Agenda of Council (Development)

Council (Development) 15 June 2010

Item 8.2

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.2

SUBJECT Illegal Dumping Strategy

REFERENCE F2004/06456 - D01547983

REPORT OF Manager. Regulatory Services

PURPOSE:

For Council to consider the adoption of the draft illegal dumping strategy and new preventative measures pertaining to illegal dumping.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council adopt the draft illegal dumping strategy and new measures for public exhibition;

(b) That Council becomes a member of the Regional Illegal Dumping squad and that the CEO be authorised to take the necessary action to give effect to this membership;

(d) Further, that consideration be given in the next budget for funding to meet Council’s obligations in regard to enforcement education material and signage.

BACKGROUND

1. Council at its meeting of 7 December 2009 resolved that Council review its current policy pertaining to illegal dumping and adopt new measures.

These measures were to include:

a) Inclusion of hotline to notify Council of illegal acts.

b) Have in place a “DOB in a Dumper” program with a reward of $1000 for advice leading to a conviction of a person or persons guilty of littering or dumping.

c) A covert operation and camera system for hotspots.

d) Doubling of relevant fines.

e) A Council run community pride day in the middle of the year involving community groups, local residents and local schools with active engagement from local schools and community safety officers.

f) Council arrange a workshop to discuss this issue, prior to holding the workshop, council officers researched other City’s policies.

g) Council write to, principals and property managers of real estate agents in Parramatta to seek their co-operation in ensuring that tenants are fully responsible for any unwanted furniture and rubbish generated by their tenancies and arising from the termination of tenancies.

h) Council prepare a submission to the present review of tenancy laws being conducted nationally by Commonwealth government with the view to strengthening the obligation of tenants in relation to removal of their rubbish and disused furniture arising from their tenancies as outlined in the body of the resolution.

A draft Illegal Dumping Strategy has been prepared and was presented to Councillors at a workshop on 31 March 2010. This draft strategy is attached.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

2. Council’s response has been in the past to remove illegally dumped waste and this approach has been inconsistent and spasmodic across the local government area. The consequence of Council removing illegally dumped waste was to reinforce the view that if rubbish is dumped someone else will clean it up (i.e. Council).

3. A more effective enforcement regime is required to create community awareness that there are consequences associated with dumping rubbish. The draft Illegal Dumping Strategy has been developed outlining the approach to a more effective enforcement regime. This strategy includes the identification of waste with high visible tape, stickers, and using the provision of the POEO Act making property owners, including strata managing agents, responsible for waste generated from their premises.

4. During the illegal dumping strategy trial period (February to April) Council has investigated 223 complaints, issued 20 clean up notices, 45% of these have been removed by the property owners with an average turn around time of 4 – 5 days. There has also been a reduction of 20 tonnes in waste removed from our streets with an estimated saving of $100,000.00 over the last financial quarter.

5. A hotline number “1800 DUMPED” has been established. It advertises a number for people to call and report illegal dumping and it has been uploaded on to Council’s website with the inclusion of a reward scheme. Further development is underway of Council web site for the inclusion of statistics gathered on illegal dumping together with a “name and shame” file to highlight illegal dumpers and successful prosecutions.

6. The Council’s resolution also called for the fines to be increased. The fines are set by the State Government and can only be addressed by lobbying the State Government for a review of fines.

7. A Community Pride day has been investigated and there are a number of existing programs that are run across the LGA such as Clean Up Australia Day. It is proposed that separate community pride days be run across the local government area as discussed further in the report.

8. Council has met with the Regional Illegal Dumping Squad (RID). Councils surrounding Parramatta are members of the RID Squad with the exception of Blacktown Council who were a member and are currently seeking new membership. Subsequently Council sought membership to the RID Squad organisation which has been approved. Anticipated commencement of membership is June 2010. The RID Squad provides additional resources to carry out a number of surveillance and enforcement activities together with education campaigns which are consistent with Council’s illegal dumping strategy and will enhance and compliment Council’s objectives to reduce illegal dumping in the Parramatta LGA.

9. The RID Squad also has the capacity to undertake covert operations which may also assist in known illegal dumping hotspots. The enforcement regime needs to be supported by an education and information program, including stickers, illegal dumping signs, managing agent kits and video surveillance cameras.

10. The installation of illegal dumping signs with the use of surveillance cameras and covert operations will assist the enforcement program to reduce illegal dumping incidents in known hotspots.

11. Partnerships with other government agencies regarding the dumping of rubbish outside Dept of Defence and Dept of Housing properties create particular challenges for Council’s enforcement capabilities as we are not able to issue clean up notices and infringement notices to State and Federal Government bodies.

12. Council has met with representatives from the DoH and they have agreed to create a closer working partnership. This includes the provisions of a waste kit that will be provided to each tenant of DoH that includes details of waste management, illegal dumping and Council clean up service dates. The kit will also be made available on Council’s web site for strata managers, owners and tenants of privately owned premises.

13. Council has sent two separate mail outs to 2,057 strata managing agents advising them of Council process for enforcing illegal dumping. An information pack has also been prepared and is available on Council’s web site for them to provide to their tenants.

14. As part of the illegal dumping strategy Council’s Community Safety Officers are in regular contact with the major property managers who are assisting Council in reducing and managing the illegal dumping problem. One strategy has been to place small items back within the allocated bin bays advising the strata managers to have the waste removed which is generally being removed within 48 hours.

15. Shopping trolleys also contribute to illegal dumping and the visual impact of our streets. Council has sent letters to all major retailers and shopping centres advising them that Council may treat shopping trolleys as waste where they are not removed or are used as waste containers in public streets and parks. “Trolley Trackers” have approached Council with a revised program which Council can contact by phone or email, and they have agreed to collect trolleys within 24 hours. Other trolleys identified and not collected may then be collected by Council as waste for recycling.

16. The Council’s resolution also called for a submission to the review of the tenancy laws which has been done.

17. It has been identified that University students may be contributing to illegal dumping due to the transient type nature of some students in adjoining residential suburbs. Council will be meeting with the University to promote Council’s illegal dumping strategy in conjunction with our waste education program.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

18. The cost to join the RID Squad is $60,000 per annum. Council will benefit from the offset of regulatory enforcement activities and financially from reduced waste disposal fees from domestic waste that has been illegally dumped. It is estimated that over the last quarter Council saved $100,000 in collection and tipping fees in relation to Council implementing the illegal dumping strategy, on a trial basis.

19. As part of the overall monitoring program and identifying illegally dumped rubbish with enforcement tape and stickers and education packs, the current budgets for producing this material has been exhausted. New signs are required for hot spot areas for video surveillance at an estimated cost of $10,000.

20. Community pride days are proposed based on a previous campaign ‘Neighbourhood Blitz’ conducted in South Parramatta. The associated costs for the event was $12,000 with staff volunteering their time. It is proposed to conduct two similar campaigns to gauge the support by the community. The campaigns can be co-ordinated to commence with Parramatta’s spring clean up periods.

21. It is recommended that the draft strategy be placed on public exhibition for 28 days.

Laurie Whitehead

Manager Regulatory Services

Attachments:

1View

Draft Illegal Dumping Strategy

20 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 15 June 2010

Item 8.3

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.3

SUBJECT Function Delegated to the Chief Executive Officer related to the Determination of Development Applications

REFERENCE F2004/06472 - D01548032

REPORT OF Group Manager Outcomes and Development

PURPOSE:

To provide further advice on function delegated to the Chief Executive Officer related to the determination of development applications.

RECOMMENDATION

That the information be received and noted.

BACKGROUND

1. Council at its meeting of 10 May 2010 deferred consideration of DA delegations to the CEO. In doing this, the Council resolved that:

the consideration of this matter be deferred for 2 weeks pending advice from Council officers about determination by staff over the past 12 months.

2. This report to the Councillors looks at the DAs determined under delegation, as well as the general assessment trends for the Council.

3. The following table shows the assessment time frames since 2000/1. The figures for 2009/10 are likely end of year result based on the current DA assessment trend.

Year	Median	Mean	EFT	Number Determined	% by Council	Assessment Index (mean)	Assessment Index (median)

2000/1	38	80	10	1571	9	1.96375	4.134210526
2001/2	62	101	10	1524	5	1.508910891	2.458064516
2002/3	90	125	TBC	1639	12
2003/4	118	158	TBC		9
2004/5	106	151	TBC	1833	5
2005/6	68	116	TBC	1461	7
2006/7	88	131	18	1388	14	0.588634436	0.876262626
2007/8	76	119	20.5	1141	14	0.467718795	0.732349166
2008/9	92	123	12	1125	11	0.762195122	1.019021739
2009/10	60	78	12	1200	9	1.282051282	1.666666667

4. The Assessment Index, is an attempt to compare assessment efficiency results from year to year. The higher the number the greater the efficiency. This measure would be even better if there was a way to take account of complexity of applications being considered, or the increase in the amount of assessment required due to increasing legislative requirements.

5. The following graph shows the improvement made over the last year on assessment times.

6. Below is a graph which shows the DA assessment times for Parramatta City Council in this financial year by quarter with a year to date result compared to State averages for group 3 Councils (such as Parramatta City Council), City of Sydney as well as the state average. The key feature here is the substantial improvement in the reduction of the number of outstanding DAs greater than 80 days old. This means significant improvement has been made in the last 2 quarters. Current results are tracking Council to be at State average by the end of the financial year. Please note that these figures are gross assessment times, that is, “no stop the clock” considerations are included in this time frame.

	DA Times (gross) - 2009/2010 By Quarter
						2008/2009
	1st Q	2nd Q	3rd Q	4th Q	YTD	state average	Group 3 ave	City of Sydney
Mean	103	85	82	51	82	74	78	68

Median	80	72	72	37	64		51	45

% within 40 days	14	28	37	73	33

Outstanding	280	185	211	218	218

O/S over 80 days	194	125	60	42	42

7. Over the last 12 months, Council has determined approximately 9% of all applications and 91% have been determined under delegation. In determining applications under delegation, the CEO has delegated certain decisions to different officers. However, all applications are only determined after a peer review of the assessment officer’s report. The peer review process requires the assessment report and recommendation to be reviewed and confirmed by the Manager of Assessment and the Manager of Development Services. For applications where there are submissions, or involve a heritage item or are for refusal, a review is also undertaken by the Group Manager Outcomes and Development.

8. In reviewing the operations of the delegations, two investigations have been undertaken. The first has reviewed the planning decisions register which records the decisions of all Council Meetings relating to planning matters. The decisions relating to non-DA matters, such as LEPs and DCPs have been eliminated in this analysis and the analysis has been on the following basis:-

· How many DAs have been determined (approved or refused) without debate?

· How many DAs have been referred to the Council for its determination even though technically the officers could have determined the application under delegation?

· How many applications were determined by the Council inconsistent with the recommendations of the officers?

9. The result of this analysis is summarised in the following table but the key result is that only 3 DAs determined by Council reversed the officer’s recommendation.

Year

Total Decisions

W/O Debate

W/I Delegations

Not per officer Recommendation

6 determination (5 in 2009) were consistent with the recommendation generally but added conditions)

2009

131

2010

10. The general conclusion of this analysis is that there is high correlation between officer recommendations and Council decisions. Council officers have also referred DAs to the council that are technically within the CEO’s delegations due to the sensitivity of these decisions (eg the Port Bar proposed removal of the public toilet).

Submissions to DAs

11. Council has considered whether the number of submissions should determine whether a matter is determined under delegation. The above graph shows the how many submissions are received. Since March 2009, 1333 DAs have been determined, 1056 or 79% of these DAs received no submissions, only 30 DAs had 7 or more submissions. It is also interesting to note that during this time the Council sent out over 40,000 notification letters.

DAs Determined Under Delegation

12. Since March 2009, staff, under authority delegated to them from the CEO, have determined approximately 91% of all development applications (including section 96 applications). A simple break down:

Total Determined – 1268

% approved – 95%

Median Value of development - $19,000

Mean Value of Development: - $187,800

Number of DAs determined by staff value greater than and = $500,000 - 73

Number of DAs determined by staff value greater than and = $700,000 - 40

Number of DAs determined by staff value greater than and = $1M - 29

Number of DAs approved by staff with submissions (i.e. not more than 7): 200

Number of DAs approved by staff with no variation to policy : 958

Number of DAs approved by staff with variation to policy (less than 10%): 244

Number of DAs approved by staff with variation to policy (less than 10%) and submissions: 52

Number of DAs approved by staff with no variation to policy and with submissions: 192

13. It is important to note that this analysis is quantitative not qualitative. Development Applications involving major variations to policy, such as SEPP 1 variations of greater than 10% are referred to Council for determination. The nature of submissions also varies greatly, and no analysis has looked at whether the submissions related to the variation of Policy. Some submissions may also raise issues which are not town planning matters or do not relate to the particular application.

Possible Impact on Assessment Times

14. At previous meetings the Councillors discussed a number of possible changes in the scope of the delegations, and staff were asked if this would have an impact on assessment times. All of these possible changes would increase the number of DAs referred to the Council meeting for determination.

15. It is difficult to provide definitive advice on what the impact in terms of assessment times would be if some or all of these changes were made. However, an analysis of assessment times for DAs (gross times) determined by Council and DAs determined by staff under delegation show there is a significant differential between these assessment times.

Year	Form of determination	No. of DAs Determined	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

16. A large part of the difference is the queue time associated with the DA assessment process when applications are referred to Council. There are queue times in the lead up to the Council Meeting with a minimum 3 weeks wait from the time the assessment report is prepared until it can be considered by the Council. These 3 weeks are a minimum and depending on timing, it could be as much as 5 weeks, particularly as Council generally considers DAs only once a month. There is also a queue time at the end of the process as determinations are not issued until the minutes of the meeting are finalised. There are also delays when applications are deferred to a further meeting (4 weeks).

17. An analysis was undertaken of the assessment times for DAs of $700,000 or more and allowing for additional assessment time generally associated with these applications together with an allowance for the additional time associated with applications which are referred to Council, the minimum impact on average assessment times would be 10 days. In practice, it might be 15 days due to other factors.

18. The referral of all DAs associated with Heritage Listed Item is likely to have the most impact on DA assessment times, due to the number of DAs this would affect (approximately 15%).

Possible other considerations

19. There are alternate models to deal with the determinations of the applications under delegations. These alternatives might provide Council with significant oversight. Some Councils have provided significant delegation to staff but on the basis that there is a public review of certain applications through a development assessment unit (DAU) which meets weekly to determine applications in a public forum.

20. As I have expressed previously, the number of submissions is often not the key issue, sometimes it is about compliance with policy. For example, if Council had an application with 7 submissions and the development fully complied with all Council policies, what is the likely result? In 2010 there has been 5 DAs referred to Council due to the number of submissions received. Council approved the applications consistent with the officer’s recommendation in 4 cases and in 1 case the application was deferred to the next meeting and then it was approved in accordance with the officer’s recommendation. In 2009, the results were similar.

21. The Councillors may wish to consider whether it is important how assessment addresses submissions. In relation to quite a few submissions they relate matters that can be addressed by conditions of consent (eg concerns about asbestos removal) or are not relevant to the DA (eg refer to loss of property value which is not a planning consideration).

22. Therefore Council may wish to consider if it sets a number of submissions as a criteria for referral to Council that this is on a basis of submissions which can not be addressed by conditions of consent and relate specifically to the DA.

23. The other proposals considered by Council were ensuring that all Section 96 applications involving retrospective approval be referred to Council. These are Section 96 applications where the work has already been done and then the applicant seeks approval usually as a result of compliance action by the Council staff.

24. It should be noted that some of the retrospective approvals are relatively minor which do not attract any submissions. It may be appropriate for Council in referring Section 96 applications for retrospective approval that this be limited to applications where there are submissions objecting to the approval of that change.

Summary/Conclusion

25. 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. In financial year to date, Councillors of Parramatta City Council have determined 9% of all development applications.

26. A review of DAs determined under delegation and considered by the Council has shown:

· There is a high correlation between the recommendations of the officers and the decision of the Council.

· Most applications determined by the staff do not have any variation to policy.

· Most applications determined by staff do not have any submissions.

· Increasing the number of DA referred to the Council will increase assessment times.

27. In relation to delegation the Department of Local Government advise:

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.

28. The Department has also stated:

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)

29. Where there is a policy vacuum or inadequate policy, referral of applications to the council for determination until the policy is developed may be good practice. The development of the DCP for Places of Public Worship is a good example of the Council’s approach, of having DAs referred to it due to the lack of policy framework to guide staff decisions. Therefore if there are current development approvals which the Council has some concern these should be identified so that appropriate policy frame work is developed.

30. Ultimately, no matter what delegation model is developed it is unlikely that every Councillor will agree with every decision officers make under delegation.

Sue Weatherley

Group Manager Outcomes and Development

Attachments:

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 15 June 2010

Item 8.7

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.7

SUBJECT Draft Companion Animal Management Plan

REFERENCE F2004/08080 - D01553234

REPORT OF Manager. Regulatory Services

PURPOSE:

To present the draft Companion Animal Management Plan to Council for consideration and adoption.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council approve for the draft Companion Animal Management Plan to be placed on public exhibition for not less than 28 days;

(b) Further, that any submissions received from the community in regards to the draft Companion Animal Management Plan be reported back to council for consideration.

BACKGROUND

The Companion Animal Act 1998 and associated regulations defines the legislative and statutory requirements for Local Government and the owners of companion animals across New South Wales.

The intention of this legislation is to provide the means of responsible pet ownership to prevent nuisance behaviour, to reduce attacks and identify dangerous or restricted breeds for community safety, to permanently identify animals so if lost or stolen they can be reunited with their owners and to promote companionship.

The intent of the Companion Animals Act 1998 is for each Council to develop and implement an Companion Animal Management Plan to support the provisions of the current legislation and the needs of the community. Once adopted the Companion Animal Management plan is to be in place for a period of four (4) years at which time it is then required to be reviewed.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

1. The previous Parramatta City Council Companion Animal Management Plan was adopted in 2003 and expired in 2007. The draft plan for the next 4 years has been developed in accordance with the Act for consideration by Council.

2. The draft Companion Animal Management Plan details Councils roles and responsibilities under the Companion Animals Act 1998 which includes;

· Micro chipping/de-sexing/Lifetime registration

· Nuisance Animals

· Off leash parks

· Pound utilisation

· Return to owner rates

· Dangerous and Restricted dogs

· Cat management

· Dogs in public places

· Education and Enforcement of the Act

3. Once a new plan is adopted by Council it is to be reviewed and or amended as required to reflect any relevant changes to the current legislation/regulations and at the end of the 4-year term of the plan.

4. A lost pet page is provided on Councils web site for all lost animals that have been collected by Council and taken to Blacktown Pound. Staff have also investigated ways for owners to post animal details on Council’s web site to assist in finding lost animals and re-uniting them with their owners. This is expected to be operational within the next two months.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

5. The draft animal management plan also includes programs for micro chipping, lifetime registration and animal de-sexing. These programs have no direct financial implications and can be offset by the fees collected from lifetime companion animal registration fees and fees charged to each of the individual services.

6. Regulatory Service’s are seeking approval for a separate budget of $10,000.00 to fund education material to support the programs provided under the draft companion animals plan from the fees collected from the lifetime registration fees.

7. Council currently takes all animals to Blacktown Pound. A small upgrade of Council existing facility is being undertaken to bring two kennels up to existing standards of the RSPCA and building regulations to provide a 24 hour holding facility for one or two animals.

8. This will reduce the travel time and may assist in reuniting animals with owners without the need to travel to Blacktown Pound. The upgrade will also assist with holding animals when Blacktown Pound is not open to receive animals. The cost associated with the upgrade and maintenance will be managed within existing budgets.

Laurie Whitehead

Manager Regulatory Services

Attachments:

1View

Draft Companion Animal Management Plan

19 Pages

Council (Development) 15 June 2010

Item 9.3

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 9.3

SUBJECT 2010/14 Delivery Program, 2010/11 Operational Plan, making of 2010/11 Rates and Annual Charges and 2010/11 Schedule of Fees and Charges

REFERENCE F2009/02419 - D01555815

REPORT OF Manager Finance

PURPOSE:

To adopt the 2010/14 Delivery Program, 2010/11 Operational Plan, 2010/11 Schedule of Fees and Charges and to make the 2010/11 Rates and Annual Charges subject to determination of Council’s special rates application and following consideration of submissions received as a result of the public exhibition of these draft documents.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That subject to the Minister for Local Government approving Council’s application for a special variation to general income, Council adopt the 2010/14 Delivery Program and 2010/11 Operational Plan (Attachment 1) which includes the 2010/11 Schedule of Fees and Charges (Attachment 2) and note the $1.7 million amendment to the 2010/11 Budget relating to the early receipt of the first instalment of the Financial Assistance Grant and the other amendments to the exhibited documents as detailed in this report.

(b) That subject to the Minister for Local Government approving Council’s application for a special variation to general income, Council approve the income, expenditure and reserves transfers shown in the 2010/11 Operational Plan for the year commencing 1 July 2010 and vote the necessary funds.

(c) That subject to the Minister for Local Government approving Council’s application for a special variation to general income, Council make the Rates and Charges for the 2010/11 rating year using Land Values with a valuation base date of 1 July 2007 as detailed in Attachment 3.

(d) That Council in accordance with Section 566 of the Local Government Act, 1993 set the interest rate in 2010/11 for overdue rates and charges at the maximum rate as determined by the Minister for Local Government.

(e) Further, that Council provide in 2010/11 a $100 Voluntary Rate Rebate for eligible pensioners in accordance with Section 582 of the Local Government Act, 1993, and Council’s Voluntary Pensioner Rate Rebate Policy, in addition to the mandatory eligible pensioner rebate under Section 575 of the Local Government Act, 1993.

BACKGROUND

At the Council meeting of 19 April 2010, it was resolved to adopt the Draft 2010/14 Delivery Program and 2010/11 Operational Plan for the purposes of public exhibition. As part of the Delivery Program, Council also resolved to submit an application to the Minister for Local Government for a special variation to rates for the four years 2010/11 to 2013/14. At the time of writing this report Council has not been advised of the outcome of this application. The recommendations in this report are framed so as to make a further report to Council unnecessary if the Minister approves Council’s application as submitted. If Council resolves to concur with these recommendations and the application is not approved as submitted, the resolutions will not proceed and a revised report will be presented for Council’s consideration.

The Draft Operational Plan included the proposed Rates, Annual Charges and Schedule of Fees and Charges for 2010/11. The Draft Operational Plan detailed the proposed rates under two scenarios – with and without Council’s special rate variation application being approved.

Attachment 1 is the Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan as exhibited with the amendments as detailed below. Attachment 2 is the exhibited Draft Fees and Charges with the amendments detailed below.

Attachment 3 details the proposed 2010/11 Rates and Annual Charges on the assumption that Council’s special rates application will be approved.

The public exhibition period was for 28 days and finished on 20 May 2010.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

Amendments to the exhibited Draft Delivery Program/Operational Plan, Budget and Fees and Charges

Budget variation

In the recent Federal Budget it was announced that once again there would be an early payment of the first instalment of the 2010/11 Financial Assistance Grant. This will mean that the first instalment for 2010/11 will be received in financial year 2009/10 and in line with the accounting standards must be recognised this financial year in the operating statement. The forecast deficit result for 2009/10 will therefore decrease by an estimated $1.7 million and the 2010/11 deficit provided for in the 2010/11 Operational Plan and Budget will increase by the equivalent amount. The 2010/11 Budget has been amended to reflect this change.

Transfer of projects between Pillars

The following projects that appeared in the Economy and Development Pillar have been transferred to the Community and Neighbourhoods Pillar.

Rapid deployment CCTV cameras $ 99,300 (2010/11)

Crime Prevention Officer $115,000 (2010/11)

Amendment of Project name

Transport, Planning, Parking and Traffic Facilities, Project: Traffic Lights - Cycle Crossings amended to "City Centre Cycle Routes" as per Council’s resolution on 19 April 2010.

Environment and Infrastructure Pillar – Key strategic objectives/challenges

To align with Council’s Community Strategic Plan Parramatta Twenty25, the following changes have been made to the format:

Include in Key Challenges - "People and places that are linked by sustainable communication networks" and “Council assets that are sustainable".

Include in Key Objectives - "People and places that are linked by sustainable transport networks".

Fees and Charges

“Notice of Administration Fee Protection of Environment Operations Act, 1997” -Amend the 2010/11 amount of the fee from $320 to $444. This is a statutory fee under clause 99 of the Protection of the Environment Operations (General) Regulation 2009.

“Monitoring compliance of restricted premises including brothels, massage parlours” – Council has been advised that the proposed annual Regulation Service Fee $1,133 per annum, cannot be imposed and has been deleted. The fee for Council staff to undertake monitoring has been amended from the exhibited fee of $432.60 per hour to $480.00 per hour. This change will need to be advertised in accordance with section 610F of the Local Government Act. Further information in relation to these proposed changes is included in Attachment 4.

Credit card payments usage fee – the exhibited fees and charges stated that the 1% fee only apply to rate payments. It is proposed that this fee be amended to apply to all payments by credit cards as there are system constraints to limiting the charge to only rate payments. In addition, in terms of equity there should not be a distinction made between types of payments as the same banking fees and administrative costs must be met by Council regardless of the payment type. This change will need to be advertised in accordance with section 610F of the Local Government Act.

Rates and annual charges

Council’s application for a special variation to rates was submitted to the Division of Local Government on 30 April 2010. At the time of writing this report Council has not been advised of the outcome of the application. The Rates and Annual Charges which are proposed for the 2010/11 rating year, see Attachment 3, assume that Council’s application will be successful. As noted above, if Council’s application as submitted is not approved, a revised schedule of rates and annual charges will be brought back to Council for consideration. Various contingencies have been considered in relation to the outcome of the application and these include –

§ approval only being given to the continuation of the existing special variation that expires this financial year

§ neither continuation of the existing special variation nor the additional 5% increase over 4 years being approved

If the application is not approved, Council will be advised of the ramifications for the Delivery Program, Operational Plan and Budget flowing from the Minister’s decision.

It should be noted that there are some minor differences in some of the ad valorem (rates in the dollar) amounts between Attachment 3 and those exhibited in the Draft Operational Plan. This occurs because the land value and categorisation of some properties change throughout the year and this can have a minor impact on the calculation of the ad valorem rates. This was noted in the Draft Operational Plan placed on public exhibition.

Interest on Overdue Rates

The Minister for Local Government has not yet announced the maximum interest rate allowable on overdue rates and charges for the 2010/11 rating year. Council has previously used the maximum allowable interest rate on overdue rates and charges as an incentive for ratepayers to meet their commitments as they fall due.

Pensioner Rebates

Eligible pensioners receive a statutory reduction of 50% of their ordinary rates and Domestic Waste Management Charge to a maximum of $250 in accordance with State Government legislation. This is at an estimated net cost to Council in 2010/11 of $879,000 after the receipt of the State Government subsidy.

In addition Council provides a voluntary rebate of $100 to eligible ratepayers who have owned and resided on a property in the Parramatta local government area for at least 5 successive rating years. This additional rebate is at an estimated cost to Council in 2010/11 of $713,000.

Submissions resulting from public exhibition process

The Draft Delivery Program/Operational Plan, Budget and Fees and Charges were placed on public exhibition from 22 April to 20 May and submissions were invited from the community. Council also conducted a Delivery Program Expo on 18 May. There was one submission received from the community following the exhibition phase and seven feedback forms completed at the Expo.

Before deciding on the final Delivery Program and Operational Plan to be adopted, Council must, in accordance with sections 404 and 405 of the Local Government Act, take into consideration any submissions that have been made.

Expo feedback

The seven responses from Expo all agreed that the Delivery Program met the needs of the City. All supported the rate increase as described in the feedback form.

The responses supported initiatives proposed in the Delivery Program. There was a specific request in relation to footpath expenditure in Carson Street Dundas Valley and for neighbourhood amenity to be given greater consideration when determining development applications for commercial/industrial developments that border on residential areas. The following information is supplied in relation to these two issues.

Footpaths – Carson Street Dundas

Carson Street has not been identified as a PAMP route. However, there are some worthwhile links between Miller Street and Dobson Crescent and up to Stewart Street but the section of Carson Street north of Miller Avenue is very steep and presents some challenges.

Impact of commercial/industrial developments near residential areas

The formal public exhibition of Council’s draft Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP) has recently been completed. Council has received in excess of 500 submissions in response to these draft plans. One of the key roles of the draft LEP and DCP is to manage the relationship of potentially conflicting land uses as well as the impacts of new development. The final draft of these documents will be reported for Council’s consideration in the next few months.

Submission

The one submission received dealt with a number of issues and these are noted below with comments provided by the relevant staff.

The format of the Delivery Program/Operational Plan is obfuscating, confusing, incomprehensible and lacking in transparency

The Delivery Program is a new reporting format, largely in response to the Division of Local Government's new "Integrated Planning" requirements.

The "pillar" structure is far more in line with current reporting structures of business and other Councils. These generally group services and projects into social, environmental, economic and governance functions (and reporting). This structure will make comparisons with others in the industry easier and more useful. The new structure is a significant improvement on the complexity of the previous "Program Framework", much simpler to produce and confidently report on and much more closely aligned to our internal business reporting.

Despite this simplification, Council's activities are complex and interrelated, which makes a seamless document difficult to achieve on the first attempt. The Delivery Program is a work in progress and the submission’s comments in regard to legibility and confusion are noted. Over time Council will continue to simplify the language and complexity of the Delivery Program to improve the clarity of what Council says it will do and how Council reports the results to the community.

In developing plans and proposals for new works, access to archives is essential to inform decision making and to avoid duplicating work previously undertaken

The key staff involved with the management and care and control of council’s natural areas, heritage sites, environmental and sustainability issues work closely as a cross functional project team. Regular consultation, communication and information sharing occurs between the various sections and their staff on key projects and operations.

Care is also taken to ensure that any consultants engaged to assist with strategic planning documents such as plans of management or landscape master plans are provided with as much background information as possible. This involves staff reviewing all relevant documents available from other studies, reports or records in the TRIM document management system.

Absence of any allocation to any level of heritage particularly relating to Dundas Valley

The Delivery Program supports Heritage Grants of $25,000, the employment of a specified heritage adviser, the completion of the review of the heritage inventory and the gazettal of the new LEP which has extensive development controls for heritage items. Within the LGA there are over 1,000 items in statutory heritage lists. Council has an active role in assessing impacts on these items and direct responsibility for the maintenance of a number including Parramatta and Granville Town Halls, Hambledon Cottage and Prince Alfred Park.

Planning for works on public land need to consider relationships beyond the boundary of a particular site and consider access, continuity and connectivity

Council undertakes broad strategic planning, for example cycleway or open space planning and considers broad and interacting planning issues including the impact of/on adjoining sites as well as liaison with key stakeholders including agencies who also impact on the public domain such as utility providers. Further consideration in relation to access is provided in the detailed design stage of specific projects.

Restructure the budget presentation to show types of expenditure and more information on a site specific or ward basis

Request for the budget to be presented in format showing income and expenditure under various headings of expenditure type or by function

Contemporary local government strategic planning and budgeting practice has moved towards showing the outcomes that a Council aims to deliver and the costs and income related to those outcomes. Council has been presenting its management plans in this outcomes based format for many years so that the community can see the costs of providing its range of planned services. Council’s financial systems continue to maintain and report on the data relating to the “inputs” that produce these services - employee costs, maintenance costs, capital costs etc. - but for a statement of Council’s strategies and objectives, an outcomes based budget presentation is regarded as more appropriate.

The Operational Plan does include a consolidated operating statement which shows income and expenditure by type.

The Delivery Program/Operational Plan also includes a detailed listing of capital and operating projects and is consistent with the outcomes based format by presenting the projects under the functions/services to which they contribute. Where relevant, the project list clearly shows where the works will take place. A ward based format for the presentation of budgetary information has not been used in these high level strategic planning documents but such information can be extracted if necessary where expenditure is limited to a specific location.

Council needs to have IT property information systems in place to retain all existing data against the property/land parcel to which it relates thus reducing future costs of research and having more complete information for informed decision making

Council’s property and geographical information systems have the capacity to capture information relating to specific properties and these facilities are used where appropriate. Capturing and maintaining data incurs costs and this must be weighed against the value that is added to decision making in the use of the data.

There is currently an internal review of Knowledge Management, with a particular emphasis on land based information and this proposal will be considered as part of that review.

Renaming of streets and localities has resulted in losses of important historical associations

The process for renaming of streets follows a strict process and an adopted policy by Council which takes into account any historical significance and relevant naming procedures. If there are specific instances that need to be reviewed, then Council could consider these in terms of established processes.

Works at the Wharf Road boat ramp should not have involved the Maritime Services Board and have not taken heritage issues into consideration

The upgrade of the boat ramp and pontoon was a joint initiative of Parramatta and Ryde City Councils. This involved three grant applications to NSW Maritime under their Annual Better Boating Program.

Funding of $831,100 was allocated by NSW Maritime. Stages 1 and 2 have been completed. This program has been well received by boat owners and the general public.

The project was carried out with extensive public consultation and specialist consultants were engaged to assist council with the heritage and environmental assessment issues.

Ponds Walk pathways - existing tracks are not in the right places and geological heritage issues have been overlooked

The Ponds walking track network follows the Ponds and Subiaco Creeks. It is a regional walk extending 6.6 km from Galaringi Reserve, Carlingford through Dundas Valley to Jim Crowgey Reserve in Rydalmere. The area is managed in accordance with Council’s Natural Areas Plan of Management. The route has been established for some years and relocating the existing track is not considered a priority. A portion of the funding from the Walking Track Construction Project 13542 will be allocated to minor improvements along the Ponds Walking Track in 2010/11.

Galaringi Reserve – weed infestation is an issue and funding is required to improve access, connectivity and continuity within the site and to fulfil the original objectives for the site

The importance of Galaringi Reserve is recognised by Council having adopted its own plan of management in 2002. Specialist bushland regeneration contractors are engaged on an annual basis to maintain and upgrade this Reserve’s natural areas.

This is funded under Bushland Protection and Waterways Restoration projects at a cost of approximately $60,000. Council’s Open Space and Natural Resources Section liaises closely with the Galaringi Reserve Committee of which the author of the submission is a long term member. The reserve is being managed in accordance with its Plan of Management.

In view of the size, nature, location and topography of the site, the proposal for additional sealed pathways through the reserve is not considered a high priority.

George Kendall Riverside Park and Ermington Bay Walk - Inappropriate location of sports fields and cycleways, greater opportunities for passive recreation, adverse impacts on the natural environment and non compliance with a masterplan previously prepared

The 3m wide concrete cycleway was constructed in 2003 at a cost of $142,000. Consultation was undertaken with the local residents and park committee in relation to the design and location of the cycleway.

The project was predominantly funded from a portion of a $300,000 contribution to Council from the Department of Defence allocated in July 2002. This allocation was for park improvements at this park in view of the major redevelopment of their adjacent Naval Stores site which was planned for future housing development.

The cycleway forms part of the Parramatta Valley Cycleway and is well used. The design and location complies with the relevant Australian Standards and the Parramatta Bike Plan 2009.

The original master plan for this park was undertaken in 1995 and it is proposed to review this master plan in 2010/11.The current master plan proposes that approximately half the site remains for passive recreation rather than additional sporting grounds.

Additional funding required for maintenance and improvements in playgrounds together with more attention to their planning to improve access, connectivity and continuity

Council has 120 children’s playgrounds which are regularly inspected to ensure they are safe for use. A specialist playground consulting firm undertakes annual inspections of all playgrounds which assists Council in determining which playgrounds are replaced &/or upgraded each year.

A draft Play Space Plan is nearing completion which is to review the playground distribution and provision within the LGA.

$350,000 has been allocated in 2010/11 for the replacement &/or upgrading of playgrounds.

The provision of pram ramps within the kerb & gutter near parks and playgrounds is managed through annual funding under the PAMP project.

Higher priority should be given to funding footpath works in busy streets and in streets that are hilly and narrow

Footpath works are prioritised using a weighting system which considers items such as proximity to places of interest such as schools, shops etc, road hierarchy, missing links and safety concerns.

Roadworks are required urgently in Dundas Valley with Shortland Street a high priority

Roadworks are also prioritised using a Pavement Management System which considers condition and serviceability ratings across the LGA. Shortland Street is not currently listed for works in the short term, however, this request will be further investigated.

Request that implementation of the new IT system take into consideration the need to capture property information to assist decision making and that any proposed restructure not be along Pillar lines

As noted above, Council’s IT systems have the functionality to record property information.

The Council has no intention of restructuring in line with the four Pillars. The Pillars simply represent a useful way of presenting and reporting on our Delivery Plan in a way that makes sense from an end user’s perspective. Council is and will remain structured along functional lines but regularly works on a cross functional basis to achieve the outcomes ratepayers’ expect which means working under a number of Pillars. More generally there are a number of IT-enabled opportunities for reform which will improve knowledge management and consequently, customer service. This too may impact our future structure.

Council’s actions in regard to climate change should be documented

Council is currently working to both reduce its contribution to climate change and manage the risks associated with it. To minimise Council's own impact on climate, Council is reducing its consumption of non-renewable energy resources in many ways including purchase of accredited GreenPower (100% for built assets, 10% for streetlighting), installation of solar panels, retrofitting our assets with energy efficient technology, providing education to staff and improving energy management. In addition, Council purchases offsets in some instances where greenhouse gas emissions cannot be avoided and works with the residential and business communities to assist them to reduce energy consumption. Council is preparing a plan to reduce the risk of climate impact on Council services and the community to ensure continued operation in the event that climate change occurs.

An offer to provide extensive data held by the writer for incorporation within Council’s records and databases

The author of the submission will be thanked for this offer.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

The Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan were developed through collaboration between Councillors, management and staff in a series of planning workshops. Community engagement was achieved from the on going input of the Residents’ Panel, extensive surveying and focus groups in relation to the special rates variation proposal and the holding of the “Expo”.

The Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan were placed on public exhibition from 22 April to 20 May 2010 and written submissions were invited from the community. Notice of the exhibition period was given in local newspapers and on Council’s website. During the exhibition period the documents were on display at the Council Offices, Council Libraries, Parramatta Heritage & Visitor Information Centres and Riverside Theatres Parramatta. They were also placed on Council’s website. Submissions could be made by mail, fax or email. Information was also disseminated by media releases and the community newsletter.

Section 405 of the Local Government Act requires Council to adopt the 2010/11 Operational Plan by 30 June 2010.

Manager Finance

Alistair Cochrane

Attachments:

1	Delivery Program 2010 14 , Operational Plan and Budget 2010 11	101 Pages
2	Fees & Charges 2010/11	96 Pages
3View	Making of Rates and Annual Charges	5 Pages
4	Proposed 2010-11 fees relating to restricted premises	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 15 June 2010

Item 13.1

MAJOR APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 13.1

SUBJECT 6 Russell Street, Granville (Lot B DP 377475) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION S96(1a) modification to an approved Chinese Traditional Medicine Therapy Centre. Modification includes approval to operate on Sundays from 10am to 7.30pm (the current approved hours on Sunday are 10am to 3.30pm).

REFERENCE DA/352/2008/A - Submitted 5 March 2010

APPLICANT/S Mr K Liu

OWNERS Preda & Associates Pty Limited

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application has been referred to Council as the proposal involves a Traditional Chinese Medicine Therapy Centre.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The subject application seeks to modify Development Consent No. 352/2008 under the provisions of Section 96(1a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

Approval is sought to modify Condition No. 9 to allow the following hours of operation:

“9. The hours of operation being restricted to 10am to 7.30pm Mondays to Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays, 10am to 9pm Thursdays and 10am to 7.30pm Sundays. Any alterations to the above will require further development approval.

Reason: To minimise the impact on the amenity of the area.”

Condition No. 9 of Development Consent No. 352/2008 currently reads as follows:

“9. The hours of operation being restricted to 10am to 7.30pm Mondays to Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays, 10am to 9pm Thursdays and 10am to 3.30pm Sundays. Any alterations to the above will require further development approval.

Reason: To minimise the impact on the amenity of the area.”

Development Consent No. 352/2008 granted consent for the fitout and use of the existing building as a Chinese Traditional Medicine Therapy Centre and construction of a car park at the rear. The premises is approved for 1 consulting room and two treatment rooms. The premises is located within a single storey building fronting Russell Street. The operator of the business is a sole practitioner with an assistant and receptionist being employed (i.e. maximum 3 persons on site). No changes are proposed to the number of employees.

One submission has been received from the owner of the property. The owner of the property has stated that the property is known as 6 Russell Street and is not known as 6-8 Russell Street (as described in Council’s documents). Council’s records show the property as being 6-8 Russell Street due to a right of carriageway located on both properties which provides access to the site.

The application when first lodged also sought approval for the provision of two additional treatment rooms. Due to concerns expressed by Council’s health and compliance staff, the applicant in a letter dated 5 May 2010 withdrew that component of the application.

The application has been reviewed by the Community Crime Prevention Officer and Council’s Environmental Health Officer who both raise no objections to the modified trading hours.

The proposed increase in trading hours on a Sunday will not result in any unacceptable impacts to the amenity of the area. The proposed hours remain consistent with trading hours of other businesses in the locality.

Accordingly, approval of the request to modify condition No. 9 is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority modify Development Consent No. 352/2008 under the provisions of Section 96(1a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in the following manner:

A. To amend Condition 9 as follows:

Reason: To minimise the impact on the amenity of the area.”

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

Sophia Chin

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Section 79C Report	7 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Original Consent and Plans	7 Pages

Council (Development) 15 June 2010

Item 13.4

MAJOR APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 13.4

SUBJECT 21 Buller Street, North Parramatta (Lots 1-2 DP 127036)(Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Demolition of the existing dwelling, tree removal, consolidation and resubdivision to create three allotments. Approval is also sought to construct a 2 storey dwelling on the allotment facing Buller Street and 2 x 2 storey dwellings on the allotments facing Abbey lane.

REFERENCE DA/101/2010 - 18 February 2010

APPLICANT/S Mr J Hkeik

OWNERS Ms S E Hkeik and Heke Pty Limited.

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application has been referred to Council as the proposal seeks a SEPP 1 Variation of greater than 10% to ‘Clause 38 Minimum allotment sizes’ in Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for demolition of the existing dwelling, tree removal,

consolidation of 2 allotments and resubdivision to create three allotments. Approval

is also sought to construct a 2 storey dwelling on the allotment facing Buller Street

and 2 x 2 storey dwellings on each of the allotments facing Abbey Lane.

The application has been referred to Council as the proposal seeks a SEPP 1 variation of greater than 10% to Clause 38 ‘Minimum allotment sizes’ in Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. Proposed Lots 2 and 3 have a total area of 250 square metres, which is 50% below the minimum allotment size for a single dwelling in a residential zone.

In accordance with the Planning Circular released by the Department of Planning in November 2008 on ‘Reporting Variations to Development Standards’ variations to development standards greater than 10% should be determined by Council.

The proposal also seeks a SEPP 1 Variation to Clause 40 ‘Floor Space Ratios’ as the proposed dwellings on the lots fronting Abbey Lane will have an FSR of 0.55:1 instead of the maximum 0.5:1 prescribed under Clause 40 of Parramatta LEP 2001.

The site is located within the All Saints Special Character Area.

No submissions have been received in respect of this application.

The proposed subdivision is consistent with the existing scale pattern of subdivision in the area and is consistent with the objectives of the Residential 2(a) zone and the objectives of the All Saints Special Character Area as outlined in Part 5 of Parramatta DCP 2005. It has also been demonstrated that each proposed lot is of a sufficient size to accommodate a single dwelling that is of a reasonable size and offers adequate site area for private open space, soft soil, landscape, building envelope setbacks and car parking. The proposal will not unduly impact the amenity of surrounding development.

For the above reasons, it is considered that the SEPP 1 objection seeking to vary the minimum allotment size and maximum FSR development standards can be supported without compromising the residential amenity of the area or the unique characteristics of the All Saints Special Character area.

Accordingly, approval of the application is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council support the variations to Clause 38 and 40 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 under the provisions of SEPP 1.

(a) Further that That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No.DA/101/2010 for the demolition of the existing dwelling, tree removal, consolidation and resubdivision to create three allotments. Construction of a two storey dwelling on the allotment facing Buller Street and a two storey dwelling on each allotment facing Abbey Lane at 21 Buller Street, NORTH PARRAMATTA be determined by granting a 5 year total consent subject to ‘deferred commencement’ under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. Upon strict compliance with all conditions appearing in Schedule A and with the issue of confirmation to that effect in writing from Council, the “deferred commencement” consent shall revert to a development consent inclusive of all conditions contained within Attachment 1.

Lina Dababneh

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	s79c Report	54 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Plans	8 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 15 June 2010

Item 13.6

MAJOR APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 13.6

SUBJECT 332-334 Pennant Hills Road (cnr Evans Road), Carlingford
(Lot 1 DP 128517 subj to DE and Lot M DP 36700, PT Lot A)

DESCRIPTION Section 96(2) modification of development consent to approved alterations and additions to the Bowling Club to extend the operating hours of floodlights to bowling green No. 3 from 8.30pm to 11.00pm

REFERENCE DA/513/2006/A - 11 August 2009

APPLICANT/S Carlingford Bowling Sports and Recreation Club Ltd

OWNERS Parramatta City Council

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application involves the use of a Public Reserve that is Council owned land.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application seeks to modify the 2007 approval granted to the Carlingford Bowling Club. Specifically it seeks to extend (by 2½ hours) the period of time that lights are permitted to operate on Bowling Green No. 3, namely from 8.30pm to 11.00pm.

Carlingford Bowling Club is situated within Cox Park and operates under a lease agreement. The club facilities comprise a club house, three (3) bowling greens and associated car parking and landscaping areas. Bowling Green No.3 is located on the western side of the existing club premises towards the rear of the lease area. Whilst No.3 Green is setback from both Evans Road and Pennant Hills Road it adjoins a number of medium density residential properties in nearby Coleman Avenue.

Following the close of notification period three (3) submissions were received; two (2) objecting and one (1) in support of the proposal.

The application is accompanied by specialist Acoustic and Lighting reports. There were no lighting issues, however, the acoustic engineer identified that the testing carried out was inconclusive in respect of the noise impacts directly associated with activities associated with playing bowls as distinct from noise impacts from traffic on Pennant Hills Road.

The applicants’ acoustic engineer has recommended a closing time of 9pm as an interim measure and that should the club seek a later closing time that further measurements over a 5 day period are required before a definitive conclusion could be made.

Having regard to the circumstances of this application is considered reasonable to modify the consent to allow the lights to remain on for an additional half an hour (i.e. until 9.00pm) and for the applicant to undertake further acoustic measurements over a specified five-day period. In this regard it is recommended that Council allow further testing, subject to the applicant providing prior notification to the Council of the dates of such testing.

Pursuant to section 96(2)(a) I am satisfied that the development to which the consent as proposed to be modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council modify development application DA/513/2006 in the following manner:

Modify Condition No. 1 as follows:

1. The development is to be carried out in compliance with the following plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp:

*Drawing N⁰*	*Dated*
DA-01-03 Issue E	March 2006

*Documents*	*Dated*
Acoustic Report	April 2010
Obtrusive Lighting Assessment	March 2009

Reason: To ensure the event is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents.

Modify Condition No. 27 as follows:

27. Use of the lighting at Bolwing Green No. 3 is to be restricted to between the hour of 6.00pm and 9.00pm.

Reason: To ensure that outdoor lighting down not cause nuisance to the surrounding area.

(b) Further that no objection be raised to allowing the applicant to illuminate Bowling Green No. 3 to 11.00pm for a 5 day period within the next 12 months to facilitate further acoustic testing. Council shall be advised in writing of the proposed testing 72 hours before it commences.

Patrick Hurley PGH

Environmental Planning (MPIA CPP)

Consultant Planner

Attachments:

1View	Section 79C Report	11 Pages
2View	Location Plan	1 Page
3View	Previous Council Report and Plans (DSU 218/2006)	9 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 15 June 2010

Item 13.7

MAJOR APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 13.7

SUBJECT 23 & 25 Crossland Street, MERRYLANDS, NSW 2160, Lots 501 & 502 in DP 1025510 (Woodville Ward) (Location map - Attachment 2 )

DESCRIPTION Demolition of structures, boundary adjustment and alterations to a childcare centre to increase capacity from 53 to 65 children

REFERENCE DA/904/2009 - 23 December 2009

APPLICANT/S Mrs N Yammine

OWNERS Mr S Eskander and Mrs K S Eskander

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application has been referred to Council due to the number of objections received and the application relates to a childcare centre.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Approval is sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling and structures on No. 25 Crossland Street, a boundary adjustment between Nos. 23 and 25 Crossland Street and alterations to the existing childcare centre to provide for 65 children, with the provision of an additional 3 parking spaces, (total of 11 spaces).

The proposed boundary adjustment seeks to relocate the common north/south boundary between the properties to the west by 2.375m such that No. 23 Crossland Street will have a front boundary dimension of 19.14m and No. 25 Crossland Street will have a front boundary dimension of 15m. No. 23 Crossland Street will have an area of 1177.3m² and No. 25 Crossland Street will have an area of 609m².

The relocation of the boundary westward will allow for the provision of an additional three parking spaces for the childcare centre in a stacked formation and for the provision of an additional outdoor play area between the building and the new boundary. Other minor works are also proposed, including the relocation of the entrance to the centre to the front façade, provision of a sliding door in the western façade to allow access to the new outdoor child play area and reorganisation of the parking area in front of the building to allow for the provision of an accessible path to the new front door.

The application was notified to owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby properties from 20 January 2010 to 10 February 2010. Seven submissions were received objecting to the proposal. The concerns raised in the submissions included increased traffic, speed of traffic, inadequate parking, inappropriate manoeuvres by visitors to the centre, impact on property value and inadequacy of the size of the centre for the number of children proposed. It is not considered that the concerns raised in the submissions warrant refusal of the application.

The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001, and centre based child care services are permissible with consent. Subdivision of land is permissible with consent subject to clause 19. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zone and the proposed lots comply with the minimum lot width and size controls under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001.

The proposal is also consistent with the objectives and design principles of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005.

The proposal is generally consistent with Parramatta Childcare Centre Development Control Plan (CCDCP) but breaches two controls related to the maximum number of children permitted in a residential zone (which under the CCDCP is 40 and 65 are proposed) and the requirement for a 1m wide landscape strip along side boundaries and 2m along street frontages. The CCDCP indicates the limit on number of children is to ensure an acceptable level of amenity is maintained to nearby residents in terms of traffic safety, privacy and noise. The breach in the number of children does not result in unacceptable impacts in relation to those matters and as such is supported. The breach in provision of landscaping is supported as it replicates the existing situation and as no change is proposed to the bulk or scale of the building, there is no need for additional screen landscaping.

The site is proposed to be zoned R2 Residential under Parramatta Draft Local Environmental Plan 2010 (DLEP) and the use as a childcare centre will be prohibited if the proposed zoning proceeds. However, the DLEP is neither certain nor imminent and as such no determinative weight can be afforded to its provisions at this time and the childcare centre is existing.

Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority, grant development consent to Development Application No. DA/904/2009 for a boundary adjustment and alterations to the existing childcare centre to increase the maximum children numbers to 65 children at 23 and 25 Crossland Street, Merrylands, as shown on the approved plans, subject to the recommended conditions.

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

Kerry Gordon

Independent Planning Consultant

Attachments:

1View	S79c Report	24 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Plans	2 Pages
4View	Photographs	1 Page
5View	Judgement of the L&E Court	7 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 15 June 2010

Item 14.1

NOTICE OF MOTION

ITEM NUMBER 14.1

SUBJECT Workshop to understand the facts on a smoking ban in al-fresco dining within Parramatta

REFERENCE F2004/09820 - D01544590

REPORT OF Councillor M D McDermott

To be Moved by Councillor M D McDermott

“(a) That Council hold a workshop as soon as possible, to look at the facts and data related to the impact of a ban on smoking in al-fresco dining areas in Parramatta.

(b) That Stafford Sanders of ASH be requested to speak at this workshop and explain the facts and data on smoking and it’s health implications and the impact that such a ban has had on other areas where one has been implemented.

(c) Further, that Andy Mark of the Heart Foundation (co-ordinator of the Smoke Free Outdoor Areas Working Party of NGOs) be requested to speak also at this workshop and outline the arguments from a health research perspective.

BACKGROUND

There has been much mis-information about the impact of a smoking ban in Al-fresco dining areas within the Parramatta LGA. It is critical that the health, economic and real business impacts and facts be laid out to councillors. This workshop will illustrate to the people of Parramatta that councillors are prepared to look at and listen to the facts on this issue.

ASH represents 11 organisations, this makes them the ideal spokesperson to present the facts and data on this matter : Ash represent:

Cancer Council Australia

Heart Foundation

Australian Medical Association

Asthma and Allergy Research Institute

Australian Council on Smoking and Health

Action on Smoking and Health Australia

Non-Smokers’ Movement of Australia

Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers’ Union

Musicians’ Union of Australia;

Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance;

Australian Council of Trade Unions;

ASH also co-ordinate 47 NGOs supporting 100% smokefree dining (NSW) as at May 2010. These 47 non-government organisations below are on record as supporting making all public dining and food service areas 100% smokefree. These NGOs include child welfare/protection, church, disability, education, employee, health/medical, indigenous, parent/carer, research and social equity bodies.

Action on Smoking and Health Australia

Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia

Association for the Wellbeing of Children in Healthcare

Association of Children's Welfare Agencies

Australian and New Zealand Society of Respiratory Science

Australian Childhood Foundation

Australian Council of Social Service

Australian Council of State School Organisations

Australian Council of Trade Unions

Australian Council on Smoking and Health

Australian Education Union

Australian Foster Care Association

Australian General Practice Network

Australian Lions Drug Awareness Foundation

Australian Lung Foundation

Australian Medical Association

Australian National Council on Drugs

Australian Parents' Council

Australian Youth Affairs Coalition

Baptist Union of NSW

Cancer Council (Australia/NSW)

Catholic Health Australia

Centre for Excellence in Indigenous Tobacco Control

Children’s Cancer Institute Australia for Medical Research

Cystic Fibrosis Australia

Early Childhood Australia

Families Australia

Heart Foundation

Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers’ Union

Lung Institute of Western Australia (formerly Asthma and Allergy Research Institute)

Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance

Murdoch Children’s Research Institute

Musicians’ Union of Australia

National Association for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect

National Asthma Council Australia

Non-Smokers’ Movement of Australia

NSW Council of Churches

Public Affairs Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia

Public Health Association of Australia

Royal Australasian College of Physicians

Royal Australian College of General Practitioners

Rural Doctors Association of Australia

Save the Children Australia

SIDS and Kids

Smarter than Smoking

Telethon Institute for Child Health Research

Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand

REFERENCE:

SmokeFree Australia workplace coalition at www.ashaust.org.au/SF’03

Protecting Children from Tobacco coalition at www.ashaust.org.au/lv4/ProtectChildrenEndorsements.htm

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

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

Previous Category	New Category
4	Rural
3	Regional Rural
2	Metropolitan
1	Metropolitan Centres
1A	Metropolitan Major
S2	Major City
S1	Principal City
S3	County Councils
S4	County Council - Water

	Councillor/Member Annual Fee	Mayor/Chairperson Annual Fee
	Minimum Maximum	Minimum Maximum
Major City	14,500 23,950	30,840 69,780

1View	Draft Asbestos Policy	10 Pages
2View	Ombudsman section 31 AC request	3 Pages
3View	Regulatory policy framework	1 Page

1View	Draft Development Enforcement Policy	17 Pages
2View	Regulatory Service Policy Framework	1 Page

1View	Draft Enforcement Policy Outdoor Dining	4 Pages
2View	Regulatory Services Policy Framework	1 Page

1View	Section 79C Assessment Report	14 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Plans	2 Pages

1View	Section 79C Report	16 Pages
2View	Plans	4 Pages
3View	Location Map	1 Page

1View	S79C Report	23 Pages
2View	Location Plan	1 Page
3View	Plans and Elevations	16 Pages
4View	Heritage Inventory Sheet	1 Page

1View	Section 79C Report	45 Pages
2View	Plans and Elevations	9 Pages
3View	Location Plan	1 Page
4	Confidential plans	2 Pages

Council (Development)	15 June 2010

Council (Development)	15 June 2010

Council (Development)	15 June 2010