Agenda of Council - 26 July 2010

Council 26 July 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO

1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Council - 28 June 2010, Council (Development) - 12 July 2010

2 APOLOGIES

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

4 Minutes of Lord Mayor

5 Public Forum

5.1 Outstanding Service Requests

6 PETITIONS

7 COUNCIL MATTERS TO BE ADOPTED WITHOUT DISCUSSION

8 Economy and Development

8.1 Report on DA Approval and Disposal of 94A Spurway Street, Ermington

8.2 Rydalmere Employment Precinct - Future Vision

8.3 Easement to Drain Water Hope Street Melrose Park

8.4 Parramatta City Centre Parking Standards

8.5 Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee

8.6 Property Development and Investment Policy

8.7 Riverside Theatres Strategic Plan 2010 - 2014

8.8 Parramatta City Centre Lanes Policy

8.9 Parking Controls for Places of Public Worship

8.10 Possible Delegations to the Council For Regionally Significant Development

9 Environment and Infrastructure

9.1 Parramatta Cycleway Advisory Committee

10 Community and Neighbourhood

10.1 2010/2011 Requests for Fee Subsidy for the use of Public Halls, Community Centres and Meeting Rooms

10.2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee meeting 22 June 2010

10.3 Access Advisory Committee Minutes 22 June 2010

11 Governance and Corporate

11.1 Composition of Business Paper

11.2 2010 Local Government Association Conference

12 Notices of Motion

12.1 Closure of Church Street, Parramatta

13 Closed Session

13.1 Property Development and Investment Strategy

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.

13.2 Tender 15/2010 Epping Lane, Epping, Shared Traffic Zone - Civil, Drainage, Paving Landscape and Streetscape Works.

14 DECISIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION

15 QUESTION TIME

Council 26 July 2010 Item 5.1

PUBLIC FORUM

ITEM NUMBER 5.1

SUBJECT Outstanding Service Requests

REFERENCE F2009/01360 - D01599408

REPORT OF Administration Officer

FROM Mr William Jenkins

My questions to Council are asked respectfully through you Lord Mayor in relation to many outstanding service requests.

These outstanding service requests relate to Approve Developments, Development Applications and a number of outstanding service requests dating back many years, which to present day remain unanswered.

It is with regret that I raise these matters in this way but I believe that it is very important that councillors be made aware of matters where council staff are failing the community with a view to improving its service to both the public and the councillors.

I respectfully seek compliance from Council staff in respect to its residents and the issues and concerns we raise

Questions

1. Firstly

Can the Chief Executive Officer Dr Lang, explain to the chamber why service request raised over many years concerning flooding and the erection of fencing structures along Coopers Creek and Lower Mount Street, Wentworthville remain unanswered to the present day? And why Council Staff have failed in this regard? And why the RTA was allowed to build a sound barrier along a known floodway? From a very concerned long standing community minded owner/ resident.

2. Secondly

Will Dr Lang have these issues and service requests investigated properly, thoroughly and diligently and agree to provide a formal written response as to why these important issues for resident owners of Lower Mount Street, Wentworthville are still outstanding and undealt with by the relevant Council staff?

3. Thirdly

There are and have been a number of development applications along Coopers Creek and Lower Mount Street at Wentworthville in which Council has failed to ensure that the applicants/ owners/ developers do not impede the flow of floodwaters onto their severely affected flood prone land and flood other people properties.

By doing so Council is failing its community and is causing by way of deflection floodwaters to trespass on adjoining and neighbouring properties thus causing a potentially real financial loss of value to neighbours and other residents properties.

My understanding is that this is a breach at common law “Trespass of Waters”.

Therefore, what measures will Council implement to have these solid fencing structures removed from properties in Bourne Street at Wentworthville, Strickland Place at Wentworthville and Lower Mount Street at Wentworthville?

4. Fourthly

In Particular what will Council do about these trespass of waters from the offending properties mentioned above and these in particular at 53, 49, 47 which have all been raised with the development services staff during periods of consideration?

I also raise concern about the recently submitted development proposal for 47 Lower Mount Street along Coopers Creek at Wentworthville and its current proposal on display.

Development Services staff have previously advised that they will not approve development on the rear of the property due to the severe flooding of the property.

The have advised however that they would entertain a duplex at the front of the site however even though there are some variances from numerical requirements.

Further have the Development Services Staff had a pre lodgement meeting with the developer to advise that this proposal in its current form is highly likely to be refused again on similar or same grounds as their proposal from June of 2009?

5. Fifthly

I would like to respectfully request that all Ward Councillors be appraised of the answers and action taken within their wards in relation to all matters raised and that other interested Councillors be advised and informed as well

6. Sixthly

What are the Council’s commitments to ensure that the new building developments on flood prone land have in place clear and concise conditions to neutralise the negative impacts that come from new development?

Lastly

I advise the Council that other residents have asked me questions concerning these matters and I have raised in this forum and would like answers about questionable approvals.

Responses to these matters from you Lord Mayor through the CEO Dr Lang and Council staff would be greatly appreciated.

I respectfully thankyou all for you time attention and assistance.

RESPONSE

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Council 26 July 2010 Item 8.1

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.1

SUBJECT Report on DA Approval and Disposal of 94A Spurway Street, Ermington

REFERENCE F2004/09457 - D01549315

REPORT OF Property Development Advisor

PURPOSE:

To provide the current status of the project and to outline the future steps in disposing of the asset together with considerations for the use of the funds.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the Council endorses the recommendation to offer the property at 94A Spurway Street together with 11 Pearce Street, Ermington for sale by Public Auction after an Expression of Interest to determine the appropriate agent to handle the sale process.

(b) That the Council also endorses the quarantining of the funds derived from the sale for use toward future developments and acquisitions which may ultimately be included within the Property Investment Portfolio.

BACKGROUND

1. At its meeting of 17 March, 1997 Council considered a Report on the property at 94A Spurway Street, Ermington and resolved that:.

(a) Council support in principle the sale of its landlocked property at 94A Spurway Street, Ermington for residential purposes.

(b) Council’s Real Estate Agent, Raine and Horne Parramatta be engaged to act on behalf of Council as a third party and to carry out the negotiations with the owners (or their representative) of 11 Pearce Street, Ermington in respect to the possible purchase and/or arrangement for the creation of an appropriate access way for Council land at 94A Spurway Street, Ermington.

(c) Council’s Environmental Services Department make the necessary arrangements to rezone and reclassify Council land at 94A Spurway Street, Ermington in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Local Government Act, 1993.

(d) A further report be submitted to Council outlining details of the preliminary negotiations between Council’s Real Estate Agent and the owners of 11 Pearce Street, Ermington and details of Council’s Real Estate Agent’s proposed marketing strategy for 94A Spurway Street, Ermington.”

2. A further report was submitted to the meeting of 7 April, 1997 and after consideration it was further resolved that:

(a) Council purchase 11 Pearce Street, Ermington for the price of $185,000 to be funded from Council’s Property Acquisition Reserve.

(b) Council give Public Notice of the proposed resolution to classify 11 Pearce Street, Ermington as Operational Land in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.

(c) Council’s solicitor be requested to attend to legal details of the matter and to settlement of this purchase as soon as practicable.

(d) Council’s managing Real Estate Agent be requested to lease the property while Council’s land at 94A Spurway Street is under the process of rezoning and reclassification.

(e) The Lord Mayor and General Manager be authorised to affix Council’s Common Seal to Transfer document and/or Deed of Agreement between Mr & Mrs Gamble and Parramatta City Council for the purchase of 11 Pearce Street, Ermington.

(f) The Lord Mayor and General Manager be authorised to instruct Council’s Real Estate Agent, Raine and Horne, Parramatta to market and sell the whole property (94A Spurway and 11 Pearce Street, Ermington) at the appropriate time following satisfactory resolutions of the zoning and classification issues.

3. The land at 11 Pearce Street was advertised in the Parramatta Advertiser on 16 April, 1997 by Public Notice notifying the local community of the proposed classification by resolution to operational land. The land was subsequently classified operational according to the Local Government Act 1993 under Sections 31 and 34.

4. The land at 94A Spurway Street, Ermington was rezoned to Residential 2B and reclassified within Parramatta LEP 2001. At the same time 11 Pearce Street and the surrounding neighbourhood were also rezoned Residential 2B, including the land owned by the Department of Housing immediately to the north of 94A Spurway Street.

5. The Draft Parramatta LEP 2010 proposes to rezone this area including 11 Pearce Street and 94A Spurway Street, Ermington to R2 which is low density residential. This will not permit townhouse or density development and the maximum development permitted once gazetted will be subdivision into residential lots and duplex development. This will result in a loss of value of up to $1.5m. As a result it was decided to proceed as a matter of urgency to submit a DA based on the current controls 2B residential which does permit townhouse style developments.

6. Wayne McPhee and Associates was then commissioned to prepare DA documentation for a townhouse development. After some time a DA was submitted amended and finally approved for a development of 26 townhouses, being 13x2 bedrooms and 13x3 bedrooms. Conditions of consent have now been received and are in the main as expected and usual conditions for such a proposal. The consent will lapse on 5 May 2013.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

ISSUES

7. The consent lapses in 3 years not the usual 5 year consent and so there must be substantial commencement within that time for the DA to continue to be operative. If not the DA will lapse and the new zoning will prescribe the permissible development which will be low scale residential.

8. In order to maximise the sale potential of the land there will need to be sufficient time for a purchaser to amend the DA if required and approve a Construction Certificate prior to the lapse of the DA. The sooner a sale process can proceed the more time that the developer will have to organise the next stage of the development process.

OPTIONS

9. Conduct an expression of interest process to appoint a Real Estate Agent to represent Council in the sale of the properties. The proposals from agents should detail agent and marketing fees, preferred method of sale, detailed marketing campaign and their previous experience with similar property sales.

10. Appoint an agent to manage the sale process which may be by way of public auction, given the fact that it will attract medium size developers, who are more familiar with Auction. Public Auction is transparent and has the potential to deliver value for money for the Council.

11. Manage an Expressions of Interest internally by advertising the property and calling for all submissions to be lodged within an 8 week period. An expression of interest is not a binding agreement but may lead to a binding agreement once the period of negotiation is complete after submissions are analysed. If the EOI is not successful or does not lead to successful negotiations the Council may need to then use an alternate approach such as a public auction or tender. Council may have the opportunity to more carefully select the prospective purchaser in an EOI process. A protracted sale process is likely to lead to a diminution of value for the property.

CONSEQUENCES

12. Appointing an agent will allow an arms length between prospective purchasers and Council in both supplying information and in the negotiation process.

13. Fees for agency and marketing may be in the vicinity of $80,000, with agency fees paid upon completion and marketing to be paid up front.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

14. Consultation has occurred with the following:

Land Use Planning and Transport

Development Services Unit

External consultants

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

15. Council will benefit from the sale funds of $2.5m to $3m to be added to the Property Development Fund and quarantined for future development or investment into the Property Investment Portfolio.

16. Maintenance of the 5000m2 property will not be required after sale and these funds can be used to maintain or improve other properties or public reserves.

Graeme Bleus

Property Development Advisor

Attachments:

1	Attachment 1	29 Pages
2	Attachment 2	1 Page
3	Attachment 3	1 Page
4	Attachment 4	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 26 July 2010 Item 8.2

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.2

SUBJECT Rydalmere Employment Precinct - Future Vision

REFERENCE F2006/01198 - D01566778

REPORT OF Acting Manager Place Strategy

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to discuss the current opportunities and constraints for the Rydalmere Employment Precinct and recommends next steps to move toward a High Tech Vision for the area.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That a comprehensive consultation program be undertaken with Rydalmere land and business owners to seek their views on the future of the precinct.

(b) That a Market Feasibility Study of the Brodie Street precinct be undertaken. This study will include property types, patterns and size and suggest potential incentives for lot consolidation

(c) That formal discussions with the University of Western Sydney are undertaken to explore the possibility of a formal partnership to establish a centre of excellence in the study of innovation and sustainability based in the precinct

(d) That properties currently held by Council in the Brodie Street precinct be held in Council’s ownership until the recommendations of these studies are endorsed by Council.

(e) Further, that on conclusion of the studies recommended in this report, a further report be prepared to outline and seek endorsement for the future vision for the Rydalmere precinct.

BACKGROUND

1. In December 2009, Council resolved in part to “undertake the necessary and required work to identify the economic future of the Rydalmere Industrial Estate to enable its transformation into a technology & knowledge centre for hi-tech, emerging technologies and knowledge based businesses leveraging off closer relationships with the University of Western Sydney”.

2. Following research and analysis by staff from City Strategy and Land Use and Transport Planning, a workshop was held on the 19^th May 2010 with interested Councillors. The workshop was well attended and interactive, using a number of plans and charts to encourage discussion about the current and future uses of the Rydalmere precinct.

3. The major challenges identified in the workshop for changing the future of the Rydalmere Precinct can be summarised as:

· Consolidation of a fragmented land ownership pattern of small lots that restricts redevelopment

· Improving restricted access and the inefficient road pattern

· Increasing employment

· Leveraging technology

· Minimising land use conflicts

· Physical isolation and flooding caused by Subiaco and Vineyard Creeks

4. It was clear in discussion during the workshop that these issues would not be addressed and a changed future for Rydalmere achieved, by relying solely on zoning controls. To progress the issue, it was agreed that Council staff would undertake some targeted research into market incentives, landowner/local business ideas on the future, and relevant international and local innovation models. The interim objectives of these studies are to establish a compelling future vision for the area and identify potential actions to achieve this over time. These outcomes will be reported to Council for consideration prior to Council committing further (potentially significant) resources to a precinct master planning process.

5. More detailed summaries of the issues discussed at the workshop follow.

CURRENT ECONOMIC DATA

Key Findings

6. The following industries have the largest number of employees per business:

o Health and community services (average 40 employees per business)

o Manufacturing ( average of 16 employees per business)

o Transport & Storage (average 14 employees per business)

7. Elementary Clerical, Sales and Service Workers saw the largest growth in employment, with the largest growth in Elementary Service Workers.

8. Growth in the number of professionals was primarily in the educational professionals sector.

9. The growth in the university precinct has had a direct impact on the strong growth in employment in education professionals and Health Care and Social Assistance industry.

10. The dominant industries the industrial precinct east of James Ruse Drive is in Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade and Construction. 70% of workers in Rydalmere come from the surrounding LGA’s

11. It is important to note that the decline in manufacturing sector employment in the study area was less than the decline experienced in both Parramatta and Sydney regions. It is also significant that the study area showed a growth in the Property and Business Services sector compared to the decline witnessed in both Parramatta and Sydney.

12. In summary, Rydalmere reflects the nation trend of a decline in manufacturing but with a contrasting growth in businesses services and education. It is also important to note the varied business/employment sectors currently in the precinct (Attachment 1).

PLANNING CONTROLS

13. The precinct in Rydalmere east of UWS, south of Victoria Road, west of Subiaco Creek and north of Rheem, is currently zoned under the SREP as ‘Business and Transport Centre’ and ‘Trade and Industry Support’. These zones are intended to provide for businesses that support the commercial and industrial activities of Parramatta’s Primary Centre and to provide opportunities for small scale business and industrial enterprise development. See Attachments 2 & 3 for current and draft zoning.

14. The area is characterised by many small scale businesses, occupying small allotments of land (<550m2). Brodie Street precinct has fragmented ownership (Attachment 4). It is interesting to note that a number of properties close to the Railway Station and Victoria Road have been zoned to allow mixed use development (including residential) since 2000.

15. As part of the review of the Parramatta Local Environment Plan and Development Control Plan in 2010, Council submitted proposed changes to the Rydalmere precinct to the NSW Department of Planning (NSW DoP). This proposal included proposed mixed residential and commercial zoning known as B4 in the area immediately adjacent to the eastern side of Railway Station. The NSW DoP did not agree to Mixed Use Development ‘at this stage’, and asked Council to provide additional supporting information to enable the assessment of loss of employment land, the impact and siting of residential development, potential land use conflicts and contamination issues.

OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

16. Council owns a number of sites within the Rydalmere Industrial Precinct (Attachment 5). The most significant of these is the depot site in Mary Street and a number of smaller allotments in Brodie Street abutting Vineyard Creek. The Mary Street site is adjacent to both the Rheem site and the smaller Brodie St precinct. Both of these locations (particularly the Mary St site) need to be carefully considered in context with this study, and this is why it is recommended that Council retain ownership until the next stage of this project is complete.

17. A large vacant site on the northern side of Victoria Road owned by Australia Post is vacant and is available for development. It is not part of the precinct in close proximity to the station, but could be a valuable site for attracting new investment and new industry. It could also be considered as an alternate site for some of Councils own property needs. This could include services currently offered at the Morton Street site.

18. The precinct has excellent Public Transport, including the Victoria Road Strategic Corridor, Rail Service and the Sydney Ferries commuter service. Though the Parramatta to Epping rail link has been delayed indefinitely, its future significance must be considered. This would give Rydalmere a fast and frequent commuter rail service linking it directly to the Sydney, Chatswood, North Sydney and Parramatta CBDs.

19. The precinct is immediately adjacent to the Parramatta Campus of the University of Western Sydney. This campus includes Business, Planning and IT faculties. Informal discussions have revealed a desire of the University to become a ‘Centre of 15.Excellence’, although no decision has been as to which campus this would be accommodated.

20. Rydalmere is adjacent to the significant and contaminated Camellia precinct. There are currently a number of innovative and sustainable initiatives underway in this large and significant precinct that could be excellent opportunities for green entrepreneurs based in Rydalmere. This along with Rydalmere’s close proximity to Parramatta CBD will also encourage other allied or support services to be based in Rydalmere.

21. Rheem is a major land holder in the Brodie Street precinct and a major manufacturer of solar hot water heaters in Australia. This site is immediately adjacent to Council’s site in Mary Street and depending on future plans by Rheem could provide leverage for further expansion of sustainable industry in solar and associated industry. Alternately, any future redevelopment of this large site would be a significant opportunity for reshaping the future of the precinct.

FUTURE OPTIONS

22. Though there are a number of significant constraints to redevelopment, there a number of opportunities for the future redevelopment of the Rydalmere precinct.

23. At an industry level, manufacturing is still a key sector within this localised economy and must not be discounted as a basis for future growth. On the other hand, industry trends at a broader level have indicated that current growth areas include mobile communications carriers, internet service providers, and ‘clean-green’ technologies. All of these bear some relation to strategies currently underway in PCC.

24. Key issues that need to be explored in relation to future development paths include discussions with businesses in the precinct, consultation with UWS, and a survey of land sizes, plots and ownership patterns.

25. On the basis of these findings, a feasibility study will need to be conducted to look at the preferable option/s vis a vis land consolidation / development.

26. At the conclusion of these studies, a proposed long term Vision for the precinct will be proposed to the Council for consideration.

27. Following this review, the next recommended step is to develop a Masterplan that encourages the consolidation of land parcels and reviews road patterns. This would form the basis for a long term action plan for the precinct to move Rydalmere from its current state to the new Vision for the area.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

28. A number of informal discussions have been undertaken in preparing this information. A number of meetings and discussions have been had with staff from the University of Western Sydney, local property agents and appropriate staff.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

29. A Market Feasibility Study for the Precinct will cost in the order of $20,000 and funding will be sourced from the funds allocated in the 2010/11 budget for the Rydalmere Precinct redevelopment.

Neile Robinson

Acting Manager Place Strategy

Attachments:

1	Industrial Analysis	13 Pages
2	Rydalmere Zoning	1 Page
3	Rydalmere Draft Zoning	1 Page
4	Rydalmere Industry Sector & Parcel Size	1 Page
5	Rydalmere Council Lands	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 26 July 2010 Item 8.3

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.3

SUBJECT Easement to Drain Water Hope Street Melrose Park

REFERENCE DA/113/2010 - D01574832

REPORT OF Property Program Manager

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council agree to a request from the developer of the subject site to delete part of an existing easement affecting the site and the creation of a new one to cater for the drainage requirements of a new development.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council approve of the deletion of part of the easement created by DP638474 and the creation of a substitute easement 3 wide as depicted at Attachment 2.

(b) Further, that the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to complete all necessary documents including the linen plan, S88B instrument release of easement and transfer granting easement together with any other necessary supporting documentation under the seal of Council.

BACKGROUND

1. A deferred commencement development consent has been issued in respect of lot 102 DP 1009961 being 6 Hope Street, Melrose Park. A location plan of the site can be seen at Attachment 1.

2. One of the consent conditions is that approval be gained from Council to extinguish a section of the existing Council drainage easement through the site and to allow its diversion, as it is shown on stormwater plan N10736-H01 Revision 02 dated Feb 10 by ITC Group P/L.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. A number of easements in Council`s favour are located on the subject lot. The subject development consent is for the demolition of an existing warehouse, construction of a new warehouse, production area and ancillary office, associated car parking, stormwater and landscaping. As the new building would be constructed over part of the existing stormwater pipeline the affected part of the pipeline needs to be relocated so that the drainage is taken around the perimeter of the new building. This would require that part of the easement that contains the existing pipeline to be varied, modified or released and replaced so that the replacement pipeline could be laid.

4. A plan showing the current and proposed easements, including the part of the easement to be deleted, and a plan of the proposed development can be seen at Attachments 2, 3 and 4 respectively. An administration fee and will apply and legal costs will met by the applicant.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

5. The Development Unit has been and Council`s solicitor will be consulted in this matter.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

6. Apart from the administrative fee there will be little impact on Council`s finances.

Paul Burne

Property Program Manager

Attachments:

1	Attachment 1	1 Page
2	Attachment 2	1 Page
3	Attachment 3	1 Page
4	Attachment 4	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 26 July 2010 Item 8.4

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.4

SUBJECT Parramatta City Centre Parking Standards

REFERENCE F2009/01706 - D01585140

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer

PURPOSE:

This matter was deferred from the Council Meeting on 28 June 2010.

This report seeks confirmation of Council’s current policy of applying car parking standards for development in the city centre as maximum rates and to reflect this policy in an amendment to the City Centre Local Environmental Plan (LEP).

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council reinforce its policy position, adopted 17 December 2007, of specifying that the number of car spaces required per m2 of FSR (parking rates standards) is the maximum allowable to remove uncertainty in the interpretation of the City Centre Local Environmental Plan.

(b) That a Planning Proposal be prepared to re-initiate an amendment to the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007, proposing the parking rates as maximums and this be forwarded to the Department of Planning for “Gateway Determination” under Section 56 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act.

BACKGROUND

1. In June 2009, Council resolved to prepare a draft amendment to the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007, (CCLEP) relating to a number of ‘housekeeping’ matters. This included a proposed amendment to the table in Clause 22C, which sets car parking rates, but does not specify the rates as either a maximum or minimum. The amendment proposed that the rates be specified as maximum rates.

2. Prior to the CCLEP, the REP set parking rates for the city centre as maximum rates. Council adopted a policy position at its meeting on 17 December 2007, to apply the CCLEP parking rates as maximums, given the lack of clarity in the LEP.

3. During the public exhibition of the ‘housekeeping’ amendment to the CCLEP, Council received one submission from the Urban Task Force. The Urban Task Force is an organisation representing prominent property developers and equity financiers. The urban taskforce submission is Attachment 1 to this report.

4. In considering this submission and finalising the ‘housekeeping’ amendment to the CCLEP, Council, at its meeting on 9 November 2009, resolved to support the submission from the Urban Taskforce and not to proceed with the amendment to the CCLEP to apply maximum car parking rates. Council also called for a report identifying issues as raised by the Urban Taskforce. Comments in response to the Urban Task Force submission are provided in Attachment 2 to this report.

5. A Councillor workshop was held on 29 March 2010 to discuss the issues associated with maximum parking rates in the city centre.

ISSUES

Parking rates are an integral part of a Council’s strategic transport & policy framework:

6. A core component of Council’s strategic transport planning is the reduction of reliance on the car for travel and greater use of sustainable transport (walking, cycling, public transport). Limiting parking supply is widely acknowledged as a significant component of a travel demand strategy. More car parking spaces mean more traffic generation and more congestion. More congestion in the CBD erodes pedestrian enjoyment and general amenity of the CBD and undermines economic growth.

7. A maximum rate of parking is used in most major centres where congestion is an issue, including many European cities, Melbourne, Sydney city, Chatswood, North Sydney and other employment centres like Macquarie Business Park at North Ryde. Not unreasonably limiting parking to reduce impacts of cars reduces congestion and enlivens city centres. This policy is not against providing car parking, but balancing the number of spaces, recognising that an amount is needed to service the needs of development and that Parramatta city centre is well served by public transport, both rail and bus.

Standards for car parking permit relatively generous numbers of car spaces:

8. The standards for car parking rates governing the actual number of car spaces required to be provided on site for different types of land uses in the Parramatta city centre, allow developments to provide a relatively generous amount of parking. Other CBD centres have more restrictive parking controls, in places like Sydney city, North Sydney, Chatswood & Melbourne. Applying Parramatta’s more generous parking rates as maximums allows developers to provide a reduced number of parking spaces where appropriate. For example, many shops and restaurants outside of Parramatta Westfields, operate successfully with minimal or no on site parking. Maximum parking rates do not reduce the viability of development, they allow a more flexible approach to provide up to the maximum amount, or reduce parking amounts where appropriate.

9. Rates for residential development in the Parramatta city centre require one car space per dwelling or apartment for residents. This recognises that car ownership for most CBD residents is a current reality. However, living in a centre with good access to public transport offers more opportunities for reducing car trips and the possibility of fewer cars per household over time. A car sharing service is provided in the city centre which supplements residents with limited or no access to a car for personal travel.

Will maximum parking rates reduce the attraction of the city centre to developers?

10. The Parramatta CBD has good access to public transport and public parking, including metered on road parking that encourages high turnover of patrons and is supplemented by large parking stations in the CBD. The current levels of traffic congestion in parts of the city centre are directly related to the parking provision as clearly demonstrated by the level of traffic congestion in streets around nodes with high levels of car parking like Parramatta Westfields. Allowing excessive parking provision in any location where traffic capacity is limited, leads to congestion and will in turn undermine future development opportunities and the marketability of the city.

11. An abundance of parking in the short term, whilst there is some capacity in the road network, can be accommodated, however, once this capacity is absorbed, new development becomes less attractive as prospective investors consider the congestion of the city amongst the various other factors that Parramatta competes with in other employment areas. In contrast, a city environment becomes more enlivened without as much traffic congestion, becomes more pedestrian friendly and more attractive as a place to work, visit or live in and more attractive to development.

Achieving targets and vision for the Parramatta City Centre:

12. The 2010 NSW State Plan includes a 50% mode split target by 2016 for work trips to and from the Parramatta CBD by public transport. This is an ambitious target, but one worth pursuing if Parramatta is to truly fill the role of regional centre for Western Sydney. Unconstrained levels of parking, without a maximum parking rate, will not advance Council’s efforts to lobby State or Federal Government for improvements to public transport infrastructure, which are essential to impact on this target.

13. Council is hosting a Transport Forum in July to focus attention on transport infrastructure requirements for western Sydney and in particular Parramatta’s strategic role as the regional CBD, given the lack of focus on this in the recent Metropolitan Transport Plan.

CONCLUSION

14. It is recommended that Council reaffirm its current policy of applying the car parking rates in the CCLEP as maximum rates and prepare a draft amendment to the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 to specify the parking rates as maximums to avoid the current ambiguity in the plan.

15. This will require the preparation of a draft amendment to the CCLEP as a Planning Proposal for submission to the Department of Planning for “Gateway” determination. Council will be able to seek a ‘credit’ for the steps already undertaken with the earlier planning proposal, including the public exhibition process that has already been undertaken.

Sue Stewart

Senior Project Officer Land Use Planning

Attachments:

1	Urban Taskforce Submissions	4 Pages
2	Comments in response to Urban Taskforce Submissions	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 26 July 2010 Item 8.5

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.5

SUBJECT Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee

REFERENCE F2005/01945 - D01593728

REPORT OF Project Officer

PURPOSE:

To inform Council of the key discussion points of the meeting of the Heritage Advisory Committee on 16 June 2010 and to consider an application for membership to the Committee.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting of 16 June 2010 be received and noted.

(b) Further, that Council accept the application of Maureen McManus, as representative of the Granville Historical Society Incorporated, for membership of the Heritage Advisory Committee.

BACKGROUND

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

2. Council’s Heritage Advisory Committee met on 16 June 2010. This report provides a summary of the key discussion points of that meeting for Council’s information and consideration and considers an application for membership to the Committee.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

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

a) The Committee (item 37/10) considered a number of items of State significance in Council’s environmental planning instruments, but not on the State Heritage Register, and concluded that the following should be added to the Register: 42 Bettington Road (Oatlands House), Oatlands, 6A Hawkesbury Road (‘St Vincents’), Westmead, 15 – 17 Honor Street, Ermington and 96 Pennant Hills Road (War Memorial Home). The comments of the Committee will be considered further as part of Council’s comprehensive heritage review.

b) An explanation was provided (item 38/10) on ‘Digimacq’ a new downloadable iTunes application that will take users on a multi media historical tour through Parramatta. The Committee congratulated Ms Desailly and all involved in the project, including Council.

c) The Committee was advised (item 38/10) on a number of stories and themes that represented Parramatta and the complexity of its history which will be considered at the next meeting of the Committee.

d) The Committee recommended (item 40/10) that a partial grant of $500 be made for 59 Harris Street, Harris Park but that no grant be made for 22 Talbot Rd, Guildford as an aluminium fence erected was not in style with the house and could not be seen as contributing to its heritage value.

4. An application has been received from Maureen McManus, as the representative of the Granville Historical Society Incorporated, for membership of the Heritage Advisory Committee. The application has been assessed by a panel of three Council officers which recommends that the application should be accepted as it meets the criteria for membership to the Committee.

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

Paul Kennedy Neal McCarry

Project Officer Acting Senior Project Officer

Land Use Planning Land Use Planning

Attachments:

Heritage Advisory Committee Minutes for 16 June 2010

9 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 26 July 2010 Item 8.6

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.6

SUBJECT Property Development and Investment Policy

REFERENCE F2004/07158 - D01594312

REPORT OF Development Director Civic Place

PURPOSE:

To seek Council’s adoption of the Property Development and Investment Policy 2010.

At the Council Meeting on 28 June 2010, Council considered a report that recommended the adoption of the Property Development and Investment Policy, and, that Council receive and note a Property Development and Investment Strategy.

The Strategy document contained a list of Surplus Properties and / or Development Opportunity Sites. This list evoked discussion about individual properties and it was decided to defer the Item for 4 weeks. The Strategy has since been amended and is listed for consideration in the Closed Session.

It was decided that the Property Development and Investment Policy be reported in open session as it will be a public document.

The Policy remains unchanged and is presented to Council for adoption (Attachment 1).

RECOMMENDATION

That the Property Development and Investment Policy 2010 be adopted.

BACKGROUND

1. On 9 November 2009 the following Mayoral Minute was recorded:

That a Property Development and Investment Strategy be prepared for Council, which reviews Council’s existing property portfolio, identifies strategic sites, evaluates the redevelopment opportunities and makes recommendations which contribute towards maximising Council’s long term financial sustainability.

2. The CEO and Development Director Civic Place briefed the Lord Mayor and Councillors on a first draft of the property development policy and associated documents in April and May 2010. Councillor feedback was incorporated into the Policy.

3. A Property Development and Investment Strategy and Policy report was considered and deferred at the Council Meeting on 28 June 2010 for 4 weeks.

4. The Property Development and Investment Policy remains unchanged and is presented to Council for adoption (Attachment 1).

DISCUSSION

5. The attached Property Development and Investment Policy 2010 provides the Policy framework to guide the Property Development and Investment activities. This will become a public document.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

6. The proposed Policy positions Council to be able to realise financial benefits from a selection of its surplus property assets. Each property development opportunity will be fully analysed and presented to Council as a separate business case prior to any project proceeding.

Scott Gregg

Development Director - Civic Place

Attachments:

Property Development and Investment Policy 2010

4 Pages

Council 26 July 2010 Item 8.7

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.7

SUBJECT Riverside Theatres Strategic Plan 2010 - 2014

REFERENCE F2010/01787 - D01594457

REPORT OF Director Riverside Theatre

PURPOSE:

The Riverside Advisory Board makes recommendations to Council in setting the strategic direction for the successful operation of Riverside Theatres. This report seeks Council endorsement of Riverside Theatres Strategic Plan 2010 – 2014.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Riverside Theatres Strategic Plan 2010 -2014 be received and noted.

(b) That Council endorse the Riverside Theatres Strategic Plan 2010 -2014.

BACKGROUND

1. In 2001, Council resolved to appoint an Advisory Board to Riverside Theatres and the fourth Board was appointed last year. Current Board Members include Councilors Lloyd, McDermott and Wilson as well as a number of community representatives who meet regularly to review the Theatres performance and provide advice on strategic directions.

2. In 2008 Riverside Theatres engaged a consultant to undertake a Review that examined past and current operations and addressed the possible future directions of Riverside Theatres.

3. In November 2008 the Board adopted a number of recommendations based on the findings of the Review that would form the basis of the Theatres moving forward in 2009. These recommendations formed the foundation for the development of a more comprehensive strategic plan for the future.

4. In early 2010 a Riverside Theatres Strategic Plan 2010-14 was developed by a sub-committee of the Board. At its meeting of 13^th May, 2010 the Board recommended that the draft Riverside Theatres Strategic Plan 2010-14 be presented to Council for its endorsement.

5. It is envisaged that the Riverside Theatres Strategic Plan 2010-14 will guide the planning and future development of Riverside over the five years 2010 - 2014.

OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN

6. The Plan consists of a Vision, a Mission and five Strategic Objectives.

7. Riverside Theatres Vision

Riverside Theatres will continue to lead an economic and cultural contribution within Western Sydney, as a presenter of high quality performing arts, entertainment, community and culturally specific programs which engage audiences, visitors and local talent.

8. Riverside Theatres Mission

The Riverside Theatres mission is to aspire beyond its suburban origins and as a regional centre engage with performing artists, promoters and organisations on a local state-wide, national and international basis through workable partnerships which afford maximum benefit to its stakeholders. It will develop new projects and capitalise on proven existing productions and artists that will result in impressive, high quality programs which run parallel with the desire to tell local stories which emerge from the cultural diversity of Western Sydney.

9. Objective One

Riverside Theatres will gradually expand its funding sources over five years in order to minimise its financial dependence on Parramatta City Council and reduce Council’s exposure to risk through the production of new works.

10. Objective Two

Establishment of a suitably resourced resident production company based at Riverside Theatres which creates and produces local and relevant stories and provides employment and artistic opportunities for artists working and living in Western Sydney.

11. Objective Three

To become Sydney’s premium presenter of artistic and cultural programs to the education sector while offering them the chance to experience every aspect of performing arts through an extensive program linked to the curriculum.

12. Objective Four

Increased revenue and audience growth achieved through focussed and strategic marketing which supports the long term future of Riverside Theatres.

13. Objective Five

Development of a five year infrastructure plan which is fully costed and covers technical and building upgrades and asset renewal necessary to deliver high quality programs to all users of the theatres.

14. Objective Six

Development of a master plan with drawings, models and indicative costs which enable long term infrastructure planning for the theatres over 20 years

DISCUSSION

15. The draft Riverside Theatres Strategic Plan 2010-2014 does not substantially shift the recent focus at the Theatres but rather provides a more targeted focus for future development.

16. With Council’s endorsement, the Board and staff will develop strategies and specific projects focused on achieving the objectives outlined in the Plan. Plans will be prepared, for example, for both short and long term infrastructure development. New marketing activities will also be initiated seeking audience growth and increased financial support from other levels of government. Riversides Theatre’s performance measures will also be reviewed to align with the Plan.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

17. There are no immediate financial implications for Council.

Robert Love

Director, Riverside Theatres

Attachments:

Riverside Theatre Strategic Plan 2010-2014

6 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 26 July 2010 Item 8.8

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.8

SUBJECT Parramatta City Centre Lanes Policy

REFERENCE F2009/00340 - D01596121

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer- Urban Design

PURPOSE:

To recommend the adoption of the Daft Parramatta City Centre Lanes Policy for exhibition

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council adopts the Draft Parramatta City Centre Lanes Policy 2010, for public exhibition, of not less than 28 days.

(b) Further, that another report be presented to Council at the end of the exhibition period.

BACKGROUND

1. There are currently 57 lanes in the city centre including arcades and through site links. The lanes benefit the city centre by enhancing access, servicing and loading especially through large city blocks.

2. The existing lanes network has been photographed and mapped and described in the Parramatta City Centre Lanes Inventory 2009 Attachment 3. Heritage aspects of the lanes were recorded and gaps and opportunities for improvements to the existing system identified.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

3. Due to the ad hoc development of the lanes network, there are instances where continuous access through a city block between streets is comprised of several short lanes and arcades under different title joining together. Improving these lanes will require coordination of public and private projects over an extended period and a comprehensive plan.

4.. The Parramatta City Centre DCP 2007 requires new pedestrian links to be made as lots redevelop but does not expressly require vehicular servicing links. In many locations service access from lanes supports business. It also allows vehicle crossovers to be relocated from main city streets, improving the appearance and amenity of the main streets. Additionally low speed vehicle access in appropriate lanes increases passive surveillance at night, supporting a safe and well activated city.

5. A Framework Plan for a retained, expanded and more direct network has been prepared in the Parramatta City Centre Lanes Strategy, Attachment 2. Additionally six actions for improving the network have been identified including naming lanes that are currently unnamed (over half the network); providing better street address to lanes and improving the streetscape and lighting in lanes as funds become available.

6. A Draft Parramatta City Centre Lanes Policy 2010 has been prepared Attachment 1.

7. The objective of the Lanes Policy is to ensure that lanes in the city centre are retained and enhanced over the next period of the city’s growth to provide a coordinated network for pedestrians and vehicles that is safe, well activated, good looking and pleasant to use.

8. The Lanes Policy acknowledges the benefits of lanes and broadly supports the Parramatta City Centre Lanes Strategy, including the Lanes Framework Plan and the six actions.

9. The preparation of Parramatta City Centre Lanes Strategy Attachment 2 involved consultation with the following Council units; Capital Projects, Civil Infrastructure, Development Services, Land Use and Transport Planning, City Strategy and Strategic Asset Management.

COUNCIL POLICIES

10. The Lanes Policy will assist Parramatta Council to implement Parra 2025. It supports Destination 4 and Destination 6; for Neighbourhoods that are liveable and distinctive and for people and places that are linked by sustainable transport and communication networks respectively.

11. The Policy builds on 3 years of studies and plans undertaken by Council and the Department of Planning including; the Parramatta City Centre DCP 2007; the Parramatta City Centre Lanes Inventory 2009, the Parramatta City Centre Lanes Strategy and the Small Spaces and Laneways Project 2008.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUESNCE

12. The Lanes Policy acknowledges and supports the benefits that lanes provide to both vehicle and pedestrian access which supports a vital and active city centre.

13. The Lanes Policy supports the retention of a well functioning lanes network that will increase the extent of retail frontage at street level supporting a commercial viable city centre for Parramatta.

14. The Lanes Policy supports the Lanes Strategy which identifies dead-end lanes which don’t benefit the network and which could be disposed of over time as new development occurs.

15. Improvements to lanes, especially pedestrian lanes will create opportunities for street vending carts and outdoor seating in certain locations improving the ambience of Parramatta City Centre.

16. The mechanisms for funding lanes improvement projects are outlined in the Lanes Strategy and include Section 94 funds and funding by developers as redevelopment occurs.

Kati Westlake

Senior Project Officer –Urban Design

Attachments:

1	Draft Parramatta City Council Lanes Policy	10 Pages
2	Parramatta City Centre Lanes Strategy	84 Pages
3	Parramatta City Centre Lanes Inventory	170 Pages

Attachments 2 & 3 will be circulated under separate cover to Councillors and Senior Staff. If you would like a copy of these attachments please contact Council Support on 98065314.

Council 26 July 2010 Item 8.9

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.9

SUBJECT Parking Controls for Places of Public Worship

REFERENCE F2009/02709 - D01596393

REPORT OF Project Officer - Land Use and Transport Planning

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to respond to a Council resolution requiring that a report be prepared reviewing the car parking requirements for places of public worship and that a rate of 1 space per 5 seats or 1 space per 5m² of usable floor space be applied.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the Places of Public Worship Development Control Plan be amended as identified in attachment 1 (P2 as underlined).

(b) Further, that individual places of public worship previously consulted be notified of this proposed amendment and invited to comment.

BACKGROUND

1. At its meeting on 24 May 2010, Council adopted a new DCP for Places of Public Worship (PPW). The DCP came into force on 30 June 2010. In considering the draft DCP, Council also resolved that staff:

“produce another report reviewing the car parking requirements of 1 on site car parking space for every 3 people projected to be attending the place of public worship.”

ISSUES

2. Parking is a significant issue when Council assesses applications for PPWs. This is especially so when this land use is proposed in residential areas where parking may be at a premium and services, ceremonies and festivals result in spill over parking into residential streets. This is particularly disruptive to local amenity if it occurs on a frequent basis.

PARRAMATTA’S RESPONSE IN THE NEW PPW DCP

3. The newly adopted DCP controls require that a traffic survey be conducted for significant development to better gauge the parking requirements of the development. This will ensure that new PPWs are surveyed and the quantum and design of parking is provided that reflects the circumstances of the proposed development and its context.

4. The parking requirements for PPW’s will vary depending on the individual nature of the proposal as well as its context and location. For these reasons, it was considered that a numerical requirement alone may not be the best fit for this type of land use. Council’s adopted response is included at attachment 1 (excluding the underlined addition).

5. It is important to note that previous issues with limited parking on site for PPW proposals sometimes related to the Parramatta REP’s maximum parking approach. This approach meant that reduced parking numbers were encouraged. Whilst this is supported for the city centre, the peripheral areas like Harris Park, Rosehill and North Parramatta are less appropriate contexts for applying maximum parking rates. This problem will be eliminated with the introduction of the draft Parramatta LEP & DCP outside of the city centre, which has minimum parking rates.

OTHER COUNCIL PARKING REQUIREMENTS

6. Attachment 2 provides a list of other Council parking controls relating to PPW’s. The list clearly shows that there is a variety of responses to parking. Some Councils have adopted a similar approach to Parramatta’s. Others have a numerical approach that varies between 1 parking space per 5 seats and 1 parking space per 10 seats. Bankstown City Council requires a minimum parking rate per floor space of development. Some identify a combination of both seating capacity or floor space.

7. From this simple assessment, it is clear that requiring 1 parking space per 3 seats would be a very high parking requirement for PPWs.

8. A numerical requirement is considered a crude response for this type of land use and would not account for specific differences between individual proposals nor their contexts. For example, a PPW in a low density residential area with poor access to public transport may require ample parking. On the other hand, a PPW in an industrial context where there is plentiful on street parking during service times, may not require the extent of parking and it may be wasteful and expensive to require a high number of parking spaces.

OPTIONS

9. Council may consider a guiding numerical rate as per the Ku-ring-gai Council approach. That Council uses the numerical standard as a guide, but is to be backed by a parking/traffic study to verify that the rate of parking is appropriate. It may be that the numerical standard is too high or too low. The study would illuminate this and provide more clarity as to the operations and activities of the congregation and its parking demand and impact.

10. If Council wished to adopt a cautious approach, it may choose a requirement of 1 parking space per 5 seats or 5m² of usable area, but as a guide only and to be supplemented by a parking/traffic study to identify the individual merits of that proposal and its context. The attached survey of other local government areas, suggests that this is a conservative standard that would result in ample parking being provided on site. So for example, a proposal for a 250m² PPW would require 50 spaces (assuming 250m² of usable area). Clause 4.4 of the PPW DCP would still be retained to provide the objectives of parking and traffic management, and the standard as described above could be included.

11. Council may consider adopting an approach similar to that of Canterbury City Council which requires 1 space per 5 people for the first 100m² of floor area then 1 space per 3 people or 3m²thereafter.

12. Council may consider adopting a greater requirement of 1 parking space per 3 seats or 3m² of usable area.

CONSULTATION

13. The draft amendment described in this report would be required to be publicly exhibited for 28 days and public comment sought.

14. Through the processing of the PPW DCP, Council has established an expectation that there will be consultation with individual PPWs in the Parramatta local government area.

Sue Stewart

Senior Project Officer

Land use Planning

Attachments:

1	Extract from DCP Places of Public Worship adopted on 24 May 2010	1 Page
2	Comparison with parking rates in other LGAs	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 26 July 2010 Item 8.10

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.10

SUBJECT Possible Delegations to the Council For Regionally Significant Development

REFERENCE F2005/01801 - D01599304

REPORT OF Group Manager Outcomes and Development

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to consider a proposal from the Minister for Planning, the Hon Tony Kelly, regarding possible delegation of authority to Council to determine development applications which otherwise would need to be determined by the Joint Regional Planning Panel. The Minister proposes that this delegation would be to senior Council officers only.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That, Council advise the Minister for Planning that it accepts the delegations to senior Council officers, in relation to straight forward applications, designated development, and the development within the City Centre LEP, provided such decisions and delegations are consistent with the existing delegations to the CEO;

(b) Further, that Council advise the Minister for Planning that it does not accept the delegations for modification of applications as Council’s delegation to staff does not extend to Section 96 applications where the determination has been made by another consent authority including the Joint Regional Planning Panel.

BACKGROUND

1. The Joint Regional Planning Panels were established in July 2009 and the Minister for Planning has announced a review of the processes associated with the Panels. Attached is a copy of the Minister’s letter to the Lord Mayor.

2. Part of this review is to consider opportunities to improve determination times of certain types of applications which would otherwise require the determination of the Panel.

3. In particular, State Government has identified the following types of applications that it would like to see delegated to Councils:

· Modification of Applications

Amendments are currently being prepared to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Developments) to return to Councils the consent authority role for Section 96(1A) modifications where the relevant development consent has been determined originally by the Panel.

4. It is also proposed to allow the Regional Panel Chairs to delegate certain regional panel applications to Council if Council agrees that these applications will be determined by senior staff and not by the full Council or a committee of Council.

5. These applications are:

· Straight Forward Applications which are described as regionally significant applications where no objections have been received and the assessment report recommends approval.

· Designated development where the development has a Capital Investment Value of $5 million or less, delegation would apply regardless of whether objections have been received provided the assessment report recommends approval.

· Areas or precinct which would allow Council to determine regionally significant applications located in particular areas and precincts regardless of whether objections have been received, provided the proposed development is strictly in accordance with identified key planning controls. The City Centre LEP area would be an obvious example of an area in Parramatta.

6. The Minister has made it clear that the delegation to Council is only on the basis that the determination to be made by senior Council officers under delegation and he is proposing that it operates for a 12 month trial period.

7. The Minister is seeking written commitment from Council to confirm the delegations to an appropriate level of officer and information on applicable precincts and areas.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

8. Council has recently resolved new delegations to the CEO for development applications. This did not include Section 96 applications where the original application was approved by the full Council or by another consent authority (eg Court or the Panel). Council was very clear that these types of applications, if they are modified, are to be determined by the full Council.

9. Some of the application types as suggested by the Minister in the delegations to Council are applications that would fit within the delegations recently adopted by the Council to the CEO. Therefore it would appear to be no particular reason not to accept the delegations to Council officers. In these circumstances, if the CEO determined that it would be inappropriate to use his delegations, then the matter could still be referred to the Joint Regional Planning Panel. The Panel Chair can also advise the Council if a delegation would not apply to a particular application.

10. Council could advise the Minister that it does not accept the delegations for all or some of the applications.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

11. The Minister sought Council’s comments on this proposal within 21 days on the letter sent to the Council. Council did not receive the letter until 14 July 2010.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

12. There are no financial implications for Council, if Council was to adopt the recommendations in this report.

Sue Weatherley

Group Manager Outcomes and Development

Attachments:

Minister's letter to Lord Mayor

3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 26 July 2010 Item 9.1

ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ITEM NUMBER 9.1

SUBJECT Parramatta Cycleway Advisory Committee

REFERENCE F2004/07952 - D01594149

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer - Transport Planning

PURPOSE:

To inform Council of the Minutes of the last Parramatta Cycleway Advisory Committee meeting held on the 8 June 2010.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes the minutes of the Parramatta Cycleway Advisory Committee of 8 June 2010.

BACKGROUND

1. Parramatta City Council’s Cycleway Committee meets every second month. The Committee currently comprises thirteen members representing various cycling interests.

2. The Committee met on the 8 June 2010. See Attachment 1 for a copy of the minutes.

MAIN DISCUSSION POINTS

3 The Committee Members were given a briefing on the status of the cycle projects being delivered under the 2009/10 capital works program. This includes the 4 federally funded projects.

4. The Federal funding secure bicycle parking project in Erby and Horwood Place car parks was discussed. Parramatta City Council will be launching the Parramatta city centre Secure Bike Parking on Thursday 15 July 2010.

5. Each site has a secure bicycle storage area, lockers for personal items and change rooms which include showers. Access is controlled by member swipe card and the storage areas are monitored by 24 hr CCTV. Over 40 bike parking spaces will be available for both commuters to the Parramatta city centre and residents who wish to travel to Parramatta by bicycle. A membership fee of $20 per month will be charged.

6. PCC is the first NSW Council to retro fit secure bicycle parking with end of trip facilities in a multi level public car park.

7. The Minister of Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Hon Mark Arbib MP has been invited to the event, and key organisations such as Roads and Traffic Authority, Department of Environment Climate Change and Water, Bicycle NSW and community members, have also been invited to attend.

David Gray

Manager , Transport Planning

Land Use & Transport Planning

Attachments:

Parramatta Cycleway Advisory Commiittee Minutes 8 June 2010

6 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 26 July 2010 Item 10.1

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 10.1

SUBJECT 2010/2011 Requests for Fee Subsidy for the use of Public Halls, Community Centres and Meeting Rooms

REFERENCE F2004/07903 - D01585154

REPORT OF Manager City Culture, Tourism and Recreation

PURPOSE:

This report was deferred from the Council Meeting on 28 June 2010.

The report details the process and recommendations for 2010/2011 Fee Subsidies for the use of Public Halls, Community Centres and Meeting Rooms by annual hirers.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the report on requests for fee subsidies for the use of Councils public halls, community centres and meeting rooms by annual hirers for 2010/2011 be received and noted.

(b) That Council approve the annual fee subsidies to be granted as recommended in the 2010/2011 Fee Subsidy Assessment Sheet.

(c) That the applicants, who have been unsuccessful in receiving a full exemption, be contacted to negotiate a payment program.

(d) That the invoices be issued to those groups who are required to pay fees for their use of Public Halls, Community Centres and Meeting Rooms.

(e) Further, that Council receive a further report and formally review the Fee Subsidy arrangements for future years following an upcoming Councillor workshop.

BACKGROUND

1. At it’s meeting on 23 September 2002, Council endorsed the assessment criteria and procedure for managing requests for fee exemptions and reductions. The criteria include consideration of the type of group and its financial circumstances along with likely community benefits.

2. At its meeting of 29 March 2005, Council approved delegated authority be given to the Chief Executive Officer to award subsidies outside of the annual process where groups fully meet the endorsed criteria.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. Council agreed in 2002, on a policy for fee subsidies for Public Halls, Community Centres and Meeting Rooms. This report implements this policy for 2010/2011.

4. All annual hirers were invited to apply for a fee subsidy in their booking confirmations.

5. There were thirty six (36) requests for applications forms. A copy of the application form is Attachment 1. A copy of the accompanying letter is Attachment 2.

6. Thirty four (34) applications for fee subsidies were received at the time of this report. Two (2) applicants have requested an extension of time to submit their annual application for a fee subsidy, due to individual circumstances.

7. There is a decrease in the number of applications (6) since 2009/2010.

Two (2) of the applications received were for casual one off events:

- The Occassional Performing Sinfonia;

- Dundas Area Neighbourhood Centre – Seniors Crafts Group.

Two (2) are now being co-ordinated by the Home Support Unit of Council:

- The Ermington-Rydalmere Senior Citizens;

- Dundas Area Neighbourhood Centre – Line Dancing.

One (1) has become sustainable and has located a permanent venue outside of Council:

- Granville Men’s Shed.

One (1) of the groups is in discussions regarding disbanding due to having fulfilled all its objectives:

- Guildford Safety Committee.

Council officers are continuing to work with hirers to increase their capacity and improve their sustainability.

8. At the time of this report, there are no new applicants from previous years applying for a fee subsidy, although 2 new applicants have expressed their interest in applying for a Fee Subsidy and are in the process of organising their programs and activities. It is anticipated that these two additional applications will be considered by the Chief Executive Officer under his delegated authority.

9. Council Officers have assessed the applications against the endorsed criteria Attachment 3. A table that summarises the applications, the groups’ demonstrated contribution to the community and inability to pay is at Attachment 4. The subsidies recommended for consideration by Council appear in the second last column of the table.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

10. The assessment process undertaken for the fee subsidy, consisted of an assessment panel of Council Officers from the Community Capacity Building Team and the Recreation Programs and Facilities Team.

11. All thirty four (34) applications currently meet the assessment criteria.

12. A review of the Fee Subsidy Criteria is currently underway with a Councillor workshop scheduled for 14 July 2010. Any changes adopted by Council will apply to future subsidy decisions.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

13. Of the applications that currently meet the assessment criteria, it is determined that the total subsidy required to be granted is $132,788.04. The total potential subsidy for the remaining two (2) applications which will be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer for determination, is $7,146.18 (Parramatta Schizophrenia $724.18 and Madi Ethnic - $6,422.00).

14. It should be noted that in 2009, Council resolved that all senior citizen services in the Parramatta Local Government Area be exempt from paying hire fees for their use of Councils public halls, community centres and meeting rooms. Under this resolution eight 98) applicants are exempt from paying fees for the 2010/2011 year;

Australian Tamil Seniors Association

Golden A Club

Guildford Red Cross

Italian Social Group

Multi-national Seniors

Spanish Speaking Seniors

The Sage Club

Tuesday Day-Lighters

This comprises $17,647.45 of the total fees subsidised for the 2010/2011 year. In 2009/2010 the total fees subsidised for seniors groups was $11,895.34.

15. Last year, the total subsidy granted was $114,126 (this included casual applications determined by the Chief Executive Officer). The 2010/2011 budget allocates an amount of $113,300, based on the budget allocated in 2009/2010.

16. Management of the difference between the allocated budget and the total recommended subsidy will be reported to Council through the September 2010 quarterly review process.

Rebecca Grasso

Manager City, Culture, Tourism and Recreation

Attachments:

1	Attachment 1 - Fee Subsidy - Application Form	3 Pages
2	Attachment 2 - Fee Subsidy - Request Letter	2 Pages
3	Attachment 3 - Fee Subsidy - Assessment Criteria	1 Page
4	Attachment 4 - Fee Subsidy - Assessment Sheet	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 26 July 2010 Item 10.2

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 10.2

SUBJECT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee meeting 22 June 2010

REFERENCE F2005/01941 - D01585266

REPORT OF Community Capacity Building Officer

PURPOSE:

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee met on 22 June 2010. This report provides a précis of the key discussion points of that meeting for Council’s consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the minutes of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee meeting of 22 June 2010 be received and noted.

(b) Further, that Council note that there is no request for additional expenditure in this report.

BACKGROUND

1. Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee meets monthly and comprises 15 members.

2. Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee met on 22 June 2010. This report provides a summary of the key discussion points of that meeting for Council’s consideration.

MAIN DISCUSSION POINTS

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

4. Local Government Aboriginal Network Conference (LGAN) 2010

(a) The Committee were advised of the work done since the last report was given at the Committee’s previous meeting including: postcards had been printed promoting the events and were available for members to distribute and conference bags had been ordered and LGAN and Council logos forwarded to the supplier.

(b) The graphics for the Registration booklet had been finalised and look very good. Unfortunately, although speakers and workshop presenters had given a verbal commitment to attend the Conference, the majority had not returned the necessary paperwork describing the content of their presentation/ workshop and the details which are required to print the Registration booklet. Therefore, printing has been delayed. Council Officers will be contacting all speakers/ workshop presenters again to chase up the required paperwork.

(c) David Williams made a further presentation to the Committee concerning the importance of a site visit to Prospect Hill. The Committee recommended that Committee member Doug Desjardines would approach the LGAN Executive with a view to ensuring a site visit to Prospect Hill was included in the Conference Program.

(d) Members were also advised of the next scheduled telephone link up with the LGAN Executive and were invited to be present should they wish.

5. NAIDOC Planning

(a) The Committee agreed that a final NAIDOC Sub Committee meeting was necessary to finalise the planning for Burramatta NAIDOC and set a date for this meeting.

(b) The Committee agreed that they would nominate a deserving local person who had worked tirelessly with the local Aboriginal Community for an ‘Unsung Hero – Closing the Gap Their Way’ award. Further the Committee requested that funds be allocated for a suitably engraved momento and flowers. This award would be presented to at Burramatta NAIDOC on 4 July 2010.

Council Officer’s Comment:

Committee member Lyn Leerson was the individual selected by the Committee for the Unsung Hero award. Ms Leerson was recognised for her tireless work in bridging the gap between Indigenous, particularly the Darug people, and non-Indigenous people in Western Sydney. Ms. Leerson was presented with a painting by nationally renowned artist Leanne Tobin, a framed certificate and flowers at Burramatta NAIDOC on Sunday 4 July 2010. The award was presented by John Robertson, Deputy Chairperson, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee.

6. Burramatta Lands Brochure

It was reported that members had met with and been in email contact with Council Officer Michelle Desailley, Arts & Cultural Project Officer-Parramatta Stories, regarding the wording of the Burramatta Lands Brochure. The Committee gratefully acknowledged her efforts in producing the brochure.

7. General Business and Information Share

(a) Committee members exchanged information regarding a number of items including the Koori Kids competition run by the NSW Government; 160 apprenticeships being offered by EnergyAustralia; a draft amendment being proposed to the Constitution Act 1902 which acknowledges Aboriginal people as the first people of the State and recognizes the spiritual, social and cultural relationship that Aboriginal people have with their traditional lands and waters.

(b) The Committee accepted the offer of Jillian Comber, Comber Consultancy to attend their next meeting and provide information on archaeological digs being undertaken in the Parramatta area.

(c) Committee members were advised of a community workshop on Thursday 1 July 2010 to discuss the plan of Management for Lake Parramatta.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

8. Provides a discussion on any financial implications for Council in regard to the

development.

Maggie Kyle

Community Capacity Building Officer

Attachments:

Minutes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee, 22 June 2010, 5 pages

5 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 26 July 2010 Item 10.3

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 10.3

SUBJECT Access Advisory Committee Minutes 22 June 2010

REFERENCE F2005/01944 - D01593923

REPORT OF Community Capacity Building Officer.Community Capacity Building

PURPOSE:

The Access Advisory Committee met on 22 June 2010. This report provides a précis of the key discussion points of that meeting for Council’s consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the minutes of the Access Advisory Committee meeting on 22 June 2010 (Attachment 1) are received and noted.

(b) Further, that Council note there is no request for additional expenditure in this report.

BACKGROUND

1. Parramatta City Council’s Access Advisory Committee continues to meet bi-monthly in accordance with the Council Resolution of 28 September 2009.

MAIN DISCUSSION POINTS

The main issues discussed at the meeting are outlined below:

2. The Council Officer informed the Committee of the results of her phone conversation with Westfield management in response to the letter received by Council CEO, Dr Robert Lang, regarding carpeting and noise at Westfield Parramatta. The phone call was also followed up with a letter as requested by the Committee. As Council is unable to enforce standards above those legally required, the Committee Chair suggested that concerned individuals raise the issues as a matter of discrimination through the Human Rights Commission, which could then seek the application of higher standards through conciliation. It was noted that there may be a window of opportunity for a positive result as Westfield management indicated they are planning to replace their existing carpeting at the Parramatta site.

3. The Committee was provided with summaries of the Council Officer’s and Beryl Thornton’s meetings with Vision Australia regarding pedestrian safety at the intersection of Crown and Harris Streets in Harris Park. The Committee discussed the tabled Vision Australia report submitted to Council via the Council Officer that includes recommendations for changes to the area to improve access and pedestrian safety. The Committee recognised that particular concerns arise due to the nature of pedestrians in the area, with many elderly and vision impaired people residing or visiting the area due to the aged care facility nearby. Because of these concerns, the Committee recommended that the report be forwarded to the Traffic Committee and Richard Searle, Service Manager Traffic and Transport, with a request for special consideration beyond the standard conditions applied when determining the type of pedestrian crossings to be constructed. This matter will be placed on the agenda of a future Committee meeting following its consideration by the Traffic Committee and Richard Searle.

4. The Committee was informed of the Council Officer’s meeting with the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Service Unit Partner and the BCA Team Leader, to discuss evacuation procedures from Darcy Street and Council Chambers for people with mobility impairments. The Council Officer and the OHS Service Unit Partner determined to obtain further information regarding potential use of evacuation aides and to review procedures related to meeting room access and evacuation for people with mobility impairments at these buildings. The Committee will be advised of the outcome of this process.

5. The Committee was informed of advice by Council’s Transport Planning Manager regarding taxi access for Westfield, indicating that cooperation with Westfield would be required and that for a taxi pick-up zone to be established, some structural change would likely be needed to enable on-site access.

6. The Committee discussed action being taken by a resident group in Oatlands/North Parramatta to address issues arising from a change in bus routes that resulted in reduced public transport access and a reliance on a dangerous road crossing. The Committee resolved to support any proposal for a pedestrian crossing at Pennant Hills Road near Bellevue Street.

7. The Council Officer provided an update to the Committee on the progress of planning for public and employer forums in the lead up to the International Day for People with Disabilities. The public forum is no longer being planned, with the focus on gaining employer involvement. John Moxon provided an update on how planning for IDPwD was progressing.

8. John Moxon informed the Committee of a new Access Consultant for the Independent Living Centre who will be invited to attend the next Committee meeting. They may be interested in seeking membership of the Committee.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

9. There are no financial implications to Council.

Tanya Owen

Community Capacity Building Officer

Attachments:

Access Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 22 June 2010

5 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 26 July 2010 Item 11.1

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.1

SUBJECT Composition of Business Paper

REFERENCE F2008/00400 - D01592920

REPORT OF Manager - Council Support

PURPOSE:

This report is provided to seek confirmation on the preferred method of conducting business at Council Meetings and to suggest the incorporation of a number of changes to the Code of Meeting Practice.

RECOMMENDATION

That the following changes to the Code of Meeting Practice be placed on exhibition in accordance with Part 2 of Chapter 12 of the Local Government Act:-

(a) That Part 2 Section 7 (5),(6) and (7) of the Code of Meeting Practice relating to meeting preparation be altered to read:-

(5) In the case of such a split the following is to apply:

(a) Staff Reports pertaining to Development Applications only are to be considered at the meeting of the second Monday of every month, such meeting to be known as Council Meeting - Development. Council may still consider Minutes of the Lord Mayor, Public Forum, Petitions and Rescission Motions.

(b) Joint authority be given to the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Office to include further items on the Council Meeting – Development on the grounds of urgency or importance.

(c) Any item, including urgent or deferred Development Applications, may be considered at the Council Meeting to be held on the 4^th Monday of the month, such meeting to be simply known as an Ordinary Council Meeting.

(b) That Part 4 Section 34 (5) of the Code of Meeting Practice relating to rescission motions be altered to read:-

(5) Rescission motions will be listed on the next available Council Meeting for consideration.

(c) That Part 4 Section 34 of the Code of Meeting Practice be altered to reflect that rescission motions on planning decisions pertaining to development applications or Section 96 applications will have no effect as a notice of determination once issued cannot be withdrawn.

(d) Further, that Part 2 Section 8(2) of the Code of Meeting Practice be altered to read:-

(8) For the purpose of subsections 1 (a) – (b) above, written notice of motions must be received by 10.00am on the Thursday week immediately preceding the date of the Council Meeting.

BACKGROUND

1. Councillors have recently expressed concern over the content of the Council Meeting (Development) agenda which has increasingly included business items of a non development nature. Subsequently, Council at its meeting held on 28 June 2010 resolved:-

That the Chief Executive Officer submit a report to Council addressing issues in relation to the composition of Council business papers and in particular whether separate Council Meetings dealing with Development Applications and other issues respectively is the best format for meetings.

ISSUES

Consideration of Development Applications

2. Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (Part 2 Section 7(5)) currently indicates, in relation to the preparation of meeting agendas, in part, that:-

(1) In the case of such a split the following is to apply:

a Items of the Regulatory Program are to be considered at the meeting of the second Monday of every month.

b Items of non-regulatory programs are to be considered at the meeting of the fourth Monday of every month.

c Where no items are referred for discussion a Council meeting must still be held to adopt those items on the agenda. In such cases, informal workshop sessions may be arranged by staff to be held at the completion of the Council Meeting.

3. As stated above, ‘Regulatory’ Items were to be listed on the first meeting of the month, however, Council at its meeting held on 23 November 2010 adopted the “Four Pillars” community reporting format making the Regulatory Program obsolete.

4. The formation of the Economy and Development Pillar encompassed a number of additional services not previously covered by the Regulatory Panel including Tourism and Events, Property Asset Management, Arts and Culture as well as Development Services and Regulatory Services and clarity is required as to which items should be submitted to the first meeting of the month.

5. The concerns of Councillors in relation to the listing of additional issues on the first meeting of the month have been noted. The Executive Team have proposed that the first meeting of the month be strictly for Development Application reports (rather than Regulatory or Economy and Development issues) subject to joint authority being given to the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to include items of particular urgency and/or importance.

6. It is recommended that the 2^nd meeting of the month consider all other issues with the addition to the agenda of urgent development applications or development applications deferred from the 1^st meeting of the month.

Rescission Motions – Lodgment of

7. Council’s current Code allows for rescission motions submitted on development applications to be listed on the next available meeting (see also paragraph 9), whilst rescission motions lodged on all other issues must wait a month for consideration.

8. The Lord Mayor and other Councillors have recently commented on this anomaly and accordingly it is proposed that Section 34 of the Code be amended to require that all rescission motions lodged be considered at the next available Council meeting.

Rescission Motions Pertaining to Development Applications

9. The General Counsel has expressed concerned in relation to the practice of

Council revisiting a planning determination after it has been made and particularly in relation to the practice of Parramatta City Council utilising rescission motions as a means of having some planning decisions revisited at subsequent meetings. In particular, the General Counsel has commented:-

“My primary concern is to explore whether the law permits council to revisit a planning decision (that is, the determination of a development application or a section 96 application) if a rescission motion in respect of that planning decision is passed at the later meeting.

Opinion and Comments

In my opinion, council cannot revisit a planning' decision that involves the determination of a development application or a section 96 application. This raises some interesting questions concerning risk (legal and otherwise) arising from a situation where council revisits a planning decision.

The primary reason for this ‘problem’ is the disconnection between the provisions in the Local Government Act relating to decision making processes and the provisions in the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act relating to planning determination by a consent authority.

Nothing in either of those Acts talks about one of them having priority over the other in the context of decision making. It is necessary to consider the operation of the Interpretation Act when considering any legislation. Unfortunately, nothing in the Interpretation Act helps to resolve this ‘problem’.

Relevant to my concerns in this area are:

· An opinion letter from Storey & Gough (Tony Pickup) sent to PCC in August 2009.

· The Court of Appeal decision in Pselletes v Randwick City Council handed down on 8 September 2009.

The Court of Appeal decision is particularly relevant because it makes clear that development consent is constituted by the determination (whether by resolution or under delegated authority) and not the subsequent issue of the notice of determination. The notice of determination is a subsequent administrative act occurring after the actual determination itself. In the context of planning decisions made at properly convened and conducted council meetings, the decision is made at the time voting occurs.

The Storey & Gough opinion letter proffers the same opinion.

Being extremely semantic, there is scope for the Court of Appeal decision to be distinguished because of its particular circumstances (that involved a challenge to rectification orders). I am unaware of any case law in relation to the issues discussed in above. Accordingly, it is possible that a Court may come to a different conclusion if it considers this specific question but I consider the chance of this to be low.

Implications

From a general perspective in situations where a planning decision may be revisited as a result of a rescission motion:

· There is no practical implication if the rescission motion is unsuccessful and the previous planning decisions stands.

· There are legal problems if a rescission motion is successful and council goes to revisit the previous planning decision. Following the rationale of the Court of Appeal the determination has already been made and I do not consider that council is legally permitted to revisit the issue. This problem only arises where the rescission motion relates to a 'planning' decision about a development application or a section 96 application.

· I recommend that the PCC Meeting Code of Practice be revised to remove the potential for a planning decision to be revisited using a rescission motion because this is out of step with the prevailing law.”

Submission of Notices of Motions

10. Council’s current Code permits the lodgment of written notices of motion by Councillors by 2pm on the Thursday Week immediately preceding the date of the Council Meeting (Section 8 of the Code).

11. To enable delivery of Business Papers to Councillors on the Friday week prior to the Council Meeting, staff are required to complete their reports by 2pm on the Tuesday Week prior to the meeting. This enables the Agenda Review Team to consider all reports received on the Wednesday and enables any changes to be subsequently made to permit commencement of printing on Thursday morning.

12. It is requested that the deadline for submission of notices of motion be brought forward from 2.00 pm until 10.00am on the Thursday Week prior to the meeting to ensure adequate printing time is available to enable delivery of the business paper on the Friday Week prior to the meeting.

OPTIONS

13. Council has previously operated under a number of different meeting structures to meets its obligations under the Local Government Act and Council may wish to seek further information on one or more of the following options:-

· Twice monthly Council Meetings dealing with all business items. It is possible that Council may wish the current structure to be amended to permit the consideration of all business items at both of its meetings rather than considering development applications, only, at one meeting.

· Committee structures whereby all Councillors are members of Committee/s dealing with a particular subject or ‘pillar’ or ward. Delegated authority would generally be granted to the Committee to consider all issues under its particular umbrella with the exception of those issues that must be considered by a Council Meeting (as defined by Section 377 of the Local Government Act).

· Committee structures whereby 7 Councillors would be a member of each Committee Meeting with the Lord Mayor being ex officio to each Committee. Such Committees would generally operate with a ‘referral’ process in place. This would enable items of particular interest to be referred from a Committee to a full Council Meeting for further consideration.

· Committee structures where no delegations where given to the Committee and all items were referred to Council for ratification of the Committee’s decision.

14. Workshops have previously been held by Council to consider the different types of meeting structures available. Comments raised by Councillors at a previous workshop included:-

Formal Council Meetings

Pros

Better facilities in Chamber, less meeting dates for Councillors and staff, less duplication when considering items, matters addressed by Councillor quicker (ie fortnightly rather than monthly).

Cons

Formal atmosphere in Chamber, debate rather than discussion, structure does not allow collaborative decision making between Councillors and staff, process often agenda/business paper driven.

Committee Meetings

Pros

Less formal atmosphere, more open discussion/interaction between Councillors and staff, debate can be focused on strategic areas, presentations by staff can usually be received, feedback can be provided before formal adoption by Council.

Cons

Lack of meeting rooms with suitable acoustics/electronics, debate often duplicated on numerous occasions (ie at Committee then at Council level), generally more meetings and meeting nights (often weekly), workload between committees often not equal.

CONCLUSION

15. The major suggested changes to the Code of Meeting Practice have been included in the recommendation of this report and will require exhibition prior to adoption by Council (Section 360 of the Local Government Act 1993). It should be noted that a number of cosmetic changes have been included in the Code to reflect the change from “Program Panels” to “Pillars”. A copy of the updated Code of Meeting Practice will be provided to Councillors for adoption following the exhibition process.

16. Any structure adopted by Council should assist in decision making and should:-

· Allow effective decision processes and better use of time;

· Allow Councillors to fulfil their responsibilities under the local Government Act;

· Provide a strategic focus to all Council’s activities;

· Provide structured community input and participation in decisions.

Graeme Riddell

Manager – Council Support

Attachments:

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 26 July 2010 Item 11.2

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.2

SUBJECT 2010 Local Government Association Conference

REFERENCE F2010/00134 - D01596453

REPORT OF Manager - Council Support

PURPOSE:

This matter is placed before Council to seek the appointment of 7 Councillors (i.e. the Lord Mayor or nominee and 6 Councillors) to attend the 2010 Local Government Association of NSW Annual Conference being held in Albury from 24 – 27 October 2010.

To advise Councillors of the process of submitting a motion to the Local Government Association Conference via our Council meeting on 26^th July 2010.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council appoint seven (7) delegates (i.e.: The Lord Mayor or nominee and six (6) Councillors) to attend the 2010 Local Government Association of NSW Annual Conference to be held in Albury from 24-27 October.

(b) That delegate registration, travelling, accommodation and out-of-pocket expenses in a total approximate amount of $2,500 per delegate be paid from Account No 10 1260 000 644405– Members Expenses – Conferences and Seminars in accordance with a Category ‘A’ Conference.

(c) Further, that Council nominate alternate delegates to attend the Conference in the event that delegates are unable to attend.

BACKGROUND

1. Council has previously categorised this particular conference as a “Category A” Conference which permits attendance of five (5) Councillors, (i.e. The Lord Mayor or nominee and 4 other Councillors) however, Council’s delegate voting entitlement is now 7 Councillors in relation to the population numbers of the Parramatta LGA.

2. At present, registration and program details are not available; however, preliminary accommodation bookings have been made. Travel arrangements will be co-coordinated with the delegates when Council has made that decision and a copy of the program will be supplied to relevant Councillors when available.

3. The Local Government Association is an association of councils representing the metropolitan and large regional councils to provide leadership and advocacy for the benefit of the community. Approximately 600 delegates will be expected in Albury at the annual policy making event for the 74 Councils which are members of the Local Government Association of NSW, providing a great opportunity for Albury to showcase it’s City and Councils work to peers from across the state over the five day event.

4. Motions to the LGA

Based on the population numbers of Parramatta Council, we are entitled to seven (7) voting delegates at this conference.

Motions must be received by the LGA by 5.00pm on Monday 9 August 2010 to meet business paper production deadlines. Please note all motions submitted must be adopted by council before submission to the Association.

5. Themes for the 2010 Conference

1. Modernizing the Financing of Local Government
2. Modern Approaches to Community Wellbeing, and,
3. Modern Approaches to the Natural & Built Environment

All motions are categorised either Category 1 or Category 2.

Councils may submit any motion, however, to be considered a Category 1 motion, and placed before the Conference for consideration, a motion:

· MUST relate to one of the identified conference issues/themes, and,

· MUST NOT attempt to enforce one council's position on other councils, and

· MUST NOT cause detriment to one council over another, and

· MUST deal with the issues/themes at a regional/state or national level (ie: the motion must not be a single council issue)

· MUST address the conference theme of "Modernising Local Government

1. Modernizing the Financing of Local Government

Motions should deal with the proper and adequate financing of local government into the future. Motions must aim to extend, enhance or replace current policy positions.

Note: motions should not deal the removal of rate pegging, a fairer share of national taxation revenue or banning cost shifting as these are already established LGA policy positions).

Topics could include:

· New revenue raising mechanisms (fees, charges, taxes);

· Rating reform (other than removing rate pegging);

· More effective mobilisation of local revenues;

· Land valuation methodology options;

· Alternative financing models;

· More cost effective ways of delivering infrastructure and services;

· Removal of fiscal impediments (other than rate pegging);

· Reform of intergovernmental fiscal relationships;

· Improvements to long term financial planning and asset management;

· Identifying future financial requirements;

· Funding structures to support a modernized local government sector.

2. Modern Approaches to Community Wellbeing

Motions under this theme should cover innovations to NSW Local Government's legislative, administrative or program settings that support local communities. They should relate to significant changes to:

· Social planning and cultural planning (integrating social justice with community strategic plans, social impact assessment);

· Community development and community cultural development (developing vibrant involved communities; sustaining a sense of neighbourhood in living suburbs);

· Community services (welfare or development services for various age or target groups like community halls and neighbourhood centres, ageing and disability services, women's services, youth services and children's care and education services; access for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples);

· Cultural services (contemporary public libraries, art galleries, performing arts centres, museums, public art, community arts, celebrations, new media and digital arts);

· Health protection and promotion (regulatory activities reducing public health risks; promoting healthy lifestyles; immunisation, early childhood health centres or rural medical services);

· Recreation facilities and services (open space; gardens, playgrounds, sports facilities);

· Safe and secure environments (crime prevention activities, crime prevention through environmental design in council plan making);

· Community economic development; and

· Social policies and programs of other spheres of government that impact Local Government.

3. Modern Approaches to the Natural & Built Environment:

Motions under this theme should cover environmental, natural resource management and land-use planning issues which come within the charter of Local Government. They include:

· Minimising the negative impacts of consumption and waste generation, and bringing about a more equitable allocation of responsibility for these impacts to organizations in the production chain;

· Pursuing more responsible, sustainable management of natural resources;

· Furthering the efforts of local councils to enhance the ecological, social and economic sustainability of their communities, and natural and built environments;

· Resourcing councils adequately to enable them to fulfill their charter under the Local Government Act (section 8.1) "to properly manage, develop, protect, restore, enhance and conserve the environment of the area for which (they are) responsible, in a manner that is consistent with and promotes the principles of ecologically sustainable development";

· Preparing and equipping councils to deal with the challenges posed by climate change;

· Improve the planning system so that it is better informed, transparent and more reflective of local and regional aspirations;

· Improve the planning system to achieve superior social, economic and environmental outcomes (i.e. including social justice; equitable access to housing, employment);

· Reform the relationships between Australian, NSW and Local Government in relation to local and regional planning (applying the principle of subsidiarity); and

· Better integrate land use and infrastructure planning.

Motions which do not comply with the guidelines will be determined to be Category 2 and will be referred to the Executive for action prior to the Conference. (This meeting is scheduled for Friday 15 October 2010)

Late Motions

Late motions will be received up to close of business FRIDAY 8 OCTOBER 2010 and will be published in the LG Weekly on FRIDAY 15 OCTOBER 2010.

Late motions will be categorised using the same methodology as motions received prior to the cut off date.

Only Late Motions which are determined to be Category 1 motions will be dealt with by the Conference, and will only be dealt with at the final session on the final morning of Conference and only by approval of Conference delegates.

No late motions will be accepted at the Conference

CONSULTATION & TIMING

6. Motions must be received by the LGA by 5.00pm on Monday 9 August 2010 to meet the Associations business paper production deadlines.

Please note that the conference program and registration papers are due to be released ‘July 2010.’ Once the Councillor Support Officers are in receipt of these papers, nominated delegates will be provided with copies of same and the official registration process can begin.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

7. Delegate registration, travelling, accommodation and out-of-pocket expenses in a total approximate amount of $2,500 per delegate be paid from Account No 10 1260 000 644405– Members Expenses – Conferences and Seminars in accordance with a Category ‘A’ Conference

Graeme Riddell

Manager – Council Support

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

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

Clr Paul Barber – Caroline Chisholm Ward			Clr Lorraine Wearne, Lachlan Macquarie Ward
Clr Mark Lack – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward			Clr John Chedid – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward
Clr Glenn Elmore – Woodville Ward			Clr Scott Lloyd – Caroline Chisholm Ward
Clr Pierre Esber– Lachlan Macquarie Ward			Clr Andrew Wilson – Lachlan Macquarie Ward
Clr Prabir Maitra – Arthur Phillip Ward			Clr Andrew Bide – Caroline Chisholm Ward
Clr Julia Finn – Arthur Phillip Ward	Clr Michael McDermott - Elizabeth Macarthur Ward	Clr Antoine (Tony) Issa, OAM – Woodville Ward	Clr Chiang Lim, Deputy Lord Mayor – Arthur Phillip Ward