MINUTES OF THE Meeting of Parramatta City Council HELD IN THE Council Chambers, CIVIC PLACE, PARRAMATTA ON Monday, 10 May 2010 AT 6:47 pm

PRESENT

The Lord Mayor, Councillor, P J Garrard in the Chair and Councillors P B Barber (arrived 6.48 pm), A Bide, J Chedid, G J Elmore (arrived 6.48 pm), P Esber (arrived 6.48 pm), J D Finn (arrived 6.48 pm), A Issa, OAM, M A Lack (arrived 6.48 pm), C X Lim (Deputy Lord Mayor), S D Lloyd, P K Maitra (arrived 6.48 pm), M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO TRADITIONAL LAND OWNERS

The Lord Mayor, Councillor P J Garrard acknowledged the Burramatugal Clan of The Darug, the traditional land owners of Parramatta and paid respect to the elders both past and present.

MINUTES

	SUBJECT          Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 27 April 2010
11446	RESOLVED    (Esber/Wilson) That the minutes be taken as read and accepted as a true record of the meeting. Note Councillors P B Barber, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, M A Lack and P K Maitra arrived at the meeting at 6.48 pm during consideration of this matter.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest at this Council (Development) Meeting.

LORD MAYORAL MINUTES

1

SUBJECT          Contributions of Mr John Blair to the Parramatta Community REFERENCE    F2009/01190 FROM                 The Lord Mayor, Councillor P J Garrard

11447

RESOLVED      (Garrard/Wilson) (a)      That Council receive and note the Lord Mayoral Minute formally recognising the contribution made by Mr John Blair for his services to both the Parramatta Community and the Parramatta Press. (b)      That Council show its appreciation to Mr John Blair by holding an appropriate luncheon in his honour as an expression of gratitude for his services over the past 20 years and interested Councillors be invited to attend. (c)       Further, that  Council wish Mr John Blair and his wife, Judy, a long and happy retirement.

2

SUBJECT          Neighbourhood Policy REFERENCE    F2010/01127 FROM                 The Lord Mayor, Councillor Paul Garrard

11448

MOTION             (Garrard/Wilson) (a)      That a report be prepared by the CEO which will address the feasibility of placing a ‘one stop shop’ in neighbourhood centres for Council services, as outlined in the supporting attachment ‘Place Management Proposed Reform’. (b)      Further, that a workshop be held on the matters raised within the Lord Mayoral Minute. AMENDMENT   (Esber/Lim) (a)      That Council seek a report as to how the future interface with the community can occur, taking into account the issues raised within this minute. (b)      That the CEO develop a strategy which promotes a cross-department approach to better service delivery within a new framework. (c)       That Councillors be requested to each nominate three major impact sites in their respective wards, for regular maintenance within the city. (d)      Further, that a report be prepared by the CEO which will address the feasibility of placing a ‘one stop shop’ in neighbourhood centres for Council services, as outlined in the supporting attachment ‘Place Management Proposed Reform’. The amendment was put and lost. The motion was put and carried.

3

SUBJECT          Promoting a Sense of Custodianship for the City of Parramatta amongst Council Staff REFERENCE    F2006/00973 FROM                 The Lord Mayor, Councillor P J Garrard

11449

RESOLVED      (Garrard/Wilson) (a)      That Council’s managers ensure all staff are aware that they have a duty to lodge a service request when they identify sites in the City of Parramatta that require the attention of cleaning or maintenance staff. (b)      That Council’s managers ensure that all staff are aware of the procedures to lodge a service request through Council’s online. (c)       That Council establish a mechanism to encourage staff to lodge a service request by which each service request lodged will generate         an entry in a lottery to be drawn on the last Friday of every month. (d)      Further, that Council continue to explore opportunities to promote and reward a sense of custodianship for the City of Parramatta amongst Council Staff.

Public Forum

5.1

SUBJECT          Delegation to Chief Executive Officer for Determination of Development Applications

REFERENCE    F2004/06174 - D01522317

REPORT OF Mr Bruce Berry

11450

“My submission concerns the proposed extension of delegated authority for the approval of development applications by staff, instead of by the public’s elected representatives, the Councillors.

Unless 7 objections are received on a DA, it will not be considered by Councillors.  The sole purpose seems to be the speeding up of assessment.  Are there any statistics to show that this will be the case?

Council’s Notification Policy shows that in some situations not even 7 neighbouring residents are notified of DA’s on adjoining properties, as in the case of dual occupancies and single dwellings.  I have had good reason to question staff on its assessment of DA’s.  This has led to uncovering of errors and the introduction of policies and procedures to correct them.  However, my efforts to monitor the processes have been frustrated by staff failure to provide statistics and other information I had requested.

Recently, staff error resulted in the appointment of an independent consultant to assess a DA.  It revealed several important matters that the staff assessment had not taken into account.  Although the consultant did not recommend refusal of the DA, she brought about improvements in it that staff had overlooked or ignored.  Apart from this, she disagreed with staff calculation of the floor space ratio, even though staff has claimed to me that it has introduced a special process to avoid inaccuracies.  The difference between the two calculations was approximately the combined floor area of two of the bedrooms.  Management have shrugged off all the issues, saying there are no unresolved matters.

Why is it that proposed changes on established policy, such as this one on delegated authority, are not exhibited for public comment?  We had the same situation with the Compliments and Complaints Policy, with Council claiming that the changes are only minor.  I disputed this, as well as other matters. Both of these policies are very important to the residents and ratepayers.  By contrast, the Outdoor Dining Policy was exhibited for two months.

I am not confident in the increased delegation of authority to staff while so many issues such as these remain unanswered.

Could I please have a full response to these matters and not just to the specific questions I have asked?”

Further Questions Raised by Mr Berry on 4 May 2010.

My inquiries on what other policies Council has chosen not to exhibit for comment have been ignored, the response being simply that where it is required by law, the policies have been exhibited.

At the Council meeting on 12 October, 2009, it was resolved that a detailed report on Council’s accountability processes is to be presented. It has still not been presented after 7 months. Can Council give any valid reasons why delegated authority to staff should be extended before this report is made available?

Senior Management has told me that is only “likely” that the accountability report will be presented to Council and that it “will form part of the public business paper for the meeting it is presented to.” Could I have this confusing situation clarified?

The report to be considered tonight states that it takes Council 63% longer to process development applications than by delegated authority. Would Council agree that the main reason for this is that delegated authority does not deal with the larger, more controversial DA’s which also have wider social and environmental implications? If not, what other considerations are there? Would Council also agree that much of the delay is caused by staff requests for further information from applicants?

Only 9% of DA’s are now considered by Council. With such a big reduction in workload, what reasons can be given against reduction in the numbers of Councillors or in their salaries, particularly when an increase in the salary of the Top Executive has recently been approved by Council and in Closed Session?

It was resolved that the delegated authority issue was to be considered at Council Meeting on 27 April but the Executive Team changed this to the May Regulatory meeting. On what authority was this done and what is the composition of the Executive Team and the agenda review committee?

RESPONSE

By Ms Sue Weatherley - Group Manager Outcomes and Development

“Thank you, Mr Berry, for your detailed submission tonight. 

The report you refer to was considered by Council at its meeting on 12 April 2010.  Your submission appears to assume that the recommendation was to change the delegations - this is not true.

The report recommended:

That Council re-affirm the decision of 9 March 2009 regarding the functions delegated to the Chief Executive Officer that relate to the determination of development applications,……

It should also be remembered that prior to March 2009 there were extensive delegations to staff to determine development applications.

You appear to be concerned that setting a delegation threshold of 7 objections is not justified and in your view appears to be based on the desire to speed up the assessment process.  Your submission also questions whether there are statistics that support the view that the determination of DAs by Council officers is quicker than the determination by the full council.

I will deal with each of these points separately.

Your first Issue – That the reason for delegations to staff is to speed up the process.

The decision the Council will make in relation to delegation to the CEO on all range of matters will be based on the efficient and effective operation of the organisation. 

Parramatta City Council is committed to ensuring that all its services are efficient as possible within the limits of financial constraints and legal obligations of the Council.  For any council, having an appropriate framework of delegations is essential for  the efficient and effective operation of the business of the Council. It allows Councillors to focus on the critical and strategic issues of the Council.

Documents from Department of Local Government state:

The power of delegation is an important tool that assists council officers to carry out the functions of council in an effective and timely manner. Delegations need to be made in accordance with sections 377-381 of the Local Government Act 1993 and should be continually reviewed to ensure they remain current.

Recent information provided by the Department of Planning shows that Parramatta Council has one of the lowest levels of delegation to Council staff.  The State average reported by the Department in 2008/2009 was 4% of applications determined by Councillors and 96% determined by Council staff. Financial year to date, Councillors of Parramatta City Council have determined 9% of all development applications. 

All consent authorities are encouraged to have an efficient DA assessment system  to ensure this contributes to housing affordability, by reducing holding and other costs.  Efficient DA systems also have mirco-economic benefits to our economy by reducing development costs.

Your Second Issue – Are there any statistics that show that DAs determined under delegation are done more quickly than those determined by Councillors?

The short answer is yes.

Below are 2 histograms that show the assessment time for DAs determined by Council in this financial year. A histogram shows the frequency of distribution of the different DA assessment times. The first histogram is the DAs determined at a Council meeting.

For DAs determined under delegation the histogram shows:

The following table provides a summary comparison of assessment times which are gross times (ie no stop the clock) for recent years:

Year	Determination	Number	Gross assessment  time (days)
			Mean	Median
2007/2008	Council	165	181	150
	Staff	971	108	66
2008/2009	Council	127	213	176
	Staff	995	110	94
2009/2010	Council	69	131	112
	Staff	847	80	63

Currently on average a DA determined by the Council takes 63% (or 51 days) longer than a DA determined under delegation.

Whether a DA is determined under delegation or by the Council, it generally follows a similar process.  The one distinct variation is that the report for a council meeting is prepared by the assessment officer about 3 weeks before the decision is made by Council.  For a DA determined under delegation the decision can be made within 2 or 3 days of the report being finalised.

If an application goes before Council and it is deferred for further information or discussion, this delays the application for 4 weeks, until the next Development Meeting. 

The following run charts for DAs determined by Council and DAs determined by staff also show this variation.

Your next issue is: 7 submissions is not an adequate threshold as Council’s Notification Policy shows that is some circumstances 7 people will not be notified.

I am not sure that I completely understand the point being made.  I can confirm that in some circumstances less than 7 people may be notified of a DA. However, this is clearly not the standard. I reviewed 20 DAs lodged from 1 March 2010 until the 4 March. Nineteen DAs were either notified or advertised.  On average 32 notification letters were sent for each DA.  This included 11 letters sent for alteration to a domestic garage, 10 sent for an awning to the rear of a house and 29 sent for a new dwelling house.

Incidentally I gathered this data by reviewing information readily available on Council’s website.

Is there a perfect number of submissions, is it 6 or 8?  In my view it is more important that the Council is satisfied that there has been a strong level of oversight on how DAs are determined.  For example, Parramatta City Council has a public DA tracking system, staff regularly to report to the Councillor on DAs received and DAs determined, we also report formally to Council on any application determined where there has been a variation to a development standard.  The Council also has a process of community site meetings and the delegations provided to the CEO in March 2009 made it clear that the most controversial DAs should be determined by the Council.

The Department of Local Government has also stated in relation to delegations on DAs:

If council is unhappy with development decisions, it needs to focus on what it can do with its strategic planning framework rather than seek to remove delegations.

(Mosman Council May 2007)

Your Next Issue ;  You claim you have good reason to question staff on the assessment of DAs  as this has led to changes to processes and policies and that your efforts to monitor have been frustrated  by staff failure to provide statistics and other information requested.

I have investigated several matters raised by you since I have been at Parramatta Council; I am not aware of any matter that has led to a change of policy.  But I am aware of 2 matters that you raised that have supported the need to improve processes.  I would not characterise this as your investigation causing the change. One of these related to improving the PCA processes and was not related to the assessment of a DA. 

If I have misinterpreted your enquiry, please contact me to clarify this matter.

I am not aware of a request for statistics from you. I am however happy to provide any information about mean, mode, median, standard deviation, histograms and run charts, provided this is reliable data that the Council holds and the provision of this data can be at a reasonable cost. The Department of Planning also has a performance reporting data on their website and I will provide a copy of the 2008/2009 report.

I am aware of claims that copies of a policy was not provided to you, although I sent this to you twice, and it was a document available on the website so there was clearly no attempt to hide this policy.

When I first arrived at Parramatta Council I offered to meet personally with you to understand your concerns and take the opportunity to discuss your concerns.  This, I felt, would be a far more productive process than a series of extensive public forum presentations and lengthy written responses.  Such processes are inherently slow and do not provide for a sharing of information and productive dialogue.  However, you did not wish to take up this offer. Recently I also requested that you meet with me with regard to development you believe is not being undertaken accordance with consent, so that you can point out on site the concerns you have.  Again, this offer was rejected.

I therefore understand why you feel somewhat frustrated in your dealings with Council staff. Current processes are not facilitating effective communication.  I would again therefore invite you to meet with me personally.  My phone number is 98065101, or 0417237077.  My email address is sweatherley@parracity.nsw.gov.au.

Your next issue: A recent staff error led to the appointment of an independent planning consultant.  You claim that this revealed important matters the staff report did not.

In relation to the alleged officer’s error of a recent DA, the appointment of a consultant in this case was to provide councillors,  all objectors and the applicant with confidence that any recommendation had not been predetermined.  Both planners who looked at this application came to the same conclusion and recommended the application for approval.  However, both planners also had a slightly different approach to the assessment of the application.  I have to say this is not uncommon and it is probably what you would have expected.  If the two reports were exactly the same, there may have been some suspicion of collusion.

The specific example you provided is the calculation of floor space ratio.  Your submission claimed that the FSR was 0.63:1, which would mean that the development would have exceeded the council standard of 0.6:1.  The council officer using a computer program calculated the FSR at 0.49:1.  The independent planner using manual calculation method calculated the floor space of the building as 456.73m2.  She also states that the site area is 943.4m2.  This makes the FSR 0.484:1 I consider this variation inconsequential.

In relation to this particular DA, you have also a number of other claims about the processing of this DA:

You claimed that that the officers had illegally approved this DA, this was not correct.

You claimed that the method used to determine height should be by reference to the A-A section and therefore staff calculations were wrong, this was not correct.

You claimed the FSR was 0.63:1, this was not correct.

Your next issue: You claim that any change to delegations should be subject to public notification.

I believe that this is not consistent with the requirements or intent of the Local Government Act, which makes it clear which actions of the council require consultation with the community, such as the preparation of policies.  However other administrative actions such as the appointment of the General Manager, the determination of the organisation structure, and the establishment of Committees do not. 

The powers of delegation are contained in section 377 of the Local Government Act….

The reason the Outdoor Dining Policy was exhibited for 2 months was because the policy had initially been exhibited over the Christmas period and an administrative decision was made to extend the exhibition period for another month.

Lord Mayor I believe that this is a full response to Mr Berry’s concerns.  However, if he is still unhappy with my response, I will again invite him to meet with me at his own convenience to discuss these issues further.  I would also recommend that he reads the State Government Planning Performance report prepared by the Department of Planning which considers the issue of DA processing throughout the State.

Lord Mayor I wish  to advise the Councillors that this reply took me approximately 12 hours to prepare.”

2

SUBJECT          Objection to Development Application for 317 Guildford Road, Guildford REFERENCE    DA/97/2010 FROM                 Rima Hussein – All Seasons Market – 2/332 Guildford Road, Guildford

11451

STATEMENT ONLY 1.      We have too much competition in the street and area already. How           can we make any profit to pay rent and survive? 2.      Road works in the area have disrupted us already and put us in           debt. 3.      No parking spaces on our side. The proposed shop does and we will be at a disadvantage. 4.      Previously the proposed applicant traded at cost price and we can’t           afford to do that to keep customers. RESPONSE BY LORD MAYOR The Lord Mayor noted that in most occupations, with the exception of pharmacies and newsagencies, there was usually a wide level of competition which enabled any business to compete where it desired. Accordingly, no technical response could be given on this issue.

PETITIONS

1	SUBJECT          Proposal to Change Speed Limits on Wentworth Avenue, Toongabbie and Placement of Roundabouts REFERENCE    F2004/07364 FROM                 Dr Negar Dehestani and others
11452	RESOLVED       (Lloyd/Lim)     That the petition be received and referred to the appropriate Council officer for report.

.

Economy and Development

7.1

SUBJECT          Functions Delegated to the Chief Executive Officer related to the Determination of Development Applications REFERENCE    F2004/06472 - D01508533 REPORT OF      Group Manager Outcomes and Development

11453

MOTION             (Bide/Wilson) That Council re-affirm in qualified terms the decision of 9 March 2009 regarding the functions delegated to the Chief Executive Officer that relate to the determination of development applications, being: (a)       Approve only those development applications (including section 96 applications) provided:    i.          There are not more than 4 objections to the                       development; or ii.         The development application does not relate to land in which Council holds, or has recently held, a direct pecuniary interest; or iii.        The development application is not known to have been made, or relate to a property owned by a member of staff or Councillor; or iv.        The development application does not seek to demolish a heritage item; or v.         The development application does not relate to a brothel, massage parlour, sex service premises, restricted premises, tattoo parlour or place of public worship; or vi.        The application does not seek a review of determination under section 82A review; or vii.       The application is lodged as a ‘Fast Track DA’ (i.e. swimming pool, garages, awnings, decks pergolas, change of use and similarly small scale DAs) even if 7 or more objections are received.          With the following exceptions: i.     section 96(1a), section 96(2) and section 96(AA) applications where the original development application was determined by the elected Council or Land & Environment Court or any other consent authority; or ii.         any development application where the consent to be determined is retrospective; or iii.        where an application is lodged on a heritage item, two (2) Councillors may request in writing that an application be ‘called’ to Council for determination. This written request is to be made no later than 1 week after the conclusion of the public notification/exhibition period. To facilitate this, all Councillors will be notified by email upon lodgement of a heritage item together with it being published in the Councillors Information Booklet on a distinct and clearly identified Heritage Schedule. (b)           Further that the Chief Executive Officer undertake an independent external review of Development Services Unit performance, practices, benchmarking against randomly selected metropolitan councils, considering internal business processes and making recommendations to identify areas for increased efficiency and accountability. Such report to be completed and returned to the Council within 3 months. AMENDMENT             (Finn/Barber) That Council re-affirm in qualified terms the decision of 9 March 2009 regarding the functions delegated to the Chief Executive Officer that relate to the determination of development applications, being: (a)       Approve only those development applications (including section 96 applications) provided: i.         There are not more than 4 objections to the                  development; or ii.         The development application does not relate to land in which Council holds, or has recently held, a direct pecuniary interest; or iii.        The development application is not known to have been made, or relate to a property owned by a member of staff or Councillor; or iv.        The development application does not relate to a heritage item; or v.         The development application does not relate to a brothel, massage parlour, sex service premises, restricted premises, tattoo parlour or place of public worship; or vi.        The application does not seek a review of determination under section 82A review; or vii.       The application is lodged as a ‘Fast Track DA’ (i.e. swimming pool, garages, awnings, decks pergolas, change of use and similarly small scale DAs) even if 7 or more objections are received.          With the following exceptions: i.          section 96(1a), section 96(2) and section 96(AA) applications where the original development application was determined by the elected Council or Land & Environment Court or any other consent authority; or ii.         any development application where the consent to be determined is retrospective. iii.        The application does not seek a SEPP 1 variation. (b)           Further that the Chief Executive Officer undertake an independent external review of Development Services Unit performance, practices, benchmarking against randomly selected metropolitan councils, considering internal business processes and making recommendations to identify areas for increased efficiency and accountability. Such report to be completed and returned to the Council within 3 months. FORESHADOWED AMENDMENT             (Esber/Elmore) That consideration of this matter be deferred for 2 weeks pending advice to Council on the bulk of determinations made by staff over the past 12 months, including advice on burning issues that may exist within the community. The amendment was put and lost. The foreshadowed amendment became the amendment and was put and carried and on being put as the motion was again carried. DIVISION    The result being: AYES          Councillors P B Barber, G J Elmore, P Esber,  M A Lack, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES         Councillors The Lord Mayor, Councillor P J Garrard ,A Bide, J Chedid, J D Finn, A Issa, OAM, S D Lloyd & C X Lim.

7.2	SUBJECT          Variations to Standards under SEPP 1 REFERENCE    F2009/00431 - D01520816 REPORT OF      Manager Development Services
11454	RESOLVED      (Lim/Elmore) That the report be received and noted.

7.3

SUBJECT          Amendments to the DCP for Sex Services and Restricted Premises REFERENCE    F2009/01146 - D01523075 REPORT OF      Senior Project Officer

11455

RESOLVED      (Lim/Chedid) (a)     That Council adopt the amendments to the DCP for Sex Services and Restricted Premises (Attachment 1). (b)     Further, that a notice be published in the local newspapers to give effect to the amendments. DIVISION   The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor P J Garrard and Councillors P B Barber, A Bide, J Chedid, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES            None.

7.4

SUBJECT          Telstra Tower Relocation - Mobbs Lane, Epping REFERENCE    F2010/01038 - D01523252 REPORT OF      Property Program Manager

11456

RESOLVED      (Chedid/Lim) (a)      That Council resolve to enter into a licence agreement with Telstra to approve the installation of a telecommunication facility at Mobbs Lane Epping on terms as stated in the report. (b)      That the Lord Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer be authorized to execute and affix the council seal to the agreement. (c)       Further, that Council Staff provide to Councillors a report outlining concerns relating to electromagnetic radiation from mobile tower transmitters.

Environment and Infrastructure

8.1	SUBJECT          Integrated Transport Plan for Parramatta City Centre REFERENCE    F2006/01143 - D01522830 REPORT OF      Senior Project Officer - Transport Planning
	NOTE:      The paper was withdrawn.

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE ADOPTED WITHOUT DISCUSSION

11457        RESOLVED       (Esber/Lloyd)

That Items 11.2, 11.4, 11.5 and 11.6  of Domestic Applications  and Item 12.1 of Major Applications for the Council Meeting to be held on 10 May 2010 be adopted unanimously in accordance with the Officer’s Recommendation.

DIVISION    The result being:

AYES           The Lord Mayor, Councillor P J Garrard and Councillors P B Barber, A Bide, J Chedid, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson.

NOES          None

Reports - Domestic Applications

11.1

SUBJECT          5 Oakes Road, Winston Hills (Lot 26 DP 219495) (Caroline Chisholm Ward) DESCRIPTION  82A Review - Construction of a carport in the front setback REFERENCE    DA/807/2009 - Section 82a review submitted 15 March 2010 APPLICANT/S   Mr. F. Van Winden and Mrs. H. L. Van Winden OWNERS           Mr. F. Van Winden and Mrs. H. L. Van Winden REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application is referred to Council as it is an application under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning Act, 1979.

11458

MOTION             (Bide/Lloyd) That the application be approved subject to standard conditions. The motion was put and lost. RESOLVED      (Finn/Wearne) That Council confirm its previous determination and refuse Development Application No 807/2009 to construct a double carport in the front setback. DIVISION   The result being: AYES          Councillors P B Barber, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, M A Lack, P K Maitra, M D McDermott and L E Wearne, NOES         The Lord Mayor, Councillor P J Garrard and Councillors A Bide, J Chedid, A Issa, OAM, C X Lim, S D Lloyd and A A Wilson.

11.2

SUBJECT          317 Guildford Road, Guildford Lot 1 DP 514 685 (Woodville Ward) DESCRIPTION  Fitout and use of existing premises as a fruit & vegetable grocery shop REFERENCE    DA/97/2010 - DA/97/2010 submitted 18 February 2010 APPLICANT/S   Gingers Australia OWNERS           Mr P Lee & Mrs I Lee REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The matter is referred to Council as a petition with 39 signatures and one submission was received.

RECOMMENDATION (a)      That Council grant a ”Deferred Commencement” consent under the provisions of s.80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, as amended to DA/97/2010 for the change of use and fitout for a fruit and vegetable grocery shop. The consent shall not operate until the applicant satisfies the Council as to the following matters contained in Part A of this consent, with such matters being satisfied within 12 months of the date of this consent:            Schedule A – Deferred Commencement: Pursuant to the provisions of S. 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 the development application be granted a Deferred Commencement Consent subject to the completion of the following: The shopfront display windows are to be reconstructed as far as technologically feasible based on the evidence surviving in situ and the available photographs. The shopfront display windows should be in keeping with the original style and Interwar architectural period of the building.  The floor plan is to follow the surviving marks on the terrazzo floor in situ, indicating that it should have two passageways between the shopfronts to the shop entrances.  The shopfront display windows should feature an opaque lower portion, placed on a recessed base, and a transparent and glassed upper portion topped with a thick frame.  In this regard the following is to occur: (i)      Detailed drawings are to be prepared by a suitably qualified heritage consultant and submitted to Council’s satisfaction. (ii)     The above drawings, once approved by Council are required to be carried out. (b)     Further, that the objectors be advised of Council’s decision. NOTE:        This matter was adopted under Minute No 11457 – Council Matters To Be Adopted Without Discussion.

11.3

SUBJECT          Suite 2, Level 2, 110 Church Street, Parramatta (Lot 1 DP 228112) DESCRIPTION  Occupation and fitout of suite 2, level 2 as a Chinese health clinic, including acupuncture and remedial massage. No sex services are proposed. REFERENCE    DA/126/2010 - 26 February 2010 APPLICANT/S   JLA Arhcitects OWNERS           Sharisha Pty Ltd & Ors REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application is being referred to Council for determination as the application seeks approval for a massage centre.

11459

MOTION             (McDermott/Chedid) That the application be refused as this is an application for a therapeutic massage parlour and is not in public interest. The motion was put and lost. RESOLVED      (Finn/Maitra) That Development Application 126/2010 for the fitout of the premises and use as a Chinese health clinic in suite 2, level 2 on land at 110 Church Street,        Parramatta be approved subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1 of this report. DIVISION        The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor P J Garrard and Councillors P B Barber, A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES             Councillors J Chedid and M D McDermott.

11.4

SUBJECT          1/76 Phillip Street, Parramatta (Lot 1 SP 75329) (Arthur Phillip Ward) DESCRIPTION  Use of existing premises as a restaurant including outdoor dining. REFERENCE    DA/85/2010 - 15 February 2010 APPLICANT/S   Metropolis Alliance & Positioning Solutions OWNERS           Aladdin (Australia) Pty Ltd REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application is being referred to Council for determination as 6 submissions have been received and the site is a listed heritage item.

RECOMMENDATION (a)     That Development Application 85/2010 to use the existing premises as a restaurant including outdoor dining at 1/76 Phillip Street, Parramatta be approved subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1 of this report. (b)     That the objectors be advised of Council’s decision on the matter. (c)     That the applicant be advised that a Building Certificate Application is to be lodged in respect of the internal fitout of the premises and for the existing signage on the building. (d)     Further, that the matters in respect to the incorrect issuing of the CDC No CF09340CD01 and Occupation Certificate issued by Advance Building Approvals (PCA) for the internal fitout of the restaurant be referred to Council’s Compliance Section, which may result in the PCA being referred to the Building Professionals Board for investigation. NOTE:        This matter was adopted under Minute No 11457 – Council Matters To Be Adopted Without Discussion.

11.5

SUBJECT          Section 82A Review - 17/38-42 Wynyard Street, Guildford (Lot 17 SP 78153) (Woodville Ward) DESCRIPTION  Section 82A review for alterations and additions to a townhouse. Including a new window and extension to the attic. REFERENCE    DA/375/2009 - 26 October 2009 APPLICANT/S   Attic & Roof Conversions OWNERS           Mr P C H Locke and Mrs J Locke REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application is referred to Council as it is an application under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

RECOMMENDATION (a)       That Council amend its previous decision and modify Condition No.2 to allow for a sill height of 800mm above the floor level of the attic and a window height of 1.2m together with the construction of a privacy screen to be fixed underneath the attic window, subject to the conditions outlined in attachment 1 of this report. (b)       Further, that the objector be advised of Council’s decision. NOTE:        This matter was adopted under Minute No 11457 – Council Matters To Be Adopted Without Discussion.

11.6

SUBJECT          2 Cumberland Street, Epping (Lot 8 Sec 14 DP1026) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward) DESCRIPTION  Section 82A review to seek reconsideration of Council's refusal for the demolition, tree removal and the construction of a 2 storey attached dual occupancy development. REFERENCE    DA/816/2009 - Section 82A Submitted 18 March 2010 APPLICANT/S   Pretech Consulting Pty Ltd OWNERS           Miss S J Foley & Mr A C McDowell REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application is referred to Council as it is an application under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

RECOMMENDATION (a)       That Council change its determination and approve Development Application 816/2009 for the demolition, tree removal and the construction of a 2 storey attached dual occupancy development on land at 2 Cumberland Street, Epping, subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1 of this report. (b)       Further, that the person who lodged a submission be advised of Council’s determination of the application. NOTE:        This matter was adopted under Minute No 11457 – Council Matters To Be Adopted Without Discussion.

Reports - Major Applications

12.1

SUBJECT          Woolpack Hotel, 19 George Street, Parramatta (LOT 1 DP 74937) (Arthur Phillip Ward) DESCRIPTION  Alterations and additions to the heritage listed Woolpack Hotel to include the extension of the existing external gaming area. REFERENCE    DA/223/2010 - Submitted 24 March 2010 APPLICANT/S   Mr J Purks OWNERS           J P Enterprises (NSW) Pty Ltd REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application has been referred to Council as the proposal involves works to a site which is listed as a Heritage item of State Significance under Schedule 5 of Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007.

RECOMMENDATION (a)       That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. 223/2010 for the alterations and additions to the heritage listed Woolpack Hotel to include the extension of the existing external gaming area on land at 19 George Street, Parramatta with a lapsing period of three (3) years from the date on the Notice of         Determination subject to the conditions contained within Attachment 1.  No approval is granted to the proposed sign. (b)       Further, that, the objector be advised of Council’s decision. NOTE:        This matter was adopted under Minute No 11457 – Council Matters To Be Adopted Without Discussion.

ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING

In accordance with Council's decision of 23 October 2000 (Minute No 5712) the meeting adjourned at 8.41 pm for a period of 10 minutes.

RESUMPTION OF MEETING

The meeting resumed in the Council Chamber at 8.51 pm, there being in attendance The Lord Mayor, Councillor P J Garrard and Councillors P B Barber, A Bide, J Chedid, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, M D McDermott, P K Maitra, L E Wearne and A A Wilson.

12.2

SUBJECT          2/34 Waratah Street Melrose Park (Lot 2 SP 33610) (Lachlan Macquarie ward) DESCRIPTION  Occupation and fitout for the purposes of a mortuary. REFERENCE    DA/909/2009 - Submitted 23 December 2009 APPLICANT/S   Zaly Pty Ltd (TJ Andrews Funeral Services) OWNERS           Mr G Moses REPORT OF      Manager Development Services. Also Team Leader – Development Assessment Team Memorandum dated 10 May 2010. REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             Number of submissions.

11460

MOTION             (Esber/Wilson) (a)      That the mortuary at 2/34 Waratah St Melrose Park be refused for the following reasons:- 1       That this is clearly not in the interest of the local community ie schools, neighbouring business & the local P & C and also the food processing factory next door. 2       It will have a major affect on the primary school next door and a pre school being recommended by the Department of Education with a funding programme in place to be built. 3       That this will have a major psychological affect on the school children and their families such as teasing. (b)      Further, that Council work with the applicant for guidance on a suitable location. The motion was put and lost. RESOLVED      (Bide/Finn) (a)       That Council as the consent authority grant development Consent to Development Application No. 909/2009 for the occupation and fitout for the purposes of a mortuary of the premises at 2/34 Waratah Street Melrose Park (Lot 2 DP 33610) for a period of three (3) years from the date of determination subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1. (b)       Further, that objectors be advised of Council’s decision. DIVISION       The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor P J Garrard and Councillors A Bide, G J Elmore, J D Finn, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, S D Lloyd,  M D McDermott and  L E Wearne. NOES             Councillors P B Barber, J Chedid, P Esber, C X Lim, P K Maitra and A A Wilson.

Notices of Motion

13.1

SUBJECT          Future ANZAC Day Celebrations in Parramatta REFERENCE    F2004/07107 - D01522955 REPORT OF      Councillor C X Lim

11461

RESOLVED      (Lim/Wilson) (a) That a report be produced recommending appropriate Australian and ANZAC related flags and banners for decoration across the Parramatta CBD, as well as within the vicinity of war memorials in Epping and Merrylands inside the Parramatta local government area. (b) That such appropriate decorations be deployed for at least one week in advance of ANZAC Day in 2011 and annually hence. (c) That the RSL Sub-Branch of Parramatta, Epping and Granville be consulted and invited to collaborate with regard to the design(s) of the decorations, as well as how best to commemorate ANZAC Day in the Parramatta local government area. (d) Further, that the report also recommend to Parramatta City Council options to address the 100^th Anniversary of the World War I, especially on ANZAC Day on the appropriate date.

13.2

SUBJECT          Parramatta Cenotaph REFERENCE    F2004/10359 - D01522961 REPORT OF      Councillor C X Lim

11462

RESOLVED      (Lim/Wilson) (a) That a report be produced recommending the updating of the Parramatta Cenotaph of the military conflicts not yet inscribed, for example Iraq and Afghanistan. (b) That this report also recommends new plinths and/or equally appropriate structures that will memorialise our Australian soldiers who paid the ultimate sacrifice in military conflicts, and whose names are not currently inscribed on the Parramatta Cenotaph. (c) That the report also consider Parramatta City Council’s options in terms of suitable memorial structures in anticipation of the 100^th Anniversary of the World War I, especially on ANZAC Day in appropriate date, as well as the 100^th Anniversary of the Battle of Be’er Sheva (Israel) on 31 October 2017. (d) That, for funding and other support purposes, the Department of Veteran Affairs, the Department of Defence and the Office of the Prime Minister are consulted on Parramatta’s deliberations given Prime Minister Rudd’s ANZAC Day announcement about a fitting remembrance for the 100^th Anniversary of World War I and Anzac Day on the appropriate date. (e) Further, that the Presidents and Secretaries of Parramatta RSL, Epping and Granville Sub-Branches be consulted and invited to collaborate with respect to these proposals and their respective war memorials.

CLOSED SESSION
11463	RESOLVED      (Wilson/Lloyd) Members of the press and public be excluded from the meeting of the Closed Session and access to the correspondence and reports relating to the items considered during the course of the Closed Session be withheld. This action is taken in accordance with Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act, 1993 as the items listed come within the following provisions:-

1       Legal Matters Monthly Report to Council. (D01521203) - This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (g) of the Local Government act 1993 as the report contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

2       2010 Community Grants Program. (D01522350) - This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government act 1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

RESUMPTION OF MEETING
	That the decisions of Closed Session be noted as follows:-

DECISIONS FROM Closed Session

14.1	SUBJECT          Legal Matters Monthly Report to Council REFERENCE    F2004/07898 - D01521203 REPORT OF      Manager Development Services
11464	RESOLVED      (Lim/Issa OAM) (a)     That the report be received and noted. (b)      Further, that a report be provided to the next meeting of Council on whether the issue of an on the spot fine in relation to 27 Maple Crescent, Ermington may have been a more effective course of action.

14.2

SUBJECT          2010 Community Grants Program REFERENCE    F2009/02342 - D01522350 REPORT OF      Grants Project Officer

11465

RESOLVED      (Chedid/Wilson) That Council adopts the recommended expenditure of the 2009-10 Grants budget as summarised in Attachment 1 subject to the following items being funded utilising the project amount of $10,000 previously allocated to PS13/2010 – Iranian Community Organisation:- 1. Reference No. PS4/2010 Dundas Area Youth Services (DAYS),           Get Active - Sturt Park Sports and Community Picnic Day -           $3,810.00; 2.      Reference No. PS25/2010 Dundas Area Youth Services (DAYS),           DAYS - Sense of Place Youth Arts Project - $3,957.00; 3.      The remaining funds of $2,233 be used to purchase books for the           Reference No. PS13/2010 Iranian Community Organisation (IOC) -           Driven Books (Mobile Library).

QUESTION TIME

1

SUBJECT          Supply of Feral Cat Traps REFERENCE    F2004/06148 FROM                 Councillor G Elmore

11466

Councillor Elmore noted that advice had recently been provided to a constituent indicating that Council did not trap feral cats and appropriate cat traps could be hired from Coates or Kennards. Councillor Elmore requested that the appropriate Council officer report on the provision of better service to residents who are experiencing problems with feral cats. The Lord Mayor advised that he would arrange for a response, rather than a report, to be provided to Councillor Elmore.

2

SUBJECT          Staff Car Parking REFERENCE    F2009/02545 FROM                 Councillor J D Finn

11467

Councillor Finn advised that it was her understanding Council’s staff car park adjacent to Smith Street would no longer be available from June this year, with staff being required to park in Wentworth Street Car Park. Councillor Finn questioned whether staff would be charged to park in Wentworth Street and noted that the availability of free parking had been beneficial in attracting staff to Parramatta. The Chief Executive Officer advised that staff were being relocated to Wentworth Street due to anticipated progress on the Civic Place Development. In addition, the question remained whether Council was in the business of providing free parking when no other business in Parramatta does so. The Chief Executive further noted that whatever decision was made in relation to staff parking costs, a transition period for staff would be put into effect.

3

SUBJECT          Removal of Trees REFERENCE    F2008/04592 FROM                 Councillor M McDermott

11468

Councillor McDermott advised that he had been approached by a concerned constituent who had indicated 6 trees ranging from 5 metres to 7 metres in size had recently been removed from a development site. The constituent was of the opinion that the trees were to be retained as part of the development consent. Councillor McDermott asked what fines were available in such instances as Council really was trying to conserve its trees. The Group Manager Outcomes and Development advised that companies could receive an on the spot fine of $3,000 for each separate instance of tree removal. If the removal breached development consent, action could be taken in the Land and Environment Court resulting in a maximum penalty of $1,100,000.

4	SUBJECT          Funding of Council Projects REFERENCE    F2008/03695 FROM                 Councillor A Issa OAM
11469	Councillor Issa noted that Council occasionally created policy on the run, especially in relation to the holding of new civic events. He noted that Council was on a tight budget and questioned the impact that such decisions had on Council’s end of year budget. Councillor Issa advised that he would like to be notified of the Chamber’s contribution to any end of year funding problems.

5	SUBJECT          Clean Up Orders REFERENCE    F2008/04592 FROM                 Councillor A Bide
11470	Councillor Bide sought advice on the number of 21 Day Clean Up Orders issued under the Environmental and Planning Assessment Act for overgrown properties over the past 12 months. The Group Manager Outcomes and Development noted that overgrown properties were a significant problem in the LGA and advised that a response would be provided to Councillor Bide.

6	SUBJECT          Resettlement of Former Prisoners in Parramatta REFERENCE    F2008/04592 FROM                 Councillor A Wilson
11471	Councillor Wilson advised that he had been notified a program existed to resettle former prisoners in the Parramatta LGA. Councillor Wilson asked whether such a program existed and questioned whether Parramatta was receiving increased numbers of former prisoners. The Lord Mayor advised that the question would be taken on notice.

7	SUBJECT          Commonwealth Games Representative REFERENCE    F2008/04592 FROM                 Councillor S Lloyd
11472	Councillor Lloyd requested that the Office of the Lord Mayor pass on congratulations to a member of the Northmead Bowling Club who had been selected to represent Malta at the next Commonwealth Games.

8	SUBJECT          Charging of Levies on Community Groups REFERENCE    F2008/04592 FROM                 Councillor L E Wearne
11473	Councillor Wearne advised that the Ermington West Scout Group had recently been charged various levies associated with the replacement of an existing fence and requested that the levying of such fees against community organisations be investigated. The Lord Mayor advised that he would pass this matter on to the Chief Executive Officer for investigation.

The meeting terminated at 9.24 pm.

THIS PAGE AND THE PRECEDING 27 PAGES ARE THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MONDAY, 10 MAY 2010 AND CONFIRMED ON MONDAY, 24 MAY 2010.

Lord Mayor