stakeholders expressed concerns relating to inappropriate use and potential safety issues associated with the permanent installation of such equipment.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

10. A dog agility circuit would incorporate a combination of various equipment elements, appropriate under-surfacing and associated edging to prevent erosion. There are limited suppliers of such equipment, however the cost of providing agility equipment per each dog off-leash site including equipment (1 x Ramp; 2 x Hurdle Sets; 2 x Jump Throughs; 1 x Balance Beam; 1 x Set of 8 Weave Poles), installation, mulch under-surfacing and edging would be approximately $7,000 (excl. GST) per site, i.e. $50,000 for all seven designated dog off-leash areas in the Parramatta local government area. The on-going maintenance cost of this equipment is also likely to be high. Due to the high cost and limited anticipated use by the wider community, the installation of this equipment is not recommended.

11. The cost of providing a tap, water bowl and seating at Cowells Lane Reserve, Barnett Park and Burlington Memorial Park is $11,640 excluding GST. These works can be funded through the 2009/10 Parks Improvement Capital Works Project number 13535. The total budget for this project is $370,000, this funds minor park improvement works and matching funds for the NSW Sport and Recreation annual capital assistance grants.

12. The installation of water and seating will enable longer stay visits for dog owners within Council’s off-leash dog areas. These facilities are seen as beneficial improvements that will be well utilised by dog owners and wider park users within these open space areas.

James Smallhorn

Supervisor Open Space

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

COMMUNITY CARE

ITEM NUMBER 12.1

SUBJECT Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee meeting 26th May 2009

REFERENCE F2005/01941 - D01270230

REPORT OF Community Capacity Building Officer

PURPOSE:

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee met on 26^th May 2009. This report provides a précis of the key discussion points of that meeting for Council’s consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the minutes of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee of 26^th May 2009 be received and noted.

(b) That a gold coin donation be required for coffee at the 2009 Burramatta Family Fun Day.

(c) That Council support the provision of Aboriginal cross cultural awareness training for Councillors, staff and Committee members and if supported, Council call for tenders for this training.

(d) Further, that Council note there is no request for additional expenditure in this report.

BACKGROUND

1. Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee meets monthly and comprises 15 members.

2. Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee met on 26^th May 2009. This report provides a summary of the key discussion points of that meeting for Council’s consideration.

MAIN DISCUSSION POINTS

3. The main issues discussed at the meeting are outlined below.

4. NAIDOC planning

(a) The Committee continued to plan for the Burramatta Family Fun Day NAIDOC celebration including promotional material; the advertising plan; the entertainment program, workshops, amusements and security.

(b) In addition, the Committee discussed the need to manage the demand for coffee and tea. In previous years this had been provided free however the Committee determined that a gold coin donation should be introduced.

(c) The Committee was also informed that an increase in the price of caps, which are distributed free, meant 200 rather than 300 had been ordered.

(d) The Committee was informed that City Rail was intending to design a poster to promote all NAIDOC events being held across Western Sydney.

(e) A list of stall holders was presented to the Committee and members queried why particular services and government departments had not applied. Members were advised that all previous applicants had been sent the information and application form. Committee members were encouraged to use any contacts they had within these services and departments to encourage they apply for a stall.

(f) Members were advised that an invitation to attend the Burramatta Family Fun Day had been sent to the Commander of HMAS Parramatta however due to other commitments he was unable to attend.

(g) The Committee was informed that the NAIDOC Flag Raising was being organised by Council’s Civic Events and Protocols Officer and that invitations for this event and the Burramatta Family Fun Day would be co-ordinated.

(h) The Committee was advised that the Lord Mayor, Cr Tony Issa was unable to attend the Burramatta Family Fun Day however Cr Paul Barber would be attending in his place.

(i) The Committee acknowledged the skill and hard work of Council’s Events Project officer, Margarita Perez in co-ordinating the NAIDOC 2009 celebrations.

5. Sorry Day

Members discussed Sorry Day and commended Council on the plaque which was laid to honour Committee member Phil Russo.

6. Observance of Indigenous Ceremonial Procedures

The Committee provided information on the meaning of the Smoking Ceremony for the Dharug and Burramattagal peoples and stressed the importance of documenting these. Members explained that the loss of indigenous languages, due to discriminatory laws of the 1930’s and 1940’s, had contributed to the loss of understanding of appropriate processes to observe in the performance of rituals. Members were informed that Council’s Aboriginal Community Capacity Building Project Officer is currently developing protocols for Welcome to Country and other rituals and celebrations and was consulting with community members about this.

7. Cross Cultural training

The Committee discussed cross cultural training for Council staff, Councillors and Committee members and their previous requests to Council that tenders be called for this. The Committee was informed that Council’s Aboriginal Community Capacity Building Project Officer is currently working with Human Resources to provide cross cultural training for staff.

Officer’s note:

Cross cultural training programs were requested by Community Library and Social Services (CLASS). Council’s Human Resource section secured an external consultant to deliver the training. The first training sessions were attended by CLASS officers in June 2009. Additional training programs continue to be offered to all Council staff.

8. Recent releases of books concerning indigenous peoples

Committee members were given information by Reconciliation Western Sydney regarding a number of recent book releases regarding indigenous peoples. Members requested Parramatta Library be asked to purchase these.

9. Local Government and Aboriginal Network 2010 budget

Cr Lim advised the Committee that Council had agreed to fund $30,000 toward the 2010 Local Government and Aboriginal Network Conference, which is to be hosted by Parramatta City Council. Clr Lim indicated he would continue to seek more funds for the event.

10. Committee member’s conduct

The Committee discussed the handling of a member’s conduct including their opinion that they should have been consulted. The Chairperson advised he would write to Council’s Chief Executive Officer regarding the matter.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

11. There are no financial implications to Council

Maggie Kyle

Community Capacity Building Officer

Attachments:

1View

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting 26th May 2009

8 Pages

COMMUNITY CARE

ITEM NUMBER 12.2

SUBJECT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting 23rd June 2009

REFERENCE F2005/01941 - D01270337

REPORT OF Community Capacity Building Officer

PURPOSE:

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee met on 23^rd June 2009. This report provides a précis of the key discussion points of that meeting for Council’s consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the minutes of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee of the 23^rd June 2009 be received and noted.

(b) That Council note the Committee’s thanks for the plaque Council placed at Lake Parramatta Sorry Day Garden’s in May 2009 recognising Committee member Phil Russo.

BACKGROUND

1. Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee meets monthly and comprises 15 members.

2. Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee met on 23^rd June 2009. This report provides a summary of the key discussion points of that meeting for Council’s consideration.

MAIN DISCUSSION POINTS

The main issues discussed at the meeting are outlined below.

3. NAIDOC Burramatta Family Fun Day Planning

(a) Burramatta Family Fun Day posters were distributed to members and advice was given about where they could be put up.

(b) The Committee was advised that no person had contacted Council’s Events Project Worker to register for the bus to/ from the event.

(c) The Committee was informed that no registrations had been received for the open mike session which was to occur in the entertainment schedule, and alternative arrangements would be made.

(d) Members volunteered to letter box drop flyers promoting the event. Additional promotion/marketing strategies were discussed including radio advertising and the planned poster by City Rail: a draft poster had been forwarded from City Rail to Council’s Events Project Worker, Margarita Perez, however it had not yet been approved.

(e) Committee members were advised on their role for the day which was to be ambassadors for the event, communicating with the public and assisting with the evaluation. In addition, members were asked to assist in monitoring children in the amusements area although it was noted that security would have a presence there at all times.

(f) Members questioned whether Ray Wehbe would be able to have a stall this year as he had in years past. However, Council’s Event Project Worker advised that despite several attempts to phone and email, he had not responded and at this stage it was too late to secure an additional stall.

(g) The Committee discussed at length whether to supply fairy floss or pop corn on the day. The cost of each was considered as was the issue of which was the healthier option. The Committee determined that pop corn would be served and members would assist in running the machine. An additional stall holder, which could provide fresh fruit, would also be engaged.

(h) Final details were also provided regarding parking and the rain contingency plan.

4. NAIDOC Flag Raising

The Committee was advised that Council’s Civic Events and Protocols Officer was managing the NAIDOC Flag Raising; that invitations for the ceremony had been issued including one to NSW Premier, the Honourable Nathan Rees; that Committee Chairperson Bruce Gale would give the Welcome to Country and member Gilson Saunders would perform the smoking ceremony.

5. Review of Sorry Day 2009-08-04

Committee members resolved to express its thanks to Council for the plaque laid in honour of Committee member Phil Russo at Lake Parramatta’s Sorry Day Gardens in May 2009.

6. Council’s Advisory Committees reforming

Council officer, Maggie Kyle provided information to Committee members on the process of the Expression of Interest for Advisory Committee membership. The process to be used this year was the formal Council tender process. The criteria for membership to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Committee was that members must either live, work or study in the Parramatta Local Government Area, be a Dharug member or an indigenous person or representative of an organisation that is respectful and sensitive to indigenous issues.

Members were also advised of a new Advisory Committee that Council was establishing: the Community Advisory Committee.

7. Corrections regarding Council’s Aboriginal Natural Resources Officer Position

Council officer Maggie Kyle advised that at the March 2009 Committee meeting she had been asked by Committee members about the Aboriginal Natural Resources Officer position. At this meeting she had informed the Committee that this position was one of 9 vacant positions when the decision was made to reduce Council positions. However, the Council officer had since been advised this was inaccurate and rather than being cut, this and the other positions had been ‘frozen’. In effect, this means in future, when another position becomes vacant, this one could be filled.

The Council Officer also provided information, as requested by the Committee, that the Aboriginal Natural Resources Officer position had not been funded through the Elsie Dixon program.

8. Percentage of Indigenous staff within Council

Committee members were advised that Council’s Human Resources section is responsible for any project involving the profile and composition of Council staff, including the percentage of indigenous staff.

9. Naming of Council Parks

The Committee was informed that Council had determined on the naming of two pieces of lands after being advised by members of the Committee last year: lands at Pemberton St have been named ‘Baludarri Wetlands’ and lands at Campbell Hill have been named ‘Waddangalli Wetlands’. Council Officer Troy Holbrook asked that his thanks to Committee members for their assistance be passed onto them.

11. ‘Building Bridges’ Course

Reconciliation Western Sydney advised that the course ‘Building Bridges’ will commence on August 5^th 2009 at Baulkham Hills, Holroyd and Parramatta Migrant Resource Centre.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

12. There are no financial implications to Council

Maggie Kyle

Community Capacity Building Officer

Attachments:

1View

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting 23rd June 2009

6 Pages

COMMUNITY CARE

ITEM NUMBER 12.3

SUBJECT Access Advisory Committee Minutes 16 June 2009

REFERENCE F2005/01944 - D01271921

REPORT OF Community Capacity Building Officer

PURPOSE:

The Access Advisory Committee met on 16 June 2009. This report provides a précis of the key discussion points of that meeting for Council’s consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the minutes of the Access Advisory Committee meeting on 16 June 2009 (Attachment 1) are received and noted.

(b) Further, that Council note there is no request for additional expenditure in this report.

BACKGROUND

1. Parramatta City Council’s Access Advisory Committee has resumed its bi-monthly meetings in accordance with the Council Resolution of 23 March 2009 to retain the ATSI, Access, Arts, Cycleways and Heritage Advisory Committees.

2. At present, the Committee comprises eight members representing a variety of interests. An Expression of Interest (EOI) process to expand and reconfirm the membership is currently underway.

3. Council’s Access Advisory Committee met on 16 June 2009. This report provides a summary of the key discussion points of that meeting for Council’s consideration.

MAIN DISCUSSION POINTS

The main issues discussed at this meeting are outlined below.

4. The Committee was advised that the Access Advisory Committee Expression of Interest (EOI) document would go to Council for ratification on 22 June 2009. The Committee noted that the EOI is open to people who live, work or study in the Parramatta Local Government Area (LGA) but pointed out that the LGA needs to be accessible to the public in general, even if they did not live work or study in the area.

5. The independent ‘You’re Welcome’ Report, detailing access issues associated with Dundas and Telopea railway stations, was tabled and will be discussed at the next Access Committee meeting on 18 August 2009.

6. The Committee was updated on Council’s Bus Shelter Audit and requested involvement in further planning related to the Bus Stop Access Program.

7. The Committee advised that rooms within the Council Chambers building are not clearly identified on external door buzzers, and asked that clearer signage be installed.

8. The Committee asked that Council consider undertaking an audit of Council facilities for hearing augmentation systems with a view to installing appropriate systems in Council-owned public meeting venues, particularly Town Hall and Council Chambers.

9. The Committee was advised that four (4) new disabled parking spaces with no time limit were approved for the car park in Macquarie Lane, east of the Roxy nightclub.

10. The Committee was made aware of the release of a new discussion paper related to disability parking. The Committee questioned whether metered parking would still apply to disability parking given the difficulties associated with access to parking meters, especially when having to negotiate curbs.

11. The Committee discussed the release of the draft Access to Premises Standards report on Monday 15 June 2009.

12. The Committee was made aware of a public transport meeting at Granville Youth Recreation and Community Centre on Saturday 20 June 2009.

13. The International Day of People With a Disability (IDPWD) working party meeting will be held on Tuesday 7 July 2009 at 3.30pm in the Level 7 meeting room, 30 Darcy Street.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

14. There are no financial implications to Council.

Donna Mosford

Community Capacity Building Officer

Attachments:

1View

Access Advisory Committee Minutes 16 June 2009

4 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER 13.1

SUBJECT Investments Report for June 2009

REFERENCE F2009/00971 - D01267701

REPORT OF Manager - Finance

PURPOSE:

To inform Council of the investment portfolio performance for the month of June 2009.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes the investments report for June 2009.

BACKGROUND

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

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

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. Council’s investment portfolio stood at $83.8 Million as at 30th June 2009. (Previous month $81.9 Million) The weighted average portfolio held for June 2009 was $83.9 Million (Previous month $79.4 million) (Refer attachment 1).

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

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

Monthly Annualised

Total Portfolio 0.48% 6.37%

Funds Managers 0.58% 7.95%

Bank Bill Index 0.27% 3.30%

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

6. After allowing for Council’s loan offsets and at call funds, Council recorded an annualised return of 6.37% for the month of June for its total investment portfolio. The return recorded by Council was considerably above the Bank Bill Index of 3.30%. Fund managers recorded an annualised rate of 7.95%. The annual weighted average return for the full financial year was 4.04% versus a benchmark of 5.19%.

7. Council’s favourable return versus the Bank Bill Index for June 2009 can mostly be attributed to the continued strong performance of certain managed funds. The CFS Global Fund continued to perform strongly and recorded an annualised return of 24.54% for the month of June. T-Corp and the BT Institutional enhanced fund also recorded annualised returns of 114.64% and 8.57% respectively.

8. The amount of funds invested at the end of June increased from the previous month by $1.9M. The increase was due to minor rate inflows as well as the receipt of the Financial Assistance Grant.

9. Council currently has approximately 82% of the overall portfolio invested in Term deposits, Bonds, Cash at call and other fixed return products. Councils Term deposits generally mature between 90-180 days and are locked in at interest rates ranging from 4.04% to 4.55%. All deposits are held with Authorised Deposit Taking Institutions. (ADI’s)

10. Council invested principal of $1.5m in a Fixed Senior Debt Bond with the Bank of Queensland in the month of June. This bond matures on the 2nd June 2010 and pays a half yearly coupon of 6%. This investment not only offers a set return but also continues to help assist in the further diversification of Councils portfolio.

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

Graph – Comparison of average funds invested with loans balance

Graph – Average interest rate comparison to Bank Bill Index

Graphs – Investments and loans interest compared to budget

Summary of investment portfolio

12. The Certificate of Investments for June 2009 is provided below:

Certificate of Investments

I hereby certify that the investments for the month of June 2009 have been made in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

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

Jenny Fett

Finance Manager

Attachments:

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

REFERENCE MATERIAL

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER 13.2

SUBJECT Review of Council's Adopted Code of Conduct

REFERENCE F2009/00447 - D01269267

REPORT OF Manager Service Audit and Review

PURPOSE:

To present to Council for adoption the results of a review of Council’s Code of Conduct, and to recommend appointment of a Panel of Conduct Reviewers in accordance with the Code.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council adopt the revised Code of Conduct shown at Attachment 1.

(b) That Council select five (5) persons from the WSROC Regional Panel of Conduct Reviewers to be invited to form Parramatta Council’s Conduct Review Panel for period of the current Council.

(c) Further, that the Chief Executive Officer be delegated responsibility to engage the selected Conduct Reviewers at rates tendered to the WSROC Expression of Interest of October 2008.

BACKGROUND

1. Council is required to review its adopted Code of Conduct within twelve months of an ordinary election by section 440(7) of the Local Government Act 1993.

2. In July 2008 Council adopted the Department of Local Government Model Code of Conduct as its Code, and appointed the existing Conduct Committee members to the role of Conduct Reviewers pending further review of the adopted Code.

3. In reviewing Council’s adopted Code of Conduct, Council may supplement the provisions of the Model Code however council’s adopted code has no effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with the Model Code (section 440(4) of the Local Government Act, 1993).

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

4. Suggested improvements to the Code of Conduct arising out of consultation with Councillors and staff are shown in red in the draft Code at Attachment 1. The suggested improvements primarily address the cross-referencing of the Code provisions to relevant legislation, Council and staff policies and the Model Code Guidelines.

5. Further improvements to the Code provisions and procedures are only enforceable if they are consistent with the Model Code of Conduct. Guidelines to the Model Code of Conduct shown at Attachment 2 provide more information of possible improvements.

6. Under the provisions of the Model Code, Council is required to appoint a Conduct Review Panel comprising at least three (3) independent, qualified persons. Council has a number of options for appointment of a Conduct Review Panel:

a. Council may resolve to appoint at least five (5) potential Conduct Reviewers for a defined period from the Regional Panel established by WSROC in February 2009 (biographical details provided to Councillors under separate Confidential cover);

b. Council may resolve to publicly seek expressions of interest for suitably qualified and independent community representatives to form it own Conduct Review Panel; or

c. Council may resolve to invite three (3) existing members of the Conduct Committee to form a Conduct Review Committee. There is a potential for one or more of the existing members to not be available as required.

7. There are currently no retainer costs associated with the Conduct Review Panel, and it is not intended that retainers should be paid. Any proposed appointment should be in terms of agreed inclusive hourly rates for matters referred.

8. Following adoption and training Councillors and staff will be asked to sign an undertaking to abide by the adopted Code in accordance with the DLG Guidelines. The adopted Code will be made available to all staff and Councillors and a summary of the Code will be printed for reference of staff, volunteers and customers.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

9. A workshop with Councillors in December 2008 and subsequent staff workshops and consultation have provided input to proposed improvements to Council’s Code of Conduct.

10. The revised draft Code of Conduct, together with the Guidelines to the Model Code of Conduct and details of the WSROC Conduct Review Panel were circulated to Councillors in July 2008 for comment and input. This report reflects the response to feedback in the review.

11. Upon adoption of the Code of Conduct and appointment of the Conduct Review Panel, the Code will be published and training will be provided for all Councillors and staff.

Michael Quirk

Manager, Service Audit & Review

Attachments:

1View	Draft Code of Conduct	33 Pages
2View	Model Code of Conduct Guidelines	50 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Nil

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER 13.3

SUBJECT Review of Council's Policy for Interaction Between Councillors and Staff

REFERENCE F2009/00448 - D01269280

REPORT OF Manager Service Audit and Review

PURPOSE:

To present to Council the results of a review of Council’s Policy for Interaction Between Councillors and Staff, and to recommend adoption of a revised Policy.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the draft Policy for Interaction Between Councillors and Staff shown at Attachment 1.

BACKGROUND

1. Council adopted its current Policy for Interaction Between Councillors and Staff in September 2005. The Policy is associated with the Code of Conduct and provides greater detail of the manner in which Council staff and Councillors will work together to provide services to our community.

2. The Policy for Interaction Between Councillors and Staff is included in a current review of a number of policies associated with Council’s Code of Conduct which was adopted in July 2008 to reflect the Department of Local Government Model Code of Conduct.

3. As a result of consultation with Councillors and staff the current Policy for Interaction Between Councillors and Staff has been revised. This report provides a summary of the proposed changes which are shown in red on the draft at Attachment 1.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

4. The Aims and Objectives of the Policy have been combined, simplified and updated to reflect our commitment to work together to create a working relationship that best delivers our services to the community.

5. The Roles and Statutory Provisions for Councillors and Staff have been deleted as they were paraphrased from, and are best addressed in the Local Government Act 1993.

6. The draft Policy defines the preferred approach for initial complaints or requests for service or information being through the Service Request System and the Councillor Support staff (Section 4.1). This approach aims to provide the most effective outcome for constituents, and the best level of accountability for Council officers.

7. The draft Policy defines the preferred approach for subsequent clarification of matters being via communication with the relevant Senior Manager of Council (Section 4.3.1). This part of the draft Policy also provides specific direction in communications relating to development matters (Sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4). To support this approach, a listing of Senior Officers of Council has been included as an attachment to the Policy.

8. Access to Information and Records (Section 6), Inappropriate Interactions (Section 7), and Breaches of this Policy (Section 8) in the draft Policy have been updated to reflect changes to the Model Code of Conduct provisions.

9. The listing of documents freely available under Section 12 of the Local Government Act 1993 has been moved to Attachment 2 for reference. This listing may be updated with current changes to legislation relating to access to government information.

10. A number of prescriptive and procedural elements for Service Requests and complaints in the previous Policy have been removed.

11. Include here those issues that will help the reader make an informed decision. Supplement the facts with informed opinion. Wherever possible, be definite and avoid the use of conditional tenses such as ‘could’ or ‘may’. For example, ‘this will have adverse consequences…’, or ‘there is a strong possibility that this will result in…’ is preferred to ‘this could have adverse consequences…’.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

12. The Code of Conduct together with the Policy for Interaction Between Councillors and Staff were the subject of a workshop with Councillors in December 2008. The revised draft Policy was circulated to Councillors in July for comment and input. Further, the Policy has been subject to consultation at staff and management levels in Council over recent months. The revised draft Policy for Interaction Between Councillors and Staff at Attachment 1 reflects input for the consultation.

13. Upon adoption of a revised policy, training will be provided to all Councillors and staff.

Michael Quirk

Manager, Service Audit & Review

Attachments:

1View

Draft Policy For Interaction Between Councillors and Staff

13 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Nil

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER 13.4

SUBJECT Review of Council's Whistleblowers Protection Policy

REFERENCE F2009/00449 - D01269290

REPORT OF Manager Service Audit and Review

PURPOSE:

To present to Council the results of a review of the Whistleblowers Protection Policy and to propose adoption of a revised Policy.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the revised Whistleblowers Protection Policy shown at Attachment 1.

BACKGROUND

1. Council’s current Whistleblowers Protection Policy was adopted by Council on 25 July 2005 to enable an effective framework for staff and Councillors to make disclosures of wrongdoing in Council. The Policy is aimed to comply with the NSW Ombudsman’s Guidelines for Protected Disclosures, and is an integral part of both Council’s complaints management framework and the corruption prevention strategy.

2. In implementing a new complaints framework for Council, the Whistleblowers Protection Policy was reviewed, and proposals put forward for two significant improvements to the policy. The introduction of a toll-free hotline service and a reduction in the number of “disclosure officers” are intended to increase the availability and transparency of the protected disclosures, whilst improving the management of the complaints raised.

3. In March 2009 Council canvassed the market for possible independent hotline providers. As a result of this process a preferred model for an independent telephone hotline service has been devised which ensures that all disclosures raised though the hotline are subject to initial enquiry, and are reported to the Chief Executive Officer for action.

4. In April 2009 the NSW Ombudsman published updated Guidelines for Protected Disclosures which draw on substantial research and recommended, among other things, strong management commitment to support those wishing to make disclosures, and more detailed procedures in relation to the assessment, investigation and reporting of disclosures. These Guidelines have been considered in the proposed Policy, and improvements shown in red in Attachment 1.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

5. Staff and Councillors wishing to make a disclosure under the current Whistleblowers Protection Policy may make a disclosure with any Council manager. Protections against reprisals are detailed in the Policy and staff who report in accordance with the Policy are afforded the protections of the Policy and the Protected Disclosures Act 1994.

6. The NSW Ombudsman has recognised the complexities administrative issues in having a large number of “disclosure officers” in an organisation. Providing a hotline facility aims to address these issues whilst making the service as widely available as possible.

7. An independent hotline service is currently being sourced to provide telephone and email disclosures which will comply with Council’s policy, and are subject to independent reporting to the Chief Executive Officer. Upon implementation. The hotline service will be promoted through the intranet and work-based posters and training.

8. Procedures are currently being developed to facilitate the hotline service and to increase staff awareness of the processes involved in assessment, investigation and reporting of disclosures.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

9. The revised Whistleblowers Protection Policy was subject to staff and management workshops in the first three months of 2009. Input to the revised Policy has been sought from Council’s Leadership team and staff. The revised policy was submitted and discussed at Council’s Consultative Committee.

10. Proposed changes to the Policy relating to the implementation of the toll-free hotline were subject of a report to Council on 27 April 2009.

11. Upon adoption of the revised policy, training will be provided to all Councillors and staff in the revised Policy and procedures for making disclosures of wrongdoing.

Michael Quirk

Manager, Service Audit & Review

Attachments:

1View

Draft Whistleblowers Policy

23 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Nil

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER 13.7

SUBJECT Council Structure

REFERENCE F2005/02722 - D01275125

REPORT OF Chief Executive Officer

PURPOSE:

To confirm the CEO’s view of Council’s structure as required by S333 of the Local Government Act 1993 and to identify a preferred amended structure for consultation and discussion with staff.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council determine the current structure of Council in accordance with S333 of the Local Government Act 1993 and approve the current structure of Council with the exception of amendments as set out in recommendation (b) of this report.

(b) That Council approves the elements of the proposed restructure detailed at Attachment 2 for formal consultation with affected areas and implementation by the CEO as appropriate.

BACKGROUND

1. Under Section 333 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council’s structure must be re-determined within 12 months of the election of a new Council.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 - SECT 333

Re-determination of structure

333 Re-determination of structure

The organisation structure may be re-determined by the council from time to time. It must be re-determined within 12 months after any ordinary election of the council.

2. The previous Corporate Services restructure in PCC took place 2005/6. Subsequent significant restructures took place in City Services (2007) and in Outcomes and Development (2008).

3. Having reviewed the structure of City Services and Outcomes and Development groups the CEO does not see any need for significant change at this time, in the organisational structure. In fact, quite the contrary, there is merit in keeping the structure stable whilst considerable Business process engineering is implemented to improve efficiency and effectiveness.

4. On the other hand, efficiencies can be made in combining the old Corporate Services and Executive Support functions, and some realignment of teams within these areas is warranted at this time. In 2005, there were numerous assumptions and decisions made about the improved capability of the then amended Corporate Services structure to deliver better results to internal and external customers. Over the ensuring years, there has been the opportunity to test this thinking against performance, and while generally sound, there are a number of structural issues and specific issues that suggest some amendments to this structure should be considered. These proposals are not limited to Corporate Services, but also consider elements of the previous Executive Support Unit and various reporting lines to the CEO.

5. Currently, the Corporate Services Group has a total Establishment of 119.54 and contains 6 Units (see current structure at Attachment 1).

6. Currently, the Executive Support Unit reports to the CEO and has a total Establishment of 21.50 (see current structure at Attachment 1). Under the current structure since the resignation of the Executive Support Manager, the CEO is directly supervising Council Support, Communications and Marketing, Civic Place Development, Service Audit and Review and the Strategic Analyst, Crime and Corruption Prevention Officer.

7. There are numerous potential combinations and alternative structures. The suggested structural realignments (at Attachment 2) are preferred for the following reasons:

a. It minimises disruptions to existing services by concentrating on simply re-defining reporting lines at the service team level (there are some suggestions that go to lower levels)

b. No additional Units or Unit Manager positions are created

c. It addresses some of the existing anomalies by grouping like business together

d. It redirects the administration and management of these services to Corporate Services while retaining dotted reporting lines to the CEO.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

8. The major suggested changes detailed in Attachment 2 have the following broad objectives:

a. Realignment of the reporting of Service Audit and Review (SAR) from the CEO to the Group Manager, Corporate Services. This team will still have a strong communication link and relationship with the CEO as a result of the nature of their work.

b. Realignment of the Councillor Support and Communications and Marketing reporting lines to the Manager, Community Engagement (Unit to be renamed). Communications and Marketing will most likely absorb content management for both Internet and Intranet.

c. Realignment of reporting lines for the Records and Web teams to the Manager, Information Systems

d. Creation of an additional Project Delivery Team within Information Systems (funded by project budgets), and some minor re-alignment of other teams.

e. Incorporation of new General Counsel position as a direct report to the CEO.

f. Strategic Crime and Corruption Officer role will be merged with the Crime Prevention Coordinator role (from City Services) and the new combined role will report directly to the Group Manager, Outcomes and Development.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

9. Preliminary discussions have been undertaken with many of the Managers involved. However as a matter of urgency, the following steps need to be undertaken with regard to this item should Council endorse the recommendations and general direction of the report:

a. Formal Notification of the relevant unions to commence the consultations required under the Local Award

b. Consultation with all effected individuals

c. Clarification of reporting lines and delegations as required

d. Review of position descriptions in respect to accountabilities as required

e. Assessment and consultation on specific issues such as the reporting lines for Service Audit and Review and the audit Charter

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

10. This proposal is largely a refocussing of reporting lines. No additional Units or Unit Manager Positions are proposed. It is intended that the proposed changes will be accommodated within the existing establishment.

Dr Robert Lang

Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:

1View	Current Structure of Corporate Services and the Executive Support Unit	1 Page
2View	Proposed Structure of Corporate Services and CEO's office	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER 13.8

SUBJECT Fees and Charges 2009/10 - Events Stallholder Charges

REFERENCE F2008/03720 - D01276531

REPORT OF Manager - Finance

PURPOSE:

To determine a fee for stallholders at Council events.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council gives public notice for 28 days of the proposed fees for stall holders at Council events as detailed in this report.

BACKGROUND

1. As part of the 2009/10 Management Plan process, Council publicly exhibited and adopted its fees and charges for 2009/10. Just prior to finalising the fees proposed for exhibition, the section related to stall holder charges was inadvertently deleted.

2. To bring these charges into effect, Council is first required to publicly exhibit the proposed charges for 28 days prior to adopting them.

3. The proposed charges are:

EVENTS STALL CHARGES:	Charges inc. GST
Parramatta Australia Day Food Stallholder fee
One 2.4m fete stall, dry waste service, health inspector fees, shared hand washing sink for Community Purpose	$320.00
One 2.4m fete stall, dry waste service, health inspector fees, shared hand washing sink for Commercial Purpose	$475.00
One 4.8m (l) x 2.4m (w) space, dry waste service, health inspector fees (Van or cart)	$385.00
Parramatta Australia Day Merchandise Stallholder fee
One 2.4m fete stall, dry waste service for Community Purpose	$200.00
One 2.4m fete stall, dry waste service for Commercial Purpose	$310.00
Parramatta Australia Day Information Stallholder fee
One 2.4m fete stall for Community purpose	$120.00
One 2.4m fete stall for Commercial Purpose	$200.00
Parramatta Major Events Food Stallholder fee
One 2.4m fete stall, dry waste service, health inspector fees, shared hand washing sink for Community Purpose	$200.00
One 2.4m fete stall, dry waste service, health inspector fees, shared hand washing sink for Commercial Purpose	$310.00
One 4.8m (l) x 2.4m (w) space, dry waste service, health inspector fees (Van or Cart)	$275.00
Parramatta Major Events Merchandise Stallholder fee
One 2.4m fete stall, dry waste service for Community Purpose	$140.00
One 2.4m fete stall, dry waste service for Commercial Purpose	$240.00
Parramatta Major Events Information Stallholder fee
One 2.4m fete stall for Community Purpose	$120.00
One 2.4m fete stall for Commercial Purpose	$200.00
All Events Extras fees
Electric Power (per 10 amp or 15 amp point)	$80.00
Electric Power (3 phase, 32 amp, 5 pin)	$110.00
Stall lighting (per stall, includes cabling & electrician)	$100.00

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

Council is required to formally adopt the charges before they can be imposed.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

Consultation has taken place with relevant staff.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

Income from these charges is estimated to be $30,000 in 2009/10.

Jenny Fett

Manager Finance

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Sue Coleman – Group Manager City Services			Assistant Minutes Clerk – Joy Bramham
Geoff King – Acting Group Manager Corporate			Minutes Clerk – Grant Davies
Sue Weatherley–Group Manager Outcomes & Development

Clr Paul Barber – Caroline Chisholm Ward			Clr Lorraine Wearne, Deputy Lord Mayor Lachlan Macquarie Ward
Clr Mark Lack – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward			Clr John Chedid – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward
Clr Glenn Elmore – Woodville Ward			Clr Scott Lloyd – Caroline Chisholm Ward
Clr Pierre Esber– Lachlan Macquarie Ward			Clr Andrew Wilson – Lachlan Macquarie Ward
Clr Prabir Maitra – Arthur Phillip Ward			Clr Andrew Bide – Caroline Chisholm Ward
Clr Julia Finn – Arthur Phillip Ward	Clr Michael McDermott - Elizabeth Macarthur Ward	Clr Paul Garrard - Woodville Ward	Clr Chiang Lim – Arthur Phillip Ward

1View	Assessment Report	36 Pages
2View	Locality Plan	1 Page
3View	Plans and Elevations	3 Pages
4View	Locality Plan of Child Care Centres	1 Page

1View	Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting minute - 6 August 2009	6 Pages
2View	maps	2 Pages