Agenda of Council - 22 August 2011

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

The Lord Mayor Clr John Chedid – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward

Dr. Robert Lang, Chief Executive Officer - Parramatta City Council

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 MP – Woodville Ward	Clr Chiang Lim– Arthur Phillip Ward

Staff

GALLERY

Council 22 August 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO

1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Council (Development) - 8 August 2011

2 APOLOGIES

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

4 Petitions

5 Minutes of Lord Mayor

6 Public Forum

7 PETITIONS

8 Economy and Development

8.1 Common Property 37 Midson Road and 8 Birchgrove Crescent Eastwood, (Former Eastwood Brickpit) Eastwood
(Lot 5 DP 270605 and CP 1 DP 270605)
(Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

8.2 247 Kissing Point Road Dundas
Lot 1 DP 128425 (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

8.3 18/181 Church Street, Parramatta (Lot 18 SP 16446, Lot 2 DP 526588 (Lots 1-26 & 28-43 SP 16446 & Lots 44-45 SP 19673) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

8.4 98 Kissing Point Road, Dundas
(Lot 5 DP 38734) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

8.5 2 Mayfield Street, Wentworthville (Lot 131DP 128864) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

8.6 14 Fremont Avenue, Ermington
(Lachlan Macquarie Ward) (Lot 41 DP 315838)

8.7 36-38 Darcy Road, Wentworthville NSW 2145
(Lot 2 DP 38534 & Lot 1A DP160787)(Arthur Phillip Ward)

8.8 79 -81 John Street, Merrylands (Lot A DP 420807)
(Woodville Ward)

8.9 1 Lexington Avenue, EASTWOOD NSW 2122
LOT A DP 326881(Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

8.10 45-51 Spurway Street, Ermington
(Lots 65, 66, 67 and 68 DP 16170) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

9 Environment and Infrastructure

9.1 Parramatta Traffic Committee Minutes of meeting held on 4 August 2011

9.2 Traffic Engineering Advisory Group Minutes of meeting held on 4 August 2011

10 Community and Neighbourhood

10.1 2012 PCC Community Grants Program

10.2 Draft George Kendall Riverside Park Masterplan

10.3 Community Bus Management and Support

10.4 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting 26 July 2011

11 Governance and Corporate

11.1 Amendments to Council's Whistleblower Protection Policy

11.2 12th International Cities Town Centres & Communities (ICTC) Society 2011 Conference - Hobart, Tasmania - 25-28 October 2011

11.3 2011 National Local Roads and Transport Congress - Mount Gambier, South Australia - 16-18 November 2011

11.4 Parks and Leisure National Conference 2011 - 18 - 21 September 2011 - Fremantle, Western Australia

11.5 Maximum interest rate on overdue Rates and Charges

11.6 Investments Report for June 2011

11.7 Delivery Program and Operational Plan – Quarterly Review June 2011

11.8 Proposed Easements for Underground Cable Purpose Through Part of Ponds/Subiaco Reserve Between Hillman Avenue and Christina Street Rydalmere

11.9 Report of the ParraConnect Advisory Committe

12 Closed Session

12.1 Tender No. 04/2011 Establishment of a panel of contractors to undertake environmental restoration works

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

13 DECISIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION

14 QUESTION TIME

Council 22 August 2011 Item 8.1

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.1

SUBJECT Common Property 37 Midson Road and 8 Birchgrove Crescent Eastwood, (Former Eastwood Brickpit) Eastwood
(Lot 5 DP 270605 and CP 1 DP 270605)
(Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION Construction of a park including works to three heritage listed kilns

REFERENCE DA/618/2010 - 3 August 2010

APPLICANT/S AVJBOS Eastwood Developments

OWNERS AVJBOS Eastwood Developments

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 26 July 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application involves work to heritage items.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for the embellishment of the communal open space areas for the community titled former Eastwood Brickworks residential estate. The park will be owned and maintained by the Community Association. Approval is also sought to embellish the approved landscaping for the Residential Flat Building to be built on the location of the Mill building that has been demolished and the future residential flat building in the converted Kiln building that are located within the heritage precinct.

A key component of the application is works associated with the three heritage listed kilns within the heritage precinct. The application seeks approval for the complete restoration of one kiln, the adaptive re-use of another kiln as a covered shelter and the use of the third kiln as an uncovered shelter and bbq area. Both kiln’s two and three will retain important interpretive elements including fire boxes, floors and part of the external walls.

The site is subject to the provisions of the Eastwood Brickworks Master Plan which was approved by Council in June 2003. A Master Plan is required under Clause 30 of Parramatta LEP 2001 for sites over 5000m2 to guide future development.

It is considered that this response to the 3 kiln buildings is appropriate in terms of heritage impact and in conjunction with retention of other heritage fabric within the site will facilitate future generations understanding the former use of the site as a brickworks as well as providing appropriate passive and active recreational opportunities for the occupants and visitors to the site. The park has been designed taking into consideration the design principles of the Master Plan.

Council’s Heritage advisor raises no objection to the proposal.

The application was notified to adjoining properties and one submission was received. The issues raised within the submission are addressed in the Section 79C Assessment Report (Attachment 1) and are not considered to warrant refusal of the application.

This application is long outstanding and has undergone amendments in response to concerns regarding heritage impacts.

Accordingly the proposal is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. 618/2010 for the adaptive reuse of 3 existing kilns and associated landscaping works at Lot 5 DP 270605 Midson Road Eastwood for a period of five (5) years from the date on the Notice of Determination subject to the in attachment 1

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

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Assessment Report	29 Pages
2 View	Locality Plan	1 Page
3 View	Architectural Plans	18 Pages

Council 22 August 2011 Item 8.2

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.2

SUBJECT 247 Kissing Point Road Dundas
Lot 1 DP 128425 (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and the construction of 4 townhouses with strata subdivision.

REFERENCE DA/243/2011 - 12 May 2011

APPLICANT/S Revelop Projects

OWNERS Betel Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 26^th July 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

This application is referred to Council for determination due to the number of submissions received and the future down zoning of the site to R2 Residential Zone under the Draft LEP 2010.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Approval is sought for the demolition, tree removal and construction of four (4) townhouses, onsite car parking and strata subdivision of completed development.

The proposed development is defined as “multi unit housing” under the Parramatta LEP 2001 and is permitted with development consent under the current 2B Residential zoning applying to the land.

Kissing Point Road and Spurway Street is characterised by a mix of single and two storey detached dwelling houses. Opposite the subject site, located on the north eastern corner of Kissing Point Road and Spurway Street, is an older style single storey villa development.

The subject site is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential under draft Parramatta LEP 2010. The proposed development is defined as Multi Dwelling Housing under draft Parramatta LEP 2010 and is not permitted in the draft zone. The proposal is not consistent with the relevant objectives of the zone.

The proposed development is generally in compliance with the design requirements of the Parramatta LEP 2001 and Parramatta DCP 2005 for multi-unit housing developments. However, visual privacy concern is raised to the elevated rear western deck associated with townhouse 4, which is located above the partially excavated double garage. This external area has a clear view of the western adjoining property at No. 245 Kissing Point Road.

In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, owners and occupiers of surrounding properties were given notice of the application for a 21 day period between the 18^th May 2011 to 8^th June 2011. In response, twenty-four (24) written submissions objecting to the development were received.

The concerns raised in submissions have been addressed in the attached 79C Report and warrant refusal of the application. Accordingly the application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority REFUSE Development Application No. 243/2011 for demolition, tree removal and construction of four (4) townhouses, onsite car parking and strata subdivision of the completed development on land at 247 Kissing Point Road, DUNDAS NSW 2117 for the following reasons:

1. The proposed multi-unit development comprising four (4) townhouses within an R2 zone under the provisions of Draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2010, which is deemed to be imminent and certain, is prohibited.

2. The proposed development is contrary to the public interest as it is inconsistent with future planning controls and the likely future character of the area, which is to be sustained for the purposes of low density residential development prescribed by the draft LEP 2010.

3. The proposed rear (western) elevated deck and living room of townhouse 4 is considered to exacerbate visual and acoustic privacy to the adjoining property at No. 245 Kissing Point Road.

4. The proposal is not in the public interest.

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

Michael Buckley

Consultant Town Planner

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Report	29 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Architectural Plans	2 Pages
4	Confidential Internal Floor Plans	2 Pages

Council 22 August 2011 Item 8.3

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.3

SUBJECT 18/181 Church Street, Parramatta (Lot 18 SP 16446, Lot 2 DP 526588 (Lots 1-26 & 28-43 SP 16446 & Lots 44-45 SP 19673) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Section 96(1a) application to modify Development Consent No. DA/1024/2005 (a natural therapy business and residence). The modification seeks to change the hours of operation to allow the business to cease operations at 7pm (currently 5pm) and increase the number of employees from two to three.

REFERENCE DA/1024/2005/A - Lodged 11 July 2011

APPLICANT/S W M Wen

OWNERS W M Wen

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 4 August 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application is being referred to Council as the proposed use involves therapeutic massage services.

executive summary

DA/1024/2005 was approved under delegation for occupation of Unit 18 for a natural therapy centre and residence.

The application seeks approval to increase the hours of operation to 9:00am - 7:00pm, Monday to Saturday (i.e. two hours additional trading each day) and to increase the number of staff from two (2) to three (3).

The floor layout consists of a kitchen, bathroom, two natural therapy rooms and two residential bedrooms. No additional therapy rooms are proposed and the floor layout is not altered as part of this application. The applicant requests to increase the number of staff to three; however only two staff will work at any one time. As the application does not increase the number of treatment rooms and the number of staff will not exceed two at any one time, condition no. 7 is not required to be modified.

Council’s Community Crime Prevention Officer has reviewed the application and has no objection to the proposed modifications.

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s Notification Policy and one submission was received. The objection relates primarily to hours of operation and owners consent from the Owners Corporation. The issues are addressed in the Section 79C Assessment Report (Attachment 1) and are not considered to warrant refusal of the application.

The natural therapy centre would not create unreasonable noise given the quiet nature of the use and location within the CBD. The hours of operation being 9:00am - 7:00pm, Monday to Saturday are appropriate within the area and are consistent with other similar uses.

Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority, modify development consent to Development Application No. 1024/2005 in the following manner:

1. Modify Condition no. 4 in the following manner:

4. The days and hours of operation are restricted to 9:00am to 7:00pm, Monday to Saturday. Any alterations to the above will require further development approval.

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

2. All other conditions of consent under DA/1024/2005 are to remain.

(b) Further, that objectors be advised of Council’s decision

Ashleigh Matta

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Report	6 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Approved plan - DA/1024/2005	1 Page
4 View	Consent letter - DA/1024/2005	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 22 August 2011 Item 8.4

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.4

SUBJECT 98 Kissing Point Road, Dundas
(Lot 5 DP 38734) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION Alterations and additions to a heritage listed two storey dwelling house.

REFERENCE DA/369/2011 - Submitted 2 June 2011

APPLICANT/S Casey & Mannell Design Pty Ltd

OWNERS Mr G W Gilliver and Mrs H J M Gilliver

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 29 July 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application is being referred to Council for determination as the subject site is listed as a Heritage Item of Local Significance under Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for alterations and additions to the existing two storey dwelling house.

The proposal includes a rear addition to the ground floor to provide a family/ meals room, a rear balcony on the first floor and a single carport located at the rear of the existing dwelling.

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s Notification Policy and one submission was received. Concern was raised by the objector over the impact of the first floor balcony on privacy, the height of the rear addition, setbacks from the eastern boundary and noise generated by the property. The issues raised in the submission do not warrant refusal or modification of the development.

The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor, Landscape Officer and Environmental Health Officer for review. No objections were raised subject to conditions of consent.

The proposed works are consistent with the objectives of Parramatta LEP 2001, Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation), Parramatta Heritage DCP 2001 and Parramatta DCP 2005, and is considered satisfactory in terms of design, bulk and scale. The proposed additions are appropriately sited without impacting on the streetscape, adjoining properties or the heritage significance of the site.

Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. DA/369/2011 for the alterations and additions to a heritage listed two storey dwelling house at 98 Kissing Point Road, DUNDAS subject to conditions in the attached s79C report.

(b) That the submitter be advised of Council’s decision

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C report	32 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Plans	7 Pages
4	Confidential Plans	6 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 22 August 2011 Item 8.5

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.5

SUBJECT 2 Mayfield Street, Wentworthville (Lot 131DP 128864) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of 5 townhouses under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009

REFERENCE DA/312/2011 -

APPLICANT/S Mr Elias Assaf

OWNERS Mr Elias Assaf

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 1 August 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

This application is referred to Council for determination due to the number of submissions received.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for the construction of a multi-unit housing development under the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The development comprises 5 townhouses with 4 at grade car spaces adjacent to the building.

The proposal has been submitted to Council as infill housing under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. At the time of lodgement the provisions of the 2009 SEPP permitted multi-unit housing in a site irrespective of the zoning. However, amendments made to the SEPP on 20 May 2011 [State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) Amendment 2011] would now prohibit the proposed infill development in the low density zone. Clause 54A (2) - Savings and Transitional provisions enables consent authorities to retrospectively apply the prohibition clause.

The subject application is subject to a savings clause under the SEPP that requires Council to consider compatibility with the character of the surrounding local area. This process has found the development to be incompatible for a number of reasons, including design, external appearance, height and setbacks. The issue of compatibility with the local area are so significant that they warrant refusal of the development application.

The site is severely impacted by flooding and is required to be elevated above the flood level and provide open areas underneath the building for floodwaters to pass through the site. An elevated balcony around the front of the building provides a flood free escape path to the carparking area in case of an extreme flood. The need to design the building to cope with the flooding issue has resulted in an unsatisfactory urban design outcome.

In response to the initial notification of the application 14 letters of objection were received. Following the receipt of amended plans, a further notification resulted in an additional 5 submissions being received. The main issues raised in the submissions included over development, out of character with the local area, traffic impacts arising from inadequate carparking being provided and inappropriate building style for the location. Many of the objectors raised points that were also identified within the character test required by the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP. The public submissions are fully considered within the Section 79C assessment report contained in Attachment 1.

Concerns raised by Council’s Urban Designer, Development Engineer and significantly internal amenity issues, particularly lack of secure car parking, poor solar access to courtyards and lack of disabled access suggest the site is not suitable for the density of development proposed. Accordingly, the development application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority REFUSE Development Application No. 312/2011 for demolition, tree removal and construction of 5 townhouses on land at 2 Mayfield Street, Wentworthville for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development does not satisfy the provisions of Clause 16A – Character of Local Area of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

2. The proposal is prohibited by Clause 10(2) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) Amendment 2011 as the application proposes infill housing in a zone that prohibits multi unit dwellings/residential flat buildings.

3. The proposed development is contrary to the aims and objectives of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2010 as the proposed townhouses are prohibited development under the current and future zoning of the land.

4. The proposed building will have an unacceptable impact on the streetscape, in terms of bulk, scale, wall length and ground level treatments which provide for floodwater to pass underneath the building.

5. The proposed building will have unacceptable amenity for future residents in terms of inadequate private open space, unsecured car parking and inadequate storage area.

6. The proposed building will have unacceptable privacy impacts upon adjoining residents.

7. The proposed building does not comply with the requirement for disabled access into the dwellings in accordance with Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005.

8. The development application has provided inadequate information provided to allow for a proper assessment of how stormwater from the site will be disposed.

9. The development application has provided inadequate information to determine whether on site detention (OSD) is required.

10. The development application has not clearly identified that the proposed flood storage will be effective for the full range of events up to the 100 year event.

11. The proposed development is not in the public interest.

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

Troy Loveday

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Development Assessment Team

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Assessment Report	69 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Plans and Elevations	3 Pages
4	Confidential Plans	4 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 22 August 2011 Item 8.6

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.6

SUBJECT 14 Fremont Avenue, Ermington
(Lachlan Macquarie Ward) (Lot 41 DP 315838)

DESCRIPTION Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of 5 x 3 bedroom and 1 x 4 bedroom dwellings under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP.

REFERENCE DA/241/2011 - 21 April 2011

APPLICANT/S Yaseen Vu and Associates

OWNERS G Ajaka and E Ajaka

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 1 August 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application is referred to Council due to the number of submissions received and the proposal relates to a development under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for demolition and construction of a 5 x 3 bedroom and 1 x 4 bedroom attached dwellings (townhouses) under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP.

It is noted that the subject site is to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan which also does not permit multi-unit developments on the site.

Pursuant to Clause 16A – Character of Local Area of the amended provisions of the SEPP, a Character Test was undertaken of the proposed development which is discussed in detail in the Section 79C Report (Attachment 1). The Character Test considered the following:

· Permissibility

· Building form

· Site amalgamation

· Building Frontage

· Unit Mix

· Occupancy Type

· Architectural Style

· Height

· Front, side and rear setback

· Landscaped Areas

· Location of primary internal and outdoor living areas

· Car Parking

· Visual Bulk

· Overlooking and overshadowing opportunities

Upon review of the proposed development against the above criteria, the development is not considered to be visually or characteristically compatible with the local context as it does not demonstrate that it has been designed to consider the essential elements that make up the character of the surrounding development.

In response to the notification period 9 individual letters of objection were received. The issues raised within those submissions relate to permissibility, parking, traffic, development profit, privacy, overshadowing, acoustics, tree removal and landscaping, consistency with the streetscape, hydraulics, setbacks, bulk and scale, waste management and construction hours. The issues have been discussed in detail within the Section 79C assessment report contained in Attachment 1.

As the proposal is nominated as integrated development as the site is possibly 40 metres from a waterway, the applicant was requested to pay the referral fee to the Department of Water in Council’s correspondence dated 28 April 2011 and which was again raised at a meeting with the applicant on 9 May 2011. To date, the referral fee remains outstanding and as a consequence, the application could not be referred to the Department of Water. As the application could not be reviewed by the relevant authorities, the proposal cannot be recommended for approval as it contravenes the requirements under the Water Management Act 2000.

The applicant was also made aware of concerns with the proposal in writing and invited to submit further information and/or amend the design of the proposal. The applicant has not responded to these requests.

A primary objective of the amendments to the ARHSEPP was to place more emphasis on the appropriateness of particular developments on sites that would be otherwise prohibited. As the proposed development fails to satisfy the provisions of the Character Test, the proposal for a multi-unit development in a low density zone is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the zoning applying to the land and that of the future zone of the site. The proposed works are inappropriately located and are of a bulk and scale that compromises the low density profile of the sites immediately adjoining the subject site and within this section of Fremont Avenue.

Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority REFUSE Development Application No. 241/2011 for demolition, construction of 5 x 3 bedroom and 1 x 4 bedroom dwellings under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP on land at 14 Fremont Avenue, Ermington for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development does not comply with the provisions of Clause 91A – Integrated Development of the EP&A Act 1979 as the Department of Water has not considered the development application.

2. The proposal fails to satisfy the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) Amendments 2011 as it does not satisfy the local character provision as the assessment demonstrates that the proposed development will not be compatible with the existing and/or the desired future character of the locality. The proposal also does not comply with the floor space ratio provision of the SEPP.

3. The proposal is prohibited by Clause 10(2) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) Amendment 2011 as the application proposes infill housing in a zone that prohibits multi unit dwellings/residential flat buildings.

4. The proposal fails to satisfy the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 as it does not satisfy the provisions of the Seniors Living Policy including responding to context, site planning and design, impact on streetscape and impact on neighbours. The proposal also does not comply with the FSR provisions of the original SEPP.

5. The proposed development is contrary to the aims and objectives of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2010 and the proposed multi-unit development is a prohibited development under the current and future zoning of the site and is out of character with the area.

6. The proposed development is inconsistent with the requirements of Parramatta DCP 2005. The development does not comply with the design standards for setbacks (rear, front and side), height, stormwater and flood management, deep soil and landscaping, building form and massing, building façade and articulation, visual and acoustic privacy, building separation, waste management, internal amenity, housing diversity, parking and solar access.

7. Insufficient information has been submitted to carry out an assessment of the likely impacts of the multi-unit development on the amenity of the locality. In particular, no Social Impact Assessment has been submitted.

8. The proposal exceeds the maximum allowable FSR and no SEPP 1 objection has been submitted

9. The proposal is not in the public interest.

(b) That the objectors be advised of Council’s decision.

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

Development Assessment Team

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Report	54 Pages
2 View	Location Plan	1 Page
3 View	Plans and Elevations	8 Pages
4	Confidential Plans	6 Pages

Council 22 August 2011 Item 8.7

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.7

SUBJECT 36-38 Darcy Road, Wentworthville NSW 2145
(Lot 2 DP 38534 & Lot 1A DP160787)(Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Demolition of 2 dwelling houses, removal of trees, construction of 3 x 2 storey residential flat buildings containing a total of 18 dwellings over basement carparking for 22 cars under the provisions of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and strata subdivision.

REFERENCE DA/888/2010 - Submitted 5 November 2010

APPLICANT/S Abboud Investments No 2 Pty Ltd

OWNERS Abboud Investments No 2 Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 2 August 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

This application is referred to Council for determination as the proposal is for affordable rental housing and due to the number of submissions received.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for the demolition of 2 dwelling houses, removal of trees, construction of 3 x 2 storey residential buildings containing a total of 18 apartments over basement carparking for 22 cars under the provisions of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and strata subdivision.

The proposal has been submitted to Council as infill housing under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. At the time of lodgement the provisions of the 2009 SEPP permitted residential flat buildings in a site irrespective of the zoning. However, amendments made to the SEPP on 20 May 2011 [State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) Amendment 2011] would now prohibit the proposed infill development in the low density zone. Clause 54A (2) - Savings and Transitional provisions enables consent authorities to retrospectively apply the prohibition clause.

The subject application is subject to a savings clause under the SEPP that requires Council to consider compatibility with the character of the surrounding local area. This process has found the development to be incompatible for a number of reasons, including design, external appearance and impact upon neighbouring properties. The issue of compatibility with the local area are so significant that they warrant refusal of the development application.

In response to the initial notification of the application 3 letters of objection were received. Following the receipt of amended plans, a further notification resulted in an additional submission, including a petition with 12 signatures being received. In total, 10 households objected to the proposed development. The main issues raised in the submissions included the development being out of character with the local area, parking, traffic impacts, overshadowing and overlooking. Many of the objectors raised points that were also identified within the character test required by the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP. The public submissions are considered within the Section 79C assessment report contained in Attachment 1.

The objectives of the amendments to the SEPP place more emphasis on the appropriateness of particular developments on sites that would be otherwise prohibited. As the proposed development fails to satisfy the provisions of the character test, the proposal for a residential flat building in a low density zone is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the zoning applying to the land and that of the future zone of the site. The proposed works are inappropriately located and are of a bulk and scale that compromises the low density profile of the sites immediately adjoining the subject site and within this section of Darcy Road. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Development Application No. 888/2010 for the demolition of 2 dwellings, removal of trees and the construction of 3 x 2 storey residential flat buildings containing a total of 18 dwellings over basement carparking for 22 cars under the provisions of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 on land at 36-38 Darcy Road, Wentworthville be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is prohibited by Clause 10(2) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) Amendment 2011 as the application proposes infill housing in a zone that prohibits residential flat buildings.

2. The proposal fails to satisfy the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 as it does not satisfy the provisions of the Seniors Living Policy including responding to context, site planning and design, impact on streetscape and impact on neighbours.

3. The proposal fails to satisfy the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) Amendments 2011 as it does not satisfy the local character provision as the assessment demonstrates that the proposed development will not be compatible with the existing and/or the desired future character of the locality.

4. The proposed development is contrary to the aims and objectives of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2010 and the proposed residential flat building is a prohibited development under the current and future zoning of the site and is out of character with the area.

5. The proposed development is inconsistent with the requirements of Parramatta DCP 2005. The development does not comply with the design standards for streetscape, building form and massing, building façade and articulation, building separation and acoustic privacy.

6. The proposal is not in the public interest.

(b) Further, that the objectors and head petitioner be advised of Council’s determination of the application.

Kate Lafferty

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Development Assessment Team

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Assessment Report	55 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Plans & Elevations	8 Pages
4	Confidential Plans & Elevations	5 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 22 August 2011 Item 8.8

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.8

SUBJECT 79 -81 John Street, Merrylands (Lot A DP 420807)
(Woodville Ward)

DESCRIPTION Tree removal and construction of 7 townhouses over basement carparking under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009

REFERENCE DA/327/2011 - Submitted 18 May 2011

APPLICANT/S GM Architects

OWNERS W.L.D.M. Holdings

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT

2 August 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

This application is brought to Council for determination due to the number of submissions received and the future down zoning of the site to R2 Residential Zone under the Draft LEP 2010.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Approval is sought for tree removal and construction of seven (7) townhouses with basement car parking. The proposal is permissible under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009.

The proposed development is defined as “multi unit housing” under the Parramatta LEP 2001 and is NOT permitted with development consent under the current 2A Residential zoning applying to the land.

The site is surrounded predominantly by residential development comprising of a mixture of single and double storey dwelling houses, which form the prevailing character of the immediate area.

The proposed development is not in compliance with the design requirements of the Parramatta LEP 2001 and Parramatta DCP 2005 for multi-unit housing developments. The proposed mansard built form and building orientation is not consistent with the desired future residential character of the locality.

In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, owners and occupiers of surrounding properties were given notice of the application for a 21 day period between the 1st June 2011 to 22nd June 2011. In response, 1 individual submission and a petition with eight (8) signatures objecting to the development were received.

The concerns raised in submissions have been addressed in the attached 79C Report and warrant refusal of the application. Accordingly the application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority REFUSE Development Application No. 327/2011 for tree removal and construction of seven (7) townhouses with basement parking on land at Nos. 79-81 John Street, MERRYLANDS for the reasons given in the attached Section 79c Report.

1. The proposed development does not comply with the provisions of Clause 16A – Character of Local Area of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) SEPP (amended).

3. The proposed development does not satisfy with the provisions of the SEPP (Seniors Living) in regards to neighbourhood amenity and streetscape and visual and acoustic privacy.

4. The proposed development is contrary to the aims and objectives of the PLEP 2001 and Draft LEP 2010 as the proposed townhouse complex is a prohibited development under the current and future zoning of the site.

6. The proposal is not in the public interest.

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

Michael Buckley

Consultant Town Planner

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Assessment Report	56 Pages
2 View	Locality Plan	1 Page
3 View	Plans	7 Pages
4	Confidential Internal Residential Floor Plans	4 Pages

Council 22 August 2011 Item 8.9

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.9

SUBJECT 1 Lexington Avenue, EASTWOOD NSW 2122
LOT A DP 326881(Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of 4 x 2 storey townhouses under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009.

REFERENCE DA/332/2011 - 19 May 2011

APPLICANT/S Grander Properties Pty Ltd

OWNERS Mr L V Page and Mrs J E Page

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT

2^nd August 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application is referred to Council due to the number of submissions received and the proposal is an infill housing development under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Approval is sought for the demolition, tree removal and construction of 4 x 2 storey townhouses in two buildings under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009.

The subject application is subject to a savings clause under the SEPP that requires Council to consider compatibility with the character of the surrounding local area. This process has found the development to be incompatible for a number of reasons, including design, external appearance and impact upon neighbouring properties. The issue of compatibility with the local area is so significant that warrants refusal of the development application.

In response to the notification of the application 91 letters of objection (1 confidential) and a petition with 78 signatures were received. The main issues raised in the submissions included the development being out of character with the local area, bulk and scale, parking, and impacts on neighbour’s amenity, and loss of trees. Many of the objectors raised points that were also identified within the character test required by the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP. The public submissions are considered within the Section 79C assessment report contained in Attachment 1.

The objectives of the amendments to the SEPP place more emphasis on the appropriateness of particular developments on sites that would be otherwise prohibited. As the proposed development fails to satisfy the provisions of the character test, the proposal for multi-unit housing in a low density zone is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the zoning applying to the land and that of the future zone of the site. The proposed works are inappropriately located and are of a bulk and scale that compromises the low density profile of the sites immediately adjoining the subject site and within Lexington Avenue. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority REFUSE Development Application No. 332/2011 for demolition, tree removal and construction of 4 x 2 storey townhouses under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 on land at 1 Lexington Avenue, EASTWOOD NSW 2122 for the following reasons:

3. The proposal fails to satisfy the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 as it does not satisfy the provisions of the Seniors Living Policy including responding to context, site planning and design, impact on streetscape and impact on neighbours.

4. The proposed development is contrary to the aims and objectives of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2010 and the proposed multi-unit housing development is a prohibited development under the current and future zoning of the site and is out of character with the area.

5. The proposed development is inconsistent with the requirements of Parramatta DCP 2005. The development does not comply with the design standards for site frontage, rear setback, side setback, water management, streetscape, building form and massing, private open space, communal open space, visual and acoustic privacy, building separation, cross ventilation, waste management, social amenity.

6. The development is inconsistent with the requirements of part 4.1.4 ‘Water Management’ of Parramatta DCP 2005 as the proposal does not provide adequate stormwater drainage.

7. The proposed development will result in an impact on two trees, which are located within an adjoining site and owners consent has not been provided to enable consideration of their removal in absence of amendments to stormwater design.

8. The proposal is not in the public interest.

(b) That the objectors and head petitioner be advised of Council’s decision

David Little

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Assessment Report	50 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Statement of Environmental Effects	22 Pages
4 View	Architectural Plans	11 Pages
5	Confidential Architectural Plans	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 22 August 2011 Item 8.10

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.10

SUBJECT 45-51 Spurway Street, Ermington
(Lots 65, 66, 67 and 68 DP 16170) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of 2 x 2 storey residential flat buildings containing a total of 20 units over basement car parking under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP (ARHSEPP).

REFERENCE DA/144/2011 - 18 March 2011

APPLICANT/S Impact Project Management PTty Ltd

OWNERS Mr M El Bayeh

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 2 AUGUST 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

This application is referred to Council for determination as the proposal is for affordable rental housing and due to the number of submissions received

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for demolition, tree removal and construction of 2 x 2 storey residential flat buildings (RFB) containing a total of 20 units over basement car parking under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP (ARHSEPP).

The proposal has been submitted to Council as infill housing under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. At the time of lodgement the provisions of the 2009 SEPP permitted residential flat buildings in a site irrespective of the zoning. However, amendments made to the SEPP on 20 May 2011 [State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) Amendment 2011] would now prohibit the proposed infill development in the low density zone. Clause 54A (2) - Savings and Transitional provisions enables consent authorities to retrospectively apply the prohibition clause.

The subject application is subject to a savings clause under the SEPP that requires Council to consider compatibility with the character of the surrounding local area. This process has found the development to be incompatible for a number of reasons, including design, bulk and scale, external appearance and impact upon neighbouring properties. The issue of compatibility with the local area are so significant that they warrant refusal of the development application.

In response to the initial notification period 31 individual letters of objection were received. The issues raised within those submissions relate to permissibility, time of DA lodgement, parking, traffic, social issues, property values, development precedence, privacy, overshadowing, acoustics, tree removal, consistency with the character of the area, excavation, isolated lot, insufficient landscaped area, lack of 3 bedroom units, strain on infrastructure, and contamination. Subsequent to the submission of amended plans, the application was re-notified. In response, 6 individual submissions and 1 petition with 250 signatures were received. The issues raised were the same as those raised to the initial notification of the application. The public submissions are considered within the Section 79C assessment report contained in Attachment 1.

The objectives of the amendments to the SEPP place more emphasis on the appropriateness of particular developments on sites that would be otherwise prohibited. As the proposed development fails to satisfy the provisions of the character test, the proposal for a residential flat building in a low density zone is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the zoning applying to the land and that of the future zone of the site. The proposed works are inappropriately located and are of a bulk and scale that compromises the low density profile of the sites immediately adjoining the subject site and within this section of Spurway Street. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority REFUSE Development Application No. 144/2011 for demolition, tree removal and construction of a 2 x 2 storey residential flat buildings comprising of a total of 20 dwellings over basement car parking under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP on land at 45-51 Spurway Street Ermington for the following reasons:

2. The proposed development does not comply with the provisions of Clause 16A – Character of Local Area of State Environment Planning Policy SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) (amended) as the development will not be consistent or complimentary to the established and/or the desired future character of the locality.

3. The proposal fails to satisfy the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 with respect to the design principles of the Seniors Living Policy including neighbourhood character, bulk and scale distribution on the site, streetscape and visual and acoustic privacy.

4. The proposed development is contrary to the aims and objectives of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Draft Local Environmental Plan 2010.

6. Insufficient information has been provided to Council to enable proper consideration of the application. In particular, the following information was not provided to Council:

· Social Impact Assessment

· Elevation shadow diagrams demonstrating extent of shadowing on the side elevations of adjoining dwellings.

7. The proposal is not in the public interest.

(b) That the objectors and head petitioner be advised of council’s decision

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Report	46 Pages
2 View	Plans	3 Pages
3 View	Location Map	1 Page
4 View	Shadow Diagrams	3 Pages
5	Confidential Plans	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 22 August 2011 Item 10.1

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 10.1

SUBJECT 2012 PCC Community Grants Program

REFERENCE F2011/01895 - D02012167

REPORT OF Grants Officer

PURPOSE:

To provide an overview on the 2012 Annual Community Grants Program and associated activities, including some changes to the Social Enterprise category of funding.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the 2011 Parramatta City Council Community Grants open on Monday 19 September 2011 and close at 4pm on Friday 2 December 2011 and run to the timetable outlined in the report.

(b) That the allocation of funds within the Social Enterprise category of the Community Grants program be amended to attract established and growing social enterprises to locate in Parramatta LGA.

(c) Further, that a Social Enterprise External Advisory Panel be established to advise the Councillor Assessment Panel on the quality and feasibility of social enterprise applications.

(d) That all Councillors be invited to receive briefings on applications and participate in the Councillor Assessment Panel prior to Council considering the Panel’s recommendations.

BACKGROUND

Parramatta City Council’s Community Grants

1. Parramatta City Council’s Community Grants Program provides an annual funding opportunity for the Parramatta Local Government Area. The grants program aims to support local not-for-profit community-based groups, organisations and services and, in one category, individuals. Through the Community Grants Program Council supports a wide range of services and activities that contribute to the strategic objectives and destination statements of the Parramatta Twenty25 strategy.

2. The following categories were offered through the community grants in the 2011 PCC Community Grants program:

Category	Funding pool per annum	Funding cap	Time frame
Community Capacity Building Grants – 100% Voluntary Organisations	$75,000	$5,000	1, 2 or 3 year funding available
Community Capacity Building Grants – Organisations with Paid Staff	$100,000	$10,000	1, 2 or 3 year funding available
Community Capacity Building Grants – Social Enterprise	$75,000	$10,000	1, 2 or 3 year funding available
Arts Professional Projects Fund	$100,000	$20,000	1, 2 or 3 year funding available
Parramatta Arts Fellowship Fund	$20,000	One Fellow	1 year
Parramatta’s Heritage and Stories Research Fund	$20,000	$5,000	1 or 2 year funding available
Small Grants Fund	$10,000	$500	Opens quarterly

3. Since its establishment in 2006 the capacity building focused program has attracted 458 applications requesting over $4 million. Council has contributed to 224 projects, injecting $2.49 million into the community and supporting a wide range of services and activities that build community capacity and build on existing community strengths. The information on the progress of grants funded in the 2011 round will be provided in a separate report once all acquittals have been received.

4. In 2010-2011 Council also offered an IT Capacity Building Grants Program to local not-for profit organisations in partnership with Work Ventures’ IT Connect program. In March 2011, 31 computers were distributed to 15 organisations.

5. Throughout the 2011 PCC Community Grants program, Council Officers took note of feedback from Councillors and applicants and developed some changes to the application process to best address these concerns. The proposed improvements outlined in this report were discussed at a Council Workshop held on 20^th July 2011.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

6. It is proposed that Council proceed with the 2011-12 Community Grants Program using the categories previously adopted, with the exception of the changes to the social enterprise category discussed below, and a similar timeframe and assessment process which are outlined later in this report.

7. Feedback from Councillors regarding promotion to sporting and recreation groups has been incorporated into the planning for the grants round. These groups are included as contacts for grant information and the Community Grants Program will be promoted during a funding information session being held in October that is specifically targeting sporting and recreation groups. It is also proposed that sporting programs with community capacity building outcomes continue to be used as examples in promotional materials to give sporting groups a clear idea of how they fit in with the program.

8. Feedback from Councillors regarding the clarity of project budgets has resulted in a new design of the application form so that questions regarding project budgets seek more information.

9. As an extension of the partnership with Work Ventures, the Community Grants Program guidelines have been modified to specify that applications seeking computers would be required to purchase refurbished computers through WorkVentures as the nominated supplier.

Social Enterprise Category

10. Parramatta City Council’s social enterprise grants have been operating as one of the categories within the Community Grants program since 2007 and five rounds of social enterprise grants have now been awarded. In that time 47 applications have been received and 34 applications have been funded. To date, $414,150 has been awarded to social enterprise activity through the grants program.

11. The social enterprise grants are a key component of the wider social enterprise program, and many of the funded organisations are accessing support through the program activities, such as the Pro Bono Legal Panel (through a partnership with The National Pro Bono Resource Centre and six legal firms) and business mentors (through a partnership with The Westpac Group).

12. Social enterprise is now a more widely understood concept than it was when the Council’s program was established. The Australian context has evolved significantly and social enterprise is gaining recognition as a vehicle for fostering social, economic and environmental innovation and for contributing to social sustainability outcomes.

13. The next stage of the Council social enterprise program is a Social Enterprise Attraction Strategy. The reputation and profile that PCC’s social enterprise program has achieved means that there is an opportunity to promote Parramatta as a location of choice for high-impact social enterprises. This has the potential to deliver social and economic benefits and, in some cases, liveability outcomes into the LGA.

14. Transforming Parramatta into a smart, innovative, socially inclusive and highly liveable city is an important strategic direction for PCC. Social enterprise is a broad field of activity, on both the trading and social dimensions, and there are a range of types of social enterprise that could greatly assist with delivering on this objective. For example:

a. National social enterprise Fitted for Work recently located in Parramatta CBD, and is now receiving funding and other support from our program – providing a high-profile corporate social responsibility initiative which local businesses can get involved in and assisting women experiencing hardship to get into work and stay there, with Parramatta partly chosen due to a concentration of the target beneficiaries in the vicinity.

b. An opportunity to work with Marrickville based Reverse Garbage to locate in the Parramatta local government area is currently under discussion by Council Officers. This would deliver significant environmental benefits, through re-use opportunities, to Parramatta and the Western Sydney region.

c. A longer term prospect to bring Melbourne-based StrEAT to Parramatta is under discussion by Council Officers - with the potential to bring high-quality, nutritious and affordable food to Parramatta’s streets whilst also tackling youth and homelessness issues.

15. The current annual social enterprise grant funding pool is split between two ‘activity phases’ – the business planning phase and the implementation phase. Applicants can apply for up to $5 000 in the planning phase, and up to $10 000 per year for up to three years in the implementation phase.

16. It is recommended that these two pathways be maintained, but that the allocation of funding in each is amended. The proposed configuration is designed so that the pool will act as an attractor to larger, more established social enterprises, at the same time as continuing to support local, small and emerging social enterprises that are at the concept testing stage of development.

17. It is anticipated that this approach will assist with stimulating a diverse and vibrant social enterprise sector locally, and one that is well positioned to assist PCC to deliver on its strategic objectives.

18. It is recommended that the current $75 000 per annum social enterprise grants funding be grouped into the following two activity phase pools:

a. $25 000 for ‘planning phase’ applicants - up to $2 500 to contribute to business and/or strategic planning activities that will move the social enterprise towards start-up; caters for up to 10 of this type per annum.

b. $50 000 available to established and growth stage social enterprises - up to $25 000 to assist with locating in the LGA or to contribute to a significant growth activity of a local social enterprise; caters for two of this type per annum. It is proposed that applications for this pool of funds require a fully developed business plan that considers the Parramatta-based activities. It is recommended that an independent advisory panel be established to provide input to Council on the allocation of these funds. The social enterprise program’s current partnership with The Westpac Group would be an initial source of this expertise.

19. As a result funding categories to be offered through the community grants in the 2012 round will be:

Category	Funding pool per annum	Funding cap	Time frame
Community Capacity Building Grants – 100% Voluntary Organisations	$75,000	$5,000	1, 2 or 3 year funding available
Community Capacity Building Grants – Organisations with Paid Staff	$100,000	$10,000	1, 2 or 3 year funding available
Community Capacity Building Grants – Social Enterprise	$75,000	a) $2,500 b) $25,000	1 year
Arts Professional Projects Fund	$100,000	$20,000	1, 2 or 3 year funding available
Parramatta Arts Fellowship Fund	$20,000	One Fellow	1 year
Parramatta’s Heritage and Stories Research Fund	$20,000	$5,000	1 or 2 year funding available
Small Grants Fund	$10,000	$500	Opens quarterly

CONSULTATION & TIMING

20. It is proposed that the Community Grants round open Monday 19 September 2011 and close 4pm on Friday 2 December 2011. The timeframe outlined below is designed to allow appropriate time for applications to be received and assessed for Council to resolve in March 2012 on grants to be provided, with presentations to be made in June 2012.

a. During the application period, information sessions to be held for interested applicants, with guidance regarding grant writing provided. Councillors to be invited to attend these sessions or to help promote the sessions to local groups.

b. Throughout January 2012, Councillors to be provided the opportunity to receive individual briefings on the received applications prior to the assessment panels. Council officers to check eligibility and provide comments prior to the Councillor Assessment Panel to ensure applications meet the guidelines, as in previous years.

c. An external expert panel to be formed to provide advice to Councillors on the quality and feasibility of the implementation stage social enterprise applications received.

d. Councillors to be given a month’s notice prior to the assessment panel meetings which would take place during February 2012. Applications are to be collated into booklets and delivered to Councillors’ pigeon holes. An indexed electronic copy will also be provided on disc. The Councillor Assessment Panel to assess applications in line with the assessment criteria as outlined in the application forms.

e. The panel’s final recommendations to be outlined in a report to Council in March 2012.

f. Successful applicants to be notified in May 2012 and a grant presentation ceremony will follow in June 2012.

21. It is proposed that Councillor panels for the assessment of grants received be open to all Councillors.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

4. There are no additional financial implications for Council within this report. Suggested changes relate to a re-grouping of the funding allocations within the existing pool of funds.

David Moutou

Grants Project Officer

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 22 August 2011 Item 10.2

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 10.2

SUBJECT Draft George Kendall Riverside Park Masterplan

REFERENCE F2010/02287 - D01941134

REPORT OF Open Space & Natural Resources Planner

PURPOSE:

To seek Council’s endorsement for the public exhibition of the draft George Kendall Riverside Park Masterplan.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the draft George Kendall Riverside Park Masterplan be placed on exhibition for 28 days in the Parramatta City (Central) Library, Ermington Library, Council’s Customer Service Centre and website.

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

BACKGROUND

1. George Kendall Riverside Park (GKRP) is a large 27 hectare open space located along the northern foreshore of the Parramatta River in Ermington. The park has extensive views across the Parramatta River to Sydney Olympic Park and is a popular sporting and picnicking venue. It includes active sporting fields, cycleway, passive recreation facilities and native vegetation areas.

2. The park comprises of both community land and Crown land under Council’s care, control and management. It has been constructed over a former garbage landfill site, which operated between 1970 and 1979, with extensive remediation and capping works undertaken since. There is a need to guide future use and development of the site now that the capping works have been completed. There is strong community interest and involvement in the maintenance and development of the park through an active volunteer bush care group / park committee.

3. Significant areas of native vegetation occur in the park, including mangrove and saltmarsh endangered ecological communities. This vegetation provides habitat for a diversity of native fauna, including a number of threatened species, due to the close proximity of Newington Nature Reserve in Sydney Olympic Park. Revegetation and restoration activities are regularly undertaken by professional contractors and the local volunteer bush care group.

4. GKRP is a significant recreation destination and forms a key component of the Parramatta River open space corridor. It still contains a large area of undeveloped open space and Council has engaged Pod Landscape Architecture to prepare a landscape masterplan for the park. The draft GKRP Masterplan outlines planning, design and management considerations to strategically guide the future management and development of the park over the next 15 years. (Attachment 1)

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

5. GKRP is one of the largest open spaces within the Parramatta Local Government Area. It offers experiences not available within smaller parks and has an important connection to the Parramatta River corridor and Sydney Olympic Park. The park provides numerous recreation and sporting facilities including baseball diamonds, cricket pitch, soccer fields, tennis and basketball courts. It also includes two small children’s playgrounds, car parking, picnic facilities, BBQs, amenities and small meeting room. It also, however, still retains a large area of undeveloped open space. A regional trail between Parramatta and Sydney CBD (Parramatta Valley Cycleway) also traverses the river foreshore in the park.

6. The draft masterplan recognises GKRP as a regionally important recreation destination that optimises its rich history, unique setting, landscape types and ecological significance, whilst satisfying a broad range of social and recreational opportunities. It provides for a variety of experiences and diversity of spaces, including both formal and active uses as well as flexible and informal uses.

7. The design of the draft GKRP masterplan incorporates the need for flexibility, as the demands on the park are likely to change over time. It aims to be realistic and achievable through the staged implementation of prioritised improvement works which have been divided into (3) three precincts (Western / Central / Eastern) and include:

· Development of an additional cricket field and four (4) additional soccer fields to cater for increasing demand;

· Additional passive recreation areas and picnic facilities;

· Revegetation and the provision of shade trees throughout the site;

· Additional pathways to improve access through and around the park.

8. Sydney Environmental and Soil Laboratory (SESL) were engaged to undertake testing of the existing soil conditions in the park. This was due to the poor performance of past park plantings which is attributed to the former landfill operations in GKRP. SESL provided recommendations to maximise the success of future plantings identified in the draft masterplan. These include measures to improve the soil profile and the use of species tolerant of the harsh soil conditions throughout the park. (Attachment 2)

CONSULTATION & TIMING

9. Pod Landscape Architecture conducted consultation with the local community at an open day held in the park on 5 December 2010. The George Kendall Park Committee / Bushcare group, Sydney Olympic Park Authority and local sporting user groups have also been consulted through surveys and discussions. The consultation with these stakeholders involved the identification of the key values, issues, constraints and opportunities for the future management and development of the park.

10. It is recommended that the draft GKRP Masterplan be placed on public exhibition for 28 days in the Parramatta City (Central) Library, Ermington Library, Council’s Customer Service Centre and website. Copies will also be distributed to key stakeholders such as the George Kendall Park Committee / Bushcare group inviting their further input to the plan.

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

12. Actions arising from the adopted George Kendall Riverside Park Masterplan will be implemented progressively over time. They are to be funded on a staged basis through Council’s annual budget and capital works programs supported by;

· Special Rates for Open Space, Suburban Infrastructure (Environment, Roads and Neighbourhoods);

· Stormwater Management Service Charge (Stormwater Levy);

· Section 94A Development Contributions Plan.

17. The implementation of the improvement works identified in the plan will be subject to obtaining appropriate ongoing funding. The plan will also place Council in a better position to seek funding through various Federal and State government grants towards improving the park and implementing components of the masterplan.

Troy Holbrook

Open Space & Natural Resources Planner

Attachments:

1 View

MasterPlan and Soil Testing Summary

52 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 22 August 2011 Item 10.3

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 10.3

SUBJECT Community Bus Management and Support

REFERENCE F2011/00184 - D02010430

REPORT OF Community Capacity Building Officer.Community Capacity Building

PURPOSE:

This report provides information on Council’s community bus management program, and makes recommendations for a review of the community bus management program for Council’s consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the report on the Community Bus management program be received and noted.

(b) Further, that a review of the Community Bus management program be completed based on detailed usage data to be obtained from managing organisations and a proposal for future arrangements be presented for Council’s consideration.

BACKGROUND

1. Parramatta City Council owns two mini-buses for community use (Community Buses) which both seat around 20 people. For the benefit of Council and the community, each bus is managed by a local community organisation, one by Parramatta Community Services & Information Centre (PCSIC) Inc. and the other by Community Wheels Inc. Under this arrangement, the community organisations manage the hiring out of the buses to not-for-profit community groups and adhere to regular servicing schedules. Servicing and maintenance of the buses is provided by Council and the buses are garaged at the Morton Street Depot. This arrangement has been formalised through Management Agreements with both organisations, which have been in place for more than a decade.

2. Community Wheels Inc. is a community transport organisation for residents across the city, primarily funded through the Federal and State/Territory Home and Community Care Program and Community Transport Program, designed to help frail older people and people with disabilities of all ages with transport which assists them to continue to live at home. Community Bus hire is one of several transport services available through the organisation.

3. Parramatta Community Services & Information Centre (PCSIC) has operated for a number of years from an office in the Council Chambers building. In addition to managing hire of the Community Bus, PCSIC provides various services to disadvantaged people including material aid, referral to other support services, and transport for medical appointments and assistance with shopping using a smaller bus (Medical Bus) owned and operated by the organisation, and driven by volunteers. While PCSIC owns this vehicle, Council funds the servicing, fuelling and repairs of the Medical Bus.

4. The Lord Mayor, Clr John Chedid, recently received correspondence from PCSIC raising their financial difficulties in providing a casual driver service for users of the PCSIC managed bus, and requesting an increase in financial support for the organisation from Council.

5. Management Agreements exist with both organisations that require them to adhere to the fees and charges set by Council and the bus hire user guidelines. The existing guidelines have not been reviewed for some years and as a result, many sections require updating.

6. Currently, Council’s Schedule of Fees and Charges sets out fees for use of the community buses including administration, penalties, and kilometre rates. Currently, PCSIC retains all fees collected and Community Wheels remits the kilometre rate fees collected to Council. The existing Management Agreements signed with Council do not clearly stipulate which of the fees are to be remitted to Council.

7. PCSIC receives a wages subsidy from Council, currently $74,960 for 2011/2012. This covers wages costs associated with PCSIC’s welfare workers and casual drivers of the Community Bus. The latter are employed when user groups do not have their own drivers. The wages subsidy was approved by Council at its meeting of 23 August, 2010 as an ongoing subsidy, subject to satisfactory annual performance reports.

8. The Community Buses provide a very useful community service to residents and organisations of Parramatta through enabling community orientated groups and organisations to access vehicles on an ad-hoc basis to conduct group activities. Without this access, these groups and organisations would find it difficult to conduct these activities due to the cost of vehicle purchase or commercial rental, and the availability of appropriate vehicles. Most of these organisations use the Community Buses for social outings to provide social opportunities for residents who are physically and/or socially isolated and economically disadvantaged.

9. Council has very little data on the use of the Community Buses, including which particular organisations use the vehicles, how often, length of journey, and fees charged. Other than Council’s Seniors Leisure and Learning Centre, only general types of users are known. Examples of user groups include: seniors groups, church organisations, nursing homes, neighbourhood and community centres, schools, youth groups, community networks and services, health and disability services. In addition, various Council units also utilise this service on occasion.

10. Council has no data on the use of the PCSIC provided casual drivers for their Community Bus, including which organisations have taken up this service, how often, and the duration of hire.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

11. Council Officers have reviewed all currently available information on the Community Bus management program, including the existing Management Agreements, bus user guidelines, Schedule of Fees and Charges, Council’s wage subsidy agreement with PCSIC, prior correspondence between Council and the managing organisations.

12. In order to progress the Community Bus management program review, it is necessary to gather further information on usage of the vehicles and casual drivers from the managing organisations. A review of policy and procedures will be completed and advice provided to Council regarding future fee and funding arrangements for Council’s consideration.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

13. Council Officers have held several discussions of the Community Bus programs with PCSIC and Community Wheels, including discussions of the Management Agreements and user guidelines. It is proposed to continue these discussions once additional information is available on the existing services.

14. Council Officers have also consulted with Council’s City Operations staff regarding the Community Bus program and related fleet management issues.

15. It is envisaged that the review will be completed in late 2011 to enable Council to consider the further report including any changes to funding arrangements for PCSIC in the current financial year.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

16. There are no financial implications to Council arising at this time. The proposed review will consider the current financial arrangements for the Community Bus program and proposals for future arrangements developed following consultation with user groups.

Tanya Owen

Community Capacity Building Officer

Attachments:

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 22 August 2011 Item 10.4

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 10.4

SUBJECT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting 26 July 2011

REFERENCE F2005/01941 - D02049734

REPORT OF Community Capacity Building Officer

PURPOSE:

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee met on 26 July 2011. This report provides a précis of the decisions made at this meeting.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the minutes of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee of 26 July 2011 be received and noted.

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 26 July 2011. This report provides a summary of the decisions of the Committee.

MAIN AGENDA ITEMS

3. Kerrie Walshaw, independent consultant engaged by Council to evaluate NAIDOC 2011, attended the meeting and presented to the Committee the main findings from the survey of participants at Burramatta NAIDOC and the main themes that emerged from her conservations in the Burramatta Yarn Tent with attendees regarding the event. A general discussion followed during which members expressed their opinions regarding the event. The Committee was advised by Ms. Walshaw that she is preparing a NAIDOC options paper for Council and that she will present this to them at a future meeting.

4. The Committee were advised at their last meeting on 28 June 2011, of Council’s plans to engage a consultant to redesign the Parramatta Heritage Centre. The Consultant’s responsibilities would include consulting with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people regarding the redevelopment. At this meeting of 26 July 2011, members were asked for their suggestions regarding appropriate consultation strategies. Members made some suggestions and agreed that the issue be listed for consideration at their 23 August 2011 meeting. Council Officer Michelle Desailly, Arts and Cultural Project Officer will attend this meeting to discuss this issue with the Committee.

5. The Committee was informed that a nature trail is being created along the Parramatta River foreshore from the top of Parramatta Park, behind the Cumberland Hospital to a camp site used by Governor Phillip in 1788. The Committee was also advised that Council Officer, Michelle Desailly, Arts and Cultural Project Officer was seeking the Committee’s input regarding culturally appropriate interpretation of the site. The Committee agreed they would discuss this matter with Ms. Desailly at their 23 August 2011 meeting.

6. The Committee discussed correspondence circulated to members from Comber Consultants Pty Ltd advising them that Endeavour Energy will be applying for an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit to undertake geological drilling in Parramatta. The Committee requested that Council Officer, Maggie Kyle register its interest in the matter with Comber Consultants.

7. The Committee noted that the commemorative plaque placed at Lake Parramatta Reserve on Sorry Day 2011, did not list the name of one member; Jay Palmer. The Committee recommended that Jay Palmer’s name be added to the plaque.

Officers comment

Costs are being sought of adding Jay Palmer’s name to the plaque.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

8. There are no financial implications to Council.

Maggie Kyle

Community Capacity Building Officer

Attachments:

1 View

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Minutes 26 July 2011

7 Pages

Council 22 August 2011 Item 11.1

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.1

SUBJECT Amendments to Council's Whistleblower Protection Policy

REFERENCE F2011/01104 - D01943378

REPORT OF Policy Review Officer

PURPOSE:

To seek the adoption of amendments to Council’s Whistleblower Protection Policy in accordance with amendments made to the Public Interest Disclosures Act

RECOMMENDATION

That the amended Public Interest Disclosures Policy found at Attachment 1 be adopted by Council, becoming effective immediately.

BACKGROUND

1. In 2010, NSW Parliament passed legislation which had the effect of amending the Protected Disclosures Act (NSW) 1994. Major amendments included changing the name of the Act to the Public Interest Disclosures Act (NSW) 1994, (PID Act) including certain contraventions of the GIPA Act (NSW) 2009 within its scope, creating more serious consequences for those found to have breached the PID Act, or engaged in retribution, and assigning oversight for public interest disclosures to the NSW Ombudsman.

2. On July 1, 2011, the bulk of the amendments commenced, including the requirement that Council have both a policy and procedure relating to public interest disclosures. Council currently has such a policy and procedure, however minor amendments are now required to ensure that both are consistent with the new legislation. Council has until 1 October 2011 to have a policy in place.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. A fact sheet, prepared by the NSW Ombudsman, is found at Attachment 2. This fact sheet details the major changes to the legislation, and their accompanying consequences for Council.

4. A copy of the policy, showing tracked changes between the current version and the proposed version can be found at Attachment 3.

5. A copy of the NSW Ombudsman’s Guidelines on Internal Reporting Policies can be found at attachment 4.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

6. Council is required to adopt and implement a policy and procedure for the handling of public interest disclosures by no later than 1 October 2011. In making this policy, Council is required to have to regard to any guidelines or model internal reporting policies issued by the NSW Ombudsman on the topic.

7. Both guidelines and a model internal reporting policy were released by the NSW Ombudsman on 30 June 2011. The proposed amendments to Council’s policy are consistent with these documents.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

8. The costs associated with implementing the amendments are likely to be minimal, and limited to the costs associated with the printing and distribution of information about the policy and the impacts of the changes.

Erin Lottey

Policy Review Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Proposed Public Interest Disclosures Policy	26 Pages
2 View	Proposed Policy with Tracked Changes	28 Pages
3 View	Ombudsman Fact Sheet	2 Pages
4 View	Ombudsman Internal Reporting Guidelines	4 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 22 August 2011 Item 11.2

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.2

SUBJECT 12th International Cities Town Centres & Communities (ICTC) Society 2011 Conference - Hobart, Tasmania - 25-28 October 2011

REFERENCE F2010/03191 - D02026859

REPORT OF Executive Support Manager

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to seek the appointment of one (1) Councillor to attend the 12^th International Cities Town Centres & Communities (ICTC) Society 2011 Conference being held in Hobart, Tasmania from 25-28 October 2011.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council nominates one (1) Councillor i.e. Lord Mayor or nominee, to attend the 12^th International Cities Town Centres & Communities (ICTC) Society 2011 Conference being held in Hobart, Tasmania from 25-28 October 2011.

BACKGROUND

1. The aims of the ICTC Society and conferences are as follows:

a. To assist cities, towns and communities to be as environmentally, socially & economically sustainable as possible.

b. To bring together the required visionary professionals to discuss the challenges of replacing sprawl with compact environmentally, socially and economically acceptable environments.

c. To enhance the quality of life of inhabitants of cities, towns & communities.

d. To facilitate world best practices in the planning, development and management of cities, towns and communities and particularly the planning, development and management of public spaces and infrastructure.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

2. This is a category ‘C’ Conference as outlined in the Civic Office Expenses and Facilities Policy. Category “C” of this Policy permits one (1) Councillor to attend.

3. A copy of the conference brochure, registration and program planner is appended as Attachment 1.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

4. Delegate registration, accommodation, travel and out-of-pocket expenses will be approximately $3,100 per delegate.

Scott Forsdike

Executive Support Manager

Attachments:

1 View

2011 ICTC Conference program and registration

12 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 22 August 2011 Item 11.3

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.3

SUBJECT 2011 National Local Roads and Transport Congress - Mount Gambier, South Australia - 16-18 November 2011

REFERENCE F2008/02722 - D02027310

REPORT OF Executive Support Manager

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to seek the appointment of one (1) Councillor to attend the 2011 National Local Roads and Transport Congress being held in Mount Gambier from 16-18 November 2011.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council nominates one (1) Councillor i.e. Lord Mayor or nominee, to attend the 2011 National Local Roads and Transport Congress being held in Mount Gambier from 16-18 November 2011.

BACKGROUND

1. The theme and focus for the 2011 National Local Roads and Transport Congress is “Better Roads are Safer Roads.”

2. ‘Local government and local roads play a key role in road safety. As we all know, local roads make up approximately 80% of Australia’s road network.’

3. ‘The National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020 contains a range of initiatives and interventions in four key areas – Safe Roads, Safe Speeds, Safe Vehicles and Safe People …Local Government welcomes the strategy’s greater emphasis on local roads as well as specific targets to reduce deaths and fatalities.’

4. ‘Congress is an annual event when councils gather as a united national force to develop and refine a coherent case for improved investment in local roads, local government owned transport infrastructure and other transport infrastructure that impacts on our communities.’

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

5. This is a category ‘C’ conference as outlined in the Civic office Expenses and Facilities Policy. Category ‘C’ of this Policy permits one (1) Councillor to attend.

6. A copy of the conference brochure, registration and provisional program is appended as Attachment 1.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

7. Delegate registration, accommodation, travel and out-of-pocket expenses will be approximately $3,650 per delegate.

Scott Forsdike

Executive Support Manager

Attachments:

1 View

2011 National Local Roads and Transport Congress brochure

12 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 22 August 2011 Item 11.4

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.4

SUBJECT Parks and Leisure National Conference 2011 - 18 - 21 September 2011 - Fremantle, Western Australia

REFERENCE F2010/03187 - D02035729

REPORT OF Executive Support Manager

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to seek the appointment of one (1) Councillor to attend the Parks and Leisure National Conference 2011 in Fremantle, Western Australia from 18 – 21 September 2011.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council nominates one (1) Councillor i.e. Lord Mayor or nominee, to attend the Parks and Leisure National Conference in Fremantle, Western Australia from 18 -21 September 2011.

BACKGROUND

1. The overall theme of ‘Partnering’ has been chosen for the joint 2011 IFPRA Asia-Pacific Congress and PLA National Conference. In itself, this conference is an exercise of partnering between two organisations. ‘Partnering’ can be very broad in its application. In essence it is a cooperative relationship between individuals, groups or organisations who agree to share responsibility for achieving some specific goal. In a parks and leisure context partnering can be between agencies, different levels of government, community groups, sporting organisations and individuals working together.

2. Topic areas for papers for the 2011 conference can include, but are not limited to, partnering in and between: voluntary/not for profit, private sector and government bodies, in the areas of sport, community, nature, education, tourism, the arts, play and any of the many other areas with which parks and leisure professionals are involved.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. This is a Category ‘C’ conference as outlined in the Civic Office Expenses and Facilities Policy. Category ‘C’ of this Policy permits one (1) Councillor to attend.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

4. Delegate registration, travel, accommodation and out-of-pocket expenses will total approximately $7000 per delegate.

Executive Support Manager

Attachments:

1 View

Parks and Leisure National Conference 2011 Brochure

15 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 22 August 2011 Item 11.6

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.6

SUBJECT Investments Report for June 2011

REFERENCE F2009/00971 - D02040632

REPORT OF Manager Finance

PURPOSE:

To inform Council of the investment portfolio performance for the month of June 2011.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes the investments report for June 2011.

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 June 2011 was $82.1M (Previous Month $82.4M).The weighted average Funds held throughout the period was approximately $86.7M.

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

· Managed Funds

· Term Deposits (Including Investment – Loan offsets)

· Floating Rate Notes

· Cash at call

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

5. The weighted average interest rate on Council’s investments for the month of June 2011 versus the UBSA Bank Bill Index is as follows:

Monthly Annualised

Total Portfolio 0.469% 5.63%

Funds Managers 0.178% 2.14%

UBSA Bank Bill Index 0.419% 5.03%

Council’s financial return for Financial Year ending 30^th June 2011 is 6.50% for the total portfolio versus the UBSA bank bill index of 4.98%

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.

6. Council’s overall portfolio exceeded the UBSA Bank Bill Index by approximately 0.60% for the month of June. Although this is still a favourable result, the overall performance was somewhat affected by the lower than average returns from Councils managed funds (2.14%). As reported in May, the lower returns can be attributed to the lack of confidence in European markets particularly Greece where debt restructure or default is a strong possibility. It is important to note that Managed Fund performance should always be measured over periods of at least 12 months. The YTD performance of the Managed Fund portfolio is 7.07% and exceeds benchmark by 2.09%.

7. Term deposits make up approximately 67% of total holdings and have interest rates ranging from 6.17% to 7.40%.

8. Council invested $2.6M in a Westpac Floating rate note which pays a premium of 113 basis points (1.13%) above the UBSA Bank bill index and is currently yielding 6.17%. The rate is reset every 3 months and pays 113 basis points above the UBSA on that day.

9. Councils investment interest income for 2010-11 exceeded the annual approved budget by $308K and the original budget by $1.49M. This is an outstanding result given the conservative restrictions of the portfolio. This result can also be attributed to the proactive approach of the Finance Treasury & Tax Analyst in keeping abreast of market developments. CPG Research and Advisory continue to provide final approval to all investments considered by the Finance Team.

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 June 2011 is provided below:

Certificate of Investments

I hereby certify that the investments for the month of June 11 have been made in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

Alistair Cochrane

Manager Finance

Attachments:

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

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 22 August 2011 Item 11.7

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.7

SUBJECT Delivery Program and Operational Plan – Quarterly Review June 2011

REFERENCE F2010/02574 - D02050921

REPORT OF Manager Finance

PURPOSE:

To provide the June 2011 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.

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 June 2011 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 June 2011 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 June compared to the budget previously adopted by Council. 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 June 2011 Quarterly Review was considered at a workshop on 15 August 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:

1 View

Draft June 2011 Quarterly Review 2010/2014 Delivery Program & 2010/11 Operational Plan – copies previously circulated for Councillors’ workshop

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 22 August 2011 Item 11.8

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.8

SUBJECT Proposed Easements for Underground Cable Purpose Through Part of Ponds/Subiaco Reserve Between Hillman Avenue and Christina Street Rydalmere

REFERENCE F2004/08829 - D02054197

REPORT OF Property Program Manager

PREVIOUS ITEMS 9.3 - Proposed Easement for Underground Cable Purposes Through Part of Ponds/Subiaco Reserve Between Hillman Avenue and Christina Street Rydalmere - Council - 28 June 2010

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to firstly recommend that Council grant an easement through part of Ponds/Subiaco Reserve for the purpose of underground electricity cables and secondly recommend that Council seek legislative change that enables local government to receive fair compensation when works are undertaken within their properties.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council affirms the resolution made on 24 August 2009 referred to in the report relating to the grant of an easement within part of Ponds/Subiaco Reserve Rydalmere.

(b) That Council delegates to the Chief Executive Officers authority to negotiate the terms and conditions of the easement documents required to formally record the terms of the easement grant made pursuant to the resolution made on 24 August 2009 referred to in the report relating to the grant of an easement within part of Ponds/Subiaco Reserve Rydalmere.

(c) Further, that Council authorises the affixation of the common seal to the easement documents (comprising a transfer granting easement and supporting documents) required to formally record the terms of the easement grant made pursuant to the resolution made on 24 August 2009 referred to in the report relating to the grant of an easement within part of Ponds/Subiaco Reserve Rydalmere.

BACKGROUND

1. Council at it’s meeting at 24^th August 2009 considered a report in relation to this matter and resolved as follows:

(a) That Council grant an easement within part of Ponds/Subiaco Reserve

Rydalmere in favour of Integral Energy for underground cabling purposes on the following basis:

the easement to be 1 metre wide and about 166 metres long as described in the plan at Attachment 2,

compensation to be as outlined in confidential Attachment 3,

all plan preparation and lodgement costs plus Council`s legal, easement application and valuation fees to be met by Integral,

the site be re-instated to at least to the standard it was prior to the works being undertaken.

(b) That a motion be submitted to the next Local Government Association Conference seeking support for changes to be made to the relevant legislation so that it provides for compensation for installations and acquisitions of interests in council properties by electricity authorities under their powers be subject to the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation Act) Act 1991.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

2. To enable this matter to be finalised Council needs to affix the seal of Council to the necessary documentation.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

3. Consultation has previously taken place with Council`s Open Space and Natural Resources Unit, Council`s Panel Valuer and Council`s Corporate Counsel.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

4. Nil.

Maurice Higgins

Property Program Manager

Attachments:

1 View

Proposed Easement for Underground Cables - Previous Report

5 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 22 August 2011 Item 11.9

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 11.9

SUBJECT Report of the ParraConnect Advisory Committe

REFERENCE F2011/00898 - D02056321

REPORT OF Manager Information Communication Technology

PURPOSE:

To inform Council of the key discussion points of the meeting of the ParraConnect Advisory Committee on 20^th June 2011 and 18th July 2011.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the minutes of the ParraConnect Advisory Committee meeting of 20^th June 2011 and 18th July 2011, be received and noted.

BACKGROUND

1. Council’s ParraConnect Advisory Committee meets on the third Monday of each month.

2. Council’s ParraConnect Advisory Committee met on 20^th June 2011 and 18^th July 2011. This report provides a summary of the key discussion points of these meeting for Council’s information. The minutes of the meeting are contained in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

Meeting 20/06/2011

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

1. Presentation and Discussion “Mobile Concierge”

The project partners ST Micro Electronics presented the details of the project including the technology and business models. Clr Lim declared a potential conflict of interest on this project.

2. Discussion took place on the framework and purpose of the website. Also discussion took place utilising the Social Media sites eg. Face book, Twitter, & UTube.

3. The draft communications plan was tabled for discussion and review.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

Meeting 18/07/2011

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

a. The status on the website development was provided. The site requires further content however this will be an ongoing activity. A facebook page and twitter account have been established.

b. The committee is to offer a presentation to update the Chamber of Commerce on the status of ParraConnect.

c. The Communications team will undertake some direct marketing activities to further promote ParraConnect along with a number of articles in a range of publications and Parracity website, along with skype opportunities.

The ParraConnect logo was discussed and endorsed.

d. The committee was provided with an update on the progress of the mobile Concierge project as follows detailing

The main points were:

i) Discussions are taking place with MYOB and

the car parking Software Company.

ii) Other features being investigated include digital signature.

iii) Phase one of the project is scheduled to be delivered in November 2011.

Elios Alexoulis

Manager Information Communication and Technology.

Attachments:

1 View	Minutes - Parraconnect Advisory Committe 20th June	3 Pages
2 View	Minutes - ParraConnect Advisory committe 18th July 2011	4 Pages