MINUTES OF THE Meeting of Parramatta City Council HELD IN THE Council Chamber, CIVIC PLACE, PARRAMATTA ON Monday, 12 September 2011 AT 6.48 pm

PRESENT

The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid in the Chair and Councillors P B Barber (retired 9.27 pm), A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber (retired 10.17pm), J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM MP (retired 10.13pm), M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott (Deputy Lord Mayor), L E Wearne and A A Wilson (retired 11.30pm).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO TRADITIONAL LAND OWNERS

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

WELCOME TO PUBLIC AND MEDIA

The Lord Mayor acknowledged the presence of members of the public and media representatives and welcomed them to the Chamber.

FOUNDATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

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

MINUTES

1	SUBJECT          Minutes of the Council  Meeting held on 22 August 2011
	RESOLVED      (Esber/Lack)
12619	That the minutes be taken as read and be accepted as a true record of the Meeting.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

1            Councillor A Bide declared a non financial pecuniary interest in relation to Item 9.9 of Major Applications regarding 27 Hart Drive Constitution Hill as Councillor Bide’s mother resides at the neighbouring property.

2            Councillor J D Finn declared an interest in relation to Item 9.12 of Major Applications regarding 58 O'Connell Street Parramatta as Councillor Finn is an employee of Housing NSW.

3            Councillor G J Elmore declared an interest in relation to Item 1 of Suspension of Standing Orders (Minute No. 12644 refers) regarding Damage Caused to Council Infrastructure as a Result of Sub Contractors within the City as Councillor Elmore is employed by a utility who utilises the services of CLM.

LORD MAYORAL MINUTES

1	SUBJECT          Deferral of 31 October 2011 Council Meeting REFERENCE   F2008/00400 FROM                 The Lord Mayor, Councillor John Chedid
	RESOLVED      (Chedid/Esber)
12620	That Council defer its scheduled meeting for Monday, 31 October to Monday, 7 November 2011.

2	SUBJECT          Furthering Relationships - Delegations to Lebanon and India/ Bangladesh REFERENCE   F2011/02153 FROM                 The Lord Mayor, Councillor John Chedid
	MOTION             (Chedid/Maitra)
	(a) That Council endorses the establishment of two committees – one for Lebanon and one for India/Bangladesh – with a view to develop and enhance opportunities for mutual benefit between Parramatta and the respective regions. (b) That models for such committees be explored, inclusive of legal opinion, particularly in regards to financial management from fundraising etc. (c) That the Committee models be reported back to the Chamber. (d) That Working Parties be formed (inclusive of delegation representatives and Economic Development Team representatives), as a preliminary measure, for the development of the respective Committees’ criteria, framework, Terms of Reference, etc; and that the Working Party’s recommendations be reported back to the Chamber for endorsement. (e) That the then established Committees be self funded and projects be driven by the Committee (not Council), however, that the Committee be facilitated by Parramatta City Council and a yearly report be brought back to the Chamber. (f) That Council determine Councillors to be represented on the respective Working Parties and Committees. (g) Further, that a similar opportunity be extended to those countries with which Council currently has a Sister City relationship.
	AMENDMENT   (Wearne/McDermott) That no further action be taken by Council with respect to this matter but rather individual relationships be developed by the Chamber of Commerce and community with assistance from, but not financial support, of Council.
	The amendment was put and lost.
12621	The motion was put and carried.
	NOTE:       1       Councillor A Bide left the meeting at 7.08 pm and returned at 7.12 pm during consideration of this matter.                     2       Councillor A A Wilson left the meeting at 7.21 pm following consideration of this matter and returned at 7.22 pm.

PUBLIC FORUM

12622        RESOLVED      (Bide/Lack)

That  all five (5) applications for Public Forum as submitted for tonight’s meeting be heard and the permitted duration of Public Forum be extended to allow this to occur.

1	SUBJECT          Request to defer Determination - Items 9.7 and 9.8 - 255 Victoria Road, Rydalmere REFERENCE   DA/377/2011 FROM                 Daniel Glover
	“I request that Council defer determination on the development applications and consider the additional information submitted on 16/08/2011 along with forthcoming additional information already commissioned by the applicant as per Council's request letters for additional information.”
12623	RESPONSE By Ms Louise Kerr – Manager Development Services:- “A planning consultant engaged by the applicant for these applications has requested that this matter be deferred and that Council accept and consider amended plans that were submitted to Council on 29 August 2011. For the information of Councillors, the following information is relevant to consideration of this request:- Development Applications 376/2011 and 377/2011 were submitted to Council on 7 June 2011 and were at the time of lodgement reviewed by Council officers for completeness and to identify any significant issues. The applicant was advised of significant deficiencies in the information submitted with the application however the applicant pressed for both applications to be lodged. A letter was sent to the applicant on 9 June 2011 and the following information was requested: · An amended SEE addressing the industrial zoning under the Draft LEP, · Confirmation the proposal is not Integrated Development, · A cost estimate of the proposed building works, · Architectural plans providing better clarity of the building layout and relationship to external elevations, · Details confirming BCA compliance, · Operational management plan, · Acoustic report, · Air quality assessment; and · Social impact statement.  In accordance with Council’s adopted Policy for the Handling of Unclear, Insufficient and Amended Development Applications (Policy No.299), the applicant was provided 14 days to provide the requested information. The applicant responded on 27 June by requesting 60 days to provide the above details.  Following a site inspection and review of the approved construction certificate plans for DA 96/333, the applicant was informed of Council’s concerns regarding significant variations to the approved building footprint and internal layout of the building.  The applicant was advised by Council officers that the development application could not be held over for 60 days whilst the requested information was being prepared. An offer to withdraw the application and re-submit a new proposal that addressed the significant issues raised was made to the applicant.  A meeting with the applicant and his former planning consultant was held on 8 July to explain the significant issues with the proposed boarding house use for this site and the inconsistency with the approved building footprint.  The offer to withdraw the application was not accepted and the applicant indicated he wished to proceed with the current applications.    An email from the applicant’s solicitor received on 3 August 2011 claimed that the 14 day period to provide the additional information was manifestly unreasonable and that a further extension of 60 days was needed to supply the additional reports to Council.  The assessing officer wrote to the applicant’s solicitor advising that the boarding house proposal was not supported and that further extensions of time to provide information would not be given as the development application would be reported to Council on 12 September 2011.  The assessment reports have been based on the application as currently submitted to Council.   Despite the advice of Council officers amended plans and supporting information were submitted to Council on 16 August 2011. As the assessment reports for both DA377/2011 and DA376/2011 were being finalised at the time the amended plans were received (and acceptance of the plans would require considerable reassessment of the proposal), a decision was made to not accept the plans and for them to be returned to the applicant.”

2	SUBJECT          Development Application - 55-57 Belmore Street, North Parramatta REFERENCE   DA/299/2011 FROM                 Maria Bris as submitted in writing.
	“In relation to item number 9.1 and 9.2 (Council Meeting 12 September 2011 agenda):- 1.           Why is council considering both applications at the same site meeting and the same council meeting when they were lodged 6 weeks apart and are to be assessed under different planning instruments, item 9.1 being a normal DA and item 9.2 being an affordable housing DA, hence causing unnecessary confusion? 2.           Why has the “frequently asked questions” information section on the PCC website relating to the impact of the DLEP on transitional applications, been disregarded in the assessment process? 3.           Why is the decision contrary to the pre-lodgement advice received on the 27^th April 2011 for item 9.1 (noting this is not an affordable housing application) when, at the time no indication was given that the town house proposal would be assessed under only the DLEP, but rather that the DLEP would be a relevant consideration? 4.           Why was item 9.1 treated contrary to council standard practice, as at the time of preliminary assessment, we were not given the opportunity to address any  minor planning issues as are now reflected in the s79C report? Noting our response to the preliminary assessment remains unanswered. 5.           How does council apply determinative weight upon the DLEP when PCC recently lost a case in the LEC (27 May 2011) where paragraph 17 clearly states that, “Even though the parties agree the gazettal DLEP is imminent and certain, nevertheless this application has the benefit of a savings clause, which allows it to be considered under the current LEP 2001. In considering the relative weight to be given to these planning instruments, I note that one of the objectives of the 2B zone is to encourage redevelopment of low density housing forms including multi unit housing where the amenity of the surrounding area is not compromised.”? 6. Why was a previous similar down zoned DA application recommended for approval and approved by you councillors when clearly the development was set amongst residential homes, at a time when PCC was of the opinion that after 13 December 2010, the DLEP was certain and imminent?
12624	RESPONSE By Ms Louise Kerr – Manager Development Services:- Question 1:         The applicants were informed by the Group Manager – Outcomes and Development in July that both applications would be referred to a Council meeting at the same time. This is a common practice and ensures that Councillors have all the information necessary to make an informed decision on both applications. Question 2          The applicant’s were sent a letter on 18 May that advised them that their application would be prohibited under the Draft LEP and that it would not be supported.  Councillors would be aware that the Draft LEP has been a lengthy process and after extensive community consultation, a final version of the plan was adopted in December 2010 and sent to the State Government.  The Council has made a decision to downzone this part of North Parramatta back to a low density zone (R2) under the Draft LEP. In applying Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in the assessment of the development application, Council officers have considered whether the approval of the townhouse development would prevent the achievement of the aims and objectives of the new LEP.  In this case, the adjoining sites to the north, west and south are all dwellings (or dual occupancy) and are consistent with the R2 zoning.  The applicant’s have objected to their application being solely assessed under the Draft LEP.  This is incorrect as the application was assessed under all relevant instruments and the integrity of the Draft LEP was considered to be a significant factor in forming the view that the proposal should not be supported. Question 3:         In applying Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Council must consider the provisions of both Parramatta LEP 2001 and Draft LEP 2011.   The weight that is given a draft instrument will increase as that instrument becomes “imminent and certain” and less likely to be changed. Eventually a point will be reached where a Draft LEP is given “determinative weight” in consideration of a development application.  This point was reached in terms of DLEP 2011 before May 2011 when this application was lodged. This reflects the advice provided to the applicants for this application. Question 4:        As the development application was considered to involve a significant planning non-compliance – prohibition under the Draft LEP, Council officers did not seek to require the applicant’s to undertake costly redesigns to address other planning issues that would not have overcome the fundamental planning issue, being the permissibility under the Draft LEP.  Further delays in order to require the applicant’s to make major design changes would have been misleading to the applicant when the initial advice of Council officers was that the proposal could not be supported due to permissibility under the Draft LEP. Question 5         As stated above, the Draft LEP has been given determinative weight to reflect the certainty of the Draft LEP and to ensure its integrity is not undermined. Question 6         As stated above, the provisions of the LEP 2001 and DLEP 2011 are both given consideration and the relative weighting allocated based on the imminence and certainty of the new instrument combined with the impact of the proposed development upon the integrity of the new instrument.  The applicants have referred to other applications where the Draft LEP was not given determinative weight by Council or by the Land and Environment Court. Reference is made to a DA approved at 32-34 Fitzgerald Road, Ermington (DA 1030/2010).  In this case, the application was lodged with Council on 22 December 2010.  The site shared a common boundary with 2 medium density developments at 30 Fitzgerald Rd and 22 Marsden Rd.  This is not the case at 55-57 Belmore Street.  The applicants have also referred to a townhouse development that was approved by the Land and Environment Court at 25 Dixmude St, South Granville. This application was lodged with Council in February 2010 and the DA refused by Council in August 2010.  The applicant’s commenced proceedings in the L&E Court in July 2010 against Council’s deemed refusal of the application. It is noted that the proposal was subject to numerous plan amendments during the course of the legal proceedings that saw a reduction in the size of the development from that originally submitted to Council.  Comparison of either of these cases with 55-57 Belmore Street is dangerous because they each have circumstances that make each one unique. The Draft LEP reflects the Councillors vision for the City of Parramatta into the future.  Therefore it will be given determinative weight when development applications are being assessed.  It is understood that the final steps towards making the new LEP are underway with advice received that indicates that it will soon be sent to the Office of the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure to be notified in the Government Gazette.  On the basis of this advice the Draft LEP is still regarded to be “imminent and certain.”
	NOTE:          Councillor M D McDermott left the meeting at 7.36 pm and returned at 7.37 pm during consideration of this matter.

3	SUBJECT          Development Application - 55-57 Belmore Street, North Parramatta REFERENCE   DA/299/2011 FROM                 John Bris (but asked, as submitted in writing, by Maria Bris in association with Public Forum 2.
	“1.    This DA application, Item 9.1 clearly warrants approval on its merits. The s79C report documents the opinion of the senior planner saying that the “design” of this MUH is better than that have been presented to council and reviewed by Urban Design in the past 2 years and acceptable from a design and built form outcome perspective.” When applying the transitional provision contained with the DLEP, and as upheld in the Studio Architects case, how can a refusal be maintained?         Any modifications that are required to meet DCP requirements are clearly minor and could be rectified should the normal DA assessment process be adhered to. 2.     The development complies with the FSR, setbacks, heights, landscaping, building envelope and streetscape yet there is suggestion that this is not enough to comply with the DCP.         The s79C report contains some errors for example all the buildings are 5m wide complaint to the DCP and not 4m wide as indicated on the s79C report. Further, the suggestion that row townhouses are not typical to the area is error when we have photographic evidence of this the of housing being predominant in the area. 3.     We dispute that the park setting can be eliminated from the report on the grounds that the eastern properties bordering Old Salesyard Reserve belong to another council. Clearly, the entire area bordering the park defines the character of the park front properties in the area? 4.     Why does the s790C report under ‘conclusion’ support approval?         The conclusion states “after consideration of the development against section 79C of the environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and in 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 subject to the impositions of appropriate conditions.”         Is this the planners’ opinion prior to the application of the DLEP? 5.     How do you interpret your planner’s comments in the s79C report “it is noted that the proposed development of the land for the proposed form of housing would be in most cases acceptable under the zoning if it were not for the imminent repeal of PLEP 2001 and the down zoning of this site to R2 low density residential under the DLEP 2011” and  “in this case it would be reasonable to conclude that the proposed development would be compatible with the surrounding built environment if the site was to retain a medium density zoning (such as R3 under the new LEP)?”         This conclusion confirms that the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding built environment and in line with the character of the area irrespective of the down zoning. The compatibility to the built environment will not change in the future.         Councillors, in conclusion, only one thing is imminent and certain…and it is not the Gazettal of the DLEP. It’s the fact that these are complaint DA’s as determined by PCC planner’s section 79C report. The effect of the savings provision within the DLEP is to retain in play the provisions of the PLEP 2001 and allow approval of applications such s the subject applications which have been lodged before the DLEP has been gazetted. In circumstances such as the present where the DA application are otherwise complaint, notwithstanding the imminence and certainty of the DLEP, it is considered that the savings provision will work in favour of approving the DA applications. In this regard, if you look not only at the current built form, but also the future, these DA applications are entirely compatible with the area and cannot be refused on merit when applying the applicable planning controls.”
12625	RESPONSE By Ms Louise Kerr – Manager Development Services:- Question 1         The applicant has made reference to certain statements within the S79C report where Council’s Urban Designer was asked to comment on the urban design of the proposal.  Irrespective of the individual design merits of the proposal, the zoning under the Draft LEP has been a significant factor in the assessment of the applications and one that has been given more significance given that townhouse developments will become prohibited under the future zoning.  Question 2         The DCP compliance table provides Councillors with a full assessment of the proposal against the DCP.  Generally the proposal is fully compliant.  A number of issues were found in the detailed assessment and they were considered in the report.  The measurement of the dwelling width was raised by Council’s Urban Designer and has been calculated from scaling off the drawings. No dimensions are shown on the plans.  Question 3         It is assumed that this question is referring to the determination of “local area” for the purpose of the character test under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP.  The local area has excluded the broader area, especially the areas on the eastern side of Old Salesyard Reserve which are a considerable distance from the site of the proposed development.  The character test has been applied using the immediate local area of the site rather than a much wider definition of local area. The setting of the development has included views of the proposal from Old Salesyard Reserve, as the proposal will be highly visible from this open space and have impacts upon the use and amenity of the park, such as overshadowing, car parking and visual impact. Question 4          The applicant has identified an error in the S79C report for DA299/2011 where the conclusion mistakenly refers to the proposal being satisfactory and has been recommended for approval subject to conclusions. This is clearly an administrative error that was made during the preparation of the assessment report. Question 5         The assessment of the proposal has found that approval of the current proposal would impact on the integrity of the new Draft LEP as it will be prohibited.  Any approval would be inconsistent with the desired future character of the area that is reflected in the objectives of the R2 zone.  Approval of a development that is inconsistent with the LEP zoning and objectives could be viewed as undermining the ability of Council to enforce the LEP into the future.

4	SUBJECT          Development Applications - 55-57 Belmore Street, North Parramatta REFERENCE   DA/299/2011 FROM                 Adam Byrnes as submitted in writing.
	“ Lord Mayor, in relation to Items 9.1 and 9.2, I note that the town house proposal has been assessed by Council staff who state that the proposal is:- 1.      unlawful; 2.      consistent with the established character of the area. Why is Council being inconsistent in its assessment of DAs in relation to when a proposal is or is not required to be consistent with the Draft LEP? Why were we not afforded the opportunity to amend minor planning matters in the DA, contrary to the way all other applications are assessed? Will you please grant approval to the townhouse proposal that is permissible, in harmony with the character of the area and compliant with the key planning criteria for the site?”
12626	RESPONSE By Ms Louise Kerr – Manager Development Services:- “Question 1        The process of considering how much weight should be given to the Draft LEP is dependent on a number of factors including whether approving a development that is inconsistent with a future zoning would frustrate the long term achievement of the LEP objectives.  In this case, the approval of townhouses on this site would seriously compromise the future integrity of the LEP. Question 2         As stated previously, the applicant was not asked to make significant design changes to address DCP variations and objector’s concerns as any such changes would have been costly to the applicant and would have been unnecessary as the zoning issue with the Draft LEP was of such significance the application was going to be recommended for refusal.  Question 3         This is a statement for the Councillors to consider rather than a question requiring an answer. “

5	SUBJECT          Development Application - 183-185 Excelsior Street, Guildford REFERENCE   DA/955/2010 FROM                 Jamella Frangieh
	“We have been living in Excelsior street for 40 years, and we feel council is being biased towards us now and very unfair with our development application, over the years we have always supported the communities developments of the street, we have owned properties in the street and decided to make improvements for the area contributing to the culturally diverse community we are living in, we decided to build these properties for our families and also to allow other families to move to the area, it is a great location near local fruit shop, chemist, hairdressers, pizzeria, bakery, corner store, transport and Doctors surgery and dentist and schools nearby, truly a great locale for families to reside nearby.  1.         So Why has council made a decision rejecting our building application when the       community have no objections to this small development. Especially considering      the surrounding environment consists of at least 35% of the dwellings in Excelsior Street already developed as multiple dwellings, townhouses, units and duplexes, why is our development any different?  2          Directly across the road there are several small retail shops with units above including bus stops on either side of street, so why was it ok for them to have been approved for these units yet council tells me they do not want units in the street because apparently it doesn't fit the character of the street? 3          Our DA has been in council since late August 2010, and before the last elections, so why and how does Council now have the right to make a decision for themselves without asking the community what they really want? WHY WASNT IT RAISED MONTHS BEFORE THE ELECTION IF that was to be the only reason for council to reject the proposal? 4          WHY has it taken Council several months for the DA to have been assessed and          then be turned around and rejected, claiming that it does not fit the character of the street but if you actually go to the street you will see there are developments of multiple dwellings scattered everywhere. 5.         Its been alleged that 187 & 189 Excelsior St, right next door to our properties           are owned by state government and are planning to develop and build multiple dwellings on those lands. So why should we be rejected only on a poor excuse for a reason that our development does not fit the character of the street? So where is the communities response to their proposals and where is the justice and fairness in that? Council has no record, that any member of the community opposed our development application, they are actually happy that something new and aesthetically pleasing will be surrounding their residences and business premises? And if council wants statutory declarations from the surrounding residents showing support to our development then we can get them.  6          Can council tell us if this rejection to our DA is really due to political interferences. Particularly about the councils opinions of affordable housing scheme, instead of ironic street character excuses?”
12627	RESPONSE By Ms Louise Kerr – Manager Development Services:- “Question 1        One of the main reasons for refusal is that the proposal is out of character with the local area, particularly within the immediate visual catchment of the subject site. A detailed character analysis of the proposed development reveals that there are numerous elements of the design that are out of character with the predominant single dwelling house development in this section of Excelsior Street. Whilst it is acknowledged that some medium density development and retail development is located within the local area, these developments do not represent the predominant building type or form within the local area.  Question 2         The retail development located on the western side of Excelsior Street consists of a row of single storey shops (174 – 176A Excelsior Street) and a 2 storey mixed use development (178 Excelsior Street). 2 shops & 2 dwellings were approved in 1998 at 178 Excelsior Street. Planning controls have changed since this time. These properties are neighbourhood shops and are zoned for Neighbourhood Business under the Draft LEP2011. The land uses permissible within this zone differ to those permissible in a residential zone. Question 3         The application was notified and advertised in accordance with Council policy. No submissions were received. Despite no submissions being received, the application is assessed in accordance with the EP&A Act. Council officers are required to carry out a proper assessment under the Act, in addition to community views (whether or not objections have been received). Amendments to the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 in May introduced the requirement for Council to consider whether the proposed development is compatible with the local area. A detailed character analysis of the proposed development reveals that there are numerous elements of the design that are out of character with the predominant single dwelling house development in this section of Excelsior Street. Question 4         This issue has been previously addressed. Question 5         Council officers are not aware of any proposals to redevelop 187 and 189 Excelsior Street. No applications have been submitted for these properties. The applicant was afforded the opportunity to provide evidence of future development within the street by NSW Housing, however no information was submitted to Council. As previously discussed, Council officers are required to carry out a proper assessment under the Act, in addition to community views (whether or not objections have been received). Question 6         The application is recommended for refusal based upon an assessment under planning legislation, including the EPA Act, SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, Council’s LEP2001, Draft LEP2011 and DCP2005. The proposal fails to satisfy requirements contained within the State legislation and Council legislation/policies. The proposal is out of character with the local area, has adverse external impacts upon the amenity of neighbouring properties and provides inadequate internal amenity for future occupants of the site.”

Reports - Domestic Applications

8.1	SUBJECT          13 Marion Street, Parramatta (LOT 1 DP 528361) (Arthur Phillip Ward) DESCRIPTION Use of the premises as a children's contact centre and installation of a shade sail, soft fall area, gates and fencing fronting High Street. REFERENCE   DA/171/2011 - 29 March 2011 APPLICANT/S  Macquarie Legal Centre OWNERS          Kuei-Jung Hsieh REPORT OF     Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             This application is reported to Council as the proposal site is heritage listed.
	MOTION              (Lim/McDermott) (a)     That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. DA/171/2011 for a use of the premises as a children's contact centre and installation of a shade sail, soft fall area, gates and fencing fronting High Street on land at 13 Marion Street subject to conditions as outlined in Attachment 1 of this report. (b)     Further, that Council monitor this development for 2 years to ensure ongoing compliance and in any indication of non compliance, action immediately be taken including issue of appropriate infringement notices.
	AMENDMENT   (Finn/Wearne) (a)     That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. DA/171/2011 for a use of the premises as a children's contact centre and installation of a shade sail, soft fall area, gates and fencing subject to conditions as outlined in Attachment 1 of this report and subject to the replacement of the gate with one that is consistent with the proposed fencing along Marion Street. (b)     Further, that Council monitor this development for 2 years to ensure ongoing compliance and in any indication of non compliance, action immediately be taken including issue of appropriate infringement notices.
12628	The amendment was put and carried and on being put as the motion was again carried.
	DIVISION      The result being: AYES             Councillors P B Barber, P Esber, G J Elmore, J D Finn, M A Lack, P K Maitra, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES            The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM MP, C X Lim, S D Lloyd and M D McDermott.

8.2	SUBJECT          311 Church Street, Parramatta (Lot C DP 161817) ( Arthur Phillip Ward) DESCRIPTION Alterations and additions to a ground floor tenancy and use as a restaurant including outdoor seating and signage REFERENCE   DA/474/2011 - Submitted 12 July 2011 APPLICANT/S  E Fieraru OWNERS          Appwam Pty Ltd REPORT OF     Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application has been referred to Council as the proposal involves works to a heritage item.
	RESOLVED      (Esber/Lim)
12629	That Council grant development consent to Development Application No DA/474/2011 for alterations and additions to a ground floor tenancy, use as a restaurant including outdoor seating and signage on land at 311 Church Street, Parramatta subject to conditions contained within Attachment 1.
	DIVISION      The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors P B Barber, A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM MP, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES            None.

8.3	SUBJECT          12 Hurley Street, Toongabbie (Lot 92 DP537997) (Caroline Chisholm Ward) DESCRIPTION Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house including a new deck and construction of an awning over. REFERENCE   DA/405/2011 - Submitted 16 June 2011 APPLICANT/S  Mr Ryan Bollard OWNERS          Mr Ryan Bollard and Ms Lauren Neave REPORT OF     Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The applicant is a Council Employee (Landscape officer in the Development Services Unit). Accordingly, this application has been assessed by an independent planning consultant.
	RESOLVED      (Barber/Wilson)
12630	That Council as the consent authority, grant development consent to DA/405/2011 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including a new deck with an awning over at 12 Hurley Street, Toongabbie, NSW 2146, subject to the recommended conditions listed in attachment one.
	DIVISION      The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors P B Barber, A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM MP, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES            None.

Reports - Major Applications

9.1	SUBJECT          55-57 Belmore Street, North Parramatta (Lots 11 & 12 DP 35503) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward) DESCRIPTION Consolidation, demolition, tree removal and construction of 2 x 2-storey buildings containing 10 dwellings over basement car parking with strata subdivision REFERENCE   DA/299/2011 - 10 May 2011 APPLICANT/S  Maria Bris OWNERS          John and Maria Bris & Ian and Jane Middlemiss REPORT OF     Manager Development Services. Also Team Leader Development and Certification Memorandum dated 12 September 2011. REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             This application is brought to Council for determination due to the future down zoning of the site to R2 Residential under Draft LEP 2011 and the number of public submissions received.
	MOTION             (McDermott/Wilson)
	(a)        That Council as the consent authority refuse Development Application No. 299/2011 for demolition and construction of a multi-unit housing development comprising 10 townhouses over basement parking at 55 & 57 Belmore Street, North Parramatta for the following reasons: 1.      The proposed development is prohibited under the provisions of Draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011, which is deemed imminent and certain. 2       The proposed development is inconsistent with the requirements of Parramatta DCP 2005.  The development does not comply with several provisions of the DCP including, development on sloping land, bulk and massing, disabled access, visual privacy and cross ventilation. 3       The proposed development is not in the public interest. (b)      Further, that the objectors and head petitioner be advised of Council’s decision.
	AMENDMENT   (Esber/Barber) That the application be deferred to enable further discussions to be held with the applicant with a view to the height of the building being lowered.
	The amendment was put and lost.
12631	The motion was put and carried.
	DIVISION      The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors P B Barber, A Bide, G J Elmore, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM MP, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES            Councillor P Esber.

9.2	SUBJECT          55-57 Belmore Street, North Parramatta (Lots 11 and 12 DP 35503) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward) DESCRIPTION Construction of 10 townhouses over basement car parking under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009. REFERENCE   DA/418/2011 -  20 June 2011 APPLICANT/S  Maria Bris OWNERS          John and Maria Bris & Ian and Jane Middlemiss REPORT OF     Manager Development Services. Also Team Leader Development and Certification Memorandum dated 12 September 2011. REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             This application is referred to Council for determination due to the submissions received and the nature of the development (affordable rental housing under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP).
	RESOLVED      (Wearne/McDermott)
12632	(a)     That Development Application No. 418/2011 for demolition, tree removal and construction of an affordable rental housing development containing 10 dwellings over a basement carpark on land at Nos. 55 and 57 Belmore Street, North Parramatta (Lots 11 and 12 DP 35503) be refused for the following reasons: 1.         The proposal fails to satisfy the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 as it does not satisfy the provisions of the Seniors Living Guidelines, including responding to context, site planning and design impact on streetscape and impact on neighbours. 2          The proposal fails to satisfy the provisions of the amended State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 as it does not satisfy the requirement to be compatible with the character of the local area as the assessment demonstrates that the proposed development will not be compatible with the existing and desired future character of the surrounding location. 3          The proposed development is contrary to the aims and objectives of the Draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 whereby multi dwelling housing will be prohibited development and inconsistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.  4          The proposed development is inconsistent with the requirements of Parramatta DCP 2005.  The development does not comply with several provisions of the DCP including, development on sloping land, bulk and massing, disabled access, visual privacy and cross ventilation.  5          The proposal is not in the public interest. (b)     Further that the objectors be advised of Council’s decision.
	DIVISION      The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors P B Barber, A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM MP, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES            None.

9.3	SUBJECT          109-111 Woodville Road (Cnr Clarke Street), Granville (Lot 1 DP129001 & Lot 3 DP 950303) (Woodville Ward) DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of a multi unit development with basement car parking and strata subdivision. REFERENCE   DA/955/2010 - Lodged 26 May 2011 APPLICANT/S  P Karam OWNERS          Mr P J Karam and Mrs N T Karam REPORT OF     Manager Development Services. Also Team Leader Development and Certification Memorandum dated 12 September 2011. REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             This application is brought to Council for determination due to the future down zoning of the site to R2 Residential under Parramatta Draft local Environmental Plan 2011.
	RESOLVED      (Esber/Issa OAM MP)
12633	(a)       That Council as the consent authority, grant development consent to Development Application No. 356/2011 for demolition, tree removal and construction of six 2 storey townhouses over basement carparking on land at 109-111 Woodville Road, Granville subject to the conditions contained within Attachment 1.  (b)       Further, that the head petitioner be advised of Council’s decision.
	DIVISION      The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM MP, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES            Councillor P B Barber.

9.4	SUBJECT          452 Victoria Road Rydalmere Lot 1A DP 163979 & Lot 1 DP 405986 (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward) DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building containing 7 apartments with strata subdivision under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP. REFERENCE   DA/986/2010 - 6 December 2010 APPLICANT/S  Revelop Projects Pty Ltd OWNERS          Mrs M Yackoub REPORT OF     Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application is referred to Council due to the number of submissions received and the proposal is an infill housing development under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP.
	RESOLVED      (Issa OAM MP/Bide)
12634	(a)     That Council as the consent authority refuse Development Application No. 986/2010 for  demolition, tree removal and construction of a part two/three storey Residential flat building consisting of   5 x 2 bedroom , 1 x 1 bedroom and 1 x 3 bedroom units under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP on land at 452 Victoria Road for the following reasons: 1.   The proposal is prohibited by Clause 10(2) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) Amendment 2011 as the application proposes infill housing in a zone that prohibits residential flat buildings.   2.   The proposal fails to satisfy the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 as it does not satisfy the provisions of the SEPP 65 including responding to context, site planning and design, impact on streetscape and impact on neighbours. 3.   The proposal fails to satisfy the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) Amendments 2011 as it does not satisfy the local character provision in clause 16A as the assessment demonstrates that the proposed development will not be compatible with the existing and/or the desired future character of the locality. 4.   The proposed development is contrary to the aims and objectives of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2010 and the proposed residential flat building is a prohibited development under the current and future zoning of the site and is out of character with the area. 5.   The proposed development is inconsistent with the requirements of Parramatta DCP 2005. The development does not comply with the design standards for streetscape, building form and massing, building façade and articulation, building separation and acoustic privacy. 6.   The proposal exceeds the maximum allowable FSR and no SEPP 1 objection has been submitted. 7.   The proposal is not in the public interest. (b)     Further, that the objectors be advised of Council’s decision.
	DIVISION      The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors P B Barber, A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM MP, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES            None.

9.5	SUBJECT          77-79 Carlingford Road, Epping (Lot 11 and 12 DP 7501) DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of 8 x 2 storey townhouses over basement parking comprising 18 spaces. REFERENCE   DA/319/2011 - 16 May 2011 APPLICANT/S  Stonebrae Pty Ltd OWNERS          L L Senanayake and P Senanayake REPORT OF     Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             This application is brought to Council for determination due to the future down zoning of the site to R2 Residential Zone under the Draft LEP 2011.
	RESOLVED      (Wearne/Wilson)
12635	(a)      That Council as the consent authority refuse Development Application No. 319/2011 for  demolition, tree removal and construction of a multi-unit dwelling          development containing 8 x 3 bedroom townhouses with basement parking for 18 spaces on land at 77-79 Carlingford Road, Epping for the following reasons: 1.     The proposed development is prohibited under the provisions of Draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2010, which is deemed to be imminent and certain. 2.     The proposed development is contrary to the public interest as it is       inconsistent with the current planning controls and he likely future character of the area. 3.      The proposed development is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the Residential 2B zoning under PLEP 2001 given the bulk and scale and poor streetscape presentation and as such is not considered to maintain suitable residential amenity to adjoining sites. 4.      The proposed development is inconsistent with the requirements of Parramatta DCP 2005. The development does not comply with the design standards for height, street setback, deep soil zone, landscaping, private open space, communal open space, streetscape, built           form and massing, building façade and articulation, solar access, internal amenity        and safety and security. 5.      The proposal is not in the public interest.  (b)    Further that the objectors be advised of Council’s decision.
	DIVISION      The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors P B Barber, A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM MP, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES            None.

9.6	SUBJECT          183-185 Excelsior Street, Guildford LOT 5 SEC 11 DP 945 & LOT 6 SEC 11 DP 945 (Woodville Ward) DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of a residential flat building containing 10 dwellings over  basement carparking under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP. REFERENCE   DA/955/2010 - Submitted 23 November 2010 APPLICANT/S  Mr L Frangieh OWNERS          Mr T Frangieh & Mr L Frangieh & Mrs E Frangieh REPORT OF     Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             This application is referred to Council for determination as the proposal is for infill housing under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.
	MOTION              (Issa/Esber) That the application be approved in accordance with current Council policy.
	AMENDMENT   (Bide/Wearne)
	That Development Application No. 955/2010 for the demolition, tree removal and construction of a residential flat building containing 10 dwellings over  basement carparking under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 on land at 183-185 Excelsior Street, Guildford be refused for the following reasons: 1.      The proposal is prohibited by  Clause 10(2) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) Amendment 2011 as the application proposes infill housing in a zone that prohibits residential flat buildings.   2.      The proposal cannot be considered as “infill housing” under the SEPP as it does not comply with Clause 11(a)(i) which restricts the height to a maximum of 8.5m. In this regard, the proposal has a maximum height of 9.5m. 3.      The proposal fails to satisfy the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 as it does not satisfy the minimum solar access provisions of Clause 14(1)(e). In this regard, insufficient solar access has been provided to the private open spaces of the proposed development. 4.      The proposal fails to satisfy the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 as it does not satisfy the provisions of the Seniors Living Policy including responding to context, site planning and design, impact on streetscape and impact on neighbours. 5.      The proposal fails to satisfy the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) Amendments 2011 as it does not satisfy the local character provision as the assessment demonstrates that the proposed development will not be compatible with the existing and/or the desired future character of the locality. 6.      The proposed development is contrary to the aims and objectives of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2010 and the proposed residential flat building is a prohibited development under the current and future zoning of the site and is out of character with the area. 7.      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, building façade and articulation, solar access, private open space and acoustic privacy. 8.      The proposed development provides inadequate amenity to the future residents of the site as there is insufficient natural surveillance of pedestrian entry points, no private open space is provided for Unit 1 and Unit 2, no direct association between living areas and private open spaces for the ground floor dwellings, insufficient solar access to the majority of private open space areas and the location of clothes drying facilities within semi-public areas. 9.      Insufficient information has been provided by the applicant for Council officers to carry out a proper assessment of the social impacts of the proposed development. In this regard, the Social Impact Assessment has not addressed the criteria required for consideration of the social impacts of the proposed development. 10.    The proposal is not in the public interest.
12636	The amendment was put and carried and on being put as the motion was again carried.
	DIVISION      The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors P B Barber, A Bide, G J Elmore, J D Finn, P J Garrard, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES            Councillors P Esber and A Issa, OAM MP.
	NOTE:       Councillor C X Lim left the meeting at 8.26 pm and returned at 8.28 pm during consideration of this matter.
	NOTE: A Notice of Motion to rescind this decision was submitted prior to the conclusion of the meeting.

ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING

In accordance with Council's decision of 23 October 2000 (Minute No 5712) the meeting adjourned at 8.32 pm for a period of 18 minutes.

RESUMPTION OF MEETING

The meeting resumed in the Council Chamber at 8.50 pm, there being in attendance The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors P B Barber, A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM MP, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, M D McDermott, P K Maitra, L E Wearne and A A Wilson.

9.7	SUBJECT          255 Victoria Road, Rydalmere (Lots 37 & 38 DP 14244) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward) DESCRIPTION Construction of additional floor within an approved building footprint and use of levels 3 and 4 for boarding house accommodation. REFERENCE   DA/377/2011 - 7 June 2011 APPLICANT/S  Mr Franz Boensch OWNERS          Mr Franz Boensch REPORT OF     Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application is brought to Council for determination as it is a boarding house and due to the future zoning of the site to Light Industrial IN2 under Draft LEP 2011 that will prohibit the proposed development.
	MOTION             (Lack/Issa, OAM MP)
	That consideration of this matter be deferred and the applicant be given a period of 30 days to lodge the requested information.
	AMENDMENT   (Lim/Bide) (a)  That Development Application 377/2011 for alterations and additions to an approved building and use as a boarding house on land at 255 Victoria Road, Rydalmere (Lots 37 & 38 DP 14244) be refused for the following reasons: 1.   The proposed development is contrary to the aims and objectives of Draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 as the boarding house will be prohibited development under the future zoning of the land.  2.   The proposed development is contrary to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, including incompatibility with the local area and requirements to provide on site car parking. 3.   The proposed development is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site. 4.   The proposed development will have unacceptable impacts on the surrounding area as it fails to provide on site car parking to meet the requirements of the development. 5.   The proposed development will have unacceptable impacts on the surrounding area as it fails to provide an on site loading/servicing area capable of meeting the requirements of the development. 6.   The proposed development will have unacceptable amenity impacts for future residents as the development fails to provide an area of communal open space.  7.   The application has failed to provide sufficient information to enable a proper assessment to be made against the requirements of Council’s Local Floodplain Risk Management Policy. 8.   The application has failed to provide sufficient information to enable a proper assessment of the site’s suitability for residential development with respect to land contamination having regard to Clause 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land and Clause 86 of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 – Parramatta  9.   The application has failed to provide sufficient information to enable a proper assessment of the impact of road related noise on future occupants. 10. The application has failed to provide sufficient information to enable a proper assessment of how the storage and collection of waste/recycling materials arising from the boarding house will be managed. 11. The application does not provide sufficient information to enable a proper assessment of the residential amenity (access to light and ventilation) of future occupants of the boarding house.  12. The site is not suitable for the proposed residential development as it is situated within 200 metres distance of an approved and operating sex services premises.  13. The development that this application seeks approval for warrants the submission of a new development application for the entire building. 14. The proposed development is not in the public interest. (b)       Further, that the objectors be advised of Council’s decision.
	The amendment was put and lost.
12637	The motion was put and carried.
	DIVISION      The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors P B Barber, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM MP, M A Lack, P K Maitra and L E Wearne. NOES            Councillors A Bide, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, M D McDermott and A A Wilson.
	NOTE:       Councillor P Esber left the meeting at 8.55 pm and returned at 8.57 pm during consideration of this matter.

9.8	SUBJECT          255 Victoria Road, Rydalmere (Lots 37 & 38 DP 14244) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward) DESCRIPTION Occupation of level 2 of an approved building footprint as a food court containing 3 food/drink tenancies and a seating area. REFERENCE   DA/376/2011 - 7 June 2011 APPLICANT/S  Mr Franz Boensch OWNERS          Mr Franz Boensch REPORT OF     Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application is brought to Council for determination as the application does not provide sufficient off-street car parking, it has not provided sufficient information to allow a proper assessment of its impacts and an associated development application (DA 377/2011) has been recommended for refusal.
	MOTION             (Lack/Esber)
	That consideration of this matter be deferred and the applicant be given a period of 30 days to lodge the requested information.
	AMENDMENT   (Bide/Wilson) That Development Application 376/2011 for occupation of level 2 of an approved development as food court containing 3 food and drink tenancies and an internal seating area on land at 255 Victoria Road, Rydalmere (Lots 37 & 38 DP 14244) be refused for the following reasons:   1.         The proposed development will have unacceptable impacts on the surrounding area as it fails to provide on site car parking to meet the requirements of the development. 2.         The proposed development will have unacceptable impacts on the surrounding area as it fails to provide an on site loading/servicing area capable of meeting the requirements of the development. 3.         The proposed development is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site. 4.         The application has failed to provide sufficient information to enable a proper assessment of the proposal, in particular how the development will manage the storage and disposal of solid and liquid wastes.  5.         The application has failed to provide sufficient information to enable a proper assessment to be made against the requirements of Council’s Local Floodplain Risk Management Policy, particularly evacuation and flood awareness issues.  6.         The development that this application seeks approval for warrants the submission of a new development application for the entire building. 7.         The proposed development is not in the public interest.
	The amendment was put and lost.
12638	The motion was put and carried.
	DIVISION      The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors P B Barber, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM MP, M A Lack and P K Maitra. NOES            Councillors A Bide, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson.

9.9	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 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.
	MOTION             (Finn/Maitra)
	(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)      Further, that objectors be advised of Council’s decision.
	AMENDMENT   (Barber/Lack) That consideration of this matter be deferred pending the holding of an on site meeting prior to the next Council Meeting.
12639	The amendment was put and carried and on being put as the motion again carried.
	DIVISION      The result being: AYES             Councillors P B Barber, G J Elmore, P Esber, M Lack, S D Lloyd, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES            The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors J D Finn, P J Garrard, C X Lim and P K Maitra.
	NOTE:     1          Councillor A Bide had previously declared a non financial pecuniary interest in this matter as his mother resides in a neighbouring property and left the meeting at 9.14pm and returned following voting on this matter.                   2          Councillor A Issa, OAM MP left the meeting at 9.26 pm during consideration of this matter. .

9.10

SUBJECT          24 Ferndell Street, South Granville
(Lots 29 & 30 DP 14788 & Lot 202 DP 816219)(Woodville Ward)

DESCRIPTION Section 96(1a) application to modify Development Consent No. DA/720/2010 (a bus depot). The modification seeks amendments to allow operations to occur 24 hours a day and approval for a front fence.

REFERENCE   DA/720/2010/A - 10 June 2011

APPLICANT/S  S Baldini

OWNERS          Mrs A L Baldini

REPORT OF     Manager Development Services. Also Team Leader Development and Certification Memorandum dated 12 September 2011.

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

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

RESOLVED      (Barber/Lack)

12640

(a)       That Council as the consent authority, modify development consent DA/720/2010 in the following manner:

Condition 1 being modified to read as follows:

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

Drawing N^0	Dated
Job No. 1301-10 Sheet A01 – Issue C  Job No. 1301-10 Sheet A02 – Issue D  Job No. 1301-10 Sheet A03 – Issue C  Job No. 1301-10 Sheet A05 – Issue B	11/8/2010 20/12/2010 11/8/2010 20/12/2010
1.  “Plan showing Driveway and drainage Layout”,  Drawing #59183-ST2-DR1(Lower Car park Area), Revision “A” 2.  Drawing # 59183-ST2-DR2, (Upper Levels), Revision “A” & ST2 DR3 (Upper Levels), prepared by Lean Lackenby & Hayward (Sheet # 1, 2,  & 3  of 9). 3.  “WSUD Strategy – Concept Only” Drawing reference #59183ST2 WSUD,  Revision “A”, prepared by Lean Lackenby & Hayward (Sheet 4 of 9). 4.  “Long Section of Entry And Exit Ramps” Drawing reference #59183 Ramp LS,  prepared by Lean Lackenby & Hayward (Sheet #5 of 9). 5.  “Drainage Long Sections” Drawing reference #’s 59183-DLS1 & -DLS2, prepared by Lean Lackenby & Hayward (Sheet # 6 &7 of 9). 6.  “Hydrology & Hydraulic Tables” Drawing reference #’s 59183-HYD1 St2 & -HYD2, prepared by Lean Lackenby & Hayward (Sheet # 8 &9 of 9). 7.  “On-site Detention Design Calculation Sheet”	12/02/2011 12/02/2011 Aug 2010 12/02/2011 Aug 2010 Sept 2010 Sept 2010

Document(s)	Dated
Acoustic Report (Report Number 5661-R1) prepared by SLR Global Environmental Solutions	9 August 2011
Statement of Environmental Effects	Sept2010
Traffic & Parking Impact Assessment	August 2010
Tree Assessment Report prepared by Joy Hafey Environmental Consultant	July 2010
Waste Management Plan	31 Aug 2010

Note:   In the event of any inconsistency between the architectural plan(s) and the landscape plan(s) and/or stormwater disposal plan(s) (if applicable), the architectural plan(s) shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

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

            Condition 90A being added to read as follows:

90A.    A comprehensive Operational Management Plan (or noise management plan) be submitted to the satisfaction of Council before the issue of an Occupation Certificate. The Operational Management Plan is to incorporate the protocols contained in Section 7 of the Acoustic Report (Report Number 5661-R1) dated 9 August 2011 prepared by SLR Global Environmental Solutions and the environmental aspects and controls contained within the letter from Veolia Transport dated 15 August 2011.

            The premises shall operate in accordance with the approved Operational Management Plan at all times.

Reason:        To ensure appropriate noise mitigation measures are incorporated within the operation of the premises.

Condition 91 being modified to read as follows:

91.       (a)         The days and hours of operation are restricted to the following table.

Activity	Times	Days of week
Bus services	5am to 11:30pm (drivers arrive 4.45am & depart by 11:45pm)	Weekdays
	6am to 10:30pm (drivers arrive 5.45am & depart by 10:45pm)	Saturdays
	7am to 9:30pm (drivers arrive 6.45am & depart by 9:45pm)	Sundays
Yardmen	4am to midnight	7 days
Workshop	7am to 6pm	Weekdays
Emergency maintenance	4am to 9:30pm	7 days
Office staff	7am to 7pm	7 days

                        (b)         For a period of not more than 2 years from the date of the issue of the Occupation Certificate, the hours of operation being restricted to the following table.

Activity	Times	Days of week
Standard bus services	5am to 11:30pm (drivers arrive 4.45am & depart by 11:45pm)	Weekdays
	6am to 10:30pm (drivers arrive 5.45am & depart by 10:45pm)	Saturdays
	7am to 9:30pm (drivers arrive 6.45am & depart by 9:45pm)	Sundays
Night Ride Services	11pm to 5am	7 days
Metro Services	5am to 11pm	7 days
Railcorp (Dept of Transport) scheduled rail replacement services	24 hours	7 days
Yardmen	24 hours	7 days
Workshop	7am to 6pm	Weekdays
Emergency maintenance	24 hours	7 days
Office staff	7am to 7pm	7 days

(c)       A continuation of the extended hours of operation referred to in point (b) above will require Council’s approval under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act by way of a further Section 96 application. 

Reason:        To ensure that the extended hours of operation are reviewed and assessed in light of their performance and to ensure that the use does not interfere with the amenity of the area.

            Condition 95 being modified to read as follows:

95.       The proposed front fencing and gates are to be constructed in accordance with the plans and elevations – Project No. P3073 Job No. 1652-10 Issue A prepared by Algorry Zappia & Associates dated 1 June 2011.

                        Reason:         To confirm the details of the approved                         fencing.

Condition 99 being modified to read as follows:

99.       The proponent shall comply with the recommendations contained within the Acoustic Report (Report Number 5661-R1) prepared by SLR Global Environmental Solutions dated 9 August 2011.

            Reason:         To protect the amenity of the surrounding                         neighbourhood.

(b)       Further, that the persons who lodged an objection be advised of Council’s determination.

DIVISION      The result being:

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

NOES            Councillors P J Garrard, L E Wearne and A A Wilson.

NOTE:       1       Councillor A Issa, OAM MP returned to the meeting at 9.27 pm during consideration of this matter.

2       Councillor P B Barber retired from the meeting at 9.27 pm during consideration of this matter.

9.11	SUBJECT          67 Abeckett Street, GRANVILLE  NSW  2142 Lot 60 DP 632569 (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward) DESCRIPTION Section 82A review of determination to seek approval for demolition, tree removal and construction of a 2 storey dual occupancy development. REFERENCE   DA/514/2010 - S82A submitted 14 March 2011 APPLICANT/S  Mr M Sarwar OWNERS          Mr M Sarwar REPORT OF     Manager Development Services REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL                             The application is referred to Council as it is an application made under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
	RESOLVED      (Lack/Elmore)
12641	That Council change its previous determination of DA/514/2010 and grant a deferred commencement consent to Development Application DA/514/2010 for demolition, tree removal and construction of a 2 storey dual occupancy development on land at 67 Abeckett Street, Granville for the reasons contained in Attachment 1 of this report.
	DIVISION      The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors .A Bide, G J Elmore, P Esber, J D Finn, P J Garrard, A Issa, OAM MP, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, P K Maitra, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES            None.

9.12	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 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.
	MOTION             (Garrard/Elmore) (a)      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. (b)      Further, that Council officers provide a report on appropriate representations that could be made to the Minister and supported by relevant Councils seeking a review of Clause 50 Affordable Rental Housing SEPP on the basis the SEPP provides an additional revenue stream for the State Government and permits poor quality buildings to remain.
	AMENDMENT   (Bide/Wearne) (a)      That the application be deferred pending the provision of potential grounds of refusal for the application. (b)      Further, that Council officers provide a report on appropriate representations that could be made to the Minister and supported by relevant Councils seeking a review of Clause 50 Affordable Rental Housing SEPP on the basis the SEPP provides an additional revenue stream for the State Government but permits poor quality buildings to remain.
12642	The amendment was put and carried and on being put as the motion was again carried.
	DIVISION      The result being: AYES             The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid and Councillors A Bide, P Esber, P J Garrard, M A Lack, C X Lim, S D Lloyd, M D McDermott, L E Wearne and A A Wilson. NOES            Councillors G J Elmore, A Issa, OAM MP and P K Maitra.
	NOTE:             1          Councillor M D McDermott left the meeting at 9.43 pm and returned at 9.44 pm during consideration of this matter.                           2          Councillor J D Finn had previously declared an interest in this matter as an employee of Housing NSW and temporarily left the meeting during consideration and voting on this matter.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

12643          RESOLVED              (Garrard/Lloyd)

That Standing Orders be suspended to enable consideration to be given to an urgent motion regarding work being undertaken within the City by CLM as sub contractors for Endeavour Energy.

The Lord Mayor ruled that the matter was one of urgency.

1	SUBJECT          Damage Caused to Council Infrastructure as a Result of Sub Contractors within the City. REFERENCE   F2011/00847 FROM                 Councillor Paul Garrard
	RESOLVED      (Garrard/Wilson)
12644	(a) That Parramatta City Council acknowledges that there are extensive infrastructure works being undertaken within the City by CLM who are sub-contractors for Endeavour Energy. (b) That Council wishes to express its extreme concern over the damage which is being caused to the city’s infrastructure and the public domain including footpaths both concrete and grass, roadways, parks, trees and intersections. (c) That in order to ensure a complete repair of all effected areas within the City, that a co-ordinated approach within the organisation be developed to record and monitor the activities of the various contractors and sub-contractors and that an immediate audit be undertaken to access the existing state of disrepair caused by these activities. (d) That a cross functional approach be utilised by the organisation bringing together place planning, asset management and construction teams to develop an appropriate response to have the effected areas brought back to their original condition and to keep the contractors accountable for those repairs. (e) Further, that the CEO report urgently to the Chamber on the progress of this resolution and what political representations can be made to address the community’s concerns and to support Council’s action.
	NOTE:        Councillor G J Elmore declared an interest in this matter as he works for a utility involved in the hiring of the sub-contractor.  Councillor Elmore left the meeting during consideration and voting on this matter.

FURTHER SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

12645        MOTION             (Finn)

That Standing Orders remain suspended to consider a further urgent matter pertaining to the marking of Dan Mahoney Reserve for exclusive use of a Personal Training Organisation.

The Lord Mayor ruled the matter not urgent as the issue was currently receiving consideration and will be the subject of a future report.

NOTE:        Councillor G J Elmore returned to the meeting at 10.05 pm during consideration of this matter.

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

12646        RESOLVED      (Wilson/Bide)

That Standing Orders be resumed.

Notices of Motion

10.1	SUBJECT          Parramatta Gaol REFERENCE   P2008/01338 - D02081350 FROM                 Councillor J D Finn
	RESOLVED      (Finn/Lloyd)
12647	(a)      That Council seek advice from the State Government about the intended future use of Parramatta Gaol and surrounding areas. (b)      Further, that Council hold a forum with key stakeholders such as the Chamber of Commerce, the Parramatta Historical Society, the Parramatta Park Trust, the State and Federal Members for Parramatta, and the groups involved in the Female Factory and Parramatta Girls' Home to develop ideas for the adaptive reuse of the site that will allow it to be preserved, accessed, enjoyed and used successfully.
	NOTE:      1        Councillor P Esber left the meeting at 10.08 pm and returned at 10.14 pm during consideration of this matter.                    2        Councillor A Issa OAM retired from the meeting at 10.13 pm during consideration of this matter.                    3        Councillor P Esber then retired from the meeting during discussion on this matter at 10.17 pm

Economy and Development

11.1	SUBJECT          Variations to Standards under SEPP 1 REFERENCE   F2009/00431 - D02076657 REPORT OF     Manager Development Services
	RESOLVED      (Elmore/Wearne)
12648	That the report be received and noted.

11.2	SUBJECT          Proposed listing of Lake Parramatta Dam Wall and St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery on NSW State Heritage Register REFERENCE   F2011/00862 - D02084403 REPORT OF     Heritage Advisor
	MOTION             (Bide/Lim)
	That Parramatta City Council support the Heritage Council’s proposal to list St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery on the NSW State Heritage Register.
	AMENDMENT   (Finn/Lack) That Parramatta City Council support the Heritage Council’s proposal to list Lake Parramatta Dam Wall and St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery on the NSW State Heritage Register.
	The amendment was put and lost on  the Lord Mayor’s casting vote.
12649	The motion was put and carried on the Lord Mayor’s casting vote.
	NOTE: 1 A Notice of Motion to rescind this decision was submitted following the conclusion of the meeting. 2       Councillor M D McDermott left the meeting at 10.31 pm and returned at 10.33 pm during consideration of this matter.                  3       Councillor A A Wilson left the meeting at 10.42 pm and returned at 10.49 pm during consideration of this matter.

11.3	SUBJECT          Former Channel 7 Studios, 61 Mobbs Lane, Epping (Lot 1 DP 129023, Lot 2 DP 129023, Lot 1 DP 570891, Lot 2 DP 732070) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward) DESCRIPTION Project application for the construction of Building 6, 9, 10 and 17 (Stage 2 Residential Development) REFERENCE   NCA/5/2011 - Submitted 10 August 2011 APPLICANT/S  Meriton Apartments Pty Limited OWNERS          Karimbla Properties (No 9) Pty Ltd REPORT OF     Manager Development Services. Also Senior Development Assessment Officer Memorandum dated 8 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 the construction of Buildings 6, 9, 10 and 17 (Stage 2 Residential).                             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.
	RESOLVED      (Wearne/Wilson)
12650	That Council endorse the submission made by Council staff provided under separate cover subject to an addition in the conclusion section requesting that the traffic lights at the corner of Marsden Road and Mobbs Lane be installed as a matter of urgency.

CLOSED SESSION
12651	RESOLVED      (Wearne/Maitra) Members of the press and public be excluded from the meeting of the Closed Session and access to the correspondence and reports relating to the items considered during the course of the Closed Session be withheld. This action is taken in accordance with Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act, 1993 as the items listed come within the following provisions:-

1       Legal Matters Monthly Report to Council. (D02076661) - This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (g) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

2       Referral of Inspection report by the NSW Fire & Rescue (FRNSW). (D02083359) - This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (e) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law.

3       Acquisition of Property . (D02085562) - This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (c) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

NOTE:     1.         The meeting was extended during Closed Session to enable consideration of the remaining items on the agenda.

                  2          Councillor Wilson retired from the meeting during Closed Session at 11.30 pm.

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

12.1	SUBJECT          Legal Matters Monthly Report to Council REFERENCE   F2004/07898 - D02076661 REPORT OF     Manager Development Services
	RESOLVED      (Lim/Wilson)
12652	That the report be received and noted.

12.2	SUBJECT          Referral of Inspection report by the NSW Fire & Rescue (FRNSW) REFERENCE   F2004/07367 - D02083359 REPORT OF     Service Manager Environment and Protection
	RESOLVED      (Wearne/Bide)
12653	(a)      That Council notes the referred letter from the FRNSW dated 13 July 2011 pursuant to Section 121ZD of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the action taken by Council with the issuing of a Notice of Intention to serve an Order 6 under the EP&A Act. (b)      That Council pursue the notice of intention and issue an Order 6 should the Notice of intention not be complied with. (c)       That FRNSW have advised of the action taken in regard to this matter. (d)      That Council notes that the Regulatory Services Unit advice to the Building Professionals Board of the FRNSW concerns regarding this matter. (e)      Further, that once orders are issued on this matter, they be added to the Section 149(5) certificate.

12.3	SUBJECT          Acquisition of Property REFERENCE   F2011/02581 - D02085562 REPORT OF     Development Manager Analyst. Property Development
	RESOLVED      (Wearne/Wilson)
12654	That consideration of this report be deferred for one month pending further information on the rationale of purchasing this property.

RESCISSION MOTIONS

The Lord Mayor, Councillor J Chedid advised that a Notice of Motion to rescind the following item had been received prior to the termination of the meeting:-

1       Item 9.6 of Major Applications regarding 183-185 Excelsior Street, Guildford (Minute No 12636 refers) by Councillors A Issa, OAM, P Esber and P J Garrard.

The meeting terminated at 12.25 am on Tuesday, 13 September 2011.

FURTHER RESCISSION MOTION

A further Notice of Motion to rescind Item 11.2 of Economy and Development regarding Proposed listing of Lake Parramatta Dam Wall and St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery on NSW State Heritage Register (Minute No 12649 refers)  was submitted by Councillors J D Finn, M D McDermott and P K Maitra immediately following the conclusion of the meeting.

THIS PAGE AND THE PRECEDING 38 PAGES ARE THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MONDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2011 AND CONFIRMED ON MONDAY,  26 SEPTEMBER 2011.

Lord Mayor