Agenda of Council - 22 March 2010

Council 22 March 2010

Item 9.2

ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ITEM NUMBER 9.2

SUBJECT Taxis in Parramatta City Centre

REFERENCE F2005/00823 - D01474927

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer - Transport Planning

PURPOSE:

To respond to the resolution of Council of 14 December 2009 regarding improving access for taxis in and around Parramatta city centre, in particular to and from the south.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council receives and notes this report, in particular noting the different roles of buses, taxis and private hire cars.

(b) That Council considers allocating future funding to investigate traffic signals for the Lansdowne Street from Church Street intersection and notes other possible future projects to improve the movement of taxis.

(c) That Council accepts Premier Cabs invitation for interested Councillors and staff to view their new control room and dispatch system in Granville.

(d) That Council considers allocating future funding to provide signage at taxi ranks, similar to bus stops, for taxi passengers to better indentify the ranks.

(e) Further that a copy of this Council report be forwarded to the Access Advisory Committee for its information.

BACKGROUND

1. This report is in response to the Council resolution from the Council Report “Taxi Use of Bus Priority Facilities” considered by Council on 14 December 2009. The resolution in full is as follows:

“(a) That Council receive and note the report.

(b) 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.

(c) That Council, for consideration at the Council Meeting on or before 8 March 2010, be provided with a comprehensive report by staff concerning options on how to facilitate the egress of taxis and hire cars from the Parramatta CBD and prevent the unnecessary waiting time costs associated with taxi and hire car users sitting in traffic with cars queuing to leave the city. Although all aspects of taxi and hire car usage and access should be reported, particular attention be given to:

1 Identifying any previous reports on taxi and hire car integration in the Parramatta City Transport Plan together with related Policies

2 Taxi and hire car egress south out of the Parramatta CBD where they would historically have used Pitt Street, O'Connell Street or Marsden Street , Parramatta. In more simple terms, the RTA has dedicated access to these roads with Bus Only Lanes which taxis and hire cars are not permitted to use, "how do we as a Council suggest to taxi and hire car operators to egress the Parramatta City CBD?"

3 Designing and developing a Priority Taxi and Hire Car Corridor where taxis and hire cars could comfortably follow routes out of the Parramatta City CBD providing taxi and hire car users and operators with comfort that they are taking the safest, most efficient and cost effective route out of the city.

4 Reporting on the taxi ranks and how they interlink with Bus, Train and Loop Bus Routes.

5 Seeking input from the Parramatta City Council Access Advisory Committee.

6 Ensuring that the Parramatta City Council Way Finding Project is maintained in accordance with advice from the Taxi Council and local operators in relation to the location of taxi ranks.

(d) That a letter be forwarded to the NSW Taxi Council noting their adoption of recent reforms as introduced by the NSW Government relating to the behaviour of drivers towards members of the public who have attempted to obtain a taxi.

(e) Further, that a report be provided to Council once a response is received from the NSW Taxi Council outlining what proactive measures the Taxi Council is undertaking to assess the behaviour of their drivers.”

2. The following detailed report addresses Council’s resolution. It should be noted that in response to resolution (d), a meeting was convened with Premier Cabs on 12 February, which is discussed in this report.

3. The difference between private hire cars and taxis are that private hire cars have a significantly cheaper licence ($6,000) and a limited opportunity to carry passengers where as taxis have a more expensive license ($400,000) and have more opportunity to carry passengers.

TAXI & PRIVATE HIRE CAR OPERATION IN PARRAMATTA CITY CENTRE

4. Premier Cabs method of operation is to dispatch a taxi from the nearest available rank. There is an issue with taxis “overranking” at the Fitzwilliam Street taxi rank and the new dispatch system aims to address this issue.

5. The Transport Sub Group of the Parramatta Crime Prevention Partnership is developing a proposal to relocate the Fitzwilliam Street taxi rank to the bus Interchange from early evening to early morning.

6. The request to allow taxis to use the southbound “Bus Only Lane” on Pitt Street was discussed by the Parramatta Traffic Engineering Advisory Group on 8 October 2009. The RTA has advised Council that it will not approve the request.

7. There are two issues; firstly taxis can not activate any B-signal as they have been set-up to detect buses only. Secondly, the number of buses using Pitt Street southbound is relatively very low compared with the estimated number of taxis especially during the peak. The impact of the proposal if implemented would be more frequent delays to traffic on the Great Western Highway. An important factor in the consideration is the level of vehicle occupancy; typically a bus carries 25 passengers whereas a taxi carries 1 to 2.

8. Council officers have discussed potential traffic improvement schemes with Premier Cabs as follows:

i) Improve the traffic signals at Great Western Highway and Marsden Street and construct a lane from Campbell Street to O’Connell Street.

ii) Investigate traffic signals at Church Street & Lansdowne Street.

iii) Investigate an additional southbound lane in O’Connell Street.

iv) Investigate further improvements at Marsden Street & Great Western Highway.

9. Council’s Urban Design team are developing a draft Lanes Strategy. It suggests that in the longer term, the service lane off Fitzwilliam Street be extended to the Wentworth Street car park lane. This would benefit taxi movements.

CONSULTATION

10 A meeting was held with Premier Cabs on 12 February 2010 to discuss the operation of taxis.

11 Input was sought from Council’s Access Advisory Committee. The key points were: the better identification of taxi ranks for passengers, difficulties with accessing a taxi after shopping at Westfield, perception of danger with the Fitzwilliam Street rank during the evening and taxi abuse of bus facilities impacting on bus passengers.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

12. Budget bids as per the recommendations of this report have been lodged through Council’s budget preparation process. These will need to be assessed against competing demands

David Gray

Senior Project Officer, Transport Planning

Attachments:

1View

Detailed Report

6 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council Report dated 14 December 2009 Taxi Use of Bus Priority Facilities

Council 22 March 2010

Item 9.3

ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ITEM NUMBER 9.3

SUBJECT Integrated Transport Plan for Parramatta City Centre

REFERENCE F2006/01143 - D01476651

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer - Transport Planning

PURPOSE:

To seek Council adoption of the Integrated Transport Plan for Parramatta city centre following the exhibition of the draft in November and December 2009.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council adopts the Integrated Transport Plan for Parramatta city centre considering the comments received following the public exhibition.

(b) That Council notes in the State Government’s Metropolitan Transport Plan the loss of the Sydney Metro and the continued deferment of the Parramatta to Epping Line, and their retention in the Integrated Transport Plan as essential public transport improvements.

(c) That Council considers the projects contained within the Plan during the 2010/11 budget bid process and subsequent financial years.

(d) Further that Council forwards a copy of the Integrated Transport Plan for Parramatta city centre to the relevant State Government agencies.

BACKGROUND

1. The Integrated Transport Plan for Parramatta City Centre was on public exhibition from 4 November to 1 December 2009. It is in response to the Parramatta City Centre Plan (2007) which sets out the planning framework for an additional 30,000 jobs and 20,000 residents by 2031. This planned growth will generate significant travel demand to Parramatta city centre. The Integrated Transport Plan recommends a strategy plan to manage the existing and future sustainable transportation. Moving away from the reliance of car use towards sustainable transport of walking, cycling and public transport use, is the key issue addressed in the draft Plan.

2. The key elements of the Plan are:

(a) A Pedestrian & Cycle Amenity Zone in the city centre to improve pedestrian and cycle accessibility and safety through new facilities and a lower speed limit.

(b) City and Regional Ring Roads to better manage traffic flow to more appropriate routes.

(c) Ongoing lobbying for improved public transport (commuter ferry service, additional bus lanes, cross-city bus services and West Metro).

(d) Relocating commuter car parking to the periphery of the city centre and development of park & ride facilities.

3. The Plan sets out possible future transport planning policy for the next 5 years. There are a number of recommended strategies that require additional budget beyond Council’s existing programs and can be considered at the appropriate time by Council as is the normal budget process.

RECENTLY ANNOUNCED CHANGES TO TRANSPORT

4. The Metropolitan Transport Plan was announced on 20 February 2010 and deferred the West Metro until 2020 along with the Parramatta to Epping Rail Link. The loss of these two projects will have a significant impact on Parramatta and its ability to grow and expand without the continued reliance on the private and the existing traffic congestion. The Integrated Transport Plan retains both these projects. Council’s submission to State Government responding to the Metropolitan Transport Plan will be considered by Council at its meeting on 18 April 2010.

5. Other significant changes include the Department of Transport & Infrastructure’s new ticketing system “MyZone” to be introduced on 23 April 2010. New Hopkinsons’ bus services are also scheduled to be introduced from 22 March 2010.

PUBLIC EXHIBITION RESPONSES RECEIVED

6. A total of twelve (12) submissions was received mostly from State and Local Government and one each from a resident, car share provider, transport interest group and a consultant.

7. The majority of submissions from the State Government agencies raised minor corrections to facts. There was a significantly number of respondents who were generally supportive of the measures to encourage sustainable transport while reducing the reliance on private car use, particularly the local Council submissions. A summary of the key comments and their response, are shown below.

Comment	Response
Support decreasing reliance on car use and increased use of sustainable transport.	Support noted.
Revised 2009 State Plan has set a target of 50% of journey to work trips to Parramatta city centre by public transport by 2016.	Noted and included.
That a Transport plan be prepare for all local centres.	A Transport Plan for Granville has been adopted. A draft Transport Plan for Westmead has been prepared and the recommendations will be incorporated into the Vision document for Westmead which will also include land use and urban design work. A Transport Plan for Epping is linked to the DoP’s funding to undertake joint planning work with Hornsby Shire Council.
The importance of additional transport links to the North West, particularly public transport. Considering that approximately of 5% of residents in the Hills LGA use the bus to travel to work in Parramatta and the planned residential growth is 100,000 by 2031. Also recognising the importance of Parramatta as the closet regional city.	Highlight the importance of bus lanes on Windsor Road. Brief desk top study investigation of a possible future rail corridor.
Support for additional bus priority measures and cycle routes.	Noted.
Completion of the Parramatta to Epping Rail Link.	Noted.
Support for additional bus priority.	Noted.
Improvements to bus stops.	Noted.
Additional pedestrian guard railing within the Interchange.	This is an operational issue for RailCorp who manages the Interchange. This is supported
The proposed Pedestrian & Cycle Amenity Zone needs careful consideration and may diminish the outcomes for public transport	Noted.
No support for cross-city bus services at present.	This was discussed with State Government and bus operators at a meeting in January 2010. It also discussed the decreasing capacity of bus layover spaces and the suggestion of cross-city bus services as solution to this problem. The meeting noted that the eastern layover (Station St) operates overcapacity but just about manages to operate satisfactory at most times as Charles Street (leased by the RTA from Council) is used as a spill-over layover. One of the operators present was opposed to cross-city services while another was supportive of further exploration, neither of whom made a submission. State Government agencies at acknowledged the need to investigate the issue and recognised that cross-city routes was one solution.
Lack cycle infrastructure is the biggest factor to overcome to encourage cycling.	Noted.
Revised 2009 State Plan has set a target for Metropolitan Sydney of 5% of trips by bicycle by 2016.	Noted and included.
Need to develop better connections to the North West. Extend the Carlingford Line to Granville rather than Parramatta and to the North West rather than Epping.	Highlight the importance of bus lanes on Windsor Road. Brief desk study investigation of a possible future rail corridor to North West. Parramatta is the preferred western alignment for the Carlingford Line extension as it is a regional city with a significant number of jobs as opposed to Granville which is town centre. Epping is the preferred eastern alignment as it provides a direct route to jobs in Macquarie Park and Sydney. Additional possible future rail links/services have also been added.
Against proposal to convert one-way streets to two-way as it will reduce traffic speeds.	The aim of the two-way streets scheme is support the 40kph Pedestrian & Cycle Amenity Zone and increased vehicle accessibility within the city centre that the current one-way streets restricts.
Suggest operating buses on east-west streets of Philip St, George St and Macquarie St to avoid the use of Church St due to the noise and pollution.	The noise and pollution of buses has decreased as the regulations on emissions increases. It is best practice to operate two-way bus routes rather than one-way to better understand the bus network. Sydney Buses and Hillsbus bus routes were investigated in depth over 4 years and the current arrangement is the outcome of that process which included several irritations. In additional to run bus from the north and north-east along the east-west streets and avoiding using Church St would significantly increase the bus operating costs.
Lack of spatial analysis.	Noted. Consultant promoting skills and services.
Strong support for cycling.	Noted.
Increase car sharing spaces.	Noted. Council has invited car share operators to identify and apply for additional locations.
Continue to limit the provision of car parking within the city centre.	Noted.
Further investigation of proposed new traffic signals.	Noted. This is part of the normal due process.
Use of CCTV to enforce bus lanes requires change of legislation.	Noted and included.
Road network improvements on State roads require detailed traffic modelling and funding support.	Noted. This is part of the normal due process.
Plan should identify a framework to monitor performance of the road network and identify schemes and funding to improve the network	Council has limited funding to monitor traffic flows and implement road improvements. The RTA is best placed to monitor traffic flows using its network of CCTV cameras in the city centre and also the RTA controls traffic signals which are key to the road network performance. Increasing road network performance in isolation will induce additional traffic flows, against the key object of the Plan which is decreased car reliance and increased use of sustainable transport.

OTHER CONSULTATION

8. The draft Summary Plan was circulated to Councillors for comment as a Green Paper on 27 August 2009, no comments were received. The draft Integrated Transport Plan was considered for public exhibition on 19 October 2010 and adopted with objective E3 removed.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

9. Budget bids as per the recommendations of this report have been lodged through Council’s budget preparation process. These will need to be assessed against competing demands

David Gray

Senior Project Officer, Transport Planning

Attachments:

1View

Integrated Transport Plan for Parramatta City Centre Detailed Report

4 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Copies of the “Integrated Transport Plan for Parramatta City Centre” (full report) and “Summary Integrated Transport Plan for Parramatta City Centre” will be distributed to Councillors and senior officers under separate cover. Further copies of the full report and summary report can be obtained from David Gray.

Council 22 March 2010

Item 10.3

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 10.3

SUBJECT Telopea Urban Renewal Project, Telopea - Part 3A Project Submission

REFERENCE NCA/1/2010 - D01475248

REPORT OF Senior Development Assessment Officer

PURPOSE:

To seek Council endorsement to the submission to the Director General of the Department of Planning on the Concept Plan for 1900 dwellings over 10 precincts and project approval of demolition of existing dwellings and construction of 103 residential flat units on Shortland Precinct and 49 residential flat units in Moffatts Precinct. This project is a project under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 that has been made by the NSW Department of Housing.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorse the submission made by Council staff as included in attachment 1.

BACKGROUND

The Department of Planning declared on 29 September 2009 The Telopea Urban Renewal Project generally comprising the redevelopment of 10 precincts at Telopea for approximately 1,900 dwellings be subject of a Part 3A development process under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The Department of Planning issued on 16 November 2009 the Director General’s Requirements which outlined the submission requirements for the project. The requirements are included as attachment 2.

The Part 3 Application consists of two components being a Concept Plan for the long term planning and a Project Application for development within 2 precincts. The overall cost of development exceeds 650 million dollars over a 7 – 10 period.

The Concept Plan for 1900 dwellings located within 10 precincts and the project approval for the demolition of existing structures and construction of 103 residential flat units in the Shortland Precinct and 49 residential flat units in the Moffatts precinct was lodged with the Department of Planning in February 2010.

The Department of Planning have provided Council with a copy of the Environmental Assessment for review and comment. The proposal has been reviewed by internal departments including Urban Design, Traffic, Land Use Planning and Heritage.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Council on 8 March 2010 considered a Notice of Motion by Councillor Chedid on the Telopea Urban Renewal Project. The Notice of Motion included issues of concern to be raised with the Department of Planning and Department of Housing with respect to the concept plan and project applications. The issues of concern raised in the Notice of Motion have been identified within this report.

CONSULTATION

The Concept Plan and Project Application are currently on notification. Notification has been undertaken by the Department of Planning with advice of the applications being sent to Council and all adjoining and affected property owners. The applications were notified for a period of 44 days between 7 February 2010 and 2 April 2010.

A memo was sent via email to all Councillors on 16 February 2010 advising of the project with comments to be received no later than 5 March 2010.

Issues raised by Councillors Chedid and McDermott have been included in the report, a summary of the issues includes:

- Bulk and scale

- Height transitions

- Lack of green space

- Car parking

DETAILS OF CONCEPT PLAN

The Concept Plan seeks conceptual approval for the construction of approximately 1900 dwellings being located within 10 precincts in the suburb of Telopea. The project is proposed to be staged over a 7 -10 year period with approximately 150 – 200 dwellings being constructed each year. The 10 precincts are outlined in Figure 1.

The Concept Plan Application is to be carried out on land comprising:-

· Shortland Precinct- Lot J DP 36743 and Lots 219A and 219B DP 36743;

· Moffatts Precinct - Lot 1724 DP 216673;

· Polding Precinct - Lots 5-7 DP 128229;

· Wade Precinct - Lots 1718-1719 DP 213180;

· Sturt Precinct - Lot 1715 DP 213180 and part of Lot 1716 DP 213180

· Eyles Precincts - Lots 1-2 DP 811709, part Lot 1716 DP 213180;

· Marshall Precinct - Lots 262-268 DP 36743;

· Figtree Precinct - Lots 280-285, 287, 288, 290-299 DP 36743;

· Parade Precinct - Lots 308-319 DP 36743; and

· Evans Precinct - Lots 1-2 DP 596499.

The Environmental Assessment indicates that the redevelopment of the area will provide 530 dwellings owned by Department of Housing and 1370 dwellings to be provided to an open market for low to middle income households. Figure 2 outlines a summary overview of the concept plan including proposed dwelling numbers, heights, and floor space ratio. The existing “3 sisters” towers within the Wade Precinct are to remain as part of the Telopea redevelopment.

Figure 1.

Figure 2: Summary of project.

Issues (Concept Plan)

The concept plan has been reviewed by relevant departments of council and the following issues should be given consideration by the Department of Planning in the determination of the concept plan.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

The concept plan and project applications seek approval of a varying height of 3 to 6 storeys, this is contrary to the permissible heights under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan which allows a varying height of 2 – 3 storeys.

Council is however currently exhibiting a draft LEP (Draft PLEP 2010) which seeks to up zone this area which is consistent with the proposal by the Department of Housing.

Despite the current zoning of the site, it is envisaged this area will be redeveloped to provide additional housing both in public and private ownership. It is considered this proposal achieves this requirement.

Developer Contributions (S94A Contributions and Voluntary Planning Agreements) and draft PLEP 2010

The application has been reviewed by Councils Land Use Planning team who have provided the following advice:

“The draft LEP has been issued with a Section 65 certificate and is currently on public exhibition.

The proposed concept plan, from a land use (building type) perspective is generally consistent with the draft zonings proposed under the dLEP.

Council’s draft LEP does not propose a maximum FSR for the majority of the area covered by the concept plan. In relation to those areas that do have an FSR awarded (part Figtree, Parade and Evans precincts), the table provided below indicates demonstrates the level of in/consistency with the dLEP.

*Precinct*	*Proposed FSR & storeys*	*dLEP FSR*
Figtree	1.1:1 (3-4 storeys)	0.8:1 (11m). A small portion has no FSR assigned
Parade	1.0:1 (3-4 storeys)	0.6:1 (11m), 0.8:1(11m) & 1.1:1 (14m)
Evans	1.5:1 (4 storeys)	2.0:1 (15m)

The Floor Space Ratio Control has the primary objective of controlling the bulk, scale and intensity of the built form. Concern is raised in respect to the exceeding of the FSR proposed by the dLEP by such a magnitude. Particular concern is raised in relation to the ‘Parade’ precinct where areas of 0.6:1 FSR (under dLEP) are intended to provide a suitable transition zone down to the nearby low density residential areas to the east.

Similar concerns are raised in relation to the proposed heights of these three precincts particularly in the areas closer to the interface with intended lower density zones.

Development Contributions (S94A or Voluntary Planning Agreement)

Section 5.10 of the proponent’s Environmental Assessment report addresses the issue of contributions. In relation to this issue the following comments are made;

The proponent’s response to the issue of payment of development contributions is lacking in detail and contains neither a statement of commitments nor details of any Voluntary Planning Agreement or the like. This is required to be addressed adequately as detailed in the Director General’s Requirements dated 14 November 2009 (Item 9).

The statement provided by the proponent asserts that no contributions should be applicable to that component of the concept plan involving re-accommodation of existing Housing NSW tenants and that an agreement/contributions may be able to be negotiated for that component of the proposal which will be carried out by the ‘open market’.

This is not acceptable for the reasons outlined further below.

The proposed concept plan has been deemed to be of state significance under part 3A of the EP & A Act due to its scale and it is fitting that integral matters such as provision of public facilities and public benefit are provided for, particularly given the proposal will accommodate residents that are socially and economically disadvantaged.

The project proposes a significant increase in residential density, retaining the existing level of public housing in a higher density building form and freeing up development sites on Housing NSW land for development of high density housing by the private sector. The figures indicated involve an increase of 3,300 people over a 10 year period with the priority to re-accommodate the 500 existing public housing residents in the early stages.

The entering into of a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) would enable targeting of expenditure on public improvements for facilities and services in the immediate vicinity of the renewal precinct to coincide with the redevelopment of the precinct.

As mentioned, the area will retain a significant population of residents that are socially and economically disadvantaged and the Social Impact Assessment included with the application (Appendix 21) identifies the anticipated demands on things like, education, library services, community services (youth, disability, family support), mental health and childcare yet does not identify any meaningful commitment to or the vehicle by which to provide any of these.

Given the level of growth proposed in the precinct and the level of public housing that will be retained, it is considered that a Planning Agreement would provide more certainty that an appropriate level of improvements to public facilities will be provided.

It would be preferable for the facilities to be provided at any early stage in the renewal project, given that the first stages will be for public housing. In discussions with the proponent it has been requested that consideration be given to providing improvements to community facilities such as the community centre and library, scout hall, communal public spaces and public open space (passive and active). Council has also been investigating the feasibility of different locations within the LGA, including Telopea, for the establishment of community hubs – access points for a wide range of community activities, programs, services and events.

Housing NSW has not provided information about which sites will be offered to the private market, nor the manner in which the private development will proceed. The private sector development is therefore uncertain, so the option of Housing NSW providing for the improvements to public facilities earlier on and recouping the cost from private developers has previously been discussed. This option offers some distinct advantages however no letter of offer or statement of commitments has been provided so can not be formally be considered by Council.

Summary

Whilst no fundamental objection is raised to the proposal from a land use perspective it is considered to be of paramount importance that the issue of developer contributions be resolved prior to the granting of any approval by the Minister. To simply defer the matter for later stages of development will not result in the delivery of the requisite infrastructure, services and facilities for current and future occupants of the development.”

Site Isolation

Concerns are raised that the overall concept isolates a number of dwellings in the Figtree Precinct in private ownership including No. 2 Fig Tree Avenue and No. 8 Fig Tree Avenue.

No. 26 The Parade (within the Parade Precinct) has limited development potential. Draft PLEP 2010 indicates the allotment is the last property within the proposed R4 zone and immediately adjoins the R3 zone. Concerns are raised as the property is in private ownership and adjoins Department of Housing properties on both the north and south. The location of the sites isolated is attached in Attachment 6.

Consideration should be given by the Department of Planning in the assessment of the Concept Plan and any subsequent Project Applications to issues relating to potential isolation of dwellings in terms of potential redevelopment of the site and design issues including height transitions, privacy and overlooking. In addition the Department should consider working with the owners of these properties for inclusion into the concept.

Bulk and Scale

Careful consideration should be given to the bulk and scale of all buildings in particular those buildings which adjoin privately owned properties, to ensure there is an appropriate transition both in height and bulk and scale.

Traffic

The concept plan has been reviewed by Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer who has provided the following comments:

“1. The Transport Study indicated that the Report does focus on the Telopea Precinct and especially Stage 1 development proposal (Shortland Precinct & Moffatts Precinct). The Transport Study included the following:

§ Relevant transport planning issues such as transport mode split and road hierarchy

§ Carparking analysis and the findings of the Study will form the basis of the surrounding parking conditions around the site

§ Maximising public transport , walking and cycling usages

§ Logistics of internal traffic generation, including visitors and external service providers, parking and movement.

§ The impact of the development on the external environment,

§ Integration with existing and planned public transport services.

2. The Transport Study states that “observations of traffic speeds on local roads indicated reasonable compliance with the posted speed limits”. It is suggested that speed surveys should be carried out on roads associated with the 10 Precincts under the Concept Plan Application.

3. Traffic Safety The Transport Study indicated that there are no Black Spot accident sites within the study area. However, once the proposed development commenced construction and as other precincts are developed, it is expected that traffic generation will also increase. It is suggested that the crash history for the affected roads within the precinct should be reviewed and addressed as part of the future traffic impact assessment for each precinct. Council records indicate that there have been concerns received from the residents regarding speeding of vehicles along Sturt Street.

4. Parking Conditions The Transport Study also addressed the existing parking conditions on the precinct road network and it was noted that the current on-street parking allows for sufficient visitor parking at all weekday times observed in the Study. It is suggested that in future, should further precincts are developed the on-street parking conditions may require review and/or changes. In this regard, any alteration to the on-street parking should be referred to Parramatta Traffic Committee under Delegated Authority for approval. Note that Council has received concerns from residents regarding parking along the railway station.

5. Modal Split The Transport Study stated that based on the Transport Data Centre (TDC) 2006. The HNSW Design Guidelines stated that “about half of the public housing tenants are likely to own cars and less in areas close to good public transport such as Telopea. There is a relatively low car ownership and usage of private cars in the subject sites compared to Telopea as a whole and to Sydney averages. This matter needs to be confirmed by further investigation of the area and not only by data from other areas of study.

6. Public Transport Facilities and other modes of transport

It is noted that the Transport Study addressed the existing public transport availability including cycling and walking. It was noted in the Transport Study that there is a poor pedestrian accessibility to surrounding areas due to lack of footpaths and it was observed that pedestrians were forced to walk on the road which causes pedestrian safety. It is suggested that concrete footpath should be provided along the surrounding streets within the precincts. It is recommended that for cycle route construction, the Parramatta Bike Plan should be considered in conjunction with the provisions of the cycleway within the road precincts.

7. Parking Provision

On site parking to be provided for all the precincts should be in accordance with Parramatta Council’s DCP for residential development (either within 400m or more than 400m of railway station and transit corridors, where appropriate) plus bicycle facilities. Parking provision should also comply with the Housing NSW requirements, if appropriate, and the Sustainable Housing Guidelines 2008, as indicated in the Transport Study report. The Plans show that the proposed disabled parking spaces do not appear to comply with AS 2890.6-2009.

8. Parking Layout

The on-site parking layout as shown on the relevant Plans is considered adequate. However, the dimensions of the disabled parking spaces should be in accordance with AS 2890.6-2009. The dimensions of the disabled parking as shown on the Plan appear not to be in accordance with AS 2890.6-2009. It is recommended that these spaces should be widened according to AS 2890.6-2009. Bicycle parking facilities should comply with AS 2890.3.

9. Road Network

The internal widths of internal laneways within each precinct should be designed according to Council requirements and should accommodate the manoeuvrability of garbage and loading trucks. It is recommended that further investigations should be carried out at the following intersections to determine the impact of traffic within the surrounding road network and appropriate traffic facilities due to the expected traffic generation of the proposed development in order to improve traffic flow and safety within the road precincts.

§ Sturt Street and Kissing Point Road

§ Adderton Road and Kissing Point Road

§ Evans Road and Pennant Hills Road

10. Traffic Generation

As part of future project applications, it is recommended further data should be undertaken to determine the intersection capacity and performance as the whole Telopea Renewal Urban Project are developed. It is important that a macro analysis for the whole 10 Precincts be undertaken and model the future traffic generation for the full staged development of the Project in order to determine the accumulated impact of the proposed developments in the area.

11. Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) Scheme

Council records indicate that, where appropriate, a LATM Scheme should be established and traffic facilities installed within the road precincts and should be addressed in future Traffic Report.

Conclusion

The Transport Study only covered the Shortland and Moffatts Precincts for the Project Application and does not address the overall analysis of the whole Precincts covered by both the Concept & Project Plan Applications. It is important that a macro analysis (using road network traffic modelling for example NETANAL) to determine the impact of the traffic within the staged development in 2yrs, 5yrs, 7yrs or 10yrs of construction & development of the area and not only the micro analysis of each precinct.

Recommendation

No concerns are raised to the proposal on traffic and parking grounds subject to the following traffic related conditions:

a) Further traffic & transport study to be undertaken to determine the increase in traffic generation within the Study area and surrounding road network as future precincts are developed. The study should review the need for on street parking; any changes to on street parking are required to be referred to Parramatta Traffic Committee for approval.

b) Further investigations should be carried out at the following intersections to determine the impact of traffic within the surrounding road network and appropriate traffic facilities due to the expected traffic generation of the proposed development in order to improve traffic flow and safety within the road precincts.

§ Sturt Street and Kissing Point Road

§ Adderton Road and Kissing Point Road

§ Evans Road and Pennant Hills Road

c) The dimensions of the disabled parking spaces should be widened to comply with AS 2890.6-2009.

d) Further data should be undertaken to determine the intersection capacity and performance as the whole Telopea Renewal Urban Project are developed.

e) Concrete footpath should be provided along the surrounding streets within the precincts according to Council’s requirements.

f) For cycle route construction, the Parramatta Bike Plan should be considered in conjunction with the provisions of the cycleway.

g) A Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) Scheme to be established and traffic facilities installed, if warranted under the Austroads and RTA Guidelines, within the road precincts and to be addressed in future Traffic Report.

h) A macro analysis (using road network traffic modelling for example NETANAL) to determine the impact of the traffic within the staged development in 2yrs, 5yrs, 7yrs or 10yrs of construction & development of the area and not only the micro analysis of each precinct.

Car parking

Consideration should be given to additional on site parking for both residents and visitors to all buildings, to limit the need in the future for on street parking. Provision of car parking should comply with numerical controls as contained within Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005. Further consultation should be undertaken with future occupants to look at the current car parking needs to ensure car parking needs over the entire precincts are met.

Urban Design - Building Envelopes

The proposed building envelopes are generally street forming buildings that step down the slope and this creates a desirable streetscape character. The layout of the streets and the size of the blocks to be developed means many of the buildings will have a northern orientation. Where this is not the case, the alignment of the buildings maintains the desired streetscape and complements the topography.

To maintain a pleasing appearance, the composition and detailing of the longer facades needs to be carefully considered. Many of the building envelopes form courtyard style developments within buildings surrounding communal open space. This is a desirable outcome but connectivity through the large blocks needs to be considered.

Urban Design - Pathways

The original concept plan submitted to Council in December 2009 indicated a number of public pathways through large street blocks and courtyard style developments. The drawings that form the current submission do not include a clear outline of the works for the public domain.

Connectivity and permeability are issues in the area due to the large block sizes, steep topography, street pattern and railway line. This issue should be reconsidered and well designed public paths be provided in the Moffatts precinct, both north-south and east-west, and also within the Sturt Precinct with a pathway opposite Manson Street on the western boundary of the Library to Eyles Street.

Council also preferred the creation of new public roadways over pathways in some areas. This includes between Eyles Street and the laneway behind the shops fronting Evans Road; and between Manson Street and Marshall Street.

Seniors Living

No consideration has been given as part of the Environmental Assessment for the concept plan against State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004. It is imperative that consideration be given to all future project applications for housing for the aged and disabled as required under the Seniors Living SEPP.

Infrastructure

Consideration should be given during the assessment of the concept plan for future amenities over the long terms for the residents of the area, including additional recreational open space areas, adequate levels of public transport, provision of additional essential services including medical, child care facilities and shopping facilities.

Heritage

Consideration should be given to any dwellings which may have heritage significance. It is noted that the application does not include a Heritage Report for review. All project applications should be reviewed by the Department of Planning’s Heritage Advisor prior to determination to evaluate any heritage significance.

DETAILS OF PROJECT APPLICATION (SHORTLAND PRECINCT)

The proposal for the Shortland Precinct consists of demolition of all five dwellings and construction of 2 residential flat buildings containing 103 dwellings with a height limit of 5 to 6 storeys and provision of parking for 17 vehicles. The project is proposed to be carried out on the following allotments - Lot J DP 36743 and Lots 219A and 219B DP 36743.

The design of the two buildings within the precinct will improve the streetscape and provide good amenity for the occupants. The set back of the buildings from the street will enable some of the mature landscaping to be retained while creating good street proportions and opportunities for casual surveillance. The pedestrian entrances to the buildings are highlighted with a design feature to ensure the entrance is clearly identifiable with clear sightlines provided between the street and the buildings.

An overview of the project details include:

Issues for consideration

The project application has been reviewed by relevant departments of council and the following issues should be given consideration by the Department of Planning in the determination of the project application.

Urban Design - Building A1 (adjoining the railway line)

The design of the roof needs refinement to redress issues of scale and appearance. The roof has not been successfully integrated into the design of the overall façade and adds unnecessarily to the bulk and scale of the building. The heavy appearance of the roof will be exacerbated due to the visually prominent location of the building on the ridge. The design of the roof for the adjoining building (building A2) is more successful as it appears to be an extension of the façade, has a reduced mass and relates to the context of adjoining smaller building forms.

Urban Design - Building A2 (corner of Marshall Street and Shortland Street).

The composition and detailing of the building façade needs refinement to address issues of scale, appearance and amenity, specifically:

- The eastern elevation to Shortland Street has large blank walls and exposed car parking areas. This compromises the street character and pedestrian amenity and safety. Reducing the exposed car parking area, and increasing the number and size of window openings and balconies would provide a more active street frontage. This would also provide greater opportunities for surveillance of the street and improved daylight and ventilation for the apartments.

- The southern elevation to Marshall Street is very long and needs to step down the site to reduce the apparent bulk and scale. This could be achieved by not carrying the datum line across the building, but balancing the scale of the balcony framing features (face brick elements) to frame one level of the building, or two levels.

- The western elevation that overlooks the communal outdoor space between the two buildings has large blank walls. Increasing the number and size of the window openings and balconies would provide a more active frontage. This could include shading elements to the openings that will also improve the articulation of this elevation.

- The modulation of the building provides opportunities for cross ventilation. Additional windows openings could be provided to achieve this.

Further details are required in relation to the landscaping. In particular, pedestrian access into the building (building A1) from the at grade car parking area located between the two buildings does not appear to be direct. Fencing details need to also be provided.

Car parking

Concerns are raised that 17 car parking spaces for 103 residential units and visitors to the building will not be sufficient to cater for the development and will result in the need for on street parking. Careful consideration should be given to the need for on site parking for all precincts.

DETAILS OF PROJECT APPLICATION (MOFFATTS PRECINCT)

The proposal for the Moffatts Precinct consists of demolition of one of the eight existing dwellings and construction of one residential flat building containing 49 dwellings within a height limit of 6 storeys with basement car parking for 8 vehicles. The project is proposed to be carried out on Part Lot 1724 DP 216673.

In general terms, the design of the first building within this precinct will improve the streetscape and provide good amenity for the occupants. The design will provide improved opportunities for casual surveillance of the street and create pleasant street proportions. The pedestrian entrance to the building is clearly identifiable with good sightlines provided between the street and the building.

An overview of the project details include:

Issues for consideration

Urban Design - Public Domain

An area where the design could be refined to further improve the public domain is the eastern and western elevations of the building. These contain large blank walls and minimal articulation and modulation. This should be redressed particularly on the eastern side for improved daylight access. As noted above, public pathways should be provided through this block. Overlooking of these pathways is critical for pedestrian safety. In this regard, the eastern and western elevations need careful attention to ensure casual overlooking can be achieved.

Car parking

Concerns are raised that 8 car parking spaces for 49 residential units and visitors to the building will not be sufficient to cater for the development and will result in the need for on street parking. Careful consideration should be given to the need for on site parking for all precincts.

Sara Smith

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Staff submission to Department of Planning	12 Pages
2View	Director General's Requirements	5 Pages
3View	Concept Plans	4 Pages
4View	Shortland Precinct Plans	20 Pages
5View	Moffatts Precinct Plans	18 Pages
6View	Map of Isolated Properties	1 Page

Council 22 March 2010

Item 11.1

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.1

SUBJECT Constitutional Referendums

REFERENCE F2007/01320 - D01472367

REPORT OF Service Manager - Council Support

PURPOSE:

This report provides details on Council’s considerations at the Workshop held on 2 March 2010 to review Council’s existing constitutional and electoral arrangements and provides options for a way forward.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Mr Gerry Holmes be appointed to undertake a review of Council’s ward boundaries to comply with Section 211 of the Local Government Act.

(b) That funds in the amount of $5,000 plus GST be allocated from account number 10.1260.712.620210 to undertake the required works.

(c) That Council give consideration to the following options in relation to the election of a Popularly Elected Lord Mayor:-

1 Appoint an external organization to undertake a new survey of the community in relation to its views on the issue of a Popularly Elected Lord Mayor; or

2 Undertake a referendum for the election of a Popularly Elected Lord Mayor either:-

(i) Prior to the 2012 Local Government Election or ;

(ii) At the 2012 Local Government Election; or

3 Council take no further action in this matter.

(d) That Council consider whether it wishes to undertake a constitutional referendum in relation to the issues of the reduction in Councillor numbers and/or possible changes to Council’s ward system, and if so, resolve to seek further information on these issues from the Department of Local Government.

(e) Further, that should Council resolve to undertake a constitutional referendum, the CEO notify the Electoral Commission of the resolution within 21 days of this decision and also advise the Department of Local Government.

BACKGROUND

1. A Council may not undertake any of the following unless approval has been given at a constitutional referendum (Clause 16 LGA):-

· Divide its area into wards or abolish all wards in its area;

· Change the basis on which the mayor attains office (ie election by councillors or by electors);

· Increase or decrease the number of councillors;

· Change the method of ordinary election of councillors for an area divided into wards.

2. A constitutional referendum may be held on any Saturday, including the Saturday of an ordinary election. Bearing in mind the expense of holding an exclusive constitutional referendum would be similar to that of holding an Ordinary Election (ie $300,000), it may be financially prudent to hold any such referendum in conjunction with an Ordinary Election.

3. Any changes to the areas mentioned in paragraph 1 resulting from a constitutional referendum held in 2012 would not come into force until 2016.

4. A copy of Sections 15 to 20 of the Local Government Act which deal with the legislative requirements of a constitutional referendum is appended as Attachment 1.

Constitutional Structures

5. The Council at its meeting held on 29 October 2007 gave consideration to Manager Executive Support Report No. 41/2007 regarding a review of Council’s existing constitutional and electoral structures.

6. The Council resolved, in part, that:-

“(d) That Council maintain its current ward based system as the best method of meeting the City’s requirements.

(e) That Council maintain its level of representation for the community at 15 Councillors which provides a satisfactory balance between accessibility to constituents and workload for Councillors.

(f) That Councillors continue to elect the Lord Mayor.

(h) Further, that Council reconsider its Ward Boundaries following the 2008 Local Government Election to satisfy the requirements of Section 211 of the Local Government Act.”

Ward Boundaries

7. In relation to (h) above, a report (copy appended as Attachment 2) was subsequently submitted to the Council Meeting held on 23 November 2009 seeking approval to undertake a review of Council’s Ward Boundaries. The report indicated that the current difference (as at 30 September 2009) between the wards with the highest and lowest number was greater than 10% as permitted under Section 211(b) of the Local Government Act.

8. The Council subsequently resolved that:-

“(a) That it be noted Council recognises it obligations to review its ward boundaries.

(b) Further, that Council hold a workshop to discuss such issues as alterations to its ward boundaries, number of wards, numbers in each wards and whether Council wishes to pursue a popularly elected Lord Mayor.”

Popularly Elected Lord Mayor

9. Following the Christmas Recess, the Council at its meeting held on 8 February 2010 gave consideration to a Lord Mayoral Minute regarding a survey undertaken by Council’s Community Engagement Unit in relation to Parramatta having a Popularly Elected Lord Mayor. A copy of the Lord Mayoral Minute is appended to this report as Attachment 3.

10. Following robust debate, the Council resolved:-

“(a) That the Popularly Elected Lord Mayor Survey 2009 report be tabled in Council and a copy of this report be provided to each Councillor.

(b) That the activities of Council officers be received and noted.

(c) Further, that that this matter be further considered at the last meeting of Council to be held in March and in the meantime, a workshop be held to discuss this issue.”

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

Constitutional Referendum Workshop

11. In accordance with Council’s decisions of 23 November 2009 and 8 February 2010, a workshop was held on 2 March 2010 facilitated by Mr Gerry Holmes to discuss the Constitutional framework of Council and in particular to address the issues of Popularly Elected Lord Mayor and possible changes to Council’s Ward Boundaries.

12. A number of issues were discussed at the workshop including:-

· The different types of referendums;

· The role of a popularly elected and Lord Mayor and examples where this has been successful;

· The need for an external survey to reflect the communities preference for a Popularly Elected Lord Mayor;

· The effect of a Popularly Elected Lord Mayor on representation of Councillors at a ward level;

· The possibility of Council approaching the Department of Local Government to seek details on proceeding to a referendum to address the issues of Popularly Elected Lord Mayor, reduction in Councillor numbers and changes to Council’s ward system.

· Whether any referendum should be held in conjunction with an Ordinary Council Election, bearing in mind a rough estimate to run a referendum solely would cost in the vicinity of $300,000.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

13. The estimated cost of holding a referendum in conjunction with an ordinary election would be in the vicinity of $20,000 to $30,000. A referendum held exclusively would approximately cost $300,000.

CONCLUSION

14. In accordance with Council’s resolution, of 8 February 2010, this matter is again placed before Council to seek direction on the Council’s preferred course of action in relation to the issue of a Popularly Elected Lord Mayor and other issues required to be considered via a constitutional referendum.

15. Preliminary discussions held with the Department of Local Government indicate that whilst there is nothing in any legislation to prevent holding a referendum outside of a general election, the Minister is generally not supportive of such action due to the prohibitive costs involved and the pressure placed upon the Electoral Commission.

16. The Department representative has suggested that should Council wish to undertake a referendum prior to the 2012 general election, Council formally seek the views of the Minister of the Local Government beforehand.

17. It should be noted that any action to proceed or not proceed with a constitutional referendum does not obviate Council’s responsibilities to ensure its ward boundaries comply with the requirements of Section 211 of the Local Government Act.

Graeme Riddell

Service Manager – Council Support

Attachments:

1View	Sections 15 to 20 of Local Government Act	2 Pages
2View	Proposal for Review of Ward Boundaries	3 Pages
3View	Popularly Elected Lord Mayor Survey 2009 Report	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 22 March 2010

Item 11.3

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.3

SUBJECT Investments Report for January 2010

REFERENCE F2009/00971 - D01474121

REPORT OF Manager Finance

PURPOSE:

To inform Council of the investment portfolio performance for the month of January 2010.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes the investments report for January 2010.

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 $80.4 Million as at 31st January 2010. (Previous month $87.2 Million) The weighted average portfolio held for January 2010 was $83.1 Million (Previous month $87.9 million) (Refer attachment 1). The decrease in average funds held is due to standard accounts payable and payroll outflows with minimal rates receipts being due for the period.

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 0.49% 6.00%

Funds Managers 0.55% 7.03%

Bank Bill Index 0.35% 4.18%

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

6. After allowing for Council’s loan offsets and at call funds, Council recorded an annualised return of 6.00% for the month of January for its total investment portfolio. The return recorded by Council exceeded the Bank Bill Index of 4.18%. Fund managers recorded an annualised rate of 7.03%. Council records all investments at current market value on a monthly basis.

7. Council’s favourable return in comparison to the Bank Bill Index can mostly be attributed to the Managed Fund proportion of the portfolio. The CFS Global Fund represents approximately 10.5% of overall holdings and recorded an annualised return of 13.67% for January. Council also continued to hold term deposits ranging from 4.47% to 7.00%.

8. Council currently holds approximately $36M in term deposits which hold time line maturities from 90 days to 1 year.

9. 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

10. The Certificate of Investments for January 2010 is provided below:

Certificate of Investments

I hereby certify that the investments for the month of January 2010 have been made in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

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

Alistair Cochrane

Manager Finance

Attachments:

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

REFERENCE MATERIAL

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

1View	Section 82A Assessment Report	13 Pages
2View	Plan	1 Page
3View	Locality map	1 Page
4View	Previous Section 79C Assessment Report	14 Pages
5View	Statement of Environmental Effects	4 Pages

1View	Epping Eastwood Tigers Baseball & Softball Club Request Letter	6 Pages
2View	Baseball Diamond Three Location Map	1 Page

1View	Goldsmith Avenue Park Committee Naming Request Letter	3 Pages
2View	Proposed Gail Meagher Park Location Map	1 Page
3View	Details of submissions	1 Page

Council	22 March 2010

Council	22 March 2010

Council	22 March 2010

Council	22 March 2010