Agenda of Council - 28 February 2011

Council 28 February 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO

1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Council (Development) - 14 February 2011

2 APOLOGIES

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

4 Minutes of Lord Mayor

5 Public Forum

6 PETITIONS

7 Economy and Development

7.1 259 Marsden Road Carlingford

7.2 Draft Restricted Premises Enforcement Policy

7.3 Tender 43-2010 Parramatta River Foreshore Activation - Evaluation Committee Report

7.4 10-12 Carver Place Dundas Valley

7.5 Parramasala

7.6 17-19 Bridge Street, RYDALMERE NSW 2116

7.7 Parramatta City Centre Lanes Policy 2011

7.8 Planning Proposal to Amend the City Centre LEP - Parking Standards

7.9 Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee

7.10 Planning Proposal for former Moxhams Quarry site, Northmead

7.11 Amendment to Council's Development Contribution Plans

7.12 61 Mobbs Lane Epping - draft Voluntary Planning Agreement - results of public exhibition

7.13 116-124 Church Street Parramatta

7.14 Telstra Telecommunication Facility at Mobbs Lane Epping

8 Environment and Infrastructure

8.1 Minutes of the Parramatta Traffic Committee Meeting held on Thursday 10 February 2011

8.2 Traffic Engineering Advisory Group Meeting minutes held on Thursday 10 February 2011

8.3 Public Exhibition of Draft Flood Maps for Duck River Catchment

8.4 Energy and Water Efficiency Measures for Apartment Blocks

9 Community and Neighbourhood

9.1 Sportsground capacity review

9.2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting 23 November 2010

9.3 Access Advisory Committee Minutes 21 December 2010

9.4 Minutes of the Sydney West Area Health Service and Parramatta City Council Steering Group Meeting - 14 October 2010

10 Governance and Corporate

10.1 Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy

10.2 Investments Report for November 2010

10.3 Investments Report for December 2010

10.4 Minutes of the 12 October 2010 Parramatta City Council and Housing NSW Strategic Alliance meeting

10.5 Report of the Code of Conduct Sole Reviewer

10.6 Affordable Housing SEPP Review

10.7 Delivery Program and Operational Plan - Quarterly Review December 2010

10.8 Report of Audit Committee Meeting

10.9 Audit Committee Annual Report

11 Closed Session

11.1 Tender No. 34/2010 Construction of a Single Lane Roundabout and Associated Works at the Intersection of William Street, Blaxcell Street and Enid Avenue, Granville.

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.

11.2 Tender No. 36/2010 Jubilee Park Upgrade, Parkes Street, Harris Park.

11.3 Tender No. 37/2010 Horlyck Reserve, South Granville - Playing Field Reconstruction Works.

11.4 Tender No. 35/2010 Red Cow Lane, Parramatta (Adjacent 38 George Street) Between George Street and Erby Place Multi Level Carpark, Parramatta – Upgrade Works Involving Water Sensitive Urban Design Initiatives.

11.5 Property Dealing - Rydalmere

11.6 65 Kleins Road, Northmead - Class 4 Appeal to New South Wales Land and Environment Court to commence legal action.

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (e) of the Local Government act 1993 as the report contains information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law.

12 DECISIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION

13 QUESTION TIME

Council 28 February 2011 Item 7.1

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 7.1

SUBJECT 259 Marsden Road Carlingford

REFERENCE DA/112/2008 - D01847835

REPORT OF Property Program Manager

PURPOSE:

The report recommends Council to grant an easement for drainage purpose over the Council Talinga Park (PK 521) at 29A Talinga Street Carlingford for a proposed medium density residential development at 259 Marsden Road Carlingford.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council resolve to create an easement for drainage over the Council public reserve (Lot 14 DP 227071) in favour of the property at 259 Marsden Road Carlingford (Lot 3 DP 217529) on terms as stated in the report.

(b) Further, that the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to execute under seal the linen plan, Section 88B instrument, transfer granting easement and deed of agreement if required for creation of the easement.

BACKGROUND

1. A Deferred Commencement Consent (DA/112/2008) for the subject residential development has been granted by the Council subject to, among others, the creation of an easement over the Council Talinga Park (Lot14 DP 227071) for drainage purposes as shown below:

“…submission to Council of suitable documentary evidence that indicates the creation of an easement to drain water 1.2 metres wide over the down stream Council property (Lot 14 DP 227071) has been registered with the NSW Department of Lands”

2. For information the land for the subject property falls from the road, which prevents normal discharge of stormwater to Marsden Road. There is a Council storm water pipe running through the Council Talinga Park at rear and a connection to this Council pipe for the subject residential development for drainage purpose is the only practical solution. For reference, a location plan is at Attachment 1.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. The Council reserve is zoned Public Open Space 6(a), classified community and subject to a Plan of Management for Parks adopted by the Council on 28 February 2005. In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, Section 46 (1) (a1), Council may consent to the drainage easement over community land subject to the drainage pipe being laid under the surface of the ground for connection to a facility of the council or other public utility provider.

4. A drainage easement approximately 110 m long and 1.2 m wide has been proposed. The total area required for the easement is 132 square metres.

5. The Council’s valuation consultants, Frank Carrapetta and Associates have provided Council an assessment of compensation for granting the easement. For reference, an extract of the valuation report is at Attachment 2. The owner has agreed to the compensation payment, as recommended in the valuation report.

6. In addition, the owner has also agreed to reimburse Council’s costs including survey, legal and valuation fees in granting the easement.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

7. The Council’s Catchment Management Unit and Open Space & Natural Resources Unit have been consulted in the course of negotiations with the developer.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

8. Council will receive compensation payment for granting the drainage easement if the matter goes ahead.

Kwok Leung

Property Program Manager

Attachments:

1 View	Location Plan	1 Page
2	Extract of Valuation	8 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 28 February 2011 Item 7.2

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 7.2

SUBJECT Draft Restricted Premises Enforcement Policy

REFERENCE F2011/00223 - D01848291

REPORT OF Manager Regulatory Services

PURPOSE:

To present to Council for consideration and the draft Restricted Premises Enforcement Policy.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the draft Restricted Premises Enforcement Policy to be placed on Public Exhibition for a period of not less than 28 days.

(b) Further, that a report be submitted to Council after public consultation has been completed.

BACKGROUND

1. The Regulatory Services Unit is developing a set of policies under the overriding enforcement policy to guide the enforcement of activities of Regulatory Services. The suite of polices will set standards for enforcement activities that are available to the general public providing transparent, fair and equitable enforcement controls.

2. Policies has already been prepared and adopted by Council for the following:

- 306 – Enforcement Policy

- 307 – Parking Enforcement Policies

- 314 – Enforcement Outdoor Dinning Policy

- 315 – Asbestos Enforcement Policy

- 316 – Development Control Enforcement

- Animal Management Plan

3. The Policy has been prepared to facilitate a consistent approach across Parramatta City Council on the way business operators and the associated premises are managed and enforced pursuant to relevant environmental Planning & Assessment Act and other relevant legislation.

4. The draft Policy applies to all Council’s enforcement activities relating to Brothels and Related Sex Use Premises and it sets out how restricted premises will be monitored and reported non-compliances investigated to provide a clean, and consistent approach to enforcement.

5. The Policy will help align enforcement actions across all arms of Council, namely the Regulatory Services and Development Services Units, as they monitor and regulate business activities and premises within the Parramatta City Area.

CONSULTATION

6. The draft Restricted Premises Enforcement Policy has been reviewed by Council’s General Counsel and his comments have been incorporated into the draft for Council’s consideration. It is proposed to place the Policy on public exhibition for a minimum of 28 Days at which time all submissions received will be considered and reported back to the Council for final consideration and adoption of the Policy.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

7. There is no financial implication to Council

Laurie Whitehead

Manager Regulatory Services

Attachments:

1 View	Regulatory Services' Policy Framework	1 Page
2 View	Draft Restricted Premises - Enforcement Policy	14 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 28 February 2011 Item 7.3

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 7.3

SUBJECT Tender 43-2010 Parramatta River Foreshore Activation - Evaluation Committee Report

REFERENCE F2010/03157 - D01848922

REPORT OF Property Program Manager

PURPOSE:

1. To advise Council of the results of Expressions of Interest invited for activation of the Parramatta River Foreshore.

2. To recommend that Council reject all submissions received and to open negotiations with interested parties and duly notify applicants of the decision.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council reject all submissions received and to open negotiations with interested parties and duly notify applicants of the decision.

(b) Further, that a report be provided to Council within six weeks.

BACKGROUND

1. Lord Mayoral Minute of 28 June 2010 called for a discussion paper on Revitalising the River Foreshore and a Councillor Workshop. (Completed October 2010.)

2. Lord Mayoral request for Expressions of Interest for Activation of the Parramatta River Foreshore in December 2010.

3. Expression of Interest advertised December 2010 for:

o Operation of small water craft

o Operation of kiosk/mobile vending carts

o Operation of outdoor cinema

4. Advice of the Expression of Interest being advertised via email alert (601) and direct email to cinema operators.

5. Nine (9) registrations for tender document download.

6. Four (4) Expressions of Interest submissions received.

7. Summary of Submissions Received and Results:

o Cinema operators contacted, one initial enquiry but no submission received as the operator felt that Council would need to heavily contribute to the required capital outlay.

o Water activity, one response received.

o Café, two responses received which met minimum requirements.

o One Dog Café/Exercise Park submission received which did not meet minimum requirements.

8. The Assessment Panel’s recommendation is for council to formally reject all submissions received and to open negotiations with interested parties.

The reason for this recommendation is because there is no obvious anchor operator amongst the applicants. It is understood that other ancillary services and activities such as coffee carts and on water operators will be more successful if a significant operator can be identified and secured.

The Eel Boat Racing submission was in concept only and proposed to call for a further EOI to identify potential operators and/or interested parties.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

9. Intensified use of the River Foreshore and use of the waterway itself raises ecological issues. Furthermore consideration of specific water based activities must consider, among other things, construction of storage facilities, impact on the foreshore, flash flooding and the depth of the river as to suitability for water craft.

10. Activation of the River Foreshore may result in social and economic benefits, and increased tourism in the Parramatta CBD. Market demand for activation of the precinct requires further testing and further development of interest by more potential operators in the precinct.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

11. The Working Party is to report back to Council on 28 March 2011.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

Not Applicable.

Andrew Palavs

Chairperson – Evaluation Committee, Tender 43/2010

Attachments:

Tender 43-2010 Parramatta River Foreshore Activation - Evaluation Committee Report

5 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 28 February 2011 Item 7.4

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 7.4

SUBJECT 10-12 Carver Place Dundas Valley

REFERENCE DA/2257/2003 - D01852277

REPORT OF Property Program Manager

PURPOSE:

The report recommends Council to grant an easement for drainage purpose over the Council Allan Cuningham Reserve (PK 437) at 3A Buyuma Street Carlingford for a proposed medium density residential development at 10-12 Carver Place Dundas Valley.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council resolve to create an easement for drainage over the Council public reserve (Lot 53 DP 229570) in favour of the property at 10-12 Carver Place Dundas Valley (Lots 1496, 1497 and 1498 DP 36702) on terms as stated in the report.

BACKGROUND

1. The subject development site has development approval arising from an appeal to the Land & Environmental Court in 2006 for 18 town houses with basement parking. The approval is subject to conditions, among others, that:

“A 1.5m wide drainage easement shall be created within Council’s reserve. Proof of registration of the drainage easement with the NSW Land and Property Information Services, must be provide to the Principle Certifying Authority, prior to the release of an Occupation Certificate.”

2. For information the land for the subject development site falls from the road, which prevents normal discharge of stormwater to Caver Place. There is a Council storm water pipe running through the Council Allan Cuningham Reserve at rear and a connection to this Council pipe for the subject residential development for drainage purpose is the only practical solution. For reference, a location plan is at Attachment 1.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. The Council reserve is zoned Public Open Space 6(a), classified community and subject to a Plan of Management for Natural Areas adopted by the Council on 23 October 2006. In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, Section 46 (1) (a1), Council may consent to the drainage easement over community land subject to the drainage pipe being laid under the surface of the ground for connection to a facility of the council or other public utility provider.

4. A drainage easement approximately 30 m long and 1.5 m wide has been proposed. The total area required for the easement is approximately 45 square metres.

5. The Council’s valuation consultants, Frank Carrapetta and Associates have provided Council an assessment of compensation for granting the easement. For reference, an extract of the valuation report is at Attachment 2. Negotiation has had and an agreement is now reached with the owner on compensation payment, which is supported by the attached valuation.

6. Furthermore, the owner has also agreed to reimburse Council’s costs including survey, legal and valuation fees in granting the easement.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

7. The Council’s Catchment Management Unit and Open Space & Natural Resources Unit have been consulted in the course of negotiations with the developer.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

8. Council will receive compensation payment for granting the drainage easement if the matter goes ahead.

Kwok Leung

Property Program Manager

Attachments:

1 View	Location Plan	1 Page
2	Extract of Valuation	7 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 28 February 2011 Item 7.5

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 7.5

SUBJECT Parramasala

REFERENCE F2009/02982 - D01853246

REPORT OF Manager City Culture, Tourism and Recreation

PURPOSE:

The inaugural Parramasala event was held between 4 and 8 November 2010. This paper reports the outcomes of the event against the predetermined strategic objectives and seeks Council’s approval to continue the sponsorship for another year thereby extending the strategic partnership with Events NSW and Parramasala Ltd.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council receive and note the information contained within this report

(b) That Council approve the continuation of the strategic partnership with Events NSW and Parramasala Ltd for the delivery of the 2011 event by exercising the option in the Sponsorship Agreement that will extend the duration of the sponsorship arrangements for another year

BACKGROUND

1. At the Council meeting of 14 December 2009, Council resolved to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Events NSW (ENSW) relating to the production and delivery of the Parramasala event. The MOU also outlined a governance structure that involved the formation of a company limited by guarantee which would be responsible for the Parramasala event. Under the proposed governance structure both Council and ENSW would be members of the corporation that would be known as Parramasala Ltd.

2. In accordance with the Council resolution, the MOU was entered into and work commenced on the Parramasala event together with the formation of Parramasala Ltd.

3. At the Council meeting of 2 June 2010, Council resolved to provide support and sponsorship of the Parramasala event by way of a sponsorship agreement. This facilitated work continuing on the Parramasala event pending formation of Parramasala Ltd.

4. Parramasala Ltd was incorporated in June 2010. Council became a member and Council-nominated directors were appointed to the Parramasala Ltd Board in October 2010.

5. Council entered into the Sponsorship Agreement on 20 October 2010. This ensured that the support and sponsorship Council had agreed to provide under the MOU was to be delivered under an appropriate contractual framework. The Sponsorship Agreement is contained in Attachment 1.

6. The Sponsorship Agreement provides for the agreed support and sponsorship for the first event (held in November 2010). The Sponsorship Agreement permits both Council and ENSW to continue agreed sponsorship for 2 subsequent years by exercising an option to extend (see clause 10 for the manner in which these extensions are implemented).

7. The agreed support and sponsorship under the Sponsorship Agreement is provided by way of a cash contribution and ‘value in kind’ support.

8. The cash contribution is summarised below:

· $200,000 (GST exclusive) in year 1

· $250,000 (exclusive of GST) in year 2 if the first option is exercised

· $300,000 (exclusive of GST) in year 3 if the second option is exercised

9. The ‘value in kind’ contribution is listed in annexure C to the Sponsorship Agreement and includes providing marketing support, facilitating tenancies of office space, facilitating use of Council facilities and undertaking joint research. This short description is not exhaustive.

10. The option to extend the Sponsorship Agreement is exercised by both Council and ENSW giving notice. The Sponsorship Agreement requires Parramasala Ltd to provide Council and ENSW with a report about the Parramasala event to assist both Council and ENSW in deciding whether to exercise the option to extend. The attachments to this report contain information and materials drawn from that report and other sources which are considered relevant to a decision about whether to exercise the option to extend the sponsorship arrangements.

11. The strategic objectives of Council’s investment in the Parramasala event are:

a. Economic Impact:

i. Provide a trigger for increased visitation to Parramatta, including from interstate and international visitors;

b. Strategic Marketing Impact:

i. Showcase Parramatta as a unique event destination;

ii. Illustrate Parramatta, and Sydney, as a vibrant, multicultural and creative centre;

c. Community/Social Impact:

i. Offer authentic cultural and artistic experiences, while challenging perceptions of South Asian culture and its place in a global context;

ii. Provide an inspiring and engaging event for a cross cultural audience;

iii. Provide a positive message for community relations to improve cultural harmony and understanding with the South Asian community.

12. Research and measurement of the Parramasala event in 2010 was intended to provide a baseline for future years, with targets to be determined and reassessed during the annual formal post-event review.

13. The measures considered for each of the 3 strategic objectives of Council’s investment in the Parramasala event for 2010 were:

a. Economic:

i. Economic Development “Economic Value-Add” post event survey (including expenditure and bed night data);

ii. Additional employment hours in the accommodations/hospitality sectors;

iii. Pre and post event trend data flowing from Parramatta as an economic/employment destination questions in the “Parramatta Baseline Perceptions” survey;

b. Strategic Marketing:

i. Pre and post event perception data flowing from perception (parking, safety, amenity, friendliness, channel, destination awareness) questions in the “Parramatta Baseline Perceptions” survey;

c. Community/Social:

i. Media Metrics – amount of “community generated” social media (i.e. social media content generated by individuals/groups excluding Parramasala Ltd, ENSW and Council);

ii. Pre and post event social trend data flowing from Community engagement questions in the “Parramatta Baseline Perceptions” survey;

iii. Comparison with longitudinal results for Council’s events-related “Community Impact Surveys”.

14. The appropriateness of these measures in terms of relevance and investment in data collection and analysis will be reviewed by Council’s cross-functional team and may be modified for the 2011 event if Council elects to exercise the option to extend.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

15. An assessment of the event has been undertaken considering the following:

a) All available post Festival evaluation data, along with any other supporting research and analysis;

b) The level of national and international promotion of the Festival;

c) The economic, strategic and community benefits of the Festival to the State of NSW and the Parramatta Local Government Area;

d) The success or otherwise, and the ongoing business case for the Festival;

e) Branding and acknowledgement for the Council and ENSW;

f) A review of the performance of the entity charged with producing and delivering the event

16. Data collection and analysis undertaken by Parramasala Ltd, ENSW and Council has informed the assessment. This includes:

a. Ticket sales data and attendance estimates;

b. Baseline Perception Surveys – Attachment 2;

c. Face-to-Face Surveys – Overview - Attachment 3;

d. ENSW Community Tracker Results – Attachment 4;

e. Media Monitors data

17. Assessment of achievement against Council’s Objectives and Key Performance Indicators has been undertaken. Details are provided in Attachment 5.

18. Based on this assessment, it is recommended that Council exercise the option to extend the sponsorship and thereby continue its participation in the strategic partnership with Events NSW and Parramasala Ltd for the development, production and delivery of the 2011 event.

19. There are no changes proposed to Council’s roles and responsibilities contained within the Sponsorship Agreement, including the cash and in-kind contributions.

20. Minor proposed changes to the support and sponsorship to be provided under the Sponsorship Agreement do not involve any material variation to the Sponsorship Agreement. They include:

a. greater definition of graphic standards to the use of Parramasala logos and marketing devices;

b. incorporation of the graphic standards associated with the new Parramatta City brand blueprint.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

21. Since the event was held a significant amount of consultation has been undertaken through formal survey processes. This has included samples of Parramatta residents and visitors, non-residents and non-visitors, and event attendees and non-attendees:

a. Baseline Perception Surveys – 806 respondents;

b. Face-to-Face Surveys - 650 respondents;

c. ENSW Community Tracker Results – 447 respondents

Details of this consultation are included in the report attachments.

22. In the fortnight following the event, Councillors were provided with a “snapshot” of the event, containing photographs, some very initial statistics and quotes from event attendees.

23. All Councillors were invited to an informal debrief on 20 December 2010. This was also attended by John Drummond Montgomery - General Manager of Events – ENSW, Philip Rolfe – Parramasala Festival Director, and senior Council staff.

24. The internal cross-functional team, responsible for Council’s strategic objectives as well as the operational support group have met on a number of occasions to debrief and provide operational and strategic feedback.

25. An all agency operational debrief, convened by the Department of Premiers and Cabinet was conducted on 24 November 2010.

26. A series of formal debriefs have been undertaken by the Investors Group, represented by staff from ENSW and Council. These debriefs have included reviews of:

a. the Company structure and constitution;

b. the contracted deliverable of both ENSW and Council;

c. the PR campaign and media plans;

d. hospitality and VIP management;

e. potential benefits for Event Value Optimisation;

f. marketing and branding;

g. the working relationship between ENSW and Council;

h. the Sponsorship Agreement

27. Parramasala Ltd has delivered reports required under the Sponsorship Agreement to representatives of Council and ENSW (known as the Investors Group) to inform the debrief discussions and a number of recommendations made by the Investors Group have been provided to the Parramasala Ltd.

28. The documents attached to this report seek to provide Councillors with all relevant information. Should Councillors seek further detail or clarification of the information provided, both Council staff and Parramasala Ltd staff are able to assist.

29. The next board meeting of Parramasala Ltd is scheduled for 25 March 2011. The Lord Mayor, Councillor Bide and the Chief Executive Officer are members of the Board and the Manager of City Culture, Tourism and Recreation and Director Riverside Theatres are invited observers.

30. Council’s involvement in the delivery of the Parramasala event is formalised through:

a. membership of Parramasala Ltd and participation on the Board;

b. participation in the Investor Group by Council staff (Manager City Culture, Tourism and Recreation);

c. through its representation on the Marketing and Media group; and

d. directly as an operational contact to the Parramasala Ltd staff.

31. ENSW has given Council a notice exercising the option to extend for a further year confirming its desire for the Parramasala event to proceed in 2011. This notification included a commitment from ENSW to provide $1,000,000 of funding for the 2011 event.

32. The production and delivery of major cultural events like the Parramasala event often involve timing pressures. Council’s decision about whether to exercise the option to extend will help to ease those pressures.

33. The nature of the Parramasala event requires early commencement of planning and negotiations with key artists and exercise of sponsorship agreement renewal options is very relevant to these activities. Parramasala Ltd has advised that it does not intend to enter into any contracts with artists until the parties agree to the Parramasala event being conducted in subsequent years. It should be noted that delays in exercising the renewal option will impact on the ability of Parramasala Ltd to secure artists.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

34. A project bid has been submitted as part of the 2011-12 Management Plan for a direct cash contribution of $250,000 for the 2011 Parramasala event.

35. The in-kind contribution articulated within Council’s roles and responsibilities contained within the 2010 Sponsorship Agreement, comprised of both one-off and ongoing contributions. The one-off contributions related to the set up of the Parramasala Ltd office were completed in 2010 and where real costs were incurred, these were reflected in quarterly budget adjustments. The value of the ongoing contributions, such as foregone rental for the Parramasala Ltd office will be reassessed and reported to Council.

36. It is prudent to include in the Sponsorship Agreement a provision for retention of a small portion of the financial contribution until satisfactory completion of the Festival and conditional upon receipt of the Festival report and satisfactory completion of the Festival. ENSW retain $25,000 in this manner and it is recommended that Council request the same.

37. Minimal cash sponsorship was attained for the 2010 event. A specialist sponsorship organisation has been engaged by Parramasala Ltd to develop a series of new sponsorship materials to enable approach to potential sponsors. It is anticipated that Parramasala Ltd will have greater success with securing sponsorship now that the event has been established.

38. It should be noted that the Sponsorship Agreement prevents Council and ENSW from withholding or reducing its financial contribution by reason of additional sponsorship or support procured by Parramasala Ltd, ENSW or Council.

39. Although modest in 2010, the economic opportunities for the City presented by the Parramasala event will continue to grow. As audiences and visitation by non-locals grows, the direct spend in Parramatta will increase. Opportunities to utilise local businesses in the production of the event will continue to be explored. Perhaps the greatest opportunity presented by the Parramasala event though, is its potential to positively market the City and alter perceptions – critical to the development and maturity of Parramatta.

Rebecca Grasso

Manager City Culture, Tourism and Recreation

Attachments:

1 View	Sponsorship Agreement between Events NSW and Parramatta City Council and Parramasala signed by Council on 20 October 2010	57 Pages
2 View	Parramatta Baseline Perception Survey 2010	2 Pages
3 View	Overview of face-face survey results	7 Pages
4 View	Parramasala Community Tracker Results	13 Pages
5 View	Report against Council objectives and key performance indicators	4 Pages
6 View	Parramasala Status Update	1 Page
7 View	Recommendations for 2011	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 28 February 2011 Item 7.6

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 7.6

SUBJECT 17-19 Bridge Street, RYDALMERE NSW 2116

DESCRIPTION Section 96(2) application to modify a development consent for a health, recreation and social centre for males.

REFERENCE DA/501/2004/B - 20 September 2010

APPLICANT/S Mr A Denis

OWNERS Camelot Distributors Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT

4^th February 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application has been referred to Council as the use on site includes “sex on premises”.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Approval is sought for modifications to a development consent for a health, recreation and social centre for males. The proposed works have been completed. The modifications have resulted in a substantial increase in the number of rooms within the building on all of the floors. Further to this a greater portion of the building is open to the public and no longer used as office space.

Since the approval of the original Development Application, the use of the premises has gravitated towards being solely concerned with onsite sexual activities. Many other elements of the original development application are no longer provided to visitors of the site and are not included with this Section 96 development application.

The proposal is considered to be beyond the scope of a section 96(2) modification as the proposal is not substantially the same as approved.

Council has commenced proceedings in the Land and Environment Court for failure to comply with the development consent and construction of illegal building works. The proceedings have been stalled in the Court pending the outcome of this application, thus determination of this report being presented to a Development Meeting.

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s Notification DCP and no submissions were received.

Accordingly the application is recommended for refusal as the proposal is not substantially the same as the approved development.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council refuse Application DA/501/2004/B to modify a development consent for a health, recreation and social centre for males on land at 17-19 Bridge Street, RYDALMERE NSW 2116 for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is considered to be beyond the scope of a section 96(2) modification as the proposal is not substantially the same as approved development.

2. The application is not in the public interest.

David Little

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79c Report	10 Pages
2 View	Locality Plan	1 Page
3 View	Submitted Architectural Plans	4 Pages
4 View	Submitted Statement of Environmental Effects	5 Pages
5 View	Original Section 79c Report (unsigned)	12 Pages
6 View	Original Development Consent	5 Pages
7 View	Original approved plans	4 Pages
8 View	Original Statement of Environmental Effects	9 Pages
9 View	Original Plan of Management	15 Pages

Council 28 February 2011 Item 7.7

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 7.7

SUBJECT Parramatta City Centre Lanes Policy 2011

REFERENCE F2009/00340 - D01857222

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer- Urban Design

PURPOSE:

To recommend the adoption of the Daft Parramatta City Centre Lanes Policy.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts the Draft Parramatta City Centre Lanes Policy 2011.

BACKGROUND

1. The Parramatta City Centre Lanes Policy was presented to Council on 26^th July 2010 recommending that the Policy be put on public exhibition for 28 days and subsequently presented to Council at the end of the exhibition period.

2. A motion was passed that the consideration be deferred pending the holding of a workshop that included an appropriate officer from Melbourne City Council and a Saturday walking tour. Also that Council officers engage in consultation with the Lord Mayor and Councillors with view to applying best practice to Council’s Lanes Strategy.

3. The workshop was held on Saturday 16^th October 2010. It workshop included extensive information about best practice in Sydney and Melbourne by architect Craig Allchin (from 6 Degrees architects and DoP) who has been involved with lane rejuvenation projects in both these cities. A walking tour of nearby lanes was also undertaken.

4. A further report was put to the Council meeting 22^nd November 2010 recommending that the Lanes Policy be put to public exhibition and following the exhibition be put to Council for approval.

5. The Draft Parramatta City Centre Lanes Policy was placed on public exhibition over December 2010 and January 2011. No comments, questions or submissions were received.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

6. The adoption of the Policy is necessary to formalise Council’s intentions for the city centre lanes. This will enable officers to seek grants and funding to implement lanes rejuvenation projects in the city, to provide consistent advice to Developers and to protect and enhance the pedestrian network recommended by the Space Syntax Study.

7. Currently there are instances where continuous access through a city block between streets is comprised of several short lanes under different title joining together. Retaining and improving these lanes will require coordination of public and private projects over an extended period and a comprehensive plan.

8. The Parramatta City Centre DCP 2007 requires new pedestrian links to be made as lots redevelop but does not expressly require vehicular servicing links. Service access from lanes supports business and 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.

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

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

11. 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.

12. 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 are set out in the Strategy including naming unnamed lanes (over half the network); providing more active frontages to lanes and improving appearance as funds become available.

13. The preparation of the 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

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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 View	Draft Parramatta City Centre Lane Policy 2011	8 Pages
2 View	Parramatta City Centres Lanes Strategy	84 Pages
3 View	Parramatta City Centres Lanes Inventory 2009	170 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 28 February 2011 Item 7.8

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 7.8

SUBJECT Planning Proposal to Amend the City Centre LEP - Parking Standards

REFERENCE F2009/01706 - D01860138

REPORT OF Project Officer

PURPOSE:

To report to Council on the outcome of the public exhibition of the planning proposal which seeks to amend the Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan (CCLEP) 2007 in relation to car parking standards.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council having considered the submission adopt the planning proposal (Attachment 1) and forwarded to the Department of Planning for finalisation and making of the plan amendment.

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. 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 CCLEP.

2. During the public exhibition of the ‘housekeeping’ amendment to the CCLEP, Council received one submission from the Urban Taskforce. The Urban Taskforce represents prominent property developers and equity financiers. 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.

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

4. A report was subsequently considered by Council at its meeting on 9 August 2010. Council resolved to reinitiate 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 and Assessment Act.

5. The Director General of Planning advised on 8 October 2010 that the planning proposal should proceed and be placed on public exhibition for 28 days. The planning proposal was publicly exhibited from 17 November to 17 December 2010. One submission was received from the Urban Taskforce (Attachment 2).

ISSUES

6. The Urban Taskforce remains opposed to the planning proposal for reasons in its previous submission and additional comments provided in its latest submission. In considering the submission, Council is reminded of the reasons for applying maximum parking rates as follows:

Justification in support of planning proposal

7. Key reasons supporting the planning proposal are that:

i) The planning proposal for an amendment in relation to car parking controls is not a major policy shift and seeks only a clarification of the parking rates as maximums in the CCLEP, that Council already implements as policy, in accordance with its resolution on 17 December 2007.

ii) The rates as maximums allow generous amounts of parking and are not unreasonably low.

iii) Unlimited provision for car parking in the city centre will lead to significant traffic congestion because of the fixed capacity of the road network, reducing the efficiency of public transport services such as buses, which rely on the road network. In turn, the city centre is well served by public transport services (rail and buses) providing the opportunity for a reduction in car use and car parking spaces.

iv) The 2010 NSW State Plan includes a 50% mode split target by 2016 for work groups to and from the Parramatta CBD by public transport. 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 central to impact on this target.

Issues raised in submission

No evidence provided to support assertions

8. Urban Taskforce Comment

Council has not provided adequate evidence to support its assertions that a limit on parking will translate into higher public transport usage; on the ability of existing public transport to support a reduction in parking; on the social and economic impacts and the net community benefit of the proposal. In particular, there is no evidence to support a generalisation on the ability for existing public transport to support a reduction in parking.

Response

Council has provided substantial evidence in exhibited material for the planning proposal and in previous Council reports to support its position on the city centre car parking standards. Reference is made to the traffic and parking situation in Parramatta and elsewhere in Australia and European cities and the provisions of local and state policy transport documents. There is substantial evidence that the Parramatta City Centre is well served by a high frequency of buses and trains. In the work day 8 to 9 am peak, rail services to Parramatta provide a capacity for 25,000 to 30,000 people and bus services provide a capacity for approximately 5,000 people. This provides the opportunity for a reduction in car trips to the city centre and for a reduction in the provision of car parking spaces. In addition, without a limit on car trips and the provision of parking spaces, congestion will result, constraining the effectiveness of public transport.

Conversion of a minimum car parking rate to the maximum is not good policy

9. Urban Taskforce Comment

Conversion of a minimum car parking rate to a maximum is not good policy and Council’s justification does not provide any traffic impact assessment to ensure that local amenity and safety has not been compromised. Placing such a control in a local environmental plan removes flexibility for the applicant and Council. The most useful location for a car parking control is within a development control plan (DCP). Questions Council's assertions that, North Sydney, Willoughby (Chatswood) and Ryde (Macquarie Park Corridor) local environmental plans do not include car parking limitations as proposed for the Parramatta LEP.

Response

The provision of a maximum parking rate is considered to be an appropriate use of a development control, being used in many major centres where congestion is an issue. These include Melbourne, Sydney City, North Sydney and within the Macquarie Business Park (Ryde); with the parking rates provided in a local environmental plan or development control plan. Previous Council reports have not stated that the controls are contained in a local environmental plan, only that a maximum rate of parking is used for these centres. It is a fundamental tool that used in conjunction with good access to public transport, encourages travellers, especially workers, to consider other transport options where they are available. The Parramatta CBD has good access to the public transport network of buses and trains.

Council's consideration has included traffic impact assessment and effects on local amenity and safety. In previous Council reports it is stated that parts of the City experience traffic congestion demonstrated by the level of traffic congestion and streets around nodes with high levels of car parking like Parramatta Westfield. 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. Increased car trips and congestion within the city centre would in turn worsen air quality and increase travel times into and out of the city. 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.

Contrary to the comments of the Urban Taskforce, maximum parking rates can be varied under clause 24 of the CCLEP if shown to be in the public interest and consistent with objectives for development within a zone. Incorporation of the maximum parking rates in the higher order local environmental plan is a reflection of the importance of these rates to achieving Council’s strategic transport planning and is considered preferable to inclusion in a development control plan. The Department of Planning has stated in its covering letter for the Gateway Determination that the issue of imposing parking limits through the LEP will need to be addressed when the City Centre LEP is amalgamated with Council’s Standard Instrument LEP at some stage in the future with consideration given to including development standards in the DCP. The key issue at this stage is confirming parking rates as maximums.

Limiting car parking does not make public transport viable

10. Urban Taskforce Comment

There is no evidence that limiting parking will make public transport more viable. However, it is widely accepted that the development of residential areas and centres that are dense and compact with a mix of uses will encourage greater walking and public transport use. Questions the relevance of the comparison, in Council reports, of Parramatta to European cities which are dominated by significantly high density development, shorter travel distances and considerably higher quality public transport than exist in Parramatta.

Response

The limiting of parking supply is considered to be a core component of Council’s strategic transport planning which 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. Furthermore, a maximum parking rate in the city centre, in conjunction with a range of other measures, will encourage public transport use, as limiting the increase in car traffic will allow buses to continue to travel with minimum delays and continued reliability that the bus lanes within the city centre provide. There is support for the view of the Urban Taskforce that the development of dense, compact mixed use centres will encourage greater walking and public transport use. This view is reflected in Council's strategy for the city centre which is to develop a compact mixed use centre that will encourage the use of public transport.

The comparison of Parramatta to European cities in Council reports was to emphasise the global acceptance and success of maximum rates that are used in most major cities where congestion is an issue, including many European cities. Nevertheless a European model, is considered preferable to an American model of lower densities, longer trips and low levels of public transport provision with significant road infrastructure.

Developers should be free to provide car parking sufficient to meet local needs

11. Urban Taskforce Comment

Developers should be free to provide car parking sufficient to meet local needs, subject to the traffic studies required in the development assessment process. Sensible land use and transport planning allows for all modes of transport (cars, transit, walking and cycling) and plans must consider and integrate all of these modes. In this regard, planning urban areas in the vicinity of mass transit should continue to provide car related infrastructure (parking and roads) at an appropriate rate.

Response

As outlined in previous Council reports, the amendments proposed will give developers a degree of choice in meeting local needs by being able to provide parking to the maximum or to a lesser amount. In addition, the commercial rates in the city centre are generous in comparison with other similar centres and provide for ample parking to be provided on site. The parking rate of one car space per dwelling or apartment for residents is appropriate for a CBD location with good public transport. This recognises that car ownership for most CBD residents is a current reality, but is at a lower rate than for the Parramatta LGA as a whole. Analysis of the car ownership of the households in Parramatta CBD from 2006 census data, compared to the Parramatta LGA shows that 53.4% of the households owned at least one car, while 29.9% did not (16.7% not stated), compared with 75.1% and 15.1 % (9.8% not stated) respectively in the LGA. 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. Limiting car parking can be an effective tool in encouraging public transport use.

CONCLUSION

12. It is recommended that Council not support the submission of the Urban Taskforce. Adopting the Urban Taskforce recommendations will likely lead to an increase in the number of parking spaces along with congestion, as there is a maximum capacity of the city centre road network. Consequently, the viability and marketability of the city centre will be threatened. Furthermore, the recommendations will undermine any chance of achieving a 50% mode split target of the 2010 NSW State Plan for work trips to and from Parramatta CBD by public transport. Nor will the recommendation advance Council’s efforts to lobby State or Federal Government for improvements to public transport infrastructure.

Paul Kennedy Sue Stewart

Project Officer Senior Project Officer

Land Use Planning Land Use Planning

Attachments:

1 View	Planning proposal for amendment to Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 regarding parking spaces	4 Pages
2 View	Submission from the Urban Taskforce Australia	9 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 28 February 2011 Item 7.9

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 7.9

SUBJECT Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee

REFERENCE F2005/01945 - D01860337

REPORT OF Project Officer

PURPOSE:

To inform Council of the key discussion points of the meeting of the Heritage Advisory Committee on 24 November 2010.

RECOMMENDATION

That the minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting of 24 November be received and noted.

BACKGROUND

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

2. Council’s Heritage Advisory Committee met on 24 November 2010. This report provides a summary of the key discussion points of that meeting for Council’s information and consideration.

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

(a) The Committee commented (item 74/10) on an outline of 12 themes that will provide guidelines for a future interpretation strategy for the Parramatta LGA.

(b) The results of preliminary research were presented (items 75/10) for the Sesqui- Centenary for the Parramatta Municipal Council and the Committee provided comments and suggestions on this proposed event.

(c) Arising from a Committee request, preliminary findings were presented (item 76/10) regarding fibro dwellings and also the condition and degree of intactness of dwellings in the Blaxcell Estate Conservation Area, South Granville. Key points from the investigations were that:

· maintenance is an issue for fibro dwellings with the hope often for delisting to allow total demolition and construction of more modern houses

· the fibro and brick houses in Blaxcell Estate are generally in a good and original condition; the brick houses in Montgomery Avenue in particular showing high levels of intactness.

The Committee considered that there was a strong case for listing the brick houses in Montgomery Avenue on the State Heritage Register considering their high level of intactness. The Committee's request will be considered as part of Council's comprehensive heritage review.

(d) The Committee (item 76/10) considered a further batch of items of State significance in Council’s environmental planning instruments, but not on the State Heritage Register, and concluded that the following could be recommended for addition to the Register: 467 -- 469 Church Street (Norfolk House), North Parramatta; 502 Church Street (St Patrick's Roman Catholic Cemetery), North Parramatta; 59 Pennant Hills Road (Reid Home), Oatlands; Silverwater Bridge, Ermington; 2 Trott Street, Parramatta; 102 William Street, Granville and 579A Woodville Road (water aqueduct), Guildford. The comments of the Committee will be considered further as part of Council’s comprehensive heritage review.

(e) The Committee recommended (item 78/10) that the following applications for funds from Council's Local Heritage Fund be granted: $1000 for 18 Galloway Street, North Parramatta; $2000 for 13 Chesterfield Road, Epping and $2000 for 45 Grimwood Street, Granville .

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

Paul Kennedy Sue Stewart

Project Officer Senior Project Officer

Land Use Planning Land Use Planning

Attachments:

1 View

Heritage Advisory Committee Minutes for 24 November 2010

7 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 28 February 2011 Item 7.10

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 7.10

SUBJECT Planning Proposal for former Moxhams Quarry site, Northmead

REFERENCE F2007/01308 - D01860785

REPORT OF Project Officer -Land Use and Transport Planning

PURPOSE:

To advise Council of the request made by the NSW Department of Planning for Council to consider a Planning Proposal to rezone 166A Windsor Road, Northmead (the disused Moxham Quarry owned by the NSW Department of Lands) for residential development.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council advise the NSW Department of Planning and the proponent that it will consider a Planning Proposal for the subject site as the Relevant Planning Authority.

(b) That Council advise the proponent of the required fee payable for Council to assess the proposal.

(c) That the proponent be requested to consider the opportunity for a Voluntary Planning Agreement in relation to provision of public benefits associated with the rezoning.

(d) Further that, the Planning Proposal be reported to Council after formal lodgement with Council and assessment by staff.

BACKGROUND

1. The site is located at the rear of Northmead Bowling club on a portion of Crown land, consisting of a disused quarry, with bushland on the western part of the site, (adjacent to the Quarry Creek bushland corridor). It is surrounded by low density detached housing to the north and south. The only vehicular access to the subject site is via Windsor Road. Refer to the aerial photograph at Attachment 1. The subject site is owned by the NSW Department of Lands and it is understood the proponent’s company has secured a long-term lease.

2. The proponent made a submission during the exhibition of the draft Residential Development Strategy in late 2005/early 2006, seeking to have the site identified in Council’s RDS as an area for medium/high density residential development. Council considered this at its meeting on 30 November 2006, amongst other submissions and did not support the increased residential density on the basis that the site is isolated from identified RDS centres and did not meet the criteria to be identified as a RDS centre itself. There are also significant environmental concerns relating to the rezoning proposal.

3. The proponent also lodged a submission during the exhibition of the draft Parramatta LEP as reported to Council at its meeting on 5 October 2010. In reference to this submission Council determined:

· Advise proponent that a Planning Proposal is the appropriate process for pursuing the desired rezoning, including payment of the required fee, with consideration of the opportunity for a Voluntary Planning Agreement in relation to provisions of public benefits associated with the rezoning, and a residential density respecting the surrounding locality.

· Further, advise the proponent for 166A Windsor Road, Northmead that information provided to date fails to demonstrate the suitability of the site for medium or high density residential development, given the location and context of the site, its environmental sensitivity and its incompatibility with Council’s Residential Development Strategy.

4. The current zoning of the subject site under Parramatta LEP 2001 is Environmental Protection (Bushland) 7. Under the draft Parramatta LEP, the site is proposed to be zoned E3 Environmental Management as a requirement of the Department of Planning (DoP) when it certified the draft Parramatta LEP exhibition.

5. In August 2009, the proponent approached the DoP requesting the Director General of the DoP take responsibility for the rezoning in place of Council pursuant to section 54(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). This section of the EP&A Act makes provision for applicants to submit proposals for LEP amendments directly to the DoP requesting its consideration / determination as the Relevant Planning Authority. The DoP requested Council comment on the proposed rezoning. Council informed the DoP of a range of preliminary concerns relating to such a proposal following a preliminary staff assessment in a letter dated 14 September 2009.

6. The DoP requested additional information from the proponent on a number of matters before a Planning Proposal could be progressed based on issues raised in Council’s letter dated 14 September 2009. (Refer to the DoP’s letter at Attachment 2.)

7. The DoP has formed the view that there is merit in proceeding with a Planning Proposal with the land being vacant, considered to be unproductive and with limited environmental value. The DoP considers that any development of the land will represent additional residential capacity for the Parramatta LGA. Whilst acknowledging the site is out of centre, the DoP considers that the unique nature of the site and its topography support the proponent’s claim for higher residential density to be permitted.

8. The DoP has forwarded the documentation to Council for its consideration. The information includes: Threatened Species Assessment Report; Bush Fire Safety Compliance Report; Concept Assessment of Access, Internal Circulation and Traffic Implications; and Soil Investigations.

9. The information submitted to the DoP indicates that the proponent is seeking a rezoning to allow high density residential containing 102 units. (Refer to Attachments 3 and 4.)

ISSUES:

10. The key issues relating to residential development on the site include the following:

· The suitability of the site for medium or high density residential development. Having regard to the unique and challenging physical and sensitive environmental characteristics of the site, it is fundamental that detailed investigations of the proposed development, be carried out and submitted for consideration as part of any planning proposal seeking the rezoning of the land for residential development.

· The proposed residential density in context of the surrounding locality and Council’s RDS, which encourages growth in areas that are better able to sustain residential growth.

· Infrastructure and services to support residential development.

· Impact on the natural environment, including potential threatened and endangered flora and fauna; protection of the Quarry Creek bushland corridor.

· Alternate opportunities for the site, such as environmental rehabilitation of the site and retention as part of the bushland corridor.

· Location of vehicular access to the site.

· Sewerage treatment, trade waste and stormwater disposal and impacts.

· Bushfire protection measures and impacts on existing bushland vegetation.

· Potential heritage significance of the quarry.

OPTIONS:

11. There are two options for Council to consider in relation to the request by the DoP:

Option 1. Advise the DoP that Council does not support the rezoning of the site for high density residential development and it would be unlikely to support a Planning Proposal as the Relevant Planning Authority. In this case, the DoP is likely to be the Relevant Planning Authority and consider and determine the Planning Proposal. Council would have little say in the outcome for the site in this instance.

Option 2. Council could agree to consider a Planning Proposal as the Relevant Planning Authority subject to the formal lodgement of a Planning Proposal including the required rezoning fee from the proponent. This would allow Council to have more say in the outcome for the site and to explore the opportunity for a Voluntary Planning Agreement in relation to provision of public benefits associated with the rezoning. It would also allow staff to assess the information and reports submitted by the proponent in support of the application and report further on this to Council. If as a result of this process, Council remains opposed to the rezoning and does not submit the Planning Proposal to the DoP, it is still possible that the DoP could take the responsibility as Relevant Planning Authority. In this situation, Council would be in a better position to make representations to the Department on the proposal, having given it detailed consideration.

CONSULTATION:

12. A Planning Proposal would undergo a process of consultation with relevant public authorities and residents in the locality.

RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSION:

13. Whilst concerns are raised about the proposal for high density residential development on the subject site, it would be favourable for Council to be the Relevant Planning Authority and assess and determine the proposal given Council’s understanding of the site and the local area. It is recommended that option 2 be endorsed.

Jennifer Concato Sue Stewart

Project Officer Senior Project Officer

Land Use Planning Land Use Planning

Attachments:

1 View	Aerial photograph of subject site	1 Page
2 View	Department of Planning's letter dated 25 January 2011	2 Pages
3 View	Indicative rezoning proposal	1 Page
4 View	Indicative concept project information	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

None.

Council 28 February 2011 Item 7.11

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 7.11

SUBJECT Amendment to Council's Development Contribution Plans

REFERENCE F2005/01594 - D01861305

REPORT OF Project Officer, Land Use &Transport Planning

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to present draft amendments to Council’s development contribution plans being the Parramatta Civic Improvement Plan (CIP) and the Parramatta S94A Development Contributions Plan (S94A Plan) and recommends that Council adopt the amendments for the purpose of public exhibition.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council adopt the draft amendments to the Parramatta Civic Improvement Plan and Parramatta S94A Development Contributions Plan as detailed at Attachment 3.

(b) That Council exhibit the amendments to the contribution plans for a period of not less than 28 days and the outcome of the exhibition be reported back to Council.

(c) Further, that the CEO be delegated the authority to correct any minor anomalies, typographical errors and the like in the contribution plans, without further reporting to Council.

BACKGROUND

1. Parramatta City Council has two (2) development contribution plans being the Parramatta Civic Improvement Plan (applies to the CBD) and the Parramatta s94A Development Contribution Plan (applies to the rest of the LGA). These plans commenced in December 2007 and April 2008 (respectively). Changes in legislation since that time have given rise to the requirement for some minor housekeeping amendments to both plans as discussed in this report.

2. In January 2011 Council’s Economic Development Team circulated to Councillors a draft options paper regarding business investment and attraction in Parramatta CBD over the next 3 years. One issue explored in the discussion paper is the impact of development contributions on the supply of new commercial buildings. The paper recommends that Council consider accepting staged development contribution payments in the Parramatta city centre, in an attempt to reduce the upfront imposition on developers as a means for attracting new commercial development. This would apply only under the CIP applying to Parramatta CBD as this is the location where Council is seeking major commercial development.

ISSUES

Housekeeping amendments

3. Council’s current contribution plans have each been in place for approximately three (3) years. Changes in legislation since their implementation have given rise to the need to undertake a number of housekeeping amendments to ensure consistency with the current legislation. These amendments are minor in nature and include insertion of new clauses; provision of a clearer land application map to the CIP; correction of typographical errors and misdescriptions; and update of the bike plan map in the S94A Plan. More detail is provided at Attachment 3.

Staged development contributions for commercial development in the city centre

4. Development contributions are one development supply side lever that Council has control over. Therefore, a flexible development contribution scheme could have some real impact with regard to making Parramatta CBD more attractive to investors and boosting new commercial development.

5. In line with the Council’s Economic Development Team discussion paper, it is recommended that Council consider amending its development contribution plan for the Parramatta CBD to enable Council to consider staging development contribution payments for development that meets the following criteria:

· Development within the B3 Commercial Core or the B4 Mixed Use Zones;

· Predominantly commercial development (i.e. other than ground floor retail);

· No residential component;

· Has undergone a design competition;

· Achieves a ‘5 star’ energy rating (NABERS or Green Buildings Council of Australia or similar); and

· Achieves an ‘A grade’ property rating (Property Council Criteria or similar).

6. The staged payments would be in the form of 50% of the total payment prior to the issue of a construction certificate (in-line with existing practices) and the remaining 50% to be paid prior to the issue of any occupation certificate (interim or final). The outstanding 50% balance would be required to be secured by bank guarantee and would continue to be indexed in line with consumer price index (CPI) increases over time. The CPI increase would be added to the final balance at time of payment. Council would also require an interest payment on the outstanding balance.

7. Applying the staged payment criteria only to ‘5 star’, ‘A-grade’ and well designed buildings will provide an additional incentive to developers to provide high quality building stock in Parramatta, which could then flow on to attracting ‘blue chip’ corporate tenants and highly skilled professional employees. This could then have flow on effects to the support retail shops, services, restaurants, pubs etc.

8. It is recommend that the staged payment only apply to commercial buildings as these buildings generate the most significant employment growth. Furthermore, these buildings are often more difficult to finance and attract pre-commitments from prospective tenants as opposed to residential development. The staged payment should therefore only apply to developments where no residential development is proposed.

9. It is recommended that this criterion be trialled for a three (3) year period and reviewed at the end of that period to determine whether the change has provided any real benefits in driving new development. This could be measured by the number of new commercial developments that proceed to construction stage as a result of the staged payment methodology, as well as potential survey and consultation with the local property industry.

10. The potential disadvantages to Council in staging development contribution payments include potential foregone interest income; potential delay in delivering works projects identified in the contribution plan (i.e. while awaiting final payments) and potential additional staff time in administering the staged payments. However, it is considered that these issues can effectively be overcome in the long run and the potential benefit of increased commercial growth would outweigh these costs.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

11. Community consultation is prescribed by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act which requires that draft Contributions plans (including amendments) be publicly exhibited for a minimum of twenty-eight (28) days. Should Council adopt the draft amendments, notices will be placed in the local newspapers inviting the public to view the documents at Council’s offices, libraries and on Council’s web site. Any submission received in relation to the amendments would be reported back to Council for consideration before the amendments come into effect.

TIMING

12. Should Council adopt the draft amendments to the contribution plans for public exhibition, a notice is likely to be placed within the local newspapers in March. The draft documents will be exhibited for a minimum of twenty-eight (28) days. The results of public exhibition will be reported to Council in April. Should Council adopt the amendments at that meeting, they would take effect on the date a public notice is placed in the local newspapers. The earliest date the plan is likely to take effect is early May 2011.

Diane Galea

Project Officer – Land Use and Transport Planning

Attachments:

1 View	Detailed Report	4 Pages
2 View	City Centre LEP Zoning map	1 Page
3 View	Proposed Amendments to Contribution Plans	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 28 February 2011 Item 7.12

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 7.12

SUBJECT 61 Mobbs Lane Epping - draft Voluntary Planning Agreement - results of public exhibition

REFERENCE F2005/02607 - D01861386

REPORT OF Project Officer - Land Use and Transport Planning

PURPOSE:

To report on the outcomes of the public exhibition of a draft Voluntary Planning Agreement and seek Council’s endorsement to enter into the VPA, as exhibited, to deliver a contributions framework for the re-development of 61 Mobbs Lane Epping (the former Channel 7 site).

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council consider all submissions received and adopt the draft VPA subject to the finalisation of the legal drafting.

(b) That the Chief Executive Officer be given delegated authority to execute and affix the Common Seal of Council to the necessary documents.

(c) That upon signing of the Voluntary Planning Agreement, the agreement be forwarded to the Department of Planning in accordance with Section 25G of Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

(d) Further, that all persons who made submissions be notified of the outcome.

BACKGROUND

1. On 22 August 2006, the Minister for Planning approved the Concept Plan for the residential development of the Mobbs Lane site even though Council objected strongly to the concept and process. The approved concept plan was for a total of 650 dwellings and was subject to various conditions. Condition B5 of this approval required the proponent to prepare a planning agreement and/or contributions framework to ensure the procurement and provision of various broad categories of infrastructure relating to community facilities, open space and traffic calming measures. This condition requires the sign-off of the Director General of the Department of Planning.

2. On 24 November 2008 Council considered a report and resolved to endorse a submission to the Department of Planning raising objection to the revised developer contributions framework put forward by the then applicant, as the framework did not provide adequate community facilities, satisfy infrastructure demand generated by the proposal or result in sufficient public benefit commensurate with the scale of development proposed.

3. In early January 2009, the Department of Planning advised that as the (then) applicant and Council had not been able to come to an agreement on the matter, a consultant (Michael Collins & Associates) had been appointed to provide advice to the Department on a way forward.

4. On 27 March 2009, the Department of Planning advised that it had adopted the contributions framework prepared by Michael Collins & Associates. This resulted in a total contribution of $3,192,038 being payable, comprising $1,950,038 cash payment and the remainder as works in kind including the signalisation of Mobbs Lane and Marsden Road as well as the provision of 3.1ha of publically accessible open space within the development site.

5. It was initially determined that this matter would be formalised by the entering into of a deed of agreement between Council and the applicant, however it has since been advised (by the DoP and Council’s legal counsel) that a Voluntary Planning Agreement would be more appropriate and offer Council a greater level of security as well as a greater level of transparency.

6. On November 10 2010, Council considered a report on the draft VPA and resolved;

(a) That Council consider this report and agree to place the draft Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) on public exhibition.

(b) That a wider consultation be undertaken incorporating an additional 150 houses and the advertising period be extended until 14 February 2011.

(c) That delegation be granted to the CEO to carry out any minor amendments to the final legal wording of the terms of the draft VPA as required, that do not result in any material change to the nature of the agreement.

(d) Further, that upon completion of the pubic exhibition of the VPA, any submissions received be reported to Council.

EXHIBITION

7. The public exhibition of the draft Voluntary Planning Agreement was held between 15 December 2010 and 14 February 2011.

8. The exhibition included a personalised mail out to a broad area surrounding the application site involving approximately 1150 dwellings. Documents made available included; a diagram showing landscaping works to be carried out to western portion of the site, a diagram indicating traffic signal works at intersection of Mobbs Lane & Marsden Road, a diagram showing publicly accessible areas of open space on the site and the draft Voluntary Planning Agreement including schedule of works/contributions. This information was made available in hard copy at Epping library and Council’s Administration offices as well as loaded onto Council’s website.

ISSUES

9. A total of six (6) submissions were received. A detailed summary of submissions received is contained at attachment 1. The issues raised in the submissions include, increased traffic, parking, stormwater, design of Mobbs Lane/Marsden road signalisation works, safety, resource (fuel) use, query over future use of adjacent TAFE property. These concerns are examined in more detail in attachment 1. Generally, the majority of comments received in the submissions relate to matters associated with the carrying out of the development, rather than the VPA itself. Concerns in relation to the technical design of the intersection works are to be resolved by the applicant and the Roads & Traffic Authority (RTA). The VPA also requires the provision of security in the event that works are not carried satisfactorily.

WAY FORWARD

10. The development of an appropriate contributions framework has not followed a typical process due largely to the fact that the Department of Planning made the original determination prior to a contributions framework being agreed to by parties. Following consideration of both parties differing view points, the department made a determination as to what was considered a reasonable contributions framework. By way of comparison, the total dollar value of the offer currently proposed is roughly equivalent to what would have normally been levied under Council’s (now repealed) Section 94 contributions plan for a development of this size.

11. The VPA presented to Council reflects the determination made by the Department of Planning and will result in a total of 3.1ha of open space on the site being publically accessible as well as the signalisation of an already busy intersection and the payment of $1.95million dollars to Council’s Section 94 fund. The exhibition has resulted in six (6) submissions being received objecting to or raising concern with elements of the VPA however on balance the VPA is considered a reasonable outcome given the circumstances.

Neal McCarry

Town Planner

Land Use Planning

Attachments:

1 View	Summary of submissions received	2 Pages
2 View	Diagram showing landscaping works to be carried out to western portion of site	1 Page
3 View	Diagram indicating traffic signal works at intersection of Mobbs Lane and Marsden Road	1 Page
4 View	Diagram showing publicity accessible areas of open space on the site	1 Page
5 View	draft Voluntary Planning Agreement including schedule of works/contribution	33 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

None.

Council 28 February 2011 Item 7.13

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 7.13

SUBJECT 116-124 Church Street Parramatta

REFERENCE DA/565/2004/B - D01861926

REPORT OF Property Program Manager

PURPOSE:

The report recommends Council, subject to finalisation of negotiation on terms of cable easement with Integral Energy, to grant an easement for electricity cables over the Council Wentworth Street Car Park land and provide consent for the owner of 116-124 Church Street Parramatta to create similar easement over the land identified for dedication under a voluntary planning agreement.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council, subject to finalisation of negotiation on terms of cable easement with Integral Energy, resolve to create an easement for electricity cables in favour of Integral Energy over the Council Wentworth Street Car Park land (Lot 1 DP 731072).

(b) That Council, subject to finalisation of negotiation on terms of cable easement with Integral Energy, provide consent in accordance with Clause 16 of a voluntary planning agreement of 31 August 2010 between the Council and the owner of 116-124 Church Street Parramatta for the owner to create an easement for electricity cables in favour of Integral Energy over the land identified for dedication.

(c) Further, that the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to execute under seal the linen plan, Section 88B instrument, transfer granting easement and deed of agreement if required for creation of easement and providing consent.

BACKGROUND

1. Council in consideration of a report on 14 February 2011 resolved:

“That consideration of this matter be deferred to the next meeting of Council, subject to an acceptable offer being received, and in the meantime arrangements be made for the 2 valuers to meet and reach an agreement.”

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

2. After further negotiations the developer has now agreed to compensation payment of $109,600 (exclusive of GST), as recommended by the Council valuation consultants for relocating the cable onto the Council Wentworth Street Car Park land and dedication land.

3. Furthermore, the developer has also agreed to reimburse Council’s costs including survey, legal and valuation fees in finalisation of the matter.

4. Integral Energy to whom the cable easement will be created in favour of, has agreed to a stratum cable easement in order to minimise its impact on the development potential of the Council land. Negotiations are still in progress to finalise the terms for the cable easement.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

5. The Council’s General Counsel and external valuation consultants have been consulted in the course of negotiation with the developer.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

6. Council will receive compensation from the developer when the matter goes ahead.

Steve Montgomery

Manager, Strategic Asset Management

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 28 February 2011 Item 7.14

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 7.14

SUBJECT Telstra Telecommunication Facility at Mobbs Lane Epping

REFERENCE F2010/01038 - D01861990

REPORT OF Property Program Manager

PURPOSE:

The report recommends Council to extend the licence agreement with Telstra for a temporary telecommunication facility at Mobbs Lane Epping (outside the former Channel 7 studio at 61 Mobbs Lane Epping) for 12 months.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council resolve to extend the licence agreement with Telstra for a temporary telecommunication facility at Mobbs Lane Epping on terms as stated in the report.

(b) Further that the Lord Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer be authorized to execute and affix the council seal to the agreement.

BACKGROUND

1. Council in consideration of a report on 10 May 2010 resolved:

“(a) That Council resolve to enter into a licence agreement with Telstra to approve the installation of a telecommunication facility at Mobbs Lane Epping on terms as stated in the report.

(b) That the Lord Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer be authorized to execute and affix the council seal to the agreement.

(c) Further, that Council staff provide to Councillors a report outlining concerns relating to electromagnetic radiation from mobile tower transmitters.”

2. Following the Council resolution, a memo enclosing information and publications on electromagnetic radiation from mobile tower transmitters was sent to the Councillors for information.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. Since signing the licence agreement with the Council for the temporary facility outside the former Channel 7 Studio at Mobbs Lane, Telstra and Optus have been looking for alternative permanent telecommunication sites in the area.

4. Telstra is currently investigating two sites respectively at Mobbs Lane corner of Edenlee Street and on the roof top of the shopping centre at 5-7 Mobbs Lane.

5. For the site at the shopping centre at 5-7 Mobbs Lane, Telstra has conducted community consultation with information on the proposed mobile phone facility sent out to local residents. Public consultation meetings have also been held with local residents to address their concerns. There have been objections coming out of the local newspapers and media that local residents do not want the Telstra mobile phone facility to be there.

6. Telstra and Optus have now approached the Council making enquiry whether the licence agreement signed with the Council, which will expire on 31 May 2011, could be extended.

7. Telstra and Optus have identified three sites preferred for their permanent telecommunication facilities in the locality being:

· On the roof top of a high rise residential building to be built by Meriton on the former Channel 7 Studio site; or

· On the ground of 41-45 Midson Road Epping owned by Integral Energy for a future substation development; or

· At a location next to 94 Mobbs Lane on land within the A V Jennings brickpit redevelopment site

8. According to Telstra, the sites currently under investigation at Mobbs Lane / Edenlee Street and the Mobbs Lane Shopping Centre are only second best solutions, if they could not use any of the above preferred permanent sites.

9. Telstra has had negotiations but yet to obtain agreement with the owners to use any of these preferred permanent sites. Telstra together with Optus have now requested an extension to the licence agreement with the Council to facilitate negotiation with the site owners which is expected to be protracted.

10. In view of the objection of the local residents to the proposed Telstra mobile phone facility at the shopping centre at 5-7 Mobbs Lane and the desire of Telstra to pursue negotiation for the preferred permanent sites, it is recommended that Council extends the licence agreement with Telstra for 12 months from expiry on the same licence conditions and subject to increase of the licence fee by Consumer Price Index, Sydney All Groups.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

11. The Council’s General Counsel has been consulted and has no objections to extending the licence agreement with Telstra.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

12. Council will receive licence fee for a further 12 months if the proposal is approved to the value of $120,000.

Kwok Leung

Property Program Manager

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 28 February 2011 Item 8.3

ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ITEM NUMBER 8.3

SUBJECT Public Exhibition of Draft Flood Maps for Duck River Catchment

REFERENCE F2006/01343 - D01859969

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer - Waterways Strategy.Environmental Outcom

PURPOSE:

To seek Council’s endorsement for the public exhibition of the draft flood mapping for the Duck River catchment.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorse informing the community about the new draft flood maps for the Duck River Catchment.

BACKGROUND

1. New draft flood modelling is available for the Duck River catchment, which includes areas within the Woodville and Elizabeth Macarthur Wards.

2. The draft modelling suggests that in a 1 in a 100 year flood, approximately 731 properties will be affected by flooding. This compares with estimates from previous modeling (in 2006 and 2003) of 1390 properties. This estimated reduction in properties affected is due to improved computer modeling techniques and consistent modeling assumptions across all three local government areas of Parramatta, Auburn and Bankstown (all of which are in the Duck River catchment).

3. It is a requirement of the State Government’s flood management process that there is public consultation about flood mapping. The community will be notified via newspaper advertising, public meetings and letters sent directly to the affected property owners.

4. Any comments received from the public will be considered before finalised flood maps are created. The final flood maps will be incorporated into the Duck River Catchment Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan which will be subject to a further report to Council for public exhibition and comment later in the year. The Plan will have a series of prioritised and costed actions to address floodplain risks including planning, preparedness and response to future flooding within the catchment.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

5. Informing residents and businesses that they may be flood affected in a large flood such as a 1 in 100 year flood could cause concern and disquiet. This is particularly the case given the recent widespread flooding in NSW, QLD and VIC. This concern may be reflected in more frequent calls from residents to Councillors and Council Officers following release of the draft maps.

6. Community consultation is an essential part of the flood management process and can provide useful information such as anecdotal evidence or historical photos of flooding which in turn can inform Council of flood heights to compare against the model.

7. In addition, if Council does not follow the State Government processes for flood management Council may

a. receive damages claims after any subsequent flooding in the Duck River catchment

b. not be eligible for future State Government grants for flood mitigation works.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

8. It is proposed to disseminate the draft flood maps to the community in April 2011. The maps will be then be finalised in May 2011.

9. After finalisation of the maps a draft Duck River Floodplain Management Study and Plan will be developed which will recommend long term actions to reduce the risks from flooding in the Duck River Catchment.

10. It is anticipated that this draft Study and Plan will be released for public consultation in July 2011, subject to a further report to Council.

Paul Hackney

Senior Project Officer – Waterways Strategy

Attachments:

1 View

Draft 100 year flood maps for Duck River

9 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 28 February 2011 Item 8.4

ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ITEM NUMBER 8.4

SUBJECT Energy and Water Efficiency Measures for Apartment Blocks

REFERENCE F2008/00548 - D01861078

REPORT OF Manager Environmental Outcomes

PURPOSE:

To respond to the Council resolution of 13th December 2010 regarding energy and water efficiency incentives available for apartment blocks.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council receive and note the report.

(b) That Council support initiatives under the Local Government Amendment (Environmental Upgrade Agreements) Act 2010, to stimulate energy efficiency upgrades in both commercial and multi-unit residential buildings.

(c) Further that, a city wide design awards, which also considers environmentally sustainability be included as a project bid for the 2011/12 budget.

BACKGROUND

1. At Council’s Ordinary Meeting dated 13th December 2010, Council resolved:

(a) That a report be prepared on initiatives to support apartment blocks to introduce energy and water efficiency measures & that correspondence be sent to the State and Federal Governments seeking support for such initiatives.

(b) Further, that Council investigate reintroducing design awards into the city and how the awards could be implemented.

2. Council staff have been working with over 100 small to medium businesses (SME’s) over the past 12 months to provide free audits and reports on energy and water usage and efficiency, including available rebates from Sydney Water and the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water.

3. At the request of Councillors, staff have also successfully produced and distributed over 750 rainwater tank information packs and 170 solar hot water packs to residents containing information about preferred suppliers, indicative costs, planning controls and available rebates.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

4. The Building and Sustainability Index (BASIX) has applied to all new residential dwellings including ‘apartment blocks’ since 2005, requiring minimum standards for water and energy efficient fixtures and fittings.

5. In terms of retrofit of existing apartments Willoughby Council has developed ‘ClimateClever Apartments’ which is a program designed to assist owners corporations to make their apartment buildings more energy and water efficient. The program will identify ways to reduce the ongoing operating costs of apartment buildings, saving money for unit owners and occupiers. As part of phase one of the program, participating Owners Corporations receive specialist advice that identifies cost effective measures suitable for their apartment building such as:

· The installation of energy efficient lighting

· Water saving devices

· Smart controls such as timers and sensors

· The installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, and

· The replacement of centralised electric storage hot water systems with gas boosted solar hot water systems

As part of phase two, Council will be conducting a grants scheme to financially assist three apartment buildings (one small, medium and large) to undertake actions that will improve the energy efficiency of their apartment building. The grants on offer are $10k, $15k and $25k respectively with a requirement that the owners corporation match the funding dollar for dollar.

6. In September 2010, the Victorian Government introduced legislation to enable energy efficient financing to commercial buildings particularly those under the City of Melbourne’s “1200 Buildings” Program.

7. In November 2010, the NSW Government announced that it had also passed new legislation to stimulate energy efficiency upgrades in the commercial building and multi-unit residential sectors. The Local Government Amendment (Environmental Upgrade Agreements) Act 2010 will have the potential to unlock more than $2 billion in investment in the Sydney market and significantly reduce power bills and greenhouse gas emissions. It aims is to improve access to finance for upgrades to improve the environmental performance of existing buildings.

8. The legislation seeks to overcome two key barriers to retrofitting large commercial buildings and large strata unit (apartment) blocks:

a) Access to low-cost loan funds – at present, loans are made to companies that own buildings. This legislation enables the environmental upgrade loan to be directly attached to the property, to be repaid via an agreed extra council rate (with an appropriate administration fee for councils). This means loans can be secured more readily and at a lower interest rate.

b) Split incentives – at present a landlord cannot pass through the cost of energy savings measures that directly benefit tenants via lower energy bills. As the loan repayment will be via a council rate charge, the portion of the project cost that will benefit the tenant can be passed through. The legislation includes a provision to ensure that no tenant would pay more as a result of the agreement, unless specifically agreed.

9. Staff from City Strategy, Property Development and Finance Units together with our General Counsel, are members of an Environmental Upgrade Agreements Reference Group coordinated by the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water. The Reference group have been providing feedback on the draft Regulation and Guidelines to support the Act which are expected to be finalised over the coming months.

10. The re-introduction of design awards for sustainable buildings or developments across the Parramatta LGA also has merit. There are no design awards currently per se for the City. We have Design Excellence Competitions but these are at the instigation of the proponents and are to award an architectural scheme to be built, not an award for a good built design given by Council.

11. Further work is required on the cost and resourcing implications of a design award scheme if it were to commence in the 2011/12 financial year. Such a scheme could be presented to Council as a new project or consideration in 2011/12 budget.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

12. This report has been prepared in consultation with Council’s City Strategy Unit (Economic and Environmental Outcomes and Urban Design teams), Finance Unit, Property Development Unit and General Counsel.

Anthony Collins

Manager Environmental Outcomes

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 28 February 2011 Item 9.1

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 9.1

SUBJECT Sportsground capacity review

REFERENCE F2010/00504 - D01758363

REPORT OF Service Manager Recreation Facilities and Programs

PURPOSE:

To seek Council’s endorsement for the public exhibition of the draft Sportsground Capacity Review

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the draft Sportsground Capacity Review be placed on exhibition for 28 days in the Parramatta City (central) Library, branch libraries, the Administration Building Customer Service Centre and on Council’s website.

(b) Further, that a report be submitted to Council upon completion of the public exhibition period with consideration and assessment of the submissions received.

BACKGROUND

1. The Sportsground Capacity Review was undertaken to inform the future use, development and management of sportsgrounds within the Parramatta LGA.

2. The review was initiated by Council in response to the increasing demands on sportsgrounds with the view to optimising the use of sports fields and achieving long term sustainability.

3. As part of the 2010/11 Delivery Plan, Council approved funding of $40,000 to prepare the Sportsground Capacity Review.

4. Council engaged specialist consultants, Suter Planners and IPOS Consulting to prepare the Sportsground Capacity Review. The primary aim of the Sportsground Capacity Review is “to provide direction, principles and guidelines relating to sports field use, asset renewal and maintenance”.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

5. The Sportsground Capacity Review identifies the significant values and issues impacting Council’s sportsgrounds. It outlines key recommendations for future direction, principles and guidelines relating to sports field use, asset renewal and maintenance.

6. Topics covered within the document include: sports field capacity principles, sportsground use, playing field provision, other usage opportunities, hierarchy and sportsground development, unauthorised organised use, ground closures and implementation actions.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

7. In April and June 2010, Suter Planners conducted consultation workshops with key stakeholders and community representatives. These workshops involved identification of the key values and issues affecting the review and discussion of future priority actions. These workshops included representatives from sports clubs, park committees, and sports associations.

8. Significant internal consultation was also held with Council’s Recreation Facilities and Programs, Park Services and Open Space and Natural Resources teams throughout the entire process.

9. Councillors were provided with a draft version of the Sports Ground Capacity Review when Suter Planners conducted a Councillor workshop on the 7 June 2010. The workshop covered the findings of the capacity review, sports ground infrastructure, unauthorised organised use and ground closures. Councillor feedback was recorded and incorporated into the revised document.

10. It is recommended that the Sportsground Capacity Review be placed on public exhibition for 28 days in the Parramatta City (central) Library, branch libraries, Council’s Administration building Customer Service Centre and on Council’s website. This will enable all stakeholders to review the revised report and consider the outcomes of the research and consultation process.

11. Following public exhibition a further report will be presented to Council for consideration. This will outline the public submissions received and comments on their assessment and relevance with the document.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

12. Recommendations of the review include reviewed management practices and procedures, operational actions and advice on future capital works requirements and planning.

13. Prioritised actions will be funded where appropriate, through existing Council programs supported by Special Rates for Open Space, City Centre, Suburban Infrastructure (Environment, Roads and Neighbourhoods), and relevant Section 94A Development Contributions Plan. There will also be an opportunity to seek grant funding towards implementing components of the plan through various Federal and State government departments.

Nick Wright

Service Manager Recreation Facilities and Programs

Attachments:

1 View

Sportsground capacity review

188 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 28 February 2011 Item 9.2

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 9.2

SUBJECT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting 23 November 2010

REFERENCE F2005/01941 - D01838122

REPORT OF Community Capacity Building Officer

PURPOSE:

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee met on 23 November 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 of 23 November 2010 be received and noted.

(b) That Council acknowledge a vote of thanks from the Committee, for its sponsorship and support of the Local Government Aboriginal Network Conference 2010.

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 23 November 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. Lake Parramatta

(a) The Committee discussed a previous decision they had made to seek a Heritage Conservation order on the site and were advised that this recommendation had been forwarded to the consultants Council had engaged to prepare the Plan of Management.

(b) The Committee discussed Lake Parramatta being listed on the State Heritage Register and recommended that Council consider applying to have it listed.

Officer’s comment:

Lake Parramatta Reserve is listed under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (Heritage & Conservation) 1996 and as a heritage item of State Significance in the draft Parramatta LEP 2011. Council’s Land Use Planning team is currently undertaking a comprehensive heritage review for the purpose of updating all listings in the Parramatta LGA. The suggestion to add the Lake Parramatta Reserve on the State Heritage Register can be further investigated as part of this review.

5. Urban Indigenous Artist Exchange Program

The Committee discussed a lunch held on 4 November 2010, to welcome Canadian Indigenous Artist KC Adams, currently in residence at the Artists Studios. Members were impressed with her project plans for the work ‘Not Another Statistic’ which will focus on the impact of diabetes on Aboriginal people.

6. Local Government Aboriginal Network Conference (LGAN) 2010

(a) The Committee discussed LGAN 2010 and identified its strengths including that the LGAN Executive had been most impressed with it and that the speakers were excellent. The Committee also noted that there had been some difficulties with the event including that the program had been overfull and promotional information had not been received by all NSW Councillors.

(b) The Committee recommended that Council be thanked for its sponsorship and support of the LGAN 2010 Conference.

7. General Business and Information Share

Committee members exchanged information including the Freedom on the City March for HMAS Parramatta held on 20 November 2010 and the possible restructuring of the Aboriginal Heritage Operation Branch, Department of Planning.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

8. There are no financial implications for Council.

Maggie Kyle

Community Capacity Building Officer

Attachments:

1 View

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Minutes 23 November 2010

6 Pages

Council 28 February 2011 Item 9.3

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 9.3

SUBJECT Access Advisory Committee Minutes 21 December 2010

REFERENCE F2005/01944 - D01845360

REPORT OF Community Capacity Building Officer.Community Capacity Building

PURPOSE:

The Access Advisory Committee met on 21 December 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 21 December 2010 (Attachment 1) are received and noted.

(b) That a copy of the CD “The good, the bad, and the ugly” be provided to those intending to submit a Development Application (DA) for a building required to provide access for people with a disability.

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

2. The Committee was updated on the current status of Council’s review of the Public Domain Details by Kati Westlake, Senior Project Officer – Urban Design. Copies of the draft report will be distributed to members of the Committee for comment before the report is presented to the Executive Team and Councillors.

3. The Committee discussed the International Day of People with Disability event held in Parramatta on 3 December 2010, and the Committee’s stall at the event. The Committee felt it was a successful event given the budget available and congratulated Chris McAlpine, Community Place Development Officer, for his organisation of the event. The Committee expressed a need for the event to have more support and awareness within Council, including a larger budget.

4. The Committee was informed that there are currently no redevelopment plans in place for Lake Parramatta. However, a draft Plan of Management has been drawn up and will be placed on public exhibition after it has been presented to Councillors and considered by State Government. The Committee requested Council Officer Tanya Owen to alert the Committee when the draft Plan of Management is on public exhibition, so that they may explore making a submission and have the Committee listed as an interested stakeholder.

5. Council Officer Tanya Owen reported back to the Committee the availability and cost of the CD “The good, the bad, and the ugly”, which provides visual examples and information on poor and best practice in design and construction for access. The CD is produced and distributed by the Human Rights Commission, and costs $1.00 per CD for large quantities. The Human Rights Commission has advised that a number of councils are providing copies of the CD to relevant development applicants. The Committee believes viewing the CD may assist those who make errors through ignorance of access difficulties created by their development. Many predevelopment DAs might need to see the CD, however this would incur a cost to Council and covering this cost will need to be considered by Council. The Committee recommended to Council that a copy of the CD “The good, the bad, and the ugly” be provided to all who submit a DA for a building required to provide access for people with a disability; that the cost of the CD ($1.00) be recovered from the applicant by way of an increased DA fee and that Council approve this fee increase; and that the DA checklist be amended to require that the CD be viewed prior to lodgement of the DA.

Council Officer’s Note: Council’s Service Manager Development Assessment Services has provided advice on this matter and the Committee’s recommendations. Due to DA fees being statutory fees, the fee cannot be adjusted. The total cost to Council per year for the purchase of the CDs is not likely to exceed $500. Development Assessment Services has indicated a willingness to distribute the CDs for relevant Development Applications, and to amend the check list process to take this into account. Council Officer will continue to communicate with Development Assessment Services regarding distribution of the CD based on the outcome of Council’s consideration of this matter.

6. The Committee acknowledged and welcomed the two new members to the Committee, Joe Dimech and Hamish Murray, whose Expressions of Interest were approved by Council at the 13 December 2010 Council Meeting.

7. The Committee was informed of a resident’s need for access to a power point in the CBD shopping area to recharge her electric scooter to allow her to make the return trip home. The resident had previously been accessing a power point at Westfield, but was now prevented from doing so. The Committee supported making a power point on Council premises available to the resident, and suggested the ground floor of the City Library as a suitable venue. The Committee requested that Council Officer Tanya Owen follow this up with relevant Council units and the resident.

Council Officer’s Note: Through discussions with Home Support and Buildings and Facilities, a power point has been made available for the resident to recharge their electric scooter on the ground floor of Council Chambers. The Council Officer has informed the resident of this option, and will meet with the resident when they next come into the CBD to show them the power point and run through access conditions (i.e. security and not impeding access to the area for other people). The resident is unlikely to require access to the power point more than a few times a month.

8. The Committee agreed to continue meeting on the third Tuesday of every second month in 2011.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

9. Should Council determine to provide a copy of the “The good, the bad, and the ugly” as recommended by the Committee, Council will incur a charge of $1.00 when purchasing from the Human Rights Commission. According to the number of relevant DA received, the cost is not likely to exceed $500 per year and will be accommodated with existing budgets.

Tanya Owen

Community Capacity Building Officer

Attachments:

1 View

Access Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 21 Dec 2010

5 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 28 February 2011 Item 9.4

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 9.4

SUBJECT Minutes of the Sydney West Area Health Service and Parramatta City Council Steering Group Meeting - 14 October 2010

REFERENCE F2004/10350 - D01859422

REPORT OF Project Officer. Social Outcomes

PURPOSE:

The Sydney West Area Health Service (SWAHS) and Parramatta City Council Strategic Partnership met on 14 October 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 SWAHS and Parramatta City Council Strategic Partnership meeting on 14 October 2010 (Attachment 1) are received and noted.

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

BACKGROUND

1. The aim of the Strategic Partnership is to improve the health of the population, create healthy environments, enable individuals and communities to make healthy choices and reduce differences in the health status that exists between groups. The MOU establishes effective ways for both organisations to work together.

2. The partners aim to share knowledge of the environmental, behavioural, and social factors that have an effect on the community’s health, address health issues by joint planning and to coordinate services to achieve better health outcomes.

The three Councillors representing Council are:

- Lord Mayor John Chedid

- Councillor Chiang Lim

- Councillor Andrew Bide

MAIN DISCUSSION POINTS

3. Dr Robert Lang, CEO provided a strategic update of Council business, including a brief overview of Civic Place developments, the draft LEP and DCP, the review of the draft Climate Adaptation Plan, E-Parramatta and Parra Connect and the River Foreshore Project.

4. Donna Mosford, A/Manager Social Outcomes, updated the partnership on the Better Neighbourhood Program, a Cycleway update and the draft PCC Homelessness Policy and Implementation plan, due for completion shortly, and the scoping of a part-time temporary position funded by PCC that will focus on linking homeless rough sleepers with service providers.

5. Dr Glenn Close, SWAHS Executive Director Population Health and Strategic Direction advised on the NSW Health restructure. NSW is being divided into 18 Local Health Networks (LHNs) each comprising of a Chief Executive and a Governing Council (between 6-13), which will be made up of both clinicians and community members. The LHNs are now in effect, commencing 1 January 2011.

6. SWAHS confirmed that PCC would continue to be informed on the status of the restructure.

7. Dr Glenn Close also updated on the Research and Development of Westmead precinct. Planning is well underway, with car parking an ongoing issue.

8. Dr Glenn Close reported on their Car Pooling Project, with funds being currently sought. Both SWAHS and PCC were supportive.

MOU PROJECT UPDATES

9. Donna Mosford advised on the Smoke Free Public Places Policy Project. The Smoke Free Outdoor Areas policy was adopted in May 2010, including children’s playgrounds, sports fields and aquatic facilities. It was also advised that a smoking ban was resolved to be implemented in Outdoor Dining Areas on 26^th July 2010. (the rescission of this has now also been advised).

10. Donna Mosford also updated on the Bus Shelter Access Project, with Council receiving $70,000 from the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program that will ensure upgrades to approximately 12 bus stops in the LGA to ensure compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

11. Kay Tennant, Manager Healthier Environments Program reported on the Health Survey Data Provision project, advising that there have been delays with the project. SWAHS will be conducting an information session with Council on the Social and Health Profiles of residents shortly and making the information publicly available via the internet.

12. Christine Newman, Manager Health Promotion & Deputy Director Centre for Population Health provided an update on the Increased Healthier Food Choices Project. With the planning phase completed, the next phase of consultations and testing with local businesses will commence.

13. It was requested that Kay Tennant advise if Headspace would be going ahead in Parramatta. As a follow up, SWAHS has confirmed that Uniting Care Burnside has secured the funding to progress this youth mental health initiative.

GENERAL BUSINESS

14. Dr Rob Lang asked if another master plan was proposed for the hospital site. It has been requested that SWAHS follow this up and inform Council.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

15. There are no financial implications for Council.

Victoria Edghill

Project Officer

Social Outcomes

Attachments:

1 View

Minutes 14 October 2010 SWAHS / PCC Strategic Partnership meeting

5 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

None.

Council 28 February 2011 Item 10.1

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 10.1

SUBJECT Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy

REFERENCE F2009/01251 - D01702447

REPORT OF Policy Review Officer

PURPOSE:

This report introduces the Fraud and Corruption Prevention framework which has been developed, and proposes adoption of an integrated Policy for Fraud and Corruption Prevention

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the draft Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy shown at Attachment 1.

BACKGROUND

1. Council has undertaken a number of activities aimed at managing the risks of fraud and corruption. In addition to our Guiding Principles, a number of policies address aspects of fraud and corruption including the Code of Conduct, Whistleblowers Protection Policy, Complaints Policy, and a number of Human Resources Policies.

2. Staff and management training associated with the Code of Conduct and Corruption Prevention has raised awareness of our responsibilities in the prevention of fraud and corruption in and against Council. Specific management training in Fraud and Corruption Detection and Prevention in late 2008 provided the basis for further management training in Fraud and Corruption Risk Management.

3. A number of the actions which have addressed fraud and corruption at Council have intentionally been aligned to a framework for fraud control developed by the NSW Audit Office. An integrated approach similar to the Audit Office model is now mandatory in most government agencies.

4. A key element of an integrated approach to fraud and corruption prevention is a strategic policy which commits the organisation to a comprehensive and accountable approach. This policy serves to consolidate existing policies and strategies into a single policy on the prevention of Fraud and Corruption.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

5. The draft Policy provides clear statements on the responsibilities all Councillors and Council staff have in preventing fraud and corruption. Such responsibilities include operating sound controls, reporting fraud and corruption, and co-operation in the training and investigation associated with fraud and corruption prevention.

6. The basis for detailed planning in fraud and corruption prevention is a risk assessment which the draft policy requires managers undertake at least every two years. The policy also requires the establishing of appropriate prevention and detection controls arising from the risk assessment or reported events.

7. The draft policy also sets standards for internal and external notification of fraud and corruption, and the investigation and sanctioning as a result of findings of such investigations.

8. The draft policy requires Council to train managers, staff and Councillors in fraud and corruption prevention and detection, and commits to raising community awareness of Council’s stand in preventing fraud and corruption.

9. The draft policy provides links to Council’s existing fraud and corruption prevention activities through the Code of Conduct, Whistleblowers Protection Policy, Complaints Policy and Human Resources Policies.

10. The draft policy will be supported by a series of action plans contained in a Fraud and Corruption Prevention Strategy. Upon adoption of the draft policy detailed actions and procedures will be finalised in the Strategy as part of the policy implementation.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

11. The draft policy was the subject of a number of workshops and briefings with Council’s Executive and Leadership Teams, and was considered by the Workplace Reform sub-committee of the Consultative Committee on 15 June 2009. The policy was previously considered by Council in September, 2009, at which time consideration was deferred to allow for the matter to be workshopped. A workshop was held with Councillors in November 2009.

Erin Lottey

Policy Review Officer

Attachments:

1 View

Draft Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy

8 Pages

Council 28 February 2011 Item 10.2

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 10.2

SUBJECT Investments Report for November 2010

REFERENCE F2009/00971 - D01783450

REPORT OF Manager Finance

PURPOSE:

To inform Council of the investment portfolio performance for the month of November 2010.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes the investments report for November 2010.

BACKGROUND

1. In accordance with clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, a report setting out details of all money invested must be presented to Council on a monthly basis.

2. The report must include a certificate as to whether or not the investments have been made in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and the investment policy of Council.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. The closing balance of Council’s investment portfolio as at the 30th November 2010 was $88.9M (Previous Month $73.2M).The weighted average Funds held throughout the period was approximately $82.1M.

4. Councils overall investment holdings increased by approximately $15.7M due to receipts from rates instalments which were due by 30^th November 2010.

5. Council holds a diversified range of investment products which include:

· Managed Funds

· Term Deposits (Including Investment – Loan offsets)

· Floating Rate Notes

· Cash at call

· Senior Debt Bonds

Council engages CPG Research and Advisory for assistance in all investment matters relating to advice, risk and portfolio weighting.

6. The weighted average interest rate on Council’s investments for the month of November 2010 versus the UBSA Bank Bill Index is as follows:

Monthly Annualised

Total Portfolio 0.45% 5.35%

Funds Managers 0.27% 3.20%

UBSA Bank Bill Index 0.40% 4.83%

Councils Financial Year to Date return is 6.42% versus the UBSA bank bill index of 4.45%

NB: Annualised rates for Managed Funds are calculated on a compounding basis assuming that the interest returns are added to the initial investment amount and reinvested.

7. Council’s overall portfolio exceeded the UBSA Bank Bill Index by approximately 0.52%. This return was conservative compared to previous months due to the lower than average performance of Managed Funds, particularly CFS Global.

8. The CFS Global Credit Income Fund returned +0.16% in November, underperforming the UBSA Bank Bill Index return of +0.40%. Credit spreads weakened during the month following fears from Europe that Ireland may require financial bailout. This in turn caused credit spreads to widen across global markets. It should be noted that this fund has performed at 9.85% for a 12 month period and should always be measured over time frames of 12-18 months.

9. Term deposits make up 56% of total holdings and have ranging interest from 5.79% to 7.40%. Terms to maturity fall between 30 days & 3 years.

10. The following details are provided on the attachments for information:

Graph – Comparison of average funds invested with loans balance

Graph – Average interest rate comparison to Bank Bill Index

Graphs – Investments and loans interest compared to budget

Summary of investment portfolio

11. The Certificate of Investments for November 2010 is provided below:

Certificate of Investments

I hereby certify that the investments for the month of November 2010 have been made in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

12. There is no standard report attachment - detailed submission - attached to this report.

Alistair Cochrane

Manager Finance

Attachments:

1 View	1. Investments & Loans - Performance	1 Page
2 View	2. Summary of Investments Portfolio	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 28 February 2011 Item 10.3

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 10.3

SUBJECT Investments Report for December 2010

REFERENCE F2009/00971 - D01837658

REPORT OF Manager Finance

PURPOSE:

To inform Council of the investment portfolio performance for the month of December 2010.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes the investments report for December 2010.

BACKGROUND

1. In accordance with clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, a report setting out details of all money invested must be presented to Council on a monthly basis.

2. The report must include a certificate as to whether or not the investments have been made in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and the investment policy of Council.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. The closing balance of Council’s investment portfolio as at the 31st December 2010 was $86.7M (Previous Month $88.9M).The weighted average Funds held throughout the period was approximately $89.5M.

4. Councils overall investment holdings decreased by $3.2M due to Christmas Accounts payable runs as well as Xmas pays. Civic Place loan interest of approximately $700k was also paid at the end of December.

5. Council holds a diversified range of investment products which include:

· Managed Funds

· Term Deposits (Including Investment – Loan offsets)

· Floating Rate Notes

· Cash at call

· Senior Debt Bonds

Council engages CPG Research and Advisory for assistance in all investment matters relating to advice, risk and portfolio weighting.

6. The weighted average interest rate on Council’s investments for the month of December 2010 versus the UBSA Bank Bill Index is as follows:

Monthly Annualised

Total Portfolio 0.60% 7.21%

Funds Managers 0.78% 9.39%

UBSA Bank Bill Index 0.42% 5.11%

Councils Financial Year to Date return is 6.56% versus the UBSA bank bill index of 4.57%

NB: Annualised rates for Managed Funds are calculated on a compounding basis assuming that the interest returns are added to the initial investment amount and reinvested.

7. Council’s overall portfolio exceeded the UBSA Bank Bill Index by approximately 2.10%. The strong return can be attributed to the performance of CFS Global which recorded an annualised 1 month return of 15.64%.

8. Term deposits make up approximately 51% of total holdings and have ranging interest from 6.05% to 7.40%. Terms to maturity fall between 30 days & 3 years.

9. The following details are provided on the attachments for information:

Graph – Comparison of average funds invested with loans balance

Graph – Average interest rate comparison to Bank Bill Index

Graphs – Investments and loans interest compared to budget

Summary of investment portfolio

10. The Certificate of Investments for December 2010 is provided below:

Certificate of Investments

I hereby certify that the investments for the month of December 2010 have been made in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

11. There is no standard report attachment - detailed submission - attached to this report.

Alistair Cochrane

Manager Finance

Attachments:

1 View	Investments & Loans - Performance	1 Page
2 View	Summary of Investments Portfolio	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 28 February 2011 Item 10.4

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 10.4

SUBJECT Minutes of the 12 October 2010 Parramatta City Council and Housing NSW Strategic Alliance meeting

REFERENCE F2004/05977 - D01834440

REPORT OF Acting Manager Social Outcomes

PURPOSE:

The HousingNSW and Parramatta City Council Strategic Alliance met on 12 October 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 HousingNSW and Parramatta City Council Strategic Alliance meeting on 12 October 2010 (Attachment 1) are received and noted.

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

BACKGROUND

1. The aim of the Housing NSW and Parramatta City Council Strategic Partnership is to facilitate collaborative information sharing to better support improved housing and community wellbeing for housing needs groups and for neighbourhoods within the Parramatta LGA. The Partnership Steering Group continues to meet on a bi-annual basis in accordance with the Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) for the partnership.

MAIN DISCUSSION POINTS

2. Housing NSW (HNSW) General Manager for Greater Western Sydney Region, Julian Neylan advised that he is chairing the Committee recently established to oversee the implementation of the 4 year Regional Homelessness Action Plan. The Committee combines Western Sydney and South West Sydney.

3. Julian Neylan also advised that HNSW is now part of the Department of Human Services (DHS). The DHS also includes agencies such as Community Services, Aboriginal Housing, Aboriginal and Ageing, Disability and Home Care.

4. Dr Robert Lang provided a strategic update of Council business, including a brief overview of Civic Place developments, the Better Neighbourhoods Program, a Cycleway Update, the review of the draft Climate Adaptation Plan, E-Parramatta and Parra Connect, and the River Foreshore Project.

5. Louise Kerr, A/Manager Land Use and Transport, updated the partnership on the Draft LEP and DCP, advising a report presenting the results of public exhibition was considered by Council on 5 October 2010 and a further report would be presented to Council in December 2010 with a view to having the LEP gazetted after the 2011 state election.

6. Ray Brincat, A/ Area Director Mid Western Sydney (HNSW) reported on the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Program and agreed to provide Council with regular updates on property completions and handovers.

7. Nigel Sharpe, Project Director (HNSW) updated the steering committee on the current status of master planning for the Wentworthville estate. The project is funded by the Housing Affordability Fund and it is envisaged that a draft plan will be completed by June 2012, with a final plan by mid 2012. Council raised concerns about public/ private housing ratios and HousingNSW advised that the concentration is expected to change from the current 78% social housing to a maximum of 25% social housing. Council will be invited to join the Project Control Group in due course.

8. Nigel Sharpe also updated the steering committee on the Telopea Redevelopment. The first stage of the Concept Plan has been approved with an overall timeframe for completion of 10 years. Council raised numerous concerns about the redevelopment, including planning for future open space and community facilities, the need for enhanced communication between PCC and HousingNSW and the increase in public housing in stage 1 of the development without a guarantee that private housing will be developed in phase 2 of the project.

9. Donna Mosford, A/ Manager Social Outcomes reported on the draft PCC Homelessness Policy and Implementation plan, due for completion shortly, and the scoping of a part-time temporary position funded by PCC that will focus on linking rough sleepers with service providers.

10. Donna Mosford also advised that PCC’s Affordable Housing Policy is currently under review.

11. Julian Neylan requested an update on the Save Our Suburbs campaign as the majority of sites targeted through the campaign were built to house people at risk of homelessness. The steering committee was advised that the relevant Council resolution is open-ended and that the campaign is not intended to target HNSW but is rather a political statement to challenge state government planning laws.

12. The Strategic Partnership MOU has been signed by the Lord Mayor and CEO. A review will take place in 12 months time.

13. Councillor Lim expressed thanks to HNSW for works done in Albert Street and suggested further improvements could be made through a joint PCC/ HNSW initiative.

14. Councillor McDermott identified ongoing issues with illegal dumping and stray cats in Telopea.

15. FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

There are no financial implications for Council.

Donna Mosford

Project Officer/ Acting Manager Social Outcomes

Attachments:

1 View

Minutes 12 October 2010 HNSW/ PCC Strategic Partnership meeting

11 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 28 February 2011 Item 10.5

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 10.5

SUBJECT Report of the Code of Conduct Sole Reviewer

REFERENCE F2010/02035 - D01837796

REPORT OF Policy Review Officer

PURPOSE:

To report to Council the findings of a sole reviewer in relation to a complaint made under section 12 of Council’s Code of Conduct.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council receive and note the report from the sole reviewer contained in Attachment 1

(b) That Council, having considered the report from the sole reviewer contained in Attachment 1, finds no breach of the Code of Conduct has occurred.

BACKGROUND

1. Council’s current conduct review panel was established by way of Council resolution on 15 June 2010, in compliance with the requirements of the Division of Local Government Model Code of Conduct, and subsequently, section 12 of Council’s Code of Conduct.

2. Section 12 of Council’s code requires that all complaints about Councillors be referred to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in the first instance for assessment. Section 12.9 allows the CEO to refer such complaints to either a conduct review panel, or a sole conduct reviewer, for action.

3. Following the Council meeting of 26 July 2010, Council received a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. The complaint was assessed by the CEO and referred to a sole reviewer, Mr John Boland, for investigation.

4. A final determination into the matter has been provided to Council. The report includes findings that “the conduct… of which the complainant complains did not breach the code”.

5. Section 12.23 of the Code of Conduct requires that, when the sole reviewer’s deliberations are complete, any findings and recommendations be reported to Council.

6. The Guidelines to the Model Code of Conduct indicate that reports of this nature should generally be dealt with in an open session of Council.

7. To ensure compliance with the requirements of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act and the Guidelines to the Model Code of Conduct, the report does not identify the name of the complainant.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

8. Section 7.11 of Council’s Code of Conduct establishes that Councillors considering a report such as this are not required to declare a conflict of interests in the matter, as the matter relates to the public duty of a Councillor.

9. In accordance with the Division of Local Government Guidelines to the Code of Conduct, Council is the appropriate body to determine whether or not a breach of the Code of Conduct has occurred, and has discretion as to whether or not a sanction is applied.

MAKING A DETERMINATION

No Breach

10. Should Council wish to find that no breach of the Code of Conduct has occurred, it would be appropriate for Council to resolve to receive and note the report of the sole reviewer, and make a finding that no breach of the code of conduct has occurred.

Breach

11. Should Council determine that a breach of the Code of Conduct has occurred, section 12.25 establishes that any of the following sanctions may be applied:

a. Censure the councillor for misbehaviour in accordance with section 440G of the Local Government Act

b. Require the Councillor or CEO to apologise to any person adversely affected by the breach

c. Counsel the Councillor or CEO

d. Make public findings of inappropriate conduct

e. Prosecute for any breach of law

12. Section 12.24 requires that before imposing sanctions, Council must first make a determination that a Councillor has breached the Code of Conduct.

13. Sections 12.24 and 12.25 of the Code of Conduct establish how Council might impose sanctions on a Councillor, and what those sanctions might be, should sanctions be appropriate.

14. Should Council wish to find that a breach of the Code of Conduct has occurred, it would be appropriate for Council to resolve to receive and note the report of the sole reviewer, make a finding that a breach of the Code of Conduct has occurred, and indicate which sanctions, if any, are to be applied.

Erin Lottey

Policy Review Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Final report of Investigator	5 Pages
2 View	Code of Conduct	33 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 28 February 2011 Item 10.6

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 10.6

SUBJECT Affordable Housing SEPP Review

REFERENCE F2009/01658 - D01844491

REPORT OF Acting Manager Social Outcomes

PURPOSE:

The Department of Planning (DoP) is seeking feedback from stakeholders involved in the delivery of affordable rental housing. This report provides a précis of comments from a broad range of Council staff involved in affordable housing initiatives, for Council’s consideration as a formal submission to the Department of Planning on this issue.

RECOMMENDATION

That the response to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (AHSEPP) Review from Council Staff (Attachment 1) is endorsed for submission.

BACKGROUND

1. The Affordable Housing State Environmental Planning Policy (AHSEPP), which commenced in July 2009, forms part of the NSW State Government response to the long term decline of affordable housing. The AHSEPP includes a requirement that it be reviewed a year after its commencement.

2. The AHSEPP Review Paper (Attachment 2) identifies issues that have already been raised in submissions from a broad range of stakeholders including councils, community members, social housing providers and others involved in the development of affordable housing developments.

3. The Council staff draft response builds on comments and issues raised in the AHSEPP Review Paper and draws on Council staff expertise in both the local Parramatta planning context and the broader planning environment. Councillors will recall that the approval and management of this type of development has been a contentious issue in the past.

4. The AHSEPP Review Paper has 12 chapters. Previously garnered Issues and Responses are documented in Chapters 3 – 6 and Chapters 8 – 11. The structure of the Council’s proposed response follows the same format.

KEY THEMES RAISED

5. A number of key themes were identified in comments made by Council staff, prompted by past experience in Parramatta.

6. These issues include the need for a consistent definition of ‘affordable housing’ for all those involved so there is no ambiguity or conflict.

7. Developers need to demonstrate the demand for affordable housing, during the DA process, in areas they seek to develop, to make sure that “affordable housing” is not a vehicle for inappropriate development for the location, including issues such as the built form and provision of supporting infrastructure.

8. There have been concerns in the past regarding the management of these properties and Council’s draft submission requests that consideration be given to regulation of this aspect.

9. Council will also be aware of the issues around levying for s94A contributions in affordable housing developments and requests clarification around when contributions can be collected.

10. As car parking is an ongoing concern for Council, the need for additional car parking for tenants in affordable housing projects has been raised as an issue in Council’s draft submission.

11. Please refer to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (AHSEPP) Review from Council staff (Attachment 1) for full details.

Donna Mosford

Project Officer/ Acting Manager Social Outcomes

Attachments:

1 View	AHSEPP Review Paper	70 Pages
2 View	Boarding House DCP controls	17 Pages
3 View	AHSEPP Review Council staff comments	12 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 28 February 2011 Item 10.7

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 10.7

SUBJECT Delivery Program and Operational Plan - Quarterly Review December 2010

REFERENCE F2010/02572 - D01854174

REPORT OF Manager Finance

PURPOSE:

To provide the December 2010 Quarterly Review of the 2010/14 Delivery Program and 2010/11 Operational Plan.

Section 403 of the Local Government Act requires the General Manager (Chief Executive Officer) to provide progress reports to the Council, with respect to the principal activities detailed in the Delivery Program, at least every 6 months.

Clause 203 of the Local Government Regulation requires the Responsible Accounting Officer (Manager Finance) to prepare and submit to the Council a budget review statement that shows, by reference to the estimates of income and expenditure set out in the Operational Plan, a revised estimate of the income and expenditure for the year.

The budget review statements and a revision of estimates within the Operational Plan must be reported to Council within two months after the end of each quarter (except the June quarter).

The Responsible Accounting Officer is also required to report as to whether or not he believes the financial position of the Council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council adopt the Chief Executive Officer’s December 2010 Quarterly Review of the 2010/14 Delivery Program and 2010/11 Operational Plan. (Attachment 1).

(b) Further, that Council adopt the Responsible Accounting Officer’s report on the financial position of the Council and the revised estimates of income and expenditure as detailed in Attachment 1

BACKGROUND

1. The attached December 2010 Quarterly Review contains the Chief Executive Officer’s progress report on the principal activities contained within Council’s 2010/14 Delivery Program and 2010/11 Operational Plan. The Review is presented under the Four Pillars format adopted by Council.

· Environment & Infrastructure

· Community & Neighbourhoods

· Economy & Development

· Governance & Corporate

2. The Review details in the Operating Statement the actual income and expenditure results for the year to December compared to the budget previously adopted by Council and revised forecasts for the full year. The Responsible Accounting Officer’s Report in the Review, includes an analysis of the year to date result and the reasons for the major variances from the previously adopted budget.

3. The December 2010 Quarterly Review was considered at a workshop on 21 February 2011. Any proposals from the workshop will be incorporated as an addendum to this document to be considered at the Council meeting.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

4. Relevant issues/options/consequences are noted within the Quarterly Review document.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

5. Consultation has taken place with all relevant staff that have Delivery Program, Operational Plan and budgetary responsibilities.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

6. Details of the financial implications are contained within the Review.

Alistair Cochrane

Manager Finance

Attachments:

Draft December Quarterly Review 2010 - Hard copy is already provided

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 28 February 2011 Item 10.8

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 10.8

SUBJECT Report of Audit Committee Meeting

REFERENCE F2008/02951 - D01856935

REPORT OF Service Auditor

PURPOSE:

This report provides a summary of the discussions at the Audit Committee meeting held on 25 November 2010.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 25 November 2010 (Attachment 1) be received and noted.

BACKGROUND

1. Arising from Council resolution on 25 February 2008 an Audit Committee was established comprising three Councillors and two independent Community Representatives. The current Charter of the Audit Committee was adopted by Council on 27 April 2010.

2. The current councillor members of the Audit Committee are Councillors, A Wilson, J. Finn and M McDermott. The current independent Community Representatives of the Audit Committee are Mr Neil Adams and Mr Mike Barry. The Chief Executive Officer, Council’s auditors and other Council officers are invited to Audit Committee meetings. This approach is consistent with refreshed Internal Audit Guidelines issued by the Division of Local Government in September 2010.

KEY TOPICS

3. The key topics considered at the meeting of the Audit Committee held on 25 November 2010 were:

(a) The endorsement of the three (3) year strategic Internal Audit Plan for the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2013. The Committee requested further details on the 2010/2011 Annual Audit Plan to include the required resources, estimated man-day and cost to perform the works. The Committee requested that the suggested changes to the plan be submitted for approval in accordance with the Audit Committee Charter.

(b) The Code of Conduct training as part of the fraud and corruption strategy of Council. The Audit Committee requested for an update on the Code of Conduct training undertaken at Council.

(c) The new Business Continuity Management (BCM) system developed by Council outlined the steps of actions to be taken in the event of a disaster. The Committee requested further information be provided to a future meeting in relation to the testing of the BCM system.

(d) The Committee considered the current co-sourcing arrangement of Council’s internal audit function where a staff internal auditor supplements audit services with an outsourced internal audit service provider. The Committee accepted that the internal audit management solution provided the independence requirements and the present arrangement appeared effective.

4. The Minutes of the meeting are submitted for consideration.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

5. There are no financial implications for Council arising from this report.

Emily Tang Maurice Doria

Service Auditor General Counsel

Attachments:

1 View

Minutes of Meeting 25 November 2010

8 Pages

Council 28 February 2011 Item 10.9

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 10.9

SUBJECT Audit Committee Annual Report

REFERENCE F2008/02951 - D01861919

REPORT OF Service Auditor

PURPOSE:

This report provides a summary of the operations of the Audit Committee in accordance with the Audit Committee Charter for the period from May 2009 to December 2010.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the content of this report be received and noted.

BACKGROUND

1. The Charter requires the Audit Committee to prepare an annual report for the Council that:

· Summarises the work performed by the Committee to discharge its duties;

· Details the number of meetings held during the year and the attendance of each member; and

· Includes a summary of the Audit Committee’s annual assessment of its performance.

2. The current councillor members of the Audit Committee are Councillors, A Wilson, J. Finn and M McDermott. The current independent Community Representatives of the Audit Committee are Mr Neil Adams (Chair) and Mr Mike Barry. The Chief Executive Officer, Council’s auditors and other Council officers are invited to Audit Committee meetings. This approach is consistent with the revised Internal Audit Guidelines issued by the Division of Local Government in September 2010.

INTERNAL AUDIT FUNCTION

3. The Internal Audit function is governed by a Charter of Operations which was reviewed and endorsed by the Audit Committee in November 2009.

4. Council’s Internal Audit has been functioning in a co-sourced structure where audit services being undertaken by Council’s Service Auditor and an external service provider. The current structure and approach is expected to continue indefinitely. It is considered by the Chief Executive Officer and the Committee to be a sound and effective arrangement.

5. The conduct of audits accords with an Annual Audit Plan and a three (3) year Strategic Audit Plan. The current Strategic Audit Plan has been developed on the basis of a formalised risk management methodology linked to Council’s newly established Enterprise Risk Management program. This requirement reflects contemporary practices to aid management and the Committee in addressing and mitigating the impact of significant risks.

MEETINGS AND ATTENDANCE

6. Attachment 1 sets out the meetings of the Committee held over the relevant period.

ACHIEVEMENTS TO DATE

7. The milestone activities achieved by the Committee are listed in Attachment 2.

8. Attachment 3 contains a report from the Chair of the Audit Committee regarding the operations of the Committee. The report provides a summary of the Committee activities to date and the key upcoming actions.

ASSESSMENT OF AUDIT COMMITTEE PERFORMANCE

9. The current Committee was established in May 2009. A formal review of the Committee performance has not been undertaken to date. It is intended to complete a formal assessment, as required by the Charter, during the next twelve (12) months.

CONCLUSION

10. The Audit Committee is satisfied based on the information provided that Council is suitably addressing its responsibilities in relation to risk management, internal control, governance and external accountability requirements.

Emily Tang Maurice Doria

Service Auditor General Counsel

Attachments:

1 View	Meetings and Attendance	1 Page
2 View	Achievements to Date	1 Page
3 View	Report by Chair of the Audit Committee	6 Pages

Sue Coleman – Group Manager City Services			Assistant Minutes Clerk – Joy Bramham
Greg 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 Paul Garrard - Woodville 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, Deputy Lord Mayor - Elizabeth Macarthur Ward	Clr Antoine (Tony) Issa, OAM – Woodville Ward	Clr Chiang Lim– Arthur Phillip Ward

1 View	Minutes of the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting	4 Pages
2 View	Late Agenda Item - Proposed B Double Access for 23 South Street Rydalmere	2 Pages