NOTICE OF Council MEETING
The Meeting of Parramatta City Council will be held in the Council Chamber, Fourth Floor, 2 Civic Place, Parramatta on Monday, 26 September 2011 at 6.45pm.
Dr. Robert Lang
Chief Executive Officer
Parramatta – the leading city at the heart of Sydney
30 Darcy Street Parramatta NSW 2150
PO Box 32 Parramatta
Phone 02 9806 5050 Fax 02 9806 5917 DX 8279 Parramatta
ABN 49 907 174 773 www.parracity.nsw.gov.au
“Think Before You Print”
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 |
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
Staff |
GALLERY
Council 26 September 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO
1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Council (Development) - 12 September 2011
2 APOLOGIES
3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
4 Petitions
5 Minutes of Lord Mayor
6 Public Forum
7 PETITIONS
8 Rescission Motions
8.1 Proposed listing of Lake Parramatta Dam Wall and St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery on NSW State Heritage Register
9 Economy and Development
9.1 27A, 31, 33 & 35 Louis Street, Granville (Woodville Ward)
9.2 216 Windsor Road, Winston Hills (Lot 1 DP 194658) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)
9.3 116 Midson Road, Epping
(Lot 9 DP 6837) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)
9.4 35 Lansdowne Street, Merrylands (Lot 1 HCP 136) (Woodville Ward)
9.5 4 Barangaroo Road, TOONGABBIE NSW 2146
Lot 22 DP 571264 (Caroline Chisholm Ward)
9.6 Further Report -46 Hassall Street, Parramatta (Lot 11 Sec 3 DP 192710) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)
9.7 27 Hart Drive Constitution Hill (LOT 6 DP 12452) (Arthur Phillip Ward)
9.8 58 O'Connell Street Parramatta
Lot 1 DP 900803( Arthur Phillip Ward)
9.9 330 Church Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
(Lot 101 DP 1031459 and Lots 2 & 3 DP 788637)
(Arthur Phillip Ward)
9.10 Amendment to Notifications DCP
9.11 Railway Terrace Merrylands
9.12 Major Events Spring and Summer Program 2011/2012
9.13 Sydney Festival 2012
9.14 Heritage Advisory Committee for August 2011
9.15 Supporting the Parramatta Chamber of Commerce Centenary (100% Parramatta)
9.16 Big Ideas for Parramatta and the Region
9.17 Riverside Advisory Board
10 Environment and Infrastructure
10.1 Parramatta Stadium Draft Master Plan
10.2 North West Rail Link Submission
10.3 Parramatta City Centre Car Parking Strategy
10.4 Parramatta Cycleway Advisory Committee
10.5 East Coast High Speed Rail Study
11 Community and Neighbourhood
11.1 Path between 7-9 and 9-11Manson Street Telopea
11.2 Naming of an Unnamed Basketball Court
11.3 Access Advisory Committee Minutes 16 August 2011
12 Governance and Corporate
12.1 Local Government Elections - Possibility of Conducting Future Elections In-House
12.2 2011 Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference (APSACC) - Perth, WA - 15-17 November 2011
12.3 Investments Report for July 2011
12.4 Audit Committee Minutes
13 Notices of Motion
13.1 Naming of unnamed lane as George Khattar Lane
13.2 Free Access to Aquatic Centres
14 Closed Session
14.1 Tender 12/2011 Construction of a New Amenities Building at Horlyck Reserve, Byrnes Street, South Granville.
This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government act 1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.
14.2 Tender 10/2011 - Tender for the Provision of Events Security Services
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.
14.3 Extension of Existing Garbage Collection Contract.
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.
15 DECISIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION
16 QUESTION TIME
Council 26 September 2011
Rescission Motions
26 September 2011
8.1 Proposed listing of Lake Parramatta Dam Wall and St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery on NSW State Heritage Register
RESCISSION MOTION
ITEM NUMBER 8.1
SUBJECT Proposed listing of Lake Parramatta Dam Wall and St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery on NSW State Heritage Register
REFERENCE F2011/00862 - D02100638
REPORT OF N/A
To be Moved by Councillor J D Finn and seconded by Councillors M McDermott and P K Maitra
|
That the resolution of the Council Meeting held on 12 September 2011, regarding Proposed listing of Lake Parramatta Dam Wall and St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery on NSW State Heritage Register namely:-
“That Parramatta City Council support the Heritage Council’s proposal to list St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery on the NSW State Heritage Register.”
be and is hereby rescinded.
|
1View |
Previous Council Report |
45 Pages |
|
Council 26 September 2011
Economy and Development
26 September 2011
9.1 27A, 31, 33 & 35 Louis Street, Granville (Woodville Ward)
9.2 216 Windsor Road, Winston Hills (Lot 1 DP 194658) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)
9.3 116
Midson Road, Epping
(Lot 9 DP 6837) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)
9.4 35 Lansdowne Street, Merrylands (Lot 1 HCP 136) (Woodville Ward)
9.5 4
Barangaroo Road, TOONGABBIE NSW 2146
Lot 22 DP 571264 (Caroline Chisholm Ward)
9.6 Further Report -46 Hassall Street, Parramatta (Lot 11 Sec 3 DP 192710) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)
9.7 27 Hart Drive Constitution Hill (LOT 6 DP 12452) (Arthur Phillip Ward)
9.8 58
O'Connell Street Parramatta
Lot 1 DP 900803( Arthur Phillip Ward)
9.9 330
Church Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
(Lot 101 DP 1031459 and Lots 2 & 3 DP 788637)
(Arthur Phillip Ward)
9.10 Amendment to Notifications DCP
9.11 Railway Terrace Merrylands
9.12 Major Events Spring and Summer Program 2011/2012
9.13 Sydney Festival 2012
9.14 Heritage Advisory Committee for August 2011
9.15 Supporting the Parramatta Chamber of Commerce Centenary (100% Parramatta)
9.16 Big Ideas for Parramatta and the Region
9.17 Riverside Advisory Board
ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 9.1
SUBJECT 27A, 31, 33 & 35 Louis Street, Granville (Woodville Ward)
DESCRIPTION Construction of a 2-storey affordable housing development consisting of 44 dwellings over a basement carpark
REFERENCE DA/111/2011 - 4 March 2011
APPLICANT/S Designcorp Australia Pty Limited
OWNERS Finiqs Pty Limited & Pingola Pty Ltd
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
DATE OF REPORT 2 September 2011
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL
This application has been brought to Council for determination due to the number of submissions received and the nature of the development (affordable rental housing under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The application seeks approval for the demolition of 3 dwelling houses, tree removal and construction of 7 x 2-storey residential flat buildings (RFB) comprising 44 dwellings over basement car parking for 44 vehicles, under the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.
The proposal was submitted to Council as infill housing development prior to the amendments that were made to the policy by the State Government on 20 May 2011. The application has been assessed against the provisions of the unamended SEPP as the savings clause applies. An assessment of the proposal against the amended SEPP has also been provided in the S79C report for comparison purposes.
The subject site is currently zoned Residential 2A under Parramatta LEP 2001 and the proposed residential flat buildings are prohibited if not for the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP. The Draft Parramatta LEP 2011 will up zone the site to R3 Medium Density Residential, however RFB developments remain prohibited development. The proposal has been assessed against the character of the local area and the scale of the development is inconsistent with the character of the location. In addition, the design of the proposal raises concerns regarding solar access to the living areas of the proposed dwellings which is a significant assessment criteria within the SEPP.
The design of the RFB development involves several significant variations to Parramatta DCP 2005, including building separation, boundary setbacks and visual privacy provisions. Furthermore, the subject site is partially flood affected and adjoins a stormwater channel containing Duck Creek. A rear portion of the site is flood affected and has been identified in the development application for flood storage. Due to the significant planning issues that have not been or cannot be resolved, it would suggest that this development may be an overdevelopment of the site.
The development application was advertised and notified to adjoining residents in accordance with the Notification DCP and 3 submissions and a petition signed by 33 persons were received. The main issues that have been raised in the submissions are traffic, car parking, privacy, loss of solar access and waste management. These issues have been fully considered in the Section 79C report attached.
Given the proposed development involves several significant variations to the planning controls in the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP and Parramatta DCP 2005 and those variations will result in a number of severe amenity issues for surrounding and future residents, the application cannot be supported. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.
It is noted that the applicant has lodged a Class 1 appeal (deemed refusal) in the Land and Environment Court.
|
(a) That Development Application No. 111/2011 for demolition, tree removal and construction of affordable housing development containing 44 dwellings on land at 27A, 31, 33 and 35 Louis Street, Granville be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development is prohibited under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, as the proposal is for Residential Flat Buildings in a Residential 2(a) zone under the LEP 2001 which prohibits residential flat buildings.
2. The proposed development fails to satisfy the character test provisions under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, as the proposal results in a physical impact on surrounding properties and is not in harmony with the current single dwelling built form character of the street.
3. The proposed development fails to satisfy the design requirements under clause 15 of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.
4. The proposed development is contrary to the aims and objectives of the Residential 2(a) zone, as the proposal is for residential flat buildings which are prohibited within the zone.
5. The proposed development is contrary to the aims and objectives of the R3 Medium Density Zone, as the proposal is for residential flat buildings which are prohibited within the proposed R3 Medium Density zone of the Draft LEP 2010.
6. The proposed development fails to provide sufficient solar access to living rooms and private open spaces for a minimum of 3 hours between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter to 70 percent of the proposed dwellings.
7. The proposed building separation of the development fails to comply with the Parramatta DCP 2005. The current building separation between habitable rooms of the units is 5-7m instead of the required 12 metres between habitable rooms.
8. The building provides insufficient setbacks, amenity, privacy and poor building design resulting in unacceptably poor amenity impacts for future inhabitants. The designed layout of the development is primarily a function of the non compliance with design requirements in the Parramatta DCP 2005.
9. The proposed development fails to address the provision of the Parramatta Local Floodplain Risk Management Policy, in particular, in relation to evacuation and flood awareness issues.
10. The stormwater modelling submitted with the development application fails to clearly identify that the proposed flood storage will be effective for the full range of flood events up to the 1% Average Recurrence Interval event.
11. The development application has failed to provide adequate information that would enable a proper assessment of the impacts of the development, particularly an assessment of how the roof and surface stormwater from the site will be disposed.
12. The proposed development is not in the public interest.
(b) Further, that the objectors and head petitioner be advised of Council’s decision.
|
Troy Loveday
Senior Development Assessment Officer
Development Assessment Services
1View |
Section 79C report |
64 Pages |
|
2View |
Locality Map |
1 Page |
|
3View |
Architectural plans |
10 Pages |
|
Confidential internal floor plans |
2 Pages |
|
ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 9.2
SUBJECT 216 Windsor Road, Winston Hills (Lot 1 DP 194658) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)
DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of 7 townhouses and 4 residential apartments over basement carparking under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009.
REFERENCE DA/326/2011 - 18 May 2011
APPLICANT/S GM Architects
OWNERS Fieraco International Pty Limited
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
DATE OF REPORT
30 August 2011
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL
This application is brought to Council for determination due to the number of submissions received and that the application is made under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Approval is sought for tree removal and construction of seven (7) x 3 bedroom townhouses and 4 x 2 bedroom units. 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 subject site is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential under draft Parramatta LEP 2011. The proposed development is defined as Multi Dwelling Housing under draft Parramatta LEP 2011 and is not permitted in the draft zone. The proposal is not consistent with the relevant objectives of the zone.
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 two storey built form of the complex extends well within the rear of the subject property and poses a detrimental visual, acoustic and privacy impact on neighbours, and therefore is not consistent with the desired future residential character of the locality. The development proposal does not comply with the character test and further impacts adjoining properties in terms of solar access.
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, 2 individual submission and a petition with fifteen (15) 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.
|
(a) That That Development Application No. 326/2011 for tree removal and construction of a multi unit housing complex comprising of 7 x 3 bedroom townhouses and 4 x 2 bedroom units on land at No. 216 Windsor Road, Winston Hills be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development does not comply with the provisions of Clause 16A – Character of Local Area of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) SEPP (amended).
2. The proposed development does not satisfy the provisions of SEPP (Seniors Living) in regards to neighbourhood amenity and streetscape and visual and acoustic privacy.
3. The proposed development is contrary to the aims and objectives of the PLEP 2001 and Draft LEP 2011 as the proposed townhouse complex is a prohibited development under the current and future zoning of the site.
4. 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, private open space, visual and acoustic privacy and solar access.
5. 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.
Michael Buckley Consultant Town Planner |
1View |
Section 79C Assessment Report |
56 Pages |
|
2View |
Locality Plan |
1 Page |
|
3View |
Plans |
12 Pages |
|
Confidential Plans |
6 Pages |
|
ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 9.3
SUBJECT 116
Midson Road, Epping
(Lot 9 DP 6837) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)
DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of 5 x 2 storey attached townhouses under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP.
REFERENCE DA/136/2011 - 16 March 2011
APPLICANT/S Glendinning Minto and Associates Pty Ltd
OWNERS Ms Y X Huang and S M Lei
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
DATE OF REPORT 2 September 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 5 x 2 storey attached townhouses 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 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 due to the low density zoning of the site. It is proposed to retain a low density zoning of R2 under Draft LEP 2010. Clause 54A (2) - Savings and Transitional provisions enables consent authorities to retrospectively apply the prohibition clause.
The application is also 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 notification of the proposal 10 letters of objection were received. The issues raised within those submissions relate to permissibility, parking, traffic, social issues, property values, development precedence, privacy, overshadowing, acoustics, tree removal, and consistency with the character of the area. 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 multi unit housing 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 Midson Road. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.
|
(a) That Council as the consent authority REFUSE Development Application No. 136/2011 for demolition, tree removal and construction of a 5 x 2 storey attached townhouses under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP on land at 116 Midson Road, Epping 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 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, 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.
5. The proposed development is inconsistent with the deep soil, landscaping, side setback, rear setback, carparking, building form and massing, and, visual and acoustic privacy requirements of Parramatta DCP 2005.
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.
7. The proposal is not in the public interest.
(b) That the objectors be advised of council’s decision |
1View |
Section 79C Report |
39 Pages |
|
2View |
Location Plan |
1 Page |
|
3View |
Plans |
2 Pages |
|
4View |
Shadow Diagrams |
3 Pages |
|
Confidential Plans |
2 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 9.4
SUBJECT 35 Lansdowne Street, Merrylands (Lot 1 HCP 136) (Woodville Ward)
DESCRIPTION Section 96(1A) application to modify Development Consent No. 1940/2003
REFERENCE DA/1940/2003/C - 2 August 2011
APPLICANT/S F Monzer
OWNERS Issa Holdings Pty Ltd
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
DATE OF REPORT 31 August 2011
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL
This application is brought to Council for determination as the subject property is owned by a Councillor. It is noted that the application has also been assessed by an Independent Planning contractor.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The subject application seeks to modify the approved development and involves amending the roof form from the approved gable ends to a ‘Dutch gable’ design and by amending the approved inter-tenancy party wall, which currently extends above the roofline. The works have been completed.
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.
The site is located within an older established residential area containing predominantly single storey and some two storey development. The eastern and northern boundaries of the site adjoin the rear and side boundaries of dwellings fronting Lamb Crescent.
In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, owners and occupiers of surrounding properties were given notice of the application for a 14 day period between the 9 August 2011 and 23 August 2011. No submissions were received.
As the proposed amendments to the approved multi-unit housing are of a minor nature and satisfy the provisions of Section 96(1A) of the EPA Act 1979, and pose no material impact on adjoining properties, the application is recommended for approval.
|
(a) That Council as the consent authority modify development consent No 1940/2003 in the following manner:-
Amending the development consent, Schedule 2 –General Matters, Condition 1, to read as follows;
1. The development is to be carried out in compliance with the following plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent:
(b) Further, that as the works have been carried out without prior planning approval, that the matter be referred to Council’s Development Control Team for investigation including the possible issue of a Penalty Infringement Notice.
|
1View |
Section 79C and 96 Assessment Report |
8 Pages |
|
2View |
Localilty Plan |
1 Page |
|
3View |
Architecural Plans |
2 Pages |
|
4View |
Previous Section 79C Assessment Reports |
6 Pages |
|
Architectural plans confidential |
2 Pages |
|
ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 9.5
SUBJECT 4
Barangaroo Road, TOONGABBIE NSW 2146
Lot 22 DP 571264 (Caroline Chisholm Ward)
DESCRIPTION Demolition and construction of a 2 storey residential flat building under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP containing 12 apartments over basement carparking with access from Barangaroo Road.
REFERENCE DA/997/2010 - 10 December 2010
APPLICANT/S Design Developments NSW Pty Limited
OWNERS Design Developments NSW Pty Limited
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
DATE OF REPORT
2 September 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 and construction of a 2 storey residential flat building under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP containing 12 apartments over basement carparking with access from Barangaroo Road.
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] could 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. It is considered, however, that the proposed development satisfies the amendments to the SEPP (ARH).
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 compatible with the character of the surrounding local area and does not warrant refusal of the development application.
In response to notification of the proposal 25 letters (including a petition with 46 signatures) of objection were received. An on-site meeting was held on 24th March 2011 and commenced at 5:30pm. The meeting was attended by Councilor Scott Lloyd, Councilor Andrew Bide, 41 residents and Council’s Service Manager of Development Assessment Services and Development Assessment Officer, and two representatives for the applicant.
The issues raised by objectors related to a number of issues including contamination of the site, flooding, the SEPP (ARH) 2009, zoning, character of the area and traffic and parking. The public submissions are considered within the Section 79C assessment report contained in Attachment 1.
After consideration of the development against Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the relevant statutory and policy provisions, the proposal is suitable for the site and is in the public interest. Therefore, it is recommended that the application be approved on a deferred commencement basis subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
|
(a) That Council as the consent authority grant deferred development consent to Development Application No. 997/2010 for the demolition and construction of a 2 storey residential flat building under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP containing 12 apartments over basement carparking with access from Barangaroo Road at 4 Barangaroo Road Toongabbie subject to the conditions contained within Attachment 1.
(b) Further, that Council advise the objectors and head petitioner of Councils decision.
|
David Little
Development Assessment Officer
1View |
Section 79c Report |
86 Pages |
|
2View |
Locality Plan |
1 Page |
|
3View |
Architectural Plans |
11 Pages |
|
4View |
Social Impact Assessment |
19 Pages |
|
5View |
Rail Noise Impact Assessment |
12 Pages |
|
6View |
Prelimininary Contamination Assessment |
42 Pages |
|
Confidential Plans |
5 Pages |
|
ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 9.6
SUBJECT Further Report -46 Hassall Street, Parramatta (Lot 11 Sec 3 DP 192710) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)
DESCRIPTION Construction of a Boarding House
REFERENCE DA/870/2010 - 29 October 2010
APPLICANT/S Nigel White
OWNERS B & K Patel
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
DATE OF REPORT
5 September 2011
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL
The application is referred to Council as it proposes a Boarding House and due to the number of submissions received.
FURTHER REPORT
At the Development Council Meeting held on 11 July 2011 Council considered a report that recommended a deferred commencement approval be granted and resolved the following:
That the application be deferred to allow the applicant to hold further discussions with staff in relation to incorporating 3 off street parking spaces within the design and to further address the outstanding issues as outlined in the proposed deferred commencement e.g. social impact assessment and on site management.
In accordance with this resolution a meeting was held with the applicant’s representative on Friday 29 July 2011 and the matters identified were discussed.
The recommended deferred commencement conditions contained in the previous report required:
· The preparation of a revised plan of management that included management and supervision of the site through the provision of a live in on site manager; · The preparation of a flood management plan for the site; · Further investigations to be undertaken to ascertain whether the site is contaminated and requires remediation; and · The submission of revised architectural plans to reduce overlooking opportunities towards adjoining properties.
This report now discusses each issue.
Carparking
At the time the development application was lodged the ARHSEPP did not require off street carparking to be provided. The plans submitted with the application provided a hard stand area that allowed for the parking of four bicycles and four motorbikes was provided.
On 20 May 2011 the ARHSEPP was amended such that the parking requirements for the development would be three carparking spaces.
The applicant has submitted two options to Council to provide additional carparking spaces for the site. Option 1 provides two hard stand car spaces at the front of the site. Option 2 provides three hard stand spaces.
Option 1 is the preferred option as the provision of three hard stand spaces at the front of the site would substantially reduce opportunities for landscaping and result in a streetscape appearance that is inconsistent with that of adjoining residential properties. The provision of two off street parking spaces will reduce reliance on on-street parking whilst allowing opportunities for landscaping to be provided and is thus the preferred option.
Plan of Management
Condition 1 of the deferred commencement stated:
1. A revised plan of management shall be submitted to Council’s Community Crime Prevention Officer for approval which addresses:
(a) fees for residency; (b) management and supervision through a live in on-site manager (c)communal kitchen usage, the provision of meals or resident provision of meals; (d) noise inside the boarding house and in adjacent private open space areas; (e) use of communal space and facilities; (f) parking for cars/ motorbikes; (g) cleanliness and maintenance of the property and grounds; and (h) house rules (covering issues such as access to rooms, keeping shared facilities clean and tidy, visitors, pets, quiet enjoyment, consumption of alcohol, visitors, parties etc). (i) consequences for tenants of breaching house rules the issues of resident behaviour or dealing with difficult tenants, house rules or in what circumstances a tenant's lease may be terminated due to adverse behaviour; (j)On-Site Managers must be over 18 years of age. (k) Occupiers of adjacent properties are to be provided with a 24 hour telephone number for a principal (for example owner or manager) so they can contact the premises. (l) incorporates a fire safety evacuation plan containing step by step written instructions which detail necessary actions for evacuation in case of a fire emergency. The plan should have the following: • Evacuation routes detailing paths of travel and the locations of the building’s exits • Assembly point details (where occupants should gather) • A detailed plan of action to be taken after activation of a fire alarm. The escape plan should be posted in obvious locations in common areas and behind each bedroom door.
The applicant has prepared a revised plan of management for the site that includes the provision of an on-site manager. The plan of management has been reviewed by Council’s Community Crime Prevention Officer who advises that the revised plan of management is satisfactory subject to additional requirements being added regarding quiet hours, notification requirements for change of management and the preparation of an emergency management plan. Given this, the deferred commencement condition has been updated and a number of points removed from the previous condition, as they have now been satisfied.
It is also noted that the current plan of management submitted with the amended information indicates that the premises would be occupied by 19 persons. As the plans that were notified to surrounding landowners and the previous report to Council indicated that the proposal is for 13 self contained accommodation suites providing accommodation for 17 residents, conditions are recommended to restrict the number of boarders to a maximum of 17 persons.
Flood Management
Condition 2 of the deferred commencement stated:
A flood management plan management addressing the criteria contained within Council’s Local Floodplain Risk Management Policy 2006 and specifically section 8 is required to be prepared as well as associated engineering models and engineering/architectural plans shall be submitted to Council’s Supervisor Catchment Management for approval which satisfactorily addresses: · The impact of the development on flooding elsewhere to be considered having regard to three factors listed below: I. loss of flood storage; II. changes in flood levels, flows and velocities caused by alterations to flood flows; and III. the cumulative impact of multiple potential developments in the vicinity.
· The minimum surface level of open spaces or carports shall be as high as practical but no lower than 0.1m below the 100 year ARI flood level.
· The level of the driveway providing access between the road and parking spaces shall be no lower than 0.2m below the 100 year ARI flood level.
· The applicant is to demonstrate the development is consistent with any relevant flood evacuation strategy or similar plan.
· The reliable access for pedestrians and vehicles is required from the site to an area of refuge above the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) level, either on site (second story) or off site.
The applicant has not submitted a flood management plan and has requested that the condition be retained as a deferred commencement condition due to the fact that the site is only affected by the Probable Maximum Flood event and not a 1:100 ARI event or a 1:20 ARI event. The request of the applicant is reasonable given that the site is not impacted by a 1:100 ARI or 1:20 ARI events.
Contamination
Condition 3 of the deferred commencement stated:
3) Submission of a Detailed Site Investigation Report in accordance with the requirements of SEPP 55 that: · Defines the nature, extent and degree of any contamination; · Outlines whether the site is suitable for the proposed development with or without the need for a remedial action plan. If the site does require remediation in accordance with SEPP 55 a Remedial Action Plan is required to be prepared to the satisfaction of an EPA accredited site auditor and a validation report is required to be submitted from a EPA accredited site auditor that confirms that the site is suitable for use as a boarding house
The applicant has not submitted the detailed site investigation report due to the time that it would take to prepare such a report and has also suggested that the site is unlikely to be contaminated. It is agreed that the site is unlikely to be contaminated and that the work required to prepare the detailed site investigation would be lengthy. Given this it is considered appropriate that the deferred commencement consent remain to ensure that the possible site contamination is thoroughly investigated and if necessary the site remediated prior to an operative consent being issued.
Architectural Plans
Condition 4 of the deferred commencement stated:
4) Submission of revised architectural plans that indicate that the stairway that provides access to and from the upper floor is completely enclosed from the ground level to the first floor on all sides and that non openable windows containing opaque glass replace louvers on the first floor external walkway.
The applicant has submitted plans that enclose the first floor external walkway and the staircase from the ground floor. As the plans do not indicate that the first floor external walkways windows will be non openable a condition will be added to the recommended conditions requiring this to be illustrated on plans submitted with the construction certificate.
The applicant has responded to the matters raised in Council’s deferral. Additional parking has been provided, the management plan revised and privacy issues addressed. Due to the low risk of flooding and low likely hood of the site being contaminated it is considered reasonable for the contamination report and flooding report to be submitted prior to an operative consent being issued.
Accordingly the application is recommended for a deferred commencement approval subject to revised conditions contained in Attachment 3.
|
(a) That Council as the consent authority grant a deferred commencement development consent to Development Application No. 870/2010 for the construction of a boarding house on land at 46 Hassall Street, Parramatta subject to the conditions contained within Attachment 3.
(b) Further that the persons who lodged an individual submission and the head petitioner be advised of Council’s determination of the application.
Brad Delapierre Team Leader –Development Assessment Team |
1View |
Previous Council Report |
59 Pages |
|
2View |
Revised Architecural Plans |
3 Pages |
|
3View |
Recommended conditions of development consent |
18 Pages |
|
Confidential Internal Residential Floor Plans |
2 Pages |
|
ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 9.7
SUBJECT 27 Hart Drive Constitution Hill (LOT 6 DP 12452) (Arthur Phillip Ward)
DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of a 2 storey residential flat building containing six units under the provisions of SEPP affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009) with Strata Subdivision.
REFERENCE DA/78/2011 - Lodged 21 February 2011
APPLICANT/S Mr Hilendra Jagdale
OWNERS Mr Hilendra Jagdale and Mrs Jyoti Jagdale
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
DATE OF REPORT 23 August 2011
This report was deferred from the Council meeting on 12 September 2011
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL
The application is referred to Council as the proposal relates to a development made under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The application seeks approval for the demolition, removal of trees and construction of a two storey residential flat building containing six dwellings under the provisions of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP. Three parking spaces are provided at ground level at the northern end of the site.
The proposal has been submitted to Council as in-fill housing under SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. At the time of lodgement the provisions of the 2009 SEPP permitted residential flat buildings on a site irrespective of the zoning. However, amendments made to the SEPP on 20 May 2011 (SEPP Affordable Rental Housing Amendment 2011) now prohibit the proposed infill development in the low density zone. Savings and Transitional Provisions included in the Amended SEPP give discretion to consent authorities to apply either the former or current permissibility standards/controls in the assessment of the application. It is the recommendation of this report that the amended permissibility clauses of the SEPP not be applied in this particular case as the proposed development compliments the existing character and built form within the immediate locality and satisfies the Character Test required in Clause 16 of the SEPP.
The subject application is subject to a savings clause under the SEPP that requires Council to consider compatibility with the surrounding local area. This process has found the development to be compatible with the surrounding local area for a number of reasons.
The Constitution Hill area, although currently zoned Residential 2A was previously zoned Residential 2B when PLEP 2001 was first gazetted. As a result there is a mix of dwelling types ranging from single dwellings to multi-unit and townhouses.
The proposed residential flat building is two storeys and has a FSR of 0.54:1. In terms of bulk and scale it is smaller than the existing two storey town house developments in Mahony Road and is not inconsistent with the bulk and scale of dwelling types encouraged in this locality being attached dual occupancies and dwelling houses.
As the site is located on a corner the proposed development benefits from having a reduced impact to adjoining properties in terms of overlooking by having upper living areas and balconies oriented to both street frontages.
There is no overshadowing impact to adjoining properties due to the orientation of the site which means the shadows fall predominantly to the front of the site and over Mahony Road.
The proposed development has a non-compliance with the side setback requirement of 4.5m on the north-eastern side boundary (proposed 4m). The proposed front setback of 5m is also less than the prevailing building line to Hart Drive which is approximately 7.5m.
These non-compliances are considered to be reasonable given that the proposed building is only two storey and that there is adequate room for landscaping and private and communal open space in the front and side setback areas. A high 1.8m brick fence will screen the ground floor and open space areas of the proposed development from Hart Drive.
The proposed development complies with the provisions of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. It is considered that the proposed development passes the character test for the defined section of Constitution Hill.
Five submissions have been received as a result of neighbour notification. Four submissions oppose the development proposal on the grounds of traffic and parking issues and bulk and scale of the proposal. One submission is in support of the application. Council’s transport engineer supports the application on traffic and parking grounds and it is considered that the bulk and scale of the proposed development is similar to surrounding development.
After consideration of the development against the relevant statutory and policy provisions, the proposal is considered suitable for the site and is in the public interest. Therefore, it is recommended that the application be approved. |
(a) That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. 73/2011 for demolition, tree removal, construction of a two storey residential flat building with strata subdivision at 27 Hart Drive Constitution Hill 2145 for a period of five (5) years from the date on the Notice of Determination subject to the conditions contained in attachment 1. (b) That Objectors be advised of Council’s decision.
|
Jane McMillan
Consultant Development Assessment Officer
Development Assessment Team
1View |
Section 79C Report |
89 Pages |
|
2View |
Locality Plan |
1 Page |
|
3View |
Landscape and hydraulic plans |
3 Pages |
|
4View |
Housing type plan |
1 Page |
|
Confidential Floor Plans |
2 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 9.8
SUBJECT 58
O'Connell Street Parramatta
Lot 1 DP 900803( Arthur Phillip Ward)
DESCRIPTION Strata subdivision of an existing residential flat building containing 10 units.
REFERENCE DA/174/2011 -
APPLICANT/S Classy Business Pty Ltd
OWNERS Classy Business Pty Ltd
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
DATE OF REPORT 22 August 2011
This report was deferred from the Council meeting on 12 September 2011
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL
The proposal is being referred to Council as a policy position is required due to a condition of consent recommending the applicant to make a contribution of $95,760 for the loss of affordable housing arising from the Strata subdivision of the Residential Flat Building in accordance with Clause 50 Affordable Rental Housing SEPP. This is the first application where this provision is relevant.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposal is for the strata subdivision of an existing residential flat building at 58 O’Connell Street containing 10 units and 10 car parking spaces. The applicant has established ‘existing use rights” under the EP & A Act for the residential flat building and the strata subdivision is permitted.
Clause 50 of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP requires that an assessment be carried out on the likely loss of affordable housing prior to consent being granted to the subdivision of an older residential flat building. The assessment has been carried out using the web tool methodology available on the Department of Planning’s website.
This assessment has shown that there would be a loss of 6 bedrooms (being existing affordable housing) arising from the proposed subdivision resulting in a medium impact on affordable housing availability in the North Parramatta locality.
On the basis of the assessment a monetary contribution has been calculated using the web tool from the Department of Planning, which amounts to $95,760. This amount is required to be paid to the Chief Executive, Housing NSW, Department of Human Services as per the Guidelines for Retention of Existing Affordable Rental Housing issued by Department of Planning in October 2009. Council’s Social Outcomes Team support the imposition of the condition to require a financial contribution to be made for the loss of affordable housing arising from the strata subdivision.
Accordingly the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions of consent appended to the Section 79 C report, including the condition requiring the payment of $95,760 to Housing NSW.
|
That the Council as the consent authority APPROVE Development application no. 174/2011 for the Strata subdivision of an existing Residential Flat Building containing 10 units , including the contribution of $96,750 under Affordable Rental Housing SEPP as per the Section 79 C report attached.
|
Sasi Kumar
Senior Development Assessment Officer
1View |
Section 79 C report |
30 Pages |
|
2View |
Locational Plan |
1 Page |
|
3View |
Architectural plans |
4 Pages |
|
4View |
Strata plans |
4 Pages |
|
Confidential Architectural Plans |
4 Pages |
|
ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 9.9
SUBJECT 330
Church Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
(Lot 101 DP 1031459 and Lots 2 & 3 DP 788637)
(Arthur Phillip Ward)
DESCRIPTION Part 3A of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 - Mixed Use Residential, Retail & Commercial
REFERENCE NCA/23/2010 - 4 November 2011
APPLICANT/S Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd
OWNERS Parramatta Site Developments Pty Limited
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
DATE OF REPORT
9 September 2011
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL
To seek Council’s endorsement of a submission to the Director General of the Department of Planning on the project application for demolition, and construction of a mixed use residential, retail and commercial development with basement carparking. The new building complex will involve a podium level, 2 tower buildings and 4 basement levels of carparking.
The application is made under Schedule 3 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005. Under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal is declared as a Major Project and the Minister for Planning is the Consent Authority for the above project
BACKGROUND
On 1 November 2010, the Director of Metropolitan Projects (Department of Planning) requested Council provide feedback on draft Director-General Requirements (DGRs) for the proposed mixed use residential, retail and commercial development at 330 Church street Parramatta subject to Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) (MP10_0171).
On 5 November 2010, the Director Deputy Director General (Department of Planning) advised Council that Part 3A of the Act applies as the proposal meets the non-discretionary criteria in Schedule 1, Group 5, Cause 13 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005. Further to this, the proponent needed to undertake an architectural design competition as the site was a “Key Site” as identified by the PLEP City Centre 2007.
On 12 November 2010, Council provided a response to the Draft DGRs stating that the additional issues should be included in the DGRs relating to the following:
Þ Relevant EPIs and Guidelines to be addressed; Þ Built form; Þ Heritage; Þ Height; Þ Public Domain; Þ Contributions; Þ Consultation; Þ Documentation and Plans; and Þ City Centre Design Competition.
On 22 November 2010, the Director of Metropolitan Projects issued the DGRs.
On the 28 March 2011, the winning architectural design was announced for the site by the Department of Planning.
On the 19 May 2011, the proponent formally lodged an application with the Department of Planning.
THE PROPOSAL
The Department of Planning notified Council via letter dated 12 August 2011, that Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd have submitted a Major Project Application seeking approval to construct a 43,787sqm mixed use development.
The estimated capital investment value for the proposed development is $149,852,992.
The proposal specifically involves the following:
Ø Four levels of basement car parking accommodating 597 car spaces; Ø A 3 storey podium comprised of residential and commercial lobby areas, 8 retail tenancies, a 1928sqm supermarket, a 70sqm childcare centre and 9 maisonette apartments fronting the river and resident recreational facilities; Ø A 22 storey tower (eastern tower) containing 170 serviced apartments, approximately 83.5m in height; and Ø A 32 storey tower (western tower) containing 211 residential apartments, approximately 111.6m in height.
The Lord Mayor and Councillors were notified of the proposal on 18 August 2011 by the Service Manager, Development Assessment Services.
The Department of Planning is exhibiting the application between 17 August 2011 and 19 September 2011.
A review of the application is currently being undertaken by Council staff and further comments and draft submission will be provided under separate cover prior to the Council meeting.
|
That Council endorse the submission made by Council staff provided under separate cover.
|
Brad Delapierre
Team Leader – Development Assessment Team
1View |
Architectural Plans |
19 Pages |
|
Confidential Plans |
16 Pages |
|
ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 9.10
SUBJECT Amendment to Notifications DCP
REFERENCE F2004/06278 - D02092679
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
PURPOSE:
To present to Council the results of the public exhibition of amendments to the Parramatta Notification DCP and to seek Council’s endorsement to finalise the amendment to the DCP.
|
(a) That Council endorse the proposed amendment to the Parramatta Notification DCP as identified in Attachment 1.
(b) Further that Council endorse the proposed amendment to appendix 5 (Notification Procedures) of draft Parramatta DCP 20011 (in particular part 5.5.11).
|
BACKGROUND
Council at its meeting of 27 June 2011 considered a report on the DA Assessment Governance Framework. One of the recommendations of this report was to prepare an amendment to the Notifications DCP to introduce a Christmas Notification Period and to introduce an extended notification period over the Christmas Period.
The recommendation was endorsed and part (e) of the Council Resolution of 27 June 2011 was:
‘That an amendment to the Notification Development Control Plan be prepared to introduce extended notification period over the Christmas period as outlined in the attached report.’
An amendment to the current Notification DCP has been prepared to reflect the recommendation of the DA Assessment Governance Framework report. The amendments are:
· A Christmas Notification Period from 19 December to 5 January has been defined.
· During the Christmas Notification Period, notification/advertising will not be commenced.
· Notification/advertising will be extended if notification/advertising is scheduled to close during the Christmas Notification Period.
Part N of the Notification DCP is to be amended in the following manner:
N. CHRISTMAS NOTIFICATION PERIOD
During the Christmas Notification Period (19 December to 5 January) Council does not undertake notification/advertising of applications. All applications lodged with Council during this time will not commence their notification/advertising until 5 January. However, if an applications notification/advertising is scheduled to close during the Christmas Notification Period the notification/advertising period will be extended to 5 January.
DRAFT PARRAMATTA DCP 2011
As part of the NSW State Government’s planning reforms, Councils must consolidate all DCPs into a single comprehensive DCP, such that only one DCP applies to any parcel of land within six (6) months of a comprehensive LEP commencing. Due to this requirement the provisions of the current Notifications DCP have been incorporated into Draft Parramatta DCP 2011.
The Notification Procedures are located in Appendix 5 of draft DCP 2011, with the Christmas/New Year Notification requirements prescribed in part 5.5.11. Due to the imminence of the gazettal of draft LEP 2011 and at that same time the commencement of DCP 2011, Appendix 5 and in particular part 5.5.11 is to be amended in the following manner:
5.5.11. CHRISTMAS NOTIFICATION PERIOD
During the Christmas Notification Period (19 December to 5 January) Council does not undertake notification/advertising of applications. All applications lodged with Council during this time will not commence their notification/advertising until 5 January. However, if an applications notification/advertising is scheduled to close during the Christmas Notification Period the notification/advertising period will be extended to 5 January.
PUBLIC EXHIBITION & SUBMISSIONS
The amendments were placed on public exhibition by advertisements in local newspapers, information placed on Council’s website and at Council’s libraries. The period for submissions to the amendments closed on Wednesday 31 August 2011. The amendments were on public exhibition from Wednesday 27 July 2011 to Wednesday 31 August 2011.
No submissions were received.
TIMING AND PROCESS
On finalisation of these amendments Council is required by legislation to give public notice of its decision to adopt the amendments to the DCP in a local newspaper within 28 days after the decision is made. The amendments to the DCP will come into effect on the date that public notice of its approval is given in a local newspaper, or on a later date specified in the notice. Legislation also requires Council to provide the Director-General with a copy of the DCP within 28 days of making the plan.
Louise Kerr
Manager Development Services
1View |
Amendments to Notification DCP |
17 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 9.11
SUBJECT Railway Terrace Merrylands
REFERENCE F2010/02741 - D02047227
REPORT OF Manager - Strategic Assets and Property Management
PURPOSE:
The report recommends Council to consider closing part of Railway Terrace Merrylands for sale for combined redevelopment with adjoining private properties.
|
(a) That Council resolve to close permanently part of Railway Terrace Merrylands as shown on the plan at Attachment 2 (subject to survey) and apply to the Land and Property Management Authority for formal road closure.
(b) That Council resolve to classify the subject land to operational upon formal road closure.
(c) Further, that the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to execute under seal the linen plan, Section 88B instrument, transfer granting easement and deed of agreement if required for road closure and sale negotiation.
|
BACKGROUND
1. The Council has been approached by a developer who has options to purchase 76-84 Railway Terrace Merrylands to close part of Railway Terrace fronting these properties with the intention to purchase it from the Council for combined redevelopment.
2. As shown on the air photo at Attachment 1 the section of Railway Terrace subject of road closing application is road reserve including a service road providing access for 76, 78 and 80 Railway Terrace Merrylands.
3. This section of road was created in 1924 in the original plan of subdivision DP 13088. It is not known why the road was so configured at that time and the Council’s Traffic and Transport Unit has no objection to closing this section of road for purpose of sale and combined redevelopment.
4. A plan showing the subject land for proposed road closure is at Attachment 2 (subject to survey).
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
5. The land for 76-84 Railway Terrace Merrylands is zoned Res 2(c) on Council’s Local Environmental Plan 2007. In the draft Local Environmental Plan 2011 (soon to be gazetted) the land together with the subject section of Railway Terrace has been proposed for Business B4 zoning under which shops, offices and residential apartments not exceeding 21 m in building height are allowable.
6. There are utility services including Council’s drainage infrastructure on or near the subject land for which the applicant has agreed to be responsible for their protection, relocation or removal if approval for road closure and sale is granted.
7. It is intended that the trees on the road island opposite 78 Railway Terrace will be preserved. A 3 metre setback as shown on the plan at Attachment 2 has been reserved at the recommendation of Council’s Traffic & Transport Unit for road side car parking.
8. A public notification of the proposed road closure and operational classification of the subject land was conducted in June 2011 with no objections or adverse comments received.
9. It is recommended that Council approve closing the subject public road to facilitate negotiation with the applicant on sale of the land for combined redevelopment. Costs associated with road closing will be borne by the applicant.
10. A formal agreement will be entered into with the applicant to confirm the parties’ commitment before an application is made to the Land and Property Management Authority for formal road closure. Price for sale of the subject land will be determined by formal valuation after the road is legally closed, which could be 9 to 12 months away.
11. Further report will be submitted to the Council when negotiations on sale terms and price are finalised and can be recommended for approval.
CONSULTATION & TIMING
12. The Council’s Land Use & Transport Planning Unit, Civil Assets Unit, Traffic & Transport Unit and Catchment Management Unit have been consulted on the proposed road closure.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL
13. Council will receive revenue if sale of the land for road closure goes ahead.
Stephen Montgomery
Manager – Strategic Assets and Property Management
1View |
Air photo of subject site for road closure |
1 Page |
|
2View |
Road closure site plan |
1 Page |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 9.12
SUBJECT Major Events Spring and Summer Program 2011/2012
REFERENCE F2004/09860 - D02097741
REPORT OF Service Manager.Major Events
PURPOSE:
To confirm the strategic objectives for major events, and the assessment process and evaluation criteria of external events proposals.
To seek approval for the upcoming Major Events Program, confirming enhancements discussed at the Councillor workshop of 10 August 2011.
|
a) That two additional strategic objectives for Major Events be adopted by Council:
i. Support and enhance tourism initiatives: to attract first time visitors, to influence the visitor experience (Enhance Visitation) ii. Promote Parramatta as a positive and vibrant city of events: a great place to live, work and play (Change Reputation)
b) That requests for support by Council from external event providers be assessed as outlined in this report and applying the categories of Sponsorship, Capacity Building, Donations and Strategic Outcomes and Partnerships.
c) That the Major Events Spring and Summer program for 2011/12 be delivered with modifications to the program including the Christmas Concert, Christmas Lights competition, and New Years Eve celebration and Australia Day event as outlined in this report.
d) Further that, as part of Council’s quarterly review and reporting process, Councillors be provided with a report on events held in the preceding three months, including an evaluation of the performance of each event against agreed measures and a list of proposed activities for the proceeding three months.
|
BACKGROUND
1. Spring heralds the beginning of the primary Major Events season for Parramatta. From October 2011 to February 2012 Council will directly manage five major events - Loy Krathong, Christmas, New Year’s Eve, Australia Day and Lunar New Year. Christmas, New Year’s Eve and Australia Day are discussed in this report. The Major Events calendar can be found in ATTACHMENT 1.
2. In the 2011/12 spring / summer season Council will also partner with external organisations to deliver significant events including the Crave Sydney International Food Festival (October) and the Sydney Festival (January). Council’s partnership with the Sydney Festival for 2012 is the subject of a separate report to Council.
3. Council will also see the delivery of Parramasala in October/November through its formal involvement in the Parramasala Company.
4. During the same period, Council’s Major Events team will also provide assistance and guidance to numerous external organisations running events in the City of Parramatta.
5. Civic Events are not considered in the context of this report.
6. A Councillor workshop to discuss Major Events was held on Wednesday 10 August 2011. Suggestions and feedback from that discussion and other consultation on Major Events have been incorporated in this report.
7. At the workshop, Major Events staff presented:
a. A review of the July 2011 event program including Winterlight, River Foreshore School Holiday Program, NAIDOC Week, and the International Society of Arboriculture conference
b. The existing five strategic objectives for Major Events and two proposed new objectives
c. Analysis of reasons for Council to invest in external events
d. A snapshot of the upcoming Council Major Event program
e. A snapshot of the current event proposals received from external organisations
8. Following the workshop, a memorandum was sent to Councillors on 18 August (ATTACHMENT 2) summarising the discussions held and seeking Councillor feedback on proposed changes to events scheduled for the 2011/12 spring and summer season. No additional feedback has been received at the time of drafting this report.
REPORT
9. Adopted by Council in 2006, the Strategic Objectives for Major Events are;
a. Engage people to be active in the life of the city (Engagement/Involvement)
b. Demonstrate and deliver a diversity of life understandings and perspectives (Celebrate Diversity)
c. Celebrate and promote urban form and the natural environment through innovative use of place and space (Creative use of Place)
d. Encourage local creative enterprise (Local Creativity)
e. Boost the local economy - day and night (Support Local Business)
10. The following additional Strategic Objectives are proposed;
a. Support and enhance tourism initiatives: to attract first time visitors, to influence the visitor experience. (Enhance Visitation)
This objective focuses events on increasing visitation to Parramatta, and aligns with the Visitor Strategy for Parramatta adopted by Council at its meeting of 27 June 2011
b. Promote Parramatta as a positive and vibrant city of events: a great place to live, work and play. (Change Perceptions)
This objective aligns with a Council strategy to promote positive perceptions of the city.
11. 2011/12 Spring and Summer Major Events Program
a. Christmas Events
At the workshop of 10 August 2011, Councillors discussed the Christmas program and subsequently the following changes are proposed:
i. That one major Christmas concert be held on the forecourt of the Town Hall in place of the three suburban concerts.
In 2009 and 2010, smaller suburban Christmas concerts were tried but consistently achieved very low patronage. It appears that Council is competing in a market flooded with community Christmas events staged by schools, church groups, child care centres and other community organisations. It is therefore recommended that as a point of differentiation it will be more effective for Council to deliver a large Christmas concert coinciding with the lighting of the Christmas tree outside the Town Hall.
ii. That Council does not proceed with the Christmas Lights competition.
There was a low level of participation in the 2010 competition (23 entries), and it is suspected that this is largely due to the same type of competition run at a regional level by the Parramatta Advertiser. Other factors may include rising electricity costs and environmental concerns.
b. New Years Eve
In 2011 the New Years Eve (NYE) event was successfully moved from Prince Alfred Park to the river foreshore. Prince Alfred Park had reached its capacity as a venue for this event. Parramatta NYE is evolving from a local community event to a significant regional attraction. It now provides a viable alternative to travelling into the Sydney CBD for families in Greater Sydney.
Unfortunately, the change in location and success of the event significantly increases costs with actual expenditure for the 2010 event being $167,000 and additional costs foreshadowed for 2011 including traffic management, risk management, site logistics, lighting, barge stage, screen, and increased launch sites for fireworks that would see a similar event cost $200,000. Currently, the budget for the NYE event remains at $75,000 and a much smaller event is proposed to keep within Council’s budget.
Alternatively, Council may consider allocating additional funds in the September Quarterly Review to support a NYE event of a similar scale to 2010.
c. Australia Day
Councillors reiterated a number of concerns regarding the 2011 Australia Day event. Overall, the event was a success with thousands of people enjoying Aerial Carnivale in the morning and the concert and fireworks in the evening, however there were a number of issues regarding operational arrangements. The recommendations below were formed in response to negative feedback gathered through event surveys, written complaints, feedback from Councillors, and from two Australia Day focus groups held in August. The main issues related to access to the venue, poor signage and way finding, fencing, and the concert venue (the long paddock). Key discussion points in the workshop were:
i. That the Crescent is the preferred venue for the evening concert
ii. That investment in signage, way finding and security needs to be reviewed and improved for the 2012 event
iii. That minimal fencing should be used at the site
iv. That the citizenship ceremony should be held at an indoor venue.
The proposed changes to the Australia Day event to improve the visitor experience and ensure that appropriate risk management, security and way finding are provided will result in additional costs of approximately $65,000. Reductions will need to be made in the allocation to other Major Events such as Winterlights if the Australia Day activities proceed without additional sponsorship or budget adjustment as these requirements cannot be met from within the existing Australia Day budget.
It is proposed to establish an Australia Day Reference Group to provide Council with a regular forum to consult with key stakeholders such as the Parramatta Park Trust, the RTA and the NSW Police in the planning for the Australia Day 2012 event. Hosted by the Lord Mayor or their nominee, the Reference Group will have the status of an advisory group, with Council’s delegated staff retaining overall responsibility relating to the event.
12. Reasons to support/invest in events produced by external parties
As Parramatta stakes its claim as a premier location for events, Council is receiving an increasing number of requests for support. Some event organisers are simply seeking letters of support, but many also request direct funding, infrastructure, event advice, discounted venue hire and cross-promotion.
a. At the Councillor workshop the following two suggestions were made:
i. that external event organisers requested support be required to submit a business plan for the proposed event; and
ii. that Council should provide seed funding but not ongoing funding for external events unless there were compelling strategic reasons to do so.
b. An articulated basis for assessing Council’s potential assistance/investment in external events is required. The following categories for assessment are proposed:
i. Sponsorship – this is a business/marketing decision, where the benefits arising from the sponsor’s role at least equal the value of cash provided.
ii. Capacity building – where events can demonstrate a way to become self-sufficient in the future; using seed funding to assist the organiser to get the event up and running.
iii. Donations – there will always be occasions when Council should be compassionate and “good citizens”, offering encouragement and support to non-profit organizations and community members. Such decisions are political in character and should be taken via appropriate Council processes.
iv. Strategic outcomes and partnerships – the proposed event delivers on Major Events strategic objectives and these partnerships benefit Council, our strategic partners, and the City.
c. It is proposed that the Major Events section will apply the above categories for external events along with analysis of possible resourcing implications (both people and financial) when submitting proposals to Council’s Executive Team. External event proposals that are considered to have merit but do not meet the assessment criteria and/or exceed existing resource capabilities will be referred to Council for consideration.
13 Evaluation of Events and reporting to Council
Due to time constraints at the Councillor Workshop on 10 August 2011, the draft evaluation criteria was not discussed, however the information below was distributed in the Councillor Information pack on 18 August 2011.
a. Council will continue to collect simple measures such as crowd counts
b. Audience surveys also provide valuable insight into visitor experiences of our events
c. The proposed outcome measures below will assist in providing Council with a more sophisticated analysis of the impact Major Events have on the City and its people;
i. Economic
· Direct audience attendance, visitation
· ‘Economic Value-Add’ post-event survey (including expenditure and bed night data)
· Pre and Post Event Trend Data flowing from Parramatta as an economic/employment destination questions in the ‘Parramatta Baseline Perceptions’ survey
ii. Social and Community
· Community engagement and participation
· Improved wellbeing measures
· Amount of community generated social media
· Pre and Post Event Social Trend Data flowing from Community Engagement questions in the ‘Parramatta Baseline Perceptions’ survey
· Comparison with longitudinal results for Council’s Events-related ‘Community Impact Surveys’
iii. Strategic Marketing
· Media monitors
· Increased awareness – recognition of Parramatta as a leisure destination, increased media focus
· Pre and Post Event Perception Data flowing from perception (parking, safety, amenity, friendliness, channel, destination awareness) questions in the ‘Parramatta Baseline Perceptions’ survey
d. It is proposed that these outcome measures be tested in selected events over the spring/summer season and that a report containing the results be presented to Council as part of the quarterly review and reporting process.
CONSULTATION
14. Major Events staff conduct a review post each event and this includes the analysis of visitor surveys, event planning, and consultation with internal and external stakeholders. Information gathered through these reviews is then considered in the planning for the next year’s event.
15. A Councillor workshop to discuss Major Events was held on Wednesday 10 August 2011. The workshop was chaired by the Lord Mayor Councillor John Chedid, and was attended by nine Councillors plus Council staff. Suggestions and ideas raised at the workshop have been incorporated into the recommendations of this report.
16. In regards to New Years Eve, post event consultation revealed a high level of satisfaction with the event at its new venue on the river foreshores. However, there are known risks for ingress and egress from the site, and in recent discussions with the Parramatta Local Area Command it was made clear that significant increased investment was required to address risk management requirements for this year’s event.
17. In regards to Australia Day a significant amount of consultation has occurred following this year’s event. This has included:
a. A cross-functional team review with representatives from City Strategy, City Culture Tourism & Recreation, Civic Events, Communications & Marketing and City Services
b. Focus Groups – a representative sample of 24 people selected from the Residents Panel participated in two facilitated focus groups
c. A Councillor workshop on 10th August 2011.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND TIMING
18. Should Councillors decide not to continue with the Christmas lights competition, the $7,000 currently allocated as a project within Council’s Delivery Plan will not be required.
19. There are substantial pressures, however, on the budgets for other events such as New Year’s Eve and Australia Day celebrations.
20. In particular, the current budget allocation for NYE is based on the expenditure on the 2009 event at Prince Alfred Park. In 2010, the event was relocated to the river foreshore and incurred expenditure of $167,000, with a budget adjustment made at the March 2011 quarterly review. With additional risk management requirement, it is estimated that a similar event would require a further $33,000 for 2011, with a total budget of $200,000. A much smaller event will be held unless additional resources are again allocated to the NYE event.
21. Similarly, the proposed improvements to Australia Day celebrations have cost implications that will need to be carefully managed. Reductions will need to be made in the allocation to other Major Events such as Winterlights if the Australia Day activities proceed without additional sponsorship or budget adjustment as these requirements cannot be met from within the existing Australia Day budget.
22. Due to the lead times for procurement – including bookings of acts and events infrastructure - it is important that the total budget for both events is clarified as soon as possible and the total Major Events budget will be considered in deliberations for the September quarterly review.
23. The inclusion of an increased event budgets in ongoing operational budgets will also be requested through Council’s Delivery Plan and Management process for 2012/13.
24. All major events delivered by Council require a planning and delivery cycle that crosses financial years and in a number of cases have a planning and delivery cycle that is longer than 12-months. It is critical that the budget for major events is confirmed well in advance to enable planning and ordering to occur with confidence and delivery on time and to specification.
Kevin Brennan
Service Manager Major Events
1View |
Major Events Calendar 2011-2012 |
2 Pages |
|
2View |
Councillor Workshop Memo - Major Events |
2 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 9.13
SUBJECT Sydney Festival 2012
REFERENCE F2011/02296 - D02094152
REPORT OF Manager City Culture, Tourism and Recreation
PURPOSE:
To seek Councils support to enter into negotiations with Sydney Festival to develop an enhanced Sydney Festival engagement for Parramatta.
|
(a) That Council receive and note the information contained within this report;
(b) That Council endorse the draft Memorandum of Understanding between Sydney Festival and the Council for the purpose of delivering an enhanced Sydney Festival engagement for Parramatta;
(c) That Council give in-principle commitment to the direct cash investment by Council in the Festival as detailed in the body of this report; and
(d) Further, that Council delegates to the Chief Executive Officer authority to negotiate and enter into (on behalf of the Council) a binding sponsorship in terms of the MOU between Sydney Festival and the Council.
|
BACKGROUND
1. Council has sponsored the delivery of Sydney Festival events in Parramatta for a number of years. The direct sponsorship provided has been $150,000 annually. This has been supported on occasion by complimentary programming through various Council programs including Riverside Theatre Productions, the Major Events program and Arts and Cultural projects and programs. A small proportion of the direct sponsorship returns to Council through revenue from events at the Riverside Theatres.
2. The annual investment by Sydney Festival in Parramatta-based activities has grown to approximately $375,000 in the past couple of years (in addition to the $150,000 provided through Council sponsorship).
3. On 8th June 2011, the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer accompanied the Sydney Festival Executive to meet with the Premier of NSW, the Hon Barry O’Farrell, MP, to discuss opportunities for the Sydney Festival in Parramatta. The confidential discussions articulated support from 3 parties – Sydney Festival, the NSW State Government and Parramatta Council.
4. On 13th July 2011, Premier O’Farrell, announced a funding boost to Sydney Festival, dedicating an additional $500,000 to the Festival in Parramatta, conditional upon an increase in the investment by Sydney Festival to $500,000 and an increased investment by Parramatta City Council.
REPORT
5. The Sydney Festival proposal for 2012 seeks to expand the Parramatta program to a 10-day event within the broader Festival. It would commence with a large-scale free public event on opening weekend and would close with the popular Festival Inside Out performance in Parramatta Park. The week between would be activated with a denser program of events focussed on the Riverside Theatres and the adjacent river foreshore, Prince Alfred Park and Church Street precincts.
6. Significant research and thought has gone into forming a high quality program for Parramatta that considers the key markets for the City. The Parramatta program is proposed to be launched on Monday 31 October, two days before the broader Sydney Festival program launch.
7. The increased investment in the Parramatta program will ensure a dense, high quality program, and a greatly enhanced Parramatta-specific marketing campaign that will not just promote the Festival, but strategically market the City.
8. It is proposed that the program for 2012 will be funded by increased commitments from the 3 parties: a new investment of $500,000 from the State Government, additional funding by Sydney Festival, bringing their investment to $500,000 and an additional investment by Council, increasing the cash sponsorship from $150,000 to $500,000.
9. It was initially proposed that the additional investment by Council would be an increase in the existing cash sponsorship from $150,000 to $250,000 and a further in-kind commitment valued up to $250,000 to present the large-scale free public event on the opening weekend. Given the short lead-time available and Council’s existing commitment to Major Events over summer, it is not feasible for Council to resource the production and presentation of another large-scale free public event on the opening weekend. It is therefore proposed to increase the cash sponsorship to a total of $500,000 as Council’s capped contribution to the agreement.
10. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Sydney Festival and the Council has been drafted (Attachment 1). The draft document outlines the strategic objectives of the Festival in Parramatta, the relationship between the two organisations and forms the basis for the development of a legally binding sponsorship agreement. Council endorsement of the MOU is sought as well as the delegation of authority to the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and enter into a binding sponsorship in terms of the MOU between Sydney Festival and the Council.
11. The opportunities presented by Sydney Festival align with Council’s strategic objectives for Major Events and the potential outcomes are greatly enhanced by the increased funding pledges. The proposed increased funding contribution by Council leverages 3 times the investment in the direct production and marketing on an enhanced festival in Parramatta. More significantly though, it has the potential to greatly enhance the secondary and tertiary economic outcomes and strategic marketing opportunities presented.
12. Since the Sydney Festival announcement, Council has been approached by two peak organisations that are based in Parramatta – Information and Cultural Exchange (ICE) and Western Sydney Dance Action, (recently renamed as FORM Dance) - seeking partnerships to deliver locally developed and produced program content as part of the Festival in Parramatta in 2012. Details of these two proposals are included as Attachments 2 and 3. These proposals will be further developed along with other complementary programming opportunities involving Riverside Theatres and Council’s other cultural programs and, where appropriate, referred to Sydney Festival for consideration.
13. To ensure that the opportunities that Sydney Festival presents for the Council and the City are fully explored and Council’s responsibilities are delivered using a “whole of Council approach”, a cross-functional team will be formalised.
CONSULTATION
14. The confidential nature of the initial discussions prevented broader communication of this opportunity. Details were provided to Councillors in a memorandum from the Chief Executive Officer dated 20 July 2010.
15. The matter was also discussed at the Councillor Workshop on Major Events held on Wednesday 10 August 2011.
16. A number of discussions have been held between Council Officers and the Sydney Festival Executive regarding the enhanced relationship, development of the MOU and also with Marketing, Programming and Production staff from Sydney Festival. Preliminary discussions regarding complementary Festival activities have also been held with local stakeholders such as ICE and FORM Dance.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
17. The current Sydney Festival sponsorship of $150,000 is funded through Parking Meter revenue. It is proposed that the additional expenditure of $350,000 outlined in this report will be funded from the same source.
18. A formal request for the financial investment by Council in the Festival will be submitted to Council as part of the September 2011 quarterly budget review process. If Council resolves to support the Sydney Festival proposal without increasing funding for Major Events, significant programming changes would be required in 2012 such as the discontinuation of Council’s Lunar New Year and Winterlight events.
1View |
DRAFT MOU between Sydney Festival and Council |
12 Pages |
|
2View |
Proposal from ICE |
2 Pages |
|
3View |
Proposal from WSDA |
3 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 9.14
SUBJECT Heritage Advisory Committee for August 2011
REFERENCE F2005/01945 - D02097600
REPORT OF Project Officer- Land Use Planning
PURPOSE:
To inform Council of the key discussion points of the meeting of the Heritage Advisory Committee on 17 August 2011.
|
That the minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting of 17 August 2011 be received and noted.
|
BACKGROUND
1. Council’s Heritage Advisory Committee meets every two months and comprises 11 members.
2. Council’s Heritage Advisory Committee met on 17 August 2011. This report provides a summary of the key discussion points of that meeting for Council’s information and consideration. The minutes of the meeting are contained in Attachment 1.
ISSUES
3. The main issues considered at the meeting are outlined below.
(a) Council officers and representatives of Hill Thalis made a presentation (item 37 /11) on a proposal to provide portals at either end of Lennox Bridge, Church Street in order to improve pedestrian and cycle access along the foreshore. Members provided feedback which will be considered by the project team. The proposal, which has been the subject of a Councillors’ workshop and memo to Councillors, is planned to be the subject of a separate report to a future Council meeting.
(b) The Committee, in response to a request for its views from Mr Neville Davis, Council's Manager Open Space and Natural Resources (item 38/11), noted that it had no objection to the replacement of the existing heritage listed Croquet Pavilion at 43A and 47 Kent Street (Duncan Park), Epping by a building in the same location and of similar shape and materials.
(c) The Committee (item 42/11) considered a list of items of State significance in Council's environmental planning instruments, that are not on the State Heritage register, and concluded that efforts should be made to place the following properties on the Register: 47 Hassall Street, Parramatta (Hambledon Cottage), 198 George Street, Parramatta (Queen's wharf reserve and stone wall), 43 - 47 George Street, Parramatta, and Parramatta Dam archaeological site weir, Marsden Street, Parramatta. It was also suggested that 30 - 32 Cowper Street and 50 - 54 George Street, Parramatta should be investigated for nomination. The comments of the Committee will be considered further as part of Council's comprehensive heritage review.
(d) The Committee on being advised (item 42/11) that 40 Brodie Street, Rydalmere had been redeveloped as an industrial park recommended that the heritage listing of the property should be removed subject to it remaining in Parramatta Historical Archaeological Landscape Management Unit 2994 (PHALMS). The comment of the Committee will be considered as part of the comprehensive heritage review.
(e) The Committee recommended (item 44/11) that $2,650 be granted from Council's Local Heritage Fund for All Saints Anglican Church, 21 Elizabeth Street, Parramatta.
4. There are no requests for additional expenditure arising from this meeting.
Paul Kennedy Jennifer Concato
Project Officer Acting Manager
Land Use Planning
1View |
Heritage Advisory Committee Minutes for 17 August 2011 |
6 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 9.15
SUBJECT Supporting the Parramatta Chamber of Commerce Centenary (100% Parramatta)
REFERENCE F2006/00306 - D02097745
REPORT OF Business and Development Manager. Economic Development
PURPOSE:
To inform Councillors of a request from the Parramatta Chamber of Commerce for $20,000 funding of activities associated with the Chamber’s Centenary and to secure a decision from Council on whether to grant this funding.
|
That Council approve a $20,000 contribution to support the proposal from the Parramatta Chamber of Commerce attached.
|
BACKGROUND
1. The Parramatta Chamber of Commerce has been operating in
Parramatta for 100 years. Its official Centenary date is 2 November 2011.
2. It has ambitious plans to celebrate this milestone including a
re-brand, membership drive and several events and public celebrations
throughout 2012. The Chamber believes it will garner significant media coverage
and interest from local and regional businesses and community groups.
3. It has raised monetary and in-kind support from partners.
4. Council has been a supporter of the Chamber throughout its 100
year history.
5. The Chamber plays an important role in the business community
and increasingly an important role in the regional economy as evidenced by its
recent expansion of the Business Excellence Awards and the launching and
expansion of the Western Sydney Business Access publication.
6. Plans to reinvigorate the Chamber brand, expand membership and build reach within the Western Sydney business community are seen as valuable activities contained within this proposal.
7. Chamber’s support of small business, local and regional networking and advocacy support across a range of issues is seen to align with some of the central principles of the draft Economic Development Strategy.
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
8. The economic development levy currently funds the following
Chamber initiatives on an annual basis: $20,000 towards business awards,
$20,000 towards the Western Sydney Business Access publication (part owned by
Chamber) and approximately $5-10,000 towards the State of the City event.
9. This request has not been put through the Partnerships Fund
Process as the impending anniversary is 2 November; hence a decision is
required this year.
Solaire Eggert
Economic Development Manager
Funding proposal outlining campaign objectives and deliverables |
8 Pages |
|
|
Concept design showing proposed branding and promotional agenda |
33 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 9.16
SUBJECT Big Ideas for Parramatta and the Region
REFERENCE F2011/01154 - D02097803
REPORT OF Manager.City Strategy Unit
PURPOSE:
To present to Council a collection of bold ideas for the future of Parramatta, as success factors required to position the city as the driving force and heart of Australia’s most significant economic region. It also sets out Parramatta as a model for the future polycentric growth of Greater Metropolitan Sydney and a world class city. In principle support of Councillors is sought for further work on realizing these ideas.
|
(a) That the report be received and noted.
(b) That the ideas continue to be developed and discussed with key stakeholders to seek potential partners and funding opportunities for individual projects that underpin the concepts and
(c) Further that these ideas are reported to Council annually or at key decision making points.
|
BACKGROUND
1. Parramatta has an important role as a driving force of Australia’s most significant economic region. To connect the Greater West to the rest of the metropolitan area, Parramatta is an essential key. To ensure future growth of the region and the state, Parramatta must be a centre of excellence and a vital central city, linked to the people, jobs, and diverse communities of the region. The big ideas identify some of the priority structural challenges and opportunities to realise this long term future and make core elements of the current Metropolitan Plan a reality. These are also ideas that can only succeed in partnership with other spheres of government and the private sector.
2. A Councillor workshop was held on 7 September 2011 to discuss these ideas, including an updated concept for the revitalisation of the River Foreshore, the transformation of Rydalmere and Westmead and the repositioning of Parramatta’s CBD as a smart, 21st Century City (see attachment 1).
3. Many of the basics of these ideas are not new - some are clearly reworking previous initiatives, and some are simply concepts at this point. Others elements, like Rydalmere, have been through a scoping and analysis process and Councillors would be familiar with the extent and objectives of the plan for that precinct. To achieve these ideas, effective research, scoping, advocacy and consistent effort will be required over a long period of time. They will not be achieved through a passive approach or without further work. The main purpose of this report is to gain endorsement at a conceptual level before expending further resources on staff investigating, scoping and presenting options to Councillors.
4. Each idea is self supporting, but related, and there are significant connections between them. Momentum on one idea would give support and improve the effectiveness of other precincts and the proposed system improvements (three of the proposed ‘ideas” are underpinning systems of public transport, a ring road and open space and recreation network) would drive the underlying efficiency of all of them.
5. Sitting underneath each idea is a suggested draft program which is a combination and amalgamation of projects and potential future works. Council will not be able to deliver these major projects. In many cases it has already undertaken some projects that have started the process and will support the eventual outcome, and would look to continue this in the future. To properly achieve the potential of these ideas, significant State, Federal and private investment and support will be required. Other Cities have been successful in attracting this scale of funding for major projects including Perth’s CBD renewal, Townsville’s waterfront redevelopment and redevelopment in Cairns.
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
6. Collectively these ideas are potential levers to keep Parramatta moving towards an ongoing role in connecting the region and growing the economy of the metropolitan area. They are not meant to represent all of the issues facing Council, nor are they a definitive list of the future projects. They are simply large challenges and opportunities that are suggested at this point as long term, regional priorities. While at this stage they have an explicit economic and infrastructure focus, (identified within the Economic Development Strategy - also presented to Council at this meeting) they will also require excellent social and environmental understanding, planning and coordinated action to make them a sustainable long term reality.
CONSULTATION AND TIMING
7. It is anticipated that these ideas will continue to be developed and individual projects will continue to come to Council at key decision points. For example, proposals for Westmead will be discussed at a workshop and subsequently reported to Council for a decision on how to proceed in the near future.
8. In the interim, it is proposed that these ideas will continue to be investigated and assessed by staff, including the preparation of visual and editorial materials to prompt awareness and discussion.
9. Council also needs to prepare to update the Community Strategic Plan - Parramatta Twenty25. This work will be useful as Parramatta Twenty36 is developed with Councillors, stakeholders and the community over the next 18 months.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
8. The potential cost implications are significant but these projects could not, nor should be funded by Council. The intent is to seek interest from potential partners (State, Federal Government and the private sector) to work with Council on a project by project basis. Any budget variations or significant proposals would be reported to Council at quarterly review for a decision before proceeding.
9. Some components for achieving these objectives are short term. All of these, for example proposed works to activate the River Foreshore, will be included in the annual budget and quarterly adjustment cycles as required.
Geoff King
Manager City Strategy
1View |
Parramatta - a Sustainable Solution for Sydney's Growth |
3 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
None.
ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 9.17
SUBJECT Riverside Advisory Board
REFERENCE F2007/00388 - D02097650
REPORT OF Director Riverside Theatre
PURPOSE:
The Riverside Advisory Board makes recommendations to Council in setting the strategic direction for the successful operation of Riverside Theatres. This report seeks Council’s adoption of revised Terms of Reference for the Riverside Theatres Advisory Board. It also seeks the extension of the term of the fourth Advisory Board to 31 December, 2011 and informs Council of the proposed recruitment of the fifth Advisory Board.
|
(a) That Council adopt the revised Terms of Reference for the Riverside Theatres Advisory Board.
(b) That the current terms of the community (general) members of the fourth Riverside Theatres Advisory Board be extended to 31 December, 2011.
(c) That the three current Riverside Advisory Board vacancies remain unfilled.
(d) Further, that Council receives and notes the timetable for the recruitment and appointment of the fifth Riverside Advisory Board.
|
BACKGROUND
1. In 2001, Council resolved to appoint a s.355
Advisory Board to Riverside Theatres that would meet regularly to review the
Theatres performance and provide advice to Council on strategic directions.
2. The fourth Board was appointed in August
2009. Board Members included Councillors Scott Lloyd, Michael McDermott and Andrew Wilson, Ms Sue Coleman (representing the CEO) as well as a number
of community (general) representatives.
3. The community (general) representatives appointed
in August 2009 for a two year term included:
i. Mr Justin Ankus (Music & Arts Experience) - 2nd term
ii. Mr John Cox (Community) - 2nd term
iii. Mr Owen Eckford (Management, Financial, Legal & Marketing) - 1st term
iv. Mr David Low (Management, Financial, Legal & Marketing) - 2nd term
v. Ms Julianne May (Community) - 2nd term
vi. Mr Peter Stewart (Management, Financial, Legal & Marketing) –
extended 4th term
vii. Ms Jane Witter (Community) - 2nd term
viii. Mr Jeremy Wright (Arts Experience, Management, Financial, Legal &
Marketing)
- 3rd term
4. Mr Peter Stewart, Mr David Low and Mr John Cox have
since resigned from the Advisory Board. As a fifth Advisory Board is now due
for appointment, the Board considers the current vacancies should remain vacant
until the conclusion of the term of the fourth Advisory Board.
5. There are two remaining scheduled Advisory Board meetings in 2011 (October and December). The Advisory Board considers there is merit in the fourth Advisory Board continuing to the end of 2011 to conclude the calendar year and to allow for a fifth Advisory Board to commence from the beginning of 2012.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
6. The original Terms of Reference Council adopted for the Advisory Board generally remain relevant. Minor changes are proposed to reflect changes over the last decade such as the number of Councillors and community representatives and to align with the Core Terms of Reference for Advisory Committees which Council adopted in June 2009.
Original Terms of Reference (2001)
Roles, Functions and Duties
7. The Riverside Theatres Advisory Board is s.355
Committee of Parramatta City Council under the Local Government Act 1993. Under
s.355 a function of Council may be exercised by a Committee. Powers and
authorities can then be delegated to the Committee under s.377 of the Act to
carry out powers and duties of the Council.
8. The Committee consists of a small strategic “Board” that makes recommendations to Council in setting the strategic direction for the successful operation of Riverside Theatres.
9. The Board provides Riverside Theatres’ management and Council with advice on:
i. the raising of external funds from state and federal governments and the private sector;
ii. the Theatres’ business plans, annual budgets, revenue and expenditure programs; and
iii. the Theatres’
annual program of activities including community and professional usage.
10. The Board reports to Council informally through the Director of Riverside Theatres and the Committee’s Chair and formally through the Services Committee.
Membership
11. Membership of the Advisory Board shall include:
i. Two (2) Parramatta City Councillors (increased by Council to three (3) on 7 October, 2008)
ii. General Manager, Parramatta City Council or nominee
iii. Two (2) members with theatre and arts expertise
iv. Three (3) members with management, financial, legal & marketing expertise
v. One (1) community
representative (Increased by Council to two (2) on 8 October 2001 and to
three (3) on 3 May 2004)
Expressions of interest for general membership of
the Board are sought through public advertisement.
12. Membership
of the Advisory Board is for a period of two years. Members may be appointed
for up to three consecutive terms.
13. The Chair is elected by the Board and shall not be a Councillor or Council staff member. The Chair is elected for a two-year term.
14. The Theatre’s Director is the Board’s Executive Officer.
REVISED TERMS OF REFERENCE
Primary Purpose
15. The Committee consists of a small strategic “Board”
i. that makes recommendations to Council in setting the strategic direction for the successful operation of Riverside Theatres;
ii. that provides Council with strategic advice on desirable future outcomes for Riverside Theatres;
iii. that acts as a sounding board for Riverside Theatres’ staff on operational, programming and marketing matters; and
iv. that advocates for Riverside Theatres as the primary performing arts centre in western Sydney.
Roles and Responsibilities
16. The Board provides Riverside Theatres’ management and Council with advice on:
i. engagement of the community in the activities of the Theatres;
ii. the Theatres’ strategic and business plans;
iii. the raising of external funds from state and federal governments and the private sector;
iv. the potential development of Riverside Theatres and the surrounding precinct to maximise opportunities for the performing arts and associated activities;
v. the Theatres’ annual program of activities including community and professional usage.
Membership
17. Membership of the Advisory Board shall include:
i. Three (3) Parramatta City Councillors
ii. Chief Executive Officer of Parramatta City Council or nominee
iii. Two (2) members with performing or general arts expertise
iv. Three (3) members with management, financial, legal or marketing expertise
v. Three (3) community representatives
Expressions of interest for community (general) membership of the Board are sought through public advertisement.
18. Community (general) membership of the Advisory Board shall be for a period of two years. Members may be appointed for up to three consecutive terms.
19. Councillor membership of the Board shall be for the period of each elected Council.
20. The Chair is elected by the Board and shall not be a Councillor or Council staff member. The Chair is elected for a two-year term.
21. The Theatre’s Director is the Board’s Executive Officer.
Frequency of Meetings
22. The Advisory Board shall meet bi-monthly or at other times as the committee determines.
CONSULTATION AND TIMING
23. The formation of the fifth Riverside Advisory Board and potential changes to the Boards terms of reference were discussed at its most recent meeting and at a subsequent sub-committee meeting held for that purpose on 22nd August 2011.
24. The proposed timetable for the recruitment and appointment of the members of the fifth Riverside Advisory Board is as follows:
i. Public advertisement for expressions of interest - week commencing 2 October, 2011
ii. Expressions of interest close - week commencing 16 October, 2011
iii. Interviews of short-listed expressions of interest - week commencing 30 October, 2011
iv. Recommendations to Council for appointment of fifth Advisory Board - December, 2011 Council Meeting
v. First meeting of the fifth Advisory Board - February, 2012
FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL
25. There are no financial implications for Council.
Robert Love
Director, Riverside Theatre
There are no attachments for this report.
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Council 26 September 2011
Environment and Infrastructure
26 September 2011
10.1 Parramatta Stadium Draft Master Plan
10.2 North West Rail Link Submission
10.3 Parramatta City Centre Car Parking Strategy
10.4 Parramatta Cycleway Advisory Committee
10.5 East Coast High Speed Rail Study
ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE
ITEM NUMBER 10.1
SUBJECT Parramatta Stadium Draft Master Plan
REFERENCE F2011/00061 - D02091641
REPORT OF Manager City Culture, Tourism and Recreation
PURPOSE:
To seek the in-principle support of Council for the Draft Master Plan for Parramatta Stadium that has been developed by the Parramatta Stadium Trust.
|
(a) That, Council give its in-principle support to the Draft Master Plan for Parramatta Stadium that has been developed by the Parramatta Stadium Trust;
(b) That, Council encourages the Parramatta Stadium Trust and State Government to consider a broader range of complementary activities at the Stadium;
(c) That, the in-principle support be offered with the recognition of the Trust’s commitment to formally consulted with Council on all issues that relate to Council’s interest in the development and potential impacts on Council assets, services and strategies as the Pgrlan is further developed; and
(d) Further that, Councils in-principle support be communicated to the Parramatta Stadium Trust.
|
BACKGROUND
1. Parramatta Stadium was formally opened in 1986 and in 2011, will celebrate its 25th anniversary. Over the years, the Stadium has played host to a variety of sporting and entertainment events and while the current infrastructure remains in good repair, no further major capital investment since 1986 has seen the facility fall behind the market in the level and quality of amenity it offers. This has diminished the Stadium’s ability to attract and retain tenants and on-going activity, outside of being the home ground of the Parramatta Eels.
2. Parramatta Stadium plays a high profile role in the City. In many cases, people’s experience with visiting Parramatta Stadium or seeing it on television is their only engagement with the City. In this situation, people’s perception of the Stadium builds their perception of Parramatta. The Stadium also provides critical infrastructure required for leisure and recreation opportunities for the City and its residents.
3. Investment in the infrastructure of Parramatta Stadium and the outcomes this will produce are complimentary to the strategic objectives outlined in the recently adopted Visitor Strategy for Parramatta.
4. Hassall Architects have been engaged by Parramatta Stadium Trust to assist with the development of a Draft Master Plan for Parramatta Stadium.
5. A memo was circulated to Councillors on 27 July 2011, including a summary of the information available to date and an invitation to Councillors to meet with Luke Coleman, General Manager of the Parramatta Stadium. An attachment containing an executive summary provided by Mr Coleman in relation to the Draft Master Plan was included along with some early concept drawings. The executive summary is included as Attachment 1.
6. On Monday 29 August, Mr Coleman and Glenn Scott from Hassall Architects presented the Draft Master Plan at a Councillors workshop.
7. Feedback from Councillors indicated that there was broad in-principle support for the Draft Master Plan, however, further information, consideration and input was required. It was recognised that the Draft Master Plan is a starting point and Council would be included in future conversations related to Council’s interest in the development and potential impacts on Council assets, services and strategies as the Plan is developed and implemented.\
8. Councillors supported encouraging the Parramatta Stadium Trust and State Government to consider a broader range of complementary activities at the Stadium including non-sporting activities such as conferences and concerts.
9. Other items for further consultation include:
a. Impact on and opportunities for Parramatta Memorial Swimming Pool
b. Pedestrian circulation around the site and through the City
c. Opportunities for complimentary development/investment
d. Traffic and transport considerations
e. Provision of paid parking facilities, for the activities hosted at the Stadium and also as part of the broader city strategy
f. Conference and function facilities
g. Connection to the City and Parramatta Park.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL
10. There are no financial implications to Council for the provision of in-principle support to the Draft Master Plan for Parramatta Stadium.
Rebecca Grasso
Manager Community Culture Tourism and Recreation
1View |
Executive Summary from Luke Coleman General Manager Parramatta Stadium |
2 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE
ITEM NUMBER 10.2
SUBJECT North West Rail Link Submission
REFERENCE F2006/00716 - D02094725
REPORT OF Senior Project Officer - Transport Planning
PURPOSE:
For Council to adopt a submission to State Government on the North West Rail Link Project Overview.
|
(a) That Council adopts the submission (Attachment 1) to State Government on the North West Rail Link Project Overview.
(b) That Council continues to lobby for the Parramatta Epping Rail Link to support the growth of the city.
(c) Further, that officers continue to update Council on the development of railway projects impacting on Parramatta as required.
|
BACKGROUND
1. This Report is in response to State Government’s public exhibition of the North West Rail Link Project Overview (July 2011) which provides a broad outline of the proposed project.
2. This report and submission is concerned with the State Government’s proposed NWRL via Epping.
3. State Government will announce further details of the NWRL (Rouse Hill to Epping) later in 2011. It is estimated to cost $7bn and predicted to take 5 to 7 years to construct once planning approval is gained (estimated as 2013) and therefore open between 2018 and 2020.
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
4. The public exhibition of the NWRL Project Overview Document provides Council with an opportunity to comment on the NWRL (via Epping). A draft submission (Attachment 1) to State Government has been prepared. Most of the comments relate to the strategic context and operation of the proposed NWRL.
5. While the majority of the NWRL lies outside of the LGA, the impact from it will affect Parramatta in the long term. There is significant further work required before the project proceeds to construction. It is unclear as to the extent of what investigative work is already underway as there is little information in the public domain.
6. There is a clear need to:
(i) Identify and quantify the need for the NWRL based on existing and future travel demand from the North West to metropolitan Sydney and hence preferred alignment and patronage.
(ii) Quantify the cost-benefit of the scheme including the economic impact and productivity gains.
(iii) Impact on the CityRail network in particular North Shore services and the need (cost and timing) for rail line capacity improvements between Chatswood and Central.
(iv) Impact on the surrounding residential areas from increased bus and car traffic to the NWRL stations.
(v) Need to amend planning controls around NWRL stations to allow increased densities with a reduction in parking rates to support rail patronage.
7. The direct impact on the LGA is limited to Epping where the NWRL will join the CityRail network. It is highly likely that there will be an increase in the demand for commuter parking on the residential streets in Epping as a result of increased services from Epping to the North Shore and Sydney CBD.
8. The State Government has confirmed that the Parramatta Epping Rail Link (PERL) is third on its rail priority list after the NWRL and SWRL. State Government has no position on the Second Harbour Crossing which is critical in delivering the full benefits of the NWRL. It is highly likely that the Second Harbour Crossing will be prioritised before PERL meaning that it may well not be delivered for an estimated 20 years.
9. The continued deferment of PERL is likely to slow economic growth in Parramatta and Western Sydney over the next decade and lead to increased bus and car congestion, which is limited by the capacity of the road network. There is a need for significant investment in public transport infrastructure to achieve the planned growth of 20,000 residents and 30,000 jobs by 2036.
10. It is significant to note that the $520,000 for the State Government contribution towards PERL has been removed from the State budget forward estimates. In addition, PERL is not mentioned in NSW 2021, the State Government’s 10 year plan State Plan. This puts the project at risk of considerable delay.
CONSULTATION & TIMING
11. A Councillor Memo dated 27 July 2011 was issued with a summary of the NWRL Project Overview. The closing date for submissions has only recently been announced as 16 September 2011. An extension to 27 September 2011 has been negotiated and agreed with the NWRL project team to allow Council to make a submission.
David Gray
Manager, Transport Planning
1View |
Parramatta City Council's Submission |
5 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
North West Rail Link Project Overview (July 2011)
ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE
ITEM NUMBER 10.3
SUBJECT Parramatta City Centre Car Parking Strategy
REFERENCE F2011/02758 - D02095600
REPORT OF Senior Project Officer - Transport Planning
PURPOSE:
For Council to adopt the Parramatta City Centre Car Parking Strategy as a reference document and allocate the necessary budgets to start the implement of the recommendations in 2011/12.
|
(a) That Council adopts the Parramatta City Centre Car Parking Strategy (Attachment 1) as a reference document.
(b) Further, that Council allocates $100,000 (Development Contributions Plan) funding in 2011/12 to begin implementing the recommendations of the Strategy (Attachment 2).
|
BACKGROUND
1. This Report is in response to a Council resolution (12247) on 28 March 2011 that “a report be prepared in relation to the management of Council’s car parks for consideration at the Council Meeting to be held in June 2011”.
2. Council adopted the Integrated Transport Plan for Parramatta City Centre in 2010 which recommended that selected city centre car parks be closed and relocated in the city edge.
3. The Car Parking Strategy has been prepared with the objective of better utilising and managing the existing car parking facilities within Parramatta city centre and relocating all day parking from the city centre core to the edge of city centre. This will allow the city centre to grow with limited impact from traffic congestion due to parking.
4. There are an estimated 26,967 parking spaces in the city centre of which 1,363 are on-street (parking meters), 10,273 are public off-street (of which Council controls 3,797) and 15,331 private off-street. There are an estimated average 2,049 vacant spaces in the public off-street car parks at their peak period.
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
5. The Car Parking Strategy (Attachment 1) has reviewed the existing car parking operations. It finds that the on-street parking meters on the whole work well with a few minor adjustments recommended to improve the supply of short stay spaces. The key finding for on-street parking is that a Parking Meter Renewal Plan is required to plan the replacement of the parking meters.
6. The existing parking meters, especially those in the city centre core are approaching the end of their economic life. There is an opportunity to replace them with the latest technology to make them more user-friendly including bigger screens, increased range of payment options and parking space availability information including as a mobile device “App”. Increases in operational efficiency are also expected to be achieved as a result of replacing the parking meters.
7. The attractiveness of Council’s off-street parking, in particular the multistorey car parks needs improving to increase their utilisation with an estimated vacancy of 900 spaces. The recommendations are to improve the car park signs, vehicle and pedestrian access, pedestrian and visual amenity as well as allocating the most convenient spaces (on the lower decks) to short stay visitors. There are also recommended changes to the off-street parking fees through a harmonisation of the fees.
8. There is evidence of significant vacancies in private car parks (office) and it is recommended that the planning controls are reviewed with a view to permitting their use by the public to increase the supply of short stay spaces available.
9. Council’s multistorey car parks contribute to the generation of traffic congestion at peak times in the city centre core. They also occupy prime development that could contribute to the future growth of the city. All day commuter parking needs to be relocated from the city centre core to the fringe. It is recommended that a “Council Car Park Redevelopment Plan” be prepared to detail how Council can close several city centre car parks and construct new multistorey car parks at Macquarie Street and Fennell Street.
10. A detailed list of the recommendation is provided in the Parramatta City Centre Car Parking Strategy (Attachment 1). A summary of these recommendations including the cost and timing is provided in Attachment 2.
11. The financial implications in 2011/12 of the strategy are $100,000 (Development Contributions Plan) for:
· Design of car park signs
· Outline design of pedestrian and vehicle access improvements (laneways around Wentworth Street and Erby Place car parks).
· Design of pedestrian (internal) and visual (external) amenity improvements (Wentworth Street, Erby Place and Hunter Street car parks).
12. The financial implication for 2012/13 onwards is dependent on the designs prepared in 2011/12 but is estimated to be $1.5m.
13. The Parking Meter Renewal Plan and Council Car Park Redevelopment Plan will be prepared by Council. The recommendations of both plans will identify the financial implications.
CONSULTATION & TIMING
14. The Integrated Transport Plan was publically exhibited during 2010. This plan includes the recommendation to close selected city centre car parks and relocate commuter car park to the city edge.
15. A summary of Councillor consultation is as follows:
a. A draft copy of the Parking Strategy was provided to Councillors (Memo 1 September 2011).
b. A Councillor Workshop was held on 24 August 2011 and included the draft Car Parking Strategy.
c. A draft copy of the executive summary of the Car Parking Strategy was provided to Councillors (Memo 19 August 2011).
d. Councillors were provided with an update on the development of the Car Parking Strategy (Memo 9 June 2011).
David Gray
Manager, Transport Planning
1View |
Parramatta Parking Strategy September 2011 |
53 Pages |
|
2View |
Summary recommendations of the City Centre Parking Strategy including timing and cost |
1 Page |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Integrated Transport Plan for Parramatta City Centre 2009/10 – 2014/15
ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE
ITEM NUMBER 10.4
SUBJECT Parramatta Cycleway Advisory Committee
REFERENCE F2004/07952 - D02096183
REPORT OF Project Officer
PURPOSE:
To inform Council of the Minutes of the Parramatta Cycleway Advisory Committee meetings held on the 7 June and 2 August 2011.
|
That Council receives and notes the minutes of the Parramatta Cycleway Advisory Committee meetings held on the 7 June and 2 August 2011. |
BACKGROUND
1. Parramatta City Council’s Cycleway Committee meets every second month. The Committee currently comprises twelve members representing various cycling interests.
2. The Committee met on the held on the 7 June and 2 August 2011. See Attachment 1 for a copy of the minutes.
MAIN DISCUSSION POINTS
3. The Committee Members were given a briefing on the status of the cycle projects being delivered under the 20010/11 capital works program. This includes the 4 federally funded projects.
4. The following committee members were appointed to the positions outlined below -
(ii) Richard Birdsey was appointed to the position of Advocacy Officer. This position will focus on internal advocacy and understanding Council’s priorities and how the committee can work within that context as well as state and federal agencies and reporting back as to what the committee can do.
(ii) John Holstein was appointed to the position of Events Officer – Ride to Work and Ian Macindoe to the position of Event Officer – 350.org. These position will assist in the organisation, running and promoting events both within Council and with the general community.
(ii) Publicity Officer – Katherine Stone. This position will identifying opportunities within Council to promote cycling as well as on publicity regarding what facilities are available and general cycling promotions.
5. Warren Salomon of Sustainable Transport Consultants gave a presentation to the August meeting outlining the Parramatta Cycle Network Audit and Signage. Philip Thalis and Larua Harding from Hill Thalis also gave a presentation at this meeting on the proposed portals through Lennox Bridge.
6. The committee discussed the 2011 Super Tuesday Bike Counts which were held on the first Tuesday in March. Parramatta City Council took part in the nation wide Super Tuesday Bike Counts for the second year. The counts record riders at 22 nominated locations between 7 am and 9 am.
(i) This is the second year that Council has taken part in Super Tuesday. Most sites recorded a significant increase in the number of riders.
(ii) Key findings from the counts were –
(a) Parramatta Valley Cycleway path under James Ruse Drive to UWS (James Ruse Dr, bike path along river, James Ruse Dr and Thomas St) was the busiest commuter route in the Parramatta LGA, with a total of 61 riders. This is a large increase of 22% from the 2010 Super Tuesday count.
(b) Subiaco Creek Bridge (Clyde St, South St, Clyde St and South St footbridge) was another significant site.
This site recorded a total of 53 riders. This is a significant increase from the 2010 of a little over 15%.
(c) Intersection of Park Rd and South St (Park Rd away from River, South St, Park Rd towards river and South St) was another busy site recorded on Super Tuesday, with a total of 53 riders. This is a slight increase of almost 4% from 2010.
(d) George St Gate House (O'Connell St, George St, O'Connell St and path in park) was another significant site on Super Tuesday with a total of 46 riders recorded. The main flow of riders (29) was west to east George Street. This site recorded a huge 39% increase from 2010.
(iii) A full copy of the 2010 and 2011 reports can be supplied on request.
Myfanwy Lawrence
Project Officer, Transport Planning
1View |
Minutes of the Parramatta Cycleways Committee 7 June 2011 |
2 Pages |
|
2View |
Minutes of the Parramatta Cycleways Committee 2 August 2011 |
2 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE
ITEM NUMBER 10.5
SUBJECT East Coast High Speed Rail Study
REFERENCE F2005/02301 - D02098289
REPORT OF Senior Project Officer - Transport Planning
PURPOSE:
For Council to adopt a submission to Federal Government on Phase 1 of the High Speed Rail Study.
|
(a) That Council adopts the submission (Attachment 1) to Federal Government on Phase 1 of the High Speed Rail Study supporting a station at Parramatta with a fast east-west rail service (Western FastRail/Metro) to connect the Sydney metropolitan region.
(b) Further, that Council officers continue to keep Councillors informed of Federal Government’s High Speed Rail Study.
|
BACKGROUND
1. Council made a submission to Federal Government on High Speed Rail (HSR) in November 2010 and a delegation met Federal Government in June 2011 to discuss it. The submission recommended that Council make a submission that Parramatta be considered as a possible station location for the HSR.
2. This Report is in response to Federal Government’s public exhibition of the High Speed Rail Study Phase 1 (August 2011) which short-lists possible route alignments and stations on an East Coast high speed rail network, including a Parramatta option.
3. This report and submission (Attachment 1) is focused on the urban section of the High Speed Rail (HSR) network within the Sydney metropolitan region.
4. Phase 2 of the study will commence later in 2011 and be complete by mid-2012. It will include detailed investigation of the cost and patronage estimates for the short-listed stations and route alignments identified in Phase 1.
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
5. The public exhibition of the High Speed Rail Study (Phase 1) provides Council with an opportunity to comment on the HSR within Sydney and the option of a station at Parramatta. A draft submission (Attachment 1) to Federal Government has been prepared and focuses on the HSR network within the Sydney metropolitan region.
6. Phase 1 of the HSR study short-listed four possible locations for a central Sydney station (Central, Eveleigh, Homebush and Parramatta). It is recommended that Parramatta is the preferred station location with a fast frequent east-west rail service (Western FastRail/Metro) to connect the Sydney metropolitan region. The population of Western Sydney will equal Eastern Sydney by 2036 and by 2056 Western Sydney will have 1 million more than Eastern Sydney. The location of the central Sydney station will influence the future shape and growth pattern of Sydney.
7. It is important that Western Sydney has easy access to fast frequent travel options along the East Coast. Sydney Airport is poorly serves Western Sydney (except the South West) due to its location and lack of direct transport links. A HSR station in Western Sydney could compensate for this.
CONSULTATION & TIMING
8. Council made a submission to Federal Government on High Speed Rail in November 2010 prior to Phase 1 of the study commencing. A delegation of Council met Federal Government in June 2011 to discuss High Speed Rail.
9. A memo on the HSR Study Phase 1 was issued to Councillors on 17 August 2011 along with extracts from the study.
10. The closing date for submissions to Federal Government is early October 2011.
David Gray
Manager - Transport Planning
1View |
Parramatta City Council’s Submission |
6 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
High Speed Rail Study Phase 1 (AECOM Grimshaw KPMG SKM August 2011)
Council 26 September 2011
Community and Neighbourhood
26 September 2011
11.1 Path between 7-9 and 9-11Manson Street Telopea
11.2 Naming of an Unnamed Basketball Court
11.3 Access Advisory Committee Minutes 16 August 2011
COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD
ITEM NUMBER 11.1
SUBJECT Path between 7-9 and 9-11Manson Street Telopea
REFERENCE F2006/00231 - D02080925
REPORT OF Manager - Strategic Assets and Property Management
PURPOSE:
The report recommends the Council to defer consideration of a public request to name the subject path.
|
That consideration to name the path adjoining 7-9 Manson Street Telopea is to be deferred until details of the redevelopment of the Housing NSW site at 14 Sturt Street Telopea where the path leads to become available to determine the need for the path.
|
BACKGROUND
1. The land for the subject path was formerly owned by The Housing Commission of NSW (now Housing NSW) and was dedicated in 1961 to become a public path in connection with public housing estate development in the area.
2. The path rises from Manson Street and leads to a Housing NSW public housing estate at 14 Sturt Street Telopea (refer to location plan at Attachment 1). It is mostly grass land and has not been improved or constructed to provide a pedestrian walkway.
3. Council has received a request from a local resident who has researched the history of the area and asked for this path to be named Adderton Lane. An extract of the submission is in Attachment 2.
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
4. Housing NSW has planned to redevelop the public housing estate at Telopea including 14 Sturt Street Telopea under a Concept Plan for 1900 dwellings over 10 precincts. The Concept Plan including Stage 1 redevelopment for two buildings (A1 and A2) at the Shortland precinct and one building (J3) at the Moffatts precinct was approved in August 2010.
5. For reference, the Concept Plan for the Telopea Urban Renewal Area of Housing NSW is at Attachment 3.
6. It is not known at this stage when the public housing estate site at 14 Sturt Street will be redeveloped and whether the subject path leading to this housing estate site will be blocked or needed and incorporated in the design for the redevelopment.
7. It is recommended therefore that Council should defer consideration to name this path until details for redevelopment of 14 Sturt Street Telopea is available to determine whether this path is needed to provide pedestrian access.
8. The path in its current state is not suitable for pedestrian use. If Council intends to name the path now and effectively will be promoting its use, it is necessary for it to be properly constructed to provide a pedestrian walkway. The cost of construction is estimated to be $18,000.
CONSULTATION & TIMING
9. The Council’s Civil Infrastructure Unit has provided an estimate on construction cost for the pedestrian walkway. The Council’s Traffic & Transport Unit has recommended transferring the land for the path if possible to Housing NSW who benefits from its use for maintenance.
10. Public consultation will not be necessary if Council decides to defer consideration of the naming proposal.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL
11. Council will incur cost in construction of a pedestrian walkway if the naming proposal goes ahead.
Stephen Montgomery
Manager – Strategic Assets and Property Management
1View |
Location Plan |
1 Page |
|
2View |
Extract of Submission for naming the path |
1 Page |
|
3View |
Housing NSW Concept Plan for urban renewal |
1 Page |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD
ITEM NUMBER 11.2
SUBJECT Naming of an Unnamed Basketball Court
REFERENCE F2005/00989 - D02083148
REPORT OF Service Manager Recreation Facilities and Programs
PURPOSE:
To seek approval to name the Basketball Court at the Granville Youth and Community Recreation Centre the “Thomas Ater” Basketball Court.
|
a) That the unnamed basketball court at the Granville Youth and Community Recreation Centre be named the “Thomas Ater” Basketball Court; and
b) Further that, the installation of the signposting and interpretive signage be in accordance with Council’s Memorials and Commemorative Works Policy.
|
BACKGROUND
1. Thomas Ater was an African Youth Worker who worked with youth within Granville and the Parramatta Local Government Area and used Basketball as an avenue to address many youth issues. Thomas passed away on 15 August 2011, after contracting Malaria while visiting his homeland of Sudan.
2. The Granville Youth and Community Recreation Centre has received a request from several youth to name the Basketball Court adjoining the centre after Thomas Ater.
3. The basketball court at the Granville Youth and Community Recreation Centre is widely known as a meeting place for members of the African community, particularly young people.
4. In recognition to his commitment and achievements in supporting the African Community and the development of local Basketball, a petition has been received requesting that the Basketball Court at the Granville Youth and Community Recreation Centre be named the “Thomas Ater” Basketball Court. This report responds to the request.
5. A signed petition has also been received in support of the proposed naming of the Basketball Court. The petition includes the names and signatures of approximately 115 people, mostly young people who use the Centre. The petition will be available for viewing at the Council meeting.
REPORT
6. The proposal has been assessed and complies with Council’s Memorials and Commemorative Works Policy.
7. Council has previously named sporting fields and ovals within the following parks and reserves after prominent local and / or sporting identities:
a. Richie Benaud Oval, Belmore Park, North Parramatta
b. Ray Price Field, Sir Thomas Mitchell Reserve, Dundas
c. Curtis Oval, Dundas Park, Dundas
d. Keith Collins Field, Granville Park, Granville
e. Margaret Myhill Oval, Cox Park, Carlingford
8. The recommendation to support the proposal is based on Thomas Ater’s long term commitment to youth and their issues in the Parramatta Local Government Area:
a. Thomas Ater has been a dedicated volunteer/partner of the Granville Youth and Community Recreation Centre since becoming the African Worker of the Parramatta Migrant Resource Centre in 2006.
b. Thomas was involved in the resettling of large groups during the increase in migrant African groups to the Granville, Auburn and Parramatta areas between 2006 and 2010 and played a pivotal part in settling many Africans into Australian society.
c. Thomas worked with Council staff in partnering in programs from the Granville Youth and Community Recreation Centre that specifically targeted young people. He effectively used basketball to engage with young migrants and encourage their involvement in sport, education and employment programs supported by the Centre.
CONSULTATION & TIMING
9. The local community have indicated their support for the proposal through the collection and presentation of the petition.
10. The Management Committee of Granville Youth and Community Centre was advised of the petition at its meeting on 7th September 2011 and was supportive of the request from the young people.
11. If the name change is approved by Council, further consultation will be held with the local community to determine an appropriate opportunity for the unveiling which could be around the month of October 2012. This month is the anniversary of when Thomas Ater started with the Granville Youth and Community Recreation Centre in 2006.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
12. The small costs associated with producing appropriate signage for the basketball court could be met within the existing budget for Granville Youth and Community Recreation Centre.
Nick Wright
Service Manager Recreation Facilities and Programs
REFERENCE MATERIAL
COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD
ITEM NUMBER 11.3
SUBJECT Access Advisory Committee Minutes 16 August 2011
REFERENCE F2005/01944 - D02085318
REPORT OF Community Capacity Building Officer.Community Capacity Building
PURPOSE:
The Access Advisory Committee met on 18 August 2011. This report provides a précis of the key discussion points of that meeting for Council’s consideration.
|
That the minutes of the Access Advisory Committee meeting on 18 August 2011 (Attachment 1) are received and noted.
|
BACKGROUND
1. Parramatta City Council’s Access Advisory Committee continues to meet bi-monthly in accordance with the Council Resolution of 28 September 2009.
MAIN DISCUSSION POINTS
2. John Moxon, Committee Chair, provided information on ParraConnect, and further information was later provided by Clr Chiang Lim. The Committee heard of projects under way and being considered for the future. Members formed a working group to work with Council’s Manager, Information Technology and the relevant development team, to provide input around access for ParraConnect projects, including the website and Information Kiosks. The Committee will also provide information to the ParraConnect Advisory Committee on standards to be aware of and the best organisations to consult with in relation to Access and the provision of Information Kiosks.
3. The Committee was provided with an update on Council’s Public Domain Guidelines, the first part of which is now available on Council’s website.
4. The Committee was informed that John Moxon received a response to his letter to the Lord Mayor and Councillors requesting additional financial support for the International Day of People with Disabilities event. The request was unsuccessful.
5. The Committee was informed that RailCorp had provided information to Council on upgrade plans for Clyde train station, in response to a request sent by the Lord Mayor. The Committee resolved to follow this up in 6 months, to obtain a progress update and to request information on upgrade plans for Harris Park and Toongabbie stations.
6. The Committee was provided with a response from the Library regarding concerns raised over Access for the new Library return bins installed at the City Branch. The Committee were pleased to hear that changes regarding signage and lighting were to be made. However, the Committee noted that in the members’ view the relevant standards had not been properly applied to ensure ease of access to the chutes for wheelchair users. Two Committee Members advised that they will submit their concerns for further consideration by Council. The Committee noted that they are available for consultation around the implementation of Standards and general Access guidance prior to any design and construction of new infrastructure.
7. The Committee was informed of a re-invented Neighbourhood Watch initiative of Police that utilises Facebook to report crime and obtain real-time information. John Moxon will be meeting with Police regarding the initiative in Parramatta.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL
8. There are no financial implications for Council.
1View |
Access Advisory Committee Minutes 16 August 2011 |
5 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Council 26 September 2011
Governance and Corporate
26 September 2011
12.1 Local Government Elections - Possibility of Conducting Future Elections In-House
12.2 2011 Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference (APSACC) - Perth, WA - 15-17 November 2011
12.3 Investments Report for July 2011
12.4 Audit Committee Minutes
GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE
ITEM NUMBER 12.1
SUBJECT Local Government Elections - Possibility of Conducting Future Elections In-House
REFERENCE F2004/08772 - D02009266
REPORT OF Group Manager- Corporate
PURPOSE:
To seek a decision as to whether Council wishes to conduct future local government elections, constitutional referendums and polls in house.
|
That Council advise the NSW Electoral Commission by 30 November 2011 that it wishes the Commission to conduct the 2012 Local Government Election subject to negotiating a satisfactory agreement.
|
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Council has received advice of the Minister for Local Government’s intention to return to Council’s the responsibility for the conduct of local government elections. Councils, however, may engage the NSW Electoral Commission to conduct their elections, such option to be exercised by 30 November 2011 for the 2012 election.
Correspondence and subsequent discussions with the NSW Electoral Commission have made it clear that the Commission cannot and will not act as a safety net or provide assistance to those Councils choosing to run or outsource their own election with an alternative provider, if available.
The Commission has also noted that elections are run on a not-for-profit basis by the Commission and has commented that Councils may find it difficult to locate a returning officer and assistant returning officer with the necessary skills, impartiality and integrity to run a large scale metropolitan election. As no profit is available in conducting such elections, it is unlikely that Electoral Commissions from other states would be interested in assisting.
Historically, Council elections have not been run using a Council officer (ie Town Clerk) as a returning officer since 1991. After 1991, either independent returning officers were appointed by the State Electoral Office or, as in 2008, the election was carried out by the Electoral Commission on a full cost recovery basis.
Accordingly, Council no longer possesses the necessary skills to run a complex election. There are substantial requirements in relation to the appointment of an appropriately skilled Returning Officer, Assistant Returning Officer and Polling Place Staff, preparation of appropriate election forms, ballot papers, election manuals and miscellaneous resource materials (such as stationary, voting screens and ballot boxes), hiring and resourcing of appropriate polling places, conduct of appropriate nomination and candidate seminars, adherence to changing legislative requirements, security issues associated with ballot paper storage and printing and importantly, real issues associated with the development and usage of appropriate vote counting technology.
The NSW Electoral Commission have advised Council that it is willing to conduct the election on Council’s behalf at a price similar to the cost of the 2008 election ($538,000), with some potential savings and subject to additional costs associated with CPI and wage increases.
It is noted that concerns were previously raised by Council in relation to the cost of the 2008 election, however, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters – 2008 Local Government Election engaged PKF Accountants to conduct an independent review of costs and charges for that election and concluded that “nothing has come to our attention that causes us to believe that the costs passed onto Local Government in relation to the 2008 Local Government Elections are unreasonable.”
It should be noted that funding in the amount of $343,000 was costed to the election reserve account for the conduct of the 2004 election. At that time, Returning Officers were appointed by the State Electoral Office with the election conducted form Council premises and supported by Council staff and resources. The true cost of this election to Council is not available and would likely be considerably more than the stipulated amount of $343,000 when considering ‘in kind’ support provided by staff.
To provide a balanced view, Council has also held discussions with the Australian Electoral Company to run the election on Council’s behalf. This company has provided an indicative quote for a fully outsourced election which is in the vicinity of $50,000 cheaper than the likely cost to be charged by the Electoral Commission.
The Australian Electoral Company is also willing to conduct the election on a partially outsourced basis if Council desired. The Australian Electoral Company, however, has yet to conduct a major metropolitan election in NSW.
There may be advantages to bringing an election in house. These would include the possibility to outsource portions of the election, possible savings in accommodation costs, payroll costs, administration costs and expertise may be built within Council.
Similarly, it is considered that a number of disadvantages may exist. Councils choosing to conduct their own elections will receive no support from the Electoral Commission, there is a need for Councils to conduct elections with impartiality and at “arms length” and staff do not have the necessary experience to conduct an election. Further, there are possible costs and risks associated with development and usage of the relevant technology associated with vote counting.
It is critical to the reputation of Council that its election is run professionally with impartiality, integrity and efficiency and in this regard, the Electoral Commission has 90 years experience in conducting elections compared to Councils current lack of experience in this area.
When weighing up the intricacies of conducting an election including legislative changes, legal requirements, possible staff impacts, voting technology and counting, reporting and the need to maintain impartiality and integrity, the proposed recommendation is that Council appoint the NSW Electoral Commission to conduct the 2012 Local Government Election on Council’s behalf.
BACKGROUND
1. The Council is in receipt of correspondence from the NSW Electoral Commission dated 9 June 2011 advising of the Minister for Local Government’s intention to return to Councils the responsibility for the conduct of their elections. Council’s will, however, have the option to engage the NSW Electoral Commission (NSWEC) to conduct their elections; such option must be exercised by 30 November 2011 for the 2012 election (per the Local Government (General) Amendment (Electoral Commissioner) Regulation 2011.
2. Changes to the Local Government Act 1993 (Sections 296, 296A and 296B) indicate that elections are to be administered by the general manager of the Council concerned. Council may, however, “enter into a contract or make arrangements with the Electoral Commissioner for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all elections (this section does not include elections for the Mayor and Deputy Mayor by Councillors) for the council for the purposes of this chapter.”
3. Further to (2) above, Council may resolve to enter into a contract with the Electoral Commission to administer such elections; such a resolution must be made, in future years, within 12 months after an ordinary election of councillors for the council’s area.
4. Appended as Attachment 1 are Sections 296A and 296B of the Local Government Act which relate to Elections administered by a general manager and elections administered by the Electoral Commissioner respectively.
HISTORY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS
5. Prior to 1987, councils conducted their respective elections independently.
6. In 1987, the State Electoral Office became involved in the conduct of Local Government Elections when the Local Government (Elections) Amendment Act 1987 transferred responsibility for Council elections from the then Town Clerk to the Electoral Commissioner.
7. From 1987 to 1991, elections were conducted using Town Clerks as Returning Officers but under the direction of the Electoral Commissioner.
8. From 1995 to 2004, independent Returning Officers were appointed by the State Electoral Office with elections generally conducted from Council Premises utilising council officers and resources to assist and support the Returning Officer. A true cost of elections carried out over this period was not available.
9. In 2008, following a review of local government elections pricing, the NSWEC conducted the September 2008 ordinary elections on a full cost recovery basis. The increase in costs caused a dramatic increase in complaints from Councils.
ACTION FOLLOWING THE 2008 ELECTION
10. In June 2009, the Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW made a submission to the Inquiry into the 2008 Local Government Elections.
11. The Local Government and Shires Association submission, in summary, contended that:-
(i) The election process in all its facets must be totally transparent and that lack of transparency regarding both costs and conduct of the elections breaches all principles of good governance and accepted tenets of a modern democratic society.
(ii) The 2008 local government elections were not managed by the NSWEC to a standard that the residents and council of NSW both expect and deserve.
(iii) The costs charged by the NSWEC to conduct the elections were exorbitant, unjustifiable and significantly greater than basic cost recovery and;
(iv) The candidate specific issues need to be addressed by the NSWEC to ensure that they do not reoccur.
12. Parramatta City Council also made a submission to the Inquiry raising such issues as:-
· Excessive cost of election which has added pressure to Council’s ability to deliver services.
· Insufficient provision of ballot papers
· Incorrect information being provided to voters
· Inadequate training of electoral staff
· Understaffing of electoral booths
· Excessive amount of time to declare poll
· High cost of placing advertising
· Appropriateness of certain polling booths and their location
· Costs associated with need for candidates to register with an authority prior to accepting political donations.
13. Many of the above issues were also raised at the 2008 Annual Local Government Conference by other Councils and the Conference subsequently resolved, in part, to:-
§ Request an enquiry by the Electoral Commission into the length of time taken to determine local government elections:-
§ Request the Local Government Association to request the Federal Government to review the tax deductible allowance applicable to campaign expenses for candidates in local government elections to bring into line with State and Federal elections;
§ Ensure that all polling booths are created within the council area (special circumstances aside);
§ Seek an independent review in relation to the conduct and costing of the 2008 local government election;
§ Raise certain issues with the Electoral Commission such as recycling of ballot papers, education and advertising, declared institutions, delays in refunds of monies, training of relevant polling and booth staff and returning officers, scrutineering involvement, rigidity of names on ballot papers and incorrect electoral roles.
JOINT STANDING COMMITTTEE ON ELECTORAL MATTERS – 2008 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION
14. Further to the above, Council has obtained a report entitled “Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters – 2008 Local Government Elections dated June 2010.
15. The terms of reference for the Inquiry related to all matters associated with the relevant electoral laws in respect of the 2008 local government election and particularly in relation to the cost of the 2008 local government elections. It is noted that the Premier referred the conduct of this election to the Committee following concerns raised by the Local Government and Shires Association, as addressed above.
16. It should be noted that the Standing Committee engaged PKF Accountants to conduct an independent review of costs and charges to Councils for the election and concluded “that nothing has come to our attention that causes us to believe that the costs passed onto Local Government in relation to the 2008 Local Government Elections are unreasonable.”
17. Further, whilst the Committee made 16 key recommendations to assist in conduct of future elections, the Committee also acknowledged that the Electoral Commission’s conduct of the 2008 local government elections provided a comprehensive, transparent and impartial service to Councils.
18. A copy of the Joint Committee’s 16 recommendations is appended to this report as Attachment 2.
19. The Government subsequently made a response to each of these recommendations via letter December 2010. A copy of the response is appended to this report as Attachment 3.
20. The Government response as mentioned above noted in response to Recommendation 7 that subject to cost considerations, the Electoral Commission would prepare a service charter for the conduct of the 2012 Local Government Elections. The Electoral Commission has prepared the Service Charter and a copy of the document is appended to this report as Attachment 4.
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
21. There are a number of issues that would need to be considered should Council wish to conduct future elections in house. These issues would include, but not be limited to:-
Impartiality and Integrity
Elections must be conducted at arms length from the Lord Mayor and Councillors and should be seen to be as such.
It is noted that the NSW Electoral Commission has clearly stated that the NSWEC would not be available to act as a Returning Officer if not appointed, nor would Australian Electoral Commission staff have the necessary Local Government experience to conduct an election.
Appointment of Returning Officer and necessary Council Staff
As Council has not conducted elections in house for many years, the necessary skills to conduct an election have been lost.
It would be necessary for a Returning Officer with the necessary skills to be appointed, receive training and be supported by administrative staff many months prior to the election and a short period after the election date.
A substitute Returning Officer would also need to be appointed to ensure that the election could proceed smoothly in any unforeseen circumstances associated with the Returning Officer.
A Returning Officer’s duties may include, but not be limited to, setting up and decommissioning a temporary office, preparation of appropriate electoral manuals and guidelines, training of office staff and polling place managers, making arrangements for voting at polling places and declared institutions, preparation of ballot papers, issuing and processing postal and pre poll votes, dealing with enquiries and complaints from public and candidates, processing candidate nominations and how to vote materials, counting of votes and declaring the result of the election.
A sample timeframe leading up to an election which may give an indication on the time period for which a Commission appointed Returning Officer may include:-
Early August – close of rolls
Mid August – close of nominations
Registration of How to Vote materials – early September
Postal voting applications close – early September
Declared Institutions Voting commences – early September and concludes mid September.
Pre poll voting finishes – late September
Election Day – end of September
Election Count and Declaration of Poll
Preparation of Report to Parliament on conduct of election.
Clerical officers would also need to be appointed to assist in enquiries, pre poll and postal voting, visiting and negotiating with polling places and to assist in the recruitment of polling staff.
Polling Place Staff
The returning officer once appointed would also need to advertise, recruit and train polling staff, polling place managers, deputy polling place managers, ballot box guards, ward supervisors and scrutiny assistants.
At the 2008 election, Council had 46 polling places (the Parramatta Town Hall Acted as the Principal Polling Place with specified other booths acting as dual polling places) incorporating some 134 tables (500 – 600 votes per table) requiring in the vicinity of 250 staff.
Electoral Administration and Legal
Elections must be conducted in accordance with the relevant legislation. Alleged offences must be dealt with uniformly. Changes to the relevant acts are ongoing and are expected prior to the 2012 election to bring elections in line with recently held State Elections.
As mentioned, Council staff no longer have the experience to conduct a large metropolitan election, nor does it have the necessary resources to develop the necessary manuals, guidelines, technology systems and processes to ensure the conduct of a professional and efficient election. These concerns were reinforced (see meeting with Electoral Commission) when it was noted that no support will be provided by the Electoral Commission for those councils that resolve to conduct their own elections.
Elections may be subject to appeal to Administrative Decisions Tribunal.
Returning Officers require professional insurance and/or indemnification by Council.
It should also be noted that
contracts or arrangements with the Electoral Commissioner for the
administration of council elections, council polls or a constitutional
referendum are exempt from the tender requirements under section 55(3)(p) of
the LG Act.
Election Forms and Manuals
Conduct of an election requires the design, preparation and printing of various paraphernalia including electoral rolls, declaration envelopes, election official manuals, training manuals, ballot papers, including Braille papers (must be kept in secure environment) and advertising material.
The NSWEC will provide Council with the necessary amount of electoral rolls to enable conduct of the election.
There is likely savings available in printing of materials associated with the election in house. For example, Council was billed $50,170 for printing of ballot papers for the 2008 election. Paper and printing costs for an approximate 120,000 ballot papers in house would cost likely cost less than 10% of this amount (at 0.035 per impression and 0.015 per sheet of paper).
It should be noted that this issue was raised with the Electoral Commission who have agreed that the cost of ballot paper was excessive at the previous election.
A Council conducting its own election would need to ensure that ballot papers contained a security mark as required by the NSWEC.
It is considered savings may be realised in relation to printing of other election information required such as electoral brochures.
It should be noted that administrative costs may also be incurred in updating electoral rolls to reflect pre poll and postal voters prior to issue to polling booths.
Office Space – Returning Officer
Appropriate office space would be required to house the conduct of the election. Such office space should be accessible, within the Council area, located near public transport, of sufficient size, have 24 hour access, be secure, include storage space, be able to display signage and have counter/interview space.
Council were unable to provide office space for the 2008 Returning Officer and accordingly, the office was located at Shop 1, 28 Macquarie Street, Parramatta at a cost to Council of $50,190.
Nearly half of Returning Officers accommodation throughout NSW in the 2008 election was leased from Council’s in the 2008 election. An estimate was made to cover this accommodation although no charge was then made to the relevant Council.
Council’s Strategic Asset and Management Department has been asked to comment on the possible provision of office accommodation for the 2012 election and has advised that:-
“It is difficult to guarantee in house space that far out - the areas that are currently available are in Macquarie House and Connection Arcade, however with the vagaries of the Civic Place Development it is uncertain if either or both of these sites will be available at the time that the Electoral Commission requires the 400m2.
Notwithstanding, I expect that there is a reasonable chance that something appropriate could be provided at very little rental cost in either of these buildings plus incidentals - e.g. hire of furniture etc - say $20,000 in September next year.
Alternatively, and possibly as a fall back, I am sure that a short term lease could be found within the Parramatta CBD given the current high vacancy rate in B and C grade office space and also given the economical outlook at this time and as projected over the next 12 months. If this was the case the cost would be in the order of $30-40,000 plus incidentals - e.g. hire of furniture etc - say $20,000.
Grant advises that the quote from the Electoral Commission for the last election to provide similar sized space was in the order of $50,000.”
Miscellaneous Resource Materials
Council’s will also be responsible for preparation and despatch of all resource materials associated with the conduct of an election. This would include, but not be limited to stationery, ballot boxes and voting screens.
Communication and Information
Staff must be available to provide relevant and timely information to candidates, voters and media.
Appropriate print and news paper advertisements would need to be placed including information for NESB persons and Indigenous persons.
Council was charged in excess of $15,000 for the electoral information campaign conducted by the Electoral Commission for the 2008 election. A portion of this charge related to an extra brochure delivered to each householder as requested by Council.
Council possesses other avenues that may assist in the advertising of the election such as Lord Mayoral Columns and websites.
Nomination and Candidate Seminars
Council would be required to hold appropriate candidate seminars.
Registration is required of certain candidate election material.
Election Count
Election counts must be conducted according to the prescribed counting system being proportional representation. It is likely that some 100,000 votes will need to be counted and/or distributed in accordance with the proportional representation system and notified accordingly.
The EEC has made it very clear that NSWEC vote counting software will not be made available to any Council. Council will be totally responsible for all aspects of the count if it conducts its election in house and it will need to purchase appropriate software, if available, to enable the count to proceed.
Different from previous years, Local Government elections will now have “above and below the line” voting.
Post Election
Appropriate payment of electoral staff including superannuation payments.
Any election could be the subject of an appeal.
Council would be required to prepare a report to parliament on the conduct of the election. Perusal of the NSWEC document prepared for the 2008 election indicates that such issues to be addressed would include information on enrolment, polling booths, voter participation, voting methods used, candidates and successful candidates.
Council would be responsible for the ongoing storage and security of election materials.
Public Liability
Council’s Service Manager Commercial and Risk has advised that should Council bring future elections “in house”, Council’s insurance policies would cover the elections as a normal part of Council operations.
Payroll and Superannuation Requirements
Council would be responsible for ongoing issues associated with payments to election officials, including superannuation payments.
Non Voting Infringements
Any funds raised through infringements issued to non voters would be received by the NSW Treasury regardless of whether the NSWEC or Council conducted an election.
Risks
Appointment of a Returning Officer and substitute Returning Officer with the necessary level of expertise and integrity to conduct a large metropolitan election.
Reputational risk should Council conduct the election and fail to deliver and efficient and professional election.
Should Council appoint an external Returning Officer, it will be responsible for the purchase/operation of appropriate computer systems to support the conduct of an election together with appropriate vote counting software. Some risk is associated with the development and use of newly developed software should Council choose to conduct the election in house.
MEETING WITH ELECTORAL COMMISSION
22. At the request of the Electoral Commission, Council’s Chief Executive Officer and Group Manager Corporate Services met with Colin Barry, Electoral Commissioner and Greg Copson from the NSW Electoral Commission (EC) on 1 August 2011 to discuss a range of matters associated with assisting the Council to come to a decision as to whether it wishes to conduct their own election or engage the EC.
23. It should be noted that Council had previously raised concerns about the conduct of the 2008 election as outlined in paragraph 12 of this report.
24. The major points to arise from the Meeting with the Commission are listed below:
· New Electoral Guidelines are expected to be issued by the end of this year.
· Should Council choose not to appoint the Electoral Commission, the Commission will not be involved in any aspects of the election and will not act as an information provider or safety net.
· The Commission considers that the appointment of an external Returning Officer with the necessary experience, understanding of all legislation and the appropriate level of impartiality and integrity may prove a hurdle for Councils.
· Further legislative changes are expected prior to the conduct of the 2012 Local Government Election to bring such elections into line with State Elections.
· Councils conducting their own elections will need to devise their own guidelines, processes and handbooks. EC handbooks are created in association with their own computer systems and would not be applicable or be able to be followed using external systems.
· The EC will provide Councils that utilise an external provider with scannable rolls, voting screen templates and a ballot box ‘dye’. Rolls will be provided once nominations close.
· Council’s utilising an external provider would be required to arrange for printing, security and storage of its own ballot papers. It would also need to arrange for a ‘braille’ ballot paper. Council’s utilising the EC would not be able to arrange printing of its own ballot papers.
· The excessive cost of the printing ballot papers at the 2008 election had been noted and will be addressed.
· Should Council wish to appoint an external provider, the EC will not offer possible suggestions. The EC notes that much of the work associated with the conduct of an election such as preparation of handbooks, arrangements for ballot papers and polling places, recruitment of staff, nominations, advertising and dissemination of relevant information are carried out by the EC’s head office prior to the commencement of the EC appointed Returning Officer. Councils appointing an external provider should seriously consider bringing the Returning Officer on board early in 2012 to enable conduct of such works.
· Any queries relating to Election Funding regardless of the Returning Officer appointed will be handled by the Electoral Commission.
· All voting material will need to be registered and the process involved can be quite complicated.
· The counting of ballot papers is a big issue. Presently the Commission undertakes 2 rounds of counting and should a discrepancy exist, a reconciliation count is held. It would be difficult to duplicate such a count manually. The Commission has stressed that any Council appointing an external Returning Officer will receive no assistance from the Commission. The Commission has also noted Council’s concerns in relation to delays in declaring the polls. Opportunities may exist through further discussions with the EC to reduce the time taken for Parramatta.
· Any appeal in relation to a decision/election by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal will receive no input from the Commission in instances where an external Returning Officer is appointed.
· It is unlikely that Commissions from other states would be interested in quoting for the conduct of an election as elections are not run as a profit making venture.
· The Commission is aware of other organisations that could be approached to conduct an election (ie Australian Electoral Company) but will not comment on the capabilities or experience of such organisations to conduct a large metropolitan election.
· The cost of conducting the 2012 election on behalf of Council would likely be similar to 2008 costs subject to CPI and public sector wage increases minus a portion of monies associated with cheaper ballot paper printing. This issue was later addressed by the EC in its letter dated 5 August 2011.
· The Commission commented that at the last election, all costs such as advertising, wages and equipment and materials, rolls etc would be applicable whether the EC or an external provider conducted the election. The amount allocated to the expertise of the EC was $60,000.
· The Electoral Commission, Mr Barry, completed the meeting with an offer to meet with the Councillors of Parramatta City Council. This offer has previously been extended to Councillors via email.
25. The Electoral Commissioner subsequently forwarded correspondence to Council dated 5 August 2011. The correspondence indicates, in part, that:-
“The NSWEC does not make any profit, nor has it in the past, from the conduct of Local Government Elections. The NSWEC will invoice on a cost recovery basis the actual costs of the Local Government elections…
Councils wishing to estimate the 2012 invoice (assuming the same number of polling places and services) should consider four mark ups to the 2008 charge:-
1. Wage costs increasing in the public sector of 4 years x 4% cumulative (ie 17%)
2. Other operational costs increasing by 4 years CPI (estimated at 12.8% cumulative)
3. Number of electors being serviced eg a 2% increase in roll numbers will deliver a similar cost increase and
4. Some ‘economy of scale’ loss may be inevitable with a reduced number of councils electing to use NSWEC services for the 2012 Local government Elections. At this stage it is not possible to quantify any impact.”
26. It should be noted that the Local Government Association of NSW has also sent a letter dated 10 August 2011 to Council noting that the NSW Electoral Commission is currently meeting all Councils to advise of each Council’s responsibilities should it decide not to use the services of the EC.
27. The Associations further advise that it is seeking an urgent meeting with the Premier to discuss the tone and conduct of the meetings and the attitude of the NSWEC with regards to the spirit of the legislation which allows Council to make a choice.
28. In addition, the Associations note that the Australian Electoral Company may be in a position to offer an alternative to the NSWEC. Staff had previously sought an indicative pricing from this particular company to gain a balanced view on costs associated with the provision of an election.
CONDUCT OF ELECTION WITH EXTERNAL PROVIDER – AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMPANY
29. The Australian Election Company conducts Elections Australia Wide and has apparently conducted many successful local government and by-elections in Queensland. A copy of correspondence received from the Australian Election Company providing details on the company’s experience is appended to this report as Attachment 5.
30. The Australian Election Company has further advised:-
“We could conduct your Elections on a totally outsourced basis and you then would be in the position to conduct direct price comparisons; or we could negotiate with Council on a specific range of services to be provided, for example, in relation to provision of office accommodation during the course of the Election; furniture, telephones, photocopiers, etc. We acknowledge that there will be specific experience and material and personnel resources vested within some Council’s and perhaps that Councils might have some arrangements in place that might be more economical than Australian Election Company could negotiate or offer (perhaps statutory advertising in local newspapers); there will be a number of possibilities and arrangements potentially available.
Just to clarify a few points after speaking with some other Councils.
* Yes we will totally outsource.
* Yes we will partially outsource.
* Yes we have access to count software to conduct counts applying proportional representation (in fact our Technical Specialist developed the count systems used by most Australia Government Electoral Commissions).
* Yes we do supply cardboard voting equipment including ballot boxes, voting screens and plastic security seals.”
31. An indicative quotation dated 9 August 2011 has subsequently been received from the Australian Electoral Company and a copy is provided confidentially as Attachment 6. The indicative pricing suggests a fully outsourced cost with options given for various savings by carrying out certain works/providing certain facilities in house such as provision of returning officer’s office, advertising, security, printing and the like.
32. Councillors are reminded that the previous election conducted by the Electoral Commission cost approximately $538,000 and a 10% increase is expected to cover rises in CPI and staff costs for the 2012 election. It is possible with the expected reduction in ballot paper printing costs, the indicative pricing as provided may not be a great deal cheaper than the cost likely to be proposed by the EC.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Advantages of Moving an Election In-House
33. Possible savings in relation to accommodation costs, project management costs, printing of materials, NSWEC administration costs, payroll costs, advertising costs and information technology costs. Expertise would also be built within Council.
Disadvantages of Moving an Election In-House
34. Lack of necessary expertise available, EC have made it clear that Councils who conduct their own elections will receive no support, availability of Returning Officer and substitute Returning Officer with the necessary level of impartiality, skills and integrity may be difficult to find, need to maintain impartiality, staff impacts through the necessary administrative support required to support the conduct of an election, no absolute proof that commission charged excessively for previous election, costs associated with developing the necessary IT systems to conduct an election and to carry out voting counting, risks associated with the ability of any external company to facilitate the conduct of a large metropolitan election and possible reputational reisks should such an election be less than professional and efficient.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL
35. Parramatta City Council was billed the sum of $538,600 for the conduct of the 2008 election by the Commission. A copy of the Final Expenses Invoice for 2008 is appended to this report as Attachment 7. The average cost per metropolitan council was $369,550.
36. The likely cost for the Electoral Commission to carry out the 2012 election is $538,000 plus CPI and staff wage increases as detailed in paragraph 32. Some savings are envisaged through the provision of accommodation for the returning officer and in relation to reduced costs for ballot paper printing. It is unlikely that the EC will negotiate further with respect to other duties being carried out in house.
37. The Australian Electoral Company has quoted an indicative pricing (per Attachment 6) for a fully outsourced election. The Australian Electoral Company has also indicated that it will undertake the election on a partially outsourced basis if Council so wishes.
CONSULTATION & TIMING
38. In the preparation of this report, advice has been sought from the Electoral Commission, Strategy Asset and Management, Finance, Marketing and Communications and Risk Management, the Electoral Commission, Local Government Associations and the Australian Election Company.
CONCLUSION
39. The Electoral Commission have made it very clear that it will not support Councils who choose to conduct their own elections.
40. Council does not possess the necessary skills or relevant technology to conduct an election and a ballot paper count. Whilst it is possible cost savings may be available should Council decide to undertake the election in house in certain areas such as printing and advertising, it is considered that the risks associated with the conduct of a large metropolitan election, without the necessary experience, would outweigh any possible savings that may result.
41. The Australian Electoral Company has provided a viable option for Council’s wishing to outsource the conduct of the election at a price approximately $50,000 cheaper but the Company has not conducted a large metropolitan election in NSW previously and the savings to be realised are not considered substantial when considering the importance of the conduct of an election.
42. The 2012 Local Government Elections will undoubtedly receive high community interest and very high media exposure. Council is currently positioning itself as the 2nd CBD and any election conducted by staff or outsourced to an outside provider that proved to be less than successful, could damage the reputation of this Council with the community.
43. When weighing up the intricacies of conducting an election including legislative changes, legal requirements, possible staff impacts, voting technology and counting, reporting and the need to maintain impartiality and integrity and possible reputational risk, it is considered that it would be appropriate for the Council to appoint the NSW Electoral Commission to conduct the 2012 Local Government Election on Council’s behalf.
Greg Smith
Group Manager Corporate
1View |
Sections 296A and 296B of the Local Government Act |
2 Pages |
|
2View |
Recommendations made by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters - 2008 Local Government Elections |
5 Pages |
|
3View |
Government Response to Joint Standing Committee Report on Electoral Matters |
6 Pages |
|
4View |
Electoral Commissions Service Charter for 2012 Local Government Election |
12 Pages |
|
5View |
Correspondence received from Australian Election Company |
3 Pages |
|
Quotation for Conduct of Election by Australian Electoral Company |
28 Pages |
|
|
7View |
Electoral Commission Costs for Conduct of 2008 election |
1 Page |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE
ITEM NUMBER 12.2
SUBJECT 2011 Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference (APSACC) - Perth, WA - 15-17 November 2011
REFERENCE F2009/01251 - D02043471
REPORT OF Executive Support Manager
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this report is to seek the appointment of Councillor(s) to attend the 2011 Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference (APSACC) being held in Perth, Western Australia from 15 – 17 November 2011.
|
That Council nominate one Councillor to attend the 2011 Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference being held in Perth, Western Australia from 15-17 November 2011.
|
BACKGROUND
1. ‘The APSACC is a premier biennial event hosted by Australia’s leading anti-corruption agencies – the Corruption and Crime Commission (WA), the Crime and Misconduct Commission (QLD) and the Independent Commission Against Corruption (NSW).’
2. Both the inaugural conference in Sydney in 2007 and the second conference in Brisbane in 2009 attracted over 500 delegates.
3. This conference ‘presents an ideal opportunity for public sector leaders to take a proactive approach to corruption prevention, share experiences and learn from individual and collective success and challenges.’
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
4. This conference would fall under Category C of Council’s relevant policy permitting the attendance of 1 Councillor.
5. A copy of the conference program and registration form is appended as Attachment 1.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL
6. Delegate registration, accommodation, travel and out-of-pocket expenses will be approximately $4,785 per delegate.
Scott Forsdike
Executive Support Manager
1View |
2011 Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conf Regn & Program |
6 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE
ITEM NUMBER 12.3
SUBJECT Investments Report for July 2011
REFERENCE F2009/00971 - D02080757
REPORT OF Manager Finance
PURPOSE:
To inform Council of the investment portfolio performance for the month of July 2011. |
That Council receives and notes the investments report for July 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 31st July 2011 was $81.6M (Previous Month $82.1M).The weighted average Funds held throughout the period was approximately $84.6M.
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 July 2011 versus the UBSA Bank Bill Index is as follows:
Monthly Annualised
Total Portfolio 0.509% 6.10%
Funds Managers 0.374% 4.49%
UBSA Bank Bill Index 0.42% 5.04%
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 1.06% for the month of July. Although this is a favourable result, the overall performance was somewhat affected by the lower than average returns from Councils managed funds (4.49%). As has been widely reported, the downgrading of the US credit rating has caused volatility and lack of confidence in local and foreign markets. It is anticipated that Managed Funds held by council will lose some market value over the following months until confidence is regained, this will have some unfavourable effect on projected investment income. It is important to note however that Managed Fund performance should always be measured over periods of at least 12 months.
7. Term deposits make up approximately 65% of total holdings and have interest rates ranging from 6.17% to 7.40%. These favourable fixed term investments together with premiums received from floating rate notes will help balance the overall performance of the portfolio during the foreseeable market volatility.
8. 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
9. The Certificate of Investments for July 2011 is provided below:
Certificate of Investments
I hereby certify that the investments for the month of July 11 have been made in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.
10. There is no standard report attachment - detailed submission - attached to this report.
Alistair Cochrane
Manager Finance
1View |
Investments & Loans - Performance |
1 Page |
|
2View |
Summary of Investments Portfolio |
2 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE
ITEM NUMBER 12.4
SUBJECT Audit Committee Minutes
REFERENCE F2008/02951 - D02096712
REPORT OF Service Auditor
PURPOSE:
That Council give consideration to the minutes of the Audit Committee meetings of May 2011 and August 2011.
|
(a) That the minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 12 May 2011 (Attachment 1) be adopted.
(b) That the minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 25 August 2011 (Attachment 2) be adopted.
(c) Further, that the amended Audit Committee Charter (Attachment 3) be endorsed as the current Charter.
|
BACKGROUND
1. At the Council meeting 11 July 2011, Council resolved to expand the independent community representation on the Audit Committee to four members. The increase in community representatives requires an amendment to the Audit Committee Charter.
2. The current Committee comprises of three councillor members namely Councillors J Finn, M McDermott and A Wilson, and four independent community representatives are Mr Neil Adams, Mr Mike Barry, Mr Bill Rock and Mr Brendyn Williams.
3. This approach of a majority of community representatives over councillors on the Committee is consistent with the Internal Audit Guidelines issued by the Division of Local Government in September 2010.
4. The minutes of the meetings and the amended Audit Committee Charter are submitted for endorsement.
Emily Tang
Service Auditor
1View |
Minutes of Meeting 12 May 2011 |
5 Pages |
|
2View |
Minutes of Meeting 25 August 2011 |
6 Pages |
|
3View |
Amended Audit Committee Charter |
8 Pages |
|
Council 26 September 2011
Notices of Motion
26 September 2011
13.1 Naming of unnamed lane as George Khattar Lane
13.2 Free Access to Aquatic Centres
NOTICE OF MOTION
ITEM NUMBER 13.1
SUBJECT Naming of unnamed lane as George Khattar Lane
REFERENCE F2004/08796 - D02097217
REPORT OF Councillor P Esber
To be Moved by Councillor P Esber
|
That the unnamed Lane 12 off Phillip Street, Parramatta be named George Khattar Lane.
|
BACKGROUND
1. In February 2011, Council adopted the Parramatta Lanes Policy which includes a strategy of naming the many unnamed publicly owned lanes in the Parramatta City Centre. The strategy identifies an unnamed lane which runs from Phillip Street towards the river foreshore and under the Barry Wilde Bridge which it is proposed to be retained.
2. Following discussion with Mr Khattar’s family, I believe it would be appropriate to honour Mr Khattar with the naming of a laneway in the Parramatta City Centre. While Mr Khattar’s origins in Harris Park and his generous support of the Our Lady of Lebanon Church are well known, his contribution to the community and to Parramatta City was much broader.
Officer Comment
Council’s Lane Inventory 2009 identifies the carpark lane which runs from Phillip Street, Parramatta to the entrance of the David Frater Carpark as unnamed lane 12. Located between 60a and 64 Phillip Street, this property is Council owned and is currently public road. The Lane Inventory describes the lane as providing pedestrian access to the river foreshore and one-way vehicle access to the carpark with direct site lines to the Parramatta River.
As outlined by Councillor Esber, Council adopted the Parramatta Lanes Policy earlier this year which includes a strategy of naming the many unnamed lanes in the Parramatta City Centre. Lane 12 is identified as an appropriate lane to be retained longer term and it is suitable, therefore, for naming.
Council has previously considered an appropriate memorial to the Late Mr George Khattar and resolved to provide a plaque either on a tree or bench at Rozella Park, Harris Park in memory of Mr Khattar. Members of Mr Khattar’s family have since, however, indicated a preference for the naming of a piece of civic infrastructure such as Lane 12 to commemorate Mr Khattar.
There are no attachments for this report.
NOTICE OF MOTION
ITEM NUMBER 13.2
SUBJECT Free Access to Aquatic Centres
REFERENCE F2004/05927 - D02097229
REPORT OF Councillor P K Maitra
To be Moved by Councillor P K Maitra
PURPOSE:
To seek a report on the options and implications associated with providing passes for free access to Councils aquatic centres by families and seniors for further consideration by Council.
|
(a) That, a report to Council be prepared regarding the issue of passes for free access to Councils aquatic centres by families and seniors.
(b) That, the report explore different potential options, costings and the process for implementation.
(c) Further, that the report contain information regarding similar schemes offered by other neighboring Councils.
|
BACKGROUND
1. At its meeting of 14 March 2011, Council resolved;
“that a report be issued to Councillors for consideration in conjunction with the Delivery Plan and Budget for 2011/12 examining the introduction of a free family pass for residents once a year and free pool entry for seniors on one weekday each week”
2. A discussion paper was prepared that week and presented at a Councillors budget workshop held on 21 March 2011. A hard copy was then circulated to all Councillors on 28th March 2011.
3. There was a little further discussion of the item when the draft 2011/14 Delivery Plan and Budget were considered by Council on 11 April as the report referred to the discussion paper on Aquatics fees and noted...."While each discussion paper addressed a number of issues and fee options raised during the recent Councillor workshops, no changes have been made to the draft schedule of Fees and Charges at this time."
4. Council adopted the draft plan for exhibition and there was no further reference to these fees once the plan was considered again by Council in June and the exhibited fees for aquatics were adopted.
Councillor Prabir Maitra
FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL
There are no financial implications associated with the preparation of the report. Financial implications associated with the implementation of each of the proposed options will be contained in the report to Council
There are no attachments for this report.