Agenda of Council - 7 November 2011

The Lord Mayor Clr Lorraine Wearne -

Lachlan Macquarie Ward

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

Sue Coleman – Group Manager City Services			Assistant Minutes Clerk – Joy Bramham
Greg Smith – Group Manager Corporate			Minutes Clerk – Grant Davies
Sue Weatherley–Group Manager Outcomes & Development

Clr Paul Barber – Caroline Chisholm Ward			Clr John Chedid – Elizabeth Macarthur 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, Deputy Lord Mayor – Lachlan Macquarie Ward
Clr Prabir Maitra – Arthur Phillip Ward			Clr Andrew Bide – Caroline Chisholm Ward
Clr Julia Finn – Arthur Phillip Ward	Clr Michael McDermott - Elizabeth Macarthur Ward	Clr Antoine (Tony) Issa, OAM MP – Woodville Ward	Clr Chiang Lim– Arthur Phillip Ward

Staff

GALLERY

Council 7 November 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO

1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Council (Development) - 10 October 2011, Special Council – 17 October 2011

2 APOLOGIES

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

4 Petitions

5 Minutes of Lord Mayor

Note: A Confidential Lord Mayor Minute will be distributed under separate cover to Councillors dealing with the Chief Executive Officer’s Performance Review

6 Public Forum

7 PETITIONS

8 Rescission Motions

8.1 Rescission Motion - Development Application - 171 Parramatta Road, Granville

9 Economy and Development

9.1 Economic Development Vision and Strategy

9.2 8 Almond Street, Constitution Hill
(Caroline Chisholm Ward) (Lot 12 DP 214933)

9.3 7 Regiment Grove, Winston Hills
(Lot 87 DP 270075) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)

9.4 253 Church Street, PARRAMATTA
(Lot B DP 380256) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

9.5 Planning Proposal - 220 & 222 Church Street & 48 Macquarie Street, Parramatta

9.6 Proposal for RTA to submit DA for Continuous Foreshore Access

10 Environment and Infrastructure

10.1 Barry Wilde Bridge Fountain

10.2 Traffic Engineering Advisory Group Minutes of meeting held on 6 October 2011

10.3 Parramatta Traffic Committee Minutes of meeting held on 6 October 2011

11 Community and Neighbourhood

11.1 Allocation of PCC Multi-year Community Grants Funds

11.2 PCC Community Small Grants

12 Governance and Corporate

12.1 Risk Management Institution of Australia RMIA Conference 2011 - 20 - 22 November 2011 - Melbourne

12.2 Schedule of Council Meetings for 2012

12.3 Investments Report for August 2011

12.4 Alteration to Question Time at Council Meetings

12.5 Audit Committee Minutes

12.6 Review of Customers Compliments and Complaints Policy

13 Notices of Motion

13.1 Free Access to Aquatic Centres

13.2 Support for Office of Lord Mayor

13.3 Staff Redundancies

13.4 Celebration of Riverside Theatres' 25th Anniversary

14 Closed Session

14.1 Tender 14/2011 - Tender for the Provision of Security Alarm Monitoring, Response, and Guards 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.

14.2 Tender 15/2011 - Tender for the Provision of Security Equipment Installation and Maintenance

14.3 Garbage Collection Tender (Resource Recovery Services)

14.4 Referral of Inspection report by the NSW Fire & Rescue (FRNSW)

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.

14.5 Request for Proposals and Car Parking Facility

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.

14.6 Proposed Acquisition of Property

14.7 Lord Mayor Minute – CEO’s Performance Review

Note: This Lord Mayor Minute will be distributed to Councillors under separate cover

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (a) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals

15 DECISIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION

16 QUESTION TIME

Council 7 November 2011 Item 8.1

RESCISSION MOTION

ITEM NUMBER 8.1

SUBJECT Rescission Motion - Development Application - 171 Parramatta Road, Granville

REFERENCE DA/76/2010 - D02145642

REPORT OF Team Leader Council Support

To be moved by Councillors M Lack, G Elmore and P Barber:-

That the resolution of the Special Council Meeting held on 17 October 2011 in relation to a Suspension of Standing Orders regarding a Development Application for 171 Parramatta Road, Granville as follows:-

“That Council advise the Joint Regional Planning Panel that it supports the approval of DA/76/2010 at 171 Parramatta Road, Granville for the following reasons:-

1 Council has adopted a policy to review the planning policies for Parramatta Road, Granville so that they align with the objectives of the Urban Renewal SEPP and allow for a mixed development including residential (as demonstrated by the Council decision in DA/627/2010).

2 The design of the development is consistent with the objectives of the 2001 LEP which is the relevant planning instrument for the site.

3 The Council agrees with the comments of the Design Review Panel that :-

3.1 The scale of the development is appropriate for this location and it could provide an example of how higher density development might be achieved along Parramatta Road.

3.2 The proposal is based on a discussion with Council officers of an envelope for the development and this is appropriate.

3.3 Overlooking will be prevented by the provision of horizontal louvres on balconies on all levels.

3.4 The 25% requirement for deep soil on this site is excessive given the highly urban nature of the site.

4 The application was lodged before the DLEP was placed on public exhibition and some 10 months before the DLEP was adopted by Council and it appears that the application is prejudiced by the delay due to the requirements of RailCorp.”

be and is hereby rescinded.”

NOTE

The subject notice of rescission was received on 19 October after the closure of the Special Council Meeting held on 17 October 2011.

Clause 34(13) of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice notes that a rescission motion handed to the CEO after the meeting has been closed will not stop the resolution from being carried into effect until such time that it is considered at a meeting of the Council.

Council’s Manager Development Services has advised Councillors via email dated 24 October 2011 that:-

“Dear Councillors,

The JRPP are meeting on Thursday 27 October 2011 to consider DA/76/2010 (171 Parramatta Road). A copy of the council decision of 17 October 2011 has been provided to the panel secretariat for distribution to the members of the JRPP. The panel secretariat has also been advised of the recent receipt of the rescission motion.

It is not known what decision will be made by the JRPP at their meeting on Thursday. The options available are: refusal of the application, approve the application or defer the application again.

Further advice will be provided following the meeting on Thursday.”

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Council 7 November 2011 Item 9.1

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.1

SUBJECT Economic Development Vision and Strategy

REFERENCE F2011/02463 - D02098076

REPORT OF Business and Development Manager. Economic Development

PURPOSE:

To advance a 25 year economic development vision for Parramatta, outline a strategic plan for assisting jobs growth, present a proposed 5 year allocation of the economic development levy and seek approval for the first year’s expenditure plan.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council endorse the strategic direction and recommended 5 year action plan outlined in the Parramatta Economic Development Strategy.

(b) That Council approve the first year’s allocation of the levy noting that expenditure beyond the current financial year will be subject to annual review and approval by Councillors.

(c) That Council provide in-principle support for the 5 year allocation of the levy noting it will be subject to new approval in June 2012.

(d) That Council endorse the creation of a Partnership Fund of $60,000 per year from the levy for implementation of the Partnership Fund Application Process as set out in this report and in the attachment.

(e) Further, that Councillors be provided with regular updates on the economic development of Parramatta throughout the year.

BACKGROUND

1. Councillors requested an economic development strategy and levy expenditure plan be prepared for the approval of Councillors at a workshop held 29 November 2010.

2. The draft strategy is attached, together with a recommended 5 year allocation of the levy.

3. The strategy makes employment generation the overarching goal for Parramatta. It aims to meet or exceed the Metropolitan Plan targets of 27,500 extra jobs by 2036; increase the number of people living and working in Parramatta; shift the profile of the workforce towards the ‘knowledge’ end of the employment spectrum; and concentrate employment in 4 specialists precincts; CBD, Westmead, Camellia and Rydalmere (all of which are located inside the boundary levied for the ‘special rate’).

4. It identifies six broad priority areas that are recommended as the focus for activity over the next five years. They are:

a. City identity

b. Business

c. Labour

d. Property

e. Amenity

f. Infrastructure

Each area contains a number of actions to be implemented either by the economic development team, or by associated business units within Council.

Some activities are already underway, for example the review of Rydalmere and Westmead.

Measures have been applied to each area (as outlined in attached strategy).

5. The strategy stresses the importance of working in partnership with other levels of government, the Western Sydney region, the local business and resident communities and the private sector of Greater Sydney.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

6. The strategy has not allocated funding for a Tourism Development Officer, however, this position could be funded in part or in full from the economic development reserve. Expenditure from the reserve, however, affects Council’s net operating result. Alternatively, Councillors could choose to fund a Tourism Officer in place of some of the other recommendations of the plan.

7. A number of business organisations and business media publishers have been supported in the past by funds from the levy. To manage this process more transparently and to enable Councillors to determine the allocation of funding, it is recommended that Council make a Partnership Fund of $60,000 per year available from the levy and ask external applicants to apply. Councillors will then determine the successful applicants on a yearly basis commencing in the 2012-2013 financial year. It is recommended the fund open in February 2012 and potential recipients be informed in writing. (Funding will continue to be supplied to current recipients at the same level as last year in the interim period.)

8. The levy allocation plan exceeds the approved levy allocation of $550,000 by $50,000 in 2013-2014 and $100,000 in 2014-2015 in recognition of the fact that levy revenues increase year on year and large reserves are not optimal.

CONSULTATION AND TIMING

9. Internal units have been consulted in the development of this strategy.

10. Should Council wish to seek the feedback of external stakeholders, it is recommended the strategy be put on exhibition for 28 days and specific commentary and/or support sought from key business, industry and community groups.

Solaire Eggert

Manager Economic Development

Attachments:

1 View	Economic Development Strategy including 5 year levy allocatiion - under separate cover
2 View	Guidelines for Partners Fund Allocation	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 7 November 2011 Item 9.2

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.2

SUBJECT 8 Almond Street, Constitution Hill
(Caroline Chisholm Ward) (Lot 12 DP 214933)

DESCRIPTION Demolition and construction of a 2 storey dwelling house.

REFERENCE DA/461/2011 - Submitted 7th July 2011

APPLICANT/S Greenfield Accredited Certifiers

OWNERS Ms K T Khine

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 6^th October 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The matter is referred to Council as more than seven (7) submissions were received

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for demolition and the construction of a two storey dwelling house.

Twelve (12) submissions and a petition containing 36 signatures were received objecting to the proposal. A summary of the issues raised in written submissions and the petition include: The building style, mass, bulk and density, streetscape and character of the area, privacy, tree removal, view loss, aesthetic impacts, landscaped area, building height, external finishes, overshadowing, garage dominance, traffic, asbestos contamination , noise and excessive cut and fill.

The proposal is compliant with the LEP 2001 and DCP 2005 controls.

The proposed dwelling has been amended whereby the garage was relocated 360mm behind the front wall of the dwelling. This resulted in the rear setback being reduced from 25.2m to 23.2m. The brick screen wall associated with the alfresco area was deleted and a 1.8m timber slat privacy screen was added to the eastern elevation of the alfresco area which is setback 2.44m from the side boundary.

The amended plans are consistent with the objectives of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005. The proposal is satisfactory with respect to design, bulk and scale, privacy and overshadowing. The site is not heritage listed nor in the vicinity of heritage items and is not located within a conservation area. There is sufficient landscaping and open space areas provided as part of the proposal. The new dwelling is appropriately sited without unduly impacting on the streetscape or adjoining properties. The new dwelling is considered to represent the desired future character of the area and the modernisation of the streetscape, whereby older single storey dwellings are replaced

with newly constructed dwellings being two storeys in height and of a modern design and finish.

Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the Council, as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No.DA/461/2011 for the demolition, tree removal and construction of a 2 storey dwelling house at 8 Almond Street, Constitution Hill for a period of five (5) years from the date on the Notice of Determination subject to the conditions of consent contained in attachment 1.

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

Michael Tully

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	S79C Report	40 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Plans	2 Pages
4	Confidential plans	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 7 November 2011 Item 9.3

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.3

SUBJECT 7 Regiment Grove, Winston Hills
(Lot 87 DP 270075) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)

DESCRIPTION Construction of a two storey dwelling.

REFERENCE DA/597/2011 - 1 September 2011

APPLICANT/S Brilliant Homes

OWNERS Nathan and Ashya McDonald

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 11 October 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The proposal seeks a SEPP 1 variation greater than 10% to Clause 38 ‘Minimum allotment sizes in Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The applicant seeks approval for the construction of a two storey dwelling within the Lachlan View Estate.

The dwelling house proposed in this application will be located on an irregular shaped allotment of land that has an area of 601m²and a frontage of 12.355m. This represents a 17.6% variation to the frontage requirements of Clause 38 of LEP 2001. Clause 38 of PLEP 2001 requires dwelling houses to be constructed on land with a minimum frontage of 15m.

The subject site is located within a housing estate that was approved by the Land and Environment Court in August 1998 for land subdivision and the construction of 59 dwellings at 20-22 Buckleys Road. Many parcels of land created in the subdivision have allotment widths of less than 15m wide.

The variation to the minimum frontage width is considered appropriate in this particular case as the allotment of land is in existence and was consented to by the Court in 1998.

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

The likely impacts of the proposed development have been assessed and the proposed development is considered acceptable with respect to the standards and controls contained within Council’s PLEP 2001 and PDCP 2005, and will have no adverse impacts in terms of site stability, bulk and scale, privacy or shadowing.

The design, bulk and scale of the proposed dwelling are appropriate and consistent with development within the Lachlan View Estate. There is adequate landscaping and open space area and the dwelling will not result in any adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties.

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

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council support the variation to Clause 38 of the PLEP 2001 under the provisions of SEPP 1.

(b) Further, that Development Application No. 597/2011 for the construction of a two storey dwelling on land at 7 Regiment Grove, Winston Hills be approved subject to conditions of consent in Attachment 1 of this report.

Maya Sarwary

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Report	37 Pages
2 View	Location Map	1 Page
3 View	Plans	4 Pages
4	Confidential plan	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 7 November 2011 Item 9.4

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.4

SUBJECT 253 Church Street, PARRAMATTA
(Lot B DP 380256) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Alterations and additions to a heritage listed building including provision of access to the first floor from the Church Street frontage.

REFERENCE DA/617/2011 - Submitted 8 September 2011

APPLICANT/S L FORM PTY LTD

OWNERS Syros Investments Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT

11 October 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application has been referred to Council as the proposal involves works to a heritage item.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for alterations and additions to a heritage listed building including the provision of access to the first floor from the Church Street frontage, modifying the existing shop front, updating fire egress from the ground floor retail and Level 1 commercial office by providing a fire exit to the rear lane and internal alterations.

The site is listed as a heritage item of local significance under schedule 5 of Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007. The application has been considered by Council’s Heritage Advisor who has reviewed all documentation submitted with the development application, and supports the proposed works as only the interior, small portion of the rear wall and shop front areas are affected which contain no significant historic fabric.

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

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007 and City Centre Development Control Plan 2007. The likely impacts of the proposed works have been assessed and are considered to be compatible with the character of existing commercial developments in the surrounding area.

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council grant development consent to Development Application No DA/617/2011 for alterations and additions to a heritage listed building including provision of access to the first floor from the Church Street frontage and an egress door to the rear lane on land at 253 Church Street, Parramatta subject to conditions contained within Attachment 1.

Nicholas Clarke

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Report	11 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Plans	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 7 November 2011 Item 9.5

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.5

SUBJECT Planning Proposal - 220 & 222 Church Street & 48 Macquarie Street, Parramatta

REFERENCE RZ/5/2011 - D02144811

REPORT OF Group Manager Outcomes and Development

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement of a Planning Proposal to amend the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 to allow a re-distribution and increase in the maximum allowable floor space ratio on land at 220 & 222 Church Street & 48 Macquarie Street, Parramatta. Subject to Council’s endorsement, the Planning Proposal will then be referred to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for consideration under the gateway process

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the Planning Proposal at Attachment 2 to amend the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 to re-distribute and increase the maximum allowable floor space ratio on land at 220 & 222 Church Street & 48 Macquarie Street, Parramatta be endorsed and forwarded for Gateway assessment by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

(b) That subject to Gateway determination the Planning Proposal be publicly exhibited simultaneously with the Development Application for the site.

THE SITE

1. The subject site is located in the Parramatta CBD at 220 & 222 Church Street & 48 Macquarie Street, Parramatta. The site is illustrated in Figure 1 in Attachment 1.

2. The site is located centrally within the Parramatta City Centre, to the north of Civic Place. The site currently contains the following:

- The ‘Greenway Plaza’, a one and two storey retail and commercial building (222 Church Street);

- A two storey retail and commercial brick building (220 Church Street); and

- A three storey brick mixed use building (48 Macquarie Street).

THE PROPOSAL

3. In October 2011, Council received a Planning Proposal (located at Attachment 2) from Leighton Properties Pty Ltd, acting on behalf of the registered proprietors of the site to re-distribute and increase the maximum allowable Floor Space Ratio (FSR) under Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 (City Centre LEP) to facilitate the development of a commercial tower on the Macquarie Street frontage. The Planning Proposal is accompanied by an Urban Design Study that provides justification and explanation for the amendment sought. The Planning Proposal does not seek to amend the zoning and maximum building height provisions of the City Centre LEP.

4. The site is a prime location for a high grade commercial tower building in the Parramatta CBD. The current provisions of the City Centre LEP and site constraints make it unlikely for the site to be developed (refer to Attachment 1). To achieve the desired future redevelopment of this land amendment of the FSR in the City Centre LEP is required by way of a Planning Proposal.

5. The proponent intends to lodge a Development Application for a mixed use development containing retail and commercial offices with a low rise retail building fronting Church Street and a 68m (approximately) tall commercial office tower building fronting Macquarie Street and Horwood Place. Whilst the Planning Proposal is being assessed a Design Excellence Process will be pursued in accordance with Clause 22B of the City Centre LEP as the proposed commercial office tower is greater than 55 metres in height. It is proposed that the Planning Proposal be exhibited simultaneously with the Development Application for the site. This has the advantage of elucidating to the general public how the site would be developed under the proposed amendment to the City Centre LEP.

6. Council’s planning officers are currently working on the consolidation of the City Centre LEP and Parramatta LEP 2011. However this process will not occur within timeframes suited to the development proposed for this site.

7. Council’s Urban Design, Economic Development, Development Services and Property Development units have been included in the discussions of this Planning Proposal. The Planning Assessment is located at Attachment 1.

PLANNING CONTROLS

8. The land is zoned B4 Mixed Use under the provisions of the City Centre LEP.

9. Three maximum FSRs apply across the site in the City Centre LEP. The FSR is divided across the site as three parallel north to south strips as shown in Figure 4 and 5 in Attachment 2. More specifically:

§ that part of the site (18m deep) fronting Church Street has a maximum FSR of 3:1;

§ that central part of the site has a maximum FSR of 10:1; and

§ that eastern part of the site fronting Macquarie Street has a maximum FSR of 6:1.

10. The proposed amendment seeks to introduce two new maximum FSRs for the site (refer to Figure 7 in Attachment 1). It is proposed to generally redistribute the floor space with an FSR of 2:1 on the part of the site fronting Church Street and an FSR of 11:1 for the part of the site fronting Macquarie Street.

ISSUES

Land Use Planning & Urban Design

11. The proposed amendment would increase the maximum allowable floor space for the site from 23,938sqm to 27,581sqm. (It should be noted that this quantum of floor space is only theoretical, as under the current configuration of the land and applicable planning controls it is unlikely the land would ever be developed to its potential). This represents an increase of 3,643sqm over the current controls. This is a 15% increase, 10% of which can be achieved under the provisions of Clause 22B Design Excellence of the City Centre LEP without the need of this Planning Proposal. The proposed amendments will have the effect of ‘unlocking’ the site and enabling a commercially viable and prominent and responsive commercial office tower to be developed. The amendment under this Planning Proposal will ensure that the final form of development on the site is more appropriately tailored to the site’s characteristics and opportunities.

12. The Planning Proposal addresses all relevant matters outlined by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s (DP&I) guideline to preparing a Planning Proposal, including compliance with all relevant State Environmental Planning Policies and consistency with applicable Ministerial Directions (s.117 directions). Refer to Attachment 1 for further details.

13. Leighton Properties has engaged Crone Partners Architectural Studios to undertake an Urban Design Study and preliminary concepts for the redevelopment of the site (see Appendix A of Attachment 2). The study is not a detailed design for the final development of the site, but is a massing study that illustrates how the site may be developed as a result of the proposed amendment to the City Centre LEP. Specifically the study examined the potential development of the site and identified preliminary concepts based on an analysis of the site’s opportunities and constraints, its commercial core location and the building's future role within the Parramatta CBD.

14. The constraints and opportunities and the proposed amendment to the FSR control will result in a maximum allowable floor area of 27,581sqm. Whilst the final built form will be the subject of the Design Excellence Process and Development Application, the concept planning has shown that an appropriate built form can be achieved under the proposed LEP amendment. Specifically, the amendment will facilitate:

§ a lower scale building fronting Church Street in compliance with existing height controls;

§ a 16 storey commercial office building on the eastern portion of the site, with potential for a 3 storey street edge podium; and

§ new public domain spaces and pedestrian access ways integrated with existing and future connections within the commercial core.

15. Whilst the Planning Proposal increases the amount of developable floor space on the land, the height will be set by the sun access plane controls for Civic Place and the height controls applying to Church Street. As illustrated in the Urban Design Study in Appendix A of Attachment 2, the built form that would result under the existing controls would be a series of squat and bulky buildings, that because of their inappropriate location would not be able to be satisfactorily serviced. Moreover, the height and bulk of a development produced under the current FSR controls would be less likely to contribute to the rejuvenation of this part of Parramatta’s commercial core. Larger commercial taller buildings will establish and maintain prominence within the Parramatta context - the current FSR controls do not provide for this to occur on the site.

16. Under this planning proposal the resultant floor space will:

§ generate a significant number of jobs thereby contributing towards the employment targets for the region;

§ support the vitality and economic growth of Parramatta as Sydney’s second CBD; and

§ contribute to improving pedestrian amenity with new through site links and activation of the public domain and streetscape around Horwood Place.

17. The proposed FSRs for the site would continue to address the objectives of Clause 22 in the City Centre LEP for the control of FSRs as demonstrated in Attachment 1.

PROCESS - NEXT STEPS

18. Recent planning reforms regarding the preparation of LEPs were introduced on 1 July 2009. Under this process, Council, as the relevant planning authority must resolve to support a Planning Proposal before it can proceed to Gateway determination.

19. The Planning Proposal and Urban Design Study document prepared by the proponent, together with this Report and Planning Assessment at Attachment 1 will be submitted to DP&I for initial Gateway determination should Council resolve to support and proceed with this proposal.

20. Community consultation is undertaken after Council and the DP&I have considered and subsequently approved to proceed with the amendment. It is proposed that in accordance with the DP&I’s ‘A guide to preparing local environmental plans’ that the Planning Proposal undergo a 28 day public exhibition period. This period would include consultation with public authorities. It is noted that confirmation of the public exhibition period and requirements for the Planning Proposal will be subject to the Gateway determination being issued by the DP&I.

CONCLUSION

21. The Urban Design Study undertaken for the land demonstrates that changes to existing FSRs as proposed by this Planning Proposal will support a built form outcome that is appropriate in the context of the site, is commercially viable and would generate a significant number of jobs thereby contributing towards the employment targets for the region, thus supporting the vitality and economic growth of Parramatta.

22. It is evident that the existing buildings on the land are reaching the end of their functional and economic life and there is an opportunity to redevelop the site to provide new and improved retail and commercial uses that can contribute towards reinforcing Parramatta status as Sydney’s second CBD. The current FSRs do not allow the full potential of the site to be reached. Being located within the commercial core of Parramatta CBD, it is critical the land is able to deliver the economic benefits that are expected under the City Centre LEP.

23. It is recommended that Council resolve to endorse and forward this Planning Proposal to the DP&I for Gateway Determination in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

Sue Weatherley

Group Manager Outcomes and Development

Attachments:

1 View	Planning Assessment Report	17 Pages
2 View	Planning Proposal submitted by proponent	66 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 7 November 2011 Item 9.6

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.6

SUBJECT Proposal for RTA to submit DA for Continuous Foreshore Access

REFERENCE F2011/02581 - D02145702

REPORT OF Development Manager Analyst.Property Development

PURPOSE:

This report is an update on the RTA funded investigations and design work for continuous foreshore access past Lennox Bridge and seeks Council approval to provide land owner’s consent to lodge a DA for the installation of portals in Lennox Bridge.

RECOMMENDATION

a) That Council note the RTA funded Investigations and DA documentation in this report, for the proposed works on Council and RTA land

b) That Council approve the finalisation and submission of a DA for the proposed works

c) Further that for the above purpose, Council provide the necessary land owners consent for works on Council land to complement the land owner consent to be provided by RTA for the proposed works

BACKGROUND

1. This report follows on from advice to Councillors in March 2010 of the commencement of an RTA funded Feasibility Study into options for continued foreshore access past Lennox Bridge, subsequent RTA funded investigations in early 2011 and design work more recently of proposed portals that were recommended in the Feasibility Study.

2. The investigations and design work has been completed in the form of a draft DA for submission to Parramatta City Council and the RTA has requested that Council provide the necessary land owner’s consent for works required on Council land, including parts of the river foreshore approaches and Church Street footpath upgrade works.

3. RTA has funded works to date and has recently committed to another $200,000 in funding for a full bridge condition survey and DA for this financial year.

4. Initial investigations were undertaken as part of the ARUP Feasibility Report (August 2011) are as follows:

a. Option 1 - Portals through the abutments of the Bridge

b. Option 2 - Long ramps and bridge over Church Street

c. Option 3 - Boardwalk structure over the river through the arch of the Bridge

d. Option 4 - Lifts on each side of the Bridge with an at-grade crossing of Church Street

On the basis of a multi criteria assessment, Option 1 of portals through the abutments of the Bridge was the preferred option (Attachment 3).

5. In developing the Concept Design (Attachment 1).and DA documentation (refer draft Statement of Environmental Effects Attachment 2). for the portals the project team for the proposed Lennox Bridge portals considered the following:

a. the history of the area, Lennox’s Bridge and subsequent changes - how it came about and how it has and is changing

b. the place - Lennox Bridge, Church Street and the Riverfront Walk – its physical character, attributes, scale and performance and how the elements intersect

c. existing studies and expertise - benefiting from existing research, resources and investigations

d. analysis of conditions - carefully looking at the site, in breadth and in depth, considering heritage and archaeological issues and potential interpretation strategies

e. urban potential - what is desirable and what is possible, what can readily change for the better

f. listening and discussion - drawing on Council's expertise and knowledge of place

g. collaborating with experts and authorities - what issues have been identified and what are potential solutions. Understanding how do they all fit together and what approval processes apply

h. preparing a Strategic Concept Plan for Lennox Bridge – informed by research, analysis and intent, directed to actions and implementation

i. considering the most robust and efficient design and construction solution, while respecting the place's heritage and archaeological potential

j. portals as the catalyst for improvement, with appropriate interpretation embodied in the design

6. The project is a precise and sensitive intervention, which recognises the high heritage value of the bridge and the importance of connectivity of a shared pedestrian path passed the Bridge and through to Parramatta Park under the broader scheme contemplated by the RTAs River Cities Program.

7. In 1835 David Lennox designed the current sandstone arch Bridge. His original design sketches included pedestrian portal arches and stated that “with a footpath on each side, it would add greatly to the health of the inhabitants and the beauty of the Town”, however Governor Brisbane objected to side openings and footpaths, as the allotments were measured from the waters edge.

8. The design is enriched with appropriate interpretation, making the story of the bridge available and accessible to all.

9. The portals will provide strategic activity between 2 key Council owned redevelopment sites being Lennox Bridge Car Park and Riverbank.

10. The introduction of the portals as designed provides a substantial positive impact on the flood patterns upstream of the Lennox Bridge. The maximum predicted flood level is reduced by 590mm effectively halving the flood impact on the Kings School oval, reducing the risk to the Riverside Theatres and improving the design levels for the redevelopment of the Lennox Bridge Car Park site.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

11. The insertion of portals offers a great opportunity to express the inner workings of this Bridge that are currently invisible and hidden on the exterior surface, however its high heritage value may translate to a high level of interest in this proposal.

12. To date the proposal has been presented to a number of key groups in the community including the Heritage Council, Council’s Heritage and Cycleways Advisory Committee and the RTA Heritage Advisory Committee. The feedback from these advisory bodies was that the proposed locations selected for the portals was the preferred location and that the design approach and interpretation was well executed. No comments were received to suggest that work on the portals should cease.

13. The community will be provided with the best opportunity to comment during the DA exhibition period.

14. Whilst the RTA is able to proceed with a determination under part 5, lodging the DA with Council is preferred because it will allow full community consultation.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

15. There is no cost to Council as the RTA have funded works to date including the feasibility study, investigations and design works to date and have committed to provide an additional $200,000 funding for final investigations and submission of the DA.

16. The estimated construction cost of the portals is $2.7m (including approach works) and is subject to budget confirmation by RTA in the 2012/13 financial year.

Kate McCauley

Development Manager

Attachments:

1 View	Draft DA Drawings	14 Pages
2 View	Draft Statement of Environmental Effects	45 Pages
3 View	Extract ARUP Feasibility Report (August 2010)	23 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 7 November 2011 Item 10.1

ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ITEM NUMBER 10.1

SUBJECT Barry Wilde Bridge Fountain

REFERENCE F2010/02284 - D02122086

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer – Environmental Outcomes

PURPOSE:

To propose an additional attraction for residents and visitors to the Parramatta River Foreshore – a “Bridge Fountain” at Barry Wilde Bridge.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council endorses the proposal to construct a Bridge Fountain on Barry Wilde Bridge as outlined in this report.

(b) That funds be allocated from the funding sources identified in this report.

BACKGROUND

1. A Bridge Fountain is a fountain that is attached to a bridge and cascades water down to the river below (see Attachment 4 for an example from South Korea)

2. There are several bridge fountains internationally, but no known examples in Australia, i.e. if one were built in Parramatta it would be an Australian first.

3. There is potential for publicity around this item as a Sesquicentary project for the City.

4. A Bridge Fountain in Parramatta is likely to contribute to the river foreshore as a regional attraction. If successful in achieving this objective, the area will attract significant numbers of additional visitors, with consequent increases in local economic activity and employment .

5. Alternatives to a Bridge Fountain were investigated, such as provision of a screen of water / laser show / projection of images (e.g. like Darling Harbour). However, these were considered to be unsuitable at this point due to

a. Their higher capital cost (approximately four times the capital cost of a Bridge Fountain)

b. Their higher complexity increases operational and maintenance costs

c. The difficulty in building such a system in a flood affected River such as the Parramatta River

d. The use of the space – a screen of water for projection of images associated with the Barry Wilde Bridge would be at right angles to the majority of the audience (on the banks of the River), and as such would not operate to maximum effectiveness. This does not however preclude this option in any future development of activation or interpretation in another location on the River

6. The capital cost of building the Bridge Fountain has been estimated at $350,000 ex GST.

7. The estimated operational and maintenance cost of the Bridge Fountain is $18 per hour.

8. If the Bridge Fountain were operated for 3 hours a day in winter and 5 hours day during the rest of the year then 37,800 kWh of electricity would be consumed and the total operational and maintenance cost would be approximately $30,000 per year.

9. Of the four bridges that cross the Parramatta River in the CBD, Barry Wilde Bridge (see attachments for a map showing the Bridge location) was considered to be the most suitable for attaching a bridge fountain, to the eastern side of the Bridge, as

a. Unlike the Lennox Bridge or Elizabeth St Footbridge (Bridge of Oars) it was felt that Barry Wilde Bridge had no intrinsic aesthetic or heritage value

b. Council owns Barry Wilde Bridge outright, so there are likely to be no issues with other agencies

c. Having the fountain on the eastern side of the Bridge would provide an attractive sight for people arriving by ferry, or for people walking across the Bridge of Oars

d. Electrical power is available relatively close to the Bridge. Once power is brought to the Bridge, it will make future riverside events easier and cheaper to arrange (currently portable generators are required)

e. The shape and form of the Bridge make it relatively easy to attach a bridge fountain to the Bridge superstructure

f. During operation the fountain will hide the current low level footbridge underneath Barry Wilde Bridge, which is on the western side of the Bridge.

10. A concept design has been developed for the bridge fountain, which would be located on the eastern side only (not the western) and also an artists impression of the completed structure (attached to this report).

11. River water will be extracted from near the Bridge, pumped through a filter and ultraviolet light steriliser, then passed through a series of spigots attached to the Bridge, each surrounded by a LED light (see below for an example of a spigot / light).

12. The water will be projected out from the Bridge at a fixed speed and angle.

13. As the water is filtered and sterile, and adds oxygen to the River as it falls, it will improve the water quality in the River.

14. The LED lights are programmable and will allow variable colours / patterns of illumination to be imparted to the falling water.

15. An anemometer (wind speed meter) will be connected to the fountain controller and will stop fountain operation if excessively windy, to stop people being sprayed by water.

16. Solar panels located on the Bridge will reduce the amount of grid electricity used for the fountain pumps and lights, will demonstrate environmental sustainability, and will reduce operating costs.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

17. The construction and operation of the Bridge Fountain is currently unfunded. However, it is believed there are sufficient funds in the Section 94 and CBD Infrastructure Special Rate to enable immediate construction of the Bridge Fountain.

18. Alternative State or Federal sources of funding could also be sought, perhaps linked to the celebrations of 150 years since the formation of Parramatta Council.

19. The operational costs of the Bridge Fountain would require an increase in the operational budget of the Civil Infrastructure Unit of Council. However, the increased economic activity resulting from increased visitation would result in additional rate, parking and other revenues accruing to Council. For example, if over a year, 10,000 additional cars were parked for 3 hours in Parramatta Council operated car parking spaces this would conservatively generate over $50,000 in extra revenue.

TIMEFRAME

20. If approval is given to proceed it is anticipated that the Bridge Fountain would take 3-4 months to be built, with likely completion in the first half of 2012. The Bridge Fountain would be officially opened as part of a Council Major Event or a Sesquicentary celebration.

Financial Impact

21. As discussed in the report, the estimated cost for the construction of the fountain is $350,000. It is proposed that this be funded from the CBD Infrastructure Special Rate Reserve and/or Section 94.

22. The project will require a wide range of component parts from different suppliers and contractors, and project managed in house. As a result of this, all of the supply and contracting components will be below the tender threshold and as such a tender process will not be required.

Paul Hackney

Senior Project Officer

Environmental Outcomes

Attachments:

1 View	Artists impression of the proposed bridge fountain	1 Page
2 View	Photo of Barry Wilde Bridge	1 Page
3 View	Map showing location of Barry Wilde Bridge	1 Page
4 View	Colour Examples of Bridge Fountain and Spigot Light	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

None.

Council 7 November 2011 Item 11.1

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 11.1

SUBJECT Allocation of PCC Multi-year Community Grants Funds

REFERENCE F2011/03209 - D02113918

REPORT OF Grants Officer

PURPOSE:

To propose that unallocated funds from the multi-year PCC community grants funding be allocated to build the skills of local community organisations in the Parramatta LGA to provide and access auspicing services.

RECOMMENDATION

That up to $18,000 (excluding GST) of uncommitted multi-year PCC community grants funds from the 2011-2012 budget be allocated to a project to improve the quality and sustainability of auspice arrangements between community organisations and services in the Parramatta local government area.

BACKGROUND

1. The experience of Parramatta City Council’s Community Capacity Building Team and the Arts and Culture Team has shown that new and emerging organisations face considerable challenges and barriers to establish themselves. The costs associated with incorporation are expensive and the process of incorporation is difficult to navigate.

2. Council’s community grants program, as with many government grant programs, requires applicants to be incorporated or to have the support of an incorporated body willing to auspice the project. The entity providing auspice provides book keeping and reporting oversight, as well as a range of other support services.

3. Knowing that a number of the larger organisations that have traditionally played this auspice role in the Parramatta region were becoming increasingly reluctant to do so, the Community Capacity Building Team sought to question auspice providers and to gauge the experience of those organisations seeking auspice services.

4. A research project has been undertaken over recent months to identify the needs and experiences of the different stakeholders in auspice relationships.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

5. The research project found that a lack of knowledge about auspicing services led to organisations seeking auspicing services not holding discussions with a range of organisations about the services they required, but rather engaging with the first organisation suggested to them. The lack of knowledge about auspicing services led to organisations entering into auspicing arrangements that were not well negotiated or documented and this compounded difficulties when problems in the relationship arose.

6. The research identified that the local community services sector would benefit from greater support and education around best practice options and the issues involved in auspice services.

7. Providing non-incorporated community organisations with more information and support around the issues to be considered before entering an auspice relationship will add value and efficiency to Council’s community grants program and increase the sustainability of the work those organisations do in the community.

8. Building this capacity will not only strengthen relationships between community organisations but will also ensure that small, unincorporated groups will be able to initiate projects and attract funding for new services.

9. It is proposed that up to $18,000 of unallocated funds from the budget for multi-year grants be spent on delivering the next steps:

a. A report on the legal issues relating to auspice arrangements

b. Researching and documenting best practice guidelines and useful templates for both auspice providers and those seeking auspice services

c. A series of workshops for community organisations on best practice in relation to the use and provision of auspice agreements.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

10. These proposed activities are based upon the research study developed through consultation with some key stakeholders regarding auspice services in Parramatta.

11. It is proposed that these activities be carried out this financial year. Resources produced will continue to be disseminated beyond this time, especially through Council’s community grants support program.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

12. The recommendation in this report can be funded from existing funds from the budget, but requires a reassignment of unspent funds allocated for Council’s multi-year community grant commitments.

13. Council has committed to spend $90,000 from the 2011/2012 multi-year community grant budget of $134,105. The proposed budget of $18,000 for this project would be made from the so far unallocated amount.

David Moutou

Grants Officer

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 7 November 2011 Item 11.2

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

ITEM NUMBER 11.2

SUBJECT PCC Community Small Grants

REFERENCE F2011/01904 - D02135591

REPORT OF Grants Officer

PURPOSE:

To seek Council’s endorsement to modify delegated authority relating to administration of the Quarterly Small Grants to align with changes Council adopted in August 2011

RECOMMENDATION

That the Chief Executive Officer is delegated authority by Council to make decisions relating to Small Grants funding subject to the concurrence of the Lord Mayor and the annual budget adopted by Council for this purpose.

BACKGROUND

1. At the Council meeting on 22 August, 2011 Council increased the budget for the Quarterly Small Grants that form part of Council’s Community Grants Program from $10,000 to $20,000.

2. At the Council meeting on 25 June 2007, Council resolved, ‘that the Lord Mayor and General Manager be given delegated authority by Council to approve Small Grants funding up to a maximum of $2,500 per quarter commencing September 2007.’

3. Council’s General Counsel has provided advice on how to update the relevant delegation to align with the funding increase allocated in August 2011.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

4. To enable the current and subsequent Quarterly Small Grants rounds to be approved, it is requested that Council delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the authority to approve Small Grants funding subject to the concurrence of the Lord Mayor and the annual budget adopted by Council for this purpose ($20,000 in 2011/12).

5. The delegation to the Lord Mayor and CEO to approve Small Grants has enabled timely consideration of these matters since September 2007.

6. The proposed recommendation allows the Lord Mayor and CEO to continue to exercise their discretion regarding how the Small Grants funding is allocated throughout the financial year without the need for the delegation to be amended each time Council adjusts the annual budget allocation for this purpose.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

7. The Small Grants program is offered regularly throughout each year with the first Quarterly Small Grants round for 2011/2012 closing on 16 September 2011.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

8. There are no financial implications to Council as the proposed delegation is limited to the budget adopted annually by Council.

David Moutou

Grants Officer

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 7 November 2011 Item 12.1

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 12.1

SUBJECT Risk Management Institution of Australia RMIA Conference 2011 - 20 - 22 November 2011 - Melbourne

REFERENCE F2010/03192 - D02086546

REPORT OF Executive Support Manager

PURPOSE:

This report is being placed before Council to seek the appointment of one (1) Councillor i.e. Lord Mayor or nominee, to attend the Risk Management Institution of Australia (RMIA) Conference 2011 in Melbourne from 20 – 22 November 2011.

RECOMMENDATION

That in line with Council Policy for a Category ‘C’ Conference, one (1) Councillor i.e. Lord Mayor or nominee, should be nominated to attend the Risk Management Institution of Australia (RMIA) Conference 2011 in Melbourne from 20 – 22 November 2011.

BACKGROUND

1. The 8^th Annual RMIA Conference: Today’s Experience, Tomorrow’s Advantage will be held in Melbourne on the 20 -22 November 2011 at the Crown Complex.

2. Approximately 650 risk professionals will come together to learn about the latest trends, issues and best practices in risk management.

3. Conference attendees will have access to more than 40 sessions organised into six (6) streams and presented by industry leaders, contributing to the development of risk professionals across Australia.

4. The Conference includes advanced workshops and master classes held on Sunday 20 November. Networking events include the welcome reception, the business breakfast briefing and conference dinner, as well as coffee breaks, lunches and happy hours held in the trade exhibition.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

5. This is a Category ‘C’ conference. Category ‘C’ permits attendance of one (1) Councillor i.e. Lord Mayor or nominee.

6. A brochure for the conference was not available at the time of completing this report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

7. Delegate registration, travel, accommodation and out-of-pocket expenses will total approximately $3,500.00

Scott Forsdike

Executive Support Manager

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Council 7 November 2011 Item 12.2

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 12.2

SUBJECT Schedule of Council Meetings for 2012

REFERENCE F2004/08629 - D02104510

REPORT OF Team Leader Council Support

PURPOSE:

This report is placed before Council to seek adoption of the Council Meeting dates for 2012.

RECOMMENDATION

That the following Council Meeting dates for 2012 be adopted:-

Monday, 13 February 2012

Monday, 27 February 2012

Monday, 12 March 2012

Monday, 26 March 2012

Tuesday, 10 April 2012 (Easter Monday is 9 April 2012)

Monday, 23 April 2012

Monday, 14 May 2012

Monday, 28 May 2012

Tuesday, 12 June 2012 (Queen’s Birthday is Monday, 11 June 2012)

Monday, 25 June 2012

Monday, 9 July 2012

Monday, 23 July 2012

Monday, 13 August 2012

Monday, 27 August 2012

Monday, 10 September 2012

Monday, 24 September 2012 (Date of 2012 Local Government Election dependent)

Note - Saturday, September 2012 - 2012 Local Government Election – Date not currently available.

Friday, 5 October 2011 – Special Council Meeting – Election of Lord Mayor (subject to declaration of poll).

Monday, 8 October 2012

Monday, 22 October 2012 (Note the 2012 Local Government Association Conference will be held in Dubbo from 28 to 31 October 2012)

Monday, 12 November 2012

Monday, 26 November 2012

Monday, 10 December 2012

Monday, 17 December 2012

BACKGROUND

1. In accordance with Council’s adopted meeting cycle, the Council meets on the 2^nd and 4^th Monday of each month. The first meeting of the month is dedicated to Development Applications whilst the 2^nd meeting of the month may deal with any issue.

2. Council has historically moved into recess over Christmas/New Year for a period between the last meeting in December and the first meeting in February the following year. A report will be put before Council under separate cover suggesting that delegated authority be given to the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to deal with matters of an urgent nature during this period.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

3. The date of the 2012 Local Government Election is not available at present but is likely to be held on the last Saturday in September (29^th). A Special Meeting has been tentatively set for 5 October 2012 for the election of the Lord Mayor after these elections; however, this meeting date will be subject to the date of the election and the declaration of the poll in a timely manner.

4. Due to the proximity of Christmas, meetings have also been proposed for 10 and 17 December 2012 rather than on the 2^nd and 4^th Monday of December.

CONCLUSION

5. That Council adopt the proposed dates for Council Meetings to be held in 2012.

Grant Davies

Team Leader – Council Support

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 7 November 2011 Item 12.3

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 12.3

SUBJECT Investments Report for August 2011

REFERENCE F2009/00971 - D02108075

REPORT OF Manager Finance

PURPOSE:

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes the investments report for August 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 August 2011 was $84.8M (Previous Month $81.6M).The weighted average Funds held throughout the period was approximately $79.4M.

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 August 2011 versus the UBSA Bank Bill Index is as follows:

Monthly Annualised

Total Portfolio 0.203% 2.03%

Funds Managers -0.782% -9.39%

UBSA Bank Bill Index 0.428% 5.14%

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. The UBSA Bank Bill Index outperformed Councils portfolio by approximately 3.11% for the month of August. As has been widely reported, the downgrading of the US credit rating as well as the European debt crisis has caused volatility and lack of confidence in local and foreign markets.It is anticipated that Managed credit 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. CFS Global recorded a capital book loss of $220K for the month of August; however these losses are only realised if investments are sold. Council records investments at market value at the end of each month therefore any book losses are written off against interest income.

7. Term deposits make up approximately 61% of total holdings and have interest rates ranging from 5.67% 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 August 2011 is provided below:

Certificate of Investments

I hereby certify that the investments for the month of August 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.

Francis Fernandes

A/Manager Finance

Attachments:

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

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 7 November 2011 Item 12.4

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 12.4

SUBJECT Alteration to Question Time at Council Meetings

REFERENCE F2008/04592 - D02107548

REPORT OF Team Leader Council Support

PURPOSE:

To make a minor alteration to the Code of Meeting Practice to ensure that Question Time is equitable to all users.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council’s Code of Meeting Practice pertaining to Public Participation be altered with an additional clause 5(e) reading:-

(5) Following the receipt of questions, the following procedure will apply:

(a) Questions/Statements will be registered in order of receipt.

(b) The first six (6) questions will be considered, if possible, at that night's Council meeting and any remaining questions will be held over to a later meeting of Council.

(c) Advice as to which questions will be considered will be forwarded to

participants.

(d) Priority will be given to those wishing to speak that have not done so

before.

(e) That only one speaker for and one speaker against be accepted for any one topic or application at any Council Meeting.

BACKGROUND

1. Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, as it relates to Question Time, indicates:-

Public Forum

(1) Any person may submit a question, comment or statement to the Public

Forum session of Ordinary Council Meetings.

(2) Questions or issues must be lodged in writing with name, and contact details

prior to 4 p.m. on the Friday prior to the Council Meeting with a member of the

Council Support Team on the 8th Floor of the Council's Administrative

Building, Darcy Street, Parramatta,.

(3) Questions/Statements must relate to general policy matters or development

applications and not to personal matters or reflections on individual councillors

or staff.

(4) The Public Forum does not apply to confidential matters that have previously

been considered by Council in Closed Committee.

(5) Following the receipt of questions, the following procedure will apply:

(a) Questions/Statements will be registered in order of receipt.

(b) The first six (6) questions will be considered, if possible, at that night's

Council meeting and any remaining questions will be held over to a later

meeting of Council.

(c) Advice as to which questions will be considered will be forwarded to

participants.

(d) Priority will be given to those wishing to speak that have not done so

before.

(6) At the Council meeting

(a) A maximum of 15 minutes will be allowed for the Public Forum with each

item of public forum not exceeding 5 minutes.

(b) The Lord Mayor will advise which Questions/Statements are to be

considered at the meeting in accordance with the order of receipt.

(c) Participants will be invited to pose their question or issues by the Lord

Mayor at the appropriate time.

(d) Participants must address their question/issue to the Lord Mayor who

may nominate another Councillor or staff member to respond.

(e) The question and the response given will be included in the Minutes of

the Meeting.

(f) Public have the right of reply within the time limits.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

Attendance at On Site Meetings

2. At the Council Meeting held on 22 August 2011 during Question Time, Council Elmore noted the occasional practice of on site meetings being held 2 days before the particular application/s were considered by Council. The requirement for Public Forum statements/questions to be submitted on the Friday prior to the Council Meeting precluded the use of Public Forum by any attendee at such meetings.

3. Councillor Elmore requested that consideration be given to altering the lodgement date for applications to enable attendees to participate in Public Forum.

4. This matter has been discussed with the Manager Development Services and a paragraph has now been included in all invitations to attend on site meetings (and Council Meetings) indicating the availability of public forum and advising of the associated deadlines to ensure that attendees can utilise Public Forum, if desired.

Number of Speakers on any one Topic/Application

5. Councillors will note that a maximum of 15 minutes is allocated to Public Forum with a maximum of 6 questions being permitted at any Council Meeting. At present, there is no limitation placed on what subject may be raised provided that the issue does not relate to a matter raised in Closed Session or make personal reflections on a staff member or Councillor. Council will, however, give priority to those persons who have not utilised Public Forum previously.

6. At a recent meeting, applications for the use of Public Forum were received in respect of a particular development application from 2 persons supporting a development application together with an application from the architect supporting the same development application. Following these questions, no further time was available for the use of Public Forum by any other members of the public.

7. Contact has been made with councils of a similar grading to Parramatta and Councils such as Blacktown and Newcastle, in the interests of equity, permit only one speaker for and one speaker against on each subject during the public participation portion of their meetings.

8. In the interests of equity to all members of the public, it is proposed that Council’s Code of Meeting Practice pertaining to Public Participation be altered with an additional clause (e) reading:-

(5) Following the receipt of questions, the following procedure will apply:

(a) Questions/Statements will be registered in order of receipt.

(b) The first six (6) questions will be considered, if possible, at that night's Council meeting and any remaining questions will be held over to a later meeting of Council.

(c) Advice as to which questions will be considered will be forwarded to

participants.

(d) Priority will be given to those wishing to speak that have not done so

before.

(e) That only one speaker for and one speaker against be accepted for any one topic or application at any Council Meeting.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

9. The Manager Development Services has been consulted in the preparation of this report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

10. There are no financial implications in relation to the implementation of this report.

CONCLUSION

11. Clause 362 (2) of the Local government Act states:-

(2) If the council decides to amend its draft code, it may publicly exhibit the amended draft in accordance with this Division or, if the council is of the opinion that the amendments are not substantial, it may adopt the amended draft code without public exhibition as its code of meeting practice.

12. Council has only experienced the issue of multiple supporters or objectors speaking at Public Forum on the same night on one occasion. Accordingly, the proposed changes to the Code of Meeting Practice are not considered so substantial as to warrant public exhibition. The change will, however, give the opportunity to staff in future to ensure that the use of Public Forum is equitable for all users, should the need arise.

Grant Davies

Team Leader – Council Support

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council 7 November 2011 Item 12.6

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATE

ITEM NUMBER 12.6

SUBJECT Review of Customers Compliments and Complaints Policy

REFERENCE F2011/00378 - D02137328

REPORT OF Policy Review Officer

PURPOSE:

To seek Council approval for amendments to Council’s Customers Compliments and Complaints Policy

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the proposed Customers Compliments and Complaints Policy as amended (attachment 1).

BACKGROUND

1. Council last formally reviewed its Customers Compliments and Complaints Policy in 2009. Since that time, the NSW Ombudsman has released revised guidelines on the handling of complaints, which offer new guidance on the best practice in complaint handling.

2. A review has now been conducted of Council’s policy in light of the Ombudsman’s guidelines and other industry practice guides. The review found that amendments are required to ensure that Council’s policy remains up to date with industry guidelines, and to ensure there is clarity around what is covered by the policy.

3. The review gave consideration to the NSW Ombudsman Effective Complaint Handling Guidelines – 2^nd Edition (2010), the NSW Ombudsman’s Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Practice Manual (2009) the Division of Local Government’s Practice Note No. 9 – Complaint Management by Councils (2009).

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

4. Key proposed changes include:

a. Clarification of what is and what is not a complaint, specifically the status of statutory submissions, other service providers, and development applicants;

b. Inclusion of detail about how specific types of complaints will be treated, including complaints which will be addressed under other policies or statutes. For example, public interest disclosures, complaints alleging a breach of privacy, and grievances;

c. The inclusion of clear statements about how Council may attempt to resolve complaints;

d. Changes to the terminology used to describe unreasonable complainant conduct, and clear references to documents which will guide how Council deals with such conduct;

e. Restructuring of the document itself;

f. Inclusion of an undertaking to keep complainants updated when the complexity of issues raised warrants a more lengthy investigation period.

5. A version of the policy which shows all changes, including deletions and inclusions can be found at Attachment 2.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

6. A version of the policy showing the proposed changes was placed on public exhibition on Council’s website from 7 to 21 September 2011. The exhibition of the policy was advertised in both the Northern District Times and the Parramatta Advertiser. One submission was received. The comments and suggestions made in this submission are summarised at Attachment 3.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

7. The cost of adopting and implementing the proposed amendments will be minimal, and limited to updating Council’s website and relevant pamphlets.

Attachments:

1 View	Proposed amended policy	11 Pages
2 View	Proposed policy showing tracked changes	16 Pages
3 View	Summary of Feedback Received	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

· NSW Ombudsman Effective Complaint Handling Guidelines 2^nd Edition 2010

· NSW Ombudsman Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Practice Manual 2009.

Both available from:

http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/publication/guidelines.asp

· Division of Local Government Practice Note 9. Complaint Management in Councils

Available from: http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/PracticeNotes/Complaints%20Management%20Practice%20Note%20No%209.pdf

Council 7 November 2011 Item 13.1

NOTICES OF MOTION

ITEM NUMBER 13.1

SUBJECT Free Access to Aquatic Centres

REFERENCE F2004/05927 - D02117192

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.

Note

This notice of motion was deferred for 1 month at the Council Meeting held on 26 September 2011.

Recommendation:

(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.

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

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

1 View	Parramatta Traffic Committee minutes of meeting held on 6 October 2011	9 Pages
2 View	Parramatta Traffic Committee Reports of meeting held on 6 October 2011	35 Pages

1 View	Traffic Engineering Advisory Group minutes held on 6 October 2011	5 Pages
2 View	Traffic Engineering Advisory Group Reports held on 6 October 2011	27 Pages