Agenda of Council (Development)

Council (Development) 12 April 2010

Item 7.3

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 7.3

SUBJECT 2 Morton Street Parramatta

REFERENCE F2005/01017 - D01496508

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer

PURPOSE:

This report provides Council with details of the proponent’s position on the renegotiation of the draft Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) for 2 Morton Street, Parramatta.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) “That Council adopt either 1 or 2 following and advise the proponent accordingly:

EITHER

1. A revised draft Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) of which the key elements are as follows:

(i) That the cash contribution by the proponent for a pedestrian bridge be increased from $1,500,000 to $1,750,000 as offered, such increase being funded by the removal of some of the works- in-kind from the foreshore improvements referred to in paragraph 3 of this report and in addition;

(ii) That Council’s contribution to the pedestrian bridge be limited to a maximum of $1,250,000, assuming the final cost of the pedestrian bridge is $3,000,000.

2. A revised VPA of which the key elements are as follows:

(i) That the cash contribution by the proponent for a pedestrian bridge be increased from $1,500,000 to $3,000,000, such increase being funded by the redirection of works- in-kind from the foreshore improvements as referred to in paragraph 3 of this report.”

(b) Further, that Council exhibit the draft VPA along with the Planning Proposal and stand alone draft DCP for the land, should the proponent agree to Council’s adopted position above.

BACKGROUND

1. On 22 February 2010, Council received a report about the draft Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) for 2 Morton Street, Parramatta. Council staff recommended that the previously adopted draft VPA be amended by redistributing the proponent’s cash contribution of $1.5 million towards a pedestrian bridge over the Parramatta River, to a contribution towards the foreshore multi purpose path with associated works. Staff raised concerns about the commitment required from Council to fund the balance of the cost of constructing the bridge, potentially another $1.5 million. Council deferred a decision on this matter until it had received further information.

2. On 8 March 2010, Council reconsidered this report along with additional information provided by memo to Councillors dated 4 March 2010. Council resolved to renegotiate the draft VPA to require the applicant to construct the pedestrian bridge.

PROPONENT’S REVISED OFFER

3. The following is a summary of the value of the key components of the draft VPA as previously agreed by Council:

(a) Dedication of 12,600sq.m of foreshore land (original Council valuation $3.8 mill)

(b) The construction of a foreshore cycleway and pedestrian path (approximately $400,000)

(d) Construction of 3 boardwalk/viewing platforms ($183,000)

(e) Construction of a recreation area ($350,000)

(f) Construction of a foreshore road ($1,000,000 – cost revised by Council)

(g) The developer will contribute $1,500,000 cash towards a pedestrian bridge

(h) Tree planting of road reserves and maintenance for 12 months ($50,000)

(i) A turning circle at the end of Pemberton Street - $60,000

(j) Plus design fees $227,000

4. The proponent has put forward the following option for Council’s consideration in renegotiating the draft VPA (refer to attachment A). The revised option would see approximately $250,000 of works-in-kind being redirected to increase the cash contribution towards the pedestrian bridge from $1,500,000 to $1,750,000. This would reduce Council’s financial contribution to $1,250,000, if the bridge construction is $3 million. The proponent has not agreed to fully fund the construction of the pedestrian bridge over the river.

OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL IN CONSIDERING THE REVISED OFFER

Option 1

5. The proponent’s offer does respond positively to Council’s resolution, but does not remove the significant financial obligation for Council to fund the remaining cost of the pedestrian bridge. Council could choose to accept the liability of the remaining cost of the bridge up to a limit of $1.25M.

Option 2

6. Other works-in-kind items specified in the original draft VPA that could potentially be foregone to increase the proponent’s cash contribution towards the full cost of the pedestrian bridge at $3M are listed above in paragraph 3.

7. The draft VPA currently proposes a foreshore road to act as a buffer between the residential apartments and the foreshore and improve foreshore access to the public. This was envisaged as part of the original structure plan. The proposed foreshore road is located within an area designated as a high flood risk. Council’s Flood Management Policy does not exclude the construction of a road, subject to specific guidelines. However, it does have the potential to affect flood behaviour in this area and in a flood event, the lower part of this proposed roadway could be a hazard. It also creates risk management issues in terms of people having access to this area during a flood event. If the road was not provided, then its value could be redistributed towards the construction of the pedestrian bridge. This would reduce Council’s financial contribution to the construction of the pedestrian bridge considerably.

8. Council may wish to consider whether it would be agreeable to foregoing the foreshore road, or alternatively any of the other works detailed above and seeking the agreement of the proponent to this outcome. This position would need to be tabled with the proponent and agreement sought.

COMPARATIVE VALUE OF THE VPA to SECTION 94A

9. The components of the draft VPA provide substantially more value to Council than a Section 94A Contribution. It also provides for a missing link of foreshore land to become public land, to facilitate public access and improved recreation space close to the CBD. Council would otherwise have to purchase this land. These public benefits will contribute to Council’s long-term vision to activate the Parramatta foreshore.

10. The total value of the original draft VPA is approximately $7.66M comprising land dedication ($3.8M), works ($2.143M), cash contribution towards bridge ($1.5 M), and design fees ($0.227M).

11. Alternatively, a Section 94A Contribution, based on approximate construction costs of $225 million, would generate $2.25m based on the 1% levy in Council’s Section 94A Plan. This contribution could not be used to fund all works proposed in the VPA as it would need to be distributed according to the various works programs specified in the Plan.

DEDICATION OF FORESHORE LAND

12. The total value of the draft VPA includes land value of the foreshore reserve to be dedicated to Council. The proponent is offering to dedicate approximately 12,600 sq.m of foreshore land. In negotiating the draft VPA, the proponent has given thought to increasing the land dedication but as yet no formal agreement has been reached.

13. In 2004, a land valuation of the foreshore area was prepared for the purpose of Council’s previous Section 94 plan. That estimated the value per square metre at $300 and was used as the basis of the draft VPA. An updated land valuation is being prepared and will be distributed for Council’s consideration prior to the Council meeting.

TIMING AND RISKS

14. Council should consider the following in its decision relating to the draft VPA:

a) The VPA is a voluntary process and both parties must agree to the components of the VPA for it to be successfully negotiated.

b) The planning controls to rezone the land are already on public exhibition in draft form as part of the draft Parramatta LEP.

c) The Gateway process relating to the Planning Proposal, seeking to allow the rezoning to take place ahead of the draft LEP, requires the completion of the site specific LEP process within 6 months (9 Feb to 9 August). The DoP has written to Council advising that to meet the mid-August completion date, the Planning Proposal would need to be exhibited and submitted to the DoP by mid June. (Note: Council’s resolved position is that the draft VPA is to be exhibited concurrently with the Planning Proposal and draft DCP for the land.)

d) If Council is shown to be moving too slowly and not complying with the deadline set by the Gateway, the DoP could determine that Council should not be the Responsible Planning Authority for determining the Planning Proposal. Alternatively, the proponent may consider a Part 3A process to achieve the rezoning and largely remove Council from the determination.

e) The foreshore land included in the VPA is currently identified as a reservation and Council has a legal obligation to acquire the land at market value. Irrespective of the VPA, there is a monetary liability already existing.

f) If the proponent goes ahead with a “normal” S94A framework, the dedication of this land is likely to be a significant deduction and may even exceed the amount of the s94A contribution depending on the final agreed value.

Sue Stewart

Senior Project Officer

Land Use and Transport Planning

Attachments:

1View

Letter from Frasers Property re 2 Morton Street

3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 12 April 2010

Item 7.4

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 7.4

SUBJECT Further report - Telopea Urban Renewal Project, Telopea - Part 3A Project

REFERENCE NCA/1/2010 - D01496050

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 2.

BACKGROUND

1. Council considered a report on the project at the meeting of 22 March 2010 and resolved:

“(a) That the report be treated as an interim report and an extension of time be sought to enable a more comprehensive staff submission.

(b) That a comprehensive Community and Stakeholder Consultation Plan should be developed by the NSW Department of Housing following consultation with Parramatta City Council. The Community and Stakeholder Consultation Plan should include (but not be limited to):-

· A variety of engagement techniques that offer opportunities to participate across all relevant groups;

· Clearly identify key community and stakeholder groups who will be consulted during the redevelopment project.

· Clearly identify how issues raised during consultation stages are to be addressed and considered by the NSW Department of Housing.

(c) Further, that Community and Stakeholder Consultation is to be carried out on a regular basis (no less than every 6 months) by the NSW Department of Housing during the redevelopment project (i.e. planning and design phase, construction phase and occupation phases).”

2. Following the Council meeting, the Department of Planning were requested in writing an extension of time to enable Council to prepare a further report on the project, no objections were raised to the extension to allow consideration of a report at the meeting on 12 April 2010.

ISSUES

1. Council at its meeting of 22 March 2010 resolved that a more comprehensive submission be prepared and include issues specifically raised during the Council meeting.

2. The issues for considered by Department of Housing in the determination of the concept plan and 2 project applications have been reviewed and are included in this report and as attachment No. 2.

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.”

Comments: Concerns are raised that no commitment has been made by the Department of Housing to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement or for payment of Section 94A Development Contributions. It is considered that these contributions will assist in providing the necessary infrastructure for the Telopea area to cater for the increased housing population the project involves.

Significant concerns are raised that the long term planning for the project have not been adequately addressed including the long term social needs for the community. The first two projects are for Public Housing however no additional community needs (including common open space) are included within the concept plan or project applications.

Concerns are raised that the FSR of the Figtree Precinct exceeds the FSR controls under Draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2010 which is currently on exhibition. Under the draft LEP the maximum FSR for the Figtree Precinct is 0.8:1, whilst the Concept Plan indicates the proposed FSR is 1.1:1. The FSR for all precincts including the Figtree Precinct is required to be consistent with the Draft LEP.

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. It is considered the proposed bulk and scale as indicated in the concept plan could be problematic and adversely impact and detract from existing and retain dwellings.

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.

Comment: Significant concerns remain that the concept plan has not addressed the long term impacts the redevelopment of the area will have on the surrounding traffic network. Consideration should be given as a priority to the impacts on the traffic network. A long term traffic and car parking strategy should be prepared and implemented prior to determination of the concept plan which addresses all 10 precincts.

Car parking

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.

Sufficient on site parking should be provided for future tenants within all precinct. Consideration should be given to developments which will be in private ownership where car ownership may be higher.

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 prefers and recommends 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.

Concerns are raised that the existing infrastructure will not cope with the increased long term demand for services including the upgrading of telephone and electricity supplies. In addition consideration should be given to the Parramatta Rail Link to improve public transport in this area.

Trees

An extensive arborist report shall be submitted with all project applications which clearly identifies all trees impacted by the development. Retention of trees within each site

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.

Concerns are raised that no consideration has been given to Winter House located at No. 34 Adderton Road which is in close proximity to the redevelopment area.

Community Consultation Plan

A comprehensive Community and Stakeholder Consultation Plan should be developed by the NSW Department of Housing following consultation with Parramatta City Council. The Community and Stakeholder Consultation Plan should include (but not be limited to):-

· A variety of engagement techniques that offer opportunities to participate across all relevant groups;

· Clearly identify key community and stakeholder groups who will be consulted during the redevelopment project.

· Clearly identify how issues raised during consultation stages are to be addressed and considered by the NSW Department of Housing.

The Community and Stakeholder Consultation should be carried out on a regular basis (no less than every 6 months) by the NSW Department of Housing during the redevelopment project (i.e. planning and design phase, construction phase and occupation phases).

Ownership

Concerns are raised that there has been no commitment by Department of Housing to sell the land for private developers to develop. In addition the concept plan does not indicate which precincts will contain public or private housing and how the mix will be achieved. In addition concerns are raised that the 70/30 private / public ownership will be hard to keep track of. It is a recommendation that a housing mix for all types of families be provided including young families, empty nesters and seniors. This will assist to cater for a aging society.

Government

Concerns are raised that a change in State Government whilst the project is underway might undermine the long term planning of the area. No commitment has been made by the Department of Housing regarding the longevity of the project.

Sustainability

Concerns are raised that the project must be sustainable for the long term. The long term infrastructure required for the project should be provided immediately and not after majority of precincts are developed.

Notification

Concerns are raised that the notification of the concept plan and project application was not sufficient, concerns are raised that only 1500 residents were notified of the proposal. It is imperative that all residents in the area be notified of the project.

Issues for consideration (Shortland Precinct)

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

Significant 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. Additional on site parking should be provided for future occupants and visitors to limit the impacts street parking will have on the area.

Footpaths

Footpaths within the precinct should be included in the development, these will deliver a public benefit in the future.

Shadowing

The proposal fails to respond to the shadow impacts on the adjoining 2 storey properties which will be overshadowed by the residential flat building. Whilst the future zoning will allow for higher density on sites in Field Place, these sites may not be development and there consideration must be given to the impacts of solar access on the existing dwellings.

Stormwater

Consideration is required to be given to the impacts the residential flat building will have on the existing and proposed stormwater systems and the impacts associated with flooding of Sturt Park.

Issues for consideration (Moffatts Precinct)

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. Additional on site parking should be provided for future occupants and visitors to limit the impacts street parking will have on the area.

Sara Smith

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1	Previous Council report
2	Submission to Department of Planning

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 12 April 2010

Item 8.1

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 8.1

SUBJECT Graffiti Action Day

REFERENCE F2009/02521 - D01499440

REPORT OF Community Crime Prevention Officer

PURPOSE:

To inform Council of actions undertaken to support Graffiti Action Day on 2 May 2010.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive and note this report.

BACKGROUND

1. Council resolved on 14 December 2009 to support the inaugural Graffiti Action Day to be held in New South Wales (NSW) on 2^nd May 2010 and sought to engage the Parramatta community, local sporting clubs, residents groups, churches, police and other local groups, in a co-ordinated effort to remove graffiti from our communities.

2.      Graffiti Action Day is a day for the community of NSW to focus their attention on graffiti vandalism which costs the NSW economy many hundreds of millions of dollars per year. This event is an initiative of Keep Australia Beautiful (NSW) and aims:

•   To engage the community in the removal of graffiti at a local level
•   To raise awareness of good graffiti removal methods and
•   To support non-government and community run facilities in
     repairing damage caused by graffiti.

3. Community members are encouraged to help identify key graffiti vandalism sites and/or volunteer to help out on the day. All sites will have a site coordinator who will brief volunteers on the specific site activities and risks/hazards. The appropriate personal protection equipment and refreshments will be available at each site and provided to Council free of charge, courtesy of NSW Government, Keep Australia Beautiful and SoSafe Anti-graffiti Products, who are supporting this event.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

4. Following the Council resolution, Council staff contacted resident groups, Police and community groups including Boy Scouts, PCYC and Girl Guides; business organizations including Guildford Chamber of Commerce and businesses located around Dellwood Street shops in South Granville and Excelsior Street shops in South Granville and Guildford; and organisations including Parramatta Holroyd Multicultural Network and the Wentworthville Social Housing Area Tenants Group. A number of these organisations and groups have expressed interest in participating in Graffiti Action Day.

5. Additionally, the Lord Mayor wrote to local Federal and State Members of Parliament seeking their support of Graffiti Action Day. The Lord Mayor also encouraged the Members of Parliament to take action and show support in getting NSW State Government agencies to improve their performance with enforcement of current legislation in regard to graffiti and removal of it from government properties.

6. In February, Council also assisted Keep Australia Beautiful NSW to hold the State-wide launch of Graffiti Action Day at Eric Mobbs Memorial Lookout in Carlingford.

7. In addition to the media release Council made supporting the launch, news of the Graffiti Action Day has been included in the latest Community News. A further media release is planned for April to encourage local residents to support the event and information will also be included in Council’s regular advertising in the local newspaper. An article is also being prepared to be submitted for the next edition of Parramatta Business Access, the Parramatta Chamber of Commerce’s magazine.

8. A poster has recently been distributed promoting the event (Attachment A) and the project partner, SoSafe Anti-graffiti Products has written seeking Council’s support in raising local awareness of the event. More than two hundred letters have since been distributed from the Lord Mayor encouraging local youth groups, schools, churches, chambers of commerce, bushcare groups and park committees to support Graffiti Action Day. In addition, the Lord Mayor has outlined Council’s broader graffiti management strategies and encouraged a prompt response to all incidents of graffiti vandalism.

9. In February 2010, Council resolved to encourage park committees to paint out graffiti on Council property and investigate Council undertaking graffiti removal work on private property. Council wrote to all park committees last August offering support with advice, paint and supplies, free of charge, for the removal of graffiti in parks including from the fences that border the parks and reserves. The most recent letters from the Lord Mayor regarding the Graffiti Action Day have reminded park committees of this offer.

10. Councillors will also be aware that a project proposal to further expand Council’s graffiti removal activities has been prepared for consideration in the draft budget for 2010/11. The proposal seeks $100,000 to initiate a trial of a new Council service removing graffiti from private property. While it is difficult to predict the demand for this type of service, the trial proposes the employment of an additional Graffiti Removal Crew member and associated material costs. It is proposed to make the service free of charge initially and limit the service to residential properties (excluding properties owned by government agencies).

CONSULTATION & TIMING

11. Graffiti Action Day will be held on Sunday 2 May 2010. Community engagement on this issue is ongoing until that date as outlined above.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

12. Graffiti Action Day will have little additional impact on Council finances. The NSW Government in conjunction with Keep Australia Beautiful NSW and SoSafe Anti-graffiti Products will be supplying the personal protection equipment and graffiti removal material at no cost. Most of the work being conducted to remove graffiti on that day will be by unpaid volunteers although it is anticipated that some paid staff will be required to support activities at particular sites.

Rob Williams

Community Crime Prevention Officer

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

http://www.kabnsw.org.au/OurPrograms/GraffitiActionDay.aspx

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 79c Report	30 Pages
2View	Plans including shadow diagrams	4 Pages
3View	Location Map	1 Page
4	Confidential Plans	3 Pages

1View	Section 79C Report	38 Pages
2View	Location map	1 Page
3View	Plans	7 Pages
4	Confidential Plans	2 Pages

1View	Section 79C Report	18 Pages
2View	Location Map	1 Page
3View	Plans	4 Pages
4	Confidential plan	1 Page

1View	Section 79c report	33 Pages
2View	Plans and Elevations	8 Pages
3View	Locality Map	1 Page
4	Confidential Plans	1 Page

1View	S79c Report	16 Pages
2View	Locality map	1 Page
3View	Plans and supporting documentation	5 Pages
4View	Photographs	1 Page

1View	s79c Assessment Report	20 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Plans and elevations	2 Pages
4View	Applicant's response to petition	1 Page

1View	Section 96 report	10 Pages
2View	'Walk Parramatta' Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Notice of Determination DA/559/1995	5 Pages

1View	Section 79C Report	40 Pages
2View	Locality Plan	1 Page
3View	Plans	5 Pages
4View	Council Report and Previous S79C	39 Pages
5	Applicant's Section 82A Review Submission	35 Pages
6	Confidential Plans	4 Pages

1View	Section 79C Assessment Report	18 Pages
2View	Plans and Elevations	3 Pages
3View	Locality Map	1 Page

1View	Section 79C Assessment Report	37 Pages
2View	Plans and Elevations	4 Pages
3View	Locality Map	1 Page
4View	Map showing other Sex Services and Restricted Premises in the area	1 Page

1View	Section 79C Assessment Report	19 Pages
2View	Plans and Elevation	6 Pages
3View	Locality Map	1 Page

Council (Development)	12 April 2010

Council (Development)	12 April 2010

Council (Development)	12 April 2010

Council (Development)	12 April 2010