Agenda of Ordinary Council - 14 December 2009

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

The Lord Mayor Clr Paul Garrard - Woodville Ward

Dr. Robert Lang, Chief Executive Officer - Parramatta City Council

Sue Coleman – Group Manager City Services			Assistant Minutes Clerk – Joy Bramham
Gregory Smith – Group Manager Corporate			Minutes Clerk – Grant Davies
Sue Weatherley–Group Manager Outcomes & Development

Clr Paul Barber – Caroline Chisholm Ward			Clr Lorraine Wearne, 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 Antoine (Tony) Issa, OAM – Woodville Ward	Clr Chiang Lim, Deputy Lord Mayor – Arthur Phillip Ward

Staff

GALLERY

Ordinary Council	14 December 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO

1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council - 23 November 2009, Regulatory Council - 7 December 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 Notifications DCP

8.2 10 Marsh Street Clyde (Lot 8 DP 4593) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

8.3 19 Brodie Street Rydalmere (Lot 180 DP 14244) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

8.4 35 Lansdowne Street, Merrylands
(Lot 1 HCP 136) (Woodville Ward)

8.5 Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement in relation to development at No.s 116-124 Chruch Street, Parramatta.

NOTE: The draft VPA refers to 114-124 Church Street, Parramatta. However the correct address is 116-124 Church Street, Parramatta.

8.6 116-126 Church Street Parramatta (Lot 8 DP 548344, Lot 20 DP 979263 and Lots 1 & 2 DP 543456) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

8.7 19 Brodie Street Rydalmere (Lot 180 DP 14244) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

Note: Distributed under separate cover as a late report

9 City Development

9.1 Review of the Public Domain Design Reference Panel

9.2 City Centre Planning Controls - Eastern Precinct land bounded by the Parramatta River, Parkes Street, Charles Street and Harris Street.

9.3 Revised DCP controls for 2 Morton Street DCP

9.4 Draft Parramatta Development Control Plan

9.5 Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee

10 Roads Paths Access and Flood Mitigation

10.1 Parramatta Traffic Committee Meeting minutes held on 26 November 2009

10.2 Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting held on 26 November 2009

10.3 Taxi Use of Bus priority Facilities

11 Culture and Leisure

11.1 DEVELOPMENT OF A MAJOR MULTI-FACETED FESTIVAL OF SOUTH ASIAN CULTURE FOR PARRAMATTA

12 Community Care

12.1 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee

12.2 Harris Park Community Centre

13 City Leadership and Management

13.1 Delegation of Authority to the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer During the Christmas/New Year Period

13.2 Schedule of Council Meetings for 2010

13.3 Investment Report for October 2009

13.4 Review of the Customers Compliments and Complaints Policy

13.5 Report of Audit Committee Meetings

13.6 Integrated Planning and Reporting Legislation

13.7 Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program - Strategic Report

14 Notices of Motion

14.1 National Graffiti Day

14.2 CDSE Grants

15 Closed Session

15.1 Core IT Systems Replacement Tender

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.

15.2 Tender Results: IT Program Management Services

15.3 Tender Evaluation report for Information Technology Finance 23/2009

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (c) of the Local Government act 1993 as the report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

15.4 Civic Place: Variation to Project Development Agreement to facilitate Stage 1 development

15.5 Urgent Legal Matters

Nil as Yet

16 DECISIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION

17 QUESTION TIME

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 8.1

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER 8.1

SUBJECT Notifications DCP

REFERENCE F2004/06278 - D01264110

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To present the draft Notification Development Control Plan 2009 (DCP) to Council for endorsement for public exhibition.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council endorse the draft Notification DCP in Attachment 1 for public exhibition for a period of 28 days as required by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

(b) Further, that at the conclusion of the public exhibition period Council consider any submissions and determine if it wishes to make any changes to the draft DCP.

BACKGROUND

Council’s current procedures for notification of development applications are guided by the Notifications Development Control Plan 2004 that was adopted by Council on 21 June 2004 and become effective on 7 July 2004.

There are clear attributes of the current Notifications DCP including:

· clearly outlines the public exhibition and notification procedures for development applications;

· ensures that owners and occupiers of land are notified of development that is proposed to take place on adjoining or adjacent land; and

· ensures that the community are provided with an opportunity to participate in the development assessment process prior to final decisions being made.

Notwithstanding the attributes of the current DCP the need to prepare an updated policy has been recognised for some time. Some of the key opportunities for enhancement include:

· Elimination of unnecessary advertised development (eg strata subdivision)

· Review the timeframes for notification/public exhibition to ensure consistency

· Review of procedures for applications that seek to modify development consents under section 96 of the EP&A Act.

· Enhance notification procedures over the holiday season.

· Introduce some discretion to modify notification requirements where amended plans are received prior to the determination of a DA.

A draft DCP has been prepared to update Council’s current DCP and is contained in Attachment 1 to this report. The DCP is a document that contains technical requirements to inform the general public of notification and advertising requirements for DAs in the Parramatta LGA.

The draft DCP is intended to outline notification processes that are clear, streamlined, transparent and that balances the community consultation process with the streamlining of the processing of development applications. The draft DCP also seeks to reference the recommendations made in a Department of Planning document issued to all Councils on 23 July 2009 for notifying/advertising.

KEY FEATURES OF THE NEW DCP

1. Level of Engagement

Different levels of consultation for development applications acknowledge size, impact and importance of the development proposal. The draft DCP identifies that there are a number of development types that have little or no environmental or amenity impacts. The draft DCP also seeks to recognise that where there is no little or no environmental or amenity impacts the notification of these applications significantly increases the time taken to determine the applications.

Development that will not be notified or advertised under the draft DCP include:

· Exempt and complying development as identified in a State Policy or LEP.

· Strata subdivision.

· Land subdivision where no additional allotments are created.

· Internal works to a building that is not a heritage item.

· Signage (except for illuminated and banner signs).

· Change of use applications on employment zoned land (except where located adjacent to residential development).

· Change of use applications on commercial zoned land [excluding: sex service premises, restricted premises, massage parlours, places of public entertainment, pubs, nightclubs, tattoo parlours, gun shops, internet cafes, training academies, convenience stores, food premises, outdoor dining and any commercial use that seeks trading beyond 9pm].

These changes also guards against ‘over notifying’ which causes congestion in the assessment process.

The range of notification techniques in the draft DCP will remain the same as those in the existing DCP which include:

(a) letters to adjoining property owners and occupiers

(b) sign on the development site

(d) notice on council’s web site

(e) display in Council’s library

The draft DCP includes a table that provides a quick reference guide to the notification procedures for the most common types of development. The larger and more complex development proposals that have the potential for greater impact involve a wider range of notification techniques than small scale, more straight forward applications.

2. Minimum Standards with Flexibility

The notification provisions in the draft DCP refer to minimum standards encompassing:

(a) the time period for notification

(b) the geographical extent of the notification; and

(c) the medium of notification (such as letter, notice in local newspaper, notice on site, notice on Council website and library).

The draft DCP proposes a minimum standard for notification for development applications (14 days) and allows an extension to the time period for more complex applications.

One difference between the existing DCP and the draft DCP is that the 21 day minimum standard for development types such as townhouses and residential flat buildings has been reduced to a minimum of 14 days. The current variation to the notification time period increases the opportunity for errors to be made in the notification process and is inconsistent, and does not recognise the improvements that have been made since 2004 in the community accessing DA related information on the DA Tracking website (24 hours).

A minimum standard as proposed in the draft DCP has the benefit of streamlining the assessment system and for clarity of use. It is also noted that the Department of Planning in a document issued to all councils on 23 July 2009 recommended that for application types (other than designated development or ‘advertised development’ as defined in an EPI) a notification/advertising period of 14 days.

The draft DCP also makes it clear that when an application is amended, prior to determination, the application will only be renotified and/or readvertised where the amended application is likely to result in additional environmental impacts. In cases where the amended plans do require renotification or readvertising the advertising period may be reduced to 10 days if the amendment is of a minor nature.

3. Additional requirements relating to sex services and restricted premises

The draft DCP enhances the public exhibition requirements for applications that seek approval to sex services premises and restricted premises.

In addition to the standard notification/advertising requirements the draft DCP also requires these applications to be notified to community and church groups that operate in the locality.

4. Advertising over the December/January Holiday Period

The existing DCP does not allow notification or advertising of applications between 17 December and 14 January. This creates administrative problems in the lead up to the December cut-off period and a backlog in the number of development applications that can be determined over this period.

The draft DCP proposes to allow notification and advertising over the traditional holiday period, but requires the standard 14 day notification period to be extended to 40 days. However, no notification or advertising will commence between 20 December and 5 January. This approach is consistent with many other local government authorities in the Sydney Metropolitan area.

Louise Kerr

Manager Development Services

Attachments:

1View

Draft Notification Development Control Plan

8 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 8.2

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER 8.2

SUBJECT 10 Marsh Street Clyde (Lot 8 DP 4593) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION Alterations and additions to an existing brothel including the provision of an additional 57m2 of first floor space, to be used for the purposes of an additional rest area and locker room for the sex workers.

REFERENCE DA/486/2009 - Submitted 30 July 2009

APPLICANT/S Sugar Babbies C/O Frank Cozzupoli of Idraft Plans Pty Ltd

OWNERS Mr and Mrs Florian

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application relates to a brothel.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application relates to an existing approved brothel at 10 Marsh Street Clyde. The application seeks approval for the construction of a mezzanine level at the rear of the premises to be used for the purposes of an additional rest area and locker room for the sex workers.

Council’s Strategic Crime and Corruption Officer has recommended against the approval of the application for the following reasons:

Therefore, having considered all the relevant circumstances and in particular Public Interest considerations pursuant to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, I recommend that the subject Application be refused on the basis that in is not in the Public Interest to permit modifications and alterations to a brothel within an area that already has a cluster of brothels, where the Operator has displayed disregard for existing conditions of consent; evident through the number of breaches detected.

The application has been reviewed by an independent planning consultant who provided the following comments:

The concern that the proposed additional floor space may allow for an increase in sex worker numbers on the site is a relevant concern, but needs further investigation by way of a site inspection, to ascertain current use, and requires justification from the operators of the brothel. Given the brothel is a business and given it currently provides a relatively generous area for staff amenities (based on my experience in dealing with such uses), there would appear to be no business imperative for the provision of additional expensive amenity areas. The applicant should be asked to justify the proposal from this viewpoint at the onsite inspection.

One submission was received from Railcorp in response to the notification of the application. The submission is a standard letter that raises issues relating to noise and vibration, drainage, and construction issues such as the use of cranes near overhead wires and the impact of electrolysis on buildings. None of the issues raised in the letter are relevant to this application which seeks approval for internal alterations to an existing building.

Inadequate justification has been provided for the additional staff rest area and locker room. Accordingly DA/486/2009 is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority refuse development consent Development Application No. 486/2009 for internal alterations to a brothel at 10 Marsh Street Clyde for the following reasons:

1. Inadequate justification for the additional staff lounge area and locker room has been submitted with the application. The development is likely to result in the intensification of the use as the existing rest area, dining area and kitchen at the ground floor level will become obsolete and these areas may be used as additional client service rooms.

2. The proposed development is contrary to the public interest.

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

Jonathan Goodwill

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Section 79C Assessment Report	15 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Plans and Elevations	5 Pages
4View	Comments from Strategic Crime and Corruption Officer	3 Pages

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 8.3

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER 8.3

SUBJECT 19 Brodie Street Rydalmere (Lot 180 DP 14244) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION Alterations and additions to a commercial building which contains an approved brothel and a take away shop. The application seeks approval to increase the number of client service rooms in the brothel from 2 to 8 and the number of sex workers from 2 to 12. Alterations and additions are proposed at both the ground and first floor levels.

REFERENCE DA/513/2009 - Submitted 5 August 2009

APPLICANT/S Mr Xing Xing Wei

OWNERS Mr X X Wei & Ms C M Xu

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application relates to a brothel.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application relates to a commercial building containing an approved brothel and takeaway shop at 19 Brodie Street Rydalmere. The application seeks approval to increase the number of client service rooms in the brothel from 2 to 8 and the number of sex workers from 2 to 12. Alterations and additions are proposed at both the ground and first floor levels.

Five submissions were received objecting to the DA.

On 4 November 2009 a class 1 appeal was lodged with the Land and Environment Court against Council’s deemed refusal of the application.

Council’s Strategic Crime and Corruption Officer has reviewed the application and recommended against approval of the application for the following reasons:

· The proposed development is likely to create and generate crime within the immediate area.

· There is an increased risk of workers within the area, particularly from Rheem Australia, becoming victims of crime.

· There is no material submitted by the Applicant that addresses or identifies any of these issues. This indicates a lack of understanding of the impact of the proposed development on crime and social issues.

The application fails to achieve compliance with Council’s planning controls including the requirements of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28, the Brothels DCP and the Policy for Sex Services and Restricted Premises. The proposal would result in an excessive demand for on street car parking and would have a detrimental impact on the streetscape.

Accordingly DA/513/2009 is recommended for refusal, for the reasons outlined below.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority refuse Development Application No. 513/2009 which seeks approval to an enlargement of a existing brothel at 19 Brodie Street Rydalmere for the following reasons:

1. The site is unsuitable for the proposed development as sufficient car parking cannot be provided in a safe location.

2. The development is inconsistent with the objectives of the Business and Transport Centre zone as insufficient on site car parking has been provided and the signage is inconsistent with the character of the area.

3. The proposed signage is inconsistent with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 (Advertising and Signage).The colours of the proposed signs are not consistent with the architectural character of the streetscape and the signs would be a prominent feature in the streetscape.

4. The development fails to satisfy the requirements of Clause 40K – ‘Transport and Accessibility’ of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 as a traveller information guide and traffic management plan has not been prepared and facilities for bicycle parking have not been provided.

5. The development fails to satisfy the requirements of Clause 40O – ‘Building design’ of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 as a northern elevation plan was not submitted with the application, the building lacks articulation, the building will not be water and energy efficient, a roof plan has not been submitted and no details have been submitted regarding the sustainability of the construction materials.

6. The development fails to satisfy the requirements of Clause 40U – ‘The Rydalmere Station and Environs Special Area’ of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28. The development fails to provide adequate on site car parking and no information has been submitted to demonstrate how the development minimises the need for vehicle parking or how the use of public transport will be promoted.

7. The development fails to satisfy the requirements of Clause 79 – ‘Brothels’ of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28. The brothel is of excessive size, the proposed signage is incompatible with the streetscape, and inadequate on site car parking has been provided.

8. The development fails to satisfy the requirements of Clause 89 – ‘Other ecological sustainability development controls’ of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28.

9. The development fails to comply with the requirements of Council’s Policy for Sex Services and Restricted Premises.

· The number of employees is excessive being >10

· The hours of operation do not comply with the requirement that premises be closed between 2.00am and 7.00am

· The location of the new entrance from the rear lane is unsafe, the privacy wall and landscaping create concealment spaces

· The size and design of the signage is unacceptable

· The number of suitably designed car spaces is insufficient

· Insufficient detail has been provided regarding landscaping, lighting, and security measures

10. The application documentation fails to satisfy the requirements of Schedule 1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

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

Jonathan Goodwill

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	S79C Assessment Report	41 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Comments from Strategic Crime and Corruption Officer	5 Pages
4View	Plans and Elevations	6 Pages

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 8.4

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER 8.4

SUBJECT 35 Lansdowne Street, Merrylands
(Lot 1 HCP 136) (Woodville Ward)

DESCRIPTION Section 96(1) application to an approved townhouse development with basement carparking. The modification includes deletion of the deferred commencement condition under Schedule 1 relating to the removal of a tree located within the adjoinng property.

REFERENCE DA/1940/2003/B - 16 November 2009

APPLICANT/S Mr F Monzer

OWNERS Issa Holdings Pty Limited

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The site subject of the application is owned by a Councillor.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application seeks to delete the deferred commencement condition imposed on Development Consent No 1940/2003 dated 20 December 2004. The condition in question currently reads as follows:-

“Submission of the owner’s consent to grant removal of the tree on the adjoining site at 37Lansdowne Street Merrylands.”

The applicant has made the request to remove the deferred commencement condition on the basis that it was not an appropriate deferred commencement condition.

It appears from the documentation submitted with the original DA that it was proposed for the tree located at 37 Lansdowne Street to be removed, thereby the design of the new building would not be impacted by the tree. The removal of the tree was also included in the arborist/landscape report both submitted and approved as part of the DA.

Council engaged an independent planning consultant to provide advice on the appropriateness of the deferred commencement consent condition and how best to resolve the issue of obtaining consent for the removal of the tree.

The advice provided by the consultant is that “… an uncertain condition is inappropriate as it leaves no alternative if the tree cannot be removed.”

An appropriate way of dealing with the tree issue is to include a condition on the consent that requires the developer to negotiate with the landowner of 37 Lansdowne Street to submit a tree permit application for the removal of the tree. If this permit is not forthcoming it would be appropriate to require the building works to be setback 4 metres from the trunk of the tree. This would require the basement to be redesigned. Any redesign would require the applicant to either lodge a Development Application to reflect the changes or modify the development consent under s96(2) of the E P and A Act 1979.

To date the applicant has not given effect to their consent. Deletion of the deferred commencement and replacement with another condition on the development consent would enable works to commence on site and activate the consent.

At the time of writing this report no submissions had been made.

Approval of the request to modify the development consent is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council as the consent authority, modify development consent No. 1940/2003 in the following manner:-

1. Remove the deferred commencement consent.

2. Addition of the following condition being Condition No 24a :-

“24a. Prior to any works including excavation being undertaken within 4m of the trunk of the Grevillea robusta (Silky Oak) tree located on the eastern boundary within 37 Lansdowne Street, Merrylands, a tree removal application, comprising of the relevant owner’s signature/s is required to be submitted to and approved by Council for the removal of the tree.

If approval from the owner of No 37 Lansdowne Street, Merrylands cannot be obtained the basement area of the development is required to be redesigned to ensure that it is setback a minimum of 4m from the trunk of the Grevillea robusta (Silky Oak) tree located within No 37 Lansdowne Street, Merrylands. Should this redesign involve any modifications to carparking number, reduction in setbacks to any boundaries or modification to the other levels of the development at ground floor or above, then a separate Development Application or a Section 96 application is required to be submitted to Council for determination.

Should the basement be redesigned, all excavation within 4m from the trunk of the Grevillea robusta (Silky Oak) located within No 37 Lansdowne Street, Merrylands is to be supervised by an AQF Level 3 arborist, who is to undertake remedial work, if necessary.

Reason: To provide adequate protection of trees.”

Maya Sarwary

Senior Development and Certification Officer

Attachments:

1View	Assessment Report	6 Pages
2View	Plans	1 Page
3View	Location Map	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 8.5

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER 8.5

SUBJECT Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement in relation to development at No.s 116-124 Chruch Street, Parramatta.

NOTE: The draft VPA refers to 114-124 Church Street, Parramatta. However the correct address is 116-124 Church Street, Parramatta.

REFERENCE F2009/02397 - D01396129

REPORT OF Project Officer, Land Use &Transport Planning

PURPOSE:

To report to Council the outcome of the public exhibition process of a draft Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) between Council and the applicant in relation to a proposed Section 96 application to modify an existing mixed use development at Nos. 116 – 124 Church St Parramatta; and to seek Council’s endorsement of the draft VPA.

RECOMMENDATION

A memo will be distributed after the close of the public exhibition of the draft VPA on 9 December 2009 outlining any submissions received, and providing a recommendation regarding the draft VPA.

BACKGROUND

1. Development Consent DA/565/2004 was granted in December 2005 for a 25 storey mixed use development at No 116 – 124 Church St Parramatta. A section 96 modification was subsequently approved in December 2008 for minor modifications.

2. A further section 96 modification application was lodged on 14 July 2009 to obtain Council approval for additional commercial floor space and various other modifications. The s96 application was accompanied by a draft Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA).

3. Council at its meeting of 24 August 2009 resolved:

(a) That Council proceed with negotiations for a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) in relation to a proposed mixed use development at 114 – 124 Church St Parramatta.

(b) That delegated authority be given to the CEO of Council to negotiate the VPA on behalf of Council and report back with a recommendation for approval or otherwise of the VPA.

(c) That the draft VPA be publicly exhibited at an appropriate stage prior to being reported back to Council.

(d) Further, that the assessment by Council staff of the proposed development and the proposed VPA negotiation be kept as separate and independent processes.

4. The terms of the draft VPA have been negotiated by Council staff (independent of the development assessment process) and the applicant’s representatives.

5. The draft VPA was placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days, between 11 November 2009 – 9 December 2009.

SUMMARY OF DRAFT VPA OFFER

6. The draft planning agreement (Attachment 1) provides for the developer to undertake the following:

a) Construct a new laneway on the development site to the extent shown on the Works Plan (Attachment 2); and

b) Dedicate that part of the development site to Council that forms the new laneway as shown on Survey Plan (Attachment 3); and

c) Reconstruct the existing laneway that adjoins the new laneway to the extent shown on the Works Plan; and

d) Construct all drainage works associated with the new laneway and existing laneway upgrade; and

e) Construct and implement the urban design and landscaping features, and lighting within the Public Domain Area (i.e. public square and laneways); and

f) The provision and implementation of Arts and Signage Plan as agreed with Council; and

g) The provision and implementation of the CCTV Crime Prevention Video Surveillance Program.

PUBLIC EXHIBITION OF DRAFT VPA

7. In accordance with relevant legislation and Council’s VPA Policy, the draft VPA was placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days (between 11 November 2009 and 9 December 2009). No submissions had been received at the time of finalising this report (i.e. 23 November 2009). Council will be advised of the outcome of this notification period prior to the Council meeting by way of a memo.

ASSESSMENT OF DRAFT VPA

8. In accordance with Council’s resolution of 24 August 2009 and Council’s VPA Policy, staff independent of the development assessment process have assessed the public benefit and value of the developer’s offer as follows:

a) The works offered in the draft VPA were assessed against the approved plans and conditions of development consent issued in respect of DA/565/2004 (including approved modifications). Where works proposed as part of the draft VPA are also required as part of the approved development, these works were given a nil or reduced value.

b) Officers from Council’s City Services Team, Urban Design Team, Strategic Asset Management Team and Council’s Community Crime Prevention Officer detailed the standards to which the VPA works should be provided. A survey plan was prepared for the land dedication.

c) Each works item and dedicated land area were independently valued by Council’s City Services Team, and Strategic Asset Management Team.

9. Attachment 4 provides a summary comparison of the applicant’s valuation of the works items offered under the draft VPA, and Council’s valuation of the same works.

10. Council’s valuation of the works items (independent of the land valuation) is approximately 24% higher than the applicant’s and reflects a reasonable contingency allowance and Council’s desired standard and finishes.

11. Council’s valuation of the dedicated land area is substantially different to the applicant’s. The applicant has valued the land at $5572/m²; however, Council has valued the land at $515/m².

12. Council’s valuation is based on the land being valued as ‘road’ with all the floor space benefit of the land extracted by the approved development. It is also noted that the Council has valued the total area of land to be dedicated which is approximately 59m², while the applicant has only valued approximately 29m².

13. Council’s overall total value of the VPA offer of $587,905 is less than 5% lower than the applicant’s total value of $614,253 and is considered to be negligible.

THE PUBLIC BENEFIT

14. Using Council’s valuations for each component of the draft VPA, a percentage of that value has been assigned as public benefit. The overall value of the VPA is taken to be the total public benefit value.

15. The method of assigning the public benefit is as follows:

a) Where the works item would otherwise have been required to be undertaken as part of the approved development consent, and to the same standard, the works item was given a nil value.

b) Where the works item would otherwise have been required to be undertaken as part of the approved development consent, and to a lower standard, the works item was given a 50% value.

c) The value of the associated design, construction and certification remains constant as 20% of the cost of works as detailed in Attachment 4.

16. The public benefits attributed from the draft VPA include:

· Extension of the existing unnamed lane;

· Formalized public access over the laneway;

· Improved pedestrian and vehicular connectivity and legibility of the city centre;

· Improved pedestrian safety and amenity within the laneway; and

· Delivery of the works consistent with the completion time frame of the development.

17. The key delivery dates for the VPA are described below:

a) The developer must provide Council with a bank guarantee on the day the planning agreement is signed and made to ensure developer delivers it’s obligations under the VPA.

b) The dedication of land is required to be made to Council prior to the issue of any occupation certificate for the development of 116 – 124 Church Street, Parramatta (i.e. the land).

c) The developer works are be completed within 12 months after the developer substantially commences the development of the land; or within 3 months of the issue of any occupation certificate issued in respect of the development on the land (whichever occurs first).

CONCLUSION

18. The value of the VPA is above and beyond the development contributions that the development is also required to pay in relation to the proposed s96 modification. These additional development contributions that would ordinarily be required to be paid under Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act are approximately $80,000.

19. While the total value of the draft VPA is $587,905, the attributed public benefit value of the draft VPA offer is $478,585 and will provide a necessary link through the city centre, while also improving pedestrian safety and amenity.

20. The provision of the laneway link proposed in the VPA is identified in the City Centre LEP as land reserved for local road and Council is the acquisition authority. The developer’s offer to provide the laneway link, upgrade the adjoining laneways and dedicate the new laneway link to Council will therefore ensure that this identified land acquisition is achieved in an appropriate time frame, consistent with the redevelopment of the site.

21. The draft VPA will deliver a significant public benefit and is consistent with Council’s strategic plan to deliver the identified pedestrian and vehicular connection.

Sue Stewart Diane Galea

Senior Project Officer – Land Use Project Officer – Land Use

Attachments:

1View	Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement	33 Pages
2View	Workplan	1 Page
3View	Land Dedication Survey Plan	1 Page
4View	Draft VPA Value Summary	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 8.6

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER 8.6

SUBJECT 116-126 Church Street Parramatta (Lot 8 DP 548344, Lot 20 DP 979263 and Lots 1 & 2 DP 543456) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Section 96(2) modification to an approved 25 storey mixed use development including the addition of 2 commercial levels, removal of 24 car spaces, changes to the internal layout and changes to the external facade.

REFERENCE DA/565/2004/B - Submitted 14 July 2009

APPLICANT/S Joshua International Pty Ltd

OWNERS Glory Property Development (Australia) Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REFERENCES Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement in relation to development at No.s 116-124 Chruch Street, Parramatta.

NOTE: The draft VPA refers to 114-124 Church Street, Parramatta. However the correct address is 116-124 Church Street, Parramatta.

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The applicant has been in negotiations with Parramatta City Council to enter into a voluntary planning agreement under Section 93f (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in respect of dedication of land to Council. A separate report on this matter is being prepared by Council’s Land Use and Transport Planning Unit.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 23 December 2005 development application 565/2004 was approved for demolition and construction of a 25 storey mixed use development containing 80 apartments, 1115m2 of retail space, 2161m2 of commercial spaces and basement car parking for 150 vehicles. The approved development is a tower building atop a 3 storey podium built to the boundaries, with recreation space provided on top of the podium level and a slender tower containing 20 levels of apartments above.

The development incorporates an arcade that provides a through site link between Church Street and a proposed public square adjoining the rear lane. The approved development incorporates a public arts plan which provides for the upgrade of the rear lane and the installation of public art.

The current application seeks approval for the following modifications to the development:

· Alterations to the ground, 1^st and 2^nd floor levels by reducing ceiling heights and adding 2 additional commercial floor levels. The gross commercial floor area has been increased by 1,757m2 from 2161m2 to 3918m2 and the gross retail floor area has been decreased by 175m2 from 1115m2 to 940m2.

· Replanning of the apartments on levels 5 to 24 and changing the unit mix from: 15 X 1 bedroom, 57 X 2 bedroom and 8 x 3 bedroom to 9 x 1 bedroom, 65 x 2 bedroom and 6 x 3 bedroom.

· Provide multi fold windows to enclose all of the apartment balconies with the exception of those located in the centre of the western elevation

· Delete basement level 5 and the north-eastern part of basement levels 2-4 and reduce the total number of car spaces from 150 to 126

· Alterations to the schedule of materials and finishes

· Dedication of an additional 29.49m2 of land at the rear of the site for lane widening and to enter into a planning agreement for the upgrade of the rear lane in lieu of the additional Section 94 contributions that would apply as a result of the additional commercial floor space

One submission has been received during the exhibition period.

Key to the determination of whether the proposed modifications to the approved DA are appropriate is the question of whether there is merit in allowing a significant variation to the floor area and FSR of the approved DA and variation to the FSR standard of clause 22 of the City Centre LEP.

The approved building has a floor area of 11,260m2 and a floor space ratio of 6.52:1. The proposed modifications seek to increase the floor area of the approved building by 2,955m2, comprising 1,582m2 of commercial floor area in the podium and 1,373m2 of enclosed balconies. The additional floor area results in a FSR of 8.23:1. If the enclosure of the balconies was not permitted the additional commercial floor area would result in a FSR of 7.64:1. It is noted that these FSR calculations are based on the previous SREP 28 controls.

When assessed against the provisions of the City Centre LEP the additional floor area results in a FSR of 7.75:1, which is a variation to the maximum FSR controls of clause 22 which is 4.96:1. The significant variation to the FSR control is a fundamental planning policy issue.

It is the opinion of planning officers that the additional FSR to be provided at podium level is not likely to result in any additional amenity, design or streetscape impacts as the built form of the approved building (i.e. podium and slender tower) remains. The additional floor space proposed also does not alter the overall height of the approved building or building envelope. However, it is considered that the extent of additional floor space proposed is contrary to the objectives of the floor space ratio controls of the City Centre LEP.

It is considered that support, in the absence of a clear community benefit, to the variation to the FSR control to the extent proposed may establish an undesirable precedent and could create uncertainty in the application of Council’s planning controls.

The applicant has been in negotiations with Parramatta City Council to enter into a voluntary planning agreement under section 93f(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The voluntary planning agreement seeks approval to works in lieu of the payment of section 94 contributions for the additional floor space. In accordance with Council’s Policy for Voluntary Planning Agreements the content of a planning agreement is not to prejudice the merit based assessment of a DA.

The Voluntary Planning Agreement has been assessed by Council’s Land Use and Transport Planning Unit who have concluded that “… the value of the VPA is above and beyond the development contributions that the development is also required to pay in relation to the proposed section 96 modification.’ and ‘….the draft VPA will deliver a significant public benefit and is consistent with Councils strategic plan to deliver the identified pedestrian and vehicular connection’.

In the event that Council accept the Voluntary Planning Agreement and is also of the view that the section 96 application should be supported the following conditions are recommended to be included on any modified development consent:

1. Prior to the issue of the first construction certificate for work to which this consent relates, the applicant shall enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement with Council in the terms of the offer made by the applicant in connection with the subject development application, and all works shall be carried out in accordance with the Voluntary Planning Agreement.

2. Prior to the issue of the first construction certificate the developer must register the Voluntary Planning Agreement on the relevant folios Torrens Title Register held by the NSW Office of Land and Property information pertaining to the land.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority, refuse development consent to the modification of Development Application No. 565/2004 for the following reasons:

1. The significant variation to the maximum floor space ratio control specified by Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 will set a negative precedent and create uncertainty in the application of the planning regime that applies to the Parramatta City Centre. Approval of a development that exceeds the maximum floor space ratio by 56% would not be consistent with the public interest.

2. The application is contrary to the requirements of Clause 22B - Design Excellence of Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007. The proposed changes to the external finishes of the buildings will have a negative effect on the design quality of the development.

3. The application is inconsistent with the requirements of Part 6.0 ‘Residential Development Controls’ of Parramatta City Centre DCP 2007 as the enclosure of the balconies is contrary to the requirements of the Residential Flat Design Code. The application is inconsistent with the requirements of Clause 22E – Ecologically sustainable development’ of Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 as the enclosure of the balconies is likely to compromise the energy efficiency of the development.

4. The proposed modifications to the development are not in the public interest.

(b) That the objector be advised of Councils decision.

Jonathan Goodwill

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Plans and Elevations	7 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Section 79C Assessment Report	13 Pages
4View	Section 79C Assessment Report for original development application	26 Pages

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 9.1

CITY DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.1

SUBJECT Review of the Public Domain Design Reference Panel

REFERENCE F2006/01048 - D01397126

REPORT OF Place Manager

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report to advise Councillors on the review of the Public Domain Design Reference Panel (the Panel). It is proposed that Council adopt the Draft Public Domain Design Consultation Guidelines to replace the panel. The guidelines provide improved opportunities for all Councillors to be involved at the design stage of major projects.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the Draft Public Domain Design Consultation Guidelines be adopted by Council.

(b) Further, that the Public Domain Design Reference Panel be disbanded.

BACKGROUND

1. The panel was established in August 2006. The aim was to provide a forum for Councillors to have input and feedback into the development of concept plans for major public domain improvement projects within the City Centre and neighbourhood centres (excluding civic place), especially projects with an artwork component.

The membership includes (but is not limited to) the Lord Mayor plus two nominated Councillors. The current panel (appointed after the Local Government elections in September 2008) comprises of the Lord Mayor and Councillors Barber, Finn and Wilson.

2. When the panel was established it was recommended that it be reviewed after 18 months and reported back to Council. This review is now complete and an improved mechanism for involving Councillors in the design process is proposed in this report.

ISSUES/CONSEQUENCES

3. Although all Councillors have the opportunity to attend panel meetings, representation has been limited, and on two occasions only one Councillor was in attendance.

4. To date there have been four panel meetings:

a) 28/05/07 – 1 Councillor attended

b) 28/04/08 – 3 Councillors attended

c) 13/08/08 – 1 Councillor attended

d) 10/02/09 – 2 Councillors attended

5. A review of the four meetings to date revealed that few changes were made to designs as a result of the panel meetings, however, Councillors in attendance had the opportunity to question the artist / designer and offer local knowledge where appropriate. Staff have stated that the opportunity to talk through designs with Councillors helped shape the design. However, given the setup of the panel, this opportunity is currently available to only a limited number of Councillors.

OPTIONS

6. Notwithstanding the panel, Councillors have expressed concern over a perceived lack of information about major projects. In recent examples (Lane project in Epping and the Church Street Mall upgrade) Councillors contacted staff about what was happening after construction began. Questions about design would be better answered in a workshop prior to work commencing. Therefore the proposed process which includes site meetings and the option for workshops for key projects will increase opportunities for Councillors to provide input and allow staff to modify designs based on community and Councillor feedback.

7. This proposal does not effect or replace Council’s Management Plan reporting, Capital Project design process for rolling projects, or the development assessment process.

8. The current reliance on 2D plans is not the most effective way to build understanding of what changes will be made and how a place will look when a design is built. The Draft Public Domain Design Consultation Guidelines require that a montage and /or artist’s impressions be used to show more clearly what the project will deliver.

9. The attached guidelines provide an alternative process to the panel, with improved opportunities for Councillors to engage in the design process:

a) The guidelines provide a clear mechanism by which designs will be referred to a workshop and /or Council meeting

b) The majority of rolling projects will continue with the existing consultation process used by the Capital Projects team, primarily ward based, whereby Councillors receive the draft concept design, are invited to site meetings where appropriate, and are sent the final design prior to construction.

c) Only a small number of capital projects would potentially require a workshop and possible referral to Council. These include:

i Projects of LGA wide significance

ii Neighbourhood centre streetscape projects

iii Major public art

iv Other projects as nominated by Councillors

CONSULTATION & TIMING

10. The process of referral to workshops / Council meetings at the design phase will apply to the following capital projects scheduled for delivery in 2009/10 year:

a) Church Street North

b) New district playground James Ruse Drive

c) Ermington Bay Nature Pathway

11. The review of the panel was led by City Strategy and included staff from the Capital Projects, Urban Design, Open Space and City Culture, Tourism and Recreation units. The process included two staff workshops, a survey of all staff that brought projects to the panel, a desktop review of best practice in communicating design, and discussions with the Executive Team.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

12. There are no financial implications for Council.

Kevin Brennan

Place Manager

Attachments:

1View

Draft Public Domain Design Guidelines

4 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 9.2

CITY DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.2

SUBJECT City Centre Planning Controls - Eastern Precinct land bounded by the Parramatta River, Parkes Street, Charles Street and Harris Street.

REFERENCE F2006/00601 - D01399760

REPORT OF Manager Land Use and Transport Planning

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to present the outcomes of investigations into the economic viability associated with an increase in building density in the area bounded by the Parramatta River, Parkes Street, Charles Street and Harris Street, Parramatta, as resolved by Council at its meeting on 22 June 2009.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council note the contents of the report contained in Attachment 1 relating to the floor space ratio controls for the area bounded by the Parramatta River, Park Street, Charles Street and Harris Street.

(b) Further that should Council wish to progress this matter to prepare a formal Planning Proposal, this work consider the additional matters of height, built form, urban design, traffic, impacts upon the public domain and amenity as well as any potential amendments arising that may be required to the City Centre DCP.

BACKGROUND

1. On 22 June 2009, Council considered a report, which, among other matters, reviewed a request to increase the height and floor space ratio controls for land at 39-43 Hassall Street Parramatta. The report recommended that Council reaffirm its previous decision of 11 July 2007 and decline to increase the height and floor space ratio controls for this site.

Council resolved;

(e) Further, that a report be prepared highlighting the economic viability associated with any possible increase in building density in the area bounded by the River, Parkes Street, Charles Street and Harris Street and that report look to a future FSR of between 6:1 – 8:1.

ISSUES

2. The economic viability of the carrying out of development is not necessarily directly related to the floor space ratio (FSR) of a development site. Before development of any scale is commenced, a feasibility analysis is carried out. The feasibility seeks to assess the total likely costs associated with the development balanced against the likely return. The increasing of the floor space ratio on a site may increase the total potential yield, however, this will largely serve to increase the sale price of land and will not necessarily increase the actual economic viability of the carrying out of a development.

3. The carrying out of a review of the effectiveness of a planning instrument or the impacts of increasing the development potential of an area covered by the instrument needs to consider all potential implications and not be limited only to economic viability.

4. There is no doubt that should an increase in density be deemed appropriate in any part of the CBD and it is absorbed by the market, this would potentially contribute to economic growth. However, any strategy to increase development potential should be carried out holistically and should consider such matters as urban design, public domain, amenity, traffic, heritage issues and the like.

CONCLUSION

5. It is recommended that the built form and economic outcomes for this part of the city would need to be reviewed holistically with a focus of not just FSR, but also heights, a detailed urban design analysis considering such things as what type of ‘edge’ is desired towards the parkland at Robin Thomas Reserve, the transition in heights and impacts to the Harris Park neighbourhood, impacts on surrounding land uses and whether amendments to the planning controls for surrounding areas are required as a result of potential changes to the precinct.

Marcelo Occhiuzzi Sue Stewart

Manager, Land Use Senior Project Officer

and Transport Planning Land Use Planning

Attachments:

1View	Detailed Report	5 Pages
2View	City Centre	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 9.3

CITY DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.3

SUBJECT Revised DCP controls for 2 Morton Street DCP

REFERENCE F2005/01017 - D01400413

REPORT OF Project Officer- Strategic Land Use Planning

PURPOSE:

This report seeks Council’s endorsement of an update to the draft Development Control Plan (DCP) for the site at No 2 Morton Street Parramatta and for such to be exhibited concurrently with the Planning Proposal for the rezoning of the site.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That, Council adopt the updated draft DCP for 2 Morton Street to be exhibited concurrently with the Planning Proposal and Voluntary Planning Agreement for the site based on Attachment 1 as amended with the diagram in Attachment 2.

(b) Further, that the draft DCP be formatted as a site specific DCP for this purpose.

BACKGROUND

1. Council, at its meeting on 19 October 2009, considered a report that discussed the rezoning of land at No 2 Morton Street Parramatta. Council resolved to support the rezoning of the land through a site specific Planning Proposal.

2. In addition, Council resolved that the landowner “prepare for Council’s consideration an updated draft DCP for the broader Morton Street precinct, based on the draft DCP controls adopted by Council on 27 August 2007, but including a revised building envelope layout to take account of the environmental protection considerations for the south eastern portion of the site at No 2 Morton Street.”

Updated draft DCP

3. The draft DCP as previously adopted by Council is included as Attachment 1. The landowner has proposed some variations to the indicative building envelopes which relate to their site as indicated by Council’s resolution. The updated version prepared by the landowner is included in Attachment 2.

Updating the indicative building envelopes

4. The draft DCP as endorsed by Council in August 2007 included indicative building envelopes for the broad Morton Street precinct, which extends beyond the site at No.2 Morton Street. No 2 Morton Street is identified in the draft DCP as “Area 1- Riverfront”. In this area, there are environmental constraints including flooding and a need to consider the protection of the waterway and riparian land in this corner of the site.

5. The draft DCP of August 2007 states that Area 1 must adhere to the indicative building envelopes, whereas other areas across the precinct could propose other design options that would be tested against certain design principles. These principles are described in clause 5.10.2.4 of the draft DCP and in the “Future Character Statement” shown in Attachment 1.

6. It is proposed that the updated DCP include similar wording for Area 1 as for the other areas in the precinct, which are subject to the wording below:

7. “Development in Morton Street must explore and assess the context of the site in relation to the indicative building envelopes.

However, alternative design solutions to that of the indicative building envelopes may be acceptable in Areas 2 and 3 if it can be shown that the design will:

i. achieve a positive and cohesive relationship with other buildings,

ii. achieve optimum solar access and overshadowing does not affect functional open space, or habitable rooms of adjoining development, and

iii. respond to the principles embedded in the future character statement for Morton Street”.

The indicative building envelopes are intended to guide future development, but also provide scope for alternate design outcomes. Final designs are managed through the development assessment process with consideration of the DCP objectives and guidelines.

8. The revised indicative building envelopes proposed by the landowner maintain a similar pattern of development to that originally proposed, but are still indicative only and do not necessarily reflect the final form of the development, which is still to undergo detailed design at DA stage. However, it will be the consent authority’s responsibility that at the assessment stage, it examines the building envelopes, as proposed by the landowner against the development principles to ensure that the development meets those principles.

Indicative Building Envelopes and the Environment Protection clause

9. The draft LEP proposed by the Planning Proposal identifies the southeastern corner of 2 Morton Street as an area of environmental protection. The clause in the draft LEP is not a prohibition to development, but is designed to ensure environmental impacts are considered and managed.

10. Because the draft LEP clause is not a prohibition, building on this area of land may still be achieved and as such, the indicative building envelopes reflect this possibility. The approach reinforces the position that indicative building envelopes should be assessed consistently against development principles and the draft LEP rather than imposing only one rigid solution.

The exhibition of the draft DCP

11. Council has previously endorsed a “stand alone” Planning Proposal for 2 Morton Street to sit outside of the citywide comprehensive LEP. The rest of the precinct is not part of the Planning Proposal and will be considered in the City-Wide comprehensive LEP.

12. Should the Planning Proposal proceed through the Department of Planning’s Gateway determination process as a ‘stand alone’ LEP for the site, any public exhibition should also include the draft DCP controls for the site.

13. To make it clear and prevent any confusion, it is recommended to Council that the draft DCP controls, and the indicative building envelopes for 2 Morton Street be reconfigured as a site specific DCP applying exclusively to 2 Morton Street.

14. The draft DCP controls adopted by Council, that apply to the remainder of the precinct will continue to be part of the comprehensive DCP, in the same way that the LEP controls for this part of the precinct will apply to the City-wide comprehensive LEP.

Nathan Burbridge Marcelo Occhuizzi

Project Officer Manager Land Use and Transport

Land Use and Transport Planning Planning

Attachments:

1View	Draft DCP controls as endorsed by Council in August 2007	11 Pages
2View	Indicative building envelopes as updated and suggested by the landowner of 2 Morton Street	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 9.4

CITY DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.4

SUBJECT Draft Parramatta Development Control Plan

REFERENCE F2009/01146 - D01400576

REPORT OF Project Officer -Land Use and Transport Planning

PURPOSE:

To present to Council the updated draft Parramatta Development Control Plan (DCP) and to seek Council’s endorsement to proceed to public exhibition concurrently with the draft Parramatta LEP.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council endorse the draft Parramatta DCP in Attachment 2.

(b) That the draft Parramatta Development Control Plan (DCP) be placed on public exhibition with the draft Parramatta LEP for a period of 6 weeks.

(c) That the draft Parramatta DCP be updated prior to exhibition to incorporate the same controls as the stand-alone DCP for Places of Public Worship, once these are finalised by Council.

(d) Further, that the CEO be authorised to make minor formatting, grammatical and referencing corrections to the draft Parramatta DCP, should they be required prior to exhibiting the plan without the need for further Council endorsement.

BACKGROUND

1. As part of the NSW State government’s planning reforms, councils in addition to consolidating LEPs into the standardised template format, must also consolidate all development control plans into a single comprehensive DCP, such that only one DCP applies to any parcel of land. This requirement must be met by the time the draft Parramatta LEP is gazetted.

2. Council adopted an early version of the draft DCP on 30 May 2007. Since this date, further work has been undertaken to revise and update controls in response to changes to the draft Parramatta LEP, Council resolutions, Land and Environment Court judgements and internal staff consultation. The updated draft Parramatta DCP is Attachment 2 of this report.

3. The Parramatta local government area currently has six (6) DCPs (excluding the Parramatta City Centre DCP). These have been consolidated into the comprehensive draft DCP using the Parramatta DCP 2005 format as the basis.

4. The detailed controls in the draft DCP remain substantially the same as those that appear in existing DCPs. The content has been streamlined to avoid repetition and some new sections have been added, which are outlined in the following section of this report.

5. Due to the documents’ large size (362 pages) Councillors have been familiarised with the key components of the DCP during its preparation. Councillor workshops were held on 29 June and 6 July 2009 to provide an update on the progression of the draft DCP and to discuss the revisions made since adoption of the early draft. Discussion at the workshops resulted in further refinement of the draft DCP. A discussion paper was circulated on 16 November 2009 to update and brief Councillors of the revisions made to the draft DCP ahead of this report. In addition, two important components of the draft DCP (Sex Services and Restricted Premises, and Places of Public Worship) were endorsed as separate DCPs recently).

OVERVIEW OF UPDATE AND NEW PROVISIONS

6. The draft DCP has undergone further revision since the earlier adopted version of the draft DCP in May 2007. Notwithstanding, the bulk of the provisions in the current DCPs have been carried over to the draft DCP with the fundamental controls remaining unchanged. Revisions and additions recommended to the draft DCP are discussed in more detail in Attachment 1. These include:

a. New control relating to local overland flooding (page 14).

b. New building envelope controls for land zoned B4 Mixed Use (page 33).

c. Amendment of certain secondary dwelling controls such that there is consistency with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (page 30).

d. New boarding house controls (pages 231-244).

e. Additional provisions relating to security shutters (pages 37 and 75).

f. New stormwater drainage requirements (pages 61-67).

g. Strengthening of waste management controls (pages 68-72).

h. New Sustainable Transport provisions (pages 85-86).

i. Amendment of certain principles, controls and car parking rates in the Parking and Vehicular Access section (pages 86- 91).

j. Part 4 has been streamlined and new controls relating to certain Residential Development Strategy centres (known as “Town or Neighbourhood Centres” in this part) have been inserted (pages 95-230).

k. Insertion of principles relating to the impact of future development on the proposed West Metro Link and visa versa (pages 166 and 184).

l. Revision of certain child care centre principles and controls (pages 245-268).

m. Insertion of controls relating to educational establishments (pages 269-272).

n. Insertion of the controls from the draft stand-alone DCP for Places of Public Worship (pages 269-272).

o. Insertion of the controls from the stand-alone DCP for Sex Services and Restricted Premises (pages 280-289).

CONSULTATION

7. It is intended that the draft DCP will be publicly exhibited with the draft LEP. The methodology for the public exhibition of the draft DCP will be equivalent to that adopted by Council for the draft LEP.

8. The draft DCP has been prepared in consultation with relevant units within Council including Development Services, Environmental Outcomes, Catchment Management and Waste Management. In addition, internal briefings regarding both the draft LEP and draft DCP will be held with all relevant staff members during the public exhibition period providing staff education and enabling them to make further comment.

CONCLUSION

9. The draft Parramatta DCP provides more detailed guidelines for development and is the ‘partner’ document to the draft Parramatta LEP. It is recommended that Council endorse the draft DCP and proceed to exhibit it concurrently with the draft Parramatta LEP to provide the community with a more comprehensive understanding of the development control framework proposed.

Jennifer Concato Sue Stewart

Project Officer Land Use Planning Senior Project Officer

Land Use Planning

Attachments:

1View	Detailed Report	15 Pages
2	Draft Parramatta DCP (sent under Separate Cover)

REFERENCE MATERIAL

None.

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 9.5

CITY DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.5

SUBJECT Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee

REFERENCE F2005/01945 - D01401791

REPORT OF Project Officer

PURPOSE:

To inform Council of the key discussion points of the meeting of the Heritage Advisory Committee on 21 October 2009.

RECOMMENDATION

That the minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting of 21 October 2009 be received and noted.

BACKGROUND

1 Council’s Heritage Advisory Committee meets every two months and comprises 11 members.

2. Council’s Heritage Advisory Committee met on 21 October 2009. This report provides a summary of the key discussion points of that meeting for Council’s information and consideration.

MAIN DISCUSSION POINTS

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

a) The Committee noted (item 67/09) Council's decision to remove the heritage listings for 40 Cowper Street, Granville and 38 Marion Street, Parramatta and recommended that Council request the Heritage Centre in conjunction with the Heritage Adviser, investigate the value of the fabric of dwellings at these properties with a view to their preservation. To give effect to the Committee's recommendation, a request will be made through Council’s Development Services and Strategic Asset Management Units for a condition to be imposed on any applications for demolition relating to the removal, storage and reuse of historic materials (incl. joinery, roofing and any other suitable elements).

b) The Committee commended Council (item 68/09) for the striking interpretive works on the Parramatta River foreshore, including storey walls, sentry box, windmill shadow and backyard at Harrisford which will have Parramatta talking about Parramatta's past and was particularly pleased to see the works based on detailed research.

c) In response to advice (item 69/09) on the poor structural condition of the heritage listed property at 123 Good St, a former goods store, the Committee noted that the site does not have a distinguished history and there appears to be no reason to attempt to save these premises which are in such a poor state of repair. The condition of the property and the Committee's comments will be considered as part of Council's comprehensive heritage review, over approximately the next 18 months, of all heritage listed properties in the Parramatta LGA.

d) The Committee recommended (item 69/09) the placement of a caveat on 46 Marsden Street, which is extremely neglected, as a clear warning to any future purchases of the property and Council consider what assistance it can provide to ensure the protection of the neighbouring terraces. The placing of a caveat on a property is not normal Council practice. In addition, Council's General Counsel has advised that Council is unable to place a caveat on the property as Council has no caveable interest. However, there is currently a Notice of Intention to Serve an Order on the property to remove overgrown vegetation, generally tidy the property and to restrict unauthorised entry. Any future purchasers of the property would be made aware of any property issues by an Outstanding Notices and Orders Certificate and also a Section 149 Certificate. The Notice referred to will also help protect neighbouring terraces by restricting access to them.

e) The Committee recommended that the following applications for funds from Council's Local Heritage Fund be granted: $2000 for 7 Kent Street, Epping; $1000 for 22 Jamieson Street, Granville; $1000 for 12 Rosehill Street, Parramatta, $2000 for 14 Rosehill Street, Parramatta and $2000 for 40 Crimea Street, Parramatta. The Committee noted that the latter was an example of a property which had been the subject of an application to demolish, but subsequent works for upgrading and additions have given a positive result which could be the basis of a future press release. The desirability of preparing a press release will be raised with Council’s Communication Unit.

4. There are no requests for additional expenditure arising from this meeting.

Paul Kennedy Nathan Burbridge

Project Officer Acting Senior Project Officer

Land Use Planning Land Use Planning

Attachments:

1View

Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting on 21 October 2009

10 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 10.3

ROADS PATHS ACCESS AND FLOOD MITIGATION

ITEM NUMBER 10.3

SUBJECT Taxi Use of Bus priority Facilities

REFERENCE F2006/00536 - D01402009

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer - Transport Planning

PURPOSE:

To inform Council of the findings of the investigation into the opportunities of allowing taxis to use bus lanes.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council receives and notes this report.

(b) Further, that Council does not request the RTA to consider allowing taxis to use bus priority facilities as it would undermine existing bus priority and operation of the interchange and increase traffic congestion.

BACKGROUND

1. This report responds to a Council resolution of 19 October 2009 item 10.2 which resolved in part as follows:

“d) That Council explore the opportunity for taxis to be permitted to utilise bus transit lanes after 6pm.

e) Further, that a report be provided to Council on how often and the total amount of buses that utilise Pennant Hills Road and Windsor Roads after 6 pm”

2. On 8 October 2009 the Parramatta Traffic Engineering Advisory Group (TEAG) discussed altering the “Bus Only Lane” to a “Bus Lane” on Pitt Street (Item 0910 B2 – see Attachment 1). The RTA has the Authority to approve “Bus Lanes” and “Bus Only Lanes” and it has not been delegated to Council. The RTA verbally advised Council that it will not approve the request, as it would affect the efficiency of bus operations and voted accordingly at the TEAG meeting.

3. Bus priority facilities are provided to give bus passengers a quicker and more reliable journey. Buses are more efficient than cars (including taxis) at moving people in terms of the road space required and have a lower environmental impact. There are several types of bus priority facility and these are described below:

Bus priority facility	Permitted use	Hours of operation	Comment
“Bus Lane”	Bus, taxi & cycle	Range from peak hrs to 24 hrs
“Bus Only Lane”	Bus	24 hrs	Restricted to buses to maintain a priority, road safety and efficient bus operations.
“Transit-way” or “T-way”	Bus	24 hrs	Dedicated bus only road e.g. North West T-Way
“B-signals”	Bus	24 hrs	Bus only traffic light including a short “Bus Only Lane”

4. There are several bus priority facilities provided in Parramatta city centre as shown on the map (Attachment 2) and described in the table below:

Location	Bus priority facilities
Church Street	Bus Lanes and B-signals
Smith Street & Station Street	Bus Lanes, Bus Only Lanes & B-signals
Argyle Street	Bus Lanes, Bus Only Lanes & B-signals
Pitt Street & Park Parade	Bus Only Lanes & B-signals

5. Church Street is an essential part of Sydney’s strategic bus corridor network and is part of three strategic bus corridors: Parramatta to Castle Hill, Hornsby and Sydney via Macquarie Park. There are 10 bus services (542, 546, 548, 600, 601, 603, 604, 606, 609, 625) that use Church Street. There are 94 buses that use the Church Street bus lanes after 6pm as shown in the table below:

Time Period	Number of buses
Monday to Friday all day	426
Monday to Friday 6pm to midnight	94
Saturday all day	265
Sunday all day	157
Monday to Sunday all day	848

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

6. Taxis can already use the “Bus Lanes” on Church Street, Smith Street and Station Street, however, they are not permitted to use the B-signals, or the short length of Bus Only Lane associated with them. B-signals have special induction loops that are only triggered by buses. If taxis were to use them, then the traffic signals would remain on red until a bus triggered the B-signals. B-signals can be modified to accommodate taxis, however this would result in increased bus journey times and additional delay to other traffic. The efficiency of these lanes for buses would be undermined

7. The “Bus Only Lanes” on Argyle Street, Pitt Street and Park Parade form part of the North West and South West T-ways. In addition, Argyle Street forms an integral part of the operation of the Bus Interchange including bus layover facilities. Converting these “Bus Only Lanes” to allow taxi use would have a significant impact on the operational of the bus interchange and all bus services in Parramatta city centre. In addition, there would be increased traffic delay on Marsden Street, O’Connell Street and Pitt Street.

8. In October 2009, the RTA advised Council (through TEAG) that it will not approve the request to allow taxis to use the Bus Only Lanes in Pitt Street as it would affect the efficiency of bus operations. It is recommended that Council does not request the RTA to consider allowing taxis to use “Bus Only Lanes” or “B-signals” as it would undermine existing bus priority and operation of the interchange, and increase traffic congestion.

David Gray

Senior Project Officer, Transport Planning

Land Use & Transport Planning

Attachments:

1View	D01316959 - TEAG 0910 Report	1 Page
2View	Map of Bus priority facilities in Parramatta City Centre and Church Street	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 11.1

CULTURE AND LEISURE

ITEM NUMBER 11.1

SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT OF A MAJOR MULTI-FACETED FESTIVAL OF SOUTH ASIAN CULTURE FOR PARRAMATTA

REFERENCE F2008/00400 - D01403150

REPORT OF Manager City Culture, Tourism and Recreation

PURPOSE:

To advise Council of further discussions regarding the development of a major multi-faceted festival of South Asian culture for Parramatta.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes this report.

BACKGROUND

1. At its meeting of 9 November 2009, Council resolved:

(a) That Council approach Events NSW regarding the feasibility of a major multi-faceted festival of South Asian culture that could be hosted in Parramatta, with the strategic objectives of driving business and tourism.

(b) That Council seek to have Events NSW include the following elements in any future scoping:

1 Cultural elements – theatre, visual arts, music, crafts and fashion;

2 Film;

3 Sport;

4 Popular elements – markets, parades, concerts, food.

1 Economic Impact – a trigger for visitation to Parramatta;

2 Strategic Marketing – wide recognition for Parramatta;

3 Community Engagement – participation and identity.

2. A scoping study has now been undertaken and Events NSW appear keen to pursue the development of such a festival with the support of Council and other key stakeholders including NSW Tourism.

3. The Lord Mayor, Clr Paul Garrard and CEO, Dr Robert Lang, have been invited to discuss the proposal with the Minister for Western Sydney – the Hon. David Borger, MP, and representatives from the Department of Premiers and Cabinet, Tourism NSW and Events NSW on Friday 4 December 2009.

4. It is envisaged that this meeting will clarify a number of key issues including a proposed governance model for the festival, anticipated roles and responsibilities for agencies including Council, the name and timing of the first year event and key program components.

5. A Councillor Workshop will be arranged for 6.45pm on Wednesday 9^th December 2009 to enable Councillors to consider further details of the proposal.

Rebecca Grasso

Manager City Culture, Tourism and Recreation

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 12.1

COMMUNITY CARE

ITEM NUMBER 12.1

SUBJECT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee

REFERENCE F2005/01941 - D01403989

REPORT OF Community Capacity Building Officer

PURPOSE:

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee met on 27 October 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 27^th October 2009 be received and noted.

(b) That the Koori flag be flown outside the Parramatta Town Hall.

(c) That the International Women’s Day event planned for 2010 by Mount Druitt and District Reconciliation Group be endorsed and supported by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee.

(d) That Council write to the Department of Education and Training and request that they undertake a survey of schools in the area to identify those who undertook the Acknowledgement or Welcome to Country together with details of other support given to Aboriginal students.

(e) 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 27^th October 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. Indigenous employees at Council

The Committee was advised that their request that the Manager Human Resources attend a Committee meeting and provide information on the numbers of Indigenous employees and other related matters, could not be actioned until a person is recruited into the position.

The Committee determined to leave this issue as a standing agenda item.

5. Railcorp and NAIDOC posters

The Committee was updated by the Chairperson regarding Railcorp’s decision not to display 2009 NAIDOC posters: he had received no further advice from Railcorp on their decision. The Committee was also advised that Council Officer, Events Co-ordinator, had been told by a Railcorp employee that the organisation had determined not to advertise any events in local areas. However it was noted that Railcorp had advertised the Teddy Bear’s picnic.

Officer’s Comment:

The Manager, Events Team, has written to the relevant Railcorp officer and requested an explanation regarding their decision not to display the 2009 NAIDOC posters.

6. The Committee discussed the changes to Council’s web pages on Aboriginal Heritage that they had proposed to Council’s Project Officer, Land Use Planning. The Committee determined two actions on this matter: that a request be made of the relevant Council Officer to consider both the Committee’s proposed changes and any individual submissions that had been made and that the relevant Council Officer be asked to provide a copy of the final document prior to it being placed on Council’s web pages.

7. Appointment of Committee members

The Committee were told that all members had been sent letters advising them of their appointment and informing them of compulsory induction training. It was noted that induction training would be held quarterly for any new members or for those unable to attend the November 2009 training.

8. Dharug Corroborree

One committee member who had attended this event provided a brief verbal report.

9. Local Government and Aboriginal Network Conference (LGAN) 2009

The two Committee members who attended the LGAN 2009 Conference provided a verbal report of the Conference and one written report was tabled.

10. General Business and Information sharing

Committee members provided information on a number of items of General Business and Information sharing including a campaign against domestic violence and the draft Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment for the former Channel 7 site, Mobbs Lane, Epping.

11. Aboriginal Flag being flown outside the Town Hall

The Committee noted that the Aboriginal Flag was not being flown outside the Town Hall and speculated this was due to the fact it had been replaced by the Parramatta Eels flag. The Committee recommended that the Aboriginal flag be flown once again outside the Town Hall.

Officer’s comment:

The Aboriginal Flag is now being flown outside the Town Hall.

12. International Women’s Day 2010 Reconciliation event

The Committee was advised of an event planned for International Women’s Day 2010 by Mount Druitt and District Reconciliation Group: the event will be based on Aboriginal values and will invite representatives from all ethnic groups in Mount Druitt. The Committee recommended that the event be endorsed and supported by the Committee.

13. Local Government and Aboriginal Network Conference 2010

The Committee was advised that an internal working group were inviting submissions from three event/conference consultants to ascertain what they are able to provide for the funding approved by Council. Committee members proposed that the Conference costs would be covered by registration fees however it was noted that numbers of attendees had fallen over the last few years. It was believed that Parramatta would be well attended.

14. Welcome to Country being undertaken in schools within the area

The Committee discussed obtaining details of those schools in the area who carried out Acknowledgement of Country and recommended that, as it is important for Aboriginal communities within the area to be proud of their Aboriginal identity, and in accordance with the aims and objectives of the Committee, that Council write to the Department of Education and Training and request that they undertake a survey of schools to identify those who undertook the Acknowledgement or Welcome to Country together with details of other support given to Aboriginal students.

15. Executive members of the Committee

The Committee advised the Council Officer that Executive members would need to be elected at the November 2009 meeting however the Council Officer advised the Committee that the new Terms of Reference did not provide for an Executive. Members advised that the matter would need to be the subject of further discussion.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

16. There are no financial implications to Council.

Maggie Kyle

Community Capacity Building Officer

Attachments:

1View	Minutes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting 27 October 2009	6 Pages
2	Chairperson's report on LGAN 2009	8 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 12.2

COMMUNITY CARE

ITEM NUMBER 12.2

SUBJECT Harris Park Community Centre

REFERENCE F2004/07265 - D01401995

REPORT OF Community Place Development Officer. Community Capacity Building Team ; Property Program Manager; Manager Land Use and Transport Planning

PURPOSE:

At the Council meeting of 19 October 2009, Council requested a report on Harris Park Community Centre. This report outlines the current usage of Harris Park Community Centre (HPCC) and options for its expansion.

The Harris Park Community Centre has been based in a cottage at 11 Albion St Harris Park since 2001. The Centre has been running over full capacity for some time and there is currently a waiting list to use its facilities. The building is unsuitable for a community centre as its design and spatial limitations interfere with the delivery of its programs and services.

This report provides a number of options that will increase the capacity of the Harris Park Community Centre so that it can meet the current and growing needs of the community.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council address the short term needs of Harris Park Community Centre by spending up to $30,000 to rectify the design faults of the building. The Harris Park Community Centre will contribute $10,000 to this total. Council’s $20,000 contribution will come from Section 94 monies or the Public Halls and Community Centres Minor Works budget.

(b) That Council address the short term needs of Harris Park Community Centre to deliver a range of community services and programs in Harris Park by negotiating a license with them to use the Harry Todd Band Hall, Jubilee Park.

(c) Further that Council investigates longer term options to develop a community centre in Harris Park that would enable the delivery of community based services and programs.

Background – Harris Park Community Centre

1. The Harris Park Community Centre (HPCC was established in 2001 at 11 Albion Street, Harris Park. The existing Federation style weatherboard cottage is sited on approximately 290sqm and the building was extended and a shed installed in the back yard for storage. In 2002 the building was leased by Council to the auspice organisation, Granville Multicultural Community Centre, for the purpose of providing individual and group programs and services to the local community. In 2008 HPCC became an independent incorporated association. The current venue has a very limited capacity and is not designed to function as a community centre. In addition there has been a steady increase in the number of clients using the Centre for a range of services and given the increase in the population of Harris Park, the increased in demand for services is expected to continue.

2. In October 2009, the Harris Park Community Centre approached Council and requested it consider investigating future options that would increase the capacity of the venue.

Background – Council’s Role in Community Facilities Provision

3. Council has a long history of supporting and resourcing community based services including community and neighbourhood centres. These centres are recognised as important neighbourhood assets providing a range of services to a large number of individual community members and groups. In addition to their own direct services, community and neighbourhood centres also traditionally provide a venue for external community services and groups.

4. Council’s support and resourcing of community and neighbourhood centres is demonstrated through its Community Grants Program and the work of the Community Capacity Building Team to build and strengthen paid staff and volunteers’ capacities. It has also been demonstrated over many years by Council enabling a range of community services and community groups to access Council’s facilities including community halls and parks. By providing these facilities to community groups, Council plays a critical role in ensuring the ongoing delivery of services to communities, in particular vulnerable communities or those experiencing significant pressures such as rapid population growth, changes in socio-economic profile and so on.

5. Council’s history of supporting community and neighbourhood centres by allowing them to use its facilities at subsidised rates, is not unique to Parramatta. It is a well established practice of local government across the country and is well recognised by the general community as one of the ways local government supports and resources community based services.

6. Council’s Parramatta Twenty25 articulates its commitment to working towards ‘a society that is healthy and compassionate’ by ‘improving the quality of life for people who are requiring support’. Further, the plan describes Council’s commitment to working towards ‘a community that is diverse and cohesive’. It will strive to achieve this partly by ‘providing local opportunities for recreation, leisure and sport’ and by ‘creating a strong sense of neighbourhood identity’. Community services and neighbourhood centres are existing and established services that in turn are committed to achieving these outcomes.

7. Within the Parramatta area, a number of services are based in Council buildings and Council is therefore critical to their ability to deliver services to their communities. Examples include Karabi, Wentworthville (Karabi Community and Development Services), Dundas Area Neighbourhood Centre and Dundas Area Youth Service (Dundas Community Centre) and the Harris Park Community Centre. There are, however, other examples of local community organisations that have other accommodation arrangements including commercial leases, for example the Granville Multicultural Community Centre. Organisations that are paying market rates will have less funding available to run projects and services.

Current Issues for Harris Park Community Centre

8. The Harris Park Community Centre (HPCC) delivers most of its services and programs at 11 Albion St, Harris Park. As other community centres do, HPCC also provides a venue and support to a number of other emerging and established organisations to enable them to deliver programs and services to their clients based in the Harris Park area. Until recently, because of a lack of suitable space in its own venue, Harris Park Community Centre delivered additional programs from other venues including the Anglican Church Hall, Harris Park. However, because of the expansion of services by the Anglican Church, HPCC is no longer able to use this venue.

9. The current status of the Centre is illustrated through the following snapshot of services proved in October 2009:

a. Approximately 2300 occasions of service were delivered at the Centre (including individual and group services)

b. Of the 2,300 occasions of service provided at the Centre in October 2009, 742 were accessing the Justice of the Peace service which included providing general information about the area and 320 people attended eight group programs

c. An additional 480 occasions of service were delivered by the Centre from other venues including the Anglican Church Hall, Harris Park

d. 16 other community organisations delivered programs and services from the HPCC

e. HPCC has a waiting list of organisations that wish to use the venue

f. HPCC has a number of programs that they would deliver if they had appropriate facility including a playgroup, financial counselling program and a youth program.

10. The lease for 11 Albion St, Harris Park is still under the Granville Multicultural Community Centre (GMCC). GMCC has notified Council that they are no longer auspicing HPCC, however, arrangements have not been made for a new lease. The lease expired in 2007 and the current occupants are holding-over on a month to month tenancy. HPCC pays $167.46 per month and is responsible for maintaining the grounds (including lawn mowing) cleaning and minor maintenance. HPCC also works as the booking agent for the venue. Council is responsible for major maintenance and the structural condition of the building. The lease agreement allows the facility to be used Monday to Saturday 7am – 9pm.

11. Parramatta City Council currently provides funds and resources to the Harris Park Community Centre (HPCC) as follows: Council maintains the building; the Centre currently receives a community capacity building grant to support the development of the John Irving Park into a community garden. The Community Place Development Officer from Council’s Community Capacity Building Team provides ongoing support to HPCC such as strategic planning, guiding project development and providing assistance to apply for and manage grants.

12. HPCC currently receives no Federal Government funding. It does receive $78,000 per annum from the State Government through the Department of Human Services under the Community Services Grant Program (CSGP). This Grant Program is to cover all staff, operational and program costs associated with the project. (There has been no increase in funding to the CSGP Funding Programme as a whole since 1988, apart from indexation which makes competition for these grant funds extremely tight. This is despite the NSW Department of Human Services/Community Services (previously known as DOCS) and peak Community Services organisations putting a business case before NSW Treasury to have the grants increased to cover the increase in expenses. )

13. HPCC has a Management Committee consisting of 10 volunteers from the local community. There is only one paid staff member at the Centre: the Co-ordinator/Community Development Worker. A small but stable long term group of volunteers provide a number of administrative duties including venue booking.

14. The impact of the limitations on space at the centre on Management Committee, volunteers and the paid Co-ordinator include frustration at the constraints imposed on the delivery of programs for the community and at the additional time and resources required to identify other suitable venues to deliver their programs and disappointment that they cannot deliver needed services in the community.

OPTIONS

15. There have been a number of discussions with HPCC Management Committee representatives and the Co-ordinator over the past 8 weeks to identify a range of options to increase the capacity of the centre. These discussions have identified short, medium and long term options.

16. Short term options

Address the building design faults at 11 Albion Street which impact on the use of the facility.

a. Undertake renovations of HPCC’s existing venue. This would include building storage cupboards; repositioning a door to allow access to toilet facilities without going through the one existing group room and re-positioning the reception area to the front of the facility by constructing an internal wall. This option will increase the effective use of the space however it will also slightly decrease the capacity of the venue. A preliminary estimate of this work is $30,000. The Harris Park Community Centre will contribute $10,000 to this total. If Council wished to support this work, a $20,000 contribution could come from Section 94 monies or the Public Halls and Community Centres Minor Works budget.

Increase the amount of space available to HPCC to deliver its programs:

b. Use the Harry Todd Band Hall, Jubilee Park Harris Park, for over flow services and programs. The venue is available during the day which would meet the requirements of HPCC. This option would require Council re-negotiating the lease agreement with the existing tenant.

17. Medium term options

Increase the available space for HPCC to run its programs and those provided by other services:

a. Redevelopment of the existing HPCC premises including extensions to the rear of the building. This is not recommended due to current height, landscaping and heritage restrictions on the site.

b. Acquire a surplus demountable from NSW Department of Education and Training and locate this at the back of the facility. This could be used as a venue for overflow programs and services. Again however, this is not recommended due to current height, landscaping and heritage restrictions on the site. While awaiting advice on restrictions regarding the demountable, an expression of interest was forwarded to the NSW Department of Education and Training for a demountable and to establish its dimensions and the costs involved in its positioning.

18. Long term options

Develop a Community Centre in Harris Park and co-locate HPCC and other community based services and organisations to meet current and future needs. Options discussed include:

a. Use of 38-40 Marion Street Parramatta. Council recently resolved to classify these properties as Operational Land. There use as a community facility is not supported as the site is being considered for future residential development.

b. Redevelopment of the Harry Todd Band Hall. This proposal would require changes to the current City Centre LEP as it does not support any enlargement of the current building footprint and a 0:1 FSR does not allow further development on this site. This idea may be pursued as a long term option, however, and may provide opportunities to collocate a number of not-for-profit community services together if the facilities are significantly increased.

c. Disposal of the current site for an estimated $600,000 plus the addition of the currently available Section 94-A funding of approximately $300,000 may provide sufficient funds to acquire a more suitable property. The following schedule gives indicative pricing of some possible currently available options:

Alice Street, Harris Park, Use: Residential, Land: 950sqm $900,000’s

Hassall Street, Harris Park, Use: Residential, Land: 950sqm $920,000

Buying a new site that is better suited for use by HPCC is likely to add further to the purchase price. No properties have been inspected and identified as appropriate for use by the HPCC at this time and property selection criteria would need to be developed if this option is favoured by Council.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

19. The cost of undertaking renovations of HPCC’s existing venue as a short term solution have been estimated at $30,000. The Harris Park Community Centre will contribute $10,000 to this total. Council would need to contribute $20,000 which could be funded from Section 94 monies or the Public Halls and Community Centres Minor Works budget if available.

20. Medium term options, being redevelopment of the existing building and/or the placing of a demountable building on the site, are not supported due to current height, landscaping and heritage restrictions on the site. If pursued, further investigations of cost and feasibility would be required.

21. The long term options would require feasibility and detailed cost estimates to provide accurate information on the financial implication for Council. It is recommended that Council officers work with HPCC to further investigate these options.

Chris McAlpine

Community Place Development Officer

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 13.1

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER 13.1

SUBJECT Delegation of Authority to the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer During the Christmas/New Year Period

REFERENCE F2004/07400 - D01332653

REPORT OF Service Manager - Council Support

PURPOSE

To give joint delegation of authority to the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to enable important and urgent matters, including development applications, to be dealt with during the Christmas/New Year Recess period.

Recommendation

That the Lord Mayor, Councillor P J Garrard and the Chief Executive Officer be delegated joint authority under Section 377 of the Local Government Act, 1993, for the period Tuesday, 15 December 2009, until Friday, 5 February 2010, to deal with important or urgent business of the Council including the determination of development applications subject to:-

1 Notice of the business to be determined under delegation being provided to all Councillors at least three (3) days prior to the Delegated Authority Meeting.

2 Prior to any item being considered at the Delegated Authority Meeting, any Councillor be permitted to refer such item to full Council for consideration.

3 The Minutes for all of the business dealt with under delegation over this period being submitted to the Council Meeting on 8 February 2010.

BACKGROUND

1. To maintain and continue a smooth operation within Council, it is proposed that the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to deal with important matters of business of Council for the period from 15 December 2009 to 5 February 2010, being the period between the last meeting of Council in 2009 and the first meeting in 2010.

2. A similar delegation has been given in previous years with the proviso that Councillors be given the opportunity to refer any item listed at a Delegated Authority Meeting to full Council for consideration.

3. Items of business for consideration at Delegated Authority Meetings by the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer will be prepared and minutes of decisions will be provided for Councillors' information at the Council Meeting to be held 8 February 2010.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

4. The delegation is exercised jointly and approval of both the Lord Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer is required for the delegation to be effected.

5. Decisions taken by the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer under delegated authority cannot be revoked by Council and reporting of the decisions is part of a process which provides transparency and accountability.

Graeme Riddell

Service Manager – Council Support

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 13.2

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER 13.2

SUBJECT Schedule of Council Meetings for 2010

REFERENCE F2004/08629 - D01332666

REPORT OF Service Manager - Council Support

PURPOSE:

This report is placed before Council to seek adoption of the Council Meeting dates for 2010.

RECOMMENDATION

That the following Council Meeting dates for 2010 be adopted:-

Monday, 8 February 2010

Monday, 22 February 2010

Monday, 8 March 2010

Monday, 22 March 2010

Monday, 12 April 2010

Tuesday, 27 April 2010 (Note: Monday 26 April 2010 is Anzac Day Public Holiday)

Monday, 10 May 2010

Monday, 24 May 2010

Tuesday, 15 June 2010 (Note: Monday 14 June 2010 is Queen’s Birthday Holiday)

Monday, 28 June 2010

Monday, 12 July 2010

Monday, 26 July 2010

Monday, 9 August 2010

Monday, 23 August 2010

Monday, 13 September 2010

Monday, 27 September 2010

Thursday, 30 September 2010 – Special Council Meeting – Election of Lord Mayor

Monday, 11 October 2010

Monday, 25 October 2010 (Note: LGA Conference being held from 23 – 27 October)

Monday, 8 November 2010

Monday, 22 November 2010

Monday, 6 December 2010

Monday, 13 December 2010

BACKGROUND

1. In accordance with Council’s adopted meeting cycle, the Council meets on the 2^nd and 4^th Monday of each month. The first meeting of the month is dedicated to Regulatory matters whilst the 2^nd meeting deals with all other Program Panels.

2. Council has historically moved into recess over Christmas/New Year for a period between the last meeting in December and the first meeting in February the following year.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. A Mayor elected by the Councillors holds office for 1 year with the current Lord Mayor having been elected on 30 September 2009. The Lord Mayor has been consulted and he wishes to hold the next Lord Mayoral election on Thursday, 30 September 2010.

4. Council should note that the Local Government Association Conference will be held in Albury from 23 to 27 October 2010. As Council may nominate up to 5 Councillors to attend this conference and as the Conference conflicts with the 4^th Monday of the month, Council may wish to alter the date of the meeting proposed for 25 October 2010.

5. Due to the proximity of Christmas, meetings have also been proposed for 6 and 13 December 2010. Council may wish to alter these meeting dates to 13 December and 20 December 2010.

CONCLUSION

6. That Council adopt the proposed dates for Council Meetings to be held in 2010.

Graeme Riddell

Service Manager – Council Support

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 13.3

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER 13.3

SUBJECT Investment Report for October 2009

REFERENCE F2009/00971 - D01354690

REPORT OF Manager - Finance

PURPOSE:

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes the investments report for October 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 $85.3 Million as at 31st October 2009. (Previous month $89.8 Million) The weighted average portfolio held for October 2009 was $87.1 Million (Previous month $89.5 million) (Refer attachment 1).

4. Council invests directly with Local Government Financial Services (LGFS), various term deposit & Floating Rate Note 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 0.39% 4.62%

Funds Managers 0.42% 5.07%

Bank Bill Index 0.25% 3.05%

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 4.62% for the month of October for its total investment portfolio. The return recorded by Council exceeded the Bank Bill Index of 3.05%. Fund managers recorded an annualised rate of 5.07%.

7. Council’s favourable return versus the Bank Bill Index for October 2009 can be attributed to stable Managed Fund performance, as well as fixed return investments which are locked in at rates ranging from 4.80 to 6.80%.

8. Council currently holds approximately $39M in term deposits which hold time line maturities from 90 days to 1 year.

9. CPG Research and Advisory reviewed council’s investment portfolio for the quarter ending September 2009. The report included a policy scorecard which measures how Councils investment portfolio meets the guidelines and objectives of the adopted policy. The scorecard concluded that:

· The credit quality of the portfolio was high with 92% of underlying assets rated A or better.

· The portfolio was diversified across individual counterparties with only a slight overweight in National Australia Bank.

· Councils investment portfolio is diversified from a term to maturity perspective

· A predominant amount of the portfolio is invested in fixed return and cash at call products

10. 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

11. The Certificate of Investments for October 2009 is provided below:

Certificate of Investments

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

12. 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

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 13.4

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER 13.4

SUBJECT Review of the Customers Compliments and Complaints Policy

REFERENCE F2005/02436 - D01361751

REPORT OF Manager Service Audit and Review

PURPOSE:

To obtain Council approval for changes to Council’s Customers Compliments and Complaints Policy

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council adopt the amended Customer Compliments and Complaints Policy shown at Attachment 1.

(b) Further, that staff take the appropriate action to make the amended policy available to the public.

BACKGROUND

1. Council adopted its current policy for the handling of Compliments and Complaints in 2005.

2. The improvement of Council’s complaint handling systems is one of Council’s current strategic priorities. As part of this project, the Customer Compliments and Complaints Policy has been subject to a review.

3. Draft changes to the Customer Compliments and Complaints Policy were submitted to Council at its meeting of 28 September 2009. Council deferred consideration of the draft policy to a workshop, which was held with Councillors on 18 November 2009.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

4. Council’s current policy remains consistent with guidelines established by the NSW Ombudsman in its Complaints Handlers Toolkit. The policy provides clear timeframes which are consistent with the Ombudsman’s guidelines, details how Council will respond to complaints, and established a means of internal review for dissatisfied complainants.

5. The essence of changes to the existing policy aim to clarify the types of customer feedback and complaints that are covered by the policy, so as to ensure the most effective customer response (at Section 2). Requests for Privacy Reviews or representations against infringements are two examples of customer feedback which are managed under different policies and processes, and are not covered by the Customer Compliments and Complaints Policy.

6. Additionally, the draft policy has updated the definition of a complaint to include “dissatisfaction with the outcome of a Council decision”, rather than dissatisfaction with a Council decision (at 3.2). This recognises that the outcome of the decision may be of concern to customers, rather than Council’s legal right or responsibility to make the decision.

7. Complaints relating to the conduct of Council’s contractors are not specifically included in the draft Policy except at Section 3.2. Where recognised, such complaints have been directed through the personal complaints processes, although resolution of the complaint is invariably dealt with as a contract issue. Contract management procedures will be enhanced to ensure that contractors are aware of Council’s Customer Service standards and Complaints Policy.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

8. A workshop held with Councillors on 18 November to discuss the draft revisions to the Policy raised two issues relating to complaints regarding Council’s contractors, and the reporting of timeframe benchmarks. Protocols will be developed to enable better awareness of contractors’ responsibilities for customer service, and to process complaints raised by customers dealing with contractors. Quarterly performance reporting of complaints management in relation to meeting timeframes will be reported to Council.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

9. Minor operational expenditure is required to publish and promote the revised policy.

Michael Quirk

Manager Service Audit Review

Attachments:

1View

Draft Customer Compliments & Complaints Policy 2009

9 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 13.5

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER 13.5

SUBJECT Report of Audit Committee Meetings

REFERENCE F2008/02951 - D01403994

REPORT OF Manager Service Audit and Review

PURPOSE:

The Audit Committee held its first meeting on 22 April 2008 and more recently on 28 May 2009 and 1 October 2009. This report provides a summary of the discussions at the Committee meetings of May and October.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the Minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 28 May 2009 (Attachment 1) be received and noted.

(b) Further, that the Minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 1 October 2009 (Attachment 2) be received and noted.

BACKGROUND

1. Following a Resolution of Council on 25 February 2008 an Audit Committee was established comprising three Councillors and two independent Community Representatives. The Charter of the Audit Committee was adopted by Council on 25 March 2008 with further amendments adopted by Council on 9 February 2009.

2. The current members of the Audit Committee include Councillors, A. Wilson, J. Finn and M. McDermott. At its meeting of 14 April 2009 Council appointed its current Independent Community Representatives to the Audit Committee being Mr Neil Adams and Mr Mike Barry. The Chief Executive Officer, Council’s auditors and other Council officers are invited to Audit Committee Meetings consistent with the Guidelines issued by the Department of Local Government.

MAIN DISCUSSION POINTS

3. The main issues discussed at the meeting of the Audit Committee held on 28 May 2009 include:

(a) Mr Neil Adams was appointed as Independent Chairman of the Audit Committee in accordance with the Guidelines from the Department of Local Government.

(b) The Internal Audit planning and reporting processes were discussed with requests for more detailed information to be provided to the Committee.

(c) The Committee considered the status of the Internal Audit Plan particularly relating to the current audits in progress.

(d) The Committee considered The reports of audits finalised in the reporting period including Application audits in Councils Online, audit of Payroll Termination payments, audit of Telephone Expenses and a review of Concrete and Asphalt Laying Programs.

(e) The Committee considered training needs for Committee members and requested related training be arranged.

4. The Main issues discussed at the meeting of the Audit Committee held on 1 October 2009 include:

(a) The Committee considered the status of the current Internal Audit Plan particularly in relation to the current audits in progress. The Committee requested that the suggested changes to the plan be submitted for approval in accordance with the Audit Charter.

(b) The Committee was briefed by the External Auditor on the annual audit of the Financial Statements who provided detail of Council’s financial indicators derived from the financial reports. A number of aspects of the reports were discussed with the Committee recommending the reports to Council for consideration and approval. The Committee requested further information be provided to a future meeting in relation to Council’s Assets statements, and Councils Online contract.

(c) The Committee considered the current Internal Audit work in relation to contract management and requested further briefing on the issue.

(d) The Committee considered resourcing of internal Audit and requested a business case be submitted to a future meeting of the Committee.

(e) The Committee reviewed and considered the current work on the review of Council’s Delegations, and development of Council’s Fraud and Corruption Prevention Strategy.

5. The Minutes of the meetings are submitted for consideration.

Michael Quirk

Manager Service Audit and Review

Attachments:

1View	Minutes of Audit Committee 28 May 2009	8 Pages
2	Minutes of Audit Committee 1 October 2009	8 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 13.6

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER 13.6

SUBJECT Integrated Planning and Reporting Legislation

REFERENCE F2008/05050 - D01397707

REPORT OF Place Manager

PURPOSE:

To advise Council of changes to planning and reporting requirements for Councils and to recommend that Council nominate for group 1. This will require Council to adopt a Community Strategic Plan and Delivery Program by 30 June 2010.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council nominates to be part of group 1 to have its Community Strategic Plan and Delivery Program adopted by 30 June 2010.

(b) Further that, Council endorses Parramatta Twenty25 as the Community Strategic Plan to meet the new requirements and will commence a review of the plan in 2012 in accordance with the Act.

BACKGROUND

1. The Local Government Amendment (Planning and Reporting) Act 2009 came into effect on 9 October 2009. In summary the Act requires Councils to prepare a number of linked plans as shown in the diagram below:

2. The new integrated planning and reporting requirements include a Community Strategic Plan that is for a minimum of 10 years and sets out the community’s expectations for the future including objectives and strategies to achieve them. Parramatta Twenty25 meets these requirements.

3. A long term Resourcing Strategy is also part of the new requirements and comprises of 3 components:

- a 10 year Financial Plan

- a 10 year Asset Management Plan

- a 4 year Workforce Management Plan.

Significant progress has been made towards the completion of these documents.

4. A 4-year Delivery Program sets out how Council plans to achieve the objectives of the Community Strategic Plan. Along with a more detailed 1-year Operational Plan, these will replace the current Management Plan requirements.

5. The Annual Report requirements are very similar to the current requirements. Some realigning will be required to link it to the Community Strategic Plan and this can be achieved using the new services map (Attachment 1) adopted by Council on 23 November 2009 as the framework for this.

6. There will no longer be a requirement to develop a Social Plan as it is integrated as part of the Community Strategic Plan. There will also no longer be a requirement to prepare a State of the Environment report separate to the Annual Report.

7. The Act requires that a Council resolution is required to nominate a timeframe to implement the new legislation. In summary the options are:

- Group 1: Community Strategic Plan and Delivery Program adopted by 30 June 2010.

- Group 2: Community Strategic Plan and Delivery Program adopted by 30 June 2011.

- Group 3: Community Strategic Plan and Delivery Program adopted by 30 June 2012.

8. As Council is already well advanced in meeting the requirements of the Act, it is recommended that PCC nominate to be part of Group 1.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

9. Council would not be required to prepare a separate Social Plan this year if it nominates to commence under the new legislation in Group 1.

10. By nominating in Group 1, Council would need to review the Community Strategic Plan (Parramatta Twenty25) commencing in 2012. Under the Act, from 2012, Community Strategic Plans must be reviewed by 30 June in the year following the Local Government elections and the planning period rolled forward 4 years to ensure there is always a minimum 10 year plan.

11. The 4 year Delivery Program would be reviewed each year and a new 1 year Operational Plan prepared.

CONSULTATION AND TIMING

12. The new legislation has been under development for the past 5 years. During this time, the Department of Local Government has consulted with Councils across the State. Parramatta City Council has been actively involved in the process and provided feedback and formal submissions to the process.

13. City Strategy has worked closely with Finance, Group and Unit Managers to ensure that Council is well positioned to implement the new integrated planning and reporting requirements set out in the Act.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

14. The cost implications of implementing the new integrated planning and reporting requirements are significant but manageable as Council is already a substantial way towards meeting the requirements. The adaptation of the current planning and reporting practices to align and comply with the new requirements has already commenced and should be possible within existing budgets.

Su Cram

Senior Project Officer - Place Manager

Attachments:

1View

Draft Services Map

1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

None.

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 13.7

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER 13.7

SUBJECT Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program - Strategic Report

REFERENCE F2007/01165 - D01403996

REPORT OF Manager City Assets and Environment

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement to submit an application for funding under the ‘Strategic Projects’ component of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program (RLCIP).

The report identifies a project, valued at approximately $1.25 million, to install energy efficiency technology and renewable energy generation at community facilities which have high significant energy costs. This project will be consistent with the RLCIP program guidelines and the stated aims of the program. It will also deliver significant ongoing cost savings to Council.

The report recommends that, if the application for Federal funding of approximately $1 million is successful, that Council make an allocation of $250,000 in the 2010/11 Management Plan as the requisite co-contribution.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council submit an application for funding under Round 2 of the Federal Government Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program – Strategic Projects 2009-10 for installation of energy efficiency technology and renewable energy generators at a range of Council owned community facilities.

(b) Further, that should the application for Federal funding be successful, that $250,000 be made available in the 2010/11 Management Plan as a co-contribution.

BACKGROUND

1. Councillors were advised in a memo dated 16 October that the Australian Government had announced funding of $220 million for Round 2 of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program (RLCIP).

2. Funding is available in two categories. The first category, which has funding of $100 million is allocated to councils for ‘Local Projects’. PCC’s allocation of $359,000 has been committed to 12 local projects which were determined by a committee of Councillors in November 2009. These projects, which were detailed in a memo to Councillors dated 1 December 2009 have been submitted to the Department of Infrastructure for approval.

3. The second part of the program provides funding of $120 million for ‘Strategic Projects’ with a project value of over $1 million. Councils across Australia have to compete for these funds, with funding applications due by 15 January 2010. This round of the program is very similar to the first round, in which Council was awarded funding of $2.54 million for Stage 3 of the South Street Granville Redevelopment project.

4. Key elements of the program are;

a. There will be a minimum Commonwealth contribution of $1m and ‘partnership funding’ is required. The level of the required contribution is not stipulated but preference may be given to projects with greater co-contributions.

b. Council may submit one application for itself and one as part of a group.

c. Projects must be ‘ready to proceed’, meaning that construction must commence within 6 months of signing a funding agreement, i.e. September 2010 and be completed by 30 June 2011.

d. Projects must be consistent with a supplied project list (see Annexure A of guidelines at Attachment 1).The guidelines are largely the same as for the first round, with the additional comment that ‘Councils are encouraged’ to identify projects that address the needs of the local Indigenous population (this can include employment/training opportunities) and projects that promote environmental sustainability and that promote green building technologies.

e. Assessment of applications will be based on two major criteria; whether the project can be completed on time and budget and whether the project will be sustainable.

f. Funding is not available for transport infrastructure such as roads or related infrastructure covered by the Roads to Recovery or Black Spots programs.

g. Funding is not available for projects which are already included in Council’s Management Plan.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

5. As with the first round, the critical limiting factor when identifying suitable projects is the very short lead-in period allowed before starting construction. This limitation has the effect of virtually eliminating any large project for which design and consultation are not substantially underway. Unlike the first round, Council does not currently have any large single construction projects which are sufficiently progressed but which are not already in the Management Plan.

6. Throughout the supporting documentation for the program, there is a strong theme of environmental sustainability, particularly relating to green building technology. The following extract from the ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ document that accompanies the program explores this theme;

Green Building aims to reduce the impact of Australia’s built environment on greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the energy consumed in building and maintaining our infrastructure. Initiatives that contribute to this goal include:

a. common area lighting

b. installation of photovoltaic cells

c. environmentally friendly heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems

d. the building fabric, for example glazing and shading

e. monitoring equipment, automation systems, and control systems linked to improving the energy efficiency of buildings

The benefits of building green include:

f. lower overheads

g. more productive and healthier environments

h. access to financial incentives and tax credits

i. a baseline measure to earn carbon credits

PROPOSAL

7. It is proposed to seek funding for a project to install renewable energy generation and energy efficiency technologies at a range of community facilities across the LGA. To this end, a consultant has been engaged to assess those community facilities which currently have the largest power bills, and to identify appropriate solutions which will provide the best environmental and financial return to Council. The community facilities that are being investigated are;

i. Parramatta Riverside Theatres

ii. Parramatta Heritage & Visitors Centre

iii. Libraries (other the Parramatta Central library)

iv. Community Centres

v. Child Care Centres

vi. Parramatta and Granville Swimming Pools

8. The consultants work will build on work already commenced by the Strategic Asset Management unit. The cost of the work ($15,500) will be funded from an existing budget allocation for energy efficiency initiatives. If the submission does not proceed or is unsuccessful, this information will still be of value to inform Council’s asset management strategies.

9. Elements of the proposal which will contribute to a competitive submission are;

a) It is consistent with the program guidelines and directly addresses the strong theme of ‘Green Building’ technology in the program documentation.

b) It has the potential to deliver significant long term financial benefit to Council.

c) The project will allow Council to demonstrate leadership in sustainability.

d) Construction work can commence within the required timeframe. As the overall project will be modular, consisting of a series of projects at various sites, it will be possible to commence one of the simple projects within 6 months, while design and tendering work for the larger projects is underway.

e) The project has the potential to attract strong support from local Federal Members of Parliament.

f) The overall project value will be greater than the required $1m minimum.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

10. Consultation with internal stakeholders has commenced with the Strategic Asset Management team and relevant facility operators such as Riverside Theatres.

11. As the applications for funding will close on 15 January 2010, Council endorsement for the preferred project is required no later than the Council meeting of 14 December 2009.

12. Consultation with external stakeholders, such as Federal MPs, will commence following Council endorsement.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

13. Projects funded under the program are required to have Partnership Funding i.e. a contribution from Council or another party. There is no stipulated level of co-contribution but the guidelines make it clear that preference may be given to projects with greater co-contributions. As the minimum Commonwealth contribution to individual projects will be $1 million, it is reasonable to assume that Council’s contribution will need to be substantial if our submission is to be competitive. It is proposed to include a Council contribution of $250,000, based on a total project value of around $1.25 million. The final project estimate is not yet available and will be derived from the consultancy work currently underway but as the project is modular, it will be possible to select prioritised works of this approximate value.

14. As we expect to be advised of the Australian Government’s decision in this matter in the first quarter of the new year, there will be an opportunity to make a provision for Council’s contribution in the 2010/11 Management Plan, should the application be successful.

Tom O’Hanlon

Manager City Assets and Environment

Attachments:

1View

RLCIP Strategic Projects Program Guidelines'

9 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 14.1

NOTICE OF MOTION

ITEM NUMBER 14.1

SUBJECT National Graffiti Day

REFERENCE F2008/04673 - D01400337

REPORT OF Councillor M D McDermott

To be Moved by Councillor M D McDermott

(a) That Parramatta City Council support and actively participate in the Graffiti Action day on the 2^nd of May 2010.

(b) That staff report back to council with a plan for the day, detailing how Parramatta City Council in co-operation with “Cleanup Australia” will engage the Parramatta community, local sporting clubs, residents groups, churches, Police and any other local groups or residents, in a co-coordinated community effort to remove all graffiti from our communities.

(c) That staff engage with all local Government agencies, Utility providers, NSW Housing Commission, State & Federal MP’s to ensure that all areas of State Government ownership and control are also cleaned up as part of this community effort.

(d) That staff look at an education component on and around Graffiti action day to:

a. Highlight Parramatta City Council’s efforts in Graffiti control.

b. Teach community members about the need for prompt graffiti removal.

c. Show best practice to the community in terms of graffiti removal.

d. Illustrate how PCC can work with community members in graffiti removal.

e. Illustrate the success PCC has had in transforming some of our community Parks and giving them back to the community following the removal of Graffiti walls.

f. Illustrate the current research (University of Gronengin) regarding increased levels of social disorder and crime flowing from graffiti and this be clearly shown in and on any flyers, pamphlets or stands provided by PCC.

(e) Further, that Parramatta City Council use this day as a means of lobbying the State Government, State & Federal agencies & Departments to improve their performance with enforcement of current legislation and Graffiti removal from Utility facilities and NSW Housing Commission properties.

Reason

Parramatta City Council’s removal of Graffiti walls has had a significant effect on the reduction of Graffiti within our LGA. It has helped stop the normalization of this criminal activity. This is however only one part of the strategy in eliminating this problem. Unfortunately there is a hardcore of recidivous offenders who still damage our streets and communities. Strong legislation, police & judicial enforcement are an essential component in resolving this problem. Community involvement, education and increased Civic pride are extremely critical factors in ongoing success.

Graffiti removal requires significant inter departmental co-operation and co-operation between neighboring local governments.

Parramatta City Council is now seen as a leader in the fight against this crime and its damaging community effects. Participating in such an event as “Graffiti action day” will go a considerable way towards further resolving this problem and highlighting the ongoing failures in this area and the need for a more unified effort across the state. Graffiti action day is an ideal vehicle to enable a focused and concerted effort to help resolve this problem further.

Overview Supplied by Keep Australia Beautiful.

What are the purposes of the Graffiti Action Day?

The purposes of this initiative are to:

- Primarily support the government’s anti graffiti legislation and actions points

- To remove graffiti in a fun spirited and community pride building exercise

- To raise the importance and profile of graffiti reduction and its broader implications

- To engage with all stakeholders across the State to

 Empower community to take action

 Develop additional networks and partnerships on graffiti removal

 Tackle graffiti consistently using the same techniques and methods.

- To recognize the highest achieving graffiti removal groups, processes and organization types through giving graffiti removal awards of excellence.

Who can get involved?

- Schools (primary and high schools)

- Businesses

- Individuals

- Community Groups

- Councils

- Existing Keep Australia beautiful NSW participants

- Anyone

How will this initiative be run?

Keep Australia Beautiful NSW will be the coordinating body who will work with State and Local Government agencies to identify areas which require graffiti removal, some areas may have multiple sights and other may only have isolated instances. Keep Australia Beautiful NSW will then collected registrations from across NSW and link groups up with their closest sights, each site will have a site manager who is trained in OH&S and is familiar with the best graffiti removal technique for their specific sites. Keep Australia beautiful NSW will provide graffiti removal guides to assist this process as well graffiti removal kits for smaller community group removal operations.

Local and State Government agencies may also like to coordinate their own works to tackle difficult or unsafe areas during the same removal day. This approach would maximize the effectiveness of the removal day as well as to reduce risk to any volunteers who would like to remove it.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Ordinary Council 14 December 2009

Item 14.2

NOTICE OF MOTION

ITEM NUMBER 14.2

SUBJECT CDSE Grants

REFERENCE F2009/00860 - D01401940

REPORT OF Councillor M D McDermott

To be Moved by Councillor M D McDermott

(a) That Council Staff involved in the formulation of grants recommendations seek the input of City Councillors on the general direction of recommendations to the CDSE grants committee.

(b) Further, that all recommendations of Parramatta City Council staff to the CDSE Grants committee come before council for approval before any recommendations are made to the CDSE grants committee.

Reason

Parramatta City Council absolutely supports and is grateful for the contributions that the CDSE committee make to many worthy community groups and projects within our community and LGA.

The funding of any given group from any source, in some way, goes to shape, determine & support the wider social agenda for our community.

As the elected representatives of the Parramatta community and LGA, it is essential that any recommendations of staff are seen to be inline with the wishes of the elected body of council. For this reason it is seen as necessary that all recommendations to the CDSE grants committee receive both input and approval from the elected representatives of the Parramatta community. Not doing this could lead to a perception that such recommendations may not necessarily in line with the views of the elected council and the wider community.

Comments by Grants Project Officer

BACKGROUND

The Community Development Support Expenditure scheme was introduced in 1998 by the NSW Government. It allows clubs to claim a tax deduction of up to 1.5% on gaming machine revenue over $1 million for monies spent on community support. The Local Committee is made up of nine participating clubs, a representative from Western Sydney Community Forum, NSW Human Services Office of Community Services and Council. On a yearly basis the local committee receives over 120 applications. Over the past three years the local committee has contributed $1,719,289.80 to community organisations and groups in the Parramatta LGA.

Council has an administrative and supportive role for the local committee as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding with the local clubs. The administrative work is supported by clubs, where each club contributes either 10% of total CDSE Category 2 liability or $1,000 per participating club, whichever is the lesser amount. The funding contributes to an Administrative Officer to support the grants cycle.

LOCAL COMMITTEE PROCESS AND TIMELINE

Council’s role begins in mid February of each year with the coordination of the first meeting and working with the clubs to open the round in early March. There is one pre-assessment meeting and a final assessment meeting with the full Committee. At the pre-assessment committee meeting NSW Human Services Office of Community Services, Western Sydney Community Forum, Council and any interested club representatives meet to collate individual rankings and propose recommendations for the final assessment meeting. At the final assessment meeting Clubs declare their annual contribution to the central pool as endorsed by the clubs Board of Directors. In early July the Local Committee convenes to finalise the clubs selected projects. In early August a nominated club hosts the presentation ceremony. All CDSE contributions must be cleared in recipients account by 31^st August of each year.

CDSE PRIORITIES

CDSE Category 1 priority needs for the Parramatta LGA are currently based on Council’s Parramatta Twenty25 Strategic Plan and its objectives for building community capacity. The local priorities will be reviewed for next years round when Council revises its social plan as part of the Integrated Planning Framework. If Council wishes to have further input, it could receive a written report on the applications in May prior to the final assessment meeting. All assessments would continue, however, to be made by the CDSE Committee with the individual clubs retaining decision making authority.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.