MINUTES OF THE Meeting of Parramatta City Council HELD IN THE Council Chambers, CIVIC PLACE, PARRAMATTA ON Monday, 6 December 2010 AT 6:45 pm

PRESENT

The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid in the Chair and Councillors A Bide (retired 10.42 pm), G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard (arrived 6.50 pm), A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim (arrived 6.55 pm), S D Lloyd, P K Maitra (arrived 6.51 pm), M D McDermott (Deputy Lord Mayor), L E Wearne and A A Wilson.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO TRADITIONAL LAND OWNERS

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

FOUNDATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The Lord Mayor also acknowledged the colonial heritage of Parramatta and recognised the contribution of the early settlers in laying the foundations of this great and historic city.

MINUTES

	SUBJECT          Minutes of the Council  Meeting held on 22 November 2010
11976	RESOLVED      (Esber/Issa OAM)
	That the minutes be taken as read and be accepted as a true record of the Meeting.

APOLOGIES

11977        RESOLVED       (Esber/Lack)

That an apology be received and accepted for the absence of Councillor P B Barber.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor A Bide declared a non pecuniary interest in relation to Item 8.4 of Economy and Development regarding Investigations relating to 3 Mahony Road, Constitution Hill as Councillor Bide’s mother is a neighbour to the property.

Councillor Bide indicated that he did not intend to leave the Chamber during consideration of this item.

Public Forum

1

SUBJECT          Encouragement for Smoke Free Outdoor Dining Areas REFERENCE    F2004/09820 - D01753023 REPORT OF      N/A

11978

FROM                  Margaret Hogge – President – Non Smokers’                              Movement of Australia Everybody has the right to breathe clean air, free from the poisons in tobacco smoke. The Non-Smokers' Movement of Australia Incorporated was formed in August 1977, just around the corner from here in Smith Street, Parramatta, after a small advertisement  in the local paper to which 40 people responded. Mr. Brian McBride, the founder of this clean-air movement who lived with his family in Parramatta area for more than 50 years, had been assaulted by a smoker who deliberately blew tobacco smoke in his face. He took the assailant to court and won, and at the same time encouraged many other ordinary people to fight against deadly tobacco and tobacco smoke. Since than, some think we have won the battle for everybody's rights to clean air, but, while big tobacco continue to  makes billions and peddle their deadly product to young and old and while three million people in Australia are addicted to nicotine, the majority of us still have a battle to gain our rights to clean smoke free air, at every street corner, every doorway, every outdoor dining area, at bus stops, taxi ranks, school entrances, hospital entrances, pubs and clubs so-called outdoor areas, airport entrances, at car-parks, at crowded public events such as Christmas concerts and rock festivals, and even indoors in live theatres, casinos and residential institutions. This debate is centred on a product which is highly addictive and which kills not only the user but also innocent bystanders. If that product were introduced today it would be banned. There is no safe level of tobacco smoke. It is a toxic air contaminant. If you can smell tobacco smoke, then the poisons are going into your lungs and your family's lungs. Clean water, clean air - every body's basic right. Every family's basic right. Our governments provide us with clean water, for drinking, washing, swimming - we have every right to expect those same governments to protect our right to clean air, free from poisons. Smokers' Rights: Smokers may have the right to use a legally available product, but not where they affect others. Their rights stop at their lips, at their bodies. Councils have the right and the responsibility to protect the amenity of the community, and they do so, in restricting offensive advertising, in restricting loud noises, in restricting the use of alcohol in certain areas. They have the right to restrict the spread of tobacco smoke, especially in crowded outdoor areas where non-smokers and smokers like to gather. There are some fairly sensible restrictions on vehicle emissions to which we mostly comply without resistance or complaint. The majority of the population no longer smokes and strongly resents that smokers have hijacked the outdoors areas of restaurants by allowing their stinking smoke to poison the air all around. Smokers make up a small minority, with about 16% of women and 19% of men who smoke regularly in this region. Most of those smokers have made some attempts to quit. They want to be free of the addiction and the stranglehold of tobacco. We are aware of the shortcomings of this State's so-called Smokefree Environment Act 2000 which does nothing to address the very real problem of tobacco smoke outdoors, especially near children and in crowded outdoor areas. This may change in the future but Parramatta has an opportunity right now to make a difference for its own community. Discrimination: This occurs wherever people are allowed to smoke. Tobacco smoke is toxic and most people try to avoid it. Some, due to chronic asthma, heart and lung conditions, are unable to go into areas where smoking is allowed. When outdoors dining is declared smoke-free, non-smokers and smokers will be able to go there. Smokers simply won't be allowed to smoke there. Discrimination in the workplace occurs where smoking is allowed. Currently, in most places in NSW, if you suffer from asthma or similar respiratory conditions, you would not dare to take a job where you have to serve in outdoor settings, in restaurants, cafes, pubs and clubs. It cuts out an awful lot of people who have the right to work in safe conditions. That's discrimination. When Parramatta Council agreed in July this year to declare outdoor dining on Council-owned land smokefree, starting 1 January 2011 there was a majority vote in favour because Councillors were aware of the dangers of tobacco smoke in crowded outdoor areas. They were also aware of the importance of de-normalising smoking in children's eyes. There's nothing normal about smoking. That danger still exists. My question then, to Parramatta council and its community is: How long would it take to work out whether smokefree outdoor dining will be a good thing for Parramatta? The opponents seem to have ascertained within a few days in September, with their so-called petition, that it should not be introduced, so an alternative, properly conducted random poll, prefaced by health facts, along with well-framed meaningful questions, as well as some research amongst other councils around Australia should be quite brief, and certainly not take a year, as suggested by the tobacco-friendly delayers. Parramatta has already started the process of protecting us from stinking, poisonous tobacco smoke outdoors - let's keep it up, and very soon be able to breathe freely. Thank you, Margaret Hogge, Non-Smokers' Movement of Australia Inc. NOTE:       Councillors P J Garrard (6.50 pm), C X Lim (6.55 pm) and P K Maitra (6.51 pm) arrived at the meeting during consideration of this matter.

2

SUBJECT          Support for Smoke Free Dining REFERENCE    F2004/09820 - D01753025 REPORT OF      N/A

11979

FROM                  Stafford Sanders – Communications Officer - ASH                                     Australia Lord Mayor, Councillors, thanks for allowing me to support this rescission on behalf of 47 non-profit organisations - employees, child welfare, health, disability, indigenous, church, social equity – a broad base of community support for smokefree dining, reflected in opinion polls, a resident panel… and a real petition, with real signatures. Your community supports this being done urgently. If it were asbestos or another proven threat to public health, the only consultation would be to politely inform venues, seek their co-operation in speedy implementation and outline the evidence. Here’s the outline... Secondhand tobacco smoke kills. 250 toxics, 43 human carcinogens. No safe level of exposure. Cancer, heart, respiratory, brain, reproductive, foetal harm – a long list, and growing. Good evidence of serious risk from quite low levels; exposure can be just as bad outdoors as in – depending on how close, how repeated, how vulnerable. For example, children – developing bodies and brains especially vulnerable; pregnant women because of foetal risk; people with heart, respiratory and other conditions – 10% of the community – discriminated against in employment and access by smoky venues; and dining staff, because repeated exposure ramps up health risk and they’re stuck in the smoke, not daring to complain. Thousands of deaths a year in Australia from secondhand smoke – including at least one child under 14 every ten days. How many deaths and illnesses will happen in Parramatta during a 12 month delay that you could have prevented? The health evidence alone should guarantee a quick ban. What if this were asbestos? Bernie Banton’s widow says, and environmental cancer experts agree: tobacco smoke, just like airborne asbestos, should be banned from dining and other working areas immediately.  Yes, it should be statewide – like Queensland, ACT, Northern Territory. But NSW has Australia’s weakest smokefree laws – thanks to the clout of tobacco and its mates in hospitality, gambling and retail. So for now, it’s up to councils. The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control commits all governments, including local, to protect all people from secondhand smoke. No exceptions, no trade quibbles. Australia signed in 2004. But Big Tobacco stops at nothing. In Parramatta, a well-resourced dirty tricks campaign, typical of that industry’s tactic of “astro-turfing” – creating your own “grass-roots”. Spooking venues with trade fears, swamping paramount health issues with business debate. All right, let’s at least give dining venues the hard facts about smokefree trade impact. The published, peer-reviewed, independent studies of actual trade data over time; correcting for seasonal and economic factors; comparing with pre-existing trends or smoky venues. Dozens of such studies, over more than a decade, Australia and worldwide, show neutral to positive smokefree impact on dining trade. No evidence of any harm. A hiccup in gambling revenue, but no harm to food, drinks or general custom.  In fact, no proof of even one dining venue anywhere in the world suffering any harm, let alone going broke. In NSW, over 80% don’t smoke; seven times more attracted than deterred by smokefree venues, because people want to protect their children. No evidence Parramatta is significantly different. Surveys show even many smokers prefer smokefree dining. Boycott alfrescoes? Oh yeah, just like they’ve boycotted cinemas, pubs and buses. But they will be encouraged to quit. That’s what really freaks the tobacco lobby: social smoking undermines quitting, so they have to keep it going – even if it means venues face expensive legal actions from smoke-harmed staff or patrons. That’s already happening. So the tobacco lobby has to keep whipping up the trade fears, so they keep bubbling despite the total lack of evidence. Each time, when no venues suffer, the screams fizzle out; but next council, they’re spooked up again. Tobacco companies, the tobacco-sponsored AHA and others have lobbied against smokefree dining in several councils – and failed.  23 NSW councils have shown spine, wouldn’t be spooked. So now we get a shift of tactic. I don’t claim to be Ambassador for Democracy, councillors, but I do know Democracy doesn’t have a fake signature. And in the words of the AHA, it’s “not cheap”. Wonder how much has been spent on this campaign? So here’s the choice: we stand up for public health, OHS, child protection, evidence, best practice, treaty obligation, and the community – or we cave in and do what Big Tobacco wants. That’s the choice, councillors: spine or spooked. Your community awaits your decision. Thank you. NOTE:       Councillors S D Lloyd & L E Wearne left the meeting at 7.00 pm during consideration of this matter.

3

SUBJECT          Support for Banning of Smoking in Outdoor Areas REFERENCE    F2004/09820 - D01753091 REPORT OF      N/A

11980

FROM                  Melanie Thomas Good Evening Mr Mayor, Councillors and fellow community members. I would like to express my deep concern regarding Council’s recent decision to rescind the motion of banning smoking in out door areas in Parramatta, more the to point, I fail to understand why. I think it is imperative that we look at the facts; *       Smoke free dining does not harm business. *       A petition was submitted to Council last year with over 1000     signatures supporting the ban of smoke-free outdoor areas in Parramatta, clearly illustrating the proposal HAS community support. *       Hospitality workers deserve to work in a smoke free environment; environmental tobacco smoke is a health risk. Chances are most of us in this room tonight have been touched by someone who has had cancer. It is a devastating circumstance to find yourself in and one I hope to never find myself in again. Cancers caused by cigarette smoke are PREVENTABLE. We remove the smoke, we remove the risk. Council has a responsibility to the community to support our health and well being by introducing bans such as smoke free outdoor dining areas in Parramatta. Supporting the motion of banning smoking in out door areas is not about party alliances or personal beliefs.  This is about supporting what the community wants and more to the point what the community needs. It is a positive step, one that many other councils in NSW have already made. I strongly believe that Parramatta Council should take a stand and show they are serious about looking after the best interests of those in the community. Quite frankly I am sick of not being able to take my family out to dinner on a nice summer evening because myself and my son are asthmatic and the interpretation of ‘al fresco’ dining for a lot of people is ‘smoking area’. Apart from being an immediate health hazard to half of my family, it spoils the meal.  I find it completely unacceptable to take a mouth full of fantastic food that I have paid good money for to be ruined by the stench of tobacco smoke from the patron sittings around us. If Council is serious about the welfare of the community and patrons who come to Parramatta then they should do the right thing and step up and ban smoking in out door areas!

4

SUBJECT          2 Morton Street, Parramatta REFERENCE    F2010/01017 - D01753101 REPORT OF      N/A

11981

FROM                 Nicholas Wolff · Frasers continue to encourage Council to adopt the Council Officers recommendation of 22 November 2010. · I understand that concerns have been expressed by some councillors in relation to community consultation on the project. Since the last council meeting councillors have been advised of the 4 or 5 occasions over the last five years when the rezoning of this site has been put to the community and feedback received. · Notwithstanding the level of consultation to date, which has certainly been comprehensive, as we  move beyond the rezoning stage of the project, Frasers’ will commit to carrying out a substantial further community consultation through the DA stages of the project as we have done on many similar urban development projects in the past. · Based on our experience, significant involvement of developers in community consultation prior to the completion of the rezoning stage of urban sites such as 2 Morton Street is not appropriate as it can lead to frustration on the part of the community, the Council and the developers, leading frequently to misunderstandings and misinformation which potentially can undermine the consultation process itself. · While still in the rezoning stage of a site, as is the current case at 2 Morton Street, the material available for review by the community consists of highly schematic diagrams illustrating the proposed zoning of the land and possible locations of unadorned building blocks on an un-landscaped site plan. Such material does not facilitate good engagement with the community. · However, once we are passed this current rezoning stage, it is Frasers’ commitment to Council that we will engage comprehensively with the community as we work with them to finalise the location of buildings on the site, their architectural design, the landscape treatment of the site and the proposed staging sequence. It is in that process we will take into account the concerns registered to date by the community. As examples of our community engagement processes which we will employ at 2 Morton Street, I can direct you to the highly regarded community consultation which has been undertaken on the former CUB site in Broadway and our recently acquired Frasers Putney site. · Frasers  are keen to execute the VPA as currently agreed with the Council and not have the community benefits limited to only those that would if S94 Levies were applied (this would result in the benefit to the community being some $6M less than that under the VPA – regardless of the value of the open space land to be incorporated). However, Frasers will not be in a position to execute the VPA if the decision by Council in relation to the rezoning extends beyond December 31^st this year. This time frame is a result of the fact that we had allowed some 12 months to finalise this matter from October last year when the Planning Proposal was first agreed to by Council and that period has already expired and cannot be extended beyond the end of the year. · I would welcome the opportunity to answer any questions that may arise. NOTE:       Councillor L E Wearne returned to the meeting at 7.03 pm during consideration of this matter.

5

SUBJECT          Development Application - 46 Stuart Street, Granville REFERENCE    DA/166/2010/A - D01753126 REPORT OF      N/A

11982

FROM                  Pium Attanayake 1.      Can the Council inform me the reasons why my section 96           application with reference number DA/166/2010/A lodged on 20           October 2010 was referred to this Council meeting for   approval?           Original Condition 6 in DA/166/2010 approval states:- “The level of driveway providing access between the road and           parking spaces shall be no lower than the 0.20M below the 1 in           100 year ARI flood level.”           Proposed Amendment:- “The level of driveway providing access between the road and           parking spaces shall be no lower than 0.20M below the 1 in 100           year ARI flood level, with an exception for the first two metres           from the street boundary to allow for a satisfactory transition.” 2.     Is the condition 6, stipulated in the conditional DA approval dated 5 July 2010, a mistake by the council? If the answer to this question is no, can the council explain to me how it is possible to meet this approval condition considering the fact that there will be a gap of 160mm from the left and 220mm from the right between the street boundary and my property, if the driveway is built to DS 10      (High level) specifications approved by the Council. 3.      If the condition 6 in the approval was stipulated by a mistake, will           Council pay me the additional cost that my builder charges me for the delay in the         commencement of construction? My DA 166/2010 application to rebuild two storey residential dwelling at 46 Stuart Street, Granville NSW 2142 was conditionally approved by the Council at its meeting held on 28 June 2010. The reason for this referral was due to this development being considered as three storeys instead of two storeys. My property is located with a high hazard flood area, and is required to raise habitable floor area 500mm above 1 in 100 year flood level of 11.37M (condition 10). This condition required to raise floor level 1.3M above ground level and therefore considered as a three storey dwelling. Therefore, it required a change of the policy and was acceptable to me. However, in my opinion, the section 96 application lodged by my builder on 20 October 2010 was a minor technical issue, and shouldn’t have been referred to the Council at all. This process has taken more than 11/2 months. This costs me more money. If the Council is responsible for stipulating a condition that could never be met, I ask the Council to pay me the additional costs I have incurred and also the Section 96 application fee. RESPONSE By Mark Leotta – Service Manager Development Assessment Services 1. The original development application (DA/166/2010) was referred to Council for determination given that the proposed development was defined as being 3 storeys in height. This necessitated an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 and as the variation sought was greater than 10%, delegation rested with the elected members of Council. The delegations currently granted by Council also require that all applications made under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 must be determined by Council where the original development application was also determined by Council. Accordingly, the current s96 application is now before Council at tonight’s Regulatory meeting for determination. It is also to be noted that this Section 96 application was lodged on 20 October 2010, where upon it was reviewed, notified and assessed by Council staff and a report prepared for consideration by Council. Given the necessary lead time required for the preparation of a Council agenda, tonight’s Regulatory meeting was the first available Council meeting the application could be scheduled for. 2.  The subject site is zoned Residential 2E and is identified by Council as high risk flood prone land. In order to facilitate an approval of the original development application, Council’s Catchment Management Engineers imposed conditions (including Condition 6) relating to construction levels which need to be satisfied to ensure an appropriate level of safety is maintained for persons and property (including infrastructure and vehicular/pedestrian access). Condition 6 is an appropriate condition which is applied generically to consents for development within flood prone areas where an applicant has not undertaken the recommended flood modelling prior to designing their proposal, to meet minimum safety standards as described above. Following further investigation of the impacts of the 1:100 year flood event post DA determination, the applicant has found that the condition cannot be fully complied with. It is acknowledged that in this case, the levels specified in Condition 6 would result in the applicant having to amend the proposal in respect of the driveway to ensure minimum levels of safety to persons and property. An assessment of the s96 application by Council’s Engineers has confirmed that the situation that has arisen for the applicant is site specific and therefore a performance assessment can be considered and is supported in this case. It is therefore recommended that Condition 6 be amended to include the wording sought by the applicant’s design engineer. Council’s Engineers have also recommended additional notations that place the liability on the owners of the subject site for the non compliance with the criteria of Council’s Local Floodplain Risk Management Policy. For the reasons set out above, Council is of the opinion that imposition of Condition 6 as part of the original determination was not in error. Rather, it was imposed correctly and for valid concerns in respect of the safety of persons and property. 3. For the reasons outlined in response No. 2 it is considered Condition 6 was not inappropriately or mistakenly imposed. NOTE:      Councillor S D Lloyd returned to the meeting at 7.13 pm               during consideration of this matter.

6

SUBJECT          Development Application - 74 Tintern Avenue, Telopea REFERENCE    DA/8/2010 - D01753232 REPORT OF      N/A

11983

FROM                  Sue Johnston on behalf of Phillip Johnston I would like to address the Council regarding a merit consideration of my DA proposal as opposed to that presented by the Planning Assessment Officer's report. The issues are those identified relating to design of the proposal brought about by the garage design mitigating, inter alia, potential traffic impacts within the street at the subject site. 1 & 2. Does Council consider application on merit? Under Part 4.0 of the Parramatta DCP 2005 – “Applications will be considered on merit and achievement of the objectives, design principles and design standards.” Variations are to be stated in the Development Applications, however the Planning Assessment report 12.9 has not articulated the merits of the proposal as outlined within the Statement of Environmental Effects (S.E.E) and accompanying documents. Working with the site characteristics, the development has overcome the constraints and mitigates potential traffic impacts When viewing the west elevation of the proposal, please explain the requirements of clause 4.2.1. The officers assertion of visual dominance is on one small portion of the view (which is angled)  of the property not the whole. Four parking spaces are required and are designed satisfactorily not to compromise the streetscape character. Other dwellings in the street have double and triple garages facing the street – refer to S.E.E. 3. Rear setback is justified under circumstances of the case. The objectives have been met and refer to S.E.E. the required deep soil, open space and building separation are provided. 4. Casual surveillance is provided with areas for looking, interaction with the neighbourhood shops and car parking opposite the site. Street facing doors are not mandatory. A mirror can be provided to Dwelling “A.” The garages provide safe and internal access to the respective dwellings. Sensor lights are used at night time. There are no design standards for dual occupancies. 5. Procedural Fairness. Requested drainage plans were submitted, however no correspondence has been received to indicate that additional information is required. An OSD system has been submitted and are matters for any construction Certificate. 6. The number of submissions are reduced for a Section 82A proposal. No 72 Tintern Avenue has not objected to the revised proposal, neither the owners of the shops, which directly view the proposal. As Outlined within the S.E.E the proposal should be supported based on merit and compliance with PDCP 2005 objectives and principles. RESPONSE By Mark Leotta – Service Manager Development Assessment Services 1. Does Council consider applications on merit? Part 4 of DCP2005 states that “applications will be considered on merit and achievement of the objectives, design principles and design standards. Development that varies design principles and/or standards must satisfy the objectives of the particular general principle and balance the design outcome with the objectives of other general principles. The variation must be justified as part of the development application submission.” Although the public forum question is general in nature, it appears that it specifically relates to the streetscape and garage dominance issue. In this regard, Principle P9 of Section 4.2.1 of DCP2005 states that “garages and parking structures are not to dominate the building facade and front setback.” This principle is relevant to the development application and assists in achieving the objectives of the streetscape section of the DCP, particularly to ensure new development responds to, reinforces and sensitively relates to the spatial characteristics of the existing urban environment, and encourages attractive street frontages and improves pedestrian amenity. The related design standard to the design principle is that “garages are to be a maximum of 6.3m wide or 50% of the width of the street elevation whichever is the lesser.” The garages of the proposed development represent 100% of the street elevation. This clearly does not comply with the design standard and does not achieve the stated objectives. The applicant has stated that the proposal has been designed to mitigate potential traffic impacts.  It is noted that a traffic island is located partially in front of the subject property. Council’s Traffic staff have advised that it is not unsafe for vehicles to reverse from the site in either direction. It should also be noted that vehicles exiting from the rear dwelling will still need to reverse off site. The traffic generation from the potential 9 additional vehicle movements per day is not considered to be a traffic or safety issue in the circumstances of this case. A merit based assessment has been carried out on the proposed development and consideration has been given to the information provided within the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects. It is considered that there are no significant site constraints that warrant the non-compliance with the design standards of DCP2005. 2. When viewing the west elevation of the proposal please explain the requirements of clause 4.2.1 (of DCP 2005) Section 4.2.1 relates to streetscape matters to be considered in the assessment of all development applications. It sets out objectives, design principles and design standards to enhance the predominant streetscape qualities, such as building form, scale, patterns, materials and colours in order to contribute to the character of the local area. The proposed development incorporates 2 x double garages which represent 100% of the building elevation (being the west elevation). This design has its greatest impact upon the streetscape when viewed from the north-west of the site. Section 4.2.1 of the DCP does not distinguish between different visual viewpoints of a development. The 2 x double garages will be viewable from the public domain and therefore will have an adverse impact upon streetscape amenity. The public forum states that other development exists within the street having double or triple garages. Although an assessment has not been carried out on each individual example provided, it is accurate to say that none of the examples provided have 4 garages and none of them represent 100% of the building elevation. 3. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of the Public Forum are statements and do not raise any questions.

PETITIONS

1	SUBJECT          Oakleigh Avenue, Granville - Request for Speed Humps REFERENCE    F2004/06346 - D01757007 FROM                 Blaxcell Street Public School
11984	RESOLVED      (Elmore/Lack) (a)      That the petition be received and referred to the appropriate Council Officer for report. (b)      Further, that all councillors be given a copy of the speed hump map as prepared by the Service Manager Traffic and Transport.

2	SUBJECT          Improved Street Lighting - John Street, Granville REFERENCE    F2008/02835 - D01757003 FROM                 The Hon David Borger, MP
11985	RESOLVED      (Elmore/Garrard) That the petition be received and referred to the appropriate Council officer for report.

Rescission Motions

7.1

SUBJECT          Results of public exhibition of Planning Proposal, Draft DCP and Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement for 2 Morton Street Parramatta REFERENCE    F2010/01017 - D01743966 REPORT OF      N/A. Also Group Manager Outcomes and Development Memorandum dated 29 November 2010. Also correspondence from NSWPlanning dated 6 December 2010.

11986

MOTION              (Finn/Esber) That the resolution of the Council Meeting held on 22 November 2010, regarding, results of public exhibition of Planning Proposal, Draft DCP and Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement for 2 Morton Street Parramatta namely:- “ (a)    That Council consider all submissions received and adopt the Planning Proposal for 2 Morton Street, Parramatta subject to the following variations as enabled by Section 58 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:            1      That the Floor Space Ratio be increased from 1.2:1 to 1.3:1. 2       That the portion of the site to be zoned Waterway be reduced to that area as shown in Attachment 4. 3       That a clause be introduced into the Planning Proposal that for the purposes of calculating FSR, the whole of the site area be included. (b)      That Council adopt the draft VPA subject to the finalisation of the legal drafting, including the matters raised in this report. (c)       That upon signing of the Voluntary Planning Agreement, the Planning Proposal as amended be forwarded to the Department of Planning in accordance with Section 59 of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and that the Director General make arrangements for the legal drafting of the required LEP amendment. (d)      That subject to the signing of the Voluntary Planning Agreement, the draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2010 be amended, prior to its finalisation to include the outcomes of the Planning Proposal. (e)      That Council not carry out a public hearing in respect of the Planning Proposal and the submitters requesting this be notified accordingly. (f)        That Council adopt the site specific draft Development Control Plan (DCP) for 2 Morton Street, subject to the following amendments, with the DCP to become effective at the date corresponding to the making of the LEP amendment giving effect to the proposal: 1.      That the provision contained in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 with respect to car sharing scheme also apply to this site specific DCP. 2.      That assessment criteria be included in the draft DCP to enable the proper assessment of a development application which proposes development at or adjoining the 1 in 100 year flood line. 3.      That the wording of clause 3.2 be amended to reiterate Council’s preference for tower elements to be located closer to the interface of the foreshore land. 4.      Delete reference to clause 5.1. 5.      That the depth of buildings be measured from glass line to glass line. 6.      Delete clause 5.4 (e). 7.      Remove the 40% landscape requirement and allow for landscaping controls to be a merit assessment with an emphasis on deep soil planting within the Mixed Use zone. 8.      That car parking requirements be amended to be consistent with the draft Parramatta DCP 2010. 9.      That reference to road widening requirement for Morton Street be deleted. 10.    That the specifications for width of the road verge for Morton Street be a 3 metre footpath plus a 3 metre grassed verge. (g)      That the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be given delegated authority to execute and affix the Common Seal of Council to the necessary documents (h)      Further, that all persons who made submissions be notified of the outcome.” be and is hereby rescinded.  The motion was put and lost. DIVISION       The result being: AYES             Councillors G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P K Maitra and M D McDermott. NOES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, L E Wearne and A A Wilson.

7.2

SUBJECT          Banning of Smoking in Outdoor Dining Areas REFERENCE    F2004/10350 - D01743970 REPORT OF      N/A

11987

MOTION              (Finn/Maitra) That the resolution of the Council Meeting held on 22 November 2010 regarding Objection to Banning Smoking in Outdoor Dining Areas namely:- “(a)     That the petition received from business owners and restaurant proprietors be received and noted. (b)      That the petition received from patrons be received and noted. (c)       That a policy be taken to allow smoking in outdoor dining areas. (d)      That broad consultation be carried out over the next 12 months to ascertain whether there is any and, if so, what level of support existing in the business and general community for a ban of smoking in alfresco dining areas owned or controlled by Parramatta City Council such consultation to include:-            1      Face to face interviews and surveys carried out with         restaurant proprietors;            2      Face to face interviews and surveys carried out with diners   at both lunch times and dinner times in a large sample of         restaurants;            3      Surveys conducted in Parramatta Park at the Residents         Panel stand on Australia Day and/or any other appropriate         time and place;            4      Surveys and interviews to be carried out across a broad age,         social, ethnicity and other demographic sample. (e)      Further, that the costs of such consultation be taken from the City Centre Economic Development Levy and/or rentals and licence fees received from footpath leases and licences and/or any other appropriate budget.” be and is hereby rescinded. PROCEDURAL MOTION              (Bide/Wilson) The question be put. The procedural motion was put and lost and debate continued. The motion was put and lost. Note Councillors G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, M A Lack, P K Maitra and M D McDermott requested that their names be recorded as having voted against this decision.

ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING

In accordance with Council's decision of 23 October 2000 (Minute No 5712) the meeting adjourned at 9.07 pm for a period of 15 minutes.

RESUMPTION OF MEETING

The meeting resumed in the Council Chamber at 9.22 pm, there being in attendance The Lord Mayor, Councillor P J Garrard and Councillors A Bide, J Chedid, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, M D McDermott, P K Maitra, L E Wearne and A A Wilson.

Economy and Development

8.1	SUBJECT          Variations to Standards under SEPP 1 REFERENCE    F2009/00431 - D01738420 REPORT OF      Manager Development Services
11988	RESOLVED      (Esber/Elmore) That the report be received and noted.

8.2	SUBJECT          Appointment of Member to the Sydney West Region Joint Regional Planning Panel REFERENCE    DA/105/2009/A - D01731044 REPORT OF      Team Leader Council Support
11989	RESOLVED      (Wearne/Esber) (a)       That Councillor M D McDermott replace the Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid as Parramatta City Council’s representative on the Sydney West Region Joint Regional Planning Panel. (b)                        (b)     Further, that Councillor A A Wilson be appointed as an alternate delegate to the Sydney West Region Joint Regional Planning Panel.

8.3

SUBJECT          330 Church Street, Parramatta and Riverbank site controls REFERENCE    NCA/23/2010 - D01739109 REPORT OF      Group Manager Outcomes and Development

11990

RESOLVED      (Esber/Wilson) (a)       That Council receive and note the report of the Group Manager Outcomes and Development regarding Riverbank site controls and future development of 330 Church Street, Parramatta. (b)       That Council endorse the response to the Director General, Department of Planning on his requirements relating to the proposed development of 330 Church Street, Parramatta. (c)       That Council adopt the Riverbank site controls as supplementary provisions to the Riverbank Urban Design Study. (d)       That Council seek support from the Minister for Planning and Local Members of Parliament for the establishment for a joint assessment process for the proposed development at 330 Church Street, Parramatta. (e)       That a 3% levy be accepted rather than Section 94 fees. (f)        That Council staff provide Councillors with an appropriate memorandum assuring Councillors that no equity loss will result and outlining how equity gains may be achieved. (g)       Further, that in discussions with the Director General and Meriton Apartments, Council continue to pursue the inclusion of commercial within the development and also pursue a shared tunnel approach in relation to access. Note Discussions were also held in Closed Session (Item 14.2) pertaining to negotiations held in relation to this issue.

8.4

SUBJECT          Investigations relating to 3 Mahony Road, Constitution Hill REFERENCE    CC/66/2010 - D01741864 REPORT OF      Group Manager Outcomes and Development

11991

RESOLVED      (Esber/Maitra) (a)      That the Council endorse the actions taken to date in relation to the improvements for Parra-Certification Services. (b)      That a further report be presented to Council by June 2012 on implementation of these improvements. (c)       Further, that the complainant in this matter also be advised of these changes and improvements. Note Councillor A Bide declared a non pecuniary interest in relation to this matter as his mother resides in close proximity to the subject residence. Councillor Bide did not retire from the meeting during consideration of this matter.

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD

Due to the presence of interested persons in the public gallery, Items 11.4, 11.7, 11.8, 11.9, 12.1, 12.4, 12.9, 12.10, 12.11, 12.14 were brought forward and considered at this point in the meeting.

Reports - Domestic Applications

11.1

SUBJECT          5 Thane Street, Wentworthville (Lot 22 DP 217931) DESCRIPTION  Construction of a 2 storey dwelling with basement style garages and attached granny flat on proposed Lot 222 in an approved subdivision of Lot 22 DP 217931. REFERENCE    DA/778/2010 - Submitted 30 September 2010 APPLICANT/S   Universal Property Group OWNERS           Neetu Dawar REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application has been referred to Council for determination as the application seeks approval to vary the development standard for allotment width at the front alignment of a building by more than 10%.

11992

RESOLVED      (Lim/Finn) (a)       That Council support the variation to clause 38(1)(b) of the PLEP 2001 under the provisions of SEPP 1. (b)       Further, that Council as the consent authority grant a deferred commencement development consent to Development Application No. DA/778/2010 for the construction of a 2 storey dwelling with basement style garages and attached granny flat on proposed Lot 222 in an approved subdivision of Lot 22 DP 217931 at No. 5 Thane Street, Wentworthville  NSW  2145 subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 1. DIVISION       The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES             Councillor A Bide.

11.2

SUBJECT          101 South Street, Ermington (Lot 281)(DP 1000171) DESCRIPTION  Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling comprising a first floor addition and ground floor deck. REFERENCE    DA/530/2010 - 5 July 2010 APPLICANT/S   Mr R L W Hanley OWNERS           Mr R L W Hanley and Ms D R Large REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application is being referred to Council for determination as the proposal seeks a SEPP 1 variation of greater than 10% to Clause 39 “Height limits in residential zones” in Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001.

11993

RESOLVED      (Lim/Issa OAM) That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. 530/2010 for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling comprising a first floor addition and ground floor deck at 101 South Street Ermington for a period of five (5) years from the date on the Notice of Determination subject to the conditions contained in attachment 1. DIVISION       The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES             None.

11.3

SUBJECT          27 The Boulevarde, Epping Lot 17, DP 11189 (Lachlan Macquarie Ward) DESCRIPTION  Alterations and additions to a dwelling house including the construction of a first floor addition containing 3 bedrooms. REFERENCE    DA/747/2010 - 21 September 2010 APPLICANT/S   Mr G Bowden OWNERS           Mr S J Wood and Mrs V R Wood REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application has been referred to Council as the application seeks a variation of greater than 10% to the height control of Clause 39 of Local Environmental Plan 2001 and the application is accompanied by an objection under SEPP 1.

11994

RESOLVED       (Bide/Issa OAM) (a)      That Council support the variation to Clause 39 of the PLEP 2001 under the provisions of SEPP 1. (b)      Further, that Development Application No 747/2010 for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling at 27 The Boulevarde, Epping be approved for a period of five (5) years from the date on the Notice of Determination subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1. DIVISION       The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott and L E Wearne. NOES             Councillor A A Wilson.

11.4

SUBJECT          57 Chesterfield Road Epping (LOT 14)(DP 8452) DESCRIPTION  Section 96(1A) application to modify a development consent for the construction of a 2 storey dwelling. The modifications include as-built works, the use of aluminium framed windows for the side and rear elevations in lieu of timber framed windows, changes to the internal floor layout, raising the floor level of the living room and dining room by 360mm, deletion of brick piers on the rear elevation, use of sheet metal roofing for the rear verandah in lieu of translucent roofing. REFERENCE    DA/786/2006/C - 27 August 2010 APPLICANT/S   Mrs E W Y Tao OWNERS           Mr E Y Yi and Ms G O Yi REPORT OF      Manager Development Services. Also Email from Leo Tao dated 3 December 2010. Also Memorandum from Service Manager Development Assessment Services dated  December 2010. REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application is referred to Council as the original application for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new 2 storey brick veneer dwelling was approved by Council on 10 December 2007 and due to the number of objections received.

11995 11996 11997

RESOLVED      (Garrard/Elmore) (a)     That Council as the consent authority, modify development consent to Development Application No. 786/2006 for the construction of a 2 storey dwelling. The modifications include as-built works comprising, changes to the internal floor layout, raising the floor level of the living room and dining room by 360mm, deletion of brick piers on rear elevation, use of sheet metal roofing for the rear verandah in lieu of translucent roofing, relocation of the rainwater tank on land at 57 Chesterfield Road Epping as shown on the plans submitted with the modification of determination, for a period of five (5) years from the date on the original Notice of Determination and conditions set out in Attachment 1. (b)     That the request to delete condition 41 & 42 is not supported. (c)       That the matter be referred to Regulatory Compliance for investigation and a PIN issued for unauthorised works. (d)      Further, that the objectors be advised of Council’s decision. DIVISION       The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES             Councillor C X Lim. RESOLVED      (Esber/Lim) That the item be recommitted. RESOLVED      (Esber/Lim) (a)   That Council as the consent authority, modify development consent to Development Application No. 786/2006 for the construction of a 2 storey dwelling. The modifications include as-built works comprising, changes to the internal floor layout, raising the floor level of the living room and dining room by 360mm, deletion of brick piers on rear elevation, use of sheet metal roofing for the rear verandah in lieu of translucent roofing, relocation of the rainwater tank on land at 57 Chesterfield Road Epping as shown on the plans submitted with the modification of determination, for a period of five (5) years from the date on the original Notice of Determination and conditions set out in Attachment 1 with the  request to delete condition 41 and 42 being supported. (b)   That the matter be referred to Regulatory Compliance for investigation and a PIN issued for unauthorised works. (c)    Further, that the objectors be advised of Council’s decision. DIVISION       The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott and A A Wilson. NOES             Councillors J D Finn, P J Garrard and L E Wearne.

11.5

SUBJECT          25 Angus Avenue, Epping Lot B DP 357544 (Lachlan Macquarie Ward) DESCRIPTION  Demolition, tree removal and construction of a two storey dwelling house. REFERENCE    DA/815/2010 - 18 October 2010 APPLICANT/S   Vaughn Milligan Development Consulting OWNERS           Mr A H Saxena and Mrs S Saxena REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application has been referred to Council as it seeks a variation of greater than 10% to the height control within Clause 39 of Local Environmental Plan 2001 and the application is accompanied by an objection under SEPP 1.

11998

RESOLVED      (Bide/Lim) (a)      That Council support the variation to Clause 39 of the PLEP 2001 under the provisions of SEPP 1. (b)      Further, that Development Application No 815/2010 for demolition, tree removal and construction of a two storey dwelling house at 25 Angus       Avenue, Epping be approved for a period of five (5) years from the date of the Notice of Determination subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1 of      this report DIVISION       The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott and L E Wearne. NOES             Councillor A A Wilson.

11.6

SUBJECT          11 Hera Place , Winston Hills LOT 1162 DP 239878 DESCRIPTION  Alterations and additions to a two storey dwelling house including the enlargement of the first floor. REFERENCE    DA/813/2010 - Submitted 15 October 2010 APPLICANT/S   Homeplan Architects OWNERS           Mr R S Owad Mrs C T Owad REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application has been referred to Council as the application seeks a variation of greater than 10% to the height control of Clause 39 of Local Environmental Plan 2001 and the application is accompanied by an objection under SEPP 1.

11999

RESOLVED       (Lim/Lloyd) (a)      That Council support the variation to Clause 39 of the PLEP 2001 under the provisions of SEPP 1. (b)      That Development Application No 813/2010 for alterations and additions to a two storey dwelling house including the enlargement of the first floor at 11 Hera Place , Winston Hills be approved subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1 of this report. (c)       Further, that the matter regarding the unauthorised construction of the deck be referred to Council’s compliance team for investigation and possible enforcement action. DIVISION       The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES             None.

11.7

SUBJECT          45 Lower Mount Street, Wentworthville (Lot 92 DP 1007197) (Arthur Phillip Ward) DESCRIPTION  Section 96(1A) application to modify a development consent for the construction of a single storey dwelling with detached garage. The application seeks approval to delete condition 28 (relating to works-as executed plans) and delete condition 30 (relating to the construction of a privacy screen 3.3m high and 27m long). REFERENCE    DA/87/2002/B - Submitted 2 September 2010 APPLICANT/S   Mr J Conciatore & Ms R R Wood OWNERS           Mr J Conciatore & Ms R R Wood REPORT OF      Manager Development Services. Also correspondence dated 6 December 2010 from J Conciatore. Also Statement received on 3 December 2010 from Mrs J Jenkins. REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application is being referred to Council for determination at the request of the Group Manager Outcomes and Development.

Note Consideration of this matter was withdrawn by the applicant via letter dated 6 December 2010.

11.8

SUBJECT          46 Stuart Street, Granville (Lot 8 Sec 10 DP 1788) (Woodville Ward) DESCRIPTION  Section 96(1A) modification to an approved dwelling. Modifications include varying condition 6 regarding driveway access and flood level restrictions. REFERENCE    DA/166/2010/A - Submitted 21 October 2010 APPLICANT/S   Firstyle Homes Pty Ltd OWNERS           Mr P K Attanayake & Mrs W K Jayasundara REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application is referred to Council as the original application for the demolition, tree removal and construction of a two storey residential dwelling was approved by Council on 28 June 2010.

12000

RESOLVED      (Elmore/Issa OAM) (a)     That Council as the consent authority, modify development    consent to Development Application No. 166/2010 for demolition,       tree removal and construction of a two storey residential dwelling in   the following manner:            1.     Modification of Condition 6 to read as follows:            6.     The level of the driveway providing access between the road         and parking spaces shall be no lower than 0.20m below the 1         in 100yr ARI flood level, with an exception for the first two         metres from the street boundary to allow for a satisfactory         transition.                   Note 1:   Council will not be liable to any damage to a car               parked within this area in a large rain fall event.                   Note 2: The applicant is to check overland flow velocities and         flow depths along pedestrian access ways and proposed               driveway areas to ensure that flow depths do not exceed the Council maximum allowable 0.2 m depth and that the            maximum velocity depth product is no greater than 0.4. The          average flood water depth within the front site of the property        (at the proposed driveway) based on levels provided is                 estimated to be approximately 0.64mm for a 1 in 100 year            flood event. This does not comply with Section 1.4.1 (f) of              Council’s Draft Design and Development Guidelines.                    Reason:     To comply with Council’s Local Floodplain Risk             Management Policy. (b)       Further, that clarification be provided to Councillors as to whether  a similar condition relating to a driveway was opposed by Council at 42 Gregory Street, Granville. DIVISION       The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES             None.

11.9

SUBJECT          9 Joseph Street, Rydalmere (Lot 1 DP 455475) (Elizabeth Macarthur) DESCRIPTION  Construction of a two storey dwelling house. REFERENCE    DA/647/2010 - Submitted 11 August 2010 APPLICANT/S   PMK Properties Pty Ltd OWNERS           Mr C A Jennings & Mrs J E Jennings REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application has been referred to Council as the proposal seeks a SEPP 1 Variation of greater than 10% to “Clause 38 Minimum allotment sizes’ in Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001.

12001

RESOLVED      (Esber/Elmore) (a)       That Council support the variation to Clause 38 of the Parramatta LEP 2001 entitled ‘Minimum allotment sizes and width’ of Parramatta Local Environment Plan 2001 under the provisions of SEPP 1. (b)       Further, that pursuant to the provisions of S.80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 the development application DA/647/2010 for the construction of a two storey dwelling house at 9 Joseph Street, RYDALMERE NSW 2116 be granted a Deferred Commencement Consent subject to the conditions of Attachment 1. DIVISION       The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES             None.

Reports - Major Applications

12.1

SUBJECT          41 Hunter Street, Parramatta (Lot 1 in DP 27310) (Arthur Phillip Ward) DESCRIPTION  Demolition of an addition to a heritage-listed commercial building and construction of a six storey commercial building. REFERENCE    DA/169/2009 - lodged 26th March, 2009 APPLICANT/S   Mr L Wehbe OWNERS           Superman Pensions Pty Ltd REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application is brought to Council for determination as the development involves works to a heritage listed building.

12002

RESOLVED      (Esber/Lim) (a)       That Council, as the consent authority, grant a deferred commencement consent, pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 for the demolition of an addition to a two storey heritage-listed building and the construction of a six storey commercial building at 41 Hunter Street, Parramatta, subject to the conditions of consent outlined in Attachment 1 of this report. (b)       Further, that Railcorp be advised in writing of Council’s decision. DIVISION       The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, P Esber, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott and L E Wearne. NOES             Councillors G J Elmore, J D Finn and A A Wilson.

12.2

SUBJECT          The Willows Retirement Village, 226 Windsor Road, Winston Hills (Caroline Chisholm Ward) Lot 2 in DP 772001 DESCRIPTION  Section 96(1A) application to an approved in-fill senior's housing development known as 'The Willows' seniors village. The modifications include increasing the size of two windows and reducing the size of two louvred terrace screens. REFERENCE    DA/703/2008/D - submitted 29th September, 2010 APPLICANT/S   Aevum Limited OWNERS           Aevum Limited REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             This application is brought to Council for determination as the parent DA was determined by Council.

12003

RESOLVED      (Bide/Lim) That Council as the consent authority, modify development consent to No. 703/2008 for the expansion of ‘The Willows’ retirement village at 226 Windsor     Road, Winston Hills, comprising additional accommodation and           facilities to the    senior's village, Strata subdivision, site works and tree removal as shown on    the plans submitted with the modification of determination in the following       manner: Modify Condition 1 in the following manner: (i)                  delete reference to Plan DA1.02(C) drawn by Young & Metcalf and dated         24^th July, 2009 and replace it with Plan DA1.02(D) drawn by Young & Metcalf and dated 6^th October, 2010. (ii)                 delete reference to Plan DA1.10(D) drawn by Young & Metcalf and dated         1^st October, 2009 and replace it with Plan DA1.10(E) drawn by Young & Metcalf and dated 2^nd August, 2010. (iii)                delete reference to Plan DA1.11(D) drawn by Young & Metcalf and dated 26^th September, 2009 and replace it with Plan DA1.11(E) drawn by Young & Metcalf and dated 2^nd August, 2010. DIVISION       The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES             None.

12.3

SUBJECT          The Willows Retirement Village, 226 Windsor Road, Winston Hills (Caroline Chisholm ward) Lot 2 in DP 772001 DESCRIPTION  Section 96(2) application to approved additional housing to 'The Willows' senior's village. The modifications relate to the Residential Aged Care Facility (RACF) and include provision of an additional 32 beds, removal of 17 hostel units, internal changes and reducing the number of carparking spaces by 13. REFERENCE    DA/703/2008/C - submitted 21st September, 2010 APPLICANT/S   Aevum Limited OWNERS           Executive Committee Strata Plans 34043, 42070 and 43536 REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             This application is brought to Council for determination as the parent DA was determined by Council.

12004

RESOLVED      (Lim/Esber) That Council as the consent authority, modify development consent No. 703/2008 for the expansion of ‘The Willows’ retirement village at 226 Windsor Road, Winston Hills, comprising additional accommodation and facilities to the senior's village, Strata Subdivision, site works and tree removal with the modifications as shown on the plans submitted with the modification of determination being works relating to the  Residential Aged Care Facility (RACF) including the provision of an additional 32 beds, removal of 17 hostel units, internal changes and reducing the number of carparking spaces by 13, as outlined in Attachment 1. DIVISION       The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES             None.

12.4

SUBJECT          Midson Road Eastwood (former Eastwood Brickworks) (Lot 5 DP 270605) DESCRIPTION  Section 82A Review of Determination to seek reconsideration of Council's refusal for a Section 96(2) modification to DA/582/2005 for the refurbishment of the Patent Kiln building for residential use to accommodate 10 dwellings, demolition of the mill building and construction of a part 5 and part 6 storey building, accommodating 41 dwellings over basement car parking for 83 vehicles and landscaping. Modifications include the reconfiguration of apartments within the Mill Building, changes to the roof line and external finishes and the internal reconfiguration for the Kiln Building including conversion of apartments to a single level. REFERENCE    DA/582/2005/E - 26 October 2010 APPLICANT/S   Hassell OWNERS           AV Jennings REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application is referred to Council as it is an application under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

12005

RESOLVED      (Esber/Lack) (a)       That Council change its determination and approve Development Application 582/2005/E for the Section 96(2) Modification to DA/582/2005 for the refurbishment of the Patent Kiln building for residential use to accommodate 10 dwellings, demolition of the mill building and construction of part 5 and part 6 storey building, accommodating 41 dwellings over basement car parking for 83 vehicles and landscaping.   Modifications include the internal reconfiguration of Kiln and Mill buildings and the modifications to the basement car parking on land at 37 Midson Road, Eastwood, subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1 of this report. (b)       Further, that the person who lodged a submission in respect of the S96(2) application be advised of Council’s determination of the application. DIVISION       The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott and L E Wearne. NOES             Councillor A A Wilson.

12.5

SUBJECT          78 Marsden Road, Ermington (Lot 1 DP 219723) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)  DESCRIPTION  Section 96(1A) application to modify a development consent for the demolition of a dwelling and the construction of a 40 place child care centre. REFERENCE    DA/191/2007/A - Submitted 5 October 2010 APPLICANT/S   Design Effect Pty Ltd OWNERS           P & J Hanna REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL The application is presented to Council for determination as the original development application was determined by Council.

12006

RESOLVED      (Bide/Maitra) (a)     That Council as the consent authority, modify development consent No. DA/191/2007 for the construction of a 40 place child care         centre. The modifications include; addition of blade walls for fire protection, internal alterations, change side windows to glass blocks, increase in the size of the shade structure in the play area, as shown on the plans submitted with the modification of determination, as outlined in Attachment 1. (b)     Further, that the application be referred to Regulatory Compliance for    investigation and possible issue of a Penalty Infringement Notice given that works were carried out without prior development approval being obtained. DIVISION       The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES             None.

12.6

SUBJECT          Filchem House, 67 High Street, Parramatta (Lot B DP 421597) (Arthur Phillip Ward) DESCRIPTION  Installation of new disabled access ramps and change of use to a business premises providing counselling services. The proposed hours of operation are 9:00am to 5:00pm Monday to Friday. REFERENCE    DA/789/2010 - Submitted 5 October 2010 APPLICANT/S   Jackson Teese Architecture OWNERS           MNSW Properties Ltd REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application has been referred to Council for determination as it involved works to a heritage listed dwelling.

12007

RESOLVED      (Bide/Maitra) That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. 789/2010 for the ‘Installation of new disabled access ramps and change of use to a business premises providing counselling services‘, on land at No. 67 High Street Parramatta subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1. DIVISION       The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES             None.

12.7

SUBJECT          399 Church Street, PARRAMATTA (LOT 1 in DP 564570) (Arthur Phillip Ward) DESCRIPTION  Rear ground floor additions to the existing building and use as a non licensed restaurant, with associated signage. The proposed hours of operation are 7:00am to 12:00 midnight Monday to Friday, 9:30am to 12:00 midnight on Saturdays and 11:00am to 12:00 midnight on Sundays. REFERENCE    DA/270/2010 - 9 April 2010 APPLICANT/S   Dvyne Design & Construction OWNERS           Saisan Property Holdings Pty Limited REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application has been referred to Council as the proposal seeks a variation of greater than 10% to “Clause 22C – Car Parking” in Parramatta City Council Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007.

12008

RESOLVED      (Bide/Lim) (a)      That Council support the variation to Clause 22C – Car Parking under Clause 24 – Exceptions to Development Standards of Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007. (b)      That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to         Development Application No. 270/2010 for rear ground floor additions to the          existing building and use as a non licensed restaurant, with associated signage on land at 399 Church Street, Parramatta subject to the conditions contained within Attachment 1.  (c)       Further, that the objector be notified of Council’s decision. DIVISION       The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES        None.

12.8

SUBJECT          25 Calder Road, Rydalmere
(Lot 1 DP 21397)

DESCRIPTION  Section 96(1a) modification of an approved  two storey dual occupancy development.

REFERENCE    DA/105/2009/A - 20 October 2010

APPLICANT/S   Mr M P Gad

OWNERS           Mrs K M Gad

REPORT OF      Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

                            The application is referred to Council as the original application was approve at the 8 March 2010 Regulatory Council Meeting.

12009

RESOLVED      (Bide/Lim)

(a)       That Council as the consent authority modify Development Consent No. 2552/2002 under the provisions of Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in the following manner:

1.      The development is to be carried out in accordance with the following plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent:

Drawing N^0	Dated
Southern and Eastern Elevation by Formas Architectural Solution. Sheet 5.	Undated
Northern and Western Elevation by Formas Architectural Solution. Sheet 6.	Undated
Ground Floor Plan by Formas Architectural Solution.	Undated
First Floor Plan by Formas Architectural Solution. Sheet 4.	Undated
Schedule of Windows and Section by Formas Architectural Solution. Sheet 7.	Undated
Schedule of Finishes by Formas Architectural Solution. Sheet 11	Undated

Document(s)	Dated
BASIX (Certificate No. 341684M)	19 October 2010

  Reason:       To ensure the work is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

(b)      Further, that  the application be referred to Regulatory Compliance for investigation and possible issue of a Penalty Infringement Notice given that the works were carried out without prior development approval being obtained.

DIVISION       The result being:

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

NOES        None.

12.9

SUBJECT          74 Tintern Avenue, Telopea (Lot 9 DP 13876) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward) DESCRIPTION  Section 82A review to seek approval for demolition, tree removal and construction of a 2 storey attached dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision REFERENCE    DA/8/2010 - Submitted 23 September 2010 APPLICANT/S   Phillip & Sue Johnston OWNERS           Phillip & Sue Johnston REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application is referred to Council as it is an application under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

12010

RESOLVED      (Esber/Maitra) That an on site meeting be held in early February with arrangements being left in the hands of the Lord Mayor with the matter to be reconsidered at the first meeting in the new  year. DIVISION       The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES        None.

12.10

SUBJECT          18 Elder Road, Dundas (LOT 1 DP51698)(Elizabeth Macarthur Ward) DESCRIPTION  Alterations to the existing dwelling, demolition of outbuildings, tree removal and the construction of a two storey dwelling to create an attached dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision. REFERENCE    DA/454/2010 - 15 June 2010 APPLICANT/S   Hillbridge Designers & Engineers OWNERS           Mr T L Gan REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             This application is being referred to Council due to the number of submissions received.

12011

RESOLVED      (Lim/Issa OAM) (a)      That Council as the consent authority grant a deferred development consent to         Development Application No. 454/2010 for the retention of the existing single     storey dwelling, demolition of the existing shed and carport, the removal of five trees on site, alterations to the existing dwelling and the construction of a new         two storey dwelling to create an attached dual occupancy development on         land at 18 Elder Road, Dundas subject to the conditions contained within Attachment 1.  (b)     Further, that submitter’s be notified of Council’s decision. DIVISION       The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES        None.

12.11

SUBJECT          Further Report 124 -130 Kissing Point Road, Dundas Lots 1 & 2 DP 455476,Lot 3 DP 656064 & Lot 1 DP 705877 (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward) DESCRIPTION  Construction of 2 x 2 storey buildings containing a total of 18 residential units over basement carparking under SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. REFERENCE    DA/460/2010 - Manager Development Services APPLICANT/S   Gus Fares Architects Pty Ltd OWNERS           Medco Petroleum Pty Limited REPORT OF      Manager Development Services. Also Senior Development Assessment Officer Memorandum dated 3 December 2010.

12012

RESOLVED      (Bide/Lack) That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. 460/2010 for the construction of 2 x 2 storey buildings containing a total of 18 residential units over basement car parking under SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 on land at 124-130 Kissing Point Road, Dundas subject to the conditions contained within Attachment 1.  DIVISION       The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, S D Lloyd and P K Maitra. NOES            Councillors J D Finn, C X Lim, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson

12.12

SUBJECT          26 George Street, Clyde (Lot 271 DP 136053) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION  Section 96(2) application to an approved brothel. Modifications include the conversion of the staff meals rooms to a managers office, managers office converted to a private waiting room, enlargement of the laundry, provision of a separate storage room, modifications to a bathroom and shower, and conversion of existing store room into a staff waiting room.

REFERENCE    DA/820/2005/A - Submitted 1 June 2010

APPLICANT/S   L & G WX Pty Ltd

OWNERS           Mr C Elias & Mrs C Elias

REPORT OF      Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

                            The application has been referred to Council for determination as the original development application was determined by Council and the proposal relates to a sex services premises.

12013

12014

12015

MOTION             (Esber/Elmore)

(a)       That Council as the consent authority modify development consent No. 820/2005, “To use the existing premises as a commercial brothel containing 6 work rooms” on land at No. 26 George Street Clyde by making the following amendments to the development consent:

Replace condition No. 1 with the following revised condition:

1.         The development is to be carried out in compliance with the following plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent:

Drawing N^o	Dated
S96-01, Issue C – Site Plan / Carpark	28/01/2010
S96-02, Issue C – Ground Floor Plan	28/01/2010
S96-03, Issue C – First Floor / Section	28/01/2010
AD02 – Accessible Amenity Design – Proposed Floor Plan - Elevations	2/11/2010

Document(s)	Dated
Statement of Environmental Effects	August 2005
Plan of Management	October 2005

No construction works (including excavation) shall be undertaken prior to the release to the Construction Certificate.

Note:               Further information on Construction Certificates can be obtained by contacting Customer Service on 9806 5518.

Reason:          To ensure the work is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

(b)      Further, that the application be referred to Regulatory Compliance for investigation and possible issue of a Penalty Infringement Notice given that works were carried out without prior development approval being obtained.

The motion was put and lost on the Lord Mayor’s casting vote.

DIVISION       The result being:

AYES             Councillors A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, M A Lack, P K Maitra and L E Wearne.

NOES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, M D McDermott and A A Wilson.

RESOLVED       (Bide/Garrard)

That  item be recommitted to the Chamber.

RESOLVED      (Bide/Maitra)

(a)       That Council as the consent authority modify development consent No. 820/2005, “To use the existing premises as a commercial brothel containing 6 work rooms” on land at No. 26 George Street Clyde by making the following amendments to the development consent:

Replace condition No. 1 with the following revised condition:

1.         The development is to be carried out in compliance with the following plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent:

Drawing N^o	Dated
S96-01, Issue C – Site Plan / Carpark	28/01/2010
S96-02, Issue C – Ground Floor Plan	28/01/2010
S96-03, Issue C – First Floor / Section	28/01/2010
AD02 – Accessible Amenity Design – Proposed Floor Plan - Elevations	2/11/2010

Document(s)	Dated
Statement of Environmental Effects	August 2005
Plan of Management	October 2005

No construction works (including excavation) shall be undertaken prior to the release to the Construction Certificate.

Note:               Further information on Construction Certificates can be obtained by contacting Customer Service on 9806 5518.

Reason:          To ensure the work is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

(b)      Further that the application be referred to Regulatory Compliance for investigation and possible issue of a Penalty Infringement Notice given that works were carried out without prior development approval being obtained.

DIVISION       The result being:

AYES             Councillor A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, M A Lack, P K Maitra and L E Wearne.

NOES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid, Councillor A Issa OAM, C X Lim, S D Lloyd  and M McDermott.

NOTE:       Councillor A A Wilson left the meeting at 10.13 pm during consideration of this matter.

12.13

SUBJECT          Boronia Park, 37A Bridge Street, Epping (Lot 3017 DP 1123441) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward) DESCRIPTION  Use of Boronia Park on three occasions (12/12/2010, 11/12/2011 and 9/12/2012) for a 'Carols in the Park' event to be run as a community event by the combined churches of Epping and Carlingford, and the Epping Rotary Club. REFERENCE    DA/816/2010 - Submitted 18 October 2010 APPLICANT/S   Pastor Larry Galbraith OWNERS           NSW Land and Property Management Authority REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL The application has been referred to Council for determination as Boronia Park is a Crown reserve. The management of Boronia Park has been devolved to Council under Section 48 of the Local Government Act 1993.

12016

RESOLVED      (Bide/Elmore) That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. 816/2010 for the use of Boronia Park for a “Carols in the Park” community event on Sundays 12 December 2010, 11 December 2011 and 9 December 2012, at No. 37A Bridge Street, Epping, subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1 with an additional condition requiring that the stair case and immediate approach to the playing field from where the event is being held be closed off. DIVISION       The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES        None. Note Councillor A Wilson returned to the meeting at 10.14 pm during consideration of this matter.

12.14

SUBJECT          254 Windsor Road & 1-3 Woodlands Street, Baulkham Hills DESCRIPTION  Affordable Rental Housing SEPP development comprising demolition, tree removal and the construction of 2 x 2 storey residential flat buildings containing 13 dwelling units, strata subdivision and basement parking for 13 cars. REFERENCE    DA/531/2010 - lodged 6th July, 2010 APPLICANT/S   Sterling Projects Pty Ltd OWNERS           Mr P & Mrs L Stephens REPORT OF      Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             This application is brought to Council for determination due to the number of submissions received.

12017

RESOLVED      (Maitra/Elmore) (a)      That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. 531/2010 for the demolition of existing residential         buildings and structures on the site and the construction of two x two storey residential flat buildings comprising 13 dwelling units over a 13 space basement carpark at 254 Windsor Road and 1-3 Woodlands Street, Baulkham Hills, for a period of five years from the date on the Notice of Determination subject to the conditions contained within Attachment 1.  (b)      Further, that the objectors be advised of Council’s decision. DIVISION       The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM, M A Lack, and P K Maitra. NOES            Councillors A Bide, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, M D McDermott L E Wearne and A A Wilson

Notices of Motion

13.1

SUBJECT          Sesqui-Centenary of Parramatta REFERENCE    F2009/02982 - D01741715 REPORT OF      Councillor M D McDermott

12018

MOTION             (Esber/Elmore) (a)       That appropriate Council Staff liaise with the Parramatta Historical Society and report to Council on the celebration of the Sesqui-Centenary of the Parramatta Municipal Council. (b)       Further, that this report detail the appropriate level of celebration that should take place in terms of noting this event. AMENDMENT   (Garrard/Wilson) That action on the notice of motion be deferred to the 13 December 2010 pending advice on any other similar motion or action being taken in relation to this issue. The amendment was put and carried and on being put as the motion was again carried.

CLOSED SESSION
12019	RESOLVED      (Esber/Elmore) Members of the press and public be excluded from the meeting of the Closed Session and access to the correspondence and reports relating to the items considered during the course of the Closed Session be withheld. This action is taken in accordance with Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act, 1993 as the items listed come within the following provisions:-

1 Legal Matters Monthly Report to Council. (D01740782) - This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (g) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

2 330 Church Street, Parramatta – This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains advice concerning commercial information of a confidential nature.

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

14.1	SUBJECT          Legal Matters Monthly Report to Council REFERENCE    F2004/07898 - D01740782 REPORT OF      Manager Development Services
12020	RESOLVED      (Esber/Lim) (a)     That the report be received and noted. (b)     Further, that future reports be provided to Councillors via the           Councillors Information Folder and continue to be reported to           Council.

14.2	SUBJECT          330 Church Street, Parramatta and Riverbank Site Controls REFERENCE    NCA/23/2010 FROM                 Group Manager Outcomes and Development
12021	NOTE:             The Group Manager Outcomes and Development provided information of a confidential nature in relation to 330 Church Street, Parramatta (Item 8.3 refers) together with advice on  negotiations currently being held. FURTHER NOTE:             Councillor A Bide retired from the meeting at 10.42 pm during consideration of this matter in Closed Session.

The meeting terminated at 10.43 pm.

THIS PAGE AND THE PRECEDING 40 PAGES ARE THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MONDAY, 6 DECEMBER 2010 AND CONFIRMED ON MONDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2010.

Lord Mayor